The streatery pictured above is in the lot off Tyler Street, behind the Mount Baker Block building. The city gave a no-cost temporary lease to the Cellar Door in February 2021. City officials told the owner they would likely allow the streatery to remain after Covid restrictions were lifted, which made investing in a creative, attractive space a reasonable risk. Clearly, the city had a plan back then that they were keeping very close to the vest. Was city council aware of this deal?
Business owners in the area watched as those previous parking spaces were graded and transformed into an outdoor patio dining area for an underground restaurant that opens when the dominant business activities cease. Throughout the busy day, the restaurant is closed and that dedicated space is glaringly empty. People still try to park around it, causing major headaches for already parked cars, residents in neighboring buildings and businesses, and delivery vehicles.
To be clear—this has nothing to do with the business or owners of the Cellar Door. Honest, hard-working people, they’re simply trying to survive insane times and reactive policies. Please support this restaurant if you dine out.
This is about city administrators operating in the shadows, choreographing the emergence of their preordained, desired scheme that will appear to have sprung naturally from public endorsement.
“Streateries” are dining areas in public rights of way, replacing valuable parking spaces with customer seating. They are restaurant-specific, catered to by that restaurant’s staff, and prohibit non-customer seating during operating hours. “Parklets” are open to the public 24/7.
———————————-
“About the opportunity [for the public] to speak, to have their three minutes, they will have that at the two public meetings we’re going to have on this topic … if this goes off the way we want it to.”
Mayor David Faber, March 14, 2022 Special Business Meeting of the Port Townsend City Council
———————————-
In nearly all aspects of our lives today, the tendency of government agencies to abandon the Constitutional bedrock “of, by and for the people” in favor of rule by diktat is expanding at alarming rates. We vote for local leaders expecting them to insure that we have honorable processes and adherence to democratic principles. We do not elect them to make important choices for us, then to simply pretend afterwards that our considered opinions matter to them.
This is exactly what has occurred in the battle over the streateries. At the March 14th “workshop,” council decided to move forward with a “long term streateries program,” tasking Main Street to create a survey and open house, and Public Works to begin developing changes to municipal code. Oddly enough, the PowerPoint prepared by Public Works Director Steve King entitled “Parklets and Streateries Next Steps: Moving to a formal and long-term program?” claimed “No decision” would be made there. As we can see from promising assurances given to the Cellar Door in 2021, the decision had apparently already been made.
Screenshot of slide 19 from Public Works’ power point presentation at the March 14, 2022 council ‘workshop’
A careful review of the March 14th meeting shows an orchestrated effort to portray long-term (permanent) streateries as widely popular and more critical for the community than a parking management plan. While opposition was significantly downplayed throughout, King’s presentation hyped, to an eye-rolling degree, the positive public response to “surveys” Main Street posted to their membership and Facebook page in October 2020, June 2021 and November 2021. (Director Mari Mullen told me that there are 140 members, however their member directory shows only 85.)
10/2020 — PT Main Street Survey demonstrates high degree of support (217 respondents) but also some concerns about permanence after COVID
6/2021 — More feedback per PT Main Street survey (322 respondents), with over 70% support for program continuation
12/2021 — November survey (270 respondents) indicated over 79% support for extension and over 59% support for more solid structures
Over 79%, over 59%? Average response of 270 respondents per Facebook ‘survey’? How can this be taken seriously? A small select group had agreed to allow restaurants temporary private use of public parking spaces in an emergency.
Let’s recall that until June 30th, 2021, restaurant occupancy was severely restricted by public health authorities’ so-called “social distancing” protocols. Logically, dining outside throughout the summer would appeal to those who would have ordinarily dined in.
In November 2021, jab refuseniks weren’t even allowed inside restaurants and pubs. The composition of this minuscule population of survey respondents will be left to our imagination, as Mari Mullen has told me I shouldn’t expect access to the surveys’ raw data, only the summary provided above.
More emergency management
It was framed as an emergency by staff and council members. If we put the parking plan first, we’ll never be able to get a permanent streateries program approved. Why this is so was never explained.
At the March 14 meeting, Steve King acknowledged that:
the city’s informal survey of businesses revealed concern that “the streateries would get pushed into a permanent program;”
streateries “are a temporary use of public space for private purposes;”
parking is a chronic problem;
Port Townsend has a “tourist economy.”
As it turns out, we already have a viable parking management plan (read on for more details). City taxpayers forked over a lot of money for a professional analysis back in 2004. A Public Records Request forced it out of the dustbin of PT history and it appears to be as relevant today as it was almost two decades ago. The firms involved in its production are national transportation advisors.
Mari Mullen and well-known restaurateur Kris Nelson were operating in advisory capacity during its creation. It’s been referred to in public meetings, so its existence is known to all. Why haven’t Mauro, King and council members combed through this document to glean a broader understanding of the historical elephant in the room, aka “parking?”
There is an agenda here. Commitment to the agenda requires a particular set of blinders. You must believe that automobiles are bad, walking and biking are good, and that streateries are the answer to “activation in the downtown.”
In response to Steve King’s acknowledgement that streateries “are a temporary use of public space for private purposes,” Faber took his turn to opine, offering this puzzling perspective:
“Regarding use of public space for private benefit, the only really significant use of our rights of way is for people to leave their very significantly large personal property — their cars — sitting around for who knows how long. Which is pretty ridiculous to me, that that is the one allowed use of our public spaces, our rights of way, for people to just use and use up space. People are using the sidewalk as a means of conveyance to get from their car to a store or a restaurant, and you don’t see people out and about.”
