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 Shogren
Candidate for Clallam County Auditor
961 W. Oak Court, Sequim WA 98382
www.VirginiaShogrenAuditor.com

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.

Leave a comment

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.

Sign the Petition!

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

Leave a comment

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.

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.

Leave a comment

Seen around…

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.

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 Guest Nights

The article reports that the program accumulated 247 guest nights by the end of May. That’s not 247 different people. A “guest night” means one participant staying one night. For example, one person staying 30 nights equals 30 guest nights.

Even so, it raises another question.

The church says four participants have used the program. But how many successfully transitioned into permanent housing? How many left the program? Those numbers provide a much clearer picture than guest nights alone.

“They’ve owned homes but don’t feel safe in them.”

That’s an interesting statement. How many participants fit that description? Is it one? Two? All of them? Without numbers, it’s impossible to know whether that experience is typical or exceptional.

“People will just be using it to sleep.”

The stated purpose of the program is to provide a safe place to rest while participants work with case managers toward permanent housing. That naturally leads to another question.

How much time are participants spending at the site, and what measurable outcomes have been achieved? The public has heard about applications, approvals, and guest nights. Less information has been provided about long-term outcomes.

A Temporary Trial... or the Beginning?

St. Andrew’s in Port Angeles emphasized that this is only a temporary arrangement and that no decision has been made about creating a permanent Safe Parking Program. But church leaders also acknowledged they are evaluating whether the program is a good fit.

If it proves successful, the current discussion about four temporary nights may become a discussion about a permanent program in Port Angeles. That makes today’s questions worth asking now—not after permanent decisions have already been made.

Leave a comment

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.

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.

Leave a comment

From deputies hauling more than two tons of garbage out of the Olympic National Forest to renewed debate over the Shore Pool voucher program, this week’s social media was filled with stories about public safety, public policy, and public accountability. Welcome to Social Media Saturday.

Mountain of Trash, Mountain of Gratitude

The Clallam County Sheriff’s Office deserves tremendous credit for another job well done. This week, the Sheriff’s CREW inmates and deputies spent two days cleaning up an abandoned illegal campsite near the Slab Camp Trailhead on Forest Road 2878.

The results were staggering. Over three trips to the landfill, they removed:

• 9 pallets

• 7 tires

• 3 car batteries

• Approximately 15 empty fuel cans

• A king-size mattress and box springs

• Three tents

• A carport

• Refrigerator parts

• Hundreds of pounds of scrap metal

• Clothing, coolers, storage bins

• A steel garden rack

• Even a bucket toilet

Total removed: 4,620 pounds of trash.

That’s more than two tons of garbage hauled off our public lands.

The Sheriff’s Office, deputies, and the CREW inmates transformed an area that had become an illegal dumping ground back into a place families and hikers can enjoy. It’s difficult work that often goes unnoticed, but it saves taxpayers money, protects wildlife, and keeps Clallam County beautiful.

Outstanding work by everyone involved.

When Timber Doesn’t Sell, Somebody Else Pays

Environmental lawsuits aimed at stopping Department of Natural Resources timber sales are often framed as protecting forests. What receives far less attention is who ultimately pays the financial price.

Revenue from DNR timber sales helps support schools, roads, ports, hospitals, fire districts, libraries, parks, and numerous other local services. When major timber sales are delayed or canceled, those anticipated revenues disappear while the bills remain.

The result is that local governments must either reduce services, find replacement revenue, or shift more of the tax burden onto remaining taxpayers. For many residents already struggling with rising housing costs and property taxes, that’s another economic hit worth considering.

Pool Voucher Program Petition

The William Shore Memorial Pool Board has delayed any decision on its controversial voucher program until it receives guidance from its liability insurance carrier. The program provides pool vouchers to homeless drug addicts through the Harm Reduction Health Center, allowing recipients to use the public pool facility with children and families.

Meanwhile, the Clallam County Democrats have launched a petition urging the board to continue the program, saying residents should “place our trust in our elected officials to make sound decisions for all.”

The debate continues after public records revealed dozens of police responses associated with the facility during the time the program operated, despite earlier public statements that there had been no incidents.

Do the Clallam County Democrats believe we should “place our trust in our elected officials to make sound decisions for all” at the federal level?

Flashback: A Major Drug Bust

Six years ago, OPNET investigators concluded one of the largest drug investigations in recent memory. After undercover heroin purchases, detectives executed a search warrant at a Sequim residence, arresting Daniel Bresler.

Investigators seized:

• Nearly nine pounds of methamphetamine

• Heroin

• Oxycodone

• Xanax

• Suboxone

• Five firearms

• Body armor

The estimated street value of the methamphetamine alone exceeded $160,000. The investigation involved OPNET along with numerous local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies working together to remove a significant drug supplier from the community.

This week, jail records show Bresler was again booked into the Clallam County Jail on a U.S. Marshals Service detainer before being transferred to another agency.

Bresler’s return to custody also highlights what many residents see as a contradiction in Clallam County’s approach to drugs.

On one hand, OPNET and local law enforcement devote enormous time and resources to identifying and arresting major drug traffickers. On the other hand, the county funds a Harm Reduction Health Center that distributes drug paraphernalia and instructions to people actively using illegal drugs.

Making drug use easier inevitably increases demand for dealers willing to supply those drugs.

Summer in Clallam County

Summer brings beautiful weather, packed parks, and thousands of visitors. It also brings renewed public debate over visible homelessness, open-air drug use, encampments, and public safety in community spaces.

The PDC Complaint Continues

In the wake of a complaint from Paul Pickett seeking an additional $50,000 in fines against the Jake Seegers campaign, Public Disclosure Commission staff have requested that Clallam County Watchdog begin placing the disclaimer, “This content paid for (or sponsored) by Jake Seegers for Commissioner,” on all content mentioning Jake Seegers.

CC Watchdog will not do so because the statement is false. The campaign has never paid CC Watchdog to publish content, CC Watchdog generates no income, and placing a “paid for” disclaimer on unpaid content would itself be misleading.

A recent Nextdoor post illustrates the concern: “Tozzer is getting paid to write favorable stories for Seegers.”

That isn’t true. The amount the campaign has paid me to publish Jake’s articles is the same amount it has paid me to serve as campaign manager, the same amount CC Watchdog has earned, and the same amount it costs to operate CC Watchdog:

Zero.

A Conversation About Civility

Indivisible describes itself as:

“A grassroots group of neighbors, activists, and everyday citizens committed to defending democracy and building a more just, inclusive, and equitable future...”

Recently, however, one social media comment directed at county commissioner candidate Jake Seegers read:

“What kind of human garbage can picture his child this way in order to earn votes from trashy people...?”

Political disagreements are inevitable. Personal attacks like these raise broader questions about the tone of local civic discourse—and whether our community is becoming less willing to disagree respectfully.

From the Scanner

Leave a comment

Starting Clallam County Watchdog changed more than my daily routine. It changed decades-old friendships. I want to share with you what it feels like to express unpopular opinions and see lifelong friends quietly drift away—and why, despite the cost, I wouldn’t go back.

“I Feel Sorry for You”

Doug and I had an intersting conversation as we drove home from an event in Port Angeles last year.

It had been one of those evenings where you reconnect with people you’ve known for decades. There had been laughter, hugs, stories, and conversations about everything from old memories to local politics. On the surface, it had been a wonderful night.

But something felt different.

“Did you hug her too?” Doug asked.

“Yeah,” I said. “It felt like she didn’t really want to.”

It wasn’t just one awkward hug.

Some people had been genuinely excited to talk about CC Watchdog, property taxes, and representation in local government. Others had been almost overly friendly before making a point of avoiding us for the rest of the evening. Nobody said anything rude. It was simply... different.

Like always, we replayed the evening during the drive home. Then Doug said something I’ve thought about ever since.

“I feel sorry for you.”

“Why?”

He explained that many young gay people spend months—or even years—wondering what will happen when the people they love discover who they really are. Will their family still accept them? Will lifelong friends still treat them the same? Will they lose people they care about?

That fear of rejection weighs heavily on a lot of people. I told him I’d never experienced that. I was fortunate. My family loved me. My friends loved me. My hometown loved me. I never doubted any of it.

Doug nodded.

“Exactly,” he said. “You’re going through that now.”

I looked at him, confused.

“You’re not telling people you’re gay,” he said. “You’re telling them your opinions. And just like those young people wonder who will still accept them afterward, you’re finding out who still accepts you after they know where you stand.”

I didn’t fully understand what he meant that night.

I do now.

The First Crack

The first hint came in late 2024.

CC Watchdog had been around for about a year. Towne Road was still a major issue, but I had also begun researching the Dungeness Off-Channel Reservoir, Steve Tharinger’s seeming favoritism toward a particular local tribe, and how the county’s second-largest employer could promote environmental stewardship while grading over wetlands to expand its driving range.

Then, out of the blue, I received an email from someone I’d known most of my life.

“Hi Jeff,

I’ve been reading some of your stuff and you make some good points but some of your writings make me think you may be a trumper. Are you a trumper?”

I simply replied that I wasn’t. But the question lingered. This was someone who had attended my mother’s memorial service. Someone who had comforted me during one of the hardest periods of my life. Yet somehow, after decades of friendship, the question that now seemed to define me was whether I belonged to a particular political tribe.

Months later, another email arrived.

“Hi Jeff,

During the last 4 social gatherings I’ve been part of, your name has come up. You are getting quite a reputation—a reputation for being mean-spirited, nasty and racist. I’m tired of coming to your defense and explaining that you are a nice, intelligent person who has sent [name redacted] and I many thoughtful and clever cards and spent nights at our house when you were younger. You have some legitimate concerns and make some valid points, but what do you expect to accomplish by alienating good people?”

Reading it, I realized something. The friendship had already changed.

I wasn’t interested in debating him or convincing him otherwise. In an odd way, the email was a gift. It clarified where we stood.

When History Isn’t Enough

More conversations followed over the next two years.

Different people.
Different wording.
The same theme.

People I’d known for decades suddenly felt compelled to explain why they were disappointed in me, saddened by me, or embarrassed by what I had become.

Eventually, I stopped trying to preserve friendships simply because they had existed for a long time. Instead, I chose to appreciate them for what they had been.

History doesn’t have to be rewritten simply because the present has changed.

Losing Old Friends, Finding New Ones

At the same time, my own life was changing.

