Documents show Charter Review Commissioner Jim Stoffer and his allies pushed for armed guards at Charter Review Commission meetings after a citizen criticized him during public comment. The move, supported by Commissioner Mark Ozias and Chair Susan Fisch, comes at a time of layoffs, deficits, and rising distrust. With no proof of an actual threat, this may be just another way county leaders label free speech as “harassment” and silence dissent.
A commonsense comment, a hidden truth
Two weeks ago, at a Charter Review Commission meeting, regular attendee Denise Lapio raised what sounded like a practical concern: why was the security guard stationed in the far corner of the boardroom, away from the entry door?
Lapio argued that the guard, who has been at meetings since July, should be posted near Clerk of the Board Loni Gores, who sits closest to the entrance. “Her back is to this door. She is seated. So if someone were to come in, she would have no opportunity to defend herself. Everybody else here has an opportunity. They can see the intruder coming in,” Lapio said, suggesting the guard move closer to the Clerk’s side of the dais.
What Lapio—and most of the commissioners themselves—didn’t know is that the guard wasn’t there for the Clerk or for the public. The guard was there for one commissioner: retired Coast Guard veteran Jim Stoffer.
The July 14 flashpoint
The push for security traces back to the July 14 meeting. During public comment, longtime attendee Eric Fehrmann criticized the Commission’s decisions and singled out Stoffer by name:
“You get enough people in this county that can come up here and run it, where they don’t come out of their pocket, so there’s no excuse. You guys are a joke. There’s a few of you on here with some common sense, but you,” (pointing to Stoffer), “are just a rotten S.O.B. and I’m not gonna back off.”
It was blunt. It was heated. But was it a threat?
By Fehrmann’s account, no. “I’m not the one who started swearing up here, it was one of your members,” he added, referring to Commissioner Paul Pickett, who twice called another commissioner an “asshole” during meetings.
Still, Stoffer filed a complaint with the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office.
“Toxic Bullying” or Freedom of Speech?
The emails tell the story.
In a July 16 message marked High Importance, Stoffer wrote to the Commission’s executive board:
“The Commission has experienced several disruptions over the last several months during our Commission meetings. These disruptions have grown with toxic bullying harassing behavior, attacking several Commissioners with verbal threats. This is not ok, and I urge you to take action at protecting the meeting space and the proceedings.”
He went further, suggesting:
“We have no idea if some of these folks are not carrying a weapon of some sort. Each meeting is growing worse. Recommendation: 1. We need security presence during our meetings. 2. Drop the 2nd Public Comment period from the agenda; it just opens the door to attacks and disruption. 3. When the disruption occurs, immediately call a recess.”
Stoffer also contacted Undersherrif Lorraine Shore, who emailed County Administrator Todd Mielke:
“Jim Stouffer… called and requested security at their Charter Review Commission meetings. He said he feels threatened by public commenters who have used profanity directed at him during the meetings. He feels Loni is in a poor position if a safety issue arises. I told him I would pass on his concerns to you as the BOCC would have to make the decision whether to provide security. He would like you to give him a call to discuss this.”
County Administrator Todd Mielke made this recommendation:
“I believe Security Services Northwest will need to be briefed about the nuances of differentiating between someone exercising their freedom of speech and when their messaging becomes threatening. If you get a chance, please review the video at the end of the most recent meeting and the comments/messaging by Eric Fehrmann. Several people have reviewed the video and believe this line was crossed…especially when considering the combination of shouting, swearing, calling out one of the commissioners by name, and gestures… “Threatening a public official” is addressed in state statute and should probably be considered in preparation for attending these meetings.”
Notice what’s missing: any proof of an actual threat. No evidence of violence. No reports of anyone brandishing a weapon. Just words—and words alone.
Friends in high places
Within hours, Stoffer’s request was being acted on. Commissioner Mark Ozias emailed the County Administrator and Sheriff:
“I would appreciate it if we could do what is necessary to ensure that a security officer can be present for all future meetings of the CRC. If this will require additional budgetary authority from the BOCC then I will work with you to advance the necessary process.”
Sheriff Brian King agreed, saying he believed the costs could be “absorbed in jail underspend.” A tough decision considering his department is understaffed and likely facing cuts to public safety next year.