Recording of March 14th Special Business Meeting
As King said, Port Townsend relies on a tourist economy. Our primary (city limits), secondary (county) and tertiary (Clallam, Kitsap, Mason and beyond) consumer base relies on vehicular travel to get downtown — for restaurants, retailers, theatre, you name it. Have you observed a dearth of “people out and about” on the sidewalks and in the various waterfront parks aside from very inclement weather? The spin applied to this issue to promote the city’s desired outcome doesn’t cease.
Faber admitted at the meeting that he is a fair-weather utilizer of those streateries he is so determined for us to have, seventy degrees being the temperature he finds ideal. He made it clear we shouldn’t expect to see him there in April, May, October or the rest of those other winter-side months.
2004 Downtown Parking Management Plan
The 2004 Downtown Parking Management Plan
This 18-year-old strategic analysis evaluated the existing ‘parking system,’ non-motorized access options and key issues dogging us at the time. Little has changed in those categories.
One paragraph in the document stands out conspicuously, in light of various city staff and council members’ claims that it’s not all about money, that ‘activating’ the downtown with in-street dining is ‘a greater good’ than parking, and that the restaurateurs who do manage to secure a treasured extension of their interior square footage may only have to pay as little as $2,000/year for the privilege:
Short-term parking is intended to accommodate people in town to shop, dine, or other recreational activities. The Main Street association has estimated that each downtown shopping space generates approximately $150 to $300 per day in retail sales revenue. As such, preserving the short-term parking for shoppers should be a priority for Port Townsend.
Mari Mullen doesn’t remember exactly how her office arrived at that estimated value of $150-$300 per day per short-term parking space. Perhaps the national office, she says.
Before the city uses more staff time on code adjustments, they have fiduciary duty to conduct a watertight analysis of the current contribution of each parking stall considering all elements of the downtown business landscape. This isn’t about just retail. Revenue generation also comes from those doing business with services including medical, insurance, financial, legal, the theatre… every single entity that relies on public parking to connect with their customers.
Adjusting for inflation using government calculations, at $300 per day, a single space contributes to downtown’s fiscal vitality $169,987 annually. Two = $339,975; the triplets in front of Alchemy and in the Tyler St. lot are worth $509,962 per year.
City leaders are prepared to sacrifice this revenue for the sake of this pet project; at the same time, Mayor Faber argues that “we have extremely limited public resources to address [a parking plan].” Is that so? Interesting that they managed to find the public resources to fund a sham let’s get’er done PowerPoint, along with the post-decision “survey” and Open House.
Moving forward — the fix was in
At the April 4 council business meeting, Manager Mauro acknowledged that “it is [putting the] cart before the horse… ideally, we would do parking management and how the streateries fit in… we’re doing this backwards, partly by timing and unfortunate circumstance.”
Free Press editor Ana Wolpin wrote to council, Mauro and King on April 13th, highlighting the performative theatre of the post-decision survey and open house, pointing out that:
“David Faber made it clear a month ago at your March 14th meeting—before the survey had even been created, before the poorly-attended open house to sell the proposal resulted in near-total opposition which was ignored, and before opposing the intended outcome was characterized as a loud and angry minority—“if all goes as planned” the agenda to make streateries permanent was a done deal. It appears you are simply going through the motions of fulfilling legal meeting requirements. Rather than listening to business and public feedback that this streatery proposal should not move forward, you are deciding program details instead…”
“The public was never notified of this significant proposed change to city code in the newsletter that is included in all city utility bills each month. It was not mentioned in reports from either the mayor or the city manager.”
Her 3/13 letter continues:
“Not only were residents not informed of this fast-tracked proposal, it appears that Main Street did not even notify all the business owners who would be most affected. The survey was written with an overt slant to skew the responses in favor of making the streateries permanent, with only one question out of 13—#5—asking ‘Do you support the establishment of a long-term program for streateries and parklets?’ Every other question following it is marketing the proposal — Where are other streateries you like?… How many streateries should be allowed?… Should there be an annual fee?… etc.
At the 4/4 meeting David Faber applied pressure to continue on this predetermined path saying, ‘We talked two weeks ago about moving forward with a permanent streateries program… it’s frustrating when… we task staff with something and then we pull back.’ It would appear that consideration of staff’s efforts supersedes the public you are elected to serve and justifies ignoring overwhelminglynegative feedback.”
Faber warned that “Stopping the streateries now is only going to stall this out and make it more complicated.” Dealing with parking is too complicated, so let’s kick it down the road again and permanently remove at least a dozen of those precious parking spots while we’re at it.
Throughout the April 4 meeting, Faber hammered his left hand on the table to emphasize numerous points, beginning with this one, where he raised his voice in a surprisingly authoritative tone:
“I’d like to remind people as much as possible — do not [be] beholden to the loud minority.”
Never mind that every feeble attempt at reaching out to the citizenry by the city and Main Street has yielded a pathetically small number — a real minority — of respondents. Never mind that these efforts never utilized the sole communiqué that reaches every resident who pays for water and garbage services in the city — the newsletter. Never mind that any support found for the agenda proposed is puffed and promoted, while those opposed are continually denigrated (loud and angry) or marginalized.
It is easy to imagine that the mayor’s aggressive style is intimidating to other council members and discouraging of opposition.
The deal cut with the Cellar Door operators, unbeknownst to them, has created an undeniable Wizard of Oz moment for all to see. The agenda looks to have been to codify the streateries as “long-term” i.e. permanent, at least as far back as February of 2021. Were all the machinations—the surveys, PowerPoints and open houses—pure theatre, designed to obfuscate and give the appearance of due process, when nothing could be further from the truth?
