Two ethics complaints filed against City Manager John Mauro and Mayor David Faber will move forward, in part, according to recent filings from Phil Olbrechts, the city’s hearing examiner.

On May 11, Olbrechts issued two orders, one of sufficiency for the claim against Faber and an order of partial sufficiency in the claim against Mauro. Crystal Cox of the Universal Church of Light filed both claims in February and March, respectively.

In the context of an ethics hearing or complaint, “sufficiency” does not mean that a violation occurred. A finding of sufficiency refers to a hearing officer’s determination that a complaint alleging a violation of ethics rules is detailed and supported enough to warrant further investigation and a potential hearing. In other words, this means the complaint presents enough evidence to move forward with a formal review of the alleged misconduct. 

Faber complaint

Cox’s complaint against Faber, focuses on one allegation — that Faber’s failure to recuse himself on a vote accepting grant funding for public works improvements in the Uptown neighborhood would increase the value of property he owns near the project area.

Faber, an attorney, has a law firm practice, Faber Feinson PLLC, located at 800 Polk Street. The office is located in the project zone, about one block north of Lawrence Street. Attorney Sam Feinson is also an owner of the practice.

In September 2024, Cox filed a similar complaint, but lacked evidence to support her claim. According to Olbrechts, Cox submitted her most recent complaint with a city memo obtained via a records request. That memo, according to Olbrechts, sheds new light on the issue.

“Reverend Cox has produced a memo from the city manager, cc’d to the city attorney, that she asserts advised Mayor Faber to recuse himself on some public works improvements that could potentially affect the value of property he owned,” Olbrechts wrote in his findings dated May 11. “In

a prior ethics complaint, Reverend Cox asserted that Mayor Faber should have recused himself on the same vote. Reverend Cox in the prior complaint didn’t yet have access to the city manager memo. Her complaint was dismissed. The city manager memo serves as sufficient new evidence to warrant proceeding to a hearing or summary judgement on the current complaint filed by Reverend Cox.”

Mauro wrote the memo to Faber and copied the city attorney and “a couple other department heads.” According to Olbrechts, the memo advised that “[f]or any projects proposed by the City or that others propose the City undertake in the area within three blocks of your property…you should recuse yourself from discussion or voting on any transaction.”

The memo was written on Feb. 26, 2024. On Aug. 5 of that year, Faber voted to accept a $600,000 grant to fund street improvements within three blocks of real property in which he has an ownership interest.

Faber, who said he planned to file a motion for summary judgement within a week, noting that a finding of sufficiency does not touch on whether the allegation is true. It opens up a process that "provides limited boundaries in which each party to the process (Cox and myself) will need to provide factual information in order to prove their case one way or the other."

Faber characterized his votes as being in favor of already sought and approved grant funding. Accordingly, they were "implementation actions on existing approved city plans that predated the February 2024 memo." Specifically, he wrote that the ADA accessibility and pavement repair projects on Lawrence and Tylers Street had already been approved by Council on the City's 5-year Transportation Improvement Program. Faber also voted in favor of that resolution, Resolution 23-006, adopted on Jan. 9, 2023.

Faber noted it was approved more than a year prior to Mauro's memo in February 2024. Therefore, the votes "were not and could not have been responsive to or violative of the terms of the February 2024 memo."

Faber also added that Mauro's memo wasn't referring to the Lawrence Street property but "was issued in response to and in the context of me submitting permits for review for a residential building project on 13th Street."

"I anticipate to receive a swift ruling in my favor, just as I received last year once I submitted my previous summary judgment motion following the Hearings Examiner previous sufficiency ruling," wrote Faber.

Mauro complaint

On March 2, Cox filed an ethics complaint against Mauro which lists six alleged violations.

“Within those violations, one claim is found sufficient to move forward and two may be amended to provided further detail necessary to evaluate sufficiency,” Olbrecths wrote. Cox has until May 19 to provide those details and amend her complaint.

Olbrechts found the Mauro complaint “sufficient in its allegation that Mr. Mauro used his position to grant special privileges to a pro-trans group to use city council meeting chambers to the exclusion of an opposition group.”

In the complaint, Cox includes emails, between Mauro, a variety of city staffers, law enforcement and YMCA management to support her claim.

That allegation stems from events following the Julie Jaman incident at the Port Townsend pool in July 2022, where Jaman confronted a transgender YMCA employee in the women’s locker room. The incident led to Jaman being banned for life from the pool, with resulting protests and counter protests, packed chambers at subsequent city council meetings and national media coverage.

“At this point in the process, the Ethics Hearing Officer is not making a determination of whether there was an ethics violation or not, but whether the allegation, if true, would constitute an ethics violation,” Mauro wrote in an email to the Leader. “The Ethics Hearing Officer is awaiting further information from Crystal Cox regarding whether she wishes to amend her complaint or not; she has until May 19 to do so. After that time, and after full completion of the sufficiency review, dates will be set to move forward with either summary judgement or an ethics hearing.”

Background

Cox has filed a total of six ethics complaints against city staff and council members, including, Faber and Mauro and council members Amy Howard, Libby Wennstrom, Owen Rowe and city records officer Haylie Truesdel. While the complaints against Faber and Mauro have begun working their way through the system, the others await Olbrechts’ review. Cox withdrew her complaint against Wennstrom.

All respondents have said Cox’s allegations have no factual or legal merit, do not constitute ethics violations and should be summarily dismissed.

Cox describes herself as the “proverbial canary in the coal mine.”

“The city ethics complaint process is very important to me as it replaces the state mandated whistleblower policy,” Cox wrote in an email. “My goal is to bring transparency, consistency, and accountability to the process for the future of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. 

My goal is to make it easier for regular citizens, no matter who they are, to be able to file an ethics complaint, without any retaliation and for the city staff, manager, mayor, city council, city attorney and ethics officer to understand the process, work out the kinks so it is a clean, clear, transparent and safe process for all in the future.”

Cox’s claims run the gamut — from allegations of special privilege, to violations of open meetings and public records laws, harassment, intimidation, bullying defamation, perjury and myriad others.

Cox filed a flurry of complaints in early March in anticipation of city council adopting a new ethics policy on March 17 — which it did.

The city pays Olbrechts $165 an hour for his services. According to city records, between January and October 2024, the city paid $15,380 for Olbrechts work on Cox's earlier ethics complaints against city officials.

According to the city’s ethics policy, the penalties for an elected official found guilty of violating the city’s ethics code may include: a cease and desist order, an order to disclose any reports or other documents or information requested, admonition by the city council or the mayor, censure, civil penalties of up to $1,000 or “any other penalty that is deemed just and equitable.”