Conservation District 2026 Election Complaint Stalled at the State Level

Conservation District 2026 Election Complaint Stalled at the State Level

Guest contributor and Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren writes that the 2026 Clallam Conservation District election procedure was altered after the official ballot request deadline, expanding the voter pool in an election decided by just 37 votes. Her investigation argues the changes violated the district's own rules, fits a broader pattern of election irregularities, and raises urgent questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust in local elections. Clallam County voters have a right to clean, transparent elections that follow the rules — not secret midstream changes designed to tip the scales in favor of insider incumbents. Yet the 2026 Clallam Conservation District (CCD) Supervisor Election appears to have been compromised by exactly that: an unauthorized expansion of the voter pool after the official ballot request deadline, which handed the incumbent, Wendy Rae Johnson, a thin 37-vote victory. Blatant Violation of the District’s Own Rules On January 13, 2026, the CCD Board adopted Resolution #26-003. The resolution was clear: The 2026 district election was a mail-in-only election. Voters were required to request a ballot by the publicly advertised deadline of February 18, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.: To notify the public of the procedures and the ballot request deadline, the district reportedly sent 1,261 half-page mailers at taxpayer expense to prior CCD voters. The CCD’s mailer informed potential voters of the 2026 election process and stressed that ballots would be sent only to those who requested a ballot by the specified deadline: Despite the explicit terms of its election resolution and public notices, CCD officials deliberately expanded the voting population after the ballot request deadline, and before election day. On March 10, 2026 (seven days before election day on March 17, 2026), during a public board meeting, candidate Supervisor Wendy Rae Johnson revealed that the list of authorized 2026 ballot requesters had been “merged” with a second internal list containing additional potential voters. Following the merging, ballots were mailed to people who never requested one for the 2026 election — 2,238 ballots sent versus 1,921 requested — according to the election supervisor’s monthly report: The deliberate merging of lists and the mailing of ballots to non-requestors violated Resolution #26-003. The decision resulted in the unauthorized expansion of the voting pool, leading to ineligible/unauthorized voting and vote dilution. This was no accident. Candidate Supervisor Johnson herself confirmed the post-resolution decision in writing to a constituent aligned with her political circle: According to this same constituent, the decision to mail ballots to non-requestors was announced at a February 2026 Sequim Indivisible meeting, a group closely aligned with Supervisor Johnson. Prospective voters politically aligned with Supervisor Johnson were assured that they would receive a ballot if they had voted in the past and did not have to worry about the February 18 ballot request deadline for the 2026 election. The result? At least 317 more ballots were mailed than authorized for an election decided by a margin of 37 votes. The votes of law-abiding voters who followed the rules in the 2026 election appear to have been diluted, allowing the incumbent to squeak out a win. A Disturbing Pattern of Election Manipulation This is not the first time that the CCD has been caught manipulating elections in favor of its incumbent supervisors. A pattern has emerged in CCD elections: the public is told one set of rules, but behind the scenes — and often announced only to politically aligned groups like Sequim Indivisible or other insider meetings — the rules are quietly changed to boost turnout among perceived ‘friendlies.’ In 2024, untracked numbers of ballots were handed out to anyone, regardless of eligibility, at the CCD’s office in clear violation of that year’s resolution and the WACs governing CCD elections. The convenient early voting method was not announced by CCD or authorized by the CCD’s election resolution for that election. In December 2025, a Thurston County superior court judge threw out those election results. One might think that the CCD and the Washington State Conservation Commission (SCC), which provides oversight of the district elections, would have learned their lesson, but both now appear to be embroiled in stalling tactics that keep the power of elective office in the hands of Supervisor Johnson. Complaint Stonewalled at the State Level On April 3, 2026, I filed an election complaint with the SCC regarding the issues with the 2026 election procedure. More than two months later, the SCC still has not assigned an investigator to commence the investigation. All other county-level elections were certified by the SCC as of May 21, 2026. Only one county’s election was left unaddressed — that of Clallam County. As of June 16, 2026, SCC Deputy Director Kate Delavan wrote that the “SCC takes [my] complaint seriously” and “is working diligently to secure a vendor and complete the investigation.” However, she seems to blame me for the delay, citing