OMC Lost More Than 180 Employees After Commissioners Backed Property Tax Hike

OMC Lost More Than 180 Employees After Commissioners Backed Property Tax Hike

Olympic Medical Center, Clallam County’s largest employer, lost more than 180 employees in less than a year, according to newly obtained public records. The departures come as auditors warn of serious financial trouble and providers report staffing shortages, declining morale, and threats to patient care. After taxpayers approved a major property tax increase to support the hospital, many are left wondering why the warning signs appear to be growing instead of fading. Correction: The next Shore Pool Board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 23 at 3:00 p.m. (not June 26). Click here [https://www.sacpa.org/board-meetings] for more information. The agenda has not yet been posted. In 2024, Clallam County Commissioners passed a resolution supporting a levy lid lift for Olympic Medical Center. The measure doubled the hospital’s property tax authority, asking residents to provide significantly more financial support to an institution that was already facing mounting challenges. Supporters argued the additional revenue would help stabilize the county’s largest employer and preserve local healthcare services. Two years later, newly released public records suggest the situation has not improved. Records obtained by Clallam County Watchdog show that more than 180 employees departed Olympic Medical Center between May 1, 2025, and April 18, 2026. The separations occurred throughout the organization, affecting nurses, physicians, physician assistants, department directors, executives, technicians, therapists, support staff, and administrative personnel. The departures touched nearly every major service line. Home Health experienced approximately 19 departures. Emergency Services lost about 16 employees. OMP Central Access lost roughly 15 employees. Med/Surg saw about 11 departures, while ICU/Telemetry lost another 11. Significant turnover also occurred in Primary Care, Orthopedics, Cardiology, Laboratory Services, Radiology, Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Materials Management, Dietary Services, and numerous other departments. The records also show turnover among OMC’s leadership team, including the departure of the hospital’s CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Nursing Officer, and multiple directors and managers. Adding to the uncertainty, OMC is already searching for a permanent CEO. In May, commissioners voted to hire WittKieffer—the same firm that supplied interim CEO Mark Gregson—to recruit his replacement. Gregson reportedly works under a contract worth approximately $50,000 per month and is generally onsite about three and a half days per week, arriving from his home in Arizona on Tuesdays and departing Thursday afternoons. These staffing losses come as OMC continues to face serious financial headwinds. OMC currently has [https://olympicmedical.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/OMC_Careers] 140 job openings. In May, auditors warned [https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2026/05/08/olympic-medical-centers-clean-audit-still-has-concerns/] there was “substantial doubt” about the hospital’s ability to continue operating as a going concern. OMC remains out of compliance with several debt covenants, faces declining cash reserves, and is projected to lose between $7 million and $8 million this year. According to auditors, “Every covenant, every ratio, everything that we look at is incrementally worse.” Meanwhile, interim CEO Mark Gregson reported that OMC had reduced its workforce by approximately 140 positions through attrition and unfilled vacancies. He also acknowledged that 23 of the hospital’s 76 providers had left since August [https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2026/06/05/pediatric-services-to-be-reviewed/], while only 13 had been hired. Recent board meetings have featured warnings from providers about worsening morale, staffing shortages, patient access concerns, and uncertainty surrounding pediatric services. Physicians and advanced practice providers have publicly cautioned that replacing specialized medical staff in a rural community can take years. Taken together, the public record paints a picture of an organization still struggling despite receiving voter approval for increased taxing authority. That raises a question for taxpayers: If the county’s largest employer continues to lose employees, executives, providers, and department leaders while facing warnings about its financial future, what exactly did residents receive in return for the tax increase they were asked to support? The Board of County Commissioners’ mission statement promises to “put the translated desires of residents into action through effective communication” and provide “comprehensive and exemplary public service levels in a prompt responsive manner.” When commissioners endorsed the levy in 2024, residents heard plenty about why OMC needed more money. What they weren’t told were the warning signs that continue to emerge today: financial instab ility, provider departures, leadership turnover, service reductions under consideration, and more than 180 employee separations in a single year. For an institution that serves as the county’s largest employer and primary public hospital system, those numbers deserve public attention. "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge." — Daniel J. Boorstin Today’s Tidbit: An Endorsement Built on Blind Trust? The League of Women Voters says it studies issues before taking positions. Yet its endorsement of OMC's 2024 levy reads largely like a summary of OMC's own talking points. Missing are hard questions about cash reserves, management decisions, executive accountability, and the long-term sustainability of the hospital's finances. If the warning signs that later emerged were already developing beneath the surface, how thorough was the League's study—and who was asking the difficult questions before taxpayers were asked to write a bigger check? 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]

Pool Board Says There Were No Incidents. Police Reports Tell a Different Story.

