While Clallam and Jefferson counties desperately need more mental health services, Jamestown Salish Seasons’ grand opening next month and patient admissions starting in September come with a major caveat: This tribally operated facility is positioned to generate substantial revenue from taxpayers through special billing advantages that let it charge and collect far more per patient encounter than non-tribal providers. What’s billed as a bold community service also represents a lucrative business model for the Jamestown Corporation.

A Needed Service...

According to the Sequim Gazette, Jamestown Salish Seasons will begin accepting patients on September 28 following its August 26 grand opening. The $31.25 million facility will provide voluntary psychiatric evaluation and treatment twenty-four hours a day in a secure 16-bed facility designed for patients experiencing severe depression, suicidal ideation, psychosis, and other acute mental health crises.

There is little debate that the Olympic Peninsula needs more mental health resources. Families have long struggled to find voluntary treatment before a crisis reaches the point of involuntary commitment. If Salish Seasons succeeds in filling that gap, it will undoubtedly benefit many people.

But as with nearly every large healthcare expansion by the Jamestown Corporation, there’s another side of the story.

“Local” Patients...and Patients From Across Washington

The Gazette reports that patients will come from Clallam County, Jefferson County, and citizens of Washington’s federally recognized tribes.

That means the facility isn’t simply serving the North Olympic Peninsula. Depending on capacity, it has the potential to serve tribal citizens from throughout the state.

What Was the State Concerned About?

Executive Director Matt McKnight told the Sequim Gazette the opening was delayed because of negotiations with state regulators.

According to McKnight, the tribe was doing something “bold and different,” making it difficult for regulators to “wrap their mind around” the new model. He also acknowledged that negotiations over reimbursement rates with Washington’s managed care organizations contributed to the delay.

That’s an explanation—but not much of one. What exactly was the state uncomfortable with? Was it licensing? Patient care standards? Payment rates? Operational policies?

Those details matter, yet they remain unanswered.

Thirty New Employees—From Where?

The tribe also plans to hire approximately thirty new employees, many in entry-level positions including recovery specialists, treatment coordinators, cooks, custodians, and maintenance staff.

That’s good news for job seekers. It’s potentially less welcome for existing employers.

Businesses throughout Clallam County have spent the past several years struggling to hire and retain workers. Every major employer that expands its workforce pulls from the same limited labor pool. The obvious question is how many local businesses will lose experienced employees as Jamestown continues expanding its healthcare empire.

A Different Way of Getting Paid

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Gazette’s coverage wasn’t about the building at all. McKnight explained that voluntary psychiatric treatment is more difficult to finance because insurance companies don’t always guarantee payment the way they do for involuntary commitments. He said Jamestown ultimately negotiated reimbursement rates based on the actual operating costs of the sixteen-bed facility.

That statement deserves far more attention than it received. Most people have never heard of Indian Health Service encounter rates. They probably should.

Unlike traditional healthcare providers, eligible tribal clinics can receive federally established all-inclusive reimbursement rates for qualifying patient encounters. Those rates continue to climb. The federal outpatient encounter rate for Lower 48 tribal facilities increased to approximately $826 per qualifying encounter in 2026, and Washington’s Tribal Health Billing Guide allows multiple qualifying encounters during a single day under certain circumstances when different services are provided.

Medications and other services may also be billed separately when allowed under state and federal rules.

That’s not a loophole. It’s federal policy. But it is a payment structure unavailable to most community hospitals, physician offices, and independent healthcare providers.

Why the Tribe Keeps Expanding Healthcare

For years, the Jamestown Tribe has steadily expanded beyond its casino, adding medical clinics, behavioral health, medication-assisted treatment, pharmacies, dental services, and now a psychiatric hospital.

Viewed individually, each project looks like another community investment.

Viewed together, they represent something much larger: a healthcare system built around reimbursement rules that are substantially different from those available to non-tribal providers. Those rules create powerful incentives to continue expanding services because each qualifying encounter generates additional revenue.

If a single Medicaid patient visits Jamestown Family Health, the Jamestown Dental Clinic, the MAT clinic, the pharmacy, and later has a qualifying telehealth appointment, the reimbursement from those encounters could exceed $4,000 in a single day, depending on eligibility and billing rules.

A Different Recovery Model

The debate becomes even more interesting when treatment outcomes are compared.

The Salvation Army’s Adult Rehabilitation Program in Seattle provides up to fourteen months of residential treatment, work therapy, job placement assistance, and transitional housing without relying on Medicaid encounter-rate billing. According to the organization, about 38 percent of participants successfully complete the program, and among graduates who remain connected for two years, approximately 86 percent maintain sobriety.

Jamestown’s Medication-Assisted Treatment program has reported strong patient retention, but retention is not the same thing as recovery. Taxpayers should be asking harder questions.

How many people return to work?
How many become financially independent?
How many remain drug-free years after treatment?

Those are the outcomes that matter. Yet the answers remain largely out of public view, shielded behind the sovereignty of a tribal government receiving millions in taxpayer-funded reimbursements.

A Call For Transparency

None of this is an argument against providing mental health care. Salish Seasons may become an important resource for our community and save lives in the process.

But taxpayers deserve transparency about more than the opening date and ribbon cutting. They deserve to understand why tribal healthcare facilities are reimbursed differently, how much those differences are worth, and whether the incentives encourage long-term recovery—or simply long-term billing.

That’s a conversation worth having. And it’s one that too few people are willing to start.

Today’s Tidbit: $25.7 Million Housing Fund — Who Gets to Apply?

Washington taxpayers are helping fund the state’s Housing Trust Fund, but this latest $25.7 million set-aside is only available to one group: federally recognized tribes with land in Washington and their tribally controlled housing entities.

According to the Washington State Department of Commerce, eligibility is limited to federally recognized tribes or Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) operating under tribal control.

The question for taxpayers: When public dollars are collected statewide, should programs like this be open to all eligible housing providers, or reserved exclusively for sovereign tribal governments?

Leave a comment

A vandalized roadside sign, a former state representative’s truck struck by gunfire, and public comments minimizing property destruction all point to the same unsettling trend: in Clallam County, political disagreement is increasingly crossing the line into damaged property, intimidation, and shrinking tolerance for opposing views.

A sign on Highway 101 — and what it represented

Members of the local chapter of the John Birch Society placed a sign along U.S. Route 101 just east of Blyn. The message was simple and unmistakable: encourage the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.

The sign was highly visible to drivers. Whether residents agreed with it or strongly opposed it, the sign reflected a long-standing political position held by the John Birch Society.

In brief, the organization argues that U.S. membership in the United Nations threatens national sovereignty. It views the UN Charter as a framework for expanding international governance, criticizes policies such as Agenda 21/2030 and international arms agreements, and contends that the UN could evolve toward a form of centralized global authority. Those are the organization’s views — controversial to many, but undeniably part of the political debate.

The sign was destroyed

Last month, the sign was not merely slashed — The entire center section was cut out and removed.

This was not a rebuttal, a counter-sign, or a public argument. It was the destruction of someone else’s property.

The sign was located on private property, not public land. In a free society, people have the right to express political opinions — even unpopular opinions. Others have the right to disagree, criticize, protest, or argue against those opinions. They do not have the right to destroy private property because they dislike the message.

A former legislator reports gunfire damage

Jim Buck represented Washington’s 24th Legislative District from 1995 to 2007. Though retired from elected office, he has continued writing about timber harvests and the impact of forest-management disputes on local taxing districts.

In a recent email, Buck described visiting timber sale areas near Monroe Road and Colville Road while researching the issue. During that visit, he reported that his vehicle was struck by gunfire.

Hello,

I have been working on providing you with authoritative source documentation explaining the impact Legacy Forest Defense Council actions are having on Clallam County taxing districts and taxpayers. My work involves extensive research. It also involves visits to timber sales to get “the lay of the land.” On Friday, July 10, I visited the Bakers Dozen sale on Monroe Road and than looked at the general layout of the Power Plant sale on Colville Road.

During the visit to Colville Road my vehicle was struck by gunfire. The bullet smashed a pickup canopy window on the passenger side, passed through the truck and smashed the driver-side window on exit. It missed Donna by 6 feet. We did not hear the shot but did recall a crunching sound that turned out to be the breaking safety glass. Pictures are attached.

Picture 1 shows the view from the passenger side of the truck. Picture 2 shows what is left of the round bullet hole. Magnification of the picture shows a sawtooth effect on the outside of the glass called spalling. It is the splatter formed on impact as the bullet ejects some material outward before it penetrates the glass.

I filed a police report with the sheriff. I’ll get the broken glass cleaned up and replaced. I’ll continue to present you with authoritative information about Legacy Forest interference with your county trust assets and tax base. I expect all of you to repudiate this violence and DEMAND a civil discourse on the issues we face.

Finally, if you have any information about this incident, contact the sheriff.

Jim Buck

Buck said he filed a report with the sheriff and asked anyone with information to contact law enforcement.

There is an important distinction here: no one should assume motive or assign blame without evidence. But the incident, as described, is far more serious than ordinary political disagreement. A damaged sign is troubling; a vehicle struck by gunfire is alarming.

When destruction becomes easier to excuse

These incidents raise a broader question about the political climate in Clallam County.

Before taking office as county commissioner, Mike French wrote publicly on Facebook:

“My position is, property destruction is not only fine, it’s usually the only way we’ve ever seen actual change happen…”

After the comment resurfaced, French later explained that he was referring to historical protest movements, including the Boston Tea Party. He argued that some property destruction during periods of political unrest may be understandable or forgivable, and that human life should always be valued above property.

I believe it was a Facebook conversation from 4-5 years back, and the point I was making was that throughout American history some amount of property destruction has been acceptable (and if not acceptable, understandable or forgivable) during periods of political unrest/protest. The Boston Tea Party is of course the quintessential example - a moment of protest that we celebrate as a country that was in reality wanton property destruction. Our country was built on the premise that the people should be able to protest their rulers, and I do not believe that property destruction categorically discredits a political protest - obviously there’s a line somewhere between a protest and a riot, but in the moment that’s sometimes a hard line to draw. It’s much easier in hindsight.

My secondary point was about the difference between harm to humans and harm to property - we should always value human life above property (not to say that we shouldn’t value property or protect property rights, just that human life is innately more valuable).

Mike French
Clallam County Commissioner

That clarification is worth noting. But it is also worth noting that he did not retract the underlying premise: that property destruction can, in some circumstances, be an acceptable or understandable part of political protest.

Reasonable people can debate history. They can debate where the line is between protest and riot. What is harder to debate is the effect of normalizing destruction in present-day civic life. Once people begin to believe that damaging property is a legitimate form of political expression, the line tends to move.

The smaller acts matter too

Not every example involves gunfire or major vandalism. But the smaller acts contribute to the same atmosphere.

County commissioners have placed stickers on government-owned laptops. Commissioner French has described it as “fun,” and Commissioner Mark Ozias has defended it as free speech. Yet those laptops are public property purchased by taxpayers. Eventually, someone else must remove the stickers.

Stickers reading “Jeff Tozzer hasn’t worked a day in his life” continue to appear around Sequim and Port Angeles. The phrase itself does not bother me. What bothers me is that business owners, city employees, and private citizens are left to scrape them off walls, windows, and other property.

According to statements from Indivisible, which is backed by the League of Women Voters, more stickers are coming.

Again, the issue is not disagreement. The issue is shifting the burden of cleanup onto other people.

A pattern without consequences

This county has also seen highly publicized acts of vandalism on public land. Members of a group known as “The Troublemakers” were filmed by the Seattle Times causing thousands of dollars in damage. Yet key individuals associated with that group have remained in leadership and community-facing roles.

Tim Wheeler and Lisa Dekker remain in leadership positions within the Democratic Party. Keith Dekker was recently featured on community radio with the Master Gardeners program.

The message this sends — whether intended or not — is that property destruction may not carry meaningful social or civic consequences if it is connected to the “right” cause.

A county that can still choose civility

It is perfectly acceptable for residents to disagree about the United Nations, timber harvests, environmental activism, county policy, elections, or any other public issue.

Healthy disagreement is not a problem. In fact, it is one of the strengths of a free society.

What is not healthy is a culture in which opposing views are met with vandalism, intimidation, or applause for property destruction. A democracy depends on the ability to argue without destroying, protest without threatening, and disagree without treating opponents as enemies.

Clallam County feels less tolerant than it did a few years ago. The temperature does seem to be rising. And when property destruction is excused, minimized, or celebrated in the name of societal change, the people who pay the price are often ordinary residents — business owners, taxpayers, volunteers, and neighbors.

We do not need everyone to agree. We do need everyone to accept that political disagreement ends where destruction begins.

Today’s Tidbit: OMC Board Meets In Sequim Tonight

If you’re a Sequim resident who has wanted to follow what’s happening at Olympic Medical Center but don’t want to drive to Port Angeles, tonight is your opportunity.

The Olympic Medical Center Board of Commissioners is holding its twice-monthly meeting in Sequim from 6:00–7:00 p.m. at the Medical Services Building, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 840 N. 5th Ave.

OMC—our publicly owned hospital and Clallam County’s largest employer—continues to navigate a pivotal period as it searches for a permanent CEO. If you care about local healthcare, public accountability, or the future of one of the county’s most important institutions, this is a meeting worth attending.

Agenda and meeting details are available here.

Leave a comment

The Jamestown Corporation is the second-largest employer in Clallam County and one of its most influential political and economic forces. Whether you agree with its policies or not, understanding what the Tribe is doing matters to everyone who lives here.

Helping Tribal Citizens Pay for Expensive Gas

The headline story announces a new fuel assistance program for enrolled Jamestown tribal citizens. Those living in Clallam or Jefferson counties can receive a $1-per-gallon discount on up to 100 gallons of gasoline each month at Longhouse Market, while citizens living outside the area can receive a one-time $150 fuel stipend.

The obvious question is: Why are gas prices so high in the first place?

Washington drivers continue paying some of the highest fuel prices in the nation.

That’s due in large part to state policies, including the Climate Commitment Act—which adds costs to fuel through the state’s carbon allowance program—and repeated increases to the state gas tax.

The Jamestown Tribe has been an outspoken supporter of Washington’s climate agenda. At the same time, it has received significant benefits from Climate Commitment Act funding, including grants tied to electric vehicle infrastructure, charging stations, and energy-efficiency projects.

The Tribe also retains a 75% share of fuel tax revenues generated on tribal lands.

Now, with fuel prices straining household budgets, the Tribe is stepping in to help—but only its own enrolled citizens.

The newsletter says the program is intended to provide “equitable access“ to fuel assistance. Yet eligibility isn’t based on income, financial hardship, or residency. It is based on tribal citizenship, which is based on race.

If the Tribe truly views itself as the community partner it often says it is, some residents may reasonably wonder why this relief isn’t being extended more broadly to the community that also shops, works, and pays taxes here.

Transparency Still “Under Construction”

For years, the Jamestown Tribe published and archived its newsletters online, making them easily accessible to the public.

Then the archive disappeared.

More than a year later, the page where those newsletters once lived still displays an “under construction” message.

That’s disappointing.

The Jamestown Corporation has repeatedly spoken about its commitment to transparency and community engagement. Restoring public access to its newsletter archive and annual reports would be a simple step toward honoring that commitment.

Fortunately, copies still circulate, which is why we’re sharing this one.

Whether you’re interested in tribal government, local healthcare, fisheries, economic development, or the Tribe’s expanding influence throughout Clallam County, the monthly newsletter provides one of the best windows into what the organization is doing.

Other Stories Worth Reading

This month’s edition also includes several stories that deserve attention:

• A visit from five Washington Supreme Court justices as part of the Traveling Court program.

• New policies governing treaty-reserved gathering rights and harvesting activities.

• Research into harbor seal diets and their possible impact on local salmon populations.

• Coverage of the Tribe’s annual Elected Tribal Official Academy, where Chairman Ron Allen encouraged tribal leaders to continue expanding tribal businesses to support their communities.

• New hires across Jamestown Health and Social & Community Services, continued cultural programming, and preparations for Canoe Journey and the annual Tribal Picnic.

The Tribe’s newsletter isn’t just internal news. It offers a glimpse into the priorities, investments, and direction of one of the Peninsula’s most influential organizations.

Take a few minutes to read it for yourself. Whether you come away impressed, skeptical, or somewhere in between, you’ll be better informed—and that’s always the goal.

Tribal Newsletter July 2026 Digital

6.62MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Today’s Tidbit: Your $5 Fee at Work

In its March 10, 2026 letter, the Clallam Conservation District officially endorsed the Dungeness Source Substitution Flow Restoration Project — and that support appears to have helped move the proposal forward.

The project, sponsored by the Washington Water Trust, is now listed as an active $569,144 grant application in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s official 2026 Streamflow Restoration Grant Round Application Summary.

In fact, all of the Clallam Conservation District’s letters of support seem to have had a favorable impact for the Jamestown Corporation at the Department of Ecology.

The goal of the letter: Replace Dungeness River water used to irrigate the Jamestown Corporation-owned Cedars at Dungeness golf course with a deep groundwater well and on-site Class A recycled water. If successful, the freed-up river water would be transferred into the Trust Water Rights Program to “restore” flows for salmon.

This is exactly what happens when the Clallam Conservation District writes a letter of support. Further proof that local ratepayers’ $5 fee is helping underwrite water infrastructure benefits for a sovereign nation’s golf course. Properties held in tribal trust are exempt from the paying the parcel fee.

Did you ever think you’d see “sustainable” and “climate resilient” used to describe keeping a golf course green?

