1 FILED 2020 OCT 12 09:00 AM KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED CASE #: 20-2-13314-1 SEA 2 3 4 JUDGE JIM ROGERS 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 8 9 10 11 NO. 20-2-13314-1SEA IN RE THE MATTER OF RECALL CHARGES AGAINST CITY OF SEATTLE COUNCIL MEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT 12 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 14 15 16 17 18 Councilmember Kshama Sawant has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Per CR 60, the Court did not request a response brief. New factual materials typically are not allowed on a Motion for Reconsideration, and this Court did not consider the Councilmember’s Declaration. 19 20 21 The Motion generally argues that the Court did not correctly consider the burden to prove the Councilmember’s specific intent to commit each act and intent to act unlawfully. In 22 re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 141 Wn.2d 756. While the legal standard is correctly stated, the 23 facts are presumed true, and the Court may draw inferences regarding intent from them, if 24 factually sufficient. It is repeatedly implied that without a clear statement of intent to break the 25 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PG. 1 PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES (JIM) E. ROGERS KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 477-1597 1 law made by the Councilmember herself, or that she was specifically aware of the law, this 2 standard cannot be met, and thus any charge in the Petition would be factually insufficient. 3 4 The Court disagrees that this is the legal requirement. The Councilmember is presumed to have knowledge of the law and ethical code, and intent can be inferred from the surrounding 5 6 7 circumstances. Charges A and B: The Councilmember argues that because the law is not clear that it 8 was a breach of law and ethics to delegate her employment decision to the Seattle Executive 9 Committee of the National Socialist Alternative party, so she could not have intended to break 10 it. In other words, she argues that a councilmember would not know that she cannot delegate a 11 City employment decision to her outside political party’s Executive Council. The Court has 12 ruled on the law and ethics code, and officials are deemed to be on notice of the law. 13 14 She similarly argues that the law is not clear that the Councilmember could not spend 15 City resources to promote a ballot initiative, thus she could not have intended to break the law. 16 In Pearsall-Stipek, there was some evidence that the respondent did not intend to falsely 17 state that she had earned a degree from the University of Washington. She has testified to the 18 falsehood in a deposition but then she had then corrected herself. That specific charge was 19 found insufficient. However, the Court inferred intent for another charge because during trial 20 testimony she was sworn under oath and again testified falsely. Id at 780. Thus, even where 21 22 23 24 the Court had conflicting evidence of intent, it examined the surrounding circumstances of the statement. The Court is allowed to do so for evidence of sufficiency. In In re Sandhaus, one charge at issue was the Respondent failed to secure a required 25 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PG. 2 PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES (JIM) E. ROGERS KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 477-1597 1 bond. Sandhaus presented undisputed evidence that he thought that the County Auditor 2 handled all such bonds, and once told of the mistake, sought one as soon as he could thereafter. 3 4 134 Wn.2d at 670. Thus, Sandhaus argued that he did not intend to commit misfeasance, etc., and he corrected his mistake once he realized it. There are no such set of facts or statements 5 6 7 here. Here, for Charges A and B, there were foundational facts that the Councilmember 8 intentionally delegated an employment decision to an outside group, and admitted doing so 9 (examined in the earlier Order) and that she intentionally spent City money for the Tax 10 11 Amazon Initiative (also discussed in the earlier Order). From the facts can be inferred an intent to commit the act and the law. 12 Finally, In re Ackerson, 143 Wn.2d 366, is distinguishable. The Respondent argued 13 14 that a more stringent standard for intent and that corroboration, similar to the corpus delecti 15 rule in criminal law, was the appropriate standard. The Court rejected that argument, but 16 examined a charge under the existing intent standard. The charge was that Ackerson admitted 17 in conversation that he pocketed campaign money. There were no details about where or when 18 he said this. Campaign finance records showed that he spent more in his campaign than he 19 took in. The charge against Ackerson simply failed for lack of factual sufficiency. By contrast 20 in this case, there are many specifics about events in question. Thus, Ackerson is very 21 22 different than these charges. (Another problem with the Ackerson case is the lack of a clear 23 record, because there was no record made at the time of the hearing, but a report of 24 proceedings apparently after the fact). 25 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PG. 3 PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES (JIM) E. ROGERS KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 477-1597 1 Charge C: The Councilmember largely repeats her arguments from the first Motion. 2 Again, the Court laid out the arguments on this issue for and against, but the presumption is 3 4 that the facts as submitted by the Petitioner are true, and then the only question is whether they are factually sufficient, not whether the Councilmember rebuts them in a declaration. Motion 5 6 7 Denied. Charge E: 8 factual sufficiency. 9 Mayor and 10 11 The Councilmember argues that there are not specific facts to support There are. The facts are based upon a news article, which quotes the Mayor Durkan’s statements are quite specific about the fact that the Councilmember knew her address, knew it was legally protected due to death threats, but led a march to her house. That the charge is based upon a statement made by the person to whose 12 house she allegedly led a crowd does not make it less factually sufficient. Courts do not have 13 14 the authority to look at the truthfulness of the charges or question the underlying motivations. 15 Cole, 103 Wn.2d at 287. Instead, courts must consider whether, accepting the allegations as 16 true, the charge on its face supports the conclusion that the officer in some way abused his 17 position. Teaford, 104 Wn.2d at 586. Finally, the news source includes a report of the rally at 18 the Mayor’s house and shows a picture by the news organization of the Councilmember giving 19 a speech at the Mayor’s house, all corroborating and quite specific facts. Exhibit E to Decl of 20 Lou, Brief in Support. 21 22 23 Motion Denied in its Entirety. DATED this October 9, 2020 24 25 ___________________________________ JUDGE JIM ROGERS ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PG. 4 PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES (JIM) E. ROGERS KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 516 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 477-1597 King County Superior Court Judicial Electronic Signature Page Case Number: Case Title: 20-2-13314-1 Document Title: IN RE THE MATTER OF RECALL CHARGES AGAINST CITY OF SEATTLE COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT ORDER RE DENYING RECONSIDERATION Signed by: Date: Jim Rogers 10/12/2020 9:00:00 AM Judge/Commissioner: Jim Rogers This document is signed in accordance with the provisions in GR 30. Certificate Hash: B47004040B740E191484A3F4E82768EC44D772C7 Certificate effective date: 7/16/2018 2:29:28 PM Certificate expiry date: 7/16/2023 2:29:28 PM Certificate Issued by: C=US, E=kcscefiling@kingcounty.gov, OU=KCDJA, O=KCDJA, CN="Jim Rogers: 1PnP2ArS5hGGnrP2AFk6yQ==" Page 5 of 5