The Jamestown Tribe’s empire made nearly $86 million last year—yet skipped out on paying many local taxes. Instead, they donated less than 1% to community causes and called it generosity. Is that charity, or just a clever PR move? When everyone else is footing the bill, it’s time to ask: is the system equitable?

This month, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe sent a letter to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners summarizing its 2024 community contributions. “We are proud and honored to be able to go above and beyond any minimum State/Tribal compact commitments,” wrote Jerry Allen, CEO of 7 Cedars Casino. “Year after year, we give more than what is required. Last year, we contributed more than $658,272.00, the majority of that to community causes.”

That’s a generous-sounding number—until you start asking basic questions. For example: what is the required minimum contribution under the Tribe’s gaming compact? The letter doesn’t say. Is $658,272 significantly more than what’s required—is it $200,000 more? $10,000 more? One dollar more? It’s impossible to assess the Tribe’s generosity without that context. And when a for-profit corporation asks to be publicly recognized for its benevolence, that missing context matters.

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, operating through what is effectively a corporate holding structure, does very well for itself. In 2024, the Tribe reportedly generated $85.9 million in revenue. Their self-reported community giving, while appreciated by the recipients, represents less than 0.77% of that revenue.

To put it another way: imagine someone earning $100,000 per year, paying no income, property, or sales taxes, and instead donating $770 to local causes. Then imagine they asked to be publicly praised for going “above and beyond.” Would you find that inspiring—or just a bit performative?

That’s the core inequity. Tribal corporations like the Jamestown S’Klallam’s are not subject to state or local taxes—property, sales, fuel, or otherwise. In some cases, they even collect taxes (like on gasoline) and get to keep up to 75% of the revenue. Their retail operations—including tobacco sales—follow their own tax codes. Under Title 14 of the Tribe’s Cigarette Sales and Tax Code, only cigarettes are subject to unit or sales taxes. Other tobacco products, like cigars and chewing tobacco, are not. The Tribe uses the revenue for its own governmental functions, not for state or county services.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are footing the bill. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the average Washingtonian pays between 10.5% and 13.8% of their income in state and local taxes. On top of that, we pay federal income taxes—another tax that tribally owned corporations are typically exempt from.

The Tribe's donation list includes many causes we all value: local food banks, police and fire departments, public schools, hospitals, behavioral health services. But these are already publicly funded services—funded by taxpayers. Most of us support these same entities involuntarily, through property and sales taxes—not through discretionary donations and press releases.

Several of the recipients also have close ties to the Tribe or its leadership. The Field Arts & Events Hall, which opens every event with a land acknowledgment to the S’Klallam people. The Dungeness River Nature Center, which the Tribe owns. The North Olympic Salmon Coalition, led by the Tribe’s own Director of Natural Resources. The Hospital’s annual golf fundraiser—held at the Tribe’s golf course. Even “Problem Gambling” and “Smoking Cessation” funds—some of which were simply directed back to the Tribe itself.

There’s nothing wrong with giving to causes you care about. But using charitable donations as a substitute for taxes—and then asking for public praise—is a different matter.

And public officials should be willing to talk about it. At a January Commissioner meeting, Commissioner Mark Ozias declined to discuss concerns about the county’s second-largest employer—the Jamestown Tribe—avoiding paying taxes. He stated that a commissioner meeting was an inappropriate forum for such discussions. However, once the cameras were turned off, he allowed a statement to be recorded:

“We are working on setting up a work session conversation, another public conversation, with the Jamestown Tribe about a variety of tax-related issues — property tax-related issues, lodging tax-related issues, etcetera. So, we’ve been in communication with the Tribe. I expect that to happen sometime in the first quarter, but I don’t have a day yet, and that will be the best opportunity for hopefully a wide-ranging conversation about tax-related issues as it relates to the Tribe and to other Tribes.”

Commissioner Ozias said that meeting would occur during a Monday work session, allowing the public to observe. Yet now, well after the first quarter, it's clear that this was merely another empty promise. The conversation never happened.

When a wealthy, tax-exempt enterprise positions its voluntary donations as more generous than the mandated contributions made by working residents, it risks looking not generous, but self-serving.

At some point, it’s worth asking: is the system equitable? Are the rules fair? And wouldn’t it be simpler—and fairer—if everyone, including the Tribe’s businesses, played by the same rules?

Because no matter how you spin it, donating $658,000 on $85.9 million in revenue isn’t “above and beyond.” It’s 0.77%.

That’s like you making $100,000 last year, donating $770, and expecting a parade. How benevolent.

Or—just maybe—how convenient.

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if all victims of violent crime in our community receive equal public recognition and support, regardless of their background. Several respondents mentioned that the survey was confusing and that they may have accidentally selected the wrong option. Despite this, here are the results based on 262 votes:

• 41% voted yes

• 55% voted no

• 4% were unsure

A week after the Sequim City Council issued a heartfelt proclamation for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day, a local man lay dying from a brutal assault — unnoticed by city leaders and unmentioned by local media. When it comes to public recognition and justice, are all victims treated equally? And what does true equity look like in a community that says it values every life?

