Institutional Blind Spot Exposed in Sequim Schools
Though the Sequim School District maintains formal policies aimed at preventing discrimination, assigns dedicated Title IX staff, and enforces prompt five-day response timelines for harassment complaints, its actual practices tell a different story. For decades, the district tolerated—and at times enabled—abuse by staff, evolving from passive oversight of problematic educators to an organized system of retaliation.
A group informally dubbed the “six pack,” composed of senior administrators, wielded influence over district decisions. This inner circle resisted accountability, protected misconduct-prone executives, and contributed to over $2.35 million in civil rights settlements borne by local taxpayers and insurers.
A Teacher’s Dual Role
Dennis Peterson, a 49-year-old instructor in alternative education, computer literacy, and photography, worked for the district up through 2001. His classroom at Sequim Community School became more than a place of instruction—it functioned as a stage for repeated exploitation. The district, unaware, supplied him with consistent access, facilities, and tools that he leveraged to groom and abuse students.
The scope of his misconduct came to light in December 2001, when Peterson was federally convicted on ten charges, including four counts of producing child pornography.
Classroom as a Hunting Ground
Investigative records from early 2001 show Peterson used his teaching position to embed himself in students’ lives during school hours. Forensic examination of seized materials confirmed he shot explicit photos on a district-issued Olympus digital camera, with timestamps indicating assaults occurred mid-morning in November and December 2000. In at least one instance, the backdrop of a photograph aligned precisely with the layout of his classroom, confirming the location as the scene of the abuse.
According to FBI affidavits, Peterson regularly approached students aged 16 or 17 in his classroom, proposing payments of several thousand dollars for nude photo sessions intended for online release. In one meeting held at 8:15 a.m.—before the official school start—he pitched a 17-year-old student on a package that included up to $5,000 for roughly two dozen images, plus a vehicle and housing in Arizona.
He also used a school computer to display a collection of about 20 nude portraits, which included women photographed locally at Dungeness. Peterson reportedly claimed he had recruited as many as 100 girls over four years, all while operating with minimal oversight.
Systemic Support for Abuse
On January 19, 2001, Sequim police executed search warrants at his classroom, vehicle, and residence. Among the items seized were a school-owned computer and zip disks holding hundreds of images of minors in explicit poses—many captured during school hours on campus.
Case Details
A Sequim man admitted to investigators that he transported the illicit disks to the school, initially keeping them inside his 1993 Ford Escort while parked on the grounds. He later confessed to bringing the materials into the building to copy templates onto the devices. The suspect was taken into custody at 7:30 a.m. on January 22, 2001, as he arrived for classes.
During questioning by Sequim Police Detective Kirk Chaney, the defendant attempted to shift responsibility. He initially asserted that he only downloaded images from the internet on his home computer. He then made disparaging remarks regarding a 17-year-old victim, suggesting she came from a "bad family" where she had been threatened with eviction upon turning eighteen, and referenced a large tattoo on her arm to question her character.
The investigation later extended to the suspect's residence, where officers recovered two Olympus digital cameras. Detectives also located emails concerning encrypted files labeled "my eyes only" from an associate, indicating a potential distribution network the defendant sought to conceal. The software utilized was an encryption package requiring a password with "no back door," which officials noted demonstrated the calculated nature of the offenses.
The case was initially spearheaded by the Sequim Police Department and referred for federal prosecution in April 2001. This transition exposed the logistical challenges of prosecuting such prolific abuse. Federal authorities spent weeks transferring and cataloging the evidence, causing significant trial delays as both defense and prosecution experts required extensive time to forensically examine the "mirror-image" copies of the hard drives and zip disks.
Evidence Dispute
A legal battle over this digital evidence ensued, with the federal defense attorney demanding physical "mirror-image" copies of the hard drives for a private lab analysis in Spokane. The government refused, arguing that replicating and distributing the materials—even to defense experts—would constitute the unlawful distribution of child pornography. To address this, the government and defense entered into strict stipulated agreements regarding the transport of the contraband. Court orders specifically mandated how the mirror image copies were created, handled, and shipped via Federal Express to the defense’s forensic expert in Spokane.
The suspect also brought multiple teenage students to the local Ramada Inn for explicit photo shoots. During federal court proceedings, Assistant United States Attorney Kathryn Warma strongly opposed the defendant's release on bail, noting that one session occurred in a student's low-income shelter apartment after the defendant paid her $20 for child care to ensure her toddler son was not present while he photographed her. The prosecutor warned the court that "Dennis Peterson is a sexual predator who knows no bounds".
