Sunday, June 19, 2016

(No) Sign of the Times

Yeah, yeah...To no great surprise, Cherie Kidd, Deputy Mayor and Major Ignoramus, has been cleared in the latest round of ethics charges leveled against her - this time centering around her heavy-handed, go-it-alone, cowardly and un-American banning of signs in the City Council chambers during "that meeting."

Though we can all understand the urge to want to "get" Gavel Gertie for any number of her failings, transgressions and crimes, it was always a stretch to call her unilateral and unnecessary banning of signs an "ethics" violation. Thus the outcome is, as stated above, no great surprise.

But once again, this could have been an opportunity for Cherie Kidd to fill in some small portion of the vast empty space in her head and learn something. That, apparently, did not happen. "I really think the charges themselves are rather frivolous," says Kidd, missing the point that her banning of signs might also meet that criteria, and, again, missing the chance to learn and grow. Instead, she's "very grateful that the community has given me so much support and encouragement through this time. I do my best to serve...I try to serve appropriately and I did my very best."


Just imagine that the frying pan is a sign, the brown cat
is a City Council member, and the garbage can is City Hall,
and you can see that Cherie was justified to be cautious.

I guess for me it all comes down to what the hell Cherie Kidd, Deputy Moron, was so fearful of at "that meeting" on that night. Was she afraid that someone was going to swat her down with a sign? That people would pile their signs up and start a revolutionary bonfire in City Hall? What was the potential, theoretical dreaded outcome that she was just so motivated to avoid? Certainly it couldn't have been merely to protect her own fragile (but steel panty-clad) ego?

And going forward, I have to wonder just what a sign is. Can a t-shirt be a sign? A lapel pin? A political button? Will she want the police to check cars in the City Hall lot before a Council meeting for bumper stickers?

Given Cherie Kidd's failure to lead, learn, grow, govern or apologize for her many, many weaknesses and shortcomings and blind spots and her embrace of obstruction, rudeness and ignorance, I can think of only one sign that would be appropriate to show her...


  1. Readers will appreciate the tortured logic the ethics panel applied to the circumstances. They read in the procedures manual where the mayor or acting mayor is responsible for preparations for a council meeting. They then deemed Kidd's unilateral order banning signs as a necessary preparation for a council meeting. Viola, no violation. This is what you get when you have two retired judges and a minister weighing in on abuse of authority.

    1. No one seems to get that Downie's unilateral attempt to delegate mayoral status to her was illegal from the get-go. It was a matter for the whole council to vote on & approve. The Mayor cannot just pick & choose his alternate. This by the council's own frickin rules.
      So she was never "acting mayor" in the first place.
      WTF just more stupid-ass PA sh#t to even call her that title. That whole meeting was illegally convened, and as a result never even happened by the council's own rules.
      Why does everyone here always assume that stuff is legal just because it happens?

    2. What are you looking at -- a comic book? "In the
      absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside." That's Kidd. Can't we at least find some real issues here? Cause denial ain't a winner.

    3. however, the handing of the baton, since Downie was "present" was not clear to the audience (as evidenced by both the audio recording AND the video recording of the 2/2/16 council meeting). It was just assumed, by all council parties.

      Next, the actual practices of the council -- not what is codified, but how they have proceeded and operated for YEARS was never considered. The lack of any statute regarding signage was assumed to be "oh Mayor can do whatever on a whim" however, the actual PRACTICES of our council has never banned signs. They have NEVER limited public speaking. They have NEVER enforced speaking time limits.
      Since laws and codes and procedures are all PART OF the practices of a government body -- what is written and what actually happens, and is customary -- are all part of it, and should all have equal weight, the ethics board failed to give any weight to the latter two items, and tried to follow the insane, poorly written muni code, which has been altered "piecemeal" and the ethics part was written by a total moron ---

      Garbage in, garbage out.

      Toss out Bloor.

    4. It doesn't matter that they never did it before. The rules have always allowed them to do these things this way. It's always been their choice. They were nicer before, back when you were nicer. Then you all organized these group tantrums, and they stopped being so nice. In the real world, the law does not require them to listen to you at all. You should be more grateful for the privilege, and stop acting so entitled.

    5. @ Anon 7:06

      Oh, really? "In the real world, the law does not require them to listen to you at all."

      What country are you living in?

    6. Anon @ 7:06 - They established precedent, through years of them getting lucky to bumble along with no public comment, no oversight, nobody caring. Then they made the mistake of putting out an advisory vote, patting themselves on the back at "look how gracious we are that we are asking for your opinion." That's where the problem started. Now people are paying attention and when they blatantly went against the will of the people, they couldn't handle being called on the carpet for their disregard. Not that a troll like you would understand...

