“In public service, silence after notice is not restraint—it is a decision that transfers cost, risk, and harm to the public.”
Descriptor:
This is a good-governance modeled response illustrating how an individual county commissioner could acknowledge the issues raised in today’s article, clarify limits of authority, and demonstrate oversight responsibility—grounded in national oversight research, Washington State governance standards, and local context.
Dear Constituents,
The concerns raised in The Cost of Looking the Other Way warrant a response—not because every issue can be resolved immediately, but because continued silence after notice is itself a governance choice (Tozzer, 2026).
As an individual county commissioner, I do not direct staff, adjudicate enforcement cases, or determine outcomes in individual matters. Those separations exist to protect due process and operational integrity. However, once recurring concerns are raised publicly, oversight responsibility does not end with listening (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2014; Municipal Research and Services Center [MRSC], 2023).
Today’s article provides several concrete examples of situations in which residents reasonably perceive that concerns were raised but not meaningfully addressed.
For example, constituents questioned the recent Heritage Advisory Board appointment, noting both the lack of public discussion and concerns about district representation. Even when an appointment is lawful, the absence of visible process and explanation creates the perception that public input does not matter, eroding trust regardless of intent (Tozzer, 2026; Washington State Auditor’s Office [SAO], 2022).
Similarly, questions raised about continued public safety challenges alongside increased county investment in harm-reduction programs are not simply policy disagreements. They reflect a reasonable request for transparent performance measures and outcome reporting, particularly when residents experience conditions that appear unchanged (Tozzer, 2026; GAO, 2014).
The article also highlights concerns about overlapping roles between elected officials and county-funded organizations. Even when conflicts of interest are technically avoided, perceived conflicts require proactive transparency, because public confidence depends as much on clarity as on compliance (MRSC, 2023).
As an individual commissioner, my responsibility is not to pre-judge outcomes, but to ensure that recurring concerns are not quietly normalized. In practice, that means:
1. ensuring concerns are acknowledged in the public record;
2. asking which authority is responsible for response and oversight;
3. requesting clarity on process, criteria, and timelines; and
4. clearly explaining when the County lacks authority, rather than allowing silence to be mistaken for indifference.
Research and Washington audit guidance consistently show that unresolved issues, when repeatedly deferred, compound costs and risks over time and ultimately shift the burden onto residents least able to absorb them (GAO, 2014; SAO, 2022).
Good governance does not require doing everything. It requires acknowledging, examining, and addressing known problems transparently—especially when they are uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.
Respectfully,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
References
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2023). Roles and responsibilities of elected officials in administration and oversight. https://mrsc.org
The commissioners did not answer the last question about whether they are treating favored groups differently. Here is today's question:
Dear Commissioners,
How are conflicts of interest being addressed when a commissioner serves as president of an NGO that helps shape portions of the county’s comprehensive plan, then votes to fund that organization and later approve its recommendations when they come back to the county? Given that commissioners recently approved a $25,000 payment to the North Olympic Development Council, whose own Vision 2025 lists ‘building a sustainable organization’ as a core objective, what safeguards are in place to ensure these decisions serve the public interest rather than the sustainability of the organization itself?
Pretty low even mentioning Eberle’s kids to not even conclusively prove your point. Your self trumpeting of your own moral high ground is suspect by spotlighting children and exposing them to doxxing. You’re an irresponsible propagandist.
You clearly missed what the connection point was all about. To misconstrue evidence of someone not living in the area as doxxing is disengenuous to those facts.
This is another instance of the BOCCC not engaging in a standard vetting policy rather using their self-created commissions as an extension of their agenda.
Clearly I did not miss Jeff’s point. His questioning of Eberle’s qualifications could have been completely valid until he drew Eberle’s kids in as a point to further reinforce his argument. But don’t worry, CCWD sycophants will soothe Jeff’s feeling by rushing to his defense without question.
To thrust the responsibility of the BOCCC on Jeff is interesting. How do you think they should act as a result of strong information suggesting Eberle is not a true county resident?
Clallam County has requirements for anyone sitting on a board, committee, or commission, one being that you're a resident of the county.
Owning property does not make you a resident. The Commissioners are obligated to look into information suggesting an applicant is not a county resident and rectify it if their review reasonably concludes that to be the case.
Will they act, or is this another instance of malfeasance?
An application is required for the position, signature required certifying:
"I HEREBY CERTIFY, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THAT THIS APPLICATION CONTAINS NO
WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION AND THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
AND BELIEF. I AM AWARE THAT SHOULD INVESTIGATION AT ANY TIME DISCLOSE ANY SUCH MISREPRESENTATION
OR FALSIFICATION, MY APPLI ATION MAY BE REJECTED, AND MY NAME MAY BE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION."
Good Governance Proverb of the Day
“In public service, silence after notice is not restraint—it is a decision that transfers cost, risk, and harm to the public.”
Descriptor:
This is a good-governance modeled response illustrating how an individual county commissioner could acknowledge the issues raised in today’s article, clarify limits of authority, and demonstrate oversight responsibility—grounded in national oversight research, Washington State governance standards, and local context.
