— by Alex MacLeod —
There is a crucial question left in the wake of the Orcas high school teacher convicted of sexual misconduct with a student, a case that was thrown out after it was discovered that the lead detective in the case was in a sexual relationship with the victim before and during the trial.
The question is this: was there any opportunity to know that the detective, Stephen Parker, had clues in his past that might have caused the county to reconsidered his hire or, failing that, to supervise him more closely?
That was what County Councilman Bill Watson asked after Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord and Sheriff Ron Krebs briefed the council in January, 2017, about how the case had imploded.
In response, Gaylord said his office had “looked left and right and asked what did we miss?…What went wrong?… I’d say we were vigilant in this case…I do not know what I could have done differently.”
Krebs added that he couldn’t think of anything the sheriff’s office could have done differently, either, adding: “Nothing, nobody anywhere had anything bad to say about him (Parker).”
What Gaylord and Krebs knew, but didn’t tell the council, was that they had received a warning that there were possible problems in Parker’s background. The information was provided between the time Parker was hired but before he reported for duty.
The warning came when SJC Deputy Jeff Asher told Krebs that Montana lawyer Martin Sinclair, a personal friend who worked in the same jurisdiction as Parker, had told him Parker was known to be “dishonest…had integrity issues and was threatening to others.”
Krebs took Asher’s tip to be significant enough that he sent an email to Gaylord on Dec. 20, 2014, asking him to call Montana to check it out. Gaylord responded that he was going on vacation and handed it off to Emma Scanlan, his chief criminal deputy at the time. For reasons that haven’t been explained, the call to verify the information was never made.
When he learned that Krebs and Gaylord told the council there were no questions raised about Parker during the hiring process, Asher wrote Gaylord and the council saying that was not true, stating: “Sheriff Krebs knew it when he said it.” He reminded Gaylord of the Montana tip and told him he’d reminded Krebs about it again prior to the hearing. Asher asked Gaylord to have the veracity of Krebs’ statement investigated by the Washington State Patrol.
In two follow-up letters to Asher, with copies to Krebs and the council, Gaylord denied there had been any written notice of a potential problem (“in the files,” he carefully qualified), dismissed Asher’s request for an investigation, hinted that he, Asher, was a troubled employee and directed him back to his chain-of-command.
Having come across mention of Asher’s tip in a court filing, I asked the county for the records, which I promptly received. Along with the recording of the Jan. 24, 2017 council meeting, they form the basis of this report and raise a number of significant questions about both Krebs’ and Gaylord’s accounts to the council.
Gaylord declined to answer those questions, saying that doing so, despite having spoken about Parker previously, would be “inappropriate” due to the teacher’s pending damage claim against the county.
Krebs hasn’t responded to the one question put to him: Why didn’t you tell the council about Asher’s warning, about your follow-up with Gaylord and about Gaylord’s failure to check it out?
As voters and citizens, we should demand answers to these questions of our elected officials. As candidates for reelection in November, both Gaylord and Krebs need to provide those answers now.
(Alex MacLeod is a longtime Shaw resident. He worked nearly 30 years at the Seattle Times, the last 17 as managing editor, before he retired in 2003.)
Alex-
I withheld comment on previous posts you have made regarding the specific case in question because I felt that they did not contain the full story and we’re not representative of the facts as I knew them to exist.
On this one, I feel compelled to write because I believe you have raised an issue that needs to be answered publicly as part of this elections process and I believe has incredible weight on the pending multi-million dollar suit the county is now staring down the barrel of. That question being: Did San Juan County have knowledge of, was San Juan County aware of and did San Juan County properly investigate issues of character and professionalism of Detective Parker prior to hire and did they properly monitor his work following said hire?
The facts as you have described them here lead to an unfortunate answer when the job in question is that of a high rank member of a police department.
The case in question is disturbing on many levels, but one cannot help but wonder what the outcome would be today if a professional and properly vetted person was hired to complete the job in the first place.
