The Port Townsend City Council sits poised to approve a rewrite of its ethics code. The move follows numerous ethics complaints filed against the city’s mayor, and now the city manager by the Reverend Crystal Cox of the Universal Church of Light. Depending on the outcome of the rewrite, Cox who is not a city resident, may soon find herself blocked from filing.

Cox has called the proposed requirement that the complainant be a city resident “taxation with representation.”

“By excluding county residents from the ethics complaint process, for one, that is taxation without representation, that is taking our money and we don’t even get to question what it is used for, because we live in the county and not the city?” Cox wrote in an email to The Leader. “The city council is voting on how to use our money, but wants to essentially gag us, so we cannot ask questions on how our money is spent.”

Cox said the city of Port Townsend receives tax revenue from the county through the distribution of shared taxes, such as sales tax and property tax allocations, thus making her a legitimate voice in city government matters.

City council member, Amy Howard, who was part of the committee to propose revisions to the the policy, said it will help clarify rules, penalties and key processes.

“The proposed revisions aim to strengthen the code, ensure it aligns with state law, clarify the complaint process, introduce penalties, and better define the roles of the hearings officer and the council,” Howard wrote in an email to The Leader. “This is the second time the code has been reviewed during my tenure on the council; it is not uncommon for cities to revise the code based on insights gained during its implementation.”

The root of the proposed rewrite can be traced back to June 2024, when Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts wrote the first of two reports to council about the ethics policy. The 10-page June 3 report was combined with a dismissal of a “voluminous” complaint against Councilmember Libby Wennstrom, after it was withdrawn by Cox. 

“After months of motions and orders, Reverand Cox’s complaint was narrowed down to a  single, narrow issue.” The issue was whether Wennstrom used her city council position to influence a police investigation in which, according to Cox, she “was or should have been” a suspect. “The sole direct evidence for this was a statement Councilmember Wennstrom prepared and submitted to the Port Townsend Police Department.” 

Olbrechts noted in that report that the issue of standing — who can file complaints — had been left wide open in city code when it was amended in 2017. “Most other types of judicial review process require a complainant to have ‘standing,’ which means the complainant must suffer some direct personal injury by the alleged claims.”

In November 2024, Olbrechts reported to the council following a complaint against Faber and suggested council amend the ethics code to identify who within the city sets penalties for ethics violations. In the complaint against Faber, Cox alleged six ethics violations. Olbrechts initially dismissed four, allowing two to proceed, before ultimately dismissing the others in summary judgement. In his report to council, Olbrechts noted “ambiguities” in the city’s code regarding the setting of penalties and disciplinary authority.

“A major ambiguity in the City’s Ethics Code is what decision maker sets penalties for an ethics violation,” Olbrechts wrote. “As a policy matter it would make sense to leave disciplinary authority to the City Council,” as opposed to the hearing examiner imposing fines or disciplinary action. “Findings of ethics violations are well with the expertise and objectivity … of an experienced hearing examiner/officer. In contrast, the discipline imposed for a violation is a highly discretionary act that is more appropriately a reflection of community values. The City Council is of course in the best position to reflect community values … Given the lack of clear direction in the City’s Ethics Code, the City Council should be making the important policy choice of who sets the discipline for ethics violations.”

Olbrechts November 2024 report did not offer additional suggestions in terms of policy rewrites.

A draft of the proposed ethics policy shows seven key changes — many of which bode ill for Cox. The rewrite would shorten the statute of limitations from three years to one year. This, following a council decision in 2017 to expand the statute of limitations from one year to three. Cox’s 2024 ethics complaint against Faber included allegations dating back to 2022. Cox’s current ethics complaint against City Manager John Mauro, also includes allegations from the same year.

Cox said she sees the proposed rewrite as retaliatory, but Howard rejected that claim.

City council discussions began on Feb. 12, spearheaded by a working group made up of council members Howard, Owen Rowe and Ben Thomas. Cox filed her most recent ethics complaint on March 2.

Citing an email from Olbrechts, Cox said she is concerned the city will wait until after March 17 to process her most recent complaint, making it subject to the new rules.

“These two complaints were properly filed under the current Port Townsend Municipal Codes and requested to be processed within that code, as per law,” said Cox.