Spokane7
53°
December 1, 2011 in News, City
Recall effort will target Tucker
Shannon Sullivan, who led a successful recall of the late Mayor Jim West in 2005, said today she has a new target: Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tucker.
Sullivan said she plans to file recall charges on Friday accusing Tucker of malfeasance, misfeasance and violation of his oath of office.
Sullivan said she strongly believes in holding public officials accountable. She showed it in her gutsy, high-profile campaign that unseated West.
“This is a recall about Tucker not doing his job,” she said.
Her charges cite several of what she considers misdeeds by Tucker, including his decision not to file criminal charges in the police beating death of janitor Otto Zehm in 2006 inside a North Division convenience store.
The U.S. Justice Department on Nov. 2 persuaded a federal jury to convict Spokane police Officer Karl Thompson for excessive use of force and lying to cover up the crime.
The charges allege that Zehm’s death resulted in “a well-planned and blatant cover up by public officials of a police-involved homicide.”
Three other charges are being leveled as well.
Sullivan alleges in the document that Tucker has made at least one statement during a public appearance that he would never prosecute a police officer or public employee.
Sullivan said in the charges that it appears Tucker “basically told a group of his potential supporters that they would be immune from prosecution.”
Sullivan also alleges malfeasance in Tucker’s failure to prosecute former Spokane firefighter Dan Ross following Ross’s sexual encounter with a 16-year-old girl in a city fire house. During the incident, Ross took photos of the partially naked girl, but the photos were deleted by Spokane police detectives.
The incident was initially reported as a rape by the girl’s boyfriend.
Tucker also has offered a plea-bargain deal to a man facing seven counts of first-degree assault for firing shots into a Spokane home, narrowly missing two sleeping toddlers. Tucker is seeking to reduce the charges to two misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment in exchange for a guilty plea, but the judge in the case has so far refused to accept the plea, expressing concern over the severity of the allegations.
Tucker was not available for comment today.
After Sullivan files the charges with the county auditor, a ballot synopsis would be written by a state attorney general. Within 15 days of the filing, a Superior Court judge would have to find the charges to be sufficient to send the petition out for signature gathering.
Sullivan said she collaborated with a number of supporters in drafting the charges.
Auditor Vicky Dalton said the recall would need more than 42,700 signatures of registered county voters to force a countywide election.
The petitioners would have a little more than six months to gather signatures after the court approves the synopsis, not counting time for a possible appeal of the charges by Tucker.
In a prepared statement, Sullivan said that Tucker “has abused his office consistently, disrespecting the public with his deceitful manipulations of facts and evidence.”
“He has enjoyed a free hand to engage in corrupt activity, collecting only evidence that is favorable to his own self-serving position.”
The recall of West in 2005 followed a series of investigative reports in The Spokesman-Review that detailed West’s offers of gifts or city positions in exchange for sex to young men he had met online.
West died in 2006 after battling cancer for several years. His death came from complications following surgery.
This version has been changed to indicate the charges allege a single occasion when Tucker is alleged to have said he would never prosecute a police officer or public employee.
Recent stories by Mike Prager
Recent stories in News
Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues May 29, 2012 5- Center’s activities provide glimpse into network of advocacy groups May 28, 2012 4
- 6-year-old qualifies for national spelling bee May 28, 2012
- $60 million car museum opens near Tacoma May 28, 2012 1
- Lewis-McChord soldier killed in Afghanistan May 28, 2012 9
deacon46 on December 01 at 4:29 p.m.
About Time !!!!
GDodd on December 01 at 4:33 p.m.
There is a GOD!
Verbal on December 01 at 4:36 p.m.
I really hope this goes through.
Its a little disconcerting, though, that he was just recently re-elected.
D Statler on December 01 at 4:50 p.m.
Where do I sign up to help the recall ? I would like to mention Tucker’s office making a deal to a snitch for 18 months in a juvenile facility. This snitch confessed to doing FOUR armed & violent home invasion robberies. His uncorraberated / fabricated testimony sent three innocent young men to prison.Tucker’s crew found out that the snitch was lying and proceeded anyway.Witnesses were tampered with.The prosecutors office was sanctioned $8000 for procedural misconduct.The Judge failed to dismiss the bogus charges.Three young men are still in prison after three years for a crime someone else confessed to. Tucker knew and failed to fix the mess again.Yes, Steve Tucker needs a recall and I will be happy to volunteer my help. ThankYou Mrs. Sullivan for your valliant effort and to the Spokesman for printing this story. :^)
Lets hope the Innocense Project can help our kids after Spokane’s prosecutors ruined three young men and their families lifes.
lowtechmaster on December 01 at 4:55 p.m.
