HomeMy WebLinkAbout120423 email 12_4_23 poolALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Kate,
Thank you for your reply this morning. I appreciate your perspective and feedback about the process.
I am happy to hear that you raised the issue of public outreach with the aquatic center steering committee. I would encourage you to reinforce your stance with a firm no tolerance policy.
You are in a unique position of being the only elected official on that committee, you are the only potential voice of the citizens on that committee, and you should be dominating that
entire conversation from your position of connectedness to the community. Nobody else on that committee could possibly wield the influence or power that you possess. Your role is to
speak for the entire county and you should make no apologies for it. If you cannot exert your authority on a committee of stakeholders selected by an un-elected city admin who has little
interest in the public opinion or community outreach, then this proposal is already dead. The only chance this aquatic center has at coming to fruition is if the voters' voices are
considered and baked into the proposal.
The simple fact that the steering committee was in a rush to prompt BoCC to create a PFD to achieve an April special election ballot measure without consideration of multiple location
options, a full financial comprehension or a robust public outreach campaign is a perfect example of their unfitness for being considered representatives of the public opinion. This,
to my mind, is the very definition of a "special interest group".
I encourage you to schedule a robust county-sanctioned public outreach campaign to hear the voices and receive feedback about the proposal and various options. Having many eyes to scrutinize
the proposal can only make it better for more people and that is precisely what we should be aiming for. Refusal to welcome the feedback will only further the accusations of a secretive
process which is yet another example of Port Townsend leading the rest of the county around by a hog ring in our noses. We have all seen the actions of the judges in the multitude of
Trump trials. Their approach has generally been to allow him as much leniency as possible in an effort to avoid appeal and criticism which suggests that he is being treated unfairly.
If the steering committee assumes a strategy of transparency and inclusivity, the outcome will be more likely to be approved by the voters.
I would like to push back at the notion that the public portion of the process is underway currently. The public outreach taking place now is not being hosted by the county officials,
it is being hosted by private citizens. The format, as you have experienced, is not exactly what I would call a forum. In my experience, where there is a void of information coming
from a position of authority, the vacuum can be filled with misinformation. These private citizens deserve a lot of credit for informing themselves on the issue and being willing to
share that info with residents of the county. I think it is always more productive to get out ahead of the potential misinformation and much easier than cleaning up the mess once the
misinformation spreads. I hope the county will take the lead on this dialog and interaction.
Jean