After months of refusing to answer questions about taxpayer-funded private security at Charter Review Commission meetings, Commissioner Jim Stoffer has finally shared an explanation with his fellow commissioners—but what he offered was not new evidence or transparency. Instead, he circulated a curated set of emails from county leaders defending the decision and recasting it as routine, even though the record shows otherwise: selective security, shifting explanations, unanswered questions about an alleged “threat,” and a continued effort to keep the issue off the public agenda, all while taxpayers continue to pick up the tab.
Before We Begin — Let’s Meet Up Tonight
There is no Board of County Commissioners work session today, and no BOCC meeting tomorrow.
Instead, there is one final Charter Review Commission meeting — and a chance to connect beforehand.
Let’s meet up tonight at 4:45 PM.
Bella Rosa Coffee House. Corner of 4th & Lincoln — across from the courthouse and just steps from the CRC meeting at 5:30 PM.
CC Watchdog will have a hot cocoa tab running and would love to buy you a cup for showing up, staying civically engaged, and marking the end of this Charter Review year. This is it — we won’t get another chance like this for five more years.
Warm up, say hello, and head into the meeting together.
Instructions to attend virtually are here.
Stoffer Breaks His Silence — Selectively
Charter Review Commissioner Jim Stoffer has, until now, refused to answer questions from the commission or the public about the taxpayer-funded private security he requested in July and received shortly thereafter.
While open discussion about the issue continues to be blocked at commission meetings, Stoffer did recently take time to explain his position — not publicly, and not directly — but by forwarding an email exchange to all 15 Charter Review Commissioners.
In his message, Stoffer wrote:
“As this item has been an ongoing conversation for the CRC, Public Comments, and social media, please forward to Charter Review Commissioners.”
What he asked to be forwarded was an email chain triggered by a concerned constituent, who had asked basic, reasonable questions:
Why was security provided?
Who approved it?
How much does it cost?
Who else receives it?
The responses came not from Stoffer himself, but from Commissioner Mark Ozias, Commissioner Mike French, and Sheriff Brian King — all defending the security arrangement.
Ozias Says He ‘Asked’ — The Email Says Otherwise
Commissioner Mark Ozias wrote that when a CRC member expressed concern about security, he “asked our County Administrator and Sheriff to see what could be done.”
But Commissioner Ozias’s own words tell a different story.
In his email to County Administrator Todd Mielke and Sheriff Brian King, Commissioner Ozias wrote:
“I would appreciate it if we could do what is necessary to ensure that a security officer can be present for all future meetings of the CRC.”
That is not a question.
That is not a request for discussion.
That is a direction.
And it worked.
Security appeared at CRC meetings soon after — something that had not occurred before Stoffer’s request.
‘We’d Do This for Any Body’ — Except When They Didn’t
Commissioner Ozias further claimed he would have handled the request the same way for any public body.
The record suggests otherwise.
When a public commenter was verbally accosted at the courthouse by Commissioner Ozias’s wife after exercising protected First Amendment speech, there was:
• No public acknowledgment
• No additional security arranged
• No assurance to the public
• No follow-up at all
The incident involving Commissioner Ozias’ wife may have been dismissed as insignificant, but so too was the episode that prompted Commissioner Jim Stoffer to contact law enforcement, file an incident report, and request security. The difference is not the severity of the conduct, but the response: in the case involving Commissioner Ozias’ wife, public safety concerns went entirely unaddressed.
Routine Security? Only for This Meeting
Commissioner Ozias also stated that security is a “regular presence” at public meetings.
That framing omits key facts:
• Commissioner meetings occur while the courthouse is open and staffed
• Charter Review Commission meetings occur at 5:30 PM, after the courthouse is closed
• After-hours security is an extra expense, not baseline coverage
And critically:
The Fair Board meets monthly, after hours, in the same room, with no security present.
If this were routine courthouse security, the Fair Board would have it too.
It does not.
The arrangement appears specific to the Charter Review Commission — and to one commissioner.
Sheriff King: ‘Several Requests’ — From Whom?
Sheriff Brian King told the constituent he received requests from “several sources” and that people were becoming fearful.
That is a serious claim.