Where can I sign??? Far too many things have been Tuckered away!!
Albert on December 01 at 4:57 p.m.
How can I financially contribute? Can anyone provide an address for mailing contributions?
zelda on December 01 at 4:58 p.m.
I don’t know which is worse — that Tucker supposedly made these declarations about “no prosecution of LE” in front of a large group or that the audience apparently just stood there listening to an admission of graft. Doesn’t somebody on the force have a conscience? An objective sense of right and wrong?
It’s a grievous affront to the citizens that he apparently felt comfortable saying such a thing. No wonder he gets re-elected. Sounds like he’s got a stack of “Get Out Of Jail Free” cards doled out to badge wearers.
brianrbreen on December 01 at 4:59 p.m.
You know what is really kinda funny about this, in my opinion at least, is that with the exception of Driscoll, Emacio, Steinmetz, Nagy, Cipolla, Garvin, Haskell, and a few others, most of the staff would probably sign a petition if they thought they could get away with it.
Ron_the_Cop on December 01 at 5:09 p.m.
LOL Brian! What about Hazel?
Sunshinegurl on December 01 at 5:46 p.m.
I have my pen ready and it’s about time. Hopefully a recall will have better results than the election did. I hope she gets enough dirt on him to make this happen.
D Statler on December 01 at 5:47 p.m.
@ brianrbreen, That is quite a list. I am surprised that it hasn’t been removed. Like chevrolet,Corruption runs deep :^(
GOOD STUFF and TRUE!!
SpokaneLiberal on December 01 at 5:52 p.m.
Seriously - where do we sign?
ericdx on December 01 at 6:01 p.m.
Where can I sign the petition?
misjustice on December 01 at 6:06 p.m.
” Within 15 days of the filing, a Superior Court judge would have to find the charges to be sufficient to send the petition out for signature gathering.”
I wonder which judge will hear the petition?
Too bad the SR hasn’t been as persistent in examining the actions of No-Charge Tucker as they were in their treatment of former Mayor Jim West.
*sigh*
Verbal on December 01 at 6:11 p.m.
misjustice - After Frontline slapped S-R pretty hard in front of the entire country, they’ll probably think twice about getting themselves into that situation again.
The_Seer on December 01 at 6:15 p.m.
Shannon: Thanks for FINALLY listening to me. I still disagree with what you helped do to Jim West (along with this newspaper) but I’m 100% with you on this effort.
Why does a citizen initiated petition have to receive judicial sanction? Really? We have to ask a court if it is okay?
MyPeeps! Your clarity shines brightly!
liberal_in_right_wing_land on December 01 at 6:21 p.m.
LONG OVERDUE!!!
Still amazed how this idiot kept getting re-elected in the first place.
brianrbreen on December 01 at 6:21 p.m.
@misjustice
That’s a biggie, and it will probably go to presiding, so they better plan for that, and have a mouth piece present it. Ms. Sullivan knows that from previous experience. Count on an appeal which will push it back, so getting 50 grand in a short time period is a big task.
misjustice on December 01 at 6:24 p.m.
Verbal, well in the West case the SR baited him which I found distasteful; and I did see the riveting Frontline report.
In the case of No-Charge Tucker all I truly expect from our only daily newspaper is a little, nay, a lot of in-depth reporting…perhaps a compare/contrast type of article on the cases that No-Charge Tucker has refused to persue compared with a prosecutor in a like sized city with similar crime (read OIS) issues. Is Spokan’t truly an anomoly or does it only seem that way because we live here? I dunno…
liberal_in_right_wing_land on December 01 at 6:34 p.m.
misjustice, this newspaper is about to see most of its senior writers leave via early retirement because they are sucking wind as it is…..I highly doubt they will be doing any in depth reporting on Tucker and comparing him to another city our size.
Although some snot-nosed new writer they are hiring on the cheap might go after it so he/she can get the heck outta Spokane and go to a newspaper or news outlet that makes just a little bit of money.
The_Seer on December 01 at 6:43 p.m.
Fifty grand to initiate a recall of a public official?
Sullivan’s charge for recall reads verbatim from the RCW. Why not let the electoral process decide if Tucker has engaged in the types of activities the law states rather than a court? Isn’t that the intent of the law in the first place? If a court official (who in most cases can’t be recalled in Washington) gets to decide the elected fate of another court official, is that really democracy? The only determining factor in this decision should be fulfilling the signature requirement. That requires 35% of the number of voters from the past election. Since this was an off year election and turnout was around 51-2%, that shouldn’t be a Herculean task. Less than one in five registered voters would need to sign the petition, which is a much smaller figure than those who voted for candidates other than Tucker in 2010.
zelda on December 01 at 6:51 p.m.
