4. Conclusions

I wish to make clear what I am not saying:

• I do not believe that the Hughes got away with a project that violates the County critical areas ordinance. Mr. Laws himself concluded that the project was in compliance with the ordinance.
• I do not believe that Mike Thomas acted with the intent to give the Hughes a special favor. I can accept that he thought he was doing the right thing by streamlining the Hughes’ permit process. I would hope that he would consider helping any citizen that felt that the planning department was making the wrong decision. I have no reason to believe he would not.
• I do not believe that any member of the County Council was untruthful in his defense of Mike Thomas. I believe it likely that the authors of the June 25, 2015, report believed what they said.
• I do not believe Randy Gaylord knowingly violated the Public Records Act by withholding the IGA documents. With the settlement, we will not know what a court would say. I think Ms. Albritton was in a good position in her suit. But I do not think this suit was a clear winner.

I am saying the following:

• I believe it likely that Mr. Thomas caused the County to violate its own critical areas ordinance by improperly short-circuiting the proper process in determining the compliance of the Hughes’ proposed project. Any violation of the ordinance was about process, not result.
• I believe that Chris Laws acted in good faith when he investigated whether the Hughes project was in compliance, and when he filed his report of improper government conduct. I also can find no evidence that his decisions during this investigation were unreasonable.
• I believe Mr. Gaylord intended to avoid public knowledge of Mr. Thomas’s participation in the Hughes permit approval when he removed the IGA documents from the code enforcement file. He may have done so at the request of other County officials.

Most importantly, I believe the County critically erred in two respects: (1) Mike Thomas’s summary and unilateral reversal of planner Anna Matsumoto-Grah’s decision to require a wetlands investigation, and (2) the County’s decision to not disclose the IGA documents in response to Ms. Albritton’s public records request. The potential result of these errors is damage to our belief in our County government. I believe that our government should have been guided by two principles that would have avoided these errors:

1. Government must follow its own rules, even if those rules seem to lead to the wrong result. If the rules are wrong, change them. But a mentality that gives government officials power to ignore the rules on behalf of a citizen is dangerous.
2. Government must be completely open. Any act to avoid public knowledge of the workings of our government (with certain privacy exceptions) is harmful to our democracy. This principle may cause grief for government officials at times. But this is the nature of open government.

I will add a third principle that arises now that a problem has been identified: Worse than a mistake made is one not admitted. I would feel more comfortable with what has happened in this matter if our County came out and said, “Yeah, we did that one wrong. We’ll work hard to avoid that in the future.” The Council’s June 25, 2015, was anything but contrite.

On this point, I come back to the December 2, 2015, press release announcing the Albritton settlement. (Press Release) The press release states, “This lawsuit was based upon a misunderstanding of Albritton’s request, which sought production of a code enforcement file.” I have a hard time believing that the County thought that Ms. Albritton’s request, which referenced the Department of Ecology report she filed in which she specifically alleged wrongdoing on the part of County officials, did not include documents on the portion of the investigation dealing with that alleged wrongdoing. I feel certain that Mr. Gaylord at least recognized that Ms. Albritton did not have enough knowledge of policies regarding what goes into a code enforcement file to make the distinction Mr. Gaylord made. And, if this was simply a misunderstanding, why require Chris Laws to modify his report to take out the IGA-related information after the public records request was received rather than disclose the document because at least part of it belonged in the file? Why didn’t the County ask Ms. Albritton for clarification as allowed by the Public Records Act? But even if the County honestly believes that this was simply a misunderstanding, that misunderstanding does not explain why it went to such great lengths to avoid giving Ms. Albritton the information on the IGA.

Second, the release states, “[The County] identified mistakes and the County Council wanted to own up to them. As a result, we made a substantial offer to Ms. Albritton . . .” This statement is followed with an outline of “steps to improve the County’s public records response system.” These steps include the Council’s threat that it will reduce or withhold budgets of County departments and agencies if they are non-compliant with public records requests! These statements give the impression of some lower-level administrative flaw that caused “mistakes” to be made in handling Ms. Albritton’s requests. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This December 2, 2015, press release is nothing but spin. It attempts to deflect from the real issues here as the County has all along. The release’s “we have learned from this experience” tone is disingenuous. It does not address the concern that we should have as citizens.

I will end where I began. Only by staying informed about our government can we hope to maintain our democracy. I am not making a call to action here. There may be nothing to do. But we should all understand, and remember.

Go Back To The Previous Page