Stoffer Explains Email Leaks

Commissioner tells one story, public records tell another

Charter Review Commissioner Jim Stoffer has admitted to forwarding a confidential, attorney-client privileged memo to his personal email—and to a tribal ambassador with no formal role in the commission—explaining that he did so to print it at home. Public records reveal this was not an isolated act but part of a broader pattern: 238 pages of internal communications and public comments that were routed to his private account. Meanwhile, commission leadership has blocked agenda items that would allow this issue to be discussed openly—raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and unequal enforcement.

At the last Charter Review Commission meeting, Commissioner Jim Stoffer publicly addressed—for the first time—his role in forwarding a confidential attorney-client privileged legal memo outside the Commission. His explanation confirmed what public records had already shown, but it also exposed new inconsistencies that remain unanswered.

Stoffer acknowledged that he emailed the privileged memo from his county account to his personal email so he could print it at home, saying this helped him prepare for subcommittee meetings. He also admitted that in August, he forwarded the same memo to a colleague and personal friend, identified as Tribal Ambassador Cindy Kelly, stating that he believed the document had already been released. Ms. Kelly has no formal role with the Charter Review Commission and no authority to receive privileged legal communications.

That belief is contradicted by the public record. Just weeks earlier, Chair Susan Fisch stated clearly, on the record, that the memo remained protected by attorney-client privilege and could not be shared publicly. No commissioner—including Stoffer—objected or suggested the privilege had been waived. No meeting or subcommittee minutes show any declassification prior to the unauthorized disclosure.

More revealing is the broader pattern uncovered by the public records request. Stoffer did not forward just one document to his personal email. He forwarded 239 pages of county emails, spanning many months, on a wide range of topics. If his explanation is that this practice was merely about printing, then the obvious question becomes: what, exactly, required that level of private, off-system printing?

A closer look at the emails shows a distinct focus:

• Public comments from specific citizens, including repeated forwards of emails from Kärin Cummins, Denise Lapio, Gayle Baker, Virginia Shogren, John Worthington, Marolee Smith, and Mark Curtis—residents who were openly critical of commission leadership, process, ethics enforcement, and perceived tribal influence.

• Internal correspondence involving Commissioners Ron Richards and Jeff Tozzer, particularly emails addressing a proposed ethics amendment, procedural disputes, and criticism of how the commission was being run.

• Agenda disputes and governance conflicts, including materials connected to efforts to restrict commissioner speech, enforce codes of conduct, and block certain topics from public discussion.

In an April email, Commissioner Jim Stoffer forwarded a public comment from Sequim resident Thomas Ash to his private email account and to a personal friend, Jan Kreidler.

Stoffer: “One of the many letters we receive from JT’s fans. This guy is the worse, especially with his language…”

Kreidler: “Wow. I am thinking very colorful words right now. This “fair minded person” and friends are the people causing the divisions. I have no idea where they get their perceived information. Those I know who are being attacked are people with extremely high integrity and would trust with my life. Be well, my friend. Jan”

Notably, while Ash’s email was sharply critical of the Commission, it contained no foul or abusive language.

These were not technical documents, maps, or neutral reference materials that Commissioner Stoffer targeted. They were people—specific commissioners and specific public commenters—whose emails were repeatedly routed to Stoffer’s personal account.

That pattern matters. Printing a document does not require forwarding it to a private email account. Charter Review Commissioners are not issued county laptops, but they do access county email through their own devices. Anything viewable on a home computer through the county portal can be printed directly. There is no technical requirement to transfer it to a personal inbox first.

So when Stoffer says this practice was about convenience, the volume and subject matter of the emails raise a reasonable public question: why these emails, and why so many of them?

The legal implications are also significant. Under Washington law, conducting county business through a personal email account opens that account to public records requests. This is not an obscure or novel principle. Stoffer has served on a prior Charter Review Commission and has been elected twice to the Sequim School Board. He is not new to public records law, open government requirements, or the risks of commingling official and personal communications.