County Administrator Todd Mielke weighed in, writing that the matter was about more than just security—it was about changing the rules of public engagement. He circulated a policy link suggesting bans on “raising one’s voice, shouting, aggressive gestures, addressing the ‘body’ versus any individual, etc.”
In other words, speech that is uncomfortable—but constitutionally protected—was being repackaged as “threatening.”
The price tag
Invoices from Security Services NW confirm the cost. For the August 11 and August 25 meetings, both under one hour long, the county was billed for two full hours of armed guard service at $57.50 per hour—$115 per meeting.
Multiply that by two meetings per month for the rest of the year, and taxpayers are quietly covering at least $1,265 in security — while Clallam County faces layoffs, rising taxes, and a budget deficit.
Unequal treatment
Here’s where the hypocrisy shows.
When I, as a Charter Review Commissioner, was called an “asshole” during meetings, nothing was done — Chairwoman Susan Fisch didn’t object, the name-calling was allowed. When Commissioner Ozias-endorsed legislative candidate Nate Tyler posted my address, a map to my home, and accused me of being tied to the KKK, county officials ignored my complaint. When Judith Hill posted a photo of my house on Facebook and called me a “monster,” there was silence from both the Board and the Sheriff’s Office.
But when Stoffer was insulted during public comment, armed security was rushed in—at public expense.
This isn’t equal treatment under the law. This is the “Clallam Concierge Service”: special treatment for a select few, while others are left to fend for themselves.
Chilling effect on speech
The broader issue is the First Amendment.
This Charter Review Commission has already flirted with rules to ban citizens from addressing commissioners by name, even during public comment. Labeling strong language as “harassment” or “toxic bullying” is part of the same pattern: a slow narrowing of what the public is allowed to say.
Chair Susan Fisch has gone further, suggesting rules that would restrict even how commissioners and the public discuss matters already part of the public record. She once compared CC Watchdog’s reporting—based entirely on public record—to her time as a judge, when she required FBI protection at her home. Yet she has never provided proof that any reporting or commentary here amounted to bullying, harassment, or intimidation. The Charter Review Commission is led by a retired judge whose decisions are guided by emotion, not proof.
Restricting discussion of what is already public doesn’t protect anyone’s safety. It simply stifles accountability.
Selective concern for safety
The double standard extends beyond the Charter Review Commission. Commissioner Mark Ozias led the charge against the Happy Valley gravel pit largely because it was near his home. When the gravel pit owners were harassed—shots were even fired at their house—and they ultimately gave up on their permit, where was the call for an investigation? Where was the taxpayer-funded security detail then?
The silence is telling. Safety concerns only seem to matter when they involve county insiders.
A cheaper solution
If Stoffer truly feels unsafe, he has options. He has attended meetings via Zoom before. Doing so would cost taxpayers nothing. Instead, the public pays for his private comfort, while the county struggles to pay its bills.
Public safety or political favoritism?
Clallam County officials swear an oath to treat everyone fairly and impartially. The record here suggests otherwise.
When critics are harassed, doxxed, and defamed, county leaders do nothing. When their friends feel uncomfortable, the full weight of county resources swings into action.
The question is not whether Jim Stoffer deserves to feel safe—every commissioner and every citizen does. The question is whether taxpayers should foot the bill for private security without any evidence of a real threat.
At a time of deficits and layoffs, Clallam County can’t afford to confuse political convenience with public safety.
🏛️ The Charter Review Commission convenes tonight—Monday, September 22 at 5:30 PM—at the Port Angeles Courthouse.
📄 The meeting agenda and Zoom access details are available here.
🎤 Public comment is welcome in person or via Zoom. Have a comment for the CRC? Send it to Clerk of the Board loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.
The emails
From: Stoffer, Jim
To: Fisch, Susan; Hodgson, Mark; Noble, Chris
Cc: Stoffer, Jim
Subject: CRC Meeting Procedures
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:56:18 AM
Importance: High
Greetings Executive Board,
The Commission has experience several disruptions over the last several months during our Commission meetings. These disruptions have grown with toxi bullying harassing behavior, attacking several Commissioners with verbal threats. This is not ok, and I urge you to take action at protecting the meeting space and the proceedings.