my request for an independent investigator, saying the SCC has yet to identify or secure a “qualified vendor” to conduct the investigation. No timeline for doing so was provided. Meanwhile, on May 12, 2026, Supervisor Johnson was elevated to Chair by vote of the CCD Board Supervisors. She continues to exercise the full powers of her elected office: SCC Moves to Amend its own WAC Provisions to Permit the Use of Ballot Lists In a notable development, the SCC announced at its May 21, 2026, business meeting that it is proposing draft amendments to its administrative code governing district elections. At least one of the proposed amendments appears aimed at ‘covering’ itself for the CCD’s 2026 ballot practices. A proposed amendment would now allow districts to use internal “requested ballot lists” for each election going forward (thereby allowing the districts to send absentee ballots to a select group of voters who have not requested one for that year’s election): The SCC essentially seeks to legalize a district’s ability to self-select who votes in their district’s elections with zero obligation to send a ballot to all registered voters. The opportunity for abuse is apparent. Control over the voting population should not be handed over to those who are running elections essentially on behalf of incumbents. It should also be noted that the district election supervisors are typically the district managers who are hired and fired by the district supervisors. This means that the managers are running elections for their own bosses – the people upon whom they depend for their own paychecks. The district managers are placed in an almost impossible situation if an incumbent candidate directs them to take certain steps to ensure their re-election. Transparency and Accountability Are Sorely Needed Washington State in general, and Clallam County in particular, deserves better. Taxpayers and voters should not have to tolerate election processes that appear rigged through last-minute expansions and insider favoritism. The SCC should end the stalling to appoint a truly neutral investigator, and the CCD should produce all records related to the list-merging decision which, to date, they have declined to do. I also call on the Clallam County Auditor, the ex officio supervisor of all elections in Clallam County (RCW 29A.04.216), to demand full transparency and accountability regarding these apparent violations of election rules, including the unauthorized expansion of the voter pool and the ongoing pattern of irregularities in CCD elections. Virginia ShogrenCandidate for Clallam County Auditor961 W. Oak Court, Sequim WA 98382www.VirginiaShogrenAuditor.com [https://virginiashogrenauditor.com] “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” — Louis D. Brandeis Virginia Shogren is running for Clallam County Auditor to restore trust in our elections and ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely. Virginia believes in simple, honest government that works for the people—not special interests. She seeks accountability, lower costs, and real oversight of our elections and our money. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

When “No Incidents” Isn’t the Whole Story

For months, the public has been told there have been "no incidents" associated with the William Shore Pool's controversial shower voucher program. But newly uncovered emails, reports from patrons, and the facility's own director tell a more complicated story. Two registered sex offenders—including one accused of photographing young girls at the pool—were ultimately banned from the facility. They did not enter through the voucher program, but their presence is raising new questions about safety, screening, and whether the pool is drifting from its mission as a family recreation center. Throughout the controversy surrounding the William Shore Memorial Pool’s shower voucher program, the public has repeatedly been reassured that there have been “no incidents.” Board members, staff, and supporters have emphasized that the individuals using the program are simply neighbors who have fallen on hard times, that staff are trained to identify registered sex offenders, and that the facility remains safe for children and families. When criticism intensified, the program itself was even rebranded as the “Community Hygiene Program.” This week, however, social media lit up with reports involving registered sex offender Thomas Frizalone. If that name sounds familiar, it should. CC Watchdog featured Frizalone in April [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/clallam-county-doesnt-need-parties?utm_source=publication-search] after he was arrested on allegations of assault with sexual motivation. Frizalone is the New York sex offender who was classified there as a Level III offender—the state’s highest risk designation—following convictions involving sexual offenses against children. He was required to register for life in New York and faced extensive public notification requirements. Yet after moving to Clallam County, he was initially classified locally as only a Level I offender, meaning he did not appear on Washington’s public sex offender website. Earlier this year, he was arrested on allegations of assault with sexual motivation and is currently out on bail while registered as a transient