Ms.

Julie Wise
Director, King County Elections
919 Southwest Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057

Mr. Daniel Satterberg

King County Prosecuting Attorney
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

RE: Filing of Statement of the Charges in favor of the recall of Black Diamond City
Councilmember Erika Morgan

Dear Ms. Wise and Mr. Satterberg:

This letter shall constitute the statement of the charges in support of the recall of Black
Diamond City Councilmember Erika Morgan pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110 and Washington
Constitution, Article I, 33-34. Ms. Morgan has committed acts of malfeasance and/or
misfeasance, and violated her oath of office. This Statement of the Charges is verified under
oath, states the acts complained of in concise language, gives a detailed description including the
date, location and nature of each at complained of, and is signed by the person(s) bringing the
charge.

I. Introduction to Statement of Charges in Favor of the Recall of Erika Morgan

The Petitioner for Recall is Ms. Robbin Taylor, who is a citizen of the City of Black
Diamond, Washington. The City of Black Diamond lies entirely within King County. Ms. Erika
Morgan was elected to a position on the Black Diamond City Council in November 2013, for a
four-year term effective January 1, 2014. The oath Ms. Morgan took reads as follows:

I, Erika Morgan, having been duly elected to the office of City of Black
Diamond Council Position Two, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of this office as prescribed
by law and to the best of my ability and that I will support and maintain
the Constitution of the State of Washington and of the United States of
America.

The City of Black Diamond is an optional code municipal corporation having a Mayor-
Council form of government, organized under RCW 35A.12. Its Council consists of five
members. The powers and duties of both the mayor and councilmembers are as defined in
RCW 35A.12.100 and RCW 32A.11.020.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
1 of 13
 II. Executive Summary of the Charges

As set forth in detail below, during Ms. Morgans third and fourth year in office, she has
(1) knowingly violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), both in meeting and
conferring with other council members outside of open public meetings, and in failing to provide
proper notices, agenda, and minutes when meetings were convened, (2) usurped the authority of
the mayor on multiple occasions, (3) conspired with other City councilmembers to defeat a
quorum and/or refuse to vote on necessary measures, (4) refused to enact the Comprehensive
Plan amendments, Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, and the Capital Improvement
Plan as mandated by state law, and (5) refused to enact a budget for 2017. Ms. Morgans actions
and inactions have ground the Council to a halt, cost the City thousands of dollars and
jeopardized the continued provision of necessary City services.

III. Factual and Legal Sufficiency for Recall of Erika Morgan

A. The Constitutional Right to Recall

The legal basis for recall is established in the Washington State Constitution Article 1,
Sections 33 and 34. Section 33 contains the substantive right to recall, providing that [e]very
elective public officer of the state of Washington is subject to recall and discharge by the legal
voters of the state. Section 34 directs the Legislature to enact laws necessary to carry out
section 33. Pursuant to that authority, the Legislature adopted chapter 29.82 RCW, now codified
as chapter 29A.56 RCW, to provide the substantive criteria and procedural framework for the
recall process. Matter of Pearsall-Stipek, 136 Wn.2d 255, 262-63, 961 P.2d 343 (1998).

Elected officials in Washington may be recalled for malfeasance, misfeasance, and

violation of the oath of office. Const. art. I, 33-34. Recall statutes are construed in favor of
the voter, not the elected official. In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wn.2d 503, 510, 257 P.3d 513
(2011).

B. Factual Sufficiency

The Superior Court does not examine the truthfulness of the stated grounds for recall; it
determines only whether, if true, the charges would constitute malfeasance, misfeasance or
violation of the oath of office. Courts act as a gateway to ensure that only charges that are
factually and legally sufficient are placed before the voters, but we do not evaluate the
truthfulness of those charges. RCW 29A.56.140. In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wn. 2d 503, 510,
257 P.3d 513 (2011); In re Recall of Cy Sun, 177 Wn.2d 251, 255, 299 P.3d 651 (2013).