“No incidents.” That was one of the key arguments used to defend the William Shore Aquatic Center’s free shower program which distributes vouchers to active drug users at the Harm Reduction Center. Yet nearly 80 police reports obtained through a public records request tell a different story. The records reveal years of calls for service at and around the facility while board members continued to assure the public there was nothing to be concerned about. The reports only became public because an engaged citizen requested them and did the work that elected officials did not. When the William Shore Aquatic Center Board voted to continue the free shower voucher program, one of the primary justifications offered by board members was that there had been no incidents associated with the program. The public record tells a different story. A review of nearly 80 Port Angeles Police Department reports obtained through a public records request documents a steady stream of calls involving drug paraphernalia, suspected narcotics use, threats against staff, transient activity, assaults, welfare checks, suspicious persons, harassment complaints, and other public safety issues occurring at or around the William Shore Aquatic Center. The reports span January 2024 through April 2026. The board that oversees the pool consists of Clallam County Commissioners Mike French and Randy Johnson, Port Angeles City Councilmembers Mark Hodgson and LaTrisha Suggs, and community member Greg Shield. Perhaps most troubling is that this information was not disclosed by the board, pool management, or local government officials. The reports only became public because an engaged community member took the time to submit a public records request and review the files. Once again, it was left to the public to do the homework. “No Incidents” The argument that there have been “no incidents” has become increasingly difficult to reconcile with the documented police activity. The reports do not paint a picture of a facility overwhelmed by violent crime. Serious assaults remain relatively uncommon. What they do show is something different. The William Shore Aquatic Center has increasingly become a location where law enforcement responds to social disorder, drug activity, transient behavior, mental health concerns, family disputes, and public safety issues that have little to do with swimming, recreation, fitness, or water safety. In other words, many of the calls have nothing to do with the pool’s intended mission. Drug Activity at the Pool Several reports involved suspected narcotics use or drug paraphernalia. In November 2025, pool staff reported that someone had been using drugs on the property. According to the report, foil paraphernalia was left on the front steps, and the individual vomited near the building before leaving. Just two days later, staff reported a man allegedly using narcotics in a restroom. Officers located the individual in the men’s locker room. He was ultimately trespassed from the facility for three years. In March 2026, police responded after two syringes, a rubber tie-off, and suspected heroin paraphernalia were discovered near the pool parking area. Officers disposed of the needles. Regardless of one’s opinion about harm reduction programs, these are not the types of incidents most residents expect to encounter at a taxpayer-funded family aquatic center. Threats Against Staff The records also document incidents involving threats and intimidation. In October 2024, a pool employee reported that a man followed her and threatened coworkers. According to the dispatch notes, the man allegedly stated he was going to “take their arms off.” The employee retreated inside the building while waiting for police. Another report involved an employee who did not feel safe leaving work because homeless individuals had been camping outside the facility for several hours. Police were called to move the individuals along before the employee left. Several reports document staff requesting assistance because individuals were refusing to leave the property, sleeping near entrances, charging phones from building outlets, or lingering around the facility after hours. Transient Activity and Public Disorder The most common theme throughout the reports involved unwanted persons, transient activity, and welfare checks. Police responded to reports of people sleeping on the property, camping near entrances, charging phones from the building, loitering outside doors, and occupying areas of the facility after being asked to leave. One report involved an aggressive woman lying on a sidewalk under blankets. Another involved a man passed out partially in the roadway near the pool. In August 2025, staff reported a transient male harassing workers near the building and getting into an employee’s face before leaving the area. Repeatedly, police were called not because of swimming-related issues, but because pool staff were being forced to address social problems occurring on or around the property. Mike French Says He Didn’t Know Adding another layer to the controversy is a statement made by Commissioner Mike French. During discussion of the voucher program, French stated that he was unaware the program even existed until he recently saw it discussed