in Port Angeles. Another resident recalled an earlier encounter: “I think I ran this dude off from my cul-de-sac a few years ago. Dude was trying to call over some of the kids that live and play in my cul-de-sac.” Then came another allegation. Resident Vanessa Marie posted: “This parasite was caught last Wednesday taking photos of little girls at the pool. Makes me sick & I feel that our community needs to protect our children! About six months ago I got Robert Keith (child molester) kicked out of the pool! He was going there all the time & the pool had no idea about him until I went up to the front desk & showed them his mugshots, charges & one of them was a fail to register charge.” When CC Watchdog contacted Vanessa to ask about the encounter, her response was telling: “Which one?” It Wasn’t the First Time Last October, Vanessa emailed Executive Director Ryan Amiot after recognizing another registered sex offender—Robert Allen Keith—using the facility. Keith’s criminal history includes convictions for: * Third-degree rape of a child. * Third-degree child molestation. * Felony failure to register as a sex offender. She alerted staff, provided documentation, and emailed the director. Amiot responded the following day: “I cannot thank you enough for bringing this to our attention. I have posted this photo with clear instructions for our front desk staff. We will not be allowing him on or near the premises.” The exchange demonstrated that staff acted promptly once they became aware of Keith’s identity. How Did They Get Into the Pool? Following the recent reports involving Frizalone and Keith, CC Watchdog asked Amiot how both registered sex offenders gained access to the facility. Specifically, the questions asked whether they: * Paid for admission themselves. * Used shower vouchers. * Had admission paid by another organization. Amiot replied: “These individuals paid the daily admission fee themselves to gain entry to the facility. When their status was identified, we notified the individuals they were no longer permitted to attend the facility; and provided clear guidance to staff to notify management/the authorities should they attempt future entry.” That distinction is important. Based on the information provided, there is no indication either individual entered the facility through the shower voucher program. But That’s Not the End of the Story Supporters of the voucher program will undoubtedly point to that fact. They should. Accuracy matters. However, it also misses the larger issue. The controversy has never been limited to who pays for admission. It has centered on whether a facility built for children, swim lessons, youth sports, and family recreation should increasingly function as a social services center and an extension of the county’s harm-reduction program. Clallam County has a significant transient offender population. Of the 30 registered sex offenders currently listed in Port Angeles, 13 are classified either as transient or have convictions related to failing to register. That reality presents challenges for every public facility—not just the William Shore Pool. As the pool board continues expanding services aimed at vulnerable populations, many parents are asking whether enough consideration has been given to the increased security demands that inevitably accompany those decisions. Those questions deserve thoughtful discussion rather than dismissal. A Policy Debate—Not a Personal Attack No one is suggesting every homeless person is dangerous. Nor does this week’s information demonstrate that the voucher program itself allowed these offenders into the building. What it does demonstrate is that the potential risks discussed throughout this debate are real—not hypothetical. Registered sex offenders have entered the facility.Staff have had to identify them.Management has had to ban them.Concerned citizens—not routine screening—have played an important role in bringing at least one offender to the pool’s attention. Those are facts. As board members Mike French, Randy Johnson, Mark Hodgson, LaTrisha Suggs, and Greg Shields continue to transform what has traditionally been a family recreation center into a broader community services facility, parents and taxpayers have every right to ask whether that direction serves the pool's mission [https://www.sacpa.org/_files/ugd/1e7324_4681d034f80e4177b6081d58da4643f5.pdf]. If you believe the William Shore Pool should remain focused primarily on children, families, and recreation—and that shower services should instead be provided at facilities already equipped for social services, such as Serenity House, TAFY, or The Salvation Army—you can add your name to the growing petition calling for an end to the shower voucher program. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." — Benjamin Franklin Have Your Say Do you believe the William Shore Pool is headed in the right direction? Let the Board know where you stand on the shower voucher program and the policies governing safety at the facility. Contact the Board: * Mike French — Mike.French@clallamcountywa.gov * Randy Johnson — Randy.Johnson@clallamcountywa.gov * Mark Hodgson — mhodgson@cityofpa.us * LaTrisha Suggs — losuggs@cityofpa.us * Greg Shields — gshield6@icloud.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Who Speaks for the Refuges?

