the appropriate vehicle for pointing out allegedly extraneous materials—not a
separate motion to strike.” Engstrom v. Goodman, 166 Wn. App. 905, 909 n.2, 271
P.3d 959 (2012) (citing Cameron v. Murray, 151 Wn. App. 646, 658, 214 P.3d 150
(2009)).
9
To be sure, the record shows that Keller was, at other times, open about his lease
with the Port. See, e.g., CP at 577 (Commission meeting minutes where Keller discloses
his hangar lease when hangar leases and utility hookups come under scrutiny), 988 (in
correspondence about Keller’s purchase of the hangar, Keller loops in Port employees and
notes, “I have to have full disclosure in my position as the Executive Director”). Keller
may argue that this evidence rebuts any suggestion that he intentionally omitted the LLC
from his financial disclosure form to obscure his allegedly favorable lease with the Port.
But we evaluate the sufficiency of the charge, not its truthfulness. It will be up to the voters
to determine whether Keller should be recalled from office for this conduct.
22
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
With these comments in mind, we summarize our rulings on the appellant
commissioners’ motions to strike. This court granted the appellants’ first motion to
strike on April 30, 2026, striking respondent-petitioners’ attachments that were
outside the record.
Appellants’ second motion to strike asks us to delete portions of the
respondents’ brief as unnecessarily argumentative, lacking in citations, and
improperly seeking review of unappealed charge 6. We deny that motion. To be sure,
respondents’ brief contains strident language and extravagant argument. But there is
no rule against that, and the brief as a whole does contain citations to the record. In