Report card on transparency

Sequim School District's changing ballot language

Subtle differences between this ballot and bonds of yesteryear. A look at what state law says when writing ballot titles and measures. If you think our local agencies and organizations are transparent, you’re not seeing it.

The Sequim School District has struggled to pass bond measures for over a decade. In April 2014, the bond failed:

In February 2015, another attempt was rejected:

In November 2015, voters turned down yet another proposal:

And in February 2016, a fourth bond measure was also defeated:

Now, after four unsuccessful attempts, the district is trying again. But this time, have you noticed a difference in the way the bond appears on the ballot?

Previously, the bond amount was clearly stated in the ballot title (see below). Now, it's buried under nine lines of text (see above).

That’s not the only change. For eleven years, the ballot title has described the bond as funding “school improvements.” This year, that wording has shifted to “replace and upgrade deteriorating schools and improve safety.”

The Port Angeles School District took a similar approach in its November 2024 bond proposal. The bond amount was tucked away in the text, while the title emphasized “deterioration” and “safety.”

Port Angeles successfully passed last year’s bond measure by a thin margin.

Legal considerations

Sequim School Superintendent Regan Nickels explained the change in ballot language:

“After the last bond attempt in 2016 a new law firm was hired by the Sequim School District. This is the first time a bond has been attempted by the district with this law firm in place and our team did not look back at prior ballot measures because we were focused on the current. The law firm's typical ballot form was used to meet the statutory requirements of the ballot language including the amount and term of the bond, the purposes of the bond issue, and that excess property taxes will repay the bond. The Clallam County and the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorneys’ Offices reviewed and approved the ballot title.”

Washington State law (RCW 29A.72.050) sets guidelines for ballot titles, stating:

“The ballot title… must contain no more than thirty words, be a true and impartial description of the measure’s essential contents, clearly identify the proposition to be voted on, and not, to the extent reasonably possible, create prejudice either for or against the measure.”

Superintendent Nickels and school board members Eric Pickens, Michael Rocha, Maren Halvorsen, and Larry Jeffryes adopted the ballot language on December 2nd.

The Sequim School District’s superintendent and attorney filed the resolution for the current bond proposal, including the ballot language, on December 9th.

If a voter believes a ballot title is misleading, they have 10 days from the filing date to appeal. In this case, the deadline fell in mid-December, a month before many voters were aware that the school district was considering a bond proposal.

Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols and Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney James Kennedy approved the final ballot language before it was placed on the ballot. (Part of the Sequim School District extends into Jefferson County, including the Gardiner area.)

Lack of transparency

Transparency is a growing concern among agencies and organizations in our area.

The Sequim City Council violated its own rules—and potentially state law—when it hurriedly scheduled a special meeting to endorse the school district’s ballot measures. The timing and communication of the meeting suggest an attempt to notify supporters while keeping opponents in the dark.

The Clallam County Commissioners have misled the public about the actual cost of the school bond. Commissioner Mike French inaccurately stated that the $145,950,000 bond amount included interest. In reality, interest is projected to add another $100 million, significantly increasing the taxpayer burden.

The Olympic Peninsula Humane Society (OPHS) previously pledged to improve transparency after its financial collapse last July. However, the organization recently told the Peninsula Daily News that its board unanimously decided against sharing meeting minutes, financial statements, employee decisions, or contracts with the public. OPHS accepted funds from private donors and county taxpayers while increasing its executive director’s salary by 48% and hiring a PR firm to manage its image, all while claiming it couldn't afford to care for animals. The OPHS Secretary sits on the County’s Animal Solutions Advisory Committee, and next week, the OPHS Vice President is set to be appointed to the same committee by the County Commissioners. The Bark House, OPHS’s dog shelter, has remained closed since August.

Despite stating on its website that it operates with "the highest integrity and transparency," the North Olympic Land Trust (NOLT) has refused to answer questions about the 2021 workshop it planned. At the workshop, NOLT proposed seizing beachfront property and compensating displaced homeowners at below-market rates.

Faced with a budget shortfall, the County Commissioners held a series of public meetings to discuss their spending. However, in Port Angeles, attendees were required to pay an admission fee of $30 to hear the commissioners explain how taxpayer money had been used. After public outcry, the fee for the Sequim presentation was lowered to $10.

When Habitat for Humanity faced criticism for accepting taxpayer funds while awarding a no-bid contract to Jamestown Excavating, its Vice President, Danny Steiger, responded in CC Watchdog, stating, “By working together with transparency and mutual support, we can ensure that affordable housing projects continue to succeed.” Yet, when CC Watchdog later asked for the job description of a newly created Native American Housing Liaison position—established after Habitat received a $50,000 donation from the Jamestown Tribe—Steiger declined to provide it. Last weekend, Steiger was named Port Angeles Citizen of the Year.

The Clallam County Department of Community Development (DCD) has refused to disclose budget details for the Towne Road and Lower Dungeness Floodplain Restoration Project, which it managed for over 20 years. This raises serious concerns: either officials never established a budget (showing incompetence), or they are deliberately concealing information (suggesting corruption).

The Jamestown Tribe breached the Dungeness River dike ahead of schedule, increasing flood risk for the nearby community and costing taxpayers an estimated $13 million. When asked how this happened, Hansi Hals, the Tribe’s Natural Resources Director, responded, “Current work is our highest priority, and we’ll be unable to respond further.”

County officials, including the Board of Commissioners and the DCD Director, have been meeting with the Jamestown Tribe to make decisions about public projects on sovereign tribal land in Blyn. Because tribal land follows different legal standards, transparency, and public accountability laws do not apply to these meetings. Despite their impact on taxpayer-funded projects, there is no public record of these discussions.

Additionally, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has confirmed that the Jamestown Tribe is leading the design of a roundabout in Blyn, scheduled for construction in 2027. WSDOT also stated that any questions about the project should be directed to the Tribe. When asked whether engineering plans were publicly available or if private property would be required for the project, the Tribe’s Transportation Program Manager, Wendy Clark-Getzin, did not respond.

Local leaders are making significant financial and policy decisions behind closed doors—denying the public’s right to know. They expect you to fund these decisions, but they won’t let you in on the details.

Polling

Last week, after the Sequim City Council suspended its own rules, subscribers were asked, “Is it okay to break the rules?” Out of 316 votes:

• 98% said “No.”

• 1% said, “Yes, rules are meant to be broken.”

• 1% said, “Yes, only if it’s for a good cause.”

• 0% said, “No, but for this instance, it’s okay.”