I have been working my way through a long list of deputies and civilian employees of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. They volunteered to speak with a journalist, something I don’t get much when I am trying to pry information out of law enforcement. I should be happy about this. But the calls are making me depressed and have led me to write this editorial.
The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office is in crisis.
Morale is worse than abysmal. It is destructive. One after another deputy, most of whom have ably been serving Jefferson County for many years, are ready to leave if Sheriff David Stanko is re-elected.
Some are ready to go now. Working conditions are so bad they would rather give up a job they love than continue to work for a man they see as a dishonest, adversarial boss rather than a leader who helps them do their very difficult jobs. They have each other to get through these next weeks. But when they start losing their brothers, what the community knows as a team of dedicated, skilled, professional and compassionate men in uniform is fast going to fall apart.
We will lose the huge investment we have made in these people. We will lose their institutional knowledge and the trust and rapport they have built up over tens of thousands of hours of patrolling our community.
Weeks ago, one deputy in confidence told me he was quitting because of Sheriff Stanko. A 14-year veteran of this department, with another five years before that, Deputy Scott Boyd has since announced he is taking a cut in pay and leaving for Las Vegas. A long interview with Boyd, in which he shares his observations about the turmoil in the Sheriff’s Office, was published by Patrick Sullivan on the Jefferson County Washington Facebook page (the unofficial, private FB page that provides news coverage for Jefferson County).
Every deputy with whom I have spoken says they are ready to follow Boyd if Stanko gets another term. These are good people, the people who do the hard, dangerous, degrading work of law enforcement. They are more valuable than any administrator or politician.
The prospect of losing every deputy and detective is a very real possibility. Ninety percent of the office, according to Boyd, stands against Stanko. My calls have confirmed that estimate to be accurate.
No organization can do its job if the troops have lost faith and trust in their general. The cumulative effect of Stanko’s years in office is clear. The Sheriff’s Office is in crisis. As the man in charge, he is responsible.
What is with Republicans?
Law enforcement is opposing Stanko’s re-election. That is true not only of deputies, but also of the Port Townsend police. They do not respect or trust Stanko. I have been told they avoid working with him because of concerns about his competence and professionalism.
Firefighters Endorsement of Nole
Jefferson County’s first responders also oppose Stanko’s re-election. Our local firefighters have taken the unprecedented step of issuing endorsements for Stanko’s opponent, Detective Joe Nole.
The lawyers and judges in the courthouse who see Stanko’s work up close, as well as the discord he has sown among his team, have rated his management and leadership as unacceptable. See the recent Bar Association poll.
But Stanko is finding support from strange bedmates.
He has backers from the far Left of the Democratic Party. These are activists aligned with anti-cop movements like Black Lives Matters.
At the same time, Stanko is being funded by rock-ribbed Republicans, including Gene Farr, John Shold, Richard Hild and the Republican Women of Jefferson County.
A recent mailer from the Stanko camp warned of a “grave threat” to Jefferson County from militarization of local law enforcement. It showed a SWAT team in full gear, automatic weapons at the ready, threatening imminent lethal action.
Jefferson County does not have a SWAT team. That photo was cribbed from the Internet. Here is where it came from. It was clearly selected for its fear-mongering impact.
The mailer appeals to anti-law enforcement sentiments, the kind of people who see the Humvee deputies once used for search and rescue as the equivalent of an Abrams tank. These are people who seriously talk about disarming law enforcement and subjecting them to impossibly onerous, constant, vindictive oversight, with a prison cell guaranteed if they ever make a mistake. This is the Kshama Sawant crowd that is doing such damage to Seattle’s public safety and police department.
Such demagoguery should not be embraced by someone who must have the backs of his men. They face increasing irrational ideological attacks that hamper their ability to do their job. They need a Sheriff who stands with them. But Stanko has allied himself with the enemies of those who put their lives on the line to keep the rest of us safe.
The “grave threat” to Jefferson County is not from law enforcement having the proper tools to do their jobs. It is from the people to whom Stanko is appealing.
Republican dollars have been helping fund this nonsense. Stanko tells Republicans in private he is one of them. But nothing he has done in office or on the campaign trail aligns him with what one would think were Republican values.
Stanko is one thing to one group, something else to another. Whatever it takes to cobble a few votes in the face of a clear message from voters he should move on.
The primary results—Nole crushed Stanko—showed voters don’t want Stanko back in office any more than his deputies. What is the point, Mr. Stanko, of pressing forward with increasingly desperate and divisive messages? Why would you want to lead an organization that does not want you? Why do you want to prolong this agony for an office that was not in crisis before you took over?
