(a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of
a duty in an improper manner; and
(b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission of
an unlawful act;
(2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing
failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed
by law.
RCW 29A.56.110.
The recall charge must “state the act or acts complained of in concise
language[ and] give a detailed description including the approximate date, location,
and nature of each act complained of . . . .” Id. Taken as a whole, the charge “‘“must
be specific enough to give the elected official meaningful notice of the particular
conduct challenged and why it is grounds for recall.”’” In re Recall of Inslee, 194
Wn.2d 563, 567, 451 P.3d 305 (2019) (quoting In re Recall of Pepper, 189 Wn.2d
546, 553, 403 P.3d 839 (2017) (quoting In re Recall of Boldt, 187 Wn.2d 542, 549,
386 P.3d 1104 (2017))).
“An elected official can be recalled only for cause, meaning the petition must
be factually and legally sufficient.” Id. (citing Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wn.2d 268,
274, 693 P.2d 71 (1984)). “Factual sufficiency” “means the facts must establish a
prima facie case of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office . . .
10
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
.” In re Recall of Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72 P.3d 170 (2003) (citing Cole v.
Webster, 103 Wn.2d 280, 285, 692 P.2d 799 (1984)). Although petitioners need not
have direct, firsthand knowledge of the facts underlying the charges, they must have
some knowledge of the facts underlying the charges. Id. (citing In re Recall of
Ackerson, 143 Wn.2d 366, 372, 20 P.3d 930 (2001)).