A Clark County Superior Courtroom choose has superior efforts to recall a Camas metropolis councilor going through a felony assault cost.
Choose Tsering Cornell presided over a Thursday listening to to find out if prices included in a recall petition in opposition to Councilor John Svilarich had been legally and factually ample. She later dominated that 4 of the seven prices are capable of transfer ahead.
On April 8, 10 Camas voters filed a petition to recall Svilarich from his at-large Camas Metropolis Council place.
Svilarich, 67, is going through second-degree felony assault and reckless endangerment prices associated to an Aug. 31 incident on the Washougal River Greenway path in Camas. In court docket paperwork, police allege that Svilarich acquired into an argument with a stranger whereas strolling the Greenway path, throwing a big rock towards the person from a 50-foot pedestrian bridge and, later, pointing a firearm at him.
The recall petitioners contend the felony allegations in opposition to Svilarich present the councilor violated his oath of workplace and warrant his removing.
Through the Might 1 listening to earlier than Cornell, Svilarich argued that the felony prices in opposition to him are unproven and didn’t happen throughout the course of his official council duties. He advised the choose that he believes the recall petitioners, which embody Stephen Dabasinskas, Svilarich’s opponent within the November 2023 election for the Camas council’s at-large seat, initiated the recall efforts for private and political causes.
In her ruling, Cornell stated the court docket couldn’t think about these arguments.
“State law prohibits the court from considering the truth of the charges, only allowing review of the sufficiency,” Cornell acknowledged in her opinion. “Svilarich also argued that (the) court should consider the voters’ bad faith motivations in seeking his recall. However, the court does not inquire into the motives of the voters in filing the recall petition.”
Cornell additionally disputed Svilarich’s competition that, as a result of he was not engaged in official council enterprise on Aug. 31, the costs in opposition to him didn’t happen “in office.”
“It is undisputed that these acts occurred during a time when Councilmember Svilarich was in office as a city of Camas councilmember,” Cornell acknowledged in her opinion. “The terms ‘while in office’ and ‘in office’ refer to the requirement that acts forming the basis of the recall petition must have occurred while Svilarich held the office of councilmember.”
Cornell added that “elected officials can even be recalled for acts committed during a prior term of office.”
The choose dominated that 4 of the seven prices included within the recall petition are legally and factually ample.
Cornell disputed the recall petitioners’ allegations that Svilarich was “dishonest and evasive with law enforcement and that his actions constituted poor judgment and lack of integrity, thereby damaging public trust.”
“Even if true, these charges do not rise to the commission of an unlawful act,” Cornell acknowledged in her ruling.
The recall petitioners additionally argued throughout Thursday’s listening to that Svilarich’s alleged actions make him unable to carry out his official council duties. They pointed to a Nov. 18 Camas council assembly, throughout which Svilarich abstained on a vote to ship a utility tax supporting new police positions to Camas voters.
Dabasinskas argued that Svilarich had solely abstained from the vote after Dabasinskas identified the battle of curiosity throughout the council’s public feedback interval. Svilarich advised the choose he abstained from the vote as a result of he believed the council ought to have handed the utility tax to extend police staffing as a substitute of sending it to the voters.
Cornell dominated that Svilarich “presents a legally cognizable justification for his abstention from the vote.”
The choose corrected a poll synopsis formulated by the Clark County Prosecuting Legal professional’s Workplace and steered voters be requested to find out if Svilarich must be recalled from workplace for malfeasance or for violating his oath of workplace primarily based upon allegations that he violated legal guidelines or his oath “when he displayed and pointed a deadly firearm at another person; and recklessly threw a rock toward another person placing them at substantial risk of death or serious physical injury.”
Svilarich’s felony case is about for a jury trial in July in Superior Courtroom.
