Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Lots of Zeroes in Public Money...Lots of Zeroes Handling Public Money (UPDATED!)

What's the difference between $50,000 and $500,000? Is it just one zero? Or is it several zeroes?
 
Well, those zeroes at the Port of Port Angeles are all onboard to spend $50,000 - just to get off the ground - to hire consultants to yada yada yada the airport. Yes, they want to pour more money into the airport by way of "studying" whether or not it's economically feasible for an airline to service Port Angeles.
 
Not to bum you out or anything Port Commissioners, but, uh, you've already had that study, in the form of multiple airlines who pulled out because it wasn't economically feasible for them to be there. There weren't even enough passengers to keep Kenmore aloft, and their planes didn't even seat ten people.
 
Still, it's only money, right? So why let stupid be an impediment to spending? Cue the Commissioners:
 
John Calhoun said the port was taking the lead on behalf of all Clallam County for restoring air service but that other private and public agencies must participate, perhaps by establishing a "ticket bank" of guaranteed air fares.
 
"We could potentially spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on capital improvements to try and get air service back," said Colleen McAleer, only to have the carrier quit after several months. "We can't allow that to happen."
 
Well duh, Colleen, the only way that could happen is if you were stupid enough to spend those hundreds of thousands of dollars on maintaining an unneeded facility. Mind you, you are all stupid enough to do that. I have faith in that.
 
Hey, Commissioners - Your feasibility study is here!

As for Calhoun...What a slimeball. His grandiosity - "taking the lead on behalf of all Clallam County" - is exceeded only by his naked greed. Yes, John, a ticket bank - more funds! - is a GREAT idea. Now let me guess which public agencies would be most likely to make withdrawals from that bank. Hmmm...
 
Meanwhile, up at the Courthouse...King Jim McEntire is moving fast to consolidate hold on the reins of power. Which, in his case, looks a lot like sticking his pudgy fingers in the cookie jar.
 
Yes, one-upping the Port, the County Commissioners are moving ahead with giving a whopping $500,000 to the new, unimproved EDC. Yes, the same EDC that has such a dismal track record. The same EDC that King Jim has so carefully remade in his own image. And the same EDC that no one seems to support - not even their own board members - other than the unholy trinity of King Jim, Bill Peach, and the dependably slimy Jim Jones.
 
Poor Norma Turner summed it up: "You're going to move it (the money) from county plans that require a lot of public comment and oversight to a private entity that created this plan around the table with a select group of individuals, and then use tax dollars to fund whatever they come up with."
 
Former County Commissioner Mike Doherty, after pointing out the utter lack of information available about the EDC on their own website, stated: "Basic economic development planning, and any kind of planning, involves the public. Clearly, you've heard today this is not a well-documented, public process."
 
In response to these allegations of waste, stupidity and mendacity, the right and honorable King Jim was nothing if not contrite: "I have no conflicts of interest whatsoever...And I will have no conflicts of interest. It is thoroughly consistent with my duties that I was elected to perform to make decisions on monies that go to private sector organizations. I think I know a little bit about strategic planning."
 
And so it was, with this royal decree, that the hogs of King Jim were set loose upon the public troughs. In response, there was a notable lack of rejoicing throughout the kingdom.
 
"I think I know a little bit about strategic planning.
I even dress myself and everything."


******UPDATE******

A comment came in that provides so much more information on the County Commissioners' meeting that I felt it was important to include it in the body of the post itself. (Needless to say it can also be found below.) Full text of the comment is cut and pasted here...

Anonymous January 28, 2015 at 9:36 AM:
 
Interestingly, the PDN article you rely on for your post omitted the content of the last hour of the meeting, where Master Jim and County Prosecutor tried to change the wording of the motion they had just passed!

Because people in the audience had pointed out so many flaws and problems, after the two Commissioners (McEntire and his hand puppet Peach) had made the motion, seconded it and passed it, County Prosecutor Mark Nichols came to the podium to tell McEntire that the wording needed to be changed to more accurately reflect what the discussion had brought forward. With obvious amazement at what was being proposed, and rumblings in the audience, Chapman said " You already passed the motion. You can't after-the-fact go back and make substantive changes. You have to start over, take public comment for the proposed amendments, and vote again!"

Two former Commissioners who were in the audience stood to say they had never witnessed such an attempt . To his credit, Commissioner Mike Chapman kept jumping in saying angrily "You can't do that!" and correcting what Mark Nichols was telling the Board.

