Susan, I too attended the forum and agree that all 6 candidates are smart and concerned people who will do what is “their best” in reference to our County if elected. I respectfully disagree that all gave good answers and showed impressive knowledge of different aspects of the issues.
I too am concerned and saddened concerning the dialogue in this election. Therefore I must take issue with your comments on feelings, intolerance and civility. Any candidates past and current beliefs will affect how they will govern and it is our responsibility as citizens and voters to question those beliefs. Those queries are not “over-the-top feelings” or “all-or-nothing intolerance”, but the questions of concerned citizens seeking truth and information in a civil dialogue.
For example, in response to presenting facts concerning Lisa Byers stated beliefs past and current, I and others have been referred to as “smear-tactic”, “Joe McCarthy Era”, “inaccurate and inflammatory” and “mud-slinging and innuendo.” The last 2 come from Byers herself. Jamie Stevens considers questioning facts about the CAO as “fear mongering.” At the forum last Saturday both Pratt and Stevens outwardly attacked those who publicly question their beliefs or openly support other candidates. Pratt believes the First Amendment only applies to her and her supporters. While all 3 of these candidates have attacked others in an uncivil way, I find no record where Rick Hughes, Brian McClerren or Bob Jarman has done so. In ORCAS ISSUES February 27, 2013 at 9:50 am. “Susan McBain says: “Socialism” means so many things that it means nothing, other than a scare word. (I’ll ignore the use of “communism,” which smacks to me of McCarthyism.).” I’ll get you a dictionary. The rest of your comment does not addressed facts and questions raised but divert the conversation.
I too am looking for civility in the questions, answers and responses. If you believe “civility” means suppressing thoughtful dialogue concerning all of any candidate’s beliefs, past and present, and how they might apply those beliefs in governing our County, then I must challenge your understanding of civil dialogue.
Civilly and respectfully

For people unable to attend tomorrow evening this illustrates a fundamental flaw with all of us voting county-wide on candidates. Does anyone actually believe we have come to better know the candidates that are not from our own island through this county-wide election process? I am being asked to choose at least two candidates that I only can know, hear from and compare with the others in 2-3 public meetings? This is not a system of electing people that makes any sense to me…especially since with the former districts we KNEW, the people who ran for office and how they IN REALITY served our community and the County.

Thank you for your responsiveness but my real issue was the lack of meaningful opportunities to see all candidates together and compare answers on issues in a variety of ways. All candidates have busy lives. We all live on separate islands in ways that don’t allow for easy movement and thus natural barriers are limiting County-wide consideration. Running and being elected from Districts assured all of us a meaningful chance to meet and work along side the person(s) we elect. We have lost that gift. But again, thanks for your offer.

Angie, whether we vote by district or by counting for our elected officials there will always be “us” and “them.” The “us” will always be the candidate and like voters whose views we support. The “them” will always be the candidate and like voters whose views we do not support. Unfortunately, as time marches on and the world becomes more complex the division between “us” and “them” will probably become even greater. Angie this is why they have horse races, differences of opinion. The difficulty lies in all parties keeping the discussion civil and above all truthful. Unfortunately it seems that emotion, the drive to succeed and/or control and suppress a differing point of view cause some go off the deep end. There’s for truth, justice and the American way in all our deliberations. Good luck.

Having watched the toll on candidates trying to go from island to island while holding down Council positions or full-time jobs, I agree with Martha that it seems to make more sense to choose among candidates who live here and whom we get to know organically. The forums just don’t allow the kind of give-and-take about issues necessary for vetting candidates, despite valiant efforts to make them work. I’m hopeful that tomorrow’s forum will provide direct answers to important questions. Thanks to LWV and Eagle Forum for the good work they do.

A couple of years ago I had a question about one of the proposed CAO regulations — something that meant a lot to me at the time.I wrote to all of the Council members. The one who read my letter, answered it, and made sure that my issue was addressed was Bob Myhr from Lopez — not the member from my district. I like the idea that if he were running now, I could vote for him. I like the idea that I am not restricted to voting only for the candidate from my island.

