Clallam County Watchdog

Jeff Tozzer
  • 3.8（4則評分）
  • 政治
  • 每日更新

Holding County Leaders Accountable www.ccwatchdog.com

  1. 12 小時前

    Who Endorses the Endorsers?

    Campaign season is underway, and so is endorsement season. One organization expected to weigh in is Olympic Climate Action, a local advocacy group that says it bases its endorsements on addressing climate change. But after being denied an endorsement without ever receiving a questionnaire or interview, CC Watchdog looked closer at the organization’s leadership, philosophy, and reasoning. The experience raises a broader question for every voter: do endorsements reflect an objective evaluation of candidates, or simply the worldview of the people making them? Endorsement Season Begins Campaign season is upon us, and with it comes endorsement season. Political parties, labor unions, advocacy groups, newspapers, and nonprofit organizations will soon begin telling voters which candidates deserve their support. There is nothing inherently wrong with endorsements. They can help voters navigate a crowded ballot. But endorsements are opinions, not certifications, and before accepting anyone else’s recommendation, it is worth asking a simple question: Who is making the endorsement, and what standards are they using? One organization expected to issue endorsements this year is Olympic Climate Action (OCA). According to its website, the organization’s mission is to “seek a safe, prosperous, sustainable future for residents of the Olympic Peninsula by addressing the threat of climate change.” Its stated objectives include sharing climate science, stimulating community dialogue, advocating for climate-related policies, and serving as a hub for local organizations. Earlier this year, OCA announced it was forming an endorsement committee to recommend candidates for local, state, and federal office. An Endorsement Without a Process The announcement brought back an experience from the 2025 Charter Review Commission election. OCA chose not to endorse me, Jeff Tozzer, as a candidate, so I asked a simple question: How was that decision made? There had been no questionnaire, no interview, and no opportunity to explain positions before the endorsement decisions were made. The response came from OCA President Brian Grad. Before getting to Grad's explanation, it's worth noting that he has become a familiar figure in local politics. During the 2025 Charter Review Commission, he was publicly asked to temper his conduct when addressing the commission. He was also the subject of complaints about his attire while volunteering at the Clallam County Democrats booth at last year's fair. At the Carlsborg ballot drop box, he appeared to lose control and attempt to remove signage before confronting ballot box observers. Grad’s response explained that my previous reporting on Washington’s Climate Commitment Act made this publication’s views “incompatible with a foundational belief shared among OCA members that we are in a climate crisis.” That explanation was surprising. The issue was never a lack of concern for the environment. Doug and I have long tried to live in a way that minimizes our environmental footprint. Our garden provides much of our food for more than half the year. At the time, we shared a single vehicle while also using a scooter that averaged nearly 60 miles per gallon. We regularly picked up litter in our neighborhood, and we have maintained a vegan lifestyle for years. I haven’t been on an airplane or left the state in six years. Whether those choices deserve an endorsement is beside the point, but they demonstrate that questioning a particular government policy is not the same as dismissing environmental stewardship. Instead, the reporting in question examined whether Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias was using county resources and his elected office to advocate for a statewide political campaign, and whether the public deserved greater transparency about who was benefiting from the Climate Commitment Act. Those seemed like reasonable questions for any local watchdog publication to ask. The Questions That Prompted the Rejection The article, titled “Political vs. Public Interests,” focused on remarks Commissioner Ozias made during the commissioners’ regular “Reports and Presentations” agenda item. Rather than limiting his comments to county business, Ozias encouraged residents to visit Clean and Prosperous Washington, a website actively campaigning against Initiative 2117, the citizen initiative that sought to repeal the Climate Commitment Act. A closer look at the website revealed that it was more than an informational resource explaining Climate Commitment Act spending. It was a political advocacy website encouraging Washington voters to oppose the initiative. During his presentation, Commissioner Ozias highlighted approximately $12.5 million in Climate Commitment Act projects affecting Clallam County and encouraged residents to learn what funding could be lost if the initiative