The audience abandoned the mikes, and spoke from their places in the room, which the Chair, McEntire allowed! (Usually, people are told they must speak via the mike to address the Board.)

McEntire tried a number of ways to proceed, with Chapman angrily jumping in saying "What is the rush? I know you guys have an agenda and everything, but if you two are going to do this, you need to do it right. You've just messed this all up."

Nichols at one point admitted he made a mistake. But, in the end, McEntire announced he had decided to let things stay as they had evolved, that staff will review the wording of the motion they passed, and they would take action if needed at a later date.

In other words, he got to do what he wanted to do.

But, as we see, the PDN keeps the public in the dark. Changes the reality of the event to make it sound all normal and proper. With so few that attend public meetings, they know they can get away with this type of so-called reporting.

30 comments:

  1. And don't forget...The PADA, whose board is in flux, has also committed $100,000 that they don't have towards Scott Nagel's Lincoln Theater thing, even though Nagel doesn't have the other $135,000 that would be necessary.

    The way people and groups "manage" funds around here is beyond crazy. It's like none of them have calculators with minus buttons, just plus, plus, plus. Public funds and fantasy funds get tossed around with abandon, which may be why this town is looking more and more abandoned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No accident Jim Haguewood's son in law is the new president of PADA. Haguewood is the daddy of the Port Angeles United movement which the Chamber has now adopted. Which means, by extension, Karen Rogers is once again on an income stream of taxpayer money. Watch how easily and quickly the new and improved PADA commandeers the money for the Main Street program. Heck, I would not be surprised if Rogers is selected for the ED position for the new and improved downtown association.

      Delete
    2. How DOES she earn a living these days? Does anyone know? I can't imagine that "Karen Rogers Consulting" is anything more than a front for her various scams.

      Delete
    3. Oh, didn't you know, She is now president of the Olympic Medical Center Foundation. Think of the ease of skimming off all those gala balls and tree sales. Oh, don't worry, she has rewritten the bylaws to make it all legal but of course she won't let you see those new bylaws. Oh, and she has formed all new committees too, but she won't tell you what those committees are nor who is on them.

      Delete
  2. Let us remember it was Port Commissioner Calhoun who said at an EDC meeting back in the spring. When the topic of job creation came up Calhoun actually said, "Well now there's a lot of people in the county who are well off, there's a lot of retired folks in town who don't need jobs, we represent them too." Thankfully Calhoun is no longer on the board of the EDC but his sentiments live on in the mind of McEntire.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interestingly, the PDN article you rely on for your post omitted the content of the last hour of the meeting, where Master Jim and County Prosecutor tried to change the wording of the motion they had just passed!

    Because people in the audience had pointed out so many flaws and problems, after the two Commissioners (McEntire and his hand puppet Peach) had made the motion, seconded it and passed it, County Prosecutor Mark Nichols came to the podium to tell McEntire that the wording needed to be changed to more accurately reflect what the discussion had brought forward. With obvious amazement at what was being proposed, and rumblings in the audience, Chapman said " You already passed the motion. You can't after-the-fact go back and make substantive changes. You have to start over, take public comment for the proposed amendments, and vote again!"

    Two former Commissioners who were in the audience stood to say they had never witnessed such an attempt . To his credit, Commissioner Mike Chapman kept jumping in saying angrily " You can't do that!" and correcting what Mark Nichols was telling the Board.

    The audience abandoned the mikes, and spoke from their places in the room, which the Chair, McEntire allowed! (Usually, people are told they must speak via the mike to address the Board)

    McEntire tried a number of ways to proceed, with Chapman angrily jumping in saying " What is the rush? I know you guys have an agenda and everything, but if you two are going to do this, you need to do it right. You've just messed this all up."

    Nichols at one point admitted he made a mistake. But, in the end, McEntire announced he had decided to let things stay as they had evolved, that staff will review the wording of the motion they passed, and they would take action if needed at a later date.

    In other words, he got to do what he wanted to do.

    But, as we see, the PDN keeps the public in the dark. Changes the reality of the event to make it sound all normal and proper. With so few that attend public meetings, they know they can get away with this type of so-called reporting.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THANK YOU for the fuller, more detailed version of events. IT IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

      Delete
    2. Even if you're just glancing through this post, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO READ THE COMMENT ABOVE.

      Delete
    3. And FYI everyone...The number of pageviews on this blog is way, way up today, so people are interested, and people are getting this information.

      Delete
    4. Yes, it got pretty interesting. Thanks to Norma Turner and the others that kept pushing McEntire, and questioning what he was trying to do.