Call to action: In the Long-Term Program, Next Steps: PowerPoint slide at the top of this article, you can see that we are perilously close to the planners’ end game. Here is the agenda for the Monday, April 18 6:30 meeting. As the streateries are on the agenda, do not use the opening public comment period to share your thoughts, rather wait until it is raised in the discussion under “new business.”
Public in attendance and webinar participants will be able to provide up to three minutes of public comment during the meeting. Public comment will also be accepted by email and will be included in the meeting record, provided emails are received two hours before the start of each meeting. Please send public comment to: publiccomment@cityofpt.us. *
* The city’s public comment link is bouncing back a message that says “Thank you for your email. Haylie Clement is no longer with the City of Port Townsend. Please direct City business matters to Joanna Sanders at jsanders@cityofpt.us.” I inquired to Joanna Sanders, here is her reply:
“Your comment has been received. This is an auto reply to emails still directed to Haylie Clement – such as the publiccomment@cityofpt.us which come to both of us. Haylie Clement was the deputy clerk but has recently left the city.” She thought it had been fixed so no bounce back would occur, they’re working on it.
Last November, a group of concerned parents of Port Townsend School District (PTSD) students garnered nearly 600 signatures on a petition demanding that there be no Covid-19 vax mandates for school attendance. In an introductory letter, the parents made clear that they’d done their homework, writing:
“We urge you to consider the fact that invoking such a requirement will be seen as a divisive, discriminatory and potentially dangerous dictate by parents who understand the health risks associated with contracting Covid-19 in school-age children have been proven to be negligible.
“When the unknown potential long-term risks associated with this vaccine in children and the CDC’s “Reported” injuries and deaths (over 700 vaccination-related child deaths) are weighed in combination, the evidence speaks for itself. There is no justifiable reason to place our childrens’ health at risk due to injury or death by vaccine as a requirement to attend public school.”
They went on to question whether or not “funding in the form of financial incentives to the school district” may have been an underlying force. As Free Press contributor Brett Nunn reported here in January, we now know that those financial incentives were real and significant.
As the narrative further unravels and “public health” justifications no longer bear weight, the vaccine and mask mandates are being rescinded throughout the country. One of the last holdouts, WA Governor Jay Inslee, has finally let go… sort of. His latest masking directive has given broad latitude to regional jurisdictions to make choices at local levels.
Schools look to be the next battleground, as evidenced by this urgent letter written Friday, March 11th, to the PTSD superintendent, principal and board:
“We would like clarification as to the changes for the mask policy beginning Monday, March 14th, 2022. Per governor Inslee, the WA state health department, and Dr Berry, indoor masking in public schools is no longer required. The PT school district has sent numerous emails to parents stating this change.
“That said, many of our students came home from school today and told a very different story regarding this subject. The main topic was segregation. Separating the masked students from the unmasked, and even forcing students to wear masks while in certain classes if the teacher insists they do. Many students said their teachers stated they ‘can make students wear masks if they choose to.’ Also stated was if there was a shortage of desks kids would be forced to sit on the floor.
“It is VERY concerning to us as parents as to why a school district would be encouraging any kind of segregation, especially one who prides themselves on non-discrimination. We as parents will NOT in any way support this. We would like clarification immediately so steps can be taken as parents to make sure our students who will be exercising their rights to unmask will not be excluded, segregated, or in any other way felt guilted into wearing something they are not legally required to. Our children should never feel bullied by their teachers or any school staff members.
“We request a meeting immediately if any of the above stated will be implemented. If our children could potentially face any kind of opposition from school staff while exercising their rights to not wear a mask, we as parents are to be contacted by phone BEFORE our children are confronted by staff. Also, we do NOT support our children sitting on floors or made to feel uncomfortable in any way by any school staff member while exercising their right to unmask.
In the realm of policymaking, global to local, predicted costs of measures taken today often bear little resemblance to the reality that unfolds. In the case of Jefferson County Public Utility District (PUD), poor policy choices have resulted in additional costs to ratepayers, not least of which is reliance on a crew coming from inland Washington (image above).
Early last fall, we reported here on the PUD’s controversial decision to mandate covid jabs for all employees. No other PUD in Washington State felt the need to be so exclusive at the time, and the policy met with pushback from employees and PUD contractors, customer/owners and one commissioner.
Our follow-up article was published on Dec. 23rd, three days after the deadline for being considered “fully vaccinated” had passed.
The inability of the jabs to prevent infection or transmission was already well established, even within the PUD. Subsequent to his firing for non-compliance (despite his accepted religious exemption), 7-year veteran lineman Kurt Anderson recounted in a letter to the commissioners and his co-workers how unjust this policy was, given facts on the ground:
“One only has to look to the PUD roster to see this truth, after being fully vaccinated a PUD employee contracted covid. The fully vaccinated coworkers of this individual were allowed to continue working regular and overtime hours, the unvaccinated coworkers were sent home on unpaid time off for 10 days quarantine with the requirement to complete a covid test…”
Also in his letter, Anderson highlighted the dubious claim by both General Manager Kevin Streett and Commissioner Ken Collins that the mandate was necessary to “be in compliance” with state edicts filtered through the Department of Transportation (WSDOT), despite the fact that this agency had already agreed with the Washington Public Utility Association (WAPUDA) that PUDs were exempt. There was not an iota of curiosity that no other PUD was concerned that they were “out of compliance.”
As the penny drops — tails, we lose?
