During the Port of Centralia commissioners’ regular meeting on Wednesday, May 7, it was revealed that Commissioner Kyle Markstrom has asked Lewis County Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer and Sheriff Rob Snaza to look into the actions of the leaders of a Facebook group that has long been critical of the port.
Markstrom made allegations of harassment, stalking and intimidating a public servant in the March 22 letter to Meyer and Snaza.
Port of Centralia Commissioner Peter Lahmann brought up Markstrom’s letter as he had concerns about it being sent using official port letterhead.
“It seemed like we were using the power of the Port of Centralia to try to intimidate a citizen,” Lahmann said. “The allegations in there had to do with Facebook and social media. I really try and stay off that, but because of the letter, I went back and looked. So I have to ask, did we do any investigation? Is there any validity to … the allegations that something was improper?”
Markstrom replied it was his hope both the sheriff’s office and the prosecutor’s office were looking into the allegations.
Port of Centralia Executive Director Kyle Heaton then interjected, stating there was an ongoing “criminal investigation.”
“We won’t comment further,” Heaton added.
In Markstrom’s March 22 letter, he alleges “escalating harassment, both online and potentially in person,” carried out by the founders of the Facebook group, Jan Banevich and Randy Garland.
Banevich and Garland started the Centralia Citizens for an Open and Honest Port Facebook group as a way to advocate for increased transparency from the Port of Centralia, among other issues, they have said.
Banevich obtained Markstrom’s March 22 letter and posted it in the Facebook group on May 7, saying, “I have been advised to post this letter to expose the lengths some will go to shut me up.”
Markstrom begins his letter acknowledging the First Amendment rights Banevich and Garland have.
“However, in this case, I believe the conduct has escalated beyond protected speech and entered into a pattern of targeted harassment,” Markstrom said.
He claimed on top of “personal attacks” and “speculative and defamatory statements,” he believed members of the group were stalking Heaton.
“In a recent public post, Ms. Banevich claimed that ‘multiple people’ observed Mr. Heaton mowing a lawn during work hours. The property referenced is a private residence at the end of a long, private road in rural Lewis County,” Markstrom said. “This kind of monitoring is deeply concerning and, in my view, demonstrates stalking behavior.”
Markstrom acknowledged that as a public elected official, the group can and has subjected him to criticism in the past, which he has accepted. In the past, Markstrom has commented on posts in the Facebook group and engaged in debates with group members.
“Mr. Heaton, however, is a public employee. He did not sign up to be the subject of public surveillance, harassment or character attacks. As his direct supervisor, I cannot in good conscience allow this to continue unaddressed,” Markstrom said.
The Facebook post in question was made by Banevich on March 22. It was a followup to a March 21 post she also made.
Both the March 21 and March 22 posts are mostly focused on Heaton’s handling of port business, his employment contract and past interactions with Banevich, other Facebook group members and port commissioners.
However, toward the end of the March 22 post, Banevich said, “And there is nothing to account for his time when not in the office but considered on-the-clock. Like several people seeing him mowing his girlfriend's lawn in Toledo during work hours.”
This is evidently the statement Markstrom took issue with.
Banevich has previously been critical of Heaton in online posts.
Additionally, Banevich is a consistent attendee at the port’s regular commissioner meetings, frequently advocating for her Facebook group’s goals during the meetings’ public comment periods. She’s among a group of regular attendees who often take issue with how the port conducts meetings and other business.
On March 23, Banevich posted to the group again. She stated she had been contacted by Lewis County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Max Miller via a phone call on March 22. Miller informed her that Heaton and two other unnamed women had filed a harassment complaint against her and other members of the Facebook group.
“He stated that he merely wanted to hear my side of the story,” Banevich said in the March 23 post.
On March 27, Banevich posted she visited the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office to try to obtain a copy of the original harassment claim Miller said was filed. Despite county staff searching using her name, Heaton’s name and the two women’s names, no complaint was found — and it was also Miller’s day off, so he couldn’t be contacted.
The next post about this issue came on April 21, when Banevich posted a screenshot of someone posting in another Facebook group discussing her phone call with Miller.
No other posts were made by Banevich concerning this issue until she posted Markstrom’s letter on May 7.
According to documents obtained by The Chronicle from the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office, while Miller did conduct an investigation, it wasn’t started by Markstrom’s March 22 letter — but the letter was included in the investigation.
On March 20, Miller was on patrol and responded to a call involving the possible violation of an protection order already in place filed by Heaton’s girlfriend, Alicia Fox, against her neighbors, Shawna Hubbard and Jeffrey Hubbard.
Additionally, Heaton and Fox’s son are both listed alongside Fox as protected parties the Hubbards cannot come into contact with in the protection order, according to Miller’s incident report.
Fox told Miller the previous day, March 19, Shawna was walking her dogs on the road where they both live and claimed Shawna stared her down as she left her residence in her car. Fox recorded Shawna from her car as she drove by and provided Miller with the video.
“Alicia advised per the order between them, Shawna is not even supposed to look, let alone stare, at her while she’s driving by,” Miller wrote in the incident report.
While Fox said she didn’t know Banevich personally, she added Shawna had developed a relationship with Banevich, and Shawna enjoyed sharing rumors about both Fox and Heaton.
Miller advised Fox that there was not much he could do about the Facebook group posts unless they were “threatening in nature.” Miller also detailed his phone call with Banevich, in which she admitted to posting information from Shawna on Facebook.
Following that, Miller reviewed the protection order, originally filed in May of 2023, and found it was served and valid. The protection order came about following multiple confrontations between the Hubbards and Fox, Heaton and her son, which began escalating in the summer of 2022 according to court documents.
Confrontations ranged from verbal disputes and obscene gestures being made, garbage being dumped over the Hubbards’ fence onto Fox’s property, loud music being played, and even power being cut off to the well both properties once shared.
“I observed the order to state the respondents shall not harm, contact, disturb, as well as shall not gesture, point, or stare at the protected party. As mentioned above, the video footage clearly shows Shawna purposely staring at Alicia and making an effort to do so,” Miller wrote in the incident report.
Based on the video, Miller recommended the prosecutor’s office charge Shawna with one count of violation of an anti-harassment order. Miller also advised Meyer to take Shawna and Banevich’s relationship and the Facebook posts into consideration, “to potentially charge Shawna Hubbard with an additional count of third party order violation.”
On April 2, Meyer filed one misdemeanor charge in Lewis County District Court against Shawna for violation of a court order.
The Chronicle spoke to Meyer on Friday, May 16, to find out the case’s status. He stated he was still reviewing the case and considering whether to press additional charges.
As for the investigation, Meyer said the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office is no longer actively looking into the case — but he can still request additional sheriff’s office investigation if he deems it necessary.
