Recall backers claim Port of Benton insider deals cost the public $1.8M

A campaign to oust the entire Port of Benton commission claims one board member used the public agency as a vehicle to enrich himself, his family and his friends first as an employee and later, as an elected member of the board.

Commissioner Scott Keller is accused of authorizing illegal utility hookups and below-market leases that cost the public about $1.8 million in uncollected revenue.

The complaints alleging malfeasance and misfeasance in office against Keller and Commissioners William “Bill” O’Neil and Lori Stevens were filed Feb. 19 with the county auditor and then delivered to the three commissioners this week.

The recall campaign initiated on Feb. 19 lays out in 190 pages why the three should be voted out of office.

In addition to the claims against Keller, the complaints say O’Neil and Stevens didn’t take strong enough action after an outside investigation by the law firm Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt concluded Keller violated port policies and Washington state law.

Recalls do not have to be based on a criminal conviction or charges. In the 2021 successful recall of Benton County Sheriff Jerry Hatcher, the state Supreme Court said voters could decide the facts of the case.

However, a Superior Court judge will have to certify that the complaints are sufficient for voters to decide.

The recall against the Port of Benton commissioners is being spearheading by Citizens for a Better Port, a registered political action headed by retired Tri-Cities Judge Eugene Pratt, who served 39 years on the bench. Pratt is working with two daughters, Ashley Garza, a former port contractor, and Alison Moore, a retired sheriff’s deputy.

Their attorney is Doug McKinley of Richland, who played the same role in the successful recall of three Richland School Board members in 2023.

The recall effort was formally initiated by individual voters who live in each of the port commissioner districts. They filed complaints and supporting documents with the Benton County Auditor’s Office.

The complaints and supporting documents are posted to a Benton County webpage dedicated to the recall.

Complaint against Keller

The complaint against Keller was signed by Steve Goheen, a scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

It repeats the Schwabe findings and claims that as the port’s onetime executive, Keller allowed tenants to hook up to port water, sewer and power systems and made below-market lease deals for himself, family and friends.

Golf course lease

Keller, as executive director, renewed a lease with his cousin for 55 acres at the airport for Buckskin Golf Club.

The 10-year lease was set at $5,000 a year, below the estimated $10,000 fair-market value and in spite of his cousin’s past history of not paying the port the full amount of his prior lease.

Keller renewed the lease without authorization by the elected commission. The deal was discovered in an internal lease audit in June 2025.

Additionally, Buckskin used port electric meters for irrigation and to power lights.

The complaint calculates the below-market rent and unauthorized utility connections cost the port and taxpayers some $1.3 million in uncollected revenue.

Lease for personal airplane hangar

Keller bought a private hangar at the airport on land leased from the port in 2017. The commission approved his ground lease for 0.25 acres.

Without the commission’s knowledge, Keller reduced the lease area to 0.16 acres, reducing his annual lease payment by about 24%.

The complaint says uncollected revenue amounts to about $7,800 compared to a fair-market rate.

Richland water, sewer connections

Keller as executive director of the port bought the airplane hangar at 2049 Butler Loop knowing it was serviced by an unpermitted connection to a port water meter, leaving the port to pay the bills.

As result, the hangar failed to pay nearly $24,000 for water and sewer connection fees, usage fees, as well as the meter, ambulance and stormwater fees that Richland residents pay as part of their utility bills.

The complaint estimates another $500,000 was uncollected from neighboring hangars with unpermitted connections Keller knew about.

The city of Richland discovered the illegal connections to its fire hydrants and water system at the airport during a 2025 inspection.

A 1999 letter by hangar developer Herb Brayton to Keller, then the airport director, confirms plans to construct the utilities. O’Neil has cited the 1999 letter as possible evidence that the port meant to provide water to its hangar tenants.

Commissioners O’Neil and Stevens

The complaints against O’Neil and Stevens are largely identical. They were signed by Marie Noorani, a Richland artist, and Rachel Mercer, a Prosser winery executive, respectively.

The complaints say each “acted as co-conspirator, ratified, covered up, and thereby allowed a decades long scheme by (their) fellow commissioner, Scott Keller, to continue whereby Mr. Keller has used the port as a vehicle to enrich himself, his friends, and his relatives by giving himself, his friends, and his relatives special treatment in contractual arrangements with the port and by stealing public resources for himself, his friends, and his relatives.”

“It is my belief that (the commissioner’s) actions in ratifying and allowing Mr Keller’s actions have cost the port and its taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and that his actions are ongoing,” said the complaints.

What is driving the recall

The recall effort follows several years of conflict at the port, capped by a chaotic start to 2026 when O’Neil took office.

O’Neil defeated longtime Commissioner Roy Keck in a bitterly contested matchup last November.

Keck frequently sparred with Keller. And O’Neil is Keller’s ally.

In one of the new commissioner’s first acts, it voted unanimously to suspend executive director Diahann Howard for undisclosed reasons.

It later fired its newly hired finance director, Alicia Myers, before she completed her probationary period.

Both women claim retaliation.

The commission also took up the investigation into 24 allegations made against Keller that the port asked Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt to look into.

Schwabe found Keller violated Washington law and port rules on four occasions.

Specifically, the investigation said Keller arranged the below-market lease for his cousin for the Buckskin golf course, reduced his own land lease for his personal hangar and knowingly used water from an unpermitted connection to the Richland municipal water supply.

O’Neil and Stevens voted to censure Keller for the minor port policy violation, but took no action on the more serious findings that he broke state laws against misuse of public funds.

Board’s response

Keller, O’Neil and Stevens did not respond to requests for comment on the recall complaints after they were made public.

Keller worked for the port for 30 years and departed abruptly in 2019 in what the port called a retirement. He ran for port commissioner in 2022 and took office in 2023 after defeating an appointed incumbent.

The Port of Benton is based in Richland and serves a district that extends west to Prosser. It is chiefly concerned with promoting economic development and operates airports at Richland and Prosser, as well as business parks, a marine port and Crow Butte Park near Paterson.

It employs about 21 people and is funded by lease payments by tenants, grants, and property taxes. It’s annual budget is about $26 million.

What happens next?

Under Washington state law, the next step is for Benton County Prosecutor Eric Eisinger’s staff to prepare a ballot synopsis for a judge to consider.

Here’s an outline of the next part of the process:

• The county prosecutor prepares a ballot synopsis up to 200 words within 15 days.

• The prosecutor’s office certifies the synopsis and transmits it to the sponsor and to the official being targeted for recall.

• The prosecutor’s office also forwards the synopsis to the local Superior Court, along with a petition to the court to approve the synopsis and to determine if the charges are sufficient to proceed.

• A hearing is scheduled in Superior Court, with notice given to both the sponsor and the target of the recall. The court could require legal briefs.

• The judge determines if the complaint is sufficient and if the synopsis is adequate. The judge may correct the synopsis.

• If the recall survives legal review, sponsors have 180 days to collect signatures on petitions to put the recall before voters.

• Petitions are filed with the auditor to determine if the petitions have enough valid signatures.

• If petitions have enough valid signatures, the auditor sets a date for an election. The number of signatures needed is based on turnout of the last commissioner election.

This story was originally published March 1, 2026 at 6:15 AM.

Wendy Culverwell

Tri-City Herald

Reporter Wendy Culverwell writes about growth, development and business for the Tri-City Herald. She has worked for daily and weekly publications in Washington and Oregon. She earned a degree in English and economics from the University of Puget Sound. Support my work with a digital subscription