Citizens for a Better Port

09/02/2026

"The most important office, and the one which all of us can and must fill, is that of private citizen."— Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice 🗽

An elected official is not exempt from public scrutiny. It is our duty as tax paying citizens to hold those elected officials accountable. Our right to use our voice is exactly what the 1st amendment is intended for. While the recall language on the petitions are limited to the courts ruling, the right for the people to share information about the commissioners corrupt behavior and actions are not limited or restricted.

🗞️Information regarding this behavior can be found through multiple sources.

Tri-City Herald
Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business
Tumbleweird
NBC Right Now
Apple Valley News Now

https://www.citizensforabetterport.com/
https://portwatchtc.substack.com/

Citizens for a Better PortAccountability at the Port of Benton — Backed by the Courts, Driven by Citizens To stay informed on recall progress-Substack: [email protected] Why Recall? Stop the corruption, waste and abuse of the Port of Benton Commissioners (Richland, WA). The Recall: WA. Supr...

08/28/2026

08/25/2026

The temporary order says Howard has a clear legal right to an investigation conducted under the port’s own neutrality rules. It said Howard demonstrated a “well-ground fear” that would not happen and that no future judgment could remedy the possible harm. “(Howard) has shown actual, substantial, and irreparable injury because investigative choices, witness interviews, evidence disclosure, and delay may shape a record that cannot later be made neutral or adequately remedied with money,” the judge said.

Court orders Port of Benton to stop investigating its suspended executive

08/23/2026

Selected transparency is not transparency.

The state Supreme Court elaborated Thursday on a recall petition that includes an allegation that port commissioners retaliated against an employee for disclosing an investigation report.

Among the allegations in the recall of all three Port of Benton commissioners is the claim that they retaliated against former port Finance Director Alicia Myers by firing her. Myers also served as the agency’s public records officer.

In a brief statement in July, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that allowed the recall to proceed. Justices elaborated on their reasoning in a unanimous opinion released Thursday.

The rulings freed petitioners to gather the signatures needed to put on the ballot the recall of Port of Benton commissioners Scott Keller, William O’Neil and Lori Stevens.

The conflict began last year, when Port Executive Director Diahann Howard, now suspended, and then-Port Commissioner Roy Keck turned over to the agency’s lawyer written complaints against Keller.

The port’s attorney hired a law firm to investigate the grievances, according to court records. The firm’s report, completed in December 2025, found evidence to support several complaints against Keller.

Port commissioners in January suspended Howard and curtailed the responsibilities of her job.

One month later commissioners fired Myers, who told the Tri-City Herald that her dismissal was in retaliation for releasing the investigation report to records requesters. The report was a disclosable record under the state Public Records Act.

In their opinion Thursday, Supreme Court justices said Myers’ comments to the Tri-City Herald were factually and legally sufficient to be included in the recall petition. “A voter could reasonably view Myers’ termination as part of a pattern of retaliation,” the court said.

Occasionally we find documented instances of public officials interfering with public records officers and disclosures. In recent years the office of former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and the Monroe School District meddled with public records requests.

The frequency of these incidents is unknown, but they are troubling no matter how often they occur. Officials who interfere with public records disclosures undermine a foundational civic principle – that the public must know what its government is doing. Only then can we make informed decisions and hold our government accountable.

The court opinion is on the Washington Courts website at
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1052537.pdf

Read reporter Wendy Culverwell’s account of the Supreme Court ruling in the Tri-City Herald via msn at
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wa-s-highest-court-spells-out-why-it-approved-port-of-benton-recall-petitions/ar-AA2aGoXD?ctsrc=dgst&ocid=edgntpruby&pc=U531&cvid=6a89cfeb856a4f27be412441f8cf2ee6&uxmode=ruby&ei=8&apiversion=v2&domshim=1&noservercache=1&noservertelemetry=1&batchservertelemetry=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1

Below, the Port of Benton Commission as posted on the agency's website.

08/21/2026

On August 20, 2026, the Washington State Supreme Court released its full written opinion formally explaining its July decision — a unanimous, en banc ruling by all nine justices — affirming that the recall charges against the Port of Benton commissioners are legally and factually sufficient.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1052537.pdf

This published opinion is the Court putting its full reasoning on the record, and it strongly validates the recall effort we've already been running.

What the Opinion Says

Two passages from the Court's reasoning stand out, and now supporters can see them in the Court's own words:

1. The commissioners tried to hide behind "discretion" — the Court rejected it.

The commissioners argued that suspending Howard and firing Myers were simply personnel decisions within their discretion, and therefore couldn't support a recall. The Court disagreed:

"The commissioners argue that personnel decisions are discretionary and, hence, cannot form the basis for recall... We reject that argument here, as we did in Hatcher, because retaliation constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion."

2. The Court spelled out Keller's conflict of interest.

On the financial disclosure charge against Keller, the Court's opinion goes further than a procedural ruling — it explains exactly why the concealment mattered:

"[T]he fact that Keller owned a[n] LLC that in turn held a leasehold interest with the public entity where he was a Commissioner is exactly the type of information the... Public Disclosure Commission was created to disclose." Because Keller's ground lease with the Port is in the name of his LLC, and because Keller failed to disclose his ownership of the LLC, the public may not realize that Keller acted on both sides of the lease deal. Notably, as executive director, Keller allegedly executed the ground lease at a rate lower than the rate that the Commission had approved.

That last detail matters: the Court is pointing directly to evidence that Keller sat on both sides of a Port lease deal at a below-market rate — and then left his ownership stake off his mandatory financial disclosures.

08/20/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/19K2TxNz8r/?mibextid=WC7FNe

RICHLAND, Wash. – The Washington Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a recall petition filed against three Port of Benton commissioners is allowed to go forward, with judges saying the

08/17/2026

Sign the recall petition today August 20
Jefferson Park 3-6 pm

08/17/2026

PSA: Executive Director Diahann Howard is still employed by the Port Of Benton and an employee of the three sitting commissioners.

🤔 Is it just me or does anyone else think it’s extremely unethical and unprofessional (possibly retaliatory 🤷🏻‍♀️) to publicly disparage, defame and slander your employees? -Ashley Garza

08/15/2026

“The fact that the committee opposing the recall is registered by a sitting Port Commissioner is, in itself, a powerful endorsement of why this recall is necessary,” Pratt said in a statement. “Rather than demonstrating independent public support, it reinforces the perception that those in power are working to protect one another. To many citizens, this only deepens concerns about corruption and the lack of accountability that gave rise to the recall effort.”

As the effort to recall all three Port of Benton commissioners moves toward the ballot, two new fronts have opened in the fight: a commissioner-backed committee has formed to stop it, and the port’s suspended executive director is now suing to change how the port investigates her case.