Dear Constituents,
The concerns raised in The Cost of Looking the Other Way warrant a response—not because every issue can be resolved immediately, but because continued silence after notice is itself a governance choice (Tozzer, 2026).
As an individual county commissioner, I do not direct staff, adjudicate enforcement cases, or determine outcomes in individual matters. Those separations exist to protect due process and operational integrity. However, once recurring concerns are raised publicly, oversight responsibility does not end with listening (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2014; Municipal Research and Services Center [MRSC], 2023).
Today’s article provides several concrete examples of situations in which residents reasonably perceive that concerns were raised but not meaningfully addressed.
For example, constituents questioned the recent Heritage Advisory Board appointment, noting both the lack of public discussion and concerns about district representation. Even when an appointment is lawful, the absence of visible process and explanation creates the perception that public input does not matter, eroding trust regardless of intent (Tozzer, 2026; Washington State Auditor’s Office [SAO], 2022).
Similarly, questions raised about continued public safety challenges alongside increased county investment in harm-reduction programs are not simply policy disagreements. They reflect a reasonable request for transparent performance measures and outcome reporting, particularly when residents experience conditions that appear unchanged (Tozzer, 2026; GAO, 2014).
The article also highlights concerns about overlapping roles between elected officials and county-funded organizations. Even when conflicts of interest are technically avoided, perceived conflicts require proactive transparency, because public confidence depends as much on clarity as on compliance (MRSC, 2023).
As an individual commissioner, my responsibility is not to pre-judge outcomes, but to ensure that recurring concerns are not quietly normalized. In practice, that means:
1. ensuring concerns are acknowledged in the public record;
2. asking which authority is responsible for response and oversight;
3. requesting clarity on process, criteria, and timelines; and
4. clearly explaining when the County lacks authority, rather than allowing silence to be mistaken for indifference.
Research and Washington audit guidance consistently show that unresolved issues, when repeatedly deferred, compound costs and risks over time and ultimately shift the burden onto residents least able to absorb them (GAO, 2014; SAO, 2022).
Good governance does not require doing everything. It requires acknowledging, examining, and addressing known problems transparently—especially when they are uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.
Respectfully,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
References
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2023). Roles and responsibilities of elected officials in administration and oversight. https://mrsc.org
Tozzer, J. (2026, January 20). The cost of looking the other way. Clallam County Watchdog. https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-cost-of-looking-the-other-way
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014). Standards for internal control in the federal government (GAO-14-704G). https://www.gao.gov
Washington State Auditor’s Office. (2022). Local government accountability and audit guidance. https://www.sao.wa.gov
The commissioners did not answer the last question about whether they are treating favored groups differently. Here is today's question:
Dear Commissioners,
How are conflicts of interest being addressed when a commissioner serves as president of an NGO that helps shape portions of the county’s comprehensive plan, then votes to fund that organization and later approve its recommendations when they come back to the county? Given that commissioners recently approved a $25,000 payment to the North Olympic Development Council, whose own Vision 2025 lists ‘building a sustainable organization’ as a core objective, what safeguards are in place to ensure these decisions serve the public interest rather than the sustainability of the organization itself?
Let's state the obvious:
"Discrimination " as you described is blatant RACISM.
I believe there are a few words dealing with this in both the body and amendments of our National Constitution.
Pretty low even mentioning Eberle’s kids to not even conclusively prove your point. Your self trumpeting of your own moral high ground is suspect by spotlighting children and exposing them to doxxing. You’re an irresponsible propagandist.
You clearly missed what the connection point was all about. To misconstrue evidence of someone not living in the area as doxxing is disengenuous to those facts.
This is another instance of the BOCCC not engaging in a standard vetting policy rather using their self-created commissions as an extension of their agenda.
Clearly I did not miss Jeff’s point. His questioning of Eberle’s qualifications could have been completely valid until he drew Eberle’s kids in as a point to further reinforce his argument. But don’t worry, CCWD sycophants will soothe Jeff’s feeling by rushing to his defense without question.
To thrust the responsibility of the BOCCC on Jeff is interesting. How do you think they should act as a result of strong information suggesting Eberle is not a true county resident?
Question:
Isn't administering drugs to others without proper medical authorization and licensure a FELONY?
Clallam County has requirements for anyone sitting on a board, committee, or commission, one being that you're a resident of the county.
Owning property does not make you a resident. The Commissioners are obligated to look into information suggesting an applicant is not a county resident and rectify it if their review reasonably concludes that to be the case.
Will they act, or is this another instance of malfeasance?
An application is required for the position, signature required certifying:
"I HEREBY CERTIFY, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THAT THIS APPLICATION CONTAINS NO
WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION AND THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
AND BELIEF. I AM AWARE THAT SHOULD INVESTIGATION AT ANY TIME DISCLOSE ANY SUCH MISREPRESENTATION
OR FALSIFICATION, MY APPLI ATION MAY BE REJECTED, AND MY NAME MAY BE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION."
https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8332/Boards-Committees-and-Commissions-Application