Transparency Effort Challenges Court’s Handling of Judge’s Communications with Drug Court Coordinator
Clallam County Superior Court’s transparency practices came under renewed scrutiny on April 2, following the submission of a formal request for internal review concerning the court’s restrictive stance on releasing correspondence between Judge Brent Basden and Johnny Watts, a former program coordinator now facing serious drug trafficking allegations.
The dispute centers on a March 23 record request seeking all electronic communications exchanged between Judge Basden and Watts between 2018 and 2024. Watts, who previously served as the county’s Adult and Juvenile Drug Court Coordinator under Basden’s supervision, was arrested earlier this year and charged with orchestrating a widespread operation involving fentanyl and methamphetamine distribution across the Olympic Peninsula.
On March 27, Lacey Halberg—acting as both Superior Court Administrator and Public Records Officer—issued a denial of the request, asserting that all identified emails fell under the “chambers records” classification. Citing General Rule 31.1 (GR 31.1), Halberg declared the entire dataset exempt from disclosure and marked the matter concluded without offering an opportunity for appeal.
The newly filed internal review contesting that decision argues the administrator’s approach departs from both state court guidelines and the court’s own documented practices. According to the review, the categorical exclusion of emails between Basden and Watts overlooks established exceptions within GR 31.1 and contradicts prior court precedent concerning the disclosure of personnel-related correspondence involving court staff in sensitive roles.
The review also highlights inconsistencies in how chambers records are treated across different departments within the court, suggesting a need for clearer, more consistent application of disclosure standards in future public records requests.