Thursday, October 1, 2026
After a 2–2 board split blocked her bid for a county-funded defense, Commissioner Emily Clouse will now face the Washington State Supreme Court using her own money after a failed recall attempt was revived on appeal.
The split decision was rendered at the Thruston County Board of County Commissioners meeting on Wednesday, April 30.
The board failed to meet the statutory requirement of majority under RCW 4.96.041 to grant county-funded legal counsel, with Clouse recused, BoCC Chair Tye Menser and Commissioner Rachel Grant in favor and Commissioners Wayne Fournier and Carolina Mejia opposed.
Clouse’s tenure has been marred by a 2024 personnel controversy involving hiring Allyn Hershey, her former romantic partner, as her full-time executive assistant.
Hershey later filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and suppression. The county hired Seattle-based workplace investigator Robin L. Nielsen to examine the case.
Nielsen found no evidence of harassment, and his report concluded that Clouse had violated ethics policies and undermined public trust. The findings detailed disruptions to county public service operations and breaches of conduct expected from elected officials.
The county ended up paying $300,000 to resolve a lawsuit filed by Hershey. The payout was funded, in part, by county taxpayers.
Then the board issued a formal censure against Clouse following the investigation’s findings.
Olympia resident Arthur West filed a recall petition against Clouse later that year. West is a “well-known litigant” for repeatedly challenging public officials under state recall statutes, Prosecuting Attorney Jon Tunheim noted.
West’s petition alleged Clouse’s decision to hire and supervise her partner constituted misfeasance and violated ethics policy. He referenced the censure and the taxpayer-funded settlement. The third-party investigation report, while partially redacted, was also cited extensively in public meetings and litigation filings.
The case was assigned to Visiting Judge Jennifer Forbes of Kitsap County Superior Court.
In January, the petition was dismissed by Forbes through a seven-page ruling. She found the petition legally insufficient under RCW 29A.56.140 and cited its failure to present actionable facts, specific dates, or evidence that Clouse’s conduct rose to the level of recallable offense.
Following that ruling, West filed a motion for reconsideration. He submitted what he described as a “less-redacted version” of the investigation report, according to Clouse. The motion then was still denied.
In March, West filed notice of appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court.
After the appeal was docketed, Clouse submitted a renewed request for legal defense funding.
Appeal ‘definable'
Now that the case has reached the state’s highest court, Tunheim reassessed the legal dynamics of the case and informed the board that he was prepared to give his consent to help fund her defense.
The prosecuting attorney offered to provide Clouse a legal defense “within existing resource,” citing a comparable Supreme Court appeal in the past involving a recall petition against former Sheriff John Snaza and prior petitions involving Menser.
“It is a limited project … the production of a brief and perhaps oral argument. I wouldn’t need any kind of budget extension,” he said.
From Tunheim’s standpoint, the legal posture of the case had progressed significantly.
Whereas the earlier phase involved defending Clouse as an individual officeholder against a recall effort, the new phase involves defending the judgment of the Superior Court itself.
He argued the county’s participation in the appeal would not only support Clouse, but also uphold a judicial ruling already made in Thurston County’s court system.
Clouse acknowledged Tunheim’s overview and affirmed the procedural timeline.
She also confirmed her intent to “fully recuse” herself from the vote based on “potential conflict of interest” as specified under a section of the RCW. She made it clear the legal reference alone was sufficient for her to avoid participating in the decision-making process.
Clouse then elaborated on a recent procedural development in the case.
“Mr. West appealed this to the Supreme Court. He also filed a motion for reconsideration … that was also turned down by the court,” she said.
She did not argue for or against the county’s provision of legal support. Instead, she left the decision to the BoCC and kept herself open to any inquiries about the case.
Mejia, however, voiced doubts about the Prosecuing Attorney Office’s (PAO) capacity. She expressed her reservations about the practical impact of undertaking the Supreme Court on top of PAO’s existing obligations.
“We’ve heard it here over many budget sections, how spread thin your civil division is … I have concerns … on costs and capacity,” she said.
Referencing the timing of the year, Mejia pointed out the county was still early in its budget cycle and cautioned against underestimating what might arise in the months ahead. She then questioned whether adding the matter contradicted previously stated limitations of PAO.
