Stoffer's Double Standard
Preaching strict security online while sharing confidential county and school district documents
If there is one value Clallam County Charter Review Commissioner Jim Stoffer claims to hold above all others, it’s confidentiality. His social-media presence leaves no doubt: he routinely lectures national leaders about mishandling classified information, posting indignantly about “knuckleheads” who should be fired, locked up, or even sent to Guantanamo Bay for mishandling secret documents.
Earlier this year, Stoffer publicly asked, “How does one break in to an office and take classified documents?”
In another post, he criticized officials for using non-secure systems, warning that individuals who mishandle sensitive information have “broken basic regulations for the protection of Classified Documents and Materials.”
During a Senate hearing on classified documents, he remarked that the officials involved likely had their “whitey tightly Is are probably real tight about now” while being questioned about confidential information.
Drawing from his Coast Guard experience, Stoffer also reminded followers that those entrusted with sensitive information “DO NOT communicate any level of detail… to anyone outside our chain of command.” Even non-classified information, he stressed, can be used by adversaries.
Based on his own standard, Stoffer leaves no wiggle room: confidential material must stay confidential.
So why, then, did he take a Clallam County document clearly marked “Attorney/Client Privileged”, forward it to his personal email, and then send it to a tribal ambassador—someone with no official role in the Charter Review Commission—without authorization from the Commission?
This wasn’t an isolated lapse. It fits a long pattern, one that nearly derailed his previous public-service career.
A Familiar Pattern: The Sequim School District Scandal
Before joining the Charter Review Commission, Stoffer served on the Sequim School Board. In 2021, his fellow board members moved to censure him after a whistleblower came forward with alarming allegations: that Stoffer had been sharing confidential school district information for years.
A whistleblower—someone Stoffer had personally fed insider information to—later wrote a detailed letter to the School Board explaining the extent of the problem. According to that account:
Stoffer revealed internal district decisions in real time, such as when Superintendent Rob Clark and Principal Shawn Langston were placed on leave.
He photographed and leaked a highly confidential mediator/mentor report on Principal Langston the same day the School Board received it.
He forwarded the superintendent’s confidential Friday reports—meant only for board members—outside official channels.
And, according to the whistleblower, when the leaks caused organizational chaos and reputational damage, he allowed an Assistant Superintendent to take the blame.
The whistleblower said she initially protected him because she believed he was acting to help women who were being sexually harassed by district leadership. But as she reviewed years of texts, emails, and screenshots, she realized the behavior had nothing to do with protecting anyone. Stoffer was sharing confidential material because he wanted to—and because he could.
Her letter became public record, and she acknowledged the personal risk:
“Integrity is more important to me.”
The School Board’s Response—and Stoffer’s Sudden Exit
In 2022, she contacted School Board President Eric Pickens, warning that if the district didn’t act, she would escalate the matter to the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). Pickens responded:
“I can assure you we are taking this matter extremely seriously. I will be making an announcement regarding Director Stoffer near the end of our meeting tomorrow night.”
Jim Stoffer announced his resignation the very next day.
The issues surrounding his conduct were never resolved publicly—but the pattern was clear to everyone involved.
“Loose Lips Sink Ships”—Unless You’re the One Talking
During World War II, the U.S. Office of War Information warned Americans that careless talk could cost lives. The famous slogan, “Loose lips sink ships,” became part of the nation’s vocabulary—and remains a widely recognized warning to this day.
Coming from a Coast Guard veteran who frequently invokes the dangers of leaking information, one would expect that message to hit especially close to home.
Yet Stoffer’s record in elected office shows the opposite: whether on the School Board or the Charter Review Commission, he has repeatedly shared confidential information with people who had no right to receive it—and often without informing the governing body he was elected to serve.
Why It Matters Now
The Charter Review Commission operates under public trust. Commissioners are entrusted with sensitive legal guidance, attorney/client communications, draft proposals, and internal deliberations. When even one member ignores those boundaries, it compromises the entire commission and undermines public confidence in the process.
And now, the issue is no longer hypothetical. The agenda for Monday night’s Charter Review Commission meeting lists a presentation by the county’s Deputy Prosecuting Attorney on the legal ramifications of Commissioner Jim Stoffer’s decision to share attorney/client privileged information. The discussion is scheduled for Monday, 5:30 p.m. at the Clallam County Courthouse.
This moment forces unavoidable questions:
How can a commissioner demand absolute secrecy from others while forwarding privileged county documents to private parties?
Why does a man who publicly condemns national leaders for careless handling of classified information feel entitled to share confidential documents himself?
And at what point does a repeated pattern of judgment failures finally outweigh excuses?
Public officials are not expected to be perfect—but they are expected to be consistent. They are expected to put the public interest above friendships, alliances, or the impulse to leak insider information.
When the same individual who lectures the nation about classified documents repeatedly shares confidential information at home, the problem is not a mistake.
It’s a habit.
But do bad habits in Clallam County public office have consequences?
Letter From Whistleblower Sent to Sequim School District in September 2022
Dear SSD School Board,
I sent an email and told the board and superintendent that Director Jim Stoffer provided confidential information to me over the past several years. I also stated that he allowed the Assistant Superintendent to take the fall for his actions. This was all true, but given Director Stoffer has not resigned for his unethical and unprofessional conduct, I can only assume it is because you need the proof, because without proof, it is just an accusation. Therefore, I am going to provide you a snippet of the information he provided to me over the years. Director Stoffer told me exactly when Superintendent Rob Clark was placed on leave, and he told me when Principal Shawn Langston was placed on leave (ExhibitD). I also have attached the copy of the mediator and mentor report regarding Principal Langston that was sent to the school board and Superintendent Jane Pryne.(Exhibit A&B) Director Stoffer sat in front of his computer and took pictures of it and sent them to me the same day he received the report. Director Stoffer would also send me Friday notes that Superintendent Pryne would provide only to the board as the notes were extremely confidential. (ExhibitC). Director Stoffer has not been honest and has allowed district employed women to take the fall for his unethical behavior. I chose to protect Director Stoffer last October because I truly thought he was trying to protect the women who were being sexually harrassed by Superinetendent Clark and Principal Langston. There are hundreds of screenshots, emails and text messages I am providing to Dan Gallagher for Hanna McAndie’s trial showing Director Stoffer believed the women and that he was doing something about it, but now I realize that just was not true. Our board members are elected officials and have a duty to be honest and ethical, Director Stoffer has not been. He has cost at least one SSD woman her job, reputation and livelihood and there are others pending. At what point is accountability, professionalism and ethical conduct a priority for this board? Director Stoffer should also understand that this email and proof is now on public record and searchable, which also puts me in jeporady, but intergrity is more important to me.