Clallam County Watchdog

Jeff Tozzer
  • 3.8 (4)
  • Politics
  • Updated Daily

Holding County Leaders Accountable www.ccwatchdog.com

  1. 2h ago

    When “No Incidents” Isn’t the Whole Story

    For months, the public has been told there have been "no incidents" associated with the William Shore Pool's controversial shower voucher program. But newly uncovered emails, reports from patrons, and the facility's own director tell a more complicated story. Two registered sex offenders—including one accused of photographing young girls at the pool—were ultimately banned from the facility. They did not enter through the voucher program, but their presence is raising new questions about safety, screening, and whether the pool is drifting from its mission as a family recreation center. Throughout the controversy surrounding the William Shore Memorial Pool’s shower voucher program, the public has repeatedly been reassured that there have been “no incidents.” Board members, staff, and supporters have emphasized that the individuals using the program are simply neighbors who have fallen on hard times, that staff are trained to identify registered sex offenders, and that the facility remains safe for children and families. When criticism intensified, the program itself was even rebranded as the “Community Hygiene Program.” This week, however, social media lit up with reports involving registered sex offender Thomas Frizalone. If that name sounds familiar, it should. CC Watchdog featured Frizalone in April after he was arrested on allegations of assault with sexual motivation. Frizalone is the New York sex offender who was classified there as a Level III offender—the state’s highest risk designation—following convictions involving sexual offenses against children. He was required to register for life in New York and faced extensive public notification requirements. Yet after moving to Clallam County, he was initially classified locally as only a Level I offender, meaning he did not appear on Washington’s public sex offender website. Earlier this year, he was arrested on allegations of assault with sexual motivation and is currently out on bail while registered as a transient in Port Angeles. Another resident recalled an earlier encounter: “I think I ran this dude off from my cul-de-sac a few years ago. Dude was trying to call over some of the kids that live and play in my cul-de-sac.” Then came another allegation. Resident Vanessa Marie posted: “This parasite was caught last Wednesday taking photos of little girls at the pool. Makes me sick & I feel that our community needs to protect our children! About six months ago I got Robert Keith (child molester) kicked out of the pool! He was going there all the time & the pool had no idea about him until I went up to the front desk & showed them his mugshots, charges & one of them was a fail to register charge.” When CC Watchdog contacted Vanessa to ask about the encounter, her response was telling: “Which one?” It Wasn’t the First Time Last October, Vanessa emailed Executive Director Ryan Amiot after recognizing another registered sex offender—Robert Allen Keith—using the facility. Keith’s criminal history includes convictions for: * Third-degree rape of a child. * Third-degree child molestation. * Felony failure to register as a sex offender. She alerted staff, provided documentation, and emailed the director. Amiot responded the following day: “I cannot thank you enough for bringing this to our attention. I have posted this photo with clear instructions for our front desk staff. We will not be allowing him on or near the premises.” The exchange demonstrated that staff acted promptly once they became aware of Keith’s identity. How Did They Get Into the Pool? Following the recent reports involving Frizalone and Keith, CC Watchdog asked Amiot how both registered sex offenders gained access to the facility. Specifically, the questions asked whether they: * Paid for admission themselves. * Used shower vouchers. * Had admission paid by another organization. Amiot replied: “These individuals paid the daily admission fee themselves to gain entry to the facility. When their status was identified, we notified the individuals they were no longer permitted to attend the facility; and provided clear guidance to staff to notify management/the authorities should they attempt future entry.” That distinction is important. Based on the information provided, there is no indication either individual entered the facility through the shower voucher program. But That’s Not the End of the Story Supporters of the voucher program will undoubtedly point to that fact. They should. Accuracy matters. However, it also misses the larger issue. The controversy has never been limited to who pays for admission. It has centered on whether a facility built for children, swim lessons, youth sports, and family recreation should increasingly function as a social services center and an extension of the county’s harm-reduction program. Clallam County has a significant transient offender population. Of the 30 registered sex offenders currently listed in Port Angeles, 13 are classified either as transient or have convictions related to failing to register. That reality presents challenges for every public facility—not just the William Shore Pool. As the pool board continues expanding services aimed at vulnerable populations, many parents are asking whether enough consideration has been given to the increased security demands that inevitably accompany those decisions. Those questions deserve thoughtful discussion rather than dismissal. A Policy Debate—Not a Personal Attack No one is suggesting every homeless person is dangerous. Nor does this week’s information demonstrate that the voucher program itself allowed these offenders into the building. What it does demonstrate is that the potential risks discussed throughout this debate are real—not hypothetical. Registered sex offenders have entered the facility.Staff have had to identify them.Management has had to ban them.Concerned citizens—not routine screening—have played an important role in bringing at least one offender to the pool’s attention. Those are facts. As board members Mike French, Randy Johnson, Mark Hodgson, LaTrisha Suggs, and Greg Shields continue to transform what has traditionally been a family recreation center into a broader community services facility, parents and taxpayers have every right to ask whether that direction serves the pool's mission. If you believe the William Shore Pool should remain focused primarily on children, families, and recreation—and that shower services should instead be provided at facilities already equipped for social services, such as Serenity House, TAFY, or The Salvation Army—you can add your name to the growing petition calling for an end to the shower voucher program. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." — Benjamin Franklin Have Your Say Do you believe the William Shore Pool is headed in the right direction? Let the Board know where you stand on the shower voucher program and the policies governing safety at the facility. Contact the Board: * Mike French — Mike.French@clallamcountywa.gov * Randy Johnson — Randy.Johnson@clallamcountywa.gov * Mark Hodgson — mhodgson@cityofpa.us * LaTrisha Suggs — losuggs@cityofpa.us * Greg Shields — gshield6@icloud.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com

    1h 3m

  2. 1d ago

    Who Speaks for the Refuges?

