The chilling effect
Charter Review prioritizes Free Speech restrictions over governance issues
With time running out, the Charter Review Commission (CRC) is shifting focus to restricting commissioners’ speech on social media, sparking debate over censorship and transparency. Supporters argue it protects public commenters from intimidation, while critics see it as an attempt to silence dissent. The decision could set a lasting precedent for free expression in local government. Plus: important meetings coming up.
With only eight meetings remaining, the Charter Review Commission (CRC) is running out of time to draft ballot measures for county citizens to vote on. Yet, instead of prioritizing substantive county governance issues, the commission has decided to focus on restricting First Amendment rights—an issue raised by a single constituent.
A last-minute addition and call for censorship
During Monday’s meeting, CRC Chairwoman Susan Fisch asked if there were additional agenda items. “Commissioner Stoffer,” she said. “Did you have something else you wanted to say about the agenda?” [Watch the video here by advancing to time stamp 4:45]
“Yes,” replied Commissioner Jim Stoffer. “I would like to add potential violations of the OPMA [Open Public Meetings Act] and First Amendment for discussion.”
Agendas are released the week before the meeting. This allows the public and the commissioners to review items that will be discussed. Occasionally, agenda items that don’t make the deadline the week before are added, and this is communicated via email to the commissioners, usually with supporting documents that prepare the commission for upcoming discussion. There were no supporting documents to substantiate the last-minute agenda items added by Stoffer.
Chairwoman Fisch then explained that since items had been added to the agenda, the public was welcome to provide public comment on those agenda items and reminded the public of the three-minute time limit.
After one public comment, Chairwoman Fisch invited Sequim resident Patrice Johnston to the podium. [Watch Patrice Johnston’s 5-minute public comment here by advancing to timestamp 8:00.]
Johnston began her public comment by revisiting her comments of two weeks prior, which she said had been written on a receipt found in her purse. She then provided the receipt as evidence. Recalling the previous meeting, Johnston stated: “At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Tozzer approached me and asked if he could send me an email explaining his position on the issue of meetings on tribal property.”
Johnston then described the email exchange, noting that her reply to me had her comments interlineated in blue among my comments. She then described my email reply to her as “taking the opportunity to go on the attack about the recent Sequim School bond issue.”
Johnston explained she had no time to respond to a baseless accusation before the following morning when CC Watchdog published Balancing Transparency and Sovereignty. Johnston took issue that I had deleted the following statement from her email: “With that in mind, I have provided my comments in blue below.” Johnston also took issue that I had deleted my sections of the email between her responses. “It is a dishonest representation of my response,” she said.
Johnston then read a selection of comments that had been generated by the article and responses I had posted, including “You’re welcome” and “It’s taken all of us so far, and there may be future place-putting.”
She then read, from her prepared speech, “As a so-called and actual retired attorney who believes in the rights of citizens under the First Amendment and OPMA to freely offer public comment to their elected officials, I ask you: Who would want to make a public comment to this body knowing that this is the type of retaliation that they face? What kind of place-putting do I have to look forward to for these comments this evening?”
Johnston closed her public comment by stating that the issue was about institutional integrity and ensuring that public comments are free from harassment and intimidation, which should extend beyond the walls of the courthouse. “I’m asking this commission to adopt a rule that prohibits any commissioner from using social media or other channels to harass individuals who offer public comment and/or engage in email exchanges about issues. If the commission does not act, I believe it will be seen as condoning this behavior.”
Additional context
Everything CC Watchdog has published regarding this issue is public record—the emails, videos, and past voter pamphlets are readily available on the county website or via public records request.
Yes, I did alter Johnston’s email. Substack does not allow text in different colors, so I removed that sentence about “comments in blue” for clarity. For brevity, since I had included my entire email response above, I did not see the need to repeat it again. After hearing Johnston’s concerns about context, I contacted her asking if she would like me to add the interlineations she requested and change her responses to italics or bold. I also offered to publish her entire public comment and scanned receipt on CC Watchdog if she would send them. However, I have yet to receive a response.
