Latest Shelter Bay town hall covers familiar ground

About 100 Shelter Bay residents attended the latest in a series of monthly one-hour town hall forums at the community’s clubhouse Sunday night, where a wide range of topics – including recent sanctions imposed on two board members – were addressed.

Other subjects covered in prior meetings, including perhaps the sorest of subjects – the unauthorized tree-cutting at Rainbow Park in 2020 that resulted in a stiff fine imposed by the Swinomish Tribal Community Planning Department – were discussed as well.

So, too, was the status of Shelter Bay’s swimming pools, which have been mostly closed since the summer of 2019, with on-going maintenance and infrastructure concerns.

“There are over 800 people who live in Shelter Bay and when you have 100 people at a meeting you can have different audiences each time,” said one attendee, who asked not to be named, when asked about the repetitive nature of some key issues that have been on the community town hall radar since last fall.

With board chair Wendy Poulton out of town, the forum Feb. 26 was moderated by board member Gary Ladd, who reminded the audience the session was for community members only based upon advice from legal counsel. Weekly News staff then left.

When contacted by phone Monday morning, Ladd said he couldn’t comment on what transpired at the meeting.

Sources did say, however, that the mood got somewhat heated when questions arose regarding the sanctions of board members Judy Kontos, who is subject to a yet-to-be scheduled recall election, and Dan McCaughan, who has said he would like to see “more transparency and accountability” in the community’s decision-making process.

Ladd, citing legal constraints, cut off discussion of the sanctions and speculation as to who served on an ethics panel upon whose findings the sanctions were issued, sources attending the meeting said.

“It was discussed a little, not a lot,” the Weekly News was told. “There’s just not a lot that can be said.”

As reported in a detailed article in the Feb. 22 Weekly News, the Shelter Bay board of directors sanctioned Kontos and McCaughan for allegedly failing to support decisions of the board. Kontos was also accused of disseminating confidential information. She, in turn, has charged the board with refusing to follow community by-laws.

“They say I am mistaken,” Kontos told the Weekly News. “One of us is mistaken and it’s not me.”

Kontos and McCaughan were elected to the board last year as reform candidates.

The Weekly News was told that a positive note was struck Sunday when it was noted a loan for marina dredging work was secured and that funds previously paid to contractors can now be reimbursed to community accounts.

Posting on social media, some Shelter Bay residents have stated their frustrations with aging community infrastructure, delayed maintenance work and uncertainty over reaching a new master lease agreement with Swinomish officials.

One poster suggested, in what appears to be tongue-in-cheek fashion, that Shelter Bay establish a Go Fund Me account to pay for upgrades to the swimming pools and general landscape. A point of derision has been the time taken to repair a highly visible chain link fence smashed by a fallen tree.

Another post proposes that lease consultants Wil and Ava James take a month off from their duties as liaisons between Shelter Bay and Swinomish.

The couple is paid $10,000 dollars monthly. They have been credited, though, with having improved prospects for renewed negotiations, which had stalled for several years, between the community and tribe. The current master lease expires in 2044, meaning home sales in Shelter Bay are pretty much limited to cash deals or pricey 15-year mortgages.

The James’ have also produced informational videos describing what is at stake for the tribe, individual allottees and Shelter Bay lessees and hosted a major gathering of interested parties earlier this winter at the Swinomish Social Services Building.

As for Rainbow Park, Poulton has said that it might have proved even more costly and with no guarantee of a favorable court ruling to pursue damages from the former board member responsible for the tree-cutting than to pick up the $92,513 fine that was imposed.