Court Opinion

ID: 9547424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:47:13.159338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:44.073822
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting) — The majority affirms the action of the Moses Lake City Council in refusing to award a 5-year garbage contract to the lowest bidder but instead awarded it to the third lowest bidder, at an additional cost to the Moses Lake taxpayers of $3,000 a month, or $180,000 over the life of the contract. It is undisputed that both are competent contractors. The majority affirms the holding that the Council properly exercised its discretion. I disagree and would hold that the Moses Lake Council's actions were a manifest abuse of discretion, and I believe the citizens of Moses Lake, who have to pay the bill, would agree with me.
From the time this court first decided a case dealing with the recall right promulgated in Const, art. 1, §§ 33 and 34 (amend. 8),1 to as recently as last year,2 we have always interpreted the recall provision broadly so as to allow the people to exercise their right of self-governance.
Only last year, we reaffirmed the principle that
our constitution establishes a very broad right of the electorate to recall elective public officials. McCormick v. Okanogan Cy. [90 Wn.2d 71, 578 P.2d 1303 (1978)], at 75. The rights of initiative, referendum, and recall form a weighty triumvirate intended to preserve the people's most basic right of self-governance and any interference with these rights requires strong justification.
Pederson v. Moser, 99 Wn.2d 456, 460, 662 P.2d 866 (1983). This broad right of recall has manifested itself by providing the foundation for many of the rules which protect this basic right:
First, in determining the validity of recall charges, courts are limited to examination of the charges stated and cannot inquire into factual matters extraneous to the allegations. E.g., State ex rel. LaMon v. Westport, 73 Wn.2d 255, 438 P.2d 200 (1968). Second, courts must *277assume the truth of the charges in determining whether legally sufficient grounds for recall have been stated. E.g., Skidmore v. Fuller, 59 Wn.2d 818, 370 P.2d 975 (1962). Third, just as there can be no inquiry into the truth or falsity of the charges, there can be no inquiry into the motives of those filing the charges. Roberts v. Millikin, 200 Wash. 60, 93 P.2d 393 (1939). Fourth, recall charges are sufficiently specific if they are definite enough to allow the charged official to meet them before the tribunal of the people. E.g., State ex rel. LaMon v. Westport, supra. Finally, any one sufficient charge requires the holding of a recall election. E.g., Morton v. McDonald, 41 Wn.2d 889, 252 P.2d 577 (1953).
State ex rel. Citizens Against Mandatory Bussing v. Brooks, 80 Wn.2d 121, 124-25, 492 P.2d 536 (1972). The majority now restricts this fundamental right. The majority provides two arguments to justify narrowing the recall right. First, it cites our constitutional requirement that a recall petition allege an act of malfeasance, misfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office. Not once, however, in the past 72 years has this court ever interpreted these requirements to mean that the right of recall should be narrowly construed. Indeed, in the past 72 years this court has always held that the constitution establishes a very broad right of recall. See, e.g., Pederson v. Moser, 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866 (1983); McCormick v. Okanogan Cy., 90 Wn.2d 71, 578 P.2d 1303 (1978); Cudihee v. Phelps, 76 Wash. 314, 136 P. 367 (1913). The majority fails to explain what prompted it to decide that over 70 years of case law interpreting the recall provision was wrong. Instead, it meekly states that our constitution requires that cause be shown for a recall election3 and concludes, without provid*278ing any reasoning, that our right of recall has been construed too broadly in the past.
The second justification the majority narrates for its surprising interpretation of the recall provision is that the Legislature, in 1976 and 1984, amended the enabling legislation to the recall provision. The majority asserts that the amendments show that the Legislature intended to narrow the right of recall.4 **4 As to the 1976 amendment, the majority points to two changes that it asserts show that the Legislature intended to narrow the right of recall. First, it points out that the statute was amended to require that the official who is the subject of the recall receive a copy of the ballot synopsis. RCW 29.82.015. This provision, however, can hardly be characterized as narrowing the recall right. Secondly, the statute was amended to require the petitioner to give a detailed description of the changes, including the approximate date, location and nature of each act complained of. RCW 29.82.010. This provision is a procedural clarification and does not restrict the electorate's right of recall. Instead, it merely ensures that both the public and the challenged official will make an informed decision in the recall process. See Herron v. McClanahan, 28 Wn. App. 552, 625 P.2d 707 (1981).
Discussing the 1984 amendment, the majority points to four changes which it claims are evidence that the right of *279recall has been narrowed. The majority never explains how these changes have narrowed the recall right. Nor could it, since all the changes were either procedural in nature or incorporated this court's interpretation of the constitution's recall provision.5 Yet the majority still concludes, without citing any legislative history, that the Legislature intended to narrow the recall right.
Consequently, it is clear that our recall provision should be judicially interpreted broadly as it has been for the last 7 decades. Manifestly, the allegations in this recall provision are sufficient.
The majority asserts that there was no abuse of discretion when the Moses Lake City Council refused to accept the lowest bid and, instead, accepted the third lowest bid. The majority finds that this is not an abuse of discretion. It does not cite any cases to support its position; instead, it cites a treatise on municipal corporations which discusses judicial review of bid acceptances. The standard a court uses for reviewing an official's conduct is different from the standard the electorate uses for review. The majority may not feel that accepting a higher bid is an abuse of discretion but the voters of Moses Lake might find that the Council's award of a contract, for an additional windfall of $180,000 to the third bidder, was an abuse of discretion, especially when an equally competent contractor (low bidder) admittedly was available for $180,000 less.
The majority claims that the City Council's acceptance of the higher bid was permissible because the two lower bids were not signed on every page. However, it is undisputed that the City Council could have accepted the lowest bid even with the technical errors and still had a binding contract.6 The Council chose not to do so and should now *280be subject to the voters' approval or disapproval of its decision.
I believe that the average person in Moses Lake, if allowed to vote, would find that the Council members who voted for the garbage "windfall" abused their discretion. The majority, by depriving such person of his constitutional right to recall public officials, unfortunately prohibits this.
I would affirm the trial court.

