REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
------- Forwarded Message -------
From: SaveBlaine@proton.me <SaveBlaine@proton.me>Date: On Monday, September 15th, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Request for Investigation for Potential Official Misconduct RCW 9A.80.010
To: rfunk@cityofblaine.com <rfunk@cityofblaine.com>, police@cityofblaine.com <police@cityofblaine.com>, citycouncil@cityofblaine.com <citycouncil@cityofblaine.com>, pruffatto@csdlaw.com <pruffatto@csdlaw.com>, jsitkin@csdlaw.com <jsitkin@csdlaw.com>
CC: RMay@cityofblaine.com <RMay@cityofblaine.com>, SHurt@cityofblaine.com <SHurt@cityofblaine.com>, Eric Lewis <ELewis@cityofblaine.com>, EDavidson@cityofblaine.com <EDavidson@cityofblaine.com>, msteward@cityofblaine.com <msteward@cityofblaine.com>, rlopez@cityofblaine.com <rlopez@cityofblaine.com>, sbains@cityofblaine.com <sbains@cityofblaine.com>
To the Chief of Police, City Attorneys, and the Blaine City Council:
This letter is submitted as a legal referral for review of remarks made by Mayor Steward during the September 8th, 2025 City Council meeting. It is presented solely for consideration in your official capacities, consistent with your legal duties to uphold Washington law.
I am requesting review under RCW 9A.80.010 (Official Misconduct), which provides:
“A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege: (a) he or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or (b) he or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law”
With that standard in mind, I wish to highlight three specific statements made by the Mayor while acting in her official capacity:
1. Allegation of Leaking Confidential Attorney–Client Information
The Mayor stated:
“So this puts us in a really difficult situation because our defense has Mr. Harmon and our lawyers are working together to make a proper defense is discussed in our council executive sessions and on correspondence between our attorney, which is attorney–client privilege only. And this has been leaked to the Blaine Water Commission. So we’re putting up a defense. And meanwhile, our defense is going to the people that are suing us, making it very, very difficult for Blaine to defend themselves against all of these lawsuits.”
- Unauthorized Act: Only a court, or where appropriate an investigative body, can determine whether attorney–client privileged information has been breached. While the Mayor may express concern, she has no authority to make a binding determination or to present such an allegation as established fact.
- Contradictory Evidence: City Manager Michael Harmon publicly told The Northern Light: “There’s no evidence right now that Lewis relayed attorney–client privileged information to the coalition.” This directly contradicts the Mayor’s statement that confidential information “has been leaked.” When the City’s own chief administrator acknowledges to the press that there is no such evidence, the Mayor’s decision to present the allegation as fact is especially troubling.
- Intent to Deprive: By portraying Lewis as the source of a leak in contradiction of her own administration’s statements, the Mayor laid the foundation for depriving him of his ability to participate fully in executive sessions.
- Under Color of Law: This was not a casual remark; it was delivered from the dais, in her official role as Mayor, while presiding at a council meeting.
2. Declaring She Will Exclude Councilmember Lewis from Executive Session
The Mayor further stated:
“…Otherwise I will put forward a motion to censure, or at least for any executive session or attorney–client information having to do with the Blaine Water Coalition, Mr. Lewis will be excluded…”
- Unauthorized Act: Under RCW 42.30.110, all councilmembers have the lawful right to attend executive sessions. The Mayor has no authority to exclude a duly appointed councilmember.
- Attorney General Guidance: Washington’s Attorney General addressed this issue in AGO 2017 No. 5, stating: “A governing body may seek a court order enforcing the obligation of its members to honor the confidentiality of executive sessions, but we have identified no specific authority authorizing the exclusion of members from executive sessions without court order.”
- Why This Matters: The lawful path, if there were credible evidence of a confidentiality breach, would be for the governing body to seek a court order. The Mayor cannot unilaterally exclude a member, nor can she bypass due process by presenting exclusion as a certainty.
- Intent to Deprive: This was not speculation or opinion — the Mayor explicitly declared that she will deprive Councilmember Lewis of his lawful privilege to attend executive sessions and to access attorney–client information provided to the Council.
