Earlier this year, the Port of Centralia launched a third-party investigation into allegations that Commissioner Peter Lahmann potentially violated the port commission’s code of ethics with a conflict of interest.
The investigation came up short on the allegations, but found that the port commissioner’s code of ethics needed an overhaul due to ambiguity in certain sections.
As the port adopted an updated ethics code in a Wednesday, Dec. 6, meeting, Lahmann was the sole dissenting vote.
In a meeting last month, Lahmann also requested the port reimburse his legal fees from an outside attorney, but his fellow commissioners denied his request on Dec. 6.
Port attorney Ray Liaw said state law would allow Lahmann’s request to be granted if approved by the commissioners themselves.
“It would need to be an affirmative motion put onto the table,” Liaw added.
Commissioner Julie Shaffley motioned to deny the request, which Commissioner Kyle Markstrom seconded.
“Why I made the motion is … we did not request or demand or even say anything to you saying that maybe you should get legal counsel, that was of your own choosing,” Shaffley said.
Markstrom agreed with Shaffley, and said none of the other port staff or commissioners sought outside legal counsel.
“For that reason, I think, passing this on to the taxpayers is not correct,” Markstrom added.
Earlier this year, Markstrom told The Chronicle the third party investigation cost the port $10,237.
Lahmann told The Chronicle he was asking for approximately $2,200 in reimbursement.
During public comment, several Centralia residents spoke out in support of Lahmann’s reimbursement request despite being some of the taxpayers who would have to foot the bill.
“Some sort of legal representation was a good idea for Commissioner Lahmann,” Centralia resident Paul Crowner said. “Counselor Ray may know the famous phrase, ‘the person who acts as their own lawyer has a fool for a client.’”
Markstrom stated that it was not a lawsuit being litigated in a court of law but “merely an ethics investigation that involves answering questions.”
“The same questions were asked of all of us, and I can say assuredly that if I am innocent of something and somebody merely wants to ask me some questions, that I would not feel the need to seek legal representation,” Markstrom said.
Shaffley agreed with Markstrom’s statement. The motion to deny Lahmann’s request was approved 2-0, with Lahmann abstaining.
The investigation which sparked this was brought about by concerns initially raised by the port’s auditor.
The concerns revolved around potential conflict of interests violations committed by Lahmann, program specialist for the Washington Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA), as he had asked the port about using apprenticeships in construction projects in four different port meetings going back to February 2021.
The investigation found “no legal wrongdoing,” after its conclusion in May by the law firm Haggard & Ganson LLP in Bothell, but recommended six changes to the port commissioner’s code of ethics addressing parts of the code it considered ambiguous. A separate investigation launched this year by the WDVA also found no wrongdoing by Lahmann.
During the Dec. 6 meeting, commissioners voted 2-1, with Lahmann opposing, to amend the recommended sections of the code. Changes include port commissioners having to clarify whether they are speaking for the port or for themselves.
Lahmann said he wasn't opposed to the changes, but to approving them at that meeting. He proposed tabling the decision so he could suggest other edits and publicize them ahead of the port's next meeting.
Copies of the proposed amendments were made available to the public shortly before last Wednesday’s meeting.
His motion to table the amendments did not receive a second and died.
The suggested amendments made by Haggard & Ganson included clarifying when commissioners are speaking on behalf of the port or not, a prohibition on promises not supported by port policy, requiring port staff maintain reasonable decorum, requiring commissioners to avoid incurring Open Public Meetings Act liability, the creation of formal committee and liaison assignments for commissioners to participate in non-port activities, and creating prescribed talking points for high-risk matters such as ongoing litigation.
The amendments approved during last Wednesday’s meeting address most of these suggestions. Liaw explained the changes were made based on the law firm’s recommendations as well as other sources.
“(We) looked at practices of other organizations, some reports with regards to the issues she had highlighted and tried to provide some additional clarification and additional guidelines within the framework of the port’s existing code of ethics,” Liaw said.