CC Watchdog became a daily commitment. I was writing articles, recording podcasts, attending public meetings, filing public records requests, and meeting people from every corner of Clallam County. Ironically, as some old friendships quietly faded, entirely new ones formed.

People I’d never met before became trusted friends. People I’d known my entire life slowly disappeared.

Looking back, I’m okay with that.

I’ve never been a fan of fair-weather friendships. If expressing honest opinions causes someone to walk away, perhaps the friendship wasn’t as unconditional as I believed.

The Goodbye That Hurt

One hard moment came while saying goodbye to a mutual friend who was nearing the end of her life. Several of us gathered around her bed, laughing, crying, sharing stories, and telling her it was okay to let go. We’d see her again someday.

As we left, I hugged another longtime friend. To me, it seemed like the most natural thing in the world. Then came the Facebook message.

“I have been perplexed and sad to see your gift for writing and your quick wit turn into a forum for inuendo, hate, prejudice and personal attack. I obviously did not know this part of you.

I discontinued receiving the CCWD online, but it still shows up because we are Facebook friends.

I remember seeing you in Costco when the Towne Road issue was beginning and we understood your position. I said that I hoped all this involvement wouldn’t take away from the novel you were working on, and you said, ‘This is a lot more fun!’ I think back on this meeting and can’t believe this is the ‘fun’ you intended.

I will always remember when your Mom told us she was expecting you. She was sitting on the steps in the back room of Fawnie’s flower shop! ...

Anyway, I’m going to the ‘unfriend’ route because I don’t seem to be able to scroll by these posts without reading them. I am sad these days and they make me feel sadder.

Be well, Jeff.”

She could have unfollowed my page.
She could have hidden my posts.
Instead, she chose to end the friendship.

Not because she disagreed with me. But because after knowing each other for my entire life, disagreement had become more important than everything we’d shared before it.

No More Awkward Hugs

The last example happened recently.

I ran into another longtime friend while grocery shopping. Last year, she’d been critical of my work on the Charter Review Commission, but we’d talked through it.

Then life took an unexpected turn.

Commissioner Jim Stoffer’s actions ultimately led to me losing a volunteer position that had been one of the most meaningful parts of my life. His actions forced me out of my childhood church.

It was one of the lowest points I’d experienced since starting CC Watchdog.

During that time, I wondered if this friend might reach out. She knew how important that volunteer work had been to me.

But she didn’t. That was her choice, and I respected it.

When we bumped into each other at the grocery store, we smiled and said hello. No awkward hug this time. Partly because I happened to be carrying a fifty-pound bag of animal feed.

When I got home, there was an email waiting.

“Hi Jeff. I had an afterthought while heading home and just didn’t figure it out until then.

I wish I would have given you a hug when I saw you, but to be truthful I would have had to also tell you how it saddens me to watch how you are encouraging the division of our community, and I wonder, to what end. Very sad.”

I appreciated her honesty. But I also realized something.

I no longer needed the hugs.

The Pattern I Couldn’t Ignore

Looking back over the past two and a half years, four people have taken the time to explain why they no longer viewed me the same way.

All four are people I’ve known for most of my life.

All four are active in organizations like Indivisible, the Clallam County Democrats, the League of Women Voters—or some combination of the three.

I’m not suggesting everyone in those organizations thinks alike. Many don’t. But I couldn’t ignore the pattern. The irony wasn’t lost on me.

The people who most often spoke about inclusion and tolerance sometimes seem the least willing to include and tolerate someone whose opinions differed from their own.

What I Gained

Do I regret starting Clallam County Watchdog? Not for a second.

Towne Road reopened.
Stories that otherwise might never have been told became public.
I’ve met remarkable people across this county.
I’ve made friendships that I expect will last the rest of my life.
We replaced Austin’s stolen bike.
Mary Bickar has been sober for over three months.

Most importantly, I’ve learned something I probably should have understood years ago.

Real friendship isn’t tested when everyone agrees. It’s tested when they don’t. Some friendships passed that test. Some didn’t.

Doug was right. I wasn’t discovering whether people accepted me for who I was. I was discovering whether they accepted me when they knew exactly what I believed. Those are two very different things.

Today, I don’t feel angry.
I don’t feel like a victim.
If anything, I feel fortunate.

Fortunate for the friends who stayed.
Fortunate for the new friends I’ve made.

And grateful that, after two and a half years, I finally know the difference between friends who love me and friends who simply agreed with me.

Leave a comment

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.

Tort Claim

10.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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:

1. 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.

2. 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 through quiet normalization.

We still have the power to demand that our constitutional rights and our tax dollars be treated with the seriousness they deserve. That power only works if we use it.

Virginia Shogren
Candidate for Clallam County Auditor
961 W. Oak Court, Sequim WA 98382

This article was prepared with research and drafting assistance from AI tools. All analysis, opinions, and final content are the author’s own.

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.

Today’s Tidbit: The Price of Surveillance

Clallam County’s investment in EagleView extends well beyond aerial imagery.

According to EagleView’s pricing documents, the company offers numerous optional add-ons. One example is FutureView Advanced Training, a conference package costing $2,499 per attendee that includes three nights of hotel accommodations and round-trip airfare.

The pricing list also outlines three project options totaling more than $446,000—a significant investment for a county facing recurring budget deficits and employee layoffs.

Earlier this month, the Clallam County Board of Commissioners approved another payment to EagleView totaling $84,168.27.

Want to learn more about EagleView’s AI-enhanced aerial surveillance technology and how it could be used in Clallam County? Read Jake Seegers’ article here.

Leave a comment

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.

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. Hispanic taxpayers pay into the system. Tribal citizens pay into the system.

Yet eligibility for these particular grants is determined by ancestry and political status, not financial need.

That raises an uncomfortable question.

If a federally funded program were available only to white communities, would anyone hesitate to call it discriminatory?

If not, why is it different when the beneficiaries are tribal governments?

Supporters argue that tribes occupy a unique legal status recognized by treaties and federal law. Critics argue that taxpayer-funded programs should be available based on need, geography, or income rather than race or ancestry.

Reasonable people can disagree on the answer.

But they should at least be allowed to ask the question.

Leave a comment

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.

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.

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.

Leave a comment

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?

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.

Sign the Petition!

Today’s Tidbit: Town Hall Audio

Anniemarie’s story begins in places most people can scarcely imagine. As a teenager, she was trafficked, became addicted to heroin, and found herself living on the streets of San Francisco. Looking back on that period of her life, she recalls, “I was trafficked at a time when it was definitely not something anybody talked about.”

What follows is a remarkable story of survival, recovery, and redemption.

Listeners will hear Anniemarie describe the moment she reached rock bottom, withdrawing from heroin alone in a doorway in San Francisco after deciding she no longer wanted to live the life addiction had trapped her in. “I ran out of drugs. I didn’t want to turn tricks. And so I went off of heroin cold turkey.”

The conversation explores not only her recovery, but how a pair of compassionate mentors helped her rebuild her life through accountability, work, and expectations rather than enabling destructive behavior. “They saved me,” she says simply.

From there, Anniemarie went on to build a successful career as a teacher and administrator, raise a family, and eventually become an advocate for women recovering from trafficking, abuse, addiction, and other forms of trauma. Today she leads the New Resiliency Group in Sequim, helping women navigate many of the same struggles she once faced herself.

The discussion also tackles some of Clallam County’s most controversial issues, including homelessness, addiction, human trafficking, incarceration, recovery programs, and what genuine compassion looks like. Whether listeners agree with all of Anniemarie’s conclusions or not, her perspective comes from lived experience rather than theory.

Perhaps the most moving part of the interview is her insistence that people struggling with addiction are not hopeless cases. Having once been written off herself, she sees value and potential where others see only problems.

“Each human being who’s living on the street is a precious life,” she says.

That belief is rooted in her own experience. As she reflects on the life she has today—a family, a home, and a purpose—she remembers where she came from:

“I was absolutely thrown away.”

This is more than a discussion about public policy. It’s a story about resilience, second chances, and the difference between helping people survive and helping them truly recover. If you’ve followed the community’s ongoing debates about homelessness, addiction, harm reduction, or recovery, this is an interview worth hearing in full.

Listeners who are moved by Anniemarie's story can learn more in her memoir, Thrown Away Found, which tells the remarkable story of how a trafficked and addicted teenager became an educator, mother, advocate, and mentor to other women seeking recovery. The book expands on many of the experiences discussed in this interview and offers a powerful testament to resilience, redemption, and second chances.

Thrownaway Found Website

Looking for Support? New Resiliency Group Has Found a New Home

During the interview, Anniemarie discusses the challenges her support group recently faced while meeting near Seal Street Park. Since recording the podcast, the group has secured a new location and continues its mission of helping women heal from life’s hardest challenges.

The New Resiliency Group is a free, Christ-centered women’s support group focused on recovery, healing, accountability, and hope. The group welcomes women dealing with anxiety, grief, illness, depression, addiction, codependency, family dysfunction, abuse, abandonment, and other life struggles.

Meetings are held every Saturday from 10:45 a.m. to noon at OBRIA, 660 N. 7th Avenue in Sequim. The program uses scripture-based recovery principles and emphasizes mutual support, personal growth, and practical healing.

As Anniemarie explains in the interview, her goal is simple: to help women discover that their past does not have to define their future.

For more information, visit www.newresiliency.com or call Annie at (707) 495-3698.

Leave a comment

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.

Suspected drug dealers arrested outside the county’s Health and Human Services building. A former Port Angeles family explains why they moved to Idaho. A local steakhouse closes its doors temporarily. A new housing policy in Snohomish County challenges the low-barrier model. Plus debate videos, public safety concerns, and a question many voters are asking this Social Media Saturday: is there a better way to campaign?

Drug Bust Outside County Health Building

Last week, Social Media Saturday featured reports from residents about a blue Dodge Durango that appeared to be attracting frequent short-stay traffic consistent with drug activity.

Just days later, the PAPD and Olympic Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team (OPNET) announced the arrest of a suspected street-level drug dealer after conducting surveillance on that same vehicle in downtown Port Angeles.

According to OPNET, detectives observed activity consistent with drug sales and coordinated with law enforcement partners to stop a suspected buyer. The operation ultimately led to the arrest of 44-year-old Daun Layton and 52-year-old Dennis Tierney on allegations of delivery of a controlled substance and the seizure of fentanyl, drug paraphernalia, scales, methadone, weapons, police scanners, and other items commonly associated with narcotics trafficking.

