Judge dismisses petition to recall Commissioner Emily Clouse. Here’s why

A judge dismissed a petition to recall Thurston County Commissioner Emily Clouse with a signed order Monday.

Judge Jennifer A. Forbes of Kitsap County Superior Court dismissed the recall attempt after hearing oral arguments Friday. Forbes oversaw the matter in Thurston County Superior Court after local judges recused themselves.

Arthur West, an Olympia resident and open government advocate, filed the recall petition on Dec. 12, The Olympian previously reported.

The dismissal is a boon for Clouse who had been the subject of an investigation, suspension and public censure over the past few months for her conduct with an executive aide. The Olympian has asked Clouse to comment on the dismissal.

Though faced with a setback, West told The Olympian Monday evening that he disagrees with the judge’s ruling and intends to appeal.

“I respect the process,” West said. “I respect the judge. I just think she made a mistake.”

In his petition, West accused Clouse of malfeasance, misfeasance or violation of oath of office. Weeks after submitting his petition, the county agreed to pay Clouse’s former executive aide $300,000 to settle a lawsuit he filed over his treatment by Clouse.

“I do not think it is appropriate for an elected official to hire their significant other as an assistant and act in a manner that costs their employer $300,000,” West said.

Misfeasance or malfeasance in office means “any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty,” according to state law. Additionally, state law indicates misfeasance means the performance of a duty in an improper manner and malfeasance means the commission of an unlawful act.

Lastly, “violation of oath of office” refers to the “neglect or knowing failure of an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law,” according to state law.

As a judge, Forbes cannot assess whether allegations in a recall petition are true but she can dismiss a recall petition if she decides the charges are insufficient.

If Forbes had allowed the recall petition to continue, West would have had 180 days to file a petition with the minimum required signatures, per state law.

In this case, that would be “25% of the total number of votes cast for all candidates” for the office to which Clouse was elected at the “preceding election.”

Thurston County’s election archive indicates 73,996 votes were cast in the 2023 race for County Commissioner District 5, so 18,499 signatures would be required to put the recall up to a vote.

What did Forbes’ order say?

In her order, Forbes evaluates West’s petition and a ballot synopsis that the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office submitted in accordance with the recall process.

The charges in the ballot synopsis were as follows:

1. Clouse continued to engage in a consensual relationship with an employee after she selected him for employment as her subordinate.
2. Clouse accepted $1,550 from the employee for her personal use without identifying whether she needed to repay the employee, and accepted items that the employee purchased for her.
3. Clouse benefited from her relationship with the employee while creating a risk that he could question any further adverse employment action by the county and allege discriminatory harassment
4. Clouse failed to proactively limit the potential risk to the County that her relationship with the employee created
5. Clouse’s conduct was, more likely than not, inconsistent with and contrary to the behavioral requirements and expectations of professionalism outlined in Thurston County’s Ethics and Conflict Policy and Employee Conduct statement

Forbes found that edited versions of the first two charges could be factually sufficient, meaning they could be made specific enough and clearly identified misfeasance, malfeasance or a violation of the oath of office.

However, she deemed the remaining charges were not factually sufficient because they failed to include specific dates or times and “cannot be reasonably corrected” from the materials available to the court.

“The failure of specificity is not merely ‘technical’ and renders the charges deficient,” Forbes wrote.

Forbes also ruled that the petition did not establish legal sufficiency, meaning it did not state with specificity substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of oath of office.

In this case, Forbes wrote that West did not state a legal standard, rule or policy that was violated by Clouse. Additionally, she found any alleged benefits Clouse received did not rise to the level of legal sufficiency.

“In essence, the Petition relies upon an appearance of impropriety without explaining ‘how this relationship constituted misfeasance, malfeasance or a violation of the oath of office,’” Forbes wrote.

This story was originally published January 14, 2025 at 12:51 PM.

Martín Bilbao

The Olympian

(360) 715-2209

Martín Bilbao reports on Thurston County government, courts and breaking news. He joined The Olympian in November 2020 and previously worked for The Bellingham Herald and Daily Bruin. He was born in Ecuador and grew up in California. Support my work with a digital subscription