County prosecutor’s office initiated action to determine the legal and factual sufficiency of recall petition against city council member, which was filed by the wife of candidate that council member defeated in the previous election.
The Superior Court found four of the five charges asserted in the petition to be legally and factually sufficient to support the recall petition. Council member appealed.
The Supreme Court of Washington held that:
- Charge that member violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) was legally and factually sufficient;
- Charge that member refused to attend council meetings was legally and factually sufficient;
- Charge that member failed to approve council meeting minutes was legally and factually sufficient;
- Charge that member failed to timely enact a budget was legally and factually sufficient; but
- Charge that member voted to change certain development contracts was not legally and factually sufficient.