They Spent $1,500 of Taxpayers’ Money to Fight the Recall
A Kennewick editor demands a stronger recall law after two county officials allegedly used public funds to thwart voters—and kept their offices while the election played out.
Just another word on the subject of public officials. The Highland News, commenting on our remarks of two weeks ago, laid particular stress on the necessity of getting good men for public officials, and while we most heartily agree with their remarks, we want to say that this is a harder and more uncertain job than it appears.
For example, in electing our county commissioners recently, it is safe to say that few knew all the candidates personally, and had to decide by judging what they heard about them. Anyone who believed all he heard about any of the candidates would be entirely excusable if he refused to vote for any of them, for lies and near-lies were freely floating around about them all, and how was a person to know the good man?
But again, when a community is given an opportunity to know their candidates, how often is it that the poorest man will get in through playing politics? Take our own history two years back, when Clements was reported to be making his campaign on the threat that if he was defeated he would build the court house just as he has now tried to do. Yet Kennewick stood for the blackmail and elected him.
No—our position is to endeavor to elect good men, but not to place too much dependence on the man, and to provide plenty of safeguards to prevent dishonest officials from using their power to further their own ends.
But while we are passing laws here, we want to change the recall law, too. This law provides that upon getting the required number of signatures on a recall petition an election shall be held thirty days later, but it allows the officials to hold office unrestrained until the results of the election are known.
When we have two officials like Clements and McNeill who are so determined to thwart the wishes of the taxpayers that they spend something over $1,500.00 of the taxpayers’ money to help them to do it, the taxpayers should be able to stop them through the recall. As it is, if the recall petition were signed, there would still be thirty days in which to close up any plans they might wish. We would like to see an amendment to the recall providing that the petition, when properly signed and filed, would act as a restraining order upon the officials recalled, in effect removing him from office until the result of the election is known.
“When we have two officials like Clements and McNeill who are so determined to thwart the wishes of the taxpayers that they spend something over $1,500.00 of the taxpayers’ money to help them to do it, the taxpayers should be able to stop them through the recall.”
The editorial’s core complaint—that elected officials can use public money and procedural delay to frustrate accountability—is still recognizable in modern local-government fights. It also shows that the recall, often treated as a modern reform, was already being tested and found wanting in small-town Washington.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.