Yet no one has identified:
• Who made those requests
• When they were made
• What the specific threat was
• Why the issue was never discussed publicly
The Charter Review Commission has repeatedly attempted to place this topic on the agenda — and each time, the Executive Committee — Susan Fisch, Chris Noble, and Mark Hodgson — has blocked it.
If a threat is real enough to justify private security, it should be real enough to discuss.
French Says No One Got Individual Security — Who Else Was It For?
Commissioner Mike French stated flatly:
“No, it is not true that any individual Charter Review Commissioner received private security services.”
But the only commissioner named in emails, requests, explanations, or justifications is Jim Stoffer.
No other commissioner has claimed to feel threatened.
No other commissioner requested security.
No other meeting received it.
French also referenced “credible threats” made in other contexts — including the COVID era.
Yet at least one Charter Review Commissioner had directions to his home posted online.
The same commissioner was also falsely accused of having ties to white supremacy
Requests to the County Commissioners and Sheriff for an investigation went unanswered.
Notably, the individual making those posts was Nate Tyler, a former candidate for the 24th Legislative District who had been endorsed by Commissioners Mike French and Mark Ozias.
The contrast is hard to ignore: when the alleged threat was politically inconvenient, it was dismissed; when it aligned with favored narratives, it was treated as justification for taxpayer-funded protection.
An Unidentified Threat — And a Bill for the Public
To date, no county official has identified the threat that allegedly triggered Stoffer’s request.
The original email cited “toxic bullying” and “verbal threats,” yet no evidence has been produced.
Meanwhile, taxpayers are paying $57.50 per hour for a guard positioned closest to Stoffer’s seat.
The threat is serious enough to require security.
But not serious enough to discuss.
Not serious enough to document.
Not serious enough to explain.
Agenda Gating and Public Trust
This controversy does not stand alone.
It fits a broader pattern of agenda control, where certain topics are ruled out of order — while others, raised by Executive Committee members, proceed without issue.
Rules appear flexible for some commissioners and rigid for others.
That is not transparency.
It is management.
The Question That Still Hasn’t Been Answered
Commissioner Stoffer has finally spoken — indirectly.
Commissioners Ozias and French have rushed to normalize the situation.
But the core question remains:
Why did one commissioner receive taxpayer-funded private security, without a vote, without public discussion, and without an identified threat — while other public bodies meet without it?
Until that question is answered plainly, the explanations offered will continue to sound less like reassurance — and more like revision.
Email from concerned constituent
Dear Commissioners,
Is it true Commissioner Ozias approved special tax payer paid security for charter member Jim Stoffer? Do all charter members get special tax payer paid security?
Commissioners, please explain to me in a reply email why Jim Stoffer requires tax payer paid security. How much does it cost per detail? How long will Stoffer need security? How much has been spent on Stoffer’s security since it started? Who else receives tax payer paid security? What is the criteria to demand tax payer paid security? Does one need a medical condition to qualify?
Have any of you now or during your time as a Commissioner had any tax payer paid security? I guess my real questions surrounding my email is why is public safety not a priority for all Clallam County residents?
Please reply back to me this month, or allow Loni to do so.
Curious in Sequim, [Constituent name redacted]
Response from Charter Review Commissioner Tozzer
Dear [Redacted],
Thank you for your email. I’ll try my best to answer your questions.
I don’t know if County Commissioner Mark Ozias “approved” funding Charter Review Commissioner Jim Stoffer’s security through a formal process, but he did instruct the Sheriff and Administrator to pursue it. (According to public records).
I’m unsure why Jim Stoffer requires security. There has been no proof of a threat provided despite questions. The arrangement, through a contractor, costs the County $57.50 per hour and (I think) begins one hour before CRC meetings, and lasts until the end of the meeting. A two-hour meeting would cost $172.50. I have not tallied up how much the security has cost since it began.
I am not aware of any other charter review nor county commissioner who is provided regular security during meetings. We have two retired and one currently employed law enforcement officer serving on the commission, and I have not heard of a widespread need to have a private security guard for any commissioner. Also, I have not seen any mention of a medical condition as a requirement.
You ask very good questions, and I wish I had all the answers. Hopefully, County Commissioner Mark Ozias, CRC Chair Susan Fisch, Sheriff Brian King, and County Administrator Todd Mielke will be able to offer additional information.
Appreciatively,
Jeff Tozzer
Charter Review Commissioner, District 1
Email from Jim Stoffer to Charter Review Commission
Good morning, Loni,
As this item has been an ongoing conversation for the CRC, Public Comments, and social media, please forward to Charter Review Commissioners.
Thank you.
CRC Commissioner Jim Stoffer
Stoffer’s email included response from Commissioner Ozias
Ms. [Redacted],
The county contracts with a security firm that provides a broad array of on-site security support, including for public meetings. When a member of the Charter Review Committee expressed concern about the security at their meetings, I asked our County Administrator and Sheriff to see what could be done to work with the CRC to ensure that a security presence could be provided as appropriate. I take the safety of all members of elected bodies, and the public, seriously and would have handled this request in the exact same way had it come from any county body that holds public meetings. Our County Charter specifically instructs us to consider the Charter Review Commission as on par with any other county department; this is unique to this group and underscores the appropriateness of ensuring adequate security. Security is a regular presence at many public meetings (including our weekly BOCC meetings and work sessions,) if not in the meeting then with regular check-ins during the course of a meeting.
Security at Charter Review meetings is not for the benefit of any one individual, nor is it centered around any one individual, but rather for the benefit of the entire elected body and for the members of the public (and staff) who are in attendance. It is too bad that we have to consider security as a concern at all, but it is a reality of daily life. Many if not most elected officials receive any number of threatening messages on a regular basis and one never knows when somebody will feel inspired to act.
Historically, Corrections Deputies have provided security services for the courthouse. Due to a lack of sufficient staffing we have been forced to contract out these security services, for which we have gone out to RFP at least twice to ensure we are getting a competitive contract. I think we are all looking forward to the day when we once again have enough Corrections Deputies to perform this function.
On a related note, the Clallam County Courthouse will be transitioning to a single-point of entry with a metal detector and security check at the door at some point this year. While I am uncertain how this may change specific security protocols within the courthouse – like for public meetings – my point in letting you know is to underscore that security concerns are a significant and ongoing reality and we will continue to take this responsibility seriously.
Sincerely,
Mark Ozias
Stoffer included an email from Sheriff King
Good Afternoon [Redacted],
We at the Sheriff’s Office are constantly assessing safety/security to be as proactive as possible. We have regular security requests from the various boards, elections, courts, juvenile services, and general courthouse operations. Additionally, we have regular internal discussions concerning intel we receive, and investigations we conduct, identifying the need for additional security as added layers of protection based on specific risk. Both Sheriff’s Deputies and private contracted courthouse security officers are utilized in provide this service.
Directly relating to your inquiry regarding the Charter Review Commission (CRC) and specifically Jim Stoffer, I received requests from several sources concerned about safety and security during the Charter Review Commission meetings. Several persons requested a security presence, and I received many comments that those in attendance were becoming fearful for their safety and the safety of others.
Security involves protecting people by employing operational measures that reduce risks and prevent harm. I reviewed some of commission meeting recordings, understood the concerns, and felt a presence would go a long way in addressing everyone’s safety concerns while ensuring the commission could get their important work accomplished. We provide those operational measures everyday with careful balance of reducing fear and risk to personal safety.
There is a cost to the service. The contract we have with Security Services Northwest (SSNW) covers costs associated with providing security functions at the courthouse to ensure a safe environment for county employees and the public in all thing’s county government. As Commissioner French had mentioned, due to several unfilled positions in our Corrections Division that traditionally provided these services, we needed to contract out for these services. The Sheriff has a lawful requirement to provide some of these services. We used the underspend dollars for not having those positions filled, as well as an Administrative Office of the Courts grant to provide these services.
To date, the security costs for CRC meetings totals $845.94. The average cost per hour is $57.50. I never viewed the request as a duty owed to one person, but a duty owed to all in attendance of an open public meeting.
Brian J. King, Sheriff
Stoffer included response from Commissioner French
Hi [Redacted],
Thanks for these questions.
No, it is not true that any individual Charter Review Commissioner received private security services. The County is required to provide security for County functions at the County Courthouse, and historically that has been accomplished by utilizing the Sheriff’s Department Corrections Deputies. Since we have had a years-long challenge in filling the positions in that department, we have shifted to contracting with a local private security firm to provide Courthouse security services. These security services focus primarily on providing security services for our courtrooms upstairs, and secondarily on providing general Courthouse security services for the entrance and our various public meetings. I don’t personally know how much it costs to have our security contractor staff the Charter Review Commission meetings, but if you’re interested in that number, I can have our staff respond to you with that number. The Sheriff’s Office manages that contract, and I’ve cc’d the Sheriff who can correct me if I’m wrong on any of that information.