passed. That naturally raised several questions. Should an elected county commissioner use an official board meeting to encourage residents to visit a website advocating for one side of a statewide ballot measure? Should county meetings become venues for political advocacy? Those questions seemed especially relevant because Commissioner Ozias’ largest campaign donor, the Jamestown Corporation, stood to benefit significantly from Climate Commitment Act funding. Were the Article’s Questions Legitimate? Earlier this year, the Washington Department of Ecology acknowledged a significant error in one of its emissions analyses for the CCA after outside researchers identified problems with the calculations. Once corrected, the projected greenhouse gas reductions for eight electrification programs dropped from approximately 7.5 million metric tons to roughly 308,000 metric tons — roughly 96% lower than the original estimate. Ecology maintains that the program delivers benefits beyond the emissions reductions associated with individual projects, but the correction demonstrates that some of the program’s projected benefits were significantly overstated. What seems much harder to argue is that asking questions about the Climate Commitment Act was somehow incompatible with environmental stewardship. Public policy should withstand scrutiny. If asking where taxpayer money is going, who benefits from it, and whether projected outcomes were accurately measured is enough to disqualify a candidate from consideration, then perhaps the endorsement process deserves as much examination as the policies themselves. A Different Worldview As the response from OCA became easier to understand, another section of the organization’s website provided additional context. OCA’s land acknowledgment goes well beyond recognizing the history of the Olympic Peninsula’s tribal communities. It states: “We acknowledge and honor the chalá·at (Hoh), kʷoʔlí·yot’ (Quileute), qʷidiččaʔa·tx̌ (Makah), nəxʷsƛ̕áy̕əm̕ (Klallam), and t͡ʃə́mqəm (Chemakum) peoples... Colonization has shaped the reality of everyone here today. We take this opportunity to acknowledge that fact and express our desire to engage in the process of understanding our ‘landcestry’ and repairing relationships with both people and land, as an investment in our shared future.” The statement helps explain the framework through which OCA evaluates public policy and, ultimately, political candidates. Climate policy, tribal sovereignty, historical injustice, and environmental advocacy are presented as interconnected issues rather than separate debates. Viewed through that lens, questions about the Climate Commitment Act are not merely policy disagreements—they challenge a broader worldview. Do Your Own Homework Organizations like Olympic Climate Action have every right to endorse candidates. So do political parties, labor unions, business associations, newspapers, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum. But endorsements should be understood for what they are: recommendations made by people with their own philosophies, priorities, experiences, and biases. This publication also has opinions. Readers know that. The difference is that opinions should never discourage questions. A healthy democracy depends on citizens asking difficult questions, especially when billions of taxpayer dollars and major public policies are involved. As endorsement lists begin appearing over the coming months, read them with interest—but also with curiosity. Ask who made the decision. Ask whether every candidate was given the same opportunity to participate. Ask whether objective standards were used or whether ideological agreement was the deciding factor. Then do something endorsements can never replace: read the candidates’ own words, attend forums, watch public meetings, and make up your own mind. An endorsement tells you what an organization believes. Only you can decide what you believe. "Uncertainty is the fundamental element of climate science." — Judith Curry Today’s Tidbit: Practice What You Preach? As Olympic Climate Action prepares to endorse candidates this election season, it’s worth taking a look at an essay written by Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias for the group’s 2022 Earth Day publication. In it, Ozias criticizes what he calls “profit for power,” encourages people to travel less by holding Zoom meetings instead of driving, consume less water, and embrace personal sacrifice in the name of addressing climate change. Since then, Washington’s Climate Commitment Act has transferred millions of dollars to favored projects while increasing fuel costs that fall hardest on working families and those with the lowest incomes. Commissioner Ozias has also traveled to Washington, D.C. twice this year and to Maui for conferences he says were part of representing Clallam County. Readers may reasonably ask how those trips square with his own call to reduce travel whenever possible. The essay also encourages people to conserve water.

