Cut out of the process

Commission prioritizes ballot items without completing public outreach

The Clallam County Charter Review Commission is rushing ahead with seven major ballot proposals, despite incomplete public engagement and unclear decision-making. Key priorities were chosen behind closed doors, sidelining community input and leaving both commissioners and citizens questioning the process. As transparency fades, the CRC’s actions raise serious concerns about who’s really driving the agenda.

Despite receiving more than 30 suggestions from the public on potential priorities and not having completed its outreach efforts, the Clallam County Charter Review Commission (CRC) has already identified seven issues it expects to advance to the November 2025 ballot.

The proposed ballot priorities are:

• Should County Commissioners be elected by district or countywide?

• Should County Commissioners recuse themselves from participating in non-government organizations?

• Should the Charter create an ethics board or commission? Should it mandate ethical standards and civil penalties for violations?

• Should the Charter create a Water Steward position to collect and analyze water-related information?

• How many County Commissioners should Clallam County elect—three or five?

• How frequently should the Charter Review Commission meet—every three, five, or ten years?

• Should the Charter consider adopting ranked choice voting?

Unclear process raises concerns

How the CRC arrived at these seven priorities remains unclear. The selection process was not based solely on individual commissioner rankings, nor was it clearly driven by public emails or comments. Efforts by commissioners to learn how these priorities were chosen have been rebuffed.

Commissioner Patti Morris referenced past survey work and stressed the need to limit the number of questions posed to the public. “People do not want to be faced with a very long survey to answer, they just won’t do it,” she explained. “We did pick issues that we felt had surfaced to the top from our priority list,” though she provided no supporting data.

“We did a lot of deep diving,” said Commissioner Jim Stoffer, a member of the subcommittee that selected the priorities. While he suggested additional questions may be added later, he did not offer any procedure or timeline.

The subcommittee provided no explanation for why more than seven ballot items would supposedly overwhelm voters, while multiple rounds of surveys would not.

Public input ignored?

Some commissioners reminded the public that they could still submit new issues or support current issues by letting the commission know. However, this has already been happening for months, and the current process appears to disregard many of those community suggestions.

“We need to get on with our work,” said Morris, when asked why several raised issues hadn't even been discussed. “Let us move forward.”

This urgency seems inconsistent, considering the CRC spent over six hours debating a single-sentence change to its bylaws that would have limited commissioners’ free speech. That amendment failed. The CRC's approach to time management remains inconsistent and unclear.

Shutting down discussion

As a commissioner, when I asked for clarity about why some priorities advanced while others were dropped, citing specific examples, Commissioner Stoffer cut off the conversation: “I call for the question.” Under Robert’s Rules of Order, this motion ends debate and forces a vote. Chairwoman Susan Fisch immediately called for that vote. It was a strategy employed by Stoffer and Fisch twice.

I also asked how the CRC planned to incorporate further public engagement, particularly since the current questionnaire was already finalized. “Your comment is noted, and we’re going to move on with the agenda,” Fisch replied.

Water Steward proposal gets special treatment

One of the most controversial items—the proposed Water Steward position—ranked only in the middle of priorities, but remains on the shortlist. It is the only topic, aside from the mandated coroner issue, that has resulted in a dedicated subcommittee.

Director of Community Development Bruce Emery cautiously supported the idea of a Water Steward but questioned whether it belonged in the Charter. “Is this something that should be implemented at the charter level? My recommendation would be not,” he said.

Emery explained that the position of “Water Steward” could eventually be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as that need develops. “It also gives the Board [of Commissioners] the opportunity to mull it over and to be responsive to the conditions as they evolve,” he told the CRC.

Water steward committee activity

At the April 18 meeting of the Water Steward subcommittee, Commissioners Paul Pickett, Christy Holy, Nina Sarmiento, and Ron Richards conducted interviews and discussed the proposal in depth.

Commissioner Holy referenced constituent Craig Smith, who recommended hiring a hydrogeologist supported by a team—totaling two to four new positions. That could be a difficult ask in a county that recently cut jobs due to the 2025 budget deficit.

Holy referenced the recommendations put forth by Smith, who was raised in Sequim and is a current professor at the University of Washington, as well as a physician at Harborview Medical Center. Smith says he is deeply engaged in Sequim’s water issues and represents 600-700 people. “I kinda represent a lot of the older people in Sequim, so I’m helping,” he said.

Smith also works for the North Olympic Land Trust (NOLT), which partnered with the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe on projects like the Towne Road relocation and the workshop that determined private property owners should be evicted from coastal property and paid below-market value for their homes. He is also listed as an officer of Olympic Peninsula Conservation Resources, LLC, which manages land trust properties.

Professionally, Smith serves as a senior advisor to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, specializing in biosurveillance, AI, and healthcare innovation. He currently leads CHS Consulting, which integrates healthcare and technology solutions while continuing to consult with the Gates Foundation.

CRC subcommittee meetings are open to the public and recently began being recorded. Commissioner Paul Picket (left) meets with a constituent as Commissioners Christy Holy and Nina Sarmiento look on.

Future Water Steward committee plans

The Water Steward Committee plans to continue meeting, with Chairman Paul Pickett stating he aims to “work to hold another meeting where all tribes attend.”

All 15 Charter Review Commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov (specify “CRC”).

Upcoming CRC Town Halls

The CRC has scheduled two new town halls for additional community outreach:

• Clallam Bay/Sekiu Town Hall
  Tuesday, April 29, 6–8 p.m.
  Clallam Bay/Sekiu Lions Club – 90 Bogachiel Street, Clallam Bay

• Forks Town Hall
  Tuesday, May 6, 6–8 p.m.
  Forks First Congregational Church – 280 Spartan Avenue, Forks

However, it remains uncertain whether Chairwoman Fisch and Commissioner Stoffer will permit commissioners to engage freely with the public at these events. The legality of this engagement is currently under review.

Joint meeting with Quileute Tribal Council

Separately, the Board of Commissioners will meet with the Quileute Tribal Council at 1 p.m. on Friday, May 2, at 90 Main Street, La Push. The meeting will not offer a virtual option. Topics will include federal decisions, land-into-trust conversions, and the Recompete Grant. View the agenda here.