Port Townsend Mayor David Faber filed a motion for summary judgement on Oct. 5, seeking to toss the ethics complaints moving through him as part of a city process led by independent hearing examiner Phil Olbrechts.

“As noted in prior emails and decisions,” Olbrechts wrote in an email, “The sufficiency process is entirely based upon complaint allegations ‘if true’ as applied to the law.  We are now moving into an assessment of the veracity/accuracy of the alleged facts. Both parties have identified that they would like to proceed with summary judgment motions.”

In his motion, Faber wrote that he was moving for summary judgement “because there is no genuine issue of material fact sufficient to find that I have committed any ethics violations within the meaning of the City of Port Townsend Municipal Code …”

Faber’s motion follows the July 15 filing of a four-point ethics complaint by Reverend Crystal Cox, director of the Port Hadlock-based Universal Church of Light. After the initial filing, Cox advanced her complaint with a subsequent filing Sept. 4, adding two allegations to the original complaint — that Faber failed to recuse himself from a city council vote that benefitted him personally and professionally and that Faber received special privileges in the city’s initial handling of Cox’s ethics complaint. Olbrechts dismissed the latter of those allegations.

On Sept. 18, Olbrechts issued an order finding “partial sufficiency” on two of the four allegations. The first finding concerned approval of a rezone. The complaint alleges that Faber voted to approve rezoning a property near the city golf course that ultimately benefitted nearby property he owns. The complaint further alleges that Faber was required to recuse himself, under the appearance of fairness doctrine, due to that ownership interest.

In his research, Olbrechts learned that the allege rezone had not occurred.

“The current zoning map for the property shows that the property has not been rezoned as alleged by Reverand Cox,” Olbrechts wrote. “In her October 6, 2024 response Reverand Cox acknowledges that she misunderstood the situation and believed that the rezone had been approved.“

“Although Reverand Cox acknowledges that she may have misunderstood that a rezone had been approved, she has not requested that her allegation be withdrawn,” Olbrechts wrote. “She noted that she still expects her allegations to be addressed for purposes of sufficiency as considered ‘if true’ … Rather than resolve the rezone issue by requests for further clarification it appears most efficient to go straight to summary judgment review. Mayor Faber’s motion already provides under sworn testimony that he has not participated in any prohibited vote on the rezone.“

Another allegation regarding spot zoning, which is the singling out of a single parcel of land, is not moving forward at this time.

“Reverand Cox’s allegation of spot zoning is found to be premature and not yet ripe for review,” wrote Olbrechts. “This is because the rezone alleged by Reverand Cox has not yet occurred.”

The second alleged ethics violation Olbrechts found sufficient concerns preferential treatment to protestors and a potential Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violation for use of city council meeting chambers. Cox’s complaint alleges that Faber used his position to advise an activist group on how to pack city council meeting chambers, thereby preventing an opposition group from attending a city council meeting.

That alleged violation stems from protests and counter protests following the incident at Mountain View Pool in which Julie Jaman was banished from the facility following a confrontation with a transgender pool employee.

Faber denies using his status to pack a city council meeting following that incident, arguing in part, that because participants could attend online and in person, no one was barred from attending. As a result, he argues, there was not a violation of the state’s open meeting laws.

“The OPMA requires public bodies to provide the public with access to public meetings, but the OPMA does not require the Council to violate the maximum occupancy of Chambers as prescribed by the fire code,” Faber wrote.

“There is no evidence here of me doing anything to benefit me personally,” said

Faber, reached on Tuesday, Oct. 8. “Sufficiency has nothing to do with the facts,” he said. “It is not a determination of whether the facts are legitimate. The facts here aren’t consistent with what Crystal Cox is alleging.”

Anyone can file a complaint, Faber added. “What we’re seeing here is the complaint going through the process.”

The onus is on Cox to prove at a hearing or summary judgment that Faber, in fact, used information he gained from his position as mayor to intentionally assist the activist group to prevent meeting access to an opposition group. If proven, that may constitute the use of his office to secure special privileges for the activist group in violation of the city’s ethics code.

Since Cox’s initial filing, Faber has asserted that Cox’s complaint “is without merit, factually or legally,” and has disparaged Cox’s character on social media.

“Literally anyone can file an ethics complaint at any time against any member of the City

Council without there being any basis in fact (you want to claim that Amy Howard blew up the moon with embezzled PTPD cruise missiles (that don’t exist)?,” Faber posted in an online forum. “You are free to do so, and apparently will get breathless coverage in the local press in the process.”

Howard, a city council member and deputy mayor responded to Faber, also via Facebook, that she would like to read that article.

On Sept. 30, Olbrechts cautioned Faber.

“To avoid any appearance of impropriety, Mayor Faber should avoid any communications with other council members about this review process,” Olbrechts wrote. “City Council review of the hearing officer’s findings will likely qualify as a quasi-judicial review process and in such forums ex parte communications with the decision makers are prohibited. Mayor Faber may wish to consult with the City Attorney as to his responsibilities related to the Council review given the quasi-judicial nature of that proceeding.” 

Cox is the reverend and director of the Port Hadlock-based Universal Church of Light – a state-registered non-profit corporation with a self-stated focus on, “human rights advocacy, issue advocacy, community support, senior advocacy, homeless advocacy, victim support and lesbian advocacy.” Cox describes herself as a healer and spiritual advisor. She has filed scores of open records requests with the city of Port Townsend and has been involved in litigation in Port Townsend and beyond.

“Giving Cox this sort of platform screams of bad journalism,” Faber continued in his online post, naming The Leader. “We need quality local news coverage and the Leader is absolutely failing to provide it. I would be happy to have my feet held to the fire on legitimate issues, but this is nakedly yellow journalism.”

Faber’s motion for summary judgement takes a different tone from his online posts. In the motion, he details facts related to the complaint. For example, he lists the distance from his house to the property in question — one-third of a mile — other real estate he owns, as well as key business and personal relationships.

In an email to Cox and Faber, Olbrechts provided deadlines and said he anticipates all subsequent filings and responses should be complete by Oct. 25.

Cox provided little comment on Faber’s motion, except to say that she anticipates Faber will amend his filing since he filed his motion two days before Olbrechts’ final sufficiency review.

“I believe Faber will amend the summary judgment to add more pages and evidence. He filed it before the final sufficiency review which we just now received,” Cox said.