    56 分鐘

  2. 1 天前

    Drought or Déjà Vu? What the Dungeness River Data Actually Show

    Every summer, drought warnings return, along with calls to conserve water. But does more than a century of USGS data from the Dungeness River support the increasingly dire narrative? One CC Watchdog subscriber analyzed the public record dating back to 1923, and, together with criticism from renowned meteorologist Cliff Mass, the findings raise an important question: are Washingtonians getting the full picture? Like clockwork, summer has arrived—and so has Washington’s annual drought declaration. The Washington State Department of Ecology has once again declared the entire state to be in drought. Along the Old Olympic Highway, the needle on the familiar League of Women Voters “Low Flow Alert” sign keeps inching toward “extreme,” warning motorists to conserve water. Meanwhile, the Jamestown Corporation’s Dungeness River Nature Center is encouraging residents to reduce their water use. “The snow melting from the mountains feeds the creeks and river below, and with less moisture stored on the ridges, our community down in the valley needs to be especially mindful of water use this season... Conserving water this season is a tangible way to honor the very peaks where our rivers are born.” It is a message few would disagree with. Conserving water is simply good stewardship. But it also raises an obvious question. The same Jamestown Corporation encouraging residents to cut back will also be irrigating its 122-acre golf course throughout the hottest, driest months of the year. Which leads to another question. How unusual are these summer low flows, really? One CC Watchdog subscriber decided not to rely on press releases or advocacy groups. Instead, they downloaded the complete public record from the U.S. Geological Survey’s stream gauge on the Dungeness River near Sequim—more than 100 years of daily flow measurements dating back to 1923—and analyzed the numbers. The results don’t suggest that nothing has changed. Summer flows appear modestly lower than they were decades ago. But they also don’t support the narrative of a river suddenly collapsing into unprecedented conditions. The analysis found that average May through October flows have declined only slightly—about 0.5 cubic feet per second per year—and, importantly, that trend was not statistically significant (p = 0.179). In other words, the long-term record contains enough natural variability that researchers cannot confidently conclude a meaningful long-term trend exists from this data alone. Comparing earlier decades with recent decades tells a similar story. Recent summers average roughly seven to eight percent lower than the early record, but the river still follows the same seasonal pattern it always has. Snowmelt fills the river during late spring. By August and September, flows naturally decline as the Olympic snowpack disappears. That pattern has remained remarkably consistent for over a century. The hydrographs comparing early and recent decades are strikingly similar despite the modest reduction in late-summer flow. Perhaps most surprising is how often the river has historically fallen below today’s warning thresholds. According to the analysis: * Flows below 180 cubic feet per second occurred in 98 percent of recorded years. * Flows below 150 cfs occurred in 94 percent of years. * Even flows below 100 cfs occurred in nearly half of all years on record. In other words, low summer flows are not a new phenomenon. They are characteristic of rivers in the Olympic rain shadow. It’s all laid out in this video: The report’s conclusion is difficult to ignore: “The data do not support narratives of sudden catastrophic collapse outside historical experience... Facts over hype.” Interestingly, these conclusions echo concerns raised by one of the Pacific Northwest’s best-known meteorologists. Earlier this year, University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass questioned Washington’s drought declaration, arguing that the term “drought” is often misunderstood. Mass noted that while snowpack was below normal in some areas, precipitation had generally been above average, reservoirs remained full, soils were moist, and forecasts called for additional spring precipitation. Most importantly, he argued that a drought is defined not simply by weather conditions but by significant impacts on people, agriculture, or ecosystems. Looking back at 2025, Mass pointed out that Washington agriculture produced excellent crops, reservoirs never approached critical levels, and hydropower production remained close to long-term averages. His conclusion was straightforward: the dire warnings simply did not match the observed impacts. That doesn’t mean water conservation isn’t worthwhile.It doesn’t mean salmon don’t face challenges.It doesn’t mean river management isn’t important. But it does suggest there is room for a more nuanced public conversation. When government agencies