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?
Below is a good-governance response explains how conflicts are disclosed, how recusals function, and how public interest safeguards are enforced when county decisions intersect with nonprofit leadership.
Dear Constituent,
Your concern about conflicts of interest is legitimate.
Washington law requires commissioners to avoid not only actual conflicts of interest, but situations that reasonably appear to place personal, organizational, or fiduciary interests ahead of the public interest (RCW 42.23.030). Washington courts have consistently held that public confidence is undermined when officials participate in decisions affecting organizations with which they are closely affiliated, even absent proof of financial gain (Buettell v. Walker, 59 Wn.2d 613, 1962; Narrowsview Preservation Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 1974).
When a commissioner serves in a leadership role with a nonprofit—such as the North Olympic Development Council—and that organization receives county funding or submits recommendations later adopted by the county, several safeguards are expected:
• Public disclosure of the relationship on the record
• Recusal from votes where a fiduciary or leadership role exists
• Independent staff evaluation of proposals and recommendations
• Purpose-bound funding tied to defined public deliverables
• Public documentation demonstrating outcomes aligned with county policy
Clallam County’s Code of Ethics reinforces this standard by requiring county officials to act impartially and avoid preferential treatment or the appearance thereof (Clallam County Code [CCC] 2.43.020).
As an individual commissioner, I do not control how others vote. What I can do—and what good governance requires—is insist on disclosure, support recusals where appropriate, request independent analysis, and ensure funding decisions are justified in the public record based on public benefit.
When these safeguards are not clearly visible, public skepticism is reasonable.
My concern is that these safeguards don’t appear clearly visible in this case. A commissioner’s leadership role, a vote to fund the organization, and later approval of that organization’s recommendations occurred without obvious disclosure, recusal, or independent evaluation highlighted for the public.
Specifically:
• Where in the public record was the leadership role disclosed?
• Was recusal considered or discussed, and if not, why?
• How does the county distinguish public benefit from funding an organization’s stated goal of “building a sustainable organization”?
• What documents can the public review to verify independent evaluation and performance outcomes?
I’m not questioning intent. I’m asking how accountability is demonstrated when roles overlap.
Those are fair questions, and they go to the heart of public trust.
Disclosure should occur clearly on the public record whenever a commissioner has a leadership or fiduciary role with an organization under consideration. If that disclosure is not evident in meeting minutes or recordings, that is a governance gap—not a failure of public understanding.
While recusal is not mandated in every circumstance, Washington courts have emphasized that avoiding the appearance of partiality is essential to lawful decision-making (Narrowsview Preservation Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 1974). MRSC guidance similarly recommends recusal where a fiduciary relationship exists, even when legal thresholds are debated.
County funding must be tied to specific, measurable public deliverables, not to advancing an organization’s internal sustainability goals. The public should be able to see how funds were scoped, evaluated, and monitored under county authority.
As an individual commissioner, I will continue to advocate for clearer disclosures, explicit discussion of recusals, and stronger documentation so residents can verify that decisions serve the public interest and withstand scrutiny under county code and state law.
That transparency is essential to restoring and maintaining trust.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
References
Buettell v. Walker, 59 Wn.2d 613 (1962).
Clallam County Code § 2.43.020. Ethics—Standards of conduct.
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2023). Ethics and conflicts of interest for local government officials. https://mrsc.org
Narrowsview Preservation Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416 (1974).
Revised Code of Washington § 42.23.030. Contracts—Interests prohibited.
Washington State Attorney General. (2018). Conflicts of interest: A guide for public officials. https://www.atg.wa.gov
“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
I want to acknowledge the work you put into your modeled response, but there’s a dynamic here that needs to be named. You build a whole cathedral of citations and governance theory and then hang Jeff’s talking points inside it like Christmas ornaments. And the thing is, it works for the audience you’re aiming at. It gives his narrative a kind of legitimacy by wrapping it in MRSC citations and GAO standards. Nothing you wrote is technically wrong. The issue is that you’re treating his article as if it’s a neutral set of “concerns raised by residents,” when it’s really a curated list of grievances from a very small, very online faction.
