Ettore Castellente & Conspirators took Orders from GOP PAC & Ignored constituents

Ettore Castellente & conspirators took orders from GOP PAC while ignoring constituents

Hello friends in devilry!

This is a long one so strap in.

As you may know we’ve had no small controversy the last year as one man’s crusade to eliminate equity/diversity from East Wenatchee’s banner policy had a devastating cascading affect on our community including the effective exclusion of pride representation in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee by city officials. We covered the potential cost the City of East Wenatchee may incur because of a few members of the council’s crusade to erase pride representation from their public streets.

After the City of East Wenatchee’s decision and the developments in the City of Wenatchee accepting a hate group’s banner over a rainbow diversity banner we submitted some public records requests. However, it’s taken three months to get any real information out of either municipality. Though the information we’ve been sent has finally given us insight on what happened and who started the first domino down the crooked path.

A path filled with what looks like on the surface could be considered: collusion, criminal conspiracy, malfeasance, misfeasance, discrimination, abuse of power, and intentional bias with animus on the part of Ettore Castellente in partnership with Taylor Stimmel, Christine Johnson, her husband Ken Arnold, and the GOP Douglas County Republican Central Committee(DCRCC) Chair Dan Wheat.

Something that many people may not realize is that city council positions in Washington State are intended to be non-partisan. So these specific elected officials are not to show bias or support for one political party or another. In fact, the Douglas County website even confirms that the City of East Wenatchee Mayor and City Council are NONPARTISAN roles.

To confirm that the City of East Wenatchee is aware that their positions are intended to be nonpartisan I sent an email to the mayor Tuesday July 21, 2026.

Mayor Crawford has yet to respond to my request for information and clarity.

You may be wondering why it’s important that the city council is nonpartisan and not favoring one political party over another. As a personal voter, even in an elected nonpartisan role, you are allowed to have a political affiliation and vote however you like.

What you are NOT allowed to do is allow partisan politics or leaders of political parties to influence your decisions in your role as an elected OR APPOINTED nonpartisan official. This will be a very important underpinning for the potential official misconduct that starts with Ettore Castellente’s appointment in June of 2025.

At this point according to our public records requests there were zero emails to Castellente about rainbow banners on East Wenatchee light poles or rainbow pride representation in East Wenatchee.

Our request went back to October 2024 and specifically asked for any communication about banners in East Wenatchee. And while Castellente was appointed in June, he received zero emails regarding banners either for or against them until he added the banner policy on September 9th, 2025 to the agenda of the September 18th workshop.

Which is really interesting, because on September 18th at that same workshop Council Member Christine Johnson stated that “most of the complaints the council has received about banners center on the Pride flag’s inclusion.”

This statement was countered by Councilmember Shayne Magdoff who said “a lot of emails and comments from constituents that are highly praising us” in regards to the pride representation in East Wenatchee.

Now to be fair, we haven’t received all of the council’s emails yet. In fact, we have ONLY received Ettore Castellente’s… even after 3 months of waiting, the city has failed to deliver anyone else’s emails. Only copies of banner applications. However, we did receive all emails that were sent to all city council members since June of 2025 that included Castellente. So anything sent to the City Clerk and was forwarded to council, or sent to all council members. Which means at the very least there were zero emails from June of 2025 until September of 2025 when Castellente added the banner policy to the agenda.

So we asked ourselves. What exactly happened to kick off this determined agenda to remove pride banners from East Wenatchee light poles? So we read all 181 pages of emails that were sent to and from Ettore Castellente about the banners and specifically the banner policy and what became clear was a direct pattern of conspiracy by Dan Wheat to affect policy change through four East Wenatchee City Council puppets and especially Ettore Castellente.

Our first indication something was amiss is when a constituent who wanted to suggest replacing pride representation and banner policy language mentioned meeting him at the “GOP meeting” earlier that month. So we looked it up. We checked the facebook page of Dan Wheat’s DCRCC and their official website which started to make things more clear.

Turns out that Ettore Castellente and Taylor Stimmel spoke at this GOP meeting on September 8th, just 24 hours before Castellente asked for the banner policy to be added to the workshop.

What did Castellente speak about you ask? The banner policy of course! So without any emails or formal complaints, except those from the GOP meetings he has attended, he added a policy to the docket with the intention to change it without asking for input from any other political party or any point of view beyond conservative christian values.