One detail that caught the attention of many residents: the arrest occurred directly in front of Clallam County’s Health and Human Services building, the same department that oversees the county’s harm-reduction program, which distributes supplies such as meth pipes, crack pipe cleaning kits, foil, and other materials that encourage drug consumption.

Also visible in the background of the photos was the Clallam County Courthouse.

Both suspects have since been released pending further court proceedings.

“We Wanted Out”

Journalist Brandi Kruse recently released a series featuring Washington families who relocated to Idaho. One interview featured Tyler, a former Port Angeles resident and military veteran who described why he and his family decided to leave the Olympic Peninsula.

Tyler told Kruse that increasing drug activity, theft, public disorder, and what he viewed as ineffective law enforcement convinced his family to move. He contrasted Port Angeles with what he experienced in Coeur d’Alene, saying the visible absence of tents, RVs, needles, and open drug use immediately stood out to his family.

Whether residents agree with his assessment or not, the interview offers an unfiltered perspective from a former local resident who felt conditions had deteriorated enough to move his family across state lines. Tyler said he knew of six other Clallam County families who had also moved.

Let the Expansion Begin

With the recent levy now approved, the North Olympic Library System can turn its attention back to core priorities—like hiring a Marketing & Communications Manager.

Crazy Harry’s Hits Pause

Sequim steakhouse Crazy Harry’s announced it will temporarily close its doors.

Running a restaurant has never been easy. Thin margins, rising labor costs, food inflation, insurance expenses, and regulatory requirements make survival difficult even in good times.

Now imagine competing against a restaurant backed by a corporation generating more than $100 million annually in revenue. Imagine competing against a business that doesn’t pay property taxes on trust land, doesn’t pay state business and occupation taxes, and has access to resources and capital far beyond what most local family-owned restaurants could ever hope to obtain.

That is the reality facing many private businesses in Clallam County.

Another Democratic Debate Online

The Clallam County Democrats have posted video from their Legislative District 24 Position 2 candidate forum.

The debate features Bradley Callaway, Patrick DePoe, Mark Hodgson, Marcia Kelbon, and Kaylee Kuehn discussing issues ranging from housing and public safety to state policy and economic development.

For voters still getting acquainted with the candidates, it provides an opportunity to hear directly from each participant before ballots arrive next month.

Indivisible to Host Another “Public” Meeting

After advertising a meeting as open to the public and then calling police when members of the public attempted to attend, Indivisible is inviting residents to another public event focused on “Meaningful Conversations.”

The group’s next gathering is scheduled for July 11 at the Sequim Library and is being promoted as an opportunity for community discussion and civic engagement.

Millions Available for (Some) New Recreation Projects

While Olympic National Park visitors are still waiting for Olympic Hot Springs Road to reopen and Hurricane Ridge Lodge to be rebuilt, a new federal funding opportunity is opening up for tribes nationwide.

Under the EXPLORE Act, federally recognized tribes can now apply directly for outdoor recreation grants ranging from $300,000 to $15 million for parks, trails, cultural spaces, and recreation facilities.

It’s another reminder that while new recreation projects continue to receive funding, the Olympic Peninsula is still waiting on progress for two of its most beloved destinations. Years after the road closure and three years after the lodge fire, many locals are wondering when restoring access and rebuilding existing infrastructure will become a priority.

Redefining Common Courtesy

Indivisible Sequim is protesting for common courtesy.

Snohomish County Changes Course on Housing

The Snohomish County Council voted 3-2 this month to adopt a new housing funding policy that could have implications far beyond county lines.

The ordinance prohibits county housing funds from prioritizing “low-barrier” housing models and prevents providers from being penalized for requiring sobriety, treatment participation, counseling, or drug testing.

Supporters argue the measure restores balance and allows recovery-focused housing providers to compete on equal footing.

While the ordinance applies only to Snohomish County, the debate mirrors many of the same discussions taking place in Clallam County about harm reduction, Peninsula Behavioral Health’s North View luxury homeless housing complex, recovery, accountability, and how public dollars should be spent.

Is Port Angeles Still Safe?

A local social media post generated significant discussion this week after a mother described being repeatedly approached by a woman seeking money. The resident reported encounters at a gas station and grocery store parking lot and said she felt unsafe when strangers came within arm’s reach of her children.

The post sparked comments from residents debating whether public safety and quality-of-life conditions have changed in recent years. The discussion comes as County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers continues to make public safety a central issue in his campaign.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Mike French has publicly argued that Clallam County remains as safe as it was several years ago, highlighting a growing divide in how residents and local leaders view conditions on the ground.

A Different Way to Campaign?

With more than four months remaining until Election Day, some voters are already expressing fatigue with the increasingly divisive tone of local politics. One resident posed a simple question: Is there a way to support a candidate without attacking their opponent?

It’s a fair point.

Campaigns inevitably involve disagreements, criticism, and competing visions for the future. But many voters say they would like to hear more about what supporters like about their candidate, opposed to what they dislike about a challenger.

For supporters of Commissioner Mike French, that means highlighting his record from the past three and a half years as county commissioner and his previous five years on the Port Angeles City Council.

From the Police Scanner

Leave a comment

If you want to know how one influential Democratic Party leader viewed Monday’s commissioner debate, look no further than Tim Wheeler’s post-debate recap. The Clallam Democrats’ trustee portrays Mike French as the clear choice while describing Jake Seegers, Clallam County Watchdog, and their supporters in blistering terms. The debate video is now public, giving voters the opportunity to judge both the candidates—and Wheeler’s commentary—for themselves.

The Clallam County Democrats have published video of last week’s County Commissioner debate between incumbent Mike French and challenger Jake Seegers.

For those who don’t have time to watch the entire event, Clallam County Democrats trustee Tim Wheeler has already published his own detailed account of what transpired.

Wheeler is not simply an attendee. He serves as a trustee of the Clallam County Democrats, the organization that hosted the debate.

He has also publicly identified himself as a communist on numerous occasions and has been active in local political organizing for years.

His summary provides an interesting opportunity for voters: they can compare Wheeler’s written account with the actual debate footage and decide for themselves whether the two align.

French and Seegers Through Wheeler’s Eyes

Wheeler opens his article by describing what he sees as the defining contrast between the candidates.

According to Wheeler, Seegers’ top priority is “Public Safety,” which Wheeler characterizes as stronger law enforcement, more police officers, and longer jail stays for offenders.

French, Wheeler writes, identified economic development as his top priority, emphasizing jobs, housing affordability, and treatment options for those struggling with addiction.

Wheeler writes:

“Think about it. Seegers’ priority: ‘Public Safety,’ tougher law enforcement, more police. French’s priority: ‘Economic Development,’ more living wage jobs, more affordable housing. What a sharp contrast!”

Wheeler also notes that French defended medication-assisted treatment programs and praised the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s Healing Campus in Sequim.

From Debate Summary to Political Commentary

As Wheeler’s article continues, it shifts from describing the debate to offering his own opinions about the candidates and their supporters.

Discussing homelessness, Wheeler writes that Seegers believes Clallam County has become a destination for homeless individuals because of the services offered here.

Wheeler contrasts that with French’s comments about Seattle, describing Seattle as:

“a great city, growing, a center for the arts and culture and economic innovation, with millions of intelligent, caring, hardworking residents.”

The article then moves beyond the candidates’ answers and into broader political commentary.

Wheeler describes Save Our Sequim activists as “hateful fearmongers” and refers to Clallam County Watchdog as the “offspring” of that movement.

Later, he writes:

“Seegers, Tozzer, and a handful of Clallam Watchdog cultists attend every Clallam County Commissioners meeting...”

He continues to characterize Clallam County Watchdog as a “cult,” accuses participants of engaging in intimidation and slander, and compares the movement to MAGA politics.

Allegations Beyond the Debate Stage

Much of Wheeler’s article focuses on subjects that were not central to the debate itself.

He discusses Seegers’ family foundation, donations, real estate interests, business activities, and alleged conflicts of interest.

He also asserts that these relationships are not properly disclosed and raises questions about transparency.

Whether readers agree with Wheeler’s conclusions or not, these sections read less as a summary of the debate and more as a broader political critique of the candidate.

A Trustee’s Perspective

One aspect of Wheeler’s article that readers may find noteworthy is his position within the organization that hosted the event.

As a trustee of the Clallam County Democrats, Wheeler is not an independent journalist or neutral observer. He is an elected leader within the local Democratic Party structure.

His article concludes with an explicit appeal to voters:

“VOTE DEMOCRAT! REJECT THE MAGAs, the Christian Nationalists, the hatemongers!”

That closing statement leaves little doubt about where Wheeler stands politically or which candidate he hopes voters will support.

Seegers’ Response

Following the debate, Seegers struck a different tone.

He thanked the Clallam County Democrats for hosting the event and said:

“The questions were thoughtful, the conversation was respectful, and we all had the opportunity to hear different perspectives.”

Seegers also emphasized the importance of finding common ground and working together despite political differences.

Watch and Decide

The debate is now available for anyone to watch.

Rather than relying on summaries from campaign supporters, party officials, political activists, or even CC Watchdog, voters can review the discussion themselves and draw their own conclusions.

After all, the debate was recorded. The candidates’ answers are available. The question is not what Tim Wheeler thought happened.

The question is what actually happened.

Today’s Tidbit: Serious Allegations, No Evidence

Just days after hosting what they described as a successful commissioner candidate forum with a standing-room-only crowd and more than 100 attendees on Zoom, the Clallam County Democrats distributed a very different message to their members.

In a newsletter, the organization celebrated the French-Seegers debate before sharing a statement from an unnamed source concerning County Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry:

“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.”

Those are not minor accusations. They are allegations of intimidation, threats, and harassment directed at two individuals actively participating in local politics.

After receiving the email, I wrote to Democratic Party Chair Ellen Menshew thanking her for hosting the debate and requesting clarification. Specifically, I asked for examples of conduct by either Jake Seegers or myself that constituted intimidation, threats, or harassment, and requested identification of the Board of Health or County Commissioner meetings where this alleged conduct occurred.

The request was straightforward: if evidence exists, provide it.

As of this writing, no response has been received.

Public officials are routinely questioned, criticized, challenged, and held accountable by members of the public. That is a normal and healthy part of representative government. Accusing citizens of intimidation, threats, and harassment is something entirely different. Such allegations should be supported by specific facts, not anonymous assertions circulated in a political newsletter.