On April 28, 2025, the Sequim City Council opened its meeting with a proclamation declaring Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP) Awareness Day. It was a solemn moment. Councilmember Dan Butler, visibly moved, requested a pause. A short silence followed. Councilmembers Rachel Anderson and Harmony Rutter supported the gesture. For 20 seconds, Sequim’s city leaders sat in quiet reflection before promptly moving on — to a proclamation for World Migratory Bird Day.

Just days later, a man was assaulted in broad daylight in the heart of Sequim. He later died from his injuries. His name wasn’t printed for a week. His story didn’t lead any broadcasts. And his death was acknowledged — not by the City Council, not by the mayor, and not by a single local media outlet for a week.

Instead, the public learned of the tragedy through Facebook threads and neighborhood group chats. The man, reportedly recovering from heart surgery and struggling with mobility, was attacked at the Safeway gas station. The alleged perpetrator, with a reported history of violence and drug use, was arrested — and released.

No headlines. No questions. No public mourning.

Finally, a week after the incident, and eight hours after a CC Watchdog article, the Peninsula Daily News published an article online, and the Sequim Police issued a statement seeking “information that may assist this investigation.”

A two-tiered reality

This contrast begs a painful question: In Sequim, do some lives matter more than others?

The MMIP proclamation, though emotionally resonant, was symbolic. It follows a growing local and national trend of recognizing the disproportionate violence experienced by Indigenous communities.

But symbolic proclamations — no matter how well-worded or well-meaning — are only meaningful if backed by consistent principles of equity and action. Equity, after all, means treating every person with equal value and dignity, regardless of background. It demands that we care — and act — when anyone is harmed.

And that’s where the city and the local media failed.

The same officials who participate in blanket-wrapping ceremonies and marches remain silent after the attack and death of an elderly man in Sequim. There was no statement of concern, no moment of silence, no visible expression of outrage. A day before the attack, Port Angeles Mayor Kate Dexter said in an article, “We will continue to stand with our tribal communities, recognizing sovereignty and the importance of our relationships and the value that you bring to our community.”

But does that value extend to others in the same community — when they are not Indigenous, not tribal, and not headline-worthy?

Is it justice when we amplify only some tragedies, while others vanish into obscurity?

Equity requires consistency

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Native Americans make up approximately 2.9% of Washington’s population, and about 1.1% of the U.S. population overall. In contrast, over 600,000 people go missing in the U.S. every year. While Indigenous people are disproportionately represented among the missing in some areas, the overwhelming majority — statistically — are from other backgrounds.

Where are their proclamations?

Where are their front-page stories?

Where is the city’s moment of silence when they die?

We cannot claim to pursue justice if our compassion depends on the cultural or political resonance of the victim. True equity does not rank tragedies. It acknowledges every loss. It seeks truth for every family.

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if initiatives to improve voting access should be open to all age groups, not just younger generations. Of 194 votes:

• 97% said, “Yes, open to all age groups”

• 3% said, “No, only open to younger is okay”

The League of Women Voters of Clallam County claims to value inclusion for all. But when they invited only Gen Z and Millennials to a cash-incentivized workshop to improve the ballot envelope, it left many asking: is this really the open, equitable approach the League promises?

The League of Women Voters of Clallam County (LWVCLA) recently announced a virtual workshop aimed at improving Washington’s ballot envelope, offering $125 to selected Gen Z and Millennial participants. While the intent to engage younger voters is commendable, the structure of this initiative raises important questions about whether it aligns with the League’s own principles of equity and inclusion.

The League’s stated values

On its website and in public statements, the LWVCLA positions itself as “a League for All.” Their materials emphasize that “ALL citizens should play a critical role in advocacy,” and that diversity, equity, and inclusion are central to their mission. They define inclusion as providing “equal access to opportunities and resources,” and equity as ensuring that “those in the room have what they need to thrive.” The League also encourages members to reflect on who might be missing from the table and to actively work to remove barriers to participation.

A disconnect in practice

Despite these commitments, the workshop’s eligibility criteria are limited to Gen Z and Millennials, excluding older generations from a process that affects all voters. This approach runs counter to the League’s call to “remove systemic barriers” and to ensure that a diverse cross-section of the community is represented. The process of qualifying for the workshop-requiring a survey with unclear selection criteria-further muddies the waters, casting doubt on the transparency and fairness of participant selection.

The question of incentives

While offering a financial incentive is a common tactic to boost participation, combining it with restrictive eligibility requirements and an unclear process can create the impression of exclusivity. This conflicts with the League’s own guidance to foster a sense of belonging for all and to be vigilant about bias in their practices.

