Doing It In Public

It's sure interesting to see the public and apparently very personal pissing contests that keep coming out of the courthouse - and those are just the ones that hit the PDN. (Needless to say, there are plenty that never get that sort of coverage, but still exist nonetheless.)

 

As we all know, there's been a lot of coverage lately of the sniping and slapping between the big dog (King Jim) and the little dog (Mike Chapman) on the County Commission. But now, with Selinda Barkhuis commandeering a Charter Review Committee meeting to go after County Administrator Jim Jones, their ongoing conflict is back in the crosshairs.

 

In case you haven't read the article, here's a sketch of what happened. Several elected officials came to the Charter Review Commission to explain what they do, how their jobs are affected by the charter itself, that sort of thing. When it came time for County Treasurer - and Charter Review Commission member - Barkhuis to speak, she just launched into an account of her ongoing problems with Jim Jones.

 

This, in turn, seems to have caused some of her fellow Commission members to launch into her:

 

Charter commissioners questioned her choice to run for the Charter Review Commission.

“As an elected official, is this the appropriate thing to do?” Commissioner Glenn Wiggins asked.

He asked Barkhuis if her reason for running for the commission was to contribute to the county’s charter, “or do you want to see change within your office?”

“I am here because I don’t know where else to go with my issues,” Barkhuis said.

 

Sounds like it was an interesting meeting. And, while I certainly have no trouble at all believing that Jim Jones is a HUGE problem at the County, especially for a woman holding office, I also have a problem with the notion that Selinda would run for the Charter Review Commission because she doesn't "know where else to go" with her issues.

 

So what do you think? Is the Charter Review Committee the place for these discussions? Is Selinda right or wrong to take this focus on the CRC? Anyone want to defend Jim Jones in all this?

 

Meanwhile, in other terribly unimportant news coming out of the courthouse...

 

Coffee stands in which the baristas are bikini-clad may get special regulation in unincorporated Clallam County.

 

First-year Community Development Director Mary Ellen Winborn asked commissioners Monday to consider “appropriate local regulations and control” of the drive-through coffee stands at which scantily clad baristas serve up customers' favorite espresso drinks.

 

There are no bikini baristas in Clallam County, and sexually oriented and adult-entertainment businesses are not a common land use, Winborn said in a memo to the board.

 

The study was prompted by a citizen who recently inquired about placing a bikini-barista stand in a commercial zone east of Port Angeles, Planning Manager Steve Gray said.

No formal application had been submitted.

 

Winborn offered a solution:

 

Require coffee stands that meet the definition of partial nudity to post a highly visible warning sign that says something like “This Premise is Not Family Oriented” or “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content Ahead.”

 

So, if you're going to be addressing the "issues" of appropriate clothing in businesses in Clallam County...Are you going to tackle the Walmart issue? Google the phrase, "People of Walmart," and you'll see more than any coffee stand could ever hope to show you...