For The Columbian’s editorial board interview with county prosecutor candidates Josephine Townsend and Tony Golik, click on the right edge of the photo above.
In her bid to oust Tony Golik as Clark County prosecutor, private lawyer Josephine Townsend, 54, of Vancouver has criticized the incumbent for alleged mismanagement of his office. Yet public documents show the Republican challenger has a record of missteps, discipline and mismanagement during her career.
After three years as Vancouver’s city prosecutor, her performance led to her resignation in lieu of termination in February 2005. She was disciplined by the Washington State Bar Association in January 2006 for misconduct during her term as city prosecutor, and then failed to disclose the discipline when she was appointed to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct in March 2006. She stepped down from the commission in July 2007 when members of the commission’s executive committee learned about the discipline from another source and asked for her resignation.
Meanwhile, when she sought judicial offices, Townsend has garnered mainly negative feedback in Clark County Bar Association peer opinion polls on categories such as integrity.
Resignation in lieu of termination
Public records suggest that Townsend resigned to avoid being fired from her job as Vancouver’s city prosecutor in February 2005 following a human resources investigation into allegations that she violated court rules, lied to cover up her mistakes, and was a retaliatory and controlling manager.
“As a result of the investigation and for the reasons we have discussed, I have come to the conclusion that you have not met my performance expectations and that it is necessary to terminate your employment with the city effective immediately,” her then-boss, former City Attorney Ted Gathe, wrote in a letter obtained by The Columbian.
At the time, Townsend said she was resigning because of irreconcilable differences with Gathe and a desire to campaign for a District Court judgeship.
As recently as last Tuesday, Townsend continued to deny that she resigned in lieu of termination.
“I worked out a severance agreement with the city, and I was not asked to resign,” she told The Columbian’s editorial board Tuesday. Her resignation letter was dated Feb. 23, 2005, a week after Gathe wrote the termination letter.
Gathe says that Townsend did, in fact, resign to avoid termination.
“That’s not true,” Townsend said. “I don’t know why he would say that.”
She and city officials also worked out a separation agreement. The city gave Townsend two months in salary, a lump sum of $4,000 to pay for health insurance for six months, pay for her unused vacation, paid time-off hours and $3,000 for outplacement services. In exchange, Townsend agreed to release the city from all potential claims and not to sue the city.
Townsend worked as city prosecutor from 2002 to 2005. In Vancouver, the city prosecutor works under the city attorney, prosecuting misdemeanors such as shoplifting or drunken driving.
As part of her platform for the county prosecutor campaign, Townsend has promised to give deputy county prosecutors more autonomy than they have under Golik.
The city’s human resources investigation report stated that Townsend gave deputy city prosecutors no autonomy to make plea agreements with defense attorneys; she insisted on examining and approving each deal.
Judges were frustrated that Townsend didn’t allow assistant attorneys to make their own decisions and exercise discretion on cases during court proceedings, the report stated.
“I was hired as a change agent,” Townsend said. “That made me extremely unpopular.”
There were employees who came in late, left early and dismissed cases that should have been prosecuted, she said.
“I became the target, and it was not an easy job,” she said.
But she said she got things done, including launching the city’s diversion program and creating a matrix to give defendants more consistent sentences.
Lawyer Michael Green said he worked for Townsend in the city prosecutor’s office, first as an intern and then as an attorney.
“She was tough to work for; she had a drill-sergeant mentality, but she was a darn good manager, and I learned a lot under her tutelage,” Green said.
He said that at first she was a hands-on manager, but she gave him more autonomy as she became more confident in his abilities.
However, other employees accused her of berating employees for making even trivial errors and assigning undesirable cases to attorneys as a form of retaliation, according to the investigation report.
Brent Boger, an assistant city attorney, said Townsend gave “hyper-technical criticism” to her subordinates.
“One example I recall was writing an employee up for not using her preferred font in a pleading,” Boger said.
