From the 1989 movie, Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come". Indeed, if you provide shelter, drug paraphernalia, food, and turn a blind eye when they inject themselves with illegal drugs, you will attract people from all corners of the country. The way it works, these programs attract the vagrants, bums, and druggies, then scream "WE HAVE A HOMELESS PROBLEM". Federal taxt money, via NGOs comes to the rescue, but is unaccounted for, so it winds up in crooked politicians' pockets and in naive politicians' altruistic programs like free pizza and boofing kits, perhaps even luxury apartments, which attracts more bums, vagrants, and druggies.
How much has society been spending on the "HOMELESS PROBLEM", yet it continues to grow. Why? Because we enable them. We are actually funding the homeless problem by making it less harsh, even attractive to some. I say, don't give them a dime! Don't make them comfortable. Make them suffer the consequences for THEIR bad choices, same as we all face. For the truly unfortunate, elderly widow, or someone suddenly fired from their jobs, offer a TEMPORARY helping hand by having them clean up litter, wash off graffiti, pull weeds in public parks, etc, etc, to help them, but ensure that they don't choose to make it a lifestyle at our expense. It's really that simple.
How many druggies would come to Clallam County if they were jailed for vagrancy, forced to endure withdrawal, be fed awful-tasting mush-- treated like the D.C. Police treated the January 6 protesters? As soon as they got out of jail, they would hightail it out of Clallam County to Seattle, Portland, or other mismanaged town where they were given perks instead of jail.
Simply put, why aren't you (readers here) irresponsible vagrant addicts? Because that kind of lifestyle is a great deterrent to you. We should make it a great deterrent to those whose standards are non-existent.
That’s the actual quote from Field of Dreams, a story about belief and reconciliation, not a warning against socks and soup kitchens. Twisting it into an argument against shelter and care turns civic responsibility into a punchline.
Let’s talk substance:
- The idea that public services “attract vagrants” ignores root causes like medical debt, job loss, and mental illness. Homelessness isn’t a moral failing, it’s often the final stop in a system that failed people earlier.
- Yes, wages have gone up in places like Seattle, but in Clallam County, the average weekly wage is still around $785, or roughly $19.60/hour. That might sound decent, but when rent, food, and transportation are factored in, it’s not enough to guarantee housing stability. And unlike Seattle, Clallam lacks dense transit, job diversity, and housing stock, so the margin for error is razor-thin.
- Clallam’s homelessness programs aren’t funded by federal blank checks. They rely on Document Recording Fees, and every dollar is tied to competitive grants and strategic oversight, not “boofing kits” or mystery luxury apartments.
- And yes, Housing First, once hailed as revolutionary, deserves scrutiny. Treating a laid-off retail worker, a fentanyl addict, and someone with schizophrenia exactly the same does not yield good outcomes. Even its original proponents now acknowledge that without tailored support, the model can falter. In some cases, a Housing Second or Treatment First approach might offer better results.
So let’s find common ground: the system needs reform. But the answer isn’t to withhold socks or punish people with mush, it’s to build smarter, tiered solutions that meet people where they are, rather than flattening them into caricatures
Powdermonkey, run for office, your speech is puzzling enough to sound good. I have no idea what your ' Let's Talk Substance Lecture means..."withhold socks or punish people with mush" ? or "rather than flattening them into caricatures"? Oh well, I also thought the phrase was "build it and they will come"...I'm not in your league.
Thanks--I think? I appreciate that you took the time to read through the comment, even if it landed somewhere between “lecture” and “campaign speech.” The socks and mush line was a swipe at the idea that kindness should be withheld to prevent homelessness...some folks genuinely believe uncomfortable living conditions are a solution. As for “flattening into caricatures,” that’s about how we oversimplify complex lives into stereotypes: “druggie,” “vagrant,” “moocher” instead of seeing varied causes and needs. I’m just trying to build a better conversation.
Powdermonkey thank you for your clarification, I think? But keep it simple. If you have to explain "swipes" and "how we oversimplify complex lives into stereotypes" you've lost your audience. If you could back up your statements with actual facts then you will become a believable source and get more inquiries and replies.
The word "Non-Profit" is meaningless. Non-profit is a game that all businesses and many individuals play in an effort to avoid paying taxes let alone NGOs and Foundations. Lower profit means less taxes. When the corporate accountant tells the CEO there is an anticipated profit of $ 10,000,000 it falls upon the CEO or the board to decide the disbursement of that anticipated profit that might best serve the corporation. Executive bonuses, buying more infrastructure, acquisitions, political campaign donations, etc. are all ways to reduce the profit and it's associated taxation. It is the same for a non-profit and/or NGO. The difference usually being an NGO hides behind a veil of altruism and simultaneously avoids the Governmental level of scrutiny. A local example is The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Does that foundation exist for the betterment of mankind or to wield influence with money unburdened by taxation ? With a foundation or a non-profit you can move, shake and influence with 100% of your money, as opposed to 50%. John D, Rockefeller was a pioneer of using tax free money to influence all things health care from medical training "donations" to influence curriculum to research "donations" that ultimately benefit some drug manufacturer. Our own CDC and FDA receive "donations" from benefactors that are unburdened by taxation. When a big donor tells the FDA management that they probably will not be able to make their donation this year, if drug "X" does not get approval cold that be construed as influence ? It's an insidious influence money tax evasion chess game.
Right! Look at what has happened with PBS/NPR! All this time, they have been touting ads for this 'foundation' and that 'support' from... and now they declare without Fed money, they are broke!?
no one mentions the money removed by the government amounts to about 1% of their total budget. It is a very small portion -- but its what they used to split up among "member stations" to hurt them, and make them all scream bloody murder. The vast bulk of their operating capital come from "viewers like you" (ha) and corporate underwriting, foundation grants, and endowment support.
and, lest you worry about that 1% "donations to NPR and PBS stations surge after funding cuts." So all the complaining was for nothing. Let the "supporters like them" pony up.
If Government funding amounts to 1%, why are they closing the doors? My guess (unsupported) is that they live in Government facilities and use Government property for their programming. Funding for an operational budget does not tell an entire story.
If fairness is the goal perhaps the national income tax should be replaced with a consumption tax. That might satisfy more constituents. Though considering the increasing supply of individuals who require government assistance I declare the War on Poverty a failure. The Gates' family are sincere in their ideological beliefs. Many of the computers donated to the LA School District were stolen back in the 1990's decade.
Liberals, no matter the platform, will always scream the loudest if people don't fall in line with their narrative. Heaven forbid if someone states a different viewpoint. If any city within Clallam, or even Clallam as a whole, goes broke, they'll just keep taxing property owners to make up for their failed leadership. Until elected officials are held to account, which will not happen, mis-spending will continue. The only way to stop this is to vote them out! But looking at voter polls, there's not a large turnout from conservative minded people.
