Lewis County Sirens.com

By Royce Ferguson
Attorney at Law

It has been reported that recently-elected Lewis County Coroner Warren McLeod wants to shed light on the manner of Ronda Reynolds’ death by having all the facts presented by impartial people, so the manner of her death may finally be decided by reasonable jurors (who, Mr. McLeod apparently believes, cannot be found among Lewis County residents). Recall that the former coroner refused to change Ronda’s death certificate from suicide, despite a  Lewis County jury verdict which declared that the death was not suicide.

To this end, Coroner McLeod has announced that he’s appointed Franklin County Coroner Dan Blasdel as his deputy coroner, to convene six jurors in Clark County, to hear evidence selected and presented by Lewis County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney J. David Fine.

Unfortunately, rather than Lewis County citizens being comforted, the proposed inquest should deeply worry them (and will also cost them an estimated $50,000).

How can it fairly be said that the proposed inquest, conducted outside the scrutiny of Lewis County citizens, will be fair and impartial? Or that it will instill confidence in the conduct of Lewis  County officials?

While I am the attorney representing Barbara Thompson in her legal quest for the truth in this case, the facts speak for themselves.

The court record is clear that Lewis County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Fine has battled Thompson in court for years, and that he has fought all her attempts to present any evidence of homicide to any court or any jury.

I am not saying or suggesting that Mr. Fine is doing anything unlawful or unethical, as court ethical rules do not govern coroner inquests. Yet, common sense and impartiality should govern both, particularly when searching for truth.

Below are some of the instances where Mr. Fine was fighting Thompson in court, and thus, fighting any notion of homicide and fighting to keep any evidence of murder from ever being presented to a jury:

July 14, 2008: See former Coroner Wilson’s written response to Thompson’s brief for judicial review, signed by attorneys John Justice and J. David Fine, both as attorneys for Wilson.

Sept. 19, 2008: See hearing transcript before Judge Richard Hicks wherein both attorneys Justice and Fine appear for Wilson, and Justice introduces Mr. Fine as “co-counsel” and then Fine actively argues against Thompson’s case.

Dec. 16, 2008: See written motion filed solely by Mr. Fine as attorney for Wilson to start an emergency appeal to stop Thompson’s case.

Jan. 9, 2009: See Judge Hicks’ ruling on the motion denying the emergency appeal, wherein the judge states in part, “The coroner, represented by Mr. Fine of the prosecuting attorney’s office, after this court denied their motion to dismiss based essentially on jurisdiction grounds, has now asked for certification (to set up an emergency appeal to stop Barb’s case) . . . ”  Judge Hicks denied the request for emergency appeal.

May 15, 2009: See the transcript of hearing before Judge Hicks on Wilson’s request, presented and argued by Mr. Fine, that former Coroner Wilson be excused from the upcoming Lewis County jury trial on judicial review. (It should be noted that Mr. Wilson could have easily presented all the evidence he wanted in Lewis County, but elected to not do so, probably after consulting with his attorney. It may be fairly argued that Mr. Wilson’s lawyers were trying to obtain a court order to relieve him from  having to appear before the Lewis County jury to listen to all the evidence, even if he didn’t want to present his own).

Sept. 29, 2009: Mr. Wilson was deposed and his testimony taken under oath. While Mr. Justice is noted as Wilson’s attorney, Mr. Fine is noted as the attorney “for the county” (even though Lewis County was not and is not a party to the court proceedings).

Can the citizens of Lewis County rest assured that the secluded coroner’s inquest, as presently proposed, will be impartial when a county official – who for years has actively resisted even the suggestion of homicide – is advising, controlling and presenting the selected evidence?

While Mr. Fine may have been acting zealously within the law in defending former Coroner Wilson in court, should not Coroner McLeod reconsider by whom evidence will be controlled, filtered, selected, considered and presented at his short inquest?

There are genuine concerns about Coroner McLeod’s claim that he wants to shed light on Ronda’s death. I have discussed one.

Another concern is the evidence or lack of evidence that will be purposely presented or omitted in the four days presently allotted for the inquest.

•••

Royce Ferguson, an Everett lawyer, represents Ronda Reynolds’ mother in the civil case Barbara Thompson v. Terry L. Wilson, Lewis County Coroner, which was filed Aug. 18, 2006 in Lewis County Superior Court and resulted in the Nov. 2009 judicial review heard by a jury in Lewis County. The outcome is currently being appealed.

By District 5 Fire Chief Eric Linn

This press release is in response to recent events leading up to the recent decision by the city of Napavine to pass an amendment to an ordinance to silence the fire district’s roof top siren.

Lewis County Fire District 5 Chief Eric Linn

First and foremost I would like to reiterate the mission of Fire District 5.

“It shall be the mission of Lewis County Fire District 5 to develop, operate and manage the resources granted by the people of the district, to preserve lives and property in our communities by providing services directed toward prevention, management, and/or mitigation of fire, emergency medical, rescue, and disaster incidents.”

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to address the media regarding not only the issue of the siren, but some other concerning issues of interest.

1. The issue of Lewis County Fire District 5 re-implementing the use of the rooftop siren to alert vehicle and foot traffic is in response to an increase in the number of times our crews were delayed during the daytime hours due to cross traffic being held up in front of the station blocking departure.