The Jim West controversy ultimately left a lot of bitterness in its wake. I have mixed emotions about how that unfolded and in the end, felt sorry for the man. It was a tragedy of sorts.
Steve Tucker? No ambivalance about that situation. He’s corrupt and from what I’ve heard, rarely bothers to show up in at the office much less in court. How did the prosectutor’s office become so vapid and unprofessional? Actually, I know the answer — when E. Washington became politically inconsequential in national elections because the population center that matters (Puget Sound) is not GOP. Political polarization has consequences and when one party has all the power (whether it be Dem or GOP), you get this kind of boondocks politics.
I agree with Brian; there are a lot of hurdles to recall and getting 45K signatures in a short time is going to be a major challenge.
But I’m wishing best of luck to Shannon and all recall activists. I’ll do what I can.
de3 on December 01 at 6:51 p.m.
Yay!
The_Seer on December 01 at 6:57 p.m.
Who pays the fees for Tucker to fight a recall?
Brian?
Marie on December 01 at 7:03 p.m.
Maybe Mike Prager can get Shannon Sullivan to explain how when Tucker’s office reduced her 2003 drive by shooting charge to a gross misdemeanor, that did not violate his oath of office. Apparently it’s okay for her to get a deal but not a veteran who has PTSD and is bipolar.
liveinfearoftheSPD on December 01 at 7:09 p.m.
This is going to be very interesting. Anybody know if the recall document is available online for reading?
Shadedmuse on December 01 at 7:10 p.m.
Steve Tucker has been elected three times and steve tucker will win in a recall because people keep voting for Steve Tucker? if steve tucker is defeated who takes over for him? will their be other canidates on the ballot to choose from? because I dont see people voting to recall and giving a blank check to some shmoo.
Marie on December 01 at 7:12 p.m.
The recall documents are on the KXLY website.
brianrbreen on December 01 at 7:17 p.m.
@The_Seer
I’m not sure, whether he is indemnified by the County for a recall or not. He is for a civil litigation. Something that Ms. Sullivan should look into prior to the petition.
I don’t remember exactly, but I think West paid for his own representation.
ultralitigator on December 01 at 7:18 p.m.
@Brian. You are wrong about about two of the names.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on December 01 at 7:21 p.m.
Shannon, thank you for stepping up into the breech … please contact me at ChefGusOlsen@gmail.com for whatever conversation we might have to help you from where I sit. I worked very very hard on Frank Malone’s campaign to do the process and un elect Mr Tucker. John Olsen 509 220 4534
brianrbreen on December 01 at 7:28 p.m.
@ultralitigator
You are probably right, and would know better than I. I was iffy on two,probably the same ones, but when push comes to shove what would they do?
The_Seer on December 01 at 7:33 p.m.
35% of the people who cast votes in the last election amounts to around 53,000 signatures. That might be a hurdle. I correct my earlier estimate of turnout. It was slightly above 56%.
brianrbreen on December 01 at 7:49 p.m.
@ultralitigator
What was said awhile back, may not be the same now. You know how that goes.
D Statler on December 01 at 7:56 p.m.
@ultralitigator, I am pretty sure he may have left out atleast two also. Things sure look different in Spokane’s prosecutors office than on TV. Striving for justice doesn’t always happen here. There seems to be a huge difference between moral justice and legal justice.Public defenders get a fraction to defend while prosecutors seem to have no limit. No checks and balances besides a few local judges that won’t let the bs happen in their courtrooms.Unfortunately, there are some that do let the misconduct happen.Honorable isn’t always what it seems either :^( Certain judges are always selected when questionable cases are pursued. I will let Brian name them. My posts seem to get bounced when I mention names. Tucker has repeatedly dropped the ball. There should be more than enough ammo to get this job done.
Ron_the_Cop on December 01 at 8:06 p.m.
For those wanting to know what the rules are for a recall see these below RCW sections. The number of signatures required is 25% of the last general election. In this case Co Auditor Vicky Dalton is saying according to the above quote:
I will give a short summary of the next several steps before a recall petition can be circulated in a later post.
29A.56.110 Initiating proceedings — Statement — Contents — Verification — Definitions.
29A.56.120 Petition — Where filed.
29A.56.130 Ballot synopsis.
29A.56.140 Determination by superior court — Correction of ballot synopsis.
29A.56.150 Filing supporting signatures — Time limitations.
29A.56.160 Petition — Form.
29A.56.170 Petition — Size.
29A.56.180 Number of signatures required.