The question remains unanswered: What exactly did Jake or I say or do that rises to the level of intimidation, threats, or harassment? The lack of specifics is important because claims like this aren't new. Similar allegations about Dr. Berry being threatened, intimidated, or harassed have been made for years.

After years of contentious public meetings, it is fair to ask where the line is between actual harassment and citizens asking tough questions, requesting records, challenging public policy, and criticizing the actions of public officials. If recordings exist showing threats or intimidation, they should be easy to identify and produce.

Until then, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Leave a comment

In this guest column, Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren recounts a legal battle stemming from allegations of noncitizen voter registrations and her subsequent disciplinary hearing. She argues that election integrity questions deserve greater scrutiny and outlines her vision for restoring public trust through voter ID, hand-counted ballots, and increased transparency.

As we approach the America 250 Celebration, you would think that we might know by now what a “free and equal” election is, as decreed by our state constitution.

Yet in March of 2025, I had a front-row view of our government’s utter uncertainty as to what that phrase even means. The occasion was my disciplinary hearing before the Washington State Bar Association.

Proceeding

883KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In 2021, a Pierce County nonprofit filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the executive branch (including the Governor) to comply with the Constitution as it relates to qualified voters. The case exposed an alleged Department of Licensing pattern and practice to register noncitizens to vote, as publicly revealed by a retired DOL employee.

Supreme Court

3.56MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Instead of examining the evidence and taking action to enforce the state constitution, our Supreme Court did the opposite: it pre-emptively dismissed the action and sanctioned both my client and me for bringing a so-called ‘frivolous’ action.

The Attorney General’s office (led by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson) took to the media to declare that I had attacked our democracy and had abused the legal system:

Within days of the national media campaign, AG Ferguson’s office filed a grievance against me with the Washington State Bar Association in order to have me investigated and disciplined.

At my hearing, I questioned Ferguson’s Deputy Solicitor General Karl Smith and the ‘grievant’, Solicitor General Noah Purcell, while under oath in a downtown Seattle courtroom.

The Deputy Solicitor General testified that he was uncertain as to whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in our elections.

He could not say whether noncitizens are qualified voters. He punted, saying that the issue is “all academic right now in terms of how the constitution is interpreted.”

The Solicitor General testified that the most important reason behind his grievance was the “subject matter” of my representation.

He testified that exposure of the alleged noncitizen voter registrations meant that I had questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 General Election (and that, therefore, I should properly be disciplined).

Our own government attorneys don’t seem to understand that the Constitution prohibits noncitizens from voting in our elections. Instead — along with our Supreme Court — they seem more intent on the intimidation of the legal profession in order to suppress election integrity matters.

The good news is that the people do not need government attorneys to tell them what their own constitution says. The people hold the political power of this state.

Based on potential federal legislation in the form of the SAVE Act or similar enactments (see Part I of this series), and state law (which in no way prohibits in-person voting), here is what a free and equal election in Clallam County could soon look like:

1. Multiple voting locations (polling places) across Clallam County will be announced, as shown in the voter’s pamphlet and online.

2. Each polling place will be manned with volunteers, 50/50 left-leaning/right-leaning.

3. Election Day will be a single day of in-person voting (8 a.m. to 8 p.m.) with Voter ID.

4. Votes on cast ballots will be hand-counted at the polling places.

5. Absentee voting will be limited to the SAVE Act (Military, Illness, Disability, or Travel).

The procedure for in-person voting could look like this:

1. Check in with a photo ID and sign the polling list.

2. Enter a defined voting area.

3. Pick any ballot from a stack available for your precinct. This provides for randomness and privacy, as each ballot will be assigned a unique number.

4. Go to a desk with a privacy shield and mark your votes and write-ins with a pen.

5. Remove the perforated tab from the top of the ballot (as is currently done). Keep the tab as it will contain your unique ballot number. Only you will know that number; you can check the records posted after the election to confirm that your ballot was tabulated.

6. Deposit the ballot in a clear plexiglass ballot box.

7. Exit the voting area.

The County will maintain volunteers and a camera aimed only at the ballots and ballot box at all times, with the feed streamed live and recorded.

At 8:00 p.m., polls close. The camera will be moved to tables where volunteers will remove the cast ballots from the clear box and place them into batches of 50 for counting. Tabulation will be done in teams of left/right readers, with vote tallies recorded on paper and all proceedings livestreamed and recorded. The general public will be invited to attend in person to listen and watch.

The final results at each location will be phoned in to the County Election Center (with confirming images texted). The county-wide totals will be posted online once available from all polling places. Unused and cast ballots will be sealed separately in containers and transported (with right/left witnesses) to the Election Center for retention in the event of recounts or lawsuits.

And there you have it!

Free and equal elections are not theoretical or “academic”. On the contrary, they are a simple reality that is fast approaching: a single day of paper, pens, and Americans working together to achieve the will of the people.

Virginia Shogren
Candidate for Clallam County Auditor
961 W. Oak Court, Sequim, WA 98382
www.VirginiaShogrenAuditor.com

Credit for in-person voting methodology: 2016 Washington Democratic Presidential Caucus; California in-person elections; Voting Procedure Analysis of Terpsehore P. Maras

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.

Leave a comment

When residents of Three Crabs ask for help with flooding, when citizens request answers about public safety, or when constituents seek meetings with county officials, they often report silence. Yet public records show Commissioner Mark Ozias regularly making time for private meetings, research discussions, and information-sharing with a network of environmental activists working on timber and trust land issues. The records raise a larger question: are Clallam County commissioners serving all residents equally, or have certain activist and special-interest groups become the county’s preferred stakeholders?

Who Gets a Seat at the Table?

The oath of office taken by elected officials is simple. They swear to faithfully and impartially serve the public.

But in Clallam County, many residents are beginning to wonder whether some voices carry more weight than others.

A pair of recent Washington State Standard articles published in the Peninsula Daily News highlighted the growing influence of environmental activist networks working to reshape the future of state-managed forests on the Olympic Peninsula.

One article detailed how the Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition raised $32,000 in just four days to halt logging around the Sadie Creek Campground.

Another reported on litigation seeking to stop nearly 400 acres of logging in the Elwha Watershed.

Among the most visible advocates quoted in the coverage is WendyRae Johnson, a member of the Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition and the recently reelected Chair of the Clallam Conservation District.

There is nothing improper about advocacy. Citizens have every right to organize, lobby government, and pursue policy goals they believe benefit the community.

The question is whether everyone enjoys the same access.

The Activist Network

Public records obtained by Clallam County Watchdog show Johnson communicating directly with Commissioner Mark Ozias regarding trust land issues, timber revenues, and meetings concerning what emails describe as their “findings on a unitary trust.”

The records also show the involvement of Ed Chadd, a local political organizer and activist who has helped organize Indivisible demonstrations attended by Commissioner Mark Ozias.

Chadd was included in discussions alongside Johnson and Mary Jean Ryan regarding timber revenue data and trust land issues.

On March 9, Ozias obtained county financial information regarding timber revenues and forwarded it directly to Johnson, Ryan, and Chadd after locating data they had discussed. He described the information as containing “exactly the data we were discussing.”

A month later, Johnson requested a follow-up meeting with Ozias regarding the group’s research. Ozias worked around scheduling conflicts, proposed multiple dates, and ultimately arranged a dedicated Zoom meeting involving Johnson, Ryan, and Chadd.

The meeting wasn’t squeezed into a crowded public comment period. It wasn’t limited to a three-minute statement before the board. It wasn’t a request submitted through a county website.

It was a private hour-long Zoom meeting scheduled directly with a county commissioner. The meeting appeared on Ozias’ calendar for April 22, 2026.

A Concierge Service?

Again, none of this is illegal. Commissioners routinely meet with constituents. They should. What stands out is the level of assistance being provided.

The emails show Ozias gathering county data on behalf of the group, forwarding outside reports related to trust lands, coordinating schedules, and maintaining an ongoing dialogue about issues they were actively researching.

For activists seeking information about timber revenues and trust land management, the county commissioner appears highly responsive.

Many other residents would likely welcome similar treatment.

Meanwhile, Other Residents Wait

Residents in Three Crabs have spent years raising concerns about flooding following restoration projects and dike removal in the area. Some report recurring seasonal flooding, property impacts, and difficulty getting meaningful responses from decision makers.

Citizens concerned about public safety, homelessness, drug use, and county policies frequently report unanswered emails and unreturned requests for comment.

Commissioner Ozias has also declined invitations to several community forums and public discussions where residents hoped to ask questions directly.

The contrast is difficult to ignore.

One group receives direct access, research support, scheduling accommodations, and ongoing conversations with elected officials.

Others struggle simply to get a response.

The Bigger Question

The issue isn’t WendyRae Johnson.
The issue isn’t Ed Chadd.
The issue isn’t environmental advocacy.

The issue is whether access to elected officials is being distributed fairly.

Every resident of Clallam County pays for county government. Every resident helps fund the salaries, staff, and resources that support elected officials. Every resident deserves to know that their concerns will receive the same attention regardless of whether they belong to a well-connected activist network, a political organization, a tribe, a nonprofit, a business association, or simply happen to be an individual citizen.

Commissioners are not elected to represent the people who already agree with them. They are elected to represent everyone.

When public records repeatedly show special access for organized interests while ordinary residents struggle to be heard, it raises an uncomfortable question:

Is county government serving the public equally—or has access itself become a privilege reserved for those who already have a seat at the table?

Editor’s Note: Public records reviewed for this article show communications between Commissioner Mark Ozias, Clallam Conservation District Chair WendyRae Johnson, Mary Jean Ryan, and Ed Chadd concerning trust land issues, timber revenues, and related meetings. The records do not establish that Commissioner Ozias coordinated litigation or advocacy efforts, only that he provided information and participated in discussions regarding those issues.

Today’s Tidbit: School Board to Consider Censure of Director Nancy Hamilton

The Port Angeles School District Board of Directors is scheduled to consider a resolution on June 18 that would formally censure board member Nancy Hamilton. The item appears on the board’s agenda as “Approval of Resolution 2526-18 – Censure of Board Director, Nancy Hamilton,” with administration recommending approval.

A censure is a formal statement of disapproval by a governing body. It does not remove an elected official from office, but it serves as an official reprimand and can limit certain board privileges. According to the proposed resolution, the board alleges Hamilton violated board policies and standards of conduct through a pattern of actions that the resolution says undermined board governance and district operations.

