Change of Venue (again) for the February 5th, 6 PM Oak Harbor City Council meeting

Apparently there has again been a change in the venue for the upcoming Oak Harbor City Council meeting scheduled for 6:00 PM the 5th of February. It will now be held at it’s normal place at the Oak Harbor City Hall unless the City Council changes their mind again…

As is typical of our City Council apparently they have rejected the plan to move the February 5th meeting to the Firehall to give more room for people to attend.

No one really knows why this was changed but with the history of the Oak Harbor City Council attempting to restrict public comments at Council meetings one can only assume that this is the reason. We have members of our City Council that do not want to hear from the citizens of their community and with the large crowd expected at this meeting it is rather sad that they do not wish to accomodate the crowd that is sure to attend.


    1. All I can say is that the laws need to be enforced, equally, and for everyone. This is not an emotional issue – it’s a legal one.

    2. Bill
      Jan 8 2013 Newsweek, a good read

      The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.

  1. Good move and I hope ir rains hard that night so FICK’s DEM goon squad wll get drenched, give up their “show and tell” for the press, and go home

    1. I don’t think they want to shed any light on this. Rick Almberg could be considered one of the “good ol boys” and the good ol boys do seem to get favorible treatment from the paper.

      As this whole stupid and time wasting issue was solely caused by Rick Almberg I don’t think they want the locals to know that fact…they will however attempt to spin this as an issue caused by our new Mayor, of course our new mayor is not generally considered to be one of the good ol boys…small town politics at it’s finest!

        1. That is really a sad but apt statement Joe. I think any of us would wish to not have an issue like this in Oak Harbor.

          The Oak Harbor City Council has consistently made poor choices in the past and continues to do so today. I think that the one or 2 “outsiders” in the Council Chambers are really attempting to make valuable changes but they consistently run into this “I am stupider than you and can prove it” mentality here in Oak Harbor.

          Citizens in Oak Harbor need re-evaluate this thing called the city government, look at them, the leaders, the runners of the show, the councilmen, and determine if they really are their representatives or not…

          Remember one thing though…the only Councilman that regularly and openly meets and communicates with the public is Jim Campbell. He even occassionally comments here. One out of how many in the Council?

          I think that if the citizens really looked at these people they would understand why the city is so screwed up…

          1. Indeed, there are real issues the gov’t of Oak Harbor needs to deal with such as severe cuts to NAS Whidbey Island, nightclub operations and the like.

            GO NAVY LEAGUE!

  2. I would like to see it happen at a larger venue also.

    Oak Harbor Municipal Code chapter 1.04 states that the full council meetings will be held at city hall.

    1. Previous Mayors have had no problems changing venues for the city council meetings. This city council however has made it one of their major priorities to not get along with our new mayor. He is not one of the “good ol boys”.

      1. Infantilism of the highest order from Almberg and the terribles. I do not include Jim Campbell amongst the terribles.

    2. We are discussing the gun in city parks issue. Citizens need to be able to share thoughts with the council. It is legal to carry in City Hall but some citizens have said they are very nervous being in the same room with gun guys. It is illegal to carry in schools, a much larger venue. How does everyone feel about a meeting at a school (with the no carry law) just so we can resolve the parks issue.

      1. To what end Jim? This is really a simple issue. The city needs to amend it’s park code to come in line with other more recently adopted city code and state law.

        Has not the city already adopted RCW 9.41 in the cities code?

        City code 6.05.370 states:
        “6.05.370 Firearms and dangerous weapons.
        The following sections of RCW Title 9 as now in effect, and as may subsequently be amended, are hereby adopted by reference to establish crimes relating to firearms and dangerous weapons under the Oak Harbor criminal code:”

        If you click on any of the code sections below where does it go to? Directly to the Washington State Legislature Code listing for the applicable section. Including RCW 9.41.300 which is what is at issue here.

        It seems very ridiculous to go through the kind of hysteria the city council is bringing on itself for such a simple issue. There is really nothing more to discuss that would be considered business for our city. We HAVE already adopted the State RCW as our laws for firearms and this is nothing more than a housekeeping issue to clean up older sections of code.