29A.56.190 Canvassing signatures — Time of — Notice.
29A.56.200 Verification and canvass of signatures — Procedure — Statistical sampling.
29A.56.210 Fixing date for recall election — Notice.
29A.56.220 Response to petition charges.
29A.56.230 Destruction of insufficient recall petition.
29A.56.240 Fraudulent names — Record of.
29A.56.250 Conduct of election — Contents of ballot.
29A.56.260 Ascertaining the result — When recall effective.
29A.56.270 Enforcement provisions — Mandamus — Appellate review.
DickAdams on December 01 at 8:48 p.m.
Moment of truth re seerick: CARNEGIE BUILDING AT 10 S CEDAR.
I had to laugh when you posted stuff re Jim Franks, because of my spelling error, the correct spelling is name Jim Frank. Maybe I should have mentioned, he is currently developing Kendall Yards. TRUTH regarding the purchase of the CARNEGIE building which you claimed was bought by Ron Wells and rehabbed the building. AGAIN, I MUST SAY, you don`t know what you were talking about. I doubt you if you even know the year the city sold it. You can look it up if you want because obviously you don`t have any idea when. For starters, tonight I`ll explain, who pays the real estate taxes. The assessor`s records show two parcel numbers and the tax statement reads,
Integrus Partnership Parcel # 25241.0101 the second is I Integrus Architecture Parcel # 70.212170
because of the late hour; to be continued. Seerick, are you ready to confess that you didn`t know what you were talking about and your know it all wise mouth comment about yours truly was erroneous? Seems to me you enjoy tearing people down and at the same time put out some kind of rubbish. I guess their is one in every crowd. Have a nice night, seerick.
DickAdams on December 01 at 8:57 p.m.
TO ALL:
I apologize for off subject but I wanted posters that may have read Seer post using my name Dick and adding a few letters to it may have noticed. Thus seerick.
GDodd on December 01 at 9:01 p.m.
Have a beer Dick it has been a real long year ill buy.
sean96 on December 01 at 9:29 p.m.
I will be glad to sign
Ron_the_Cop on December 01 at 9:41 p.m.
Once the statement of charges are filed with the County Auditor, the charges are then sent to the County Prosecutor. The County Prosecutor must then prepare a 200 word ballot summary. In this case Tucker’s Office will have to recuse itself and more than likely it will be sent to another County Prosecutor’s Office to do.
Once the ballot summary is prepared then it goes to the Superior Court for review and approval. Also in this case the Spokane Superior Court bench will more than likely recuse itself and refer it to another County’s Superior Court.
The Superior Court only reviews the summary for its legal sufficiency/format of the alleged violations and not whether the allegations are true. The trier of fact in this case is the voters if enough valid signatures are gathered to cause a recall election.
Steve Tucker has the right to appeal. If he does this is, this will likely to end up in the WA Supreme Court. Mind you Steve Tucker just stood up Judge Hayes. I don’t know if the plea deal was good or not but Tucker’s not showing up was not good form whether he was legally justified or not.
@Brian
Sullivan is filing this petition pro se without legal counsel. As such if this lands up in the Supreme Court Sullivan will likely represent herself again.
The recall sections are very favorable to the people to hold their elected accountable. A recall is considered an emergency action and the time lines are very tight leaving little room for delay in scheduling court hearings.
One last thing in Prager’s article depending on your read of the docs this statement may be misleading:
See Councilman Bob Apple’s statement that appears in the statement of charges.
To read the statement of charges go here:
http://www.kxly.com/news/29900431/detail.html
Jethro_toll on December 01 at 9:59 p.m.
For everyone wanting to sign the petition we need you to take a copy and pass it around. This wont be easy and people are not focused with the weather and time of year.
Dalton may say 42,700 signatures, but your going to need maybe 10% on top of that for comfort. The figure of merit is $1/signature so thats where the predicted $50K comes in. I think the dope petitioners were paid $1 per signature.
We need people to step up and help the organization and ops of this event. They are going to need precint organizers, suggest a great website where you can attach a digital signature (if legal) and a daily count of collected signatures, and also some Billboards. Buttons and bumper stickers. People waving signs. The whole shazam. This is going to take a lot of hard work. SS had a corps of volunteers the last time. She isn’t going to be able to be the single pariah this time.
This will need to be attacked aggressively between now and Karl’s sentencing and we need to leverage any all public news media and keep it in the public eye.
Since the repubs in solidarity re-elected him, we need to crack that nut and use it. Shame them to sign.
I’d get everyone incarcerated in the County Jail thats still able to vote. Thats a good 500 or so.
