I agree with much of this. No elected official should have to endure threats or personal hostility. Civility matters, and respectful disagreement is essential if we want people to continue serving in public office.
That said, I also think it’s worth asking why frustration has become so elevated. Anger is often a symptom rather than the root cause. When residents feel there is a lack of accountability, limited transparency, or little measurable progress on the issues that matter most, trust inevitably erodes. In Port Angeles, we’ve experienced years of economic underperformance, declining living-wage employment, shrinking purchasing power, and forecasts that often don’t match reality. When government doesn’t regularly evaluate outcomes, acknowledge what didn’t work, and explain how it will improve, frustration builds.
Accountability isn’t just about admitting mistakes. It’s about measuring results, comparing promises with outcomes, and being willing to change course when the evidence suggests a different approach. That kind of transparency can do more to reduce public anger than any de-escalation training ever could.
Ultimately, I think we all want the same thing: a community where elected officials remain accessible, residents feel heard, and decisions are judged by measurable results. Respect and accountability are not competing values—they reinforce one another. The more transparent government is about its performance, the more trust it earns, and the healthier the conversation becomes.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. One thing I've always appreciated about your comments is that, even when we ultimately arrive at different conclusions, you consistently explain your reasoning and keep the conversation respectful. I think that's exactly the kind of civic dialogue we should encourage.
I also think you've identified a distinction that I intentionally didn't try to answer in this article. Your comment focuses primarily on why frustration develops. That's an important discussion. My article was intentionally focused on how we respond once frustration exists.
I don't see those as competing ideas. There are worthwhile conversations to have about accountability, transparency, and whether government is achieving the outcomes people expect. My point was that, regardless of where someone lands on those questions, we still need to be able to have productive conversations with one another. If we lose that ability, it becomes much harder to address the underlying issues.
One of the reasons I continue to enjoy serving on Council is that residents really can influence how I think. I've changed my mind before, because someone took the time to explain a different perspective or share information I hadn't considered. That's why preserving accessibility matters so much to me. It's also why the phrase, "I am here to serve, not to absorb anger," resonated so strongly. To me, it isn't just about personal security. It's about creating the conditions where those productive conversations can continue.
I like the title of the article and the idea behind it. I agree with what Steven says in his comment, about understanding why people are angry. Sometimes it’s rational, sometimes it’s not — like in Aiden’s situation.
For myself, seeing what you write on Substack, and Jon Hamilton as well, is helpful. Even though I don’t live in PA, I go there, I spend money there, and I want it to be better. I don’t always agree with the decisions being made, and honestly what I want could never exist in this state and I know that, but reading your views and Jon’s views offers better transparency and understanding, and I appreciate that. I hope more local elected officials will work towards blogging to share their views and create connections with more people in their community.
I agree with much of this. No elected official should have to endure threats or personal hostility. Civility matters, and respectful disagreement is essential if we want people to continue serving in public office.
That said, I also think it’s worth asking why frustration has become so elevated. Anger is often a symptom rather than the root cause. When residents feel there is a lack of accountability, limited transparency, or little measurable progress on the issues that matter most, trust inevitably erodes. In Port Angeles, we’ve experienced years of economic underperformance, declining living-wage employment, shrinking purchasing power, and forecasts that often don’t match reality. When government doesn’t regularly evaluate outcomes, acknowledge what didn’t work, and explain how it will improve, frustration builds.
Accountability isn’t just about admitting mistakes. It’s about measuring results, comparing promises with outcomes, and being willing to change course when the evidence suggests a different approach. That kind of transparency can do more to reduce public anger than any de-escalation training ever could.
Ultimately, I think we all want the same thing: a community where elected officials remain accessible, residents feel heard, and decisions are judged by measurable results. Respect and accountability are not competing values—they reinforce one another. The more transparent government is about its performance, the more trust it earns, and the healthier the conversation becomes.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. One thing I've always appreciated about your comments is that, even when we ultimately arrive at different conclusions, you consistently explain your reasoning and keep the conversation respectful. I think that's exactly the kind of civic dialogue we should encourage.
I also think you've identified a distinction that I intentionally didn't try to answer in this article. Your comment focuses primarily on why frustration develops. That's an important discussion. My article was intentionally focused on how we respond once frustration exists.
I don't see those as competing ideas. There are worthwhile conversations to have about accountability, transparency, and whether government is achieving the outcomes people expect. My point was that, regardless of where someone lands on those questions, we still need to be able to have productive conversations with one another. If we lose that ability, it becomes much harder to address the underlying issues.
One of the reasons I continue to enjoy serving on Council is that residents really can influence how I think. I've changed my mind before, because someone took the time to explain a different perspective or share information I hadn't considered. That's why preserving accessibility matters so much to me. It's also why the phrase, "I am here to serve, not to absorb anger," resonated so strongly. To me, it isn't just about personal security. It's about creating the conditions where those productive conversations can continue.
What a terrible thing for Aiden to deal with.
I like the title of the article and the idea behind it. I agree with what Steven says in his comment, about understanding why people are angry. Sometimes it’s rational, sometimes it’s not — like in Aiden’s situation.
For myself, seeing what you write on Substack, and Jon Hamilton as well, is helpful. Even though I don’t live in PA, I go there, I spend money there, and I want it to be better. I don’t always agree with the decisions being made, and honestly what I want could never exist in this state and I know that, but reading your views and Jon’s views offers better transparency and understanding, and I appreciate that. I hope more local elected officials will work towards blogging to share their views and create connections with more people in their community.