The current make-up of the King City City Council might not be set in stone after all.
After a February recall election successfully removed three city councilors and the mayor, the city requested residents to apply to fill the open seats, and the remaining council members interviewed 11 applicants, choosing four of them in May.
Karl Swanson, who worked on the recall campaign and applied unsuccessfully for an open seat on the council, has taken legal action that may result in one of the newly appointed councilors being removed from office.
Motion to remove Ocholi from office
On July 10 Swanson filed a petition for a Writ of Review in Washington County Circuit Court that states in part that “Smart Ocholi was recalled in a February 2024 election but was appointed to fill a vacancy on the council left open after the recall election.”
The writ continues: “Under Oregon law, an office holder who has been recalled is prohibited from serving in that position again for the remainder of the original term. Prior to the recall, Mr. Ocholi’s original term was set to expire on December 31, 2024, which makes him ineligible to now serve on the City Council.
“By voting to have Mr. Ocholi fill the vacant position on the City Council, Respondent failed to follow applicable procedures and misconstrued applicable law. By passing over Petitioner for a position on the City Council and appointing an ineligible candidate instead, Respondent has wrongfully harmed a substantial interest of Petitioner.”
Swanson further asked the court to declare Ocholi’s appointment “null and void.”
King City response to petition
On July 29 the city filed in Washington County Circuit Court a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Review and Answer, which states in part that “this Court’s authority to review the decisions of a municipal corporation are limited to circumstances in which the decisions of the governing body of a municipal corporation acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and made in the transaction of municipal corporation business.”
The motion further states that in appointing Ocholi, the city “was acting in a legislative and/or executive capacity” and that Swanson lacks standing in the case because he is a non-resident and has “not suffered any harm to any interest.” It also pointed out that Ocholi was recalled from Seat 4 and was appointed to Seat 6, which is a different seat, “and Oregon law does not prohibit appointment to (a) different council seat or position.”
Karl Swanson statement
Swanson emailed Tigard Life the following statement: “King City whined and requested the challenge be thrown out without even having a fair hearing, but that just shows the depth of internal cronyism and corruption. Clearly under Oregon law an office-holder who has been recalled is prohibited from serving for the remainder of the original term. Ask anybody, it is just common sense.
“When King City council appointed recalled Smart Ocholi to fill a position on the City Council, they failed to follow applicable procedures, common sense, and applicable law. By passing over other well-qualified applicants to reinstall the recalled and ineligible former councilor to Council, they abused their power and told King City citizens they are still not listening and really don’t care what citizens want, just like their changing Fischer Road from a quiet and safe neighborhood street into a busy collector and plans to extend it through a protected nature preserve using eminent domain.”
City Attorney Peter Watts statement
City Attorney Peter Watts sent an email on the issue to several city officials and Vince Arditi, who was another unsuccessful applicant for an open council seat. It states in part: “In 1906 Oregon voters amended Articles XI and IV of the Oregon Constitution, establishing what is referred to as ‘Constitutional Home Rule.’ Together these amendments allowed cities to enact and amend their charters. Previously, this was done by the Legislature. Home Rule allows cities to choose the composition of their city council and form of government.
“It was my opinion that to the extent there is an appointment prohibition, it is seat specific. To the extent that Oregon law prohibits Councilor Ocholi from being appointed to the seat he vacated, Councilor Ocholi was not appointed to the seat that he vacated. There is nothing in the King City Charter that created a prohibition.”
Swanson response to King City Motion to Dismiss
On Aug. 13, Swanson submitted a Response to the Motion to Dismiss “because the Respondent’s decision to appoint a recently recalled member of the City Council back onto the City Council was an unconstitutional quasi-judicial decision that misconstrued applicable law and is therefore subject to a Writ of Review.”
King City City Manager Mike Weston response
Tigard Life provided King City City Manager Mike Weston and King City Mayor Shawna Thompson with an opportunity to comment on the litigation, and Weston sent the following statement:
“We can’t discuss ongoing litigation, but I honestly believe Dr. Ocholi was selected based on his qualifications and character. He is easily one of the most qualified residents in King City, being a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, serving overseas in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, being wounded in action, (surviving) the Taliban in Nigeria, (attaining) a Ph.D. in Organization and Management with a focus in IT Security, (serving) on the FBI’s Cybersecurity Committee and much more.
“His selfless dedication, kindness, and exemplary behavior are pillars to which community volunteers and electees alike should strive. Additionally, Dr. Ocholi’s international experience and cultural diversity uniquely qualify him to represent King City’s minority and marginalized communities.”