Welcome to water policy in Clallam County.

Leave a comment

In economically challenged rural Clallam County, residents already navigate Washington’s Growth Management Act and strict energy codes. Now, local decisions on water use, septic systems, and wildfire “resilience” threaten to drive up costs, restrict private property use, and worsen the housing crisis—while tribal properties frequently remain exempt.

Layer Upon Layer of Local Regulation

On the water front, the Dungeness Water Rule—advanced by the Jamestown Corporation and the Washington Department of Ecology—imposed costly mitigation requirements for new water uses on the eastern end of Clallam County. This program operates in tandem with Clallam County and the Clallam Conservation District. Tribal properties are exempt.

Adding to the burden, the Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program—a collaboration among the Jamestown Corporation, Clallam Conservation District, and Clallam County—targets failing septic systems. It layers additional local oversight and potential costs beyond existing state mandates.

The Clallam Conservation District, traditionally focused on agriculture, has expanded with the new $5-per-parcel annual fee (tribal properties are exempt). The parcel fee was approved by the county commissioners. This is projected to transfer roughly $2 million from county taxpayers to the District over the next decade. Emboldened by this funding, the CCD has now ventured into wildfire education workshops.

The Next Wave: Community Wildfire Protection Plan

Last week, we exposed how Olympic Climate Action — led by President Brian Grad — has waded into partisan politics by endorsing candidates.

Now, the partisan group is deepening its local influence: Olympic Climate Action has teamed up with Clallam County Emergency Management and other partners to roll out the county’s new Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) through a series of public workshops.

Commissioner Mike French, who is seeking reelection, has made adoption of this plan a centerpiece of his campaign, proudly touting it as a collaborative effort to increase “resilience.”

The CWPP itself repeatedly states it is not mandatory. It does not impose immediate requirements on private landowners and emphasizes voluntary implementation. However, the plan—particularly Appendix I on building code recommendations—lays the groundwork for future enforceable rules that could significantly impact housing affordability and property rights.

Questionable Choice of Consultant: SWCA

Clallam County commissioners selected SWCA Environmental Consultants, a national firm, to develop the new CWPP. While SWCA has experience with wildfire planning, the company prominently markets its strong commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives on its website and in public reporting.

SWCA highlights metrics such as high percentages of female and non-white new hires, earns top DEI awards, and integrates equity-focused language into its corporate culture and project work.

The firm also emphasizes ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) priorities alongside its technical services. In a remote, rural county like Clallam — with its unique geography, limited evacuation routes, heavy timberlands, and very real wildfire risks — residents have every right to ask:

Are we hiring the most qualified local-knowledge experts, or are we paying for a national firm whose corporate priorities align more with national DEI and ESG trends than with practical, ground-level wildfire protection?

Key Concerns from the CWPP and Appendix I

• Adoption of stricter Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) codes: Recommends adopting the 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (with localized amendments that could be more stringent than state rules), including enhanced requirements for roofing, siding, vents, decks, and fencing.

• New subdivision standards: Calls for a comprehensive review and redesign focused on wildfire safety, affecting road widths, access, lot layouts, setbacks, and vegetation rules—all of which raise development costs and reduce land value.

• Defensible space and vegetation management: Promotes ongoing maintenance of “Home Ignition Zones,” which could evolve from education into mandatory clearing, thinning, or landscaping restrictions.

• Setbacks from forests and open space: These reduce buildable area on rural parcels, effectively acting as hidden down-zoning and lowering housing density.

• Mandatory Wildfire Safety Plans: New developments may require plans prepared by certified “special experts,” plus perpetual maintenance obligations baked into CC&Rs, ongoing audits, and funding mechanisms.

• Equity language and grant chasing: Emphasis on “promoting equity” in mitigation and using the plan to secure grants, which often steer policy toward additional regulations.

These changes would compound Washington’s already strict building and environmental standards. Fire-rated materials, larger setbacks, extra permitting, and consultant requirements all increase construction and site-preparation costs—making new homes harder to build and less affordable, especially in rural, forested areas where housing supply is critically needed.

Pattern of Exemptions and Expanding Control

As with the Dungeness Water Rule and the new parcel fee, tribal properties often receive exemptions. Meanwhile, private property owners in this economically depressed county bear the costs of layered local initiatives that go beyond state requirements.

Commissioner French and partners present these efforts as balanced protection. Critics see a familiar pattern: well-intentioned planning documents that start “voluntary” but open the door to costly, top-down rules that erode property rights and exacerbate housing shortages.

Rural Clallam County doesn’t need additional county-level regulatory overlays on top of one of the nation’s most ecologically stringent states. True resilience should prioritize practical fuel reduction on public lands, realistic evacuation planning, and education—without turning every homeowner into a regulated land manager or pricing out new housing.

Clallam residents deserve policies that protect lives and property without sacrificing affordability and private property rights. The CWPP’s recommendations warrant close scrutiny before they harden into code.

Today’s Tidbit: Debate #2 Tomorrow

The Port Angeles Business Association invites you to the second French/Seegers debate tomorrow morning at 7:30 a.m. at Joshua’s Restaurant.

The debate will be streamed live on Facebook and recorded for later viewing. Attendees can enjoy breakfast at Joshua’s, or pay a $5 minimum charge if not ordering food. PABA members receive priority when asking questions, but guests are welcome and may have the opportunity to ask questions after members.

This is another excellent reason to join the Port Angeles Business Association — an organization that generously hosts open candidate forums for the entire community.

Leave a comment

In a powerful episode of Sundays with Seegers, a woman known only as “SC” shares how she escaped meth addiction, what recovery really takes, and why she believes local leaders are listening to the wrong voices.

What if the people shaping drug policy spent an hour listening to someone who actually lived it?

That’s exactly what listeners will hear in the latest episode of Sundays with Seegers, where Clallam County commissioner candidate Jake Seegers sits down with “SC,” a recovering meth addict who has now spent more than 12 years rebuilding her life—and helping others do the same.

SC asked to remain anonymous, but her story is anything but hidden. She candidly recounts how she became emancipated at just 16 years old, supported herself through multiple jobs, and was slowly pulled into addiction by the people surrounding her. What began as occasional meth use spiraled into years of abusive relationships, drug dealing, hospitalizations, and eventually a fight for her life.

Unlike many policy discussions that rely on statistics and reports, SC offers something rarely heard in public meetings: firsthand experience. She explains how addiction is funded through theft, welfare fraud, drug sales, and an underground barter economy where “everything has a dollar sign.” She describes why recovery is so difficult when drugs become not just a substance, but an entire lifestyle built around relationships, money, and survival.

Perhaps most striking is her assessment of today’s addiction landscape. While acknowledging the value of tools like naloxone and medication-assisted treatment, she argues that the current system has expanded harm reduction without building enough pathways to recovery.

SC believes today’s environment is actually harder to escape than the one she left more than a decade ago, citing the arrival of fentanyl, changes in Washington’s drug laws, and what she sees as a growing acceptance of open drug use.

“It’s a very inviting environment for chaos,” she tells Seegers. “We’ve made a really inviting climate to use in.”

But the interview isn’t simply a critique of policy. It’s ultimately a story of hope.

After nearly dying from complications related to addiction, SC says a series of what she calls “divine interventions” gave her one last chance. She cut ties with everyone in her old life, completed outpatient treatment, rebuilt relationships with her family, and today spends her time caring for her disabled mother, raising her daughters, and mentoring others who want to escape addiction.

Her message to those still struggling is simple:

She also leaves local leaders with a challenge that may resonate far beyond Clallam County:

It’s one of the most candid conversations yet on Sundays with Seegers—not because it offers easy answers, but because it comes from someone who has lived every side of the crisis.

Editor’s Note: SC has chosen to remain anonymous for this interview. Readers interested in following more of her writing and perspective on addiction, recovery, and community issues can follow her at SC’s Substack.

SC’s Epilogue

I’ve thought more about the question you asked regarding people living in encampments, surrounded by addiction, who want out. I had so many thoughts swirling in my brain that I feel I answered that question poorly and wish to expand.

The biggest problem I see is that our current system isn’t built to respond to the moment someone finally decides they want help. Addiction is often accompanied by brief windows of clarity where a person becomes willing to accept treatment, but our system frequently requires appointments, referrals, assessments, transportation, waiting lists, and delays. By the time those pieces come together, that window may have closed. I know that when I have tried to find an immediate solution for someone, I have been met with these barriers, and often I am unable to obtain the structure of help needed in that brief second.

If someone asked me today what immediate path exists for an addict living in an encampment who wants out right now, the only answer I could confidently give would be to walk into the emergency room and tell them, “I need help now, not later.” And unfortunately, that won’t complete what is needed after the initial detox and treatment ends.

That shouldn’t be the only option.

I support aspects of harm reduction because keeping people alive matters. But survival alone shouldn’t be the end goal. Much of that funding can be redirected. Every interaction with someone struggling with addiction should create a clear and immediate pathway toward treatment, recovery, mental health services, stable housing, and ultimately self-sufficiency.

