The Salem City Council recently voted to censure two of its members, Councilor Deanna Gwyn and Mayor-elect Julie Hoy. The two potentially violated Salem’s city charter by participating in a land use vote involving a developer who donated to both of their campaigns. Sitting Mayor Chris Hoy (no relation to Julie Hoy) brought the motion to censure, saying the councilors should have recused themselves from the vote after disclosing the financial relationship. Gwyn and Julie Hoy have said the censure is nothing more than an attempt to create division on council, while other councilors have said their failure to recuse themselves has created a conflict of interest.
Whitney Woodworth is a city reporter for the Statesman Journal. She’s been covering the censure and joins us with more details.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. The Salem City Council recently voted to censure two of its members. In a 6 to 2 vote, the council found that their colleagues, Mayor-elect Julie Hoy and Councilor Deanna Gwyn, violated Salem’s city charter. They did not recuse themselves in a vote that involved a local developer who had contributed to both of their campaigns. Outgoing Mayor Chris Hoy – no relation to the incoming mayor – brought the motion to censure. Gwyn and Julie Hoy have said the censure was politically motivated.
Whitney Woodworth is a city reporter for the Statesman Journal. She’s been covering the censure and a lot more. She joins us now. It’s great to have you back on the show.
Whitney Woodworth: Good to be here.
Miller: In order to understand what happened at the city council recently, I think we need a little refresher on the state of Salem politics. Can you remind us what happened in the May election?
Woodworth: In the May election, current Mayor Chris Hoy lost against Julie Hoy, who’s the current Ward 6 councilor, and he will be leaving office in January. It’s rare in Salem to have a competitive race involving an incumbent mayor, and it’s even more rare for the incumbent mayor to lose. It was a record-breaking fundraising season. And the bulk of the money went toward Julie Hoyt’s campaign. Her campaign raised more than $300,000, compared to Chris Hoy’s $59,000. And mind you, this is an unpaid position. Not long ago, city council campaigns typically only needed about $10,000 in fundraising to be competitive.
Miller: What was the issue at the heart of that political switch?
Woodworth: In talking to voters, the key issue definitely seemed to be the proposal for the payroll tax. Last year, council passed an employee-paid payroll tax for all work done in Salem, to address its multi-million budget shortfall. Chris Hoy was among those who voted in favor; Julie Hoy voted against it. A business group launched a referendum on the council vote, and the issue was sent to voters last November. Salem residents voted against the tax by an overwhelming margin.
Miller: OK, that is the important background here. Let’s turn to the vote that triggered the censure. What was that vote about?
Woodworth: The incident that triggered the censure happened in October. It was a land use appeal of the City Planning Commission’s requirement that developers build a sidewalk in an 11-lot development plan for the Creekside Community, which is an affluent neighborhood surrounding a golf course in South Salem. Officials representing Creekside said, during the October hearing, that the decision to require developers to add a sidewalk was unnecessary and would cost an additional $216,000. Julie Hoy and Councilor Gwyn disclosed the involved party in the hearing had donated more than $501 to their campaigns. And both chose to proceed with voting on the developments. The motion to get rid of the sidewalk ultimately passed in a 6 to 2 split, with Julie Hoy and Gwyn voting in favor of it.
Miller: Who is this developer, and what role does he play in city politics?
Woodworth: The key developer involved in this is Larry Tokarski, who owns Creekside LLC through his company Mountain West Investments. He’s a prominent businessman, developer and philanthropist in Salem, and he helped co-found another local news outlet. Tokarski also donates heavily to local campaigns. City council and the mayoral office are nonpartisan positions, but races usually come down to showdowns between so-called business-backed candidates and progressives. Tokarski usually donates to the business-backed candidates.
Miller: What does the Salem city charter say about disclosures of contributions, and then potential recusals if there have been contributions?
Woodworth: The section that refers to this requires councilors to disclose if a participant in a public hearing, who donated more than $501 to a councilor, would benefit financially from the councilor’s actions. And councilors must recuse themselves from participating if, in the mind of a reasonable person, their participation would create the appearance of bias or impropriety.
Miller: We should say we’re talking about well more than $500. In the case of Julie Hoy, it was tens of thousands of dollars. Does state ethics law have any bearing on this issue?
Woodworth: This is mostly a city issue, not state ethics. Julie Hoy made it clear that her actions didn’t violate state election laws. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission also said they did not receive any complaints about Julie Hoy or Gwyn, so this is more a city issue.
