CITY USURPING STATE ROLE

 To:

Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
Professional Standards / Certification Unit

CC:

City of Blaine City Clerk

Re: Limited supplemental submission regarding March 23, 2026 City action, retaliation, witness chilling, and pre-judgment in matters involving Blaine Chief of Police Rodger Funk

Dear Commission:

This supplement is limited and incorporates my prior submissions rather than restating them in full.

I submit this supplemental letter to add new March 23, 2026 evidence that is materially relevant to the pending certification matters involving Chief of Police Rodger Funk, and to request that the Commission evaluate this new City action as evidence of retaliation, witness chilling, pre-judgment, and compromised neutrality toward complainants and witnesses.

On March 23, 2026, the City of Blaine placed on its consent agenda a Request for Council Action prepared by City Manager Michael Harmon concerning Resolution 1996-26 and Resolution 1997-26. The packet does not merely express general support. It states that the City Manager and Chief of Police reviewed the case materials and found no wrongdoing, identifies the pending CJTC complaint numbers against Chief Funk, characterizes the complaints as causing harm through the “misuse of complaint processes,” adopts findings that Chief Funk acted in the City’s best interest, in the discharge of duty, and in good faith, and authorizes legal defense and payment from City funds to defend Chief Funk in the CJTC civil administrative proceeding.

This official City action is significant because it publicly pre-judges an active state certification matter. Under Washington law, any individual may file a written certification complaint with CJTC, the Commission has sole discretion whether to investigate, and a person who files in good faith is immune from suit or civil action related to the filing or contents of the complaint. Washington law also protects good-faith complaints and information communicated to government agencies. In that context, an official City action portraying complaint activity as harmful misuse while formally funding the defense of the official under investigation is relevant evidence of retaliation and chilling.

The Commission should also evaluate the March 23, 2026 City action together with the evidence already submitted showing that Chief Funk later testified on behalf of David Brudvik at the protection-order hearing, and that Mayor Mary Lou Steward was present at that hearing. That sequence is relevant because it reflects movement from conflicted official handling of the underlying threat matter to defense-aligned participation against complainants. It strongly supports an appearance of compromised neutrality and retaliatory alignment by City actors toward citizens who reported misconduct and sought state oversight.

The later court ruling rejecting Chief Funk’s assessment further strengthens that concern. The significance here is not merely disagreement over judgment. It is that City actors now seek, by formal resolution and public messaging, to ratify Chief Funk’s conduct, declare his good faith, and stigmatize the complaint process itself while the CJTC matter remains pending. That posture threatens to deter a reasonable complainant or witness from coming forward and undermines confidence in fair treatment by City-controlled actors.

This is especially serious because the March 23 action was not limited to internal morale support. Resolution 1997-26 formally adopts findings that Chief Funk acted in the City’s best interest, in the discharge of duty, and in good faith, and authorizes legal defense and payment from City funds in the CJTC administrative proceeding. Resolution 1996-26 likewise states that the City recognizes the alleged harm caused by the “misuse of complaint processes.” Those are not neutral statements. They are formal municipal findings and public institutional messaging directed at active complainant activity.

I respectfully request that the Commission:

1. Accept this letter as a limited supplemental submission in the pending matters involving Chief Rodger Funk.
2. Evaluate the March 23, 2026 resolutions, council packet, and related City action as evidence relevant to retaliation, witness chilling, pre-judgment, and compromised neutrality toward complainants and witnesses.
3. Preserve and obtain the full March 23, 2026 council packet, draft resolutions, meeting video, minutes, voting record, staff reports, internal emails, text messages, and communications concerning the decision to place these items on the consent agenda and to characterize the complaint process as misuse.
4. Preserve and obtain the protection-order hearing transcript, docket entries, witness lists, attendance records, and all communications among Chief Funk, Mayor Steward, Michael Harmon, David Brudvik, City counsel, and any other City official or representative concerning that hearing and the matters raised in these complaints.
5. Evaluate whether Chief Funk participated in, encouraged, ratified, or materially benefited from retaliatory or complainant-chilling conduct during the pendency of the CJTC process.
6. Evaluate this new March 23 action together with the already-submitted evidence as part of any pattern analysis the Commission deems appropriate.
7. To the extent the Commission identifies potential non-certification misconduct outside its direct jurisdiction, preserve the material and transmit or refer it to the appropriate enforcement authority.

This supplement is submitted because the March 23, 2026 City action is new, official, and materially relevant. It is not merely public support for an employee. It is formal municipal pre-judgment, taxpayer-funded ratification, and public stigmatization of active complaint activity in the middle of an ongoing state accountability process.

Please confirm receipt and inclusion of this supplemental material in the relevant complaint files.

Respectfully,

Jay Taber