When someone reaches the point where they are ready to accept help, the response should be immediate. We should have resources available to connect people with shelter, treatment assessments, detox services, transportation, recovery housing, counseling, and peer support without weeks of delay.

I also think our communities need to stop viewing public disorder as something normal. When someone is living in a tent, severely addicted, mentally ill, cycling through arrests, overdoses, emergency rooms, and crisis services, that is not independence. That is a person in crisis.

Law enforcement, public health, behavioral health, housing providers, and the courts should all be working together toward the same goal: helping people move toward recovery and stability. Arrests and citations should come with real opportunities for treatment, counseling, and recovery programs. Recovery housing, Oxford-style homes, life-skills training, job training, and peer support should be expanded so people have somewhere to go after treatment.

And for those whose addiction or mental illness has progressed to the point that they can no longer make rational decisions for themselves, I believe mandatory treatment should be part of the conversation. I’ve buried too many people, and I’ve watched too many others slowly die while everyone stood back and called it a choice.

Compassion isn’t just keeping someone alive another day. Compassion is creating every possible opportunity for them to reclaim their life.

The goal should be to make recovery more accessible.

You have a good first step idea with making the shelter more attractive to people struggling.

The other after thought I had was when you asked what I did for the time in between getting out of the hospital and getting treatment through OPG [Olympic Personal Growth Center], I didn’t answer that well either.

I completely focused my energy on getting healthy again. I was weak and under weight so I temporarily replaced my addiction with other activities for that time. I started exercising to build up strength and get my lungs working properly again. I attended AA meetings because I liked the AA meetings better than NA meetings where I experienced a lot of “gate keeping the program” behaviors. I slowly built up my trust and relationships with my family and friends whom I had previously abandoned. I replaced my desire for drugs, with the desire for health and structure.

Hope this helps you understand a little better where I should have gone with the conversation. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak up on an issue so near and dear to my heart.

— SC

Leave a comment

Editor’s note: This blog is published by Jeff Tozzer, the former campaign manager of Jake Seegers. None of the content here has ever been approved or paid for by Jake Seegers for Commissioner. To learn more about Jake Seegers, visit JakeSeegers.com.

Last week, Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren argued that the Clallam Conservation District changed its election procedures after the official ballot request deadline, expanding the voting pool in an election decided by just 37 votes. Since then, additional public records—including political articles published during the campaign and the district’s replacement ballot log—have added new pieces to the timeline. While none of the records alone proves wrongdoing, together they raise legitimate questions about whether every voter was operating under the same rules and whether the election was administered as the district publicly promised.

Last week, CC Watchdog published Virginia Shogren’s investigation into the 2026 Clallam Conservation District election. Her article alleged that district officials departed from their own election resolution by expanding the pool of eligible voters after the published ballot request deadline, despite the district’s rules stating that requests made after February 18, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. “will not be fulfilled.”

Since that story was published, additional records obtained by CC Watchdog paint a fuller picture of how the election was presented to the public—and how it may have been administered behind the scenes.

Individually, each record may have an innocent explanation. Together, however, they raise additional questions that deserve answers.

Everyone Appeared to Be Told the Same Thing

The election resolution adopted on January 13, 2026, was unambiguous.

The district chose to conduct a mail-in-only election and required voters to request a ballot before February 18 at 4:00 p.m. The resolution states plainly:

“The last day to request a ballot is Wednesday February 18, 2026 by 4:00 PM. Requests made after the deadline will not be fulfilled.”

The district reinforced that message by mailing more than 1,200 notices to previous Conservation District voters explaining that ballots would only be mailed to individuals who submitted a request before the deadline. Shogren’s investigation also documented those notices.

That same message continued throughout the campaign.

The Public Messaging Never Changed

On February 27, longtime political activist Tim Wheeler published an article in Clallam Democrats Rising describing his efforts to encourage Sequim Indivisible members to request ballots before the deadline.

According to Wheeler, he attended the February 16 Indivisible meeting carrying campaign literature for incumbent Supervisor Wendy Rae Johnson. Because the deadline was approaching, he urged attendees to photograph the QR code and immediately request ballots before time expired.

Nothing about that effort is inherently unusual. Political campaigns routinely encourage supporters to vote.

What is noteworthy is that Wheeler’s article repeatedly reinforces the understanding that requesting a ballot before February 18 was required.

One day later, another Clallam Democrats Rising article by Tina Tyler delivered the same message while profiling Johnson’s campaign.

The article explained why the Conservation District used requested mail ballots rather than automatically mailing ballots to every registered voter.

Johnson was quoted explaining that the district could not afford to mail ballots to all 62,000 registered voters in Clallam County.

The article then told readers:

“To vote in this year’s election, you would have had to request a ballot by Feb. 18.”

At this point, the public message appeared remarkably consistent. The official election resolution said ballots had to be requested by February 18. The district’s mailers said the same thing.

A campaign supporter writing in Clallam Democrats Rising emphasized the same deadline.

The following day, another article supporting Johnson’s candidacy repeated that voters needed to have requested their ballots before February 18.

Nothing in those public communications suggested the voting pool would later be expanded.

Then the Story Changed

According to Shogren’s investigation, that changed on March 10 during a public Conservation District board meeting.

There, candidate Wendy Rae Johnson reportedly disclosed that election officials had merged the official ballot request list with another internal list, resulting in additional ballots being mailed to people who had never requested one for the 2026 election.

Election records cited by Shogren show 2,238 ballots were ultimately mailed, despite only 1,921 ballot requests being received—a difference of at least 317 ballots in an election decided by just 37 votes.

If those figures are accurate, they raise an obvious question.

Why was the public repeatedly told that requesting a ballot by February 18 was mandatory, even though additional ballots were later mailed to individuals who had never submitted a request?

That is precisely what the ongoing complaint before the Washington State Conservation Commission seeks to determine.

A Curious Statement

One passage in Wheeler’s article also stands out. After describing the Indivisible meeting, Wheeler wrote:

“Wendy Rae told us later that hundreds of ballot requests came in after that meeting! To say the least, she was very pleased.”

Candidates naturally celebrate successful voter outreach efforts. At the same time, the statement suggests Johnson was receiving updates about the volume of ballot requests during the election. Was her opponent receiving the same updates?

The article does not explain how she obtained that information or from whom. It may have come from campaign volunteers, public information, election administrators, or another source entirely.

Standing alone, the statement proves nothing.

Nevertheless, in light of the broader questions surrounding the administration of the election, it is another detail that merits clarification.

Replacement Ballots Raise Still More Questions

CC Watchdog also reviewed the Conservation District’s replacement ballot log.

Providing replacement ballots is a normal part of many elections. Voters sometimes lose or damage their ballots and request another.

However, the district’s election resolution describes only one method for receiving an original ballot: submitting a ballot request before the February 18 deadline. The resolution does not expressly describe a replacement ballot process.

Cross-referencing the replacement ballot spreadsheet with the district’s ballot request list revealed another apparent discrepancy.

At least six individuals who received replacement ballots do not appear on the ballot request list provided by the district.

Those names include:

• Elizabeth Batson

• Fred Kaiser

• Sheila Kaiser

• Roberta Andison

• Walter Boyes

• Erik Brihagen

This observation should be interpreted cautiously.

It does not necessarily mean these individuals voted improperly or that the ballots should not have been issued. Administrative corrections, separate request records, clerical errors, or other explanations may exist that are not reflected in the documents.

Even so, the discrepancies underscore why complete transparency is necessary.

The Pattern

None of these facts, standing alone, proves election misconduct. But viewed together, they present a series of legitimate questions.

• The district adopted a resolution establishing a firm ballot request deadline.

• The public was repeatedly told that requesting a ballot by February 18 was required.

• Political supporters encouraged voters to meet that deadline.

• A campaign article published after the deadline still told readers they had needed to request a ballot before February 18.

• Yet according to Shogren’s investigation, the voting pool was later expanded beyond those who complied with those published rules.

• Replacement ballot records also appear to include recipients who cannot be located on the district’s ballot request list.

Perhaps every one of these questions has a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If so, the records should demonstrate it.

If not, Clallam County voters deserve to know why the rules described in the official election resolution—and repeated in public communications throughout the campaign—appear to differ from the procedures ultimately used to conduct the election.

That is precisely why independent investigations exist: not to assume wrongdoing, but to determine whether public confidence in an election has been earned.

NOTE: The League of Women Voters of Clallam County, which oversaw the CCD election, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Today’s Tidbit: Who Is the Conservation District Really Working For?

Every property owner in Clallam County is now required to pay the Conservation District’s $5 annual parcel assessment following a decision by the County Commissioners. That naturally raises a simple question: Who is the district working for?