    The Jamestown Corporation says transferring ownership of Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island into trust would strengthen stewardship while preserving the refuges for future generations. Recent public statements, however, have revealed details that deserve much closer scrutiny. Rather than settling the debate, they raise new questions about why the transfer is being pursued and what it could ultimately become. For months, the public has been told that transferring Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island into trust for the Jamestown Corporation would change very little. The refuges would remain protected. Wildlife would continue to come first. Public access would remain intact. Those assurances have been repeated often enough that many people have accepted them at face value. Then came two reports that deserve careful reading—Emily Hanson’s coverage in the Peninsula Daily News and Al Bergstein’s reporting in Olympic Peninsula Environmental News. Instead of putting concerns to rest, both stories revealed information that makes the proposal even more worthy of public debate. So... What’s the Real Reason? One passage from the Peninsula Daily News stood out immediately. According to Chairman Ron Allen, one reason the legislation is being pursued now is that the Tribe has an oyster operation within the refuge’s waters that has been inactive for roughly twelve years. The Tribe is attempting to have that operation recertified, but Allen said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not been working with them to accomplish that. That explanation came as a surprise. For months, the conversation has centered on conservation, stewardship, cultural connections, and protecting one of Washington’s most important wildlife refuges. Hearing that an inactive oyster operation is part of the reason for pursuing federal legislation naturally raises another question: Is preserving the refuge really the primary motivation, or is a profitable commercial shellfish venture driving this proposal? Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. If so, the public deserves to hear it. One Sentence Said a Lot Another statement from Chairman Allen may have revealed more than intended. “We have a vision that is more than the refuge.” Bingo. That single sentence captures exactly why many residents have become uneasy. Many people don’t want the refuge to become “more than the refuge.” Protection Island wasn’t preserved so future governments—tribal, state, or federal—could expand its purpose. It was protected because generations of citizens worked to preserve one of the Pacific Northwest’s most important seabird nesting habitats. Sometimes the best vision for a wildlife refuge is simply allowing it to remain a wildlife refuge. Ownership Matters Chairman Allen also assured commissioners that transferring ownership would not change the refuge’s purpose. “It stays in terms of its intended purpose.” No one has reason to doubt his sincerity. But ownership matters. If ownership didn’t matter, this legislation wouldn’t exist. The concern has never been whether today’s tribal leadership intends to preserve public access. The concern is whether future tribal governments would be legally required to do so. Leadership changes. Priorities change. Laws change. Promises made by one generation of elected officials do not automatically bind the next. Allen also remarked: “They don’t change the public’s right and public’s interest with regard to what we’re doing. But we have such a higher interest.” The Tribe says its members possess a deep cultural and historical connection to these lands. That deserves respect. But these refuges also belong to the American people. Public ownership is not a minor interest simply because another government believes its interest is greater. An Interesting Contrast Wildlife Refuge Manager Fawn Wagner highlighted several accomplishments since the Tribe became co-manager in 2024. By every account, the Tribe has done excellent work using federal funds to repair roads, expand wildlife monitoring, increase volunteer participation, remove invasive plants without pesticides, and improve scientific research. One example Wagner highlighted was the removal of invasive praying mantises from Protection Island. That made another point difficult to ignore. On one hand, invasive praying mantises are presented as an environmental threat requiring removal. On the other hand, one of the stated reasons for pursuing ownership of the refuge is to facilitate the recertification of a commercial oyster operation involving a species native to Asia, not the Pacific Northwest. Readers can decide for themselves whether those priorities are entirely consistent. Then Came the Bigger Story If the Peninsula Daily News article raised questions, Al Bergstein’s reporting dramatically expanded the scope of the conversation. According to Bergstein, Chairman Allen told Jefferson County commissioners that this proposal is only part of a much larger effort involving tribes throughout Washington. Allen reportedly said the Makah Tribe is expected to pursue ownership of the three coastal wildlife refuges. Either the Lummi Nation or the Swinomish Tribe could seek the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge. He also referenced similar efforts involving the Nisqually Tribe. If those statements accurately reflect the broader vision, then the discussion is no longer simply about Dungeness Spit and Protection Island. It becomes a conversation about the future ownership of Washington’s entire maritime refuge system. That system includes six National Wildlife Refuges: * Flattery Rocks * Quillayute Needles * Copalis * Dungeness * Protection Island * San Juan Islands Whether every one of those transfers eventually occurs is unknown. But if this proposal is intended to establish a precedent, the public deserves to understand that before Congress takes action. More Questions Than Answers Bergstein also notes that the Jamestown Tribe has been receiving approximately $800,000 to co-manage these refuges under its agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There appears to be broad agreement that the Tribe has performed that work exceptionally well. That raises another obvious question. If the existing co-management arrangement is succeeding, why replace it with a transfer of ownership? The draft legislation reportedly contains no legally binding provisions preventing future commercial aquaculture around Protection Island. Current tribal leaders have repeatedly stated they have no plans to pursue that. Those assurances may be entirely genuine. The question isn’t about today’s leadership. Legislation lasts much longer than elected officials. Finally, Bergstein reports that Chairman Allen said the Tribe had planned a larger public information campaign before “Congresswoman Randall asked us to kind of back off on it.” If that quote is accurate, another question naturally follows: Why? Was the concern that a broader public discussion might generate opposition during an election year? That’s a question Congresswoman Randall should answer. If transferring ownership is truly in the public’s best interest, broader public discussion should be welcomed—not discouraged. Before Congress considers legislation of this magnitude, the public deserves complete transparency, thorough debate, and the opportunity to ask difficult questions. Bergstein’s reporting contributes meaningfully to that discussion and is well worth reading in full. “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.” — Theodore Roosevelt Today’s Tidbit: One Question, Two Very Different Answers At the recent Clallam County Democrats candidate forum, the moderator asked Commissioner Mike French and challenger Jake Seegers a simple question: Do you support transferring Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island into trust for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe? The answers revealed two very different philosophies. Mike French said he isn’t opposed to the idea, but wants to see the legislation first. He said any transfer would need “guard rails” that explicitly protect public access, recreational opportunities, and environmental protections in federal law. He also called on Congresswoman Emily Randall and Washington’s senators to hold a public town hall so residents can ask questions before Congress acts. Jake Seegers took a firmer position. “I don’t support the transfer,” he said. “It’s the people’s land.” Seegers said he doesn’t believe any legislation can permanently guarantee future public access once ownership changes. While he acknowledged the Tribe has been a good steward of the refuge as a co-manager, he said that’s different from permanently transferring ownership of land that belongs to the American people. Whether you agree with French, Seegers, or neither, one thing should unite all of us: This conversation should happen in public. Congresswoman Emily Randall, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Maria Cantwell should hold a public town hall on the Olympic Peninsula before Congress considers legislation that could permanently transfer ownership of two National Wildlife Refuges. If you believe the Clallam County Commissioners should take an official position, let them know. All three commissioners can be reached through the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov. Public lands belong to the public. The public deserves a seat at the table before any decision is made. Seen around… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com

    1h 2m

  3. 2d ago

    The $118,000 Parking Lot: How County Officials and NGOs Lock the Public Out of Taxpayer Spending