declare another drought, are they describing an unprecedented crisis—or a seasonal pattern that has characterized this watershed for generations? It also raises a broader question familiar to many CC Watchdog readers. Throughout the past year, county residents have repeatedly been told that various public policies are supported by “rock solid” science. Whether the subject is harm reduction, homelessness, land management, or drought, citizens often discover that equally credentialed experts interpret the same evidence quite differently. Science is strongest when competing ideas can be examined openly—not when one narrative is treated as beyond question. The USGS river data are public.The Department of Ecology’s declarations are public.Cliff Mass’s analysis is public. Residents can review the information themselves and decide whether the annual drought narrative fully reflects what the numbers actually show. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman Today’s Tidbit: Another Serious Criminal Record Lands in Clallam County A week ago, Mishaela Joene Cutler, 24, was booked into the Clallam County Jail on charges of possession of stolen property, obstructing a law enforcement officer, and residential burglary. But this isn’t her first encounter with the criminal justice system. In 2020, at age 18, Cutler made headlines across Washington after prosecutors in Skamania County charged her with attempted murder, first-degree arson, burglary, and possession of stolen firearms. According to investigators, home security footage appeared to show Cutler pouring an accelerant around vehicles inside a carport and leading it to the door of an occupied residence before setting the fire. Investigators also alleged the home’s smoke detectors had been disabled. She was arrested and held on $500,000 bail. Now, six years later, Cutler is in Clallam County facing a new set of criminal charges. Every time someone with a lengthy criminal history enters our local justice system, Clallam County taxpayers pick up the tab—housing, meals, medical care while incarcerated, and, if indigent, legal defense. County leaders often speak about compassion and expanding services to those in need. But residents are left to ask another question: What message are we sending to repeat offenders when communities known for generous public services and limited accountability become places they repeatedly end up? Whether by design or by reputation, Clallam County increasingly appears to be attracting people with significant criminal histories—leaving local taxpayers to bear the financial and public safety costs. Correction: Emily Randall’s Signs Are in Compliance Yesterday, I published an article titled “Hypocrisy on Parade” in which I stated that Congresswoman Emily Randall’s campaign signs were not in compliance with Washington State campaign sign requirements. I’m thankful for an engaged CC Watchdog readership who pointed out that I was wrong. Because Emily Randall is a candidate for federal office, her yard signs are governed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rather than Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). Under the applicable federal rules, her signs are in compliance. I apologize to Congresswoman Randall and her campaign for incorrectly stating otherwise. If anything, this experience reinforced what I believe the article should have been about in the first place. Rather than criticizing Emily Randall’s campaign, it should have highlighted just how confusing and inconsistent campaign regulations have become. A candidate running for Congress follows one set of disclaimer requirements. A candidate running for county office follows another. Tribal elections appear to follow yet another set of rules, with different—or in some cases no—requirements regarding sponsorship identification, party designation, addresses, or font sizes. It is entirely possible to stand along a parade route in Clallam County and see three campaign signs side by side, each subject to a different legal standard simply because of the office being sought. That strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and difficult for ordinary citizens to navigate. Where I continue to believe hypocrisy exists is not in Emily Randall’s compliance with federal law, but in how campaign laws are enforced and discussed locally. Leadership in the Clallam County Democratic Party supports a Public Disclosure Commission complaint seeking tens of thousands of dollars in penalties against Jake Seegers over campaign disclosure issues. At the same time, when local Democratic trustee Tim Wheeler was filmed causing thousands of dollars in damage to public land during an act of environmental activism, the party had nothing to say publicly about it. Reasonable people can disagree on those situations, but they help explain why I titled the original article “Hypocrisy on Parade.” That said, facts matter. I got one wrong, and when that happens, the right