We know for a fact that Castellente and Stimmel were there at the September 8th meeting, Stimmel having been appointed to the East Wenatchee City Council just six days previous on September 2nd. What we question, and will come out eventually, is if the married councilmembers Ken Arnold and Christine Johnson were also present. If so that would have been a quorum and they would be in violation of the open public records act.

It does seem likely that they were since Dan Wheat, the Douglas COunty GOP chair, sent an email October 21, demanding that the four of them (excluding Hepner and Magdoff from this email) change the banner policy after they tabled the discussion the day previous after hearing an hour and a half of community testimony supporting pride representation in East Wenatchee and the City Attorney Bob Siderius advice that they not open themselves up to discriminatory practices. Dan Wheat went so far as to suggest they fire City Attorney Bob Siderius and find one who will do what they want, as well as seeming to hold future 2027 endorsements over their heads if they don’t do what he says.

There is also evidence that Ken Arnold and Christine Johnson regularly attend GOP events because there is a picture of them together in front of a Trump Birthday cake at the DCRCC’s latest fundraiser this July with Ettore Castellente in the background.

We’ve created a timeline based on the emails, local reporting, local events, the City of East Wenatchee’s agendas and minutes. Along with some notes and speculative questions that need more information.

Information that may be provided as more emails, text messages and more are released from our public records request as the drip them out slowly. So we have to ask, why are they dragging their feet? Is it because worse is coming?

Something that caught our eye as we were creating the timeline was Ettore Castellente’s penchant to forward city emails to his personal email: ettorej@yahoo.com. We added this email address to our request as it appeared he was communicating with some of his conservative constituents this way, presumably to hide the content of those conversations. Why else would he forward a constituent complaint and share his personal phone number?

The only people Castellente offered to speak to on the phone or offline avoiding public records requests were people who were against pride representation in East Wenatchee.

In fact over the course of 7 months Castellente received 50 emails and 54 in-person testimony at council meetings. Between the two avenues of on the record comments, 66% were FOR pride representation and keeping the banner policy including equity/diversity in East Wenatchee.

That is more than the 60% it takes to pass a bond for Eastmont schools and is considered a SUPERMAJORITY.

And yet… the East Wenatchee City Council proceeded with changing the policy anyway. Why is that?

Without all the pieces that East Wenatchee is slow rolling out, it’s hard to see the full picture. But while they say they were attempting to avoid a future lawsuit that did not exist, they may have incurred the very real possibility of another one due to the discriminatory and biased behavior of the East Wenatchee City Council.

So to be clear the following timeline is a highlight of the behind-the-scenes steps that Ettore Castellente took based on on-the-record reporting, stories written by Dan Wheat, Castellente’s emails, his own words, local reporting, and PDC records. The direct receipts as well as a direct copy of the entire emails and full timeline will be available for review.

September 2nd, 2025: Taylor Stimmel is appointed to the East Wenatchee City Council

Sep 4th: The Douglas County Republican Central Committee (DCRCC PAC) makes a contribution to Paul Harrison who is running for East Wenatchee City Council – the single largest campaign contribution Harrison receives for 2025 – the DCRCC and Dan Wheat endorsed him August 22nd but had yet to endorse Castellente

Sep 8th: Ettore Castellente and Taylor Stimmel are confirmed to attend Dan Wheat’s GOP meeting

Sep 9th: Castellente asks for the banner policy to be added to the September 25th Workshop – the workshop is actually on the 18th so it’s added to that

Sep 15th: The agenda for the Sept 18th Workshop including the banner policy is published on the East Wenatchee Website at 2:49pm. The banner policy was sent to Castellente by the clerk at 5:06pm. Then 4 hours later Dan Wheat publishes his endorsement of Castellente at 9:08pm on the DCRCC website. This article confirms in Dan Wheat’s own words that Castellente spoke about the banner policy at the September 8th GOP meeting and that Taylor Stimmel also spoke at this meeting.

Sep 17th: Castellente receives his first email opposing pride representation on East Wenatchee public property and a warning that someone was organizing people to attend the workshop on the 18th.

