The following is a motion/request to remove from the record

documents that were filed late by the Petitioner:

Your Honor,

I would like to request that you remove from the record and not consider
the documents that were submitted by the Petitioner yesterday. These
documents were submitted a full day past your required deadline. I too did
not receive them until yesterday on a day that I had informed the court that
I would not be available. Returning home to see these documents yesterday
evening did not permit me a reasonable chance to review them and offer
rebuttal today. If required, however, I will do my best to try to respond.

While I understand that the calendar for these proceedings has been
expedited, the responsibility for the compressed timeframe rests with the
Petitioner who chose to file their petition so close to the deadlines. These
are experienced and knowledgeable attorneys who surely understand that
they cannot simply ignore the deadlines established by this Court. Their
non-compliant filings prejudiced my ability, as a non-attorney who has to
represent herself in this proceeding, to prepare for today. I should not be
denied my due process rights because of this deadline. Accepting the
Petitioners documents into the record one day before the hearing will
compromise my reasonable ability to respond.

The following is a defense for including the Morgan filings in the

record:

Your Honor,

The late filing by Morgan is in no way comparable to the full day lateness of
the Petitioners filing. Ms. Morgan had trouble with the electronic filing
system, but did submit her brief before the deadline by email to the Court.
Subsequently, she emailed the parties who received their copies about eight
minutes later, I believe. Ms. Morgan followed up by delivering a paper copy
personally to the court before 1:00pm Monday.

The withdrawal of the Morgan case happened after the filings by Morgan.
Thus, those documents still reside with the court. Since our hearings were
Page 1 of 11
consolidated, and the issues nearly identical, Morgan and I relied on each
other to focus on different aspects of the case. For example, my brief
included our exhibits.

Not allowing me to use the information in the Morgan brief would in effect
penalize me for a mistake of timing that was caused by the Petitioner.

The following are my oral comments for the hearing:

(Note, this assumes that the Judge rules that the Ward memo
can remain in the record, if not, then go to the Satterberg/Joly
part)

Your Honor,

I want to begin by noting that the declaration by Yvonne Ward does not
appear to have been formally authorized by the City and may be a violation
of the professional ethics that govern her conduct.

I was astounded that an attorney who had access to the Citys confidential
information because of her position as interim city attorney and was in a
position of trust with the Mayor and all of the Councilmembers would
intervene in court proceeding against one of her former clients. This court
did not compel Ms. Ward to participate in these proceedings; she did so on
her own accord. I believe that Ms. Ward had a duty to clear her conflict of
interest by securing the approval of her former clients, and that includes
the City Council.

Moreover, a recall is fundamentally a political action. After all, we are

deliberating about a ballot proposition. Ms. Ward was paid by public funds
and obtained her information as a direct result of that funding. To come
now and use that publicly financed information to participate in a political
proceeding is inappropriate.

Page 2 of 11
It should be recognized that the Council did not approve Ms. Wards
contract even though in the City of Black Diamond, the City Council is the
sole contracting authority for legal services.

Ms. Ward rarely, if ever, informed the Council of her activities and did not
consult with any of the majority Council members regarding her Open
Public Meeting investigations. When I and other Council members asked
her to advise on a legal matter and believed the questions would be
addressed privately under attorney-client privilege, the answers were
handed out publicly by Ward, often without me even seeing it. I thus had
no opportunity to discuss her advice or ask follow up questions.

Ms. Ward appears to have spent most of her billable hours while working
for the City compiling a legal attack against the majority of the City Council.

On June 2nd 2016, with not even a courtesy notice and without being on the
Agenda, Ms. Ward delivered a forty-five minute monologue attacking the
Councilmembers who did not support her appointment. If Ward had
concerns, she was obligated to bring them to the Council privately in
executive session, especially if they could potentially lead to litigation. In
fact, her attacks did invite litigation and showed up in a lawsuit against the
city, her client. Further, Ward sent her legal memoranda to the press for
publishing even before they were given to Council, and there does not
appear to have been a public request filed with the City for their provision.
Those documents are now one of the source documents in this political
process of recall.

So, given the negative relationship existing between three Council

Members, including myself, and the Mayor, this filing might suggest that
the Mayor hired an attorney to try to build a case against her political
opponents and then participate in a recall effort against them.

So, the attorney whom I had a right to trust to offer professional advice and
represent the interests of the City Council of which I am a member
ambushed me publicly during a City Council Meeting without being
approved to be on the Agenda by that Council, and then places into the
record false and misleading accusations.then nearly a year later she
shows up again to re-inforce her attacks against me in a political recall
attempt.
Page 3 of 11
My point in making these comments is that the Ward memo contains false
and misleading information and the Court should consider this.but the
Court should also consider the implications of a city attorney participating
in a political recall attempt against elected representatives of her former
client. I believe that the Court should look past Wards stated reasons for
her 11th hour participation in these proceedings and consider what it must
have been like for the City Council to conduct business while an attorney
who answered only to the Mayor engaged in the same kind of conduct that
this court is now experiencing.