The siren was set on a timer and intended to only function between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. This was in compliance with the old noise ordinance. It is currently set on the lowest setting and when activated, rings the least number of times (less than 30 seconds) providing a warning and nothing more. Initially the siren miscued twice during the quiet hours as a result of a failure in the 40-year-old timer.

It is unfortunate that this change in procedure has caused such a high level of concern for a limited number of citizens living around the station. To date, District 5 has received two formal complaints on this issue, one in the form of a letter from the city of Napavine, and one email from a concerned citizen.

The city reports that they have experienced an outcry of concern over this issue.

City records reflect only two official complaints and upon further research it appears both were generated by a city council member. This same city council member recently accused the fire district of threatening him by flagging his residence. The district unfortunately had to address requests from employees to protect them from that individual after three well-documented incidents where he verbally harassed them. On one occasion the police department was called by neighbors who reported what they thought was a domestic violence situation due to the loud screaming of said councilman. This councilman has also followed the aid crew while they responded to an emergency, only to sit across the street and observe them. He then followed the ambulance as it left for the hospital.

2. By reviewing the press on this issue I can see why there have been concerns raised by citizens who have been led to believe the siren was turned back on in retaliation for the failure of the levy. This is simply not true.

Turning on the siren was a decision I made based on the fact that I needed to improve response times and reduce stress on our crews. I accept responsibility for this decision and apologize to any citizens that this decision has adversely affected. Upon the first notification from the city (in the form of letter provided interview with the media) the fire district replied to the letter sent by the council and mayor. The district asked to have a sign placed near the station as well as lines painted to curb vehicles blocking the departure of apparatus.

3. After legal review of the adopted amendment to the ordinance our district has been advised by legal counsel that the amendment is in contradiction with the remainder of the ordinance.

We are also told that the city did not follow standards set by the Department of Ecology in following the process to amend a noise ordinance under Washington state law. This is still being investigated.

4. It has been reported that there is a wedge driven between the city of Napavine and the fire district. That simply is not the case.

I can tell you that while the mayor and city council may not agree with the fire district on this topic, we routinely work together with Steve Ashley the public works director for the city as well as Officer-in-Charge Silas Elwood at the police department. Our crews assist with the city on projects when needed and contribute to city functions such as providing traffic control for parades and medical stand by during concerts at the amphitheater.

5. As I’m sure some of you know during the recent events leading up to this decision by the city, the fire district has been forced to take a reactive stance to some of these allegations.

Three times now the district has been contacted via the media well in advance of any official or unofficial notification by the city as to any concerns. These events lead me to believe that this is not just an issue involving the district’s actions.

I believe Mayor Nick Bozarth has a personal and political agenda that he is working toward. He has publicly stated in the past, “It may be time for the city of Napavine to have its own fire department”. I would only guess after being sworn into office he may have discovered the city tax rolls provide approximately $90,000 dollars to the department a year. He may have also realized it would require a vote of the people to reverse  annexation the voters approved long ago to have the district provide fire and life safety services for the city of Napavine.

6. At the time my predecessor Chief Kris Wieland left, the district the Board of Fire Commissioners realized they needed to pick a highly effective proven leader to take his place.

The district had seen more than eight fire chiefs in as many years and they felt one way to improve the agency was to make a long term commitment and investment to a chief that had a plan and experience to improve the district.

The mayor, who had left the department, approached the board of commissioner’s with a plan he felt would prove successful for the district. The board reviewed the plan. The board was seeking not only a plan, but a proven leader to bring the district forward.

At that time the board conducted a nationwide search for a fire chief. During this process I am told that at least 40 people applied. I was selected as the candidate to fill the job, after a comprehensive background and interview process, conducted by board members and representatives of other local fire agencies.

Since Mayor Bozarth left the department in 2010, he has made his displeasure of the direction the district is taking quite clear through as many means possible. This is a pattern; as I’ve discovered he has been at odds with at least two former fire chiefs before me.

Up to this point I have focused my time and energy in improving our district operations. To date, with the support of our board of fire commissioners, we have:

• Increased volunteer membership to over 25 and doubled our number of certified EMT’s.
• Hosted two recruit academies for not only our district, but we have also opened them up to our neighboring agencies. We have another class scheduled in March.
• Reduced our response times on average by two minutes to our customers’ door.
• Used a federal grant to improve daytime staffing while our volunteers are at their regular jobs.
• Trimmed our fleet by seven vehicles. Those remaining are needed, and safe to operate. We have taken the proceeds from those sales and invested them in two vehicles that are used every day.

District 5 will continue to use the siren when appropriate to insure the safety of this community and citizens.

It provides a recognizable warning of the activity of our staff and apparatus as they answer alarms and has additional benefit as a back up to our radio and cellular devices. Its unique sound will alert our crews when their radio devices may not be audible (while operating equipment or away from their radio).

The negative response of a few cannot deter our efforts to serve those we are sworn to protect.

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have. I will be available for contact over the weekend by email

Thank you for your attention and commitment to reporting.

Yours in Fire and Life Safety,
Eric A. Linn
Fire Chief
Lewis County Fire District 5
I can be reached at the District 5 Office Monday through Friday at 360-262-3320 or by email at chief5100@lcfpd5.com