I find that reprehensible! I have voted in every election since turning 18, NEVER missing one. The people who don't vote deserve the government they get.
Marolee, great article on board membership for elected position holders. This should be presented to the Charter Review Commission as solid argument in favor of a Charter amendment prohibiting Clallam County Commissioners from serving two masters. I understand they are required to serve on certain boards, but not when conflict of interest is apparent or perceived. I do not live in Port Angeles, but urge all those reading this to Vote for Marolee Smith.
NextDoor is moderated by a bunch of Marxist totalitarians. I was suspended for proving that climate change occurrs naturally, long before humans existed, and since it conflicted with their carbon alarmism, they suspended me. I closed my account after that.
Well Jeff sure seems you are touching a nerve with CCWD. Congratulations. I myself find this to be some of the fairest reporting of all. The fact yet again of false accusations with no backup is always so telling.
LOL Jeff! The comment about your financial motivation is a non sequitur ( does not follow from the original premise). It is also an ad hominem attack. Whether you experience a financial gain from your research is unrelated to its veracity. The corruption in our government is either true or false. I don't understand why the members of Nextdoor are so loyal to government and its ridiculous programs that will save the world. I guess that intentions are more important than data based results. I am still waiting for government agencies in the West to win both the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs".
Those who make ad hominem attacks depend on this; "The narrative needn't be true or accurate so long as it resonates with the audience." Once the cat is out of the bag...
Timothy Weller I had never heard the name Jeff Tozzer until it inspired so much contempt on Nextdoor regarding some road named Towne. Then when the seventy year old artist was beaten to death the local news agencies avoided the story. Not Jeff.
I sat in a literature symposium a long time ago and was surprised at the different interpretations of Harper Lee's famous novel "To Kill a Mockingbird". Until then I thought everyone agreed with my opinions. On every subject.
ENSURING AMERICANS FEEL SAFE IN THEIR OWN CITIES AND TOWNS: President Trump is taking a new approach focused on protecting public safety because surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor to other citizens.
And mynorthwest update:
President Trump’s recent Executive Order, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” is a direct rebuke to the failed progressive experiments that have crippled Seattle, Spokane, and other left-wing cities. The order rightly dismantles “Housing First” and “Harm Reduction” policies, which have exacerbated homelessness, drug addiction, and lawlessness by prioritizing ideological virtue-signaling over genuine solutions. Democrats who presided over this crisis, particularly in deep-blue enclaves like Seattle, are predictably outraged.
The Dem/Progressives will fight with tooth and nail for this one! Watch Washington state, CA, and the rest of the 'blue' states and cities bring lawsuit after lawsuit - along with the good old ACLU
Thank you council member Kelly Burger for attending to the Seal Park situation after the first comment at the previous Council Meeting. My question is why you could not have taken a few minutes at the 7/28 Council Meeting, after the comment period had ended, to address what steps you had already taken to alleviate the situation. Transparency. A two way opportunity was wasted. An opportunity by the Council to say, "We are listening to you the electorate" and for the voters to say, "Hey the Council is listening, and this is evidence." Hey, maybe a dialogue begins. But put on your lead lined BVD's because the anti-watchdog group will show up. I venture to say that it will be a fight to get Sequim and PA and Clallam County back on the track that makes this area a fantastic community to be a part of. "Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom"
If Section 453 passes, chemical manufacturers could skirt around regulatory framework and become immune to lawsuits that allege harm from their products. This is a devastating reality that we could soon be facing as consumers and farmers. Plus, your store-bought beef might have foreign origins and be contaminated with unknown chemicals — all while our domestic livestock industry is hitting rock bottom. Hear from rancher Brooke Miller, M.D. as today’s guest on “Good Morning CHD” for all the startling details!
There are local ranchers that sell organic beef, pork, poultry, Supporting them also means you get clean, unadulterated meat. No mRNA. Yes, it is more expensive, but so are locally grown organic veggies and fruit. The extra keeps the money local, supports local food sources, and promotes better health-- cheap when you consider the BIG picture.
Yep, locker meat is the way to go. It's NOT more expensive, that's the joke. And, you support a farmer, a butcher... all that is missing is the candlestick maker.
Pesticide Industry Campaigns to Avoid Cancer Liability
The House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee passed a budget package on Tuesday that would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 23% for the 2026 fiscal year. House Republicans tacked on several riders, including one to limit the EPA’s ability to update pesticide labels and give user guidance.
The rider would prevent the EPA from adopting any new pesticide warning labels that contradict the findings of two specific EPA pesticide health assessments, one of which is only required every 15 years for pesticides. This language may seem redundant or innocuous, but in practice, it could make it harder for the EPA to update pesticide warning labels to the latest science. EPA’s pesticide review process has been criticized for favoring industry over public health and permitting pesticides in the U.S. that are banned elsewhere.
Republican support for the rider connects to a larger lobbying campaign by pesticide corporations aimed at avoiding health-related lawsuits. Since 2018, agrichemical goliath Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging that the active ingredient in its popular Roundup weed killer, glyphosate, causes cancer. These cases allege that Bayer failed to warn consumers about the risks of using its glyphosate-based weed killers, a legaroundl liability Bayer is trying to eradicate through the courts and new legislation.
“They are pushing a broader strategy that expressly goes after liability and failure to warn claims, and this rider is clearly a piece of that strategy,” says Tarah Heinzen, legal director at Food & Water Watch. “The less that’s required in terms of labeling, the harder it is to demonstrate a failure to warn in court.”
Nearly seven years ago, a school groundskeeper with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Dewayne Johnson, broke open a dam of lawsuits against the best-selling herbicide of all time. In 2018, a California jury found that Bayer, the newly minted owner of Monsanto, failed to warn consumers like Johnson that glyphosate-based weedkillers could cause cancer. Bayer was charged $289 million in damages, which a judge eventually reduced to $20.5 million. Tens of thousands of glyphosate users with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other blood cancers have since sued Bayer.
Bayer contends that glyphosate is safe when used as directed and notes that the EPA has repeatedly determined that it is unlikely to cause cancer. However, in 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” While glyphosate is less toxic than many other available herbicides, it is also applied more broadly than other agrichemicals, meaning that any adverse human health effects may impact more people. Studies also find that glyphosate’s health risks may increase when mixed with other co-formulants in Roundup. U.S. farmers use more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate annually, a 15-fold increase since the introduction of Roundup Ready seeds. Glyphosate was the second most popular home and garden weedkiller in 2012, and 90% of Roundup cancer litigants are residential users.
IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” classification has swayed many juries. Bayer criticizes the IARC for relying heavily on animal studies, while the IARC criticizes Bayer for relying on industry-funded research. A prize-winning investigation revealed that Bayer hired lawyers, lobbyists, and online commenters to discredit and intimidate the IARC and defend glyphosate.
Bayer routinely emphasizes that the EPA disagrees with the IARC. Numerous reports and investigations, including by the EPA’s inspector general (OIG), find flaws in the EPA’s pesticide approval process and a compromising coziness with the pesticide industry. In one instance, the EPA OIG found that the EPA relied too heavily on industry-sponsored studies in a pesticide cancer risk assessment. Even when the EPA does find that pesticides have potential human health and environmental risks, it can still approve them if it finds that the economic benefits of using the pesticide outweigh the risks.
Permissive pesticide regulation has persisted under both Republican and Democratic administrations. For instance, Biden’s EPA reapproved the controversial herbicide paraquat, despite evidence linking it to Parkinson’s. Nearly 60 countries have banned paraquat, including China, whose state-owned chemical company makes paraquat through its subsidiary Syngenta.
Roundup litigation costs have hurt Bayer’s stock and bottom line. Bayer’s CEO says glyphosate sales, which were $2.8 billion last year, barely eclipse litigation costs in some years. Bayer stopped selling glyphosate-based Roundup for residential use and recently threatened to stop selling glyphosate in the U.S. altogether unless it can limit its liability to health-related lawsuits.
Most glyphosate cancer cases hinge on a claim based in state tort law that Bayer failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks of using its products, which is where pesticide labeling rules come into play. Unlike other product labels, pesticide labels are legal documents. Consumers must use the products as directed, and pesticide manufacturers must provide specified warnings, directions, and product information.
Plaintiffs allege that Bayer had enough evidence to know and disclose that glyphosate could cause cancer on their pesticide labels. Bayer argues that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers because it included all warning labels as required by the EPA.
At the heart of this argument is whether the EPA is the ultimate authority on pesticide safety and if the federal pesticide approval process should preempt state-level “failure to warn” claims. Bayer thinks so, and it petitioned in April to make this argument to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Bayer formed a coalition with farm trade associations to advance a series of state and federal laws that would effectively make its legal argument the law of the land. These laws would affirm that the federal EPA pesticide registration process satisfies any state-level requirements to disclose health risks, and therefore, pesticide makers cannot be held liable for failing to disclose risks beyond what the EPA requires. Pesticide liability shield laws failed in Florida, Idaho, and Iowa, but passed in Georgia and North Dakota.
Republican Congressman Dusty Johnson is expected to reintroduce a federal version of these laws, the Agriculture Labeling Uniformity Act, which would shield pesticide corporations from state-level “failure to warn” claims and prevent states from setting their own higher standards for pesticide safety labels. The recent House rider fits in because it blocks the EPA from issuing new pesticide labels that contradict two specific federal health assessments, one of which is required for pesticides only every 15 years.
“When we are essentially freezing these labels in place for 15 years, it means that we are stuck to whatever that science was at the time,” says Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group.
Bayer says that these laws are about uniform standards that respect EPA’s review process. “These bills are important because they reinforce the authority of the EPA’s rigorous, science-backed labeling decisions, so that when the EPA determines what a crop protection label should say, that decision is consistent and reliable for everyone,” a Bayer spokesperson told Civil Eats.
Critics contend that these laws prevent consumers from seeking justice for health harms and limit pesticide safety consideration to an industry friendly EPA review process. Across the country, a coalition of farmers, environmental justice advocates, and Make American Healthy Again groups oppose both state and federal pesticide liability shields. Senator Cory Booker introduced legislation that would give anyone harmed by pesticides a right of action to sue pesticide manufacturers in federal court.
What We’re Reading
The Biden administration stood up 12 new USDA regional business centers to support small farms and food businesses. The Trump administration plans to shut them down. (Civil Eats)
Rural grocers will be hit hard by cuts to SNAP. (Politico)
Zephyr Teachout argues that cities should challenge commercial bribery and Big Box favoritism to bring down grocery prices. (New York Times)
Wheat farmers use glyphosate on wheat crops as a "dessicant", which kills the wheat stalks and makes it easier to harvest the grain. But, non-organically-grown wheat contains glyphosate residue. Caveat emptor.
which might explain the SURGE in wheat-related allergies, "gluten intolerance" and, other gut-driven maladies (which range from Parkinson's to pretty much everything.. digestive issues, weakened immunity, skin problems, metabolic disorders like obesity and type 2 diabetes, mental health conditions -- as our internal gut flora drives health)
Glyphosate is used on many things we eat (aka Roundup-ready crops), including soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, canola (aka rape seed), alfalfa, citrus fruits, and berries, grapes and vegetables.) It is not just carcenogenic to humans, but to animals. And, I've heard a lot of talk about the increases in horses that have died from colic (including my own 15 year old boy) in the last decade as well as laminitis and chronic illness.
The other bad thing we add to our food supply is Azodicarbonamide --- used instead of bromide to whiten and age wheat, and as a dough conditioner. Banned in the EU, we can't seem to get enough of this nonsense in our food supply. Its a known carcinogen when heated...
What in Hell is going on at Olympic Hospital? CEOs are opting out, managers are leaving on short notice.....the emergency room is getting written up by the health department for errors...
Jeff, I suspect your figures regarding Spokane County's General Fund "crisis" came from 2026 Preliminary Budget hype. Administrators always overstate expenditures there to generate headlines on how wonderfully they did in balancing the final budget. Below are the latest figures from the Washington State Auditor showing Spokane County had a $196,000,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance at the end of 2024. This, by the way, was a $31,000,000 increase from 2023. I doubt Spokane County is going to go broke anytime soon.
Spokane County:
General Fund, Fund Balance Sufficiency
FY 2024
Outlook:
Good
Options
Reset
________________________________________
Indicator Calculations 2021 2022 2023 2024
Ending Fund Balance $153,905,035 $152,023,884 $164,911,750 $195,987,563
Although I disagree more often than I agree, I subscribe because you always do your homework and acknowledge other points of view. Your blog is valuable.
Having served for six years with Randy Johnson on the Board of the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, I disagree with Marolee Smith's contention that public officials should not serve on nonprofit boards. Certainly there is risk of conflict of interest, but there's also value in the insight and experience of a public official. Randy has made great contributions to both the YMCA and Clallam County, and he has never allowed his role as a County Commissioner to come into conrflict with his role as a YMCA Director. He deserves thanks, not censure.
Jeff: Randy is a successful businessman--former President of Green Crow, owns a maple syrup business in New England, etc. And he genuinely cares about the YMCA's goals, including building and operating much-needed Early Learning Centers in Port Angeles and Port Townsend. So yes, Randy would be a desirable and productive YMCA Director even if he held no public office.