    31 分鐘

  3. 2 天前

    Hypocrisy on Parade

    When an independent candidate makes a mistake, Democratic leaders demand tens of thousands of dollars in fines. When a sitting Democratic congresswoman appears to make the same mistake, there's silence. Read why this is about far more than campaign signs. Clallam County was alive on Saturday. The Forks and Port Angeles parades were incredibly well attended, with residents celebrating America’s 250th Birthday. But something stood out if you looked closely at the photo: The “Emily Randall” sign behind the Statue of Liberty. Here’s a close-up of the sign design. Notice anything? The sponsorship line—“Paid for by Emily Randall for Congress”—is dramatically smaller than the main text. The “E” in Emily towers about 9 inches tall, the “R” in Randall around 3.5 inches, while the required sponsor message shrinks to roughly 1/3 of an inch. No campaign address is displayed either. It feels petty to point this out—and it is. Yet these exact issues prompted Clallam County Democratic leadership to file a complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and push for the first $30,000 in fines against the Seegers campaign. Jake Seegers has already spent $3,000 of campaign funds to bring his signs into compliance. That money, combined with significant volunteer hours spent reprinting, replacing, and redistributing signs, has diverted scarce resources away from voter outreach, events, and other core campaign priorities. With multiple complaints now filed, the total penalties being sought against his shoestring independent campaign approach $80,000. What are the odds that Clallam County Democratic leaders meticulously scrutinized Seegers’ signs but somehow overlooked similar issues on Emily Randall’s materials? Or is it far more likely they are selectively weaponizing the PDC to harass a political rival while turning a blind eye to violations on their own side? The contrast couldn’t be clearer. Emily Randall benefits from paid staff, a full Democratic machine to design, print, deploy, and monitor compliant signs, and resources to fight any challenges. Jake Seegers, running as an independent for County Commissioner, has no paid staff and no party backing. Just volunteers trying to get his message out on a shoestring budget. Everything in the system is stacked against the independent outsider. One critic, posting as “Lisa,” took to CC Watchdog to blast the campaign (at the time managed by me, Jeff Tozzer). She lectured on transparency and accountability, accusing the campaign of deflection instead of ownership. She questioned what kind of leadership Seegers would bring and floated conspiratorial hints about hidden influences. Yes, the campaign could have—and should have—caught it. Mistakes happen. But it’s revealing that a sitting Congresswoman and her professional staff made the same error. Even the PDC itself doesn’t always get it right. The PDC’s Own Transparency Failures The agency charged with enforcing campaign transparency in Washington state settled a lawsuit after being accused of violating the state’s Open Public Meetings Act for nearly two years. They agreed to pay $25,000 and send commissioners for extra training. The commission had repeatedly entered closed sessions without properly announcing the purpose or expected end time, as required by law. Seasoned officials stumble too. Longtime Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias (a Democrat) received a formal written warning from the PDC for late C-4 reports in his 2023 campaign. This wasn’t his first brush with the commission. Earlier complaints in 2019–2020 highlighted issues with expenditure details, filing fees, and balance discrepancies—challenges his wife and treasurer attributed to being first-time candidates thrust into complex rules on short notice. They amended reports and worked through the process. The point? PDC rules are intricate, compliance is burdensome, and unintentional errors are common—even for experienced politicians with party support and paid help. Yet Democratic leadership in Clallam County is demanding up to $80,000 in fines from Jake Seegers’ independent campaign. This isn’t equal enforcement. It’s selective harassment designed to tie up resources, deter volunteers, and discourage anyone who dares challenge the machine without big-money backing. Running as an independent is already an uphill battle: no coordinated party infrastructure, no shared legal/compliance teams, and all the scrutiny with none of the support. When the system piles on petty fines while looking the other way at similar (or worse) issues on the other side, it reinforces what many voters already suspect—politics is rigged against the little guy. Voters deserve real transparency and accountability. That starts with consistent application of the rules, not weaponizing them against independents while insiders skate by. Jake Seegers’ campaign continues fighting not just for votes, but for a fair shot in a system that too often favors the connected over the committed. "No man is above the law, and no man is below it." — Theodore Roosevelt Today’s Tidbit: Coming Soon to Port Angeles Last September, CC Watchdog reported on registered sex offender Joseph Alaxander Bell, who was booked into the Clallam County Jail on theft. Bell’s criminal history spans years and includes arrests involving domestic violence, assault, theft, and repeated contacts with law enforcement related to drug use and overdoses. Bell was arrested again on Saturday for burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and malicious mischief. His story raises a question that deserves to be asked: after years of taxpayer-funded services, free transit, harm reduction supplies, emergency medical responses, jail stays, and court-appointed attorneys, has the harm been reduced for Joseph Bell—or for the community? Later this month, taxpayers will have an opportunity to see the county’s newest response to chronic homelessness. On Monday, July 27, Peninsula Behavioral Health will celebrate the opening of North View, a new 36-unit Permanent Supportive Housing complex at 138 W. 2nd Street in Port Angeles. According to PBH, the project is designed to provide stable housing for people experiencing chronic homelessness while connecting residents with behavioral health services intended to promote long-term stability, health, and recovery. The building includes amenities many working families don’t enjoy in their own homes, including air conditioning, dishwashers, EV charging stations, a dog-washing station, and panoramic views of the harbor and Olympic Mountains. It is also considered low-barrier housing, meaning alcohol and drug use may be discouraged but, by itself, are not grounds for eviction. The project has also become part of this year’s county commissioner campaign. On his reelection website, Commissioner Mike French highlights North View as an example of the kind of affordable housing he supports and points to it as a significant community investment. North View is designed to prioritize the chronically homeless who struggle with addiction and frequent incarceration. In other words, Joseph Bell could ultimately trade life on the streets for a rooftop terrace and dishwasher. Whether North View represents a turning point in addressing chronic homelessness or simply another expensive chapter in Clallam County’s current approach is a question the public will soon be able to evaluate for themselves. Taxpayers helped fund this project. If you’ve been wondering what that investment looks like, mark Monday, July 27, on your calendar and take the tour. Then ask yourself the question that matters most: Will projects like North View produce better outcomes—for the people living there and for the community paying for them? 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

