Greg Brotherton as county commissioner has steered millions of dollars to an organization he heads as its chairman. That organization is OlyCap. Brotherton has violated state laws prohibiting such conflicts of interest because he has voted for and actively lobbied the other commissioners to approve the unprecedented large grants and contracts to OlyCap, according to a formal complaint pending with the State Auditor. Rosemary Shurman, a licensed attorney living in Port Ludlow, filed that complaint. Because the State Auditor says they won’t be able to address the complaint until next year, we are publishing Shurman’s explanation of why she alleges that Greg Brotherton has broken state law.
— The Editors
———————————–
In an apparent conflict of interest, Jefferson County Commissioner Greg Brotherton has used his elected position to promote spending millions of dollars of county funds to benefit a nonprofit organization that he chairs. Contrary to State law, Brotherton has advocated for and voted to approve funding to Olympic Community Action Program (OlyCap) of over $3.5 million in the form of grant monies and real properties held by the County.
Most of this largesse has been in the form of grants and service contracts. Close to a million dollars was in real estate, including the sale of a county property for a tenth of its assessed value.
Brotherton began his term as County Commissioner in 2019. He is up for re-election this fall and is being challenged by Marcia Kelbon. I decided to explore the legal issues surrounding an alleged ethical violation by Brotherton based upon his dual roles as a County Commissioner and Chair of OlyCap’s Board of Directors. For full disclosure, I support Kelbon based upon her reasonable and practical responses to multiple issues facing our county.
From my reading of the law, I conclude that Brotherton’s actions violate ethics laws. A complaint has therefore been filed with the Washington State Auditor to address this issue. The WA State Auditor’s Office has indicated that they will be considering this issue next year during its regular audit process. The Assistant Director of Local Audits indicated that they lack the resources to conduct an audit at this time.
Contrary to the opinions of Brotherton’s supporters, the complaint is not simply “politicking.” It is a legal issue that deserves an opinion from an unbiased decision maker.
Mr. Brotherton is a Jefferson County Commissioner (a municipal officer) and is a member of the board of directors of a nonprofit – OlyCap. Brotherton has repeatedly advocated for passage of certain funding and land divestment resolutions, at County Commissioner meetings and in his capacity as a County Commissioner. He has showered OlyCap with millions of dollars and acres of land at below market value. Brotherton’s advocacy for resolutions which provide direct financial benefit to OlyCap is the type of “influence” contemplated by the legislature, which elevates what is otherwise a “remote interest,” to that which is prohibited under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 42.23.
Jefferson County awarded a total of $2,709,163.70 in grant agreements and service contracts to OlyCap from 2019 through the first quarter of 2022, during which period Brotherton served as both a County Commissioner and as Chair of the Board of OlyCap. (See Exhibits A-E, documents received from Jefferson County in response to a public records request.)
In addition, in September 2019, Jefferson County sold to OlyCap a parcel of land (at 7th and Hendricks streets, Port Townsend) which was assessed at $362,280 for $36,200 — 10% of its market value and a discount of at least $326,080. In 2021, Jefferson County purchased another parcel of land (on Mill Road, Port Townsend) for a price of $602,000, which has been dedicated exclusively for use by OlyCap. In August 2022 the County signed a 42 year lease with OlyCap for this property for rent of ten dollars ($10.00).
The following table summarizes the total contributions by Jefferson County to OlyCap through March 2022:
The amounts awarded to OlyCap from 2019 through the first quarter of 2022 reflect a steady increase from the historic level of payment by Jefferson County to OlyCap. In 2018, for example, $552,808.94 was awarded to OlyCap. Brotherton has routinely voted, as part of a three-member board of county commissioners, in favor of the award of service contracts and grant agreements to OlyCap. It appears that Brotherton has not recused himself from any OlyCap funding votes.