Hamilton was elected to the board in November 2025 and was sworn into office in December. In recent months, she has frequently asked questions about district finances, staffing reductions, and decision-making processes. She cast the lone vote against a recent reduction-in-force resolution, stating she did not have enough information about how staffing priorities had been determined.

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 18 at 5pm, and is expected to draw significant public interest. Whether residents support the censure or oppose it, this may be an important opportunity to hear the board’s rationale, Hamilton’s response, and public comment on the matter. As always, readers are encouraged to review the resolution themselves and attend the meeting if they wish to see the discussion firsthand.

Commissioner Randy Johnson Agrees to Participate in This Week’s Town Hall

This Weekend

Leave a comment

A Port Angeles resident in recovery is urging Clallam County to shift its focus from drug-use supplies to treatment and accountability. In response, Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry defended the county’s harm reduction efforts, cited declining overdose rates, and accused Clallam County Watchdog and County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers of misrepresenting her work. The exchange highlights a growing divide between public health officials and residents—including people in recovery—over whether current policies are producing the results taxpayers were promised. The full correspondence is published below.

A Letter to a Leader

For years, Clallam County has expanded its harm reduction efforts in an attempt to reduce overdose deaths, prevent the spread of infectious disease, and connect people struggling with addiction to services.

Supporters argue the strategy saves lives.

Critics argue the county has become increasingly focused on making addiction safer rather than helping people escape it.

That debate took center stage yesterday in an exchange between Port Angeles resident David Rogers and Clallam County Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry.

Rogers, who says he is in long-term recovery from addiction and has lost both his sister and numerous friends to overdose, wrote to county officials urging them to reconsider the county’s current approach.

Dear Clallam County Health and Human Services Leadership,

I am writing as a Clallam County resident, someone in long term recovery from addiction, and someone who regularly spends time talking with people who are currently struggling with substance use disorder on our streets. I understand that the goal of your department is to reduce overdose deaths and improve public health. I believe those are goals we all share. Unfortunately, I also believe it is time to honestly acknowledge that the current approach is not producing the results our community was promised.

Despite the continued expansion of harm reduction services and the distribution of drug use supplies, Clallam County continues to experience overdose rates that exceed state and national averages. At the same time, families, business owners, and residents are watching open drug use, drug dealing, and public disorder become increasingly common. Many people in our community feel like there is little accountability and that these programs are unintentionally making it easier to remain in active addiction.

I respectfully ask that Clallam County discontinue the distribution of all drug use supplies except for a one for one syringe exchange. Exchanging used syringes for clean ones helps reduce discarded needles in our community while still addressing the risk of disease transmission. Beyond that, I believe the county should stop handing out supplies that support continued drug use without also moving people toward treatment and recovery.

Compassion and accountability are not opposites. In my experience, they work best together. Nearly every successful recovery program includes accountability because real recovery often requires someone to be challenged to make a different choice. We should absolutely meet people where they are, but we should also be helping them move forward rather than making it easier to stay exactly where they are.

As someone who has lived through addiction, I can honestly say that what changed my life was accountability combined with access to treatment. It was not having my addiction made easier. I have now spent years talking with others in recovery, and I continue to hear that same story over and over again.

I would much rather see our resources invested in treatment, recovery support, transportation to treatment, case management, and housing that encourages recovery. Every dollar we spend should move someone one step closer to getting their life back.

I also ask that Health and Human Services publicly report measurable outcomes for each of its harm reduction programs. If we are investing taxpayer dollars into these services, the public deserves to know what results they are producing. If a program is reducing overdose deaths, increasing treatment participation, or improving long term recovery, that should be demonstrated with clear data. If it is not, then we have a responsibility to reconsider how those resources are being used.

Finally, I want to address something that has become increasingly frustrating for many of us in the community.

My sister died from an overdose. I have also lost countless friends to addiction. When Dr. Alison Berry suggests that those of us advocating for changes to the county’s current approach lack compassion or somehow want to see people die or contract HIV, it is deeply hurtful and disrespectful.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those of us asking for change are often the very people who have buried loved ones, lived through addiction ourselves, or both. We are speaking because we are tired of watching people die. We simply disagree on what the most effective path forward is.

There is room for honest disagreement about public policy without questioning each other’s compassion or motives. Suggesting that anyone who advocates for greater accountability is somehow indifferent to human suffering only divides our community and shuts down meaningful conversation.

I respectfully ask that Health and Human Services engage with those of us who have lived experience, even when we disagree. Recovery is possible. Our voices deserve to be heard, and they deserve to be treated with the same respect afforded to any other stakeholder in this conversation.

We all want the same outcome: fewer overdose deaths, healthier families, and more people finding lasting recovery. We will get there faster by listening to one another instead of dismissing those whose experiences lead them to different conclusions.

Sincerely

David Rogers
Port Angeles, Washington

His letter is notable because it comes not from a politician or activist, but from someone who says he has personally experienced addiction and recovery.

“Compassion and accountability are not opposites,” Rogers wrote. “In my experience, they work best together.”

Rogers argued that the county should discontinue distributing drug-use supplies beyond a one-for-one syringe exchange program and instead direct more resources toward treatment, recovery support, transportation, case management, and housing programs that encourage recovery.

He also called on county officials to publicly report measurable outcomes demonstrating whether harm reduction programs are producing the results taxpayers are funding.

Perhaps most significantly, Rogers challenged what many residents have increasingly described as a dismissive attitude toward those who question the county’s approach.

“My sister died from an overdose,” Rogers wrote. “I have also lost countless friends to addiction.”

“Those of us asking for change are often the very people who have buried loved ones, lived through addiction ourselves, or both.”

Berry Responds

Dr. Allison Berry responded an hour later.

Hi Mr. Rogers,

Thank you for reaching out. First of all, I want to say congratulations on your recovery. That is such hard work and I am so happy for you. Secondly, I want to say I am so very sorry to hear about the loss of your sister. I’m sending you peace as you grapple with that incredible loss. Preventing overdose deaths like her own is a major motivator for the work that we do.

Given the timing of your email and some of the references in it, I suspect that you are getting your information about me and my work on Clallam County Watchdog. It has been a challenge these last few months to have Mr. Tozzer and Mr. Seegers so dedicated to misrepresenting me, my work, and my words. Luckily, every meeting they draw their material from is recorded and publicly available. Before you get angry at something you’ve been told I said, I strongly encourage you to go listen to the original tape. You can find them on the Clallam County website under the board of health here: https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/677/Board-of-Health

For an example - one of the misquotes that you share upset you, the one where I reportedly equate accountability with wanting people to get HIV and die. I actually said the exact opposite - that I don’t think that is what people mean when they ask for accountability. As a drug treatment professional, I agree with you - accountability is an incredibly important part of long term recovery. I was making the point that nothing we do gets in the way of that. We just prevent infectious diseases. I shared the example of if a person commits violence while using drugs, nothing we do will prevent them from facing the consequences of that - nor frankly do I wish to. You can find that specific meeting here:https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/292/files/agenda/6053

Similarly, on the subject of metrics, we have shared many and continue to. I gave a 50 minute presentation on why we practice harm reduction and shared quite a few metrics there. You can find that in our BOH recordings too: https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/289/files/agenda/4746. When reporting on that presentation, unfortunately Mr. Tozzer didn’t share any of those data, instead focusing on falsely claiming that I said 4PA steals. We also have numerous publicly available reports on our website. One metric I can share with you here - when I took this job in 2018, we were leading the state in opiate overdoses. Now, we are ranked 16th. We’ve made substantial progress, faster than other counties in the state and the nation. That has been the result of focused and coordinated effort - to expand treatment, to expand harm reduction services and naloxone availability, to improve connections to care, and social supports for people who use drugs, to facilitate treatment in jail and connections to care afterwards. We have a long way to go, but I am hopeful that as a community, we can continue this progress.

I appreciate your engagement in this work. I encourage you, as you move forward, to vet your source, listen to the original recordings, and expand the sources of information you are drawing from. Mr. Tozzer and Mr. Seegers have a particular political goal in mind with their content and have unfortunately demonstrated a willingness to manipulate and misrepresent reality to get it.

Hang in there,

Allison Berry, MD, MPH
Health Officer for Clallam County and Jefferson County

She began by congratulating Rogers on his recovery and expressing condolences for the loss of his sister. Berry then suggested Rogers may have been receiving information about her work through Clallam County Watchdog.

“It has been a challenge these last few months to have Mr. Tozzer and Mr. Seegers so dedicated to misrepresenting me, my work, and my words,” Berry wrote.

Berry encouraged Rogers to review original Board of Health recordings and public records rather than relying on secondhand reporting. She specifically challenged criticism surrounding comments she previously made regarding accountability and infectious disease prevention. According to Berry, critics have mischaracterized her remarks. However, readers can review her exact words for themselves.

During a Board of Health discussion, Berry stated:

“I’ve heard a lot of this conversation about this idea that we need, like, more accountability for folks and — what’s the phrase? — compassion without accountability, and it’s strange that we’ve gotten wrapped into that in some way, because all that we do is help people not get AIDS and make them less likely to die.”

She then added:

“I hope that when people are asking for accountability, they’re not saying that people who use drugs deserve to get AIDS and die.”

Many residents interpreted those comments as suggesting that criticism of harm reduction programs is closely associated with a desire to deny services to people suffering from addiction.

Berry maintains that the interpretation is incorrect.

Rogers Pushes Back

Rogers replied shortly after receiving Berry’s response, challenging her assumption that his concerns originated with Clallam County Watchdog or any single political figure.

Hi,

Thank you for your response.

I’ll get back to everything you raised, but I wanted to quickly address your assumption that my information comes from Mr. Tozzer.

My perspective comes from being an engaged citizen. I attend City Council meetings, County Commissioner meetings, and Public Health hearings, and I’m adjusting my schedule so I can attend even more of them in person. I’ve also spent time walking and talking with leaders like Mike French, Mark Hodgson, Amy Miller, and Drew Schwab. Together we’ve walked Veterans Park, Tumwater Creek, and other troubled areas, speaking directly with people who are struggling with substance use and homelessness.

To immediately dismiss my perspective as simply repeating one other person’s opinions is exactly the kind of behavior many people in our county are growing frustrated with. These concerns are not coming from one individual or one political group. They come from citizens, business owners, first responders, elected officials, and people with lived experience who are all seeing the same problems firsthand.