        If you do move this meeting to a “gun free zone” you are giving into the hysteria that has surrounded this issue.

        You are giving in to people who DO want to make an issue out of this when in fact it is not.

        This is insanity Jim. What is really up with these other councilpersons? Too much mercury in the water?

        1. To what end? Only to resolve the issue which makes no sense so we can move on.
          I am trying very hard to take all the emotion out of this question so we can get to a reasonable solution what ever that may be. In all the conversations I have seen so far everyone on both sides of the issue seems to have dug in their heels. If that is going to be the way it is forever so be it. I want the open carry and concealed carry people(like me) to be able to exercise their Constitutional rights but at the same time I want the other side to be able to participate also. We will find a solution whether by the council doing the right thing or the council being forced to do the right thing. I would like to settle it because with this hanging over the communities head we will have a devil of a time doing other city business.

          1. Surely the other Council members must see this for what it is. Can’t they make a simple motion to NOT change the law? Just to bring our parks code into compliance with the rest of Oak Harbors Municipal code which IS law?

            There is nothing to get “dug in” over Jim the laws are clearly the laws. If the council wishes to change those laws that are truely not in their power to change themselves then that is a different issue. They can very easily make a motion to send a request/petition/whatever to the legislature to change this law can’t they?

            Changing venue especially to one that does not serve the people who have the most at stake in this issue is just plain wrong and I think you know that.

      2. And one more thing.

        By giving into the desire to have a “gun free”* meeting you are by that act dividing the community. A community that was not divided before.

        This is an issue that was never an issue before and I would not encourage it to be an issue now.

        Just follow our laws and get on with the cities business.

        * Replace “gun free” with “hat” or anything else the council may dream up.

        1. I think it should be a clothing free venue, that way we will all be on the same level and it will be very obvious that non or us are practicing our God given, constitutionally endorsed rights.

      3. Can other, large venues, not “owned” by the city be considered? One of the theaters? The Elks? A big tent at City Beach? The covered, outdoor area at the VFW?

        1. Our meeting is in fact Tuesday 5 Feb. Starts promptly at 6 PM. If you are planning to go to the next one I would recommend going very early. I believe there will be lots of people there. It may be standing room only

        2. The Elks and Vfw are establishments where alcahol is served so guns arent allowed there.
          As far as a tent at city beach goes guns are not allowed in city parks under the current city municiple code.
          The only theater in town plays movies late everynight so thats out of the question too.

          I think in the end the highschool will be the only feasible option.

          1. No Shane. The only “feasable option” is to hold the meeting at the council chambers.

            You are attempting to divide the community, you want the city council to give in to the anti gun crowd and move the meeting to a gun free zone in order to appease a small group of people and restrict the opposition.

            There is nothing illegal about firearms in city council meetings. No one is breaking the law and nothing has changed in the last 20 years or more with our laws.

            Citizens have always carried in council meetings and it has never been an issue before your hysterical outburts and inflamatory letters to the council.

            It is you that is causing the problems Shane not the legal lawful firearm owners. If the council gives in to your types it will be doing a huge disfavor to the citizens of Oak Harbor.

            Our city has never been divided on this issue before and YOU are attempting to divide the city, divide it between gun owners and those that want to take this right away. And it is apparent that you will do ANYTHING to make this happen. Take your crying, babbling and inflamatory comments elsewhere. There is no place in a reasonable discussion for those like you that want to silence any opposition by moving the discussion and meeting to an area that exclusdes those with the most to lose.

            This has never been an isssue before Shane Hoffmire found he could pepper the council with hysterical diatribes about firearm owners. My advice to the council is to ignore people like yourself that want to turn a simple issue into one of fear and loathing of your fellow citizens and that want to divide our city into seperate factions.

            You truely should be ashamed of yourself and your actions, your actions are not those of a reasonable person or someone who wants a reasonable discussion or you would not have sent the inflamatory letters to the council with your inflamatory comments. Yes Shane you should be ashamed of yourself.

