misconduct. Most of those allegations stem from the alleged actions of Keller,
described briefly above. Crucially, most of this conduct occurred before Keller was
elected to the position of Port commissioner and, hence, cannot support a petition
for recall. In re Recall of Bolt, 177 Wn.2d 168, 179, 298 P.3d 710 (2013) (“There is
no authority allowing the recall of an elected official based on acts committed prior
to being elected to office.”).
But the recall petitions also allege that the three commissioners, while
commissioners, suspended Howard in retaliation for Howard’s decision to raise the
complaint that prompted the Schwabe investigation. And they allege that the
commissioners fired Myers in retaliation for her decision to release the investigative
report in accordance with her responsibility as the Port’s public records official.
D. Trial court proceedings
The trial court heard argument on the three recall petitions on March 25, 2026,
and issued three orders on March 30, 2026. CP at 593, 993, 1611. It dismissed most
of the 13 charges against each commissioner as legally or factually insufficient. Id.
at 593-96, 993-98, 1611-14. But it ruled that charges 12 and 13 were factually and
5
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
legally sufficient as to all three commissioners and that charge 7 was factually and
legally sufficient as to Keller. Id. at 596-56, 997-98, 1613-14.
We discuss related charges 12 and 13 first. Charge 12 alleges: