DEMAND FOR FORMAL INVESTIGATION

March 15 letter to Blaine City Clerk:

From:
Jay Taber
715 G St #22
Blaine WA 98230
tbarj@yahoo.com
(360) 371-4387

To:
Samuel Crawford
City Clerk
City of Blaine
435 Martin Street
Blaine, WA 98230 


Date: 
March 15, 2026

Re: Follow-on demand for formal investigation, referral, and Council action record; Ordinance 26-3043 

Dear Mr. Crawford: 

I write as a follow-up to my prior complaint already submitted to your office regarding the March 9, 2026, adoption of Ordinance 26-3043 and the alleged undisclosed conflict of interest, non-recusal, and related misconduct arising from that vote. 

This letter is not a restatement of that complaint. It is a formal demand that the City state, in writing, what action has been taken, what authority governs the City’s response, and whether an independent investigation will occur. 

The City’s Rules of Procedure require that all regular and special council meetings be recorded by the City Clerk or designee. Rule 13 further places the agenda and supporting materials under the City Clerk’s preparation, under the direction of the City Manager, and requires those materials to be prepared for the Council, public, and press before the meeting. Rules 9 and 12 require public notice for special meetings and study sessions. Rules 28 and 30 govern public hearing procedure and public comment. Rule 22 requires disqualification for conflict matters and states that a disqualified member shall disqualify himself or herself before discussion and leave the chambers. Rule 31 governs citizen complaints to Council, and Rule 36 provides that in the event of a breach of the Rules, the Council may take action allowed by law, including censure, formal declaration of violation, and removal action as allowed by law. 

Because the prior complaint concerns alleged misconduct by City officials and administration, including matters potentially implicating the City Manager and City Attorney, Rule 31(b) should not be used as a shield to route this complaint back into the same potentially conflicted administrative chain without a written explanation. The Rules themselves recognize that where an allegation is made against the City Manager, the Mayor, not the City Manager, must provide notice to Council and set the matter for evaluation. 

Accordingly, I request written confirmation of the following: 

  1. State whether the City has opened a formal investigation, review, or referral concerning my prior complaint; 
  2. Identify the name and official role of the person, office, or body assigned to handle it; 
  3. Identify the precise rule, ordinance, BMC provision, or other authority under which the matter is being processed; 
  4. State whether the Mayor has provided or will provide notice of the complaint to the full Council for action under Rule 36; 
  5. State whether the City will retain independent outside counsel or refer the matter to an outside investigative authority, given the internal conflicts presented; and 
  6. Confirm whether the City Clerk is preserving the complete record, including recordings, minutes, agenda packets, supporting materials, complaint-routing communications, emails, notice and posting records, public comments, conflict disclosures, and any recusal record relating to Ordinance 26-3043. 

    If the City contends that no investigation is required, please identify the legal and procedural basis for that position in writing. 

    If the City contends that Rule 36 enforcement belongs only to the Council as a body, then please state whether this complaint has been transmitted to the Mayor and full Council for consideration, and if not, why not. If the City instead treats the matter solely as an administrative complaint under Rule 31(b), despite the alleged involvement of senior administration, please state that expressly and identify who made that decision. 

    This follow-on request is intended to secure accountability, not merely acknowledgment. A refusal to identify the reviewing authority, a refusal to preserve the record, or a decision to return the complaint to an implicated official without independent review will itself become part of the record for external state investigation and oversight. 

    Please provide a written response within ten business days. 

    Respectfully,
    Jay Taber 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BLAINE TOXIC COVERUP

2/25/25 letter to City of Blaine : BLAINE TOXIC COVERUP A Town that Never Learns By  Jay Taber Blaine Water Coalition Blaine City Council member  Mike Hill --recently under investigation by the Whatcom County Sheriff's Department for accosting Blaine Water Coalition activist Otto Pointer at the November 12, 2024, city council meeting (Case #24A39027)--has a problem with his plan to develop condos across Peace Portal Drive from his  Chevron  station downtown. In a November 28, 2023,  Hazardous Materials Analysis Report  presented by GeoEngineers to the City of Blaine, Hill's Chevron is listed as a 'high-risk' Department of Ecology site (Cleanup Site ID # 9280) due to confirmed releases of petroleum products--including  Benzene --on and off the property,  contaminating the groundwater  that migrates from the Chevron station under Starbuck's toward  Cain Creek  and  Drayton Harbor . The  Drayton Harbor estuary  is home t...
Read more

GUEST COMMENTARY REJECTED BY CASCADIA DAILY NEWS

The CDN article about the  East Blaine de-annexation  and UGA Swap excludes any mention of the extensively documented Blaine Water Coalition objections we sent to CDN well in advance. I feel this is not fair and balanced coverage. CDN reporter Julia Tellman attended the July 14, 2025 Blaine City Council meeting where as a city council vacancy applicant I introduced myself as a member of the Blaine Water Coalition (BWC) speakers bureau, and provided both an oral and written presentation with alleged legal violations by the city related to the proposed UGA Swap, as well as BWC's legal objections to previous well-documented evidence of City misconduct. Tellman mentioned none of this, nor the fact that I alone was hastily appointed at the meeting to write the voters pamphlet statement against the city-sponsored initiative, despite four additional qualified  ‘Con’  applicants  (important n ote: the City received only one ‘Pro’ Applicant) . . This city attem...
Read more

CARA PROTECTION DISTRICT PROPOSAL

November 24 letter to Whatcom County Council : Protect ing  Blaine and Birch Bay Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs) Whatcom County oversees many special purpose districts with taxing authority to meet public needs. A  CARA Protection District  for Blaine and Birch Bay that can purchase the east Blaine and Birch Point CARA properties under county jurisdiction in order to protect our joint public water supply system, reduce flooding, and control urban pollution fits that purpose well.  Combined with improved stormwater management in the Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay watersheds, putting these aquifers in public hands would allow for public health, educational and recreational opportunities within an area beset by luxury, gated, planned unit developments. They could become forested 'greenway parks' as a n oasis from the surrounding chaos. Recommendation Whatcom  County Council   adopt  a  moratorium on  new  development applications...
Read more