Clallam County Watchdog

Hypocrisy on Parade

When an independent candidate makes a mistake, Democratic leaders demand tens of thousands of dollars in fines. When a sitting Democratic congresswoman appears to make the same mistake, there's silence. Read why this is about far more than campaign signs. Clallam County was alive on Saturday. The Forks and Port Angeles parades were incredibly well attended, with residents celebrating America’s 250th Birthday. But something stood out if you looked closely at the photo: The “Emily Randall” sign behind the Statue of Liberty. Here’s a close-up of the sign design. Notice anything? The sponsorship line—“Paid for by Emily Randall for Congress”—is dramatically smaller than the main text. The “E” in Emily towers about 9 inches tall, the “R” in Randall around 3.5 inches, while the required sponsor message shrinks to roughly 1/3 of an inch. No campaign address is displayed either. It feels petty to point this out—and it is. Yet these exact issues prompted Clallam County Democratic leadership to file a complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and push for the first $30,000 in fines [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/signgate-2026?utm_source=publication-search] against the Seegers campaign. Jake Seegers has already spent $3,000 of campaign funds to bring his signs into compliance. That money, combined with significant volunteer hours spent reprinting, replacing, and redistributing signs, has diverted scarce resources away from voter outreach, events, and other core campaign priorities. With multiple complaints now filed, the total penalties being sought against his shoestring independent campaign approach $80,000. What are the odds that Clallam County Democratic leaders meticulously scrutinized Seegers’ signs but somehow overlooked similar issues on Emily Randall’s materials? Or is it far more likely they are selectively weaponizing the PDC to harass a political rival while turning a blind eye to violations on their own side? The contrast couldn’t be clearer. Emily Randall benefits from paid staff, a full Democratic machine to design, print, deploy, and monitor compliant signs, and resources to fight any challenges. Jake Seegers, running as an independent for County Commissioner, has no paid staff and no party backing. Just volunteers trying to get his message out on a shoestring budget. Everything in the system is stacked against the independent outsider. One critic, posting as “Lisa,” took to CC Watchdog to blast the campaign (at the time managed by me, Jeff Tozzer). She lectured on transparency and accountability, accusing the campaign of deflection instead of ownership. She questioned what kind of leadership Seegers would bring and floated conspiratorial hints about hidden influences. Yes, the campaign could have—and should have—caught it. Mistakes happen. But it’s revealing that a sitting Congresswoman and her professional staff made the same error. Even the PDC itself doesn’t always get it right. The PDC’s Own Transparency Failures The agency charged with enforcing campaign transparency in Washington state settled a lawsuit after being accused of violating the state’s Open Public Meetings Act for nearly two years. They agreed to pay $25,000 and send commissioners for extra training. The commission had repeatedly entered closed sessions without properly announcing the purpose or expected end time, as required by law. Seasoned officials stumble too. Longtime Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias (a Democrat) received a formal written warning from the PDC for late C-4 reports in his 2023 campaign. This wasn’t his first brush with the commission. Earlier complaints [https://www.pdc.wa.gov/rules-enforcement/enforcement/enforcement-cases/59100] in 2019–2020 highlighted issues with expenditure details, filing fees, and balance discrepancies—challenges his wife and treasurer attributed to being first-time candidates thrust into complex rules on short notice. They amended reports and worked through the process. The point? PDC rules are intricate, compliance is burdensome, and unintentional errors are common—even for experienced politicians with party support and paid help. Yet Democratic leadership in Clallam County is demanding up to $80,000 in fines from Jake Seegers’ independent campaign. This isn’t equal enforcement. It’s selective harassment designed to tie up resources, deter volunteers, and discourage anyone who dares challenge the machine without big-money backing. Running as an independent is already an uphill battle: no coordinated party infrastructure, no shared legal/compliance teams, and all the scrutiny with none of the support. When the system piles on petty fines while looking the other way at similar (or worse) issues on the other side, it reinforces what many voters already suspect—politics is rigged against the little guy. Voters deserve real transparency and accountability. That starts with consistent application of the rules, not weaponizing them against independents while insiders skate by. Jake Seegers’ campaign continues fighting not just for votes, but for a fair shot in a system that too often favors the connected over the committed. "No man is above the law, and no man is below it." — Theodore Roosevelt Today’s Tidbit: Coming Soon to Port Angeles Last September, CC Watchdog reported [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/predators-in-our-parks-on-our-buses?utm_source=publication-search] on registered sex offender Joseph Alaxander Bell, who was booked into the Clallam County Jail on theft. Bell’s criminal history spans years and includes arrests involving domestic violence, assault, theft, and repeated contacts with law enforcement related to drug use and overdoses. Bell was arrested again on Saturday for burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and malicious mischief. His story raises a question that deserves to be asked: after years of taxpayer-funded services, free transit, harm reduction supplies, emergency medical responses, jail stays, and court-appointed attorneys, has the harm been reduced for Joseph Bell—or for the community? Later this month, taxpayers will have an opportunity to see the county’s newest response to chronic homelessness. On Monday, July 27, Peninsula Behavioral Health will celebrate the opening of North View, a new 36-unit Permanent Supportive Housing complex at 138 W. 2nd Street in Port Angeles. According to PBH, the project is designed to provide stable housing for people experiencing chronic homelessness while connecting residents with behavioral health services intended to promote long-term stability, health, and recovery. The building includes amenities many working families don’t enjoy in their own homes, including air conditioning, dishwashers, EV charging stations, a dog-washing station, and panoramic views of the harbor and Olympic Mountains. It is also considered low-barrier housing, meaning alcohol and drug use may be discouraged but, by itself, are not grounds for eviction. The project has also become part of this year’s county commissioner campaign. On his reelection website [https://www.electmikefrench.com/platform], Commissioner Mike French highlights North View as an example of the kind of affordable housing he supports and points to it as a significant community investment. North View is designed to prioritize the chronically homeless who struggle with addiction and frequent incarceration. In other words, Joseph Bell could ultimately trade life on the streets for a rooftop terrace and dishwasher. Whether North View represents a turning point in addressing chronic homelessness or simply another expensive chapter in Clallam County’s current approach is a question the public will soon be able to evaluate for themselves. Taxpayers helped fund this project. If you’ve been wondering what that investment looks like, mark Monday, July 27, on your calendar and take the tour. Then ask yourself the question that matters most: Will projects like North View produce better outcomes—for the people living there and for the community paying for them? 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 Misinformation Campaign

In this Sundays With Seegeers, Clallam County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers argues that local government has become more focused on managing public perception than improving public outcomes. Citing public safety concerns, rising homelessness, overdose deaths, and examples from county boards and agencies, Seegers contends that officials increasingly respond to criticism with messaging campaigns, rebranding, and public relations rather than changing policies that residents say aren't working. His message is straightforward: successful government doesn't need to convince people it's succeeding—the results should speak for themselves. Public Safety is the Foundation During an April 17th Public Safety Town Hall, I asked the audience two questions. First, who considers public safety one of their highest priorities? Nearly every hand in the room went up. Then I asked who feels safer today than they did four years ago. Out of 172 attendees, only three people raised their hands. One of them was County Commissioner Mike French. That response stands in stark contrast to what many Clallam County residents are experiencing. Throughout the evening, residents shared stories of burglary, assault, trespassing, drug activity, vehicle prowling, and growing concerns about public safety. Mitch Zenobi [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-angry-logger-speaks-out?utm_source=publication-search], a nearly seven-foot-tall logger, described feeling compelled to reach for a pistol while fueling his truck near Tumwater Creek after several men emerged from the woods and approached him one dark morning. Port Angeles resident Scott Waldron recently wrote to the City Council after experiencing a burglary, seeing an armed masked trespasser on his property, and watching individuals prowl vehicles in his neighborhood. His words capture what many residents are feeling: “We cannot take our son to the park without seeing people using drugs on the playsets. We cannot walk downtown without feeling unsafe as transients block public walkways. We cannot go to the grocery store without witnessing drug deals in the parking lot.” Waldron concluded: “There is a fine line between progressiveness and negligence, and another between compassion and complacency. Somewhere along the way, our city crossed both.” Many residents feel less safe. Yet local leaders continue insisting that current policies are working. That disconnect raises an important question: What happens when outcomes fail to support the narrative? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: More messaging. In fact, instead of pivoting from failed policies, the commissioners, along with county departments, boards, and agencies, seem to be digging in their heels—devoting taxpayer resources to coordinated messaging campaigns designed to shape public perception rather than reevaluate policies that continue to produce disappointing outcomes. Housing First Didn’t Work For more than two decades, Clallam County has embraced Housing First, an approach that prioritizes permanent housing without requiring sobriety, employment, or participation in treatment. The model has been championed by Clallam leaders since the county’s first 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness [https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/607/Homelessness-Task-Force?utm_source=chatgpt.com#docaccess-5f856dea0f4e67cdb785ff00b19638ecb95f0611f3f977aa1dbb38d31c5d05d0] in 2005. The model is extremely expensive, consuming tens of millions of taxpayer dollars locally. Peninsula Behavioral Health’s North View [https://peninsulabehavioral.org/north-view/] Apartments cost over $350,000 per unit. Thirty-two of the thirty-six apartments are studios or one-bedroom. Recent housing proposals [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/when-citizens-speak-up-government?utm_source=publication-search] discussed locally have exceeded $500,000 per unit. Housing First has long been promoted as the proven solution to homelessness, but it has failed both nationally and locally [https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/why-americas-homelessness-strategy-failed-and-how-to-fix-it/]. According to HUD [https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-housing-inventory-count-reports/] data, Washington expanded permanent supportive housing from 5,610 units in 2007 to 28,719 units in 2024, an increase of more than 400%. During that same period, transitional housing declined from 11,061 units to 3,929 units. Meanwhile, statewide homelessness increased from 23,279 to 31,554 people. Unsheltered homelessness surged from 6,522 to 16,222 people—an increase of nearly 150%. Clallam County has followed the same trend. Homelessness and unsheltered homelessness continue to rise. So has the waiting list for permanent supportive housing. In 2024, approximately 2,408 households were on local waiting lists for permanent supportive housing. By 2025 — only twelve months later — the waitlist had nearly doubled. Yet the county’s Point-in-Time Count identified only 310 homeless individuals in 2025, including 176 people living unsheltered outdoors. How does a county with roughly 310 homeless individuals end up with nearly 4,500 households waiting for permanent housing? During a December 2025 Homelessness Task Force [https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/249/media] meeting, Peninsula Housing Authority Executive Director Debbi Tesch provided the answer. “That does not represent just people living in Clallam County. Anybody can apply for our housing. It’s not unusual to have people living in California apply to live here.” In a county struggling with affordability, addiction, and homelessness, why would thousands of applicants outside Clallam County be allowed to compete for housing with the hundreds of unsheltered individuals living here locally? Federal fair housing rules and HUD funding requirements have often limited or complicated the use of local residency preferences, leading many housing programs to prioritize vulnerability and need over locality. More recently, however, federal policymakers have increasingly recognized the shortcomings of Housing First. HUD reforms [https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/CoC/FY2025-Continuum-of-Care-YHDP-Renewal-NOFO.pdf] signal a shift toward transitional housing, accountability, local prioritization, and competitive funding rather than automatic renewals for permanent supportive housing. Yet local leaders appear determined to resist that shift. During a December 2, 2025 Homelessness Task Force [https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/249/files/agenda/4543] (HTF) meeting, attorney and task force member Charlie Commeree discussed potential ways to preserve permanent supportive housing funding despite anticipated federal changes. Referring to Serenity House properties, he seemed to suggest creative non-compliance to continue to secure HUD funding for permanent supportive housing: “So, you could sell them to a trust and then have Serenity House rent it from the trust and then you rent it out to the tenants. If they can’t stay in the same unit, then you rename the units…then people don’t have to move.” “I’d really like to see HUD sniff that out,” Commeree continued. “And try to prevail in court. I think we do that.” Serenity House Executive Director Sharon Maggard replied: “Those are the kinds of things that we need to come up with in order to survive the next three years.” Later, Commeree suggested legal action and additional strategies to preserve the existing system, arguing that the federal changes were intentional and motivated by “cruelty.” The discussion was revealing. Rather than asking why homelessness continues to rise despite decades of Housing First policies, the focus was on preserving the existing model and finding ways around reforms intended to change