    When a $118,000 county contract funds just three parking spaces, taxpayers deserve clear receipts. Instead, local leadership is hiding behind non-profit privacy walls, with the Homelessness Task Force officially adopting a policy of silence toward public inquiries. This investigation exposes how public money is quietly propping up private NGO payrolls, directly contradicting official claims that these services are being provided "for free." When public money is allocated to private, non-profit organizations, what level of accountability should the public expect? This question highlights an ideological distinction in the ongoing Clallam County commissioner race. At a recent debate hosted at Democratic Headquarters, challenger Jake Seegers and incumbent Mike French discussed public funding oversight. Incumbent Commissioner Mike French defended current practices, asserting that existing guardrails are more than sufficient. “I think all that transparency already exists,” French stated, explaining that county allocations rely on an “open request for proposals that’s scored openly” where all applications exist as public documents. When the county agreements are finalized, French noted that they carry a “detailed scope of work that says, ‘Here’s the work you’re going to do. Here’s what you’re going to get paid for.’” Challenger Jake Seegers pushed back, arguing for stricter, legally binding compliance requirements for outside groups. “Absolutely, I would [support new language],” Seegers countered. “If an NGO wants to take money from the county... they should have to disclose financial reports, and they should have to perform metrics.” Seegers argued that current county contracts fail to track actual success, stating, “We have a scope of work, but the scope of work never defines the outcome that we want... If you want the money, you need to show within each time increment, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, that you are producing measurable results.” A Program Under Scrutiny A central example of this discussion is the Safe Parking Program operating at Trinity United Methodist Church in Sequim. Funded by Clallam County Homeless Funds, the contract allows for a maximum consideration of up to $118,780. The program is designed as a pilot initiative intended to provide secure parking spaces for three to five vehicles used by unhoused residents. Over the past few months, private citizens have sought detailed information regarding the program’s administration, cost breakdowns, and operational structure. However, these inquiries have faced roadblocks. OlyCAP (Olympic Community Action Programs) Director Viola Ware, who chairs the county committee responsible for recommending these funding allocations, has not responded to emailed inquiries regarding the program. Commissioner Mike French, who serves on the OlyCAP board—a position established through a county resolution he helped draft and pass—has also not commented on the matter. Because private non-profits are subject to different disclosure rules than government entities, tracking the path of county funds once they are transferred can be exceptionally difficult for the public. Task Force Response and Public Comment Policy The challenge regarding public inquiry became a topic of discussion at this month’s Homelessness Task Force (HTF) meeting on June 2nd. Mike Shonsey, a new member representing the Olympic Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Church, asked how the task force should address correspondence or presentations from the public. “Do we respond to them in any way, other than to say ‘Thank you for your response?'“ Christine Dunn of Clallam County Health and Human Services advised, “That’s really all you have to say… [it’s] not required of you.” Ware expanded on this guidance by reading a prepared statement during the meeting, noting that while public comment is essential, the board’s role is to receive feedback rather than enter into a dialogue. “While we are able to respond to public comment, this board’s role is not to engage in back-and-forth debate with public comment during meetings,” Ware stated, concluding, “In answer, we are not obligated to respond.” This policy has fueled frustration among residents trying to understand how the $118,780 contract was allocated, as the official descriptions of OlyCAP’s involvement appear to conflict with public records. Analyzing the Financial Records During a May Board of Commissioners’ meeting, Ware attempted to clarify what she described as public misconceptions, stating that the safe parking setup “is not an OlyCAP program.” According to Ware, the program is managed by Trinity United Methodist Church, while OlyCAP simply partners with the church by providing limited evening, morning, and on-call staffing support, alongside case management services that she stated were provided “for free.” However, public records obtained through an engaged citizen’s public disclosure request indicate a more complex financial relationship. County contract documents and internal payroll records show that the program is tied directly to OlyCAP personnel expenses. Financial registers tracking Project 341 (the Safe Parking Pilot Program) under OlyCAP’s Housing Assistance department show that public funds cover direct hours, payroll taxes, and medical benefits for specific OlyCAP employees, such as Terry Strickland and Jacob Powell. The records also show billings for dedicated employee cell phone lines. While the program may be hosted by the church, public funds are directly supporting OlyCAP’s staffing infrastructure for the project. At the May 12 Board of County Commissioners meeting, Viola Ware told those in attendance, “The total funds are for two years of operation,” but added, “I can’t speak to where those go.” Ware also stated that the Safe Parking initiative is “not an OlyCAP program.” However, internal financial records obtained by an engaged citizen show that she personally approves payroll distributions charged to the Safe Parking Program, with the approving supervisor identified as “Vware1.” Program Operations and Future Outlook During the June HTF meeting, Joe Cress of Trinity United Methodist Church provided an update on the program’s operational outcomes. According to Cress, eight individuals have applied to the program since its launch, five have been approved, four have participated, and three are currently utilizing the site. Cress noted that initial participation was low due to high entry barriers, which originally required participants to hold a valid driver’s license, auto insurance, and vehicle title. To increase enrollment, the program adjusted its criteria, allowing individuals to enter the program while working toward obtaining those documents. Regarding expenditures, Cress reported that the church spent $9,837 last year and $1,796 so far this year on operations. These figures do not include over four thousand dollars allocated to upgrade security cameras after incidents involving outside disruptions, such as vehicles revving engines or individuals disturbing guests. When asked about the total annual cost to run the program, Cress could not provide an estimate, guessing it would be “significantly less” than the maximum grant allotment. He added that the church may seek additional funding in the future to build roofs over sanitation stations and to pay for guests’ vehicle repairs. The operational reality of the program highlights the core of the debate between the two commission candidates. For incumbent Mike French, the current model relies on established non-profit partnerships to address complex social issues through existing contract management. For challenger Jake Seegers, the lack of direct public answers and clear, outcome-based metrics points to a need for systematic reform in how Clallam County monitors taxpayer dollars. "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." — Patrick Henry Today’s Tidbit: Questions the Safe Parking Story Raises The Peninsula Daily News published a story this weekend about the Safe Parking Program temporarily relocating from Trinity United Methodist Church in Sequim to St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Port Angeles for four nights because fireworks and the LavenderStock Music Festival are expected to make the area too noisy for participants. That raises a few questions. Too noisy for four nights? The article explains that participants are being moved because Carrie Blake Park will be loud during the Fourth of July and LavenderStock. But people live around Carrie Blake Park every day of the year. They don’t get relocated because of fireworks or concerts. If the noise makes the location unsuitable for program participants, what does that say about the location chosen for the program in the first place? Just our friends and neighbors? The article also describes an impressive amount of infrastructure surrounding a program serving just a handful of participants. According to the story: * OlyCAP staff are on site every evening. * OlyCAP staff return every morning. * A staff member remains on call overnight. * Sequim Police drive by multiple times each night. * Staff and volunteers receive de-escalation training. * Church officials say they’ll do “all we can do” to ensure safety. Those precautions may be appropriate. But they also raise an obvious question. If the participants pose virtually no public safety concerns, why is this level of staffing, law enforcement attention, overnight availability, and de-escalation training necessary? “We’ve not really had any problems so far.” That one word stood out: “Really.” Either there have been problems, or there haven’t. If there have been minor incidents, what were they? If there have been none, why qualify the statement? 247 Gu

