Oak Harbor’s own investigation reveals several failures that resulted in inadequate planning for the Native American remains discovered during the Pioneer Way reconstruction project.

The city failed to follow the early warnings of state experts concerning a known archaeological site near SE Pioneer Way because of a lack of understanding on behalf of project leaders, the anticipated expense of following the state’s suggestions, and sloppy internal accountability practices, according to a recently completed city-led review.

Ordered in June by Mayor Jim Slowik, the review was wrapped up earlier this month. The seven-page report contained the city’s explanation of the foul up, along with suggestions of what can be done to ensure such an oversight is not repeated.

Native American remains were found in the area of the Oak Harbor Tavern on SE Pioneer Way in June, resulting in delays to the city’s $7.7-million road project and thousands of dollars in unexpected expenses.

Since the initial discovery, it’s become clear that a host of city officials were told about a nearby site and advised to take specific steps by the state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Slowik, who has acknowledged in a recent interview that he also knew about the state’s warnings well before construction started, is calling the review a success. He claims it not only sheds light on just what went wrong but also how poor or unclear advice played a role.

However, the report is meeting with mixed review.

Several city council members have said they are satisfied with the report and its explanations; one even expressed relief, saying the results make it clear that the city was never required to follow the state’s recommendations.

But others say the review fell short by failing to address some of the most basic questions, such as who knew what and when. Despite waiting more than two months, they complain the public is still no closer to knowing what really happened and who is at fault.

Through the cracks

The review, conducted by City Administrator Paul Schmidt, examined policies and procedures in an attempt to identify shortcomings in the city’s permitting process which allowed the state’s warnings to “fall through the cracks.”

Schmidt said he can understand why people may be looking for someone to blame, but this was never meant to be a witch hunt. And even if it had, he discovered no evidence of a “smoking gun.” Rather, this was a case of misunderstanding.

“I didn’t find any premeditated intention (to not follow the state’s suggestions),” Schmidt said.

In terms of fault, the bedrock of the review revolves around a single sentence contained in a letter the historic preservation office sent to the city in 2009. It advised then civil engineer and project lead Russ Pabarcus that an additional archaeological survey was not needed due to the “urban nature” of SE Pioneer Way.

In the very next sentence, the author goes on to “strongly recommend” the city hire a professional archaeologist to monitor and report on ground-disturbing activities, create an inadvertent discovery plan and inform tribes of the project.

However, Schmidt said the previous paragraph was mistakenly taken to mean that it was unlikely the city would find anything because the area had been previously disturbed and that the city could take a “wait and see type of approach.”

“This simple misconception was probably the most damaging cause for not undertaking the DAHP recommended archaeological review,” said Schmidt, in his report.

It went on to say the misunderstanding may have been reinforced by an archaeological assessment of the area surrounding Flintstone Park just two years prior, which reported no discoveries. At about the same time, the city replaced a waterline on SE Pioneer Way and nothing was found.

But the assumption was patently false. During the course of his review, Schmidt interviewed the  author of the 2009 state letter and learned that state experts believe asphalt can actually work as a preservative.

Schmidt said this was a revelation that made clear the true gulf that separated the understanding and intent behind the state letter and the perception of city engineers at the time.

In the review, Schmidt said the “lack of understanding” may have later perpetuated itself in the decision not to follow the state’s recommendations due to a belief that “associated costs and presumed project impact” would not be cost effective in a previously “disturbed site” where there is little evidence of archaeological resources.

Even knowing what he does today, Schmidt said he can see how all the evidence — the state letter, the previous studies and projects — could result in confusion and isn’t surprised project engineers made the decisions they did.

“Given everything Russ saw, I probably would have done the same,” Schmidt said.

Pick up the phone

According to Slowik, the review makes it clear that project leaders weren’t trying to purposefully dodge the state’s suggestions, but that it was the result of confusion and misconception.

“That misunderstanding was the real lightbulb moment for me,” he said.

While he’s not passing off blame, saying specifically that this was the city’s mistake, Slowik said the state’s “boilerplate” letter played a role. If state experts considered previously disturbed sites as equally important and valuable to those in non-urban areas, that should have been made clearer in the letter, he said.

“I think they could have helped us,” Slowik said.

Allyson Brooks, state historic preservation officer and the department director, refutes that the letter was “boilerplate.” The department has standard template language it uses in documents and this wasn’t it.

She also wonders how anyone can say the content and meaning of the letter was confusing. The importance and value the office placed on the adjacent site was made plain in the very next paragraph with the three suggested actions. It started off with, “We strongly recommend… “

“How much clearer would you like that?” Brooks asked.

And if there was any confusion, any at all, she questions why her office wasn’t contacted for clarification. She said her department works with cities and their projects all the time and regularly speaks with project leaders.

“All they had to do was pick up the phone,” Brooks said.

Also, an extensive review of city records by the Whidbey News-Times shows that project leaders were anything but confused about what the state was suggesting. Emails between Pabarcus and the city’s hired consulting firm, Seattle-based Perteet, revealed how the company on several occasions discussed the recommendations in detail along with the possible consequences of ignoring them.

Answers and solutions

Several city council members say they are satisfied with the review. Mayor pro-tem and Councilman Danny Paggao said he was relieved to learn the state’s recommendations were just that, suggestions and nothing more.

“The city was not really at fault because there was no requirement in the first place,” Paggao said.

Councilman Bob Severns was also happy with the report, saying he can understand why the state’s warnings went unheeded considering the past waterline work and the Flintstone Park study, both of which turned up zero findings.

“Because of that, I’m not sure I wouldn’t have moved ahead (in the same way),” Severns said.

However, others were more critical. Councilman Scott Dudley, who is challenging Slowik for the mayor’s seat this November and is one of the road project’s most outspoken naysayers, said he is “still trying to understand what went wrong.”

He said the report seems to place all the blame on Pabarcus, but the engineer retired months before one of the state’s recommendations went before the city council in November.

It was included as an attachment in a nearly 400-page-long agenda item for a separate project permit. The information referenced the known site and included the state’s suggestion to hire an archaeologist for monitoring; the suggestions about informing the tribes and creating an inadvertent discovery plan were left out.

Dudley said the timeline suggests that others were handling the issue after Pabarcus retired, but the review doesn’t say who.

“Where did the mistake happen and how did it fall through the cracks?” Dudley said.

According to Schmidt, his report does answer that question. The information that went before the council was provided by Pabarcus before he retired. The problem was that the city didn’t have in place procedures for a handoff of responsibilities for retiring personnel involved in a major project.

One of the chief suggestions to improve the city’s procedures is to develop a system of cross checking among different departments to ensure continuity and accountability and that the appropriate level of authority is responsible for important decisions.

Councilman Jim Campbell, who is supporting Dudley in the mayor’s race, said he also felt the review was wanting. Since bones were first discovered, he said it’s been clear to him that the public expects a measure of accountability. They want and deserve to know exactly who knew what and when, he said.

“I don’t think (the review) answers the question,” City Councilman Jim Campbell said.

“I can’t believe only one person made the decision,” he said.

The only city employee Schmidt’s review names in connection with the mistake is Pabarcus. However, city documents reveal that a host of high level city officials and department heads, including City Engineer Eric Johnston and Planning Director Steve Powers, were also aware of the state’s warnings.

When asked, Slowik also acknowledged that he was aware of the state’s warnings well before the project began. However, he adamantly denied having ever instructed Pabarcus, or any other city official, not to hire an archaeologist, create an inadvertent discovery plan and inform the tribes.

“Yes, I was aware of the state recommendations but I didn’t engineer that project,” Slowik said.