      And, a big thanks to Mike Chapman for standing up, repeatedly, for the citizens of the county. He (and others there) were clearly and vocally upset with what McEntire and Peach were doing. As they should have been.

      Delete
  4. We have a long, sad history of County Commissioners using the office to further their own agendas and financial wellbeing. Steve Tharinger used the office to guide salmon recovery dollars into buying his own house. He also got paid for time clearly not spent doing the County's business, said he'd pay it back, and didn't. Mike Chapman, who the article notes is a fifteen year County Commissioner (and counting) has demonstrated he will do anything it takes to hold on to the job that pays him two or three times what he could make in the real world with his skills and education. He may not be on the take as a Commissioner, but he's still not an honorable man.

    So here we have Jim McEntire, who is very obvious about what he's doing, but is arranging things to build some deniability into the system he is very much rigging. He's also trying to bite off a bigger chunk of money, probably because he has more palms that need greasing along the way. But his intent - theft of public funds - is clear.

    The last honorable person to hold the title of Clallam County Commissioner was Mike Doherty. I understand why he stepped away, but am somewhat confused by the fact that he's still so involved with County politics. Perhaps he feels freer as a citizen than he did as a Commissioner. In any case, it was our loss when he left, and Bill Peach got in. These three will further bankrupt Clallam County, morally and otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tharinger, Chapman and McEntire are all a lot closer together on the political spectrum than you might think.

      Delete
  5. Indeed. Let's add another whopping public bond to raise taxes seems to be the mindset of this area. Tax tax tax, bond bond bond, levy levy levy, make them PAY is the chant. The problem is -- we're all broke. Seriously broke. It's not like it's just our local government, county government, state government is squeezing us, but our federal one as well. Everything we do, everything we touch is taxed in one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So...Is THIS what the conservative voters here were asking for by electing three Republican commissioners? To find people who will give away hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money to a proven failure? To have a board of commissioners so arrogant that they simply ignore public comments and worries they don't like, AND get defensive when questions are raised? Is THIS what public service looks like to conservatives? Because it looks a lot like ego, greed and theft to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's amazed me for years how the local Republican chapter will complain endlessly about the waste and corruption Democrats create in Olympic and Washington DC, and completely ignore what so-called "conservatives" are doing in their own back yard. Not policing their own is a huge failing of the Clallam Republicans, or that 4C organization, or any other organization that claims to be "conservative" while standing silent and letting crap like this happen.

      Delete
    2. As they say around the county, yes, he's a scoundrel but he's OUR scoundrel.

      Delete
  7. Man, Karen Rogers just keeps funneling public money over to her quasi-private incubator project, doesn't she?

    Oh. Wait, I forgot which decade I'm in. Meet the new boss...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm amazed at Chapman. When did he grow a spine? Good for him for standing up against this nonsense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd suggest that Chapman hasn't so much grown a spine as he is playing his part. Two votes gets the commissioners anything they want. Maintaining a two (or more) vote balance is very important to the dark elements in Clallam County.

      So, right now, Chapman gets to play the good cop, while McEntire and Peach are the bad cops. It serves Chapman's image well to be seen saying, "Oh, you bad cops, you!" But, in my opinion, he's closer to the other two than not. They are three Republicans, after all. Remember how dirty Chapman played during the last election. He's no ally of the left or progressives.

      So the current clown show allows Chapman to do image maintenance. All three get to run roughshod over decency and fiscal responsibility. And Chapman is protected from being seen as too far right, which keeps him in office, and maintains the status quo, especially if one of the other clowns should happen to lose an election to someone not in on the fix.

      Delete
    2. Too bad the proceedings were not recorded. Or, are they?

      Anon 5:46 , were you there yesterday? Is that your view from what you actually saw?

      Delete
    3. Of course the entire meeting was recorded, every public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners is recorded and available to the public for review. Only ONE of the commentors (Norma Turner) actually commented directly on the issues being considered: whether to amend the code and policy so that they conformed to changes in the State RCW that were made in 2007, which modified what the Opportunity Fund dollars could be spent for. Everybody else commented on what a bad idea it would be to spend $500,000 on staffing for the EDC. That decision was not being made on Tuesday, but would have to have its own public hearing, some time in the future, but only if the policy and code matched state law in allowing that kind of expenditure. So, the 2 commissioners who voted in favor were only updating the county code and policy to conform with the changes made in state law. In the next few weeks, the question of whether or not to contract with the EDC for money to pay for staff will likely come up, in another public hearing, and that will be the time to offer comments on the advisability of moving forward with that decision.