    48 分鐘

  4. 3 天前

    The Misinformation Campaign

    In this Sundays With Seegeers, Clallam County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers argues that local government has become more focused on managing public perception than improving public outcomes. Citing public safety concerns, rising homelessness, overdose deaths, and examples from county boards and agencies, Seegers contends that officials increasingly respond to criticism with messaging campaigns, rebranding, and public relations rather than changing policies that residents say aren't working. His message is straightforward: successful government doesn't need to convince people it's succeeding—the results should speak for themselves. Public Safety is the Foundation During an April 17th Public Safety Town Hall, I asked the audience two questions. First, who considers public safety one of their highest priorities? Nearly every hand in the room went up. Then I asked who feels safer today than they did four years ago. Out of 172 attendees, only three people raised their hands. One of them was County Commissioner Mike French. That response stands in stark contrast to what many Clallam County residents are experiencing. Throughout the evening, residents shared stories of burglary, assault, trespassing, drug activity, vehicle prowling, and growing concerns about public safety. Mitch Zenobi, a nearly seven-foot-tall logger, described feeling compelled to reach for a pistol while fueling his truck near Tumwater Creek after several men emerged from the woods and approached him one dark morning. Port Angeles resident Scott Waldron recently wrote to the City Council after experiencing a burglary, seeing an armed masked trespasser on his property, and watching individuals prowl vehicles in his neighborhood. His words capture what many residents are feeling: “We cannot take our son to the park without seeing people using drugs on the playsets. We cannot walk downtown without feeling unsafe as transients block public walkways. We cannot go to the grocery store without witnessing drug deals in the parking lot.” Waldron concluded: “There is a fine line between progressiveness and negligence, and another between compassion and complacency. Somewhere along the way, our city crossed both.” Many residents feel less safe. Yet local leaders continue insisting that current policies are working. That disconnect raises an important question: What happens when outcomes fail to support the narrative? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: More messaging. In fact, instead of pivoting from failed policies, the commissioners, along with county departments, boards, and agencies, seem to be digging in their heels—devoting taxpayer resources to coordinated messaging campaigns designed to shape public perception rather than reevaluate policies that continue to produce disappointing outcomes. Housing First Didn’t Work For more than two decades, Clallam County has embraced Housing First, an approach that prioritizes permanent housing without requiring sobriety, employment, or participation in treatment. The model has been championed by Clallam leaders since the county’s first 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness in 2005. The model is extremely expensive, consuming tens of millions of taxpayer dollars locally. Peninsula Behavioral Health’s North View Apartments cost over $350,000 per unit. Thirty-two of the thirty-six apartments are studios or one-bedroom. Recent housing proposals discussed locally have exceeded $500,000 per unit. Housing First has long been promoted as the proven solution to homelessness, but it has failed both nationally and locally. According to HUD data, Washington expanded permanent supportive housing from 5,610 units in 2007 to 28,719 units in 2024, an increase of more than 400%. During that same period, transitional housing declined from 11,061 units to 3,929 units. Meanwhile, statewide homelessness increased from 23,279 to 31,554 people. Unsheltered homelessness surged from 6,522 to 16,222 people—an increase of nearly 150%. Clallam County has followed the same trend. Homelessness and unsheltered homelessness continue to rise. So has the waiting list for permanent supportive housing. In 2024, approximately 2,408 households were on local waiting lists for permanent supportive housing. By 2025 — only twelve months later — the waitlist had nearly doubled. Yet the county’s Point-in-Time Count identified only 310 homeless individuals in 2025, including 176 people living unsheltered outdoors. How does a county with roughly 310 homeless individuals end up with nearly 4,500 households waiting for permanent housing? During a December 2025 Homelessness Task Force meeting, Peninsula Housing Authority Executive Director Debbi Tesch provided the answer. “That does not represent just people living in Clallam County. Anybody can apply for our housing. It’s not unusual to have people living in California apply to live here.” In