The volume of evidence collected was substantial, including disks that contained "hundreds of pictures" with "175 to 200" coming from a single session. Consequently, the defense filed a motion for a "Bill of Particulars" to determine which specific "Jane Does" and images the government relied upon for the indictment. The defendant's defense strategy further underscored how his professional standing was used to deflect accountability.
Peterson entered a formal plea of not guilty to all four counts in the federal indictment during his arraignment on May 11, 2001. The charges included three counts for producing child pornography and one count for possessing it, despite the substantial physical evidence recovered from his classroom at Sequim Community School.
His legal representatives contested his detention in federal custody, emphasizing his 25-year track record as a teacher in California and Washington to demonstrate that he posed no threat to the public and was unlikely to flee. The defense frequently cited his long tenure in education—a role he had utilized to gain access to his victims—as a primary factor in their request for leniency.
As the trial date neared, the defense intensified its strategy, which included arguing that federal child pornography statutes did not apply to one of the victims because the 17-year-old was classified as an “emancipated minor” under state law.
Forensic analysis of the computer hard drives revealed a broader network of abuse than initially suspected. On September 19, 2001, a federal grand jury issued a Superseding Indictment containing 10 counts. This expanded list identified five minor victims, described as “Jane Does” aged 16 and 17, along with one 18-year-old victim.
The new indictment also established that Peterson was moving images across state lines. Federal prosecutors alleged that he uploaded explicit photographs of a 17-year-old student to an amateur pornography website located in Ohio.
Notably, Count 7 of the superseding indictment alleged that Peterson used one 17-year-old victim to assist in the sexual exploitation and photography of another young woman.
In December 2001, a federal court found Peterson guilty on all 10 counts, which included four counts for the production of child pornography.
The Quiet Resignation
Dave Cross, a high school and middle school choir teacher with 18 years of experience, was placed on administrative leave in January 2004. Following a six-week inquiry, he was terminated on March 12.
Administrators issued a 30-page report detailing ten specific allegations against Cross. These included inappropriate physical contact with students, violations of confidentiality, improper use of district technology, and evidence of “grooming” behaviors aimed at forming intimate connections with students after they graduated.
District records indicated that Cross had previously received two written reprimands regarding protocol, yet he remained employed until the 2004 investigation prompted his dismissal.
Cross initially appealed the decision with the assistance of a lawyer from the Washington Education Association. However, he withdrew the appeal in April 2004 and returned his teaching certificate to the state.
In return for dropping the appeal, the district agreed to halt investigations into other allegations against him. The school district also permitted Cross to receive his full salary and benefits, amounting to approximately $60,000, through the end of the academic year in August.
Rather than seeking full accountability for a teacher with a documented history of grooming, the administration effectively compensated him to leave and formally committed to closing further inquiries into his past.
The Chris Boushey Investigation
Quiet Resignations Over Public Scrutiny
In a second case reflecting a preference for discretion over transparency, the district permitted a middle school educator to step down in late 2004 after engaging in unsuitable, after-hours digital exchanges with a student under the age of 14.
Chris Boushey, then 52 and serving as Sequim Middle School’s technology instructor, held over 20 hours of private online conversations with a seventh-grade girl who was then 13. Using MSN Messenger across at least 17 sessions from June through November, Boushey tapped into his credibility as her classroom instructor—having previously assisted her and peers with creating online journals—to access personal reflections and establish himself as a trusted confidant.
Review of the chat logs showed recurring lapses in professional boundaries. He responded to the student’s expressed loneliness with reassurances and companionship, blending mentorship with emotional intimacy, and at times, adopting the demeanor of both a thoughtful older male figure and a peer confidant.
After the girl disclosed she had circumvented her mother’s screen-time limits by hacking into her laptop, Boushey not only accepted the tactic but reinforced it. On June 24, he posed a notably personal question to her: “So when do I get to see you without makeup?”
Jack Hedges, then principal of Sequim Middle School, reviewed the exchanges and determined that Boushey’s conduct formed a consistent pattern of preparatory behaviors aimed at deepening the student’s emotional reliance on him. An external investigator added that Boushey persisted in messaging the student even after learning she was intentionally concealing their correspondence from her parents.
Once the district obtained the chat records in early November, Boushey was placed on paid leave. After six weeks of internal assessment, he chose to resign in December—avoiding formal discipline and allowing the district to close the matter without public hearings or board action.
Trapp Settlement Reflects Broader Pattern
A separate, parallel development unfolded at Sequim High School, where veteran science teacher Dave Trapp, with four decades of service, faced termination over a series of documented behavioral incidents involving students.
District investigators documented multiple physical confrontations, including one dispute over a beverage bottle that left visible abrasions on a boy’s midsection. In another instance, 14 students recounted witnessing Trapp apply firm physical contact to a peer, resulting in a prominent reddened patch on the student’s upper torso.