Cudihee v. Phelps, 76 Wash. 314, 136 P. 367 (1913).

Pederson v. Moser, 99 Wn.2d 456, 662 P.2d 866 (1983).

The majority erroneously asserts that our constitution is the only one in the nation that requires a showing of cause before recall will be allowed. That is simply untrue. West Virginia's constitution provides that
All officers elected or appointed under this Constitution, may, unless in cases herein otherwise provided for, be removed from office for official misconduct, incompetence, neglect of duty, or gross immorality, in such manner as may be prescribed by general laws, . . .
(Italics mine.) W. Va. Const. art. 4, § 6. Moreover, while some state constitutions *278do not explicitly state that cause must be shown, their courts have construed their constitutional recall provisions to require that cause must be shown. See, e.g., Amberg v. Welsh, 325 Mich. 285, 38 N.W.2d 304 (1949). Consequently, contrary to what the majority concludes, the drafters of our recall provision did not intend the recall right to be narrowly construed.

The Legislature's authority to enact enabling legislation is limited and cannot be used to change the scope of recall right.
The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people.
(Italics mine.) Const. art. 1, § 34 (amend. 8).

The majority admits that one of the 1984 amendments was merely a codification of prior case law. See majority, at 272.

Reiner v. Clarke Cy., 137 Wash. 194, 201, 241 P. 973 (1926) states: " [Statutes requiring competitive bidding are enacted to secure competition, to prevent fraud and defeat grafting; to remove as far as possible all criticism and secure the *280performance of public work at the lowest possible price; that there must be competition where competition is required. It was also held that the terms used in such statutes referring to 'competitive bids,' 'lowest bids,' 'lowest and best bidder,' and 'lowest responsible bidder' are all practically interchangeable and synonymous. To make distinctions between such terms would be to draw a very fine 1106." (Italics mine.)