Thanks, Herb. Among all the business-savvy men and women in our community who care about kids, it's interesting that the YMCA chose a county commissioner to be their president.
I believe that Commissioner Johnson is a well intentioned, principled person as it would seem like you do. Unfortunately what we're talking about applies to any BOCCC, because we never know when a problem might be at hand.
From your perspective Commissioner Johnson has never allowed his role as County Commissioner to come into conflict with his role as a YMCA director.
I'd challenge how you know this as in how has Randy engaged you with every decision so that you can unequivocally make your statement?
Let's say that you are correct though and let's dispense with the facts I asked for.
The problem with conflicts of interest is that the definition includes a perception, so we don't even need Randy to have engaged in a COI, just the presence is the problem.
Think about the words. Conflict of interest. What are Randy's interests? Clearly the voters of Clallam County via his BOCCC position, and the constituents of the YMCA via his role there. So he clearly has two interests, and if the roles of either cross paths we end up with a conflict. There's no way to disentangle that relationship, absent his relinquishment of either role/position, or he needs to recuse himself of making decisions as a BOCCC if it has anything to do with the YMCA.
Any professional ethics organization would require this. Why doesn't Clallam County?
"Any professional ethics organization would require this. Why doesn't Clallam County?"
Because these same commissioners decided to eliminate it so that they would not be bound by ethics. And, they removed the penalty part of the law for violations of ethics. There is your conflict of interest, right there.
Herb, I appreciate your endorsement of Randy Johnson, but there is one line you wrote that I zeroed in on:
"I disagree with Marolee Smith's contention that public officials should not serve on nonprofit boards. Certainly there is risk of conflict of interest"
RISK - One international standard definition of risk is the "effect of uncertainty on objectives"
The risk factor should be removed. Citizens don't want the uncertainty of voting members objectives.
The situation all comes down to evolution and how the human mind works. Cognitive biases are a byproduct of how we evolved. They serve to put what we know about the world into action and facilitate decision-making. Conflicts of interest are situational pressures that can exacerbate or trigger biases, particularly self-serving biases. Self-serving bias is a cognitive bias can manifest as a result of conflicts of interest, where individuals unconsciously favor outcomes that benefit their self-interest. The impact is that both can lead to poor decision-making, unfairness, and reduced trust.
A. Schopenhauer described the concept of a "blind" irrational force behind existence. He called the process "the will". The will can be but isn't necessarily interested in human happiness. In Game Theory we see many examples of bias that can be self serving but fails because of mistrust. An example of this would be "The Prisoner's Delema". An interesting example of cognitive bias would be "The Stockholm Syndrome". Patty Hearst might be an example of the cognitive process.
I think often poor decisions are based upon a desirable result though the original premise is incorrect. "A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and it produces a tornado in Texas". Tiny events that appear to be random often are not. In 1914 a Serbian Nationalist visited a delicatessen and a chain of events led to WWI, The Treaty of Versailles, the rise of National Socialism and eventually WWII. WWII led to Soviet expansion and The Cuban Missile Crisis.
I believe that if Evolution is examined properly we discover that our ancestors were superstitious. Superstition offers a survival mechanism for an organism existing inside a hostile world. Yet it is the opposite of the objective scientific world that attempts to recognize patterns.
Jeff mentioned the decline of Sequim and I have also noticed it and complained about it on Nextdoor before I was suspended. The part that amazes me though is the denial about it. That is not an example of self interest. It is the opposite and I don't understand the motivation. Our police department apparently believes in Laisse Faire law enforcement which can be effective with the right demographic. Yet Sequim isn't attracting that population. The other day I heard about a man siphoning gas at the Cosco Parking lot. Isn't the proper platitude "crime is everywhere"?
So, perhaps Mr. Johnson's participation is absolutely IDEAL, and wonderful -- what about all of the boards the OTHER elected officials serve on around the Peninsula? I never said that it cannot be done. I am saying that its a sticky wicket, a morass of moral/ethical obtuseness.
We have no way to evaluate these non-profits, or their bylaws. We have no way to create some kind of guideline. Why? We have no enforceable ETHICS RULES in this county (nor in the towns).
My experience with non-profits began in my early 20's when I was "invited" (for optics) to participate as a junior board member of a very prestigious philanthropy board in San Francisco. I learned all of the crazy things about boards that I never wanted to know. For one, as a non-financial participant, I was barred from voting. I, and a few other junior members, were there to show that the 'board' had more than very wealthy old misers. The desire was to show a more diverse membership and give the youngsters a chance to network, and do the dirty work (the actual fundraising WORK). It was a very good education, and I was privy to a lot of conversations that I would have never heard, or imagined.
What I learned: don't be on a board, unless it is something that really "speaks to you", and don't be on a board unless you completely understand the pitfalls of the by laws, and don't be on a board that is full of followers, and not leaders. Boards without independent thinkers, are doomed to become a pack, engage in "mob" mentality, often at the direction of a board director who has questionable morals.
So, sure Mr. Johnson might be wonderful. However, can you speak for ALL the elected, and ALL the non-profits and NGO's that exist? Therein lies the rub.
From the 1989 movie, Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come". Indeed, if you provide shelter, drug paraphernalia, food, and turn a blind eye when they inject themselves with illegal drugs, you will attract people from all corners of the country. The way it works, these programs attract the vagrants, bums, and druggies, then scream "WE HAVE A HOMELESS PROBLEM". Federal taxt money, via NGOs comes to the rescue, but is unaccounted for, so it winds up in crooked politicians' pockets and in naive politicians' altruistic programs like free pizza and boofing kits, perhaps even luxury apartments, which attracts more bums, vagrants, and druggies.
How much has society been spending on the "HOMELESS PROBLEM", yet it continues to grow. Why? Because we enable them. We are actually funding the homeless problem by making it less harsh, even attractive to some. I say, don't give them a dime! Don't make them comfortable. Make them suffer the consequences for THEIR bad choices, same as we all face. For the truly unfortunate, elderly widow, or someone suddenly fired from their jobs, offer a TEMPORARY helping hand by having them clean up litter, wash off graffiti, pull weeds in public parks, etc, etc, to help them, but ensure that they don't choose to make it a lifestyle at our expense. It's really that simple.
How many druggies would come to Clallam County if they were jailed for vagrancy, forced to endure withdrawal, be fed awful-tasting mush-- treated like the D.C. Police treated the January 6 protesters? As soon as they got out of jail, they would hightail it out of Clallam County to Seattle, Portland, or other mismanaged town where they were given perks instead of jail.