The inconsistency is compounded by the Commission’s response—or lack of one. Earlier this year, the Charter Review Commission devoted extensive time and effort to sanctioning another commissioner for conduct that did not violate any statute, rule, or bylaw. In contrast, the unauthorized release of a clearly labeled attorney-client privileged document, followed by a documented pattern of private email use for sensitive internal matters, has lingered for a month without public accountability.

And now, even discussion of that conduct is being constrained.

The Executive Committee—Commissioners Susan Fisch, Chris Noble, and Mark Hodgson—continues to block agenda items requested by two elected commissioners and by constituents seeking transparency. Two specific agenda items remain excluded without explanation: a discussion of the attorney-client privilege breach and a discussion of Executive Committee procedures themselves. This practice of agenda gating—deciding which issues may even be discussed—has resulted in unequal treatment among commissioners and has shielded leadership decisions from public scrutiny.

At this point, the issue is no longer a single email or a single lapse in judgment. It is whether the Charter Review Commission applies rules evenly, whether transparency is selectively enforced, and whether public confidence is being sacrificed to protect internal alliances and control.

The public records are clear. The explanations are not.

The final meeting of the 2025 Clallam County Charter Review Commission is this coming Monday, December 22, 5:30 pm at the Clallam County Courthouse. Instructions for in-person or virtual attendance can be accessed here.

---

Commissioner Ron Richards’ item (omitted from Monday’s agenda)

Resolution Regarding Unauthorized Disclosure of Attorney-Client Privileged Document

The Clallam County Charter Review Commission, elected by the voters of Clallam County for the year 2025, finds that:

Findings of Fact

1. On June 20, 2025, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dee Boughton forwarded to the Charter Review Commission (CRC) an opinion regarding a proposed charter amendment being considered by the CRC. The title of the email clearly stated:
   “Proposed Tribal Trust Land Amendment to Clallam Co. Charter – ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED.”

2. On August 25, 2025, without any authority from the CRC, CRC Commissioner Jim Stoffer forwarded the email referenced above to a private citizen of Clallam County who had no right to receive attorney-client privileged documents from the CRC.

3. On August 25, 2025, the CRC had not waived the attorney-client privilege for the email referenced above. An individual member of the CRC has no authority to waive attorney-client privilege for the Commission. That authority belongs solely to the CRC acting as a body, or to those expressly authorized by the CRC.

4. At the CRC meeting on November 24, 2025, during discussion of the disclosure of attorney-client privileged documents, Commissioner Ron Richards suggested that Commissioner Stoffer explain why he had disclosed the document. Commissioner Stoffer asserted that the matter could only be discussed in executive session under RCW 42.30.110. Commissioner Chris Noble subsequently asserted the same claim, after which Commissioner Richards paused further inquiry.

5. RCW 42.30.110 does not mandate that the issues raised by Commissioner Richards be discussed in executive session; it merely allows such discussion. Absent a motion to enter executive session, Commissioner Richards should have been permitted to proceed with stating his concerns.

6. Earlier this year, Commissioner Stoffer placed an issue regarding Commissioner Jeff Tozzer’s conduct—specifically, public comments about input received by the CRC—on a regular meeting agenda. This creates the appearance of a double standard when Commissioner Stoffer later asserted that questions regarding his own conduct could only be addressed in executive session.

7. At the CRC’s November 25, 2025 meeting, the Commission engaged in a general discussion regarding when opinions from the CRC’s attorney should be subject to attorney-client privilege. The CRC then voted unanimously to waive attorney-client privilege for the email referenced in Finding #1.

8. The general belief of the CRC was that attorney opinions relating to the legality of proposed charter amendments should not be subject to attorney-client privilege, as public disclosure would assist residents in understanding the issues and participating more constructively. The CRC also generally believed that attorney opinions relating to matters appropriate for executive session should remain privileged.

