A crisis of credibility

Charter Review Commission races against time and trust

The Clallam County Charter Review Commission was supposed to be a citizen-led effort to improve local government—what the public got instead is a dysfunctional, agenda-driven body mired in hypocrisy, secrecy, and infighting. From activists-turned-commissioners who thwart the public process, to a survey process flipped on and off like a light switch, the CRC has veered off course. With just six meetings left to get items on November’s ballot, only a transparent, public-centered reset can restore trust and salvage meaningful reform.

Commissioner Mike French, Chair of the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, has a reputation for playing strictly by the rules—but only when those rules protect his narrative.

He routinely reminds the public that work sessions are for commissioners, not the public (unless a member of the audience supports his stance). He enforces a strict three-minute limit on public comments, often cutting speakers off or shutting down virtual feeds—unless, of course, the comment aligns with his ideology (like evicting residents from 3 Crabs Road in the name of climate resilience). In his view, commissioners are not allowed to respond to public comment—unless he feels the need to defend himself, as he did last week.

French responded to outrage over a Facebook post in which he claimed that “property destruction is not only fine, it’s usually the only way we’ve ever seen actual change happen.”

French said the comment was made years ago in a private conversation among friends and was taken out of context. He said he regretted the phrasing—but then doubled down, insisting that protest movements “we look back on fondly” often included property damage, and that shouldn’t discredit the cause.

But French’s approval of destruction seems highly selective.

On January 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, French condemned the violence and property damage, placing blame squarely on the then-president. He didn’t reflect fondly on that protest. He didn’t say property destruction was a necessary evil. He didn’t talk about history. He called it what it was: unacceptable.

So why is property destruction only unacceptable when it comes from people he disagrees with? That’s not a principle—it’s a double standard.

Are Washington State residents prepared to look back “fondly” at the protests and property destruction that happened during the summer of 2020?

Protesting publicly, governing privately

This inconsistency isn’t limited to Commissioner French. Charter Review Commissioner Nina Sarmiento offers her own version of situational standards. Recently, she appeared in a protest video out in the woods, wearing a COVID mask and chanting to block logging operations in the Elwha watershed.

In the video, Sarmiento dials Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove, and when the call goes to voicemail, she and fellow activists express disappointment at being unable to engage directly with an elected official.

A masked Sarmiento leaves a message on Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove’s voicemail, chanting, “Dave, don’t cut the grove.”

But back in the county courthouse, where Sarmiento sits unmasked beside 14 other Charter Review Commission (CRC) members, she participates in the very Water Steward Committee that has taken steps to shut out public engagement. While preparing for a joint meeting with area tribes, Sarmiento pushed for cutting out public comment altogether, reasoning that tribes shouldn’t have to listen to the public, since that meeting was for them. Her protest persona demands transparency from elected leaders, while her commissioner role actively prevents it.

That Elwha protest also has real consequences. The logging halt threatens a significant revenue source for Clallam County—money that would support schools, fire departments, and hospitals facing a shrinking tax base. It also pauses paychecks for loggers, truck drivers, and contractors already struggling in an economically depressed region.

While those workers are sidelined, they need not worry—last week the County Commissioners sent $51,610.11 to the Center for Inclusive Entrepreneurship (CIE) that helps locals start their own businesses.

The CIE is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) whose track record—despite its name—has been criticized for helping everyone except straight white males.

From the CIE website.

It's hard to justify abandoning jobs and revenue in favor of performative activism and politically convenient grant funding.

Robust public disengagement

Meanwhile, inside the CRC, the League of Women Voters has become a driving force behind the Water Steward initiative. The League’s secretary, Susan Fisch, is the chairwoman of the CRC, and under her leadership, the Water Steward concept has been pushed to the forefront—prioritizing it over more urgent, widely supported reforms.

At the CRC’s first town hall in Sequim, 77 residents attended—many of whom were activists affiliated with the League supporting the Water Steward idea. After the League activists spoke, Chairwoman Fisch ended the event an hour early and prevented commissioners from responding to public questions. Commissioner Jim Stoffer later provided false justification to the Sequim Gazette, claiming that commissioners weren’t legally allowed to engage with the public. Unsurprisingly, attendance at subsequent town halls dropped sharply.

