Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Julie Wise
Director, King County Elections
919 Southwest Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Filing of Statement of the Charges in favor of the recall of Black Diamond City
Councilmember Patricia Pepper
This letter shall constitute the statement of the charges in support of the recall of Black
Diamond City Councilmember Patricia Pepper pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110 and Washington
Constitution, Article I, 33-34. Ms. Pepper has committed acts of malfeasance and/or
misfeasance, and violated her oath of office. This Statement of the Charges is verified under
oath, states the acts complained of in concise language, gives a detailed description including the
date, location and nature of each act complained of, and is signed by the person(s) bringing the
charge.
The Petitioner for Recall is Ms. Robbin Taylor, who is a citizen of the City of Black
Diamond, Washington. The City of Black Diamond lies entirely within King County. Ms.
Patricia Pepper was elected to a position on the Black Diamond City Council in November 2015,
for a four-year term effective January 1, 2016. Ms. Pepper was sworn in on January 7, 2016.
The oath she took reads as follows:
I, Pat Pepper, having been duly elected to the office of City of Black
Diamond Council Position Five, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of this office as prescribed
by law and to the best of my ability and that I will support and maintain
the Constitution of the State of Washington and of the United States of
America.
The legal basis for recall is established in the Washington State Constitution Article 1,
Sections 33 and 34. Section 33 contains the substantive right to recall, providing that [e]very
elective public officer of the state of Washington is subject to recall and discharge by the legal
voters of the state. Section 34 directs the Legislature to enact laws necessary to carry out
section 33. Pursuant to that authority, the Legislature adopted chapter 29.82 RCW, now codified
as chapter 29A.56 RCW, to provide the substantive criteria and procedural framework for the
recall process. Matter of Pearsall-Stipek, 136 Wn.2d 255, 262-63, 961 P.2d 343 (1998).
B. Factual Sufficiency
The Superior Court does not examine the truthfulness of the stated grounds for recall; it
determines only whether, if true, the charges would constitute malfeasance, misfeasance or
violation of the oath of office. Courts act as a gateway to ensure that only charges that are
factually and legally sufficient are placed before the voters, but we do not evaluate the
truthfulness of those charges. RCW 29A.56.140. In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wn. 2d 503, 510,
257 P.3d 513 (2011); In re Recall of Cy Sun, 177 Wn.2d 251, 255, 299 P.3d 651 (2013).
Charges are factually sufficient if taken as a whole they ... state sufficient facts to
identify to the electors and to the official being recalled acts or failures to act which without
justification would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation
of oath of office. Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wn.2d 268, 274, 693 P.2d 71 (1984). Voters may draw
reasonable inferences from the facts; the fact that conclusions have been drawn by the petitioner
A charge is factually sufficient if the facts establish a prima facie case of misfeasance,
malfeasance or violation of the oath of office and are stated in concise language and provide a
detailed description in order to enable the electorate and a challenged official to make informed
decisions." In re Recall of Telford, 166 Wn.2d 148, 154, 206 P.3d 1248 (2009) (quoting In re
Recall of Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72 P.3d 170 (2003)). In this context, "prima facie"
means that, accepting the allegations as true, the charge on its face supports the conclusion that
the official committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office. In re Recall
of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 548, 799 P.2d 1179, 1181 (1990).
RCW 29A.56.110 also requires that the person making the charge have knowledge
of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based. Knowledge need not
necessarily be firsthand. In re Recall of Cy Sun, 177 Wn.2d 251, 256, 299 P.3d 651 (2013).
When the charge is violation of law, the Supreme Court has stated that the petitioner must have
knowledge of facts indicating that the official intended to commit an unlawful act. Pearsall-
Stipek, 136 Wn.2d at 263.
The Court may use supplemental materials to determine whether there is a factual basis
for the charge. In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659, 665-66, 121 P.3d 1190, 1193-1194 (2005).
It may go outside the petition to determine whether there is a factual basis for the charge. In re
Recall of Anderson, 131 Wn.2d 92, 95, 929 P.2d 410, 412 (1997).
C. Legal Sufficiency
RCW 29A.56.110 defines what constitutes misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the
oath of office:
The Petition for Recall of Patricia Pepper alleges violation of the Open Public Meetings
Act. That law requires that meetings of a public agency be open to the public:
All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public
and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of
a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
RCW 42.30.030. The OPMA is remedial and liberally construed in favor of openness. RCW
42.30.910. Exceptions to the openness requirement must be narrowly construed. Miller v. City
of Tacoma, 138 Wn.2d 318, 324, 979 P.2d 429 (1999) (quoting Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354 v. Mead
Ed. Ass'n, 85 Wn.2d 140, 145, 530 P.2d 302 (1975)).