The Jamestown Corporation says transferring ownership of Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island into trust would strengthen stewardship while preserving the refuges for future generations. Recent public statements, however, have revealed details that deserve much closer scrutiny. Rather than settling the debate, they raise new questions about why the transfer is being pursued and what it could ultimately become. For months, the public has been told that transferring Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island into trust for the Jamestown Corporation would change very little. The refuges would remain protected. Wildlife would continue to come first. Public access would remain intact. Those assurances have been repeated often enough that many people have accepted them at face value. Then came two reports that deserve careful reading—Emily Hanson’s coverage in the Peninsula Daily News [https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2026/06/25/jamestown-sklallam-tribe-makes-its-case-to-jefferson-commissioners/] and Al Bergstein’s reporting in Olympic Peninsula Environmental News [https://olyopen.com/2026/06/23/tribes-seek-ownership-of-national-wildlife-refuges-in-the-salish-sea/?amp=1]. Instead of putting concerns to rest, both stories revealed information that makes the proposal even more worthy of public debate. So... What’s the Real Reason? One passage from the Peninsula Daily News stood out immediately. According to Chairman Ron Allen, one reason the legislation is being pursued now is that the Tribe has an oyster operation within the refuge’s waters that has been inactive for roughly twelve years. The Tribe is attempting to have that operation recertified, but Allen said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not been working with them to accomplish that. That explanation came as a surprise. For months, the conversation has centered on conservation, stewardship, cultural connections, and protecting one of Washington’s most important wildlife refuges. Hearing that an inactive oyster operation is part of the reason for pursuing federal legislation naturally raises another question: Is preserving the refuge really the primary motivation, or is a profitable commercial shellfish venture driving this proposal? Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. If so, the public deserves to hear it. One Sentence Said a Lot Another statement from Chairman Allen may have revealed more than intended. “We have a vision that is more than the refuge.” Bingo. That single sentence captures exactly why many residents have become uneasy. Many people don’t want the refuge to become “more than the refuge.” Protection Island wasn’t preserved so future governments—tribal, state, or federal—could expand its purpose. It was protected because generations of citizens worked to preserve one of the Pacific Northwest’s most important seabird nesting habitats. Sometimes the best vision for a wildlife refuge is simply allowing it to remain a wildlife refuge. Ownership Matters Chairman Allen also assured commissioners that transferring ownership would not change the refuge’s purpose. “It stays in terms of its intended purpose.” No one has reason to doubt his sincerity. But ownership matters. If ownership didn’t matter, this legislation wouldn’t exist. The concern has never been whether today’s tribal leadership intends to preserve public access. The concern is whether future tribal governments would be legally required to do so. Leadership changes. Priorities change. Laws change. Promises made by one generation of elected officials do not automatically bind the next. Allen also remarked: “They don’t change the public’s right and public’s interest with regard to what we’re doing. But we have such a higher interest.” The Tribe says its members possess a deep cultural and historical connection to these lands. That deserves respect. But these refuges also belong to the American people. Public ownership is not a minor interest simply because another government believes its interest is greater. An Interesting Contrast Wildlife Refuge Manager Fawn Wagner highlighted several accomplishments since the Tribe became co-manager in 2024. By every account, the Tribe has done excellent work using federal funds to repair roads, expand wildlife monitoring, increase volunteer participation, remove invasive plants without pesticides, and improve scientific research. One example Wagner highlighted was the removal of invasive praying mantises from Protection Island. That made another point difficult to ignore. On one hand, invasive praying mantises are presented as an environmental threat requiring removal. On the other hand, one of the stated reasons for pursuing ownership of the refuge is to facilitate the recertification of a commercial oyster operation involving a species native to Asia, not the Pacific Northwest. Readers can decide for themselves whether those priorities are entirely consistent. Then Came the Bigger Story If the Peninsula Daily News article raised questions, Al Bergstein’s reporting [https://olyopen.com/2026/06/23/tribes-seek-ownership-of-national-wildlife-refuges-in-the-salish-sea/?amp=1] dramatically expanded the scope of the conversation. According to Bergstein, Chairman Allen told Jefferson