  2. What is funny is Kidd continues to gush over the enormous support she has received from countless citizens supporting her actions. However, only her husband shows up for support when she is in the dock. Is she delusional or just a damned liar--or both? The question now is whether the state's attorney general will charge her with perjury as is apparent from videos of the meeting and her suggesting there was an element of danger, caused by a fellow council member, at the meeting where she acted like a spoiled child and stalked off in the middle of a council meeting. Even now folks at home think it dangerous to attend a council meeting with all those ruffian taxpayers present.

  3. The whole point was lost. The Hon. Williams (who serves on a board or two with the Kidd-er) did his very best to not even cover his bias to all things Kidd-y.
    Meanwhile, it may have been a stretch, however, tossing out the whole thing because "a few signs were in the chambers" is silly.

    It was the rudeness displayed, the directing of a city employee to post signs banning signs, and the overall timbre, tone and texture of the hostility towards the citizens of Port Angeles that triggered the ethics complaint(s).

    The fact that for the whole meeting, it was clear that Williams was TRYING his best to maintain his poker face. Meiner looked like he needed a laxative. Dean ? (who can even understand what he was mumbling??)

    It was a Port Angeles farce, of the highest order.

    None of the ETHICS board members have ever shown their faces at a city council meeting. I guess that part of their civic duty is beneath them.

    I find it ridiculous that Bullfrog (of Bullshit) Bloor can't seem to write code without it being horribly flawed.

    This town is choking on this kind of hubris. Cherie is, indeed, the poster child of all that is wrong with Port Angeles.

    So, now WHY did she get voted in? I'd think a dead dog would have won, easily, against her.

    1. You make many good points. As for your final question, please do remember that this last time she only had half an opponent - he was on again, off again, and it was very...dispiriting.

  4. Folks, next time make ethics violation charges that are um ... about actual ethics violations. Not, you know, something like "she gave me the stick eye and I'm boilin' mad about it!"

    1. I got to agree on this one. You can't just load up your gun with hurt feelings and expect to blow anyone away.

    2. This is just ridiculous.

      I was there, from before that meeting started, that night. I sat through the entire event. I read the ethics "guidelines" the city adopted some time ago.

      There is absolutely no doubt that Cherie Kidd is guilty of the violations she was charged with.

      The supporters of the Old Guard can waltz in here, and make all the attempts they want to undermine, and engage in dis-information campaigns, but I'm not buying it.

      I was there. You are not going to fool me with your bullshit.

      Win at any cost? Seems the case here, once again.

  5. She wants to thank everyone for their support? She must mean her fellow cronies. A bunch of OLD, stick up their ass, greedy, selfish, Jack asses and their equally idiot spouses. I do not see any of the general public she is supposed to represent on either side of the fluoride issue supporting her for anything.

  6. How short sighted. The cronies can say an obvious crook is innocent (we saw the video. Those of us who were present know what we witnessed), ONLY serving to VALIDATE that this town does not care about it's citizens, or the law, or how outsiders see a clearly crooked little town.

    All of this is readily available for anyone thinking of locating to Port Angeles. What family will bring heir children into a town like this?

    And they wonder what needs to be done to make Port Angeles prosperous?

  7. I have to agree with Anon 12:09. Whoever filed the charges had no idea what they were doing and made themselves and their supporters appear uninformed and ill prepared.

    You also do not have alternative candidates at county, port, or city levels.

    1. Let's repeat that last line, shall we?

      "You also do not have alternative candidates at county, port, or city levels."


    2. I believe Dale Wilson should run for office. He is thoughtful, intelligent, articulate and passionate about the issues we are concerned about. Has anyone asked him?


    3. Um, it was that (illegally reconstituted) Board that was unwilling to do their job. They didn't even review the evidence, just sang and danced until the punch-line. S.O.P. when the end game is "screw you." So it sure as hell wasn't any fault of the filers, for any of these complaints.

    4. Anon 9:31 they had to review the evidence. It didn't show any wrong doing. Why are you in denial that the charges were incorrect? Is it because you can't possibly be wrong?

    5. What makes you think they "had to review the evidence"? When they obviously did not.

      None of these Boards actually investigated (as is their job) exactly how Kidd invented this non-policy of council signage, and then instructed the clerk to make the notice and post it prior to that meeting. Again, had there been any real, rational adult inquiry, it would have been most obvious (as it already is) that she had absolutely no authority to unilaterally on her own make up city policy.

      @6:19, I say to you in a calm manner, don't try to create a personal attack on me, that's the sign of a troll. It's about Kidd and what she did. So I ask you, please explain how her dishonest and deceptive act, an abuse of her status as council member did not violate our ethics code in multiple ways?

      Just one of those rules is that "Public officials shall explicitly state that any personal opinions do not represent the City."
      So how in the heck was her personal signage policy, made up without any council vote, NOT her own "personal opinion"? It sure as heck wasn't official city policy. But she deceptively passed it off as such.

