Recall effort aimed at Sandpoint mayor and council president is official

By Zach Hagadone
Reader Staff

The Sandpoint City Council is poised to reconsider the parking ordinance at its regular Wednesday, Aug. 5 meeting — likely addressing a raft of complaints and frustrations shared by area residents related to the paid parking program that was rolled out on July 1 — but one group of disgruntled community members are still proceeding with an effort to recall Mayor Jeremy Grimm and City Council President Deb Ruehle over the issue.

Supporters of the recall have, since July 1, contended that the paid parking program is unfair, financially wasteful, harms local businesses and residents, exposes users to digital surveillance, is otherwise damaging to the community and was adopted improperly without a fully updated ordinance enacted to enforce it.

City legal staff has disagreed with that assessment, and the Aug. 5 council meeting agenda’s inclusion of an action item related to an updated parking ordinance is intended to bring the Code into alignment with the policy. City officials have previously said that paid parking is authorized by other Code sections related to parking signage, and fees — including for overstaying parking time limits — can be set by resolution.

In a conversation with the Reader over Facebook messenger, recall organizer Ryan Lohman recognized that but added that “while passing a resolution that overrides existing Code is not legal, it is also not technically illegal, as the term ‘illegal’ means criminal and this is considered a ‘procedural error’ and government overreach ‘ultra vires.’ 

“There has been little to no coverage on this aspect of the ordeal, but it matters,” she wrote. “I have sought legal guidance and was informed that the city is open to tort claims due to acting ‘ultra vires’ by implementing the parking metering system without associated ordinances.”

Lohman, who has a Sandpoint address but lives in the county, made the recall drive official as of July 24, when she successfully submitted a form to the Bonner County Clerk’s Office including 20 signatures from verified city of Sandpoint voters requesting that the recall go forward.

“The recall is not only about holding them accountable, it’s about putting into place the framework for a referendum,” Lohman told the Reader, later adding, “… the council, mayor and [Planning and Community Development Director Jason] Welker knew the people were against it. They spent a stupid amount of money on it anyways. They are trying to justify moving forward with their dumb idea because they spent a stupid amount of money, and then shaming the people for boycotting and taking action in the form of a recall in order to hold them accountable because it will cost taxpayers money if those recalled decide not to resign.

According to Bonner County Clerk Michael Rosedale, the 20 signatures submitted on July 24 now “revert to zero and they start the whole process over.”

“That started the clock,” Rosedale told the Reader, referring to the July 24 filing.

But that clock is ticking fast.

Now that the process has begun, the recall group needs to collect a total of at least 1,048 signatures attesting to the desire for a recall of each elected official — requiring two separate filings — and then resubmit them to the Clerk’s Office to make the recall petitions valid. That has to happen no later than Oct. 7.

If that threshold is cleared, the Clerk’s Office has up to 15 business days after submission to verify the signatures and certify that they are valid. To be valid, the signatories must all be eligible voters who reside within Sandpoint city limits. Those with Sandpoint addresses but who live outside city limits are not accepted, Rosedale said. Based on that, the originator of the petition — Lohman — is not an eligible signatory for her own effort.

Assuming the appropriate number of signatures are found to be legitimate, the targeted elected officials then have five business days to either resign or make plain their intent to stand for a recall election.

If they don’t resign, Grimm and Ruehle would be given the opportunity to provide a rebuttal statement, which would be included with the recall measure on the ballot of the next available election. In this case, the next election is on Tuesday, Nov. 3, which, given the process timeline, gives the recall a vanishingly small chance of going before voters this year.

Irrespective of the recall effort, there are other election deadlines looming. The last date to file for an item’s inclusion on the November ballot is Friday, Aug. 28, Rosedale said. Given that, if petitioners take until Oct. 7 to submit their signatures, they will be long past the eligible period for the November ballot, and — even assuming their filings are approved — that would push the measure to the May 2027 election.

Based on all those deadlines and moving parts, the only chance for the Grimm-Ruehle recall to go before voters this November is if all signatures are gathered and submitted in the first week of August, found to be valid and certified, and Grimm and Ruehle submit their rebuttal language prior to Aug. 28.

Regardless of the timing, if the 1,048 signatures are accepted for each petition and a recall question is added to the ballot, Grimm and Ruehle would only be ousted if at least one more voter opts to remove them from office than originally elected them. Grimm was elected to his four-year term in 2023 with 1,776 votes, meaning at least 1,777 people must vote to un-elect him. Likewise, Ruehle received 1,079 for her four-year term in 2023, requiring at least 1,080 votes to remove her from office.

Grimm has already gone on the record that he won’t seek another term, and Ruehle declined to comment.

“I respect the right of citizens to pursue a recall. That is part of our democratic process and I respect all those who play by the rules and follow the rules and leverage the law and the options they have,” Grimm told the Reader in an interview.

He went on to say that, “I would also point out that as the Executive Branch, I did not vote on the parking policy. I did not vote on the parking contract and I did not vote to go a 180 [degree] on it, either,” he added, referring to some councilors’ indication at the July 15 meeting that they would like to see critical components of the parking program removed, such as the paid parking kiosks in the downtown two-hour zone. 

Lohman pushed back at that, saying that while Grimm may not have voted for the parking policy, “he was in favor of it and signed the resolution. So when he says he doesn’t plan to run again it means nothing to me. Additionally, why let poor leadership continue to make bad and costly decisions?”

“The individual who is pursuing this thinks this is of my making and doing, and I respectfully encourage them to review the process of how policies and laws are made and adopted, and the fact that the Executive Branch simply needs to implement to the best of their ability — with the staff and the tools they have — the desires of the council,” Grimm said.

If the recall efforts are both successful — whether in November 2026 or May 2027 — and both Grimm and Ruehle are removed, it would be up to the remaining council members to appoint a new mayor, either from among their own colleagues or another member of the community, and that interim mayor would serve the remainder of the current term. Meanwhile, a new council president would have to be selected, and the resulting council vacancy or vacancies would also be filled by appointment for the duration of the term until the next regular election.

“We will move forward with the recall,” Lohman told the Reader. “Hopefully, if we are successful, the mayor and councilor will do the honorable thing and resign. While doing so we will gather contact info so that once they pass the ordinance updates we have the framework in place to collect the signatures required to do the referendum and prevent them from being able to enforce the paid parking anyways. …

“The remaining council members can either be with the people or against them,” she added.