Influencing Officials to Award Contracts to OlyCap
In violation of RCWs, Brotherton routinely Influences or attempts to Influence other County Commissioners to award contracts to the organization he chairs. Below are some examples during 2022 of his efforts to influence the other two commissioners in connection with approving grant agreements or service contracts to OlyCap:
- January 3, 2022 – Workshop between the Jefferson County Commissioners and OlyCap concerning additional funding for the “Caswell Brown” tent shelter being run by OlyCap
As reported by the Port Townsend Leader on January 12 (Jefferson County to spend another $500k on open-air homeless shelter):
“Commissioner Greg Brotherton requested the special workshop around funding for Caswell-Brown Village. He advocated for spending $500,000 more of American Rescue Plan Act funding toward Phase 2, which would provide sewer infrastructure to the site. Phase 3 would see the installation of showers and a kitchen area.
‘There is a groundswell of funding for housing and affordable housing right now,’ Brotherton said. ‘I think we should be willing to spend up to another $500,000 to get the infrastructure squared away… Finishing the first permanent emergency shelter is something that I think we should commit to.'”
- March 28, 2022 – Meeting of the Jefferson County Commissioners (Brotherton’s comments are shown in italics and obvious typographical transcript errors have been corrected. Time stamp 1:50:59)
Commissioner Eisenhour: “So now we’re gonna have a workshop on the Caswell Brown Village and this was an item that Commissioner Brotherton brought to the agenda.”
GB: “You know, I think we’ve all been waiting with baited breath for kind of a budget for what? Phase 2-A and 2-B look like for this kind of audacious and large program, which is critically needed. And I’ll just remind folks of where we were before we started this, which was an unmanaged encampment which was still costing us quite a bit of money at the Jefferson County fairgrounds and the um, that the impacts have been dramatic, both in the quality of life of the, of the residents who really have no other place to go as well as for the surrounding neighborhood and the fairgrounds and this is, I’m still proud of. This is a, as a visionary project which, which steps up and takes responsibility for a problem that doesn’t necessarily fall on our shoulders, but that is part of our community and so does fall on your shoulders. Thank you.
- April 4, 2022 – Meeting of the Jefferson County Commissioners. (Brotherton’s comments are shown in italics and obvious typographical transcript errors have been corrected. Time stamp 1:56:49)
GB: “So can I just restate the ask to understand kind of where we are. The way that I see it, the million dollars that we committed so far is eaten. And we have operations to consider which are right around 30K a month, $875K, say a million dollars to get to the end of the year, and into the RFP process and for recording fees, and housing fund board funds for operations and potentially other funding mechanisms for ongoing operations. And I really like the possibility of a sale to recoup funds to help supplement this. I think we’ve got some other funding mechanisms that are, you know, that could do part of it, you know, I think this would be a really good candidate for 1590 funds, we still have no process yet and its, and we of course committed to a collaborative process with our housing fund board on figuring out that process. But you know projects like this and the Evans Vista work force housing project and habitat’s project, we’ve got some big projects in front of us, that look like. I mean I feel like we could really move the needle on some of these projects with those funds. So that’s just my personal and I have not talked about that with the housing fund board or anything. And as I say, that is a collaborative decision, we might have the final pen on paper but the whole idea is that we make those in partnership with our city and citizen representatives. But, to me, moving this project forward again, is really critical, a $500K lifeline right now to get this going and talking about what we want with the property, I’d be willing to certainly carve out those additional parcels and maybe even the Larry Scott trail piece that has more potential for future development down the line and then selling what’s left for Phase 2A and Phase 3 at the very least to OlyCap would be kind of my starting point for consideration.”
The meeting continued. Following deliberation, in which both other County Commissioners expressed concerns over this additional spending, Greg Brotherton moved for and the Commissioners approved the award of the additional $500K funding to OlyCap.
- April 25, 2022 – Meeting of the Jefferson County Commissioners in which Brotherton argued for use of ARPA funding to further support the Caswell-Brown shelter operated by OlyCap in the face of concerns by the other commissioners. (Obvious typographical transcription errors have been corrected and Brotherton’s comments are in italics. Time stamp 4:53:24)
GB: “We could use that 262 would make a big dent on Caswell Brown.”