County commissioners that this proposal is only part of a much larger effort involving tribes throughout Washington. Allen reportedly said the Makah Tribe is expected to pursue ownership of the three coastal wildlife refuges. Either the Lummi Nation or the Swinomish Tribe could seek the San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge. He also referenced similar efforts involving the Nisqually Tribe. If those statements accurately reflect the broader vision, then the discussion is no longer simply about Dungeness Spit and Protection Island. It becomes a conversation about the future ownership of Washington’s entire maritime refuge system. That system includes six National Wildlife Refuges: * Flattery Rocks * Quillayute Needles * Copalis * Dungeness * Protection Island * San Juan Islands Whether every one of those transfers eventually occurs is unknown. But if this proposal is intended to establish a precedent, the public deserves to understand that before Congress takes action. More Questions Than Answers Bergstein also notes that the Jamestown Tribe has been receiving approximately $800,000 to co-manage these refuges under its agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There appears to be broad agreement that the Tribe has performed that work exceptionally well. That raises another obvious question. If the existing co-management arrangement is succeeding, why replace it with a transfer of ownership? The draft legislation reportedly contains no legally binding provisions preventing future commercial aquaculture around Protection Island. Current tribal leaders have repeatedly stated they have no plans to pursue that. Those assurances may be entirely genuine. The question isn’t about today’s leadership. Legislation lasts much longer than elected officials. Finally, Bergstein reports that Chairman Allen said the Tribe had planned a larger public information campaign before “Congresswoman Randall asked us to kind of back off on it.” If that quote is accurate, another question naturally follows: Why? Was the concern that a broader public discussion might generate opposition during an election year? That’s a question Congresswoman Randall should answer. If transferring ownership is truly in the public’s best interest, broader public discussion should be welcomed—not discouraged. Before Congress considers legislation of this magnitude, the public deserves complete transparency, thorough debate, and the opportunity to ask difficult questions. Bergstein’s reporting contributes meaningfully to that discussion and is well worth reading in full [https://olyopen.com/2026/06/23/tribes-seek-ownership-of-national-wildlife-refuges-in-the-salish-sea/?amp=1]. “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.” — Theodore Roosevelt Today’s Tidbit: One Question, Two Very Different Answers At the recent Clallam County Democrats candidate forum, the moderator asked Commissioner Mike French and challenger Jake Seegers a simple question: Do you support transferring Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island into trust for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe? The answers revealed two very different philosophies. Mike French said he isn’t opposed to the idea, but wants to see the legislation first. He said any transfer would need “guard rails” that explicitly protect public access, recreational opportunities, and environmental protections in federal law. He also called on Congresswoman Emily Randall and Washington’s senators to hold a public town hall so residents can ask questions before Congress acts. Jake Seegers took a firmer position. “I don’t support the transfer,” he said. “It’s the people’s land.” Seegers said he doesn’t believe any legislation can permanently guarantee future public access once ownership changes. While he acknowledged the Tribe has been a good steward of the refuge as a co-manager, he said that’s different from permanently transferring ownership of land that belongs to the American people. Whether you agree with French, Seegers, or neither, one thing should unite all of us: This conversation should happen in public. Congresswoman Emily Randall, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Maria Cantwell should hold a public town hall on the Olympic Peninsula before Congress considers legislation that could permanently transfer ownership of two National Wildlife Refuges. If you believe the Clallam County Commissioners should take an official position, let them know. All three commissioners can be reached through the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov. Public lands belong to the public. The public deserves a seat at the table before any decision is made. Seen around… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The $118,000 Parking Lot: How County Officials and NGOs Lock the Public Out of Taxpayer Spending

