BAY CENTER — Attorneys acting on behalf of Pacific County Commissioner Lisa Olsen filed a motion of reconsideration on April 8 against the recall case seeking to remove her from office. The filing outlines several new details that challenge the recall’s accuracy.

Pacific County Prosecutor’s Office Civil Prosecutor Brian Holloway wrote and submitted the recall charge synopsis as mandated by state law.

After the recall was filed, Olsen was notified of the charge but was not informed of her legal right to due process, including a right to formally defend herself at the April 4 hearing, where the recall was approved.

Formal challenge

Olsen is being represented by Attorneys Mark C. Lamb and Isaac C. Prevost of Carney Badley Spellman P.S., out of Seattle. On April 8, Olsen also filed a formal declaration.

According to court documents, the primary allegations in the recall petition allege Olsen was one of three commissioners who allowed litigation executive sessions to be conducted without the legal counsel of Pacific County Prosecutor Michael Rothman — she is the only commissioner the group is currently seeking to recall.

The petition outlined commission meetings held on June 11, 2024, June 25, 2024, Oct. 8, 2024, Oct. 22, 2024, and Oct. 31, 2024, involving alleged illegal executive sessions, including those discussing litigation without legal counsel present.

However, “This charge contains multiple factual inaccuracies,” Lamb and Prevost stated in the motion for reconsideration. “The meeting minutes for the October 8, 2024, session confirm Attorney Michael Rothman was present at the executive session…”

“The meeting minutes for the Oct. 31, 2024, session confirm … Rothman was present at the executive session… The meeting minutes for the Oct. 22, 2024, session confirm that Attorney Michael Rothman was present at the executive session…,” Lamb and Prevost added.

Alleged errors

Additionally, Lamb and Prevost note that the “charge also relies on certain errors in meeting minutes for the Board of Commissioners for Pacific County.”

“These errors are contrary to Olsen’s evidence, as meeting minutes for executive sessions do not always accurately reflect what was discussed in the executive session,” Lamb and Prevost stated in the motion.

“The clerk only attends the public meeting where executive sessions are announced — not the executive session [itself]. The clerk’s minutes rely on the agenda that was set before the executive session. However, those discussions can (and do) deviate from what is on the agenda.”

“For example, the agenda may be set to include a particular topic that the council does not have time to address or, as is the case here, a necessary person (counsel) is not present,” Lamb and Prevost added.

The motion also addresses the meetings scheduled for June 11, June 25, and Oct. 31, 2024.

“The meeting minutes for the June 11, 2024, executive session list multiple reasons for the executive session, including acquisition of real estate, review of public employment performance, and litigation or potential litigation,” Lamb and Prevost stated in the motion. “The Commissioners did not discuss ‘litigation or potential litigation’ in that executive session because counsel Mr. Rothman was not in attendance…,” Lamb and Prevost added.

Allegedly, not as it seems

In addition, the motion notes a similar situation with the June 25, 2024 meeting, noting multiple reasons for the executive session. Litigation, or potential litigation, was not discussed because of Rothman’s absence, attorneys say.

“The meeting minutes for the Oct.31, 2024, executive session list discussing litigation or potential litigation as the sole basis for that executive session,” Lamb and Prevost stated in the motion. “But the Commissioners did not talk about that matter because Mr. Rothman was not in attendance… they instead discussed complaints brought against a public officer or employee.”

Public comment?

The second portion of the motion for reconsideration addresses the allegations that Olsen and her colleagues purposely and willfully avoided public discussion and input regarding the commission’s Dec. 26, 2024 decision to separate the Pacific County Jail from the Pacific County Sheriff’s Office.

“That is wrong,” Lamb and Prevost stated in the motion. “Olsen only ever discussed these views with other commissioners in public workshops that were held on Zoom and were open to the public. The dates of these workshops were Dec. 18, 2024, Dec.23, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024.”

“The commissioners also held a public workshop on July 30, 2024, that was relevant to this determination,” Lamb and Prevost added.

The commission regularly holds workshops that are always open to the public. Their monthly calendar, available on the commission’s website, shows these events.

Far from over

Attorney Jackson W. Maynard Jr., who is representing the Recall Rangers, swiftly filed a response motion on April 9. The motion asserts that Olsen had a chance to challenge the recall during the April 4 court appearance in the Pacific County Superior Court but chose not to do so.

Recall processes are afforded “expedited statutory process,” which states that a recall petition must be heard by a court within 15 days of filing. At the hearing, each side is afforded the chance to make their arguments for and against the recall.

“The court may hear arguments as to the sufficiency of the charges and the adequacy of the ballot synopsis. The court shall not consider the truth of the charges, but only their sufficiency. An Appeal of a sufficiency decision shall be filed in the supreme court as specified by RCW 29A.56.270,” the motion states.

“…the court is not to consider the truth of the charges but only sufficiency. There is no right to a jury. The court’s decision as to the ballot synopsis is final and appeal is directly to the state supreme court as specified in RCW 29A.56.270. The statute does not recognize a motion for reconsideration,” the motion later states.

The motion also alleges that Olsen’s motion for reconsideration, aside from legality, did not provide any “newly discovered evidence that could not have been found or produced with reasonable diligence before the hearing.”

The initial filing by Maynard on behalf of the Recall Rangers, signed by Irving (Les) Edersheim, 88, of Raymond, provided approximately 75 pages of “supporting documentation” to back up the charges outlined in the petition for recall.

“The bottom line is that the motion demonstrates why piecemeal litigation over allegations is not permitted by the statute and should not be permitted here,” Maynard stated in the motion requesting that Olsen’s request for reconsideration be denied. “Commissioner Olsen had an opportunity to have counsel present contrary evidence or argue on her own behalf, and she declined to do so.”

County may foot the bill

Olsen filed an agenda request/motion at the April 8 commission meeting seeking to authorize the county to foot the bill for her legal defense. The motion was addressed at 3 p.m. following a recess without Olsen present. Commissioners Jerry Doyle and David Tobin voted in favor of the motion pending legal authorization.

“It is not a private situation because the recall challenge is for actions that were carried out in her authority as part of the Board of County Commissioners,” Pacific County General Administration Chief Administrative Officer Paul Plakinger stated.

Rothman was not reachable by phone for comments.

Pacific County Sheriff Daniel Garcia and Deputy Michael Parker are currently facing a federal lawsuit lofted by the Human Rights Defense Center regarding civil rights violations for allegedly allowing the rights of several jail inmates and the HRDC to be violated. Outside counsel is representing the duo.

When asked why they are likely footing the bill for their own representation even though they are being sued as Pacific County employees, Plakinger stated that neither had approached the county about using county funds.

Not about the decision?

The Recall Rangers have been vocal online about Olsen’s recall, including allegations that it has nothing to do with the jail being removed from the sheriff’s office.

However, one of the most prominent members of the group released an online article titled “Disrespect Our Constitutional Sheriff, Be Recalled” along with a picture of Olsen.