The Charter Review Commission (CRC) was meant to be a beacon of democracy, refining our home-rule charter with public input. Instead, it’s a web of deception and secrecy, with blatant lies and possible Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violations undermining trust. Public records expose a process hijacked by CRC Chair Susan Fisch and County Commissioner Mark Ozias, who prioritize private agendas over the people’s voice—while wasting taxpayer dollars as the county begs for more. Tonight’s meeting is the public’s chance to demand answers.

On September 22, 2025, Administrator Todd Mielke claimed security at CRC meetings was routine, part of a standing contract with Security Services NW, not tied to any specific request:

“Nobody directed us to do anything. If anything, what it caused us to do, is review our current policies and our current contract is with Security Services Northwest. And do a better inventory of when the public is in this building. I think a lot of people want to point to one evening that got people maybe a little tense, but that’s really not it.”

He also said:

“We continue to have a contract for security system services. It starts at 7:30 in the morning and, per the contract, is they will be available any time the public is in the building.”

Yet other public meetings, such as the Fair Advisory Board sessions, are also held after hours—like the CRC meetings—but have no security present. Mielke blamed the presence of security on a vague need to protect the courthouse.

“There’s a state law that says we must control access to the courts. So, weapons are banned in the courts. So, there’s an ongoing debate about what constitutes ‘the courts’ in any courthouse.”

Public records tell a different story.

On July 16, Commissioner Jim Stoffer emailed the CRC Executive Board, demanding security after a heated but non-threatening public comment by Eric Fehrmann. Stoffer wrote:

“The Commission has experience several disruptions… I will be taking steps to protect myself; but I urge you three as the elected Excective to take steps as well.”

That same day, Commissioner Mark Ozias escalated the request to Sheriff Brian King and Mielke, writing:

“I would appreciate it if we could do what is necessary to ensure that a security officer can be present for all future meetings of the CRC.”

By July 17, King confirmed to Security Services NW,

“I now have an additional request from the BOCC to cover future Charter Review Commission Meetings.”

CRC Chairwoman Susan Fisch sealed the deal, emailing Stoffer:

“Sheriff King is working on this and sounds confident that Northwest Security Services will be present from this point forward.”

Administrator Mielke’s testimony is a lie. The security wasn’t routine—it was a direct response to Stoffer’s complaint, arranged without public or commission input. No evidence of a threat has surfaced, yet taxpayers foot the bill for Stoffer’s private guards, as detailed in a prior article, Private Security for One Commissioner.

This deception insults residents already facing proposed tax hikes for critical services like law enforcement and public health.

OPMA Violations: Democracy Locked Out

Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) demands transparency, requiring public bodies to deliberate openly. Fisch and Ozias ignored this, orchestrating security arrangements through private emails, bypassing the full CRC and the public. This wasn’t just a one-off—Fisch may also be considering Stoffer’s request to axe the second public comment period, again without commission approval. These secret deals violate OPMA, sidelining elected commissioners and silencing residents who deserve a voice in the charter review.

Such actions reflect a broader pattern of public exclusion. Limited Zoom access, town halls where Stoffer and Fisch forbid the public from engaging directly with elected officials, and the ignoring of ethics complaints show a process more about control than community.

Commissioner Ozias, criticized for blocking projects like the Happy Valley Gravel Pit near his home, and Chairwoman Fisch, who spent several meetings prioritizing her friend and public commenter Patrice Johnston’s request to censure a fellow commissioner while making unilateral decisions on behalf of the full CRC, appear more focused on personal agendas and political allies than on the needs of Clallam County residents.

Questions That Require Commission Discussion

These developments raise urgent questions that the full CRC needs to address:

* What specific threat did Commissioner Stoffer perceive on July 14?

* When Stoffer said he would “take steps to protect myself,” does that include carrying a weapon in a weapon-free zone?

* Why was security not present at CRC meetings before July 14 if risk was known?

* Why is security not present at all public meetings on county property if it is now deemed necessary?

* Was the OPMA violated by arranging security without deliberation or approval from the full CRC?

* Do these actions comply with CRC bylaws?

* Is Chair Susan Fisch also unilaterally removing the second public comment period at Commissioner Stoffer’s request? If so, does this also constitute a violation of OPMA and our bylaws, given that the Commission has again not been consulted?

Answering these questions is critical to restoring transparency and public trust in the charter review process.

“Revolution is not necessary. Reform is. Democracy cannot be a mere formality; it must be a living process in which the people decide, not a single individual.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt

Hypocrisy Amid Tax Hikes

The hypocrisy stings most. While the county pleads for property tax increases to fund essential services while threatening to make “painful cuts” to election integrity, law enforcement, and public health, it burns cash on Stoffer’s unneeded security. Why not have him join meetings via Zoom, a cost-free fix?