Naming prosecutors whom favor dumping Tucker might be hazardous to their career. Remember David Stevens. He stepped up early because his integrity wouldn’t let him sit idley by and Tucker illegally fired him. Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the Tucker and who cares who he fires, their union is weak and obeys Tucker and the legal recourse is for the County to toss some tax payer sheckels at Tuckers victims to have them go away.
If the recall is effective whom decides who to replace Tucker? County Commissioners? Need to focus efforts on them if appropriate, not to replace Tucker with a Tucker clone.
Press on.
ericdx on December 01 at 10:05 p.m.
Actually, if I read the law correctly, because the County Prosecutor is the one being recalled, it has to move up the chain to the next senior office of law, which means that I believe the 200 word ballot summary has to come from the Washington State Attourney General’s Office.
GaryP on December 01 at 10:16 p.m.
Jethro Toll- if I read the posts correctly, the problem you people have with Tucker is that he’s not doing his job(prosecuting bad guys). Yet you want to get 500 signatures from inmates!? Aren’t inmates an example of a prosecutor doing his job??? I didn’t vote for Tucker but you people need to get real….and a life
zelda on December 01 at 10:43 p.m.
What’s with the snide and glib remarks of “get a life”? Removing a vile man from public office, watchdogging a PD with very obvious problems, expecting a prosecutor to do a good job on citizens’ behalf, and trying to clean up this town IS a life. It’s called being a decent, involved citizen who expects accountability and honesty from elected officials.
As for Jethro’s concerns, he has good points about the challenges to the recall attempt.
Does anyone know if there is only one chance to do a recall, IOW, if this one doesn’t come together in time, can it be attempted again in 2012?
My biggest concern is how LE and others with ties to LE might retaliate against people trying to gather signatures. It could range from verbal assaults and intimidation to slashed tires, vandalism, getting pulled over for “defective equipment,” harrassing phone calls, the whole shebang. There better be a pro bono legal team ready to help the organizers and signature gatherers not to mention a First Aid station.
HippoCritzGalore on December 01 at 11:08 p.m.
Some of you people clearly have too much time on your hands. With one exception it appears that all of the alleged grounds to recall Mr. Tucker happened before the last election. If there was any merit to any of these claims Mr. Tucker would not have been re-elected.
The claim that Mr. Tucker or his office will not prosecute law enforcement officers is demonstrably false and will come as shocking news to Trooper Mark Haas, Detective Jay Mehring, Officer Jay Olsen and Detective Jeff Harvey.
Regarding Mr. Ross, the last time I checked the age of consent for sexual relations in Washington was 16. Ms. Sullivan bases her complaint on the allegation that the girl’s boyfriend reported it as a rape? IIRC, the girl involved didn’t say that. Mr. Tucker did not direct or request deletion of the photos. Once that was done, and without a complaining victim, there was no evidence to prosecute the firefighter for anything. Last time I checked, prosecutors need admissible evidence in order to pursue charges. Further, there is no correlation between criminal charges, or the lack thereof, and any civil claim against Mr. Ross. The two actions are an apple and a kumquat. The actual court order dismissing an otherwise valid civil claim solely because there was no prosecution will have to be produced to substantiate this allegation.
It appears that Ms. Sullivan has been getting advice and is being influenced by people who fail to understand the role of the prosecuting attorney in the criminal justice system and/or have other axes to grind with Mr. Tucker (Ron the retired cop this means you. Give it up on the Savage accident already, or do Rob McKenna and Mike Fitzsimmons have to spank you again?). They failed with their manufactured allegations in the last election and are, simply, sore losers.
Lastly, Ms. Sullivan should be more concerned about the beam in her own eye before complaining about the exercise prosecutorial discretion in alleged drive-by-shooting cases.
Dazzeetrader1980 on December 01 at 11:11 p.m.
I wonder why the same Federal people who investigate Zehm’s homicied don’t take a look at Tucker? Seems like they would know if there is any truth to the charges made. Just a thought.
These terms used are supercharged terms. If the Fereralis find something illegal, maybe the best route would be to alert the public.
It’s hard to sign so many people up to a form hen the way these documents are written can be so biased. Let the Feds do what they do best…if there are violations or moral turpitude, then the public would surely vote differently. Tucker might be a bum but someone who has some facts should make that determination…something more than a speech at the fairgrounds. Seems that way to me anyway…
And Marie…is your statement true about a “drive by”? This really happened? A 2003 drive by with Sullivan doing the shooting ? I’ve never heard that before. YIKES!
greenlibertarian on December 01 at 11:27 p.m.
And Marie…is your statement true about a “drive by”? This really happened? A 2003 drive by with Sullivan doing the shooting ? I’ve never heard that before. YIKES!