      This Board #2 never went into this issue at all, just like the whitewash of Board #1. Absolutely no analysis of the ethical violation claim that one council member cannot speak for the whole council, and cannot make up city policy on her (or his) own.

      Would really like to hear exactly how this act of abject dishonesty "didn't show any wrongdoing."

    6. 6:19am What "EVIDENCE" did they review? Did they look at court cases of similar issues, did they pay attention to the events of the council meeting? Did they interview witnesses, and ask questions?
      Thanks for trying, but since you weren't there and relying on PDN coverage, your opinion is just that.

    7. If what Kidd did was so above board, then why did the council have to change their rules (on tonight's agenda BTW) to permit the deputy mayor to preside?

      So rather than mete out an appropriate punishment, let's just change the rules to make it legal, then all will be forgotten.

      This stuff goes on every single day.
      City hall is one big festering sore of corruption, and any difference of opinion will not be tolerated!


  8. The part I found most insulting was the quote by Gavel Gertie: “As chair, I was following the rules to maintain order and conduct the meeting,” Kidd said.

    I don't know how she believes she had any working knowledge of, or ability to conduct the meeting in an orderly fashion. What happened essentially is she completely lost her shit and is now trying to backpedal and make her actions seem like those of a calm, rational individual. Her quotes in the article just add fuel to the fire. What an embarrassment to the community.

    1. She entered the building with the intent of cracking down on the citizens' ability to interact, voice their opinions, and disagree.

  9. Note too that comments were disabled shortly after publication...the cover up continues.

  10. How was it that the Ethics Panel never grasped any of the issues? I'm sure the next one (Downie's) will be even more lame and passive.
    Williams is condescending. If you look the word up in a dictionary -- there is his picture.
    (He's a retired judge, right?)

  11. It speaks volumes that these Boards support and provide cover for someone like that.

    1. Anon6:36 - only support of your assessment is rational? And your assessment was refuted by the Ethics Board/Commission?

      Everyone is wrong but you?

    2. It only serves to damage the already terrible reputation of this sorry excuse for a city.

      If the Coho ferry was not located in downtown Port Angeles, Port Angeles would have dried up and disappeared long ago. No one comes to Port Angeles for Port Angeles.

      These hillbillies will never get it.

    3. @ Anon 9:45 The members of the so-called Ethics Board were not at the meeting, and did not witness first hand that which many of us, here, did.

      You can twist the words any way you want, to come up with any after-the-fact conclusion you wish, but those of us that were in that room that know very well what we witnessed.

      And who did witness the events? The police chief, the fire chief, the city attorney, the city manager, the city clerk, the public works director, and the other council members. And, about 100 members of the public.

      You're only making a fool of yourself, here.

    4. So once again, as with just about every thread on this site, it boils down to: who ya gonna call?

      Posters say this sucks, that sucks, PA sucks, city hall sucks. LOL, the power won't change for the better until you do. Think of things you can do to effect change. Get active.

      All the griping on here is getting tiresome.

    5. Anon 9:30 Yes. Look at what is written about, though. It is absolutely amazing that virtually everything originates from an action by the city, and the "established power structure".

      Look what happened when people got active this Spring. The council majority set about to silence the public's voice in every way they could!

      Yes, I agree. Get active. Stay active. But, I sure don't blame the people for "griping" about the state of things in Port Angeles.

    6. @anon7:33 - get active and stay active? unless someone is going to run for office you are spitting into the wind. never going to change a thing, only end of with spit on your own face.

      Sorry but that is the reality of what everyone has been doing here. But maybe that is what gets the motors running.

    7. All I can do is gripe. I don't live in the City limits, but their actions affect whether I can endorse PA to anyone who asks as a good place to live, or a place to move, or invest in. I barely have a reason myself to go downtown. I can't find parking at the park sites but downtown is empty.

    8. 8:40 - you cant find parking... but downtown is empty. That makes no sense at all. If the parking is filled people drove them and are downtown.

    9. @9:22 - you're entitled to have a misinformed opinion and hide as anonymous. And call those with differing opinions names. And build little walls to keep critical thinking out.

    10. In response to Anonymous 6:39 PM...Please re-read the comment you're responding to. You'll see that they say parking sites at the park (the ONP) are full, but downtown (Port Angeles) is empty. It is clear, and makes sense.

    11. @ Anon 6:58

      Right. Relying on a viewpoint based on being present at the event in question is suspect, but "critical thinking" based on the conclusions of a couple of clearly biased hacks that were NOT present, is the right way to understand an issue?

      Perhaps you need to review what "critical thinking" involves.

      And while you're at it, look up "objective", and "subjective", and "pre-determined conclusion".