Judge rejects Ensey recall
Yakima Herald-Republic
More 'Local'
- New concept and new look planned for State Fair Park
- Volunteer judges offer to ease backlog of civil court cases
- Hitchhiker? DNA leads to husband
- Home custody escapee back in jail
- Mabton mayor pushes to hire Selah ex-police chief
- Account to benefit Dale Carpenter
- Sunnyside hires firm to find new manager
YAKIMA, Wash. -- The recall petition filed against Yakima Councilman Rick Ensey was denied by a Yakima County Superior Court judge Monday morning, but that denial may lead to an appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.
In a three-page ruling, Judge Michael McCarthy wrote that the recall petition lacked proof that Ensey violated the state Open Public Meetings Act by working with other council members to pass a change in city budget policy.
"It is not the court's role to decide whether Mr. Ensey is a saint or a sinner or whether his actions were clever or deceitful," McCarthy wrote. "The court acts as a gatekeeper to make sure the recall process is not used to move forward unsub-stantiated charges. In this case, on the very technical point that proof of a quorum is lacking, the court believes these charges cannot be substantiated."
The recall petitioners, Charlotte Jones and Gene Rupel, had hoped to force a recall election of Ensey, who they believe violated the public meetings act by lining up votes outside of the public eye in April.
While e-mails show that Ensey did communicate about the matter with Council members Kathy Coffey and Micah Cawley, as well as Yakima Valley Business Times editor and publisher Bruce Smith, it failed to show that they were ever all in a meeting or e-mail chain together, McCarthy wrote.
"There is a clear failure of proof of an essential element of the petitioner's case," he wrote. "They cannot show a quorum of the City Council acted in violation of the OPMA."
Ensey's attorney, Gary Lofland of Yakima, cheered the ruling as confirmation that the petitioners had put too much stock in e-mails that didn't explicitly state the four council members worked together.
"They were trying to fill in the gaps by speculation and conclusions rather than evidence ... They had to establish that there was a violation of the OPMA to be able to go forward with this recall, and they couldn't establish that," Lofland said.
While the e-mails proved some of the council members discussed the policy change, they didn't prove that a quorum of four or more ever actively participated in making policy outside of the public eye, he said.
"That's how politics works," Lofland said. "It's an unrealistic view to think politicians can't talk about what's going on."
Ensey saw the ruling as vindication.
"I've said all along that there was never any violation of the OPMA," he said.
He also reiterated his belief that the recall effort was politically driven and that he was being targeted by his adversaries Ron Bonlender and George Fearing. Ensey defeated Bonlender, an active member of the county Democratic Party, in a contentious 2007 City Council race marked by partisanship.
Fearing, a Kennewick attorney who ran as a Democrat last year against U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, was the petitioners' original attorney before leaving the case. Richland attorney Doug McKinley picked up the petitioners' case.
Rupel and Jones are both Democratic precinct committee officers and have said that they got copies of the City Council e-mails from Bonlender, who had requested them from the city. The e-mails are public records.
"I don't think it's the Democratic Party; I think it's Bonlender, and I think it's George Fearing," Ensey said.
Rupel said Monday that Fearing initially approached him about the recall effort and that Bonlender had ended up giving him and Jones the e-mails.
"(Bonlender) supplied the information," Rupel said. "He didn't force anybody to set up a petition or anything."
Neither Jones nor Rupel would say Monday whether they planned an appeal. McKinley said it was a decision that would take at least a couple of days. The evidence in the e-mails could well be viewed differently by a different judge, he said.
"Reasonable minds could go either way on that question," McKinley said.
Ensey said he believes the outcome is unlikely to change.
"There might be rattlings, and they might even try it," he said. "But it's not going to get anywhere."
* Pat Muir can be reached at 509-577-7693, or at pmuir@yakimaherald.com.
I agree with Ensey's political views but he really needs to learn when to shut his mouth.
If this had gone against Ensey, YHR would have published the judge's three page ruling. This was an odd statement made by the judge: "It is not the court's role to decide whether Mr. Ensey is a saint or a sinner or whether his actions were clever or deceitful," McCarthy wrote.
"They were trying to fill in the gaps by speculation and conclusions rather than evidence ..."
This pretty much says it all. It also seems to be the mantra of the Liberal Left. That's how the ObamaNation came to be as well.
I think he became Pres because the right went nuts and went off the deep end. By the way, does anyone know if the extra patrol on the outskirts of Yakima was funded by the Obama admistration or where it came from?
Report ViolationPosted by sjuan at 05/15/09 12:17PM Post ID#: #3814
As usual, when liberals can't get their way through the electoral process, they abuse the court system until they find a liberal judge that will give them what they want. They don't care what it costs the taxpayers or how it ties up our representatives who were elected to get things done.
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/05/15/plenty-of-drama-politics-behind-the-yakima-city-council-email-story
_______________________
That statement has turned out to be spot on.
I think the losers should have to foot the bill
Report ViolationYes, Republicans should foot the bill. As usual,any opposition to the right wing stranglehold in Yakima gets silenced.
Report ViolationSourdough,
more sour grapes, dems lost on the issues and should reimburse the tax payers for this lame excuse.
Stop the b.s.
Let's do as the Mayor wants us to and get past the partisan politics. It's a Bonlender V. Ensey fight. Bonlender lost, so let him pay.
Report ViolationAbsolutely no reason why the city should pay legal fees for a frivolous charge. The democrats and the Bonlender Fan Club should pay their own bills and for the damages they cause others in the process - including legal fees.
Report Violation(This comment has been removed by a Yakima Herald-Republic moderator)
"Ensey sucks, get rid of him. "
Yes, that's EXACTLY the maturity level of Bonlender and his friends.
What I want to know is if the petitioners will be accused of perjory, since from I've heard their deposition statements didn't support the facts of the petition.
So the same folks who supported city payment of Tricky Rick's legal expenses are now upset about the cost of those legal expenses? And in the interest of nonpartisanship and offending everyone, Ron should put a sandwich in his mouth and wait for the next election. Or better yet, Mrs B could launch a libelous blog...
Report Violation"Or better yet, Mrs B could launch a libelous blog..."
Like the one Bonlender already has? I'm surprised Ensey hasn't sued over being called a "known criminal" (http://www.theothersideonline.net/2009/09/16/calling-shenanigans-vol-iii).
Or maybe he's taking the high ground...
There is no high ground anymore. Maybe there never was.
Report Violation
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?

RSS
E-mail
Print
Comments