Oscar Rodriguez from the Wenatchee World sends Castellente an email asking him to clarify his stance on the banner policy to which Castellente responds saying that his intent is NOT to exclude any category – an obfuscation of his intent that is well known to the other council members and Dan Wheat

Sep 18th: At 2:25pm Castellente emails the only complaint email he has received so far to his PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS. The workshop begins at 5:30 filled with people there to support pride representation in East Wenatchee 12:1 according to Ward Media’s Andrew Simpson who was present. At this meeting Councilmember Johnson says that she does not support pride representation in East Wenatchee and believes it is not actually representative of equity/diversity

Sept 19th: Castellente receives three emails supporting pride representation in East Wenatchee and the GOP chair Dan Wheat releases another editorial entitled, “Why special status for Pride banners?” In which he says that councilmembers, ostensibly Ettore Castellente, privately told him that they wished to replace the pride flags:

“While privately saying they want to replace Pride banners with something else, a majority of council members said little on the subject at a Sept. 18 work session”
Wheat also repeated Christine Johnson’s disputed tale that, “the city has received more complaints from people opposed to the banners than any other issue since the city began flying them during the month of June several years ago” and “99% are unhappy with a diversity and equity plaque and inclusion of Pride flags.”
In this editorial Wheat also asks why “White Pride” isn’t included in equity/diversity

Sept 22nd: Castellente receives an email from Mark Vanhorne calling LGBTQ representation sexual deviancy and that he doesn’t want pride representation in East Wenatchee. Castellente responds that HE PLANS TO ELIMINATE EQUITY/DIVERSITY from the banner policy and thanks Van Horne, a GOP donor, for his thoughts. To which VanHorne responded with more talk of sexual deviancy.

That is just 5 days, with more support for pride communication on the record than not, and recall that he told a reporter that removing diversity/equity WAS NOT his intent.

Sept 23: Castellente receives 6 more emails in support of Pride representation in East Wenatchee. He responds to one of them and none of the previous emails of support.

Sept 27th: Dan Wheat sends an email to the entire council demanding that they remove equity/diversity from the banner policy and move the power to approve banners to the city council. Castellente does not respond but he does FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO HIS PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESS.

Soon a deluge of copy and pastes of parts of Dan Wheat’s emails come in from GOP donors, all asking for the same thing: equity/diversity removed and power placed with the council instead of the mayor.

Castellente responds to all incoming emails that are against pride representation in East Wenatchee while either ignoring, not responding, and sometimes not even reading the ones in support.

By the end of September the email count is 11 for pride representation and 9 against.

Oct 7th: the City council receives an edict from GOP Chair Dan Wheat stating that the DCRCC PAC has voted for and is compelling the change of the banner policy including removing equity/diversity from the banner policy and moving the power to approve banners to the council from the Mayor

Oct 8th: Castellente emails a copy of projected and received revenues to his PERSONAL EMAIL

Oct 9th: Castellente emails his revisions to the banner policy FROM HIS PERSONAL EMAIL to his city email – notable changes are everything that DAN WHEAT demanded based on the DCRCC PAC’s vote.

Oct 12th: (A SUNDAY) Castellente receives an email at 8:36pm from David Houghland MD, a Wenatchee resident, stating: “The banner promoting the LGBTQ ideology is a banner of conquest and a symbol that commands submission. I urge that the demand to display this on public properties be denied.”

Castellente responds at 10:23PM, “Thank you for your email and your shared views on this topic that I brought forward to city council.”

Oct 15th: Castellente contributes $100 to Paul Harrison’s campaign

Oct 20th: Castellente receives two emails from two different mental and behavioral health specialists advocating for pride representation with statistics and studies specifically around suicidality of LGBTQ youth when there is a lack of acceptance and representation

By this point the email Count is 18 for and 18 against. Castellente has only responded to 6 emails out of 18 supporting pride representation and 17 out of 18 against. 36 total emails received at this point.

Castellente receives an email from Oscar Rodriguez from the Wenatchee World asking why he changed his mind about not wanting to eliminate equity/diversity from the banner policy. Castellente lies to Rodriguez saying he has replied to all emails he received, and implies he has received overwhelming input from constituents against pride representation in East Wenatchee and that they changed his mind. When in reality it was an even split and he is deliberately ignoring those supporting pride representation.