    1h 5m

  4. 3d ago

    The Shotgun Sermon

    A nearly two-year-old church video has suddenly resurfaced on social media, drawing sharp criticism and raising questions about County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers’ character. Rather than ignore the controversy, Seegers sat down for a candid conversation about what he meant, what he wishes he had said differently, and why he believes context matters. Whether you agree with him or not, this is a conversation worth hearing. Over the past several days, a two-year-old video from a church gathering has spread rapidly across social media. Some critics have been quick to draw conclusions. “This ‘independent’ sure does have his wagon firmly tied to MAGA ideology.” Others have gone further. “What a vile human being. So much hate in his so-called Christian love.” Rather than pretend the video doesn’t exist—or ask people to simply dismiss it—County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers chose a different approach. He sat down for a podcast conversation to explain the context behind what has become known online as “The Shotgun Sermon.” The original remarks were delivered in October 2024, when Seegers was asked by his pastor to speak briefly to his congregation about the importance of voting before the presidential election. Listening back two years later, Seegers doesn’t claim every word came out perfectly. In fact, he admits some of it made him uncomfortable. “When I heard it the other day, I was like, ‘Ugh, that sounds aggressive, that sounds violent. That wasn’t my intention.’ The individuals in that room would have understood that.” He explains that the “shotgun” story was intended as a metaphor about taking civic responsibility seriously—not a call for violence. “That was a metaphor... I was trying to say, ‘You have free will. Stop just sitting on your hands... because you have the tools to make change. And that tool, one of those tools, is to vote.’” Perhaps more revealing than the explanation itself is the conversation that follows. Clallam County Watchdog publisher and Jake Seegers’ campaign manager, Jeff Tozzer—who openly acknowledges that he disagrees with Seegers on a number of religious and social issues—doesn’t let him off easy. Throughout the interview, Tozzer repeatedly challenges Seegers on how the remarks could be interpreted by people who don’t know him personally. Seegers doesn’t become defensive. Instead, he reflects on how words spoken to a room of people who knew him personally can sound very different when clipped and shared online with strangers two years later. Throughout the discussion, he repeatedly returns to the same theme: finding common ground. “I don’t care who you voted for. I don’t care what your religious background is. I don’t care who you love... I’m interested in what we have in common. I care about every single person in this county.” He also acknowledges that people will disagree with some of his deeply held personal beliefs. “If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine.” Whether listeners ultimately agree with his explanations is, of course, up to them. But in an era where short clips are often shared without context—and judgments are frequently made before full conversations are heard—there is value in taking twelve minutes to watch the original video and hear the discussion surrounding it. That’s exactly why this podcast episode was recorded. Not to erase disagreement.Not to ask for blind trust.But to let people hear the entire conversation before deciding for themselves. The full podcast includes the complete 12-minute church audio, along with Seegers’ reflections nearly two years later. If you’ve seen the clips circulating online—or even if you haven’t—invest some time and hear the whole story before reaching a conclusion. "The opposition is trying to highlight our differences, and I'm trying to highlight our commonalities." — Jake Seegers Editor’s Note: CC Watchdog editor Jeff Tozzer also serves as campaign manager for Jake Seegers during his run for Clallam County Commissioner, District 3. Learn more at www.JakeSeegers.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com

    1h 38m

  5. 6d ago

    Clallam County’s Response to Privacy Tort Claim Raises Bigger Questions About Surveillance and Accountability