Despite prior documentation—including four formal warnings—and the district’s decision to recommend dismissal, leadership’s stance softened once Trapp mounted a formal grievance and publicly positioned the students as primary contributors to his ouster.
Instead of subjecting his record to public scrutiny during an appeals hearing, the district opted for a negotiated resolution. In April 2005, officials finalized a settlement that reversed the termination. Trapp formally retired at year’s end, continuing to draw full pay while on administrative leave in the interim.
Screening Practices Under Scrutiny
The district’s hiring protocols have also drawn attention, with recent selections raising questions about oversight rigor. Meredith Powell, a Sequim-born educator, received approval to serve as a substitute at Sequim High School in spring 2012, despite gaps in her background history that later surfaced as notable.
A former educator who departed the Sequim School District was subsequently employed as a teacher in Tacoma, where law enforcement authorities took her into custody. The 25-year-old admitted to sexual activity with students at Lincoln High School. In August 2014, a judge in Pierce County Superior Court imposed a six-month incarceration sentence and mandated that she complete a three-year program for sex offenders.
Although district leaders stated that no formal grievances were submitted during her short period of substituting in local classrooms, the incident highlights concerns regarding the personnel the district permits to teach, potentially allowing individuals who later engage in significant misconduct to enter the system without sufficient oversight.
Red Flags in Hiring
The district’s challenges in safeguarding students are not limited to internal oversight issues.
In March 2012, a 47-year-old mathematics instructor at Stevens Middle School in the adjacent Port Angeles School District was taken into custody. According to earlier reporting, the man faced severe criminal allegations, including two counts of first-degree child molestation, four counts of second-degree rape of a child, three counts of third-degree rape of a child, and one count of second-degree rape by forcible compulsion.
At the time, Port Angeles Superintendent Jane Pryne placed the teacher on administrative leave. By April 2013, a Clallam County Superior Court judge had dismissed the charges. However, the dismissal did not signify a complete exoneration or the discovery of exculpatory evidence. The case was dropped because the alleged victim declined to provide testimony during the trial, a frequent outcome in serious abuse proceedings.
Despite this notable history of felony charges for child rape and molestation in the neighboring community, the Sequim School District ultimately employed the man. He is currently listed in the official staff directory as an active instructor for Algebra and Geometry at Sequim High School.
The district has also appointed him as the head coach of the high school cross country team, a role that provides him with daily, direct contact with student-athletes.
The connection between the two districts is further complicated by the fact that Jane Pryne, who served as the Port Angeles superintendent when the teacher was first placed on leave during his 2012 legal case, later assumed the role of Interim Superintendent for the Sequim School District in 2020.
Oversight Gaps
The district’s processes for screening and monitoring personnel have struggled to detect active predators working within its athletic programs.
In 2014, a 29-year-old volunteer assistant coach for the Sequim High School girls basketball team was arrested and eventually admitted guilt to five counts of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes.
The coach, who had volunteered for the district since November 2012, utilized his position to target a 15-year-old member of his team. He developed an inappropriate relationship with the student, exchanging hundreds of text messages with her.
The district did not identify this significant breach of boundaries on its own. The high school administration remained unaware of the interactions occurring within its program.
The situation was brought to light when the mother of a different student, who had heard rumors about the contact, bypassed the school administration and reported the abuse directly to police.
In October 2014, Pedersen received a 60-day sentence, equally divided between incarceration and electronic home monitoring, and was also required by law to enroll as a registered sex offender.
Hiding the Truth
A school system can sustain prolonged institutional dysfunction when it deliberately flouts transparency laws to shield leadership from accountability.
For an extended period, the Sequim School District consistently turned down public access to records involving internal disciplinary and investigative matters, invoking privacy protections to insulate senior staff from oversight and downplay the volume and seriousness of complaints filed against them.
This strategy of controlled disclosure became especially evident during major leadership upheavals. In late 2020 and early 2021, when local media outlets sought documents related to the abrupt administrative leaves taken by top officials—including the former superintendent and the high school’s principal—the district resisted releasing information and delayed responses well beyond its own announced timelines.
Earlier reporting indicated that key records remained sealed despite repeated requests, allowing the district to frame leadership transitions without public input or scrutiny.
A turning point came in May 2024, when the district agreed to a $40,000 resolution with a Whidbey Island resident, Eric Hood, after he sued over its failure to comply with the Public Records Act. Hood had submitted his request in May 2020 and faced repeated delays and incomplete responses.
The settlement required the district to formally acknowledge that its initial document releases violated state law and to implement new protocols governing how staff locate, review, and produce records—including those held by executive leadership.
This legal resolution underscored how routine noncompliance had become, with the district operating under a default posture of concealment rather than openness.
