Local News
New Oath of office proposed for Clatsop County Commissioners
At the April 23rd board meeting Commissioner Sam Patrick requested a change to the Oath of Office taken by County Commissioners, saying he would like to add “and Clatsop County” after “laws of Oregon State”. Patrick said he would like to add those words as Clatsop County has some ordinances and laws that are different from the State of Oregon. Counsel Henningsgaard suggested counsel review the change believing the oath of office to be a statutory requirement. County counsel must look at such requests to see if there are inconsistencies. For instance, Clatsop County does not have laws that are “different” than the State of Oregon, it does have laws in addition to the State of Oregon. An elected official cannot take an oath that would have them swearing to uphold the laws of the state and the county if the laws of the county were “different” (contradictory) than the state’s.
The current oath reads:
I ___________________ swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon and that I will faithfully and honorably conduct myself in the office of Clatsop County Commissioner for District _________ to which I have been appointed to the best of my ability so help me God.
County counsel proposed that the oath could be amended to provide:
I ___________________ swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, that I will support the Charter and ordinances of Clatsop County and that I will faithfully and honorably conduct myself in the office of Clatsop County Commissioner for District _________ to which I have been appointed to the best of my ability so help me God.
In a letter to the Board, counsel goes on to state, “The Oregon Constitution requires that elected or appointed officials ‘take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and also an oath of office‘ (emphasis made by counsel). Article XV, Section 3.” Counsel goes on to state further, “It is possible that in the future a Commissioner may prefer to affirm rather than swear to his oath of office.”
The Board discussed the proposal with Commissioners Hazen and Roberts expressing concerns about the reasoning behind needing it. Roberts asked County counsel if there would be a conflict if a Commissioner were to voice an opposition to a county ordinance that they felt was bad. Counsel replied, that it would be the same as voicing a concern of a state law that a Commissioner was hoping to see changed and would not present a conflict. Counsel stated that the Commissioners were already bound to follow county law because state law states that they must follow county laws, the addition would emphasize it. Commissioner Samuelson said she didn’t see a need for it since, essentially, they were already promising to follow the county laws by promising to follow state laws. The Board voted 3-1, with Samuelson voting nay, to adopt the new oath.
Ironically, Patrick, at the previous BOCC meeting, made a recommendation that would disregard Clatsop County’s Charter with its clear instructions on how vacancies on the board are to be filled, by proposing that the Clatsop County Board revise the way the county replaces commissioners. The Charter states, “The Board shall appoint a person qualified to be elected under Section 1 to fill the unexpired term of the vacated position within 45 days of the Board’s declaration of a vacancy.” It does not provide for the Board to do otherwise. In Chapter VI. Section 3 the Charter states that it is the voters who may amend the Charter. The Board cannot revise how vacancies on the board are to be filled.
Another bone of contention that has come up repeatedly in the past year with Commissioner Patrick has been his reluctance to vote on issues, remaining silent and forcing the Chair to resort to a formal roll call before stating a “yea” or “nay” to the proposal before the Board. Yet, the Charter states: (F) No commissioner present at a Board meeting shall abstain from voting without first disclosing the reason for the abstention (Chap 3, sect 5, emphasis added).
Commissioner Patrick stated that the reason that he felt the additional words were needed was so that each of them would remember their obligations.
In other county news:
During business with the public the Board heard from John Wallape who protested the county adopting a “media policy”. Wallape felt that the restrictive way the policy could be written would invite court challenges as well as leave County with only one voice, the Daily Astorian, representing it.
Jean Dominey wanted (and received) clarification that the Board would continue to take input as from the community regarding recommendations to fill the vacated District Three seat. See related story.
Sheriff Bergin gave a brief synopsis of the Deadly Force Plan mandated by Oregon state law. Chair Roberts pointed out that Clatsop County was in compliance with the law before it became mandated. The Deadly Force Protocol Task Force met on March 24, 2008 and after taking comments from a group of citizens that included police officers, mental health professionals, and an advocate for the mentally ill, wrote the protocols and presented them to each city council and the county commission at which time they were adopted.