Simply put, why aren't you (readers here) irresponsible vagrant addicts? Because that kind of lifestyle is a great deterrent to you. We should make it a great deterrent to those whose standards are non-existent.
NOI, your comment, From the 1989 movie, Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come" sums it up exactly.
“If you build it, he will come.”
That’s the actual quote from Field of Dreams, a story about belief and reconciliation, not a warning against socks and soup kitchens. Twisting it into an argument against shelter and care turns civic responsibility into a punchline.
Let’s talk substance:
- The idea that public services “attract vagrants” ignores root causes like medical debt, job loss, and mental illness. Homelessness isn’t a moral failing, it’s often the final stop in a system that failed people earlier.
- Yes, wages have gone up in places like Seattle, but in Clallam County, the average weekly wage is still around $785, or roughly $19.60/hour. That might sound decent, but when rent, food, and transportation are factored in, it’s not enough to guarantee housing stability. And unlike Seattle, Clallam lacks dense transit, job diversity, and housing stock, so the margin for error is razor-thin.
- Clallam’s homelessness programs aren’t funded by federal blank checks. They rely on Document Recording Fees, and every dollar is tied to competitive grants and strategic oversight, not “boofing kits” or mystery luxury apartments.
- And yes, Housing First, once hailed as revolutionary, deserves scrutiny. Treating a laid-off retail worker, a fentanyl addict, and someone with schizophrenia exactly the same does not yield good outcomes. Even its original proponents now acknowledge that without tailored support, the model can falter. In some cases, a Housing Second or Treatment First approach might offer better results.
So let’s find common ground: the system needs reform. But the answer isn’t to withhold socks or punish people with mush, it’s to build smarter, tiered solutions that meet people where they are, rather than flattening them into caricatures
Powdermonkey, run for office, your speech is puzzling enough to sound good. I have no idea what your ' Let's Talk Substance Lecture means..."withhold socks or punish people with mush" ? or "rather than flattening them into caricatures"? Oh well, I also thought the phrase was "build it and they will come"...I'm not in your league.
Thanks--I think? I appreciate that you took the time to read through the comment, even if it landed somewhere between “lecture” and “campaign speech.” The socks and mush line was a swipe at the idea that kindness should be withheld to prevent homelessness...some folks genuinely believe uncomfortable living conditions are a solution. As for “flattening into caricatures,” that’s about how we oversimplify complex lives into stereotypes: “druggie,” “vagrant,” “moocher” instead of seeing varied causes and needs. I’m just trying to build a better conversation.
Powdermonkey thank you for your clarification, I think? But keep it simple. If you have to explain "swipes" and "how we oversimplify complex lives into stereotypes" you've lost your audience. If you could back up your statements with actual facts then you will become a believable source and get more inquiries and replies.
The word "Non-Profit" is meaningless. Non-profit is a game that all businesses and many individuals play in an effort to avoid paying taxes let alone NGOs and Foundations. Lower profit means less taxes. When the corporate accountant tells the CEO there is an anticipated profit of $ 10,000,000 it falls upon the CEO or the board to decide the disbursement of that anticipated profit that might best serve the corporation. Executive bonuses, buying more infrastructure, acquisitions, political campaign donations, etc. are all ways to reduce the profit and it's associated taxation. It is the same for a non-profit and/or NGO. The difference usually being an NGO hides behind a veil of altruism and simultaneously avoids the Governmental level of scrutiny. A local example is The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Does that foundation exist for the betterment of mankind or to wield influence with money unburdened by taxation ? With a foundation or a non-profit you can move, shake and influence with 100% of your money, as opposed to 50%. John D, Rockefeller was a pioneer of using tax free money to influence all things health care from medical training "donations" to influence curriculum to research "donations" that ultimately benefit some drug manufacturer. Our own CDC and FDA receive "donations" from benefactors that are unburdened by taxation. When a big donor tells the FDA management that they probably will not be able to make their donation this year, if drug "X" does not get approval cold that be construed as influence ? It's an insidious influence money tax evasion chess game.
Non- profit is false advertisement.
The NFL was a nonprofit until 10 years ago, and they were barely making ends meet 😉.
Non-profit just a marketing scheme.
Right! Look at what has happened with PBS/NPR! All this time, they have been touting ads for this 'foundation' and that 'support' from... and now they declare without Fed money, they are broke!?
no one mentions the money removed by the government amounts to about 1% of their total budget. It is a very small portion -- but its what they used to split up among "member stations" to hurt them, and make them all scream bloody murder. The vast bulk of their operating capital come from "viewers like you" (ha) and corporate underwriting, foundation grants, and endowment support.
and, lest you worry about that 1% "donations to NPR and PBS stations surge after funding cuts." So all the complaining was for nothing. Let the "supporters like them" pony up.
If Government funding amounts to 1%, why are they closing the doors? My guess (unsupported) is that they live in Government facilities and use Government property for their programming. Funding for an operational budget does not tell an entire story.
BINGO!
If fairness is the goal perhaps the national income tax should be replaced with a consumption tax. That might satisfy more constituents. Though considering the increasing supply of individuals who require government assistance I declare the War on Poverty a failure. The Gates' family are sincere in their ideological beliefs. Many of the computers donated to the LA School District were stolen back in the 1990's decade.
Liberals, no matter the platform, will always scream the loudest if people don't fall in line with their narrative. Heaven forbid if someone states a different viewpoint. If any city within Clallam, or even Clallam as a whole, goes broke, they'll just keep taxing property owners to make up for their failed leadership. Until elected officials are held to account, which will not happen, mis-spending will continue. The only way to stop this is to vote them out! But looking at voter polls, there's not a large turnout from conservative minded people.
Some people will take plenty of time to complain but will not take a very short time to vote to save their county.
I find that reprehensible! I have voted in every election since turning 18, NEVER missing one. The people who don't vote deserve the government they get.
What about the good citizen voters, we don’t deserve the pond scum in office!
Time for the "peasants" to pick up hayforks and go to a city council meeting...it worked in the medieval times....
I love it! It certainly would be symbolic.
Marolee, great article on board membership for elected position holders. This should be presented to the Charter Review Commission as solid argument in favor of a Charter amendment prohibiting Clallam County Commissioners from serving two masters. I understand they are required to serve on certain boards, but not when conflict of interest is apparent or perceived. I do not live in Port Angeles, but urge all those reading this to Vote for Marolee Smith.
AMEN!
Hi ya’ll,
Jeff, Nextdoor is stupid.
When you can not have an “open” forum, right, you get bias.
Ok.
Peninsula Behavioral Health-
Sequim City has them marked as “donating” $5,000 for the 2026 “Sequim Sunshine festival”.
A Non-profit organization with charity moneys.
Great, moving on..
