HomeMy WebLinkAboutEthics Complaint Dismissal of Complaint RE: In re Councilmember Libby Wennstrom1
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 OFFCER FOR THE CITY
OF PORT TOWNSEND
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Officer
RE: In re Councilmember Libby Dismissal of Complaint
Wennstrom
Ethics Complaint
The March 12, 2025 complaint filed against Councilmember Wennstrom is
dismissed.
The April 28, 2025 Finding of Sufficiency for that complaint left open Allegations 3
and 4 for further review. Allegation No. 3 alleged a conflict in Councilmember
Wennstrom's role as a City Council liaison to the Fort Warden PDA. Reverend Cox
was given an opportunity to amend her complaint to provide further detail on that
allegation. Allegation No. 4 alleged privileged use of the Port Townsend Police
Department for a tenant eviction. That allegation was left open for resolution in the
complaint hearing or summary judgment.
Reverand Cox withdrew Allegations 3 and 4 of her complaint by email dated April
30, 2025. This withdrawal left no allegations for further review. The March 12, 2025
complaint is therefore dismissed.
In her April 30, 2025 withdrawal Reverand Cox expressed concerns about changing
rules. She was referring to the Finding of Sufficiency conclusion that an ethics
hearing officer doesn't have the authority to adjudicate state law violations that aren't
ethics statute violations. That conclusion came from a new issue raised by
Councilmember Wennstrom, specifically whether an ethics hearing officer can
adjudicate claims outside the ethics statute such as defamation and Public Record Act
violations.
As in any quasi-judicial forum, the meaning of statutes evolves as new issues are
raised and adjudicated. Reverand Cox bases all of her claims upon the Special
Privileges portion of the state ethics code, RCW 42.23.070(1). That statute has been
in place since 1994 and has generated only three appellate court opinions. As
identified in prior hearing officer rulings, the state ethics law is primarily based upon
Ethics Complaint P. 1 Order on Sufficiency of Complaint
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
contractual conflict of interest laws that are laid out in several paragraphs of detailed
text in the state ethics code. There are at least a dozen appellate court opinions that
interpret its terms. In contrast, the one sentence special privileges law relied upon by
Reverand Cox is vague and largely untested. It's meaning will continue to evolve
and to be clarified as it is tested in the City's ethics review process.
Reverand Cox has also raised concerns about the fact that her attacks on the character
and reputation of pubic officials has resulted in attacks on her reputation and
character. As recognized by Reverand Cox, there are remedies available when those
attacks go too far such as defamation actions. Those remedies are not within the
jurisdiction of the Port Townsend ethics review process.
Order
The March 12, 2025 Port Townsend ethics complaint against Reverand Cox is
dismissed.
Dated this 11' day of May, 2025.
Ethics Complaint
Phil Olbrechts
City of Port Townsend Hearing
Examiner
p. 2 Order on Sufficiency of Complaint