on social media. That raises an obvious question. How could a county commissioner be unaware of a program being administered through county government? One of the agencies distributing shower vouchers is Clallam County Health and Human Services through the Harm Reduction Health Center. French serves as a County Commissioner and sits on the board that ultimately voted to continue the program. Residents may reasonably wonder whether board members fully understood the program before deciding to continue it. Not the Staff’s Fault None of these reports should be interpreted as criticism of pool employees. Lifeguards, clerks, janitors, and managers do not establish public policy. The reports show staff repeatedly doing what taxpayers would expect them to do: calling police when confronted with threats, drug activity, welfare concerns, trespassing, suspicious behavior, or public safety issues. They are dealing with the reality placed in front of them. Responsibility for the policies governing the voucher program rests with the board members who voted to continue it and the elected officials whose departments are involved in distributing the vouchers. The Public Deserves an Honest Conversation Reasonable people can disagree about shower vouchers. Some view them as an important public health tool. Others believe they are incompatible with a family-oriented aquatic facility. What should not be in dispute is the public’s right to have that discussion using accurate information. The police reports demonstrate that incidents have occurred. As a community, we have an obligation to fiercely protect the safety of our families and children. Using our public pool as a hygiene-access center and distributing vouchers through the Harm Reduction Health Center undermines that responsibility. The William Shore Aquatic Center should be a place where children learn to swim, families gather, seniors exercise, and athletes train—not a facility increasingly associated with drug paraphernalia, transient activity, and repeated law enforcement responses. Compassion for those struggling with addiction and homelessness, and protection of our children, are not competing priorities. A healthy community should be capable of doing both. Fortunately, Port Angeles already has multiple organizations providing shower and hygiene services. The Salvation Army offers showers five days per week, Serenity House provides hygiene access, and TAFY offers shower services during afternoon and evening hours. Public transit, paid for with Climate Commitment Act funding but free for riders, is available throughout the area to help individuals reach these locations. If additional hygiene capacity is needed, the solution should be to work with existing providers and local nonprofits to expand those services where they already belong. Taxpayer-funded aquatic facilities should remain focused on their intended mission: swimming, recreation, fitness, water safety, and providing a safe environment for the families who fund and use them. What Happens Next? The next William Shore Aquatic Center Board meeting is scheduled for June 23 and is open to the public. Public comment is allowed, and the board has the authority to review, modify, or discontinue policies related to the voucher program. Residents who wish to share their views can contact board members directly: Mike French – Mike.French@clallamcountywa.gov [Mike.French@clallamcountywa.gov]Randy Johnson – Randy.Johnson@clallamcountywa.gov [Randy.Johnson@clallamcountywa.gov]Mark Hodgson – mhodgson@cityofpa.us [mhodgson@cityofpa.us]LaTrisha Suggs – losuggs@cityofpa.us [losuggs@cityofpa.us]Greg Shield – gshield6@icloud.com [gshield6@icloud.com] Additional meeting information can be found here [https://www.sacpa.org/board-meetings]. Residents who support ending the voucher program can also sign the petition calling on the board to reject hygiene-center and shower-voucher programs at the aquatic center. For many residents, the question is no longer whether incidents have occurred. The question is why it took a citizen with a public records request to find out about them. “What is the city but the people?” — William Shakespeare, Coriolanus Today’s Tidbit: Fraud Becoming Too Common This story out of Springdale [https://sao.wa.gov/the-audit-connection-blog/2026/repeated-misappropriations-springdale-add-another-case-recent-catalog-small-town-losses], north of Spokane, is a reminder that fraud is rarely discovered because government officials are actively looking for it. More often, it is uncovered after years of weak oversight, missing controls, and a culture where people stop asking questions. In Springdale, auditors found that officials failed to review bank statements, questionable transactions went unchallenged, and trust replaced verification. The result was nearly $58,000 in confirmed misappropriated funds and more than $656,000 in questionable spending. Closer to home, residents remember last year when the Washington State Auditor also found fraud at the William Shore Aquatic Center [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/state-audit-finds-67000-in-questionable?utm_source=publication-search]. In that case, public funds were misappropriated, and auditors concluded the pool district lacked adequate internal controls to prevent or detect the misconduct. It happened under the watch of elected leaders like Mike French and Randy Johnson, whose job was to provide oversight. The lesson is not that every local government is corrupt. The lesson is that accountability matters. As State Auditor Pat McCarthy put it, “Trust is not an internal control.” Whether it’s a town hall, a pool district, a county department, or a nonprofit receiving public funds, taxpayers should never be discouraged from asking questions. If anything, stories like Springdale suggest there may be far more problems hiding in plain sight than most people realize. 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]