(btw, i read the legality around it, and maybe there is something here… maybe not)
Also, the smallest donation from First Fed. $500.00.
What?
And…
In 2026, the budget for the Sunshine festival drones… $35,000.!!
Raise our taxes so they can paint the town with rainbows and seagull shit glitter.
Everyone go to:
Clallam County Parcel Search … if you don’t know what you pay in homeowner taxes.
It breaks down where the $$ goes.
It is not going to shelters, nothing.
Probably needles..?
$366.00 Enrichment tax?
$8.00 Veteran Fund
💥💥
I will leave this here.
PS. Do research on “enrichment tax in Clallam County.
🛑
NextDoor is moderated by a bunch of Marxist totalitarians. I was suspended for proving that climate change occurrs naturally, long before humans existed, and since it conflicted with their carbon alarmism, they suspended me. I closed my account after that.
WOW! Thanks :)
Well Jeff sure seems you are touching a nerve with CCWD. Congratulations. I myself find this to be some of the fairest reporting of all. The fact yet again of false accusations with no backup is always so telling.
THANK YOU!
LOL Jeff! The comment about your financial motivation is a non sequitur ( does not follow from the original premise). It is also an ad hominem attack. Whether you experience a financial gain from your research is unrelated to its veracity. The corruption in our government is either true or false. I don't understand why the members of Nextdoor are so loyal to government and its ridiculous programs that will save the world. I guess that intentions are more important than data based results. I am still waiting for government agencies in the West to win both the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs".
Those who make ad hominem attacks depend on this; "The narrative needn't be true or accurate so long as it resonates with the audience." Once the cat is out of the bag...
Timothy Weller I had never heard the name Jeff Tozzer until it inspired so much contempt on Nextdoor regarding some road named Towne. Then when the seventy year old artist was beaten to death the local news agencies avoided the story. Not Jeff.
There is no saving those loyal to NextDoor. They are the “chew the corners of a book crowd” not readers. Certainly comprehension is lost on most!
That is a shame. Susan C Bonallo. I think debate is healthy.
I sat in a literature symposium a long time ago and was surprised at the different interpretations of Harper Lee's famous novel "To Kill a Mockingbird". Until then I thought everyone agreed with my opinions. On every subject.
This just in: President Trump is helping to improve this situation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-takes-action-to-end-crime-and-disorder-on-americas-streets/
And Democrats are upset that their HOMELESS scam is being upended!
https://mynorthwest.com/jason-rantz/trump-homeless-seattle/4114537
NOI, thank you for the Trump update:
ENSURING AMERICANS FEEL SAFE IN THEIR OWN CITIES AND TOWNS: President Trump is taking a new approach focused on protecting public safety because surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor to other citizens.
And mynorthwest update:
President Trump’s recent Executive Order, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” is a direct rebuke to the failed progressive experiments that have crippled Seattle, Spokane, and other left-wing cities. The order rightly dismantles “Housing First” and “Harm Reduction” policies, which have exacerbated homelessness, drug addiction, and lawlessness by prioritizing ideological virtue-signaling over genuine solutions. Democrats who presided over this crisis, particularly in deep-blue enclaves like Seattle, are predictably outraged.
You made my day!
The Dem/Progressives will fight with tooth and nail for this one! Watch Washington state, CA, and the rest of the 'blue' states and cities bring lawsuit after lawsuit - along with the good old ACLU
And obviously defy it.
yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry. I'm tired.... :)
Thank you council member Kelly Burger for attending to the Seal Park situation after the first comment at the previous Council Meeting. My question is why you could not have taken a few minutes at the 7/28 Council Meeting, after the comment period had ended, to address what steps you had already taken to alleviate the situation. Transparency. A two way opportunity was wasted. An opportunity by the Council to say, "We are listening to you the electorate" and for the voters to say, "Hey the Council is listening, and this is evidence." Hey, maybe a dialogue begins. But put on your lead lined BVD's because the anti-watchdog group will show up. I venture to say that it will be a fight to get Sequim and PA and Clallam County back on the track that makes this area a fantastic community to be a part of. "Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom"
I have waited a long time for some one to turn on that light, thanks Jeff
The War on U.S. Ranchers AND USA FOOD SUPPLY
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/wheres-the-beef-the-war-on-us-ranchers/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chdtv&utm_id=20250802
The War on U.S. Ranchers
If Section 453 passes, chemical manufacturers could skirt around regulatory framework and become immune to lawsuits that allege harm from their products. This is a devastating reality that we could soon be facing as consumers and farmers. Plus, your store-bought beef might have foreign origins and be contaminated with unknown chemicals — all while our domestic livestock industry is hitting rock bottom. Hear from rancher Brooke Miller, M.D. as today’s guest on “Good Morning CHD” for all the startling details!
There are local ranchers that sell organic beef, pork, poultry, Supporting them also means you get clean, unadulterated meat. No mRNA. Yes, it is more expensive, but so are locally grown organic veggies and fruit. The extra keeps the money local, supports local food sources, and promotes better health-- cheap when you consider the BIG picture.
Yep, locker meat is the way to go. It's NOT more expensive, that's the joke. And, you support a farmer, a butcher... all that is missing is the candlestick maker.
Some elected officials need to have their sworn oaths pasted to their desk tops.
But do they abide by them?
if they don't what are you going to do about it? Our OPMA ethics rules are lacking locally.
Exactly! They have removed the consequences for unethical behavior.
Pesticide Industry Campaigns to Avoid Cancer Liability
The House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee passed a budget package on Tuesday that would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 23% for the 2026 fiscal year. House Republicans tacked on several riders, including one to limit the EPA’s ability to update pesticide labels and give user guidance.
The rider would prevent the EPA from adopting any new pesticide warning labels that contradict the findings of two specific EPA pesticide health assessments, one of which is only required every 15 years for pesticides. This language may seem redundant or innocuous, but in practice, it could make it harder for the EPA to update pesticide warning labels to the latest science. EPA’s pesticide review process has been criticized for favoring industry over public health and permitting pesticides in the U.S. that are banned elsewhere.
Republican support for the rider connects to a larger lobbying campaign by pesticide corporations aimed at avoiding health-related lawsuits. Since 2018, agrichemical goliath Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging that the active ingredient in its popular Roundup weed killer, glyphosate, causes cancer. These cases allege that Bayer failed to warn consumers about the risks of using its glyphosate-based weed killers, a legaroundl liability Bayer is trying to eradicate through the courts and new legislation.
“They are pushing a broader strategy that expressly goes after liability and failure to warn claims, and this rider is clearly a piece of that strategy,” says Tarah Heinzen, legal director at Food & Water Watch. “The less that’s required in terms of labeling, the harder it is to demonstrate a failure to warn in court.”