Then the CRC began studying ways to reduce public comment altogether, including a nearly hour-long session with the county civil attorney to explore how the Open Public Meetings Act could be used to limit input. That strategy has since been implemented by the Water Steward Committee.

All of this unfolded while another controversy erupted: the survey debacle.

The survey that wouldn’t die

The Town Hall Outreach Committee—originally intended to handle event logistics—unilaterally created a public priorities survey without commission approval. However, it was passed and briefly became the official public outreach tool. Then, amid public criticism, it was pulled. A day later, it reappeared at a Clallam Bay town hall. Then it popped up on the county website. When questioned, Commissioner Patti Morris, who drafted it, announced she had removed it again.

Now, she’s announced the survey will go live once more.

That’s five changes of heart—on again, off again, back on, then off, and now on—with no formal vote or direction from the full commission. It’s a level of disorganization that undermines trust and makes the public feel manipulated.

This isn’t the fault of one commissioner. It’s a failure of leadership. Chairwoman Fisch has allowed the CRC to devolve into personal drama, favoritism, and political theater. She’s now spending time arranging nametags before meetings to ensure her allies sit beside her—bringing the tone of county government down to junior high levels. In the process, real progress has stalled.

And despite the presence of retired lawyers, judges, and law enforcement professionals, the commission has repeatedly violated Robert’s Rules of Order, flirted with violations of the Open Public Meetings Act, and disregarded the constitutionally protected civil liberties of its own members. Legal questions are best left to the county’s actual legal team—because the CRC clearly isn’t equipped.

But there is still a way forward.

One last chance for redemption

Tonight, the commission will review a new survey—a real one—based on more than 30 issues submitted by the public. If approved, it will let residents rank their priorities and allow the CRC to move forward with integrity. After receiving survey results, the commission could begin drafting ballot measures while confirming their legality through the county attorney.

It’s a clear, simple strategy: listen to the people, check the law, drop the agendas, and get to work. But there’s one problem—despite requests to include the draft survey in the agenda, the Executive Committee (Susan Fisch, Mark Hodgson, and Chris Noble) chose not to attach a copy. Commissioners are being asked to approve something they can’t see, and the public can’t review it either, since it's missing from the publicly available agenda. (A copy of the proposed survey is available at the bottom of this article.)

The CRC has only six meetings left before its deadline to submit measures for the November ballot. Time is running out. The opportunity to rebuild public trust is now—and it starts with rejecting hypocrisy and embracing transparency.

Engage

Today, during the County Commissioners’ 9:00 work session, Peninsula Behavioral Health will provide an update on their luxury homeless housing project in Port Angeles. Instructions for attending in person or virtually are here.

• Tonight, the Charter Review Commission will meet in Port Angeles at 5:30. Agenda items include discussions on ethics, surveys, and the Water Steward Committee. Instructions for virtual or in-person attendance are here.

• Tomorrow, on Tuesday, May 13th, the County Commissioners will hold their weekly meeting at 10:00 am. Public comment is allowed. For virtual and in-person attendance instructions, click here.

---

Sent to all CRC members on May 5th.

Dear Charter Review Commissioners,

I continue to be confused about our overall strategy. I see that the poll has gone live, despite it having been withdrawn at our last meeting. It appears to be structured not as a poll to determine which issues should be prioritized, but rather as a vote on potential ballot items—as if these decisions have already been made. What is the purpose of this approach?

Additionally, I’m unclear on how the Town Hall Outreach Committee came to be responsible for drafting surveys. I don’t recall that being established as a task of the committee, nor do I remember any communication to the full commission that this work would be delegated in that way.

With that in mind, I am requesting that the survey draft below be added to the upcoming agenda for commission consideration. This version is different in key ways: the explanations are short and understandable, it focuses on identifying public priorities rather than predicting votes, and it includes all topics raised in public comments and Town Hall meetings. If I’ve missed anything, it can easily be added.

If we choose not to move forward with this type of survey, I would ask that the Commission revisit an idea I raised months ago: that each commissioner place stickers—perhaps ten—on their individually chosen top ten issues, in full public view. This method would allow for transparency and may help address the growing public concern about the perception that discussions are happening behind closed doors. I know my priorities have changed since engaging with the public, and I'd appreciate an opportunity to revisit my rankings.

