Bainbridge Island Councilman Ron Peltier has sent a letter to the city’s Ethics Board apologizing for his behavior at the board’s last meeting.

At that Feb. 22 meeting, Peltier insulted the intelligence of the board members and questioned their competence and integrity in light of a decision it had made on a complaint against the first-term councilman.

Peltier first spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting — the only one in the audience to do so — and said he wanted to know how the board reached its determination on an ethics complaint that had been filed against him in September 2018.

According to minutes of the meeting, Peltier accused the board of not being transparent as “nothing in the determination supported the Ethics Board’s reasoning.”

Later, as the board was discussing a remand of that complaint from the city council, Peltier told the board members he thought they were incompetent.

Board Chairwoman Suzanne Keel-Eckmann, in a letter to Bainbridge Mayor Kol Medina, recounted what happened: “Mr. Peltier’s tone, manner, and choice of words shifted from respectful and civil, as were his public comments, to offensive and bullying. Specifically: He held up a paper and said, ‘If you had bothered to read the Ethics Code…’ suggesting a lack of due diligence or intelligence.”

Board member Scott Wilder interrupted him, saying: “Sir, don’t presume to know what I have and have not read.”

Keel-Eckmann wrote that “Peltier continued by stating he had ‘no confidence in the Ethics Board’s decisions’ suggesting the Ethics Board’s incompetence. He further noted that he was ‘appalled’ that an Ethics Board decision could make ‘front page news’ about him, suggesting the Ethics Board in some way contributed to that story.”

“Mr. Peltier’s tone, manner, and choice of words shifted from respectful and civil, as were his public comments, to offensive and bullying,” Keel-Eckmann recalled in the letter to the mayor, and she said she was “shocked by Mr. Peltier’s behavior.”

“I am not accustomed, nor should any member of our citizenry be accustomed, in a public forum or in private, to having our integrity and competence disputed, our intelligence defamed, or our motives called into question.

“The Ethics Board is comprised of appointed citizens who, to a person, take their responsibility seriously, foster independence in decision-making, and focus on facts and reason. I am disturbed that Mr. Peltier’s conduct seems to be becoming his norm,” Keel-Eckmann recalled in the letter to Medina. “The Ethics Board, or any other citizen advisory committee, may find it difficult to meet its responsibilities if a disgruntled city council member, who disagrees with its findings, is allowed to malign its work and bully its members.”

Councilman Joe Deets, who attended the meeting as the council’s liaison to the Ethics Board, told the mayor in a later email that Keel-Eckmann’s account of the meeting was “wholly accurate.”

Peltier, according to emails obtained by the Review by a public records request, sent an email with Keel-Eckmann’s letter attached to two supporters who had attended that Feb. 22 meeting of the Ethics Board.

“Was this your recollection of my comments to the ethics board last Friday night?” Peltier asked.

One of them replied: “I was surprised by Ron’s attack … as it only fanned the flames.”

“Now Suzanne [Keel-Eckmann] is against him too, since Ron dissed her committee,” the supporter added. “Ron has to keep quiet and hopefully let this fire burn itself out.”

In a March 11 letter to the Ethics Board, Peltier apologized for his words at the Ethics Board meeting.

“At that time I commented that I was appalled that the Ethics Board had made a determination that a material conflict of interest had occurred due to some uncertainty as to whether a direct official action had taken place. I also commented that what I was hearing did not inspire confidence in the Ethics Board,” Peltier wrote.

“I would like to apologize for the tone of my comments as well as my choice of words. I could have, and should have, found a better way to express my concerns that was respectful of your work on behalf of the community,” Peltier added.

The complaint under discussion at the Feb. 22 meeting was prompted by a meeting between Peltier, Councilwoman Rasham Nassar and members of the Slow on Grow Committee.

Chip McDermott, the committee member who filed the complaint, recalled how Grow Avenue residents had long asked the city to lower the speed limit on Grow from 25 to 20 mph from High School Road to Winslow Way West.

“Ron’s basic position was this: I can help you, but I want 20 mph on Lovell, too,” McDermott recounted in his complaint.

McDermott said Peltier wanted the speed limit lowered on Lovell Avenue Northwest because the councilman had a home there.

The Ethics Board later issued a determination that Peltier had violated the city’s Code of Ethics and displayed a conflict of interest when he refused to lower the speed limit on Grow unless the speed limit was also reduced an Lovell.

The board referred its determination on the complaint to the city council, which then remanded the decision Jan. 22 back to the Ethics Board and asked it to “develop additional written findings and conclusions showing the rationale behind the Ethics Board’s determination that a material violation of the Code of Ethics has likely occurred.”

The Ethics Board will meet at 6:30 p.m. Monday, March 18 in the council conference room at city hall.

In addition to the remand from the council, the board is scheduled to discuss two other ethics complaints against Peltier.