Yes, I did approach Johnston after the initial public comment two weeks prior, but only after she said, “So if there is [a concern about holding meetings on sovereign land] I would appreciate that being brought to my attention.” [Watch Johnston’s initial public comment on March 10th here by advancing to timestamp 2:07:45.]
That is why I introduced myself to Ms. Johnston on March 10th and had a pleasant exchange, during which she shared her email address with me.
A plan unfolds
Two hours into last Monday’s meeting, Chair Fisch asked Commissioner Stoffer to elaborate on his concern. [Watch here by advancing to timestamp 2:04:15.]
“Never once have I seen an engagement from a person back to a public comment that we’ve just seen and that had been turned into an issue on social media,” said Stoffer. “That particular format, a person can’t rebut or offer an argument unless they join that particular social media.”
Stoffer admitted that my exchange with Patrice Johnston made him uncomfortable, citing concerns about integrity and public respect. “I don’t think any of them expect then to read about it on a separate social media blog when it never came to us to discuss here.” He suggested the Bylaws Committee address the issue.
Any expectation that Chair Fisch would handle the matter fairly and impartially disappeared when she handed her gavel to Commissioner Chris Noble, signaling a temporary step back from her role as Chair.
Noble then called on Fisch, who proposed reconvening the Bylaws Committee, of which she is a member, to discuss potential changes. She read a section of the bylaws on public statements: “Statements purporting to represent the views or pronouncements of the Commission or committees thereof shall not be made except as directed or authorized by a majority of the entire Commission at any special or regular meeting or public hearing.”
Fisch then suggested adding a clause: “That if you are using social media, if you’re at a public meeting, if you’re doing a forum, you have to state that you’re not speaking on behalf of the commission, you’re speaking on behalf of yourself. Especially true if you’re using county resources, that you need to refrain from identifying an individual person who’s made public comment by name. That there’s a difference between identifying somebody by name and calling them out versus talking about the idea that they’ve proposed. You can certainly talk about a topic. That you can’t do online what you can’t do under OPMA [Open Public Meetings Act].”
Fisch also emphasized concerns about what lawyers term “the chilling effect” on First Amendment rights, asserting that elected officials have a duty to respect public comment “and not intimidate people so they won’t come to our Town Halls.”
Fisch moved to reconvene the Bylaws Committee, which Stoffer seconded.
Before voting, Commissioner Paul Pickett expressed discomfort with regulating speech. “Public records are public records, and I’m not happy with what I heard happened. On the other hand, I’m not sure we can address it through bylaw changes.”
It appeared Pickett had only heard about the incident rather than reading the article in question. He was being asked to take action based on Johnston’s comments, Stoffer’s concerns, and Fisch’s interpretation, rather than a firsthand review of the material.
The ensuing debate split into two camps: subjective feelings and objective policy and law.
I asked whether it mattered that Patrice Johnston had identified herself as an elected official. In my view, she was speaking to the commission in an official capacity, providing her interpretation of OPMA based on her expertise because she had said, “This is just my experience as an elected.”
Fisch assured that the Bylaws Committee would consider that point. “And I want to say one other thing—this is personal to me.”
She recounted her experience as a judge in Colorado, where she was a named victim in a case involving threats against judges and elected officials. The incident required intervention from the FBI and sheriff’s department. “When you put things out and you encourage people to make the kind of comments that the person today stated in public comment, you are putting people in danger. And that’s why I think it’s important to have the Bylaws Committee look at this.”
Stoffer emphasized that being an elected official is a 24/7 role. He took exception to Johnston’s voter pamphlet photo, publicly available on the county website, being posted on Substack. He argued this had nothing to do with her public comment, despite her identifying herself as an elected official. “Transparency is the bedrock of accountability,” he said.
Transparency and accountability are concepts Stoffer is familiar with. He resigned mid-term from the school board in 2022 while facing possible censure and calls for resignation from his fellow Board members.
“The disrespect that occurred is paramount for me,” said Stoffer.
