This is an update to the article ‘In the wake of corruption investigations, Port of Benton Commissioners may be ousted’
On February 19, three registered voters in the Port of Benton district — Marie Noorani, Steven Goheen, and Rachel Mercer — filed charges against the Port commissioners. The Citizens for a Better Port filed as a political action committee (PAC) with the Public Disclosure Committee (PDC) on February 8, and are heading up the recall effort.
Counselor Doug McKinley — an attorney who argued successfully for the recall of three Richland School Board members in 2022 — filed the 190-page complaint document in Benton County Superior Court on March 2, 2026. The complaints detail the issues the filers believe are egregious enough to make the elected officials face recall. Each of the voters filed separate recall petitions against the commissioners in their respective districts.
The recall petitions can be found on the Benton County website: https://www.bentoncountywa.gov/newsview.aspx?nid=6723
Washington state law (RCW 29A.56.110) restricts recalls for political purposes. In an article published in 2020, University of Washington law professor Hugh Spitzer explained that recalls due to policy choices or managerial mistakes are also restricted:
Our state law allows recalls of virtually any public officer, but only if that elected official engages in substantial wrongful conduct that affects or interferes with the performance of public duty. The recall statute says that the petitioners have to file a detailed description of wrongful conduct or wrongful acts, and they have to have some facts to back them up.
Spitzer said that in cases like those, recall petitions are routinely thrown out by Washington State courts.
Given these restrictions, it is worth noting that Benton County voters have a history of holding their elected officials accountable. Several have been recalled for misconduct, including Benton County Sheriff Jerry Hatcher in 2021 and three Richland school board members (Semi Bird, Audra Byrd, and Carrie Williams) in 2023.
Overwhelming evidence
Maria Noorani, who filed documents against Commissioner Bill O’Niel, spoke to Tumbleweird in a phone interview on March 8. Noorani is a retired teacher in Richland, living in Port District 1.
Noorani wrote in the documents that she believes O’Neil:
1) Has committed an act or acts of malfeasance while in office, and/or
2) Has committed an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, and/or
3) Has violated the oath of the office of Port of Benton Commissioner and/or
4) Has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall.
To clarify, malfeasance is committing an unlawful or wrongful act intentionally (often for personal gain), while misfeasance is committing an unlawful or wrongful act unintentionally.
When asked about her recall filing, Noorani said:
I used to tell my students, when I taught American history, that the most important thing about our country was that our Constitution specifically places the political power … into the hands of the people. The people can only claim this power, this right, if they're allowed to have an opportunity to practice it. I believe that the evidence supporting this recall initiative is overwhelming.
Noorani explained that it’s important to understand that locally, we have the greatest ability to affect change. “I'm extremely passionate that the ideals that our nation was built on are not just a fabrication,” Noorani said. “I would say it's not just a concept that every level of government operates on those same principles. And here, on the local level, is where you can make the most difference.”
Noorani said after reading the independent investigation and the response of the Benton County Port Commissioners, she felt compelled to join in the recall effort:
An independent team that was hired by the Port found that Keller was in violation of his oath, that there was malfeasance, that there was misfeasance, and the other commissioners didn't do anything about it.
Having a recall initiative, having a petition to recall them, is not just an appropriate response, it is the only response that will protect the right to recall by providing an opportunity to use that right. Without the opportunity to recall, citizens cannot take back the power that they gave the elected officials when they elected them.
In Goheen’s recall petition, he points to “the enormous cost Mr. Keller’s actions have imposed and continue to impose on the taxpayers, coupled with the fact that it is effectively irrefutable that Mr. Keller has, in fact, committed these actions” referring to the crimes outlined in our previous article), and expresses his hope “that Mr. Keller will simply resign his office as Port Commissioner and spare the taxpayers the expense of completing the recall process.”
Goheen goes on to say, “However, given the hubris, arrogance, and reckless disregard of the interests of the taxpayers that Mr. Keller has demonstrated by committing, and continuing to commit, these actions, I have little hope that he will do the right thing and resign.”
Noorani had more to say about the importance of the voting public when it comes to our electeds:
Of course, when elected officials assume that the power they have is theirs, it is not their power; it is the people's power. And when they misuse it, they abuse not only the people who elected them — they turn their back on the ideals of our nation that puts the power in the hands of the people. They're creating a worse world politically, and when that happens on the local level, people can actually make a difference.
