By James Robinson

Crystal Cox, who filed a four-point ethics complaint against Port Townsend Mayor David Faber on July 15, has advanced her case with a subsequent filing Sept. 4, this time adding two allegations.

The updated complaint states that Faber failed to recuse himself from a city council vote that benefitted him personally and professionally and that he received special privileges in the city’s initial handling of Cox’s ethics complaint.

The latter allegation ties directly to the complaint, which stalled in August over administrative matters, as city staff said they were working to clarify the scope of the city hearing examiner’s responsibilities and to bring his charge and service agreement into alignment with the Port Townsend Municipal Code and the city’s code of ethics.

Cox argues that choosing that moment to audit the standing contract with the hearing examiner has slowed the complaint’s momentum.

On Aug. 15, Phil Olbrechts, the city’s hearing examiner, wrote in an email to Faber, Cox and city attorney Alexandra Kenyon, “I will defer making a ruling on the sufficiency of the Faber complaint to if and when the proposed contract amendment is approved.”

Olbrechts continued that “the ‘hearing examiner’ services of the current contract arguably includes the ethics work, but I agree with city staff it is best to be safe and have the contract more explicit on this issue. I will issue a ruling on sufficiency of the complaint immediately after if and when the amendment is approved.”

In an email to Olbrechts, Kenyon wrote that city staff had audited the city code related to the hearing officer and ethics cases, and noticed that the position requires city council appointment, which, Kenyon noted, had not occurred.

“The City also thinks it’s necessary (to) amend your contract to specifically describe EHO (ethics hearing officer) services versus land use hearing examiner services,” Kenyon wrote.

In an email to the Leader, Cox alleged the city is stalling.

Cox made the case that Olbrechts’ role regarding the hearing of ethics issues has been well established. As evidence, she points to an email from City Manager John Mauro dated Dec. 14, 2023.

Writing to Cox in response to her complaint against Council Member Libby Wennstrom, Mauro wrote, “Our City code allows for ethics complaints against elected members (per PTMC 2.08.050) to be assigned to a hearing officer. Mr. Olbrecht [sic] performs those duties for the City of Port Townsend, so I have therefore included him in this email and attached your complaint.”

Cox alleges that in the Wennstrom case, some council members wanted “Wennstrom out,” and talked Mauro into punting the matter to Olbrechts.

In Cox’s current complaint against Faber, she alleges preferential treatment.

“Yet now as a special privilege to Faber, the city is weighing in, auditing, changing contracts and protecting Faber,” Cox alleges in her complaint.

“People in the community are pretty stunned at the city stopping this process,” Cox wrote in an email. “Phil Olbrechts is an expert in land use policy, the city wants Phil out of the process.”

Faber disagreed.

Faber said he was not involved in the decision to audit Olbrechts scope of work, rather city staff had identified a “procedural gap” in naming a hearing officer and his administration was intent on fixing that oversight.

“What would a delay do?” Faber said. “I want this done yesterday. There’s no value to me or the city in this being strung out further.”

Olbrechts said he signed an amended professional services agreement on Sept. 2 and is waiting for Mauro to sign on behalf of the city. The document authorizes Olbrechts to perform ethics hearing officer services.

The assumption is that once Mauro signs the document, Cox’s amended complaint should be able to run its procedural course.

In addition to allegations that Faber received preferential treatment in regard to Cox’s initial complaint, Cox’s amended complaint added the allegation that Faber acted unethically when he voted to approve a $600,000 grant and a $477,000 interfund loan for sidewalk improvements on Lawrence Street between Tyler and Harrison streets.

Faber’s law office is located in the project area, at 800 Polk Street, and Cox alleges that, “This major city infrastructure funding directly improves the business and property value of Mayor David Faber, his family, friends and business associates. Mayor David Faber should have recused from the vote and did not.”

According to city documents, the project is slated to address accessibility issues, such as repaving and ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps on Tyler Street, repairing heaving sidewalk sections due to tree roots along Lawrence Street, tree removal, general pedestrian improvements and parking.

“The grant the city accepted was to make ADA and sidewalk improvements in the most pedestrian trafficked area of Port Townsend,” Faber said. “DASH specifically targeted uptown Port Townsend.”

Moreover, Faber added that his vote was predicated on the desire to improve all city streets.

“It doesn’t provide a benefit to my law office,” Faber said. “It’s not directly fronting any improvements being made. I’m concerned principally with ensuring that our sidewalks and streets are a safe as possible within the best of our ability.”

The remainder of Cox’s amended complaint takes aim at Faber’s alleged involvement in rezoning city property near the city golf course for his own financial gain and for supporting the city pool project which she alleges is close to Faber’s personal property. The complaint argues that Faber and his associates stand to benefit financially from both.

Cox’s complaint alleges that in pushing for a rezone of the city’s golf course property and Faber’s support of a $40 million city pool Faber violated RCW 42.23.070(1), which states, “No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others.”

Cox uses the same statute to frame subsequent allegations.

In regard to the allegation of “upzoning,” the complaint details Faber’s connection to, and involvement in, recent city zoning decisions and a variety of businesses linked to development and affordable housing, including Smart Urbanism LLC, Homeward Bound, Olympic Housing Trust and Technically Ethical LLC. Those businesses, their principals and Faber, the complaint argues, stand to gain from Faber’s involvement in zoning changes in and around the golf course area. The complaint lists the principals of each company, their relationship or connection to Faber, Faber’s personal and investment properties and their relationships and proximities to the city pool complex and the golf course.

The latter pages allege that Faber kept people he “did not like” out of an Aug. 15, 2022 city council meeting and provided legal services “as a special privilege” to two people following their involvement in an August 2022 counter-protest.

The fourth allegation says Faber violated open meetings laws by preventing “anti-trans” protesters from attending a city council meeting in which he read a proclamation about violence against trans people and trans rights as human rights.

Faber has said that Cox’s complaint is “without merit, either factually or legally,” and is one of a “string of complaints that Crystal Cox has leveled against numerous people for years, with a dubious factual and legal basis.”

Cox concluded her complaint by asking that Faber be removed as mayor and fined; that he be removed or recused from all land use decisions, planning votes and rulings related to the golf course rezone and city pool property; that he disclose his financial ties and partnerships that are connected to real estate investments and holdings and affordable housing nonprofits and for profit businesses; that Faber be referred to the attorney general for money laundering, racketeering, open meeting law violations and “maliciously creating a fraudulent chain of evidence in an official proceeding;” and that Faber be forbidden from promoting the zoning or land use change in any way.