Moving forward

For an organization dedicated to empowering every voter and strengthening democracy, it’s essential that initiatives like this reflect the values they preach. The LWVCLA would do well to promote opportunities for civic engagement that are open to all, with clear and transparent criteria for participation. Only then can the League truly claim to be “a League for All.”

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked, who benefits most when public updates are held at paid-access events? Of 183 votes:

• 78% said, “Special interests and business groups”

• 19% said, “Elected officials”

• 1% said, “Everyday citizens”

• 2% were unsure

Port Angeles leaders proudly claim a commitment to equity and inclusion — but when it comes time to update taxpayers, the doors are closed unless you can pay to get in. Behind the polished plans and promises, a different reality emerges: public access costs extra, and real transparency is slipping away.

If there’s one thing the City of Port Angeles claims to be committed to, it’s inclusion and equity. There are plenty of examples.

The City of Port Angeles proudly touts its commitment to equity, from diversifying the Public Safety Advisory Board to promising affordable housing and climate action through inclusive planning. The City’s strategic plans and legislative priorities are impressive while promising access, transparency, and action.

However, when it comes to engaging the public — the very taxpayers who fund city operations — the commitment to equity appears much thinner.

This year’s “State of the City” event, a key opportunity for city leaders to update residents, was held at a private venue with ticket prices ranging from $25 to $200, effectively restricting access to those who could afford it.

Although a livestream option was available this year, virtual attendance is not a substitute for being in the room, able to engage and ask questions. This pay-to-play model sends a troubling message: public transparency is available only at a price.

And the trend is growing.

Last fall, Clallam County Commissioners held “Town Halls” to discuss the 2025 budget and the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan. The meeting notice didn’t mention a fee, but attendees were required to pay $30 for admission in Port Angeles — with no option to attend without paying, even if they declined the meal offered.

Sequim’s admittance fee was lowered to $10.

Elected leaders often speak about equity and inclusion, but actions like these suggest a different reality — one where everyday citizens are increasingly shut out of critical conversations while access is sold to special interests and elites.

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if they believe the media applies identity labels (race, politics, culture) consistently across all groups. Of 201 votes:

• 72% “No, it favors certain groups”

• 11% “Yes, it’s mostly consistent”

• 15% “It depends on the outlet”

• 2% were unsure

Three everyday photos, three everyday people, and one subtle detail that caught the attention of sharp-eyed readers. What was it? You might not notice at first glance—but once you do, it raises a bigger question about how identity, equity, and media framing intersect in our community.

Take a look at these three photos featured on the front page of recent Peninsula Daily News editions, and the captions that were printed below them. Several CC Watchdog readers noticed something curious—something that raises a deeper question about how our local media chooses to frame identity.

Shanna Bloom, who lives at the intersection of Fifth and Cherry streets in Port Angeles, plans to keep her American flag lights up well into spring. “These aren’t Christmas lights anymore,” she said. “They are patriotic lights now.”

Parker Brocious, 6, from Cedar Hills, Utah, studies tubs containing plankton, krill and other small ocean creatures used by the Port Townsend Marine Science Center for education purposes while on a road trip with his family on Tuesday at Fort Worden State Park. Parker’s father Tyler is at left.

Joseph Prince takes a photo of a hoodie jacket on Wednesday on a small hill overlooking the entrance to John Wayne Marina near Sequim. Prince, a member of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, said the weather was ideal for adding items to the catalog of his online vintage clothing business.

We know the names of the people in these photos: Shanna, Parker, and Joseph. We know where the photos were taken: Port Angeles, Port Townsend, and Sequim. We know what each person is doing: hanging lights, looking at plankton, and photographing clothing. All fairly ordinary moments.

But here’s what caught the attention of many: Why does it matter that Joseph is a member of the Tribe?

That’s a good question.

In a society that is supposed to judge people by the content of their character—not the color of their skin or their cultural affiliation—why would the newspaper of record go out of its way to highlight a person’s tribal membership in a photo caption, especially when that detail has nothing to do with the subject of the photo?

Would it be appropriate to say, “Miguel Hernandez, a Mexican, was windsurfing off Cline Spit”? Would the PDN ever publish, “Nguyen Do, a Vietnamese, attended the Irrigation Festival with his family”? Would readers find it odd—or even offensive—if a caption read, “Jessica Walters, a Republican, enjoys coffee on Railroad Avenue”?

As Clallam County Commissioner Mike French has pointed out, Tribal affiliation is not a racial classification. It is a political one—rooted in legal recognition of sovereign governments. So, if the argument is that race should not be a basis for differentiation, what are we to make of selective tribal labeling in contexts where it offers no relevant insight?

Let’s be clear: there are many situations where a person's identity, heritage, or political association is relevant to the story. If a Tribal elder is speaking on land rights, if a cultural celebration is being documented, or if a local Native business is participating in a community initiative—then yes, their tribal affiliation provides context and depth. It belongs in the story.

