rate lower than the rate that the Commission had approved. See CP at 1689-90.
Commission minutes reflect that the Commission approved the ground lease at a rate
of $1,128.40 per year, but the actual lease Keller signed with the Port was for a rate
of $819.11 per year. Id.
Voters could conclude from these circumstances that Keller intentionally
omitted his ownership in The “Axe” LLC to obscure the fact that he had a lease with
the Port that was both below market value and below the rate approved by the
Commission. See Carkeek, 156 Wn.2d at 473-74 (voters may draw reasonable
inferences from the facts alleged).
We do not suggest that any mistake or omission on a PDC filing form
constitutes sufficiently “substantial conduct” to support a petition for recall. But the
circumstances of this case, with Keller on both sides of an allegedly below-market
lease with the government entity that he is elected to lead, are serious enough to
21
In re Recall of William O’Neil et al., No.105253-7
allow the voters to decide whether this was more than simple mistake.9 See Riddle,
189 Wn.2d at 574-75 (“The primary purpose of the intent requirement is to shield
elected officials from recall where their actions, though not statutorily compliant, are
attributable to a ‘simple mistake.’” (quoting In re Recall of Heiberg, 171 Wn.2d 771,
779, 257 P.3d 565 (2011))).
V. Appellants’ motions to strike
Appellant commissioners filed four motions to strike during the pendency of
this case. “[A] motion to strike is typically not necessary to point out evidence and
issues a litigant believes this court should not consider. . . . So long as there is an
opportunity (as there was here) to include argument in the party’s brief, the brief is