This profile photo for the Re-Elect Haas for Prosecutor Facebook page has landed him in hot water.

On June 7, 2018, Gary Maxfield of Port Townsend filed a complaint with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission alleging that the use of this photograph in Haas’ campaign violated RCW 42.17A.555.  That law prohibits an elected public official such as Haas from using “any facilities of a public office” for the purpose of assisting a campaign for elective office. “Facilities of a public office” include “office space.”

You can read Maxfield’s brief complaint by clicking here.

Haas filed his response June 14, 2018.  You can read it by clicking here. He did not deny the use of the photograph in his campaign for re-election.  Without any explanation, he simply contended its use was not illegal.  And if it was illegal he argued the infraction was de minimis, a term used by lawyers and judges to indicate something so trivial it is inconsequential.

Haas may or may not be right.  On the one hand, literally applied, the law cited by Maxfield would prohibit use of images of the prosecutor’s office in campaign materials.  He clearly may not use his office for a campaign event.  PDC guidelines make it clear he could not hold a press conference for his campaign in his office  A photograph of him at such a press conference certainly could not be used in his campaign materials.

On the other hand, the PDC’s regulation governing this law does not prevent a public office from making public facilities available on an nondiscriminatory, equal access basis for political purposes.  The PDC has issued a rule interpretation allowing judges to use their courtroom for campaign photographs as long as the courtroom is available for the same use by everyone.  That means allowing their opponent to sit in their same chair on the bench for their own campaign photograph.

As far as we know, Haas did not offer his office space for a photo session by his campaign opponent before using this photo in his own campaign materials.

The PDC will decide.  Perhaps what is more interesting than the legal issue is Haas’ rather odd response and the bigger controversy it brings again to light.

“Mr. Maxfield is not a fan of mine.”

Haas’ first response to the complaint was not to address the legal issues.  Indeed, he never addressed whether his use of his office in his campaign material is prohibited or not.  His first response was to go after the complainant’s statements on Facebook.

Haas copied part of a thread in comments to a post on the Facebook page of his opponent regarding his endorsement by local law enforcement–something unprecedented in Jefferson County.  You may read our story on that development here:  Haas Lashes Out at Law Enforcement for Endorsing Kennedy.

Haas used this comment by Maxfield to lead off his PDC response:

Haas complained to the PDC that “Mr. Maxfield is not a fan of mine and his complaint is clearly politically motivated.”

The PDC is likely unmoved by this opening statement.  It is a rare complaint indeed that is filed against a candidate by their own supporters.   As for “letting a serial rapist go free,” we’ll come back to that.

Haas then made the argument that no violation can be found, even though the photo of his office was used in campaign materials, because it was taken before he decided to seek re-election.  He says he liked the photo and used it on his personal Facebook page.  Then he expresses confusion about how the photo ended up used in his campaign:
“Later when I committed to running for re-election I restored my campaign Facebook page.  Unfortunately, I am less than fluent when it comes to using Facebook.  I assume but am not certain, that the photo in question simply transferred to the linked campaign Facebook page.”

Certainly, he knew it was there before he was notified of Maxfield’s complaint.  It was the profile photo for his campaign Facebook page.  He had regularly posted statements to his supporters on that page and could not possibly have missed seeing it.

An Odd Argument for a Prosecutor

Still not addressing the legality of his own conduct, he then takes a swing at his opponent, James Kennedy, for using a photo taken in a hallway of the Jefferson County Courthouse when Kennedy filed as a candidate.  He alleges that because Kennedy is employed by the Clallam County Prosecutor, he has also violated the rule against using the facilities of public office in campaign material.

Coming from a prosecutor, this is a very odd defense.  It goes:  “I shouldn’t be held accountable for breaking the law because that other guy did it, too.”

Had Haas read a little further in RCW 42.17A.555, he would see that his swing at his opponent missed.

Haas acknowledges that the Kennedy photo was taken on the first floor of the courthouse and not in any office. It was taken outside the Clerk’s Office door, where, inside, in the normal and regular conduct of that office, people file to stand for election.

RCW 42.17A.555 permits the use of public facilities in campaign materials regarding “activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.”

This complaint came fast on the heels of another complaint by one of his own employees alleging Haas was electioneering in his office and pressuring employees to support his re-election.  Haas admitted putting one of his campaign pins on an employee’s personal effects.  That employee also told PDC investigators he had solicited campaign contributions from his deputies and she was feeling uncomfortable with the pressure he was placing on her in regard to the upcoming election.  The PDC closed that case without finding enough evidence for a material violation, noted this was the first complaint against Haas and left him with a pointed reminder not to use his office for electioneering.  You can read our report on that first complaint against Haas by clicking here.

Did Haas Cut a Serial Rapist Loose?

Haas ran as a challenger in 2014.  He could fire away at the incumbent without having his own record to defend.  But now he is the incumbent and on the defensive.  The men and women in law enforcement he has been working with to make cases for prosecution are actively working to see him defeated.  Current and former employees of his own office, as seen in the PDC’s investigation, Kennedy’s list of endorsements and Kennedy’s campaign finance reports, are speaking out against him.

Haas must justify how he has handled cases and treated crime victims.  The tables are turned.

Which brings us back to Maxfield’s allegation about Haas “letting a serial rapist go.”

Maxfield is no doubt referring to a rape case dropped by Haas on April 26, 2018.  In addition to the latest sexual assaults of which that individual stood accused, he had a previous conviction for assaulting a woman he abducted.  Four other women had taken out restraining orders against him.  That individual had yet another conviction for assault, on a women he met through an alcohol treatment group.  (See Seattle PI story here). The latest woman he was accused of assaulting was a young woman he brought from her home in the Phillipines to southern Jefferson County.  A jury had once found him guilty of raping her, but an appellate court years later overturned the conviction and sent the case back for retrial.

Haas dropped the case without consulting the victim.

Kennedy contends Hass mistreated the alleged rape victim in several ways.  We are waiting on a response from Haas’ office to a public records request.  In the meantime, we are studying the court record and speaking to people close to the case.

Haas’ conduct has been called a blow to women’s and victim’s rights.  He has defended his actions as proper and ethical.

What really happened?  This will be a major point of contention in the campaign for Jefferson County Prosecutor.

Watch here for our report.

Lest we forget to mention:  Haas’ wife has removed the offending photo from the campaign’s Facebook page.