a county struggling with affordability, addiction, and homelessness, why would thousands of applicants outside Clallam County be allowed to compete for housing with the hundreds of unsheltered individuals living here locally? Federal fair housing rules and HUD funding requirements have often limited or complicated the use of local residency preferences, leading many housing programs to prioritize vulnerability and need over locality. More recently, however, federal policymakers have increasingly recognized the shortcomings of Housing First. HUD reforms signal a shift toward transitional housing, accountability, local prioritization, and competitive funding rather than automatic renewals for permanent supportive housing. Yet local leaders appear determined to resist that shift. During a December 2, 2025 Homelessness Task Force (HTF) meeting, attorney and task force member Charlie Commeree discussed potential ways to preserve permanent supportive housing funding despite anticipated federal changes. Referring to Serenity House properties, he seemed to suggest creative non-compliance to continue to secure HUD funding for permanent supportive housing: “So, you could sell them to a trust and then have Serenity House rent it from the trust and then you rent it out to the tenants. If they can’t stay in the same unit, then you rename the units…then people don’t have to move.” “I’d really like to see HUD sniff that out,” Commeree continued. “And try to prevail in court. I think we do that.” Serenity House Executive Director Sharon Maggard replied: “Those are the kinds of things that we need to come up with in order to survive the next three years.” Later, Commeree suggested legal action and additional strategies to preserve the existing system, arguing that the federal changes were intentional and motivated by “cruelty.” The discussion was revealing. Rather than asking why homelessness continues to rise despite decades of Housing First policies, the focus was on preserving the existing model and finding ways around reforms intended to change it. The Messaging Attack on “Misinformation” During a February Homelessness Task Force meeting, the conversation shifted to public messaging. Task force members discussed developing a communications strategy to address what they described as misconceptions regarding homelessness funding and Housing First policies. The stated goal was to develop a “unified, accurate and compelling message” aligned with the county’s five-year plan. “Right now there are significant misconceptions in the community about homelessness funding…these misunderstandings have contributed to frustration and a perception that resources are being mis-managed… My proposal is to convene a small subcommittee, beginning in the spring of 2026, to begin developing this presentation, with the goal of presenting to the board of county commissioners in the fall of 2026. This would give us the time needed to thoroughly develop a unified, accurate and compelling message that aligns with our 5-year plan and strengthens trust and understanding in our community.” The problem, apparently, was not the outcomes. The problem was public perception. The Expansion of Harm The same pattern is evident in Clallam County’s approach to harm reduction. Since her tenure began in 2018, Health Officer Allison Berry, the Board of Health, and the county commissioners have continually championed and expanded the distribution of syringes, pipes, foil, and boofing kits and other drug-use supplies. They argue these programs save lives. Yet overdose deaths in Clallam County have more than tripled since 2018, rising from 8 deaths to 25 in 2025. Over the same period, overdose deaths increased by 169% statewide and just 2% nationwide. A group of states that have generally taken a more restrictive approach to distributing drug-use supplies saw overdose deaths rise by only 29%. Meanwhile, Sheriff Brian King told KONP’s Todd Ortloff in March that it’s hard to find a crime that is not motivated by drugs. Federal agencies have also begun reassessing aggressive harm reduction strategies. In 2025, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) prohibited the use of federal grant funding for drug-use supplies. Clallam County’s response was not to reduce distribution. Instead, the commissioners replaced the lost SAMHSA funding with approximately $100,000 annually from opioid settlement funds. At the same time, Harm Reduction Health Center (HRHC) activity has continued to expand, despite growing public concern. Monthly encounters reportedly increased from 212 in 2023 to 508 in 2024 and 974 in 2025. HRHC’s budget passed half a million dollars in 2025. For years, many residents were unaware of the full scope of harm reduction activities occurring in Clallam County. During a February Board of Health meeting, an HHS representative explained: “For a long time, like Dr. Berry said, we were keeping harm reduction a little bit under the radar to keep it mor