9. To date, however, the CRC has taken no action to address Commissioner Stoffer’s inappropriate release of an attorney-client privileged document. Members of the public have expressed significant concern, particularly given the time and effort expended earlier this year to sanction Commissioner Tozzer for conduct that did not violate any rules, regulations, or statutes. This disparity creates the appearance of inconsistent standards.

10. The CRC recognizes Commissioner Stoffer’s contributions to the community through service on numerous public boards and community organizations. However, such service does not excuse the unauthorized release of attorney-client privileged documents. To the contrary, Commissioner Stoffer’s experience should have made him especially aware of the impropriety. Excusing such conduct on the basis of tenure would unfairly subject newer board members to stricter standards than long-serving ones.

Resolution

Therefore, the 2025 Clallam County Charter Review Commission, in consideration of the findings above, hereby:

1. Formally condemns Commissioner Jim Stoffer’s actions in releasing a CRC attorney-client privileged document to a private citizen of Clallam County who had no right to receive such materials.

2. Recommends that future Charter Review Commissions, potentially through amendments to the Clallam County Charter, establish appropriate penalties for members who release attorney-client privileged documents without authorization.

This Resolution is passed and approved on this _____ day of ___________, 2025, by the 2025 Clallam County Charter Review Commission.

---

Commissioner Jeff Tozzer’s item (omitted from the agenda)

Dear Commissioners Fisch, Noble, and Hodgson:

I am writing to formally request that the Executive Committee add the following two items to the agenda for the next Charter Review Commission meeting:

1. Attorney/Client Privilege legal response – Commissioner Tozzer / Dee Boughton, which was postponed at the previous meeting; and

2. Executive Committee procedures.

I have submitted multiple agenda requests this year consistent with the Charter Review Commission’s Rules and Bylaws. Despite this, I remain the only one of the fifteen commissioners who is not permitted to have requested items placed on the agenda by the Executive Committee and is instead required to seek approval through a full Commission vote. No explanation for this unequal treatment has been provided, despite my repeated requests for clarification.

For the sake of transparency and public trust, I believe the Executive Committee owes both the Commission and the public an explanation as to why one commissioner is being treated differently from all others with respect to agenda access.

In connection with the proposed agenda item on Executive Committee procedures, I am asking each of you to address the following concerns openly and on the record:

• Commissioner Fisch: I ask that you explain to our constituents your decision not to engage in direct communication with me and how you believe that approach is appropriate while serving together on a public commission tasked with representing all the people of Clallam County.

• Commissioner Noble: I ask that you explain to our fellow commissioners your position that other commissioners should not work with me following an issue that occurred in March and that I understood to be resolved. It has become increasingly clear to me that this issue has instead been used to justify ongoing exclusion and retaliation, not only against me, but against the constituents I represent.

• Commissioner Hodgson: I want to be clear that I am not seeking further private or off-record conversations. I am asking only to be treated the same as every other commissioner. Given your professional background in dispute resolution and your experience serving in equity-focused roles, I believe you are well positioned to support a transparent discussion about unequal treatment within the Commission.

Neither the CRC Rules nor the Bylaws authorize the Executive Committee to apply agenda standards selectively or to concentrate procedural control in a way that disadvantages a single commissioner. The role of the Executive Committee is to facilitate the orderly conduct of Commission business, not to determine which commissioners may fully participate in setting that business. When agenda authority becomes concentrated within a small, politically aligned group, it undermines the intent of the Charter Review process and erodes public confidence.

Accordingly, I again formally request that the Executive Committee place the following items on the next agenda:

• Attorney/Client Privilege legal response – Commissioner Tozzer / Dee Boughton

• Executive Committee procedures

I also request that the Executive Committee provide a clear explanation, for the record, of how agenda decisions are made and how those standards are applied consistently to all commissioners.

I look forward to your response and to addressing these issues openly, professionally, and in service of the public.

Respectfully,

Commissioner Jeff Tozzer