Lifepac Homepage

Life Issues Family Ethics Political Action Committee

of Southwest Washington

Clark County Commissioners on FVRL libraries distribution of pornography to minors by Margaret Tweet, updated October 2014

FVRL libraries in Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat Counties distributed hardcore pornography via the internet and print to and near minors until 2006. Clark County Commissioners from 1998-2005 consistently appointed and confirmed FVRL library trustees who supported the policy of making hardcore pornography available to all. From 1998-2006, public records of library complaints have included obscene screens, printouts, and behaviors as well as sex offenders and illegal materials. Thousands of citizens supported filtering out Internet porn and prohibiting distribution to minors like other library systems (Tacoma, Wenatchee,). Citizens packed public hearings and board meetings, sent letters, and circulated petitions, but were largely ignored by the unelected library board for years.

When library trustees voted for unfiltered internet access for all ages in 1998, FVRL Trustee Jerry King wrote, "In fact, the conclusion that pornography is often harmful to kids does not seem to be supported by much evidence, especially when some other factors are considered.” In the community, pornography distribution to and near minors in public institutions was and is not standard. Nevertheless, then Clark County Commissioners ( Pridemore, Morris, and Stanton) unanimously re-appointed King to a second term starting January 2002. In August 2002, King voted AGAINST filtering out pornograrphy for children on library computers, again. Two other trustees joined King in voting AGAINST filtering out pornography for children 12 and under, but thankfully a narrow majority (4-3) voted to filter out porno for children 12 and under. However, that decision wasn’t implemented until August 2003. The Children’s Internet Protection Act finally moved FVRL to filter out Internet pornography for minors 16 and under in April 2004. Unfiltered access continued for those 17 and up, and hardcopy pornography was still distributed to minors until 2006 when the policy was updated to prohibit viewing pornographic websites and basic filtering to block out pornographic websites was applied.
The process by which Clark County Commissioners appointed library board members while Pridemore, Morris, and Stanton were in office was not as open as it should have been. For example, in 2004, Commissioners Pridemore, Morris, and Stanton quietly re-appointed a library trustee without seeking applications from the public. In contrast, when trustees wanted to serve again in Thurston, Mason, and Lewis Counties, the counties gave public notice of the opening and interviewed several candidates in open public meetings.

The early appointment in September 2004 when the term didn’t end until Dec 31, 2004 was also unusual. At the Oct. 19, 2004 commissioner meeting, then Commissioner Pridemore gave the bogus excuse that the early appointment was to allow time to circulate to Skamania and Klickitat Counties for approval. However, public records show it took only about 3 weeks to circulate, which is the time it usually took.

According to an e-mail from Clark County, in 2001 Clark County Commissioners conducted public and non-public interviews for library trustees and discussed applications openly and in closed "executive session", out of the public view.

For years, the city of Vancouver made library board appointments, in violation of state law. Senator Don Benton notified the county of the need to comply with State law(RCW 27.12.190) "In intercounty rural library districts (like FVRL) a board of either five or seven trustees shall be appointed by the joint action of the boards of county commissioners of each of the counties included in a district…" County Commissioners shirked their statutory duties, and responded with a unique inter-local agreement to allow Vancouver to continue to recommend 2 of the 7 FVRL library trustees.

State imposed limits on personal speech by appointed board, Human Rights Commission

Jim Moeller was chairman of The Community Coordinating Committee for a Human
Rights Commission, which proposed the creation of a local human rights
commission. His committee supported creating a bureaucracy that advocated
punishing certain kinds of speech that an appointed board deemed offensive.
The following was used as an example of speech that should not be allowed.
It was a quote made by someone who was asked about their view of churches
who welcome practicing gays and lesbians as members.

"It's a false church. They've compromised their beliefs, they've
compromised the bible, and they've compromised the word of god. They've
pretty much caved into worldly pressures. They have no backbone. True
believers are smart enough to stay away from those churches."

The proposal, explicitly used this quote as an example of discrimination
that should be punished. The mission statement of the commission was in part
to create a culturally competent community. Who defines culturally
competent? The appointed Human Rights Commission.