Administrators Notes
Ed Wegner (Parks), Steve Meshke Parks Foreman, Barry Simms (contractor, forester for salvage) talked about some of the salvage sales and properties identified for possible upcoming sales which may have to be postponed because of possible nesting eagles.
Nicole Williams, assistant county manager, discussed the arrangement made with Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the grant of access for the North Coast Business Park. The “Alternate B” road access was decided on which eliminated the need to close Dolphin Road, which had been a concern for many of the businesses located on that road.
Commissioner’s Reports
Hazen reported hearing from Henry Balensifer with Oregon 150. Balensifer is a Warrenton High School graduate who is currently attending George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. He is the founder and public representative of WarHF, Inc., a non-profit corporation dedicated to promoting fisheries restoration and education in the Northwest. Balensifer told Hazen that there were grants available totaling $50,000 for outdoor educational/recreational programs that tied into Oregon’s Sesquicentennial. Hazen passed the information along to the County’s Recreational Lands Advisory Committee.
Patrick reported on the FERC meeting regarding the new FEMA flood maps and appeal process. Patrick also asked for a work session with representatives from all of the water districts as well as local and state representatives to talk about help for smaller water districts. Patrick and County Manager Derickson will work on an agenda and who to invite to the work session.
Samuelson reported on a meeting that Roberts and Samuelson attended with Pat Burness regarding the status of non-profits in the area. A work session with all of the non-profits and the Commissioners may help bring awareness to how a better job can be done with what we have, collaborating and not duplicating work, possibly not going for the same grants, so forth. Samuelson briefly discussed the frustration that many non-profits feel in struggling for the same grant monies against other local non-profits.
Samuelson also gave an “Atta-boy” to Bruce Connors hard work with the cruise ships that are once again making their stops at the Astoria port, spending dollars in Astoria and in south county.
Roberts reported that she presented an award to Oregon Community Foundations for their help in dispersing monies collected during the December Storm.
Local Media
Police Blotter
Articles Elsewhere
Recent Comments
Absolutely NOT, Balkins.
CONDITIONAL USE …
By marge from the article What is the Biggest Issue Facing Clatsop County at this time?.I think all roads should be outlawed. …
By carmel from the article LNG Referendum 4-131 Campaign - Fraudulent or Fact?.If this referendum has no impact on …
By Native Califegon from the article LNG Referendum 4-131 Campaign - Fraudulent or Fact?.Isn’t it so that every jewel has …
By carmel from the article Clatsop County Manager Scott Derickson Headed To Woodburn.I am sorry to see Scott leave, …
By moderately normal from the article Clatsop County Manager Scott Derickson Headed To Woodburn.In fact, in Section 3.588, They should …
By Rick Balkins from the article What is the Biggest Issue Facing Clatsop County at this time?.Conditional uses are NEVER outright. Review City …
By Rick Balkins from the article What is the Biggest Issue Facing Clatsop County at this time?.True but usually policies of conditional uses …
By Rick Balkins from the article What is the Biggest Issue Facing Clatsop County at this time?.
30 Comments
On May 14, 4:57 PM, Beach Boy wrote:
Sam Patrick is an idiot. To see him perform at the county commission meetings is FARCE. He is a commissioner without a commission.
He needs to GO!!
On May 14, 5:30 PM, Lawrence wrote:
Sam Patrick needs to visit the new hospital pavilion in Astoria and see is they have a bed
or could they give him a referral.
Jean Dominey’s soap box is splintering.
Isn’t’ this just wonderful.
On May 14, 9:00 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
The next key issue needs discussion is who will be the next recall candidate should cronyism prevail in Lee’s replacement choice.
On May 14, 9:50 PM, I hear foghorns wrote:
Just when one thinks you can’t crawl any lower.
The next key issue that needs discussed is what to do about all of the blackmail that continues to occur in this county.
After that the issue is frankly discussing the ones needing recalled. District Attorney Marquis for using his office for his own gain while lying and colluding to cause mayhem in the county. Sheriff Bergin for keeping files on people that are not being investigated, for sharing confidential information, for lying about information supposedly told to him and for failing to keep to the standards of the office he holds.
