Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed recall charges against a Covington city council member alleging campaign-fund conversion, an undisclosed conflict of interest, and voting after sleeping through a public hearing. The court held that the charges were legally and factually insufficient, reversed the superior court, dismissed the charges, and denied attorney fees.
Holdings
- The first recall charge was legally and factually insufficient because it did not allege facts showing Ackerson's intent to commit a wrongful act and did not provide sufficient detail about when, where, or how the campaign funds were allegedly converted.
- The second recall charge was legally and factually insufficient because it alleged only a possible future conflict, did not identify an actual transaction or specific wrongdoing, and improperly relied on the appearance-of-fairness doctrine, which does not apply to legislative acts such as voting on a building moratorium.
- The third recall charge was factually sufficient because the petitioner had an adequate basis of knowledge from an audiotape, but it was legally insufficient because the petition did not identify a law, rule, or standard making the alleged conduct misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office.
- Neither party was entitled to attorney fees because no bad faith was shown.
Questions Presented
- Whether the first recall charge, alleging conversion of campaign funds for personal use, was legally and factually sufficient.
- Whether the second recall charge, alleging nondisclosure of a conflict of interest and participation in a vote concerning a building moratorium, was legally and factually sufficient.
- Whether the third recall charge, alleging that Ackerson voted after sleeping through a public hearing, was legally sufficient despite being factually supported by an audiotape rather than personal observation.
- Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (17)
- Cole v. Webster, 103 Wn. 2d 280, 287-88, 692 P.2d 799 (1984)(followed)
- In re Recall of Shipman, 125 Wn. 2d 683, 684-85, 886 P.2d 1127 (1995)(followed)
- Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wn. 2d 268, 270, 274, 693 P.2d 71 (1984)(followed)
- Greco v. Parsons, 105 Wn. 2d 669, 717 P.2d 1368 (1986)(followed)
- In re Recall of Wade, 115 Wn. 2d 544, 549, 799 P.2d 1179 (1990)(followed)
- Teaford v. Howard, 104 Wn. 2d 580, 586-87, 707 P.2d 1327 (1985)(followed)
- In re Recall of DeBruyn, 112 Wn. 2d 924, 930, 774 P.2d 1196 (1989)(followed)
- In re Recall of Lee, 122 Wn. 2d 613, 617, 859 P.2d 1244 (1993)(followed)
- City of Bremerton v. Corbett, 106 Wn. 2d 569, 576, 723 P.2d 1135 (1986)(followed)
- In re Recall of Anderson, 131 Wn. 2d 92, 95, 929 P.2d 410 (1997)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…