Oct 21st: Castellente receives more emails supporting pride representation the most of which he ignores or doesn’t even bother reading. At 5:30pm the Council Meeting begins with the banner policy change on the agenda. There is an hour and a half of public comment where 30 people spoke in support of pride representation and 12 spoke against. During this public comment a non-profit, Out NCW, offers to donate $2,000 to the City of East Wenatchee to ensure no public funds are used to put up Pride representation, should that be a reason the council is attempting to use to change the policy. After public comments are over the City Attorney Bob Siderius speaks and lets the council know that if they proceed with any of the proposed revisions of the policy that removes equity/diversity then they could be opening the city up to litigation. The meeting ends with the policy discussion being tabled. By the end of the meeting the official on records count of support: 51 for and 33 against.

Oct 22nd: Castellente asks Bob Siderius some questions over the phone and Siderius responds with an email about tabling policies and how to get them back on the agenda. Castellente then EMAILS THIS EXCHANGE TO HIS PERSONAL EMAIL. Within an hour and a half of forwarding that email to himself Dan Wheat emails Stimmel, Castellente, Johnson, and Arnold separately from the rest of the council demanding they re-add the banner policy to the agenda of the next city council meeting, suspend all current approved applications of banners to ensure no pride representation happens in June, and tells them they should fire Bob Siderius and find another attorney who will do what they want. That same day several hours later at 9:15pm a GOP donor, Kathryn Metcalfe accidentally REPLIES ALL to Dan Wheat’s email, supporting the message and revealing that there was a BCC on this email that included the GOP donor lists.

Oct 24th: Castellente gives out his personal phone number to a christian conservative against pride representation – he never offers his personal phone number or any kind of phone call to constituents supporting pride representation

November 3rd: Count is 53 for and 35 against, current response by Castellente to emails is 6 for and 20 against. 46 total emails received and 42 in-person comments received

Nov 4th: The City Council votes to suspend banner applications to block Pride representation in June 2026 in East Wenatchee – just as Dan Wheat demanded

Nov 14th: GOP Chair Dan Wheat releases the editorial titled, “Harrison landslide bodes well on banner policy // Democrats spent $1,500 on losing school candidate” in which he brags about the Douglas County PAC’s contribution to Paul Harrison and the fact that Ettore Castellente donated to him as well.

In this editorial Wheat brags that the nonpartisan city council is now GOP partisan 5-2 and that Johnson, Arnold, Castellente and Stimmel intend to remove diversity/equity from banners in East Wenatchee

He also specifies that the DCRCC welcomes specifically extremist Republicans

“The Douglas County Republican Party particularly welcomes true America First conservatives. We meet at 6 p.m. the first Monday of the month, except when it’s a holiday”

This is supported by the fact that at this July’s fundraiser they specifically had extremist candidates like Adam James and Jerrod Sessler speak
An example of the extremism for Sessler is liking comments from constituents that advocate for “blowing” people up and opressing Indigenous people:

January 20th – 9:16am Castellente sends a new policy revision draft for the banner policy from his personal email to his public office email. At 10:30am Castellente sends a new policy revision draft for the banner policy from his public office email to the clerk for dissemination in preparation for the January 22 workshop with the banner policy on the agenda. 6pm is the city council meeting. Meaning that he waited to send his revisions until it was too late to be included in the agenda information provided to the public.

22nd: the clerk sends Bob Siderius’ cases to the city council for their review so they can avoid discriminatory practices. The workshop to talk about the banner policy begins at 5:30PM. The city attorney spends a long time explaining to the city council that the current policy complies with current laws and changing it could risk liability exposure to which Taylor Stimmel responds with a 15 minute tirade about equity/diversity ending with the discriminatory comment that as a white man he could choose to identify as an African American. After the workshop adjourns Castellente sends an email to Bob Siderius to review his banner policy revision that eliminates equity/diversity from the approved banners list.

Feb 19th: Castellente receives an email also addressed to Dan Wheat thanking him for his work on the policy changes to remove pride banners from Mark Vanhorne a GOP donor, and his third email to Castellente. There is another workshop where the city attorney proposes a total change to the policy that eliminates any outside banners except city sponsored events, federal holidays, and that the city take on all of the fiscal responsibility of banner printing to avoid any perception of discriminatory practices.