    How much should government be allowed to see from the sky? In this guest column, Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren details her legal challenge to the County's use of EagleView technology—an aerial imaging system that combines high-resolution photography, 3D modeling, and AI-powered change detection. Shogren argues the program goes far beyond traditional property assessment and may conflict with Washington's strong constitutional privacy protections. The County disagrees, defending the technology as a modern version of an assessor's visual inspection. The dispute raises a larger question for residents: where is the line between efficient government and government surveillance? On February 6, 2026, I sat down with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dee Boughton and Clallam County Assessor Pam Rushton to discuss my concerns regarding the County’s on-going use of EagleView Technology for high-resolution aerial imagery, 3D modeling, and AI-enhanced surveillance tools across all of Clallam County. Mr. Boughton told me that he would discuss the issues with the Board of Commissioners in executive session and advise me of the County’s decision regarding the continued use of the system. I did not hear back. Accordingly, on April 21, 2026, I filed a Tort Claim at the County alleging that the County’s use of EagleView constitutes an ongoing violation of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. A tort claim is a formal notice that someone believes a government agency, business, or individual has caused them harm through a wrongful act and may be legally liable for damages or other relief. I also asserted the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, citing widespread internal access to the technology. On June 4, 2026, outside counsel Emily Romanenko of Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C. responded for the County. The County denied any constitutional violations. The County defended the program as a lawful property-assessment tool using imagery captured from approximately 1,500 feet — consistent, it says, with the Washington Supreme Court case of State v. Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506 (1984). The County asserted that the surveillance is comparable to what a human assessor could observe with the naked eye at ground level. The County further claimed that access is restricted to the Assessor’s Office personnel only. Several aspects of this exchange stand out as concerning for Clallam County residents. The County appears comfortable defending a program of enhanced aerial surveillance that many residents experience as highly invasive The County frames the imagery as essentially the modern equivalent of an assessor driving by or walking on your property. Yet the underlying contract includes AI-powered change detection across multiple years, multi-angle (oblique + ortho) high-resolution imagery, and a platform explicitly built for up to 50 concurrent authorized users. In order to understand each side’s position, it is necessary to examine the key Washington cases on aerial surveillance and technological enhancement. The Legal Backbone: Why Myrick Does Not Control the EagleView Program in Clallam County At the heart of this dispute is Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, which states: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Washington courts have long held that this provision provides broader privacy protection than the federal Fourth Amendment. My tort claim centers on two key Washington Supreme Court cases that define the limits of government aerial observation: * State v. Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506 (1984): Police conducted aerial surveillance of open fields from 1,500 feet. The Court held this did not violate Article I §7 because it involved what could be seen by the “[u]naided eye from the lawful and nonintrusive altitude of 1,500 feet above ground level.” * State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173 (1994): Police used a thermal imaging (infrared) device to detect heat signatures coming from a home. The Court held this did violate Article I §7. The device was a “particularly intrusive method of viewing” that revealed information not obtainable through ordinary observation. Because it augmented human senses and exposed private details inside the home, it constituted a search requiring authority of law. My tort claim argues that Clallam County’s EagleView system — high-resolution multi-angle imagery combined with AI-enhanced analytics (including ChangeFinder for automated detection of structural changes over time) and a platform accessible to dozens of county employees — is far closer to the enhanced technology struck down in Young than the simple visual flyover at 1,500 feet approved in Myrick. What the County Relies On The County’s response letter relies primarily on: * State v. Myrick (the same 1984 case above), arguing that imagery captured from ~1,500 feet is not “enhanced” beyond what a human assessor could observe at ground level with the naked eye. * Statutory authority granted to county assessors (RCW 36.21.070, 84.40.020, and 84.41.041) plus International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) standards that permit the use of orthophoto and oblique aerial imagery for property assessment. * Factual assertions that the County purchased 3-inch pixel resolution imagery and that access is limited to Assessor’s Office personnel only. * Photo comparisons to claim the imagery is not more intrusive than traditional assessor methods. The County chose the image below, in particular, in order to make it appear as though the EagleView surveillance is not intrusive: I asked Grok (AI) to analyze the image because the contract allows for nominal 3-inch ground sample distance (GSD) ortho imagery, which means that each pixel corresponds to approximately 2 inches (about 5 cm) on the ground. This is what Grok had to say: The image displayed in Attachment A of the County’s June 4, 2026 response letter is misleading. It is not the native imagery while rather a compressed, downsampled screenshot taken from the web-based CONNECTExplorer viewer at its maximum allowed zoom level. This web interface significantly reduces image quality through compression and viewer limitations. The underlying contract provides for 3-inch Ground Sample Distance imagery, which in its actual form contains substantially more detail than what is shown in the letter. At this resolution, authorized users can clearly identify individual roof shingles, small pavement cracks, roof vents, HVAC units, and other structural details that are not visible in the compressed web viewer screenshot presented by the County. I then asked Grok to provide me with a sample 3-inch GSD image in order to see the actual level of surveillance of Clallam County properties, and here is an example that Grok provided (ironically sourced from EagleView’s own website): If the County were confident that the EagleView surveillance does not exceed ordinary ground-level naked-eye observation, it would have no need to rely on what appears to be a deliberately degraded web preview to make its case. Why Myrick Is Distinguishable Given the Specifics of Clallam County’s EagleView Contract The Washington Supreme Court case of State v. Myrick involved a one-time visual observation of fields using no technological enhancement beyond the human eye. EagleView is materially different: * AI-Powered Analytics Layer (ChangeFinder and Related Tools): The contract does not merely provide for pictures. It authorizes the use of AI-enhanced software that automatically compares imagery across years to detect structural changes, improvements, and other details. This enhanced technology reveals information that no human eye — or single naked-eye flyover — could obtain. This appears to be the exact type of sense-augmenting technology the Young Court found unconstitutional. * Broad Multi-User Access Platform (Contractually Authorized for Up to 50 Users): The EagleView contract explicitly includes “Pictometry Connect - CA - 50” and the “CONNECT Gov 50 Package,” which license access for up to 50 concurrent authorized users via web-based and server integration. Consistent with these contract terms, the County produced an EagleView user list showing wide access across multiple county departments: Yet the County now claims that access is “[r]estricted to authorized County Assessor personnel only.” This is how government protects itself—through taxpayer-funded outside counsel and risk management The County’s June 4 response was not written by in-house county staff or the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. It came from Ogden Murphy Wallace, a Seattle law firm that appears to represent local governments in litigation and risk-management matters. The letter was copied to a senior risk analyst with the Washington Counties Risk Pool (WCRP). This is standard operating procedure: counties purchase risk-pool coverage or retain specialized defense counsel precisely to respond to claims like mine. The cost—attorney time, investigation, potential future litigation—is ultimately borne by County taxpayers. It is a reminder that when we raise concerns about government overreach, the government’s first institutional response is often a professionally drafted denial funded by the public. The public can still fight back — and should. Constitutional rights do not defend themselves. When our government deploys AI-enhanced aerial surveillance across every property in the county and then uses taxpayer-funded attorneys to insist it is no different from an assessor driving by, it falls to an informed and engaged public to draw the line. Article I, Section 7 was written to constrain power, not to be reinterpreted every time new technology makes intrusion easier and cheaper. If we treat these protections as optional or outdated, we will lose them — not in a single dramatic moment, but thr