New Complaint Pushes Potential Penalties Against Seegers Campaign Toward $80,000

With nearly $80,000 in penalties now being sought through separate complaints, Jake Seegers’ campaign is facing mounting legal and financial pressure before voters ever cast a ballot. The latest complaint, filed by Clallam County Democrat leader Paul Pickett, seeks $49,200 over content published by Clallam County Watchdog and challenges the publication’s status as an independent media platform. Running for public office is not easy. Most candidates expect criticism. They expect opposition research. They expect uncomfortable questions and heated debates. What they do not usually expect is the possibility of nearly $80,000 in requested penalties, vandalized signs, stolen signs, accusations of being a “Christian Nationalist,” accusations of being a “carpetbagger,” accusations of being an “out-of-town real estate investor,” and a steady stream of complaints that consume time, money, and energy that could otherwise be spent talking to voters. Yet that is exactly where Jake Seegers finds himself today. A complaint filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission by local Democrat leader Paul Pickett seeks $49,200 in penalties against the Seegers campaign and activities associated with Clallam County Watchdog. According to the complaint, articles and podcasts published through CC Watchdog should be treated as political advertising and reported accordingly. The complaint specifically requests maximum penalties and argues that months of content should be retroactively treated as campaign activity. This is occurring while the campaign is already dealing with a separate PDC matter involving campaign sign font size [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/signgate-2026?utm_source=publication-search], which seeks roughly $30,000 in penalties and has already resulted in thousands of dollars spent bringing signs into compliance. Taken together, the requested penalties approach $80,000. For a local county commissioner campaign, that is not a small amount of money. It is the kind of financial burden that could cripple a grassroots campaign and leave it fighting regulatory battles instead of campaigning. The obvious question is whether that is the point. What Is Clallam County Watchdog? For readers who may be unfamiliar with the facts, Clallam County Watchdog is my publication. I own it.I created it.I publish it. It is not a business. It generates no income. The Substack platform operates under a free account. The only recurring expense is the domain name, www.ccwatchdog.com [http://www.ccwatchdog.com/], which was purchased before Jake Seegers announced his candidacy and before I agreed to serve as his campaign manager. Any expenditures associated with CC Watchdog occurred before Jake registered with the PDC. There have been no campaign expenditures related to Clallam County Watchdog, its website, its Substack publication, or its podcasts. After Jake announced his candidacy and asked me to serve as campaign manager, I proactively contacted the Public Disclosure Commission last year. I explained that I owned CC Watchdog. I explained that I was the publisher. I explained that I would also be serving as campaign manager. I asked detailed questions.I was transparent. Based upon those discussions, I understood that continuing to operate Clallam County Watchdog as an independent publication would not violate PDC requirements. That understanding is one reason this complaint is so remarkable. Jake Was Writing Before He Was Running One of the biggest problems with the complaint is that it ignores the actual history of this publication. Jake Seegers did not suddenly appear on CC Watchdog because he decided to run for office. He was contributing to CC Watchdog [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-cadillac-we-paid-for-the-pinto?utm_source=publication-search] before he became a candidate.He was contributing before he informed me he intended to run.He was contributing before he asked me to become campaign manager. Today, Jake represents roughly one-seventh of the content published by CC Watchdog. That is because Clallam County Watchdog has always been a platform that welcomes contributors. When James Taylor ran for Port Angeles City Council, I gave him space.When Marolee Smith was running, I gave her space.Today, Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren is publishing guest columns [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/severing-the-gordian-knot?utm_source=publication-search] through CC