As used in the OPMA, Governing Body means the multimember board, commission,
committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee
thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes
testimony or public comment. RCW 42.30.020(2). A meeting of a governing body occurs
when a majority of its members gathers with the collective intent of transacting the governing
body's business. Citizens All. for Prop. Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan Cty., 184 Wn.2d 428,
444, 359 P.3d 753 (2015).
A public agencys governing bodies are required to convene their meetings at regularly
scheduled dates, times, and places, and may not occur in secret. RCW 42.30.060. All meetings
must have an agenda, which the agency must publish at least 24 hours in advance. RCW
42.30.077.
A governing body may hold special meetings, but only upon 24-hour notice to the public,
via the media and the agencys website. RCW 42.30.080. No business may be conducted except
that for which notice of the special meeting was given. Id.
RCW 35A.12.100 describes the authority of the Mayor in the City of Black Diamond
with its Mayor-Council form of government. It is the duty of the Mayor to appoint, remove, and
supervise employees. RCW 35A.12.100. It is also the duty of the Mayor to see that all contracts
and agreements made with the city or for its use and benefit are faithfully kept and performed.
Id. The Mayor presides over all city council meetings, although she may only vote in case of a
tie. Id.; RCW 32A.12.110. The duties and powers imposed upon the Mayor may not be
amended by or delegated to the City council. Roehl v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Chelan Cnty.,
43 Wn.2d 214, 241, 261 P.2d 92 (1953); Bothell v. Woody, 90 Wash. 501, 504, 156 P. 534 (1916).
Code Cities such as Black Diamond are required to prepare and adopt budgets for a full
fiscal year. RCW 35A.33.075. The Growth Management Act requires the City to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan, which includes a Capital Improvement Plan. RCW 36.70A.070(3). The
City is also required to enact a Six-Year Street plan. RCW 35.77.010.
Having established a Planning Commission under RCW 35.63, the City is required to fill
seats on that Commission. RCW 35.63.020. Commission members are appointed by the Mayor
and confirmed by the Council. Id. Leaving seats unfilled causes planning to default to the City
Council.
Having a police department, the City is required to have a Civil Service Commission.
RCW 41.12.010; BDMC 2.64.020. The Civil Service Commission is governed by State law if
the City does not elect to enact its own rules. RCW 41.12.020.
The acts for which this Statement of the Charges is brought are divided into the following
general factual categories. Together, the charges amount to an indictment against Ms. Pepper
that she has conducted herself, while in office, in a manner that constitutes misfeasance,
malfeasance and/or violation of her oath of office.
Patricia Pepper has engaged in the following actions, each of which constitutes misfeasance,
malfeasance and/or violation of her oath of office, and each of which supports a finding of
factual and legal sufficiency for her recall from office.
The Petitioner for Recall is Ms. Robbin Taylor, who is a citizen of the City of Black
Diamond, Washington. Ms. Taylor makes a concerted effort to attend all meetings of the Black
Diamond City Council, and is thus intimately familiar with the happenings of the City Council
and its members. Additionally, many of the acts charged are well-documented, as evidenced by
the attached exhibits.
The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), RCW 42.30 requires the governing body of a
City to convene its meetings on a published, regularly scheduled time, at a regular place, and to
publish an agenda of the meeting. Ms. Patricia Pepper convened meetings with a majority of the
members of the City Council without complying with the public notice and agenda requirements
of the OPMA. Many of these meetings were conducted privately over email. During these
meetings, the majority of the City Council resolved to and did make decisions purportedly on
behalf of the City, all without public notice or input.
Almost immediately after starting her term as a Council member, Ms. Pepper
employed in-person meetings, email communications, telephone calls, and communications
through third parties to effect off-the-record meetings of a majority of governing bodies and to
make decisions of the City Council without compliance with the OPMA, on at least the
following occasions:
January 7, 2016. Ms. Pepper emailed with Council members Erika Morgan and
Brian Weber about changing Council rules, and attempted to introduce a 40
page document without notice to the public.1
1 Ex. 14.
January 8-12, 2016. Ms. Pepper exchanged over 30 emails among a majority of
the City Council (members Morgan and Weber) about proposed new rules of
Council procedure.3
January 8-12, 2016. Ms. Pepper entered an agreement among a majority of the
Council to prevent Council Member Edelman from becoming the chair of any
standing committee.4
During the period between March 1-17, 2016, Ms. Pepper privately agreed with
a majority of the Council to adopt a substitute council meeting agenda.5
During April, 2016, as part of a majority of the Council, Ms. Pepper discussed
special meetings, committee meetings, agenda, minutes, and proposed
legislation, and prepared a script for making collective decisions and plans as
council members. The script also included plans for a majority to walk out of
executive sessions of the council.6
During the period between January 1 and April 7, 2016, Ms. Pepper privately
agreed with a majority of the council to produce Resolution 16-1089 firing the
City Attorney after disagreeing with her advice.7
During the period of April 1 to April 21, 2016, Ms. Pepper privately agreed with
a majority of the council to prepare a resolution hiring the law firm of Talmadge
Fitzpatrick Tribe.8
2 Exs. 1-2.
3 Exs. 13-14.
4 Exs. 3, 13-14.
5 Ex. 8.
6 Ex. 8. This exhibit, entitled A Plan was obtained by the undersigned through a Public Records Request, made at
the conclusion of a City Council meeting on May 5, 2016. Ms. Pepper unsuccessfully attempted to hide this
document to keep it from being disclosed. Attorney Ward details this incident in her memorandum produced as
Exhibit 13 hereto.
7 Ex. 19.
8 Ex. 8.
August 25-October 6. Ms. Pepper drafted and privately agreed with Council
members Morgan and Weber to adopt Resolutions 16-1122, 16-1123, 16-1124,
16-1125, and 16-1126, revising contracts for vendors serving the Citys Master
Development Review Team. Per their prior agreement to act together on all
issues, Council members Pepper, Morgan, and Weber enacted the resolutions on
October 6, 2016.10
Ms. Peppers repeated violations of the OPMA have resulted in a lawsuit being filed
against the City.12 In the three months since the suit was filed, the City has already spent $45,522
on its own behalf, and has been ordered by the Court to conditionally pay for Ms. Peppers
defense.13 Willful OPMA violations are not covered by the Citys risk pool policy, thus leaving
the entire cost of the suit to the taxpayers. 14 Ms. Pepper was advised on at least two occasions by
the Citys insurance carrier that her actions may be deemed to be illegal and would not be
covered by City insurance.15 Ms. Peppers actions will have cost the City, and its taxpayers,
hundreds of thousands of dollars and may ultimately result in the City having to declare
bankruptcy.
9 Ex. 11.
11 Ex. 19.
12 Id.
13 Exs. 21-22.
14 Ex. 5.
15 Exs. 5, 18.
Together with Council members Morgan and Weber, Ms. Pepper enacted Council
Resolution 16-1069 revising Council procedure to require that every meeting of a standing
committee of the City Council include three members of the five-member council. 16 Because
three members of a committee also constitute a majority of the Council, every meeting of a
standing committee also constitutes the meeting of a governing body, and requires the committee
to conform to the notice, scheduling, and agenda requirements for the meeting of a governing
body under the OPMA.
Ms. Pepper was advised by no less than five (5) attorneys that committee meetings as
called for in Resolution 16-1069 must comply with the OPMA. 17 Ms. Pepper, along with the
other Council members, was also advised by the Citys insurance carrier that the continuance of
committee meetings was contrary to appropriate risk management practices. 18
However, knowingly acting against legal advice, Ms. Pepper participated in meetings of
standing committees that were not announced in advance, not opened to the public, for which no
agenda was prepared, at which no recording of the meeting was made, and/or for which no
minutes were compiled or approved. The City Noticed committee meetings until Interim City
attorney Ward advised against doing so on June 2, 2016. Committee meetings continued after
June 2, 2016 but were not published by the City.
Ms. Pepper served as chair and participated in meetings of the Standing Committee
on Growth Management, Land Use, and Community Services, but for which no proper
announcement of a public meeting was made, no agenda publicly available, and/or no recording
or minutes compiled, on at least the following dates:19
16 Ex. 6.
18 Exs. 5, 18.
19 Exs. 19, 23. All listed committee meetings took place either at the Library or the local coffee shop.
Ms. Pepper also served on the Government Operations Committee and participated in the
meetings of that Standing Committee, for which no proper announcement of a public meeting
was made, no agenda prepared, and no recording or minutes maintained, on at least the following
dates:20
August 1, 2016
August 27, 2016
September 10, 2016
October 25, 2017
November 7, 201621
January 17, 2017
January 25, 2017
January 28, 2017
Ms. Pepper usurped or attempted to usurp the statutory authority of the Mayor on the
following occasions:
On January 8, 2016, Ms. Pepper, acting with the concurrence of council members
Morgan and Weber, directed City Clerk Brenda Martinez to cancel the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Black Diamond City Council.22
During the period between January 1 and April 7, 2016, Ms. Pepper agreed in
private meetings with a majority of the Council to produce Resolution 16-1089
firing the City Attorney.23
During the period of April 1 to April 21, Ms. Pepper agreed in private meetings
with a majority of the council to hire the law firm of Talmadge Fitzpatrick Tribe.24
22 Ex. 2.
23 Ex. 19.
Additionally, the Council rules adopted by Resolution 16-1069 usurp the authority of the Mayor
to prepare meeting agendas, preside over Council meetings, and direct actions of staff. Ms.
