Sciolism is an uncommon word for an all too common attitude in Coos County. The word, according to Merriam Webster, defines “a superficial show of learning” and a sciolist is a person with a “smattering” knowledge who pretends to be an expert on some subject. Local sciolists can be easily identified by their vociferous use of dazzling buzz words coupled with an ability to speak authoritatively and with conviction while at the same time not actually saying anything or providing information not already obvious.
For example, the recently released PSU study encourages the use of “strategic planning”, (who would argue with that), because it helps an organization “develop effective strategies”. Wow, really!
The report offers a list of reasonable yet boilerplate recommendations and draws heavily from “Strategic Planning for Public and Non-profit Organizations“, by John M Bryson. The authors also rely upon the structure and governance advisory reports, both crafted by local sciolists including rat PAC(K)ers Jon Barton and Al Pettit. The report also reads like a solicitation for additional paid consulting.
Sciolism is a form of deceit which automatically engenders a level of paranoia and I suspect sciolists are natively insecure and therefore especially defensive/offensive lest they be found out. The attitude displays an enormous hubris in that our local sciolists presuppose their own life experiences are somehow more valuable to the discussion than the rest of the public. In fact, sciolists by intruding and inserting their shallow “expertise” into deeply complex issues have been and are potentially very damaging. (Think about how worthless the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport has become for local travel).
I meant to say that you are the HOLE in their leaking boat. That’s a more accurate description of your part in this coup on Coos County.
You mean Al has a Gopher Hole?
Wow that must make for a squishy ride on his Harley…
Conspiracy theorists unite!!!
History is a bitch, you just can’t get away from it. When the shoe fits you fall back to calling your detractors Conspiracy theorists. Ever since you made your little speech to the port about those women not giving you respect, you have made your goals very apparent. You have sucked up to SCDC and those running the chamber of commerce since the day you arrived in town. The bigger picture of those goals you share with them has been told by YOU, not us. You may have given them some reason to let you in, but you have also given away the secret of their goals at each step before they wanted you to. You are their leaking boat.
The minority report was the only document from those committees that was not produced by SCDC. That means the majority report was all SCDC, and we know you guys wrote that for the sole purpose of getting an admin. It was common knowledge that SCDC was trying to put an admin in place to direct a maxim of county funds towards SCDC members. Al’s group proved that was the end game when they closed down the county’s trash business with their two appointed commissioners and proceeded to direct those dollars to a favored member. Al’s all about helping SCDC privatize our county government and turning it into a for profit business. Most of these SCDC guys saw how vulnerable our county was and they have decided to exploit it for their own gain. Their push is still on. They just don’t realize how many people are watching them.
They want us all to believe in their new style of government, but it still stinks of fraud and corruption at its best. Al is just a shill and a cheerleader for these guys. He’s hoping this will get him a seat at their inner table. He will have to be appointed to it because he has lost the ability to win that seat with a public election. He must be getting tired of pretending that he is a real harley guy. He’s just a cling-on to the local power group and at the moment that’s SCDC. I believe they want the county to bleed and have the population drop so they can have an easier time getting a grip on the county’s land, timber and mineral resources. The only jobs this outfit creates for the community is their own.
It is well known that ORCCA has produced more jobs for the area than SCDC and that is probably quite an embarrassment for them. That local rag called a paper beats up on ORCCA whenever SCDC tells them to, just to redirect the public focus away from what their doing and not doing.
Don’t confuse the accuracy of the reports with the voters decision. And it wouldn’t be prudent to confuse the voter’s decision with the County’s need for an Administrator. The final vote doesn’t change the fact that the County’s current structure is broken. The issue didn’t need to go to a vote and shouldn’t have. Now that the vote is in, it’s almost impossible to fix what is obviously broken.
And Susan – if you want details on the Minority Report, ask Mary. She probably knows more about that than most.
Al I look to you to be informed in all matters county. Will you define (as used here by you) the word “willing”? Who was forced to disagree with your report and why?
Susan – since the Minority Report was named the “Minority” report, once could conclude that less than half the Committee was involved. In fact, only one person put their name to that report willingly – and he had outside help writing it. Other than an elected official’s opinion that an Administrator not be hired, not a single point in the report could be defended. I suppose that’s why PSU’s report aligns with the Structure and Governance reports instead of the Minority Report.
It’s interesting to note that Al has such a low opinion of this site yet he seems to spend considerable time reading and posting. Al also appears to have forgotten that half his committee did not agree with him and his findings. It was interesting to note that right or wrong Sweet and Main had no problem addressing the report content. Cribbins as she did so well during her campaign did her imitation of blowing in the wind; all over and nowhere.
The voters overwhelming rejected the structure and governance advisory reports when they rejected the ordinance. Sixty percent of the voters had the same opinion of the committee opinions that I have so it is appalling and surprising to see these reports featured so prominently in the PSU recommendations. For that reason the PSU report is suspect and should be tossed out.
That is true. But I’ve been around the block enough to know that so-called experts are few and far between. There’s always something to new to learn.
Al
Your bored. If I had your money I’d burn mine…
Trying to pass himself off as an expert would be one of the biggest lies
Any examples Aghast?
This blog has never exercised prejudice when it comes to criticism and unfounded personal attacks. Both men and women have been slandered with equal ferocity – and the list is long. And I don’t think Mary wants or needs anyone’s defense. If she was the sensitive sort she probably wouldn’t expend so much time and energy insulting people.
But if she is, the solution is simple: give respect, get respect.
Ha, take your own advice, Al. Don’t disrespect the public by lying to them. Tell the truth and someday someone might believe you
Brother Al,
Take a sheet & fall backwards into it!
Please give credit where credit is due: there were four other people on the Structure Committee who contributed much personal time and effort to the report. The PSU report simply lends credibility to the premise that the Governance and Structure Committee’s got it right the first time – and that’s gratifying for all involved.
You’ve been slamming both reports for a year and a half. Your position would be mightily bolstered by identifying specific problems within the report. Simply posting eloquent insults for 18 months with no substantiative content to support your position weakens your argument that the report is inconsequential and irrelevant. It would also be helpful if you would post your resume, as your readers might be interested in past work experience that would qualify you to be a management, operations and governance expert. Thanks.
It’s always easier to make personal attacks and try to belittle those who disagree on a course of action isn’t it. From the local rag to open public meetings it has been used quite often when no concrete answer or logical argument can be given. I suspect in your case, especially when it’s a woman your attacking.
First, I have already been very specific but why would anyone, me in particular, want to bolster their credibility with a sciolist who in my opinion is a charlatan? As for my credentials, I have never represented myself as anything other than what I am, which is a concerned taxpaying citizen who tries to pay attention to what is going on.
If I haven’t been clear enough already, in my opinion you are a flake, a rube, a has been wanna be with only rudimentary and outdated knowledge of modern IT, business management, strategic planning, marketing and probably even motorcycles. You clearly have sales training, I will give you that.