Instead, leaders cry budget woes while dodging revenue losses from untaxed lands tied to Commissioner Ozias’s donors. It’s a double standard: demand sacrifice from residents, but spend freely on private agendas.

Tonight’s meeting

The CRC meets tonight, October 13, at 5:30 p.m. in the Clallam County Courthouse Board Room (223 East 4th Street, Port Angeles—use the after-hours entrance). “CRC Security” is on the agenda. Attend in person, or virtually, and demand truth from the government you fund.

Clallam deserves a charter review that serves the public, not a select few.

Budget Town Hall This Week

The Clallam County Commissioners will hold the first of three Budget Town Halls tomorrow, offering residents a chance to review the proposed 2026 budget and ask questions (Sequim October 22, Forks October 29). The session begins with a 45-minute presentation, followed by a 75-minute public Q&A.

Tuesday, October 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.Commissioners’ Board Room 160, 223 East 4th Street, Port AngelesAlso available virtually via Zoom.

Agenda Highlights:

* Review the 2026 Administrator Recommended Budget

* Discuss the 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

* Public Q&A on the Budget and TIP

This is a key opportunity for residents to engage directly with county leaders about spending priorities and infrastructure plans.

Full Testimony of Administrator Todd Mielke

(September 22, 2025)

With regard to this issue, I received emails saying, ‘Could you tell me what the policy is for the county providing security in the courthouse?’ And yes, there was an evening here, maybe more than one, where I think people got a little bit excited, perhaps raised their voice, gestured, things like that, but that issue was not specific to that. It was: could you tell us what the policy is of the county for security?

There’s a state law that says we must control access to the courts. So, weapons are banned in the courts. So, there’s an ongoing debate about what constitutes ‘the courts’ in any courthouse. And so, we have been going through this, we have been talking about moving the county courthouse to a single point entry security system. That’s been going on for the entire two years I’ve been here.

Typically, security in the court building, courthouse building, is done by the Sheriff’s Office through corrections officers. We have had a significant shortage of staff in that position, and so for the last two years, the county has hired an outside security firm providing security services in the courthouse. Where that would normally have been done by corrections officers. So, we’ve been doing that. And we switched vendors here recently, about three months ago. And so, we continued to go through and explore this.

Our contract states that we will provide security — our contract with the vendor, Security Services Northwest, currently is that they will provide security services anytime the building is open to the public. In addition to that, very recently, we had the superior court bench, the presiding judge of the superior court bench, who made a proclamation under GR39, general rule— I believe it’s 39. And they have as a judicial branch, the ability to do that, where they proclaim that the entire building, not just second floor where the courtrooms are, but the entire building would be considered ‘weapons free.’

Again, so there’s this ongoing debate of, is a weapon only a gun? No, not under the statutory definition. And so, the County continues to move forward. We continue to have a contract for security system services. It starts at 7:30 in the morning and, per the contract, is they will be available any time the public is in the building. And so, it’s not specific because ‘Oh, Charter Review Commission’s meeting tonight’. It’s, ‘Do we have any public meetings in the building tonight?’

And so that is the issue, it’s for protecting the building because the idea is that someone could come in and plant a weapon and come back tomorrow. And so once again, under statutory provisions, we’re required to protect this building and the courts. So that is why they’re here. It is a public meeting. Therefore, the contract says they will participate and be available during any time the public is in the building. And so that is what we do.

But also, as we are witnessing, unfortunately, political discourse has changed greatly in the last several years. I’ve spent a lot of years as an elected official. Political discourse has changed; we’ve certainly seen it in the last couple of weeks on the national level. And so, the issue is we want to make sure people, when they come to the courthouse, feel safe. And we never know what may or may not happen. But we don’t want to be in a position to the best of our ability about saying we should have done this, or we could have done that. So, we’re doing the best we can to protect the public for participating in public meetings in this building. So that is what we’re doing.

Nobody directed us to do anything. If anything, what it caused us to do is review our current policies, and our current contract is with Security Services Northwest. And do a better inventory of when the public is in this building. I think a lot of people want to point to one evening that got people maybe a little tense, but that’s really not it.

That would be reading far, far too much into the fact that security’s been here for two years. They start at 7:30 in the morning. We’re just being much more careful, especially now that the superior court has proclaimed that this building is weapons-free and they expect the Board of County Commissioners to enforce that proclamation, so that’s what we’re doing.”

[Commissioner Ron Richards noted that the security presence was not the result of random contract enforcement, but rather a direct result of Stoffer’s requests and the subsequent email chain.]

Mielke continued: “He [Commissioner Jim Stoffer] was one of multiple people who raised the issue that they felt things crossed the line. Other people did review the video. I will say that I reviewed it a couple of times, I came to a different conclusion the second time I reviewed it than I did the first time. I know the Sheriff and some members of the Sheriff’s office reviewed it. Commissioners reviewed it. And the request to me was to work with the Sheriff to review our current policies about how we were utilizing our contracted security services at times when the public was in the building. That was the request.