Watchdog. The publication has never been limited to one candidate, one political party, or one viewpoint. The complaint treats CC Watchdog as if it suddenly materialized for the purpose of electing Jake Seegers. The historical record says otherwise. The Question Nobody Wants to Answer Paul Pickett should remember this issue well because we served together on the Charter Review Commission. Last year, Charter Review Commission Chair Susan Fisch and League of Women Voters activists, including Sequim School Board member Patrice Johnston, pushed a proposal [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/the-chilling-effect?utm_source=publication-search] that would have restricted Clallam County Watchdog’s ability to report on publicly available information emerging from the Charter Review Commission process. The proposal was a direct attack on my First Amendment rights [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/free-speech-under-fire-in-clallam?utm_source=publication-search]. Public information is public information, and the idea that an independent publication should be prohibited from reporting on publicly available governmental proceedings should alarm anyone who claims to care about transparency, democracy, or free speech. What makes that episode particularly remarkable is that Paul Pickett himself repeatedly exercised his own First Amendment rights during Charter Review Commission meetings. On one occasion, Pickett characterized public commenters who wanted Clallam County to answer the federal government regarding tribal trust land issues as ignorant racists [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/racist-dog-whistles?utm_source=publication-search]. His right to say that was protected. No effort was made to silence, censor, or punish him for expressing his views. In fact, Susan Fisch would not even entertain the idea [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/agenda-gating-takes-over-the-charter?utm_source=publication-search] of censuring him. Which brings us back to the question that Susan Fisch and Patrice Johnston refused to answer, and one Paul Pickett should be willing to address today. What if my coverage had been complimentary? What if my coverage of Susan Fisch had been glowing?What if my coverage of Patrice Johnston had been flattering?What if my coverage of Mike French had consisted entirely of praise? Would anyone have filed this complaint? Would anyone be demanding $49,200 in penalties? Would anyone be arguing that Clallam County Watchdog is actually campaign advertising? Or is the real issue not that Clallam County Watchdog exists, but that it frequently challenges the political views of the people filing complaints? Apparently, the First Amendment applies when Paul Pickett is speaking. The question is whether it also applies when Clallam County Watchdog is speaking. Mike French Has Been Invited. Repeatedly. One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire controversy is the implication that Mike French somehow lacks access to CC Watchdog readers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my “sent” folder are hundreds of emails to Commissioner Mike French. The overwhelming majority involve questions from CC Watchdog, requests for comment, or invitations to participate in conversations about issues affecting Clallam County. Almost all have been ignored. This is particularly interesting because French campaigned prioritizing “robust community engagement.” He has had repeated opportunities to communicate directly with thousands of readers and thousands more podcast listeners. Instead, French appears far more comfortable participating in friendly interviews with legacy media, writing favorable articles about programs such as Recompete, and engaging in environments where difficult questions are less likely to be asked. That is his choice. But it is difficult to claim exclusion from a platform when invitations have been repeatedly extended and repeatedly ignored. Who Gets a Platform? The complaint also arrives in the context of broader questions about who gets to participate in public debate. Earlier this year, Jake Seegers attempted to submit a letter to the editor [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/when-citizens-cant-speak?utm_source=publication-search] to the Peninsula Daily News and was informed that, because he was a candidate for office, the newspaper would not publish it. At the same time, incumbent Commissioner Mike French is allowed to author and publish articles in the newspaper and has been featured discussing his accomplishments and policy priorities. Newspapers have every right to decide what they publish. That is their First Amendment right. But voters are equally entitled to ask whether the standards are being applied consistently. When one candidate struggles to find a platform while another benefits from the visibility that comes with incumbency and established media relationships, independent outlets become even more important. That is precisely why efforts to classify Clallam County Watchdog as campaign advertising rather than independent commentary concern so many people. If candidates cannot participate in legacy media, cannot build alternative platforms, and cannot appear in publications