Personal financial affairs reporting public officials RCW 29B.55.010
Penalty: RCW 29B.60.010 Civil remedies and sanctions—Referral for
criminal prosecution
Id. at 629-30. The court found sufficient factual allegations to support this charge. It
ruled that Keller’s Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) F-1 filings “do list the
address of the hangar,” but “no business is listed, even though the Petition shows
that Keller is the sole member of the LLC.” Id. at 995. “Because the address of the
hangar is listed, but not the business that owns the hangar and which has a lease with
the same government authority to which Mr. Keller is elected, there is a showing of
Mr. Keller’s intent to omit his business on the F-1 filings from 2022-2024.” Id. at
995-96. The trial court therefore concluded that charge 7 is factually and legally
sufficient as to Keller.
E. Appeal to this court
All three commissioners filed notices of appeal challenging the trial court’s
findings and conclusions on charges 12, 13, and 7. Id. at 607-17, 1009-23, 1625-35.
8
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
The recall proponents did not appeal any of the trial court’s decisions.5 Because the
recall petitions are almost identical and because the appeals involve common issues,
we consolidated the three cases for review.
ANALYSIS
I. Under the Washington Constitution, voters have the right to recall certain
public officials; the recall cannot proceed, however, unless the recall
petition is legally and factually sufficient
All nonjudicial public officials of the state of Washington are subject to recall
and discharge by Washington voters if they commit acts of malfeasance or
misfeasance while in office or violate the oath of office. WASH. CONST. art. I, §§ 33-