Botkin Fired

Bear with me folks. I’m helping with cop coverage today, too.

My guess is that the e-mail did affect today’s decision, though on its own probably wouldn’t have caused what happened.

Here is, to the best of my recollection, how some of what happened today went down.

The meeting begins. Kincer states she’s not trying to kill SEED, then reads her motion. Larry Stokes says he thinks it’s a good idea. Mahan agrees. Both say little more than that. They vote on it then dismiss all of us for an executive session to discuss personnel.

While we’re in the hall a gentleman attending comments how everything went down kind of quickly, that it seemed that the commissioners didn’t speak to the motion much. To him it seemed that they had agreed, unofficially, to the motion before the meeting began.

If so, it’s a violation of the state’s public meeting laws. I don’t know if they agreed to everything beforehand, but I could easily see why someone would think they had.

About a half hour later they let everybody back in and they vote on a pay raise for the port CEO and port attorney. Meeting over.

I go talk to Botkin, come back and later hear that Botkin’s been canned. I call Mahan. He said that’s what he understood. I call Attebery and get voice mail. I call Kincer and get voice mail. I call Botkin and he confirms it.

If you read the resolution, the language of which I provided here, it looks like the language gives Attebery the right to do what he did. I’m not sure if he had the right anyway, but the motion seemed to make the authority explicit.

More as I can back to this.

108 thoughts on “Botkin Fired

  1. RV,

    Citizens, such as myself, have every right and responsibility to ask questions and expect answers from our local taxing districts.

    If I weren’t open to dialog, I wouldn’t keep trying to give the Port opportunity to address my questions BEFORE I ask them publicly.

    That the Port doesnt see that as an opportunity to dialog and get out a positive response is unfortunate. However, such is a failing on their part, not mine. Individuals shouldn’t be demonized for asking questions. There are many times that government officials have answered my questions and I am reassured that all is well. Sometimes I don’t like the answer, but I respect process and their openness.

    Elected officials have every right to make decisions I don’t like. But they also have every responsibility to be accountable for their decisions; good, bad, or ugly.

    Kathryn Simpson

  2. Kathryn,

    We both know this isn’t about a citizen’s right or responsibility to ask questions and expect answers from our local taxing districts. Nor have you seen me write anything to the contrary in this forum. Let’s dispense with the straw man and discuss what’s really being said.

    The Port’s members have made increasingly diligent efforts to dialog with the public and inform them regarding SEED and other initiatives. Because they are not willing or able to answer every question immediately, those which are improperly phrased, those to the complete satisfaction of every voter, or those hurled at their heads as if they’ve murdered someone’s first born….doesn’t make them failures. Leaders consent to public engagement, but not abuse. Citizens have just as much responsibility to understand what they’re asking, so they can assess the nature of the response.

    No one should be demonised: not them, you, or anyone involved or in any way interested in SEED. And yet it happens, even from you. We are all accountable for our decisions and behaviours, and this is no-brainer stuff against which I have (again) never argued. The more poignant issue is how we go about ameliorating or improving situations for the benefit of the many over the few.

  3. RV,

    First, in the spirit of being honest, I am 99.9% sure I know who you are. I have never seen you behave inappropriately at a meeting and I am 100% confident that you have never personally observed me behaving inappropriately at a meeting.

    Do my questions sometime make elected officials uncomfortable? Yes. Just as your input may do the same. Accountability and change have that effect on some. Let’s not obfuscate that with innuendo that I am rude or disrespectful or dishonest at meetings. That is not your style and neither is it mode of operation. Sadly, I concur that it is the method of a few others that follow these same issues.

    All this being said, I stand by my concerns. They are valid and relevant. Perhaps you and I should sit down over a good meal (I’ll even buy lunch) and talk issues. I think you will not only find the lunch enjoyable, but you will also have an opportunity to see that I am about as genuine and open as a “bobble-headed liberal Pam Dzama republican yenta” can get.

    Perhaps we might even find a win-win solution to suggest to the Port too.

    Kathryn. Simpson

  4. Talk about obfuscation.

    Registered Voter has made it clear that they could care less about the identity issue, I don’t get the feeling that they are really that concerned if anyone knows who they are.

    Also, RV has never, that I can recall, been the one to call anyone a “bobble-headed liberal Pam Dzama republican yenta”-so why is that implied?

    These do seem like tactics to draw attention away from concerns of real substance concerning SEED, which RV has been gracious enough to expound on when not dealing with meritless prattle.