That’s because Marie must have been talking out of her … hat. Yep.
Ron_the_Cop on December 01 at 11:46 p.m.
Dazzeetrader1980
Read the statement of charges. A recall is not a criminal charge but involves an allegation that an officer holder is not doing his/her job while in office and or not abiding by or failed to uphold his/her oath of office. And don’t kill the messenger - read the charges. BTW as I said above the trier of fact is the voters if enough signatures are obtained.
There are some similarities to the showing of disrespect to our justice system like some SPD officers did recently in federal court. Tucker also showed disrespect by standing up Judge Hayes request for him to appear in court and to explain his plea deal.
Read the federal proffer filed in April of 2010 and then decide if Tucker was hiding in the weeds on this case. Tucker could have easily filed this case as a negligent homicide/manslaughter under state law. The burden is only reckless disregard/criminal negligence. This is much less than the feds had to prove in their CRV trial and they got a conviction.
As for the fire house caper, yes the age of consent is 16 years but I believe it is still possible to file if there is a significant age spread between the subjects. Further why didn’t anyone consider filing possession of child porn either state/fed? The girl was under the age of 18. Why was the smart disk destroyed by the fireman at the direction of the detectives? Seems to me this was destruction of evidence. Why did they get only one day off for this? They are seasoned sex crimes detectives. They knew better. Who put them up to this - Sgt. Peterson, Asst. City Attorney Treppiedi and or Deputy Chief Oldenthal perhaps? These names are prominent in the Zehm case as Brian has enlightened us re the cover-up. Brian do you have any insight on this?
Yes the voters were very fickle in 2010. The good candidates took themselves out in the primary by splitting the vote - Stevens and Bugbee. This left Tucker to run against Malone a Democrat. I voted for Malone over Tucker. Why the voters returned him to office is beyond me other than this was an R year. The S-R didn’t endorse Tucker and even the Co Republican Party did not endorse him. This should have been a real clue to the voters. With the Zehm case fresh in their minds perhaps they will have stronger feelings next time.
Folks Tucker’s abdication of his office is costing a mega bucks - the Zehm Case and other coming down the pike. I would be surprised if we get off for any less than $10M in the Zehm civil case.
Ron_the_Cop on December 01 at 11:49 p.m.
Dazzeetrader1980
Yes I do hope the feds have Tucker on their radar. Proving a criminal case would be difficult against Tucker unless they used there federal grand jury to sweat some more people involved to roll on Tucker.
It’s easier once informed for the people to remove him from office.
Verbal on December 01 at 11:54 p.m.
The drive-by happened. Here’s what I found on Google
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=20050511&id=j2hWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-vIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6865,39409
The part about the drive-by is near the end of the first article.
If the link doesn’t work, it was in the May 11, 2005 Spokesman Review on page A8
Dazzeetrader1980 on December 02 at 12:15 a.m.
From the Spokesman May2, 2005…Marie was correct…
I …. May 2, 2005 Spokesman…
“Sullivan, the woman who filed paperwork Monday to start a recall effort against West, pleaded guilty last year to intimidation with a dangerous weapon.
According to court documents, the conviction against Sullivan arose after police investigated a drive-by shooting in September 2003 at a north Spokane address. Police found that four rounds had been fired at parked vehicle, and one of those rounds also hit the home.
Records indicate that the day after the shooting, Sullivan turned herself in and confessed to police that she shot the vehicle. In pleading guilty, she wrote that the incident involved a dispute with a friend over the tires on the car.”
“I did the wrong thing in the incident and the very next morning got up and took responsibility for it,” Sullivan said. “I made a grave, terrible mistake and acknowledged that at the time. …I don’t feel that that has any reflection on anything to do with my petition for the mayor.”
Yikes again!
She is beginning to sound a bit nutty….who knows? Asks for some forgiveness but doesn’t seem to give any. Tsk tsk tsk… I hope Tucker ducks! My old town is sounding crazier by the minute….
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 12:18 a.m.
Verbal,
Old news. This did come up in the last recall. Sullivan freely admits this was a big mistake. As I understand it this wasn’t really a drive by in the normal sense of the term. She shot the tires out on her heroin addicted husband’s vehicle over incident with him and her young son. A round did deflect and hit the house. She turned herself in the next day to police.
Dazzeetrader1980 on December 02 at 12:20 a.m.
Ron..anyone can say anything…you should have to prove your charges…not just go snag 44K signatures with out proof of something…right? Otherwise it looks like a big mob using tainted data..
Let an unbiased group investigate her charges…and then the citizens might be better informed before a recall attempt.
