Washam v. Pierce County Democratic Cent. Committee

• Decision Date: 21 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 15623-7-II,15623-7-II
• Parties: Dale WASHAM and Thomas Grajkowski, Appellants, v. PIERCE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE; John Thompson, Pierce County Democratic Central Committee Chair; Oscar Larsen, Twenty-fifth District Legislative Chair, Respondents. Division 2
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 453

69 Wn.App. 453

849 P.2d 1229

Dale WASHAM and Thomas Grajkowski, Appellants, v. PIERCE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE; John Thompson, Pierce County Democratic Central Committee Chair;

Oscar Larsen, Twenty-fifth District

Legislative Chair, Respondents.

No. 15623-7-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 2.

April 21, 1993.

Dale Washam and Thomas Grajkowski, pro se

Nels B. Nelson; Larry J. Couture and The Dolack Hansler Firm, P.S. Inc., Tacoma, for respondents.

ALEXANDER, Chief Judge.

Thomas Grajkowski and Dale Washam together appeal an order of the Pierce County Superior court denying their petition for (1) a declaration that the election held on December 15, 1990 for chairperson and other officers of the 25th legislative district Democratic caucus was void; and (2) a writ of mandamus compelling the chairperson of the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee to call a separate meeting of all Democratic precinct committee officers of the 25th legislative district for the purpose of electing a legislative district chair and other officers. We affirm.

At the November 1990 general election, Dale Washam and Thomas Grajkowski were both elected Democratic precinct committee officers in precincts located within the 25th Legislative District. In 1990 the 25th Legislative District was entirely within Pierce County. Former RCW 44.07B.250.

On December 3, 1990, the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee gave notice of its 1990-92 Democratic Central Committee reorganization meeting by sending an "official call" to all Democratic precinct committee officers in Pierce County, indicating that the meeting would be held at McIntyre Hall at the University of Puget Sound at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, December 15, 1990. The notice stated that (1) all Democratic precinct officers elected on November 6, 1990 would be eligible to vote at the meeting, and (2) district elections were to be part of the agenda. The December 1990 Newsletter of the 25th Legislative District Democratic Club, which was sent to all precinct committee officers in the 25th Legislative District, also announced the central committee meeting and encouraged precinct committee officers to attend. It stated that:

The first official duty for newly elected Precinct Committee Officers (PCOs) will be to participate in the reorganization of the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee at [its] December 15th reorganization meeting....

The 25th. District PCO § will caucus following the County meeting to elect Legislative District leadership....

Washam and Grajkowski both attended the central committee reorganization meeting. At that meeting, John Thompson was elected chairperson of the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee. At a point in the proceedings, a meeting of the 25th Legislative District precinct committee officers was convened for the purpose of electing a legislative district chair and other district officers. Washam and Grajkowski were present at this meeting as well. Grajkowski was nominated for the position of district chair. He lost the election, however, to Oscar Larsen by a vote of 29 to 9. Washam and Grajkowski were both nominated for positions on the 25th District's Executive Board, but each lost by a vote of 26 to 10. Washam was also nominated for state committeeman, but he lost again, garnering only 10 votes.

Shortly afterward, Washam and Grajkowski brought suit in Pierce County Superior Court against the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee; its chair, Thompson; and the 25th District chairperson, Larsen. They asked the superior court to (1) declare that the December 15, 1990 25th Legislative District elections were invalid, and (2) issue a writ of mandamus compelling Thompson to immediately call a reorganizational meeting of all elected precinct committee officers in the 25th Legislative District, for the purpose of electing a legislative district chair and other officers. A superior court judge issued an order directing the Pierce County Central Committee to show cause why it had not (1) called a "separate" reorganizational meeting of the 25th Legislative District to elect new officers, and (2) complied with the provisions of RCW 29.42.070. The judge also ordered the chair of the central committee not to allow any representative of the 25th District "to participate in any meeting of any kind until duly elected at a reorganizational A show cause hearing was held January 17, 1991 before another judge of the superior court. The judge presiding at that hearing limited the submissions to affidavits. After the hearing, but before a written order on show cause was issued, Washam and Grajkowski moved to have Thompson held in contempt for allegedly violating the previous order of the court. They claimed that he violated the order by allowing representatives of the 25th District to "participate" in a central committee executive board meeting on January 10, 1991.

meeting that is in full compliance with RCW 29.42.070...."

Following a show cause hearing on the contempt issue, Washam and Grajkowski's motion was denied. The trial court also dismissed their petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the statutory requirements regarding notice and separate meeting had been met. Washam and Grajkowski's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.

Washam and Grajkowski contend on appeal, as they did at trial, that the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee and its chair, Thompson, violated RCW 29.42.070 by (1) holding the 25th District election at the end of the county reorganizational meeting, rather than at a "separate" meeting, and (2) giving inadequate notice of the election. They also claim that the trial judge (1) had impermissible ex parte contacts with Thompsons' attorney, and (2) should have disqualified himself because of his previous connection with the Pierce County Democratic party and Thompson. Finally, they contend that the trial court violated their due process rights by refusing to allow them to present live testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, they claim that the trial court erred in dismissing their petition.

MOOTNESS

The first issue that we address is mootness. As a general rule, appellate courts will not decide moot questions or abstract propositions. See Housing Auth. of Everett v. Terry, 114 As noted above, Washam and Grajkowski contend, principally, that the December 15, 1990 election held by the 25th legislative district Democratic caucus is invalid because (1) precinct committee officers were not properly notified of the election, and (2) the separate meeting requirement of RCW 29.42.070 was not followed. Even if there is merit to their arguments, we are unable to offer them any relief. It is undisputed that, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 29.42.070, new elections were held in the 25th Legislative District's Democratic caucus following the 1992 general election. ¹ As a consequence, any issues relating to elections in 1990 are moot.

                Wash.2d 558, 570, 789 P.2d 745 (1990).   A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.   See Orwick v. Seattle, 103 Wash.2d 249, 253, 692 P.2d 793 (1984);  State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 733, 658 P.2d 658 (1983)
                

A moot issue may be decided, however, when it is one of substantial or continuing public interest. See Harvest House Restaurant, Inc. v. Lynden, 102 Wash.2d 369, 373, 685 P.2d 600 (1984); Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wash.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972). The governing criteria for this determination are whether: (1) the issue presented is of a public or private nature; (2) it is desirable to provide guidance to public officers; and (3) the issue is likely to recur. Harvest House, 102 Wash.2d at 373, 685 P.2d 600; Sorenson, 80 Wash.2d at 558, 496 P.2d 512. The only issue which, in our view, satisfies this test, is the question of whether the notice and separate meeting requirements set forth in RCW 29.42.070 were satisfied. Because that issue is likely to recur, we are inclined to address it, notwithstanding the fact that we are unable to provide any relief to Washam

                and Grajkowski.   Our review, however, is confined to that issue. 2
                

NOTICE

It is undisputed that the call for the 25th District meeting/election was subsumed within the official call issued for the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee reorganizational meeting. Washam and Grajkowski claim, however, that the notice did not comply with RCW 29.42.070 because (1) it was ambiguous, (2) the call did not specify a time and place for the 25th District...