            1. I just wanted to point out that under the open public meetings act and the expected size of the crowd to show up that no the city council chambers is not a feasible option.
              Under the law they would have to adjourn the meeting because it wouldnt be an open meeting if individuals were prevented from entry do to not enough space.

              1. “ wouldn’t be an open meeting if individuals were prevented from entry do (sic) to not enough space.”

                As usual, Shane Hoffmire’s assertions are bogus, but they provide insight into the Rick Almberg / Joel Servatious mindset.

                1. I don’t think he even realizes how foolish he appears. If I was Rick Almberg I would tell Shane to keep his yap shut. Shane is doing his buddy Almberg no favors with his incessant stupid comments…

                  All persons may attend the meeting of a governing body of a public agency. RCW 42.30.030. The governing body cannot place conditions on attendance such as asking people to sign in or to complete a questionaire in order to attend. RCW 42.30.040. A governing body may set reasonable rules of conduct so meetings can be conducted in an orderly fassion, BUT ACCESS CANNOT BE LIMITED and cameras and tape recorders cannot be prohibited. RCW 42.30.050

                  1. Check your RCW’s Shane. Whoever you is feeding you this infornmation did not even correctly quote the RCW’s. The RCW’s are very specific and need to be quoted correctly so you don’t prove you are a fool.

                    And while you are there and looking at RCW’s which are the laws of our state you might as well read RCW 9.41 and specifically RCW 9.41.300

              2. “..Under the law they would have to adjourn the meeting because it wouldnt (sic) be an open meeting if individuals were prevented from entry do to not enough space.”

                Yep, insight directly into the Rick Almberg school of bogus rules for City Council meetings. Don’t be surprised, folks, if this becomes the latest modus operandi to spin blame upon Mayor Dudley for not moving the City Council to the Oak Harbor High School. Don’t be surprised if the City Council moves to adjourn their meeting at Oak Harbor City Hall for this alleged (but bogus) reason and votes for a change of venue to a “gun-free zone” for the foreseeable future.

          2. Shane,

            You are allowing yourself to be a victim of Rick Almberg and Joel Servatius who are preying upon your ignorance.

            You see, there is no firearms prohibition in Oak Harbor city parks. It is completely, 100% legal to carry firearms in Oak Harbor city parks because the state repealed the prohibition in 1994 and the Oak Harbor City Council repealed their own firearm prohibition in city parks in 1996.

            Currently, Rick Almberg and his followers will not administratively correct the repealed section of the municipal code in order to get people like you to blindly follow and politically support them believing them to be some sort of champion for gun control.

            The reason we are forcing them to correct the municipal code is because we don’t want to see Rick Almberg and his cohorts take advantage of your emotionally driven ignorance, causing you to be one of his mindless followers who chooses to ignore what the real facts are who simply applauds his deceit like a lemming.

            1. Another potentially good reason to change the Municipal Code in question would be to avoid a lawsuit from the 2nd Amendment Foundation, which has made their intent to sue the City of Oak Harbor AND individual City Council members quite clear in the City Council’s reading packet for next week’s (Tuesday) meeting unless they do so.

              That is clearly delineated within:

              I am, however, wondering if drawing such a lawsuit is the goal of the likes of Rick Almberg and Joel Servatius.

              Such a lawsuit, coupled with a motion to move City Council meetings “permanently” to someplace like the Oak Harbor High School, within a “gun-free zone”, would create a wholly unnecessary and absurd amount of chaos in Oak Harbor City Government and would enable the ‘anti-gun” lemmings to play up this issue for many months coming.

              They will, of course, at every turn, also attempt to “spin” that this City-Council-created fiasco is actually being caused by Mayor Scott Dudley.

              Some members of the City Council (e.g. Tara Hizon, for example). have recently asked:

              “Any advice for how to stop a Mayor from going out of his way to turn your (City Council) meetings into a media circus?

              That’s at:

              1. Interesting how Tara Hizon attempts to deflect the city councils (and her) refusal to do what is necessary and right off onto Mayor Dudley. It was the city council, specifically Rick Almberg, that created this bizarre media circus not the Mayor.