Feb 20th: Castellente emails Siderius thanking him for his work on the policy

Mar 2nd: the day before the city council adopts this new policy the Count is 58 for and 35 against, current response by Castellente to emails is 7 for and 20 against. 4 unread emails of supportive pride representation in East Wenatchee. The majority of the unread emails come in this day. 49 total emails received and 42 in-person comments received

Mar 3rd: Castellente receives another email supporting pride representation in East Wenatchee finalizing the total of on-record comments to: 59 for 34 against. At 6pm the council listens to more public comment imploring them to keep the banner policy as is. This brings the count to 69 for and 35 against before the council votes unanimously to adopt the new “content neutral” policy submitted by Siderius.

So what is the result? Why did Ettore conspire with other council members and GOP leadership to change the banner policy? Well it seems like it always comes down to money.

The result is that the Douglas County PAC was allowed to buy or coerce votes, while the East Wenatchee City Council ignored the majority of people who spoke up, over a bullshit culture war topic and was able to raise the most money outside of a Trump election year in the last 10 years and 3x as much as they made from individual contributions in 2025.

So far this year since the changing of the banner policy and the overall controversy, the DCRCC PAC has raked in nearly $13,000 and we haven’t even gotten into the thick of campaign season yet. That is two times as much as they pulled in during the 2020 Trump election and closing in on as much they pulled in for the 2016 election.

There are some years the DCRCC receives less than $1,000 for the entire year outside of election seasons. So if that isn’t a motivation outside of bias and discrimination, we don’t know what is.

As we get more pieces to the puzzle we will update this story. If you have any questions, comments, or anything you would like added to the timeline send an email to info@progressivedevilry.com.

Associated policies and RCWs:

According to the douglas county website City of East Wenatchee Council positions are to be non-partisan.

RCW 42.23.070

Prohibited acts.

(1) No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others.

(2) No municipal officer may, directly or indirectly, give or receive or agree to receive any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity from a source except the employing municipality, for a matter connected with or related to the officer’s services as such an officer unless otherwise provided for by law.

Received an endorsement from Dan Wheat

(3) No municipal officer may accept employment or engage in business or professional activity that the officer might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of his or her official position.

(4) No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer’s position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit.

City of East Wenatchee Governmental Manual

Policy 101

Standards of Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials

Conflict of interest – Any actual, perceived, or potential conflict in which it reasonably appears that an elected official’s action, inaction, or decisions are or may be influenced by a personal or business relationship. It includes conflicts defined and prohibited by state law.

101.2 POLICY Elected and appointed officials of the City are expected to conduct themselves with the utmost professional integrity and objectivity.

101.3 GENERAL STANDARDS Elected and appointed officials should conduct themselves in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. Elected and appointed officials should familiarize themselves with the East Wenatchee City Council Rules of Procedure applicable to their conduct.

101.4 ETHICS Elected and appointed officials should avoid engaging in the following conduct:

Using one’s status as an elected official of the City in any way that could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to gain influence or authority for non-city business or activity.
The wrong or unlawful exercise of authority for malicious purpose, personal gain, willful deceit, or any other improper purpose.
Acceptance of fees, gifts, money, tangible or intangible personal property, or any service, gratuity, favor, entertainment, hospitality, loan, promise, or any other thing of value from any person, business, or organization that is doing business with, or seeking to do business with the City, subject to a de minimus exemption of $50.00 or less.
Offer of acceptance of a bribe.
Misappropriation or misuse of public funds, property, personnel, or services.
Any other failure to abide by standards of ethical conduct or otherwise contrary to the rules of this city and/or laws of the state.

101.4.1 STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT

Objectivity – Elected and appointed officials must place the public’s interest before any private interest or outside obligation.
Selflessness – Elected and appointed officials should not make decisions in their official capacity in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Stewardship – Elected and appointed officials have a duty to conserve public resources and funds against misuse and abuse.
Transparency – Elected and appointed officials must practice open and accountable government. They should be as open as possible about their decisions and actions, and also protect confidential information.
Integrity – Elected and appointed officials should not allow a financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations to influence their official duties, whether in actuality or by appearance.

101.5 DISCRIMINATION, OPPRESSION, OR FAVORITISM Elected and appointed officials should not discriminate against, oppress, or provide favoritism to any person based on a classification or status protected by law.

101.6 UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, DISCLOSURE, OR USE

Elected and appointed officials should avoid: Unauthorized or inappropriate release of confidential or protected information, materials, data, forms, or reports obtained as a result of the elected official’s position with this city.