That’s where the scale gets distorted. Clallam County has about seventy thousand people. Most of them are not living inside this storyline. Most of them are not reading Watchdog. Most of them are not interpreting county government through Jeff’s lens. When his article gets treated like a factual reference instead of one person’s interpretation, it unintentionally elevates the narrative far beyond its actual footprint.
Transparency matters. Accountability matters. But proportion matters too. When a blog post gets treated like audit guidance, the conversation drifts away from the real conditions on the ground and into whatever storyline happens to be circulating that week. Good governance is about clarity, not amplification
I appreciate you taking the time to engage thoughtfully, and I agree with you on one core point: proportion matters.
Clallam County is not a comment section. It’s ~70,000 people with vastly different levels of engagement, priorities, and lived experience. Most residents are not reading CC Watchdog, not tracking weekly governance disputes, and not interpreting county operations through any single narrative lens—including Jeff’s.
Where I may differ slightly is in why I chose this approach.
The modeled responses aren’t an endorsement of Jeff’s framing, nor are they intended to elevate a Substack article to the level of an audit or official finding. They are an exercise in governance translation—taking a highly opinionated, emotionally charged prompt and asking: If an individual commissioner were going to respond responsibly anyway, what would that look like?
That means grounding responses in law, process, and documented standards, not because the article deserves that weight, but because government replies should never be calibrated to the loudness or legitimacy of the prompt. They should be calibrated to the risk, authority, and obligations of the office.
In other words, the citations aren’t there to validate the narrative. They’re there to constrain the response.
You’re absolutely right that good governance is about clarity, not amplification. For me, clarity includes making visible the difference between:
• a blog post and a statutory duty,
• a grievance and a governance lever,
• a narrative and the actual scope of commissioner authority.
If anything, the intent is the opposite of amplification: to deflate storyline drift by anchoring responses back to what commissioners can actually do, say, disclose, or recuse from—regardless of where the question originates.
That said, your point about scale is an important reminder. Good governance fails not only when concerns are ignored, but also when they are unintentionally inflated beyond their real-world footprint. Holding that balance is part of the work.
Appreciate the push. This is a useful tension to keep naming.
You would have been perfect for the CRC. You should run next time. Everyone has the opportunity to be involved in whatever way they choose. Show me where else we have a contingent of people who show up to show their desire for their form of governance? No Kings Rally possibly? Do you also dismiss their efforts because they're a minute representation of the 70,000 residents?
No one in this county can legitimately say that they don't know how to get involved if they choose to do so. As such those who acquiesce their voices tolerate the other voices that take time out of their lives to weigh in on matters. My quip about the CRC for you is spot on to how it operated and how you orate. Everyone had a chance to weigh in, their were surveys, and they were dismissed by the little minds that were able to control the entire organization through structure with no widely known support for their positions.
You're statement is laughable as if there's a standard for accepting the validity of a citizen's position that it pass a litmus test before being accepted as valid, by you. Reads Tozzer, throw it out! Listens to Commissioner Ozias, keeper...?
"That’s where the scale gets distorted. Clallam County has about seventy thousand people. Most of them are not living inside this storyline. Most of them are not reading Watchdog. Most of them are not interpreting county government through Jeff’s lens."
1,000,000+ downloads!! Celebrate! Congratulations, Jeff! That is quite an accomplishment. Keep those 0s rolling. Thank you for the potpourri. They are short refreshers that serve as follow-ups, which the fading media rarely does. I like the idea of a more modern car wash in Sequim. We could also use another laundry mat at the east end of Sequim.
It's very suspicious about Eberle being appointed to the Heritage Advisory Board, more so because his name was not disclosed on the BoCC Regular Meeting Agenda, but was listed along with three other appointees on page 34 of the agenda packet. Why hide such an open frienship?
A lot to digest...I surely believe thatDerrick Eberle should turn down a position handed to him and replaced with a true local!
Mark Ozias is the problem and it's time for him to get totally exposed but he would just get applause from state government. I'm truly sick of Racism in our state. The influence from global interests should stay out of our state. Our local issues are the ones that need care and local representation...
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."