- Under Color of Law: The declaration was made from the dais, in her role as Mayor, while presiding over an official meeting.
This statement may meet the elements of RCW 9A.80.010: an unauthorized act under color of law, with the stated intent to deprive another official of a lawful right or privilege.
3. Ultimatum to Resign or Face Censure and Exclusion
The Mayor also stated:
“So I’m just going to say that I will give Mr. Lewis two weeks to do the honorable thing and resign. Otherwise I will put forward a motion to censure, or at least for any executive session or attorney–client information having to do with the Blaine Water Coalition, Mr. Lewis will be excluded…”
- Unauthorized Act: The Mayor has no authority to demand or pressure a councilmember to resign, nor does she have authority to threaten exclusion from executive sessions. A councilmember can only leave office through lawful means such as recall, disqualification, or voluntary resignation.
- Intent to Deprive: The Mayor issued an ultimatum: either Councilmember Lewis resign within two weeks, or she would seek to censure him and exclude him from executive sessions. By tying his continued service and his ability to exercise his legal rights to her demand for resignation, she openly declared her intent to deprive him of privileges guaranteed to all councilmembers.
- Under Color of Law: This ultimatum was not made in private conversation; it was delivered publicly, while presiding as Mayor in her official capacity.
This ultimatum therefore may constitute an unauthorized act under color of law, coupled with a clear statement of intent to deprive Councilmember Lewis of his lawful rights and privileges.Voters’ Rights & Election Integrity
Councilmember Lewis is not only a sitting councilmember but also a candidate for election. When the Mayor, acting from the dais, announced that she would exclude him from executive sessions and leveraged an ultimatum to resign under threat of censure, this is more than political debate—it is the use of governmental power in a manner that may deprive both the candidate and Blaine voters of a fair, lawful election process. Washington’s Constitution guarantees free and equal elections and forbids governmental interference with the free exercise of the right of suffrage. Using the authority of office to handicap a candidate’s ability to do the job voters are evaluating is incompatible with that guarantee.
Washington’s Constitution (Article I, Section 19) declares that ‘all elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.’ As an elected official exercising civil authority, the Mayor’s use of her office to potentially handicap a sitting councilmember who is also a candidate raises concerns under this constitutional guarantee.
Bottom line: This goes beyond politics. By asserting powers she does not have to sideline a sitting councilmember who is also a candidate, the Mayor’s actions may burden both the candidate’s lawful privileges and the voters’ right to a fair, undistorted choice, which is why a legal referral may be warranted.
Request for Action
Taken together, these actions may fall within the statutory definition of official misconduct: unauthorized acts committed under color of law, with the intent or effect of depriving another official — and the public — of lawful rights or privileges.
As elected officials, the members of the Blaine City Council also carry a duty to uphold the law and to act when potential violations are presented. That duty is not optional — it is fundamental to maintaining public trust in equal justice under the law. The principle of equal protection requires that all public servants, regardless of position or title, be held to the same legal standards. To ignore or conceal potential violations would constitute a failure of that duty.
Accordingly, the Council must:
- Review whether the Mayor’s statements are consistent with her duties under Washington law and the Blaine City Charter;
- Recognize your duty as elected officials to make the appropriate referral to law enforcement if the evidence points in that direction, regardless of who is involved;
- Consider whether a formal censure is warranted; and
- Establish procedures to ensure that future council proceedings are grounded in verified facts and consistent with statutory authority.
I am copying this letter to the Chief of Police, who as a sworn law enforcement officer carries an independent duty to investigate (if warranted) or refer the matter to the proper authorities.
Disclaimer:
This letter is based solely on the Mayor’s own public statements as recorded in the official council meeting transcript, and on public reporting in The Northern Light. It is submitted in good faith as a legal referral under RCW 9A.80.010 and related law. No factual assertions are made beyond those contained in the Mayor’s quoted remarks or published sources. All statutory references and legal conclusions herein are presented as opinion for the purpose of requesting review by the City Attorneys, the City Council, and the Chief of Police in their official capacities.
Respectfully,
SB
Comments
Post a Comment