It’s odd that one of the most “vitriolic” pieces that Orcas Issues has published in my recollection (and I realize that this writer is only a “guest”) begins by accusing others of vitriol. It’s odd that it rants about “lies stated as facts” and “personal attacks” while putting forth clear misstatements as facts, and making personal attacks on people many of us know, like Charles Dalton and Nick Jones. (The most obvious example of misstatement is the assertion that, in the case of Helen King’s 2 bedroom B&B, “the other residents on the private road vehemently opposed” her request for extension; in fact, the other residents, with one exception, supported Mrs. King; and, of course, The Friends of the San Juans opposed it.)

Happily, most Orcas islanders know at least some of the people abused by Ms. Kivisto in this piece, are privy to the facts, and can make up their own minds without Ms. Kivisto’s peculiar slant to “reporting.” What she says here, and on her own, for-profit, blog about the land use issues of Charles Dalton, the Speeds, Nick Jones, and Helen King is seriously twisted. (I suspect that she also got the Craftsmen Corner controversy wrong, but haven’t taken the time to go back and look. (The Department of Community Planning and Development can do no wrong, and it’s open season on anyone who suggests anything to the contrary.) If anyone would like specifics, please call me and I will tell you how to find the official records. Or talk to these people, who Sharon apparently believes have been abusing the County.

As for the not-for-profit Trojan Heron, http://www.trojanheron.blogspot.com, Sharon conflates what I think is a well-researched, well-documented, and well-written blog, with some of its crazier comment posters. The Trojan Heron arose as a result of the failure of many traditional media outlets to report on a number of major county government issues. It has continued to rile those who would prefer to conduct county government business behind closed doors or in the company of their friends rather than in the daylight.

Responsible reporting, especially about “libel,” would be to identify the specific “lies” that Ms. Kivisto claims exist on the Trojan Heron, and to counter them with facts, proof, evidence, documents. Notably, to my knowledge, she has not identified a single factual error in Trojan Heron’s writing. She claims to oppose only anonymous posters; yet Trojan Heron accommodates both anonymous and identified posters. Sharon’s blog fails to allow online comment from any poster, even those with verified ID, and I have heard from more than one person whose response she declines to publish–like Nick Jones–thereby allowing her point of view to blanket the airwaves unchallenged.

(For those interested in the debate about blog comments, small communities, and anonymity, our fellow islanders over on Lopez are having an interesting debate in the context of that island’s pending school bond vote. LopezRocks.org and LopezSpeaksOut.com.)

In my opinion, Sharon’s work does not comport with standards of professional journalism. She has a clear agenda, and anything that gets in the way of that agenda is steamrollered–giving a whole new meaning to the term “bully pulpit.” She published two stories about the recent criminal charges in a land use case without even trying to contact the principals, much less asking whether criminal charges were an efficient approach to the case or whether they might be in any way considered retaliatory.

If I have to choose, I would prefer my information in the form of documented facts with “vitriol,” as opposed to slanted reporting masquerading as objective journalism. I prefer to make up my own mind.

Finally, I’m not sure what Sharon seeks to accomplish by invoking the name of the heroic Afghani, Malala Yousafzai, here. If she sees parallels between Ms. Yousafzai and herself, she’s a bit off in the deep end, much like the local environmental activist who compared herself to Rosa Parks. As for the Founding Fathers and anonymous political commenters, there were a few of note both during the Revolution and during the development of our Constitution–Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton come to mind. Wikipedia (closest at hand this morning) says that their authorship of the articles at the time of publication was a closely guarded secret.

P.S. I enjoy Wikipedia. Volunteers spend lots of time and effort to write up a subject, then the product is scrutinized, reviewed, and criticized and revised based on explicit rules and open debate. The product is still developing, but it is an open process.

Thanks Peg Manning for bringing facts into the mix of innuendo and curmungeony.

I believe that Sharon Kivisto’s piece and my response can be read together without finding slander of reputation, and that my reply has little to do with denying someone a chance to “see” things differently. We are discussing her a very badly written report, one that is subject to objective analysis; mistakes and misrepresentations can be identified. and her story is full of what seem to be intentional misstatements of purported facts that result in damage to the targets of her tirades.

Read carefully what I say about her statements vs. what appears upon review to be the truth. If you then disagree, or somehow think we each have the right to think our facts are correct, well, so be it. This is not open to interpretation.
There are facts claimed and facts proven wrong. You decide. But don’t confuse truthful statements of fact with “slandering”. Also, it’s not slander if it’s true.