Ms. Wards participation in these proceedings is under false flag and may
be a violation of her ethical duties to her former clients, and this alone
should be enough to entirely discredit her declaration.

But if that isnt enough, I would like to address some of the

problems with Wards declaration:

Councilmember Morgan and I were not satisfied by the hiring of Ward.

We believed that the Mayors contract with Ward was inappropriate, but
given the circumstances we as individual councilmembers would give her
the benefit of the doubt. That trust turned out to be unfounded.

Ms. Ward was not hired to review the City Councils Rules of Procedure.
The Council had already voted to retain the firm of Talmadge-Fitzpatrick to
accomplish that work. Their opinion letter is one of my Exhibits. Ms.
Wards work on the Rules was totally unknown by the Council until she
released her attack memo on the Council.

Ms. Ward mischaracterizes my email to Mr. Talmadge, a well-known and

respected attorney, regarding the cancellation of meetings. My email shows
that I considered attorney Talmadge to be the appropriate authority with
respect to the Councils Rules of Procedure. I had every reason to question
Wards opinion regarding the cancellation of Council Meetings because this
had been a common practice over the years in Black Diamond. Ms. Wards
memo to the court leaves out important parts of Exhibit A. The court
should take note of the entire exhibit, not just the Ward excerpts.

Page 4 of 11
On May 5, 2016, Ward advised that the Mayor could remove a Council
member from a meeting. This advice came on the heels of Councilmember
Morgans attempt to appeal the decision of the chair according to proper
Parliamentary procedure. My genuine concern that the Mayor would order
me removed from a meeting for simply trying to update the meeting agenda
caused me to try to reschedule the May 19th meeting so that it would be
given new public notice with the correct agenda items. The mayor ignored
my request. Predictably, at the next Council meeting on June 2nd, when I
attempted to ask for the floor to address agenda items, the mayor refused to
allow me the floor. When I questioned the decision of the chair, the mayor
declared me out of order and instructed the police chief to remove me from
the meeting! It sounds unfathomable, but that is the improper and
ridiculous situation that attorney Wards advice led directly to.

Ms. Ward is incorrect when she states that hiring and firing city attorneys
rests with the Mayor. Our City operates under the provisions of RCW 35A,
the Optional Municipal Code. A careful reading of the Talmadge-
Fitzpatrick opinion letter clearly demonstrates why Ms. Ward is incorrect.
Additionally, there is an Attorney General Opinion on this subject that
supports the Councils sole authority to contract for services in cities that do
not have an appointed city attorney. The fact that Ms. Ward is once again
defending this position in this recall proceeding is another demonstration
of why the City Council soon lost confidence in Wards work. It should also
be pointed out that the case that Ward cites addresses this issue only in a
very narrow context, is still very much in its early stages, and could likely be
overturned on reconsideration or appeal. The Court should consider the
comprehensive opinion letter from former Supreme Court Justice
Talmadge as definitive on this issue.

I have taken a lot of time responding to the Ward declaration because it is a

clear example of the difficulties that have faced the City Council for the past
16 months. The root cause of these difficulties is that the Council has been
denied its legal authority to contract for legal services by a Mayor who has
refused to acknowledge that right.
Page 5 of 11
The Council voted to contract with the law firm of Talmadge-Fitzpatrick,
and the mayor refused to acknowledge or pay them.

The Council voted to contract with Vancil law, and the major called them
up the next day and said that they were not welcome at city hall and would
not be paid.

The Council voted in December to contract with a Parliamentarian to

return some semblance of order to Council Meetings, and the Mayor
publicly tore up the contract during a Council Meeting and threatened the
Parliamentarian with expulsion if he said a word.

The Ward memo should be considered in the light of these facts and
disregarded.

*** End of Ward Info ***

*** Ballot Synopsis Info - next page***

Page 6 of 11
I would now like to address the specific charges that are included
in the Satterberg/Joly filing of sufficiency and ballot synopsis.

Charge Number One:

The claim presents no actual evidence to document the charge that I

violated the OPMA, but simply restates false accusations and insinuations
that I did. No email discussions or other written documents have been
submitted to support the false claims of violations.

The charge of entering into private agreements to prepare and approve

legislation is vague and does not describe an illegal act. I consulted with
lots of experts and members of the public to help me develop legislation,
but I never privately discussed legislation with a quorum of
councilmembers.

There cannot be a finding of a prima facie case of Committee meetings as

Open Meetings violations because the facts asserted stemmed from a failure
of the Mayor to issue public notices. The Council always made proper
requests to the mayor to issue public notice of committee meetings, but
when the mayor refused to issue notice, Committee meetings were not
conducted with a quorum of the Council. There is no contrary evidence
submitted because none exists.