    47 min

  6. Jun 24

    Everything Is About Race—Until It Isn't

    Race has become a recurring theme in local politics—from school board disputes and county appointments to public health resolutions and campaign rhetoric. But as accusations of racism multiply, many residents are beginning to ask whether everyone is being held to the same standard. Last week, the Port Angeles School Board voted to censure fellow board member Nancy Hamilton. Every board member except Hamilton voted in favor of the resolution, which accused her of making antagonistic and inaccurate statements about the superintendent and improperly disclosing information discussed in executive session. Hamilton viewed the situation differently. “As I am the only Native American on this Board,” she said, “it is hard to see this attack as anything other than an attempt to silence minority voices on the Board.” The issue quickly expanded beyond the specific allegations contained in the censure resolution. Supporters framed the action as part of a broader discussion about race and representation. Among them was Port Angeles Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr, who also serves as Mike French’s campaign manager. Carr circulated an email urging residents to oppose the censure and stating that it was difficult not to see “racist undertones” in the board’s actions. Whether one agrees with Hamilton or the rest of the board is almost beside the point. What matters is how quickly questions of race became central to the discussion. That has become a familiar pattern on the Olympic Peninsula. Racism as a Public Health Emergency The modern era of local government’s focus on race arguably began in 2020. That October, the Jefferson County Board of Health adopted Resolution 65-20 declaring racism a public health crisis. The resolution described racism as both an acute and chronic threat to public health and committed the county to examining policies through a racial equity lens. The resolution stated that racism contributes to inequities in housing, education, employment, criminal justice, and health outcomes. It further pledged support for efforts aimed at identifying and eliminating systemic barriers faced by racial minorities. At the time, supporters argued that the declaration was a necessary acknowledgment of historical and contemporary disparities. Critics questioned whether broad social and political issues were being transformed into public health matters. Regardless of where one stood on the resolution, it signaled a significant shift. Race was no longer simply one issue among many. It was becoming a framework through which local government would increasingly evaluate public policy. Calling Out Racism The Jefferson County Board of Health was not alone in making race a central public issue in 2020. Many local elected officials were speaking openly about racism, institutional bias, and the need to confront prejudice wherever it appeared. Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias wrote that following a George Floyd vigil, he wanted to engage fellow elected officials and community members in a dialogue about institutional racism in Clallam County. He acknowledged that he did not see overt racism in county government but argued that institutional problems can be difficult for those inside the system to recognize. Commissioner Mike French was equally outspoken. In one June 2020 post, French condemned what he described as racial profiling and harassment, writing that community leaders should have the courage to denounce such behavior. In another, he criticized those who downplayed racism, saying that people who insisted Americans should simply “get over it” were missing the point. Days later, he warned against those spreading what he viewed as racist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Whether one agrees with those statements is not particularly important. What is important is that both officials established a clear principle: racism should be confronted, called out, and challenged. Silence was not an acceptable response. That principle seems reasonable enough. The question is whether it has been applied consistently. The Rise of Identity Politics That same year, Port Angeles became the site of another debate centered on race and representation. In September 2020, the Port Angeles City Council voted to restructure the Public Safety Advisory Board. The discussion was driven largely by concerns that the board was entirely white. The adopted ordinance added seats for tribal representatives and individuals with experience related to homelessness or substance use disorders. Councilmembers Mike French, Navarra Carr, LaTrisha Suggs, and Kate Dexter supported the measure. The debate was notable because it focused less on expertise and more on identity. Supporters argued that a board’s effectiveness depended in part on who was represented around the table. The argument reflected a broader trend in American politics. Increasingly, public institutions were being encouraged to view people not primarily as individuals but as members of demographic groups whose perspectives were presumed to flow from their ancestry, ethnicity, or lived experience. That philosophy continues to shape public discussions today. The Rawls Question At last week’s commissioner debate, incumbent Commissioner Mike French referenced political philosopher John Rawls while discussing fairness and privilege. “This is, I think, very classic John Rawls philosophy,” French said. “If you were to be reborn and had to reroll the dice, would you do it? I’m a white man in modern America that has had a very blessed life.” French was referring to Rawls’ famous “veil of ignorance” thought experiment. Rawls argued that a just society would be designed by people who did not know what position they themselves would occupy within it. The idea was intended to encourage fairness and empathy. It is a thoughtful exercise. Most people would agree that society should seek to reduce unnecessary barriers and create opportunities for success. The challenge comes when discussions about fairness become inseparable from discussions about race. Life does not divide neatly along racial lines. There are wealthy people and poor people in every racial group. There are people born into privilege who squander opportunities and people born into difficult circumstances who overcome extraordinary obstacles. Some of the most successful people in Clallam County are tribal citizens. Some non-tribal families struggle every day to make ends meet. Human experience is more complicated than demographic categories. Reducing individuals to racial identities may simplify political conversations, but it rarely reflects reality. The Double Standard Problem If racism is truly a problem that must be confronted wherever it appears, then the standard should apply consistently. Yet many residents have noticed that consistency often disappears when the target changes. Where, for example, were the public condemnations when Paula Allen wrote on social media that white people were a problem and that she was embarrassed to live among them? Where were the statements from elected officials denouncing those comments? Where were the calls for accountability? Similarly, county commissioners were made aware of comments attributed to Rae Hesselbach stating that “the wealthiest white men are a greater threat to safety than the unhoused.” Despite the controversy, commissioners unanimously appointed her to the Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board. No public statements followed. No emergency discussions were held. No resolutions were drafted. Many residents cannot help but notice the contrast. Had similar remarks been directed toward Native Americans, Black residents, or any other minority group, there is little doubt that local officials would have responded swiftly and publicly. That discrepancy undermines confidence in the principle itself. When standards are applied selectively, people begin to suspect that the issue is not racism but politics. Beyond Race None of this is an argument that racism does not exist. It does. But the constant emphasis on race as the primary lens through which society should view itself has produced diminishing returns. Instead of bringing people together, it often encourages them to view one another as competing groups with competing grievances. That is a troubling direction for a country founded on the idea that individuals possess equal rights regardless of ancestry. Two hundred and fifty years into the American experiment, Americans should be moving toward a society that judges people based on character, conduct, and contribution rather than racial categories. Public officials should be encouraging that vision, not reinforcing divisions that many citizens are trying to move beyond. The United States remains exactly that: United States. At least it should be. Too often, modern politics seems determined to remind us of what separates us while overlooking everything we still share. "Racism is not dead, but it is on life support—kept alive by politicians, race hustlers, and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racists." — Thomas Sowell Today’s Tidbit: Broadband Funding for Some, Taxes From All The Washington State Department of Commerce is promoting nearly $790 million in new federal broadband funding opportunities available exclusively to tribal and Native entities. The grants, administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), are intended to expand broadband access, infrastructure, and digital connectivity on tribal lands. No one disputes the importance of broadband access. In today’s economy, reliable internet service is as essential as electricity and roads. What makes these programs noteworthy is who pays for them and who can receive them. The funding comes from federal tax dollars collected from all Americans. White taxpayers pay into the system. Black taxpayers pay into the system. Hispani

    1h 19m

  7. Jun 23

    "Rock Solid" Science?