Original proposal for the Local Human Rights Commission, Nov. 20, 2000:
“Human rights ordinances adopted by the County and City will ensure that
consequences are present should an offender fail to comply with the
administrative decisions of the HRC or its hearing examiner(s). Remedies
will include civil penalties and/or criminal penalties in cases that do not
attain resolution through mediation.”
Ordinance M-3557 to establish the commission was adopted by the Vancouver
City Council (6-1) in July 2001, despite strong citizen opposition. Clark
County Commissioners (Pridemore, Stanton and Morris) then unanimously approved forming a County/City Human
Rights Commission of nine non-elected appointees, dubbed the “thought
cops”. The commission was to provide mediation, education and referrals for
approximately $200,000 taxpayer dollars every two years. These services were
a duplication of similar services offered by the state.
Their duties would've included proposing additional anti-discrimination
laws, subject to only one public hearing and city council vote. Citizens
were concerned about private speech regulated by a non-elected body. In
addition, early drafts included penalties for non-compliant speech as
determined by the “thought cops”. Framers of the commission were all
enthusiastic supporters.

September 2004 - Had an interesting chat with Mr. Pridemore when he was doorbelling in my neighborhood yesterday. When I asked him about his stand on abortion, instead of running off, he engaged my questions for at least 5 minutes. He called himself pro-choice, but admitted that he opposed 9th month abortions, PBA, and convenience abortions. He asked for my stand on capital punishment and providing help for pregnant women and said at least I was consistent. But he said bottom line, he didn't want the government making the decision that moral women should make. Then he listened to me explain that wife-abuse, murder of pregnant women, and child abuse have all exploded since 1973. That women regret abortions they were forced into, with boyfriends and husbands pressuring them. So I asked him if he would prefer that the government or moral husbands decide whether or not to beat their wives, moral men to decide whether to rape boys, and moral parents decide whether to beat children. What's the difference? He said we don't know when life begins. I said I do, I am a scientist, and all scientists know life begins at conception, only the Supreme Court created a new social definition of life. I said when you use violence to solve social problems, you create more violence. Then I asked him why he didn't fill out a Lifepac survey. He said he didn't want to mislead anyone with his doubts, that he would vote pro-abortion when it came down to it. So I confirmed that he would indeed be guilty of murder, and that I would pray for him. With that he went on to the next house.

October 5, 2004 - Clark County Commissioners (Craig Pridemore, Betty Sue Morris and Judie Stanton) unanimously approved forming a County/City Human Rights Commission of nine non-elected appointees, dubbed the "thought cops". The commission was to provide mediation, education and referrals for approximately $200,000 taxpayer dollars every two years. These services were a duplication of similar services offered by the state. Their duties would've included proposing additional anti-discrimination laws, subject to only one public hearing and city council vote. Citizens were concerned about private speech regulated by a non-elected body. In addition, early drafts included penalties for non-compliant speech as determined by the "thought cops". Framers of the commission were all enthusiastic supporters.

Voters reject "thought cops". Ordinance M-3557 to establish the commission was adopted by the Vancouver City Council (6-1) in July 2001, despite strong citizen opposition. Over 5,000 Vancouver residents responded and signed the first successful referendum petition ever, to put the commission to a vote. There is no power of referendum in the county. Later, the Clark County commissioners unanimously approved the commission, in spite of the petition drive and citizen objections. Vancouver citizens voted soundly against the "thought cops" commission in November 2001, and it was rescinded by both the city and county.

County commissioners displayed arrogant disregard for the legitimate concerns of thousands of citizens by voting in favor of the commission. Since county residents do not have the power of referendum and initiative, it is even more important to vote for freedom loving representatives, not those who seek to regulate citizen freedoms from the county throne.

Background Info. Original proposal for the Local Human Rights Commission, Nov. 20, 2000: "Human rights ordinances adopted by the County and City will ensure that consequences are present should an offender fail to comply with the administrative decisions of the HRC or its hearing examiner(s). Remedies will include civil penalties and/or criminal penalties in cases that do not attain resolution through mediation."

Kelly Adams, Columbian Staff Writer, wrote Mar. 12, 2001: "Also removed from the (original) proposal is the request for an anti-discrimination ordinance. Once the commission is formed, those on the board would be charged with determining if a specific law is needed, then drafting such an ordinance and bringing it before the city council."

If this information has helped you with your vote, please Donate a few dollars now to help LifePac with its candidate research work.