"He (Stoffer) said he feels threatened by public commenters who have used profanity directed at him during the meetings."
Poor baby. I wonder how he'd feel if someone posted his personal information on Facebook, threatened him and nothing was done about it, as was done to Jeff? Silly me, if that happened to Stoffer he'd be provided a safety partition at meetings and 24-hour armed security. Quite the double standard.
This fight is all well and good, and I get it, but the only real long-term solution is to vote the current commissioners out of office. It's blatantly obvious they have a certain worldview that doesn't jibe with prioritizing the needs of the average working stiff over the wants of their friends and backers. This will be no easy task given their ties to powerful entities within the county.
I'm additionally concerned about the independence of the Sheriff's Office. It feels like a rubber stamp to respond to a "request" based on Jimbo's word-salad, unsupported, psycho-babble.
I was trying to get this straight in my head, where was this going? So I put some of the emails together and came to the conclusion that the CCC was trying to pull a rabbit out of their hat to find a reason, any reason, to gain further control in their meetings, by the use of ONE MEETING. Their reasoning started out with “threatening a public official” (which did not apply under the Revised Code of Washington-see below)
Then there was the reasoning to use the First Amendment Rights of public meetings (no real basis to that claim) then onto changing to “more formal rules” to finally, the last rabbit out of their hat was a reference to “There’s a state law saying we must control access to the state court” The state law was never quoted as a reference.
I find it laughable that we are threatened with cuts in the Sheriff’s Dept if we don’t pass ANOTHER additional tax, with decreased safety and security for the public, but somehow the Commissioner’s found funds to cover their so called need for safety and security (below)
TODD MIELKE “Typically, security in the court building, courthouse building, is DONE BY THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE through corrections officers. We have had A SIGNIFICANT SHORTAGE OF STAFF in that position, and so for the last two years, the county has HIRED AN OUTSIDE SECURITY FIRM providing security services in the courthouse. Where that would NORMALLY HAVE BEEN DONE BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS . So, we’ve been doing that”
TODD MIELKE July 17, 2025... “Given current projections I believe the Sheriff’s Office will be able to absorb these costs in jail UNDERSPEND.”
TODD MIELKE July 17, 2025 “Threatening a public official” is addressed in STATE STATUE and should probably be considered in preparation for attending these meetings”
Todd Mielke did not site any particular STATE STATUE, but under the RCW below, there’s no basis
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a public servant's vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.
(2) For purposes of this section "public servant" shall not include jurors.
(3) "Threat" as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110.
(4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.
MARK OZAIS Mark July 21, 2025 “RE: Security at CRC Meetings ”Todd, perhaps it would be helpful for us to establish some more formal rules”...
I've seen that WA state codified that it's a public officials' obligation to hear from the people, as in that's their job. What I can't find is that it's a public officials' job to ignore citizens. Maybe you could point me to where your claim is supported that runs directly counter to RCW 42.30.010.
"The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
Caution: Matthew's "time out" obviously didn't work. Don't take his bait, he will hijack this forum to lead us away from the real issues. NOTE: No facts are given to back up his statement, just snarky stuff.
"He (Stoffer) said he feels threatened by public commenters who have used profanity directed at him during the meetings."
Poor baby. I wonder how he'd feel if someone posted his personal information on Facebook, threatened him and nothing was done about it, as was done to Jeff? Silly me, if that happened to Stoffer he'd be provided a safety partition at meetings and 24-hour armed security. Quite the double standard.
This fight is all well and good, and I get it, but the only real long-term solution is to vote the current commissioners out of office. It's blatantly obvious they have a certain worldview that doesn't jibe with prioritizing the needs of the average working stiff over the wants of their friends and backers. This will be no easy task given their ties to powerful entities within the county.
I'm additionally concerned about the independence of the Sheriff's Office. It feels like a rubber stamp to respond to a "request" based on Jimbo's word-salad, unsupported, psycho-babble.
Illegal voting
I was trying to get this straight in my head, where was this going? So I put some of the emails together and came to the conclusion that the CCC was trying to pull a rabbit out of their hat to find a reason, any reason, to gain further control in their meetings, by the use of ONE MEETING. Their reasoning started out with “threatening a public official” (which did not apply under the Revised Code of Washington-see below)
Then there was the reasoning to use the First Amendment Rights of public meetings (no real basis to that claim) then onto changing to “more formal rules” to finally, the last rabbit out of their hat was a reference to “There’s a state law saying we must control access to the state court” The state law was never quoted as a reference.
I find it laughable that we are threatened with cuts in the Sheriff’s Dept if we don’t pass ANOTHER additional tax, with decreased safety and security for the public, but somehow the Commissioner’s found funds to cover their so called need for safety and security (below)
TODD MIELKE “Typically, security in the court building, courthouse building, is DONE BY THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE through corrections officers. We have had A SIGNIFICANT SHORTAGE OF STAFF in that position, and so for the last two years, the county has HIRED AN OUTSIDE SECURITY FIRM providing security services in the courthouse. Where that would NORMALLY HAVE BEEN DONE BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS . So, we’ve been doing that”
TODD MIELKE July 17, 2025... “Given current projections I believe the Sheriff’s Office will be able to absorb these costs in jail UNDERSPEND.”
EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES!!!!!!!!
TODD MIELKE July 17, 2025 “Threatening a public official” is addressed in STATE STATUE and should probably be considered in preparation for attending these meetings”
Todd Mielke did not site any particular STATE STATUE, but under the RCW below, there’s no basis
RCW 9A.76.180 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.180
Intimidating a public servant
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a public servant's vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.
(2) For purposes of this section "public servant" shall not include jurors.
(3) "Threat" as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110.
(4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.
MARK OZAIS Mark July 21, 2025 “RE: Security at CRC Meetings ”Todd, perhaps it would be helpful for us to establish some more formal rules”...
https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2020/when-1st-amendment-rights-public-meetings-clash
LONI GORES July 21, 2025 “Here is the link to the video. The comment started at 3:43:05 into the video.
https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3116/media
TODD MIELKE July 22, 2025 “It would involve updating our county policy regarding public meetings”
TODD MIELKE September 22, 2025) ”There’s a STATE LAW that says we must control access to the courts”…
Yes, consolidate and surround yourself with armed personnel. Every word from the Citizen is a threat. PTA meetings next?
Billy, Yep, it would be a Harper Valley P.T.A.
So typical, play the victim, play the righteous threatened by the Citizens. Call out the Praetorian Guard. Cower and bow to your leaders.
Where there is flubber. There is usually magic beans
They aren't ignoring public opinion, Jeff, they are ignoring you and a couple others trying to stir things up. That's their job.
I've seen that WA state codified that it's a public officials' obligation to hear from the people, as in that's their job. What I can't find is that it's a public officials' job to ignore citizens. Maybe you could point me to where your claim is supported that runs directly counter to RCW 42.30.010.
"The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30.010
Thank you MK. I love FACTS!
Caution: Matthew's "time out" obviously didn't work. Don't take his bait, he will hijack this forum to lead us away from the real issues. NOTE: No facts are given to back up his statement, just snarky stuff.
It’s their flubber and magic beans Jeff.