Sheriff Stanko, you are hurting law enforcement in this county. Please stand down before you do any more damage.
Our four-part series, “Dumping a Rape Case, and its Victim,” examined how Jefferson County Prosecutor Michael Haas mishandled the rape case against Patrick McAllister and mistreated the victim. Haas refused to meet her, a young Filipino woman with the initials SL, and avoided telephone calls from her and her family. He did nothing to prepare the case for trial. He ultimately sent her an email that he was dropping all charges against a man previously convicted of raping and assaulting her over a six-week period.
Our investigation revealed how Haas agreed to the no-bail release of McAllister and misrepresented to the court that the victim consented–when he had never spoken with her.
The investigation showed how Haas put her through the ordeal of a gruleing, no-holds barred interrogation by McAllister’s investigator and attorney, and then agreed to give them a second shot at her. It was such an improper procedure that Haas’ own chief deputy criminal prosecutor went to court to stop it.
Our investigation revealed much more about Haas’ mistreatment of a rape victim and his mishandling of a case against a man with a long history of sexually assaulting women. SL has completed a formal complaint to the Washington State Bar Association which we have been told will be filed when SL returns from visiting family in the Philippines.
SL describes Temur Perkins as her brother. In America we would call him a brother-in-law. But as they explain it, for Filipinos, who value family so highly, that is the same as being a sibling. He was there helping SL get out of McAllister’s house as a Jefferson County Sheriff’s sergeant held McAllister at bay. He was closely involved with the first prosecution and testified at trial. He conducted his own investigation which uncovered sexual assaults by McAllister of other women. Throughout SL’s ordeal he has been at her side.
On behalf of SL, he submitted a letter to the Port Townsend Leader about Haas’ conduct. The Leader has had that letter for weeks. Weeks ago we asked the editor if they were going to publish the letter. They have been running letters praising Haas, including one praising his handling of sexual assault cases. That letter was not from a sexual assault survivor. We had hoped they would run a letter from someone who had personal experience with Haas’ handling of a sexual assault case. The editor said she would be discussing Mr. Perkins’ letter with the publisher.
We encouraged The Leader to run Mr. Perkins’ letter because of the harm they had inflicted on SL by their one-sided, superficial coverage of the dismissal of the charges against McAllister. They ran a story that was little more than a press release for the defense. It repeated McAllister’s fabricated claim that he was physically incapable of having raped SL, due to the implant of an artificial knee that limited his range of motion so severely he argued he could not get into a bathtub unassisted (SL said he had raped her against the wall in a bathtub, among other instances of assault). Our investigation revealed this defense to be a complete lie–the knee surgery did not take place until a year after SL said McAllister had raped and beaten her.
The Leader’s reporter made no effort to contact SL, anyone who investigated the case or the prosecutor who had previously won the conviction of McAllister.
In our first conversation with SL she told us how The Leader had made her look like a liar and had hurt her deeply. We heard the same from Mr. Perkins. In drive-by reporting The Leader merely repeated the lies of a rapist and retraumatized a rape victim.
It is clear by now that The Leader wishes to ignore the injustice it has done and will not publish the letter of behalf of a rape victim. Her side needs to be heard by this community. Her voice deserves to be heard. Mr. Perkins worked hard to cram what he had to say into the paper’s 300-word limit for letters to the editor, though he and SL have much more to say about Mr. Haas and what he did to them and their family.
Here, with Mr. Perkins’ permission, is the letter The Leader will not publish:
I am the brother-in-law of rape victim SL. I am knowledgeable about the facts of the crime and my wife and I were witnesses at the first trial. The previous prosecutor Rosekrans treated my sister with utmost dignity and respect. We knew whose side he was on. He fought for justice for my sister. The people of Jefferson County need to know how disrespectful, abusive, evasive and dishonest the current Prosecutor Michael Haas has been towards SL.
Her rapist was released on appeal and SL courageously sought a new trial. Haas refused to meet SL in person, and when SL was finally able to catch him on the phone, he scheduled a phone appointment with her. He dodged her yet again, he didn’t answer at the appointed time. Haas then dropped the charges without consulting her and lied to the judge.
His abuse goes beyond inaccessibility, laziness, and callous indifference. Haas secretly distributed photographs taken during her Sexual Assault Nurse Exam (SANE) to the defense team. These close-up photographs of victims in an injured and degraded state cannot be released without a court review and order. Because Haas broke the law, her rapist may now possess theses photos as a trophy. Haas re-victimized my sister and gave her rapist leverage to silence her testimony out of fear that he will publicize the photos. Haas also secretly gave the defense team unrestricted access to all of SL’s email and social media accounts. Those accounts reveal where her and her family members live, and contain numerous private photos of them and their children. Possession of SANE photos and contact information for everyone give her rapist considerable power. Haas’ secret, malicious, and illegal actions have been emotionally devastating to my sister. Haas has endangered her safety, our safety, and your safety.