                Does she really think the people of Oak Harbor are that stupid?

                I would bet that a whole lot of people in Oak Harbor have seen the video that we posted to you tube by now. I wonder if they also think it was Mayor Dudley that caused the problem? It seems the comments on youtube and elsewhere are 99.9% for Mayor Dudley and 99.9% against Rick Almberg. I would venture to say the majority of those in Oak Harbor that have seen the video feel the same way. Except for those few vocal liberals that Tara is playing to…

                1. Tara talks out of her both sides of her mouth…sometimes it’s here vs what she posts on Facebook
                  She’s a switch hitter
                  Wonder what else she’ll pull out of her closet in an effort to obtain more public support for her ever changing decisions

                  Question for Tara: Do you have trouble making up your mind
                  Probable Answer: Well, Yes and No

            2. John,
              I suppose your new to Oak Harbor politics so I will give you some breaking news.
              I have been anything but a blind follower and a lemming to Mr. Almberg.
              We have had our differances and I have been extremly critical at times but with that said Councilman Rick Almberg is 100% right on the fact of state and national gun laws being out of step with common sence.

              The time has come to act. The time has come to put the safety of our people first, so yeah John I guess you can say that I am proud of the stand that Almberg has taken.
              Call me what ever names you must but lemming and blind follower are lables that will never stick to me.

              1. Shane your actually proud Rick Almberg made an illegal motion and embarrased our city? A motion that is directly in opposition to our State Laws and State Constitution and one that has turned our city council into a media zoo?

                You should be encouraging your Councilmen to change the law and to not take illegal and unconsitutional actions on their own which is outside our laws and embarrassing our city in the process.

                Yes Shane you are the problem…

                You and Rick Almberg are dancing on the bodies of dead children and creating a media circus out of our city.

                You truely should be ashamed of yoursef…

              2. I am very curious, Shane. You said that you were afraid for your life in the January 2nd meeting when myself and another gentlemen were carrying guns. Did you call 911? Did you seek the help of any police officer? Aren’t those the actions that you say we are supposed to rely upon when we are afraid, instead of providing for our own self protection?

                1. Yeah john It was a very uncomfortable situation which I felt the right thing to do was to remove myself from what I felt was a dangerous situation. The police Chief was on hand so I didnt feel it was necasary to call 911.
                  The fact that I was fearful had nothing to do with you or your crazy eye. It simply had to do with the fact that I didnt know you, you seemed agitated oh and had a gun so yeah it was scarry.
                  Now after the fact being that I have probably 100 friends that work in FRC and they say for the brief time that you were their division officer that you seemed like an ok guy.
                  So now that I know a little about John I wouldnt be as worried by you, see its the people I dont know the people that could be bad that scare me.

                  John honestly I have no clue why you seem to think everything is a personal attack on you. I have a really good friend who is an admiral at nas whidbey and I havent said one word about you to him. John I have no problem with you, I disagree with your point of view and thats what makes America so great, we have the right to dissagree. I do appreciate the fact that you have fought for both of our rights to dissagree.

                  1. Well, that is nice to know, Shane. I’m glad it wasn’t you who called the Commanding Officer of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in an attempt to cause problems in my career for participating in the function of the local government. Funny thing is, I had already briefed my own Commanding Officer, forwarding to him the newspaper article and the videos from the city council meeting expecting that he would be required to account for my actions and it made him look extremely good to his superior officers that he knew exactly what was going on and could show them that no inappropriate actions had occurred, before they even asked him about it.

                    1. John,
                      Im sorry to hear about that and I am glad to hear that your supperiors correctly understand your right to participate in the democratic process. Best of wishes to you and I hope you have a good superbowl sunday.

        3. Shane is apparently an endless source of misinformation.

          Shane Hoffmire is going to try to tell us all some nonsense about “establishments where alcahol (sic) is served” also being off-limits for all firearms, which is entirely INACCURATE.