    When Clallam County Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry declared the science behind harm reduction "rock solid," she left little room for debate. But from Oregon's failed Measure 110 experiment to concerns raised by recovery advocates, public records, and even local data discrepancies, the evidence tells a more complicated story. If the science is truly settled, why are questions increasingly treated as attacks? At last week’s Board of Health meeting, Clallam County Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry offered an unequivocal defense of the county’s harm reduction programs. “The evidence on its efficacy is rock solid all across the country in urban areas and rural areas,” Berry told the Board. “It’s not new, it’s not strange. What we’re doing here is not atypical. It’s standard harm reduction practices.” She went even further. “Well, the data is very, very clear that it is the other way around. Harm reduction reduces people’s use of drugs. It makes them use less. It makes them less likely to die, less likely to get infectious diseases, and it makes them more likely to enter treatment.” Those are strong statements. They leave little room for the possibility that the evidence is mixed, incomplete, or still being debated. The problem is that the broader debate surrounding harm reduction is anything but settled. What Does Harm Reduction Mean? Harm reduction encompasses a wide range of programs intended to reduce the negative consequences of substance abuse. Supporters argue these programs keep people alive long enough to enter recovery and reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Critics argue some programs have drifted beyond reducing harm and instead normalize or prolong active addiction. The disagreement is not whether addiction is harmful. The disagreement is over which policies are most effective in helping people escape it. The Debate Berry Says Doesn’t Exist Berry’s comments suggest the evidence overwhelmingly supports current harm reduction practices. Yet significant questions continue to be raised by researchers, recovery advocates, elected officials, and communities across North America. Oregon’s Measure 110 experiment was promoted as a groundbreaking public health approach to addiction. Instead, overdose deaths continued to rise, and public dissatisfaction became so widespread that lawmakers ultimately reversed major portions of the policy. San Francisco has spent years investing heavily in harm reduction programs while simultaneously struggling with public drug use, overdoses, and growing concerns from residents and business owners. Even Vancouver, often held up as the model for harm reduction, faces criticism from recovery advocates who argue that treatment and recovery have become secondary to maintenance strategies. The point is not that harm reduction never works. The point is that serious debate exists. A policy surrounded by ongoing debate is difficult to describe as “rock solid.” Questions From Recovery Advocates During recent Board of Health meetings, long-term recovery advocate David Rogers has repeatedly challenged county officials to place greater emphasis on treatment, accountability, and pathways out of addiction. Rogers is hardly alone. Many families affected by addiction support treatment-first approaches and question whether the county’s current balance between harm reduction and recovery is producing the best outcomes. Reasonable people can disagree on those questions. What is more difficult to understand is why those questions are so often characterized as attacks. When Public Officials Get It Wrong One of the recurring themes in recent Board of Health discussions has been misinformation. Berry has frequently warned the public about misinformation regarding public health issues. Yet critics argue public officials themselves have made claims that deserve scrutiny. Jake Seegers highlighted several examples during public comment. In 2021, local COVID restrictions were justified in part by claims that vaccination significantly prevented transmission. At the same time, national public health agencies were acknowledging that vaccinated individuals could still contract and spread the virus. “High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.” — Statement from the CDC, July 2021 From 2 Deaths to 10 In January 2019, the Peninsula Daily News reported that overdose deaths in Clallam County had fallen dramatically—from 10 deaths in 2017 to just 2 in 2018. Health Officer Allison Berry cited the figures as evidence that expanded access to naloxone was working, pointing to an Opioid Surveillance Dashboard maintained by public health officials. The numbers appeared to tell a compelling story. If accurate, they suggested overdose deaths had declined by 80 percent in a single year. However, only three months later, the same dashboard was updated. Instead of 2 overdose deaths in 2018, the revised total was 10—the same number reported for 2017. What had been presented as a dramatic decline disappeared entirely. The numbers may have changed because the original data was preliminary. But the larger issue remains. The public heard about the dramatic drop from 10 deaths to 2. Few people heard that the number was later revised back to 10. As Berry once again points to overdose statistics as evidence that harm reduction is working, some residents are asking a simple question: how much confidence should the public place in numbers that have changed so significantly before? The Importance of Verification Questions have been raised about county syringe accounting methods, including how distributed syringes are counted compared to collected syringes. Dr. Berry has stated that an empty Gatorade bottle can hold 40 collected syringes. Jake Seegers decided to test that claim for himself. It raises questions about the claim that the County is collecting more needles than it distributes. Most recently, questions have emerged regarding differences between overdose statistics presented in county reports and figures reported by the Coroner’s Office. Whether these criticisms are ultimately correct is less important than the broader principle: scientific claims should remain open to examination. Ignoring Warnings Critics also point to examples where warnings were raised to the County but dismissed. Dr. Berry’s proposed drug-checking program was halted after concerns were raised by risk managers and the county’s insurance pool. Public records later revealed the extent of those concerns. Credit for uncovering those records belongs largely to Jake Seegers. Similarly, officials have frequently stated there were no significant issues associated with public pool shower vouchers, despite police reports documenting numerous incidents at the facility over the years. Again, the issue is not whether every criticism is correct. The issue is whether questions are being taken seriously. Questions Are Not Attacks Recently, the Clallam County Democrats circulated a newsletter containing the following statement: “Tozzer and Seegers are personally intimidating and threatening and harassing her regularly, along with their little brigade. Evidence is available on recordings of BOH and Commissioner meetings.” No examples were provided. That accusation gets to the heart of the issue. If the science is truly as “rock solid” as Berry claims, then it should withstand scrutiny. Questions about overdose trends, treatment outcomes, syringe counts, public safety incidents, and competing evidence should not be viewed as personal attacks. Science advances through challenge, debate, testing, and verification. The issue isn’t whether harm reduction works at all. The issue is whether public officials who claim certainty are willing to engage with evidence that suggests the story may be more complicated than they admit. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." — Richard Feynman Today’s Tidbit: Another Trust Land Application Filed The Jamestown Corporation has submitted another application to place property into federal trust status, according to a notice received by the Clallam County Commissioners on June 9. The application, filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, seeks to transfer approximately 8.63 acres into trust for use as residential sites. If approved, the property would be removed from the local tax rolls and transferred into federal trust ownership. The BIA’s notice specifically requests information from local governments regarding the amount of property taxes currently collected on the parcel, any special assessments, governmental services provided to the property, and whether the proposed use is consistent with local zoning. The application is part of a continuing series of trust land acquisitions by the Tribe. County officials have 30 days from receipt of the notice to provide comments to the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding the potential impacts of removing the property from the local tax rolls. Why it matters: Every individual trust land application may appear small on its own, but each approved transfer permanently removes property from local taxation while local governments continue to provide many regional services funded by remaining taxpayers. If you would like Clallam County to respond to the federal government's request for comment, let your county commissioners know. All three commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com

    1h 5m

  8. Jun 22

    Building a Better Safety Net—or a Better Magnet?

