Background
Benton County voters petitioned to recall all three Port of Benton commissioners: Scott Keller, William O’Neil, and Lori Stevens. Most charges concerned alleged conduct by Keller before he became a commissioner and were dismissed because pre-election conduct cannot support recall.
The trial court allowed two charges against all three commissioners to proceed. Those charges alleged they suspended Executive Director Diahann Howard and fired Finance Director and public-records official Alicia Myers in retaliation for matters connected to complaints and an investigation concerning Keller. It also allowed a separate charge against Keller alleging that he failed to disclose his ownership of an LLC holding a Port ground lease on mandatory financial-disclosure forms.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in full. Charges alleging retaliation against Howard and Myers were factually sufficient because the petitions and incorporated materials gave the commissioners meaningful notice of the alleged conduct and supported a reasonable inference of retaliation.
Those retaliation charges were legally sufficient because retaliation is wrongful conduct and a manifest abuse of discretion, even though personnel decisions ordinarily involve discretion. The court also held that the charge concerning Keller’s financial disclosures could proceed: the alleged omission of his LLC ownership was material because the LLC held a lease with the Port entity on whose commission Keller served.
Key Takeaways
- Charges 12 and 13 may proceed to voters against Keller, O’Neil, and Stevens.
- Charge 7 may proceed to voters against Keller alone.
- Recall review tests legal and factual sufficiency, not the truth of the allegations.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a public official’s discretionary personnel authority does not shield alleged retaliatory actions from recall when the allegations describe a manifest abuse of that discretion. It also underscores that financial-disclosure omissions involving an official’s dealings with the public entity they serve can present recall-worthy conduct when the circumstances support an inference of intentional concealment.