What Mr. MacLeod doesn’t say is that Deputy Asher wouldn’t tell Sheriff Krebs the identity of the person making the “Montana Tip”! So how were Krebs and Randy Gaylord supposed to act on that?!
So a lawyer has an axe to grind with a detective working in the same jurisdiction? How unusual!
As for Asher, I’d say he was “troubled” if he wouldn’t reveal the source of the tip. Maybe it was because the Montana lawyer had credibility issues.
It is looking more and more obvious that Mr. MacLeod is a shill for his right-wing candidate, Nick Power.
@ Dan Christopherson, I’m confused with the part where you are saying Jeff Asher wouldn’t tell Sheriff Krebs the identity of the person. The email on December 20, 2014 from Krebs to Gaylord specifically names Martin Sinclair as the person Asher spoke to. This was before Detective Parker had begun working for the county, or at least was still on a probationary period. The lead should have been followed up on.
On the other hand, let’s say Asher didn’t give the name – which could be something as simple as Mr. Sinclair not wanting to become a target by on officer/deputy that had a history of unethical behaviors. It wouldn’t matter, because a background investigator should follow up on any concern of a possible ‘dirty’ law enforcement officer. Following up in the jurisdiction where the concern is raised would be a necessity to proper due diligence. In law enforcement, these background investigators should be contacting people other than supervisors because studies have shown that sometimes with troubled cops, departments find it easier to pass their problem guy to another department so they don’t have to deal with it. The investigators should be flying to these places and speaking with people in person (I know that is expensive, but nothing compared to lawsuit payouts and justice not being served – in this case, a girl that was molested had to watch her perpetrator get a lesser sentence because of Parker’s unethical behaviors) It would be the background investigators responsibility to determine if Mr. Sinclair really did have an “axe to grind” or whether his concerns were legitimate – which of course, now that Parker behaved in San Juan County similarly to the initial claim of Sinclair – it’s more likely than not there were real concerns and not just an axe to grind.
This lead should have been followed up on through the sheriff’s department. Was it followed up on? What exactly did the background investigator do after the concerns were brought to light? Has the department changed their policy on how to conduct a background investigation? These are all great questions whether you see fault or not, because you can always make a system better… especially when you’re dealing with a profession where high standards are so very important.
Dan Christopherson says what I didn’t say “is that Deputy Asher wouldn’t tell Sheriff Krebs the identity of the persona making the ‘Montana Tip.’ So how were Krebs and Randy Gaylord supposed to act on that?”
Actually, Asher did tell Krebs the name and Krebs passed it along to Gaylord to check out. The proof is in the last paragraph of Krebs’ Dec. 20, 2014, email to Gaylord, notifying him of the tip and asking that it be checked out. Here it is, verbatim:
“Jeff claims he was contacted by an attorney friend of his from Montana. The attorney’s name is Martin Sinclair (maybe he has an axe to grind with Parker).”
Gaylord tried to hide that fact in letters to Asher, Krebs and the county council in 2017, asserting that Asher refused to provide the name, but the truth is otherwise.
[The] assertion that Deputy Asher withheld the name of the person providing the information on Parker is incorrect. Deputy Asher named Superior Court Judge Martin Sinclair as the source of the warning, along with Sinclair’s willingness to be identified and detail his information. Asher relayed this to Sheriff Krebs and that same day Krebs checked Judge Sinclair’s LinkedIn site. This is documented. To date NO One Has contacted Judge Sinclair, neither Krebs, Gaylord, or Gaylord’s deputy prosecutor. Thus, when Krebs and Gaylord are on video telling the County Council that they did everything they could to do a thorough background check on Parker…they are lying! Asher then detailed the situation in letters to the Council and Gaylord. Krebs then began a malicious campaign to punish, intimidate, and malign Deputy Asher. It only intensified when Asher announced that he would be running against Krebs in the up coming election. I think it is worth noting that Deputy Asher has had an unblemished 30 plus year career with the San Juan County Sheriff’s Department, as deputy and senior detective. It is only since he exposed Krebs lying and daring to run against Krebs, that Krebs has begun to denigrate Asher’s job performance, assassinate his character, and attack and attempt to intimidate anyone that has anything positive to say about Deputy Asher. Well here I am. I am Ray Clever. I fully expect to be attacked for writing this…in fact, despite my own 35 year cop career, 27 years of which we’re serving San Juan County as deputy and Detective, Krebs decided to call me a “disgrace to law enforcement” when I recently engaged the public in an open discussion of a spate of questionable police shootings, as well as other related issues.