Brian Lewis..All Eberly Information is public record by law. Information you, I or anyone else can obtain. I think what your upset about is the message, the fact finding (true facts) that are being exposed & discussed about a controversial appointed individual in Clallam County. Eberle tried to steal a county road for his personal gain, fact! If you go back in the records Eberly falsely accused Mr. Tozzer of destruction of county property resulting in a formal police investigation. I recall posts showing Mr. Tozzer’s home and address posted online suggesting exactly what you are complaining about. Other people of the public were also accused by the Eberly’s, including myself, of various other false accusations. The Eberly’s wanted to steal our county road and our tax dollars with Ozias’s help just like thieves. A road Brian you & property owners in the County have paid for years, including the removal of the levee and the new road. Yes Mr. Eberly wanted it all for himself including electric gates paid for and maintained by the County taxpayers. All the mistakes and cost overruns are why your taxes went up, the county had to scale back on staff and hours, 7% cut across departments. Where is your concern about all of the impacts the Eberly’s have brought upon the county/tax increases. Aren’t you concerned about that? So Brian you might want to look a little deeper, research and get your facts straight in the future. Just saying for a friend.
Eberle is not the issue as is abundantly clear. The appearance is that Commissioner Ozias has found another person to be conned into Ozias' agenda. This entire matter is for Commissioner Ozias to clear up and apologize to Eberle for using him like a tool and allow an actual resident of Clallam County to occupy this position after a formal vetting process.
Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day. Today we are blessed with more excellent reporting by Jeff. What screamed at me in today’s Watchdog is how little some among us have taken our race struggles and victories to heart.
“ I pledge allegiance to . . . , one nation . . . “ I am sick of the phony “sovereign nation” term and even of “sovereign land.” I am sick of the segregation, special treatment, grants, and false narratives . . . of the blatant racism.
It's not just dogs either. I have seen cats drug around in small carriers strapped into wagons of "belongings" or stuck living in cars full of drug smoke. Once I almost managed to buy a kitten from a junkie dragging it around on a leash next to Safeway, but the "owner" woke up from nodding off in her car and stopped her "friend" from selling her cat
Thank you for sharing the Sequim Monitor article, and my NODC article!
In defense of vacuuming every day, we have cats. I no longer vacuum the full house everyday, just the main areas which takes less than 10 minutes. I sometimes think there's nothing to vacuum, but my bagless vacuum tells a different story by the amount of pet hair in the canister. Cats! LOL.
I really like it in your podcasts when you say things like you're not being nice anymore, and you say it in the nicest tone. You are nice and you are helping people learn about what is going on, and so are others who are contributing to CCWD; you take a lot of flack and it doesn't take the niceness out of you; it doesn't break your stride or slow you down. 😁
Looking at Eberle's past work experience, coupled with his current business, and the projects he's been involved with, I can't help it wonder if Towne Road was a push for him to obtain a contract to carry out a trail system versus the road.
These people aren't stupid. Regarding dogs and homeless people, at least two separate times now, I've seen the same dog with different homeless people standing at the corner of the Sequim Safeway and 7th Avenue. This dog, I'm pretty sure, is passed around and used as a prop to play us. We fork over a couple of bucks (or more), so that the dog is fed and cared for.
A clallam county commissioner who also owns an NGO that receives funding from clallam county, demonstrates a severe conflict of interest. A county commissioner should not be voting to award himself money/salary via his NGO. This is a blatant conflict of interest that all three county commissioners should immediately realize and stop. This is no different than say a county commissioner awarding grants to his own personal business in downtown PA. Any county commissioner in a conflicted position like this should resign.
If someone knows whether clallam county code forbids these types of conflicts of interest, please comment.
Unfortunately, they don't, and this was the point of discussion for the Charter Review Commission which used its powers to sideline real issues like this for other ideological/political issues.
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?
As "building a sustainable organization" is a core objective, what does sustainability require? Funding? From where?
Regulation? Of whom or what?
Compliance? By whom?
Can WE define the term “sustainability”?
Below is a good-governance response explains how conflicts are disclosed, how recusals function, and how public interest safeguards are enforced when county decisions intersect with nonprofit leadership.
Dear Constituent,
Your concern about conflicts of interest is legitimate.
Washington law requires commissioners to avoid not only actual conflicts of interest, but situations that reasonably appear to place personal, organizational, or fiduciary interests ahead of the public interest (RCW 42.23.030). Washington courts have consistently held that public confidence is undermined when officials participate in decisions affecting organizations with which they are closely affiliated, even absent proof of financial gain (Buettell v. Walker, 59 Wn.2d 613, 1962; Narrowsview Preservation Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 1974).