The Sullivan gal sounds a bit well “unsteady at the helm”…at the very least it was how Verner was ousted. Feds made some things known. Isn’t that a better method than rumors… or a misinformed hanging in the newspaper like in the past?
Seems a bit more logical…and a bit more just.
Dazzeetrader1980 on December 02 at 12:27 a.m.
From the Spokesman May2, 2005…
Does this woman sound stable to you people? I don’t know much about Tucker but if he’s the “devil” you might give him his sue process.
“Sullivan, the woman who filed paperwork Monday to start a recall effort against West, pleaded guilty last year to intimidation with a dangerous weapon.
According to court documents, the conviction against Sullivan arose after police investigated a drive-by shooting in September 2003 at a north Spokane address. Police found that four rounds had been fired at parked vehicle, and one of those rounds also hit the home.
Records indicate that the day after the shooting, Sullivan turned herself in and confessed to police that she shot the vehicle. In pleading guilty, she wrote that the incident involved a dispute with a friend over the tires on the car.”
“I did the wrong thing in the incident and the very next morning got up and took responsibility for it,” Sullivan said. “I made a grave, terrible mistake and acknowledged that at the time. …I don’t feel that that has any reflection on anything to do with my petition for the mayor.”
Yikes again!
She is beginning to sound a bit nutty….who knows? Asks for some forgiveness but doesn’t seem to give any. Tsk tsk tsk… I hope Tucker ducks! My old town is sounding crazier by the minute…. At the very least doesn’t he deserve an investigation or a hearing prior to unleashing mob rule? The standard has to be higher than 100 opinions…by faceless SR readers..
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 12:34 a.m.
Dazzeetrader1980,
Sorry but this is a right of all citizens to hold their elected accountable. After all it’s WE THE PEOPLE that empower them to govern. When they fail us we can recall them if there is sufficient votes. Do read what has to occur before a recall election can occur. This is a significant hurdle before he would have to stand for an election.
Again don’t kill the messenger. BTW I fault Steve Tucker the most for his failure to lead and to raise the professional bar re the OIS/OID investigations more so than Mayor Verner that was just voted out of office. She buried her head in the sand and the voters knew it
brianrbreen on December 02 at 6:15 a.m.
@HippoCritzGalore
Since you opened the door, you forgot Officer Rob Boothe. The only problem with mentioning those cases is zero for five isn’t a very good record against cops, and in some of those one could sure make a case for lousy prosecutorial discretion. As a matter of fact apparently Lindsey who tried Mehring didn’t even want “to file this stupid case”. I don’t think opening the door on Olsen is a very good idea either. As far as Harvey is concerned he can thank his lucky stars the case was brought, had it not been, and Kirkpatrick knew what she was doing, he wouldn’t be on his way to being wealthy.
I agree, I’ve got too much time on my hands, and even though this isn’t my deal I thought in the interest of fairness someone should bring it up.
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 6:30 a.m.
@Brian
Thanks.
BTW there is a new thread and Sullivan speaks out to those trying to cast stones at her:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/02/sullivan-plans-to-file-recall-charges-against/?comments#c379742
I Am NOT going to get into an argument here. I simply don’t have the time. But I will say the FACTS!
I am not an elected official whom has sworn to up hold the law. Yes, I broke it, and then did the right thing. FYI, my son was threatened and I over reacted.
Maybe you could post by your real name? I am sure we all have things we are not proud of.
But Tucker is an elected official who needs to be held accountable. Sorry if you disagree.
Oh, thanks for sling mud at me, like it’s not hard enough to tackle this so you and the community can have a vote!!!
philipgregory on December 02 at 7:13 a.m.
Hurrah!
Shelala on December 02 at 7:16 a.m.
I am not a fan of Tucker, but not a fan of Shannon either. I don’t care what domestic dispute she was involved in, I have a problem with anyone illegally using a firearm in trying to settle a dispute. I think before anyone mounts such a controversial recall effort, they should take a good hard look within and ask themselves if they are the person for the job. I don’t think she is. She just adds to the controversy and just places herself in the position of defending herself instead of the task ahead. Pass the torch, Shannon. You intent may be honorable, but the goal may be better achieved by another.
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 8:03 a.m.
Look Tucker needs to be recalled. I’m good with Shannon at least she has the cojones to tell truth to power in this town with many deep dark secrets. For that I give her credit. There are many sheep in this town that cower in fear. It’s time to stand up and quit being victimized over and over again by our elected leaders that will not abide by their oaths of office.
It’s WE THE PEOPLE who consent to be governed. Not the other way around.
kennyhuston on December 02 at 9:54 a.m.