People can claim that power back, and they can say, ‘No, we gave you that power. That's not your power. You're misusing it, and we have a right to take that back.’
This echoes Goheen’s quote to Tumbleweird last month: “Elected officials need to serve the voters and never take financial advantage of them.”
Timeline for Recall
Within 15 days after receiving the recall filing, The Benton County Prosecutor’s office prepares and certifies a ballot synopsis, and transmits it to: 1) the person or persons filing the charge; 2) the officer subject to recall; and 3) the Superior Court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides. The Prosecutor’s office then petitions the Superior Court to review the ballot synopsis and to determine the sufficiency of the charges.
For example, the ballot synopsis of recall charges against Scott Keller includes the following:
The charges that Scott Keller, Port of Benton Position 2, committed malfeasance, misfeasance, and/or violated his oath of office allege that he:
1. Violated the Washington State Constitution by (a) gifting public funds via issuance of a lease to a family member at below fair market value, failing to collect lease revenue, and failing to include electrical and irrigation costs in said lease; (b) entering a lease between the Port of Benton and a limited liability company formed by himself at below fair market value and connecting to utilities paid for by the Port ofBenton.
2. Violated RCW 42.23.030 by having an interest in a lease with the Port ofBenton.
3. Defrauded a public utility by allowing Port of Benton tenants, including his limited liability company to install and/or utilize unpermitted utility infrastructures.
4. Violated Richland Municipal Code by failing to apply for, install, and charge for water service lines and allowing unpermitted sewer connections.
5. Violated RCW 43.160.040 by participating in board decisions wherein he had an interest.
6. Violated the Open Public Meetings Act by participating in a vote without discussion.
7. Violated state law and port policies by retaliating against port employees.
The recall petitions can be read in their entirety on the Benton County website.
Currently, the charges for recall are set to be heard in Superior Court (step 4 of the Recall Timeline graphic), and should occur by March 26. In a phone interview on March 8, Counselor McKinley told Tumbleweird he believes the Superior Court judge will issue a ruling in favor of the recall. McKinley said the Port Commissioners are likely to appeal the ruling “because they're going to try and delay this. At least, I anticipate that's what they'll do.”
McKinley explained, “They [the Supreme Court] will review de novo.* It's a question of law, so the Superior Courts are not acting as a fact finder … they're entitled to no discretion. So the Supreme Court reviews it de novo, but they do it on an accelerated basis.”
McKinley said that after their review, the Supreme Court will make a ruling. “This is a slam dunk recall issue,” said McKinley. “There's no way this doesn't get through, based on all the precedent that's out there.”
Once the Supreme Court rules, McKinley said the clock starts clicking for gathering signatures. How many signatures the committee needs to collect is based on a percentage of voters. But McKinley explained that the rules aren’t entirely clear:
It says 35% of the district where your elected official is. So, does that mean 35% of the voters? Because they're divided into three districts. I'm taking what I consider to be the conservative approach and saying, yes, it applies to each — District One, District Two, District Three — and you need 35% of the voters for each of those, for each of the commissioners. That's how I'm advising my client.
*De novo is a Latin term meaning ‘afresh’. In law, it refers to a court reviewing a case without giving deference to prior rulings, effectively starting over. A higher court reviews a lower court's decision as if it were hearing the case for the first time, ignoring previous findings.
A history of recalls
For context, Tumbleweird reached out to Carrie Hallquist, one of the organizers for “Richland School Board Good Governance” that was formed in March of 2022, when the Supreme Court of Washington ruled on the Richland School Board recalls. Hallquist said that they started out as a Facebook group the day after the Richland School Board voted to violate state law during the COVID pandemic. The committee to recall the school board was quickly formed, and they drafted documents for the recall.
Getting signatures turned out to be the hardest part. There was an effort by a group calling itself Resist the Recall, formed to defend the school board members. Hallquist said, “They would come and protest at our booths. They liked to stand in front of our signs.”
Petitions to recall each board member needed a different number of signatures to make it valid to go on the ballot. The percentage was based on how many total voters had voted for the individual school board member when they ran for office. Hallquist said Resist the Recall would also send out teams of people to put fake signatures on the petitions, in an effort to invalidate them.