When a commissioner serves in a leadership role with a nonprofit—such as the North Olympic Development Council—and that organization receives county funding or submits recommendations later adopted by the county, several safeguards are expected:
• Public disclosure of the relationship on the record
• Recusal from votes where a fiduciary or leadership role exists
• Independent staff evaluation of proposals and recommendations
• Purpose-bound funding tied to defined public deliverables
• Public documentation demonstrating outcomes aligned with county policy
Clallam County’s Code of Ethics reinforces this standard by requiring county officials to act impartially and avoid preferential treatment or the appearance thereof (Clallam County Code [CCC] 2.43.020).
As an individual commissioner, I do not control how others vote. What I can do—and what good governance requires—is insist on disclosure, support recusals where appropriate, request independent analysis, and ensure funding decisions are justified in the public record based on public benefit.
When these safeguards are not clearly visible, public skepticism is reasonable.
Respectfully,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
Dear Commissioner,
Thank you for the response.
My concern is that these safeguards don’t appear clearly visible in this case. A commissioner’s leadership role, a vote to fund the organization, and later approval of that organization’s recommendations occurred without obvious disclosure, recusal, or independent evaluation highlighted for the public.
Specifically:
• Where in the public record was the leadership role disclosed?
• Was recusal considered or discussed, and if not, why?
• How does the county distinguish public benefit from funding an organization’s stated goal of “building a sustainable organization”?
• What documents can the public review to verify independent evaluation and performance outcomes?
I’m not questioning intent. I’m asking how accountability is demonstrated when roles overlap.
Sincerely,
Constituent
Dear Constituent,
Those are fair questions, and they go to the heart of public trust.
Disclosure should occur clearly on the public record whenever a commissioner has a leadership or fiduciary role with an organization under consideration. If that disclosure is not evident in meeting minutes or recordings, that is a governance gap—not a failure of public understanding.
While recusal is not mandated in every circumstance, Washington courts have emphasized that avoiding the appearance of partiality is essential to lawful decision-making (Narrowsview Preservation Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 1974). MRSC guidance similarly recommends recusal where a fiduciary relationship exists, even when legal thresholds are debated.
County funding must be tied to specific, measurable public deliverables, not to advancing an organization’s internal sustainability goals. The public should be able to see how funds were scoped, evaluated, and monitored under county authority.
As an individual commissioner, I will continue to advocate for clearer disclosures, explicit discussion of recusals, and stronger documentation so residents can verify that decisions serve the public interest and withstand scrutiny under county code and state law.
That transparency is essential to restoring and maintaining trust.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
Clallam County Board of Commissioners
References
Buettell v. Walker, 59 Wn.2d 613 (1962).
Clallam County Code § 2.43.020. Ethics—Standards of conduct.
Municipal Research and Services Center. (2023). Ethics and conflicts of interest for local government officials. https://mrsc.org
Narrowsview Preservation Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416 (1974).
Revised Code of Washington § 42.23.030. Contracts—Interests prohibited.
Washington State Attorney General. (2018). Conflicts of interest: A guide for public officials. https://www.atg.wa.gov
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
I want to acknowledge the work you put into your modeled response, but there’s a dynamic here that needs to be named. You build a whole cathedral of citations and governance theory and then hang Jeff’s talking points inside it like Christmas ornaments. And the thing is, it works for the audience you’re aiming at. It gives his narrative a kind of legitimacy by wrapping it in MRSC citations and GAO standards. Nothing you wrote is technically wrong. The issue is that you’re treating his article as if it’s a neutral set of “concerns raised by residents,” when it’s really a curated list of grievances from a very small, very online faction.
That’s where the scale gets distorted. Clallam County has about seventy thousand people. Most of them are not living inside this storyline. Most of them are not reading Watchdog. Most of them are not interpreting county government through Jeff’s lens. When his article gets treated like a factual reference instead of one person’s interpretation, it unintentionally elevates the narrative far beyond its actual footprint.