Sharon chose to dredge up older stories about friends and acquaintances of mine. I have followed the facts and will not allow her misstatement of those relevant facts to stand unchallenged.

GREAT!! A very sensible and well-considered position.

Congratulations!!!!! I applaud your leadership in this area. Too many of your peers have denigrated themselves into the muck. Democracy was founded on the principle of honest public debate of the issues and perspectives. Unfortunately, I have already disengaged in disgust. I hope you can change my mind.

Margie–I think you’ve set yourself an impossible task. First, determining what is “factually true” before publication could be very time-consuming, as any lawyer will tell you, and the decision itself often open to debate. I for one am surely guilty of “repeat-commenting,” but find that the back-and-forth in comments tends to clarify issues and correct facts organically in the process, and will miss that feature of your blog, which seems to attract more participants than most of the media for that reason alone.

I’m not sure what a “tone of a personal vendetta and inconsiderate domination” means, frankly. The only “personal” pieces I’ve seen have been related to candidates, who have put themselves in the public arena for evaluation. None has any elements of “vendetta” and none has gone off into “you’re stupid” or “you’re ugly” or “you’re un-American” silliness. On the other hand, questions about political and economic philosophy are at the heart of political campaigns.

As for politeness and “consideration,” I’m not sure that you’ll find many who agree what speech satisfies those standards, particularly in heated political campaigns.

At the same time, I notice that when certain political sacred cows are challenged, we often hear demands for “civility” rather than straight answers addressing the actual issues. I do not agree that pointing out problems or inconsistencies or even downright hypocrisy is “uncivil.”

With our traditional media focusing on everything BUT important County issues, such as the budget and the elections, it would be sad to see Orcas Issues limited to coverage of cookie sales and blood drives (which is not to say that that community news isn’t important).

Margie: I do believe there is a way to responsibly handle inappropriate letters and applaud you for being proactive. I might suggest also that for those letters that include gross inaccuracies or misstate the truth, you could print a note from the editor correcting the “fact,” rather than deleting it. I think your readers would appreciate knowing where the facts have been twisted to support one side or the other. This will create an extra burden for you, but the result would cause us all to be more careful about the statements we make in print.

And so that you don’t get accused of slanting your site with your own personal political positions (a danger for all of our local email news sites), perhaps you could put together a small but diverse and respected editorial board to fact-check and otherwise make decisions about submitted content. When it comes to local politics, I think San Juan County, and especially those of us who vote, would benefit from such due diligence.

Thank you for creating this site and helping us to communicate with each other regardless of where we live.

Margi,
I agree with Peg Manning that more dialogue not less the answer. Often “one-liners” and very short vague posts are left here. Usually they contribute nothing to further the dialogue and more often than not nearly attack a person rather than the issue. Frequently, especially in political campaigns, statements supporting a particular candidate are injected into the string of comments which have nothing to do with the theme of the original post.
Recently attempts were made by several individuals to further a very specific dialogue originated by a candidate. Neither the candidate nor candidate’s supporters stayed on topic. Therefore, each time one of them injected a new line of thought into the debate new issues had to be discussed are refuted. This is dialogue.
It does not seem to make sense that when a person, either posting an original letter or in their response to another’s post, be restricted in not being able to defend, clarify or correct comments being presented by another. Where is the sense in a policy that states that once you have made your comment you cannot respond to comments made by others that very well may not be accurate or even true? I’m not sure why anyone would post something with the knowledge that they could get politely or not “hammered” by someone for their comment and not be able to respond.
If by this policy it is meant that we are not going to present all of the facts on all of the issues and the candidates and those only nice positive things about a candidate may be introduced or posted, then this will be no more than a popularity contest.
All candidates should be challenged on all of their positions, backgrounds and track records to be included.

Bravo on the high road – and I second the great suggestion by Ms. Strehlou – leave the false statement – but insert a researched, informed editor’s correction if need be. This will not only expose those untruths that are getting published all over the media – so easy to do on a blog or personal website – and be very informative – not only with the true fact – but perhaps in revealing some evident patterns of people posting misinformation! A back and forth between two sides is not productive – it is equivalent to “pissing in the wind” – which most sober people choose not to do.
Marta Nielson

Thank you, Tom, for your thoughtful response to this offensive approach to local politics. We ARE neighbors and neighborly conduct is expected and admired. Anonymous and vicious personal attack have no place in our community.