Our four-part investigation, “Dumping A Rape Case, and Its Victim” can be read at these links:
Michael Haas is under investigation and trying to run out the clock before voters can learn about it.
The Jefferson County Prosecutor has been facing an ethics investigation by the Washington State Bar Association. We previously reported that the investigation centers on actions by Haas to use the powers of his office to favor a former private practice client and to obstruct the prosecution of a relative facing criminal charges. We have learned that our local newspapers have known about the investigation. But only the Port Townsend Free Press has reported that the chief prosecutor of Jefferson County is facing significant ethics charges.
In one of the complaints, Haas is alleged to have ordered a prosecutor to dismiss charges against a relative. That prosecutor refused. Haas then intervened to dismiss the charges himself. This is a very serious charge, if true.
The bar association’s disciplinary counsel is charged with policing unethical conduct by lawyers, including those in public office. If the charges are sustained, Haas could face a range of discipline from fines and supervision to suspension of his license to disbarment. Referrals for criminal prosecution are also possible if the facts warrant.
We filed a public records request on September 3 for any public documents showing Haas to be under investigation. It was a narrow request, limited by time and subject matter. But Haas has delayed providing the responsive documents, thus denying voters information they should have in making the decision whether he deserves another term in office.
After several delays excused by a boiler plate claimed need for additional time, we were informed of yet another delay. This time the excuse was that a special prosecutor had been appointed to review our request. Then on October 17 we were informed of yet another delay.
The latest excuse was to give individuals named in the public records the opportunity to file any objections in the Jefferson County Superior Court to release of public records. No further information would be provided until October 31, at the earliest.
That is a mere week before the close of voting, and well after many voters have cast their ballots by mail.
While bar association investigations normally occur away from the public’s scrutiny until a ruling is made, in this case the issue concerns apparent abuses of the powers of the prosecutor’s office by the incumbent Haas. Instead of hiding the ball from voters until the clock runs out, Haas, who has pledged transparency, could have revealed long ago that he was under investigation and stated his defense to the charges.
Haas has not answered our questions about whether he is under investigation and why. But our independent inquiries have answered those questions and provided what information we can obtain at this point.
Under a Washington Supreme Court rule, the investigation has been put on hold but will resume after the election.
If any other efforts are made to conceal information in public documents, Port Townsend Free Press will be in court fighting for the public’s right to know what their elected officials are doing with the powers and authority granted them by voters. Unfortunately, that will mean taxpayers footing the legal bill to keep voters less than fully informed.
Jefferson County Prosecutor Michael Haas is under investigation by the Washington State Bar Association for two ethics violations alleged to have occurred during his term in office.
On September 1, 2018 we filed a public records request for documents containing information about Mr. Haas being the subject of any investigation by the Washington State Bar Association. The response to the request was delayed with the explanation that additional time was required to consider whether any exemption would permit documents to be withheld. That request is still open.
The response indicates that (1) Mr. Haas’ office does have documents covered by the request and (2) he is under investigation. Otherwise, we would have been informed that no documents exist responsive to the request.
We have learned independently that our deduction is correct: Michael Haas is in fact under investigation.
That investigation concerns two charges of conflict of interest. We have not obtained this information from the party or parties filing the complaints, but from another source that has been consistently reliable on other matters and is well-placed to know these facts.
In one case, Mr. Haas, who was a defense lawyer in private practice, is alleged to have continued to represent a criminal defendant after his election up until the time he was sworn in. Once in office he continued to negotiate with the new defense counsel and instructed a prosecutor to sign an agreed order remanding the case to District Court so that defendant, his former client, could get a new sentence.
In the other case, he is alleged to have had a conflict of interest in the prosecution by his office of a relative, in which Mr. Haas ordered a prosecutor to dismiss the case, then dismissed it himself against the judgment of that prosecutor.
Both those matters—though not the existence of the bar association investigation—were previously known to the Port Townsend Free Press. We had learned of them roughly about the time we began our investigation of Mr. Haas’ handling of the McAllister rape case, which we reported in a four-part series that can be read in sequence at this link.
These conflicts of interest are alleged to violate the following provisions of the Rule of Professional Conduct:
RPC 1.11 SPECIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR FORMER AND CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government: (2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.