County Administrator: “Well, right. I mean when Heidi and I were monkeying with this sheet, I put 18 in there for Mill Road and then we went To -37000 down below. And then Heidi consulted with Kate. Okay. They take out that 300 because we haven’t committed it yet. So that’s the only reason we have the 262 at the bottom.”
Commissioner Eisenhour: “Yeah, this is what’s committed.”
GB: “Well, I mean we don’t have something else to use it will have that money and we need it, it would start the project again. If we could get this…”
Commissioner Dean: “We could also take um, you know, commit a chunk of capital funds to the Hadlock sewer instead of ARPA.”
GB: “Oh right Mhm. I mean if we could get you know, 400 that would turn everything on again. They just finished Phase 2-A.”
Commissioner Eisenhour: “So when is it gonna stop though? I mean we’ve spent, well if we do that we’ll have spent two million of our funds on it and then it was that enough.”
GB: “That’s enough to get Phase 2-A. And they’re looking for housing trust fund and other funds.”
Commissioner Eisenhour: “So that would be other sources of funding that get mobilized for it.”
GB: “Or for any future development. That’s what yeah, that’s what OlyCap has presented to us and that’s the plan. So yeah, that would be the end of the infrastructure investment from us. There’s operations, they think they can get some funds for operations and shift stuff around but if they’re not moving to permanent supportive housing for years, which is what I think will happen. It’s I don’t I’m not sure if this operation funds are actually realistic. Um So but you know, we have other revenue streams, you know, our normal Um you know, recording fees and everything that we have RFPs for already. So they’ll look for it but you know, 400 would finish Phase 2-A. Mhm. Yeah and capital funds could be used for the sewer. Right, that’s not a problem. What do you guys think about that?”
Commissioner Eisenhour: “I don’t know, I would love to see us putting more money into other segments of housing.”
- August 26, 2022 – Commissioner Brotherton made a motion to approve the 42 year term lease with Olycap for $10 a year. The motion was approved. (Time stamp 09:20:02 & Agenda pg.2) Although the county retains the deed for the property, the appearance of impropriety remains, in light of the overwhelming favoritism shown to this organization by an elected official who sits on their board.
Revised Code of Washington – Code of Ethics Laws Prohibit Influencing Officials
The Jefferson County Civil Deputy Prosecutor’s analysis of RCW 42.23.030 and conclusion that Commissioner Brotherton’s conflict of interest is nonexistent — merely because he does not directly receive monetary compensation from OlyCap — completely ignores both the stated purpose of Chapter 42.23 and RCW 42.23.040.
The purpose of Chapter 42.23 is to “prohibit certain instances and areas of conflict,” particularly with respect to “the transaction of business” by elected officials, such as Brotherton. However, the statute also permits certain conflicts of interest which are “deemed to be only remote” (RCW 42.23.010).
RCW 42.23.030 prohibits municipal officers from being “directly or indirectly” “beneficially interested” in a contract. RCW 42.23.040 defines scenarios when a conflict of interest is “remote” and thus the municipal “officer is not interested in a contract within the meaning of RCW 42.23.030.” The scenario where a municipal officer holds a position as a “non-salaried officer of a nonprofit corporation” is explicitly labeled a “remote interest.”
This type of remote interest is considered a conflict of interest, but it is one sanctioned by the legislature when the conflict is disclosed because it qualifies as only a “remote” conflict. However, RCW 42.23.040 also reverses the “remote interest” distinction where the municipal “officer influences or attempts to influence any other officer of the municipality.” Under this scenario, the municipal officer is considered “interested… within the meaning of RCW 42.23.030.”
RCW 42.23.040 can be read as follows:
“A municipal officer is… interested in a contract, within the meaning of RCW 42.23.030, if the officer has only a remote interest in the contract… [and] the officer influences or attempts to influence any other officer of the municipality of which he or she is an officer to enter into the contract.”