it. The Messaging Attack on “Misinformation” During a February Homelessness Task Force meeting, the conversation shifted to public messaging. Task force members discussed developing a communications strategy to address what they described as misconceptions regarding homelessness funding and Housing First policies. The stated goal was to develop a “unified, accurate and compelling message” aligned with the county’s five-year plan. “Right now there are significant misconceptions in the community about homelessness funding…these misunderstandings have contributed to frustration and a perception that resources are being mis-managed… My proposal is to convene a small subcommittee, beginning in the spring of 2026, to begin developing this presentation, with the goal of presenting to the board of county commissioners in the fall of 2026. This would give us the time needed to thoroughly develop a unified, accurate and compelling message that aligns with our 5-year plan and strengthens trust and understanding in our community.” The problem, apparently, was not the outcomes. The problem was public perception. The Expansion of Harm The same pattern is evident in Clallam County’s approach to harm reduction. Since her tenure began in 2018, Health Officer Allison Berry, the Board of Health, and the county commissioners have continually championed and expanded the distribution of syringes, pipes, foil, and boofing kits and other drug-use supplies. They argue these programs save lives. Yet overdose deaths in Clallam County have more than tripled since 2018, rising from 8 deaths to 25 in 2025. Over the same period, overdose deaths increased by 169% statewide and just 2% nationwide. A group of states that have generally taken a more restrictive approach to distributing drug-use supplies saw overdose deaths rise by only 29%. Meanwhile, Sheriff Brian King told KONP’s Todd Ortloff [https://www.myclallamcounty.com/episode/03-10-2026-brix-marine-cc-sheriff-king/?utm] in March that it’s hard to find a crime that is not motivated by drugs. Federal agencies have also begun reassessing aggressive harm reduction strategies. In 2025, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) prohibited the use of federal grant funding [https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/dear-colleague-letter-executive-order-ending-crime-disorder-americas-streets-07302025.pdf] for drug-use supplies. Clallam County’s response was not to reduce distribution. Instead, the commissioners replaced the lost SAMHSA funding [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/not-all-participants-deserve-medals?utm_source=publication-search] with approximately $100,000 annually from opioid settlement funds. At the same time, Harm Reduction Health Center (HRHC) activity has continued to expand, despite growing public concern. Monthly encounters reportedly increased from 212 in 2023 to 508 in 2024 and 974 in 2025. HRHC’s budget passed half a million dollars in 2025. For years, many residents were unaware of the full scope of harm reduction activities occurring in Clallam County. During a February Board of Health meeting [https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/289/files/agenda/4746], an HHS representative explained: “For a long time, like Dr. Berry said, we were keeping harm reduction a little bit under the radar to keep it more private.” As public awareness increased, community members who had successfully navigated recovery began raising warning flags about current harm reduction approaches. In interviews, Chelsea Jones [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/one-mothers-fight-against-addiction?utm_source=publication-search], Stacey Richards [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/from-rock-bottom-to-redemption?utm_source=publication-search], Ron Davis [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/he-beat-addiction-without-harm-reduction?utm_source=publication-search], David Rogers [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/from-addiction-to-community-builder?utm_source=publication-search] and Mary Bickar [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/53-days-clean-mary-bickars-comeback?utm_source=publication-search] have all expressed a similar message: accountability—not harm reduction—saved their lives. Anniemarie Hogenboom [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/thrown-away-found-anniemarie-hogenbooms?utm_source=publication-search] echoed these sentiments during her podcast interview. She was given an opportunity, along with accountability and clear expectations. That combination helped her earn trust, rebuild her life, and maintain her recovery. But instead of listening to county residents who have experienced addiction and recovery firsthand, Clallam public health staff and the commissioners continue discussing ways to counter what the health officer has described as “misinformation.” Commissioner Mark Ozias praised public education efforts and suggested the county may eventually need a dedicated Public Information Officer [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/harm-reduction-claims-are-berry-misleading?utm] to expand them. During the May Board of Health meeting [https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/292/media], Commissioner Mike French suggested additional presentations to community groups. Again, the