My review of the referenced exhibits has led me to believe that while
acting in their capacity as Port Commissioners, [Mr. O’Neil/Ms.
Stevens and] Mr. Keller retaliated against Port Employee Auditor Alicia
Myers when she brought the forgoing violations to the attention of the
Port’s Executive Director and Mr. Keller. [Mr. O’Neil/Ms. Stevens and]
Mr. Keller caused Ms. Myers to be fired. I believe this retaliation was
done to conceal Mr. Keller’s wrong doing. (EXHIBIT 21).
16
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
CP at 232.
To support this charge, the recall proponents reference exhibit 21, a Tri-City
Herald article headlined “Port Fires Its Top Financial Executive. She Says It Is
Retaliation.” Id. at 418-42. The article reports that the Commission voted
unanimously to terminate Myers, its finance director, auditor, and public records
official, citing her probationary status and unsatisfactory performance. Id. at 419.
Myers tells the Tri-City Herald she thinks she was fired in retaliation for doing her
job, including her duty as public records officer to release the investigative report on
the complaints against Keller. Id. at 420. The article references Howard’s suspension
a few weeks earlier and reports that Howard is the one who hired Myers. Id.
This charge is factually sufficient. The charges and supporting documentation,
read as a whole, must give the elected official enough information to respond to the
charges. See In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659, 663, 121 P.3d 1190 (2005). We
must therefore view charge 13 in the context of the whole recall petition, including
its allegations of retaliation against Howard, when assessing its factual sufficiency.
See Hatcher, 196 Wn.2d at 830 (Hatcher stated on public radio that his subordinate,