The Financial Hypocrisy
The sum of money funneled toward settlements and legal defense—both directly by the district and through its insurance pool—contrasts sharply with the district’s frugal approach toward classroom educators.
While top administrators navigated internal investigations and public controversies, the district’s stance toward teachers remained notably rigid, especially on compensation.
In September 2017, the Sequim Education Association and district leadership reached an impasse so deep that the state’s Public Employment Relations Commission stepped in to mediate, as documented in regional news coverage.
Teachers organized visible protests, filling board meetings in red attire to emphasize their message: that leadership priorities favored administrative expansion over instructional staff compensation.
One educator remarked that the district’s focus had become misaligned, with resources increasingly directed toward expanding support staff and leadership roles instead of supporting those directly instructing students.
The result is a dual-track system: generous financial concessions for leadership when legal or ethical missteps occur, paired with tight fiscal control over teaching staff.
Weaponizing the Grievance Process
The district’s willingness to resist disclosure becomes clearer when considering how it handled employees who sought to bring internal concerns forward.
Rather than treating internal feedback as constructive, the district often responded to grievances with procedural delays, narrowly defined interpretations of policy, and, at times, formal retaliation—reinforcing a culture where transparency is granted only when legally compelled.
A federal civil action initiated in May 2018 by a former middle school physical education instructor and athletic director alleges that school administrators and staff subjected her to a hostile work environment due to her sexual orientation. The plaintiff, Autumn St. George, claims the discrimination began in January 2015 after a colleague, a middle school counselor, assumed St. George was gay following a staff dinner at a local Applebee’s. The counselor allegedly suggested St. George ask a waitress to dinner, a remark that reportedly embarrassed the instructor. Subsequent gossip among staff about St. George’s sexuality and repeated inquiries regarding their intuition about her orientation compounded the tension.
St. George sought relief by filing a grievance with Principal Vincent Riccobene. The complaint contends that the principal failed to implement significant corrective measures. Instead, the district’s human resources division discouraged an external inquiry, warning that it would draw excessive attention to the plaintiff’s personal life. An internal review was conducted, which resulted in no disciplinary action against the counselor.
As the alleged harassment intensified, the administration reportedly utilized personnel records as a tool of retaliation. Court documents indicate that Assistant Principal Rhonda Kromm drafted a document in 2016 suggesting St. George might be exhibiting "pedophilic behavior." Although Kromm later claimed the entry was an error and destroyed a copy in the plaintiff’s presence, the accusation resurfaced in the official personnel file a year later, marked with a sticky note bearing Kromm’s initials. When St. George questioned the document’s return, Kromm allegedly confronted her in her office, blocking the exit, dropping keys on the floor, and shouting at her.
A pivotal moment in the dispute occurred when the counselor filed a formal complaint of "harassment and workplace hostility" against St. George, mirroring the grievances the plaintiff had raised for two years. The district retained an investigative attorney who, according to the filings, used the review to interrogate St. George about her public identity rather than mediating the conflict. After St. George took an administrative leave due to the stress, Principal Riccobene allegedly told union leaders that the instructor was "being dramatic" and asked, "what the fuck is going on?"
The retaliation reportedly persisted after the lawsuit was made public. In June 2018, weeks after the initial filing, Principal Riccobene allegedly terminated a supplemental services contract for a student mentorship program called "WEB." St. George and another gay colleague had operated this successful program for two years. This action prompted St. George to amend her complaint, naming Principal Riccobene, Assistant Principal Kromm, and counselor Catherine Shea as individual defendants to seek personal accountability in addition to claims against the district.
Despite being named in federal court, the district and the individual administrators presented a unified defense. In January 2019, legal counsel for the school system and the administrators filed an amended answer containing broad denials of the allegations.
A legal filing attempted to shift responsibility onto a plaintiff by asserting comparative fault, disregarding the documented end of the WEB contract and the rising hostility between the parties. The district's defense strategy, however, proved unsuitable for the courtroom. In March 2019, shortly before a scheduled jury trial, the district withdrew its defense. Court records indicate that all claims were resolved through a stipulated order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. Rather than face a public trial regarding the coordinated retaliation, the district opted for a substantial financial settlement, avoiding public scrutiny of the administration's conduct.