On May 15, 12:24 AM, oracle of moosmoos wrote:
If there were any lingering doubts regarding the abundance of Sam Patrick’s native intelligence, they can now be put to a permanent rest.
The man is an absolute embarassment to this county.
On May 18, 7:07 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“If there were any lingering doubts regarding the abundance of Sam Patrick’s native intelligence, they can now be put to a permanent rest.
The man is an absolute embarassment to this county.”
Or is he a quiet genius who duped his maverick, inept colleagues into a commitment holding all more accountable to the citizens whom they serve?
On May 19, 5:54 AM, guest wrote:
No Pat, he’s a total idiot. Spend any time with him and you’ll wonder if he had portions of his brain removed.
On May 19, 6:51 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“No Pat, he’s a total idiot. Spend any time with him and you’ll wonder if he had portions of his brain removed.”
Actually, I’ve spent enough time with Sam to know that your assumption is totally rubbish and your intent, under anonymity and cowardice to avoid accountability, to lay this hooey on him confirms the fact that you don’t know Patrick at all.
Sam knew exactly what he was doing on that wording.
On May 19, 7:19 AM, NBA wrote:
Why should commissioners have to obey county laws?
They clearly don’t need to be held to that standard, and anyone who says they should must have a hidden agenda.
It’s obviously another tricky way for the FOGers to get their way
On May 19, 7:40 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“Why should commissioners have to obey county laws?
They clearly don’t need to be held to that standard, and anyone who says they should must have a hidden agenda.
It’s obviously another tricky way for the FOGers to get their way”
Richard Lee could probably give you a pretty good answer on that these days.
On May 19, 7:56 AM, Jon Dana wrote:
And who is going to enforce this new oath. The DA or The daily astorian. Of course no law has to be broken for these 2 entity’s to go after you. Using your name has nothing to do with accountability, P. McGee is living proof of that. No disrespect of course.
On May 19, 8:12 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“And who is going to enforce this new oath. The DA or The daily astorian. Of course no law has to be broken for these 2 entity’s to go after you. Using your name has nothing to do with accountability, P. McGee is living proof of that. No disrespect of course.”
Accountability has everything to do with it “Bartoldus”.
On May 19, 10:32 AM, Carrie wrote:
I have just spent the weekend at the VA hospital after racing my father up there, undergoing another round of tests for heart conditions, and I come back to this. I am tired of this crap Patrick. You have been told repeatedly that Jon Dana is a real person, it is his real name, and it is not me.
You are not the monitor of this site, judging who is or is not “real”. You tell lies when you continue to perpetuate information that you know, or should reasonably know, is not true.
Hold yourself to your own standards and be accountable.
On May 19, 10:56 AM, Name (required) wrote:
Please, could the site administrator impose a one month ban on posts from McGee? His sole purpose for posting is to stalk and attack Ms. Bartoldus with his lunatic and false accusatory ramblings. If after a month’s “vacation” he can come back with some civility and manners let him stay, but if he continues his current course ban him for good because he’s obviously a nutburger.
all in favor say “Aye”
On May 19, 11:08 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“I have just spent the weekend at the VA hospital after racing my father up there, undergoing another round of tests for heart conditions, and I come back to this. I am tired of this crap Patrick. You have been told repeatedly that Jon Dana is a real person, it is his real name, and it is not me.
You are not the monitor of this site, judging who is or is not “real”. You tell lies when you continue to perpetuate information that you know, or should reasonably know, is not true.
Hold yourself to your own standards and be accountable.”
So, who is Jon Dana Bartoldus, since you seem to know he is a real person other than you.
Maybe he will come to your defense and give us some background to confirm who he is.
Hope you dad’s tests turn out to be to his benefit.
On May 19, 12:46 PM, guest wrote:
Mcgee, your just to nosey wanting background information to confirm who Dana is. Quit harrassing Carrie to find out.
How about some answers from you? Lets start with your overly fondness for Josh Marquis? Several years ago you hated Josh Marquis!