It’s as though talking point memos have been distributed to PUD leadership. In unison now they’re using the straw man defense that imposition of the unpopular mandate was “to comply with the governor’s order.” That order mysteriously did not affect other PUDs in Washington state.
The fallout is measured in employees and contractors who’ve lost their jobs — or taken the jab (against their better judgment) to keep them. Recent records requests reveal that our PUD has granted four employees exemptions from the mandates and, sadly, three have been fired.
Fallout is also measured in higher costs to the customer/owners because the only electrical contractor our PUD management could procure who purportedly had “fully-vaccinated crews” is charging us a shocking premium to cross the Cascades to lend a hand.
At the first meeting of the year on Jan. 4 it was announced that Palouse Power, an electrical contractor from Quincy WA, would be replacing Titan, the outfit that was fired in December.
Confusion among PUD leadership around bidding was apparent that evening. When presented with the request that the board “accept the qualified line contractor applicant, Palouse Power,” Commissioner Collins asked, “So what action is required of the board?” GM Streett replied, “A motion by the board to approve them…”
At this point, Counsel Joel Paisner interrupted with “I think it’s to accept them as low bidder.” GM Street said, “No, no, per RCW all line contractors are approved by the board. Yearly, we bring a list to you, this is the first one… it’s just the formality that we do yearly.”
Streett said Titan left because of the mandates and “vaccinated crews were tough to come by.” He claimed that there were some locally, but they were busy. He admitted that Palouse “is a bit more expensive.” Commissioners Dan Toepper and Jeff Randall inquired further about bidding, with the latter asking if there will be a bid process. Streett replied, “For the next while Palouse will be our contractor… We’ve gone through our [RCW] obligations, it was difficult” referring to the challenge of finding vaxxed crews.
Included in the agenda packet was a resolution “declaring the [storm] period of December 24, 2021 through January 8, 2022, a state of emergency,” an exemption process provided to municipal entities through RCW 39.04.280. Recovering from his earlier delusive reference to “the lowest bidder,” Counsel Paisner confirmed that this declaration allowed the PUD to “waive the competitive bidding requirements” that normally applied based on RCW 54.04.070. It is unclear how the future end of the emergency, January 8th, was arrived at a week before, when the agenda was prepared.
At the Jan. 4th meeting, I requested an estimate from GM Streett for additional costs to ratepayers for Palouse over Titan. In a responsive letter, Operations Director Scott Bancroft explained that making a direct cost comparison was difficult because of varying crew qualifications and how each contractor charged for equipment. It appears that Palouse is adding a markup to employee wages. The contract also guarantees overtime.
Inside sources tell me it was the perks our PUD offered that incentivized Palouse top-tier journeyman linemen to commit. Scheduled overtime is a real sweet deal compared to what our utility’s line crew gets — regular interruption of family life — dinner, kids’ ballgames, sleep, holidays…
My sources disagree with other details in that letter from Bancroft, including crew structure needs and how Titan fulfilled them in the past. There are also serious concerns about misuse of emergencies to bypass bidding requirements and the legality of these projects vis-à-vis the Small Works Roster.
Line crews are arguably the most critical position in an electrical utility. Current and former employees say that in order to develop and maintain a healthy, cohesive line workforce, the PUD needs to train them from pre-apprentice through to the journeyman lineman stage. They know what the job entails and work best without micromanagement. Our PUD is struggling to achieve these ends.
Was the mandate ever enforced without prejudice?
Now, as jab mandates around the globe fall faster than the scales from many Americans’ eyes, our sources reveal continuing unequal — even dishonest — application of the vax policy from the very beginning. Why Kurt Anderson was fired despite the acceptance of his religious exemption remains a mystery.
Senior administration reportedly told contractors at the outset “just sign the [attestation] form,” indicating that one only needed to say that they were complying.
After firing main contractor Titan which supplied back-up crews, as well as some of our own linemen who refused to take the shots, then discovering that “it was difficult” to find all-vaxxed replacements because no contractors imposed that requirement, Jefferson PUD was in a tough spot. Like Titan, Palouse had a mix of jabbed and unjabbed linemen.
There is suspicion that Palouse Power was brought in from the other side of the mountains because none of the PUD employees who work in the field would know for certain the jab status of their crews, which was not the case with the familiar Titan employees. Palouse could send unvaxxed linemen and no one would be the wiser.
From internal communications, it looks like there was no other choice — Palouse was the end of the line. In a letter to the commissioners and GM Streett, Scott Bancroft explained that Titan “would not provide documentation for vaccination or an accommodation.” Nor would four other contractors on the PUD’s small works roster that Bancroft reached out to. But in a phone call with Palouse — who was not on the roster and had not even bid on the contract — Bancroft was told yes, they’d sign the requested forms:
“Palouse Power was called and they were able to provide a vaccinated dock crew [to] the Jefferson County PUD.”
As with local contractors who simply were asked to sign unverified “attestation” forms, it appears the PUD required only the appearance of vaxx status to seal the deal for Palouse crews, too.
————————————
At the February 15 meeting, GM Streett assured fired contractor, Marty Kithcart, that “contractors, when they come in our yard, have to be vaccinated. That’s a true statement.” But PUD employees claim that they’ve seen people they understand to be unvaxxed in the yard.
Click above for archived recording of Feb. 15 meeting. Exchange below between Kithcart and staff takes place from 2:01:00-2:05:00.
Streett appeared to struggle to answer more questions from Kithcart:
Marty Kithcart: So if you’ve got one vaccinated person versus an unvaccinated person, can they ride around in the truck together?
[extended pause] Kevin Streett: So… we’re vaccinated, so I’m going to say there would be vaccinated people together.