The Cost of Retaliation
A significant example of this administrative failure resulted in a $1.5 million settlement paid to a former student support specialist in March 2023. According to federal lawsuit and tort claim filings, the liability stemmed from an attempt to protect a vulnerable student. On April 25, 2019, during a Community Truancy Board hearing, the former Sequim Middle School Principal brought a special education student into the meeting because a parent could not attend. Federal court filings state the principal was aggressive and intimidating, verbally attacking the specialist and mocking the special education student in front of staff and volunteers. Under the direction of Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Maughan, the specialist filed a formal incident report on May 9, 2019. Court records show the specialist faced severe retaliation from the principal and then-Human Resources Director Randy Hill, prompting a second complaint filed eight days later regarding the handling and confidentiality of the initial report. In a sworn declaration, the specialist stated the principal belonged to an administrative faction calling itself the "six pack" that controlled the district. Former Superintendent Robert Clark, who took over the district in July 2019, allegedly escalated the retaliation to damage the specialist's credibility. The complaint states Clark launched an investigation to substantiate a rumor that the specialist had an affair with Clark's predecessor. Clark allegedly approached the specialist's father-in-law, the district's Director of Maintenance, to question him about the alleged affair, implying infidelity regarding his son. Assistant Superintendent Maughan testified under oath that Clark "routinely" harassed female employees and engaged in conduct promoting "favoritism and cronyism." When the specialist filed a sexual harassment complaint and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge in late 2020, the district negotiated a separation agreement allowing Clark to resign quietly, ending the investigation.
Damage from Released Records
The district is accused of making the situation worse for a staff member by releasing public records regarding her complaint without any redactions. According to reports, this disclosure enabled a community member to publish defamatory statements about her on social media.
Administrators appear to have targeted anyone who provided information supporting the allegations. Sworn declarations indicate that Assistant Superintendent Maughan remained on administrative leave for the entire school year after he acknowledged retaliation for cooperating with investigations concerning Clark and Riccobene.
A significant conflict of interest emerged when the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool, which provides insurance for the district, assigned Clark’s personal defense attorney to handle Maughan’s retaliation grievance.
The impact on the staff member who filed the complaint was severe. Her tort claim details how harassment from the administration caused such significant distress that she was compelled to move into her in-laws' residence while waiting for a divorce.
Additionally, she was forced to withdraw from her teaching certification program because she no longer felt secure completing her student teaching requirements within the Sequim School District. As a result, she left the program with an unfinished degree and a lasting reduction in her future earning potential.
When questioned regarding this behavior, the district relied on its legal counsel to issue general denials. Attorneys for Clark argued that his actions fell within the “scope of his employment,” thereby transferring liability to the district under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The defense strategy grew increasingly untenable as the legal proceedings continued.
In December 2022, a federal judge rejected a motion for summary judgment filed by Clark’s legal team, pointing out that they were aggressively contesting claims the plaintiff had not brought against him.
“Defendant Clark continues to ask the Court to dismiss the claims, which do not exist,” the judge wrote in his order. “Curious, indeed.”
Despite this judicial criticism and a failed mediation attempt, the district’s aggressive defense strategy continued into 2023.
Even after the complainant filed a Second Amended Complaint in January 2023 detailing the extent of her damages, the district’s attorneys filed another formal answer issuing blanket denials and asserting comparative fault.
The legal team continued to involve the complainant’s family and colleagues in the dispute, issuing last-minute federal subpoenas and deposition notices for former Interim Superintendent Jane Pryne, staff members, and community bloggers just weeks before the trial date.
The district also launched highly invasive discovery tactics, issuing subpoenas demanding access to the complainant’s private psychiatric and counseling records.
The fallout from this relentless defense was catastrophic. After exhausting funds on legal fees and attempting to intimidate witnesses, the district’s risk pool was ultimately forced to pay a massive $1.5 million to resolve the claims in March 2023.
The administration’s commitment to shielding its executives meant that taxpayers financed the settlement, while the superintendent accused of orchestrating the retaliation walked away shielded from personal financial ruin.
A Slap on the Wrist
In October 2020, the district’s priority of administrative self-preservation was once again evident.
During the exact same week that Superintendent Robert Clark was ousted and placed on leave for his retaliatory actions, Sequim High School Principal Shawn Langston was also placed on administrative leave following formal complaints of sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
The allegations against Langston involved creating an uncomfortable work environment by sharing a sixth-grade school assignment titled “Girls” and playing an inappropriate song during a staff meeting, while also treating certain individuals more favorably than others.
Internal findings from the Sequim School District revealed that while Langston breached district protocols, his conduct did not strictly meet the legal definition of unlawful sex discrimination. Consequently, he received a formal letter detailing future performance standards, was paired with a mentor, and ordered to participate in mediation sessions aimed at improving staff communication. Following these measures, he resumed his duties as the high school principal.
Administrative Realignment
Instead of terminating leaders involved in significant civil rights disputes, the district has frequently utilized personnel rotations to retain problematic administrators while mitigating public scrutiny.
Vincent Riccobene, a central figure in the McAndie litigation, was not dismissed. Rather, the district sought to reassign him away from the middle school.