Has he helped you or your family out of a jam? What has changed your mind 180 decrees about Marquis. Has he done some real good things the public is not aware of? Care to share?
Why do you butt in when the public makes a not so good observation about Josh Marquis, why do you feel you have to protect him and what the public says about him?
I heard you used to get real mad when people didn’t agree with your hate of Josh Marquis. Now you get sooooooooo protective, what gives with you?
Were you jealous of Marquis like you are with Carrie, or do you just hate & harass people to cause problems?
Carrie is a excellent writer, you are alone out there trying to bash her.
Did you harass Marquis when you hated him? I heard you had a blog full of hate about him. Care to share.
On May 19, 1:42 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“On May 19, 11:46 AM, guest wrote:
Mcgee, your just to nosey wanting background information to confirm who Dana is. Quit harrassing Carrie to find out.
How about some answers from you? Lets start with your overly fondness for Josh Marquis? Several years ago you hated Josh Marquis!
Has he helped you or your family out of a jam? What has changed your mind 180 decrees about Marquis. Has he done some real good things the public is not aware of? Care to share?
Why do you butt in when the public makes a not so good observation about Josh Marquis, why do you feel you have to protect him and what the public says about him?
I heard you used to get real mad when people didn’t agree with your hate of Josh Marquis. Now you get sooooooooo protective, what gives with you?
Were you jealous of Marquis like you are with Carrie, or do you just hate & harass people to cause problems?
Carrie is a excellent writer, you are alone out there trying to bash her.
Did you harass Marquis when you hated him? I heard you had a blog full of hate about him. Care to share.”
OK, whatever Bartoldus but, we got a new, sound oath of commitment of obligation to the citizens of Clatsop County by current and future Commission electeds and much more readily enforceable upon violation.
On May 19, 4:25 PM, guest wrote:
You failed to answer the questions Mcgee. Are you finding it impossible to find anything good to say about your friend Marquis? Or are you just pretending to like him now? Thanks for the compliment, I wish I could write as good as Carrie. You know good and well it’s not Carrie’s writing, your trying to expose anon writers by bullying Carrie. I must agree with most people you are a liar.
I’m lmao you are obsessed with anon posts, It is one of your biggest complaints. I hope you are kept awake at night wondering.
On May 19, 4:59 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Patrick McGee,
SHUT UP !!!! Now, listen here. You are embarassing building designers including myself by this behavior that is damaging the reputation and professionalism expected of building designers by this kind of behavior. This id not about whether or not you can speak your opinions. That is Constitutional. It is about how you present yourself.
You are suppose to be a building designer which is a design professional. You need to uphold yourself better then this. If this is how you treat others then one wonders how you treat your clients who asks for design services on homes and such. If this is the behavior you treat your clients, you are a danger to the profession of building design.
In short, get your act in order. This obsession of Carrie Bartoldus is annoying and is harassment to her and also claiming Jon Dana is Carrie Bartoldus is also harassment of Jon Dana. Get a grip with reality on the matter. You been requested to stop this kind of behavior.
Who cares about Carrie Bartoldus or Jon Dana. Just because you don’t agree with her or Jon or anyone - does not mean harassment is going to be tolerated.
Rick Balkins
Building Designer
PS: I am neither of these two folks and ALOT of people know who I am and they can tell you that I am not Carrie Bartoldus or Jon Dana. So don’t even start with me on this. You are embarassing all building designers in this community by bahaving this way in a public forum. So, even if it is just for respect of the profession of building design, please stop this behavior and conduct yourself in a manner that reflects positively of the profession of building design. Start by speaking with care, reason, respect and empathy.
On May 19, 5:11 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On May 19, 3:25 PM, guest wrote:
You failed to answer the questions Mcgee. Are you finding it impossible to find anything good to say about your friend Marquis? Or are you just pretending to like him now? Thanks for the compliment, I wish I could write as good as Carrie. You know good and well it’s not Carrie’s writing, your trying to expose anon writers by bullying Carrie. I must agree with most people you are a liar.