          Shane Hoffmire is also going to try to tell us all that “guns are not allowed in city parks under the current city municiple (sic) code”, which is also not entirely accurate, either, since only the errant, illegal municipal suggests that to be the case.

          Shane Hoffmire is also going to try to tell us all that “The only theater in town plays movies late everynight so thats out of the question too”, which is also inaccurate, since the Whidbey Playhouse is also a “theater in town”. (Note: I have been told that the Whidbey Playhouse is VERY UNFRIENDLY to firearms, which, if, when I confirm this, I will writing an article about this on Island Politics and I will never be spending a $ there, again).

          Shane Hoffmire is also going to try to tell us all that “the highschool will be the only feasible option”, as if it’s somehow not feasible for the City Council to meet….wait for it…at the City Council’s meeting room.

          What I suggest everyone really should do is read the letter that Shane Hoffmire has penned to the City in this next week’s upcoming reading packet, on pages 13-15:

          Shane’s letter speaks of screws…quite appropriate.

          1. Shane Hoffmire merely craves attention and will say anything, stupid and worse, just to be heard. I believe it’s better just to be amused by his statements and forget attempts to show him how wrong he is. (You remember the advice about wrestling with a pig in the mud.)

            Let’s remain focused on the issue, that’s correct, singular. The issue is the free exercise of Constitutional Rights in Oak Harbor. Rick Almberg and his clowning followers are just sideshows for those too immature to understand the right to protect. The 2013 Oak Harbor circus will be played out in American towns and cities for the next several months. Perhaps Mr. Hoffmire will pack up and follow this farce elsewhere.

        1. This posted far away from where I thought it would. I meant that having one meeting at the school could be a very fair thing, since a crowd will be expected, but just one meeting there.

          Pandering to people who want the City to break the laws of the people is an incredible waste of time, as well as an incredible financial risk to the city. Litigation is never inexpensive.

    1. Are you asking “how did this whole thing get started?” I had been under the impression that Mr Yonkman just stood up during the public comment period and just spoke his mind, out of the blue. After having read the minutes from the last meeting it seems Ms. Fick stood up to say “guns didn’t belong at council meetings” for no apparent reason, out of the blue.

      Are we missing something?

      1. I think it was Shane Hoffmire’s comments that made Mr. Yonkman stand up and comment. Shane made a few of his ridiculous inflamatory anti gun comments that Mr Yonkman had to speak against.

  3. Simple compromise: A group of the city council wants to hide from reality in a school. Betcha this becomes a regular habit. We can call it the Almberg/Munns/Hizon/Severrns/Servatius Gang hideout.

    Long term solution: Designate the city council room a class room (kindergarten) and post it up with GUN FREE ZONE signs.

  4. Jim, if the meeting can’t be held at the fire station then I would it rather be held in “That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age”, IE a bar.

    That way I can have a beer and enjoy the show.

    All kidding aside, seriously, what kind of a message will this send to the citizens of Oak Harbor by holding the meeting at a public school.

    That certain members of the city council and certain members of the public have to hid behind our school children in order to feel safe?

    What a valuable civics lesson we can teach our children, that when faced with adversity the best course of action is to hid behind the young and defenseless.

    How is the “gun free zone” law to be enforced?

    Are the all of the law abiding citizens of Oak Harbor to be frisked and patted down prior to their entry of the school grounds?

    Will there be a metal detector installed?

    It’s time for certain the members of the Oak Harbor city council to locate their collective spine and represent the citizenry who elected them to represent them no matter what their personal opinions may be on any items they have issues with.

    Hold the meeting as required.

    As I have have said before, concealed means concealed, who’s to know who’s carrying a concealed weapon, be it that nice young mother at the supermarket with her two young children, the older couple walking on the beach at city park, the young professional in the car next to you, that nice older lady getting gas or the person sitting next to you at the city council meeting.

    You never know.

