Michael Kelly found guilty on both counts

One thing was clear throughout the four days of testimony in Washington state's criminal case against Michael Jay Kelly: Kelly and David Plotz met for drinks in Centralia on Nov. 7, 2024.

Beyond that? Depends on who you ask. Or, in this case, who took the stand - and who delivered the verdict.

Kelly, the former Lewis County Public Utilities District (PUD) commissioner, was accused of bribery and requesting unlawful compensation in that barroom meeting.

On Friday, the 12-person jury found Kelly guilty on both counts. The decision was unanimous.

"Certainly, they considered all the evidence and rendered what I think - and the evidence showed - was a proper verdict," Senior Deputy Prosecutor Scott Jackson told The Chronicle shortly after the verdict was delivered.

Kelly faces up to 10 years in prison and $20,000 in fines for the bribery charge, and up to five years in prison and $10,000 for requesting unlawful compensation. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 15. Until then, Kelly will remain out of custody.

The trial began Monday in Lewis County Superior Court. The jury entered closed-door deliberations Thursday afternoon.

Plotz was - and still is - the PUD's general manager. He testified Tuesday to his recollection of the infamous conversation and the days that followed. On Nov. 8, 2024, at the request of Centralia Police Department Detective Mitch King, Plotz wrote an email recounting the meeting.

On Nov. 14, 2024, Plotz participated in a judicially-authorized wiretapped phone call with Kelly.

Kelly, as the defense's lone witness, testified Wednesday and Thursday.

His account of the meeting-in-question differed considerably from Plotz's.

Conflicting narratives

Plotz said the Nov. 7 meeting was specifically scheduled to discuss his compensation. Kelly indicated the meeting - and the others he'd had with Plotz - typically covered a lot of ground.

Plotz said Kelly was focused on getting Plotz to create the asset manager position for Kelly - until they relocated to a different bar. That's when Kelly abruptly changed the subject to Plotz's compensation.

Kelly said Plotz had actually asked him what Kelly was thinking regarding Plotz's compensation. This surprised Kelly. Usually, Kelly said, Plotz was the one to make the initial request.

"I usually just let him tell me and then I go do the research," Kelly testified.

Kelly said he suggested a 4% raise, mainly for "optics," but didn't put a lot of thought into it.

In another apparent timeline disagreement, Kelly said they had discussed Plotz's compensation at the first bar, and he'd considered Plotz's request during the drive to the second bar.

As Kelly "processed" the 8% raise, he considered the fact that Plotz had accomplished the major goals Kelly had established for the general manager's yearly performance.

According to Kelly, the hypothetical asset manager position was not a new discussion point. Kelly said Plotz approached him about it in 2023.

"He was the first to ever bring it up," Kelly said Wednesday.

Plotz also indicated the job had come up before.

Kelly said he thought he was a "shoo-in" for the role, given his lengthy career at TransAlta, where he worked as a computer and controls technician. Plotz, meanwhile, thought the optics were bad, and said Kelly had burned a lot of bridges at the PUD.

Kelly said those burned bridges had more to do with Kelly accomplishing his goals.

"We had to reset the utility," Kelly said. "And when I say reset the utilities, we had to make some changes to the way they did things."

In his email to King, Plotz noted "past interactions with staff" as part of his hesitation to hire Kelly. Kelly denied having any direct problems with others in the PUD.

Still, Kelly's expectations for the job had been low, though he said he was "hopeful."

"I wanted the opportunity to apply for a job like that," Kelly said Thursday.

According to Plotz's testimony, Kelly had indicated he was "short on money" following a divorce. Kelly said the divorce was in 2013 and wasn't financially affecting him in 2024. His interest in the job, he said, "wasn't about the money," but rather helping people by saving money.

"That's my passion," Kelly said.

Kelly said he is currently retired, and has "well over a million dollars" in retirement funds.

"So I wasn't financially strapped or anything," Kelly said.

Kelly denied asking or telling Plotz to promise to hire him, and contended that the conversations with Plotz had more to do with ensuring "good will" between colleagues.