Marty Kithcart: But if one is unvaccinated?
Counsel Joel Paisner: You know, I’m going to step in and answer that and say that that’s really a hypothetical and it’s hard, because the policy itself has to be applied to individuals. So, so it’s hard to know.
Despite that eye-watering feat of doublespeak, the dodged answer to the question is obvious.
What’s going on here? We were promised transparency.
Policy-driven emergencies or emergency-driven policies?
Whose idea was the mandate? In its own right, it created an emergency — fewer line crew, an unhappy workforce, highly questionable ‘fair labor’ practices — all the while staring at the likely prospect that this policy would ultimately be rescinded, based on numerous observable situations at the time of its enactment.
It looks to be an expensive choice, as well. As it stands, Palouse is charging the PUD $41,287 per week. Any personnel needs above that are charged per diem. We paid $5,980 to lodge the crew at the Harborside Inn during the holiday storm power restoration and cleanup.
As of February, they moved to three RV spots at Point Hudson, which cost us roughly $2,355/month (the estimate we were given publicly was $1,800/month). We were told at a meeting in January that we’ll be using those spots for temporary housing for incoming employees after our need for Palouse is behind us.
As a comparator, we were charged $21,959 per week for Titan’s last dock crew. No RV spots. No per diem.
This ill-advised course of action was initiated by general manager Streett and supported by legal counsel Paisner and two commissioners, Collins and Randall. The position these four men have taken has proven to be untenable. At the moment it appears that they’ve painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot emerge gracefully.
“Kevin, at the end of the day, I believe that this mandate was the wrong choice for the PUD and our community and wholly unnecessary. Ultimately it was your decision that put your work force in a compromising position, boxed in a corner and forced to make a choice they never should have been forced to make.”
Kurt Anderson,
former PUD Lineman
————————————-
T’was the night before Christmas, and all through the district…
Jefferson County Public Utility District employees and contractors got unwelcome surprises in their stockings this year—ultimatums, coercion, pink slips. The holiday mood around our little utility is far from merry and bright. Management’s extreme position on vaccine mandates has cost our PUD precious staff, loyal contractors and a great deal of good will, both inside the facility and out. As the winter storm season threatens, remaining linemen are concerned about power restoration and public safety.
Speaking under condition of anonymity, former and current line crew expressed deep frustration with management, this policy and its execution, particularly the dismissal of three* of their team at the worst possible time of year. “We have terminated quality hands for speaking their minds and/or not complying with the mandate.”
Fewer men will have to cover more work, which will impose unnecessary hazards on remaining linemen. They fear it will impact response time for outages.
In-house staff runs lean and the PUD relies on full-time contracted high-voltage crews to help handle all of our needs. Titan, the largest of these, was not interested in complying with the mandates. Now they will have to be replaced. Sources describe “a scramble to get line contractors” because the mandate is so unpopular “and not desired by the absolute majority.” The list of contractors who aren’t submitting their “attestation letters” is long indeed. Documents obtained by the Free Press show that half of the PUD’s subs have refused to comply with the new mandate.
When the prospect of mandating Covid vaccines for all PUD employees was first publicly raised at the Oct. 4th commissioners meeting, numerous customer/owners wrote and Zoomed in to express their concerns, both for the employees and what it could mean for our service needs. As reported by the Free Press days later, not one of those concerns was addressed.
That article detailed how our PUD was exceeding what was required by Inslee’s mandate and recommended by WAPUDA (Washington Public Utility District Association). It also asked why two out of three elected PUD commissioners abrogated responsibility for such a significant policy decision. Commissioners Jeff Randall (District 1) and Ken Collins (District 2) avoided concerns raised by ratepayers, Citizen Advisory Board members and staff by cutting the discussion short. They sidestepped their policy role by directing General Manager Kevin Streett to make the call instead.
At the Dec. 14 meeting I asked how many PUDs in this state are following the hard line that ours has taken with the mandates, and how many are not mandating jabs at all? No one cared to respond to those questions. A week later, excavation contractor Marty Kithcart reached out to the Free Press, happy to answer those queries: Not one other Washington PUD is mandating jabs for jobs. Not one.
Portion of JeffPUD “attestation” letter sent to contractors – Vaccination Requirement
Kithcart and a buddy canvassed all state PUDs plus many others around the country, and they couldn’t find a single PUD enforcing these mandates. Why should any of the contractors mold their company policies to satisfy the demands of one small utility? GM Streett has claimed we implemented the mandate to be “compliant” with state orders. Why are no other PUDs afraid to be out of compliance? Don’t expect an answer.
The backlash from this mandate zealotry has potential to do real damage. It appears there were inconsistencies in the offering of weekly testing as an option. Some employees and contractors were given religious exemptions, others were told they could “not be granted accommodation.” Unfair labor practices would further expose the utility to litigation. Just about every day we hear of another huge employer walking back the mandates for whatever reasons—GM, 3M, Verizon, Amtrak, Cleveland Clinic, Advent Health and (last week) Boeing. Will those who were coerced to accept the jab to keep their job come after their employers? Who could blame them if they did?
The screen shot below shows the PUD’s roster of electrical staff before the mandate was announced by GM Streett in October. Even at that time the utility was short-staffed, advertising for additional Journeymen Linemen to fill out needed crews. “We’ve had a job posting for a lineman for almost 2 years unfilled,” one employee said. “We had three local linemen let go at a time when it is a struggle to find them.”
October 8, 2021 screen shot from PUD website showing electrical employees before mandates were announced. Employees in red have either walked or been terminated for refusing experimental injections.