Sworn statements indicated that former Superintendent Gary Neal initially intended to move Riccobene to Greywolf Elementary to serve as a co-principal, a role designed to subject his decisions to oversight by a more senior administrator.
That arrangement was abandoned when Robert Clark assumed the role of superintendent.
In deposition testimony, Clark stated he discontinued the plan for the Greywolf placement. Instead, he granted Riccobene a lateral transfer, appointing him as the principal of an alternative school and supervisor of Career and Technical Education, with no change in compensation.
The amended federal complaint filed by McAndie argues that this personnel shift placed the plaintiff back in a vulnerable position.
The legal documents assert that in the fall of 2020, after McAndie voiced her unease to administrators, the district relocated Riccobene to the same facility where she was employed.
This renewed proximity allegedly permitted the hostile environment to continue. The complaint details an incident where Riccobene allegedly cornered McAndie at the start of a principal’s meeting. He placed his right hand on her shoulder, gripping it tightly in an aggressive manner while speaking close to her face.
The filing notes that this specific form of physical intimidation was so prevalent among district staff that employees colloquially labeled it his "vulture grip."
The retaliatory dynamic of this group was widely recognized. In an October 2020 text message, School Board Director Jim Stoffer confirmed that rumors surrounding McAndie were being spread by "the 6 pack" as a direct response to her complaint against Riccobene.
Oath-bound testimony further illuminated the influence this group exerted within the district.
Witnesses stated that employees who opposed the "6 pack" were systematically pushed out of the district. Several female staff members were specifically cited as having their professional trajectories disrupted by the faction.
Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Maughan testified that Clark maintained social ties with this group, including golfing with Riccobene and other involved leaders. Maughan remarked that enduring in the district office required being male or learning to "play the game."
Despite board-level awareness, the administrative maneuvers extended to manipulating the chain of command to shield the leadership.
Court documents show that independent investigator Shawn Flood officially validated McAndie’s allegations that Riccobene behaved in an aggressive, sarcastic, and intimidating fashion.
Following those conclusions, Assistant Superintendent Maughan prepared a formal reprimand letter.
Clark directed Maughan to halt the reprimand immediately and abruptly revoked Riccobene’s supervisory authority over the employee. Clark subsequently assumed direct oversight of the individual, despite not possessing the state-mandated credentials required to evaluate principals, thereby shielding his associate from professional consequences.
Retaliation at the Top
The dysfunction within the governing body mirrored the administration's ongoing punitive tactics.
Following the quiet departure of Robert Clark in January 2021, he avoided a full public accounting for his actions, though taxpayers were left to cover the financial costs associated with his conduct. However, the fiscal strain resulting from his tenure continued beyond that point.
Retaliation against those who declined to participate in established practices was systemic and vindictive.
Based on a sworn declaration, after a staff member reported harassment, Clark systematically dismantled her working conditions. He removed her flexible schedule, relocated her from a private office to a monitored desk, and divided her job responsibilities to create an impossible workload.
When that failed to force her resignation, Clark attempted to demote her position into the secretaries’ union to slash her pay and benefits—a move McAndie successfully defeated by testifying at a formal state Public Employment Relations Commission hearing.
The administration's pattern of retaliation persisted following Clark's resignation. When Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Maughan provided a formal statement supporting the staff member's complaint in an effort to protect her team, the district responded with immediate punitive measures.
Maughan was stripped of her duties and placed on administrative leave for the entire 2021-2022 school year.
Furthermore, rather than conducting a neutral, timely review of Maughan's own retaliation grievance, the district's risk pool assigned Robert Clark's personal defense attorney, Lori Bemis, to act as the equity compliance officer overseeing Maughan's complaints.
Ultimately, the district paid Maughan over $700,000 to settle her claims.
The retaliation against McAndie culminated in a shocking breach of privacy during the litigation itself.
In late December 2022, the district’s legal counsel filed exhibits on the public federal court docket that contained McAndie’s highly sensitive, unredacted psychological evaluation.
According to sworn declarations from McAndie and her expert psychologist, publishing these intimate clinical details for the community to read triggered severe PTSD, panic attacks, and suicidal ideation, which McAndie viewed as a deliberate intimidation tactic designed to force her to drop the lawsuit.
Just as with previous whistleblowers, the district's reflex was to financially appease the victims with taxpayer funds rather than publicly discipline the executives who perpetuated the toxic culture.
The Illusion of the Whistleblower
As the retaliatory campaigns spilled out of the schools and onto local social media pages, the trail of leaked internal information pointed directly to the dais.
In October 2021, the Sequim School Board scheduled a special meeting to vote on a resolution calling for the immediate resignation and censure of Board Director Jim Stoffer.
