HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1273

BYRepresentatives Cooper, Patrick, Hargrove, Ferguson, Moyer, Basich, Vekich, Wolfe, Jones, Sayan, Wood, Baugher, Crane and Horn

Authorizing counties to defend county officials in recall actions.

House Committe on Local Government

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (14)

      Signed by Representatives Haugen, Chair; Cooper, Vice Chair; Ferguson, Ranking Republican Member; Horn, Nealey, Nelson, Nutley, Phillips, Raiter, Rayburn, Todd, Wolfe, Wood and Zellinsky.

House Staff:Steve Lundin (786-7127)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FEBRUARY 14, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Elected officials, including elected county officials, are subject to being recalled by county voters.  A recall petition must allege that the elected official has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or violated the official's oath of office.  The truth of the allegation is determined by the voters, but the recall petition must recite an act or acts, that if true, would constitute an act of malfeasance or misfeasance, or a violation of the official's oath of office.

The recall procedure involves several steps, including:  (1) the filing of a complaint; (2) preparation of a ballot synopsis; (3) determination by the superior court if a sufficient ground to recall an official is alleged in the complaint; (4) circulation of a recall petition to obtain signatures, if the complaint is sufficient; and (5) an election on the recall.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The county legislative authority is permitted to request, and the county prosecutor may allow, a public defense of the county official before the superior court to determine if a sufficient ground is alleged in a recall complaint against the county official.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  Both the county legislative authority, and the prosecutor, must concur.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Jim Goche, Washington Association of County Officials; Gary Lowe, Washington State Association of Counties; and Dennis Morrisette, Sheriff, Grays Harbor County.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Several recall efforts have been mounted by one person against a sheriff whose deputies previously had arrested this person.  Each time an insufficient ground was alleged in the complaint.  The sheriff had to hire an attorney on the question of sufficiency before the superior court.  This is harassment.  Some attorneys for cities and PUD's feel that public moneys may be spent on this issue when a recall of their officials is being sought, but the prosecuting attorney is not sure.  It is a new process for a superior court to determine the sufficiency of a recall complaint.  Prior to this change, the prosecutor determined the sufficiency.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      This is a touchy subject.