Public Meeting or Private Gathering?
Residents removed from Indivisible event at local library
A dispute over access to an Indivisible Port Angeles meeting at the Port Angeles Library ended with police involvement and threats of trespass against would-be attendees. The incident has prompted questions about whether a meeting advertised as open to the public was improperly restricted. Now residents are seeking answers from both Indivisible and the North Olympic Library System.
A Meeting Advertised As Public
Was it a public meeting or a private gathering?
That question is at the center of a controversy that unfolded Monday evening at the Port Angeles Library after five residents were denied entry to an Indivisible Port Angeles meeting that had been advertised online as open to the public.
By the end of the evening, police had been called, attendees had departed under threat of trespass, and a dispute over access to a taxpayer-funded facility had become the latest flashpoint in Clallam County’s increasingly polarized political climate.
“This Is A Private Meeting”
Video recorded at the scene begins with an Indivisible member calling Port Angeles Police and stating:
“We have a private meeting and we have some unwanted guests.”
Another organizer can be heard telling attendees:
“This is a private meeting, so the three of you may leave.”
Attendees questioned how a meeting advertised as public could suddenly become private.
When shown the Facebook advertisement describing the event as public, one organizer responded:
“You can’t just trust everything you see on the internet.”
The organizer added that the Facebook post was not legally binding.
Another explanation given to attendees was that they were not on a list.
“You guys aren’t on the list. This is a private event.”
Attendees were told that if they wanted to listen to the meeting, they could do so remotely through a Zoom link. However, attendees were unable to access the online meeting either.
A sign displayed at the check-in table stated:
“Considerate Guests Are Welcome.”
The same notice also stated that Indivisible reserved the right to deny admission and remove attendees.
An Awkward Contradiction
The incident has also prompted criticism of what some residents see as an ironic contradiction.
Indivisible and many of its supporters have long advocated for more permissive immigration policies, frequently arguing that society should be welcoming and inclusive toward newcomers. Yet on Monday evening, several residents who arrived at a meeting advertised as open to the public were told they could not attend because they were not on a list.
In other words, an organization that describes itself as inclusive and committed to democratic participation found itself defending a policy that excluded local residents from a meeting held in a public library.
Police Called To The Library
Attendee Stacey Richards said four Port Angeles Police officers responded after organizers requested assistance.
According to Richards, attendees were informed they could be trespassed if they refused to leave.
Rather than risk arrest or citation, the group chose to leave voluntarily.
Richards questioned why taxpayers would be excluded from a meeting advertised as public in a public building funded by those same taxpayers.
Library staff reportedly informed attendees that they were welcome in the library itself, but not inside the meeting room being used by Indivisible.
Questions About Library Policy
North Olympic Library System’s meeting room policy contains language addressing meetings conducted under the library’s community-use provisions.
The policy states:
“Meetings/events/programs must be open to all persons who wish to attend, within the maximum allowed capacity of the space.”
The policy further states:
“Mere willingness to allow non-members to attend a meeting or event, the underlying purpose of which is primarily private or limited in scope, does not constitute compliance with this requirement.”
NOLS policy does contain a provision allowing the Library Director or a designee to approve exceptions to the public-access requirement for certain events presented by nonprofits, government agencies, or library partners when participation restrictions are determined to be in the public interest.
As of publication, it is unclear whether such an exception was requested or granted for the June 8 Indivisible meeting. The key unanswered question is how the room was reserved.
If Indivisible reserved the room under the library’s community meeting room provisions, the policy appears to require that meetings be open to all members of the public. If the room was rented as a private event under a separate arrangement, the analysis may be different.
Either way, the contradiction remains: a meeting advertised as public was treated as private when members of the public attempted to attend.
Public Officials And Appointees Present
Video footage from the event shows several familiar names from local politics.
Jamie Porter, recently appointed by the Clallam County Commissioners to the Homelessness Task Force, was present and serving as the moderator of the meeting, yet would not allow certain attendees to participate online.
Former Olympic Medical Center Commissioner candidate Laurie Force was observed signing attendees into the event.
Rae Hesselbach, recently appointed by the Commissioners to the Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board, could be seen blocking access to the meeting room.
An Organization That Calls Itself Inclusive
According to its website, Indivisible Port Angeles describes itself as:
“A grassroots group of neighbors, activists, and everyday citizens committed to defending democracy and building a more just, inclusive, and equitable future.”
The organization states that it seeks to build civic participation, hold elected officials accountable, and promote democratic engagement.
Excluding residents from a meeting advertised as public conflicts with those stated values.
Screenshots circulated on social media show individuals identifying and discussing the business of attendee Tabitha Fotea-Morton while encouraging others to boycott her business. This seems like an attempt to punish a resident for her political views.
Tabitha Asks For Answers
Following the incident, Tabitha Fotea-Morton sent a letter to Indivisible organizers seeking clarification.
Among her questions:
Was the meeting public or private?
What specific reason was given for excluding her?
Was she excluded because of any conduct on her part?
Was she excluded because of her political views or social media activity?
If she violated a policy, what policy was it?
Dear Indivisible Organizers,
I am writing regarding the meeting held at the Port Angeles Library on 6/8/2026.
I attended because the event was advertised as open to the public. Upon arriving, I was asked to leave by an organizer and library staff. Law enforcement was also called to the scene. I stood outside with one of your organizers and was polite I asked him “What is your name?” He responded, my name is Tim. The only thing I said while I listened to library staff, and the officers.
I complied with the request to leave. However, I am seeking clarification regarding the basis for my exclusion.
Specifically, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
Was the meeting considered open to the public or a private event?
What specific reason was given for excluding me from attending?
Was I excluded because of any conduct on my part, or because of my known political views and social media activity?
If I violated a rule or policy, please identify the rule or policy involved.I am asking these questions in good faith because I believe public dialogue is important, even among people who disagree politically. My purpose is simply to understand why I was denied access to an event that appeared to be open to the public as many of your Facebook events list.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.Sincerely,
Tabitha Fotea-Morton
As of publication, those questions remain unanswered.
A Public Library, A Public Debate
The controversy comes shortly after voters approved a levy lid lift for the North Olympic Library System, increasing property taxes to support library operations.
It also follows recent library-sponsored events that some residents view as increasingly political, including a Pride-related event hosted in partnership with Sisterland Farms that included discussion of harm reduction issues.
Is a publicly funded institution becoming increasingly aligned with one side of the political spectrum?
Questions For NOLS
Residents seeking clarification may contact:
North Olympic Library System Board
LibraryBoard@nols.org
Executive Director Noah Glaude
Director@nols.org
Residents may also wish to contact the Clallam County Commissioners regarding appointments made to county advisory boards and task forces. All three commissioners can be reached by contacting the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.
For now, the central question remains unanswered:
If the meeting was private, why was it advertised as public? And if it was public, why were members of the public having police called on them for trying to attend?
Indivisible is promoted and supported by the Clallam County League of Women Voters. If a Republican Party meeting or a Turning Point USA event advertised itself as public and then excluded attendees based on their perceived political beliefs, would there be widespread condemnation from active civic groups like the LWV?
Whether the same standard will be applied here remains to be seen.
Thanks for another well written post! This organization practices double-speak. It seems that they have been able to walk a fine line for awhile, but now that the spotlight is getting a little too bright, their reactions are revealing their true nature/intentions.
And they accuse Jake of being a carpetbagger!!! Look who is calling the kettle.