A veteran lineman responds to his termination
Someone high up the food chain decided that “terminations” were going to be re-labeled “separations” for Build Back Better times. Sounds softer, gentler. Separation is way better than divorce, right? Long-time lineman Kurt Anderson’s lengthy response to his termination is as raw as it is well-considered.
“Kevin Streett’s premise to go forward with a vaccine policy was quote ‘to be in compliance’ with Washington State Department of Transportation’s own policy. I believe this to be a false premise.”
“In my just shy of 7 years at the PUD when I have worked on state right of ways or projects I have not encountered any state workers in close proximity to the job site. If I was still employed by the PUD and should a situation arise where I encountered a state employee/s on the job site I do believe I could follow the CDC guidelines to achieve safe distancing…. If I could not maintain social distancing while working aloft, I would stay on the ground in a support role…. we have survived almost two whole years with the initial covid safety policy in place and I feel safe with it as it is.”
Terminating a long-time unvaxxed employee in a hard-to-fill critical position under the premise that he could be a safety hazard to a vaxxed state worker is beyond foolhardy for an already-understaffed small county utility. The premise doesn’t even hold water. Anderson has done his own research; his statements about the jab are factual:
“I would like to point out that as history plays out on covid-19 vaccines there is very little difference between a fully vaccinated person and a non vaccinated person, BOTH can get covid, BOTH can spread covid, BOTH can survive covid and BOTH can die from covid. The shot was not meant to stop the spread of covid, only to lessen the severity of symptoms and raise an individual’s chance of survival should they contract covid, secondarily to relieve pressure on hospitals.”
He goes on to highlight the indefensible posture assumed by authorities in the face of the spectacular failure of the jab policies, seen within his own workplace:
“One only has to look to the PUD roster to see this truth, after being fully vaccinated a PUD employee contracted covid. The fully vaccinated coworkers of this individual were allowed to continue working regular and overtime hours, the unvaccinated coworkers were sent home on unpaid time off for 10 days quarantine with the requirement to complete a covid test as directed by the county health department, option to use PTO [paid time off] allowed. Some online training classes were set up to help offset the unpaid time off.”
So vaxxed workers who are just as likely to contract and transmit Covid as the unvaxxed are given a free pass, while the “non-compliant” must quarantine and lose pay. The official response is to double down, forcing a punitive, duplicitous “solution” onto those who had nothing to do with the outbreak from the beginning.
“When speaking with many of my fellow PUD employees, regardless of their vaccine status, most felt the mandate was unprecedented and wrong… I believe many voices fell on deaf ears and the ones most affected were never heard at all.”
Anderson’s full letter to the PUD in response to his termination is here.
Losing half of the PUD’s contractors, too
Landmark Excavation crew at PUD’s Landes Street project
Marty Kithcart has operated Landmark Excavation for over 30 years. For almost 5 years, he’s provided trenching and other infrastructure services and support for the PUD and its larger contracted outfits like Titan. And like Titan and other contractors who refused to go along with the mandates, Kithcart was just “separated” by our PUD—while he had two open contracts, and had purchased water main materials for the project that was awarded to him. He has three employees. They and their families depend on local work near where they live. He declined other work to honor those contracts.
Streett broke the PUD’s contracts even though Landmark had bid them in good faith prior to the mandate. The PUD told him they will reimburse him for those materials, but that’s small comfort for the four men who just lost these jobs. Will GM Streett replace them with a more “compliant” crew, one which perhaps uses religious exemptions? Or medical exemptions? How are those workers safe to be around, but Kithcart’s are not?
How many other contracts did the PUD breach midstream? It’s unlikely Landmark is the only one.
When Kithcart asked Streett about exemptions, he got a firm “no.” Then he bumped into another contractor who told him they got a religious exemption. Kithcart was told that his crew was not allowed into the PUD yard where contractor supplies are kept if everybody wasn’t jabbed. He contacted his District 2 Commissioner Collins to look for his reasoning for moving forward with this policy.
Collins eventually called to tell him if he had one “vaccinated” worker, that one man could access the yard and his company could continue to be a contractor. Then Kithcart was told by Operations Director Scott Bancroft that if everybody wasn’t jabbed, they can’t work on PUD projects. GM Streett told Kithcart the PUD would sever ties come December 20th. Mirroring the constantly shifting directives coming from the feds, even local authorities seem to be making it up as they go along, depending on the rolling ratio of compliance-to-pushback.
Kithcart told the Free Press that he’s shocked and angered that the PUD would take this singular and unpopular step at this most important time of year.
“This is the season of giving. How could they treat loyal employees and contractors this way? All of these workers get called out in the middle of the night in the worst kind of weather. Without complaint, we put our heads down and get the job done. We all help out where help is needed. For twenty months we’ve worked side by side with other crews without a problem, now all of a sudden we’re a threat?”
“These are all good people at heart,” Kithcart says of the GM and commissioners, “so why didn’t they think this through? I look for people in need and do what I can to make their life a little better. This is going the wrong way. How it is that the commissioners didn’t give serious consideration to what other PUDs are doing? How could they throw away all these long relationships with really good people?”
Kithcart was heartbroken by the firing of lineman Kurt Anderson. “You’ll never meet a nicer guy. He was so competent at his job.”
Landmark Excavation crew at PUD’s Landes Street project
With the winter storm season approaching, and crushed Christmas and New Year’s plans for families devastated by unemployed breadwinners, he’s most concerned for those who have lost their jobs, and the many customer/owners for whom an extended power outage could prove fatal.