Charge Number Two:

The claim that I hindered the Citys ability to receive legal advice by hiring
and firing city attorneys is vague and does not describe an illegal act. The
Council clearly has the authority to contract for and terminate contracts
with city attorneys. The Talmadge-Fitzpatrick opinion letter clearly sets
forth this authority. In fact, the City Council voted to contract for legal
services with the firm of Vancil Law, but the Mayor called that firm and
instructed them to not perform any services for the city. The Mayor has
also refused to pay Talmadge-Fitzpatrick. The Mayor is responsible for
hindering the Citys ability to receive legal services, not the Council.

Page 7 of 11
Charge Number Three:

The claim that I refused to attend council meetings is untrue and does not
describe an illegal act. I have always complied with Council rules regarding
absences.

The claim that I refused to approve minutes does not describe an illegal act.
In fact, the minutes submitted by the Mayor to the Council have had
numerous errors and so the Council has had to do its own analytical work
to correct them. Additionally, the mayor left minutes from April, May, and
June undrafted for six months until the Council passed a motion declaring
these drafts must be produced.

The claim that I failed to enact necessary legislation related to vacancies

is vague and describes a proper discretionary decision. The Council has the
authority to disapprove Mayoral appointments and to keep positions vacant
until a candidate suitable to the Council is submitted.

The claim that I failed to enact necessary legislation related to

comprehensive planning is vague and does not describe an illegal act.
While state guidelines do set forth planning requirements for cities, these
are frequently the subject of disagreements and appeals regarding their
timing and sufficiency. It is common for cities and counties to miss
recommended deadlines. Until adjudicated by the Growth Management
Council or a competent court, the City cannot be considered in violation in
this regard.

Moreover, and decisively, the Mayor has not submitted her proposed
amendments to the Citys comprehensive plan and the Planning
Commission has not done its review, which is required prior to Council
review.

Considering all of these circumstances, the Council cannot have committed

an illegal act even if facts were asserted that the Council and I failed to act,
and the claimant has submitted no such facts.

Charge Number Four:

Page 8 of 11
The claim that I failed to enact a 2017 budget in violation of state law is
false and does not describe an illegal act. The Council did adopt a budget
by a 3-2 vote, but this budget was vetoed by the Mayor. Subsequently, on
the suggestion of the Mayor and her city attorney, the Council approved a
three month interim budget. Both actions are not illegal.

Councils and Mayors frequently have conflicts over budget matters.

Interestingly, state law does not actually require cities to adopt a budget as
a matter of law. Rather, state law sets forth the procedure by which
expenditures are to be authorized by budget appropriations, i.e., budgets.
The only penalties in state law regarding budgeting relate to the Mayor and
her staffs obligations to prepare and submit appropriate documents to the
City Council (RCW 33A.33.160).

Charge Number Five:

The claim that I conspired with two other councilmembers to change

Master Development Review Team contracts resulting in threatened legal
action against the city, forcing the city into arbitration, is false. The record
clearly shows that three council members did not discuss the issue.

The issue of the MDRT contracts was the subject of extensive public
discussion over many months.

The recall petitioner failed to produce evidence that inappropriate meetings

were conducted. The petitioner seems to have picked out a vote she
disagrees with and tried to make it illegal.

As a matter of law, the city cannot be forced into arbitration on the matter
of a contract that is subject to the legislative authority of the City Council.
Legislative actions cannot be made subject to arbitration, since, among
other reasons, this action would violate the open public meetings act.

These proceedings are not technically about the mayor, but her
actions have been at the heart of why we are here.
Page 9 of 11
The Mayor refused to issue public notices of Council Meetings, refused to
allow the Council to sets its own Agenda, refused to allow Councilmembers
to make motions, refused to properly record votes, refused to allow staff to
attend council committee meetings and refused to even unlock the doors to
the Council Chambers so that Council Committees could meet.

Is it any wonder that legislation and minutes of meetings might be delayed?

The Mayor obstructed the Council from being able to contract for legal
services, refusing to pay them and ordering them to not attend council
meetings.

Is it any wonder that the City had a hard time retaining a city attorney?

Despite the statutory provisions to the contrary, such as RCW 35A.11.020,

the Mayor insists that she and she alone has the power to hire, fire, and
direct the activities of the city attorney.

Is it any wonder that the advice from these attorneys have been prejudicial
to the Councils authority?

The Mayor refused to provide required documents, over spent her budget,
obstructed the Councils Budget Committee work and vetoed the Councils
adopted budget.

Is it any wonder that the City had a hard time coming to agreement on a
budget?

Page 10 of 11
This recall petition is a continuation of a pattern of obfuscation and
obstruction from the Mayor. She is up for re-election this year. I believe
that this recall effort is an attempt to deflect attention away from her own
record.

I urge the court to deny this petition and recognize that the vast majority of
charges either provide no evidence of illegal acts or provide no evidence
that an illegal act occurred. Instead, the charges are statement of votes the
petitioner disagreed with. They are part of a continued attempt to change
an election mandate.

I urge the court to deny this recall petition and allow the regular election
process to bring relief for the vast majority of citizens of Black Diamond
who voted for change by over 70% 18 months ago, but whose mandate has
been stolen from them by an Executive who is attempting to negate the
separation of powers that our legal framework commands

Page 11 of 11