State Supreme Court rules against Mielke’s recall petition

“We never want to enter into a period where elected officials are fearful of doing their duty,” said Stewart.

The recall petitions alleged that the councilors violated the state’s Open Public Meetings Act, wasted public money by designating The Columbian as the newspaper of record in exchange for favorable coverage, and deserted their responsibility by allowing McCauley to dissolve the Department of Environmental Services.

In Washington, courts act as gatekeepers for recall efforts and review the factual and legal basis of charges brought against elected officials before allowing petitions to advance. The ruling repeatedly states there is no evidence that the councilors knowingly or intentionally violated any laws.

“Mielke’s allegations are legally and factually insufficient to sustain recall charges, and Boldt, Olson, and Stewart substantially prevailed on appeal,” Justice Steven C. González wrote in the 19-page ruling, which awards the targeted councilors court costs that will later be determined. 

The ruling is an epilogue of sorts to an acrimonious period at the county that was marked by Councilor David Madore and Mielke’s quarrels with county staff and the rest of the council. Mielke stepped down at the end of last year, while Madore lost his bid for re-election in the August primary.

Here is what the court said about Mielke’s allegations.

Improper award of contract

Mielke alleged in the petitions that Boldt, Olson and Stewart knowingly violated the state Open Public Meetings Act by holding a secret meeting without Madore or Mielke’s knowledge to approve a contract with Seattle attorney Rebecca Dean. The contract, approved in March 2016, tasked Dean with investigating a dust-up where Madore and county staff leveled accusations against each other. Her contract wasn’t posted on the county’s website, as required by county code, and Madore didn’t learn about it until reading about it in The Columbian.

The court’s ruling cites an April 2016 board meeting where McCauley stated that “he believed that he had unanimous support from the board to proceed with an investigation of Councilor Madore’s allegations.” The ruling also includes a quote from Mielke seeming to confirm there would be an investigation.

“I thought we would agree to hire someone, but we hadn’t agreed on what’s going to be investigated,” Mielke said at the meeting, according to the ruling.

The ruling states that although Boldt, Olson and Stewart gave statements that “appear to conflict” and the record doesn’t “definitively establish” when the council discussed hiring an independent investigator, there is no direct evidence that a “secret meeting” occurred.

The ruling also states that if a council member “believed that he or she was acting appropriately under the law, he or she is not subject to civil penalty” under the  Open Public Meetings Act.

“Because Boldt, Olson, and Stewart relied on legal advice and believed they were acting in accordance with the law, they did not knowingly violate the OPMA,” reads the ruling. The ruling also states that although McCauley may have been required to post the contract on the county website, Boldt, Olson and Stewart aren’t subject to recall because, similarly, the legal advice they received led them to believe that the county manager was acting within his authority.

Newspaper of record

Mielke’s recall petition also accused Boldt, Olson and Stewart of awarding the county’s newspaper of record contract to The Columbian over The Reflector, which provided a lower bid, as a reward for negative coverage of Madore and Mielke.

State law requires counties to enter into contracts with a local paper for legal advertisements, notices which often involve court matters such as real estate and child custody. Mielke argued that the councilors misused public funds by awarding the contract to The Columbian. 

But the Supreme Court found that the lower court properly dismissed the charge, reasoning that awarding the contract to The Columbian, a daily with a larger circulation, was ultimately more cost-effective than awarding it to The Reflector, a weekly.

Dissolution of DES

Finally, Mielke argued in his recall petition that because the council controls the budget, McCauley made the unauthorized decision to dissolve the Department of Environmental Services, eliminating the director position of former Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, a friend of Mielke’s who was appointed to the job.

Mielke faulted the three councilors in his petition for allowing McCauley to make the decision to dissolve the department. But the Supreme Court found that the councilors believed McCauley had the authority to do so and dismissed the charge.

“Even assuming, without deciding, that McCauley lacked authority to reorganize a county department, there is no evidence that Boldt, Olson, or Stewart intended to violate the law,” reads the ruling.