Court dismisses Bridgeport Council recall petition

WATERVILLE – A petition filed in Douglas County Superior Court last June by a Bridgeport resident seeking the recall of all five Bridgeport city council members has been dismissed by the judge who heard the case.
The recall action sought by Bridgeport plaintiff Michael Knox on June 10 claimed that council members were remiss in their duties to file annual reports for the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) created by the city in 2016. Knox became curious about the funds raised by vehicle license tab fees when he received a 2020 license tab renewal notice that included a $20 fee for the Bridgeport TBD. That began an eight-month campaign by Knox to secure copies of the annual reports that must be filed with the state in accordance with mandates in both the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Bridgeport Municipal Code (BMC).
State RCW 36.73.160(2) states:  A district shall issue an annual report, indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, transportation improvement expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of record in the district.
BMC under Title 2, Chapter 2.52 Section 020(D) states:   The board shall issue an annual report, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.73.160(2). (Ord. 669 § 3 (part), 2016).
The recall targeted council members Matthew Schuh, Mike Bjornstad, Jacqueline Hentges, Esiquio (Zeke) Martinez, and Sergio Orozco. Two of those, Bjornstad and Martinez, were appointed to fill council vacancies and all but Orozco are running unopposed on the November general election ballot. Orozco’s term expires in 2023. After the petition was filed it was determined that the four council members on the upcoming ballot are exempt from recall because a window of at least six months is mandated to field replacement candidates.
In his testimony on June 18 Knox said he repeatedly requested copies of the annual TBD reports from city officials without success.
“I finally came to the only possible conclusion,” said Knox. “I wasn’t getting any reports because they had never been done and simply didn’t exist.”
Knox said he finally extrapolated the figures from a Department of Licensing report and produced the following annual totals:
2017 - $18,097.20
2018 - $48,371.28
2019 - $44,926.20
2020 - $45,302.40
Adding a minimum estimate of $20,000 for 2021, Knox calculated the five-year revenue total at about $175,000. He said Bridgeport citizens “have no idea what is happening with the money.”
In a 49-page declaration she filed with the court, city clerk/treasurer Judy Brown stated that TBD accounts were filed with the state auditor from 2017 through 2020. Brown noted that consistent with training received from other TBD clerks and consultation with the state auditors “the filing of an annual report…is only needed if there are Material Change Orders. To date there have been no material changes that qualify for application of the Material Change Order Policy and/or filing of an annual report reflecting such changes.”
The state auditor is quoted in Brown’s declaration as concluding that “nothing came to our attention in the areas we reviewed that caused us to believe the (TBD) was not in substantial compliance with applicable state laws, regulations, and its own policies, or had significant weaknesses in controls over the safeguarding of public resources.”
Brown also provided The Quad with an itemized list disclosing projects undertaken and equipment purchased with TBD funds, the purpose of each item, estimated and true cost, and completion date. Some examples include:
Sept. 2018: Purchase of a solar powered Radar Speed Detection/Reporting System with trailer for $9,442.61.
July 2019: Reconstruction and paving of Eighth Street costing $9,477.60 (Central Paving Co.) and $1,579.62 (Godbey – gravel).
2020: Snowplow equipment purchased for $14,345.37.
2021: Grading and rock for a new Roadside Sculptures parking lot under development at 24th Street and Foster Creek Avenue that was a topic on last month’s city council meeting.


In his closing arguments to the court Knox also addressed the council’s violation of city code by having city attorney Julie Norton improperly represent elected council officials who do not qualify as paid city employees.  
Judge Huber’s seven-page decision noted that “to be legally sufficient, the petition must state, with specificity, substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office. Officials cannot be recalled for exercising their discretion…A general statement that public funds are being wasted is insufficient evidence of an abuse of discretion.”
Huber continued: “With all due respect to the Petitioner, who makes some interesting points and arguments, this Court must limit its rulings to these two relatively narrow questions. This Court will not delve into other matters, such as whether the TBD annual reports in question were or were not filed or whether the members of the City Council (or TBD board) or their attorney should be sanctioned in some way, as suggested by the Petitioner.”
Again, referring to the court’s abbreviated opinion Huber added: “In short, it may well turn out that the Petitioner is correct that no such annual reports were generated by the TBD as required, but even if that is true his filing of a recall petition merely initiated a legal action in which the Court’s inquiry is limited in scope and not designed or intended to grant the other types of relief he has requested.”
With that the court found Knox’s six allegations “legally and factually insufficient.”
“I am disturbed by the ruling of Judge Huber, but I can't find fault in it as he strictly followed the guidelines to rule on the sufficiency of the allegations to allow the recall to move forward,” said Knox. “By his ruling, Judge Huber did not address any of the issues I identified.  He also dismissed my motion. He strictly ruled on the recall and nothing else.” 

Knox said he also thought Judge Huber should have referred the other issues to agencies who could have addressed them. 

“He did not make any referrals to any outside agencies,” Knox said.

“We still need to recognize that some $170,000 has been collected by the city,” said Knox. “The citizens don't have a clue what has been done with these monies because the Bridgeport city council is thumbing its nose at the citizens they are supposed to serve.”

Knox said two questions remain unresolved.

“First, how do you punish the council for their failure to do what they are required to do?” asked Knox. “Second. how do you get a report produced to see where the money has gone?”

While the first round has been decided in favor of the city, Knox does not appear to be abandoning the match. In the meantime, the suggestion was raised at last month’s regular council meeting that a public hearing be held at this month’s meeting, August 18, to discuss an ordinance to absorb – not eliminate - the TBD into the city.