When a $118,000 county contract funds just three parking spaces, taxpayers deserve clear receipts. Instead, local leadership is hiding behind non-profit privacy walls, with the Homelessness Task Force officially adopting a policy of silence toward public inquiries. This investigation exposes how public money is quietly propping up private NGO payrolls, directly contradicting official claims that these services are being provided "for free." When public money is allocated to private, non-profit organizations, what level of accountability should the public expect? This question highlights an ideological distinction in the ongoing Clallam County commissioner race. At a recent debate hosted at Democratic Headquarters, challenger Jake Seegers and incumbent Mike French discussed public funding oversight. Incumbent Commissioner Mike French defended current practices, asserting that existing guardrails are more than sufficient. “I think all that transparency already exists,” French stated, explaining that county allocations rely on an “open request for proposals that’s scored openly” where all applications exist as public documents. When the county agreements are finalized, French noted that they carry a “detailed scope of work that says, ‘Here’s the work you’re going to do. Here’s what you’re going to get paid for.’” Challenger Jake Seegers pushed back, arguing for stricter, legally binding compliance requirements for outside groups. “Absolutely, I would [support new language],” Seegers countered. “If an NGO wants to take money from the county... they should have to disclose financial reports, and they should have to perform metrics.” Seegers argued that current county contracts fail to track actual success, stating, “We have a scope of work, but the scope of work never defines the outcome that we want... If you want the money, you need to show within each time increment, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, that you are producing measurable results.” A Program Under Scrutiny A central example of this discussion is the Safe Parking Program operating at Trinity United Methodist Church in Sequim. Funded by Clallam County Homeless Funds, the contract allows for a maximum consideration of up to $118,780. The program is designed as a pilot initiative intended to provide secure parking spaces for three to five vehicles used by unhoused residents. Over the past few months, private citizens have sought detailed information regarding the program’s administration, cost breakdowns, and operational structure. However, these inquiries have faced roadblocks. OlyCAP (Olympic Community Action Programs) Director Viola Ware, who chairs the county committee responsible for recommending these funding allocations, has not responded to emailed inquiries regarding the program. Commissioner Mike French, who serves on the OlyCAP board—a position established through a county resolution [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-olycap-illusion-public-money?utm_source=publication-search] he helped draft and pass—has also not commented on the matter. Because private non-profits are subject to different disclosure rules than government entities, tracking the path of county funds once they are transferred can be exceptionally difficult for the public. Task Force Response and Public Comment Policy The challenge regarding public inquiry became a topic of discussion at this month’s Homelessness Task Force (HTF) meeting on June 2nd [https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/246/media]. Mike Shonsey, a new member representing the Olympic Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Church, asked how the task force should address correspondence or presentations from the public. “Do we respond to them in any way, other than to say ‘Thank you for your response?'“ Christine Dunn of Clallam County Health and Human Services advised, “That’s really all you have to say… [it’s] not required of you.” Ware expanded on this guidance by reading a prepared statement during the meeting, noting that while public comment is essential, the board’s role is to receive feedback rather than enter into a dialogue. “While we are able to respond to public comment, this board’s role is not to engage in back-and-forth debate with public comment during meetings,” Ware stated, concluding, “In answer, we are not obligated to respond.” This policy has fueled frustration among residents trying to understand how the $118,780 contract was allocated, as the official descriptions of OlyCAP’s involvement appear to conflict with public records. Analyzing the Financial Records During a May Board of Commissioners’ meeting, Ware attempted to clarify [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/when-county-commissioners-fund-the?utm_source=publication-search] what she described as public misconceptions, stating that the safe parking setup “is not an OlyCAP program.” According to Ware, the program is managed by Trinity United Methodist Church, while OlyCAP simply partners with the church by providing limited evening, morning, and on-call staffing support, alongside case management services that she stated were provided “for free.” However, public records obtained through an engaged citizen’s public disclosure request indicate a more complex financial relationship. County contract documents and internal payroll records show that the program is tied directly to OlyCAP personnel expenses. Financial registers tracking Project 341 (the Safe Parking Pilot Program) under OlyCAP’s Housing Assistance department show that public funds cover direct hours, payroll taxes, and medical benefits for specific OlyCAP employees, such as Terry Strickland and Jacob Powell. The records