    40 分鐘

  5. 6 天前

    Conservation District 2026 Election Complaint Stalled at the State Level

    Guest contributor and Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren writes that the 2026 Clallam Conservation District election procedure was altered after the official ballot request deadline, expanding the voter pool in an election decided by just 37 votes. Her investigation argues the changes violated the district's own rules, fits a broader pattern of election irregularities, and raises urgent questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust in local elections. Clallam County voters have a right to clean, transparent elections that follow the rules — not secret midstream changes designed to tip the scales in favor of insider incumbents. Yet the 2026 Clallam Conservation District (CCD) Supervisor Election appears to have been compromised by exactly that: an unauthorized expansion of the voter pool after the official ballot request deadline, which handed the incumbent, Wendy Rae Johnson, a thin 37-vote victory. Blatant Violation of the District’s Own Rules On January 13, 2026, the CCD Board adopted Resolution #26-003. The resolution was clear: The 2026 district election was a mail-in-only election. Voters were required to request a ballot by the publicly advertised deadline of February 18, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.: To notify the public of the procedures and the ballot request deadline, the district reportedly sent 1,261 half-page mailers at taxpayer expense to prior CCD voters. The CCD’s mailer informed potential voters of the 2026 election process and stressed that ballots would be sent only to those who requested a ballot by the specified deadline: Despite the explicit terms of its election resolution and public notices, CCD officials deliberately expanded the voting population after the ballot request deadline, and before election day. On March 10, 2026 (seven days before election day on March 17, 2026), during a public board meeting, candidate Supervisor Wendy Rae Johnson revealed that the list of authorized 2026 ballot requesters had been “merged” with a second internal list containing additional potential voters. Following the merging, ballots were mailed to people who never requested one for the 2026 election — 2,238 ballots sent versus 1,921 requested — according to the election supervisor’s monthly report: The deliberate merging of lists and the mailing of ballots to non-requestors violated Resolution #26-003. The decision resulted in the unauthorized expansion of the voting pool, leading to ineligible/unauthorized voting and vote dilution. This was no accident. Candidate Supervisor Johnson herself confirmed the post-resolution decision in writing to a constituent aligned with her political circle: According to this same constituent, the decision to mail ballots to non-requestors was announced at a February 2026 Sequim Indivisible meeting, a group closely aligned with Supervisor Johnson. Prospective voters politically aligned with Supervisor Johnson were assured that they would receive a ballot if they had voted in the past and did not have to worry about the February 18 ballot request deadline for the 2026 election. The result? At least 317 more ballots were mailed than authorized for an election decided by a margin of 37 votes. The votes of law-abiding voters who followed the rules in the 2026 election appear to have been diluted, allowing the incumbent to squeak out a win. A Disturbing Pattern of Election Manipulation This is not the first time that the CCD has been caught manipulating elections in favor of its incumbent supervisors. A pattern has emerged in CCD elections: the public is told one set of rules, but behind the scenes — and often announced only to politically aligned groups like Sequim Indivisible or other insider meetings — the rules are quietly changed to boost turnout among perceived ‘friendlies.’ In 2024, untracked numbers of ballots were handed out to anyone, regardless of eligibility, at the CCD’s office in clear violation of that year’s resolution and the WACs governing CCD elections. The convenient early voting method was not announced by CCD or authorized by the CCD’s election resolution for that election. In December 2025, a Thurston County superior court judge threw out those election results. One might think that the CCD and the Washington State Conservation Commission (SCC), which provides oversight of the district elections, would have learned their lesson, but both now appear to be embroiled in stalling tactics that keep the power of elective office in the hands of Supervisor Johnson. Complaint Stonewalled at the State Level On April 3, 2026, I filed an election complaint with the SCC regarding the issues with the 2026 election procedure. More than two months later, the SCC still has not assigned an investigator to commence the investigation. All other county-level elections were certified by the SCC as of May 21, 2026. Only one county’s election was left unaddressed — that of Clallam County. As of June 16, 2026, SCC Deputy Director Kate Delavan wrote that the “SCC takes [my] complaint seriously” and “is working diligently to secure a vendor and complete the investigation.” However, she seems to blame me for the delay, citing my request for an independent investigator, saying the SCC has yet to identify or secure a “qualified vendor” to conduct the investigation. No timeline for doing so was provided. Meanwhile, on May 12, 2026, Supervisor Johnson was elevated to Chair by vote of the CCD Board Supervisors. She continues to exercise the full powers of her elected office: SCC Moves to Amend its own WAC Provisions to Permit the Use of Ballot Lists In a notable development, the SCC announced at its May 21, 2026, business meeting that it is proposing draft amendments to its administrative code governing district elections. At least one of the proposed amendments appears aimed at ‘covering’ itself for the CCD’s 2026 ballot practices. A proposed amendment would now allow districts to use internal “requested ballot lists” for each election going forward (thereby allowing the districts to send absentee ballots to a select group of voters who have not requested one for that year’s election): The SCC essentially seeks to legalize a district’s ability to self-select who votes in their district’s elections with zero obligation to send a ballot to all registered voters. The opportunity for abuse is apparent. Control over the voting population should not be handed over to those who are running elections essentially on behalf of incumbents. It should also be noted that the district election supervisors are typically the district managers who are hired and fired by the district supervisors. This means that the managers are running elections for their own bosses – the people upon whom they depend for their own paychecks. The district managers are placed in an almost impossible situation if an incumbent candidate directs them to take certain steps to ensure their re-election. Transparency and Accountability Are Sorely Needed Washington State in general, and Clallam County in particular, deserves better. Taxpayers and voters should not have to tolerate election processes that appear rigged through last-minute expansions and insider favoritism. The SCC should end the stalling to appoint a truly neutral investigator, and the CCD should produce all records related to the list-merging decision which, to date, they have declined to do. I also call on the Clallam County Auditor, the ex officio supervisor of all elections in Clallam County (RCW 29A.04.216), to demand full transparency and accountability regarding these apparent violations of election rules, including the unauthorized expansion of the voter pool and the ongoing pattern of irregularities in CCD elections. Virginia ShogrenCandidate for Clallam County Auditor961 W. Oak Court, Sequim WA 98382www.VirginiaShogrenAuditor.com “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” — Louis D. Brandeis Virginia Shogren is running for Clallam County Auditor to restore trust in our elections and ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely. Virginia believes in simple, honest government that works for the people—not special interests. She seeks accountability, lower costs, and real oversight of our elections and our money. 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

    1 小時 8 分鐘

  6. 7月1日

    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

    1 小時 3 分鐘

  7. 6月30日

    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

    1 小時 2 分鐘

  8. 6月29日

    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

    1 小時 5 分鐘
顯示全部 (338)

評分與評論

3.8
（滿分 5 顆星）
4 則評分

簡介

Holding County Leaders Accountable www.ccwatchdog.com

資訊

  • 創作者
    Jeff Tozzer
  • 活躍年代
    2025年 - 2026年
  • 集數
    338
  • 年齡分級
    兒少適宜
  • 版權
    © Jeff Tozzer
  • 節目網站
    Clallam County Watchdog

你可能也會喜歡