According to the proposed resolution, Stoffer knowingly and willfully violated district policy by disclosing highly confidential executive session information to a district employee who had active complaints against the administration.
When confronted, Stoffer deployed the district’s favorite tactic: bureaucratic deflection. He managed to dodge formal censure by retiring on medical leave and having his attorney object to the due process of the resolution.
Through his attorneys, Stoffer issued a statement asserting he was the target of a "smear campaign" and portraying himself as a courageous whistleblower who was retaliated against merely for taking staff concerns seriously.
However, federal court filings and his own sworn testimony thoroughly undermine the portrayal of a heroic whistleblower.
The Hiring Blind Spot
According to his deposition, Stoffer had been explicitly cautioned about Robert Clark before the district hired him as interim superintendent.
During the vetting process, Stoffer contacted two colleagues about Clark's employment history. A board member from the Cascade School District informed Stoffer that Clark had departed due to a "mutual parting of ways" and was not a good fit.
When asked under oath if he had pursued more details regarding why Clark left that position, Stoffer acknowledged he deliberately avoided the issue: "No, I didn't want to go there."
A second warning arrived from Derek Sarley, a school board member in Walla Walla, who explicitly advised Stoffer to "use caution" regarding Clark because there were "rumors in the community."
Once again, Stoffer did not fight to uncover the truth to protect Sequim students. Instead, he testified under oath that he "felt good with that answer" because the district urgently required an interim superintendent to open the schools by August.
Stoffer proceeded to join the board in a unanimous vote to hire Clark anyway.
Ignoring Direct Pleas for Help
According to Stoffer's deposition, the board was given explicit opportunities to intervene regarding Rob Clark's behavior early on but actively chose to shut the door.
In the fall of 2019, three female district leaders—including Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Maughan—approached the board requesting a confidential executive session with the full board.
Stoffer testified the women were concerned about Clark's behavior, noting they felt "creepy" around him and were disturbed by comments he made about their clothing.
Stoffer admitted the board leadership denied their request to be heard.
While Stoffer claimed in his deposition that he privately objected to this denial, asking his colleagues, "what is wrong with them coming and having a conversation with us?" He and the board ultimately failed to intervene, leaving the women unprotected.
Furthermore, when a formal sexual harassment claim was filed in October 2020, Stoffer learned that Rob Clark had decided to investigate the illicit rumors surrounding the complainant himself—even going so far as to question the complainant's father-in-law.
Stoffer testified under oath, "Clark decided to investigate it himself. And that bothered me a lot... There has to be some degree of separation."
Yet, despite acknowledging this conflict of interest and the obvious inappropriateness of a superintendent investigating his own accuser, Stoffer and the board failed to immediately stop Clark from weaponizing the investigatory process.
The Leaks and the Text Messages
While Stoffer publicly claimed he was a champion of transparency being persecuted for taking staff complaints seriously, litigators confronted him with screenshots of his own text messages proving he was actively leaking sensitive information and gossiping with community members.
In November 2020, well after Clark was hired, Stoffer sent a text message to a local parent and community member sharing illicit rumors.
Leaking, Monitoring, and Retaliation: Stoffer’s Approach to Public Education Leadership
A former Leavenworth employee shared observations about Robert Clark’s conduct, noting his tendency to observe women closely—particularly while looking down blouses—and his habit of brushing up against them, sometimes unintentionally, often during routine interactions.
During his sworn testimony, Stoffer reacted visibly when presented with a screenshot of the message. He expressed discomfort with the text’s appearance, describing it as resembling “a cut-and-paste type of thing” and voicing skepticism about its authenticity. Yet, when asked directly, he confirmed the conversation took place and that he later relayed its contents to Shenna Younger.
Later testimonies from Piersoll reinforced that Stoffer’s dissemination of sensitive information extended well beyond isolated incidents. He had shared confidential details—including personally identifying data and investigative findings—with several individuals, including Jennifer Maughan, Shenna Younger, and Anita Benitez. His practice of circulating unvetted information ran counter to internal norms, which typically favored tighter control over personnel-related investigations.
Rather than maintaining strict confidentiality, Stoffer leveraged his role to shape public narratives and influence specific groups within the district, often using informal channels like text messages.
Balancing Free Expression—But Favoring One Side
Stoffer’s conduct drew scrutiny for its apparent inconsistency regarding free speech. While he freely shared internal discussions with external audiences, he expressed reservations about public employees and residents exercising their First Amendment rights to critique district leadership online.
He frequently pointed to his three-decade career in the Coast Guard as justification for enforcing discipline in digital spaces, suggesting that social media posts by staff and community members could disrupt institutional cohesion. His perspective came to light when high school principal Shawn Langston defended staff members’ online commentary as protected expression. Stoffer responded by emphasizing structure and timing, stating in testimony: “There’s a time and a place. And to this day… you can’t just fall on your First Amendment rights.”