If we aren’t willing to take an honest look at what’s happening, we won’t move forward.

One statement Commissioner Mike French made during one of our walks has stuck with me: often the strongest criticism of our current approach comes from people who have successfully changed their lives and recovered from substance use disorder. I think that should speak volumes. Those of us who have lived through addiction are often the very people questioning policies that, from our perspective, make it easier to remain in active addiction rather than move toward recovery.

I’ll review the links you sent and respond in more detail as soon as I can.

Thank you,

David Rogers

“My perspective comes from being an engaged citizen,” Rogers wrote.

He described regularly attending City Council meetings, County Commissioner meetings, and public health hearings. He also said he has spent time walking through areas such as Veterans Park and Tumwater Creek with community leaders including County Commissioner Mike French, Mark Hodgson, Amy Miller, and Drew Schwab, speaking directly with people experiencing addiction and homelessness.

“To immediately dismiss my perspective as simply repeating one other person’s opinions is exactly the kind of behavior many people in our county are growing frustrated with,” Rogers wrote.

He argued that concerns about the county’s current approach are not coming from a single individual or political group, but from residents, business owners, first responders, elected officials, and people with lived experience who are observing the same issues firsthand.

“If we aren’t willing to take an honest look at what’s happening, we won’t move forward,” he wrote.

Rogers also referenced a comment he said was made by Commissioner French during one of their discussions:

“Often the strongest criticism of our current approach comes from people who have successfully changed their lives and recovered from substance use disorder.”

“I think that should speak volumes,” Rogers added. “Those of us who have lived through addiction are often the very people questioning policies that, from our perspective, make it easier to remain in active addiction rather than move toward recovery.”

The “Theft” Controversy

Berry also accused County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers of falsely claiming that she said the volunteer group 4PA steals supplies from homeless encampments. Here again, readers can evaluate the original statement for themselves.

During a Board of Health meeting, Berry stated:

“I live here. Have kids in PA. I don’t want needles on the ground, so we work hard to get them back. I think it’s important to acknowledge that some of our supplies that are turned in by people who find them are folks who are cleaning up encampments that people still live in. So, that cleaning up is actually theft. It’s taking supplies that someone is still using.”

Whether that statement was directed at 4PA specifically remains a matter of interpretation, but it is the statement that generated the controversy.

The Data Debate

Berry pointed to what she describes as measurable success.

“When I took this job in 2018, we were leading the state in opiate overdoses. Now, we are ranked 16th,” she wrote.

That claim is important context. But it is also true that Clallam County continues to experience overdose rates above both state and national averages.

The debate is no longer whether overdose deaths matter. Everyone agrees they do. The debate is whether current policies deserve credit for improvements that have occurred and whether different approaches could achieve better results.

One program frequently cited by recovery advocates is Operation Shielding Hope. Unlike traditional harm reduction efforts focused primarily on distributing supplies, Operation Shielding Hope connects overdose survivors with paramedics and peer recovery specialists immediately after an overdose event. The goal is to move people into treatment and recovery services while they are most receptive to help.

County data previously reviewed by Jake Seegers showed dramatically higher engagement rates among individuals contacted through Operation Shielding Hope than among those who were not. Supporters argue that the program demonstrates that treatment-focused intervention can achieve measurable results without relying primarily on distributing drug-use supplies.

Critics of the county’s broader harm reduction strategy argue officials have been too quick to credit improvements to programs that distribute meth pipes, crack pipe cleaning kits, foil, and other drug-use supplies while giving insufficient attention to treatment-centered programs producing measurable outcomes.

Questions That Remain

Berry’s email also raises a broader question. If Clallam County Watchdog is repeatedly misrepresenting her statements, why has the Health Officer declined multiple requests for clarification and follow-up questions?

Public officials certainly have no obligation to answer. However, when they choose not to engage, citizens are left to rely on public meetings, public records, official presentations, and direct quotations.

Meanwhile, Rogers’ central question remains unanswered:

How much of the county’s addiction-response budget should be devoted to making drug use safer, and how much should be devoted to helping people stop using drugs altogether?

As overdose deaths, homelessness, and public disorder continue to dominate local conversations, it’s going to become harder for local leadership to dodge that question.

What Can You Do?

The future direction of harm reduction in Clallam County will ultimately be determined by elected officials and public health leaders—but they need to hear from the people they serve.

If you have thoughts about the county’s approach to harm reduction, drug testing, overdose prevention, or the use of taxpayer resources, consider sharing them with the Board of County Commissioners and Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry.

All three county commissioners can be reached through the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.

Dr. Berry can be reached directly at allison.berry@clallamcountywa.gov.

You can also make your voice heard during public comment at the next Board of Health meeting today, Tuesday, June 16, at 1:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Boardroom at the Clallam County Courthouse in Port Angeles. Public comment is available both in person and via Zoom.

Whether you support the county’s current approach, oppose it, or believe changes are needed, local government works best when citizens participate. Make your voice part of the conversation.

Today’s Tidbit: A Look Back

The debate over public health and misinformation is not new in Clallam County. In September 2021, the Board of Health unanimously passed a resolution praising Dr. Allison Berry's leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, describing her as a patient, compassionate, science-based voice during a difficult time. Board members also warned that misinformation was undermining public health efforts and condemned threats and intimidation directed at county staff. Five years later, many of the same questions about expertise, public trust, and dissent remain at the center of public debate.

Leave a comment

Tonight’s first debate between Mike French and Jake Seegers comes amid controversy after the official Clallam County Democrats Facebook page referred to Seegers as “Fake Jake.” As local politics grows increasingly personal, some voters may be wondering whether civility has become the first casualty of campaign season.

Tonight’s Debate

Tonight marks the first public debate between incumbent County Commissioner Mike French and challenger Jake Seegers.

Hosted by the Clallam County Democrats, the forum begins at 6:00 p.m. at Democratic Headquarters in Port Angeles and will also be available via Zoom and livestream.

📅 Monday, June 15
🕕 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
📍 Clallam County Democratic Headquarters
124 W. First Street
Port Angeles

💻 Zoom
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87528120754?pwd=ARhC4vRSKdiaNX8v6b444afOFXA8fI.1

Meeting ID: 875 2812 0754
Passcode: 597621

According to the forum rules, each candidate will receive opening statements, rebuttal opportunities, audience questions, and closing remarks. Questions may come from those attending in person, Zoom participants, or individuals who submitted them in advance.

The Comment That Started It

As election season heats up, the Clallam County Democrats have also been encouraging voters to read Paul Pickett’s profile of Mike French.

One exchange on the party’s official Facebook page caught people’s attention over the weekend. A commenter remarked that he thought Mike French was an independent.

The official response from the Clallam County Democrats was:

“You’re thinking of Fake Jake, the fake independent.”

It’s a curious response coming from the organization hosting tonight’s debate.

Whether you support French, Seegers, or neither, publicly mocking one of the candidates days before welcoming him onto your stage is not exactly a gesture of neutrality or goodwill. Imagine if a moderator opened a forum by giving one participant a nickname. Most people would find it unprofessional.

When Politics Becomes Personal

Unfortunately, it also feels emblematic of the broader direction of local politics.

Over the past several years, political disagreements in Clallam County have increasingly become personal. Rather than debating ideas, budgets, policies, or priorities, the conversation often devolves into accusations about motives, character, and identity.

Name-calling has become routine.

Activist groups encourage opposition to candidates based on personal beliefs.

Complaints are filed over technicalities.

Political opponents are treated less as neighbors with different views and more as enemies to be defeated.

A New Substack Takes Aim at the Watchdog

Local resident Marcos Osorio expressed support for Mike French and wrote that he hoped French could “shut Jeff Tozzer’s big mouth.”

He then linked readers to a newly created Substack publication that was launched earlier that day.

The article, titled The Watchdog That Doesn’t Watch Itself, levels a long list of accusations against Clallam County Watchdog and its author, me. According to the author “Salsa Picante”, CC Watchdog promotes hatred toward tribes, transgender individuals, immigrants, schools, libraries, firefighters, and numerous other groups.

The problem is that the article largely skips over the part where evidence is supposed to be presented.

Readers are told these things are true, but are given few specific examples. There are no lengthy quotations. No documented patterns. No links to offensive articles. No serious effort to demonstrate the claims being made.

That’s a problem because accusations are easy. Proof is harder.

Questions Are Not Attacks

The irony is that democracy depends on people asking difficult questions, and that’s what CC Watchdog has been doing since 2023.

Mike French will be asked questions tonight. Jake Seegers will be asked questions tonight. The audience will ask questions. The moderators will ask questions.

No reasonable person would interpret every question as an attack. Questions are how voters evaluate candidates, how citizens hold government accountable, and how communities learn.

Yet increasingly, simply asking questions about public policy is treated as evidence of hostility.

Part of the problem may be that we’ve become less accustomed to seeing those questions asked in the first place. For generations, journalists attended meetings, reviewed records, challenged official statements, and asked questions on behalf of the public. Politicians expected scrutiny. Government agencies expected scrutiny. Public institutions expected scrutiny. It wasn’t controversial—it was the job.

Today, much of local media has shifted away from that role. Newspapers increasingly publish press releases and guest columns from elected officials.

Feel-good stories promoting the work of government agencies and nonprofit organizations, written by the NGOs themselves, are now commonplace.

Those stories have value, but they are not a substitute for accountability journalism.

When people spend years consuming coverage that rarely challenges those in power, an article that asks difficult questions can start to feel unusual—even threatening. But asking questions is not hostility. It is the foundation of both journalism and self-government.

Pick up a local newspaper from fifteen or twenty years ago, and you’ll find reporters routinely pressing public officials, digging into controversies, and following uncomfortable facts wherever they led. Nobody considered that behavior extreme. It was simply expected.

Perhaps that’s why an independent voice asking questions can seem so foreign today. Not because the questions are inappropriate, but because genuine scrutiny has become increasingly rare.

Where Is The Evidence?

CC Watchdog has published nearly 700 articles and produced hundreds of podcasts covering local government, elections, taxation, tribal affairs, public safety, schools, libraries, healthcare, homelessness, and countless other topics. If someone wishes to argue that those articles contain hatred or bigotry, they should be able to point to specific examples and allow readers to judge for themselves.

Instead, criticism often becomes conflated with hate.
Questioning government spending is hate.
Questioning public policy is hate.
Questioning a public institution is hate.
Questioning elected officials is hate.