    1. Thank you to all of you for your comments. You have reenforced my resolve to stay the course. I want the council to take the words “in city parks” out of the gun ordinance so it will be Constitutional before we get sued. I want the rest of the community to be more tolerant of the law abiding gun community. I want us to move on. I will support having Council meetings in the Council Chambers, I won’t support moving to the school but will support moving this discussion to the fire house so everyone who wants to come to the meeting can be there.
      My second amendment rights are more important to me that meetings in schools.
      Thanks again for your comments

      1. It is in the Parks Code:

        6.14.070 Firearms and fireworks.
        It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to carry any firearm or to shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, B.B. gun or use any slingshot in any park without the written permission of the council. (Ord. 214 § 8, 1965).

        All’s they need to do is remove the “or to carry any firearm” from the 1965 Parks code and update it to reflect the adoption of Title 9 in 1996 with Ord. 1071 § 41, 1996 and there is no issue.

        Amazingly simple fix. And socially acceptable. They are really not changing any law just updating stale code.

        1. Jim Campbell – For what it’s worth:
          6.28.010 Discharging weapons prohibited.

          No persons, except municipal employees in their discharge of duties, shall shoot or discharge any firearm, pistol, B.B. gun or any other device likely to produce injury to persons or property within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Harbor or at the city garbage dump; except in an enclosed firing range for which a conditional use permit has been issued. (Ord. 395 § 1, 1974; Ord. 310 § 1, 1972; Ord. 145 § 1, 1958).

          Is 6.14.070 even necessary?

          Another point to make is that all of the emotion is coming from people who are acting on how they “feel” rather than rule of law. Unfortunately there are people that use tragic events to push “knee jerk emotional” legislation that fails to prevent any future events from happening.

          Pam Fick and her comrades are attempting to strip away the second amendment one inch at a time. First it is city parks then city council meetings. Then what? Is the city council going to prohibit citizens from carrying firearms in public?

          Pam Fick claims she owns a gun and she keeps it at home. Pam Fick’s version of the second amendment is “you can have a gun but it must remain in your house at all times” so I can “feel” safe in public. In order to do that she must strip away every other law abiding citizen’s rights under the Second Amendment.

          What is revolting is the amount of carnage caused by motor vehicle “accidents” that Pam Fick and her cronies aren’t addressing.

          Where is the outcry from the Demon Rats demanding “Motor Vehicle Free Zones” in Oak Harbor?

          Epidemic on Whidbey Island

          Perhaps it is because deaths related to motor vehicles is so common and acceptable to our society, or that it is merely a privilege instead of a specific amendment in the United States Constitution that certain Demon Rats “feel” is outdated and no longer “necessary.”

          Perhaps that is why Demon Rats are only focused on gun related events.

          Are we ALL to submit to Pam Fick’s vision, and the shared vision of her fellow cronies and live in their “new world?”

          1. Jim,

            What is so funny is that Pam Fick “feels” that law abiding citizens with guns are a bigger threat than bad guys with guns. So her only recourse is to disarm the good guys so that the bad guys with guns can have all the fun.

            Therefore, my previous comment stands:

            “No need to carry a firearm to this event, open carry or otherwise. I’ll just position myself next to Pam Fick or Steve Erickson, and use them as a human shield knowing full well that they can take out any of Steve’s “potential bad guys” with their high capacity motor mouth.

            Pam Fick, you have no need to worry about getting shot by some yahoo that thinks he is a superhero since NOBODY is obligated to save your sorry ass.

            Knowing that, I “feel” much safer using you as a human shield when I charge the perpetrator while you busily discharge your secret weapons of mouth destruction.

            Pam and Steve, your posthumously awarded medals await you!”

      2. I recall from when we wrote the article “Oak Harbor City Council openly violates state law by voting to uphold clearly illegal City Code regarding firearms in public parks” article back on December 29 that a City Council reading packet for a previous City Council meeting… (see pages 45-52 of 199 of that Acrobat .pdf document)

        …stipulated that Municipal Code sections 6.12.10, 6.14.070, and 6.40.180 were all in violation of the RCWs as currently written. The Council rejected the motion that would have fixed all of that. They should have approved that motion, and this issue would now be 100% BEHIND us, and it long ago SHOULD have been so.

