Opinion ID: 2582710
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶ 3 In May 2005, Commissioner Carkeek sought an antiharassment order after, he alleges, he was attacked by two of his neighbors. The trial court declined to grant Commissioner Carkeek an antiharassment order on the grounds he had not proved his case and dismissed his petition. ¶ 4 Shortly afterward, Leland Ripley, his neighbor, filed this recall petition against Commissioner Carkeek. The recall petition alleged, among other charges not before us, that Commissioner Carkeek should be recalled because he [s]ought through the use of a claim of harassment to obtain a court order directing that Leland G. Ripley and Kathleen J. Ripley be prohibited from attending public Drainage District # 8 meetings in violation of Leland G. Ripley's and Kathleen J. Ripley's rights to free speech and to petition the government as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 § 4 and § 5 of the Washington State Constitution, an act of malfeasance and[/]or misfeasance in office and a violation of his oath of office. A copy of his petition and the order dismissing his petition for an anti harassment order are attached. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 53. After dismissing all the other charges brought by the petitioner, Judge James H. Allendoerfer substantially revised the charge (and not merely the ballot synopsis) to read: Shall Robert Carkeek, Commissioner of Drainage Improvement District No. 8, be recalled from public office for acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of oath of office because of the following allegations: On May 26, 2005, Robert Carkeek sought an anti-harassment order from Snohomish County District Court prohibiting constituents of Drainage Improvement District No. 8, Leland G. Ripley and Kathleen J. Ripley, from attending future public meetings of said District. These acts were an intentional attempt to violate the Ripleys' constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government, and an intentional attempt to violate the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW, and the Anti-Harassment Act, Chapter 10.14 RCW. CP at 6. Thus, the superior court judge revised the charge to specifically allege an intentional attempt to violate the constitutional rights of the Ripleys and the statutory law of the State of Washington. Commissioner Carkeek sought review.