My Facebook page was full of “Orcas Loves Lovel” paid ads. Please help with those.

Peg – I’ve also seen that Facebook ad, just as I see the six different candidate ads on this very page. I don’t object to any of those ads – they aren’t negative and each links directly to a page that allows me to see who is behind the ad and I know how to look up the contributors who paid for them.

The ad I cited above was negative, offensive (at least to some, including Facebook’s staff), and anonymous both in its authorship and financing.

Thanks for writing your letter. The level of discourse on the islands reminds me of “mean girls.” The fact is we can’t really know what someone will be like if elected until he/she is elected.

Priceless! All true. Collect more from the populace and print up a “You Know Your’re from Orcas, 2013″ booklet. with small sketches here and there.
Add: -You drive from fog to snow to rain to hail to sun in the first 20 minutes.
You have the muddiest car when getting gas at Costco.
You can tell it’s a tourist or visitor when you see a white Lincoln Towncar cruise by.
You have three different weight bathrobes hanging in your closet within easy reach.
You leave the Christmas lights up all year, lighting when appropriate.
You discuss serious issues such as “Recycle”, “Protecting Indian Island Biodiversity” “When is Martin Lund performing next?”"Did you see the full moon?”

Your dog knows all the businesses that have treats, and which ones they can go inside to get them.

You return your shopping cart to inside the Island Market.

Your insurance rep, from Bellingham, takes the redeye ferry to meet with you at the Orcas Hotel…at 6:30 am.

Orcas people are wonderful!
Entering the Historical Museum you are suddenly overwhelmed by the wonderful layout and displays the volunteer workers have achieved.
On St. Patricks Day when Tony Lee sings his great Irish songs.
When the Deputy Sheriff politely says, “Harry, please tell your kids to slow down.”
When the teller at the bank drive-in window always says, “Every time you come by you have a different pretty woman driving you!”
As I enter, Jules, without saying a word, immediately starts prepping a Double Man, straight-up, two cherries.
Viewing Craig Nelson’s SNJ warbird, painted like my WWII F6F Grumman Hellcat fighter,in a beautiful dark Navy blue.
When entering the Family Clinic examining room the doctor’s dog, Paco, follows me in, lays down, and makes sure the nurse doesn’t stab me with the big needle.
And, of course, Graham Wallis constantly haranging, “I delivered your oil ten years ago and you haven’t paid! When do I get my money?!!”
Orcas people are wonderful! I love ‘em!

If you drive Dolphin Bay Road everyday, people start calling your car the Cha Cha Chai car and when do we harvest!

“basically under-tested and dangerous technology”

If it is under-tested, how do you know it is dangerous?

I am not saying that is safe or dangerous, and I certainly want to know if food that I purchase has been genetically modified. What I am trying to point out is that people need to be methodical and logical in addressing these issues. Sensational statements are more likely to be ignored by the people you wish to convince. After all, an unfounded statement that something is dangerous is as misleading as an unfounded statement that something is perfectly safe for you.

One aspect of this GMO salmon that I haven’t seen discussed is what I see as an end run around current regulations on farmed salmon. Pen net operations are limited to the densities of fish raised in pens in open water. Fecal matter tends to build up under open pens and become a source of pathogens. The practice of over populating pens in Norway lead to the destruction of entire river systems. This is what motivated the pen net operators to migrate away from Norway in the first place.

Enter the GMO salmon, a fish that grows twice as fast will produce twice as much fecal matter. Yet, so far as I know, the rules that limit numbers of fish as a measure of density in pen nets have not been part of the discussion regarding the new GMO salmon. If these fish are allowed to be raised in open pen nets under the present rules, it is a safe bet that we will see increased problems with wild stocks suffering from deadly diseases like spinner’s disease, which once established in a wild stocks can only be eradicated by poisoning the water shed and every living thing in it.

The idea that the GMO fish will only be raised in closed system farms is far fetched given the costs of such a system when compared with open pen net farms.

Margie

An Orcas reader sent me your editorial about the Holy Dark. I’m honored that you published this essay. If you check my website there are some other pieces that built out from this line of thinking. Such as, “Denying the Holy Dark: The Enlightenment and the European Mystical Tradition”

john st sj