A Portrait of Public Service
Nine years ago, Lindy Clevenger concluded her tenure as Superior Court administrator following more than four decades of service to the county. She began her career as a clerk in 1974 before ascending to the top administrative post in 1997.
Her departure drew notable praise from members of the bench. Then-Presiding Judge Erik Rohrer stated that he leaned on her knowledge and institutional memory on a daily basis. Judge George Wood attributed to her the compilation of a 992-page petition that secured $500,000 in state funds for county taxpayers following the second Darold Stenson prosecution. The county commissioners also honored her within the courthouse.
This history illustrates a court administrator acting as a public servant: one whose contributions are tangible and whose value to the county is measurable in both dollars and public confidence.
The Record
This is not a general complaint. It rests on two specific requests, both public, both documented.
On March 23, I submitted a request to the court for correspondence between Judge Brent Basden and Johnny Watts, the former Adult and Juvenile Drug Court coordinator who was arrested that month after a standoff in Agnew.
The request spanned 2018 through 2024. The public interest was clear: a court employee with authority over vulnerable people had become the subject of a criminal case, and residents were entitled to know how he was supervised.
Four days later, Superior Court Administrator and Public Records Officer Lacey Halberg denied the request in full.
The emails, she wrote, were "categorically exempt under GR 31.1 as chambers records." She declared the matter closed. The administration would not say whether anyone had searched for the records at all.
I filed for internal review. On April 29, Judge Simon Barnhart reversed Halberg’s denial.
Judge Barnhart wrote that "chambers staff" covers administrative personnel only when that staff is supporting a judicial officer at chambers, and that the court still had to determine whether any such emails existed and in what capacity Watts had been acting. He sent the request back to Halberg for further action.
Two weeks earlier, on April 10, the same office had issued the same kind of denial to a different request of mine, this one seeking search warrant logs for former Court Commissioner Brian Parker and for then-Commissioner Basden.
Again the phrase was "categorically exempt under GR 31.1 as chambers records." Again there was no exemption log.
This time the response added a sentence: "This is the final communication you will receive in connection with this request."
I want to be straightforward about how that second fight ended, because readers deserve the losses along with the wins. On July 13, Judge Barnhart denied my petition. He held that search warrant logs are chambers records, that chambers records fall outside GR 31.1 entirely, and that the denial was proper.
I disagree with that reasoning and intend to take the question to a higher court via a writ of mandamus.
A Third Request, Still Open
A prior inquiry submitted on March 14, 2025, sought comprehensive logs and appointment records for court-appointed guardians ad litem dating back to January 1, 2000. The court administrator processed this request smoothly, citing a copying fee of $29.55 and noting the absence of electronic payment options. The administrator further coordinated an in-person pickup, marking the interaction as standard and cooperative.
However, the delivered documents did not include any record of Brent Basden’s tenure as a guardian ad litem in Clallam County prior to his judicial appointment. Earlier reporting by The Real Olympic Herald established that Basden testified under oath in this capacity during a 2005 custody proceeding. Despite this history, the produced files contained no evidence of such assignments.
When the administrator was asked to re-run the search to include these specific appointments, a response arrived within two hours. The administrator characterized the initial request as unclear and demanded that the requester specify the exact records needed, rather than referencing the previous submission. This exchange highlights a broader issue regarding the completeness of official productions and the ease with which the public can determine why specific documents are absent, without requiring legal representation or additional formal filings.
The administrator’s responsibilities extend beyond records management to include personnel oversight, such as hiring files, background investigations, and the administrative approvals that grant authority over family law matters. This domain encompasses the contentious appointment of Brian Parker, whose missing search warrant log required intervention from the county’s human resources director.
The Dissolved Digital Forum
A distinct instance of administrative action occurred earlier this year concerning the court’s official social media presence. Until February, the Clallam County Superior Court maintained a Facebook page used for public notices and jury duty information. For a time, the page was configured to restrict commenting privileges to a select group of users, a setting that applied to posts including one marking the swearing-in of Judge Elizabeth Stanley.
Following correspondence from this paper to Judges Barnhart, Stanley, and Basden regarding the limited access, the restrictions were lifted, allowing general residents to post comments. Subsequent internal communications, released to this paper by the court, detail the administration’s response. On the morning of Friday, February 13, Deputy Court Administrator Kaysey Clayton contacted the county’s IT department, stating she was unable to disable commenting features and requesting immediate cessation of all user comments. She requested notification to herself, the court administrator, and Presiding Judge Barnhart once the change was implemented.
