The letter continues that the investigator issued findings on December 17, 2025,
concluding that evidence did support some of the allegations against Keller. Id. at
415.7 The letter claims that a subsequent report on December 29, 2025, concluded
that the Port should further investigate Keller’s actions.8 Id.
6
Moving forward, instead of including parallel citations to all three petitions, we
will generally cite only one petition. The exhibits are the same across petitions.
7
CP at 1679-99 (Ex. B to Am. Decl. of Douglas E. McKinley, Jr., attorney for recall
proponents).
8
This subsequent report is not in the record.
13
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
The letter describes the fact that about one week later, the Commission called
a special meeting and voted to (1) “materially change the reporting and management
structure of the Port—a vote that operates . . . as a demotion of Director Howard”
and (2) suspend Howard indefinitely. Id. The letter asserts, “Considering the history
above and the timing of the suspension, this rationale for the Commissioner’s
decision is clearly a pretext for illegal retaliation.” Id.
Charge 12 “state[s] the act . . . complained of in concise language,” RCW
29A.56.110, and is “‘specific enough to give the elected official meaningful notice
of the particular conduct challenged and why it is grounds for recall,’” Inslee, 194
Wn.2d at 567 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pepper, 189 Wn.2d at
553). The letter (which is incorporated by reference into the petition) clearly and
thoroughly alleges facts that would support a claim of unlawful retaliation. Charge
12 is factually sufficient.
B. Legal sufficiency
Charge 12 is also legally sufficient. It alleges facts that amount to retaliation,