But photographing clothing on a hill? That’s not a cultural moment. That’s a personal one. Adding Joseph’s tribal affiliation doesn’t enhance our understanding of the photo—it only raises the question of why it’s there in the first place.

There are two plausible reasons. One, the editor or photographer wanted to highlight Native presence in everyday life, perhaps as part of a broader goal to improve visibility. That’s not inherently bad—but it risks slipping into something else: performative representation. The inclusion feels less like meaningful acknowledgment and more like box-checking.

The second possibility is more troubling: that some identities are treated as inherently newsworthy, even when irrelevant to the story, while others are routinely ignored. That’s not equity—that’s editorial inconsistency.

Selective labeling doesn’t make us a more inclusive society. If anything, it creates a new hierarchy—where some affiliations must always be acknowledged and others are deemed unimportant or even invisible. Ironically, this reverses the very imbalance modern equity movements claim to address.

Equity isn’t about giving one group a permanent spotlight. It’s about treating everyone fairly under the same rules. That means recognizing identity when it matters—and stepping back when it doesn’t. It means resisting the urge to highlight race, ethnicity, or political classification just to look inclusive. Because when we do, we risk reducing individuals to symbols instead of seeing them as people.

Media matters. Language matters. Consistency matters.

The Peninsula Daily News didn’t mention Shanna’s political beliefs or Parker’s religion. It didn’t tell us whether Joseph was a Democrat or a Republican. It did tell us he was a Tribal member—without giving us any reason why that fact was relevant.

If we want a truly equitable media landscape, then our standards need to be consistent, not selectively applied. We don’t need to pretend we’re colorblind—but we do need to be conscious of when and why we’re calling attention to someone’s identity.

Because if we can’t answer the question “Why does it matter?”—then maybe it doesn’t.

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if they think that excluding prospective employees based on their race or heritage harms the overall goals of environmental conservation. Of 223 votes:

• 97% said, “Yes, it limits the talent pool.”

• 3% said, “No, a focus on tribes is needed.”

In a county fighting both poverty and invasive species, one job excluded many potential applicants when a federally funded role to combat the European Green Crab was open only to tribal members, shutting out qualified locals. In a place where jobs are scarce and ecosystems are fragile, should saving our shores depend on your heritage—or your dedication?

Clallam County is one of the most economically depressed regions in the United States. In a place where opportunity is scarce and wages are often low, each job posting matters—especially when it involves vital work like protecting our coastal environment.

Last month, an important position closed: “European Green Crab Technician.” This wasn’t just another government gig—it was part of a broader effort to stop the spread of one of the most invasive species threatening Washington’s fragile marine ecosystems. The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, in partnership with the nonprofit Conservation Legacy, took the lead on this front. This noble work is exactly the kind of hands-on, conservation-focused role that should unite the community.

But there was a catch. While no experience was required, your race was.

Right there under “Eligibility,” the job posting made it clear: applicants had to be enrolled in a federally recognized Tribe, Band, or Village. The message was unmistakable. You could be the most qualified, most passionate, most experienced green crab eradicator in the country—but if your DNA didn’t meet the criteria, you weren’t eligible.

Let that sink in: In a community facing a housing crisis and striving to create living-wage jobs, a taxpayer-funded position designed to safeguard our natural heritage, and a job that included housing, was made inaccessible to the public—not due to merit or ability, but because of ancestry.

And yes, you helped pay for it. The program was funded through AmeriCorps, which receives its money from the federal government. If you pay federal taxes, you helped fund a job that perhaps you—and many of your neighbors—were barred from applying to.

The irony is thick. In the job posting, the Jamestown Tribe said it valued “collaboration, data-driven decision-making, and integrity, fostering transparent, effective conservation efforts.” And yet, this same conservation program operated under a closed-door standard—one that excluded willing, qualified citizens from helping protect our shores.

This isn't about resentment. It's about equality. About asking whether, in a county with some of the highest poverty rates in the state, we should be closing environmental jobs to anyone who doesn’t meet a narrow racial definition. It’s about whether stopping the spread of an invasive species—something that affects all of us—is more important than enforcing a hiring policy that would reject even the most passionate, capable candidate simply because of their heritage.

Make no mistake: the European green crab is a serious threat. One that endangers native shellfish, eelgrass beds, and the broader balance of our marine environment. Every available hand, every bit of knowledge and dedication, should be welcomed in this fight. The priority should be the crab, not the color of the technician.

If this is the new standard for conservation hiring—where identity takes precedence over qualifications—then the concern isn’t just about preserving local species like the crabs. It’s about protecting the integrity of our public systems and ensuring that every resident of Clallam County, regardless of background, is treated fairly.

This shift in employment eligibility stems from the decision to transfer management of our National Wildlife Refuge to a sovereign tribal nation. Now, with County Commissioners considering a similar transfer of authority of our county parks, important questions remain: Who will be eligible to work there?

In a county where jobs are precious and the stakes are high, it’s time to get back to basics. Merit. Equality. Shared stewardship of our land and water. Because saving the ecosystem shouldn’t be exclusive.