Earlier this year, the Conservation District discussed three separate letters of support for grant applications submitted by the Washington Water Trust, including projects involving long-term drought response, wetlands restoration, and a deeper well for Jamestown’s Cedars at Dungeness Golf Course.

Each letter emphasizes the district’s partnership with the Washington Water Trust, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and the Dungeness Water Users Association.

The Washington Water Trust is no stranger to the Dungeness Basin. It has long been involved in water management and streamflow restoration efforts connected to the Dungeness Water Rule. Its leadership is also notable. According to his published biography, Washington Water Trust principal William Stelle spent three decades in federal government, serving as a political appointee under both the Clinton and Obama administrations before leading NOAA Fisheries on the West Coast.

Meanwhile, Port Angeles City Councilmember LaTrisha Suggs serves on the Washington Water Trust’s Board of Directors.

None of this is improper by itself. Partnerships are part of what conservation districts do.

But with every property owner now helping fund the Conservation District through a mandatory parcel assessment, residents may reasonably ask whether the district is spending enough time representing all taxpayers—or whether too much of its energy is being devoted to advancing the priorities of a relatively small circle of agencies, advocacy organizations, and stakeholder groups already deeply involved in Dungeness water policy.

That’s a fair question for the board—and one worth asking before it approves another round of support letters.

Leave a comment

Campaign season is underway, and so is endorsement season. One organization expected to weigh in is Olympic Climate Action, a local advocacy group that says it bases its endorsements on addressing climate change. But after being denied an endorsement without ever receiving a questionnaire or interview, CC Watchdog looked closer at the organization’s leadership, philosophy, and reasoning. The experience raises a broader question for every voter: do endorsements reflect an objective evaluation of candidates, or simply the worldview of the people making them?

Endorsement Season Begins

Campaign season is upon us, and with it comes endorsement season. Political parties, labor unions, advocacy groups, newspapers, and nonprofit organizations will soon begin telling voters which candidates deserve their support. There is nothing inherently wrong with endorsements. They can help voters navigate a crowded ballot. But endorsements are opinions, not certifications, and before accepting anyone else’s recommendation, it is worth asking a simple question: Who is making the endorsement, and what standards are they using?

One organization expected to issue endorsements this year is Olympic Climate Action (OCA).

According to its website, the organization’s mission is to “seek a safe, prosperous, sustainable future for residents of the Olympic Peninsula by addressing the threat of climate change.” Its stated objectives include sharing climate science, stimulating community dialogue, advocating for climate-related policies, and serving as a hub for local organizations.

Earlier this year, OCA announced it was forming an endorsement committee to recommend candidates for local, state, and federal office.

An Endorsement Without a Process

The announcement brought back an experience from the 2025 Charter Review Commission election. OCA chose not to endorse me, Jeff Tozzer, as a candidate, so I asked a simple question: How was that decision made?

There had been no questionnaire, no interview, and no opportunity to explain positions before the endorsement decisions were made. The response came from OCA President Brian Grad.

Before getting to Grad's explanation, it's worth noting that he has become a familiar figure in local politics. During the 2025 Charter Review Commission, he was publicly asked to temper his conduct when addressing the commission. He was also the subject of complaints about his attire while volunteering at the Clallam County Democrats booth at last year's fair.

At the Carlsborg ballot drop box, he appeared to lose control and attempt to remove signage before confronting ballot box observers.

Grad’s response explained that my previous reporting on Washington’s Climate Commitment Act made this publication’s views “incompatible with a foundational belief shared among OCA members that we are in a climate crisis.”

That explanation was surprising. The issue was never a lack of concern for the environment. Doug and I have long tried to live in a way that minimizes our environmental footprint. Our garden provides much of our food for more than half the year. At the time, we shared a single vehicle while also using a scooter that averaged nearly 60 miles per gallon. We regularly picked up litter in our neighborhood, and we have maintained a vegan lifestyle for years. I haven’t been on an airplane or left the state in six years.

Whether those choices deserve an endorsement is beside the point, but they demonstrate that questioning a particular government policy is not the same as dismissing environmental stewardship.

Instead, the reporting in question examined whether Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias was using county resources and his elected office to advocate for a statewide political campaign, and whether the public deserved greater transparency about who was benefiting from the Climate Commitment Act. Those seemed like reasonable questions for any local watchdog publication to ask.

The Questions That Prompted the Rejection

The article, titled “Political vs. Public Interests,” focused on remarks Commissioner Ozias made during the commissioners’ regular “Reports and Presentations” agenda item. Rather than limiting his comments to county business, Ozias encouraged residents to visit Clean and Prosperous Washington, a website actively campaigning against Initiative 2117, the citizen initiative that sought to repeal the Climate Commitment Act.

A closer look at the website revealed that it was more than an informational resource explaining Climate Commitment Act spending. It was a political advocacy website encouraging Washington voters to oppose the initiative. During his presentation, Commissioner Ozias highlighted approximately $12.5 million in Climate Commitment Act projects affecting Clallam County and encouraged residents to learn what funding could be lost if the initiative passed.

That naturally raised several questions. Should an elected county commissioner use an official board meeting to encourage residents to visit a website advocating for one side of a statewide ballot measure? Should county meetings become venues for political advocacy? Those questions seemed especially relevant because Commissioner Ozias’ largest campaign donor, the Jamestown Corporation, stood to benefit significantly from Climate Commitment Act funding.

Were the Article’s Questions Legitimate?

Earlier this year, the Washington Department of Ecology acknowledged a significant error in one of its emissions analyses for the CCA after outside researchers identified problems with the calculations. Once corrected, the projected greenhouse gas reductions for eight electrification programs dropped from approximately 7.5 million metric tons to roughly 308,000 metric tons — roughly 96% lower than the original estimate.

Ecology maintains that the program delivers benefits beyond the emissions reductions associated with individual projects, but the correction demonstrates that some of the program’s projected benefits were significantly overstated.

What seems much harder to argue is that asking questions about the Climate Commitment Act was somehow incompatible with environmental stewardship. Public policy should withstand scrutiny. If asking where taxpayer money is going, who benefits from it, and whether projected outcomes were accurately measured is enough to disqualify a candidate from consideration, then perhaps the endorsement process deserves as much examination as the policies themselves.

A Different Worldview

As the response from OCA became easier to understand, another section of the organization’s website provided additional context. OCA’s land acknowledgment goes well beyond recognizing the history of the Olympic Peninsula’s tribal communities. It states:

“We acknowledge and honor the chalá·at (Hoh), kʷoʔlí·yot’ (Quileute), qʷidiččaʔa·tx̌ (Makah), nəxʷsƛ̕áy̕əm̕ (Klallam), and t͡ʃə́mqəm (Chemakum) peoples... Colonization has shaped the reality of everyone here today. We take this opportunity to acknowledge that fact and express our desire to engage in the process of understanding our ‘landcestry’ and repairing relationships with both people and land, as an investment in our shared future.”

The statement helps explain the framework through which OCA evaluates public policy and, ultimately, political candidates. Climate policy, tribal sovereignty, historical injustice, and environmental advocacy are presented as interconnected issues rather than separate debates. Viewed through that lens, questions about the Climate Commitment Act are not merely policy disagreements—they challenge a broader worldview.

Do Your Own Homework

Organizations like Olympic Climate Action have every right to endorse candidates. So do political parties, labor unions, business associations, newspapers, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum. But endorsements should be understood for what they are: recommendations made by people with their own philosophies, priorities, experiences, and biases.

This publication also has opinions. Readers know that. The difference is that opinions should never discourage questions. A healthy democracy depends on citizens asking difficult questions, especially when billions of taxpayer dollars and major public policies are involved.

As endorsement lists begin appearing over the coming months, read them with interest—but also with curiosity. Ask who made the decision. Ask whether every candidate was given the same opportunity to participate. Ask whether objective standards were used or whether ideological agreement was the deciding factor.

Then do something endorsements can never replace: read the candidates’ own words, attend forums, watch public meetings, and make up your own mind.

An endorsement tells you what an organization believes.

Only you can decide what you believe.

Today’s Tidbit: Practice What You Preach?

As Olympic Climate Action prepares to endorse candidates this election season, it’s worth taking a look at an essay written by Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias for the group’s 2022 Earth Day publication. In it, Ozias criticizes what he calls “profit for power,” encourages people to travel less by holding Zoom meetings instead of driving, consume less water, and embrace personal sacrifice in the name of addressing climate change.

Since then, Washington’s Climate Commitment Act has transferred millions of dollars to favored projects while increasing fuel costs that fall hardest on working families and those with the lowest incomes. Commissioner Ozias has also traveled to Washington, D.C. twice this year and to Maui for conferences he says were part of representing Clallam County. Readers may reasonably ask how those trips square with his own call to reduce travel whenever possible.

The essay also encourages people to conserve water. Has Commissioner Ozias ever publicly encouraged his campaign’s largest donor, the Jamestown Corporation, to reduce irrigation on its golf course or otherwise conserve water? If not, why not?

