By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A blistering 68-page report on the months-long investigation of the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission is raising eyebrows, and ire, because it draws conclusions longtime critics of the commission, and wildlife management in general, had been anticipating.
The report was prepared by Chiedza Nziramasanga at Transformative Workplace Investigations, and the findings are being welcomed as a “vindication” by the Sportsman’s Alliance, which has been at war with certain commission members for about two years.
The findings are being discussed by Evergreen State hunters on internet forums, particularly Hunting-Washington. These are the disclosures raising hackles:
Allegation 1: Violations of the Public Records Act (PRA)
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, this allegation is substantiated in part. The evidence establishes that commissioners did not consistently comply with PRA requirements, including through use of personal devices for commission business, failure to conduct complete searches, submission of inaccurate or incomplete declarations, and in some instances resistance to Office of the Governor/WDFW Commission Investigation Transformative Workplace Investigations 5 | P a g e production until compelled. Systemic factors, including delayed issuance of state equipment, divergent experiences with training, and high request volume, also contributed. The evidence does not establish that noncompliance was universally deliberate or the result of coordinated concealment.
Allegation 2: Violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, this allegation is substantiated in part. The evidence establishes that commissioners engaged in serial meetings through coordinated communications that collectively involved a majority discussing and shaping agency business outside of publicly noticed meetings, and that documentary evidence corroborates coordination on votes, policy drafting, and leadership elections conducted through private communications. The evidence does not establish that commissioners knowingly violated OPMA. The record reflects reliance on quorum-based guidance and an insufficient understanding of serial meeting prohibitions.
Allegation 3: Violations of the WDFW Commission Rules of Procedure – Ethical Conduct and Conflicts of Interest
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, this allegation is substantiated in part. The evidence establishes that multiple commissioners engaged in repeated, undisclosed communications and meetings with advocacy organizations, including organizations actively litigating against the Department, in violation of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure governing disclosure and avoidance of conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof. The evidence does not establish unlawful litigation collusion or statutory conflicts of interest, but does reflect appearance concerns, institutional risk, and inconsistent compliance with the Commission’s own disclosure standards.
Allegation 4: Staff Mistreatment and Alleged Retaliation Against the Director
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, this allegation is substantiated in part. The evidence establishes a significant breakdown in trust between certain commissioners and Department leadership, strained staff-commissioner dynamics, and isolated instances of confrontational or inappropriate tone toward named staff members. The evidence does not establish a coordinated pattern of harassment, systemic mistreatment of staff, or formal retaliatory employment action against WDFW Director (Kelly) Susewind following his request for an external investigation.
Allegation 5: Improper Timekeeping and Compensation Claims
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, this allegation is unsubstantiated. While Commissioner Smith claimed per diem compensation on a significantly higher number of days than her peers over an extended period, the Commission’s compensation structure permits a full day’s per diem for any day on which commission work is performed. The evidence does not establish that she falsely certified work performed, claimed compensation for days on which no commission-related activity occurred, or violated any established policy.
Washington sportsmen and women have long criticized the Department of Fish and Wildlife dating back to when the agency was split. One agency was the Department of Game, and the other—which dealt primarily with marine management of salmon, bottomfish and other saltwater species—and they were combined in the 1980s. When the term “game” disappeared and was replaced with “wildlife,” hunters predicted it would be bad news in the long run for shooters and archers.
When the commission stopped the traditional spring black bear hunt a few years ago, hunters were furious.
The commissioners under scrutiny—Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland, John Lehmkuhl and Barbara Baker—were all appointed by former Gov. Jay Inslee. There have been concerns about the cozy relationships between them and so-called “conservation” groups which often tangle with the department.
Whether this report leads to changes remains to be seen. The report does not recommend that commissioners be removed or not re-appointed when their terms end later this year. Instead, the report states, but it does state, “The report recommends more training and compliance reviews for commissioners and leaves the question of what punishments commissioners should face up to the powers that be.”