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, subscribers were asked if they thought it's equitable to create positions or programs based on race or tribal affiliation using public and donor funds. Of 255 votes:

• 91% said, “No, that’s not equitable.”

• 4% said, “Yes, if it’s needed.”

• 5% said, “Maybe, it depends.

• No one was unsure.

Habitat for Humanity of Clallam County says it's making history with the creation of a "Native American Housing Liaison"—but refuses to release the job description, raising serious questions about transparency, favoritism, and the real intent behind the role. As taxpayer dollars and donor funds swirl around no-bid contracts and race-specific outreach, residents are left wondering: Is this equity, or just well-branded hypocrisy?

United Way of Clallam County proudly declares itself a champion of equity. In the wake of national racial reckonings, the organization is committed to dismantling systemic and institutional barriers to build what it calls a “fully equitable community.”

One of its partner agencies, Habitat for Humanity of Clallam County (HFHCC), recently made headlines by announcing a new position—what they claim is the first of its kind in the nation: a “Native American Housing Liaison.” The position was filled by Rick Dickinson, previously of the Center for Inclusive Entrepreneurship (CIE), a publicly funded local agency better known for awarding grants based on identity markers—such as race, gender, or sexual orientation—than on business need or merit.

Now in his new role, Dickinson aims to “build relationships within our local tribal communities” and help Habitat better understand Native housing needs both locally and nationally. His background includes service on tribal enterprise boards and similar community-facing roles—experience HFHCC says makes him uniquely qualified.

But the excitement around this role is giving way to growing public skepticism.

Despite the significance of the position—and the claims that it will shape national conversations around tribal housing—HFHCC has yet to share the actual job description. When asked, the organization flatly refused. Instead, they urged CC Watchdog not to mention Habitat at all, citing “respect for privacy” and a desire to “focus on constructive engagement.”

The lack of transparency is particularly glaring given HFHCC’s recent attempt to award a no-bid, $800,000 taxpayer-funded contract to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe—an effort halted after legal concerns were raised regarding violations of fair bidding laws at the county, state, and federal levels. This followed a $50,000 donation to Habitat from the same tribe, raising questions about the relationship between donations, staffing decisions, and access to public contracts.

HFHCC Vice President Danny Steiger denies any connection between the donation, the liaison position, or the proposed contract. But public confidence hasn’t exactly been bolstered by the organization's limited transparency.

Even the HFHCC website, which has a section titled Native American Housing, offers little clarity. The page is still under construction and, for now, contains only a title and a generic reminder that HFHCC is an equal opportunity housing provider. For a groundbreaking initiative, the rollout has been anything but informative.

Equity, when practiced with integrity, should be inclusive, transparent, and accountable. When a taxpayer and donor-funded agency creates a race-specific position, then refuses to reveal what that position entails, and deflects public inquiry—those values start to ring hollow.

If this program is truly about equitable access and meaningful collaboration with Native communities, then HFHCC should have no hesitation in pulling back the curtain. The public has a right to know what they’re funding, and how.

Until then, all we have are vague promises, missing details, and a lot of questions. Equity can’t just be a slogan. It must be visible, measurable, and fair—for everyone.

Leave a comment

Last Equitable Wednesday, subscribers were asked if they had personally observed or experienced government officials attempting to silence criticism. Of 106 votes:

• 77% said, “Yes, I have.”

• 17% said, “No, I have not.”

• 6% were unsure.

Free speech is only sacred when it's convenient. Civil rights groups decry censorship at the federal level while their local allies push for restrictions on dissent. Members of the Charter Review Commission mirror the very overreach they claim to oppose, proving that for some, free speech only applies when they agree with what's being said.

An open letter from civil rights groups recently warned that the federal administration is undermining fundamental rights and democratic protections. It says that critics are being silenced, the press is under attack, and the legal system is being eroded. The letter calls for defending democracy and spreading awareness.

Excerpts from the letter include:

“In America, our government cannot do whatever it wants… We have a free press, the right to protest, to hold our government accountable…administration is arresting and threatening people who criticize the government. This means our right to speak freely about government actions can now be silenced… Censoring and attacking journalists for sharing facts… Join us in saying: We will not be silenced.”

The local reality: hypocrisy in action

What’s more interesting is who has endorsed this letter and who is amplifying it, while at the same time pushing for the very censorship they claim to oppose.

Last week, Jim Stoffer, in his role as Charter Review Commissioner (CRC) for District #1, asked the Commission to consider adopting rules that would effectively censor me—a citizen who takes publicly available records and distributes them to subscribers to hold government accountable. This is the very definition of the "Free Press" that Stoffer and others claim to defend.

