Opinion ID: 2615021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Action by City of Ocean Shores

Text: Following Respondent Hoflin's convictions in the federal court, City Manager Robert Orlander requested that City Attorney Michael Valdez research the impact of the felony conviction on Respondent's employment with the City. [7] The City Attorney, in turn, contacted Robert Hauth, general counsel for Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. [8] In a letter dated March 18, 1986, Mr. Hauth advised Mr. Valdez that he interpreted RCW 9.92.120 [9] to mean that a conviction followed by judgment and sentence automatically terminates a public office whether elected or appointed.... [10] Mr. Valdez agreed with Mr. Hauth's interpretation of RCW 9.92.120 and on March 24, 1986, sent the city manager a memorandum explaining his views. [11] Prior to Respondent Hoflin's sentencing in the federal court, City Manager Orlander met with him and gave him a copy of City Attorney Valdez' memorandum. Mr. Orlander told Respondent to let him know if he or his attorney could see a way around applying RCW 9.92.120. [12] Neither Respondent nor his attorney made any responsive suggestions or requested a hearing. Respondent Hoflin was then dismissed from employment with the City on March 30, 1986. On May 6, 1986, City Manager Orlander by letter informed the Department of Employment Security that the City did not oppose paying unemployment benefits to Respondent Hoflin. He explained that although Respondent's employment had been terminated, [t]he City's position has been that Mr. Hoflin made an innocent mistake and should never have been prosecuted in the first place for his offense. The City did not desire or wish to terminate Mr. Hoflin, but his position was forfeit under the provisions of the state law. [13]