Sheriff demands mediation to end county ‘overreach’

Published 3:50 pm Wednesday, July 23, 2025

SOUTH BEND — Pacific County Sheriff Daniel Garcia is seeking formal mediation to resolve longstanding fights with the Pacific County Commission, and the commissioners have agreed.

In a July 11 letter, Garcia accuses the commission of overstepping and interfering with the operation of his office.

Two points of contention outlined in Garcia’s letter regard a letter the county sent to the owner of a sandpit where the sheriff’s office was conducting firearms training, and the county’s objection to the sheriff moving files out of the county’s system and into Google cloud storage.

Shooting in sandpits

“In 2025, the Sheriff’s Office entered into an agreement with a private property owner to use a parcel of land as a training site for deputies,” Garcia states in the letter. “This agreement was reviewed and approved by the county civil attorney prior to its execution, and the Sheriff’s Office has used the site for training in furtherance of its statutory duty to maintain peace and public safety.”

“On July 7, 2025, the [commission] issued a letter to the property owner, which he described as ‘threatening,’ claiming that the Sheriff’s Office lacked the legal authority to authorize use of the property for training, describing the site as ‘unsanctioned and unlicensed.’ The letter disclaimed any county liability for the Sheriff’s use of the site, creating confusion for the property owner and undermining the Sheriff’s ability to conduct lawful training operations,” Garcia added.

The property belongs to S.E.A. Construction. It is located off of Willapa Avenue in the forest behind Willapa Harbor Hospital in South Bend. Firearm training at the site has resulted in flurries of 911 calls from residents in the area concerned about gunfire.

It is the second sandpit off the road that the sheriff’s office has used. The agency previously trained at one farther up the road, which belongs to a relative of a deputy. The commission also sent a letter to that property’s landowner regarding liability concerns, following a county official’s visit to the site and observing the general public was being invited to join in.

Records handling

The other battle concerns a Feb. 11 confrontation in a workshop between the sheriff’s office and county officials, following discovery that the sheriff’s office was removing files from county computer servers and placing them in independent encrypted cloud storage.

The cloud storage began in late 2024 and was noted on the agency’s financial statements, which cost $116.42 to initiate and then another $412.46. The commission ordered the Pacific County Auditor’s Office not to complete the payment for the latter charge, citing an alleged violation of county policy.

“The claim has never been substantiated or resolved,” Garcia stated in the letter. “The Sheriff’s Office maintains that data generated, maintained, or possessed by the Sheriff’s Office, particularly data subject to Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) standards, is the responsibility of, and under the lawful control of, the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff further asserts that his office, as an independently elected constitutional office, is not bound by internal county policy absent statutory authority and retains discretion to implement operational systems necessary to fulfill its duties.”

“In connection with these actions, the [commission] also directed County IT personnel to remotely access Sheriff’s Office computers and terminate the file migration process midstream, without prior notice or authorization from the Sheriff’s Office. Since that time, I have been personally paying the monthly Google Workspace subscription fee — range from the aforementioned $412.46 to $643.77 — out of pocket to maintain continuity of operations,” Garcia added.

Broader power struggle

Garcia goes on to claim that his agency has independent purchasing authority, autonomy without budgeting restraints, is only accountable to county citizens, and that he has the ultimate discretion on how his office operates.

“The [commission’s] legislative overreach in this matter has improperly diverted time and resources from the Sheriff’s Office to the detriment of the people of Pacific County,” Garcia states in his letter. “The constitutional and statutory principles outlined above must be respected to preserve the integrity and independence of the Sheriff’s Office, safeguard the voice of the voters in their electoral decisions, and ensure service to the public.”

“I am hopeful that mediation will allow the parties to refocus on these governing principles, resolve the present dispute without further litigation, and restore a cooperative working relationship consistent with each office’s independent duties and shared obligation to serve the public,” Garcia added.

According to public records, the commission responded to Garcia’s letter on July 16.

“We are in receipt of your request for mediation pursuant to RCW 36.46.010,” the letter stated. “We propose requesting a list of available mediators from Washington Arbitration and Mediation Services (WAMS) willing to mediate a dispute between elected officials….”

“Please let us know if you agree with this proposal, and we will reach out to WAMS to get things started. Per RCW 36.46.010(6), we will advise WAMS that the parties will share the cost of the mediation equally,” the letter added.