Miller: There is an interesting carve out in the city charter. It says that if an official’s recusal would make it so there are not enough people to actually vote on some question, then they can disclose the contribution, and then go ahead and vote. But in this case, the vote was 6 to 2 in favor of letting the developer go forward without having to pay for the sidewalk. So, neither Hoy’s nor Gwyn’s votes were even necessary. I mean, it would have passed even without them. What did they say at the time of the vote, to justify their participation?
Woodworth: Julie Hoy maintains that her vote was ethical and correct. She said campaign contributions are free speech protected by the First Amendment, and that reasonable people understand that those contributions do not create bias or conflict. And councilor Gwyn also echoed those with her comments as well.
Miller: Did any people who called themselves reasonable weigh in on this? I’m curious what the public said, and how many of them were “reasonable”?
Woodworth: With public testimony and written testimony regarding this issue, it was very evenly split. A lot of people said, we’re pro-censure, were saying it was an obvious conflict of interest, and it would set an alarming precedent if the councilors weren’t called out for this. Whereas, the other side said it was retribution for some councilors leaving office or the mayor leaving office, and that it was just theater and had no real consequence.
Miller: Did the split you’re describing divide along recognizable lines? I guess, what I’m wondering is, was it basically a proxy for, either support for outgoing Mayor Hoy or incoming Mayor Julie Hoy?
Woodworth: The vote for public censure passed 6 to 2, and the only people who voted “No” were the people at risk of censure – Julie Hoy and Councilor Gwyn voted “No.” Some people voted for the censure who were leaving office, but three will remain on council. Councilor Vanessa Nordyke, who supported the public censure due to the need for public accountability, also noted that the council was the most divisive body she had ever served on. And people expressed their concern about the council’s ability to work together to tackle big issues, like the projected $17.7 million budget shortfall the city is facing.
Miller: I want to hear more about that shortfall in a second, but have other council members recused themselves from votes because of campaign contributions in the past? I mean, is this something that happens?
Woodworth: Yeah, it does happen. Mayor Hoy pointed out during the meeting that he did it earlier this year. He disclosed that he had a donor to his campaign involved in one of the processes, and left the room for deliberations and the votes. So it’s definitely not unheard of that councilors and the mayor will acknowledge this.
Miller: How common are censures?
Woodworth: Not common at all. The most recent one was in 2016, over a councilor’s social media posts that were described as racist. The counselor ended up resigning the same day, so it was censure, followed by their resignation. But other than that, it’s a very rare occurrence.
Miller: That resignation was voluntary, right? I mean, I’m wondering what the practical impact of a censure is.
Woodworth: The impact is mostly symbolic. It’s not like three censures equals a recall or anything. It’s mostly just a way of publicly calling out an official’s actions.
Miller: Let’s go back to where we started, and the issue that is of a lot of concern to city officials now, and residents: The payroll tax that failed and the budget issues that remain. What exactly is the new city council going to have to reckon with?
Woodworth: They’re going to have a full agenda when they’re sworn in next year. They will have to decide what cuts to make to address the deficit, and what, if any, efforts will be made to generate more revenue.
Miller: What kind of cuts are possible?
Woodworth: Things like layoffs, fire station closures, library closures, eliminating park services are all on the table in the coming years, and the cuts will worsen if the deficit is not addressed.
Miller: Are members of the future city council or community groups … we’ve talked about in the past about different groups that were convened to come up with possible new revenue sources. Are they talking right now, seriously, about pushing for a new effort to boost revenue?
Woodworth: Revenue Task Force, which was a group of community members, just wrapped up their work. Now the city council is taking that work forward. There’s talk of a public safety or library levy, basically a property tax, to specifically fund programs at risk of cuts. And that could go to voters in May or November. But both levy proposals were unpopular in a survey and a poll conducted on behalf of the city. So leaders stressed that if the council and community unite behind those efforts, the levy could have a possibility of passing, but it proved to be unpopular in the first go around.
Miller: Meaning, right now, just in terms of public sentiment, cuts might be more likely than higher taxes?
Woodworth: Yes, and when talking to city leaders, they even said sometimes more taxes don’t happen until those cuts start to go into effect and people feel the sting from them.
Miller: How do you think this censure vote might impact the work that the council does going forward?
Woodworth: Incoming Mayor Julie Hoy and councilors emphasize they do want to work together to address these critical issues, and they want to find a solution for the budget deficit and for getting more revenue. I think time will only tell if any lingering bad blood from the vote impacts those efforts.
Miller: Whitney, thanks very much.
Woodworth: Thank you for having me.
Miller: Whitney Woodworth reports on city issues for the Statesman Journal.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.