Dedicated to the citizens of Mason County, Washington since 1886
Dedicated to the citizens of Mason County, Washington since 1886
Community members and more sit and watch the hearing for the Mason County Fire District 12 recall petition hearing Nov. 3 at Mason County courthouse in Shelton.
Recall petitions for Mason County Fire Protection District 12 were allowed to proceed after a motion hearing on Nov. 3 in Mason County Superior Court.
Judge Monty Cobb presided over the hearing. Kristin Masteller and Amanda Gonzales, who filed the recall petitions, were in attendance. Fire commissioners John Pais, Albert Wilder and Brian Jutson did not attend the hearing and were represented by attorney Aaron Haynes. About 25 people attended the hearing.
"The Matlock community showed up last week. There was an overwhelming show of support from both Matlock residents and other interested parties in the courtroom and we appreciate their support and Judge Cobb's ruling to allow us to move this forward," Masteller said in an email to the Journal. "We hope for as good an outcome as we can get in this terrible situation. Hopefully by the time the dust settles from the impending recall election our fire protection district will still be financially solvent and able to continue to provide services to our community. Protecting our assets and district from any further fraudulent activities and from bankruptcy is paramount to our community members."
Masteller said the Mason County Auditor's Office is supposed to meet with the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and provide Gonzales and her with the information for next steps, including an outline of boundaries for each fire commissioner district and the number of signatures that need to be collected in each district.
In Cobb's ruling, he spoke to each charge against each commissioner. For Pais, nine charges were determined to be factually and legally sufficient grounds for recall. Jutson had seven charges from the recall petition used as grounds for a recall and Wilder had 11 charges that were used as grounds for recall.
Cobb referenced each commissioner's time in office as part of determining whether they were sufficient for the recall. Pais has been in office since 2014, Wilder since 2018 and Jutson since 2020.
In a memorandum and during the recall hearing, Haynes argued that the petitioners, while unhappy with the reports from the state Auditor's Office, lacked personal knowledge of the recall charges and none of the charges contained in the ballot synopsis meet the tests for factual and legal sufficiency.
"While there is maybe grounds for the public to be upset, they are entitled to express that at the ballot box, but for purposes of the recall petition standards, the petitioners have failed to meet those and ask the court dismiss the recall petitions," Haynes said during the hearing.
Masteller and Gonzales each read a statement before Haynes spoke about the recall petitions and why the court should dismiss them. In response to Haynes, Masteller said this is the only avenue for the public to institute change.
"If this isn't a poster case for misuse, nepotism, and pushing out the public so there's no light shined on the misdeeds that are occurring on our dime, I don't know what is," Masteller said during the hearing. "I can remember a drainage district somewhere in Washington State that had a pretty similar atrocious case of embezzlement and nepotism and this is probably right up there with that."
"It has been raised that there's not personal knowledge of the charges. There is sufficient personal knowledge based on the auditor's report," Cobb said toward the end of the hearing. "If this was just an accountability report, then it may not be sufficient, but we have a fraud report and that's an entirely different investigation, that's an entirely different process, that's an entirely different set of recommendations from the Auditor's Office and at least for me in my experience dealing with both of those kinds of reports, it carries significantly more weight in the court's decision."
Mason County Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tim Whitehead gave a historical synopsis of the case while also presenting the ballot synopsis, which was modified after going through the charges for each commissioner.
"The community is very excited that we are able to move forward with the recall process and anxious to get started," Masteller said in an email to the Journal. "I have been fielding a lot of calls and messages from folks asking how they can help and what the next steps are. Amanda and I intend to hold another community meeting to discuss these topics once we receive the information from the county. We have several volunteers lined up to collect signatures and want to help get people registered to vote as well. We are ready to mobilize as soon as we get our instructions."
The commissioners did not respond to a request for comment before the Journal's print deadline. The next commissioners meeting is 2 p.m. Nov. 15 and it is unclear if the public will be able to attend in-person or if the meetings will still be conducted through Zoom.
Reader Comments(0)