We have no idea if some of these folks are not carrying a weopon of some sort. Each meeting is growing worse.
Recommendation:
1. We need security presence during our meetings.
2. Drop the 2nd Public Comment period from the agenda; it just opens the door to attacks and disruption.
3. When the disruption occurs, immediately call a recess, you can do that.
I will be taking steps to protect myself; but I urge you three as the elected Excective to take steps as well.
Thank You
Jim Stoffer
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 2:13 PM
To: Mielke, Todd ; King, Brian
Cc: Fisch, Susan
Subject: Security at CRC Meetings
Hello Todd and Brian,
I would appreciate it if we could do what is necessary to ensure that a security officer can be present for all future meetings of the CRC. If this will require additional budgetary authority from the BOCC then I will work with you to advance the necessary process.
Thank you,
Mark Ozias
From: King, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:34 PM
To: Joe D'Amico
Subject: RE: Security Services for Clallam County Fair
Joe,
I now have an additional request from the BOCC to cover future Charter Review Commission Meetings. I still need to get those dates which are in the evenings.
Do you want me to work with Ken on that?
Brian J. King
From: Joe D'Amico
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:53 PM
To: King, Brian
Subject: RE: Security Services for Clallam County Fair
Sheriff,
Sounds good. You can send the dates and time to me for now.
This way, I can include operations, scheduling, and billing.
Thank you,
Joe
Respectfully,
Joe D'Amico, President
Security Services NW Inc.
From: Fisch, Susan
To: King, Brian; Ozias, Mark; Mielke, Todd
Cc: Waknitz, Elizabeth
Subject: Re: Security at CRC Meetings
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:13:44 PM
All:
Thank you for working on this so quickly.
Susan Fisch
From: "Fisch, Susan"
Date: 7/17/25 12:35 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Stoffer, Jim" , "Hodgson, Mark", "Noble, Chris"
Subject: Re: CRC Meeting Procedures
All:
I have been copied on emails between Commissioner Ozias and Sheriff King about
security at CRC meetings. Sheriff King is working on this and sounds confident that Northwest Security Services will be present from this point forward.
Susan
From: Mielke, Todd
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:38 PM
To: King, Brian; Ozias, Mark
Cc: Fisch, Susan ; Waknitz, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings
Thank you, Brian.
I believe Security Services Northwest will need to be briefed about the nuances of differentiating between someone exercising their freedom of speech and when their messaging becomes threatening. If you get a chance, please review the video at the end of the most recent meeting and the comments/messaging by Eric Fehrmann. Several people have reviewed the video and believe this line was crossed…especially when considering the combination of shouting, swearing, calling out one of the commissioners by name, and gestures. The video would probably be a good reference in the discussion with Security Services Northwest. “Threatening a public official” is addressed in state statute and should probably be considered in preparation for attending these meetings.
Regards,
Todd
Todd Mielke
County Administrator
From: King, Brian
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:04 PM
To: Ozias, Mark ; Mielke, Todd
Cc: Fisch, Susan ; Waknitz, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings
Hello everyone,
I am in conversation with Security Services Northwest and have provided them the Charter Review Commission meeting schedule for the remainder of the year. While its not “finalized” I do think they will be able to make it happen.
Given current projections I believe the Sheriff’s Office will be able to absorb these costs in jail underspend.
I will let you know once I get the final confirmation.
Brian J. King
From: Ozias, Mark
To: Mielke, Todd
Cc: King, Brian; Fisch, Susan; Waknitz, Elizabeth
Subject: Re: Security at CRC Meetings
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:56:51 PM
Thank you Brian!
Mark O
From: Stoffer, Jim
To: Fisch, Susan; Hodgson, Mark; Noble, Chris
Cc: Stoffer, Jim
Subject: RE: CRC Meeting Procedures
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:08:54 PM
Thank you
Jim Stoffer
From: Mielke, Todd
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 1:43 PM
To: French, Mike; Johnson, Randy; Ozias, Mark; Cc: Gores, Loni; Boughton, Dee; Reno, Jay ; King, Brian
Subject: FW: Security at CRC Meetings
Hi everyone,
Commissioner Ozias forwarded this information (please see the link in his e-mail) to me and I thought it might be a worthwhile conversation to have given the amount of public testimony we receive at a variety of County meetings and the apparent increasing intensity of public comment at the Charter Review Commission meetings.