Charges are factually sufficient if taken as a whole they ... state sufficient facts to
identify to the electors and to the official being recalled acts or failures to act which without
justification would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation
of oath of office. Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wn.2d 268, 274, 693 P.2d 71 (1984). Voters may draw
reasonable inferences from the facts; the fact that conclusions have been drawn by the petitioner

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
2 of 13
is not fatal to the sufficiency of the allegations. In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659, 665, 121
P.3d 1190, 1194 (2005).

A charge is factually sufficient if the facts establish a prima facie case of misfeasance,
malfeasance or violation of the oath of office and are stated in concise language and provide a
detailed description in order to enable the electorate and a challenged official to make informed
decisions." In re Recall of Telford, 166 Wn.2d 148, 154, 206 P.3d 1248 (2009) (quoting In re
Recall of Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72 P.3d 170 (2003)). In this context, "prima facie"
means that, accepting the allegations as true, the charge on its face supports the conclusion that
the official committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office. In re Recall
of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 548, 799 P.2d 1179, 1181 (1990).

RCW 29A.56.110 also requires that the person making the charge have knowledge
of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based. Knowledge need not
necessarily be firsthand. In re Recall of Cy Sun, 177 Wn.2d 251, 256, 299 P.3d 651 (2013).
When the charge is violation of law, the Supreme Court has stated that the petitioner must have
knowledge of facts indicating that the official intended to commit an unlawful act. Pearsall-
Stipek, 136 Wn.2d at 263.

The Court may use supplemental materials to determine whether there is a factual basis
for the charge. In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659, 665-66, 121 P.3d 1190, 1193-1194 (2005).
It may go outside the petition to determine whether there is a factual basis for the charge. In re
Recall of Anderson, 131 Wn.2d 92, 95, 929 P.2d 410, 412 (1997).

C. Legal Sufficiency

To be legally sufficient, the charges must specifically allege substantial conduct

amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. Washam, 171 Wn.2d
at 514-15. The legal sufficiency requirement protects officials from being recalled for
appropriately exercising the discretion granted him or her by law. Chandler, 103 Wn.2d at 274.
Officials may not be recalled for their discretionary acts absent manifest abuse of discretion.
Washam, 171 Wn.2d at 515.

D. Grounds for Recall

RCW 29A.56.110 defines what constitutes misfeasance, malfeasance, and violation of the
oath of office:

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) Misfeasance or malfeasance in office means any wrongful conduct that
affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
a. Additionally, misfeasance in office means the performance of a duty
in an improper manner; and

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
3 of 13
 b. Additionally, malfeasance in office means the commission of an
unlawful act;
(2) Violation of the oath of office means the neglect or knowing failure by an
elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
IV. Statutes Relevant to Recall Petition
A. Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA)

The Petition for Recall of Erika Morgan alleges violation of the Open Public Meetings
Act. That law requires that meetings of a public agency be open to the public:
All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public
and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of
a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

RCW 42.30.030. The OPMA is remedial and liberally construed in favor of openness. RCW
42.30.910. Exceptions to the openness requirement must be narrowly construed. Miller v. City
of Tacoma, 138 Wn.2d 318, 324, 979 P.2d 429 (1999) (quoting Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354 v. Mead
Ed. Ass'n, 85 Wn.2d 140, 145, 530 P.2d 302 (1975)).

As used in the OPMA, Governing Body means the multimember board, commission,
committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee
thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes
testimony or public comment. RCW 42.30.020(2). A meeting of a governing body occurs
when a majority of its members gathers with the collective intent of transacting the governing
body's business. Citizens All. for Prop. Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan Cty., 184 Wn.2d 428,
444, 359 P.3d 753 (2015).

A public agencys governing bodies are required to convene their meetings at regularly
scheduled dates, times, and places, and may not occur in secret. RCW 42.30.060. All meetings
must have an agenda, which the agency must publish at least 24 hours in advance. RCW
42.30.077.

A governing body may hold special meetings, but only upon 24-hour notice to the public,
via the media and the agencys website. RCW 42.30.080. No business may be conducted except
that for which notice of the special meeting was given. Id.

B. Requirement of Regular Meetings

RCW 35A.12.100 requires that the city council and mayor shall meet regularly The
Black Diamond Municipal Code sets the time and place of regular council meetings and study
meetings. BDMC 2.04.010.