also show billings for dedicated employee cell phone lines. While the program may be hosted by the church, public funds are directly supporting OlyCAP’s staffing infrastructure for the project. At the May 12 Board of County Commissioners meeting, Viola Ware told those in attendance, “The total funds are for two years of operation,” but added, “I can’t speak to where those go.” Ware also stated that the Safe Parking initiative is “not an OlyCAP program.” However, internal financial records obtained by an engaged citizen show that she personally approves payroll distributions charged to the Safe Parking Program, with the approving supervisor identified as “Vware1.” Program Operations and Future Outlook During the June HTF meeting, Joe Cress of Trinity United Methodist Church provided an update on the program’s operational outcomes. According to Cress, eight individuals have applied to the program since its launch, five have been approved, four have participated, and three are currently utilizing the site. Cress noted that initial participation was low due to high entry barriers, which originally required participants to hold a valid driver’s license, auto insurance, and vehicle title. To increase enrollment, the program adjusted its criteria, allowing individuals to enter the program while working toward obtaining those documents. Regarding expenditures, Cress reported that the church spent $9,837 last year and $1,796 so far this year on operations. These figures do not include over four thousand dollars allocated to upgrade security cameras after incidents involving outside disruptions, such as vehicles revving engines or individuals disturbing guests. When asked about the total annual cost to run the program, Cress could not provide an estimate, guessing it would be “significantly less” than the maximum grant allotment. He added that the church may seek additional funding in the future to build roofs over sanitation stations and to pay for guests’ vehicle repairs. The operational reality of the program highlights the core of the debate between the two commission candidates. For incumbent Mike French, the current model relies on established non-profit partnerships to address complex social issues through existing contract management. For challenger Jake Seegers, the lack of direct public answers and clear, outcome-based metrics points to a need for systematic reform in how Clallam County monitors taxpayer dollars. "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." — Patrick Henry Today’s Tidbit: Questions the Safe Parking Story Raises The Peninsula Daily News published a story [https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2026/06/27/church-to-host-unhoused-parking/] this weekend about the Safe Parking Program temporarily relocating from Trinity United Methodist Church in Sequim to St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Port Angeles for four nights because fireworks and the LavenderStock Music Festival are expected to make the area too noisy for participants. That raises a few questions. Too noisy for four nights? The article explains that participants are being moved because Carrie Blake Park will be loud during the Fourth of July and LavenderStock. But people live around Carrie Blake Park every day of the year. They don’t get relocated because of fireworks or concerts. If the noise makes the location unsuitable for program participants, what does that say about the location chosen for the program in the first place? Just our friends and neighbors? The article also describes an impressive amount of infrastructure surrounding a program serving just a handful of participants. According to the story: * OlyCAP staff are on site every evening. * OlyCAP staff return every morning. * A staff member remains on call overnight. * Sequim Police drive by multiple times each night. * Staff and volunteers receive de-escalation training. * Church officials say they’ll do “all we can do” to ensure safety. Those precautions may be appropriate. But they also raise an obvious question. If the participants pose virtually no public safety concerns, why is this level of staffing, law enforcement attention, overnight availability, and de-escalation training necessary? “We’ve not really had any problems so far.” That one word stood out: “Really.” Either there have been problems, or there haven’t. If there have been minor incidents, what were they? If there have been none, why qualify the statement? 247 Guest Nights The article reports that the program accumulated 247 guest nights by the end of May. That’s not 247 different people. A “guest night” means one participant staying one night. For example, one person staying 30 nights equals 30 guest nights. Even so, it raises another question. The church says four participants have used the program. But how many successfully transitioned into permanent housing? How many left the program? Those numbers provide a much clearer picture than guest nights alone. “They’ve owned homes but don’t feel safe in them.” That’s an interesting statement. How many participants fit that description? Is it one? Two? All of them? Without numbers, it’s impossible to know whether that experience is typical or exceptional. “People will just be using it to sleep.” The stated purpose of the program