Recall of Sandhaus :: 134 Wn2d 662
Category: Bureaucracy and Documents
The finding of the trial court that a recall petition was “legally and factually sufficient for submission to the electorate.” [at 663], was overturned by the high Court. The charges are reversed on opposite grounds.
This has been a major political battle between a law-and-order prosecuting attorney and a council who views the job as a clerical position. One of the elements of the case is ironic: It seems the council would not approve the transfer of funds from operations that were underspent to operations that were overspent within the department. However, so as not to harm the county’s good credit, they approved warrants to fund the amounts needed. It turns out that the prosecutor violated no law and that auditor, who issued the warrants, and the board, who approved them may have violated a statute that makes them liable for up to four times the overexpenditures approved or paid by warrant. [at 672].
It should be noted to the board, they have distracted their prosecutor from executing his position. This, and the cost of the trial and appeal have imposed additional costs upon the county. “If a man digs a pit, he will fall into it; if a man rolls a stone, it will roll back on him.” [Pro 26:27 NIV]. May the board receive at the hand of the electorate what they desired for Mr. Sandhaus.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Quinn, Joseph | |
| fail | Lyden, John | |
| fail | Reed, Roger |