C. Authority of the Mayor

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
4 of 13
 RCW 35A.12.100 describes the authority of the Mayor in the City of Black Diamond
with its Mayor-Council form of government. It is the duty of the Mayor to appoint, remove, and
supervise employees. RCW 35A.12.100. It is also the duty of the Mayor to see that all contracts
and agreements made with the city or for its use and benefit are faithfully kept and performed.
Id. The Mayor presides over all city council meetings, although she may only vote in case of a
tie. Id.; RCW 32A.12.110. The duties and powers imposed upon the Mayor may not be
amended by or delegated to the City council. Roehl v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Chelan Cnty.,
43 Wn.2d 214, 241, 261 P.2d 92 (1953); Bothell v. Woody, 90 Wash. 501, 504, 156 P. 534 (1916).

D. Requirements of Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Improvement Plan,

Capital Improvement Plan, Budget, Planning Commission and Civil Service
Commission.

Code Cities such as Black Diamond are required to prepare and adopt budgets for a full
fiscal year. RCW 35A.33.075. The Growth Management Act requires the City to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan, which includes a Capital Improvement Plan. RCW 36.70A.070(3). The
City is also required to enact a Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. RCW 35.77.010.

Having established a Planning Commission under RCW 35.63, the City is required to fill
seats on that Commission. RCW 35.63.020. Commission members are appointed by the Mayor
and confirmed by the Council. Id. Leaving seats unfilled causes planning to default to the City
Council.

Having a police department, the City is required to have a Civil Service Commission.
RCW 41.12.010; BDMC 2.64.020. The Civil Service Commission is governed by State law if
the City does not elect to enact its own rules. RCW 41.12.020.

V. Acts and Omissions constituting the Statement of the Charges

The acts for which this Statement of the Charges is brought are divided into the following
general factual categories. Together, the charges amount to an indictment against Ms. Morgan
that she has conducted herself, while in office, in a manner that constitutes misfeasance,
malfeasance and/or violation of her oath of office.

A. Erika Morgan has intentionally violated the OPMA by privately agreeing with
other councilmembers upon a course of action for the City Council and by
conducting Committee meetings that are not properly noticed or open to the
public
B. Erika Morgan has intentionally acted to usurp the authority of the Mayor of
Black Diamond
C. Erika Morgan disregarded her duties as a Council member, thereby impeding
the regular functioning of the City.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
5 of 13
Erika Morgan has engaged in the following actions, each of which constitutes misfeasance,
malfeasance and/or violation of her oath of office, and each of which supports a finding of
factual and legal sufficiency for her recall from office.

The Petitioner for Recall is Ms. Robbin Taylor, who is a citizen of the City of Black
Diamond, Washington. Ms. Taylor makes a concerted effort to attend all meetings of the Black
Diamond City Council, and is thus intimately familiar with the happenings of the City Council
and its members. Additionally, many of the acts charged are well-documented, as evidenced by
the attached exhibits.

A. Malfeasance or Misfeasance in Office, or Violation of the Oath of Office,

Through Intentional Violation of the Open Public Meetings Act in Agreement
With Others Constituting a Majority of the Council, and with its Standing
Committees comprised of a majority of the council (13 Counts)

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), RCW 42.30 requires the governing body of a
City to convene its meetings on a published, regularly scheduled time, at a regular place, and to
publish an agenda of the meeting. Ms. Morgan convened meetings with a majority of the
members of the City Council without complying with the public notice and agenda requirements
of the OPMA. Many of these meetings were conducted privately over email. During these
meetings, the majority of the City Council resolved to and did make decisions purportedly on
behalf of the City, all without public notice or input.

A standing committee comprised of a majority of the members of a City Council, acting

apart from regular meeting of the council, also constitutes a governing body under the OPMA.
Ms. Morgan conducted meetings of standing committees of the Council without complying
with the notice and agenda requirements of the OPMA.