So, is questioning a gay blogger homophobia? At some point, these words lose their meaning. Criticism is not hatred.

A criticism of a library policy is not an attack on libraries.
A criticism of a government action is not an attack on government employees.
A question about tribal land acquisitions is not hatred of tribal members.
A question about immigration policy is not hatred of immigrants.

A democracy cannot function if every disagreement is automatically assigned a malicious motive.

What Are We Teaching People?

There is a growing contrast between what local institutions often claim to value and what we increasingly see in practice. We hear a great deal about inclusion, belonging, diversity, and creating welcoming spaces.

Yet public discussions frequently devolve into labeling, shaming, and dismissing people who hold different views. We celebrate dialogue while becoming less willing to engage in it.

What if we spent less time teaching people how to be offended and more time teaching them how to think critically?

What if schools, libraries, political organizations, and local governments devoted more energy to fostering respectful disagreement and mature civic discourse?

What if asking a question wasn’t automatically interpreted as an attack?

Those are questions worth considering before tonight’s debate begins.

A Final Thought

When I saw the official Democratic Party page referring to one of the candidates as “Fake Jake” just days before hosting him, I found myself thinking about something I’d wondered just last week: would my mother still recognize today’s Democratic Party as the one she once supported?

After seeing the Clallam County Democrat’s post remain online, I think I know my answer.

Today’s Tidbit: A Call for a Citizen Journalist

The Clallam Conservation District is a public agency funded in part by taxpayers, including the recently approved $5 parcel fee. Its board meetings are open to the public and include a virtual attendance option, yet the meetings are not recorded and posted online for residents who cannot attend.

Several attendees have told CC Watchdog that important discussions often receive only brief treatment in the official minutes, leaving the public with little opportunity to see the full context of what was said. Whether or not you agree with those concerns, greater transparency benefits everyone.

That’s why we’re looking for a civically engaged volunteer willing to attend and record the Clallam Conservation District’s monthly board meetings, held on the second Tuesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. in Port Angeles. In many cases, this could be as simple as setting up a phone or tablet and letting it run for the duration of the meeting. Another option may be capturing the meeting while attending virtually, subject to any applicable rules and legal requirements.

If you’ve been looking for a meaningful way to get involved in local government, this is one. Public meetings belong to the public, and informed citizens are essential to accountable government.

If you’re interested, leave a comment or send a message to CC Watchdog. We’d love to hear from you. The next meeting is Tuesday, July 14, at 4:00 PM. Details here.

Leave a comment

In this Sundays With Seegers, County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers examines public records showing Clallam County nearly launched a program that would have tested illegal drugs and returned them to participants for use. Despite warnings of significant legal and financial liability, commissioners unanimously approved the effort. The program was ultimately stopped after a county risk manager intervened. The records raise a fundamental question: when does harm reduction become government-facilitated drug use?

Harm Reduction Almost Broke Clallam County

When Health Officer Allison Berry was appointed in 2018, Clallam County’s harm reduction program was relatively simple: participants exchanged used syringes for clean needles on a one-for-one basis.

The stated goal was straightforward: reduce the spread of HIV, hepatitis, and other bloodborne diseases among people who were already injecting drugs.

Over the next eight years, however, Health Officer Berry and the Clallam County commissioners steadily expanded harm reduction far beyond its original scope. What began as a syringe exchange evolved into a comprehensive Harm Reduction Health Center that distributes supplies for virtually every method of drug consumption.

Today, participants receive syringes, smoking supplies, foil, naloxone, boofing kits, and other drug-use supplies. “How-to” literature not only explains alternative methods of consumption, but details how to achieve the most effective high.

The transformation of a simple disease-prevention strategy into a distribution center for drug-use supplies and resources did not happen by accident. It was the result of a deliberate and sustained effort to expand harm reduction at nearly every opportunity.

Health Officer Berry and the commissioners frequently justified each expansion as a necessary response to the worsening overdose crisis. Yet at every stage, the same question received little discussion:

At what point does reducing the harms of drug use become facilitating drug use itself?

For the Health Officer and the sitting commissioners, there appears to be no limit to their commitment to expanding harm reduction.

That commitment reached a new level in 2023 when Clallam County joined the University of Washington’s ADAI (Additction, Drugs, and Alcohol Institute) Drug Checking Project. Commissioners Randy Johnson, Mark Ozias, and Mike French unanimously approved the grant-funded program that could have exposed county taxpayers to millions of dollars in liability.

Take a Ride in My Drug-Testing Machine

In late 2022, Health Officer Berry began advocating for a grant-funded portable drug-testing machine, also known as a mass spectrometer.

During a December commissioner work session, she stated that the purpose was to better inform response efforts. Berry’s statements, along with her emails, indicated that the county prosecutor, Sheriff’s Office, Port Angeles Police Department, and others had signed off on the program.

The problem with these claims was twofold.

First, the Sheriff’s Office, Port Angeles Police Department, and Coroner’s Office would not have access to the machine. The spectrometer was intended exclusively for the Harm Reduction Health Center.

If the primary goal was data collection, why exclude the very agencies that routinely encounter illegal drugs through investigations, arrests, and overdose deaths?

Second, an email from then-County Administrator Rich Sill indicates that the Sheriff had raised concerns that returning drugs to participants after testing could be unlawful under Washington law.

An individual who delivers an illegal substance to someone who later dies from using it may be charged with controlled substances homicide under RCW 69.50.415.

While ESSB 5536 would later take effect in August 2023, providing protections for public-health employees involved in distributing harm-reduction supplies and testing illegal substances, it did not explicitly provide protections for returning drugs to participants after testing.

The drug-checking program was scheduled to begin before those protections took effect. It also would have launched during the worst overdose period in Clallam County’s history. According to the Coroner’s Office, trailing-twelve-month (TTM) overdose deaths peaked between April 2023 and March 2024, with 51 deaths during that period.

That equates to nearly one overdose death every week.

What were the chances that one of those individuals would have used the drug-checking program? If a participant received a contaminant-free result and later died, could county employees face legal exposure under RCW 69.50.415?

The potential legal and financial liability was significant.

Yet liability concerns appeared to carry little weight. In fact, nearly a year before ESSB 5536 took effect, the county had already begun distributing drug-use supplies beyond syringes as part of its ongoing expansion of harm reduction.

The Process

When the drug-checking program was presented to commissioners during a January 30, 2023 work session, Commissioner Johnson asked the obvious question:

“That’s great, but where are they [illegal drugs] coming from, the Sheriff’s office?”

Karissa McLane, then Public Health Nurse Supervisor for Clallam County Health and Human Services (HHS), explained that participants in the county’s harm reduction program would bring their own drugs in for testing.

A month earlier, during a December 12, 2022 work session, then-Commissioner Bill Peach asked:

“If it turns out that it is illegal drugs, can they get arrested?”

McLane responded:

“That’s a good question. Yes. People can bring their drugs in to get tested. We’ve consulted with our prosecuting attorney’s office and discussed with our sheriff’s office and have determined that people will not be arrested for bringing drugs in to get tested from us.”

The proposed process was straightforward:

1. An individual acquires illegal drugs — possibly from any of several open-air drug markets in Port Angeles, like Safeway or the Veterans Bell.

2. They bring those drugs to the Harm Reduction Health Center.

3. A county health employee tests them using the mass spectrometer.

4. The results are shared with the participant.

5. The drugs are returned to the participant for use.

The problem is that sophisticated testing by a trusted county health professional can create a false sense of safety when contaminants are not detected. Liability disclosures attempted to address this by explaining that a test result “doesn’t always mean a drug is safe to use.”

But common sense would suggest a simpler message:

“Drugs are never safe to use.”
“Fentanyl will kill you. Don’t use it.”

Yet participants were unlikely to hear such unequivocal language. “Harm Reduction Messaging” guidelines attached to emails obtained through a public records request cautioned:

“When discussing harm reduction, it is important to choose your language carefully to ensure that you are not coming across as paternal, shaming or denigrating.”

When a participant hands illegal drugs to a trusted county health professional, receives a contaminant-free result, and leaves with those drugs—along with a pipe, syringe, or boofing kit—the message received is clear:

Go ahead and use it. It’s been checked.

Blinders

But what would have happened if a county health employee deemed a drug contaminant-free and the participant later died from an overdose?

The answer could have been millions of dollars in liability, litigation costs, settlements, and judgments ultimately borne by taxpayers.

The potential exposure extended beyond Clallam County.

During a January 2023 commissioner work session, Karissa McLane explained that the drug-testing machine would eventually be integrated into harm reduction’s planned mobile van. In partnership with Jefferson County, the mobile unit would provide drug testing and distribute supplies throughout both counties.

After the presentation, Commissioner Ozias asked:

“Commissioners, any other questions?”

The audience could have heard a pin drop.

On February 7, 2023, Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the program; Commissioner French seconded, and the board unanimously approved it without further discussion.

Following the vote, Commissioner Ozias enthusiastically remarked:

“[This] is really exciting! It’s really exciting to see the University [of Washington] being engaged so broadly and directly in communities like our county. I really appreciate that. So, thanks to our public health team for facilitating this.”

Just a Matter of Time

Despite the liability risks, Health Officer Berry and HHS appeared to downplay the importance of having a qualified technician operate the drug-testing machine. While discussing the grant, Berry wrote:

“I am less interested in hiring our own tech.”

Lisa Al-Hakim, then-Prevention Specialist/SSP Coordinator for Clallam County Public Health, proposed an alternative. The Hepatitis Education Project (HEP), a Seattle nonprofit and fellow ADAI Drug Checking Grant recipient, had hired an “OD Prevention Coordinator” instead of a dedicated technician.

The decision appears to have been driven by cost and long-term harm reduction sustainability. Al-Hakim wrote:

“So it looks like HEP hired a OD prevention specialist and rolled their drug-checking tech work into that, which isn’t a bad idea thinking along the lines of sustainability for the harm reduction health program.”

Clallam County followed HEP’s lead.

The problem is that the Drug Checking Network grant specifically required a Drug Technician.

And, Clallam County’s scope of work committed to hiring one.

Instead, the OD Prevention Coordinator position emphasized lived experience and social-service work rather than technical qualifications.

But technical expertise was critical to interpreting the spectrometer's results.