I have known Jeff Asher his entire career here. His job performance, honesty, integrity, and dedication are unassailable, certainly by the likes of Krebs and his minions.
Alex MacLeod, Krebs’ letter is NOT proof! Krebs guessed the name of the attorney. If Deputy Asher says otherwise, let’s hear it!
Jenny Fouquette, Nick Power said “Gannon told me about a concern about Parker when he was not working for the County but at the local Airforce Base”.
During the application process, Krebs interviewed staff at Pentagon because Parker had previously worked for the military… “and everyone we spoke with had glowing reviews.”
Who’s telling the truth here?
At any rate, the lead was followed up on.
So best I can figure out, the San Juan County Sheriff’s Department and the San Juan County Civil Service Commission vetted Mr. Stephen Parker in the Fall of 2014.
Mr. Parker was then hired by (former) Sheriff Rob Nou.
Mr. Parker was not hired by (then Deputy) Mr. Krebs.
Prosecutor Gaylord had no role, or responsibility in choosing, vetting, and eventually hiring Mr. Parker.
Each SJC elected official is responsible for hiring his or her department employees.
Did Mr. Asher take his concerns to Sheriff Nou and or the San Juan County Civil Service Commission, the people actually responsible for hiring Mr. Parker?
Mr. Christopherson who is telling the truth? Let’s walk through this. Deputy Asher was contacted by a known friend who happens to be a Superior Court Judge, presumably a reliable and credible source. Asher did the proper thing and passed that information to his boss, Krebs, including the Judge’s identity. That same day, Krebs checked the judge’s LinkedIn site. How, pray tell, do you arrive at your conclusion that Krebs somehow magically guessed the judges identity? As for Let’s hear it from Asher…he has already spoken loud and clear when he called out both Krebs and Gaylord for lying…and put it in writing. That took guts! If that isn’t sufficiently clear to show you who is lying then I doubt anyone can make it any more obvious for you.
Mr. Clever, pretty sure that Sheriff Nou was Deputy Ashers boss at the time, not Mr. Krebs.
Melonie – except that then Sheriff-Elect Krebs’s e-mail to Randy Gaylord contradicts much of your timeline. In an e-mail from Krebs to Gaylord dated 12/20/2014, 6:24 pm, Krebs writes [excerpted for brevity] “Randy, I have a favor to ask of you. Would you mind calling the Chocteau County PA and speak (sic) with him about Stephen Parker. Mr Parker is a new detective THAT I HIRED to work with Lach……..Jeff claims he was contacted by an attorney friend of his from Montana. The attorney’s name is Martin Sinclair (maybe he has an axe to grind with Parker)……He [Parker] has passed his background checks with flying colors however, I AM DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOT A SUBSTANTIATED CLAIM ON JEFF’S PART. I would call him, but I thought maybe he would be more inclined to talk to you. We do have a release of information that Parker signed if it is needed. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT PUTTING THE WRONG PERSON IN THE DETECTIVES (sic) OFFICE.” [Emphasis in the form of caps added – not in the original]
As Alex M has noted, there is zero evidence that either Gaylord or Krebs followed up on this in any manner.
In summary, Krebs CLEARLY viewed Parker as HIS hire. Randy was CLEARLY asked to assist Krebs by following up and given SPECIFIC information as to who made the claims. There is NO evidence any follow up was made. Result: we (the taxpayers of SJC) have paid who knows how much for an utterly botched prosecution (in at least one case – who knows yet if there are other Parker-related prosecutorial time bombs out there), this incident is at least partially responsible for a current witch hunt against Asher – a 30+ year employee of the SJCSO. Gaylord and Krebs have been working diligently to avoid any accountability for this, but the facts remain the facts.