Nearly seven years ago, a school groundskeeper with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Dewayne Johnson, broke open a dam of lawsuits against the best-selling herbicide of all time. In 2018, a California jury found that Bayer, the newly minted owner of Monsanto, failed to warn consumers like Johnson that glyphosate-based weedkillers could cause cancer. Bayer was charged $289 million in damages, which a judge eventually reduced to $20.5 million. Tens of thousands of glyphosate users with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other blood cancers have since sued Bayer.
Bayer contends that glyphosate is safe when used as directed and notes that the EPA has repeatedly determined that it is unlikely to cause cancer. However, in 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” While glyphosate is less toxic than many other available herbicides, it is also applied more broadly than other agrichemicals, meaning that any adverse human health effects may impact more people. Studies also find that glyphosate’s health risks may increase when mixed with other co-formulants in Roundup. U.S. farmers use more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate annually, a 15-fold increase since the introduction of Roundup Ready seeds. Glyphosate was the second most popular home and garden weedkiller in 2012, and 90% of Roundup cancer litigants are residential users.
IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” classification has swayed many juries. Bayer criticizes the IARC for relying heavily on animal studies, while the IARC criticizes Bayer for relying on industry-funded research. A prize-winning investigation revealed that Bayer hired lawyers, lobbyists, and online commenters to discredit and intimidate the IARC and defend glyphosate.
Bayer routinely emphasizes that the EPA disagrees with the IARC. Numerous reports and investigations, including by the EPA’s inspector general (OIG), find flaws in the EPA’s pesticide approval process and a compromising coziness with the pesticide industry. In one instance, the EPA OIG found that the EPA relied too heavily on industry-sponsored studies in a pesticide cancer risk assessment. Even when the EPA does find that pesticides have potential human health and environmental risks, it can still approve them if it finds that the economic benefits of using the pesticide outweigh the risks.
Permissive pesticide regulation has persisted under both Republican and Democratic administrations. For instance, Biden’s EPA reapproved the controversial herbicide paraquat, despite evidence linking it to Parkinson’s. Nearly 60 countries have banned paraquat, including China, whose state-owned chemical company makes paraquat through its subsidiary Syngenta.
Roundup litigation costs have hurt Bayer’s stock and bottom line. Bayer’s CEO says glyphosate sales, which were $2.8 billion last year, barely eclipse litigation costs in some years. Bayer stopped selling glyphosate-based Roundup for residential use and recently threatened to stop selling glyphosate in the U.S. altogether unless it can limit its liability to health-related lawsuits.
Most glyphosate cancer cases hinge on a claim based in state tort law that Bayer failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks of using its products, which is where pesticide labeling rules come into play. Unlike other product labels, pesticide labels are legal documents. Consumers must use the products as directed, and pesticide manufacturers must provide specified warnings, directions, and product information.
Plaintiffs allege that Bayer had enough evidence to know and disclose that glyphosate could cause cancer on their pesticide labels. Bayer argues that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers because it included all warning labels as required by the EPA.
At the heart of this argument is whether the EPA is the ultimate authority on pesticide safety and if the federal pesticide approval process should preempt state-level “failure to warn” claims. Bayer thinks so, and it petitioned in April to make this argument to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Bayer formed a coalition with farm trade associations to advance a series of state and federal laws that would effectively make its legal argument the law of the land. These laws would affirm that the federal EPA pesticide registration process satisfies any state-level requirements to disclose health risks, and therefore, pesticide makers cannot be held liable for failing to disclose risks beyond what the EPA requires. Pesticide liability shield laws failed in Florida, Idaho, and Iowa, but passed in Georgia and North Dakota.
Republican Congressman Dusty Johnson is expected to reintroduce a federal version of these laws, the Agriculture Labeling Uniformity Act, which would shield pesticide corporations from state-level “failure to warn” claims and prevent states from setting their own higher standards for pesticide safety labels. The recent House rider fits in because it blocks the EPA from issuing new pesticide labels that contradict two specific federal health assessments, one of which is required for pesticides only every 15 years.
“When we are essentially freezing these labels in place for 15 years, it means that we are stuck to whatever that science was at the time,” says Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group.
Bayer says that these laws are about uniform standards that respect EPA’s review process. “These bills are important because they reinforce the authority of the EPA’s rigorous, science-backed labeling decisions, so that when the EPA determines what a crop protection label should say, that decision is consistent and reliable for everyone,” a Bayer spokesperson told Civil Eats.
Critics contend that these laws prevent consumers from seeking justice for health harms and limit pesticide safety consideration to an industry friendly EPA review process. Across the country, a coalition of farmers, environmental justice advocates, and Make American Healthy Again groups oppose both state and federal pesticide liability shields. Senator Cory Booker introduced legislation that would give anyone harmed by pesticides a right of action to sue pesticide manufacturers in federal court.
What We’re Reading
The Biden administration stood up 12 new USDA regional business centers to support small farms and food businesses. The Trump administration plans to shut them down. (Civil Eats)
Rural grocers will be hit hard by cuts to SNAP. (Politico)
Zephyr Teachout argues that cities should challenge commercial bribery and Big Box favoritism to bring down grocery prices. (New York Times)
I am still waiting to hear who really was running the Biden administration
Biden's wife
Obama, Blinken, et al
Wheat farmers use glyphosate on wheat crops as a "dessicant", which kills the wheat stalks and makes it easier to harvest the grain. But, non-organically-grown wheat contains glyphosate residue. Caveat emptor.
which might explain the SURGE in wheat-related allergies, "gluten intolerance" and, other gut-driven maladies (which range from Parkinson's to pretty much everything.. digestive issues, weakened immunity, skin problems, metabolic disorders like obesity and type 2 diabetes, mental health conditions -- as our internal gut flora drives health)
Glyphosate is used on many things we eat (aka Roundup-ready crops), including soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, canola (aka rape seed), alfalfa, citrus fruits, and berries, grapes and vegetables.) It is not just carcenogenic to humans, but to animals. And, I've heard a lot of talk about the increases in horses that have died from colic (including my own 15 year old boy) in the last decade as well as laminitis and chronic illness.
The other bad thing we add to our food supply is Azodicarbonamide --- used instead of bromide to whiten and age wheat, and as a dough conditioner. Banned in the EU, we can't seem to get enough of this nonsense in our food supply. Its a known carcinogen when heated...
We seem to have to go 100% organic to survive to old age.
It's too late for me
What in Hell is going on at Olympic Hospital? CEOs are opting out, managers are leaving on short notice.....the emergency room is getting written up by the health department for errors...