In reply, an IT systems analyst stated that there was no reliable method to globally disable commenting across the page. The analyst suggested standard moderation techniques, including filtering and banning repeat offenders. The court administrator subsequently inquired about specific images on the page. The analyst identified these as part of a multi-photo post from January 2025 celebrating Judge Stanley’s inauguration, explaining that individual images could not be removed from such a composite post.
Deleting the post was the sole course of action available, and proceeding with it meant removing not only the original announcement but all public responses attached to it.
By midday the following day, the complete Facebook page had vanished from view.
Efforts have been made to clarify what the removal signifies—and what it does not. There is no indication that officials sought to erase the page to avoid scrutiny. Instead, the record reflects how senior administrative staff acted swiftly to restrict public input shortly after comment access opened, followed internal IT guidance favoring moderation over deletion, and ultimately removed the forum entirely the next day.
While public bodies are free to operate without social media presences, the decision to deactivate an open forum in direct response to community feedback is itself a matter of public interest.
County residents thus lost a channel for transparency and engagement, and no formal explanation has been issued from courthouse leadership about why the page was withdrawn.
Why the Outcome Is Not the Point
What stands out—and what should draw the attention of judicial leadership—is not merely which side prevailed in individual disputes, but the consistent procedural pattern that emerged. In multiple instances, the office opted for a firm, blanket denial, issued without revealing the scope of any records search, without an exemption log detailing what information was withheld and the rationale for doing so, and, in at least one April 10 communication, without the statutorily required summary of internal review processes outlined in GR 31.1.
This latter omission is not a matter of interpretive discretion; it is explicitly mandated.
A records officer who informs a requester that a denial constitutes the final word—without alerting them to remaining avenues for review—communicates something the rule does not authorize.
The July 13 ruling sidestepped this procedural point, as well as arguments concerning whether GR 31.1 applies retroactively to records predating January 1, 2016, and the fact that when Parker’s employment ended in February, the court had yet to recover his search warrant log, prompting the county’s human resources director to issue a formal request for its return.
Judges may resolve matters on the most limited grounds they find adequate, yet unresolved issues do not vanish with a ruling. They constitute administrative shortcomings, and such shortcomings fall under the responsibility of those in charge.
Another systemic concern continues to go unaddressed. Under GR 31.1, internal appeals of records denials are reviewed by the presiding judge of the same court that issued the original decision.
In this instance, that meant appeal oversight fell to the judge who had overseen Parker’s termination and to whom a statutory deadline notice had previously been sent.
This structural setup is being raised not as criticism of individual judicial conduct—particularly not of Judge Barnhart’s integrity—but as a feature of how accountability functions within the current framework.
Ultimately, the primary layer of internal review rests in the hands of just three judges who supervise the court’s operations.
What the Judges Should Do
Since the court administrator works directly for the judges, and the judges in turn answer to county voters stretching from Forks to Sequim, this is a matter best addressed directly to them.
The first recommendation is a change in office leadership. This is a matter of evaluating performance rather than citing misconduct, and it lies squarely within the judges’ authority.
Separate the roles
A second recommendation calls for splitting the public records officer duties from the court administrator position. Assigning one individual to manage courthouse operations while also serving as the impartial decision-maker on records requests concerning that same courthouse represents a structural flaw in the current arrangement.
Establish clear protocols
Written procedures should be adopted and made publicly available. The protocol must mandate a search before any withholding occurs, require a log of every denial, and ensure that appeal rights are disclosed in every response without exception.
Document hiring processes
The position of family court commissioner carries an annual salary of $213,714, which is set at ninety percent of a Superior Court judge's pay. Lorraine Rimson assumed this role on June 1, having served as a commissioner pro tem within the court since January 2023. Regardless of opinions regarding this appointment, the public deserves visibility into the selection process.
Review of prior appointment
The circumstances surrounding the previous commissioner are documented with precision. On November 1, 2024, Halberg drafted the hire letter for Brian Parker and communicated to county HR that the one-year probationary period directed by the judges had been omitted. Parker took his seat on the bench in January 2025 without this safeguard and was terminated thirteen months later. The court offered no public explanation for the departure of a judicial officer who had been adjudicating custody and protection order matters. A fair reading of the hire letter indicates an administrator executing a decision made by the judges, which is why this column addresses them directly.
Regarding inquiries into training
When asked about training received in domestic violence or sexual abuse, Halberg stated the court had no responsive records, noting that Judge Basden had none either.
No specific concession is required
This analysis does not require the Clallam judges to concede that any specific denial was unlawful. It requires them to ask a simpler question: is this office being run the way the public has a right to expect?