But again, services were already under contract. I think the question is, ‘When and how is the contract contemplated utilizing those services?’ The contract states services will be available anytime the public is in the building… security is here to protect all of you. As well as the audience, and my staff. It’s a public meeting.

This testimony is contradicted by the email chain, which shows Stoffer requested security, Ozias relayed that request, Mielke was directly involved, and Fisch confirmed the arrangement.

Full emails

From: Stoffer, Jim

To: Fisch, Susan; Hodgson, Mark; Noble, Chris

Cc: Stoffer, Jim

Subject: CRC Meeting Procedures

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 6:56:18 AM

Importance: High

Greetings Executive Board,

The Commission has experience several disruptions over the last several months during our Commission meetings. These disruptions have grown with toxi bullying harassing behavior, attacking several Commissioners with verbal threats. This is not ok, and I urge you to take action at protecting the meeting space and the proceedings.

We have no idea if some of these folks are not carrying a weopon of some sort. Each meeting is growing worse.

Recommendation:

1. We need security presence during our meetings.

2. Drop the 2nd Public Comment period from the agenda; it just opens the door to attacks and disruption.

3. When the disruption occurs, immediately call a recess, you can do that.

I will be taking steps to protect myself; but I urge you three as the elected Excective to take steps as well.

Thank You

Jim Stoffer

From: Ozias, Mark

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 2:13 PM

To: Mielke, Todd ; King, Brian

Cc: Fisch, Susan

Subject: Security at CRC Meetings

Hello Todd and Brian,

I would appreciate it if we could do what is necessary to ensure that a security officer can be present for all future meetings of the CRC. If this will require additional budgetary authority from the BOCC then I will work with you to advance the necessary process.

Thank you,

Mark Ozias

From: King, Brian

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:34 PM

To: Joe D’Amico

Subject: RE: Security Services for Clallam County Fair

Joe,

I now have an additional request from the BOCC to cover future Charter Review Commission Meetings. I still need to get those dates which are in the evenings.

Do you want me to work with Ken on that?

Brian J. King

From: Joe D’Amico

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 5:53 PM

To: King, Brian

Subject: RE: Security Services for Clallam County Fair

Sheriff,

Sounds good. You can send the dates and time to me for now.

This way, I can include operations, scheduling, and billing.

Thank you,

Joe

Respectfully,

Joe D’Amico, President

Security Services NW Inc.

From: Fisch, Susan

To: King, Brian; Ozias, Mark; Mielke, Todd

Cc: Waknitz, Elizabeth

Subject: Re: Security at CRC Meetings

Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:13:44 PM

All:

Thank you for working on this so quickly.

Susan Fisch

From: “Fisch, Susan”

Date: 7/17/25 12:35 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: “Stoffer, Jim” , “Hodgson, Mark”, “Noble, Chris”

Subject: Re: CRC Meeting Procedures

All:

I have been copied on emails between Commissioner Ozias and Sheriff King about

security at CRC meetings. Sheriff King is working on this and sounds confident that Northwest Security Services will be present from this point forward.

Susan

From: Mielke, Todd

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:38 PM

To: King, Brian; Ozias, Mark

Cc: Fisch, Susan ; Waknitz, Elizabeth

Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings

Thank you, Brian.

I believe Security Services Northwest will need to be briefed about the nuances of differentiating between someone exercising their freedom of speech and when their messaging becomes threatening. If you get a chance, please review the video at the end of the most recent meeting and the comments/messaging by Eric Fehrmann. Several people have reviewed the video and believe this line was crossed…especially when considering the combination of shouting, swearing, calling out one of the commissioners by name, and gestures. The video would probably be a good reference in the discussion with Security Services Northwest. “Threatening a public official” is addressed in state statute and should probably be considered in preparation for attending these meetings.

Regards,

Todd

Todd Mielke

County Administrator

From: King, Brian

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:04 PM

To: Ozias, Mark ; Mielke, Todd

Cc: Fisch, Susan ; Waknitz, Elizabeth

Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings

Hello everyone,

I am in conversation with Security Services Northwest and have provided them the Charter Review Commission meeting schedule for the remainder of the year. While its not “finalized” I do think they will be able to make it happen.

Given current projections I believe the Sheriff’s Office will be able to absorb these costs in jail underspend.

I will let you know once I get the final confirmation.

Brian J. King

From: Ozias, Mark

To: Mielke, Todd

Cc: King, Brian; Fisch, Susan; Waknitz, Elizabeth

Subject: Re: Security at CRC Meetings

Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 12:56:51 PM

Thank you Brian!