        I would hope that ALL those errant codes are fixed as soon as possible.

        In any case, I 100% agree that this CAN be done and SHOULD be resolved at the City Council’s regular venue at City Hall.

        I would not at all put it past some members of the City Council to otherwise desire to shift the City Council meeting venue on a seemingly permanent basis to some “gun-free” zone, like a public school, in order to enable more outlandish unnecessary grandstanding on this firearms issue over many months.

      3. Jim please post the day, time and location where you always have a coffee and welcome all to join you to discuss whatever they want
        I suspect many posting here don’t know you do this and have done it since you became a council member.
        I know of no other elected official who has ever done this and that’s why many have lost all knowledge of what the citizens want or need
        Thanks, Bill

        1. If I am in town I am at Whidbey Coffee every Thursday morning at 9 AM. I will stay until people get through talking.
          There are times like Feb 12,13,14 this year when I will be in Olympia doing City Business. And I do get a vacation on occasion.
          If you want to check you can get my e mail address from the City web site.

  5. “Gun Free Zone” three meaningless words that simply provides Pam Fick and the other ’empty heads’ with a grand illusion of safety.

  6. Question: Did the city council discuss, outside of a public meeting, changing this weeks’ meeting to a different venue? That is illegal.

    Serial ‘conversations’ are flat out not legal.

    However, perhaps this meeting will be held in the normal Council Chambers, so that they can use the Sunshine Laws of Washington to discuss whether a meeting should be convened at a point in the future in a larger venue.

    Does any know?

    1. From what I understand it was the Mayors idea to move to the fire station. Seems to me a few of the other Mayors in the past had done this so there was precedence. I think someone consulted with MRSC and they were told only the council can change the location of a meeting. So the move was cancelled.

      It is a really simple issue, the council needs to hold a regular meeting, take the normal citizen comments then immediately move to bring Oak Harbor’s old code (Parks code, marina code) in line with the adoption of our State firearm laws.

      If they then wish to petition/send a letter to/complain to the state legislature about our gun laws and attempt to have the laws changed a motion should be made and passed and that should be scheduled for discussion at a later date.

      It really is a simple solution to a simple problem…and avoid a lawsuit at the same time.

  7. (Open Public Meetings Act, aka “Sunshine Laws”

    No Physical Presence Required

    Physical presence is not required for a meeting. Meetings may be conducted by telephone, conference call, instant messaging, internet chat sessions, web meetings, and now Facebook or Twitter.

    Two members of a three member governing body discussing agency business on the phone constitute a meeting.

    And, members cannot avoid application of the law by using an intermediary to exchange viewpoints

  8. From Newsweek 1/08

    “Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

    The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
    Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

    Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.”

    Gun Free Zones are meaningless Perhaps Mr. Hoffmire and the “I am afraid crew”, also see no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Passing any new gun laws, amount to making crime illegal. SUPPORT and ENFORCE the LAWS have on the books already.

    1. It’s a GREAT article that shows how out-of-touch with reality the liberal lefties are on this issue, from the US President on down….

      A caption on the video there: “‘In announcing his gun control proposals, President Obama said that he was not restricting Second Amendment rights, but allowing other constitutional rights to flourish.’”

      Talk about BS and DOUBLESPEAK!

      Title: Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

      Subtitle: The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.

  9. I stopped by city hall at 1330 today to check out what’s going on.

    The big three are there, Komo, Kiro and King (local Seattle news).

    The list for public comments is already two pages long.

    Guess who’s name was first on the list (hint, first name is “Shane”)

    I am going back to take some pictures.

    1. Our city council has turned this into a circus.

      It is such a simple issue and it is such a simple fix it is going to be interesting to see how much more time our city council wastes on this issue.

      If there is any other reason for the citizens of Oak Harbor to replace the troublemakers like Almberg in the council this is it. To turn a simple issue like correcting the errors in our city code into this fiasco is just plain idiotic and a waste of the peoples money, time and trust.

    1. I notice in all of your images that the venue is empty.

      In one of your previous comments you made the statement “The list for public comments is already two pages long.”