I’m lmao you are obsessed with anon posts, It is one of your biggest complaints. I hope you are kept awake at night wondering.”
Riiiiiiight Bartoldus.
Don’t become obsessed now,your mental instability is beginning to show.
Marquis?
My relationship with Marquis is and has always been,,,"Is Marquis doing the job he was elected to do?”
My answer is,,,"I believe he is” and I believe the majority of the voters in Clatsop County feel the same way.
Why don’t you move forward with your “Recall Threat”?
you will not of course because you have absolutely no veriable data that would come close to even building a case to move it forward and then, of course, all the petitioners wouldn’t have the benefit of anonymity to slink around behind to present it. Somebody would have to use a real name wouldn’t they?
I think we all know where the hatred for Marquis really comes from and a few know why don’t they Bartoldus.
On May 19, 5:22 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“Patrick McGee,
SHUT UP !!!! Now, listen here. You are embarassing building designers including myself by this behavior that is damaging the reputation and professionalism expected of building designers by this kind of behavior. This id not about whether or not you can speak your opinions. That is Constitutional. It is about how you present yourself.
You are suppose to be a building designer which is a design professional. You need to uphold yourself better then this. If this is how you treat others then one wonders how you treat your clients who asks for design services on homes and such. If this is the behavior you treat your clients, you are a danger to the profession of building design.
In short, get your act in order. This obsession of Carrie Bartoldus is annoying and is harassment to her and also claiming Jon Dana is Carrie Bartoldus is also harassment of Jon Dana. Get a grip with reality on the matter. You been requested to stop this kind of behavior.
Who cares about Carrie Bartoldus or Jon Dana. Just because you don’t agree with her or Jon or anyone - does not mean harassment is going to be tolerated.
Rick Balkins
Building Designer
PS: I am neither of these two folks and ALOT of people know who I am and they can tell you that I am not Carrie Bartoldus or Jon Dana. So don’t even start with me on this. You are embarassing all building designers in this community by bahaving this way in a public forum. So, even if it is just for respect of the profession of building design, please stop this behavior and conduct yourself in a manner that reflects positively of the profession of building design. Start by speaking with care, reason, respect and empathy.”
Sorry Rick but I am here as a private citizen and I can say pretty damned much what I feel like and I should have every right to do so unless the U.S. Constitution has changed dramatically lately.
Fact is, don’t like what I say, ignore it completely, don’t respond.
On May 19, 5:31 PM, Carrie wrote:
That wasn’t me, either, Patrick. You are batting “Oh” fer today, per norm.
Just because you take delight in “outing” ordinary people making comments don’t look to me to help you. I’d admire your determination in holding to your convictions regarding anons if you played fair and outed Cindy, Josh, Scott and yourself but you don’t.
Jon Dana, you are a rogue and enjoying yourself entirely too much today.
On May 19, 5:40 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Yes, Patrick McGee. You do have a Constitutional Right to speak civilly on any subject manner without prosecution. There is a difference between speaking an opinion of yours and HARRASSING people.
That is what I am getting at. It is not a disrespect of the building design profession to speak views. In fact, It is good to participate and speak your views. All for that.
It is a DISRESPECT to the building design profession to harrass people. It is also against the law. You’re here as a private citizen but how you treat others as a citizen in public also is how a person treats others professionally. That is how people judge whether they want to hire you. I’m not against you speaking your values but don’t confuse harassment and Constitutional Right of Speech. The Constitution Right of Speech does not mean that you can harass.
Know the difference. Conduct accordingly. I’m not against your views of subject matters, politically, professionally, personally,ect. Just conduct it in a civil manner and in respect. If you follow the golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated and also the other golden rule, speak respectually, empathically and with care and reason. There is nothing that prevents you to speak about anything. You can be charged for harassment and your internet sbut off for harassment not your opinions but your treatment of other people.
Harassment is against the law and is NOT sanctioned by the Freedom of Speech. Don’t confuse the difference. It won’t pass the court.
On May 19, 5:54 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“That wasn’t me, either, Patrick. You are batting “Oh” fer today, per norm.
