Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Recall Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners withhold majority consent for county-funded defense in recall appeal of Commissioner Clouse
Summary
Prosecuting Attorney John Toonheim asked the board to consent to county-funded defense in a Washington Supreme Court appeal of a Superior Court ruling that dismissed a recall petition against Commissioner Emily Clouse; the board did not reach majority consent and the request was not approved.
Prosecuting Attorney John Toonheim asked the Thurston County Board of Commissioners on April 30, 2025, to consent to county representation for Commissioner Emily Clouse in a Washington Supreme Court appeal of a Superior Court ruling that found a recall petition legally insufficient. Toonheim said the county's civil team can handle a targeted brief and possible oral argument within existing resources and that taking the appeal would also amount to defending the trial court decision.
“To me, it put the case in a little different posture in terms of whether the county should come in and defend,” Toonheim told the board, adding that he was prepared to give consent in his capacity as prosecuting attorney but that state statute requires the board's consent as well.
Commissioners debated whether the county should use public funds for legal defense in an appeal tied to conduct that several commissioners previously characterized as personal misconduct and not part of official duties. Commissioner Fournier urged the board to deny the request, saying the board had previously declined funding because the recall arose from personal conduct and because taxpayers had already borne costs from related lawsuits. In opposition Fournier said approving the defense now would contradict the board's earlier decision and send an inappropriate message about use of public funds.
Other commissioners favored granting consent in this narrow posture, arguing the petition had been dismissed twice and that defending the dismissal in the appellate process is a limited, definable project that the county's civil team could manage without new appropriations. Commissioner Grant and Chair Ty Mansur said they were inclined to support county representation on those grounds. Commissioner Clouse announced she would recuse herself from the board's decision.
Outcome: The board was unable to reach majority consent. With one recusal and split support among commissioners, Toonheim said the result “closes that question” and staff will not proceed with county-funded representation pursuant to the board's prior decision and the lack of majority approval.
Ending: Commissioners concluded the work-session discussion without reversing the earlier denial of public funding for Commissioner Clouse's defense; any future request would require a renewed board decision and must comply with state statute governing county representation.
