II. The trial court correctly ruled that charge 12, alleging retaliation against
Executive Director Howard, is factually and legally sufficient in all three
petitions
A. Factual sufficiency
As noted above, charge 12 of each recall petition alleges:
My review of the referenced exhibits has led me to believe that while
acting in [her/his] capacity as Port Commissioner, [Ms. Stevens/Mr.
O’Neil and] Mr. Keller retaliated against Port Employee Executive
Director Diahann Howard when they voted to suspend Diahann
Howard 2 weeks after findings that Mr. Keller violated State Laws and
Port Policy. These findings were the result of a complaint made that
was forwarded to commission and counsel for investigation. (EXHIBIT
20). I believe this retaliation was done to conceal Mr. Keller’s wrong
doing.
CP at 232 (O’Neil), 633 (Keller), 1251 (Stevens).
12
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
This charge references exhibit 20; that exhibit is a letter from Howard’s
attorney to Port attorney John O’Leary with the subject line “Notice of Retaliation
and Breaches of Employment Contract by the Port of Benton – Notice of Litigation
Hold.” Id. at 412-16 (O’Neil), 814-17 (Keller), 1431-34 (Stevens).6 The letter
summarizes the events culminating in the commissioners’ decision to suspend
Howard. It begins with Howard’s complaint against Keller on September 5, 2025
(which she made “[a]fter receiving numerous reports from subordinates about
statements and actions of Commissioner Keller”). Id. at 414. It continues with
Howard’s decision to forward another complaint against Keller, which she received
from then-Commissioner Keck, on September 10. Id. It summarizes the Port’s
subsequent decision to retain counsel to investigate these complaints. Id. at 414-15.