In recent years, we have provided additional personal security for our Public Health Officer after credible threats were made against her during the COVID public health crisis. I’m sure there have been instances where we provided similar services to the families of law enforcement officers who received credible threats.
Mike French
Response to Commissioner Jim Stoffer
Commissioner Stoffer,
You, Commissioner Pickett, Chair Fisch, Commissioner Noble, and others have repeatedly prevented open discussion about CRC security. Yet you now wish to distribute emails to validate your position. This approach is inefficient and inconsistent with good governance. However, because you and Chair Fisch continue to block respectful dialogue on many CRC issues, I will respond to the full CRC and address the “misrepresentations” that Commissioner Holy and others are continually concerned about.
Your personal friend, Commissioner Mark Ozias, did not “ask” about security—he instructed, stating: “I would appreciate it if we could do what is necessary to ensure that a security officer can be present for all future meetings of the CRC.”
Security was not present at CRC meetings until you requested it. It is still not present at Fair Board meetings and various other public meetings. You requested it, Chair Fisch supported it, and Commissioner Ozias gave direction to ensure your request was fulfilled.
Commissioner Ozias states, “Many if not most elected officials receive any number of threatening messages on a regular basis.” I have yet to see any evidence that you, or any CRC commissioner, received a threatening message. When I’ve requested proof, you refuse to answer, and Commissioners Fisch, Hodgson, and Noble will not allow this discussion on the agenda. There is a claimed threat that no one can explain and no one is permitted to discuss. That does not rise to the level of a credible threat in my view.
Commissioner Ozias also says, “Security at Charter Review meetings is not for the benefit of any one individual.” If that is true, I ask you—or anyone—to identify in the public record where the private security detail was arranged for any purpose other than your protection. I also ask for any record showing another commissioner requested security prior to your request.
Regarding Sheriff King’s statement, “I received requests from several sources concerned about safety and security during the Charter Review Commission meetings. Several persons requested a security presence, and I received many comments that those in attendance were becoming fearful for their safety and the safety of others.”
Who are these “several persons”? Why was this not discussed in an open meeting? We are a 15-member commission consisting of equal voices—not a private group where favored commissioners consult separately with Sheriff King and make decisions affecting the entire body. Again, I ask for proof of any commissioner requesting security prior to your request.
To date, your request has cost taxpayers over $800 without publicly stated justification. The cost is $57.50 per hour for a guard positioned closest to your seat. I would like to see any contract requiring the CRC to maintain a security guard while the Fair Board and other public bodies do not.
Commissioner French refers to “credible threats.” What was the credible threat you experienced?
The revisionist history surrounding this issue—and the continued refusal to allow discussion as a commission—remains baffling. Numerous constituents have contacted me and the full CRC asking why they are now funding a private security guard positioned closest to you during meetings. The public record is clear. Perhaps you feel comfortable enough to offer the public an explanation, since it is the public who is now obligated to pay for this.
I will not interrupt you.
Respectfully,
Commissioner Jeff Tozzer
Bonus content
Dear Executive Committee Members Susan Fisch, Chris Noble, and Mark Hodgson:
Previously, I was advised that my suggested discussion item was not included in the draft agenda because, as stated, “it does not pertain to a proposed charter amendment or a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. As always, you may move to add an item to the agenda.”
I have since reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meeting and note that Commissioner Noble, a member of the Executive Committee, has added an item titled “Proposed By-law and Attorney/Client Privilege Issues.” This item does not appear to be a proposed charter amendment, nor does it constitute a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Given this, I am seeking clarification. Is there a rule, policy, or procedural authority that permits members of the Executive Committee to place agenda items directly on the agenda that do not meet the stated criteria, while other commissioners are precluded from doing so? If so, I would appreciate that rule being identified and explained.
For the sake of transparency, consistency, and public confidence in the Commission’s process, it is important that agenda-setting standards be applied uniformly and that any distinctions in authority be clearly articulated.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your explanation.
Respectfully,
Commissioner Jeff Tozzer