Ms. Morgan employed in-person meetings, email communications, telephone calls, and
communications through third parties to effect off-the-record meetings of the majority of
governing bodies and to make decisions of the City Council without compliance with the
OPMA, on at least the following occasions:

January 8, 2016. Ms. Morgan signed a letter to the City Clerk with Council
members Patricia Pepper and Brian Weber directing that the regularly-set joint
meeting of the Council and the City Planning Commission scheduled for
January 12 be cancelled, as well as scheduling a special council meeting for
January 19.1 She and another council member then attended the January 12 th
meeting of the Planning Commission so that no other council member could
attend without violating the OPMA because of lack of proper notice of a joint
commission-council meeting.
1 Ex. 2.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
6 of 13
 January 21, 2016. Prior to Council meeting, Ms. Morgan agreed with Council
members Pepper and Weber to a new council procedures resolution that was
then enacted at the meeting.2 The new procedure required that every standing
committee of the Council be comprised of three council members. 3 Thereafter,
every meeting of a standing committee was required to comply with the OPMA.
However, contrary to the advice of no less than five (5) attorneys, Morgan
continued to participate in such meetings that were conducted without
compliance with the OPMA.4

February 26, 2016. Ms. Morgan made a private agreement with Council
members Pepper and Weber to cancel a regular council meeting set for March 3
and to schedule a special meeting on March 2.5

Together with Council members Pepper and Weber, Ms. Morgan cancelled
regularly scheduled council work sessions on January 14, February 11, March
10, April 14, and May 12.6

April 8 to April 21, 2016. Ms. Morgan made a private agreement with Council
members Pepper and Weber to approve a substitute agenda for the next regular
council meeting. Ms. Morgan also conspired with Council members Pepper and
Weber to approve voting in a bloc and to leave city council meetings to defeat
quorums, obstructing the work of the City.7

During the period between January 1 and April 7, 2016, Ms. Morgan privately
agreed with a majority of the council to produce Resolution 16-1089 firing the
City Attorney after disagreeing with the attorneys advice.8

2 Ex. 14.

3 Ex. 6.

4 Exs. 4, 7, 10, 13-14, 17, 24.

5 Ex. 24.

6 Ex. 24.

7 Exs. 8, 9.

8 Exs. 14, 20.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
7 of 13
 During the period of April 1 to April 21, 2016, Ms. Morgan privately agreed
with a majority of the council to prepare a resolution hiring the law firm of
Talmadge Fitzpatrick Tribe.9

March 17-June 16, 2016. Ms. Morgan privately discussed and revised, along
with Council members Pepper and Weber, a resolution for business inspection
services for committee action.10

May 18, 2016. Together with Council members Pepper and Weber, Ms. Morgan
agreed to cancel the May 19 regular city council meeting. When the City
Attorney advised that the council members should not cancel the meeting, they
boycotted it.11

June 2, 2016. Ms. Morgan, together with Council members Pepper and Weber,
during a recess in a Council meeting agreed to boycott the remainder of the
meeting, and walked out.12

August 25-October 6. Ms. Morgan privately agreed with Council members

Pepper and Weber to adopt Resolutions 16-1122, 16-1123, 16-1124, 16-1125,
and 16-1126, revising contracts for vendors serving the Citys Master
Development Review Team. Per their prior agreement to act together on all
issues, Council members Pepper, Morgan, and Weber enacted the resolutions on
October 6, 2016.13

November 29, 2016. Ms. Morgan admitted on the record of a city council
meeting that she convened a meeting of a standing committee entirely by email
with another council member, a meeting that a member of the public had sought
to attend.14

9 Ex. 8.

10 Ex. 11.

11 Ex. 16.

12 Ex. 15.

13 Ex. 20; http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/Clerk/Audio/Council/2016/Council_20161006-

Combined.mp3.

14 The undersigned was personally in attendance at this meeting. While no meeting minutes were ever approved,
audio of the meeting is available to download at
http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/Clerk/Agendas/2016_agendas.html

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
8 of 13
 Ms. Morgans repeated violations of the OPMA have resulted in a lawsuit being filed
against the City.15 In the three months since the suit was filed, the City has already spent $45,522
on its own behalf, and has been ordered by the Court to conditionally pay for Ms. Morgans
defense.16 Willful OPMA violations are not covered by the Citys risk pool policy, thus leaving
the entire cost of the suit to the taxpayers. 17 Ms. Morgan was advised on at least two occasions
by the Citys insurance carrier that her actions may be deemed to be illegal and would not be
covered by City insurance.18 Ms. Morgans actions will have cost the City, and its taxpayers,
hundreds of thousands of dollars and may ultimately result in the City having to declare
bankruptcy.