Just because you take delight in “outing” ordinary people making comments don’t look to me to help you. I’d admire your determination in holding to your convictions regarding anons if you played fair and outed Cindy, Josh, Scott and yourself but you don’t.
Jon Dana, you are a rogue and enjoying yourself entirely too much today.”
New Oath of office proposed for Clatsop County Commissioners
And above is the original title of this thread and as always in everything that’s presented here, it can be made to degenerate into the same drivel every discussion.
No debate, discussion, search for solutions or resolution. Just this same crap time after time with absolutely no control whatsoever and it can be manipulated at will.
Notice the same thing happens virtually every discussion on this site?
This site may as well be named “Dried Salmon Mattters” or whatever the name but it sure as hell is no “Media outlet”
On May 19, 6:03 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
“Yes, Patrick McGee. You do have a Constitutional Right to speak civilly on any subject manner without prosecution. There is a difference between speaking an opinion of yours and HARRASSING people.
That is what I am getting at. It is not a disrespect of the building design profession to speak views. In fact, It is good to participate and speak your views. All for that.
It is a DISRESPECT to the building design profession to harrass people. It is also against the law. You’re here as a private citizen but how you treat others as a citizen in public also is how a person treats others professionally. That is how people judge whether they want to hire you. I’m not against you speaking your values but don’t confuse harassment and Constitutional Right of Speech. The Constitution Right of Speech does not mean that you can harass.
Know the difference. Conduct accordingly. I’m not against your views of subject matters, politically, professionally, personally,ect. Just conduct it in a civil manner and in respect. If you follow the golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated and also the other golden rule, speak respectually, empathically and with care and reason. There is nothing that prevents you to speak about anything. You can be charged for harassment and your internet sbut off for harassment not your opinions but your treatment of other people.
Harassment is against the law and is NOT sanctioned by the Freedom of Speech. Don’t confuse the difference. It won’t pass the court.”
Get over it Balkins this is not about the integrity of Building Designers, It’s about a private citizen expressing his views. Harassment?… there ain’t no harassment here. Show me a case for harassment and I will be the first to apologize.
On May 19, 6:06 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
For information purpose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
Read it thoroughly and and referenced links and also read the Constitution. Keeping in mind that Congress has authority to make basic interpretation of what constitutes Freedom of Speech and Expression and what does not. As well as any law, policy, procedure and interpretation to carry out and enforce the laws and Constitution.
I have nothing against speech and viewpoints on matters. I will either agree or not agree but I do have something against harassment, libel and slander. We have too much of that. Libel and Slander and “actual malice” occurs when a statement and facts are brought up and a person continues to make false claims about someone when they know the truth and knows what they say is false.
So watch out. There is a difference between speaking an opinion and making note that it is your opinion. So it is best to follow that lead and premise. I hope that it is understood.
On May 19, 6:14 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On May 19, 5:06 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
For information purpose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
Read it thoroughly and and referenced links and also read the Constitution. Keeping in mind that Congress has authority to make basic interpretation of what constitutes Freedom of Speech and Expression and what does not. As well as any law, policy, procedure and interpretation to carry out and enforce the laws and Constitution.
I have nothing against speech and viewpoints on matters. I will either agree or not agree but I do have something against harassment, libel and slander. We have too much of that. Libel and Slander and “actual malice” occurs when a statement and facts are brought up and a person continues to make false claims about someone when they know the truth and knows what they say is false.
So watch out. There is a difference between speaking an opinion and making note that it is your opinion. So it is best to follow that lead and premise. I hope that it is understood.
So Balkins, you got a case for harassment or constitutional violation?
Lay it out for us.
On May 19, 6:35 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:
Every time that you claim Jon Dana is Carrie AFTER Carrie indicated that she is not Jon Dana and after it was indicated that it was not welcomed and liked. A respectful person would stop.
Lets start with your first post after Carrie wrote the following:
On May 19, 9:32 AM, Carrie wrote:
I have just spent the weekend at the VA hospital after racing my father up there, undergoing another round of tests for heart conditions, and I come back to this. I am tired of this crap Patrick. You have been told repeatedly that Jon Dana is a real person, it is his real name, and it is not me.