PUD lawyer, commissioner testify

PUD attorney Allen Unzelman and PUD Commissioner Michael Hadaller testified Wednesday.

Unzelman spoke about his general role as the PUD's attorney, but declined to give specifics about his conversations with Plotz and Kelly, citing attorney-client privilege.

Unzelman said he took no active role in Kelly's criminal investigation.

During cross-examination, Unzelman said he didn't recall Kelly reaching out to him on or about Nov. 7, 2024, or in the days after.

On the stand, Kelly said he'd tried to contact Unzelman after the Nov. 7 meeting, but was unable to reach him. He said he was also unsuccessful in contacting Plotz.

Kelly said he'd discussed the asset manager position with Unzelman before his November meeting with Plotz, describing it as a "pretty lengthy conversation" in which Unzelman allegedly told him the idea was "above board."

In his own testimony, Hadaller confirmed that each commissioner uses their own independent judgement when discussing board topics, and said Plotz's raise was subject to his performance.

According to Hadaller, Plotz received an 8.1% raise following the commissioners' vote. The vote did not include Kelly.

Political "handler" takes the stand

Lynnette Hoffman, editor of Lewis County News and Kelly's former political consultant, testified Tuesday and Wednesday about her wiretapped phone conversation with Kelly. The call took place Nov. 20, 2024 - nearly two weeks after the alleged bribery on Nov. 7.

In the recorded call, Hoffman uses the term "handler" to describe her role with Kelly.

Hoffman, who said she was trained in politics by her grandmother, indicated she had first reached out to Tracy Murphy, then a detective at the Centralia Police Department, after hearing rumors that "something was going on" with Kelly and the PUD.

Hoffman said Murphy referred her to King.

During cross-examination, defense attorney Ryan English appeared to question Hoffman's motivations, asking Hoffman if she was trying to get Kelly to divulge facts for an article.

Hoffman indicated she never included any of her personal involvement in her coverage and, at one point, seemed to suggest she - or the outlet - used AI to draft the articles.

Wiretaps and closing arguments

The disparities between Kelly and Plotz's testimonies highlighted the importance of the wiretapped phone conversations between Kelly and Plotz, and Kelly and Hoffman.

Those conversations were supervised by King, the first state's witness to testify. Jackson played certain segments a final time during his closing argument.

Throughout the trial, Jackson made multiple references to the phrase uttered by Plotz in his recorded call: "I'll take care of you, you take care of me."

Jackson used this quote - and the various iterations repeated by Kelly - as evidence of Kelly's bribery attempt. He returned to that phrase again during his final remarks.

English, meanwhile, argued that no "promise of employment" was ever made by Plotz, a key aspect he said the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

"No one ever had the power to deliver a guarantee ... on both ends," English said.

"The bribery occurs upon the request," Jackson responded during his closing argument. He added that Kelly's recorded words were the "best evidence there is that this occurred."

"That's what our agreement is, you're going to do your best to take care of me," Kelly said during his recorded call with Plotz.

In his call with Hoffman, Kelly said he felt bad about the conversation with Plotz, and indicated some worry that the two men might have been "colluding."

English argued this was just speculation.

"Him and Lynnette Hoffman were trying to figure out what was going on," English said.

In his closing argument, English told the jury that what occurred on Nov. 7, 2024, was not illegal, though it was political.

"You might not like it, you might think that it's questionable, that it's dirty, maybe even unethical, but it's not illegal," English said.

English referenced Plotz's email written to King, in which Plotz outlined his "aversion" to promising to hire Kelly.

"Specifically, I disagreed with him taking the position based on his past interactions with staff and went on to explain to him the potential internal, external and optical problems of hiring C. Kelly would create for the District," Plotz said in the email.

English pointed to that "list of reasons" as proof that there was never an agreement. The defense attorney added that it was "reasonable to conclude" that alcohol had played a role in Plotz's characterizations of the barroom conversation, perhaps leading him to embellish.

"It doesn't have to be an agreement," Jackson argued in his closing, saying English's presentation of the jury instructions was not accurate.

"Just because he couldn't do it alone, doesn't mean that he didn't attempt," Jackson said.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.