The motion to reconvene the Bylaws Committee passed 8-5, with Commissioners Fisch, Stoffer, Hodgson, Holy, Sarmiento, Fane, Cameron, and Morris in favor. Commissioners Benedict, Walde, Pickett, Richards, and I opposed.
Pickett then announced his resignation from the Bylaws Committee, leaving a vacancy.
“Would anybody like to join the Bylaws Committee?” asked Bylaws Committee Chair Chris Noble.
“I’d love to,” I said. “May I?”
“Yes, I think that’s allowable,” said Noble.
The CRC Bylaws/Rules Committee will meet on Thursday, April 3, at 4 pm in the Board of Commissioners Boardroom at the Clallam County Courthouse. The public is welcome to attend either in person or virtually; find instructions for both options here. Public comments are permitted. The committee comprises Chair Chris Noble, and commissioners Susan Fisch, Christy Holy, and me. If you have comments or questions regarding the CRC's rules and bylaws, please email the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov.
The chilling effect
Fisch and Stoffer raised concerns about the chilling effect, arguing that public officials and citizens might be deterred from engaging in public comment due to potential scrutiny. However, their actions suggest a selective application of this principle—one that shields certain individuals while imposing restrictions on others.
For Patrice Johnston, the concern was that people might hesitate to provide public comment if they fear discussion online. However, the CRC’s own bylaws make it clear that public comment is part of the official record and subject to public scrutiny.
For me, as a commissioner, the chilling effect operates differently. The CRC’s actions signal that engagement outside of meetings—particularly on social media—can be framed as inappropriate or even subject to bylaw changes. This creates an environment where commissioners critical of the majority’s positions may self-censor out of fear of censure or policy changes aimed at restricting their speech.
The contradiction is clear: the same individuals warning against a chilling effect on public commenters are considering bylaw changes that would limit free expression for commissioners. If public officials and citizens cannot be questioned or discussed, democratic accountability suffers. If the CRC moves forward with these changes, it risks setting a troubling precedent where speech is only protected when it aligns with the prevailing majority’s views. That is the real chilling effect—one that should concern anyone who values open dialogue and transparency in government.
Redefining “Town Hall”
The first Charter Review Commission (CRC) Town Hall in Sequim on Wednesday attracted a strong turnout, with over 60 people attending to discuss county governance. The CRC is fortunate to have an engaged public, but there are opportunities to improve future events.
Many attendees anticipated an open Q&A format, but restrictions on answering questions, imposed by Chairwoman Fisch and Commissioner Stoffer, limited the conversation. Previous county town halls have featured direct Q&A, which helped foster a clearer dialogue between officials and the public. Additionally, concerns were raised about the fairness of enforcing speaking time, as some individuals were allowed more time than others.
The commission is composed of experienced members capable of addressing many questions on the spot, making it unnecessary to limit responses in certain cases. Moreover, Chairwoman Fisch concluded the meeting an hour early, just as participants were eager to continue, which felt abrupt and left attendees frustrated.
To improve future Town Halls, it would be helpful to clarify in advance if Q&A will not be allowed. Any limitations should be attributed to the Town Hall Committee, rather than the entire Commission. Above all, the CRC should prioritize fairness and transparency, ensuring that all participants have an equal opportunity to be heard.
The CRC is hosting two upcoming “Town Hall” events:
Tuesday, April 1, 5-7 pm at the Fairview Grange, 161 Lake Farm Road, Port Angeles.
Monday, April 7, 6-8 pm at the Crescent Grange in Joyce, 50724 Highway 112, Port Angeles.
Running for Local Office presentation
Today at 11 a.m., a presentation titled “Running for Local Office” will be held at the Forks Library. The presentation will hopefully highlight the important oaths our elected officials take when swearing to serve “faithfully and impartially,” emphasizing that rules apply equally to all and should not be selectively weaponized. An essential message for future public servants is learning when to separate official duties from personal experiences.
The presentation, posted on social media by the League of Women Voters, will be given by Sequim School Board member Maren Halverson and Charter Review Commissioner Susan Fisch.