Whether you agree or disagree with Ozias’ philosophy, his Earth Day essay offers insight into the values that continue to shape both Olympic Climate Action and one of Clallam County’s longest-serving commissioners.

Read Commissioner Ozias’ essay and decide for yourself.

Leave a comment

Every summer, drought warnings return, along with calls to conserve water. But does more than a century of USGS data from the Dungeness River support the increasingly dire narrative? One CC Watchdog subscriber analyzed the public record dating back to 1923, and, together with criticism from renowned meteorologist Cliff Mass, the findings raise an important question: are Washingtonians getting the full picture?

Like clockwork, summer has arrived—and so has Washington’s annual drought declaration.

The Washington State Department of Ecology has once again declared the entire state to be in drought.

Along the Old Olympic Highway, the needle on the familiar League of Women Voters “Low Flow Alert” sign keeps inching toward “extreme,” warning motorists to conserve water.

Meanwhile, the Jamestown Corporation’s Dungeness River Nature Center is encouraging residents to reduce their water use.

“The snow melting from the mountains feeds the creeks and river below, and with less moisture stored on the ridges, our community down in the valley needs to be especially mindful of water use this season... Conserving water this season is a tangible way to honor the very peaks where our rivers are born.”

It is a message few would disagree with. Conserving water is simply good stewardship.

But it also raises an obvious question.

The same Jamestown Corporation encouraging residents to cut back will also be irrigating its 122-acre golf course throughout the hottest, driest months of the year.

Which leads to another question.

How unusual are these summer low flows, really?

One CC Watchdog subscriber decided not to rely on press releases or advocacy groups. Instead, they downloaded the complete public record from the U.S. Geological Survey’s stream gauge on the Dungeness River near Sequim—more than 100 years of daily flow measurements dating back to 1923—and analyzed the numbers.

The results don’t suggest that nothing has changed. Summer flows appear modestly lower than they were decades ago. But they also don’t support the narrative of a river suddenly collapsing into unprecedented conditions.

The analysis found that average May through October flows have declined only slightly—about 0.5 cubic feet per second per year—and, importantly, that trend was not statistically significant (p = 0.179).

In other words, the long-term record contains enough natural variability that researchers cannot confidently conclude a meaningful long-term trend exists from this data alone.

Comparing earlier decades with recent decades tells a similar story.

Recent summers average roughly seven to eight percent lower than the early record, but the river still follows the same seasonal pattern it always has. Snowmelt fills the river during late spring. By August and September, flows naturally decline as the Olympic snowpack disappears.

That pattern has remained remarkably consistent for over a century. The hydrographs comparing early and recent decades are strikingly similar despite the modest reduction in late-summer flow.

Perhaps most surprising is how often the river has historically fallen below today’s warning thresholds.

According to the analysis:

• Flows below 180 cubic feet per second occurred in 98 percent of recorded years.

• Flows below 150 cfs occurred in 94 percent of years.

• Even flows below 100 cfs occurred in nearly half of all years on record.

In other words, low summer flows are not a new phenomenon. They are characteristic of rivers in the Olympic rain shadow. It’s all laid out in this video:

The report’s conclusion is difficult to ignore:

“The data do not support narratives of sudden catastrophic collapse outside historical experience... Facts over hype.”

Interestingly, these conclusions echo concerns raised by one of the Pacific Northwest’s best-known meteorologists.

Earlier this year, University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass questioned Washington’s drought declaration, arguing that the term “drought” is often misunderstood.

Mass noted that while snowpack was below normal in some areas, precipitation had generally been above average, reservoirs remained full, soils were moist, and forecasts called for additional spring precipitation. Most importantly, he argued that a drought is defined not simply by weather conditions but by significant impacts on people, agriculture, or ecosystems.

Looking back at 2025, Mass pointed out that Washington agriculture produced excellent crops, reservoirs never approached critical levels, and hydropower production remained close to long-term averages. His conclusion was straightforward: the dire warnings simply did not match the observed impacts.

That doesn’t mean water conservation isn’t worthwhile.
It doesn’t mean salmon don’t face challenges.
It doesn’t mean river management isn’t important.

But it does suggest there is room for a more nuanced public conversation.

When government agencies declare another drought, are they describing an unprecedented crisis—or a seasonal pattern that has characterized this watershed for generations?

It also raises a broader question familiar to many CC Watchdog readers.

Throughout the past year, county residents have repeatedly been told that various public policies are supported by “rock solid” science. Whether the subject is harm reduction, homelessness, land management, or drought, citizens often discover that equally credentialed experts interpret the same evidence quite differently.

Science is strongest when competing ideas can be examined openly—not when one narrative is treated as beyond question.

The USGS river data are public.
The Department of Ecology’s declarations are public.
Cliff Mass’s analysis is public.

Residents can review the information themselves and decide whether the annual drought narrative fully reflects what the numbers actually show.

Dungeness River Flow Trends

668KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Today’s Tidbit: Another Serious Criminal Record Lands in Clallam County

A week ago, Mishaela Joene Cutler, 24, was booked into the Clallam County Jail on charges of possession of stolen property, obstructing a law enforcement officer, and residential burglary.

But this isn’t her first encounter with the criminal justice system.

In 2020, at age 18, Cutler made headlines across Washington after prosecutors in Skamania County charged her with attempted murder, first-degree arson, burglary, and possession of stolen firearms. According to investigators, home security footage appeared to show Cutler pouring an accelerant around vehicles inside a carport and leading it to the door of an occupied residence before setting the fire. Investigators also alleged the home’s smoke detectors had been disabled. She was arrested and held on $500,000 bail.

Now, six years later, Cutler is in Clallam County facing a new set of criminal charges.

Every time someone with a lengthy criminal history enters our local justice system, Clallam County taxpayers pick up the tab—housing, meals, medical care while incarcerated, and, if indigent, legal defense.

County leaders often speak about compassion and expanding services to those in need. But residents are left to ask another question: What message are we sending to repeat offenders when communities known for generous public services and limited accountability become places they repeatedly end up?

Whether by design or by reputation, Clallam County increasingly appears to be attracting people with significant criminal histories—leaving local taxpayers to bear the financial and public safety costs.

Correction: Emily Randall’s Signs Are in Compliance

Yesterday, I published an article titled “Hypocrisy on Parade” in which I stated that Congresswoman Emily Randall’s campaign signs were not in compliance with Washington State campaign sign requirements.

I’m thankful for an engaged CC Watchdog readership who pointed out that I was wrong.

Because Emily Randall is a candidate for federal office, her yard signs are governed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rather than Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). Under the applicable federal rules, her signs are in compliance. I apologize to Congresswoman Randall and her campaign for incorrectly stating otherwise.

If anything, this experience reinforced what I believe the article should have been about in the first place.

Rather than criticizing Emily Randall’s campaign, it should have highlighted just how confusing and inconsistent campaign regulations have become.

A candidate running for Congress follows one set of disclaimer requirements. A candidate running for county office follows another. Tribal elections appear to follow yet another set of rules, with different—or in some cases no—requirements regarding sponsorship identification, party designation, addresses, or font sizes.

It is entirely possible to stand along a parade route in Clallam County and see three campaign signs side by side, each subject to a different legal standard simply because of the office being sought. That strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and difficult for ordinary citizens to navigate.

Where I continue to believe hypocrisy exists is not in Emily Randall’s compliance with federal law, but in how campaign laws are enforced and discussed locally.

Leadership in the Clallam County Democratic Party supports a Public Disclosure Commission complaint seeking tens of thousands of dollars in penalties against Jake Seegers over campaign disclosure issues. At the same time, when local Democratic trustee Tim Wheeler was filmed causing thousands of dollars in damage to public land during an act of environmental activism, the party had nothing to say publicly about it.

Reasonable people can disagree on those situations, but they help explain why I titled the original article “Hypocrisy on Parade.”

That said, facts matter. I got one wrong, and when that happens, the right thing to do is correct it.

Emily, I owe you a smoothie.

Tomorrow: Slight Change in Randall’s Schedule

Leave a comment

When an independent candidate makes a mistake, Democratic leaders demand tens of thousands of dollars in fines. When a sitting Democratic congresswoman appears to make the same mistake, there's silence. Read why this is about far more than campaign signs.

Clallam County was alive on Saturday. The Forks and Port Angeles parades were incredibly well attended, with residents celebrating America’s 250th Birthday. But something stood out if you looked closely at the photo:

The “Emily Randall” sign behind the Statue of Liberty.

Here’s a close-up of the sign design. Notice anything?

The sponsorship line—“Paid for by Emily Randall for Congress”—is dramatically smaller than the main text. The “E” in Emily towers about 9 inches tall, the “R” in Randall around 3.5 inches, while the required sponsor message shrinks to roughly 1/3 of an inch. No campaign address is displayed either.