willing to ask difficult questions, where exactly are they supposed to speak? The Hypocrisy Problem Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this complaint is who filed it. Paul Pickett writes for Clallam Democrats Rising [https://www.clallamdems.org/blog/profile-in-leadership-mike-french-a-local-guy-doing-good-things-for-us]. He publishes political commentary.He promotes Democratic causes.He writes favorable articles about Democratic elected officials, including Mike French.He has every right to do that. I support Paul Pickett’s right to do that. What I do not understand is why his political commentary is protected speech while mine is allegedly a PDC violation worthy of $49,200 in penalties. How does that work? Why is a Democrat-affiliated blog acceptable while an independent publication becomes campaign advertising? Why is one political commentator protected while another becomes the subject of a lengthy regulatory complaint? The contradiction is impossible to ignore. The Real Issue Democrat PCO Jim Stoffer has called me a “pretend journalist.” He has called me “the boy with the blog.” Fair enough. I have never claimed otherwise.I am not a traditionally trained journalist.I do not have journalism degrees hanging on my wall. I am a political commentator and a reporter.I investigate stories.I gather records.I ask questions.I publish opinions.Sometimes, very strong opinions. That is exactly what independent citizens have done throughout American history. The First Amendment was not created to protect speech everyone agrees with. It was created to protect speech that powerful people would prefer not to hear. The most troubling aspect of this entire situation is not the complaint itself. It is that the complaint is being taken seriously enough to trigger investigations, consume public resources, and potentially expose a grassroots campaign to nearly $80,000 in requested penalties. At some point, voters have to ask themselves a simple question. If an independent candidate can be subjected to complaints over signs, complaints over blogs, complaints over podcasts, accusations on social media, vandalized signs, stolen signs, and endless allegations from political opponents, when does ordinary political competition become something else? The Clallam County Democrats regularly warn about threats to democracy, abuses of power, unfair processes, censorship, tyranny, and political intimidation. Perhaps it is time for them to hold up a mirror and ask whether they are living by the same standards they demand of everyone else. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Commonly attributed to Voltaire Today’s Tidbit: Name Recognition A recent Letter to the Editor in the Sequim Gazette urges voters not to “fall for name recognition” and warns against supporting candidates simply because their signs seem to be everywhere. Fair enough. Voters should absolutely do their homework. But then the letter takes an interesting turn. Readers are told to pay attention to which properties host campaign signs and even remember which candidates those same property owners supported in previous elections. In other words, don’t be influenced by signs—except when you should be influenced by signs. The logic becomes even harder to follow when you consider the actual race. If this is truly a warning about name recognition, wouldn’t the obvious beneficiary be Mike French? French has spent nearly four years on the Clallam County Board of Commissioners and five years before that on the Port Angeles City Council. That’s nearly a decade of public office and built-in name recognition. Jake Seegers, by contrast, is the challenger. The reason his signs are appearing across the county isn’t because voters automatically know his name. It’s because supporters are voluntarily putting them up. And those supporters come from all walks of life. Democrats, Republicans, independents, business owners, blue-collar workers, retirees, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, and families throughout Clallam County have chosen to display Seegers signs because they support his message. One image making the rounds shows a Mike French sign and an Emily Randall sign displayed beneath an upside-down American flag with the word “RESIST!” painted across it. Resist what? If we’re making a list, some residents might choose to resist transferring two national wildlife refuges to a commercial seafood corporation, a proposal supported by Emily Randall [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/once-its-gone-its-gone?utm_source=publication-search]. Others might choose to resist policies Mike French has supported [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/showered-with-good-intentions-drenched?utm_source=publication-search], such as continuing free shower vouchers for clients of the Harm Reduction Health Center to use at the William Shore Memorial Pool—a facility frequented by families and children. That’s the beauty of elections. People support different candidates for different reasons. So by all means, don’t vote based solely on a sign. Read the voter pamphlet. Visit candidate websites. Ask questions. Attend events. But if you’re going to judge candidates based on sign placement, you’re not really arguing against name recognition at all. You’re arguing that some signs count more than others. And voters are smart enough to notice the difference. 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]