    It often seems that there is a seemingly purposeful misrepresentation and (in my opinion) misunderstanding of facts.

    No entity is perfect (especially a group in their relative infancy), the same is to be said of individuals. But to be part of the solution, rather than just a haranguing critic, is a much more noble use of time.

    (I’m sure RV is just shaking in their shoes that their cover could be blown at any minute).

    To all, have a wonderful weekend, with this great weather coming why waste it on the blogs?

  5. tgf,

    If you are reading that I am implying that RV called me a “bobble-headed liberal Pam Dzama republican yenta”, then when RV said, “Leaders consent to public engagement, but not abuse”, was he/she implying that I’m abusive?

    My post of 12:03 PM today was, in part, an attempt to clarify that I think neither RV nor I have engaged in inappropriate behavior on public issues, while acknowledging that it is the practice of others.

    As for the quote (did you notice the quotations?) about the “bobble-headed liberal Pam Dzama republican yenta”, I was actually quoting myself from a previous post in another discussion. It was an attempt at a little self-deprecating humor in order to lighten the discussion.

    What you thought you saw in my post was not the intent of my post. Perhaps we could both use the fresh air of a beautiful NW weather weekend. Maybe even an opportunity to lunch in an open air cafe and have some good conversation. ;=)

    Have a great weekend!

    Kathryn Simpson

  6. Why the worry over RV’s ‘real name’? Most of the comments make sense whatever name s/he uses.

    The original thread seems to have evolved into a cutesy plea for a lunch date…geez…
    Sharon O’Hara

  7. Who is involved with a project of this magnitude is just as important as the project itself. Getting more green business into Kitsap County is a great idea. Green energy will be a large part of our future. However, such a venture should be entered into as a true partnership with the host community. I could really care less about models based in “other” communities in different geographical and economic situations. I want to see actual proof that this publicly funded project is being modeled after what this community needs and what this community can afford. Unfortunately my faith in the current leadership and many of its supporters is at an all time low. What was once a project with great community economic potential has now been reduced to the public funding of an incestuous group of individuals who have found a way, instead of being private investors, to sponge personally off of the taxpaying public. Such as public funds for the salaries of spouses and friends in rotating consulting positions and for using the project as a potential re-launching pad for previously failed political careers. All the while condemning the host community for not understanding the workings of such an elevated and complicated project and for daring to ask questions that have not gone through the proper supporter approved discourse. Tsk…Tsk… This project under different leadership might have a chance to benefit our community. Under the current leadership it is just a means to a personally improving end for a small group of people.

    You are absolutely right Sharon. RV’s real name does not matter in the least anymore. Names are easy get. It is the attitudes and the character behind the name, which is so much more influencing to me right now. I don’t agree with or accept what I am seeing or hearing at all. All I care about now is working as hard as I can to make sure that not one more penny of my tax money goes to SEED under its current leadership or management. I will do my best to make sure that my elected officials who are making these tax funding decisions, know that I do not support this project. That I do not support the agenda’s and expectations that certain supporters of the project have towards improving their own personal economic situations with public funds. I will donate my time and money to groups and or individuals who are also against it. I will vote to remove my elected representatives who continue to make decisions that increase the public funding of it. I will openly encourage others who are against it to do the same.

  8. Kathryn,

    I’ve made no effort to mask my writing style or the nature of prior posts in this forum. One should hope you and others do know who I am. Still, what matters is the information I’ve presented in this forum.

    I don’t ‘obfuscate’. If you ask the Port why it does not have private investment at this stage and the response is continually provided, your choice to act as if they never addressed it (or as if a promise has been dishonoured) is indeed rude. Implying that they’ve lied is as well. Comments that they’ve done nothing in three years, without caring to learn exactly what has been taking place, is an effort to give a false impression and imply irresponsibility. When you insist they said something in 2006 which they did not, it is again calling them liars.

    Your engagement with the Port is not simply about cutting to the chase with keen insight. It’s because you’re not fully listening or comprehending, yet behaving as if you are, then using this to create a certain impression in public forums. That is not about accountability and change. Some of your concerns are valid, but some of them simply are not. As for my abuse comment, I am referring to why it doesn’t surprise me if the Port isn’t on these blogs, or chooses not to take every call or email. Leaders are certainly accountable for decisions, but they don’t have to regularly tolerate being demonised.


    You’ve given yourself permission to make a highly ignorant and poorly informed accusation about hundreds of people across this state, many whom you’ve never even met. This says more about your character and attitude than theirs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Is water a solid or a liquid at room temperature?