Mark O

From: Stoffer, Jim

To: Fisch, Susan; Hodgson, Mark; Noble, Chris

Cc: Stoffer, Jim

Subject: RE: CRC Meeting Procedures

Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:08:54 PM

Thank you

Jim Stoffer

From: Mielke, Todd

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 1:43 PM

To: French, Mike; Johnson, Randy; Ozias, Mark; Cc: Gores, Loni; Boughton, Dee; Reno, Jay ; King, Brian

Subject: FW: Security at CRC Meetings

Hi everyone,

Commissioner Ozias forwarded this information (please see the link in his e-mail) to me and I thought it might be a worthwhile conversation to have given the amount of public testimony we receive at a variety of County meetings and the apparent increasing intensity of public comment at the Charter Review Commission meetings.

Please let me know if you would like me to explore this further, and if we should schedule this for a Work Session perhaps in August.

Thank you,

Todd

Todd Mielke

County Administrator

From: Ozias, Mark <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2025 3:18 PM

To: Mielke, Todd <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings

Todd, perhaps it would be helpful for us to establish some more formal rules:https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2020/when-1st-amendment-rights-public-meetings-clash

Mark Ozias

Clallam County Commissioner

From: Gores, Loni

To: Cc: Subject: Date: Mielke, Todd; French, Mike; Johnson, Randy; Ozias, Mark

Boughton, Dee; Reno, Jay; King, Brian

RE: Security at CRC Meetings

Monday, July 21, 2025 2:05:30 PM

Here is the link to the video. The comment started at 3:43:05 into the video.

https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3116/media

From: Johnson, Randy

To: Mielke, Todd

Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings

Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 2:44:10 PM

As I stated earlier, I believe that we need security at the meetings due to instances like this.

Todd,

Randy

From: Mielke, Todd

To: Johnson, Randy

Subject: RE: Security at CRC Meetings

Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 3:10:56 PM

Hi Randy,

In the last comments I received from the Sheriff, I believe the Sheriff’s Office has now advised our security firm to be present at the CRC meetings. I’m expecting to see someone starting at the next meeting.

The link forwarded by Commissioner Ozias provides suggestions on how we can update County policy regarding “acceptable behavior” in public meetings. The MRSC information gives guidance on how to balance preserving a person’s right to free speech with maintaining order at meetings. It suggests including language to clarify prohibited ‘actions’, such as “raising your voice”, “yelling”, “aggressive gestures”, “singling out an individual” versus addressing your comments to the overall body, etc.

My question to the BOCC is whether you would like to have a discussion during a Work Session about updating County policy utilizing some of the suggestions and language presented by MRSC, including more specific language regarding acceptable versus unacceptable behavior/communication.

Thank you,

Todd

From: Mielke, Todd

To: Dennler, Bonnie

Subject: FW: Security at CRC Meetings

Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:56:24 AM

Attachments: image001.png

Good morning, Bonnie.

I’m forwarding this as an FYI. It would involve updating our county policy regarding public meetings,

specifically addressing allowable behavior at public meetings by both the audience and participants.

There’s a link in the e-mail from Commissioner Ozias that you might want to take a look at when you

have time. It’s guidance that attempts to balance First Amendment rights with the ability to maintain

decorum in meetings. It suggests specific language in the policy such as prohibiting certain

‘behaviors’ such as raising one’s voice, shouting, aggressive gestures, addressing the ‘body’ versus

any individual, etc.

Commissioner Ozias appears to be suggesting that we update our policy and make it more specific.

I’m hoping to solicit input from the other two.

Regards,

Todd

Todd Mielke

From: Shore, Lorraine

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 8:56 AM

To: Mielke, Todd

Cc: King, Brian

Subject: Security request for Charter Review

Hi Todd,

Jim Stouffer 360-775-XXXX called and requested security at their Charter Review Commission meetings. He said he feels threatened by public commenters who have used profanity directed at him during the meetings. He feels Loni is in a poor position if a safety issue arises. I told him I would pass on his concerns to you as the BOCC would have to make the decision whether to provide security. He would like you to give him a call to discuss this. Let me know if there is anything you need from me.

Thank you,

Lorraine Shore, Undersheriff

From: Gores, Loni <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:14 PM

To: Biasell, Elizabeth <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Charter review meetings

Charter Review is held on the second and fourth Monday of each month starting at 5:30 p.m. The meetings have lasted between from 1 to 4 hours this year (so far).

The Charter Review Commission is authorized until December 31, 2025.The August 28 meeting was 58 minutes long. So, from 5:30-6:30. Here is the link for the recording for that meeting that shows the meeting was only 1 hour long NOT 2 hours.

https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3119/media

The August 11 meeting was 46 minutes long. Here is the link for that recording: https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3118/media So again it was only 1 hour long NOT 2.

I’m not sure if they get paid for the time, they wait for the meeting to start or not (4:30-5:30 p.m.). I guess that is probably in their contract.

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