Tunheim clarified that the proposed defense was not comparable to open-ended civil litigation, and because the matter is narrowly scoped, it is manageable.
“We’re talking about a very definable project … I think we can manage it with an existing workload … Those resources are already committed because they exist within the salaries of the existing deputies,” said Tunheim, noting the work would not require outside counsel or impact the office’s indirect cost allocations.
Grant supported the defense funding in terms of “equity and fairness.”
She pointed out the county had previously provided legal defense in those situations “automatically,” as she referenced past cases, particularly the recall effort against Snaza and Menser, as examples where the PAO had stepped in without controversy.
“If we’re going to offer legal support to some, I think we need to offer it to all when it comes to recall efforts,” Grant said.
Fournier took the opposite position through reading a prepared statement.
He firmly opposed the request to use another set of public funds and explained to do so would contradict the BoCC’s prior decision and undermine public trust.
Fournier clarified that providing legal defense for elected officials facing recall is “not automatic,” in response to Grant.
Instead, he asserted, it is a discretionary act that must be based on a range of factors.
He then cited the board’s decision not to provide legal support to County Clerk Linda Enlow in a prior case.
In 2024, West filed a petition against Enlow, accusing her of misfeasance and violating her oath of office. However, the case did not proceed. West voluntarily withdrew the petition less than two weeks after submitting it to the county.
Fournier then emphasized the damage from Clouse’s decisions went beyond monetary cost and extended to reputational harm and diminished public confidence in county government.
“To put that loss in perspective, $300,000 could have provided over 450,000 meals to residents facing food insecurity. … It could have provided emergency shelter for 250 individuals for a month. It could have funded two deputy sheriff positions for an entire year. It could have supported critical contracts or mental health and addiction services that directly save lives,” he said.
Even though Fournier commended Clouse’s efforts to improve judgment and professionalism, he said the actions did not erase the original conduct that gave rise to the recall effort.
Fournier said "(to) approve this request now would not only contradict our earlier decision but send a dangerous message this serious personal misconduct may be forgiven with time or revisionist thinking, and that public funds can be used to clean up personal mistakes."
He stressed that his opposition was not driven by punitive intent, but by a principled commitment to accountability and stewardship of public funds.
“The public has already paid too high a price for these mistakes,” he added.
Menser acknowledged the complexity of Clouse’s case.
“I was pretty sure that there was no basis … for recall,” he said, noting the Superior Court ruling confirmed that belief.
As he reflected on the BoCC’s censure decision in 2024, Menser acknowledged he had been conflicted at the time and recognized the legitimacy of the board’s act and the problematic nature of the recall petition.
“In light of the prosecutor’s … ability to handle it with minimal resources expended, I would support it at this juncture," Menser said.
Menser cautioned about the difference between moral disapproval of a colleague’s conduct and the legal mechanisms available to the public.
In his view, the petition constituted an attempt by a resident to reframe a politically or ethically questionable decision into a legal claim that did not meet recall criteria under state law.
“This is the context where a citizen took something and tried to (take) something that was bad that we'd all disapproved of, but tried to exploit it in an inappropriate legal context,” he said.
Menser reaffirmed Clouse’s conduct was unacceptable, but said it had been inappropriately weaponized through the recall process. He then supported Clouse’s defense.
Grant voiced the new appeal was initiated not by Clouse, but by West.
“She is not responsible for Arthur West … going to the state … It could happen to any of us,” Grant said.
Fournier rebutted the argument.
“Would Arthur West be filing anything if it wasn’t for the misconduct? No,” he said.
Menser countered, “Anyone could file stuff against any of us,” while Grant emphasized, “She already went to court … already defended herself … already won.”
Mejia reiterated her opposition.
“When this recall came through, I didn’t feel like it fit the scope of the performance or the duties of a commissioner … I will remain consistent with my previous vote,” she said.
The board then split its vote on the issue.
“I’m not surprised by the conversation at all … It was worth bringing back … so Commissioner Clouse could hear the conversation and know where her request stands,” Tunheim said.
The BoCC’s vote left Clouse to continue the proceedings with private counsel.
14 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Scooter
How much more time and money are the commissionors going to spend on this issue? Let's move on and start doing something constructive for the Port. Right now I can't see myself voting for anyone on the current commission....