Well said Ron, I’m behind Shannon for leading the charge to get “No Charge 4 Cops Tucker” outta office too! She’s got more cajones than The Klubber + can admit when she’s f***ed up too! Just a little hint about Shannon … … … don’t go around threatening her or her children and you’ll find her to be quite nice!
Too bad back in back in May 2005 Shannon wasn’t SPD - ‘cause she’d have NEVER BEEN CHARGED !!!!!
YIKES!!!!!!
REMEMBER OTTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shelala on December 02 at 10:06 a.m.
@kenny
Let’s see, they both snapped in stressful situations with bad results. Careful where you hang your hat.
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 10:23 a.m.
Look can we all just get along:-)
This is all about getting Tucker out of office. This is not about Shannon. He’s collecting $140K of your tax money for hiding in the weeds and couldn’t make a decision if his life depended on it.
I will go with a R and or D as justice should be color blind and
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
I just want some one that will earn his/her money and abide by his oath of office to the people. I know these cases are difficult to decide whether to bring criminal charges against a police officer. I’ve never said this wasn’t a difficult job and THERE IS NO ONE that hasn’t made mistakes. However lying about it to cover you mistakes is unacceptable.
I want a prosecutor that will ask the hard questions and not just roll over on these OIS/OID investigations. By improving the investigative product from a policy and procedure perspective it will help identify when mistakes are made regardless if they were criminal in nature or not.
Shelala on December 02 at 10:51 a.m.
@ron
We want a lot of the same, but I think Shannon’s involvement in spearheading a recall destroys credibility. You totally lost me there. She deserves credit for her activism and kudos to her for standing up, but she has her own issues which I am certain will only serve to take the focus off the desired goal. I think you may have just compounded a bad situation by your backing.
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 11:37 a.m.
Shelala,
Fair assessment re my involvement. Of course I have been dismissed, discredited and marginalized by local LE leadership. Why do you suppose? Of course there was no cover up of the Zehm death - NOT!
That’s why I’m not leading this effort. Of course others could have done this too. So far I haven’t seen anyone step up to the plate other than Shannon who has a real passion for this and to hold those in office accountable.
Again all should read the charges these stand alone on their face and has nothing to do with the credibility of Shannon. These are not hollow and or without merit trust me. Shannon had help in constructing the statement of charges.
In the meantime - Shannon plans to file her recall charges at 2PM at the County Election Department, 1033 West Gardner Ave, This is on the street behind and to the north of the Courthouse/Jail.
Come and show your support for Shannon in having the cojones to do what is necessary.
The only way evil can prevail is if good people do nothing!
Shelala on December 02 at 11:55 a.m.
@Ron
I have no problem with you Ron, except with that breaking crap :). Shannon is free to do anything legal she pleases. I won’t be in attendance and she doesn’t speak on my behalf. I am very capable thank you.
Ron_the_Cop on December 02 at 11:57 a.m.
Shelala,
OK how about if this recall petition is approved how about signing the petition whether you like Shannon or not? :-)
Shelala on December 02 at 12:28 p.m.
I am not saying a recall may not be in order, but I read the docs. I am not sure if this is well thought out, vetted and researched enough to have the desired outcome. It appears just to be just a bitch letter in legalize. I might be all wet, but I think I would have provided less opinion and more documented substance to back the allegations, but then again, I am all about the details. I spent two days researching flammability standards on the Christmas tree I just bought and I don’t sign on the dotted line until I am comfortable it merits my signature.Yes, I am one of “those” and no, I won’t be signing.
JanB on December 02 at 8:01 p.m.
@ HippoCritzGalore
Re: Ross case. I don’t have the statutes concerning child rape in Washington state in front of me at the moment as they are hanging up in my cubicle at work where I can refer to them when I need to know my responsibility as a mandated reporter. Even though 16 is the age of consent in our state it does not apply in cases where a child is between 16 and 18 and the adult is in a position of authority or power over the child. This is why it isn’t legal for teachers in a high school to have sex with 16 and 17 year old students. I would suspect that firefighters fall into this category of adults having authority and power. All legalities aside I think most taxpayers in this town are disgusted at what went on in the firehouse on our dime.
HippoCritzGalore on December 03 at 7:37 p.m.
@ JanB: You will want to look at RCW 9A.44.096 and RCW 9A.44.010(8). You can find them online here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44
Unless the girl was working at the fire station under Ross’s direction or he was working as her coach or trainer or some such. As I read the definition, I don’t believe it would apply to a firefighter per se. The thing I don’t recall is whether Ross got canned for this. I sure hope so since, like you, I’m disgusted with his behavior. Just because something isn’t unlawful doesn’t make it right.