## Facts

- The City of Moses Lake solicited bids for a solid-waste handling contract, with bids opened April 27, 1984.
- The lowest bidder (Superior Refuse Removal) and the second-lowest bidder (Western Refuse) failed to sign all proposal pages as required by the bid invitation.
- The third-lowest bidder (Lakeside Disposal) signed all required proposal pages and otherwise complied with the bid invitation.
- At a May 22, 1984 city council meeting, the council debated whether it could waive the signature irregularities in the two lowest bids.
- By a 4–3 vote, the council declined to waive the irregularities and awarded the contract to Lakeside as the “lowest responsible bidder,” resulting in a higher-cost contract.
- Recall petitions were filed against the four councilmembers who voted for the Lakeside award, alleging their action was an abuse of discretion, contrary to the public interest, and would increase costs to residents.
- The prosecuting attorney prepared a ballot synopsis; after a statutory hearing, the superior court found the recall charges legally sufficient to proceed.

## Issues

1. Whether the recall petitions alleged legally sufficient grounds for recall by stating facts that, if true, would constitute malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of the oath of office rather than a discretionary policy choice.
2. Whether voting not to waive bid-signature irregularities and awarding the contract to a higher compliant bidder can constitute a recallable “abuse of discretion” absent allegations of unlawful or corrupt conduct.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the superior court.
- The court held the recall charges were legally insufficient to support a recall election.
- The court treated the challenged vote as a discretionary contracting decision within the council’s lawful authority, not misconduct.
- The court found the petitions alleged no concrete facts showing corruption, self-dealing, knowing illegality, or conduct outside official authority.

## Legal Principles

- Recall is limited to allegations that, if true, amount to malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of the oath of office; it is not a vehicle to contest the wisdom of discretionary policy decisions.
- In reviewing legal sufficiency, a court accepts alleged facts as true but independently determines whether those facts constitute a recallable offense.
- Characterizations such as “abuse of discretion” or “contrary to the public interest,” without specific facts showing unlawful or wrongful official conduct, do not satisfy recall standards.
- Economic harm or higher governmental cost, standing alone, does not convert a lawful discretionary decision into recallable misconduct.

## Conclusion

Because the recall petitions challenged a discretionary vote on bid compliance and contract award and did not allege specific facts establishing malfeasance, misfeasance, or an oath violation, the court held the charges legally insufficient and barred the recall election from proceeding on that basis.


Chandler v. Otto, 693 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1984)