You can read more about the Richland School Board recalls at tumbleweird.org/richland-school-board-debacle-explained
Some Tri-Cities residents have been publicly vocal against the recall of the Port commissioners, including former Judge Bruce ‘Buck’ Spanner, who was reprimanded by the state Judicial Board for “exploiting his position and failing to protect the integrity of Benton-Franklin Superior Court when he intervened on a case that was not assigned to him” (Tri-City Herald, November 22, 2019). He also admitted to abusing his judicial authority in 2018.
Spanner has publicly stated on social media that he is personally going to lay out the defense for the Port Commissioners. On March 13, Spanner claimed there was a “handshake deal” between the city of Richland in 1999 and the Port, and wrote that “the claims of recent discovery of the matter by the Port are obviously false” in regards to the Port paying for the utilities of the hangar users.
Spanner went on to claim that Scott Keller should not be responsible for this agreement:
Mr. Keller bought one of the five hangers on June 16, 2017. In the 105 months that have followed, he has used approximately $874.65 worth of water. Did he have the right to do so? It is certainly arguable that he did.
Mr. Keller was successor [sic] to the water agreement made and paid for by the prior hanger owner. Even if you disagree, is it malfeasance, misfeasance, of [sic] a violation of Mr. Keller’s oath to be a beneficiary of an agreement made almost 30 years ago? I think not.
Tumbleweird asked Spanner for clarification about the “handshake deal” he alleges on social media, and he responded by saying that the “handshake deal” he referred to in his March 13 post was between Herb Brayton — another hangar pilot named in the investigation for the use of illicit utilities connections that were made while Keller was the airport manager — and “someone at the Port.”
Spanner also told Tumbleweird, “I seriously doubt that anyone on the Richland City Council was involved in the handshake deal, except, perhaps, whoever authorized the installation of the meter. Mr. Brayton certainly had to deal with someone from the City of Richland to get the meter installed.”
We reached out to Richland City Council and Commissioner Keller about Spanner’s claims, but they did not respond to a request for comment.
Another vocal defender of the Port commissioners is Cliff Dyer. Dyer, who has a personal stake in the matter as the owner of Sundance Aviation, a Port tenant. He pled guilty in 2005 to four counts of making false statements to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). Dyer did not reveal that he was a convicted sex offender who was sentenced to 78 months in prison for his crimes. From an article published by the Spokesman Review: “U.S. Attorney Jim McDevitt, who prosecuted the case, said Dyer failed to disclose to the FAA that he had been convicted in Benton County in June 1998 of second-degree child rape and was undergoing sex offender treatment.”
Dyer claimed on social media that the Tri-City Herald is “attacking” the Port commissioners in one-sided articles, and that the people calling attention to the issues “should be investigated themselves.”
Criminal charges
A source familiar with the Port issues that has agreed to speak with us on the basis of anonymity said that a request to investigate criminal violations has been submitted to the Benton County Prosecutor’s office and forwarded to an agency for investigation. They told Tumbleweird that Retired District Court Judge Eugene Pratt and Ashley Garza sent the request to Eric Eisinger, Prosecuting Attorney for Benton County.
The request includes charges of defrauding a public utility (RCW 9A.61.020), and describes potential public health and safety impacts from installing potable water lines and sewer services without inspection. Some of those concerns include contamination of the public water system and potential faulty connections of sewer lines that can contaminate the soils and surrounding aquifers. Eleven people are named in the investigation request.
Local law enforcement agencies that could investigate the criminal allegations include the Richland Police Department (RPD), the Benton County Sheriff’s Office, and Washington State Patrol. As of March 15, no agency was yet confirmed.
The criminal charges for defrauding a public utility are felonies, and the total financial losses to the City of Richland and the Port of Benton documented by Citizens for a Better Port are in the thousands.
Our source said they believe that an agency could begin the investigations as early as March 16 or 17.
In an update posted to Substack on March 12, Port Watch Tri-Cities wrote:
The recall petitions against Commissioners Scott Keller, Bill O’Neil, and Lori Stevens are now before a judge.
This is a major milestone. It means the charges have been formally filed and the process is moving forward. The court will review whether the recall charges are legally sufficient to proceed to signature collection.
The hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 26th.
The Citizens for a Better Port PAC is accepting donations to help fund the recall effort.
A lifelong resident of Eastern Washington, Dori enjoys the outdoors, her family, and making good trouble. She has worked for many years in broadcasting and reporting and believes in the value of the 4th estate. She is a true community advocate that loves Washington.