It feels petty to point this out—and it is. Yet these exact issues prompted Clallam County Democratic leadership to file a complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and push for the first $30,000 in fines against the Seegers campaign.

Jake Seegers has already spent $3,000 of campaign funds to bring his signs into compliance. That money, combined with significant volunteer hours spent reprinting, replacing, and redistributing signs, has diverted scarce resources away from voter outreach, events, and other core campaign priorities.

With multiple complaints now filed, the total penalties being sought against his shoestring independent campaign approach $80,000. What are the odds that Clallam County Democratic leaders meticulously scrutinized Seegers’ signs but somehow overlooked similar issues on Emily Randall’s materials? Or is it far more likely they are selectively weaponizing the PDC to harass a political rival while turning a blind eye to violations on their own side?

The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

Emily Randall benefits from paid staff, a full Democratic machine to design, print, deploy, and monitor compliant signs, and resources to fight any challenges.

Jake Seegers, running as an independent for County Commissioner, has no paid staff and no party backing. Just volunteers trying to get his message out on a shoestring budget. Everything in the system is stacked against the independent outsider.

One critic, posting as “Lisa,” took to CC Watchdog to blast the campaign (at the time managed by me, Jeff Tozzer). She lectured on transparency and accountability, accusing the campaign of deflection instead of ownership. She questioned what kind of leadership Seegers would bring and floated conspiratorial hints about hidden influences.

Yes, the campaign could have—and should have—caught it. Mistakes happen. But it’s revealing that a sitting Congresswoman and her professional staff made the same error. Even the PDC itself doesn’t always get it right.

The PDC’s Own Transparency Failures

The agency charged with enforcing campaign transparency in Washington state settled a lawsuit after being accused of violating the state’s Open Public Meetings Act for nearly two years. They agreed to pay $25,000 and send commissioners for extra training.

The commission had repeatedly entered closed sessions without properly announcing the purpose or expected end time, as required by law.

Seasoned officials stumble too. Longtime Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias (a Democrat) received a formal written warning from the PDC for late C-4 reports in his 2023 campaign.

This wasn’t his first brush with the commission. Earlier complaints in 2019–2020 highlighted issues with expenditure details, filing fees, and balance discrepancies—challenges his wife and treasurer attributed to being first-time candidates thrust into complex rules on short notice.

They amended reports and worked through the process.

The point? PDC rules are intricate, compliance is burdensome, and unintentional errors are common—even for experienced politicians with party support and paid help.

Yet Democratic leadership in Clallam County is demanding up to $80,000 in fines from Jake Seegers’ independent campaign. This isn’t equal enforcement. It’s selective harassment designed to tie up resources, deter volunteers, and discourage anyone who dares challenge the machine without big-money backing.

Running as an independent is already an uphill battle: no coordinated party infrastructure, no shared legal/compliance teams, and all the scrutiny with none of the support. When the system piles on petty fines while looking the other way at similar (or worse) issues on the other side, it reinforces what many voters already suspect—politics is rigged against the little guy.

Voters deserve real transparency and accountability. That starts with consistent application of the rules, not weaponizing them against independents while insiders skate by. Jake Seegers’ campaign continues fighting not just for votes, but for a fair shot in a system that too often favors the connected over the committed.

Today’s Tidbit: Coming Soon to Port Angeles

Last September, CC Watchdog reported on registered sex offender Joseph Alaxander Bell, who was booked into the Clallam County Jail on theft.

Bell’s criminal history spans years and includes arrests involving domestic violence, assault, theft, and repeated contacts with law enforcement related to drug use and overdoses.

Bell was arrested again on Saturday for burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and malicious mischief.

His story raises a question that deserves to be asked: after years of taxpayer-funded services, free transit, harm reduction supplies, emergency medical responses, jail stays, and court-appointed attorneys, has the harm been reduced for Joseph Bell—or for the community?

Later this month, taxpayers will have an opportunity to see the county’s newest response to chronic homelessness.

On Monday, July 27, Peninsula Behavioral Health will celebrate the opening of North View, a new 36-unit Permanent Supportive Housing complex at 138 W. 2nd Street in Port Angeles. According to PBH, the project is designed to provide stable housing for people experiencing chronic homelessness while connecting residents with behavioral health services intended to promote long-term stability, health, and recovery.

The building includes amenities many working families don’t enjoy in their own homes, including air conditioning, dishwashers, EV charging stations, a dog-washing station, and panoramic views of the harbor and Olympic Mountains. It is also considered low-barrier housing, meaning alcohol and drug use may be discouraged but, by itself, are not grounds for eviction.

The project has also become part of this year’s county commissioner campaign. On his reelection website, Commissioner Mike French highlights North View as an example of the kind of affordable housing he supports and points to it as a significant community investment.

North View is designed to prioritize the chronically homeless who struggle with addiction and frequent incarceration. In other words, Joseph Bell could ultimately trade life on the streets for a rooftop terrace and dishwasher.

Whether North View represents a turning point in addressing chronic homelessness or simply another expensive chapter in Clallam County’s current approach is a question the public will soon be able to evaluate for themselves.

Taxpayers helped fund this project. If you’ve been wondering what that investment looks like, mark Monday, July 27, on your calendar and take the tour. Then ask yourself the question that matters most: Will projects like North View produce better outcomes—for the people living there and for the community paying for them?

Leave a comment

In this Sundays With Seegeers, Clallam County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers argues that local government has become more focused on managing public perception than improving public outcomes. Citing public safety concerns, rising homelessness, overdose deaths, and examples from county boards and agencies, Seegers contends that officials increasingly respond to criticism with messaging campaigns, rebranding, and public relations rather than changing policies that residents say aren't working. His message is straightforward: successful government doesn't need to convince people it's succeeding—the results should speak for themselves.

Public Safety is the Foundation

During an April 17th Public Safety Town Hall, I asked the audience two questions. First, who considers public safety one of their highest priorities?

Nearly every hand in the room went up.

Then I asked who feels safer today than they did four years ago.

Out of 172 attendees, only three people raised their hands.

One of them was County Commissioner Mike French.

That response stands in stark contrast to what many Clallam County residents are experiencing.

Throughout the evening, residents shared stories of burglary, assault, trespassing, drug activity, vehicle prowling, and growing concerns about public safety.

Mitch Zenobi, a nearly seven-foot-tall logger, described feeling compelled to reach for a pistol while fueling his truck near Tumwater Creek after several men emerged from the woods and approached him one dark morning.

Port Angeles resident Scott Waldron recently wrote to the City Council after experiencing a burglary, seeing an armed masked trespasser on his property, and watching individuals prowl vehicles in his neighborhood.

His words capture what many residents are feeling:

“We cannot take our son to the park without seeing people using drugs on the playsets. We cannot walk downtown without feeling unsafe as transients block public walkways. We cannot go to the grocery store without witnessing drug deals in the parking lot.”

Waldron concluded:

“There is a fine line between progressiveness and negligence, and another between compassion and complacency. Somewhere along the way, our city crossed both.”

Many residents feel less safe. Yet local leaders continue insisting that current policies are working. That disconnect raises an important question:

What happens when outcomes fail to support the narrative?

Increasingly, the answer appears to be: More messaging.

In fact, instead of pivoting from failed policies, the commissioners, along with county departments, boards, and agencies, seem to be digging in their heels—devoting taxpayer resources to coordinated messaging campaigns designed to shape public perception rather than reevaluate policies that continue to produce disappointing outcomes.

Housing First Didn’t Work

For more than two decades, Clallam County has embraced Housing First, an approach that prioritizes permanent housing without requiring sobriety, employment, or participation in treatment. The model has been championed by Clallam leaders since the county’s first 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness in 2005.

The model is extremely expensive, consuming tens of millions of taxpayer dollars locally. Peninsula Behavioral Health’s North View Apartments cost over $350,000 per unit. Thirty-two of the thirty-six apartments are studios or one-bedroom. Recent housing proposals discussed locally have exceeded $500,000 per unit.

Housing First has long been promoted as the proven solution to homelessness, but it has failed both nationally and locally. According to HUD data, Washington expanded permanent supportive housing from 5,610 units in 2007 to 28,719 units in 2024, an increase of more than 400%.

During that same period, transitional housing declined from 11,061 units to 3,929 units.

Meanwhile, statewide homelessness increased from 23,279 to 31,554 people. Unsheltered homelessness surged from 6,522 to 16,222 people—an increase of nearly 150%.

Clallam County has followed the same trend. Homelessness and unsheltered homelessness continue to rise.

So has the waiting list for permanent supportive housing. In 2024, approximately 2,408 households were on local waiting lists for permanent supportive housing.

By 2025 — only twelve months later — the waitlist had nearly doubled.

Yet the county’s Point-in-Time Count identified only 310 homeless individuals in 2025, including 176 people living unsheltered outdoors.

How does a county with roughly 310 homeless individuals end up with nearly 4,500 households waiting for permanent housing?