B. Malfeasance or Misfeasance in Office, or Violation of the Oath of Office by

Usurping the Authority of the Mayor, Thereby Disrupting the Order of the City
(Five Counts)

Ms. Morgan usurped or attempted to usurp the statutory authority of the Mayor on the
following occasions:

On January 8, 2016, Ms. Morgan, acting with the concurrence of council

members Pepper and Weber, directed City Clerk Brenda Martinez to cancel the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Black Diamond City Council.19

During the period between January 1 and April 7, 2016, Ms. Morgan agreed in
private meetings with a majority of the Council to produce Resolution 16-1089
firing the City Attorney.20

During the period of April 1 to April 21, Ms. Morgan agreed in private meetings
with a majority of the council to hire the law firm of Talmadge Fitzpatrick Tribe.21

On December 15, 2016, when the Mayor of the City of Black Diamond called for
a brief recess during a council meeting, Ms. Morgan seized the Mayors

15 Ex. 20.

16 Exs. 22-23.

17 Ex. 5.

18 Exs.5, 19.

19 Ex. 2.

20 Exs. 14, 20.

21 Ex. 8.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
9 of 13
 gavel, attempted to reconvene the meeting, and refused to relinquish the gavel.
The police were required to intervene to restore order to the meeting.22

At some time prior to February 2, 2017, Ms. Morgan, along with Council
members Pepper and Weber, met outside of a Council meeting and agreed to
modify the contracts of the vendors to the Citys Master Development Review
Team.23

Additionally, the Council rules adopted by Resolution 16-1069 usurp the authority of the Mayor
to prepare meeting agendas, preside over Council meetings, and direct actions of staff. Ms.
Morgan was advised of this by two attorneys.24

Ms. Morgans attempts to direct the actions of City staff and to fire and hire City
attorneys have impeded the functioning of the City and hindered the Citys ability to receive
legal advice. The Teamsters union has already filed multiple grievances against the Council for
interfering with the duties of staff.25 Moreover, Ms. Morgan hired Talmadge Fitzpatrick Tribe to
provide legal advice directly to her, which advice may have been contrary to the Citys
interests.26 Her approval the self-serving contract constitutes a conflict of interest, in violation of
RCW chapter 42.23, and wrongfully exposes the City to her attorneys bill. In addition, Ms.
Morgans act of attempting to wrest control of a Council meeting could subject her to criminal
charges.27 BDMC 9.06.020.

C. Malfeasance or Misfeasance in Office, or Violation of the Oath of Office through

Dereliction of Duties of a Member of the City Council (24 Counts)

Ms. Morgan and others constituting a majority of the City Council privately agreed not to
attend regularly scheduled meetings of the City Council without excuse, or to leave regularly
scheduled meetings before they were adjourned, in order to cause the meetings to fail for lack of
a quorum. This occurred on the following meeting dates:28

January 12, 2016

22 Ex. 26;
http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/Clerk/Audio/Council/2016/Council_20161215_Combined.mp3.

23 Ex. 27.

24 Exs. 4, 13-14.

25 Ex. 12.

26 Ex. 10.

27 Ex. 26.

28 Exs. 12, 24. The undersigned also attended all of these meetings and personally witnessed the failure of a
quorum.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
10 of 13
 March 3, 2016
May 5, 2016
May 19, 2016
May 25, 2016
June 2, 2016
November 17, 2016.

At the City Council meeting on June 2, 2016, Ms. Morgan was publicly censured for violating
her duty to the public by failing to attend the May 19 meeting. 29 In response, Ms. Morgan and
two other council members left at the beginning of a recess in a coordinated manner, causing a
quorum to fail the same conduct she had been censured for.30

Ms. Morgan and others constituting a majority of the City Council, without excuse,
agreed not to attend regularly scheduled work sessions of the City Council on at least the
following dates:31

January 14, 2016

February 11, 2016
March 10, 2016
April 14, 2016
May 12, 2016.