Jeff, I suspect your figures regarding Spokane County's General Fund "crisis" came from 2026 Preliminary Budget hype. Administrators always overstate expenditures there to generate headlines on how wonderfully they did in balancing the final budget. Below are the latest figures from the Washington State Auditor showing Spokane County had a $196,000,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance at the end of 2024. This, by the way, was a $31,000,000 increase from 2023. I doubt Spokane County is going to go broke anytime soon.
Spokane County:
General Fund, Fund Balance Sufficiency
FY 2024
Outlook:
Good
Options
Reset
________________________________________
Indicator Calculations 2021 2022 2023 2024
Ending Fund Balance $153,905,035 $152,023,884 $164,911,750 $195,987,563
Hey, aren’t you the guy who said our reserve fund was a “surplus”?
Mr. Tozzer:
Although I disagree more often than I agree, I subscribe because you always do your homework and acknowledge other points of view. Your blog is valuable.
Having served for six years with Randy Johnson on the Board of the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, I disagree with Marolee Smith's contention that public officials should not serve on nonprofit boards. Certainly there is risk of conflict of interest, but there's also value in the insight and experience of a public official. Randy has made great contributions to both the YMCA and Clallam County, and he has never allowed his role as a County Commissioner to come into conrflict with his role as a YMCA Director. He deserves thanks, not censure.
Herb Cook
Thanks, Herb. Would Randy Johnson be on the board of the YMCA if he were just a regular citizen without his county connections?
Jeff: Randy is a successful businessman--former President of Green Crow, owns a maple syrup business in New England, etc. And he genuinely cares about the YMCA's goals, including building and operating much-needed Early Learning Centers in Port Angeles and Port Townsend. So yes, Randy would be a desirable and productive YMCA Director even if he held no public office.
Thanks, Herb. Among all the business-savvy men and women in our community who care about kids, it's interesting that the YMCA chose a county commissioner to be their president.
This is a healthy conversation.
I believe that Commissioner Johnson is a well intentioned, principled person as it would seem like you do. Unfortunately what we're talking about applies to any BOCCC, because we never know when a problem might be at hand.
From your perspective Commissioner Johnson has never allowed his role as County Commissioner to come into conflict with his role as a YMCA director.
I'd challenge how you know this as in how has Randy engaged you with every decision so that you can unequivocally make your statement?
Let's say that you are correct though and let's dispense with the facts I asked for.
The problem with conflicts of interest is that the definition includes a perception, so we don't even need Randy to have engaged in a COI, just the presence is the problem.
Think about the words. Conflict of interest. What are Randy's interests? Clearly the voters of Clallam County via his BOCCC position, and the constituents of the YMCA via his role there. So he clearly has two interests, and if the roles of either cross paths we end up with a conflict. There's no way to disentangle that relationship, absent his relinquishment of either role/position, or he needs to recuse himself of making decisions as a BOCCC if it has anything to do with the YMCA.
Any professional ethics organization would require this. Why doesn't Clallam County?
"Any professional ethics organization would require this. Why doesn't Clallam County?"
Because these same commissioners decided to eliminate it so that they would not be bound by ethics. And, they removed the penalty part of the law for violations of ethics. There is your conflict of interest, right there.
Herb, I appreciate your endorsement of Randy Johnson, but there is one line you wrote that I zeroed in on:
"I disagree with Marolee Smith's contention that public officials should not serve on nonprofit boards. Certainly there is risk of conflict of interest"
RISK - One international standard definition of risk is the "effect of uncertainty on objectives"
The risk factor should be removed. Citizens don't want the uncertainty of voting members objectives.
The situation all comes down to evolution and how the human mind works. Cognitive biases are a byproduct of how we evolved. They serve to put what we know about the world into action and facilitate decision-making. Conflicts of interest are situational pressures that can exacerbate or trigger biases, particularly self-serving biases. Self-serving bias is a cognitive bias can manifest as a result of conflicts of interest, where individuals unconsciously favor outcomes that benefit their self-interest. The impact is that both can lead to poor decision-making, unfairness, and reduced trust.
A. Schopenhauer described the concept of a "blind" irrational force behind existence. He called the process "the will". The will can be but isn't necessarily interested in human happiness. In Game Theory we see many examples of bias that can be self serving but fails because of mistrust. An example of this would be "The Prisoner's Delema". An interesting example of cognitive bias would be "The Stockholm Syndrome". Patty Hearst might be an example of the cognitive process.
I think often poor decisions are based upon a desirable result though the original premise is incorrect. "A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and it produces a tornado in Texas". Tiny events that appear to be random often are not. In 1914 a Serbian Nationalist visited a delicatessen and a chain of events led to WWI, The Treaty of Versailles, the rise of National Socialism and eventually WWII. WWII led to Soviet expansion and The Cuban Missile Crisis.
I believe that if Evolution is examined properly we discover that our ancestors were superstitious. Superstition offers a survival mechanism for an organism existing inside a hostile world. Yet it is the opposite of the objective scientific world that attempts to recognize patterns.
Jeff mentioned the decline of Sequim and I have also noticed it and complained about it on Nextdoor before I was suspended. The part that amazes me though is the denial about it. That is not an example of self interest. It is the opposite and I don't understand the motivation. Our police department apparently believes in Laisse Faire law enforcement which can be effective with the right demographic. Yet Sequim isn't attracting that population. The other day I heard about a man siphoning gas at the Cosco Parking lot. Isn't the proper platitude "crime is everywhere"?
Herb, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
So, perhaps Mr. Johnson's participation is absolutely IDEAL, and wonderful -- what about all of the boards the OTHER elected officials serve on around the Peninsula? I never said that it cannot be done. I am saying that its a sticky wicket, a morass of moral/ethical obtuseness.
We have no way to evaluate these non-profits, or their bylaws. We have no way to create some kind of guideline. Why? We have no enforceable ETHICS RULES in this county (nor in the towns).
My experience with non-profits began in my early 20's when I was "invited" (for optics) to participate as a junior board member of a very prestigious philanthropy board in San Francisco. I learned all of the crazy things about boards that I never wanted to know. For one, as a non-financial participant, I was barred from voting. I, and a few other junior members, were there to show that the 'board' had more than very wealthy old misers. The desire was to show a more diverse membership and give the youngsters a chance to network, and do the dirty work (the actual fundraising WORK). It was a very good education, and I was privy to a lot of conversations that I would have never heard, or imagined.
What I learned: don't be on a board, unless it is something that really "speaks to you", and don't be on a board unless you completely understand the pitfalls of the by laws, and don't be on a board that is full of followers, and not leaders. Boards without independent thinkers, are doomed to become a pack, engage in "mob" mentality, often at the direction of a board director who has questionable morals.
So, sure Mr. Johnson might be wonderful. However, can you speak for ALL the elected, and ALL the non-profits and NGO's that exist? Therein lies the rub.