Quote from The PDN article posted on 2/18/16: "Honestly, we discussed it, Kidd continued. We voted on it, and I'm ready to move on with other issues."---Cherie Kidd
Is it any wonder why Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd, is ready to move on to other topics? Now, facing a ethic complaint, for her mishandling a meeting that went of control, and ignoring the will of the majority of the residents to stop fluoridation. She now stands alone in not going along with the majority of council members in even forming an ad hoc committee to look into alternative solutions to the fluoride issue. After all she started her quest to rid Port Angeles of these aggressive panhandlers during the last election cycle. She has yet to bring up that topic during a council meeting. I knew from the start during the election that Kidd was probably going to vote to continue adding fluoride to the city water supply, just by her skirting around the topic whenever it came up during those debates they had. During the election cycle she seemed more willing to place the issue as a ballot measure, which should have been done. But, instead she suddenly changed her tune, and decided to go along with that unbinding citizen advisory opinion poll. Which was a made to order ploy to be ignored by the council.
Formation of Board of Ethics to Hear Complaint
Recently a complaint was filed against Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd alleging that she
had violated the City’s Code of Ethical Conduct. The Port Angeles Municipal Code directs that
Council assemble a three-member Board of Ethics to receive, investigate and make
recommendations for disposition of the complaint.
* both the board of ethics, and ad hoc committee was formed during the City's Feb. 16th meeting
Editorial Note: One point about that meeting that the other media outlets, and some folks are ignoring is what Councilman Whetham did during the first public comment session. He said during that meeting when a question came up for the mayor regarding protocol, Kidd was trying to answer the question since she was acting mayor, Whetham said: "I am asking the question to the "real" mayor." What a slap in the face wouldn't you say? Two wrongs don't make a right readers.
When a fellow council member shows disrespect like Whetham did during that little exchange, how can the council ever work for the overall good of the city? It's alright to disagree with fellow council members, but you sure don't disrespect the office they are holding, in this case the deputy mayor, was acting as mayor since the mayor was sick.
Listen during the last of the first public comment session on Public Eye:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKOKjLqhBsM
(time 33:56)
Proposed Ad Hoc Committee to Explore Fluoridation Alternatives
At its January 19th meeting, Council approved the formation of an ad hoc committee,
led by Council members Bruch and Collins, which would explore alternatives to community
water fluoridation. The Council members were asked to work with staff to bring back a proposed
structure for the ad hoc committee to be considered by the full Council
List of possible options:
Options
City staff selected five options to present for Council’s consideration. Staff believe these options
reflect the range of actions that might be taken. Each option includes estimated costs. Staff
chose not to include advantages and disadvantages because we realize this information is
subjective. For example, what one person might see as an advantage could be viewed by another
as a disadvantage.
1. Continue water fluoridation until June 30, 2026, as approved by Council on December 15.
Costs: Approximately $20,000 per year for the next 10 years. Does not include capital
replacement costs of associated infrastructure.
2. Continue municipal water fluoridation, but provide $100 offset per home towards the
purchase of a water filtration system.
Costs: If approximately 2,200 water customers were to take advantage of this one-time
offset, cost to the City would be approximately $220,000, most likely incurred in a one to
two year period. The significant, unbudgeted cost to the City would likely increase water
utility rates for multiple years. This cost does not factor in new water utility customers who
may wish to take advantage of the offset in future years.
3. Discontinue fluoridation of the municipal water supply after May 18, 2016.
Costs: None. Savings go to the water utility.
4. Arrange for an official advisory vote of registered voters during the next General Election.
Costs: Based on information provided by the County, costs to add an advisory vote to the
General Election ballot is estimated to be between $4,000 and $8,000. Costs vary depending
on the total number of offices and measures on the ballot.
5. Stop fluoridation of the municipal water supply after May 18, 2016, and replace it with an
Oral Health Care Initiative. The City, in cooperation with other local agencies, would join to
create an initiative that would target the underserved populations of Port Angeles,
particularly children and adolescents.
Costs: Up to $40,000 per year for the next 10 years. This option could direct the estimated
$20,000/year that the City spends on fluoridation, plus a matching $20,000 to fund the Oral
Health Care Initiative. The second $20,000 could be used in the form of matching grants
from the City as an incentive to leverage community-driven solutions and resources for this
community problem. The City’s contribution would have to be provided by the General
Fund. The Water Utility would see an expenditure reduction of $20,000, or a potential rate
reduction of approximately 0.4%.
* These were options that was listed in the council's Jan. 19th agenda packet:
Editorial Note: Some say this is a delay tactic they maybe correct in that assessment. I feel it's good gesture on the part of the council, who seems to want their fluoride cake, and eat it too. Some say let's fine some compromise in this decision that the council made in that 4-3 vote back in December. If the committee comes up with an alternative that works, all fine and good, but will that quiet the wrath of area residents who voted against the practice of adding fluoride to the water system? I think the council at this point is seeking to get out of the frying pan they find themselves in, if they did the right thing in the first place and listen to the people's wishes in this regard I dare say they wouldn't be in the fix they find themselves in now. Except for some irate dentist who are in the minority this time around. Kidd does have a point however, they already discussed this and made a vote. Yes, there was a vote Cherie, the people of this city voted against fluoride, you decided to ignore it. It's ironic now that her three comrades in voting to continue adding fluoride back in December, voted for the formation of the ad hoc committee, leaving Kidd holding the bag on this one.
Related Stories:
In other local news...
NEWS FROM ACROSS THE STRAIT
WHAT'S ON TAP FOR NEXT WEEK:
PORT COMMISSION AGENDA HIGHLIGHT ITEM:
Special Meeting - February 26, 2016 At 4 PM To Evaluate Qualifications Of Dist. 2 Commissioner Candidates And Make A Decision On Which Candidates To Interview.
Editor's Note: They didn't release the names of the two candidates wanting to fill Hallet's posting, I have to ask, why the hush, hush? What happened to transparency?
CORRECTION: Some how I confused the dist 2 number "2" as actual applicants, sorry about that readers, my mistake. However, it goes to show someone been reading my postings see the letter I got from Port Commissioner McAleer. Anyway, I still say if they do get actual applicants for the position of port district 2 posting, then I still feel that names should be released to the public. The Port is a public agency, therefore nothing is private unless its a national security issue. And this isn't that. I am sorry for the mess up on confusing the "2" as being actual applicants, I try my best in being accurate, sometimes things slip by me.
CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA HIGHLIGHT ITEM:
Agreement with the Clallam County Economic Development Council
DAILY DEVOTIONAL
He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends.
Proverbs 17:9 NKJV