Under RCW 42.23.040, the legislature classified this specific scenario: a municipal officer also holding a position as a non-salaried officer of a nonprofit corporation, who exerts influence or attempts to exert influence over other municipal officers when making a decision related to a business transaction involving the same nonprofit, as a prohibited conflict of interest “within the meaning of 42.23.030.”
That is the exact scenario which took place in the examples above.
Jefferson County conveniently ignored RCW 42.23.040 when concluding there is no conflict under RCW 42.23.030, even though .040 expressly addresses an ethics violation for a County Commissioner who is a “nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation.” Furthermore, the argument that there is no ethical violation because there are more than 50 nonprofit organizations that have Jefferson County Commissioner board members and no one has ever been challenged, is illogical.
A practice that has not received judicial review does not mean that the practice is lawful. Nor does the County’s citation to a 1996 Court of Appeals decision resolve the legal issues when the decision does not even address RCW 42.23.040 and its provision which specifically addresses Brotherton’s position as a “nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation.”
Mr. Brotherton advocates for financial awards to OlyCap, as well as votes for such awards, contrary to RCW 42.23. Even the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) states:
“It is accordingly recommended that the officer with a remote interest should not participate, or even appear to participate, in any manner in the governing body’s action on the contract.” (Knowing the Territory: Basic Legal Guidelines for Washington City, County and Special Purpose Districts, January 2022)
Moreover, if the County is so confident in its legal position with respect to Brotherton’s ethical dilemma, why hasn’t it requested an opinion from the Washington State Attorney General? The Jefferson County prosecutor is one of the few government officials who can make such a request. Private citizens cannot make a request.
In addition to the law which prohibits Brotherton’s conflict of interest, there is an appearance of fairness issue. Deciding to donate almost four million dollars to a nonprofit (primarily for homeless shelters and housing) and then serving as the chair of the nonprofit’s board of directors has the appearance of impropriety.
No one is criticizing the nonprofit. But you would think that Brotherton would follow the MRSC advice and refrain from participating in County decisions that give money to the nonprofit that he is significantly involved with. Brotherton is taking an unnecessary risk. RCW 42.23.050 states that a contract made in violation of the ethics laws “is void” and could be “grounds for forfeiture of his… office.”
Why not take the high road and just refrain from participating in those decisions? The citizens of Jefferson County deserve that.
Rosemary Schurman has practiced law in the State of Washington for over 40 years, and devoted the last 20 years of her practice to representing disabled individuals. She has lived in Jefferson County since 2003.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. “Nonsalaried officer”, my eye!
Commissioner Ozias and Councilman Schromann-Warwin from Clallam are also on the Olycap board of directors.
Olycap has big contracts here in Clallam and the money crosses county lines with no accountability.
Shame on PTFP for slanting this article to imply that Greg Brotherton has done something unethical. The only interests Greg Brotherton has ever served in office are the public interest and the interests of humanity. His courage and actions, for example, re the resolution of the fairgrounds homeless encampment were exemplary, resourceful and creative. No one strove for a workable humane solution to that crisis more than Brotherton — certainly not the editors of this publication, whose “contribution” to the issue was to routinely demonize and dehumanize the residents there, while bemoaning how rough it was and what a tragedy, without offering a single helpful solution.
Brotherton, meanwhile, put himself deeply into his commitment to a humane solution that benefited not just the homeless residents but the community and county as well, especially the taxpayers. He facilitated weekly meetings involving all stakeholders; he scouted alternative sites; he facilitated the purchase of the current Caswell-Brown site, explored every possible opportunity, and ultimately helped shepherd the development of the survival shelter that exists there now. He has always expressed a willingness to do personal outreach among the homeless population and is unafraid of making personal connections in a positive way with people living in that kind of desperation.
Ms. Schurman is an advocate for Brotherton’s opponent — a person who has done little or nothing to solve the housing crisis in this area. Although that argues neither for nor against her allegations of conflict of interest against Brotherton, there is little doubt in my mind that publication of this article is intended to have an outcome in the election that favors her candidate. It is essentially therefore a campaign ad.