Friday, May 2, 2025 Report this
JulesJames
Thank you Commish Mejia and Fourier. Ms. Clouse acted like Jeffery Epstein and now wants the county to pay even more money for her abuse of employees. Our county lives to higher standards than that.
Friday, May 2, 2025 Report this
BevBassett
My respect for Fournier and Mejia has dropped down into negative numbers as I see how they have taken political advantage of yet another of Arthur West's frivolous lawsuits. The irony is that the moral high ground absolutely belongs to Clouse.
Saturday, May 3, 2025 Report this
Virge13
Commissioner Clouse is once again being singled out for something that has already been resolved. Mr. West’ suit is frivolous and comments like those made by JulesJames show how low her detractors will go. Let’s move on.
Saturday, May 3, 2025 Report this
MikePelly
Mejia and Fourier your disservice is no longer wanted. When that day POS 'Awful Waste' decides comes after you with another frivolous legal monkey wrenching, I hope you feel the pain and are forced to fend for yourselves. Yes Clouse made some misjudgements, but your response is where things went off the rails. You two have done much damage to Thurston county's Democratic party's reputation. Forget about ever getting another vote from me.
Saturday, May 3, 2025 Report this
Boatyarddog
West is a NOBODY, in this community.
He's right up there with the likes of Pettit, Hershey, and now Mejia, and Fouriner, and the
Hate writer JulesJames.
Stop wasting time with PETTY ACTIONS.
MOVE ON!
Saturday, May 3, 2025 Report this
Porter
Maybe if Clouse un-recuses herself, she can vote to allow funding her defense with taxpayer dollars, and we can have something else to complain about.
Saturday, May 3, 2025 Report this
HappyOlympian
Thank you for not making us pay her bills that are a result of her corrupt and immoral behavior.
Saturday, May 3, 2025 Report this
TheGreatAnon
Fournier needs to get over it.
Sunday, May 4, 2025 Report this
OlyBlues
Thank you to Commissioners Fournier and Mejia for standing up for Thurston County taxpayers and voting correctly to have Comm. Clouse pay for her own defense. She acted outside the scope of county policy and the law and now wants the county to pay for her conduct, again!? Just because something has "always been done" this way does not make it right. How dare Commissioners Menser and Grant authorize county tax dollars to be spent defending Clouse who has already been determined at fault and cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars it does not have! Lets not forget the county is millions in deficit. And here comes Prosecutor Tunheim to the rescue. The same Tunheim who consistently begs for additional resources for his office stating how understaffed they are, even with his elite civil division outsourcing much of their work to private counsel so they can continue to work flex hours from home and never be seen in the office. If Clouse had any self respect she would resign, but she wants to keep collecting her $150K salary despite what her behavior continues to cost the county. Thank you Mejia and Fournier for representing your constituents.
Monday, May 5, 2025 Report this
Deanima
If Fournier wants to hang his hat on ethics, I applaud the sentiment. But, in that same sentiment, I believe he should be fully transparent and provide information on his full-time employment as a firefighter. What days/shifts does he work, and how does that impact his ability to serve on the various committees that Commissioners sit on? A full record of committee attendance, his work schedule, and the days and times his Committees meet should be provided. If he has been attending Committee meetings virtually while at his job at the fire department, that would be an issue as well. I am not saying he has done that, but providing the above information would determine it one way or the other.
Monday, May 5, 2025 Report this
ViaLocal
Jeffery Epstein exploited teenagers and shipped them to a private island so nobody would know? To compare him and Emily Clouse is nothing short of exaggeration and stupidity.
Monday, May 5, 2025 Report this
ViaLocal
If we can have a felon/predator in the White House, people can get over Clouse's mistake, which pales in comparison to Trump's behaviors, and his friends.
Monday, May 5, 2025 Report this
ClownPenis88
You know what i find disturbing that these POS commissioners cant even enforce the RCW laws that have real criminal behavior in our communities of Thurston County such as robbery,theft,child molseters, custodial interference, car theft,shootings. An Thurston County uses our TAX Dollars to pay for there own short comings on their ethics of conduct. This is why people dont respect law enforcement because commissioners and judges fall short to there own integrity at OUR TAX DOLLARS expense.
Wednesday, August 6, 2025 Report this