Transparency matters. Accountability matters. But proportion matters too. When a blog post gets treated like audit guidance, the conversation drifts away from the real conditions on the ground and into whatever storyline happens to be circulating that week. Good governance is about clarity, not amplification
I appreciate you taking the time to engage thoughtfully, and I agree with you on one core point: proportion matters.
Clallam County is not a comment section. It’s ~70,000 people with vastly different levels of engagement, priorities, and lived experience. Most residents are not reading CC Watchdog, not tracking weekly governance disputes, and not interpreting county operations through any single narrative lens—including Jeff’s.
Where I may differ slightly is in why I chose this approach.
The modeled responses aren’t an endorsement of Jeff’s framing, nor are they intended to elevate a Substack article to the level of an audit or official finding. They are an exercise in governance translation—taking a highly opinionated, emotionally charged prompt and asking: If an individual commissioner were going to respond responsibly anyway, what would that look like?
That means grounding responses in law, process, and documented standards, not because the article deserves that weight, but because government replies should never be calibrated to the loudness or legitimacy of the prompt. They should be calibrated to the risk, authority, and obligations of the office.
In other words, the citations aren’t there to validate the narrative. They’re there to constrain the response.
You’re absolutely right that good governance is about clarity, not amplification. For me, clarity includes making visible the difference between:
• a blog post and a statutory duty,
• a grievance and a governance lever,
• a narrative and the actual scope of commissioner authority.
If anything, the intent is the opposite of amplification: to deflate storyline drift by anchoring responses back to what commissioners can actually do, say, disclose, or recuse from—regardless of where the question originates.
That said, your point about scale is an important reminder. Good governance fails not only when concerns are ignored, but also when they are unintentionally inflated beyond their real-world footprint. Holding that balance is part of the work.
Appreciate the push. This is a useful tension to keep naming.
You would have been perfect for the CRC. You should run next time. Everyone has the opportunity to be involved in whatever way they choose. Show me where else we have a contingent of people who show up to show their desire for their form of governance? No Kings Rally possibly? Do you also dismiss their efforts because they're a minute representation of the 70,000 residents?
No one in this county can legitimately say that they don't know how to get involved if they choose to do so. As such those who acquiesce their voices tolerate the other voices that take time out of their lives to weigh in on matters. My quip about the CRC for you is spot on to how it operated and how you orate. Everyone had a chance to weigh in, their were surveys, and they were dismissed by the little minds that were able to control the entire organization through structure with no widely known support for their positions.
You're statement is laughable as if there's a standard for accepting the validity of a citizen's position that it pass a litmus test before being accepted as valid, by you. Reads Tozzer, throw it out! Listens to Commissioner Ozias, keeper...?
"That’s where the scale gets distorted. Clallam County has about seventy thousand people. Most of them are not living inside this storyline. Most of them are not reading Watchdog. Most of them are not interpreting county government through Jeff’s lens."
1,000,000+ downloads!! Celebrate! Congratulations, Jeff! That is quite an accomplishment. Keep those 0s rolling. Thank you for the potpourri. They are short refreshers that serve as follow-ups, which the fading media rarely does. I like the idea of a more modern car wash in Sequim. We could also use another laundry mat at the east end of Sequim.
It's very suspicious about Eberle being appointed to the Heritage Advisory Board, more so because his name was not disclosed on the BoCC Regular Meeting Agenda, but was listed along with three other appointees on page 34 of the agenda packet. Why hide such an open frienship?
Did Commissioner Ozias recuse himself from voting on the money for NODC?
He was in D.C.
Thanks for responding, Jeff. I'm a little behind being at those meetings today. And Ozias did not Zoom into the meeting.
Did he stay? Please say yes!
Good morning Jeff,
A lot to digest...I surely believe thatDerrick Eberle should turn down a position handed to him and replaced with a true local!
Mark Ozias is the problem and it's time for him to get totally exposed but he would just get applause from state government. I'm truly sick of Racism in our state. The influence from global interests should stay out of our state. Our local issues are the ones that need care and local representation...
Thank you
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
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.