101.7 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Elected and appointed officials shall follow all laws regarding actual and perceived conflicts of interest and should avoid the appearance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

RCW 43.10.305

Hate crimes and bias incidents hotline.

(1) The attorney general’s office shall oversee a hate crimes and bias incidents hotline staffed during business hours and dedicated to assisting people who have been targeted or affected by hate crimes and bias incidents. The hotline shall:

(a) Provide appropriate information and referral to people who have been targeted or affected by hate crimes and bias incidents that is victim-centered, culturally competent, and trauma-informed;

(b) Be as accessible to as many residents of Washington as possible, regardless of language proficiency, as much as is practically possible within the limits of the resources appropriated to operate the hotline.

(2)(a) The attorney general’s office shall:

(i) To the extent possible, identify local service providers and culturally specific services to refer people who have been targeted or affected by hate crimes and bias incidents;

(ii) Coordinate and partner with other counties and any other hotlines relevant to the hotline; and

(iii) Establish and appoint an advisory committee that will include, among others, representatives from legal aid, at least five community organizations working with historically underserved communities across the state, local and culturally specific service providers, state agencies, and any other entities the attorney general’s office deems relevant to the program. The advisory committee shall provide advice and assistance regarding program design, operation, outreach, service delivery objectives and priorities, and funding.

(b) To ensure that the advisory committee has diverse and inclusive representation of those affected by its work, advisory committee members shall be compensated as provided in RCW 43.03.220.

(c) Advisory committee members are not entitled to be reimbursed for travel expenses if they are elected officials or are participating on behalf of an employer, governmental entity, or other organization.

(d)(i) By July 1, 2025, the attorney general’s office must develop and implement a pilot hotline program that will assist individuals targeted or affected by hate crimes in at least three counties. One of those counties must be in eastern Washington.

(ii) By January 1, 2027, the attorney general’s office must implement the program statewide.

(e) No later than July 1, 2027, and at least annually thereafter, the attorney general’s office must provide information regarding hate crimes and bias incidents reported to the hotline during the prior calendar year to the governor, senate, and house of representatives, and make the information publicly available on its website, excluding the personal identifying information of any individual.

(f) Any information regarding hate crimes or bias incidents that reveals the personal identifying information of any individual: (i) Must not be included in any public report prepared in accordance with this section; and (ii) is confidential and exempt from public inspection, copying, or disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW.

(3) Any law enforcement agency in this state that receives a report of a hate crime or bias incident shall provide the phone number and website address of the hotline to the targeted or affected person.

(4) Whenever a hate crime is reported to the hotline by a member of the public, the hotline shall inquire whether the person reported the hate crime or bias incident to law enforcement. If the person targeted or affected by the hate crime or bias incident consents to sharing personal identifying information with the primary local law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the hate crime or bias incident occurred, the hotline shall promptly share the targeted or affected person’s name, address, and contact information with the primary local law enforcement agency. If the targeted or affected person consents to share some but not all personal identifying information, the hotline must share only the information the targeted or affected person has consented to share.

(5) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(a) “Bias incident” means a person’s hostile expression of animus toward another person, relating to the other person’s actual or perceived characteristics as listed in RCW 9A.36.080(1) or 49.60.030(1), of which criminal investigation or prosecution is impossible or inappropriate. “Bias incident” does not include any incident in which probable cause of the commission of a crime is established by the investigating law enforcement officer, and does not include expressions of opposition or support for the actions or policies of a foreign or domestic government protected under free speech.

(b) “Hate crime” means the commission, attempted commission, or alleged commission of an offense described in RCW 9A.36.080.

(c) “Hate crimes and bias incidents hotline” or “hotline” means the communications channel or channels overseen by the attorney general’s office pursuant to this section.

(d) “Law enforcement agency” means any general or limited authority Washington law enforcement agency as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020.

(e) “Law enforcement officer” means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020.

(f) “Local service providers” means providers of services to people who have been targeted or affected by hate crimes and bias incidents, including without limitation crisis intervention, advocacy, information and referral, and outreach and awareness, that are located in the same geographic area that the hate crime or bias incident occurred or where the targeted or affected person resides.

(g) “Personal identifying information” means any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as name, prior legal name, alias, mother’s maiden name, date or place of birth, residence, mailing address, telephone number, email address, social security number, driver’s license number, bank account number, or other similar information.

(h) “Protected class” means a class of individuals who are members of, or perceived as being members of, a group based on one or more of the following shared characteristics: Race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability.