His strongest ally in this effort? CRC Chairwoman Susan Fisch, a prominent leader in the Clallam County League of Women Voters. Just last week, Fisch proposed reconvening the Bylaws and Rules Committee to examine how the First Amendment applies to Commissioners' online reporting—seemingly targeting one Commissioner in particular. She characterized CC Watchdog’s reporting as “attacking” and “intimidating,” even comparing it to a time when she required FBI protection. As CRC Chair, she is leveraging her position to reshape the rules to align with her own preferences.

Now, Charter Review Commissioners who refuse to “toe the line” face a chilling message: conform or be targeted. Failing to do so may lead to retaliatory ambushes, like the one carried out at last week’s CRC meeting, without public notice or proper transparency of the agenda.

Clallam County Watchdog remains the only news source covering the CRC, which is in a crucial year of determining how our county government will function for all its constituents. Yet, instead of embracing transparency, CRC members who advocate for restrictions on speech appear to be mirroring the very behaviors condemned in the open letter they endorse.

The question remains: Are proponents of this open letter about federal issues applying the same principles to local governance? Or is this just another example of selective outrage—where free speech is defended only when it aligns with the majority’s preferred views?

Tomorrow (Thursday), the CRC Bylaws/Rules Committee will meet at 4:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners Board Room, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles. Virtual and in-person attendance is allowed; instructions are here. This meeting is open to the public and will focus on the ethical guidelines and First Amendment rights for Charter Review Commissioners, specifically clarifying what they are prohibited from reporting.

Leave a comment

On last week’s Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if government-funded or community aid programs should be required to serve all people equally, regardless of gender or identity. Of 233 votes:

• 91% said, “Yes, prioritize equal access.”

• 1% said, “No, some groups need priority.”

• 8% said, “Depends on the program’s mission.”

A proposed Safe Parking Program in Sequim excludes men and fathers with children, raising questions about true inclusivity. Meanwhile, taxpayer-funded OlyCAP highlights the inconsistency in public aid. If fairness is the goal, shouldn't it apply to everyone?

The Sequim Good Governance League recently shared an interesting post on Facebook, stating, “People who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion must be in favor of segregation, privilege, and exclusion.”

This is a strong statement—but does it apply universally, or only when convenient?

Last year, the very person who posted that meme submitted paperwork to the Sequim City Council to establish a “small Safe Parking Program for 3-5 vehicles” due to open sometime this year. The proposal states that “guests would be limited to single women, women with children, and transgender people,” with all participants required to pass a background check.

Notably absent from the list of those eligible? Men. And more importantly, fathers with children.

If equity is truly the goal, why would a safe parking program explicitly exclude an entire group of people based solely on their gender? If DEI principles demand the dismantling of segregation and privilege, then shouldn’t those same principles apply here?

When Clallam County Watchdog reached out to Jim Stoffer for comment on whether this program aligns with his beliefs on DEI, he declined to answer. Instead, the Mission Committee Chair responded with a list of charitable programs the church supports—certainly commendable efforts, but ones that sidestepped the central question.

This raises another important issue: public funding and selective inclusion. The Sequim Warming Center, which provides shelter during cold weather, is operated by Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP)—an organization that receives government funding. Peninsula Behavioral Health, Olympic Peninsula Community Clinic, and Clallam County Health and Human Services also receive public funding. If taxpayer money supports programs aimed at providing relief to those in need, shouldn’t those programs serve all vulnerable individuals, including men and fathers with children?

This isn’t about denying the need for safe spaces for vulnerable individuals. It’s about the inconsistency in applying the very principles some claim to champion. True inclusion doesn’t mean selectively deciding who is worthy of help based on identity politics. It means ensuring that aid and opportunity are extended to all—without bias, without exclusion, and without hypocrisy.

If we only advocate for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” when it suits a particular narrative, then we’re not actually upholding those values. We’re just rebranding exclusion under a more palatable name.

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if public town halls featuring elected officials should be promoted equally to all political parties to ensure true nonpartisanship. Of 168 votes:

• 93% said, “Yes, it’s taxpayer-funded.”

• 1% said, “No, one-party promotion is okay.”

• 5% said, “It depends on intent and audience.”

• 0% were unsure.

Leave a comment

Tonight's Telephone Town Hall is billed as a public event, but is it truly nonpartisan? While taxpayer-funded officials should serve all constituents, the event is being promoted exclusively by Democratic groups, raising questions about fairness. The so-called "nonpartisan" organizations backing the event have clear partisan leanings. Is this a genuine opportunity for civic engagement, or just another partisan gathering in disguise?

Town halls are meant to be a space where elected officials, whose salaries are paid by all taxpayers, engage with the entire community, regardless of political affiliation. Yet, tonight’s Telephone Town Hall featuring Senator Mike Chapman, Representative Steve Tharinger, and Representative Bernbaum—all publicly funded representatives—is being organized and promoted exclusively by Senate Democrats and House Democrats under the banner of “Putting People First.” But does this truly put all people first?