I just have to put this out there.
The back and forth between the pro Gaylord and Pro Powers supporters that have implicated the Sheriff and Deputies; the allegations being tossed back and forth revealing the most banal conduct that reinforces the worst possible stereotypes and images of a corrupt, biased and backward small-town where injustice reigns and officials live in the back pockets of those with $ and connections —so up close and in our faces on such a small island —
Do you realize the damage being done to Orcas Island if any of this is even remotely true?
Do you realize how ugly this is?
How does the rest of the island just pretend this isn’t happening as we claim to live with integrity, as we claim to fight for justice, peace, an end to discrimination, corruption, equal rights, and feign concern for children—their education and welfare?
Where is the outrage? Am I the only one appalled by this? Why is everyone so silent in watching this unfold back and forth?
Are you that afraid to speak up?
This is a problem! Where are your principles? Hypocrisy is killing us!
This is disgusting and I’ve lived most of my life literally in the belly of the beast. We speak up!
THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS!
Speak up for crying out loud!
Make it your business!
Chris,
Forgive me for my confusion – because I ask this sincerely:
Is your outrage based on the issue being discussed (The question being raised regarding disclosure of facts and vetting process in front of the County Council)?
Or, the manner and tone of discussions being had regarding the issue (and thus projected onto the candidates)?
Or, is your issue based in concern over the original, base issue that started all of this?
I’m not clear, based on your comment, where your concern is and my response would shift depending upon your answer.
Thanks!
Chris–I have the same questions as Justin. I am outraged and appalled, not by the discussion of what occurred, but at what occurred. As with recent controversy about drunk driving and drug abuse, there appears to be some support for covering everything up to maintain the appearance of the island as a perfect place. It is not.
My comment is this article disappeared; it’s now reappeared two weeks later.
Some of my comments disappear and don’t come back. My response to Michael Durland’s comment in an article last week (9/13) —it was there one day and then his comment along with my response gone the next— leaving only Saddie’s.
My Response to the presumed death of J50 disappeared. Another about the legal issues of the teacher who I now find out may sue or is suing the county—my comment just vanished—not sure if it’s because it was seen as damaging to the county’s case? (was never my intent—just making reasonable observations).
My comments were under 350 words and “civil,” if sometimes confrontational.
What’s the point of commenting if they’re removed based on a litmus test to which I’m not privy (not that a test is ok)?
Getting back to this article and my comments from 11 days ago—
Yes, the campaign for PA and the alleged dirty laundry exposed in public popped my bubble.
But, perhaps another factor has been at play, too?
I’m constantly between America’s largest most diverse metropolis and Orcas Island.
Reviewing my comments expressed in the OI, I realize that the imperfections I observe on Orcas are perhaps being unfairly magnified (by myself) because they’re much more visible given the island’s much smaller scale. In NYC, the scale is huge such that the many more issues with which I do find fault are minimized (diluted) by the sheer size and scale of the place– so as to barely register on my radar.
In other words, I’m unfairly holding Orcas to a tougher and higher standard.
If I compared apples to apples, I’ve much more in common with most on Orcas (in how to run a community) than I do with others just about anywhere else in the world. It’s what attracted me to Orcas Island originally.
Still, apart from commenting on Jens Kruse’s insightful and timely poem, I’ll be going into observation mode for now.
My god, what a witch-hunt! Outrage and being appalled at whatever is one thing, but be decent about it! The tone of all of this is disgusting and damaging and is tearing the fiber of this community apart. STOP IT!
(in case people need a clue, my outrage is at the tone and viciousness expressed here.)
Sadie—the allegations being made against our trusted officials, if true, are really bad anywhere, but certainly more so for a small island and community that heavily depends on “integrity, “fair play,” “justice,” and “transparency.”
No one but a few “seems” to be disturbed by these flying allegations. The silence is deafening. That’s the real problem here. That we shouldn’t be appalled, either way, is akin to sweeping bad things up under the rug further reinforcing awful stereotypes. But, that’s actually the least of the harm in fact.
