Recall charges thrown out against fire district officials

Two commissioners from a rural fire district in northwest Spokane County will not face ouster this year because the 16 charges listed in a pair of recall petitions aren’t legally sufficient, a Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday.

A recall by an organization calling itself A Group of Concerned Citizens of Fire District 5 had submitted a list of complaints against Commissioners James Ryan and Greg Lucht alleging everything from illegal closed meetings and improper bidding of contracts to intimidation of the staff and “blatant disregard of their civil duties.”

But Superior Court Judge Neal Q. Rielly said none of the charges met the legal requirements to begin circulating petitions to put a recall on the ballot.

“The petitions for recall are denied,” Rielly said after dismissing each charge individually

Complaints that the two commissioners in the small fire district of about 800 residents in northwest Spokane County violated the open meetings law were rejected because there was no evidence they did it intentionally, Rielly said.

The commissioners’ attorney acknowledged that they failed to follow the open meetings law when they held a pair of interviews for a new fire chief in closed sessions and resumed an open meeting sooner than their announced schedule

“They both admit they made mistakes,” attorney Brian Snure said.

Larry Wendlandt, a fire district resident who drafted the recall petition, argued that wasn’t enough and doubted their sincerity. “They’ve taken no action to correct their wrongs,” he said.

Other complaints lacked either a legal or factual basis, Rielly said. The complaint that Ryan and Lucht were pursuing personal agendas while disregarding civil duties was a conclusion without facts to back it up, he added.

Wendlandt and the citizens group had filed the recall petition last month, seeking to oust two of the three commissioners in the district.

The petitions also raised questions about the process used to select the third commissioner to fill a vacancy on the board.

But Snure said in Tuesday’s hearing the recall effort was the act of a group of residents unhappy with changes the commissioners were making. They were putting the small district under a large microscope and exposing some flaws, but no corruption or intentional violations of law that would warrant a recall.

Rather than seeking a recall, the group should try to change the board when the commissioners come up for re-election, as Lucht does in 2007, Snure said.