E-Mail 'South Kitsap Park & Rec Developments' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'South Kitsap Park & Rec Developments' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

5 thoughts on “South Kitsap Park & Rec Developments

  1. Didn’t they show you how to make a “hyperlink” to an article on this blog?

    Next time you see Simpson, ask her to take a deep breath and count to 10 before questioning someone’s motives and honesty. We could do with a civil discussion about the park, not a p’ing contest. She should leave the role of curmudgeon to old SOBs like me.

  2. Sadly, it has progressed beyond civility. My wife is an ex-commissioner and was contacted by a detective this past week because a certain, woefully misinformed group who had no knowledge of what was in the mobile, has implied that the SKPRD board committed insurance fraud.

    Being of strong back and weak mind, I was frequently called upon to lug folding tables and chairs (and one particularly large and heavy tent unit) to and fro during various festivals. I can’t even begin to guess how many folding chairs there were other than I remember it was more than one Ford Ranger pickup load. And at least one of the bedrooms and a hallway was stacked floor-to-ceiling with office desks and chairs to the point where it was difficult to move around. I could go on but needless to say, there was *plenty* of stuff in that unit.

  3. With all due curmudgeonly respect, I took several deep breaths and reviewed the facts before I expressed my concerns regarding the inflated insurance claim and misrepresentation of SKPRD meeting minutes. In fact, I initially dismissed the premise as over-reaction to the delay in dissolving, until I sat down and reviewed the time line and the public records that were obtained from the insurance carrier. I’d be happy to email you a scanned copy of the documents obtained from the insurance carrier (WGEP), which forms the basis of the concerns.

    I was at the October 12th meeting where the SKPRD claims to have discussed the $31,650 list of “contents” of the mobile. It didn’t happen. Several others were also there who also fervently disagree with the SKPRD regarding whether any such discussion happened. By the way, two commissioners were absent from that meeting, so would have no personal knowledge of what was or wasn’t discussed (Steve Horn and Ron Flerx).

    We regularly asked about what was happening with the mobile several times during September and October SKPRD meetings. We were told that the investigation was still pending and no further information was available. We were also told that the mobile itself wasn’t insured and the only contents in the mobile that were of any value were the park records which were destroyed.

    Don’t you think that if the discussion did really occur on October 12th, in a public meeting, that we would have raised concerns about the insurance claim in October instead of February? I am far less concerned about the inflated content values (because that could be endlessly debated). However, I am very concerned about the attempt to avoid public scrutiny by telling the public one thing and then turning around and secretly telling their insurance company something entirely different, including telling WGEP that they informed the public of the list of contents (which SKPRD did not do).

    The WGEP required that the SKPRD have documentation of a public discussion of the list of destroyed contents before they approved the claim. So, on October 13th (according to now public records), a letter was mailed to the WGEP (and stamped as received by them on October 16th) which contained a copy of the supposed minutes of the October 12th meeting.

    Facts are facts. I encourage you to check the facts yourself.

    Regards,
    Kathryn Simpson

  4. Mark-the SKPRD Board continued to tell the public “There was nothing in the mobile.” A portion of the premiums they were paying out included contents-listed at $4,171.00. Amazing then-how suddenly the “contents” (of nothing?) became $31,650.00.

  5. Mark-had there not been a fire(Still under investigation) and the possibility of inflated values and misrepresentation of the mobile’s contents there would be no need for an investigation. I do know specifics Mark.SKPRD’s economic posture prior to the mobile home fire was well known. If a misrepresentation involving SKPRD’s economic posture is not material on the question of motive for the fire or a means to pay back debt-what is?

Comments are closed.