Kithcart’s wife, Sarah, was also just fired from her job of nearly 8 years as a Medical Assistant with Dr. Dimitri Kuznetsov, for declining the jab. Kuznetsov’s clinic was subsumed by Jefferson Healthcare a while back. Another Medical Assistant in the office, a 9-year veteran, then quit because Sarah was fired. Both their days were spent providing maintenance urological care. Many of their patients will now have to turn to Jefferson Healthcare for these services. Think about that the next time you hear news reports about overwhelmed hospitals. The healthcare system is undergoing a controlled demolition.
The Kithcarts will be having a more solemn Christmas than usual, but they’re far more worried about what all this is doing to our community.
Another question I raised at the Dec. 14 meeting was how many employees did not want to receive the Covid jabs, but relented in order to keep their jobs?
PUD counsel, Joel Paisner, spoke up:
“Before staff weighs in, I just wanted to say that some of that information is really confidential to the employee and I don’t think it would be appropriate to comment on the individual status of each employee… I’ll just say that… it’s a matter of opinion whether it was coercion or not, it’s not a factual matter.”
I asked for the total number of employees who took an unwanted jab to keep their job, not for personal details. Paisner’s red-herring response sounded awfully similar to health officer Allison Berry’s well-practiced sidesteps from providing evidence when asked for it.
Coercion is a matter of opinion, not a factual matter? In Kurt Anderson’s opinion, coercion is very much a factual matter. His letter continues to address GM Streett:
“In the October 4 meeting you stated you had spoken with a lot of your staff…”
“I was never asked how I felt about any of this ahead of your decision and I believe there are other PUD employees who were also left out… The injustice of what happened to them is shameful. When they were faced with the many challenges listed above, this group of employees choose [sic], against their will and got vaccinated to retain their job. This is defined as COERCION…”
Jefferson County residents voted to purchase this electric utility from Puget Sound Energy to gain local control of our power, and to provide living-wage jobs which also fortify the tax base. That control is in the hands of our elected PUD commissioners (BOC) who determine policy that the General Manager is charged to carry out. In the case of this Covid policy, two out of three commissioners not only shirked their responsibility to determine sensitive policy, they’ve made the situation worse because of a hiring policy they passed two years ago.
Despite arguments that we need as broad a pool of applicants as possible for difficult-to-fill positions like linemen, the BOC enacted policy restricting employment to Jefferson County residents only. Streett has now terminated specialized experienced local workers. Our county pool for these highly-skilled jobs is exhausted and even if there were lineman available elsewhere, policy prohibits hiring staff outside Jefferson County unless they relocate. New hires who may have been willing to commute, from Port Angeles or Kitsap for example, must move here for employment.
We’ve already seen how difficult it is to procure trained linemen. Do you think a lineman with a good job and no mandate is likely to jump ship for a PUD with the most onerous policy in the state, where housing is in short supply?
Or will we be hiring out-of-county contractors to replace the local workers we just fired? Will both of these ill-advised policies now have to be rescinded (further exposing the PUD to legal action) in order to keep the lights and heat on?
District 1 Commissioner Jeff Randall’s seat is up for election next autumn. Talk is that he will have an opponent. The fallout from his support for the disastrous mandate policy will be verdant pasture for a challenger.
————————————-
About as far away as you can get from JeffCo on this continent, Gainesville, Florida attorney Jeff Childers successfully challenged and won an injunction to shut down a “vaccinate or terminate” policy that the city was attempting to enforce. The director of their utility begged them not to do it, arguing that he “couldn’t guarantee safe and efficient operation of the utility if I lose that many people.” Like our PUD, the city charged ahead. The presiding judge sided with the utility and 250 other plaintiffs in the case, and stopped the mandate in its tracks.
JeffCo PUD customer/owners may not be so blessed. Successful lawsuits against our little public utility may haunt ratepayers for a very long time, even as extended outages amid staffing shortages bedevil us this winter.
Errata: GM Streett stated at the Jan. 4 meeting that only two line crew were lost due to the mandate.
A common feature at the weekly Monday morning Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) meetings in these Covid times is a number of public comments aimed at the disconnect between public health policies dictated by local authorities and the data coming from independently-funded, non-mainstream scientific and medical sources. Lately, mandated or coerced medical treatments have frequently been the target.
At the last meeting in November, I used my full three minutes to share part of the tragic story of near-fatal adverse events that befell a local resident who, against her instinct, took the jabs to get a job. This previously “healthy as can be” 27-year-old Port Townsend woman we called Laura suffered two heart attacks four days after her second Pfizer jab. She was diagnosed with acute myopericarditis, leaving her young heart functioning at 30% capacity. Six physicians, including one at Jefferson Healthcare, acknowledged the jabs were responsible.
None of the commissioners directly addressed that heartbreaking story, but District 1 Commissioner Kate Dean proffered this oblique reference to it, suggesting most of us should be willing to take one for the team:
“I’m resisting the desire to get defensive. I don’t think that’s helpful. I think we live with a lot of privilege in this community. Many of us come from a lot of privilege and being asked to make small sacrifices for the benefit of public health feels like a minor thing to do.”
Would Dean have been so blithe if the vax had nearly killed one of her own children, destroying their young, healthy heart in the process? Would that have been a “small sacrifice for the benefit of public health?”
————————————-
At the December 6th meeting Commissioner Dean zoomed in from her honeymoon destination in Portugal, seated before a picture window overlooking a hillside brimming with iconic red terracotta roofs vividly contrasted against the light sand-colored structures below them. As charming, inviting and elsewhere-looking as could be. I longed to be there, too.