During a December 2025 Homelessness Task Force meeting, Peninsula Housing Authority Executive Director Debbi Tesch provided the answer.

“That does not represent just people living in Clallam County. Anybody can apply for our housing. It’s not unusual to have people living in California apply to live here.”

In a county struggling with affordability, addiction, and homelessness, why would thousands of applicants outside Clallam County be allowed to compete for housing with the hundreds of unsheltered individuals living here locally?

Federal fair housing rules and HUD funding requirements have often limited or complicated the use of local residency preferences, leading many housing programs to prioritize vulnerability and need over locality.

More recently, however, federal policymakers have increasingly recognized the shortcomings of Housing First.

HUD reforms signal a shift toward transitional housing, accountability, local prioritization, and competitive funding rather than automatic renewals for permanent supportive housing.

Yet local leaders appear determined to resist that shift.

During a December 2, 2025 Homelessness Task Force (HTF) meeting, attorney and task force member Charlie Commeree discussed potential ways to preserve permanent supportive housing funding despite anticipated federal changes.

Referring to Serenity House properties, he seemed to suggest creative non-compliance to continue to secure HUD funding for permanent supportive housing:

“So, you could sell them to a trust and then have Serenity House rent it from the trust and then you rent it out to the tenants. If they can’t stay in the same unit, then you rename the units…then people don’t have to move.”

“I’d really like to see HUD sniff that out,” Commeree continued. “And try to prevail in court. I think we do that.”

Serenity House Executive Director Sharon Maggard replied:

“Those are the kinds of things that we need to come up with in order to survive the next three years.”

Later, Commeree suggested legal action and additional strategies to preserve the existing system, arguing that the federal changes were intentional and motivated by “cruelty.”

The discussion was revealing.

Rather than asking why homelessness continues to rise despite decades of Housing First policies, the focus was on preserving the existing model and finding ways around reforms intended to change it.

The Messaging Attack on “Misinformation”

During a February Homelessness Task Force meeting, the conversation shifted to public messaging.

Task force members discussed developing a communications strategy to address what they described as misconceptions regarding homelessness funding and Housing First policies.

The stated goal was to develop a “unified, accurate and compelling message” aligned with the county’s five-year plan.

“Right now there are significant misconceptions in the community about homelessness funding…these misunderstandings have contributed to frustration and a perception that resources are being mis-managed… My proposal is to convene a small subcommittee, beginning in the spring of 2026, to begin developing this presentation, with the goal of presenting to the board of county commissioners in the fall of 2026. This would give us the time needed to thoroughly develop a unified, accurate and compelling message that aligns with our 5-year plan and strengthens trust and understanding in our community.”

The problem, apparently, was not the outcomes.

The problem was public perception.

The Expansion of Harm

The same pattern is evident in Clallam County’s approach to harm reduction.

Since her tenure began in 2018, Health Officer Allison Berry, the Board of Health, and the county commissioners have continually championed and expanded the distribution of syringes, pipes, foil, and boofing kits and other drug-use supplies.

They argue these programs save lives.

Yet overdose deaths in Clallam County have more than tripled since 2018, rising from 8 deaths to 25 in 2025. Over the same period, overdose deaths increased by 169% statewide and just 2% nationwide. A group of states that have generally taken a more restrictive approach to distributing drug-use supplies saw overdose deaths rise by only 29%.

Meanwhile, Sheriff Brian King told KONP’s Todd Ortloff in March that it’s hard to find a crime that is not motivated by drugs.

Federal agencies have also begun reassessing aggressive harm reduction strategies.

In 2025, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) prohibited the use of federal grant funding for drug-use supplies.

Clallam County’s response was not to reduce distribution.

Instead, the commissioners replaced the lost SAMHSA funding with approximately $100,000 annually from opioid settlement funds.

At the same time, Harm Reduction Health Center (HRHC) activity has continued to expand, despite growing public concern. Monthly encounters reportedly increased from 212 in 2023 to 508 in 2024 and 974 in 2025. HRHC’s budget passed half a million dollars in 2025.

For years, many residents were unaware of the full scope of harm reduction activities occurring in Clallam County.

During a February Board of Health meeting, an HHS representative explained:

“For a long time, like Dr. Berry said, we were keeping harm reduction a little bit under the radar to keep it more private.”

As public awareness increased, community members who had successfully navigated recovery began raising warning flags about current harm reduction approaches.

In interviews, Chelsea Jones, Stacey Richards, Ron Davis, David Rogers and Mary Bickar have all expressed a similar message: accountability—not harm reduction—saved their lives.

Anniemarie Hogenboom echoed these sentiments during her podcast interview. She was given an opportunity, along with accountability and clear expectations. That combination helped her earn trust, rebuild her life, and maintain her recovery.

But instead of listening to county residents who have experienced addiction and recovery firsthand, Clallam public health staff and the commissioners continue discussing ways to counter what the health officer has described as “misinformation.”

Commissioner Mark Ozias praised public education efforts and suggested the county may eventually need a dedicated Public Information Officer to expand them.

During the May Board of Health meeting, Commissioner Mike French suggested additional presentations to community groups.

Again, the response to public skepticism was not policy reconsideration.

It was messaging.

The same pattern continues elsewhere.

The Concerted Effort

Public concern erupted after citizens learned that shower vouchers to the Shore Aquatic Center had been distributed to active drug users at the Harm Reduction Health Center without pool members being informed.

Rather than addressing public safety concerns directly, the pool board rebranded the “Shower Voucher Program” as a far more polished-sounding “Community Hygiene Access Program.”

The Clallam Conservation District provides another example.

After securing a new $5 parcel fee without a vote from the people, and despite 1,032 signatures opposing it, district leadership discussed the need to improve marketing and outreach.

“We realized that we need to tell our story better.”

As staffing costs climb from $442,000 in 2025 to $542,000 in 2026, the CCD has disclosed plans to spend a portion of its ten-year, $2 million taxpayer-funded windfall on consultants and outreach efforts designed to communicate the value of programs that taxpayers were never given the opportunity to vote on in the first place.

The county’s noxious weeds program offers a similar example.

Despite a multi-million dollar budget deficit, the county commissioners refused to cut a $13,343 budgeted payment in 2026 to the Master Gardener program to help “sell” the Noxious Weed department’s agenda to taxpayers by providing volunteer outreach.

During a 2026 departmental budget meeting last year, Noxious Weed Control Coordinator Christina St. James explained:

“Herbicides is a very emotional topic for a lot of people, and it’s not always based on the facts…”

Enter the Master Gardeners, tasked with calming citizen concerns.

Clea Rome from WSU Extension expounded:

“So, the Master Gardener’s core role is to help reassure the public in day-to-day interface.”

Ignoring Outcomes. Embracing Messaging.

The pattern is difficult to ignore.

When policies fail, county officials increasingly turn to persuasion instead of acknowledging shortcomings and exploring alternatives.

Housing First advocates discuss communications strategies to address “misconceptions.”

Health officials discuss combating “misinformation.”
Programs are rebranded.
Consultants are hired.
Marketing plans are developed.

Public money is increasingly being used not only to provide services, but to shape public perception of those services.

Government has an obligation to inform citizens. But there is a significant difference between informing the public and using taxpayer dollars to defend government policies from criticism.

Increasingly, Clallam County appears to be crossing that line.

Residents are told homelessness is being addressed while homelessness rises.
They are told harm reduction is working while overdose deaths climb.
They are told public safety is improving, while fewer and fewer people feel safe.
And when citizens disagree, they are often told they have been misinformed.

But citizens do not need a taxpayer-funded messaging campaign to tell them what they see with their own eyes.

They see encampments.

They see public drug use.

They see environmental degradation.

They see businesses struggling.

They see families avoiding parks and public spaces.

They see the condition of the waterfront district.

They see friends and neighbors moving away.

Outcomes matter.

If streets become safer, people will notice.
If homelessness declines, people will notice.
If addiction decreases, people will notice.

Successful programs do not require expensive campaigns to convince the public they are working.

The results speak for themselves.

What can you do?

If you believe outcomes matter more than messaging, let your elected officials know. Contact the Clallam County Commissioners, the County’s Health & Human Services Department, and the Homelessness Task Force. Tell them you want policies measured by results—not by public relations campaigns.

Attend meetings of the Board of Health, Board of County Commissioners, and the Homelessness Task Force whenever possible. Share your perspective during public comment, whether in person, virtually, or by email. Respectful civic engagement remains one of the most powerful tools citizens have to influence public policy.

All three county commissioners also serve on the Board of Health, you can contact them by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.

Democracy works best when citizens participate. If you want different outcomes, make your voice heard.

Leave a comment

Editor’s note: This blog is published by Jeff Tozzer, the former campaign manager of Jake Seegers. None of the content here has ever been approved or paid for by Jake Seegers for Commissioner. To learn more, visit JakeSeegers.com.

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

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.