His oversight extended beyond public commentary: Stoffer routinely reviewed and reported on social media activity—including posts by Dena Riccobene, spouse of an administrator—to top district leaders such as Gary Neal, Robert Clark, and Jane Pryne. This level of scrutiny led Riccobene to file a formal grievance, citing the surveillance as intrusive and unwarranted.
Escalation Against Critics
Stoffer’s responses to dissent grew increasingly assertive, crossing into what insiders described as retaliatory. When Piersoll began using platforms like NextDoor and Facebook to highlight operational challenges, Stoffer launched a multifaceted campaign against him—not only challenging his ideas but seeking tangible professional consequences.
He opted to engage directly with Piersoll’s workplace, reaching out to his supervisor and prompting an investigation. His involvement deepened further when he accompanied Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Maughan on a trip to Blaine, Washington, to submit a formal complaint concerning Piersoll’s public statements.
Drawing on his law enforcement experience, Stoffer framed these interventions as necessary steps to uphold accountability and professionalism.
Records from Piersoll’s deposition detail how the effort expanded when initial attempts to constrain Piersoll’s influence did not yield the desired results. Stoffer then turned his attention to Piersoll’s spouse, contacting her employer in parallel fashion to pressure her for possible dismissal.
Notably, several fellow board members indicated they had not been consulted or informed about these unilateral moves, underscoring the independent nature of Stoffer’s outreach and disciplinary efforts.
Intimidation of district staff The actions of a local school board member extended to district employees who voiced agreement with his critics. When a high school teacher simply “liked” a Facebook post from a local critic of the district, the board member personally sought her out. According to the critic, the board member left a voicemail for the teacher, berating her and demanding she remove the “like,” which she did out of intimidation.
Secret Veterinary Clinic Meeting More damaging for a self-proclaimed whistleblower championing transparency, the board member admitted to participating in clandestine board meetings designed to evade public scrutiny. He testified that the school board held an unannounced, secret executive session concerning the evaluation of former Superintendent Gary Neal. Instead of convening at the district offices, the board met off-site at the private veterinary clinic of Board Director Heather Short. According to his testimony, the justification for holding a secret government meeting in a veterinary hospital was that the board “didn’t want to bother district staff.” While he stated in his deposition that he told fellow board members the location was “bullshit” and violated the Open Public Meetings Act because “we’re not on district property whatsoever,” he ultimately attended and participated in the meeting held at the clinic.
The Hypocrisy of Procedure The administrative practices in Sequim are marked by a punitive hypocrisy. When dealing with executives who create hostile work environments, retaliate against whistleblowers, or incur costs for the district, the administration provides mediation, paid leave, and reassignments. However, when handling student misbehavior, that same administration becomes draconian, involving the criminal justice system to punish teenagers for infractions it refuses to handle internally.
In June 2025, a senior prank resulted in 45 high school seniors entering the school’s H-Building late at night. According to the Sequim Gazette, smashed eggs were found inside classrooms. In a functioning district, this would be addressed through standard disciplinary measures such as detentions, community service, restitution, or withholding diplomas. Instead, the Sequim administration escalated the matter, involving the Sequim Police Department and advocating for severe criminal charges. Because of this escalation, dozens of teenagers faced charges of criminal trespass, theft, and malicious mischief forwarded to the Clallam County Prosecutor.
This overreach contrasts sharply with an administration that spent years covering up reports of sexual harassment, hiding predators, and retaliating against staff to protect adults from consequences. Yet, when 45 students threw eggs, the district adopted a “zero tolerance” stance, attempting to derail the futures of graduating seniors to project an image of strict leadership. The administration used police involvement to address internal issues, but in its zeal to criminalize the students, the district failed to follow its own internal disciplinary rules.
Sequim School District Superintendent Regan Nickels informed parents via electronic message that students were permitted to participate in their graduation walk following an admission of administrative mistakes. Nickels cited "procedural errors" in the disciplinary proceedings as the reason for the decision.
The outcome highlights a recurring pattern within the district, where officials often prioritize institutional protection over individual accountability. Recent controversies have included allegations of a principal bullying a special education student, a volunteer basketball coach engaging in inappropriate conduct with a minor, and a superintendent allegedly inventing a personal relationship to penalize a whistleblower.
For residents and taxpayers in Clallam County, these events illustrate a consistent approach to management. The district has frequently relied on extensive anti-bullying policies and significant financial settlements to resolve conflicts quietly. Critics argue that this strategy shields administrative leadership from scrutiny while leaving staff, students, and the community to bear the long-term consequences of unresolved issues.