Can we rely on an independent, fair adjudication and treatment by our officials regardless of who we are, or how connected/wealthy we are? This, no less, is what’s being put into play with the many articles and comments for and against. Wouldn’t you agree? Have you been reading the many posts and different articles and comments back and forth of what’s being alleged and who all are implicated?
Hence, the need for the entire community to get to the bottom of this and know what’s what?
Small communities lack what cities have in times like this: neutron rods that collect the flying radiation before it turns into personal hyperbole tearing the fabric of our small community. In our county it often starts with strong but not wholly accurate statements of who should have been doing what and when. From there it goes to misinterpreting silences and statements when two things are going on simultaneously: (1) a public political trial based on at least partial misinformation in which there are no rules and no holds barred, and (2) legal processes threatened or underway that as a tactical matter prevent some of the parties from making statements to which the public insists upon being made privy. Conversations in the football huddle and opinions in the stands will always differ as they must.
Granted.
In that case the back and forth is unfortunate because it paints an incomplete yet pronouned and disturbing picture; hence, my concern about the quality of campaigning these days.
Clearly, harm is done and demoralization follows upon that—in that as a small island
community we can’t help but be affected by the mudslinging especially when it’s presented as a fairly coherent prima-facie case requiring rebuttal.
Who set this train in motion? Who tilled the soil and brought this before the community’s eyes? We certainly did not.
Enough has been alleged along with detailed accounts that it’s already inflicted wounds on this small island community (that was the point of my original comment further above).
Are you or is anyone sure we’ll ever know the truth?
Is there a mechanism available to see to this?
Can you stand by it and assure that it’s untainted and will be dispositive?
Allegations of coruption at this level implicating criminal conduct, ruined lived, possible illegal motives behind a prosecution such that it offended a sitting Judge who threw the case out with prejudice, a possible cover up by officials at a conspiratorial level and all of this involving law
enforcement at various levels of OUR local government?
Hard to exaggerate the seriousness of these “allegations,” yes?
Everyone on Orcas Island should be rightly concerned and see to it that we “discover” what did in fact transpire.
If not, stereotypes are reinforced and worse!
We perceive our government as a unitary body. It isn’t. No government consisting of separately elected authorities having supplemental and very different functions and authorities, is unitary even though they represent a single legal entity. We have a separately elected prosecutor, sheriff, three council members, treasurer and auditor. This constitutes a body of humans with different abilities, functions, and political interests. The movie “Rashamon” portrays this perfectly: several different descriptions of the same event by people present. Facts are remembered, and reported, selectively, skewing the picture presented, a practice particularly evident at election time. Voters need to be careful about what they read, knowing that few items published during a campaign are intended to present a balanced view of events.
So we are forced to rely on our knowledge of the person, and that person’s performance over time. This is where a small community is strongest: it knows the individual and the people speaking for or against that person. Having worked with Randy Gaylord for several decades, I am voting for him. You may decide differently. That said, we all need to remember that this community works because of all of us, not one bloc of voters or another.
Fair enough, “but”—there’s always a “but(t)” and not just the one you sit on.
We actually voted for Gaylord already, too (since we’re being open and honest)—based on the length of his relatively good service, an assessment that the positives of long service outweighed here the typical concerns surrounding “eternal” incumbency, and testimony from friends whose judgment and past experience on the Island we trust (since we’re relatively new).
“But”- what you describe as “strength” in the intimacy of a small local community can also be the source of significant blindspots that aren’t necessarily experienced by more objective, less insular, outside observers.
“But”— i share your concern that the quality of information flying back and forth is, in the final analysis, unreliable (“but”- again, this cuts both ways, mind you).
Hence, my interest in a mechanism by which we the community can be assured that the “laxity and complacency” of incumbency hasn’t morphed into something unseemly, as is so often the case in politics (human nature being what it is).
Finally, as of today, my family hasn’t been convinced that Randy Gaylord doesn’t deserve our two Votes (for the record).