Please let me know if you would like me to explore this further, and if we should schedule this for a Work Session perhaps in August.
Thank you,
Todd
Todd Mielke
County Administrator
From: Ozias, Mark <mark.ozias@clallamcountywa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:18 PM
To: Mielke, Todd <Todd.Mielke@clallamcountywa.gov>
Subject: 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
Mark Ozias
Clallam County Commissioner
From: Gores, Loni
To: Cc: Subject: Date: Mielke, Todd; French, Mike; Johnson, Randy; Ozias, Mark
Boughton, Dee; Reno, Jay; King, Brian
RE: Security at CRC Meetings
Monday, July 21, 2025 2:05:30 PM
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
From: Johnson, Randy
To: Mielke, Todd
Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings
Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 2:44:10 PM
As I stated earlier, I believe that we need security at the meetings due to instances like this.
Todd,
Randy
From: Mielke, Todd
To: Johnson, Randy
Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings
Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 3:10:56 PM
Hi Randy,
In the last comments I received from the Sheriff, I believe the Sheriff’s Office has now advised our security firm to be present at the CRC meetings. I’m expecting to see someone starting at the next meeting.
The link forwarded by Commissioner Ozias provides suggestions on how we can update County policy regarding “acceptable behavior” in public meetings. The MRSC information gives guidance on how to balance preserving a person’s right to free speech with maintaining order at meetings. It suggests including language to clarify prohibited ‘actions’, such as “raising your voice”, “yelling”, “aggressive gestures”, “singling out an individual” versus addressing your comments to the overall body, etc.
My question to the BOCC is whether you would like to have a discussion during a Work Session about updating County policy utilizing some of the suggestions and language presented by MRSC, including more specific language regarding acceptable versus unacceptable behavior/communication.
Thank you,
Todd
From: Mielke, Todd
To: Dennler, Bonnie
Subject: FW: Security at CRC Meetings
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:56:24 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Good morning, Bonnie.
I’m forwarding this as an FYI. It would involve updating our county policy regarding public meetings,
specifically addressing allowable behavior at public meetings by both the audience and participants.
There’s a link in the e-mail from Commissioner Ozias that you might want to take a look at when you
have time. It’s guidance that attempts to balance First Amendment rights with the ability to maintain
decorum in meetings. It suggests specific language in the policy such as prohibiting certain
‘behaviors’ such as raising one’s voice, shouting, aggressive gestures, addressing the ‘body’ versus
any individual, etc.
Commissioner Ozias appears to be suggesting that we update our policy and make it more specific.
I’m hoping to solicit input from the other two.
Regards,
Todd
Todd Mielke
From: Shore, Lorraine
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:56 AM
To: Mielke, Todd
Cc: King, Brian
Subject: Security request for Charter Review
Hi Todd,
Jim Stouffer 360-775-XXXX called and requested security at their Charter Review Commission meetings. He said he feels threatened by public commenters who have used profanity directed at him during the meetings. He feels Loni is in a poor position if a safety issue arises. I told him I would pass on his concerns to you as the BOCC would have to make the decision whether to provide security. He would like you to give him a call to discuss this. Let me know if there is anything you need from me.
Thank you,
Lorraine Shore, Undersheriff
From: Gores, Loni <loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:14 PM
To: Biasell, Elizabeth <elizabeth.biasell@clallamcountywa.gov>
Subject: RE: Charter review meetings
Charter Review is held on the second and fourth Monday of each month starting at 5:30 p.m. The meetings have lasted between from 1 to 4 hours this year (so far).
The Charter Review Commission is authorized until December 31, 2025.The August 28 meeting was 58 minutes long. So, from 5:30-6:30. Here is the link for the recording for that meeting that shows the meeting was only 1 hour long NOT 2 hours.
https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3119/media
The August 11 meeting was 46 minutes long. Here is the link for that recording: https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3118/media So again it was only 1 hour long NOT 2.
I’m not sure if they get paid for the time, they wait for the meeting to start or not (4:30-5:30 p.m.). I guess that is probably in their contract.