Before a training session led by Yarelix Estrada of the New York City Department of Health, internal emails acknowledged that interpreting the machine’s spectra readings required experience. The training materials warned:

“We do not trust machines. Do not take the first match and assume it to be true. The art of drug-checking is in the technician’s ability to think critically about the sample and OPUS is only a tool.”

Drug checking was not simply a matter of pushing a button. It required the judgment and critical analysis of a trained technician.

Instead of prioritizing technical expertise, the county specifically encouraged individuals with personal histories of substance use to apply.

Additionally, the position description stated that candidates “must be comfortable handling drug samples and potentially being exposed to substances.”

Encouraging individuals in recovery to apply for a position that requires handling the very drugs they were attempting to avoid does not seem like harm reduction.

The drug-testing machine would have become part of the county’s mobile harm reduction van, with complex analyses potentially conducted not by a Drug Technician, as discussed in the grant, but by an outreach coordinator—possibly someone in recovery—who would handle a constant flow of illegal drugs. That employee would have been responsible for interpreting results, giving drugs to participants, and communicating whether or not contaminants had been detected.

It is difficult to imagine a scenario carrying greater potential for error—or greater liability for Clallam County taxpayers.

A Voice in the Desert

While county officials pressed forward with expanding harm reduction despite significant liability concerns, one employee stepped forward to protect the county from itself.

When Tom Reyes, Deputy Director of Human Resources and Risk Management, learned of the drug-checking program, he immediately recognized the risks and voiced his concerns:

“I believe it is only a matter of time before a lawsuit is filed on someone, or some agency, providing testing. I hope Clallam County is not that first!”

Also of concern, most of the other participants in the ADAI drug-checking program were NGO’s, not government departments.

In the same email, Reyes noted:

“An internet search indicates they are a 501(c) (3), not a County entity. Clearly, they would not have the same level of risk exposure.”

A former detective with the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office, Reyes acted quickly despite apparent internal pressure to dismiss the liability concerns. He contacted Derek Bryan of the Washington Counties Risk Pool, the insurer that provides coverage for Clallam County.

Less than a week later, a response from Ken Kollmann effectively stopped the program in its tracks.

The county dodged a bullet—one that its Health Officer and commissioners had been willing to put the county in front of.

Common Sense Prevails

The drug-checking machine was never the real story.

The story is how far county leadership was willing to go in its effort to expand harm reduction.

Public records show that pursuit of the ADAI Drug Checking Grant was part of a broader, coordinated effort to grow harm reduction services in Clallam County.

The Harm Reduction Health Center had already taken possession of the machine and was actively promoting the program months before final approval was granted.

When the program encountered resistance, Health Officer Berry attempted to salvage it by appealing to the pity of Tom Reyes:

“Our staff are already incredibly overstretched and watching this position go unfilled and the money sit wasted has been deeply demoralizing to them. We cannot afford to lose any more staff to burnout this year.”

But Reyes understood what others seemed unwilling to acknowledge. As Deputy Director of Human Resources and Risk Management and a former Sheriff’s Office detective, he recognized the extraordinary liability being created by a county-operated drug-checking program.

While commissioners and public health officials focused on expanding harm reduction, Reyes focused on legality, liability, and common sense.

He elevated his concerns to the Washington Counties Risk Pool, and within days, the program was effectively dead.

Although Clallam County had already acquired the machine, it was ultimately returned to the University of Washington. The county dodged a potentially catastrophic mistake because one employee was willing to ask the questions that elected officials and public health leadership would not.

Yet losing the drug-checking program did not slow the expansion of harm reduction.

In 2018, the county’s syringe exchange had no dedicated employees and a modest budget of just over $60,000. Various employees, including Dr. Berry (Unthank), pitched in to run the program, totaling 0.51 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for the entire year.

By 2025, the Harm Reduction Health Center employed four full-time staff and operated on a budget of $531,010 per year—roughly equivalent to the cost of four Sheriff’s deputies. At a time when residents are demanding greater public safety, that’s a significant allocation of resources toward a program that seems to expand harm.

Monthly participant encounters increased nearly fivefold, from 212 in 2023 to 975 in 2025.

Meanwhile, overdose deaths in Clallam County have more than tripled since 2018—far outpacing increases nationally, statewide, and in other states that resisted the aggressive expansion of harm reduction policies.

The pattern is difficult to ignore.

When legal concerns emerged, county leadership pressed forward.
When liability concerns emerged, county leadership pressed forward.
When common-sense objections emerged, county leadership pressed forward.

The drug-checking machine was simply the most extreme example.

In the end, Clallam County was protected not by its commissioners, not by its Health Officer, and not by the advocates determined to expand harm reduction at every opportunity.

It was protected by a lone voice willing to challenge the prevailing narrative and insist on accountability.

Clallam County needs more leaders willing to do the same.

Because when government becomes so committed to an ideology that it is willing to expose taxpayers to extraordinary risk in pursuit of it, common sense is no longer optional—it is essential.

What can you do?

The future direction of harm reduction in Clallam County will ultimately be determined by elected officials and public health leaders—but they need to hear from the people they serve.

If you have thoughts about the county’s approach to harm reduction, drug testing, overdose prevention, or the use of taxpayer resources, consider sharing them with the Board of County Commissioners and Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry. All three commissioners can be reached through the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.

Dr. Berry can be reached directly at allison.berry@clallamcountywa.gov.

You can also make your voice heard during public comment at the next Clallam County Board of Health meeting on Tuesday, June 16, at 1:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Boardroom at the Clallam County Courthouse in Port Angeles. Public comment is available both in person and via Zoom.

Whether you support the county’s current approach, oppose it, or believe changes are needed, local government works best when citizens participate. Make your voice part of the conversation.

Leave a comment

Today’s Tidbit: First Commissioner Debate Set for Tomorrow

Clallam County voters will get their first chance to see incumbent Commissioner Mike French and challenger Jake Seegers face off tomorrow night in a candidate forum hosted by the Clallam County Democrats.

The debate begins at 6:00 p.m. Monday, June 15, at Democratic Headquarters, 124 W. First Street in Port Angeles, with a Zoom option available for those unable to attend in person. The format includes opening statements, audience questions, Zoom questions, rebuttals, and closing remarks. Organizers say anyone may ask questions, though comments will be limited to 30 seconds, and audience members are expected to remain respectful.

Whether you’re supporting French, Seegers, or are still undecided, this is the first direct, live comparison of the candidates’ positions before the August primary. Candidate forums will be recorded and posted online for those unable to watch live.

For more details, including virtual attendance instructions, click here and select the event on Monday, June 15.

PDC Complaint Update

The Jake Seegers campaign is currently working with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission regarding a complaint filed by Paul Pickett.

As part of that process, PDC staff have advised that certain Clallam County Watchdog articles and podcast segments discussing Jake Seegers may require campaign sponsor identification (“Sponsored by Jake Seegers for Commissioner, 131 E. First St, Port Angeles, WA, 98362”). The campaign has raised concerns regarding the proposed disclosure language because no campaign funds have been paid to Clallam County Watchdog, and no compensation has been exchanged for the publication of these articles or podcast segments.

In addition, Clallam County Watchdog frequently includes independent commentary and analysis that may not be reviewed, approved, or endorsed by Jake Seegers or his campaign. Podcast episodes and articles containing commentary reflect the views of Clallam County Watchdog and are not reviewed by the campaign prior to publication.

The campaign and PDC staff continue to discuss these issues and work toward compliance with Washington’s campaign finance laws.

A barn dance, a candidate billed as “our conservation candidate,” questions about suspected drug activity near county offices, and a reminder from Indivisible to tone down profane protest signs. Meanwhile, county health officials are promoting life-jacket safety while continuing to distribute drug-use supplies, and Jefferson County commissioners are revisiting a controversial wildlife refuge proposal. Here’s a quick look at what people are talking about this Social Media Saturday.

Barn Dance Tonight

Looking for something wholesome to do tonight? A community barn dance is being held in Sequim, offering an evening of music, dancing, and old-fashioned fun.

Life Jackets Good, Boofing Kits Better?

Clallam County’s Public Health Department is reminding residents that wearing a properly fitted life jacket while boating can save lives—and that failing to do so could result in fines.

The message is hard to miss coming from the same department that distributes needles, meth pipes, foil, crack-pipe cleaning kits, and boofing kits as part of its harm-reduction efforts.

Apparently some risky behaviors warrant government intervention, while others warrant government supplies.

Hurricane Ridge: Still Waiting

The National Park Service is accepting applications through its Tribal Heritage Grants Program to preserve oral histories, cultural traditions, sacred places, and historic sites.

Meanwhile, more than three years after the iconic Hurricane Ridge Lodge burned to the ground, there is still no replacement structure under construction.

For generations of local families, Hurricane Ridge wasn’t just a building. It was part of the area’s shared heritage, a tourism draw, and a place where countless memories were made. Yet while millions of dollars are available for preserving some forms of heritage, one of the region’s most recognizable landmarks remains a pile of rubble.

“Our Conservation Candidate”

Wendy Rae Johnson, auditor for the Clallam Conservation District, will soon host a meet-and-greet for State House candidate Kaylee Kuehn.

The invitation encouraged attendees to come meet “our conservation candidate.”

That wording has raised eyebrows among some residents, who wonder whether a public official associated with the Clallam Conservation District should describe a political candidate as “our conservation candidate.” Perhaps Johnson was acting in her personal capacity rather than on behalf of the district.

Regardless, the phrasing has created confusion.

Suspected Drug Activity Near County Offices

Port Angeles resident David Rogers reports that he has repeatedly observed the same vehicle parked at various locations around town, often with individuals approaching and leaving after only brief interactions.

“I have reason to believe this vehicle may be involved in drug distribution,” Rogers wrote.

According to Rogers, the vehicle is frequently seen parked across from the county’s Health and Human Services building. He advises residents not to approach the vehicle and instead report suspicious activity directly to law enforcement.

Refuge Transfer Letter Gets Reworked

According to the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader, Jefferson County commissioners are revising a draft letter regarding the proposed transfer of two wildlife refuges to the Jamestown Corporation.

The proposal has generated significant debate throughout both counties, with supporters and opponents continuing to argue over questions of local control, conservation, and long-term management of public lands.

Shhh... This Public Meeting Was Private

NOLS weighed in on this week’s library controversy, explaining that the Indivisible meeting was a paid room reservation and therefore could legally exclude members of the public. The explanation answered one of the biggest questions raised by the incident, but not all of them.