Brotherton’s actions that created the Caswell-Brown Village — acquiring the land that it sits on, securing the funding to make it happen, placing the site under Olycap control — are courageous, remarkable measures that deserve praise and support, and that other counties are bound to copy. The new expansion of the facility this winter will create a livable, life-saving solution for even more people currently experiencing homelessness in this area. That’s good for this whole community, including downtown businesses, taxpayers, police, and neighborhoods. Brotherton is the official most responsible for all of that.
Similarly, this community is soon to realize the benefits of Olycap’s efforts to house those in need. the opening of the Seventh Haven apartments will house dozens of people, including families with kids. Brotherton’s support combined with Olycap’s efforts will thus be making incredible progress in the pernicious problems of poverty within this otherwise affluent area.
There is no self-interest in Brotherton’s role as county commissioner and member of the Olycap board. His only demonstrable interest has been in saving and improving the lives of our most vulnerable residents, and benefiting the community at the same time. The two causes are of course inseparable.
Doug Edelstein:
We are a non-partisan press committed to speaking truth to power no matter who is in office. Rosemary Schurman stated her bias up front, and you clearly have yours. The shame, unfortunately, is that your bias leads you to make excuses for an elected official’s apparent violation of state law. The law does not differentiate between projects that may be a good idea or even needed and those that aren’t. Are you suggesting that because the Free Press has not solved the homeless problem in Jefferson County, that we should refuse to publish a meticulously researched and documented analysis about a potential Code of Ethics violation from a legal professional who has filed a formal complaint with the State Auditor?
Ms. Wolpin,
“Non-partisan?” Are you even serious? Do you believe that anyone would believe that the Port Townsend Free Press is anything but an often-fanatically anti-vax, transphobic, right-wing platform? Absurd. Beyond belief. Examples are rife. Why was there no condemnation here of the terrorist group Three Percenters appearing as an intimidating (and reportedly armed) force in the last Mountain View Pool demonstrations? Your silence is an endorsement of that. (BTW, I condemn violence of any kind on anyone’s part, including the inexcusable pushing and shoving in the previous demonstration.) More, PTFP published an apology — an apology! — to convicted murderer Derek Chauvin, killer of George Floyd. Articles throughout the publication cite highly-dubious right-wing platforms like Epoch Times, Rebel News and a half dozen others as if they are fact, ignoring fact-checked platforms and rejecting or ignoring some basic journalistic standards.
To answer your question, the article implied knowing unethical behavior by Brotherton. The article states that Jefferson County considers the relationship legal. He acted on that basis. How is he to be criticized for making the most of that relationship for the vast betterment of this community? He would have deserved criticism if he had not acted.
I don’t expect PTFP to solve the homeless situation. I pointed out that this platform has been highly critical of the residents of the encampment at the fairgrounds without using its editorial options to suggest improvements — a cheap and irresponsible policy.
As I have mentioned, I have admired some PTFP pieces — the Cherry Street expose and probably others I have missed. I think PTFP does a disservice when it publishes fear-mongering articles like the recent attacks on the YMCA as some sort of enabling agent of a mythical “trans agenda.” That kind of thing diminishes the credibility of the platform as a whole.
Mr. Edelstein, people like you who talk like you and act like you are the reason a whole bunch of us are here. It doesn’t matter to us what names you call us. It doesn’t matter to us what you accuse us of. You don’t matter to us. We have work to do and you blathering here, changes nothing about what we think. Just know that. You have found the place in the world where your opinion changes nothing.
It is curious that someone shows up in this forum to condemn us for not being more like the consent-manufacturing mainstream media we and our readers have divorced ourselves from at an increasing pace over recent decades. Also quite odd is this statement:
“Do you believe that anyone would believe that the Port Townsend Free Press is anything but an often-fanatically anti-vax, transphobic, right-wing platform? Absurd. Beyond belief. Examples are rife.”
