It's another battle of Hoy vs. Hoy.
Chris Hoy, Salem's current mayor, lost the first battle with his unrelated namesake when he was soundly defeated by City Councilor Julie Hoy in the May primary election that decided the race because she got more than 50% of the votes, so a rematch in the November general election wasn't necessary.
Julie Hoy and Chris Hoy
Depending on your point of view, the second Hoy vs. Hoy battle either is a sour grapes attempt by Chris Hoy to get back at Julie Hoy for snatching the mayor position out of his hands, or Chris Hoy's high-minded determination to make sure that Julie Hoy complies with City Council ethics rules.
On the agenda for tomorrow's (November 12) City Council meeting is this motion from still-Mayor Chris Hoy.
MOTION:
I move that City Council publicly censure Councilors Julie Hoy and Deanna Gwyn for their failure to recuse themselves under Section 62 of the Salem Charter during a land use public hearing that occurred on October 14, 2024.
DISCUSSION:
When a participant at a public hearing, where any participant will receive a pecuniary benefit, has made a campaign contribution of more than $501 to a member of Council, Section 62 of the Salem Charter requires that member of Council announce that contribution at the hearing and recuse themselves from participating in the hearing if, in the mind of a reasonable person, their participation would create the appearance of bias or impropriety in the mind of a reasonable person.
At the October 14, 2024 City Council meeting, Council held a public hearing where the applicant and property owner was Creekside LLC. The principle of Creekside, LLC is Larry Tokarski, through his company Mountain West Investments. Mr. Tokarski made campaign contributions over $501 to both Councilors Hoy and Gwyn for the most recent election.
As elected officials, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and the City Charter. We do not get to pick and choose which of those laws we follow. Faith in our laws and institutions of government is paramount. The City Charter is the foundation of our city government and must be honored by its election officials.
My view is that Julie Hoy seems to have complied with the letter of the law, though perhaps not its spirit.
She will probably argue that the "mind of a reasonable person" criterion is subjective and that, in her own reasonable person mind, she didn't feel that her decision on the Creekside issue was swayed by donations to her campaign for mayor by Tokarski in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars. Since it is up to a city councilor to decide whether to recuse from a decision after announcing a possible conflict of interest, she chose not to do this.
A Salem Reporter story by Joe Siess, "Two city councilors who didn't recuse themselves in land use decision could be publicly censured," contains some information about the issue that spurred the censure motion.
The council voted 6-2 on Oct. 14 to grant an appeal related to an 11-lot subdivision on behalf of Creekside Golf Course LLC and the land’s buyer and developer, Don Lulay Homes. Creekside is managed by Mountain West Investment Corp. and Tokarski is Mountain West’s president.
With the council’s decision, Don Lulay said, his project would be spared $216,000 for sidewalks required by the Salem Planning Commission.
He said his purchase of the property had been contingent on getting the needed land use approvals. He said his firm would have been responsible for the sidewalk costs, not Tokarski’s company.
...The appeal would have been granted even if Councilors Hoy and Gwyn had recused themselves. According to the engineering firm that appealed for Creekside and Don Lulay Homes, Lulay Homes is the sole beneficiary of the sidewalk savings.
Don Lulay of Don Lulay Homes and his company, The Lulay Group, also donated to both Gwyn and Hoy’s campaigns.
The fact that the motion to grant the appeal that got Don Lulay Homes off the hook for $216,000 worth of sidewalks at Creekside would have passed even without the votes of Julie Hoy and Deanna Gwen shows that the four other councilors who approved the appeal (Mayor Hoy didn't attend the meeting, so he didn't vote) agreed with Hoy and Gwyn.
While this probably isn't legally germane to the question of whether they should have recused themselves, in the court of public opinion it matters. I'm no fan of Julie Hoy or Deanna Gwyn, who are too conservative for my political liking, but I find it difficult to criticize their failure to recuse when their position on the appeal was shared by four other members of the City Council -- which has nine members, but only eight were at the October 14 meeting.
The City Council may still vote to censure Hoy and Gwyn tomorrow. However, I suspect that they won't. Of course, I thought Kamala Harris was going to defeat Donald Trump, so my recent prognosticating when it comes to voting isn't great.
I wish someone would correct the notion that this isn't a benefit to Mountain West. If the sale is contingent on getting this approved it absolutely is a benefit that enabled the sale at the current price.
Posted by: Robert | November 12, 2024 at 06:11 AM