34; RCW 29A.56.110. For the purposes of recall:
5
In the respondents’ brief to this court, they ask us to exercise “plenary jurisdiction”
to review charge 6, even though they did not appeal the dismissal of that charge. Br. of
Resp’ts at 66. Charge 6 read, “I believe that Mr. Keller necessarily ratified all of his
for[e]going actions when he became Port Commissioner on or about January 2026 by virtue
of not taking action to rectify these wrong-doings.” CP at 629. The petitions against O’Neil
and Stevens named only Keller in this charge. Respondents state that this was a
typographical error; they meant to replace “Mr. Keller” with “Mr. O’Neil” and “Ms.
Stevens,” such that each commissioner would be charged with ratifying Keller’s wrongful
acts, but they did not detect this oversight until after the trial court ruled. Br. of Resp’ts at
50-51. The trial court ruled that charge 6 was insufficient to support a recall of Keller
(because it was legally insufficient) and insufficient as to O’Neil and Stevens (because it
did not allege that O’Neil and Stevens did anything; it named only Keller). CP at 995, 594,
1612. Respondents ask us to allow this recall charge to move forward against Keller and
also against O’Neil and Stevens “in the interests of justice.” Br. of Resp’ts at 63. But
respondents did not appeal the trial court’s ruling on charge 6 and given their
“typographical error,” that charge as applied to O’Neil and Stevens was not even before
the trial court. We decline to consider charge 6.
9
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
(1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any wrongful
conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of
official duty;