HomeMy WebLinkAbout022123 BoCC 2_21_23 follow-up_ words left unsaid________________________________
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
________________________________
Dear Board of County Commissioners,
To quote Harriet Beecher Stowe, "The bitterest tears shed ... are for
words left unsaid" - as well as for follow-up comments not allowed
per meeting rules! So here are three more from me today:
1) Re Partnering for Vaccine Equity funding for continued anti-racist
literacy training, I wanted to say thanks, and that your responses
turned me around a bit about this subject. I had felt the agenda
request used "equity" as a smoke screen for directing propaganda at
vulnerable populations, but you are right that I got things backwards
and it is instead using vaccine funds for more benign training... fair enough!
2) I've wondered about Health Officer Berry taking time at BoCC
meetings to answer questions from KPTZ listeners, when residents
actually present at the board meeting are not allowed to ask her
questions. Is that fair? At today's meeting, her remarks promoting
boosters left me chomping at the bit to ask her this short question:
"Dr. Berry, could you comment on last week's Lancet meta-analysis
which concluded: 'For people who have been infected with COVID-19 at
least once before, natural immunity against severe disease
(hospitalisation and death) was strong and long-lasting for all
variants (88% or greater at 10 months post-infection). ... Past
COVID-19 infection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and
severe disease for ancestral, alpha, delta, or omicron BA.1 variants,
appears to be at least as protective as two-dose vaccination with the
mRNA vaccines for all vaccines and outcomes.' Why should people be
vaccinated when they already enjoy superior long-lasting natural
immunity against all variants, which is at least as protective as
waning two-dose vaccinations that must be repeatedly boosted?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext
3) Re today's hearing about courthouse security, I had spoken already
before two staffers commented how glad they were that the public must
go through security checkpoints before reaching them, saying that
makes their "customers coming in to do business way more respectful
to us", but things are different for "lots of employees going in and
out of the building all day ... having to go through security
carrying trays of mail or ballots ... is a logistical impediment to
doing our jobs efficiently with I don't think much benefit."
I fully agree with the second part of this, that there's little
benefit for employees continually having to go through checkpoints to
do take care of routine business, but the same is true for their
customers, and both problems have the same solution: move the
courtroom security checkpoints back up to the second floor next to
the courtrooms!
However I'm offended by these staffers' wanting their customers to go
through security checks as an attitude adjuster to make them more
"respectful" to staff... who is the supposed "public servant"
here?!? Respect is important, but needs to cut both ways.
Moreover, any desire by staff to intimidate their customers into
being "more respectful" is irrelevant to the legal issue at
hand. RCW 9.41.300(1)(b) requires "The restricted areas do not
include common areas of ingress and egress to the building ... when
it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and
access to the building." Since "it is possible" to do so by
returning the checkpoint to the second floor near the courtrooms
where it was for decades, this is an open-and-shut case.
Among other things, I look forward to walking through the big
beautiful main courthouse doors again, instead of keeping them locked
down like in a police state. Please follow the letter of the law,
don't attempt to skirt the law or get distracted by
legally-irrelevant side issues, and restore the public's courthouse
to the public.
Yours truly and respectfully,
Stephen Schumacher
Port Townsend
er.com