In about a week, the Port Townsend City Council is preparing to rewrite the script—gutting key accountability measures in the city’s ethics code. One council member recently described the city manager’s behavior as “Machiavellian,” a master of schemes. But the art of political maneuvering isn’t limited to just one player in this production.

This troupe of civic actors is moving in lockstep, setting the stage for a system where those in power get to police themselves — with little risk of interference.

At first glance, one could argue that these changes are aimed at stopping one bad actor —someone who clogs the system with excessive public records requests, creating unnecessary work for elected officials and public employees, and costing taxpayers thousands.

But the impact of these changes goes far beyond that.

The proposed revisions, which are expected to be on the agenda next week, strip away independent oversight. The new policy states, “The hearing officer will not conduct its own independent investigations and will make decisions based on evidence submitted by the parties.”

That means officials accused of ethics violations now control what evidence is reviewed. If key documents — such as emails, meeting notes, and financial records — aren’t provided or a records request is denied, even legitimate complaints could be dead on arrival. Independent investigations, the very thing that brings hidden misconduct to light, would be eliminated.

And here’s something worth noting — the independent hearing examiner, the person responsible for enforcing the ethics code, was not consulted on these proposed changes before the city council moved forward with its rewrite.

“I haven’t seen the rules. The city council and city staff have not asked for my input, so there is no need for me to look at any proposed rules until they are adopted,” Olbrechts said in an email to The Leader.

If these revisions are truly about strengthening accountability, why exclude the very person tasked with upholding it?

The proposal also shrinks the window for filing complaints from three years to just 12 months. That directly contradicts the city’s 2017 decision to extend the filing period from one year to three, a move intended to give the public a fairer shot at holding officials accountable. Ethics violations aren’t always obvious in the moment — cutting the complaint window ensures that some wrongdoing will never be addressed.

On top of that, complainants must now provide extensive documentation—including video or audio evidence — just to have their case considered. These added requirements make it harder for whistleblowers to come forward, not easier.

And even if a complaint survives all of those hurdles? The city council—not an independent body — gets to vote on whether to impose consequences. Meaning: public officials get to decide whether their colleagues face any real accountability.

The new guidelines also limit who can file a complaint. Unless someone lives in city limits, works for the city, or owns a business here, they no longer have standing to report an ethics violation. That means fewer eyes watching, fewer voices allowed to speak up, and fewer checks on those in power.

In an attempt to stop a handful of excessive complaints, the council is — whether by design or not — making it harder for anyone to hold them accountable.

With a city manager under an ethics probe, this is hardly the moment to weaken oversight. 

If these revisions are truly about ethical governance, why does every change make accountability harder instead of easier?

Lloyd Mullen is
publisher of The Leader.