HomeMy WebLinkAboutEthics Complaint Order Granting Mauro Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Cox Motion for Summary Judgment RE: In re John Mauro1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE ETHICS HEARING OFFICER FOR THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND
Phil Olbrechts, Ethics Hearing Officer
RE: In re John Mauro Order Granting Mauro Motion for
Summary Judgment and Denying Cox
Ethics Complaint Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary
The Mauro motion for summary judgment is granted and the Cox motion for
summary judgment is denied. The Reverand Cox complaint against Mr. Mauro is
dismissed.
The summary judgment motions by both parties addressed the one complaint
allegation that advanced past sufficiency on Reverand Cox's March 2, 2025 ethics
complaint. That one allegation asserted that Mr. Mauro used his position to grant
special privileges to pro -YMCA incident' persons by using City resources to spin a
YMCA response to a YMCA transgender incident. The allegation included an
assertion that Mr. Mauro used his position to grant special privileges to some pro -
YMCA incident persons by granting them preferential access to a City Council
meeting.
Mr. Mauro's use of City resources to get involved in the YMCA incident did not
constitute a special privileges violation. As the head of the City's administrative
branch Mr. Mauro had the authority to oversee City resources. The YMCA pool is a
City resource because that pool was leased by the City. It was managed by the
YMCA under a City/YMCA operating agreement in which the City shared
responsibility in public outreach in use of the pool facilities.
Mr. Mauro's alleged granting of special access to City Council chambers was
legitimately based upon concerns over public safety. The City Council had invited a
pro -incident group of individuals to a Council meeting to receive an award. Mr.
1 Labelling the opposing parties of the July 22, 2022 YMCA transgender incident is difficult given the
complexities of the differing viewpoints as to what occurred. In the absence of anything better those who
agree with how the YMCA handled the situation are called "pro -YMCA incident" persons or groups and
those opposed as "anti -YMCA incidenf 'persons or groups.
Ethics Complaint P. 1 Summary Judgment Ruling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mauro authorized the group back door access to the Council chambers out of public
safety concerns arising due to tensions between the pro and anti -YMCA incident
groups.
Background
Reverand Cox filed her initial complaint against Mr. Mauro on March 2, 2025. The
complaint alleged six ethics violations. An Order of Partial Sufficiency was issued on
May 11, 2025. The Order found one allegation sufficient to move forward and gave
Reverand Cox the opportunity to provide more detail on two other allegations. The
remaining three allegations were dismissed.
Reverand Cox submitted an amended complaint on May 21, 2025 that consolidated
two of the outstanding allegations into one allegation and dropped the remaining third
allegation. A Second Order of Partial Sufficiency was issued on May 31, 2025
finding the consolidated allegation sufficient to move forward to hearing or summary
judgment.
Reverand Cox filed a motion for summary judgment on May 31, 2025. Mr. Mauro
filed a motion for summary judgment on June 5, 2025 and his response to the Cox
motion on the same date. Reverand Cox filed her reply to Mr. Mauro's response
motion on June 12, 2025. She also filed her response to Mr. Mauro's motion on June
12, 2025.
By email dated June 18, 2025 the hearing officer advised Mr. Mauro that his
summary judgment motions had misconstrued the reasons for the finding of partial
sufficiency, i.e. that Mr. Mauro had focused upon how he had used City resources on
the YMCA as opposed to the more significant issue of why those resources were
used. Mr. Mauro and Reverand Cox were given an added opportunity to focus on
that issue. Mr. Mauro responded by email dated June 23, 2025. Reverand Cox
responded by emails dated June 18, 2025, June 22, 2025, June 23, 2025 and June 25,
2025.
Findings of Fact
The following facts are uncontested:
On July 27, 2022 an incident occurred at the Port Townsend YMCA where a pool
patron was directed to leave the premises and not return because she objected to a
transgender adult disrobing in the women's locker room. This incident lead to
significant controversy involving transgender rights.
The City is the lessee of the YMCA pool property. The City has contractually
delegated operations of the pool to the YMCA. Paragraph 3a of the operating
agreement provides that the YMCA has "discretion and control in all matters relating
Ethics Complaint p. 2 Summary Judgment Ruling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the management and operation of the Pool." However, other provisions of the
Agreement provide for more coordinated operations. Most notably, Par. 1 In provides
as follows:
Public outreach shall be coordinated for consistency of information
between the City and the YMCA. The YMCA shall have the primary
responsibility for providing notice and information concerning operations
of the Pool. The City shall assist in directing the public to the YMCA and
providing support during Pool shutdowns, both planned and emergency.