RCW 49.60.030

Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin, citizenship or immigration status, or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

(2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).

(3) Except for any unfair practice committed by an employer against an employee or a prospective employee, or any unfair practice in a real estate transaction which is the basis for relief specified in the amendments to RCW 49.60.225 contained in chapter 69, Laws of 1993, any unfair practice prohibited by this chapter which is committed in the course of trade or commerce as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, is, for the purpose of applying that chapter, a matter affecting the public interest, is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business, and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.

RCW 9A.36.080

Hate crime offense—Definition and criminal penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of a hate crime offense if the person maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts in whole or in part because of their perception of another person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability:

(a) Assaults another person;

(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of another; or

(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a “reasonable person” is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same gender expression or identity, or the same mental, physical, or sensory disability as the victim. Words alone do not constitute a hate crime offense unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute a hate crime offense if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.

(2) In any prosecution for a hate crime offense, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact’s satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person’s perception of the victim’s or victims’ race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability if the person commits one of the following acts:

(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage;

(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a Nazi emblem, symbol, or hakenkreuz;

(c) Defaces religious real property with words, symbols, or items that are derogatory to persons of the faith associated with the property;

(d) Places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of the faith with which that item or scripture is associated;

(e) Damages, destroys, or defaces religious garb or other faith-based attire belonging to the victim or attempts to or successfully removes religious garb or other faith-based attire from the victim’s person without the victim’s authorization; or

(f) Places a noose on the property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of a racial or ethnic minority group.

This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state’s ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) through (f) of this subsection.

(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, had a particular gender expression or identity, or had a mental, physical, or sensory disability.

(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.

(6) For the purposes of this section:

(a) “Gender expression or identity” means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.

(b) “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

(i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

(ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person.

(7) Commission of a hate crime offense is a class C felony.

(8) The penalties provided in this section for hate crime offenses do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.

RCW 9A.28.040

Criminal conspiracy.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them takes a substantial step in pursuance of such agreement.

(2) It shall not be a defense to criminal conspiracy that the person or persons with whom the accused is alleged to have conspired:

(a) Has not been prosecuted or convicted; or

(b) Has been convicted of a different offense; or

(d) Has been acquitted; or

(e) Lacked the capacity to commit an offense; or

(f) Is a law enforcement officer or other government agent who did not intend that a crime be committed.

(3) Criminal conspiracy is a:

(a) Class A felony when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is murder in the first degree;

(b) Class B felony when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a class A felony other than murder in the first degree;

(d) Gross misdemeanor when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a class C felony;

(e) Misdemeanor when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor.

Conspired with a partisan leader of the GOP party to change policy in order to intentionally discriminate against LGBTQ people

RCW 69.50.407

Conspiracy.

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this chapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

RCW 9.18.130

Collusion to prevent competitive bidding—Penalty.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person for himself or herself or as an agent or officer of any other person, persons, or corporation to in any manner enter into collusion or an understanding with any other person, persons, or corporation to prevent or eliminate full and unrestricted competition upon any public work or improvement mentioned in RCW 9.18.120.

(2) A person violating this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Preventing non-profit organizations from bidding on banners and access to public light poles

RCW 29A.56.110

Initiating proceedings—Statement—Contents—Verification—Definitions.

Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.

For the purposes of this chapter:

(1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;

(a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and

(b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.

RCW 9A.80.010

Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 35.23.270

City council—Quorum—Rules—Journal, etc.

A majority of the councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A less number may compel the attendance of absent members and may adjourn from time to time. The council shall determine its rules of proceedings. The council may punish their members for disorderly conduct and upon written charges entered upon the journal therefor, may, after trial, expel a member by two-thirds vote of all the members elected. All orders of the city council shall be entered upon the journal of its proceedings, which journal shall be signed by the officer who presided at the meeting. The journal shall be kept by the clerk under the council’s direction.

Sources:

Full Timeline

Castellente Emails from pubic records

Douglas County Republican Central Committee (DCRCC) Facebook Page

DCRCC facebook event September 8th 2025

DCRCC website

DCRCC endorsement of Castellente

EW City Council Rules

9-16-25 City Council Agenda

9-16-25 City Council Meeting Minutes

9-18-25 Workshop Minutes

9-18-25 Workshop agenda