53 Days Clean: Mary Bickar's Comeback Story

For this special podcast-only edition of Sundays with Seegers, Clallam County Commissioner candidate Jake Seegers sits down with one of the most outspoken and recognizable voices in the community: Mary Bickar. Many residents may recognize Mary as the woman who gained local notoriety after reading the county’s explicit harm reduction “boofing” instructions aloud during public comment before the Board of County Commissioners. Others know her from community meetings, her passionate advocacy, or her unapologetic willingness to speak her mind. Now, Mary is telling a different story—one that is deeply personal. At the time of the interview, Mary was 53 days clean from methamphetamine addiction. Her story is not polished, rehearsed, or filtered. It is raw, emotional, and often uncomfortable. She openly discusses decades of addiction, failed recovery attempts, criminal convictions, treatment programs, abusive relationships, homelessness, and the long road back toward stability. One of the most surprising revelations is what first inspired her to seek change. According to Mary, the controversy surrounding Towne Road—the issue that ultimately launched Clallam County Watchdog—sparked something inside her. “Towne Road is what started me off wanting to get my life straight. It did take a couple years, but I made it.” She explains that listening to the early Watchdog podcasts reminded her of the value of truth-telling and honest debate. “You can finally tell the truth now about anything, and you don’t care anymore.” Mary describes herself as a lifelong truth-teller who often paid a price for speaking bluntly. In the podcast, she reflects on how learning to be honest with herself became a critical part of recovery. “When I started telling the truth to myself, how much better I felt. My whole body and my mind.” The interview also explores Mary’s firsthand observations about addiction, homelessness, and public services in Clallam County. Drawing from her own experiences in treatment facilities and recovery programs, she discusses what she believes attracts some people to Port Angeles and why she believes individuals from outside the area continue arriving here seeking services. While receiving treatment at a behavioral health facility near Marysville, Mary says she encountered multiple people planning to relocate to Port Angeles because of the resources available. “Most of the time it was Port Angeles had all of the needs that this person needs.” She recalls hearing fellow patients discuss moving to Clallam County after treatment because of the housing, support programs, and services available. Listeners will hear Mary’s perspective on recovery programs, housing assistance, harm reduction policies, and the challenges facing people struggling with addiction. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, her experiences offer a rare glimpse into a world that many policymakers discuss, but few have personally lived. The conversation also highlights the critical role that community support played in Mary’s recovery. She credits friends, family, fellow recovery advocates, and the people who refused to give up on her when she was struggling. Among them is close friend Stacey Richards [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/from-rock-bottom-to-redemption?utm_source=publication-search], who answered the call when Mary reached her breaking point. Richards has stood beside her throughout the recovery process, providing encouragement, accountability, and unwavering support as Mary works to rebuild her life one day at a time. Perhaps the most powerful moment comes when she describes the decision that finally changed her life. “I’m done. I’m over it. I don’t want no more of it.” Today, Mary is rebuilding her life one day at a time. And yes, in a development that will certainly surprise longtime readers, she recently made her appreciation for Clallam County Watchdog permanent with a CC Watchdog tattoo—a symbol of how strongly she believes the platform helped inspire her recovery journey. Whether you’re interested in addiction recovery, local public policy, or simply hearing an extraordinary personal story from someone who has lived through some of life’s darkest moments, this may be one of the most memorable Sundays with Seegers conversations yet. Mary’s story is ultimately about hope: proof that even after years of addiction, people can still find their way back. “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” — C.S. Lewis 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]

Severing the Gordian Knot - Part I