      Delete
    4. I would suggest that ANYONE who thinks the issues under discussion at that BoCC meeting were just " were only updating the county code and policy to conform with the changes made in state law." , as Anon 9:29 suggests, should make the effort to listen to the audio.

      McEntire himself stated, near the end, that he was surprised by Chapmans concerns, because McEntire had made it clear he had an agenda he was pursuing before, and he was only moving forward to do that.

      Anon. 9:29, interestingly, neglects to mention the extensive discussion of McEntiores' goals of ELIMINATING the Public Advisory Board. At one point, when asked specifically about this, McEntire just avoided answering by responding with a comment very similar to Anon 9:20s : we're " only updating the county code and policy to conform with the changes made in state law. "

      Does State Law require eliminating the Public Advisory Board?

      Delete
    5. No, the State Law does not REQUIRE the elimination of the Advisory Board, but the law no longer requires you keep it either. The language in the law simply says the commissioners must consult with the cities and other local taxing districts, it does not specify how that must be done. So, that is what the (now) updated county ordinance says as well. Nothing in the new county ordinance authorized giving any money to the EDC, nor did it eliminate the current method of consulting, through the Opportunity Fund Advisory Board. Both of those decisions will be made (or not) at some later date.

      Delete
    6. Once again, Anon 1:56 dodges the issues in a very similar way in which Mr. McEntire did at that BoCC meeting. Interesting.

      Delete
    7. It appears to me that Anon 10:35 and 1:56 is a paid county employee (who could that be?) because no member of the public at the public hearing was in favor of the proposed ordinance. So I'm surprised Anon 10:35 and 1:56 could with a straight face say "Only ONE of the commentors (Norma Turner) actually commented directly on the issues being considered: whether to amend the code and policy so that they conformed to changes in the State RCW that were made in 2007, which modified what the Opportunity Fund dollars could be spent for." Anon 10:35 and 1:56 should have read the title of the proposed ordinance - "An Ordinance amending Clallam County Code Chapter 5.40 Opportunity Fund Program to remove references to the Opportunity Fund Board." Anon 10:35 and 1:56 should also have been aware of Clallam County Charter Section 3.10 that says "Proposed ordinances shall be limited to one subject. The subject of every ordinance shall be clearly stated in the title." The proposed ordinance was purely and simply an assault on the Opportunity Fund Board and an assault on public participation in government.

      Delete
    8. It appears to me that Anon 10:35 and 1:56 is a paid county employee (who could that be?) because no member of the public at the public hearing was in favor of the proposed ordinance. So I'm surprised Anon 10:35 and 1:56 could with a straight face say "Only ONE of the commentors (Norma Turner) actually commented directly on the issues being considered: whether to amend the code and policy so that they conformed to changes in the State RCW that were made in 2007, which modified what the Opportunity Fund dollars could be spent for." Anon 10:35 and 1:56 should have read the title of the proposed ordinance - "An Ordinance amending Clallam County Code Chapter 5.40 Opportunity Fund Program to remove references to the Opportunity Fund Board." Anon 10:35 and 1:56 should also have been aware of Clallam County Charter Section 3.10 that says "Proposed ordinances shall be limited to one subject. The subject of every ordinance shall be clearly stated in the title." The proposed ordinance was purely and simply an assault on the Opportunity Fund Board and an assault on public participation in government.

      Delete
  9. Mike Doherty was AMAZING. You should have been there. He called McEntire and Peach on what they were doing as eloquently as I've ever heard anyone. He had institutional knowledge he drew from, and spoke to the issues facing the county.

    If you can think of a way to thank the man, do it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks to you, CK, and to the OP for passing along so much information about the meeting. This is some pretty blatant and outrageous shit, even by Clallam County standards. King Jim must feel fairly confident that nothing can happen to him to be so bold. Hopefully his little kingdom will crumble.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Port O Call was all over this story, online weeks ago. Front page in the February issue. Read it here: www.portocallpublishing.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. So I note...The PDN did NOT update their story covering the contentious commissioner's meeting, despite the fact that they seem to regularly do so. Did reporter Rob actually stay for the whole meeting?

    Now KONP has covered the meeting just today on their website, but they don't mention the heated debate and public comments from the last hour described here. Why add coverage so late in the game, if all you're going to do is regurgitate what the PDN already stated?

    Oh, that's right. They're both are in the business of reality massaging. So for the vast majority of the public, the public comments and concerns never happened. The unreality must be reasserted, so that we can all drift back to sleep.

    ReplyDelete