Brian Lewis..All Eberly Information is public record by law. Information you, I or anyone else can obtain. I think what your upset about is the message, the fact finding (true facts) that are being exposed & discussed about a controversial appointed individual in Clallam County. Eberle tried to steal a county road for his personal gain, fact! If you go back in the records Eberly falsely accused Mr. Tozzer of destruction of county property resulting in a formal police investigation. I recall posts showing Mr. Tozzer’s home and address posted online suggesting exactly what you are complaining about. Other people of the public were also accused by the Eberly’s, including myself, of various other false accusations. The Eberly’s wanted to steal our county road and our tax dollars with Ozias’s help just like thieves. A road Brian you & property owners in the County have paid for years, including the removal of the levee and the new road. Yes Mr. Eberly wanted it all for himself including electric gates paid for and maintained by the County taxpayers. All the mistakes and cost overruns are why your taxes went up, the county had to scale back on staff and hours, 7% cut across departments. Where is your concern about all of the impacts the Eberly’s have brought upon the county/tax increases. Aren’t you concerned about that? So Brian you might want to look a little deeper, research and get your facts straight in the future. Just saying for a friend.
Eberle is not the issue as is abundantly clear. The appearance is that Commissioner Ozias has found another person to be conned into Ozias' agenda. This entire matter is for Commissioner Ozias to clear up and apologize to Eberle for using him like a tool and allow an actual resident of Clallam County to occupy this position after a formal vetting process.
Just FYI there will be a car wash in PA also. The building near to the dollar store. Same company.
I sure hope the car wash will truly be built. Finally a car wash that has an unlimited car wash programs!
Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day. Today we are blessed with more excellent reporting by Jeff. What screamed at me in today’s Watchdog is how little some among us have taken our race struggles and victories to heart.
“ I pledge allegiance to . . . , one nation . . . “ I am sick of the phony “sovereign nation” term and even of “sovereign land.” I am sick of the segregation, special treatment, grants, and false narratives . . . of the blatant racism.
The parasites are attacking the host.
Thanks for talking about the pets. We know they are often at risk just as children trapped in these situations. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/puppies-treated-fentanyl-overdose-washington-new-homes-rcna253945
It's not just dogs either. I have seen cats drug around in small carriers strapped into wagons of "belongings" or stuck living in cars full of drug smoke. Once I almost managed to buy a kitten from a junkie dragging it around on a leash next to Safeway, but the "owner" woke up from nodding off in her car and stopped her "friend" from selling her cat
Question:
Isn't administering drugs to others without proper medical authorization and licensure a FELONY?
I would hope so…doesn't get protection from good Samaritan clause…
Thank you for sharing the Sequim Monitor article, and my NODC article!
In defense of vacuuming every day, we have cats. I no longer vacuum the full house everyday, just the main areas which takes less than 10 minutes. I sometimes think there's nothing to vacuum, but my bagless vacuum tells a different story by the amount of pet hair in the canister. Cats! LOL.
I really like it in your podcasts when you say things like you're not being nice anymore, and you say it in the nicest tone. You are nice and you are helping people learn about what is going on, and so are others who are contributing to CCWD; you take a lot of flack and it doesn't take the niceness out of you; it doesn't break your stride or slow you down. 😁
Looking at Eberle's past work experience, coupled with his current business, and the projects he's been involved with, I can't help it wonder if Towne Road was a push for him to obtain a contract to carry out a trail system versus the road.
Mmmm
These people aren't stupid. Regarding dogs and homeless people, at least two separate times now, I've seen the same dog with different homeless people standing at the corner of the Sequim Safeway and 7th Avenue. This dog, I'm pretty sure, is passed around and used as a prop to play us. We fork over a couple of bucks (or more), so that the dog is fed and cared for.
the food banks have pet food, there is even a little free pet pantry. don't kid yourself that cash goes to pet food
Installing our boards and commissioners like a contractor installs an appliance.
A clallam county commissioner who also owns an NGO that receives funding from clallam county, demonstrates a severe conflict of interest. A county commissioner should not be voting to award himself money/salary via his NGO. This is a blatant conflict of interest that all three county commissioners should immediately realize and stop. This is no different than say a county commissioner awarding grants to his own personal business in downtown PA. Any county commissioner in a conflicted position like this should resign.
If someone knows whether clallam county code forbids these types of conflicts of interest, please comment.
Unfortunately, they don't, and this was the point of discussion for the Charter Review Commission which used its powers to sideline real issues like this for other ideological/political issues.