Pepper was advised of this by two attorneys.26
Ms. Peppers attempts to direct the actions of City staff and to fire and hire City attorneys
have impeded the functioning of the City and hindered the Citys ability to receive legal advice.
The Teamsters union has already filed multiple grievances against the Council for interfering
with the duties of staff.27 Moreover, Ms. Pepper hired Talmadge Fitzpatrick Tribe to provide
legal advice directly to her, which advice may have been contrary to the Citys interests. 28 Her
approval the self-serving contract constitutes a conflict of interest, in violation of RCW chapter
42.23, and wrongfully exposes the City to her attorneys bill.
Ms. Pepper and others constituting a majority of the City Council privately agreed not to
attend regularly scheduled meetings of the City Council without excuse, or to leave regularly
scheduled meetings before they were adjourned, in order to cause the meetings to fail for lack of
a quorum. This occurred on the following meeting dates:29
24 Ex. 8.
25 Ex. 25.
26 Exs. 4, 13-14.
27 Ex. 12.
28 Ex. 10.
29 Exs. 12, 23. The undersigned also attended all of these meetings and personally witnessed the failure of a
quorum.
Ms. Pepper and others constituting a majority of the City Council, without excuse, agreed
not to attend regularly scheduled work sessions of the City Council on at least the following
dates:33
January 14, 2016
February 11, 2016
March 10, 2016
April 14, 2016
May 12, 2016.
Ms. Pepper and others constituting a majority of the City Council, without excuse,
refused to attend executive sessions of the City Council meetings on at least the following dates:
Ms. Pepper, with others constituting a majority of the City Council, failed to approve
minutes for 45 of the 63 meetings of the Council or the standing committees upon which she
served.34 This is a violation of State law, and deprives the public of an official record of all City
meetings.
Ms. Pepper, with others constituting a majority of the City Council, failed to complete the
Comprehensive Plan of the City, required by the State Growth Management Act. This act
disqualified the City for a grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council, which it otherwise
would likely have been eligible for. The failure to enact a comprehensive plan has also placed
the City at risk for work stoppage, and is likely to cost the City money it does not have.35
31 Ex. 16.
32 Ex. 15.
33 Ex. 23.
34 Id.
35 Ex. 26.
Ms. Pepper, and others constituting a majority of the Standing Committee that Ms.
Pepper chairs, and constituting a majority of the Council, despite having developed their own
resolution for contracting for building inspection services, failed to provide for such services.36
Among the consequences of Ms. Peppers inaction, the City of Black Diamond had to refund the
cost of building inspection services to the Enumclaw School District and may cause a delay of
occupancy of a public school in the City, to the detriment of its citizens.37
Ms. Pepper has refused to call a vote on multiple items, causing necessary and important
legislation to fail or linger in committees. Ms. Pepper failed to vote in the following instances:
Ms. Pepper and others constituting a majority of the City Council failed to enact a yearly
budget for the year 2017, in violation of State law. Instead, they enacted a temporary budget that
expires on April 1, 2017. The Citys working under a temporary budget impaired its ability to
attract and retain employees to serve the City and posed the imminent termination of services
supplied by the City, including delivery of domestic water and police services, fire and sewer
services for which it contracts, and all other City services, imperiling the peace, health, and
safety of its citizens. Further, the temporary budget contained multiple illegal provisions, which
exposes the City to the risk of a lawsuit or State sanction.38
36 Ex. 11.
37 Ex. 24.
38 Ex. 20.
VI. Conclusion
Based upon Ms. Peppers malfeasance, misfeasance, and violation of the oath of office
within the meaning of the legal standards shown above, the County should prepare a ballot
summary and forward a copy of this letter and all exhibits hereto, with the subjoined declaration
of Robbin Taylor, to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
39 Ex. 25.
40 Id.
41 http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/Clerk/Audio/Council/2017/Council_20170302-
1900_Combined_01d2938734ebc3a0.mp3
________________________
Robbin Taylor
32110 Botts Dr.
Black Diamond, WA 98010