Boger, a Republican, has endorsed Golik, who is a Democrat. Four years ago, Boger ran against Golik for the county prosecutor’s office.
Employees also alleged that Townsend gave employees misinformation about the law, failed to maintain mandatory confidentiality in court cases and personnel matters, lied to cover up her mistakes and violated a court rule concerning supervision of legal interns, according to the report.
“Concerns were raised about Josie not having a high value in ethics and placing the city in a position of liability based upon actions she has taken,” the report stated.
Townsend self-reported violating the court rule after she was confronted about it, the investigation report said.
Bar discipline
After Townsend left her city job, four lawyers — including two assistant city attorneys — filed a bar grievance against her that contained a series of allegations. The bar association found cause to discipline Townsend for one of the allegations. According to the complaint, Townsend deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence (evidence that would support claims of a defendant’s innocence) from a defendant accused of an assault. The withheld evidence consisted of a report by an investigator containing “clear exculpatory statements.” She stored the report apart from other discovery documents (the documents attorneys are required to disclose to their adversaries) and marked it as “work product,” the complaint states.
When Townsend resigned from the city, the assault case was dismissed without explanation, the complaint says.
Townsend said she was a relatively new lawyer at the time.
“I just didn’t have the knowledge to know that report goes out, as well, (with other discovery items),” Townsend said.
In a Jan. 12, 2006, letter to one of the complainants — former assistant city attorney Rachel Brooks — the bar association’s disciplinary counsel wrote that “we remain concerned regarding Ms. Townsend’s failure to provide potentially exculpatory evidence to (the defendant)” and announced that Townsend would be disciplined through the bar association’s diversion program. Brooks gave The Columbian a copy of the letter; the bar association doesn’t release information about diversion agreements.
The diversion program requires lawyers to undergo additional professional training, which could include ethics, therapy and management, and probationary conditions. Once the lawyer completes the program, the grievance is dismissed.
Resignation from CJC
At the time of her discipline by the bar association, Townsend was an alternate member of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, a state panel that hears complaints against judges. Two months later, in March 2006, the bar association’s Board of Governors appointed her as the association’s regular representative on the commission. During the appointment process, she failed to disclose to the commission that she had been disciplined by the bar association. Commission members later found out about the discipline from another source.
In July 2007, the commission asked Townsend to resign. According to the commission’s policy, members are expected to respect and comply with the law and conduct their personal and professional business in a manner that “promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the commission.”
“The members of the Executive Committee believe your actions, including your failure to disclose, violate this policy,” executive committee members wrote in a letter.
Townsend said that because her diversion was confidential, she didn’t think she was required to disclose it to the commission.
Later that month, she resigned, citing personal reasons, mainly that she wouldn’t be able to attend the mandated number of commission meetings.
In February 2008, she completed the terms of her diversion contract, and the grievance against her was dismissed, according to a letter from the bar association.
Low ratings
Despite her setbacks, Townsend hasn’t given up on seeking public office. Since she resigned in lieu of termination from the city, she has unsuccessfully sought public office at least five times, either through appointment or election. As part of the election and appointment process, the Clark County Bar Association sends out a preference poll to its members. Lawyers are asked to rate candidates according to their abilities and to pick their top choice for the office. Categories include relevant legal experience, integrity, judicial temperament, and legal ability.
Townsend has consistently received mainly negative ratings from her peers in the preference polls.
In her last bid, for appointment to the Superior Court bench this year, she received the lowest rating in every category among the five candidates.
Local lawyers believe her integrity to be of particular concern, according to the poll results. More than 100 respondents — about 54 percent of total respondents — deemed her “unqualified” on integrity, while her four competitors were rated as “unqualified” on integrity by between three and seven respondents each.
Townsend said her low ratings likely stem from the fact that she doesn’t network with other lawyers.
The bar association plans to poll lawyers on the prosecutor race at a candidates forum at noon Sept. 26 on the sixth floor of the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin St., Vancouver.