The term “nonpartisan” is increasingly used as a label by organizations that are anything but. The Clallam County Democrats, a partisan group, advertised the event on their Facebook page as early as March 12, and so did the Sequim Good Governance League (SGGL), which claims to be nonpartisan. However, a look at SGGL’s recent activity on its Facebook page suggests a clear alignment with one political party. Leading up to the town hall announcement, the group promoted another “nonpartisan” event featuring Congresswoman Emily Randall, a Democrat.

The previous post praised support for the Washington Education Association (WEA), the largest union in Washington State (a teachers’ union), which advocates for “inclusion and a racially equitable public school system for all students” and maintains strong ties to the Democratic Party through endorsements, campaign funding, and lobbying efforts.

The post before that advertised a rally in Sequim calling for accountability for Donald Trump’s role in the January 6th insurrection—again, hardly the work of a truly nonpartisan organization.

The League of Women Voters of Clallam County (LWV), another organization that claims political neutrality, posted about the town hall on March 13th. The LWV states that it “does not endorse or oppose political candidates or parties at any level of government.” Yet, just recently, the League ran a paid advertisement in the Peninsula Daily News reading, “LWVUS Condemns Trump Administration’s Weaponization of Government Against Americans.” If the League’s messaging consistently opposes one political figure or party, is it truly nonpartisan?

Adding to the inequity, the Clallam Republicans, an openly partisan group that also represents a segment of the county’s taxpayers, did not receive notice of the town hall until March 17th—five days after the event had already been circulated through Democratic-affiliated and left-leaning “nonpartisan” groups. If this is truly a public town hall, where was the bipartisan outreach?

Elected officials are meant to serve all constituents, not just those affiliated with their party. If taxpayer-funded representatives are holding public events, those events should be promoted equally and transparently to all political affiliations. Otherwise, what is being presented as an opportunity for civic engagement is, in reality, nothing more than a partisan echo chamber disguised as a community discussion, with the word “nonpartisan” being used as convenient cover.

In last week’s “Equitable Wednesdays” poll, readers were asked if private businesses should offer discounts to tribal citizens. Out of 182 votes:

• 4% said, “Yes, it supports tribal communities.”

• 55% said, “No, it creates unnecessary division.”

• 38% said, “Discounts should be for everyone.”

• 3% said, “No opinion/unsure.”

Leave a comment

Charter Review Commission Panel

Tonight (Wednesday), the Clallam County Democrats are hosting a public panel discussion featuring your elected Charter Review Commissioners. This event is open to everyone.

Join Patti Morris, Mark Hodgson, Ron Richards, and Alex Fane as they discuss:
• The role and responsibilities of commission members
• How the public can engage with the commission
• Current issues under review by the Commission
• The process for incorporating recommendations into the Charter

Norma Turner will also provide a historical overview of the Commission.

The event will take place from 6:00 to 7:30 PM at 124 A W First St, Port Angeles.

Clallam Conservation District update

From the CCD website:

“Due to larger than expected voter turnout, ballot processing will continue Friday, March 21 from 9:00am-3:00pm and will be open to public viewing. Unofficial, partial election results will be posted on Clallam CD’s website after processing is complete.”

Commissioner Mike French’s stance on legal precedent appears firm—until you look closer. While he cites case law to justify inequitable ticket pricing at Sequim schools, his past positions suggest a more flexible approach to legal principles. Why does he champion strict adherence to the law in some cases but dismiss it in others? This article examines the inconsistencies in his approach to equity and policy.

The Clallam County Commissioners frequently write letters of support for various projects and initiatives. Recently, they supported the Field Arts & Events Hall's request for an additional $4 million in taxpayer funding and endorsed the Sequim School District’s ballot measures—despite one commissioner’s staggering $100 million miscalculation in a bond proposal. Previously, they backed the Jamestown Tribe’s proposed roundabout on Highway 101 in Blyn.

Following the discovery that the Sequim School District was calculating ticket prices based on tribal status, the commissioners were asked whether they would consider writing a letter advocating for the elimination of this race-based pricing policy. French was the only one to respond.

“I would not support that request. For five decades, it’s been settled law that tribal preference is not race-based, it’s a political preference (Morton v Mancari). You’re free to criticize the Sequim School District for having that preference in ticket prices, but in my limited understanding, it is not a race-based preference according to US law.”

French’s sudden commitment to legal precedent and careful distinctions between political and racial classifications stands in stark contrast to his past actions. When it comes to issues he supports—such as property destruction in the name of social progress—he has openly dismissed the importance of law and order. In a previous statement, French condoned vandalism as a necessary tool for achieving change, suggesting that unlawful actions can be justified when the cause is deemed righteous.

Morton v. Mancari: A convenient distinction

Morton v. Mancari (1974) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a law giving hiring preference to Native Americans for jobs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Court ruled that this preference was not racial discrimination but rather a political distinction because Tribes are sovereign political entities, not racial groups. This means that laws benefiting Native Americans are based on their political status as members of federally recognized Tribes, not simply their ancestry.

