Six members of the Waldport city council will be the subject of a July 13 recall election after enough signatures were verified Wednesday to put the issue on the ballot. (Quinton Smith/Lincoln Chronicle)
- Editor’s note: On Monday, June 8, Lincoln County Clerk Amy Southwell said the election will be held Monday, July 13 — not Tuesday, July 14 as previously announced. The story below has been updated to reflect that change.
By the Lincoln Chronicle staff
WALDPORT – There will be a city council recall election in July.
The Lincoln County clerk on Wednesday informed the city of Waldport that enough signatures had been verified to hold a recall election July 13 for six councilors — Greg Dunn, Susan Woodruff, Rick Booth, Jayme Morris, Michelle Severson and Jerry Townsend.
Mayor Heide Lambert was not a target of the recall campaign.
Council members have until 5 p.m. Monday to resign or submit a statement why they should not be removed from the council. All told the Lincoln Chronicle they will not resign.
The recall election must be held no later than 35 days after Monday, so county clerk Amy Southwell said the election will be by mail ballot ending at 8 p.m. Monday, July 13.
Southwell’s office had to verify at least 192 voter signatures for each council member for the recall to proceed. The verified number ranged from 194 to 200 signatures, according to city recorder Megan Torres. The number of signatures is determined by the state based on the calculation of 15 percent of the 1,276 city residents who voted in the last election for governor.
The election’s cost to the city of Waldport is estimated between $3,600 and $5,000 depending on the county’s final expenses.
The recall effort has been led by council critic Tony Thimakis, supporters of Lambert and others connected to the Beachcomber Days organization, which the city has barred from conducting events in Waldport needing city licenses because of financial and governance issues.
What petitions claim
The petitions – there had to be one for each council member — mirror claims from the first effort last November, which was invalidated after the county determined signature gatherers violated state law by writing in the addresses for some people who signed.
The petitioners said the six should be recalled because:
- They voted April 3, 2025, to remove Lambert from office over allegations she violated the city charter for trying to direct city employees. Councilors reinstated her a month later after a judge’s order and Lambert since filed a lawsuit against the city for $250,000;
- They allowed city manager Dann Cutter to speak on their behalf in their intention to fight the district attorney’s decision not to file criminal charges against the mayor for returning to her seat April 10 when she was removed and arrested by a sheriff’s deputy;
- They kept Lambert from responding to public statements at meetings, dismissing without investigation multiple complaints against Cutter while also failing to supervise him, resulting in fiscal mismanagement that included four years of delinquent city audits and impeding access to public records; and
- They did not rein in Cutter as he dealt with financial issues surrounding the Waldport Beachcomber Days organization, eventually leading the council to bar the organization from operating in the city.
Statement, responses
In a statement to the media Wednesday, Thimakis said the recall certification is “the culmination of months of growing public frustration with the direction of city government and what many residents view as a pattern of secrecy, selective enforcement, and disregard for public accountability.”
“The issue is larger than any one vote, policy, or personality,” Thimakis wrote. “This recall is about whether the people of Waldport still have confidence in the officials who represent them. Government works only when citizens believe the rules apply equally to everyone and that decisions are being made openly and honestly. Recall supporters say the election presents voters with an opportunity to reset the relationship between city hall and the community by demanding greater accountability, transparency, and responsiveness from local government.”
If a councilor is recalled, the position is filled by appointment by a majority of any remaining council members — if there are enough for a quorum, according to the Waldport city charter. A newly appointed council member’s term would begin immediately and continue until Dec. 31 if the position is up for election in this November’s general election, according to the city charter.
If all six are recalled, an election to fill their positions would be part of the November general election. Three positions held by Woodruff, Booth and Severson are already up for election in November, as is the mayor’s position. Residents can file in August to run in the November election.
Woodruff is in her second council term which ends in December and has served 25 years as mayor or councilor. Booth is in his second term, which expires in December, and Severson is in her first, four-year term which also ends this year.
Dunn is in his third four-year term, which ends in 2028. Morris is in her second, four-year term that ends in 2028, and Townsend is in his first term, which also ends in 2028.
Booth, Severson and Morris said they will not resign and would file statements Monday.
Townsend said he has spent his life in public service and will not resign.
“I respect Waldport citizens and trust them to judge my performance as city councilor,” he said in an email to the Chronicle. “I have followed city, state and federal law, honoring a pledge I made in each term. I have met with citizens anywhere, anytime to hear and respond to their concerns. My goal is to help improve Waldport for everyone.”
Woodruff said she will not resign but also that she does not intend to run for re-election in November.
“Our city residents have generously voted in favor of my participation in our government in a number of elections, and I intend to fulfill my commitment to do my best for them until my term and 2026 ends,” Woodruff said. “Our voters will weigh in to decide that recall attempt soon, and I believe they will feel it wiser to support an orderly transition in city council members with a ‘No’ vote on this recall election. Much depends on this vote.”
Dunn, who has been the subject of unrelenting mostly anonymous attacks on the recall supporters’ Facebook pages, also said he will not resign.