response to public skepticism was not policy reconsideration. It was messaging. The same pattern continues elsewhere. The Concerted Effort Public concern erupted after citizens learned that shower vouchers to the Shore Aquatic Center had been distributed to active drug users at the Harm Reduction Health Center without pool members being informed. Rather than addressing public safety concerns directly, the pool board rebranded the “Shower Voucher Program” as a far more polished-sounding “Community Hygiene Access Program.” The Clallam Conservation District provides another example. After securing a new $5 parcel fee without a vote from the people, and despite 1,032 signatures [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/givers-and-takers?utm_source=publication-search] opposing it, district leadership discussed the need to improve marketing and outreach. “We realized that we need to tell our story better.” As staffing costs climb from $442,000 in 2025 to $542,000 in 2026 [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/fishy-fee-smells-like-a-taxpayer?utm], the CCD has disclosed plans to spend a portion of its ten-year, $2 million taxpayer-funded windfall on consultants and outreach efforts designed to communicate the value of programs that taxpayers were never given the opportunity to vote on in the first place. The county’s noxious weeds program offers a similar example. Despite a multi-million dollar budget deficit, the county commissioners refused to cut a $13,343 budgeted payment [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/hey-there-big-spender?utm_source=publication-search] in 2026 to the Master Gardener program to help “sell” the Noxious Weed department’s agenda to taxpayers by providing volunteer outreach. During a 2026 departmental budget meeting last year, Noxious Weed Control Coordinator Christina St. James explained: “Herbicides is a very emotional topic for a lot of people, and it’s not always based on the facts…” Enter the Master Gardeners, tasked with calming citizen concerns. Clea Rome from WSU Extension expounded: “So, the Master Gardener’s core role is to help reassure the public in day-to-day interface.” Ignoring Outcomes. Embracing Messaging. The pattern is difficult to ignore. When policies fail, county officials increasingly turn to persuasion instead of acknowledging shortcomings and exploring alternatives. Housing First advocates discuss communications strategies to address “misconceptions.” Health officials discuss combating “misinformation.”Programs are rebranded.Consultants are hired.Marketing plans are developed. Public money is increasingly being used not only to provide services, but to shape public perception of those services. Government has an obligation to inform citizens. But there is a significant difference between informing the public and using taxpayer dollars to defend government policies from criticism. Increasingly, Clallam County appears to be crossing that line. Residents are told homelessness is being addressed while homelessness rises.They are told harm reduction is working while overdose deaths climb.They are told public safety is improving, while fewer and fewer people feel safe.And when citizens disagree, they are often told they have been misinformed. But citizens do not need a taxpayer-funded messaging campaign to tell them what they see with their own eyes. They see encampments. They see public drug use. They see environmental degradation. They see businesses struggling. They see families avoiding parks and public spaces. They see the condition of the waterfront district. They see friends and neighbors moving away. Outcomes matter. If streets become safer, people will notice.If homelessness declines, people will notice.If addiction decreases, people will notice. Successful programs do not require expensive campaigns to convince the public they are working. The results speak for themselves. “In God we trust. All others must bring data.” — W. Edwards Deming What can you do? If you believe outcomes matter more than messaging, let your elected officials know. Contact the Clallam County Commissioners, the County’s Health & Human Services Department [https://www.clallamcountywa.gov/formcenter/Health-Human-Services-10/Health-Human-Services-Contact-Form-56], and the Homelessness Task Force. Tell them you want policies measured by results—not by public relations campaigns. Attend meetings [https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com] of the Board of Health, Board of County Commissioners, and the Homelessness Task Force whenever possible. Share your perspective during public comment, whether in person, virtually, or by email. Respectful civic engagement remains one of the most powerful tools citizens have to influence public policy. All three county commissioners also serve on the Board of Health, you can contact them by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov. Democracy works best when citizens participate. If you want different outcomes, make your voice heard. Editor’s note: This blog is published by Jeff Tozzer, the former campaign manager of Jake Seegers. None of the content here has ever been approved or paid for by Jake Seegers for Commissioner. To learn more, visit JakeSeegers.com [https://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]

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]