However, the criteria for Jamestown tribal membership—like that of most Tribes—are based on ancestry and bloodline. To be recognized as a member of the Jamestown Tribe, an individual must demonstrate lineal descent from someone listed on the base roll (which intentionally excluded women and children) or meet a specific blood quantum requirement. While Tribes are indeed political entities, membership is determined by ancestry and genetic heritage.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines race as “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry.” By that standard, does the distinction between racial and political classifications truly hold up?

Justification or deflection?

Since Commissioner French was the only one to respond to the initial request, he was further asked if he would consider writing a letter urging the Sequim School District to end its politically based ticket pricing system in the name of equity. He replied:

“No, I would not. I support public school districts in their attempts to have positive relationships with sovereign tribes within their school district boundaries.

“A good primer on the troubled history between tribes and American education can be found in the concurring opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch (appointed by President Donald Trump in early 2017) of the case Haaland v Brackeen, decided in 2023. Link here: Haaland v. Brackeen | 599 U.S. ___ (2023) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center.”

Haaland v. Brackeen was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a law designed to keep Native American children within their tribal communities when placed in foster care or adoption. It reaffirmed the principle that tribal affiliation is a political classification rather than a racial one.

Critics of ICWA argue that it creates an unequal system by prioritizing tribal affiliation over the “best interest” of individual children. However, supporters counter that ICWA corrects historical injustices and respects Tribes' political status rather than imposing racial preferences.

So, what does Haaland v. Brackeen have to do with discounted sports tickets? French’s reference to the case suggests that any policies affecting Native communities should be assessed through the lens of tribal sovereignty rather than racial equity. But does a $2 ticket discount meaningfully address historic injustices and systemic inequities faced by Native American students? Does this policy truly work toward healing past harms, or does it merely reinforce differences among students rather than bridging them?

Selective application of principles

If equity is truly the goal, is this the best way to achieve it? And more importantly, why is Commissioner French so selective in deciding when legal precedent should be respected? When it suits his agenda, the law is flexible—vandalism can be justified, and rules can be bent. But when faced with a question of fairness that challenges his worldview, he suddenly becomes a strict adherent to legal doctrine.

This inconsistency raises larger questions about the role of government officials in shaping policy. If fairness and justice are truly guiding principles, they should be applied consistently—not merely when they align with personal beliefs.

Polling: What do you think?

Last Equitable Wednesday, subscribers were asked if the Sequim School District’s equity initiatives are effective in promoting fairness for all students. Of 237 votes:

• 90% voted “no.”

• 4% voted “yes.”

• 6% voted “not sure.”

Beyond ticket prices, similar preferential policies exist elsewhere. For example, Olypen, an internet service provider in Sequim and Port Angeles, has previously offered a 30% discount to tribal citizens for computer repair and support services.

Leave a comment

From mission statements to ticket prices—how well does the district’s equity policy hold up in practice?

Wednesday stands at the center of the week, equidistant from its beginning and end. In a society that places a premium on equity, it seems only fitting to designate a day to examine whether we are truly living up to our commitment to fairness. Welcome to "Equitable Wednesdays," where we take a closer look at how our institutions uphold their promises of equity.

Examining equity in Sequim School District

The Sequim School District explicitly states its commitment to equity in its "Rights and Responsibilities" section on its website:

"We will disrupt institutional biases and end inequitable practices so all students have an equal chance at success."

As part of this mission, the district's 2021-2022 "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging" (DEIB) initiative set forth several key objectives:

• Reestablish Board Members and staff commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

• Create a roadmap for integrating DEIB into district policies and practices.

• Establish Board governance of diversity and inclusion.

• Implement Cultural Competency Training for the Board of Directors, administrators, and staff.

The district’s six-slide DEIB presentation emphasized equity, mentioning the term 18 times. It included plans for "equity assessments" and the development of customized equity plans tailored to the district’s needs.

Last June, District Superintendent Regan Nickels reaffirmed this commitment in a guest column for the Sequim Gazette, highlighting that the Strategic Plan prioritizes equity under the section on civic and cultural responsibility.

Sequim School District has taken significant steps to ensure equity remains a guiding principle in its policies and practices. But how does this commitment manifest in everyday experiences within the community?

Equity at the ticket booth

One tangible example of equity implementation in Sequim School District is its pricing structure for sporting event tickets. Ticket sales provide essential funding for athletic programs, and pricing varies by age and veteran status. However, one discount stands out: Tribal citizens, regardless of age, receive a 29% discount on ticket prices, paying $5 instead of the standard $7. Individuals of other racial backgrounds pay the full amount.

This policy raises questions about how equity is applied in practical settings. Does it align with the district’s stated goal of ensuring fairness for all? Does providing discounts based on racial or tribal identity promote or hinder the ideal of equity?

Leave a comment

Do you have an item for “Equitable Wednesdays?” Send it to CC Watchdog.