is to provide a safe place to rest while participants work with case managers toward permanent housing. That naturally leads to another question. How much time are participants spending at the site, and what measurable outcomes have been achieved? The public has heard about applications, approvals, and guest nights. Less information has been provided about long-term outcomes. A Temporary Trial... or the Beginning? St. Andrew’s in Port Angeles emphasized that this is only a temporary arrangement and that no decision has been made about creating a permanent Safe Parking Program. But church leaders also acknowledged they are evaluating whether the program is a good fit. If it proves successful, the current discussion about four temporary nights may become a discussion about a permanent program in Port Angeles. That makes today’s questions worth asking now—not after permanent decisions have already been made. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Shotgun Sermon

A nearly two-year-old church video has suddenly resurfaced on social media, drawing sharp criticism and raising questions about County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers’ character. Rather than ignore the controversy, Seegers sat down for a candid conversation about what he meant, what he wishes he had said differently, and why he believes context matters. Whether you agree with him or not, this is a conversation worth hearing. Over the past several days, a two-year-old video from a church gathering has spread rapidly across social media [https://www.reddit.com/r/portangeles/comments/1ufk4ye/seegers_shotgun_sermon/]. Some critics have been quick to draw conclusions. “This ‘independent’ sure does have his wagon firmly tied to MAGA ideology.” Others have gone further. “What a vile human being. So much hate in his so-called Christian love.” Rather than pretend the video doesn’t exist—or ask people to simply dismiss it—County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers chose a different approach. He sat down for a podcast conversation to explain the context behind what has become known online as “The Shotgun Sermon.” The original remarks were delivered in October 2024, when Seegers was asked by his pastor to speak briefly to his congregation about the importance of voting before the presidential election. Listening back two years later, Seegers doesn’t claim every word came out perfectly. In fact, he admits some of it made him uncomfortable. “When I heard it the other day, I was like, ‘Ugh, that sounds aggressive, that sounds violent. That wasn’t my intention.’ The individuals in that room would have understood that.” He explains that the “shotgun” story was intended as a metaphor about taking civic responsibility seriously—not a call for violence. “That was a metaphor... I was trying to say, ‘You have free will. Stop just sitting on your hands... because you have the tools to make change. And that tool, one of those tools, is to vote.’” Perhaps more revealing than the explanation itself is the conversation that follows. Clallam County Watchdog publisher and Jake Seegers’ campaign manager, Jeff Tozzer—who openly acknowledges that he disagrees with Seegers on a number of religious and social issues—doesn’t let him off easy. Throughout the interview, Tozzer repeatedly challenges Seegers on how the remarks could be interpreted by people who don’t know him personally. Seegers doesn’t become defensive. Instead, he reflects on how words spoken to a room of people who knew him personally can sound very different when clipped and shared online with strangers two years later. Throughout the discussion, he repeatedly returns to the same theme: finding common ground. “I don’t care who you voted for. I don’t care what your religious background is. I don’t care who you love... I’m interested in what we have in common. I care about every single person in this county.” He also acknowledges that people will disagree with some of his deeply held personal beliefs. “If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine.” Whether listeners ultimately agree with his explanations is, of course, up to them. But in an era where short clips are often shared without context—and judgments are frequently made before full conversations are heard—there is value in taking twelve minutes to watch the original video [https://archive.org/details/clallam-commissioner-jake-seegers-in-jesus-name] and hear the discussion surrounding it. That’s exactly why this podcast episode was recorded. Not to erase disagreement.Not to ask for blind trust.But to let people hear the entire conversation before deciding for themselves. The full podcast includes the complete 12-minute church audio, along with Seegers’ reflections nearly two years later. If you’ve seen the clips circulating online—or even if you haven’t—invest some time and hear the whole story before reaching a conclusion. "The opposition is trying to highlight our differences, and I'm trying to highlight our commonalities." — Jake Seegers Editor’s Note: CC Watchdog editor Jeff Tozzer also serves as campaign manager for Jake Seegers during his run for Clallam County Commissioner, District 3. Learn more at www.JakeSeegers.com [http://www.jakeseegers.com/]. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]