Ms. Morgan and others constituting a majority of the City Council, without excuse,
refused to attend executive sessions of the City Council meetings on at least the following dates:

August 18, 2016

September 1, 2016
September 15, 2016.

Ms. Morgan, with others constituting a majority of the City Council, failed to approve
minutes for 45 of the 63 meetings of the Council or the standing committees upon which she
served.32 This is a violation of State law, and deprives the public of an official record of all City
meetings.

29 Ex. 14.

30 Ex. 13.

31 Ex. 24.

32 Ex. 24.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
11 of 13
 Ms. Morgan, with others constituting a majority of the City Council, failed to complete
the Comprehensive Plan of the City, required by the State Growth Management Act. This act
disqualified the City for a grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council. The failure to enact a
comprehensive plan has also placed the City at risk for work stoppage, and is likely to cost the
City money it does not have.33

Ms. Morgan, and others constituting a majority of the City Council, failed to enact the
six-year Transportation Improvement Plan, and the Capital Improvement Plan required by State
law.

Ms. Morgan, and others constituting a majority of the Standing Committee on which she
serves, and constituting a majority of the Council, despite having developed their own ordinance
for contracting for building inspection services, failed to provide for such services. 34 Among the
consequences of Ms. Morgans inaction, the City of Black Diamond had to refund the cost of
building inspection services to the Enumclaw School District and may cause a delay of
occupancy of a public school in the City, to the detriment of its citizens.35

Ms. Morgan has refused to call a vote on multiple items, causing necessary and important
legislation to fail or linger in committees. Ms. Morgan failed to vote in the following instances:

Ms. Morgan, with the agreement of others constituting a majority of the

Standing Committees on which she serves, which committee is comprised
of a majority of the Council, failed to vote on filling vacancies on the
Planning Commission, an entity that the City has established under State
law. As a result, the Planning Commission has not been able to function at
its normal capacity.

Ms. Morgan, with the agreement of others constituting a majority of the

Standing Committees on which she serves, which committee is comprised
of a majority of the Council, failed to vote on filling vacancies on the Civil
Service Commission of the City. As a result, the Civil Service
Commission has been without a tie-breaking ability for over a year.

Ms. Morgan and others constituting a majority of the City Council failed to enact a yearly
budget for the year 2017, in violation of State law. Instead, they enacted a temporary budget that
expires on April 1, 2017. The Citys working under a temporary budget impairs its ability to
attract and retain employees to serve the City and is posing the imminent termination of services
supplied by the City, including delivery of domestic water and police services, fire and sewer

33 Ex. 28.

34 Ex. 11.

35 Ex. 25.

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
12 of 13
services for which it contracts, and all other City services, imperiling the peace, health, and
safety of its citizens. Further, the temporary budget contains multiple illegal provisions, which
exposes the City to the risk of a lawsuit or State sanction.36

Ms. Morgan, along with Council members Pepper and Weber, conspired to replace
members of the Master Development Review Team (MDRT). 37 Members of the MDRT are set
by contract with CCD Black Diamond Partners (Oakpointe). 38 Oakpointe threatened the City
with suit for breach of contract if the Councils plan to reconstitute the MDRT went forward.
The Council agreed to mediate with Oakpointe over this issue. 39 However, Morgan refused to
attend the agreed-upon mediation, which has forced the matter into the more expensive
arbitration process.

VI. Conclusion

Based upon Ms. Morgans malfeasance, misfeasance, and violation of the oath of office
within the meaning of the legal standards shown above, the County should prepare a ballot
summary and forward a copy of this letter and all exhibits hereto, with the subjoined declaration
of Robbin Taylor, to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

36 Ex. 21.

37 Ex. 27.

38 Id.

39 http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/Clerk/Audio/Council/2017/Council_20170302-
1900_Combined_01d2938734ebc3a0.mp3

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
13 of 13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that I have sufficient knowledge of the alleged
facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.

Dated this __ day of April, 2017.

________________________
Robbin Taylor
32110 Botts Dr.
Black Diamond, WA 98010

Statement of charges in favor of

Recall of Erika Morgan
Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110
14 of 13