Regular commenters to the Free Press aren’t using your lens, Mr. Edelstein, and do frequently express gratitude for our independent reportage. So, yes — many ‘believe’ that the FP is anything but… Appears you haven’t read the comment sections closely enough. We welcome contributions to the discussion at hand. Comments like yours above are simple trolling.
By whose authority are you the arbiter of legitimate news sources?
No thanks, you can keep them. We are capable of doing our own research and arriving at our own conclusions. We see the censors erasing voices of resistance, and we’re not having it.
Enjoy your NYT and NPR and dark-money funded ‘fact checkers,’ but don’t come here demanding that we do the same. I find nothing compelling in your views and analyses, and as I value my time… goodbye.
Mr. Edelstein, if you knew the current editorial team at all, you’d be embarrassed by your opening questions. Your “fanatical”, “absurd”, “beyond belief” (to use your language) accusations and hyperbole come across as projection. Relying on globalist-owned “fact checking sites” demonstrates precisely why platforms like ours exist. While the mainstream fact-checkers you are championing consistently put out false narratives at the behest of a controlling power elite, the independent sources we cite, generally censored by the mainstream, have been proven accurate time and time again.
In your prior comment you bizarrely accused Jim Scarantino of demonizing and dehumanizing the homeless population at the fairgrounds encampment when he is the only reporter I have seen in any local media to give a human face to this problem (Another Fairgrounds Tragedy, for example). His church is providing meals for some of our homeless population as well as exploring options for providing shelter (New Laws Sweep Away Barriers to Churches Helping the Homeless). Jim speaks about grace and humility in that piece. You could benefit from a bit of that message.
In a previous exchange with Jim, he invited you to meet for coffee. Instead, you choose an ongoing barrage of increasingly-shrill outrage over what we report on and how we report it. It is neither the responsibility of a group of unpaid volunteers to cover whatever events you deem important or relevant, nor does every article that has appeared on this site necessarily reflect the views of all of our editorial team. If our choices offend you, there is nothing stopping you from establishing your own independent platform to communicate your personal biases and vitriol. Your comments on this site are straddling a fine line, tipping towards violation of our generous guidelines.
I’ve kept quiet here knowing the FP can defend itself.
But there is this that I do have knowledge of.
In the microcosm that reflects the macrocosm the “main stream” Leader has always been influenced by local advertisers and political elite.
It keeps the lid on as national news does. Fact check indeed.
The story regarding Dave Robison and malfeasance at Fort Worden disappeared from the online Leader. Heard anything lately about Maker’s Place, Square, or whatever that dwarfs the amount wasted with glamping? Or the takeover by special interests as a non-profit orchestrated by past City Manager Timmons, a failure as City Manager now in charge at the Fort? This was the original plan that didn’t stand the light of day years ago.
A manufactured crisis masked quite a bit.
Official narrative is that thieves are Saviours. Trusted historic Leader plays a key part in virtually every aspect of that locally.
Extrapolate that outward to larger systems.
The women’s rights gathering was headlined as an “Anti Trans Rally” by the mis Leader.
Having concerns regarding impressionable young people being unduly influenced with life changing decisions and womens privacy is not simply “Anti Trans”
Dozens of comments were removed from original stories regarding forming the FWPDA by the Leader. I re pasted them. Control the past, tweak history and control the future. Orwell is alive and well at the Leader and larger outlets.
Money. Influence. Power. Grey areas abound. Black and white creating division serves some.
Thanks to the volunteers at the FP and also thanks to those who challenge. Always an opportunity to answer and further explain positions.
That should threaten no one.
Isn’t the move for Mr. Brotherton to simply admit a mistake and recuse himself. Simple. Clean. Neighborly. Usually not the case around these parts. What a tangled web they weave.
All of Jefferson higher ups need to be replaced, this doesn’t surprise me at all…keep shining the light on them they are running scared….
I have a theory about the Mill Rd $600,000 property. It might be the place to put a future city sewage treatment plant, when the one at North Beach reaches its limit.