For those concerned that a list of 27 to 32 items might be overwhelming, I’d remind you that we are working with an incredibly engaged public this term. Moreover, 15 of us worked through prioritizing these issues earlier, and at that time, I did not hear that the task was unmanageable. There are five items at the bottom of the draft survey that currently lack descriptions; I’ve forgotten exactly what those amendments pertain to, but they can easily be clarified before publication.

Thank you,
Jeff

--------

The Clallam County Charter Review Commission wants your input on which issues should be prioritized as we evaluate how county government functions. Please review the list and select up to ten items by [end date].

Note: The issue of how the County Coroner is selected has been excluded from this list, as a recent change in state law means it will appear on an upcoming ballot.

• Code of Ethics with civil penalties: Currently, there is a Code of Ethics for elected officials, but the Board of Commissioners removed penalties for violations. This amendment could establish enforceable penalties.

• Aligning elections with WA State Constitution: This amendment would hold elections at the precinct level, vet voters, and require hand-counting ballots.

• Reforming Board of Commissioner committee appointments: This amendment could change how members are appointed to various county boards, such as the Trails Advisory Board, Animal Solutions Advisory Committee, and Board of Equalization.

• Recusal requirement for commissioners: Would mandate that County Commissioners recuse themselves from votes where they have a conflict of interest.

• Restrictions on elected officials' advocacy: Would limit commissioners' ability to endorse policies that directly benefit organizations they are involved with.

• Government-to-Government Relations and Training: This amendment would require county officials to undergo government-to-government training to better understand and respect local tribes as sovereign governments, improving collaboration and mutual respect.

• Restrictions on board membership for commissioners: This amendment would restrict commissioners from sitting on boards of organizations that receive county funding or influence county policies, addressing potential conflicts of interest.

• Add “American governments” to Intergovernmental Relations section 1.20: This amendment would ensure that any Clallam County partnerships with foreign nations are subject to federal oversight to prevent conflicts of interest or foreign influence.

• Return to district voting: This amendment would ensure that only voters within a district vote for their county commissioner in both the primary and general elections, rather than countywide.

• Elected Director of the Department of Community Development: Clallam County is the only county in the U.S. with an elected DCD director, rather than appointed, which presents unique benefits and challenges.

• Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): Voters would rank candidates in order of preference.

• Charter Review Commission frequency: This would change the review cycle from every five years to ten.

• Increased public engagement: Could require quarterly town halls with the Board of Commissioners.

• Public access to meetings: Would mandate greater transparency in decision-making processes involving public funds and require that meetings be held on land governed by county policy and state law.

• Board of County Commissioners spending transparency: This amendment would require detailed financial reporting.

• Budget town halls: Would ensure that budget presentations are free, public, and interactive.

• Fair bidding process: Could level the playing field for local businesses bidding against foreign corporations that avoid fees and taxes.

• General fund reserve minimum: This amendment would establish a fiscal reserve threshold to ensure long-term financial stability.

• Transparency in public funds to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs): This amendment would require financial transparency from any NGO the county contracts with, ensuring that public funds are allocated to organizations with clear and accessible financial records.

• Tax increases by voter approval: This amendment would require voter approval for any future property or sales tax increases.

• Public Defender’s Office: Clallam Public Defender’s Office is currently a private nonprofit that receives funding from the county. This amendment would incorporate it into county government.

• Independent hearing examiner: Would ensure that land use and zoning decisions are made impartially, free from political influence.

• Trust land transfer program: Affects the county’s collaboration with the Department of Natural Resources in managing forestland.

• Lower permit costs for property and business owners: Would reduce financial barriers for development.

• Establishment of a Water Steward: Would create a county position focused on long-term water management.

• Requirement to notify Bureau of Indian Affairs on adverse effects: Would mandate the county notify the BIA when land use changes affect county interests.

• Increase number of County Commissioners: Increase the number of commissioners from 3 to 5.

• Clarify vacancy language for commissioners & elected officials

• Define Auditor, Treasurer, and CFO Responsibilities

• Revise Procedures for Amending the Charter

• Define the duties of the Clerk of the Board which are currently unclear

• Clarify vacancy language for the charter