As a result of the YMCA transgender incident, Mr. Mauro took several actions to try
to present what he believed to accurately portray what occurred and to defend the
YMCA's actions as consistent with applicable law. He hired a public relations firm
to assist in this public education process. He advised City staff on how to respond to
questions about what occurred. According to the Cox complaint he also met with
persons who supported the YMCA response to the incident but did not meet with
those opposed. Mr. Mauro also expressed support for the LGBTQ+ community in at
least one email on the subject. See Page 9, Cox March 2, 2025 Complaint.
On August 15, 2022 Mr. Mauro authorized Port Townsend Police Chief Olson to let
members of Olympic Pride access a Port Townsend City Council meeting through a
back door. Olympic Pride, a pro -YMCA incident group or one of its members was to
receive a proclamation issued in its honor at the council meeting. As noted in an
email exchange between Chief Olson and Mr. Mauro, the chief asked if it would be
appropriate to give the group the backdoor access, noting "[t/his would be helpful in
keeping the two groups separated prior to the council meeting." Mr. Mauro
responded by August 14, 2022 email with "Sure. Separation is a good idea..." See
Mauro Summary Judgment Motion, p. 7. Seven members of Olympic Pride were
granted backdoor access according to Mr. Mauro's summary judgment motion. The
building code capacity of the council chambers was 70. Id. That capacity was
exceeded during the hearing and people were turned away from the meeting due to
the capacity being exceeded. The Council meeting was also available virtually to
anyone who wished to watch or comment.
Analysis
Mr. Mauro did not violate the ethics code by either using City resources to react to
the YMCA transgender incident or by granting preferential access to Olympic Pride
for a packed City Council meeting.
As identified in all of the Reverand Cox's complaint decisions, her allegations are
based upon violations of the special privileges clause of the City's ethics code, which
provides as follows:
No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special
privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others.
Ethics Complaint p. 3 Summary Judgment Ruling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RCW 42.23.070(1).
A. Use of City Resources on YMCA Incident
Mr. Mauro did not violate the special privileges clause by using City resources to
provide public information on the YMCA incident. Mr. Mauro was acting within his
authority as the City Manager when he did so.
The YMCA contractually operates the YMCA pool for the City. The pool itself is
leased to the City. The operating agreement does give the YMCA full discretion and
control over management of the facility. However, the City still maintains a role in
public outreach as outlined in Paragraph l In of the agreement. The City's continued
involvement in pool operations is not only evidenced in paragraphs such as l In but
also through its authority to terminate the contract if operations are not properly
handled. Further, the YMCA is a public recreational resource the type of which is
often provided by cities and counties. The fact that so many people went to City Hall
to voice their opinions on the YMCA incident reflects the fact that the pool was
considered by its residents as a public City resource. It was well within the City
Manager's job responsibilities as the head of the City's administrative branch to
ensure that occurs at the pool is accurately represented to the surrounding community.
It may not have been within Mr. Mauro's "duty" to so react as argued by Reverand
Cox, but it was within the scope of his authority.
In voicing her special privileges arguments Reverand Cox repeatedly references the
fact that pro -incident persons were treated differently than anti -incident persons.
Treating people differently is not on its own a special privileges violation.
Administrative decision making often involves treating one person differently over
another. Businesses are awarded public works contracts, some employees are
promoted, others are fired, etc. Reverand Cox clearly disagrees with the choices that
Mr. Mauro made in reacting to the YMCA incident. If Mr. Mauro's choices were in
fact as wrong as Reverand Cox believes them to be, that is an employee performance
issue to be evaluated by the City Council. It is not an ethics issue. The ethics code
does not empower citizens to subsume the supervisory authority of the City Council
over its City Manager.
B. Preferential Council Chamber Access
Reverand Cox's preferential access claim is equally meritless. Mr. Mauro's
sufficiency ruling held that preferential access to Olympic Pride could constitute an
ethics violation if there was not adequate justification for the treatment. Public safety
was the basis for that preferential treatment. That constitutes adequate justification.
The sole legal authority addressing preferential access comes from an Attorney
General Opinion, AGO 2010 No. 3. As to preferential access that opinion stated as
follows:
Ethics Complaint p. 4 Summary Judgment Ruling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"[a] special privilege may arise if an organization or corporation is granted
preferential access to state agency facilities or employees without adequate
justification for that preference. "
AGO 2010 No. 3.
