Proposal to greatly tighten complaint procedures in Waldport gets quick revisions before council can discuss them

By GARRET JAROS / Lincoln Chronicle

WALDPORT – A proposal to revise how Waldport handles citizen complaints about staff or councilors was brought to the city council for discussion and possible approval at its monthly meeting last week.

But language in the proposal that included potential perjury charges for making false complaints as well as eliminating anonymous complaints drew the ire of council critics, who complained the proposal would limit free speech and criticism of city government.

More than 40 community members turned out for the meeting Thursday which grew raucous with audience members trading barbs during the public comment period. Like a contentious wedding, supporters of the council and city manager filled seats on one side of the aisle while critics and those in favor of a current council recall attempt sat on the other.

The proposed new complaint procedures written by city manager Dann Cutter came the week before a Monday deadline for a group trying to recall six council members to turn in petition signatures.

Comments began with Tania Vera praising the council and city manager for their good work while also questioning Mayor Heide Lambert about why she was not taking part in community events.

Tony Thimakis, the leader of the council recall effort, spoke about not allowing anonymous complaints about city staff or the council, arguing that whistleblowers need protection.

“You as a council have been accused of intimidation and retaliation via the city manager on citizens with whom you or he disagrees,” Thimakis said. “And now you want to remove the possibility of complaints by removing any possibility of protection by forcing the removal of whistleblower protection.”

Sandy Staples, who joked that she had sat on the wrong side of the aisle, praised the council and Cutter. She asked if people in favor of a recall were going to step up to volunteer to sit on the council and was met with a chorus of “Yes!”

At the same time someone from across the aisle called out “That’s all we need is some of you idiots on council!”

Former council member and current critic Karun Olson called out the proposed revisions to public complaints as moving in the opposite direction of what citizens have requested and puts more power in the hands of the city manager.

“Many of us have legitimate fears of retaliation when we speak up,” Olson said. “That is why a fair, transparent, and independent process for raising complaints is essential.”

Waldport city hall office manager Robin Morris also spoke, saying she supports revising the rules in part because people come in and start “talking about things that are not true,” she said. “And you know they’re not true.”

Revisions would help ensure that people are accountable to tell the truth, Morris said, thanking the council – one of whom is her daughter — for taking staff complaints seriously and following protocol.

Morris and another employee were at the center of what led to the council removing Lambert from office April 3 for violating the city charter for trying to direct employees.

“While some groups, including Justice for Waldport and others that support the mayor, have publicly stated that the mayor was simply guiding us, the interaction with her was hateful questions, involving directing, not asking, directing …” Morris said.

“Lies!” called out Lambert supporter Signe Miller.

Morris turned and locked eyes with Miller.

“These are not lies,” Morris said. “One hundred percent not lies.”

The audience again erupted into a back-and-forth and calls to “Shut up!” before Lambert pounded her gavel to bring the meeting back to order.

Complaints flooding in

Cutter told the council that his proposals were in response to a “a swath of complaints regarding city staff and council members” and some unclear aspects of council rules about complaints.

Word of the proposed changes appeared in a news article prior to Thursday’s meeting, then circulated on social media, including websites that support the council recall and censure or firing of Cutter.

The proposed changes originally stated complaints must include language that declares they are true and correct, and sworn under the penalty of perjury. They must also be submitted in writing – hand delivered or mailed, not sent electronically. They must be clearly legible and have the name, date and signature (already a requirement) of the person making the complaint. No anonymous complaints would be accepted.

However, after the initial draft was posted on the council’s agenda, its circulation online and the resulting public criticism, Cutter made some last-minute revisions that neither the council nor the public had time to review before Thursday’s meeting.

“I changed it based on feedback I saw on social media and feedback that I got from one council member,” Cutter told the Lincoln Chronicle on Friday. “The feedback from the council member was basically more on style. But what became clear to me is that I had not put enough in the notes to explain why that piece was put in place. I felt the comments I saw on social media completely misunderstood and misconstrued the intent of the language.”

The biggest difference in the drafts, Cutter said, was changing “sworn,” which requires a notary, to “unsworn” — just signing the complaint to say the person believes it to be true and correct. Another revision was around the language of how complaints would be handled.

The original draft stated “receipt of the complaint does not mean action will be taken” and that the city council reserved the right to review it and deal with the issue however they choose, including whether they would respond to the person who filed the complaint.

The revised proposal says the council will review all complaints and evidence presented by both parties and, if warranted, take action within city code, state law and human resource guides. The council would also respond to the person filing the complaint with what they determined.

The revised proposal now includes numerous notes explaining the reasoning behind each of the proposed changes.

One of Cutter’s first notes explained the reason for a possible perjury charge. “… the intent of this requirement to ensure that complaints, which have a cost associated with them, are not submitted frivolously nor with false information. These are not complaints about the city’s actions, but specific to a person and thus require the protections of law for all involved – both in whistleblower protections, and considering human resource liability.”

Cutter told the Chronicle he brought the suggested revisions to the council to clear up what is a “woefully inadequate” rule regarding complaints about staff and the council. But he also said there was no reason to bring it up Thursday, which is why he told councilors there was no rush and that they could table it.

Cutter said he modeled the original proposal to match those of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission and the Oregon State Bar.

The council did not discuss the proposed changes. But it did move to table it until its November meeting so they would have time to review the revisions.

Cutter said while anonymous complaints about particular individuals will not be accepted, anonymous complaints about something wrong in the city will be accepted and investigated.

“I do not take an anonymous complaint about something wrong in the city and throw it away because somebody did not sign their name,” Cutter said. “I take every complaint that the city receives seriously.”

Actions after executive session

After an executive (closed) session called to discuss potential litigation, the council returned to open session and announced:

• It would take no action at this time on breach of contract and federal trademark objections regarding the Waldport Wednesday Market. The Waldport Beachcomber Days volunteer community group secured the federal trademark to use the name Waldport Wednesday Market. The city holds the state trademark;
• It would have the law firm that defended Cutter in fighting a restraining order filed by Beachcomber Days secretary TiAnne Rios contact the city’s primary insurance company to implore them to pay for their costs;
• It would schedule a hearing to address complaints against Cutter. Two complaints each have been filed against the city manager by Lambert, Todd Swift of Township 13, and Kurtis Barker, chief executive officer for the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, and one by Judith Hees. The council first has to hold a hearing on the complaints before it can order an investigation. While Lambert has been calling for an investigation of Cutter’s treatment of Rios, she was the sole vote against holding a hearing.

• Garret Jaros covers the communities of Yachats, Waldport, south Lincoln County and natural resources issues and can be reached at GJaros@YachatsNews.com