    Commissioner Mike French says homelessness services aren’t attracting people to Clallam County. But when a convicted sex offender with arrests in Illinois and Bremerton ends up living steps away from a Port Angeles shelter and receiving services funded by local taxpayers, residents are asking a simple question: if people aren’t coming here because of the services, why do so many seem to arrive where the services are? As the debate over shower vouchers at the William Shore Pool intensifies, Jake Seegers is emerging as the candidate offering what many voters see as a common-sense alternative. French Says Services Aren’t Drawing People Here At April’s Commissioner Forum, Commissioner Mike French was asked directly whether Clallam County’s extensive homelessness and harm-reduction services might be attracting people from outside the area. His answer was essentially, “no.” French acknowledged he doesn’t have definitive data but suggested that Clallam County’s remoteness may play a role. “Generally no,” French replied. He went on to speculate that people with warrants elsewhere may be drawn to remote communities because they are less connected to the places they are trying to leave behind. French also warned against what he sees as an effort to blame outsiders for local problems. “The focus right now is on finger-pointing,” he said. Yet there remains an unanswered question. If remoteness is the primary factor, why are so many individuals concentrated in the exact locations where the county’s services are concentrated? A Different View from Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Randy Johnson has previously pointed to a visit he made to Serenity House, where he said only four of roughly 114 residents were from outside the area. But Johnson recently shared another story that complicates the picture. During last week’s Public Safety Town Hall hosted by the Calico Cat Social Club, Johnson described a conversation with a resident of Oxford House, a recovery-based housing program that requires accountability and adherence to rules. The man told Johnson: “I was in jail in Seattle. Then I came here, and I was in jail again.” Johnson used the story to illustrate the success of Oxford House in helping people rebuild their lives. But it also served as a reminder that at least some individuals are arriving in Clallam County from elsewhere. Meet Robert Jason Gould Last week, 52-year-old Robert Jason Gould was booked into the Clallam County Jail on a warrant-related matter. Public records show Gould is classified as a Level 2 sex offender following a 1998 conviction for attempted rape. In Washington, a Level 2 designation generally means law enforcement believes the individual presents a moderate risk of reoffending and community notification is authorized. His registered address is in the 2200 block of West 16th Street in Port Angeles, just a short distance from Serenity House. Records also show Gould was arrested earlier this month in Bremerton on allegations involving unlawful possession of a controlled substance and failure to appear. Prior records indicate arrests in Macon County, Illinois, including a federal hold and a criminal contempt matter. Whether Gould came to Clallam County because of available services, because of personal circumstances, or for some other reason isn’t known. But his case highlights the larger policy question facing local leaders: When people with extensive criminal histories arrive here from elsewhere, what obligations do taxpayers assume, and what policies may be encouraging that migration? The Shower Voucher Debate That question has become increasingly relevant as local officials debate the County’s shower voucher program. Under the program, vouchers distributed through the Harm Reduction Health Center can be redeemed for shower access at the William Shore Memorial Pool. Commissioner Randy Johnson defended the program at last week’s town hall, noting that it averages roughly one voucher per day. He argued the recipients are often vulnerable individuals, including women living in vehicles and families facing hardship. Commissioner Mike French also defended the program during last week’s debate against Jake Seegers. French argued that the pool is an existing public resource that can provide hygiene services at little additional cost and noted that the program operated for roughly 18 months without significant incident. But Seegers challenged that reasoning. Seegers argued that the absence of past incidents does not eliminate future risk. “Eighteen months of no incidents is not an argument to pursue something that is just an obvious common-sense public safety concern.” Seegers emphasized that individuals receiving vouchers where drug paraphernalia is distributed are often connected to addiction and argued that public swimming facilities serving children are not the appropriate venue for those programs. Unlike French, who framed the issue as a matter of service delivery, Seegers framed it as a matter of public safety and transparency. Watch the exchange here: The program operated for 18 months largely out of public view. Even Commissioner Mike French has said he was unaware of it until recently. That admission raised eyebrows because French sits on the William Shore Pool Board, where the vouchers are redeemed, while also serving as a county commissioner overseeing the department that distributes them. Despite those overlapping roles, he was unaware of the program. A Clear Contrast for Voters The debate over homelessness, harm reduction, public safety, and accountability is shaping up to be one of the defining issues in this year’s county commissioner race. Commissioner Mike French argues that services are a compassionate response to existing problems and rejects the idea that they are attracting people to Clallam County. Jake Seegers, on the other hand, argues that compassion without accountability can create new problems while failing to solve old ones. Cases like Robert Jason Gould’s sit squarely at the center of that debate. Here is a man whose record stretches from Illinois to Washington, who carries a Level 2 sex offender designation, and who has recent arrests involving controlled substances. Whatever brought Gould to Port Angeles, he now lives where many taxpayer-funded services are concentrated. If he is struggling with substance abuse, the Harm Reduction Health Center exists to provide supplies and services to encourage his addiction. It is also the same place where shower vouchers are distributed for use at a public pool frequented by local families and children. That is why this debate is about much more than a shower voucher. It is about the kind of system Clallam County is building and who ultimately benefits from it. Supporters see a network of services that offers dignity, compassion, and help to people in need. Critics see a growing system that too often manages dysfunction rather than demanding recovery, accountability, and change. As voters weigh those competing visions, the question may come down to something much simpler: Is Clallam County building systems that help people recover and become productive members of society, or systems that make it easier for people to remain dependent while attracting more of the same challenges from outside the community? “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” — Milton Friedman What You Can Do The William Shore Memorial Pool Board will meet this Tuesday, June 23, at 3:00 p.m. to review the shower voucher policy. The pool board members are County Commissioners Mike French and Randy Johnson, Port Angeles City Council members Mark Hodgson and LaTrisha Suggs, and community representative Greg Shield. The public is welcome to attend and provide comment. For information about attending online or in-person, click here. Contact the Board: * Mike French — Mike.French@clallamcountywa.gov * Randy Johnson — Randy.Johnson@clallamcountywa.gov * Mark Hodgson — mhodgson@cityofpa.us * LaTrisha Suggs — losuggs@cityofpa.us * Greg Shield — gshield6@icloud.com Residents who support ending the voucher program may also sign the petition calling on the board to reject shower voucher and hygiene-center programs at the aquatic center. Today’s Tidbit: Town Hall Audio This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com

    43 min
See All (333)

Ratings & Reviews

3.8
out of 5
4 Ratings

About

Holding County Leaders Accountable www.ccwatchdog.com

Information

  • Creator
    Jeff Tozzer
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    333
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Jeff Tozzer
  • Show Website
    Clallam County Watchdog

You Might Also Like