In re the Recall of Ward

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a recall petition against commissioners of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 2. The court held that three charges concerning creation and continuation of a chief organizational officer position and retroactive compensation were legally insufficient, while a charge alleging knowing falsification of public-meeting minutes could proceed to the signature-gathering phase. The court also denied the commissioners’ request for attorney fees.

Holdings

1. The recall petition was factually sufficient because the allegations were made in good faith with adequate specificity and detail. The reviewing court must assume the veracity of reasonably specific allegations and may not resolve factual disputes at the gatekeeping stage.
2. Charges alleging that Ward created the chief organizational officer position without specified employment procedures, continued in the position after a new fire chief was hired, and sought retroactive compensation or retirement credits were legally insufficient to constitute substantial misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office.
3. The charge that Ward and Whittaker knowingly falsified meeting minutes to reflect passage of a Public Employees' Retirement System resolution at an open meeting was legally and factually sufficient to proceed to the signature-gathering phase.
4. Ward and Whittaker were not entitled to attorney fees because the recall petition, although partially legally insufficient, was not shown to be frivolous, baseless, or initiated for an illegitimate purpose.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the recall charges concerning creation of the chief organizational officer position, continuation of that position after a new fire chief was hired, and retroactive compensation and retirement credits were factually sufficient.
2. Whether those three charges were legally sufficient to constitute substantial misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office.
3. Whether the alleged knowing falsification of meeting minutes to reflect passage of a Public Employees' Retirement System resolution at an open meeting was legally and factually sufficient to proceed to the signature-gathering phase.
4. Whether Ward and Whittaker were entitled to attorney fees under CR 11.

Disposition

affirmed