      Where are those people who signed the 2 pages of requests to comment?

      Is the city taking reservations for comment privileges? You can come in at noon and sign up to speak at that evenings council meeting, leave and then come back? Sign your friends up also? Nice for those of us that have to work…

      1. There was no battle. The gun rights citizens outnumbered Shane Hoffmire and his buddies 40 to 1.

        The city council immediately approved under an emergency the modification of the city ordinances to come in line with State law, they took no comments on the ordinance and immediately voted to adjourn the meeting.

        Apparently they did not like the media, KING, KIRO and Q-13 were all present with cameras running. Like rats hiding from daylight…

        BUT Jim Campbell? That guy is my frigging hero…more tomorrow.

        1. I cannot believe not one council person would second Mr Campbell’s motion to extend the comment period.

          How’s that for a slap in the face to the public. We don’t want to hear what you have to say.

          What a bunch of politicians!

          1. I left work early and stood there for two hours prior to the meeting to ensure I would get to speak specifically to the agenda item … until they pulled the rug out from under me, and many others.

        2. Yeah, my fellow Navy Leaguer Jim Campbell is a special guy. The voters of Island County may have made a big mistake not promoting him…

          I, of course, said “battle” last night to jazz up the crowd.

          Also, Shane Hoffmire needs to get a real cause. No, seriously.

    1. John,
      What is it you are waiting for comments on?
      I was there and I didnt see you.
      Oh and if you made a public records request you would see who at city hall reported you to you your comand.
      You would also see where Jim Campbell ask Municipal research to remove Rick Almberg from office. Long story short they told him Thats not how it works in washington state.

      1. Well, for starters, Shane, you made a statement in a previous city council meeting that you were afraid for your life when two people showed up at a council meeting whom you did not know personally who were carrying guns. So…. you must have known that a whole bunch of guns carried by a whole bunch of people that you did not know were going to be there February 5th and yet you spoke rather eloquently for a person who should have been in fear of his life. Did you change your opinion of us?

        Also, did Pam Fick really tell you that you would likely get shot if you gave an interview to the media there?

        And you are correct, to remove a public servant from office via recall is a long and arduous process that involves a public petition.

        I was not at the February 5th meeting because I am currently on orders out of the state with my entire squadron.

        1. I did know that there would be a lot of people in attendance with firearms, I also had been informed that the entire Oak Harbor police deparment would be armed and in attendance and that the citizens on patrol would be there as an extra set of eyes.
          I will admit I was still very nervous but with that said nothing will stop me from standing up for what I believe is right.
          As far as somebody telling me I would likely get shot? I have no clue where that thought would have even came from. No, nobody uttered those words to me!

          I declined interviews with all the seattle stations simply because I already said all I had to say, I dont trust the lamestream media to not twist things around and my 7 year old son said daddy I’m scared please dont go on the news and before I left the house I gave him my word I wouldnt.
          I hope wherever it is that you and your squardron are that all is well and safe.

          1. Entire Oak Harbor police department would be armed and in attendance? Wow. When I met with Ed Green on, gosh, I think it was Thursday the 31st of January or Friday the 1st, he told me it was only going to be him in uniform and a couple of officers. I suggested to our group to make sure and approach the officers and thank them for their support because Ed Green is one officer that I have been absolutely 150% impressed with and he knows exactly what the law is regarding carrying of firearms.

            I absolutely agree with you about the media. For example, the Whidbey News Times article regarding the December City Council meeting and their failure then to correct the city ordinance completely took Chief Green’s comments out of context, prompting my first meeting with him in late December.

            Hey…BTW, I think I saw you in Burger King a couple weeks ago. I was in uniform.

            1. Burger king is probably my favorite restaurant in town so you probably did see me there, you should have said hi or something.

              When you get back in town we should get together for icecream or coffee or something at BK and put this whole thing behind us.
              I think there is a whole lot of other important things in Oak Harbor that we agree on.
              If you dont have my cell # you can have scott text you my #

Comments are closed.