The Washington State Supreme Court issued an opinion Wednesday blocking the recall of Pacific County Commissioner Lisa Olsen, reversing a superior court ruling that had allowed the recall petition to proceed.
The court held that charges alleging Commissioner Olsen violated the Open Public Meetings Act were both factually and legally insufficient to support a recall petition. Irving Edersheim, a registered Pacific County voter, had filed the recall petition alleging two charges against Olsen for violations of executive session requirements under the Open Public Meetings Act of 1971.
The recall petition emerged from controversy surrounding Pacific County's jail management following the deaths of two inmates in county custody. One death occurred in 2022 and another in 2024 while inmates were held at the local Pacific County jail, which historically has been managed by the Pacific County sheriff.
The deaths sparked public debate about jail operations and oversight. On Dec. 26, 2024, following public comments at a meeting, the Board of Pacific County Commissioners unanimously voted to begin creating a "jail services department" to operate the local jail. The new structure would include appointing a director who would report directly to the Board of Pacific County Commissioners rather than the sheriff's office.
Edersheim's recall petition alleged that Olsen violated the Open Public Meetings Act by failing to ensure legal counsel was present during executive sessions where litigation or potential litigation was discussed. The superior court initially found both charges in the petition were factually and legally sufficient to proceed to the ballot.
However, the Washington Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's analysis. In an en banc opinion authored by Justice Whitener, the high court found that the charges against Commissioner Olsen did not meet the legal standards required for a recall petition under Washington state law.
The Open Public Meetings Act requires government bodies to conduct business in public sessions, with limited exceptions for executive sessions. Executive sessions may be held for specific purposes, including discussing litigation, personnel matters, and real estate transactions. The law contains detailed requirements about when executive sessions may be held and what procedures must be followed.
Recall petitions in Washington require specific allegations that an elected official committed acts that constitute grounds for removal from office. The charges must be both factually sufficient, meaning they allege specific facts that if true would support removal, and legally sufficient, meaning the alleged conduct actually constitutes grounds for recall under state law.
The Supreme Court's analysis focused on whether Olsen's alleged conduct regarding executive sessions met these standards. While the court found the charges insufficient, the opinion did not elaborate on the specific reasoning behind this conclusion in the available portions of the decision.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in Pacific County over jail management and public oversight following the inmate deaths. The commissioners' decision to restructure jail operations represented a significant change from traditional sheriff-managed jail operations, potentially affecting the balance of power between elected county officials.
Recall elections have become increasingly common tools for voters to challenge elected officials between regular election cycles. Washington state law allows voters to petition for recall elections against most elected officials, but requires meeting specific legal standards before petitions can proceed to the ballot.
The Supreme Court's reversal means Olsen will continue serving as Pacific County Commissioner without facing a recall election. The decision also clarifies the standards for recall petitions based on alleged Open Public Meetings Act violations, potentially affecting future recall efforts across Washington state.
Pacific County, located in southwestern Washington along the Pacific Coast, has a population of approximately 23,000 residents. The county commissioners serve four-year terms and are responsible for county government operations, including oversight of departments like the sheriff's office and now potentially the proposed jail services department.
The deaths that sparked this controversy underscore broader issues facing rural county jails, including staffing challenges, medical care provisions, and oversight mechanisms. Many Washington counties have grappled with similar issues regarding jail operations and inmate safety.
With the recall petition now dismissed, attention may turn to implementation of the new jail services department and ongoing efforts to address the systemic issues that contributed to the inmate deaths. The commissioners' unanimous vote suggests bipartisan support for restructuring jail operations, despite the controversy that led to the recall attempt.
The Supreme Court's decision provides clarity on the legal standards for recall petitions while allowing Pacific County to move forward with its planned jail management reforms without the distraction of a recall election.