You are not the monitor of this site, judging who is or is not “real”. You tell lies when you continue to perpetuate information that you know, or should reasonably know, is not true.
Hold yourself to your own standards and be accountable.
-----------------------------------
After that, every post you made implying Jon Dana and Carrie is the same person is the same person would constitute harassment, imho.
This behavior reflect negatively to other building designers when everyone (most here, at the very least) knows you are a building designer and you behave this way. This sends a message to many folks, that if you behave this way and you are suppose to be a respected building designer. This sends a message saying something on the sort of if this building designer acts this way then others act the same way. You get treated as a benchmark to everything that you are associated with including other building designers. Keep in mind that your conduct reflects beyond just your personal self but also on the whole profession in which you are a part of.
Watch *how* you conduct yourselve in any public forum, is all I’m saying. If they don’t know me and they know you as a building designer then people can get the impression of a building designer based on your behavior. Not all people will judge fairly and seperate me from you but it causes additional burden on others who tries to keep the profession being respected by the public.
Just like a particular Mayor can make an office of Mayor look like a laughing stock and so can a single County Commissioner. So can a single lawyer or doctor or architect. They can loose their license. We can loose our entire practice if the public decides to make licensing mandatory on ALL projects. Removal of all exemptions. All it takes is a bad apple. That is how architecture became regulated.
Get the idea? This is not about whether or not you can speak or not. Speak your opinion but make note that it is your opinion and don’t misrepresent your opinion as facts unless you have the facts in whole not in parts and not twisted in any fashion.
I have nothing against it. Even when you speak as a person. The same applies to me. It is how you speak. Do you respect other people’s opinion? Even if you disagree. I understand that you are speaking as a person but the facts is - you are a member of the profession you are associated with 24/7 even if you don’t work. There is latitude when you are off work but still. If a building designer murdered a person even though it wasn’t part of any work regarding building design - don’t you think it would send a negative impression of building designers. Sure, this is on the extreme compared to what you are doing here. Just keep in mind. Negative acts is negative. period.
If you looked at Mayor Willish Van Dusen, it did put some negative light on the office of Mayor in Astoria during that driving accident. Even though people forgive, it does have its impact and stigma.
Take care and hope your back get well soon.
On May 19, 6:40 PM, does it matter wrote:
Regarding the Oath of Office, I think that more people should chose to affirm rather than swear it. I didn’t realize it still included, “So help me God.” Wow, whose, yours or mine? And does yours say it is okay to lie if it is for the better good? And by whose definition is it for the better good?
What has happened to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Doesn’t it prohibit government promotion of religion? That phrase should be dropped even though a majority of people here would pitch a fit.
Democracy does not necessarily mean that the majority should always rule. That often leads to the tyranny of the majority in which various minorities are oppressed. One of the functions of a constitution is to shield minorities from the wishes of the majority.
On May 19, 7:01 PM, matters to who wrote:
There is an user agreement for this site, all commenting here are implying they are abiding by the user agreement.
There is an agenda to discredit this site, as Patrick McGee has demonstrated, and it is by no means limited to McGee. Marquis’ hand is in it (whispering “farce” as often and viciously as he does at BOCC meetings) as well as Forrester’s and all who oppose a free and independent media.
Mud slinging, gossip and unnuendo of Lee having “bought” off this site or any of its reporters hasn’t produced an ounce of evidence.
Hartill has often expressed his disdain of Forrester’s policy of editing all public comments. McGee (and his minion of anonymous and pseudonyms) has taken advantage of Hartill’s generosity. Let’s not help McGee out, here. Take it over to DSM.
Let’s abide by the user agreement:
Sec V 1 L. You agree to post comments in appropriate spaces, venues, threads, on subject and with appropriate language and will only post what you believe to be a true representation of what you believe to be the truth. You take complete responsibility for all posts that you write and material that you submit. If asked by the Service Provider you will provide complete and true contact information.