“I was elected to serve the residents of our community, and I intend to continue fulfilling the duties and responsibilities entrusted to me unless and until the voters decide otherwise through the proper legal process,” Dunn said in a statement. “Public service often involves difficult decisions, differing opinions, and spirited debate. While I respect the rights of citizens to express their views and utilize the recall process available to them, I remain committed to serving the community with integrity, transparency, and dedication.”
What the petitioner Mr. Thimakis is not saying is that the old Beachcomber Days organization absconded unlawfully with over $20,000 in city funds, and when called on it, threw their support behind the mayor, who then asked in front of witnesses to allowed BCD to have a ‘grey area’. He has since tried to get the county to remove the city from managing its own Wednesday market because this is how the old BCD group got money under the table.
A vote to support this recall is a vote to support the cover up of this theft. Mr. Thimakis and the ‘Justice for Waldport’ recall petitioners told many a tall tale, and have potentially committed election law violations.
Vote ‘NO’ on the Recall – save the council that brought you reduced debt, a huge new playground, strong city development, and has invested more in fixing infrastructure than in the last 20 years.
It’s time to end this small group costing the city money.
The chief petitioner often speaks as though he has more information than he actually does, and his comments continue to come across as uninformed and lacking a clear understanding of the facts.
I support all of our council members, and as a voter in this district, I will not support this recall effort. Those behind this campaign should be ashamed of themselves. Many of us know exactly who is involved, and this type of behavior does nothing to help our community move forward.
What many people have also noticed is that a large number of the individuals leading or actively supporting this recall effort are members of the former Beachcomber Days group. That fact alone should cause people to take a step back and ask some important questions. Given the history, the ongoing disputes, and the conflicts that have played out publicly, it’s reasonable for residents to consider whether this effort is truly about serving Waldport or if there are other motivations at play.
As for Mayor Lambert, if she is truly supporting or encouraging these online attacks and this recall effort, then perhaps you should consider stepping aside as well. Waldport deserves leadership that focuses on bringing people together and addressing real community issues, not fueling division and controversy. Your ongoing $250,000 lawsuit and the political drama surrounding it have only created more uncertainty and conflict. What Waldport needs is leadership focused on the best interests of the community, not personal agendas or political battles. It’s time to focus on moving Waldport forward instead of constantly looking for ways to tear people down.
Mr. Cutter continues to focus on attacking the people raising concerns rather than addressing the concerns themselves.
Let’s start with the facts.
The recall effort began more than a year ago. The allegation regarding missing Beachcomber Days funds did not arise until this spring. Any attempt to connect the recall to those allegations is simply inaccurate.
I am not part of Beachcomber Days leadership. My involvement consisted of volunteering for a few days to help with event setup, painting the stage, and teardown. Like many Waldport residents, I volunteered to support a community event.
Mr. Cutter also references the mayor’s actions regarding Beachcomber Days. The public record speaks for itself. The relevant discussions occurred before Mayor Lambert was a member of the council. Residents can review the meeting minutes and draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Cutter further suggests that I have filed complaints regarding the Wednesday Market. I have not contacted the city, county, or state regarding any aspect of the Wednesday Market.
What is concerning is the continued pattern of deflection. When residents raise questions about audits, public records, project costs, utility rate increases, or city management decisions, those questions deserve answers. Instead, discussions are often redirected toward critics, volunteers, nonprofit organizations, or other distractions.
The recall is not about Beachcomber Days. It is not about the Wednesday Market. It is not about personalities.
The recall is about accountability.
Many residents have concluded that city leadership has failed to provide the transparency, responsiveness, and oversight they expect from their local government. That is why nearly 200 verified voters signed each recall petition. That is why this election is taking place.
The voters of Waldport will now have the opportunity to review the record and decide for themselves whether the current council continues to deserve their confidence.
Your timeline is off, Mr Thimakis:
Yachats News
Beachcomber supporters pack Waldport council meeting to protest permit suspensions
October 10, 2024
***
KYAQ-FM
Waldport – The Uncertain Future of Beachcomber Days – an Interview with TiAnne Rios
September 5, 2025
Ashley T., respectfully, Tony Thimakis’ comment is factually correct. Whether people agree with him or not, the information he provided regarding these matters is supported by the facts as currently known.
That said, I do understand that the situation is complex, and I don’t believe you have the full picture of the Beachcomber Days situation. Much of what has been circulated publicly consists of narratives repeated enough to sound factual, but repetition doesn’t equal truth.
There has been no demonstrated wrongdoing by Beachcomber Days. Instead, there’s been a continued effort to promote claims that spark concern despite lacking factual support.
A Certified Public Accountant reviewed Beachcomber Days’ records and found nothing improper, stating so publicly. The recent claim that the former Beachcomber Days organization “absconded unlawfully with over $20,000 in city funds” is a new allegation, separate from the October 2024 claims that have already been disproven. It’s simply another narrative that does not align with the facts.