No legal authority for Washington State special privileges law clarifies what qualifies
as "adequate justification" for preferential access. However, the public safety
concerns of Mr. Mauro and Chief Olsen would likely be at the top of any such list.
As identified in the Findings of Fact above, Mr. Mauro authorized preferential access
to Olympic Pride because of public safety concerns, i.e. keeping the Olympic Pride
group separate from persons with opposing transgender viewpoints.
C. Improper Assistance
Reverand Cox objected to the opportunity given to Mr. Mauro to address a factual
issue key to resolution the complaint filed against him. Mr. Mauro was given the
same type of assistance Reverand Cox has received a multitude of times in several of
her complaints, including the complaint she filed against Mr. Mauro. The hearing
officer's request for additional briefing was necessary to avoid a significant waste of
public resources in conducting a factual hearing that would have proven completely
unnecessary.
Mr. Mauro had misunderstood the basis of the sufficiency ruling on his complaint.
He had focused his summary judgment motion on how he had addressed the YMCA
transgender incident as opposed to why. Mr. Mauro was asked to provide additional
briefing as to why he believed he had the authority spend City resources in addressing
the incident.
Reverand Cox was given the same type of assistance as that given to Mr. Mauro in
her sufficiency review to supplement incomplete information. Her complaint failed
to provide sufficient information to evaluate whether she had made a prima facie case
that Mr. Mauro had improperly used City resources to address the YMCA incident.
She was given an additional opportunity to amend her complaint to provide the
necessary information. If she had not been given that opportunity, the allegation
against Mr. Mauro would have been dismissed. Reverand Cox found no fault in
having the chance to supplement her allegation. She now complains that Mr. Mauro
shouldn't have been given the same opportunity to defend himself against the same
allegation.
There was nothing incorrect or biased in the hearing officer's request for additional
briefing on the basis for Mr. Mauro's involvement in the YMCA incident. PTMC
2.80.050F provides that ethics proceedings shall be in general conformance to the
Port Townsend Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. ID of those rules requires the
Ethics Complaint p. 5 Summary Judgment Ruling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Examiner to "take all necessary action to avoid delay in the disposition of
proceedings; and, to maintain order." To that end Rule ID7 authorizes the hearing
examiner to "require brief on legal issues." As outlined above, the issue of why Mr.
Mauro became involved in the YMCA incident was ultimately based upon an
uncontested fact that rendered a factual hearing unnecessary. Requesting additional
briefing was part of the "necessary action" to avoid delay in disposition of the ethics
complaint.
D. Payment Conflict of Interest
Reverand Cox has objected to the Hearing Officer's involvement in her Mauro
complaint because his invoices are approved by Mr. Mauro. No invoice has been
submitted to Mr. Mauro regarding the review of his complaint. As with all other non -
ethics hearing examiner review, the invoice involving Mr. Mauro's review will be
submitted to the City's planning director for review. She can decide if someone else
at City Hall would be more appropriate to approve the invoice.
E. Conclusion
As in so many of her other ethics complaints, Reverand Cox has again flooded the
ethics review process with dozens of irrelevant pages detailing her grievances about
choices made by City appointed and elected officials over the YMCA transgender
incident. Reverand Cox could very well have the moral high ground on those issues.
However, those grievances concern policy and management choices made by City
elected and appointed officials. They aren't relevant to the City's ethics code.
The City's ethics code was adopted by the Washington State legislature in 1961 as
Chapter 42.23 RCW. It has been found sufficient since that time with a few
amendments to prevent government officials from abusing their government positions
to enrich themselves or others. That ethics code is highly effective in prohibiting
unethical conduct. If Mayor Faber had voted to approve a contract making his firm
Port Townsend City Attorney, that would have been a clear ethics violation. If Mr.
Mauro had directed a police officer to drop a speeding ticket issued against his
spouse, that would have been an ethics violation.
Making management and legislative decisions on the YMCA incident in a manner
that is disagreeable to Reverand Cox is not an ethics violation. No court opinion or
Attorney General Opinion has ever found an ethics code violation similar to those
advocated by Reverand Cox in any of the complaints she has filed thus far. Reverand
Cox's issues are political issues that should be addressed in a political forum. The
ethics review process is not a political forum.
Ethics Complaint
p. 6 Summary Judgment Ruling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Order
Reverand Cox's March 2, 2025 complaint against John Mauro is dismissed.
Dated this 30' day of June, 2025.
Phil Olbrechts
City of Port Townsend Ethics Hearing
Officer
Ethics Complaint p. 7 Summary Judgment Ruling