County meetings on sovereign land
It's important to remember the issue that sparked this debate within the CRC: Should county government meetings be held on sovereign land?
From: Kaylee Charles
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 2:24 PM
To: Gores, Loni
Subject: Invitation for government-to-government meeting
Good Afternoon, Loni,
On behalf of the Quileute Tribal Council, I am reaching out to extend an invitation for a government-to-government meeting with the Commissioners of Clallam County. Please find the invitation attached for your reference.
We would appreciate it if you could let us know which day works best for the Commissioners to attend this meeting. While we would prefer to host the meeting, we understand that scheduling can be difficult, so if it is more convenient, we are also happy to travel to a location of the Commissioners’ choosing.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any further details or have any questions regarding the meeting. We look forward to your response and hope to finalize the details soon.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kaylee Charles
Executive Assistant
Quileute Tribe
From: Gores, Loni
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 3:42:21 PM
To: Kaylee Charles
Subject: RE: Invitation for government-to-government meeting
Hi Kaylee,
Thank you for your email. I’ll discuss with the BOCC and report back.
If they wish to meeting is there a day/time during the week that usually works best for Tribal Council? Do they hold their council meetings in the evening and if so when?
Loni
From: Kaylee Charles
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 4:02 PM
To: Gores, Loni
Subject: Re: Invitation for government-to-government meeting
Hi Loni,
I have added some dates that Council is available.
Wednesday, March 19 any time in the morning
Thursday, March 20 any time in the morning
Friday, March 21 late morning or afternoon
Monday, March 24 all day
Tuesday, March 25 all day
Wednesday, March 26 all day
Friday, March 28 all day
April 1-4 all day
Council typically meets on Thursdays in the morning, but we can work BOCC into the agenda if needed!
Thank you,
Kaylee Charles
From: Gores, Loni
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 4:05 PM
To: Kaylee Charles
Cc: Gores, Loni
Subject: RE: Invitation for government-to-government meeting
Hi Kaylee,
Happy Monday!
The BOCC is supportive of meeting with the Quileute Tribal Council however their schedules are booked solid with meetings, conferences, and vacations for the next few weeks.
Below are some dates that work for the BOCC that all Commissioners and the Administrator can make the meeting.
Tuesday, April 29 - anytime between 1:30-5 p.m.
Wednesday, April 30 – anytime between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Friday, May 2 – anytime between 1 -5 p.m.
If Tribal Council would like to meet sooner than the end of April, the BOCC can also meet in Port Angeles during our work session. We have Monday, April 14 and 21 available. Our meetings start at 9 a.m. and usually run until about 12 or 12:30. We could schedule this for a specific start time during our work session and allow for an hour.
Let me know what works for Tribal Council.
Loni
From: Kaylee Charles
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 9:12 AM
To: Gores, Loni
Subject: RE: Invitation for government-to-government meeting
Hi Loni,
Sorry for the late response on this. I am waiting to hear back from Council on a date that works for them! Once I hear back, I will reach out to you again.
Thank you,
Kaylee Charles
My free speech to Jim Stoffer is, you took an oath to the tribe on public access television. Its the same oath posted on two websites for two Non-Government Organization that were formed to effectuate an international and tribal policy and signed a charter agreeing to "build and serve" an international sphere of government that decided despite having an agency the BIA take care of them and a treaty, that local tribes needed a "compensation mechanism: for "reparations for colonization," in order to heal the broken relationship as cited in these oaths you cite.
Jim Stoffer. You should be disqualified from public office because your oath gives you a conflict of interest. You are moonlighting for the NODC and SERN. You are part of the United Nations boots on the ground here, that has embedded itself within Clallam County government, to achieve new treaty conditions and terms and violates the United States Constitution. You have cohorts all over Clallam County. I want you all out.
If you're going to be an elected official or throw your hat in the ring for public comment you had ought to be tough enough to take the public's opinions on what you say. If you can't handle it then you don't belong in the ring. Sit down and shut up.