Resident accuses commissioners of mistreating Sheriff Garcia; board holds executive session on real estate and litigation

During the Feb. 25 public comment period, resident Robert Cody (S8) strongly criticized Pacific County commissioners’ handling of Sheriff Garcia and alleged unequal treatment on training and support for the sheriff versus the new jail superintendent.

Cody said he was "a 110% support of sheriff Garcia" and claimed the board had acted "behind closed doors" and had offered training/support to the new jail superintendent that he said had been refused for Sheriff Garcia. He pressed the board to open a forum for public questions.

Chair (S2) replied that members are available to meet individually and encouraged the commenter to arrange meetings rather than continuing a group discussion in that forum. Committee member (S5) clarified that trainings are provided through the process when brought forward for approval, saying, "When you talk about the training, this is something that mister Byrd has brought to us. We didn't turn any training down for the sheriff." The exchange left the central allegation contested in the record: the commenter asserted preferential treatment, and commissioners described the procedural path for approving trainings.

After business, the board recessed into an executive session at 10:04 a.m. to consider selection of a site or acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase and to discuss potential litigation under RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). The session was extended and the board reconvened at about 11:05 a.m.; the chair announced that no action was taken during executive session and the meeting adjourned at 11:36 a.m.

The transcript records the allegation and the board’s procedural response but does not include documentary evidence in the meeting record substantiating or refuting the commenter’s claims.