Board of County Commissioners 12/6 Zoom meeting screen capture
During the comment period, long-time resident Beth O’Neal read excerpts from RFK Jr’s national best-seller, The Real Anthony Fauci. Stephen Schumacher gave some specifics on the new legal complaint leveled against county health officer Allison Berry on behalf of six Clallam restaurateurs, seeking injunctive relief from her no-jab/no-entry edict sprung without warning on bars and restaurants on Sept. 2nd.
Schumacher followed with highlights of numerous recent successful legal challenges (here and here) that may bode badly for county officials over policies they’ve already endorsed, and if they choose to fire non-compliant employees in coming months.
I took the opportunity to remind the commission of the gut wrenching story of vaccine-induced heart failure I’d related to them at the Nov. 22nd meeting. I reminded Dean of her response, which intimated that this young woman’s sacrifice was “small” and for the public good. I voiced umbrage at her use of the woke trope “privileged,” pointing out that it doesn’t take privilege to think critically, to do one’s own research, to listen to the many thousands of experts who challenge the dominant paradigm, to conclude that the government, the pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies who oversee them are so thoroughly corrupt, they cannot be trusted. Certainly not with our health.
My appeal to the board to recognize the life-altering impact the jabs had on this young woman was lost on all but Heidi Eisenhour, who seemed sincerely sad about “these cases” of injury that she hears about. She followed with “It’s a choice to get vaccinated or not, despite the mandates. It’s a choice.” She has previously stated that mandates are a good thing. Greg Brotherton’s comments, in general, don’t bear repeating. You can listen to them if you’re willing.
Far from being stirred to compassion for this woman, Dean launched into full-blown totalitarian goose-step mode, gleeful to find herself in the land of the obedient.
“It is kind of shocking to be in a country that is over 90% vaccinated, and very compliant. Life is very normal here and the economy appears to be thriving as well. It’s just great to see. Everybody just masks up when they go inside a store, there’s no grumbling about it. They have extremely low rates of infection here. Of course they’re worried about Omicron, but you don’t really see that because it’s generally very safe. If you want to go to a bar you have to get tested within 24 hours and have a negative test result to show, and those are available—free—in every plaza in town.
They’ve decided to close down for a week right after New Year’s, just to avoid any potential spread that might come from the holidays, and folks are willing to do that, they’re planning for it, they’re saying, ‘Yeah, well, we’ll take our vacation then.’ It’s sacrifices that allow them to have normalcy the rest of the time. And it is such a relief [laughing] to be here!!! And Omicron is knocking at the door much more here than it is in America, and yet, the anxiety isn’t here because they have such a high rate of compliance and vaccination. And it’s just living proof. And people aren’t being irresponsible, they’re masking up when they go indoors. Don’t get me wrong, you definitely see that COVID is still a concern here, but it doesn’t change the way that people have to behave. It’s just really wonderful to be in a place that has got it under control, and it’s considered the first western country that will be able to respond to it as an endemic instead of a pandemic.”
It’s such a relief to be surrounded by so many other compliant people! Everybody masking up without grumbling. Testing 24 hours in advance to get into a bar (that’s a long time if you’re thirsty), jabbed or not, but no worries—the tests are free! (According to their consulate, US citizens have to pay for their tests. Elected officials may have diplomatic dispensation on that one.) “Omicron is knocking at the door” but they’re not anxious because they’re compliant and jabbed up.
If all this conformity warms your cockles, do put China on your bucket-list.
Perhaps Dean’s assumptions of the coronavirus scene in her host city came from a 2020 summer tourism brochure, or maybe it was the language barrier. According to this Agence France-Pressenews alert from November 18th, here was that nation’s reality a few short weeks ago:
“Portugal on Wednesday said it was considering imposing new coronavirus restrictions after an increase in cases and hospitalizations, despite having one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Portuguese health authorities on Wednesday recorded 2,527 new cases and more than 500 hospitalizations, the highest figures since early September. More than 86 percent of Portugal’s population have been fully vaccinated and authorities are urging the over-65’s to take a third COVID vaccine dose.”
Then came the big news from the U.S. State Department on Monday afternoon—mere hours after Dean delivered her fanciful assessment ofviral threat levels in Lisbon—announcing that the CDC had instituted a new Travel Advisory —
Case counts had breached the 500/100,000 bar. Far from being “living proof” of getting COVID under control, Portugal’s “high rate of compliance and vaccination” has led to higher case rates than ever.
Not far over the border, the “vaccinated” don’t appear to be having much more luck:
“On Dec. 1, 170 staff from a regional hospital in Malaga, Spain, attended a Christmas party held at a local eatery. Just six days later, 68 of the staff, which included intensive care nurses and physicians, all triple jabbed or recently tested for antigens, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2… This incident caught national attention, including prime minister Pedro Sanchez warning Spaniards to be careful. Now Andalucia health officials caution that other staff from hospitals avoid Christmas parties.” [source]
So despite being triple-jabbed, the shots didn’t protect 68 of 170 people. For those who have been tracking the relationship of “vaccination” to case rates, all this comes as no surprise. Research that’s not funded by conflicted sources like pharma or captured government agencies has not shown a causal relationship between increasing vax rates and decreasing case rates.
As we attempt to wrap our minds around the depth of “mass formation” pervading society today, I frequently remind myself to be compassionate.
Months ago, Commissioner Dean admitted that one of her teenage children had an adverse reaction to their jab. Her lack of empathy for Laura is puzzling, if not troubling. Dare she turn to face the possibilities of potential long-term consequences that we’ve been waving our arms about for nearly a year? It may be too much to bear.