As Washington heads into another election season, Clallam County Auditor candidate and guest columnist Virginia Shogren argues that the state's election system is on a collision course with the proposed federal SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship and voter identification for federal elections. In the first installment of a new series, Shogren questions whether Washington is enforcing constitutional voter eligibility requirements and points to the ongoing legal battle between the U.S. Department of Justice and Washington State over voter registration records. She promises future columns examining local election administration and outlining what she believes constitutional elections should look like in Clallam County. In the podcast: CC Watchdog is featured on 96.7 FM, plus highlights from the Sequim City Council meeting. A Gordian knot is a metaphor for an extremely complicated problem that seems impossible to solve. The phrase comes from an ancient legend in which a king named Gordius tied an intricate knot that no one could untangle. A prophecy said whoever untied it would rule Asia. When Alexander the Great encountered the knot, he didn’t try to untie it—instead, he cut through it with his sword. It is June 2026. Few have ventured to address the train wreck that fast approaches Washington State elections. Looming before us is a primary in August and a general election in November, both of which have a federal race on the ballot. Most don’t realize that Washington State’s current election system is on a collision course with a major new federal law called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act [https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3752] introduced in January 2026. Simply put: the SAVE Act will require voter identification, proof of citizenship with absentee mail-in ballots limited to Military, Illness, Disability, or Travel for federal races. It represents the greatest existential threat to the elite power structure of Washington State of our lifetimes. That’s exactly why you barely hear a word about it in Olympia or from the Seattle media. We are currently faced with a Gordian knot of epic proportions: how do we clean up our corrupt political landscape and associated bloated bureaucracy when we have yet to clean up elections, get rid of electronic voting machines, demand voter ID, and stop mail-in ballot stuffing? The answer starts with the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act is entirely consistent with our Washington State Constitution. Article VI clearly lays out who can vote: * Must be 18 years or older * Must be a U.S. citizen * Must have lived in the state, county, and precinct at least 30 days before the election. Yet none of the 38 county auditors (or the King County Director of Elections) are fully enforcing these basic requirements. By state law, the county auditors are the ex officio supervisors of all elections. They are personally responsible for certifying the results. Yet they are not following the clear language of our constitution. Our constitution says nothing about anonymous mail-in elections where we can’t verify citizenship, age, or a current address. Even worse, our state routinely condones the voter registration of ineligible persons (who are then granted the power of a mailed ballot). As just one example: in 2024 alone, nearly half of all motor-voter registrations – almost 450,000 – were processed without documentary proof of citizenship. Motor voter refers to voter registration that occurs through a driver’s license or state ID transaction, typically at the Department of Licensing (DOL). Under the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (often called the “Motor Voter Act”), states are required to offer voter registration opportunities when people apply for, renew, or update a driver’s license or identification card. In Washington, when someone interacts with the DOL, their information can be used to register them to vote or update their voter registration unless they decline. Critics argue the system relies heavily on self-attestation of citizenship, while supporters say it makes voter registration more accessible and convenient. The Department of Justice has sued Washington State [https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1419836/dl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=chatgpt.com] in order to obtain review of our state’s registration files (having offered up a sanitized version only). In response to the lawsuit, instead of complying with federal law, our legislature quickly enacted (and Governor Ferguson signed) an emergency bill to criminalize the release of the database. Washington State has not only failed to cooperate with federal law, but also has now criminalized the acts of anyone who would ‘dare’ to do so. All the while, our state assures us that our elections are ‘safe and secure’. Citing the DOJ lawsuit, I asked Clallam County Auditor Shoona Riggs to provide the Department of Justice with the registration data for Clallam County. She refused. Once the SAVE Act becomes law, we must be ready to demand constitutional elections in Clallam County. In Part II, I’ll lay out just how captured our local elections have become. And in Part III, I’ll lay out exactly what a free and equal constitutional election in Clallam County will look like. — Virginia Shogren Virginia Shogren is running for Clallam County Auditor to restore trust in our elections and to make sure 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. See you Saturday in Clallam Bay! “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have.” —Abraham Lincoln 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]