I understand how convincing arguments can seem, but I urge everyone to review the full facts, not the narratives or carefully selected excerpts that have been fed to the public. The details matter, and so does the full record.
When the Oregon Secretary of State or Ethics Commission says, “We agree, but this is not our jurisdiction,” that does not mean no wrongdoing occurred. It simply means the matter falls outside the authority of that particular agency. When the jurisdiction for an entire council’s wrongdoing lies with the very city government for which they serve, it can be frustrating for people seeking to correct a wrong.
In the end, accountability relies on a full, fair reading of the facts—without narratives in the way.
Tony, this is exactly my point. You continue to speak as though you have all the facts, yet this post demonstrates that you clearly do not.
How many ethics complaints were filed by you? How many of those complaints resulted in findings of wrongdoing? If I recall correctly, every single one came back with nothing. Yet you continue to present yourself as an authority on the situation.
At some point, you have to acknowledge that you may not have the full picture or are just uneducated with reality.
Your timeline is also incorrect. Much of this conflict traces back to when concerns were raised about the old Beachcomber Days group. To claim that history has nothing to do with what is happening now simply isn’t believable. From the outside, this appears far more rooted in personal grievances and retaliation than in any proven misconduct.
And here’s a question that never seems to get answered: If the recall effort succeeds and these council members are removed, how exactly does that solve the audit issue? How does replacing elected officials make an independent auditing firm complete its work any faster? What specific plan exists to accelerate the audit process?
It’s easy to criticize. It’s much harder to provide realistic solutions.
So some +/- 200 folks signed the petition.
Over the course of collecting these signatures, how many folks said, “NO!” ?
I suspect we’ll find out in a month.
My three biggest concerns are how the council doesn’t give a darned about constituents concerns, hasn’t had an audit in years and they do not manage the city manager.
Township 13 has been attending council meetings for over a year, regarding an easement issue. Mayor Heide Lambert pushed for a meeting with Township 13, the council acquiesced to get it resolved. But nothing was put in writing so it continues to be unresolved.
I wondered about the city audits simply because they were asking for Beachcomber Days audits. I picked up the phone in April 2025 and called the Secretary of State’s office. They said Waldport’s last clean annual audit was in 2019 and the 2020 was inconclusive because documents were missing. We haven’t had a audit done since, although the city manager has been claiming it will be presented soon for over a year now. I am absolutely deeply concerned. Dann Cutter has convinced city council that it is no big deal.
As far as managing the city manager, it’s simply not happening. I go to city council meetings. Dann controls the whole narrative and they let him do it, questioning nothing. I have seen them vote to pay for Cutter’s personal legal fees. Dunn and Booth have both voted on things pertaining to Central Coast Fire where they sit on the board. When I spoke about recusing themselves at a council meeting, I got dirty looks.
Out of transparency, I do not have any ties to Beachcomber Days other than friendships and checking ID at the gate to the beer garden. I also collected signatures for the recall because of the things above. I do not go to recall meetings even though I am the treasurer. The recall committee has not spent a dime this time around and used signs from the first recall. I have no affiliation with Justice for Waldport, but feel they are doing a great job of pulling the skeletons out of the closet.
Vote “Yes” for the recall!
Vote no on the City Council Recall.
Recalls should be reserved for serious misconduct, not disagreements or political differences. Our council members were elected by the voters and should be allowed to continue serving the terms they were elected to fulfill. Replacing elected officials based on personal agendas, rumors, or political retaliation only creates more division and delays progress on the issues that truly matter to our community.
Let’s focus on moving Waldport forward, not backward. Vote no on the recall.
I agree – I’m against recalls in general just for the nature of most recalls. We have a very robust and well-developed set of election processes in this country that have substantial oversight. Recalls to me signal a possible breakdown in those processes and/or oversight. Election deniers are all smiles when things go their way and cry foul when they don’t. The recall process was never intended as a second chance for election deniers to get their way. People in this society need to have enough emotional composure and reserve to understand that life doesn’t always go their way – it seems like social media has been chipping away at people’s emotional resolve. I was against the recall for Mayor Lambert and I’m against this recall. We’ll right the ship during the next elections cycle.
You can reach me at [email protected] or (541) 351-8909, as I doubt the editor of this news source wants the comment section to turn into a social media-style discussion.
I would be happy to provide the name of the person I spoke with at the Secretary of State’s Elections Division. I have no reason to lie about or embellish that conversation.
I was not present at the meeting where the CPA spoke, but I do recall reading a letter she wrote, which can be found here:
https://www.justiceforwaldport.com/lettersandopinionpieces
I was also concerned by the allegations made by Dann Cutter and Greg Dunn regarding the Market funds earned by BCD. Because of those concerns, I contacted BCD directly by email, as they remain an active organization. They informed me that the allegations are unfounded, but declined to provide additional details because they intend to issue a public statement.
To my knowledge, there have been no evidentiary findings supporting any of Dann Cutter’s allegations over the past year. That said, I certainly understand why you and others may have found his claims persuasive, and I appreciate the importance of being factual and careful when discussing these matters.