Did I read it right that Brotherton suggested selling a chunk of the Larry Scott trail?
Such a thought sounds very familiar to Manager Mauro’s stakeholders and higherlings looking to capitalize on the city golf course land.
I have been wanting to research the golf course deed since I read a comment that said if the city changes the use of the land from a golf course that the land would go back to the heirs. I recently found out that the land that is now the Cherry Street fiasco was to be sold for the benefit of the golf course if it were ever in financial trouble. I just need the tax parcel number(s) and the name of the person who deeded the land to the City to be able to find the documentation to find the original deed. I am not sure if it will matter to the city if this information is made public knowledge but I think that it would make a difference to the residents of Port Townsend as well as all of Jefferson County.
My thanks to Rosemary Schurman for her excellent investigative reporting. It takes incredible courage to write or publish any information about the taxpayer funded non-profit projects and real estate deals that have plagued Washington State for decades.
These projects usually result in the destruction of desirable working class neighborhoods and small business districts. The first step in reversing this trend is to recognize that the current political operatives intend to do whatever it takes to implement their ideological goals even if it involves impoverishing productive residents and trashing their neighborhoods. While waiting for justice – take every opportunity to oppose corruption enabling, virtue signaling ideologues.
I did some research on the amount of nonprofits in Jefferson county recently. I found 204 in Port Townsend alone with a total of 307 in the zip codes (I didn’t search the small portion of what is zip coded Sequim) of east Jefferson county. It makes one wonder how many of these nonprofits are contributing to the improvishing and trashing of neighborhoods within Port Townsend let alone the rest of the County.
Greg is a nice guy,,, a good human being in my opinion,,, I would consider him a friend of mine,,, he even produced a very successful youtube video of me… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VirUNHhPdLI…
Non profits are the key to political corruption in this great country and the key to ballot stuffing drop boxes… You ever watched “2000 Mules”???
Anyways “You reap what you sow”… Its a bad time to be serving in public office… The hammer is about to drop and there are no longer any shadows to hide in…
Ms Schurman continues to ignore the findings of a court of law in Barry v Johns, 82 Wn. App. 865, 1996. She adheres to her misreading of the RCW. If you don’t like OlyCAP or what Commissioner Brotherton has achieved, you don’t have to vote for him, but you can’t pretend that he’s breaking the law. https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/letters/lettercomplaint-debunked/
Barry v. Johns is inapplicable because after it was decided, the legislature greatly revised the statutes on municipal officer conflicts of interest because, in part, Barry v. Johns had created much confusion and uncertainty. In 1999 the Legislature passed the current law which declares that even though an elected official may not be compensated by the organization for which he serves as an officer, if he “influences or attempts to influence any other officer of the municipality of which he or she is an officer to enter into the contract” he creates an illegal conflict of interest that may void the contract and result in his removal from office. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1999-00/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5731.SL.pdf?cite=1999%20c%20261%20%C2%A7%203 Shurman’s complaint relies upon the final sentence of RCW 23.40.040, which the Legislature added in 1999, three years after the Barry v. Johns decision.
https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/jefferson-county-eyes-extending-emergency/
HEADS UP, FRIENDS:
“The proposal is not to really change anything about the policy. We actually had a discussion about how to integrate a bunch of this stuff in as permanent parts of our policy,” Hunsucker said.
“That may be one of the reasons why you might want to consider keeping the emergency order in place. It gives HR time to do the drafting.”
This discussion was part of a public hearing in which only one person, identified only as Steven, made a comment.
“I think it is disingenuous to try and apply emergency things for something that is just a ‘case demic’ at this point,” he said.
“It’s not lots of deaths, not the hospitals being overburdened. I’m concerned that we are in a walking-on-eggshells mode and almost feel it would be better to step back and treat COVID-19 as not an emergency but a cause for concern.”<<
Thank you for your brilliant, incisive and insightful replies to Mr. Edelstein, Ana and Annette. Such integrity in the face of his bloviating – the mic drops could be heard far and wide.