FUNK HARMON COLLABORATION

The City of Blaine’s resolutions supporting Chief of Police Rodger Funk and his officers accused of retaliatory policing are now available online. Additional evidence in the certification investigation of Blaine PD--now underway at the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC)--is the complete March 23, 2026 City Council meeting video and transcript, the May 18, 2026 submission to the CJTC by State Senator Sharon Shewmake, the related public-records communication involving Blaine City Manager Michael Harmon and Senator Shewmake’s office, and Chief Funk’s legal counsel Rebecca Singleton's June 10, 2026 transmission of Senator Shewmake’s letter to CJTC Investigations Division Manager Mike Devine. 

This evidence is relevant to Chief Funk’s impartiality, his participation in the City’s official defense narrative, and whether materials presented to CJTC as support for Chief Funk originated from independent sources or from a common interested source at the City of Blaine.

March 23 video and transcript 

The March 23, 2026 Request for Council Action states that Blaine City Manager Michael Harmon and Chief Funk reviewed the facts and found no wrongdoing. The meeting video and transcript add material evidence beyond the written resolutions. In his presentation, Harmon stated that he and Chief Funk reviewed the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the officers “got it right” and followed protocol. Harmon also characterized the complaints as baseless and described the complainants as attempting to smear or sabotage the careers of Chief Funk and other officers. 

These statements are material because they identify Chief Funk as a participant in the City’s review and development of the official narrative defending his own conduct while the CJTC investigation was pending. The Council packet did not include any interviews, agency findings, investigative reports, financial records, environmental determinations, or other source materials necessary to substantiate Harmon’s broader factual accusations against the complainants. The CJTC needs to obtain and independently examine every record Harmon and Chief Funk relied upon when making those assertions at the city council meeting, under oath and on CCTV. 

Materiality of the City Council action 

The Council resolutions are unfounded assertions that do not decide Chief Funk’s certification and do not establish that he acted properly. They are material because the Blaine City Council--without requesting any evidence to support the city manager's claims--formally adopted findings that Chief Funk acted in good faith and in the City’s interest, authorized payment of his legal defense in the identified CJTC proceedings, and characterized repeated complaint activity as harassment, financial burden, and misuse of complaint processes. 

The official action demonstrates institutional and financial alignment with Chief Funk and ratification of his misconduct during an active state accountability process. It also provides context for evaluating whether complainants and witnesses were publicly discredited, intimidated or chilled, and whether the City attempted to affect the evidence or narrative considered by the CJTC. 

Relationship to Senator Shewmake’s submission 

Harmon’s March 23, 2026 presentation preceded Senator Shewmake’s May 18 letter to CJTC. The two presentations share a materially similar narrative: a small group allegedly misused public-records, litigation, and complaint processes; their underlying concerns were said to have been investigated and rejected by outside agencies; the group then unfairly targeted City employees and police; and the officers were said not to have erred. These claims by Harmon were not supported by a single piece of evidence. Senator Shewmake later copied Harmon when transmitting her letter to the CJTC. 

The public-records materials also include a communication involving Harmon and Senator Shewmake’s legislative office. The CJTC should examine that communication together with the March 23 video, Senator Shewmake’s May 18 email and letter, and all related drafts, attachments, metadata, and communications. These records may establish whether Harmon or another City source supplied factual assertions, complainant identities, City documents, or a request for legislative intervention. 

I am not asking CJTC to presume that Harmon authored Senator Shewmake’s letter. The narrative similarity, the communication with her office, and Harmon’s inclusion on the May 18 transmission establish a reasonable basis for CJTC to investigate whether the letter was independent or derived from the City’s defense narrative. 

Chief Funk’s counsel’s use of the Shewmake letter 

On June 10, 2026, after the CJTC reopened the investigation, Chief Funk’s attorney Rebecca Singleton sent the Shewmake letter to CJTC Investigations Division Manager Mike Devine as material “regarding the complainants and allegations.” That transmission proves that the legislative letter was used by Chief Funk’s defense counsel in the certification investigation process. 

The resulting sequence is significant: Chief Funk participated with Harmon in the City’s merits review; the City publicly ratified and funded his legal defense; a later legislative letter repeated a materially similar narrative and copied Harmon; and Chief Funk’s counsel submitted that letter to the CJTC for consideration. This raises a concrete question whether the CJTC received multiple independent sources or several versions of the same interested municipal narrative. 

I recognize that the CJTC’s initial draft predates Senator Shewmake’s May 18 letter. I do not contend that her letter caused the original draft. Its relevance concerns the May 19 recommendation, subsequent supervisory decisions, the material provided to decision-makers, and the reopened investigation following June 10. 

Connection to Chief Funk’s underlying conduct 

This evidence must be considered with Chief Funk’s handling of Blaine Case 25J05347. Chief Funk was present at the October 13, 2025 judicially ruled death threat at the city council meeting, was connected to prior complaints made by the reporting parties, declined the requested outside investigation, controlled how the reports were consolidated, interpreted the murderous statements as metaphorical, assessed the victims’ demeanor and fear, and attributed adverse motives to the complainants. The later City narrative publicly ratified those judgments and attacked the credibility and motives of the same complainants. 

The relevant certification question is whether Chief Funk’s participation in the underlying investigation and in the subsequent institutional defense reflects conduct or a pattern that failed the ethical and professional standards required of a peace officer, jeopardized public trust, or demonstrated intentional or reckless disregard for the rights of others under RCW 43.101.105(3)(j)(ii) and (iv).