RPC 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION
Comment [1] “A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion.”
We asked Mr. Haas if would confirm or deny that he is under investigation, and, if he is under investigation, to explain why. He has not responded to our request.
We learned today that the investigation has been temporarily suspended until after the election. This is pursuant to a rule of the Washington Supreme Court. The investigation will resume after November 6.
On a related note, in the Jefferson County Bar Association poll of the judges and lawyers who know and work with Mr. Hass in the courthouse, he scored extremely poorly on the question of integrity. As we previously reported, only 27% of his professional peers rated him “acceptable”; 53% found him lacking in integrity.
We now know for certain that public documents contain information about Mr. Haas’ investigation by the Washington State Bar Association. Our reporting on this matter will resume after the release of those documents.
Related: Mr. Haas has also faced two Public Disclosure Commission complaints in recent months.
It’s impossible to know what goes on in the mind of Elon Musk. The man who leads Tesla and the privately-held SpaceX Corporation is a genius and a visionary. But his judgment and maturity are now being called into question. Musk generated wide ranging problems for himself, his companies and his investors after smoking cannabis during a live interview on the Joe Rogan podcast September 6.
Video of Musk smoking marijuana went viral and within hours, Tesla’s stock price dropped precipitously, the company’s chief accounting officer resigned, and the U.S. Air Force began scrutinizing Musk’s conduct. His high-profile pot smoking fueled questions about his “erratic,” behavior. Jefferies Group stock analyst Philippe Houchois was quoted by the Seattle Times describing Musk as a man who, “seems to be on a slightly self-destructive bent.” James Albertine, another stock analyst, drafted a research report expressing alarm because, “The ongoing, effectively self-inflicted public relations crisis is now affecting key personnel within the organization.”
Some social commentators have defended Musk’s public cannabis use because after all, lots of us have used marijuana in the past. Others see it as the ultimate hypocrisy after a former Tesla employee who used medical marijuana lost her job for failing a drug test while the CEO gets a pass to smoke pot in a live interview.
The primary concern over Musk’s public cannabis display is less about culture and more about simple good judgment. When we place people in leadership positions, we expect a level of maturity commensurate to that position. For those who disagree with this premise, I suggest reviewing President Trump’s Twitter feed.
We want serious people in executive positions and for good reason; the fitness, judgment and maturity of such people has a tremendous impact on the lives of thousands, even millions, of individuals. In Musk’s case, investors, customers and consumers have a lot at stake in Tesla and SpaceX, and they have every right to expect him to behave like a grown up.The question for us in Jefferson County is whether we have similar expectations for the people who govern us. Greg Brotherton’s campaign for the Board of County Commissioners has been dogged by concerns related to a video of him smoking from a bong. He produced and released this video while serving on the Quilcene School Board. It is part of a series of online features promoting his cannabis store, which has suffered sharplydeclining sales since peaking more than three years ago. (The photo at the top, if you didn’t already know, is Brotherton in his bong-smoking scene).
Like Musk, there are multiple concerns about Brotherton’s fitness for the position he seeks. Some people question the propriety of a cannabis retailer on the BoCC when the rate of illegal marijuana use by high school sophomores in Jefferson County is 76% higher than the state average. Other concerns revolve around how a commissioner who owns a cannabis store can conscientiously fulfill their role of fighting drug use in the county. Both concerns are entirely valid.
But unlike Musk, who was taken unawares in a spontaneous moment during a live interview with a comedian, Brotherton was a willing participant and driving force behind his bong smoking video. Musk’s indiscretion may be chalked up to a momentary lapse of judgment; Brotherton’s was premeditated to the point of being scripted.
Illegal marijuana transaction in Brotherton movie
Regardless of one’s opinion on the safety of marijuana, the more vexing question for all of us is whether we expect our elected representatives to rise above such foolishness. This is not about the use of cannabis. It’s about fitness and it’s fair to ask whether any person who, as an adult,films themselves doing bong hits has the maturity and good judgment to be one of just three individuals seated on the highest governing body of the county.
Greg Brotherton fancies himself a filmmaker and I’m sure it was a lot of fun producing videos of himself and others reenacting what it was like getting stoned during the days of marijuana prohibition in Washington state. But this isn’t a stunt by a college boy engaged in some fanciful caper. These are the antics of a grown man, a father and a husband. Do we really want to elect a person whose poor judgment and immaturity are a slap in the face of every parent coping with a teenager fighting a drug problem? If we’re prepared to do that, we should also be prepared for Jefferson County to become a national laughingstock.
To view Greg Brotherton’s stoner movie, part 1, click here.
