Before I describe how new information shows that the recent forced resignation of Salem's City Manager, Keith Stahley, was even more illegal than how it appeared a few days ago when I wrote "Salem City Council seems to have acted illegally in forcing City Manager to resign," let's take a step back and consider the broader context here.
The folks at City Hall -- Mayor, City Council, city staff -- have been trying hard to regain the trust of Salem citizens after the debacle of July 2023 when the City Council voted to impose an employee payroll tax on everybody who works in Salem that would bring more money into the general fund of the city budget, where deficits loomed.
They did this without asking approval of voters, which, not surprisingly, ticked off voters.
After a business-backed coalition gathered enough signatures to put the payroll tax on the November 2023 ballot, it was soundly rejected. The negative fallout continued when Mayor Chris Hoy, who backed the don't-ask-citizens approach to the payroll tax, was soundly defeated by Julie Hoy (no relation) in the May 2024 mayoral election.
Since, City Manager Stahley, other city staff, and the City Council have been diligently working to fashion a proposal to increase revenues that almost certainly will be on the May 2025 ballot, as a special "livability" property tax measure that would fund the library, Center 50+, and parks/recreation only needs final approval by the City Council at an upcoming meeting.
So one would think that the Mayor and city councilors would want to do everything possible to project an aura of calm, considered competency in the run up to voters deciding in a few months whether the City of Salem deserves an additional $14 million a year in property tax revenue.
Well, think again.
Because additional information from City officials and the Salem Reporter shows that what I said in my previous post about Keith Stahley's forced resignation makes what happened look even worse than it originally appeared. I wrote:
It isn't a good look when the Salem City Council does something that reminds me of a recent action by President Trump.
Well, it's actually worse than that, because what the City Council did appears to have been illegal (in the sense of going against the Council Rules), while Trump's action was within the scope of his powers.
What I'm talking about is forcing a senior official to resign because the alternative is being fired. This occurred when Trump made it clear that even though FBI Director Christopher Wray had three years left in his term in office, after Trump was inaugurated he was going to get rid of Wray.
So shortly before Trump took the oath of office, Wray resigned rather than be fired. Pretty much the same thing happened to City Manager Keith Stahley, as I'll describe below -- again, the difference being that the City Council seems to have acted illegally in forcing Stahley's resignation, while Trump was just acting like the authoritarian that he aspires to be.
The illegality stems from the fact that only the City Council can hire or fire the City Manager. As noted in my previous post, in his February 9 resignation letter Keith Stahley said:
I am submitting this resignation based on a meeting that I had with Councilor Nishioka on Friday February 7, 2025, where she represented that she was the duly authorized representative of the Mayor and a majority of City Council and requested that I tender my resignation.
That made it sound like Councilor Linda Nishioka, the City Council president, somehow had spoken with the other seven members of the City Council (which ordinarily has nine members, including the Mayor, but one seat is temporarily vacant) and confirmed that a majority, five or more, wanted Stahley to resign.
However, a decision to either fire the City Manager or ask him to resign can't be made in secret, as happened here.
The City Council met in executive session prior to their February 10 meeting to discuss Stahley's resignation. That happened after Nishioka had told Stahley that a majority of the City Council wanted him to resign. So at first I thought that Nishioka and her fellow councilors had only violated City Council rules and Oregon's public meeting law, as a majority had reached a private decision that Stahley needed to resign.
But a statement issued today by the City of Salem regarding the City Manager's resignation, which I've included as a continuation to this post, includes a timeline that includes this:
- February 7, 2025. As Mr. Stahley noted in his resignation letter, Council President Linda Nishioka met with Mr. Stahley and discussed his potential resignation. Councilor Nishioka met with Mr. Stahley because she believed that Council could conduct a public process leading to Council asking Mr. Stahley for his resignation. She has stated that she wanted him to avoid the potential embarrassment of that process. Due to public meeting law limitations, Councilor Nishioka was concerned that speaking with other members of Council about this issue would violate the law. She relied on her understanding of the situation after speaking with Mayor Julie Hoy. This conversation triggered an Executive Session to consider the dismissal or discipline of an employee (ORS 192.660(2)(b)).
Wow. Actually Nishioka hadn't spoken with other members of the City Council about Stahley resigning. So it appears that Nishioka lied when she told Stahley that "she was the duly authorized representative of the Mayor and a majority of City Council" in requesting his resignation. Poor guy. What was Stahley supposed to do when the City Council president tells him that most of the councilors want him gone, so it's either resign or be fired?
Maybe he wouldn't have resigned if he'd known the truth: that Nishioka had only spoken with Mayor Julie Hoy about the resignation. That's two members of the City Council, a long ways from a majority of five out of eight. Joe Siess of the Salem Reporter adds more important details about this outrage in a story today, "Mayor Julie Hoy set in motion events that led to Keith Stahley's abrupt resignation."
An orchestrated effort to remove City Manager Keith Stahley was launched privately by some city leaders at least a full week before the Salem City Council acted to accept his resignation, according to a new statement from city officials and interviews.
Council President Linda Nishioka approached Stahley last week about resigning with the “understanding” from Mayor Julie Hoy that she was acting on behalf of the council, according to a new city statement on the matter issued Thursday, Feb. 13.
The city had earlier said that Stahley resigned “at city council’s request” but provided no explanation for how councilors agreed to take that action when there had been no public meeting or vote on the matter.
Interviews and the city’s new statement fill in some of the blanks of what happened while raising new questions about actions by the councilors. The city issued the new and unsigned statement a day after Salem Reporter sought records of communications among the mayor and seven councilors regarding Stahley’s resignation.
His abrupt departure comes as Salem city officials plan to ask voters in May to raise property taxes to cover city services. They have said that they need to have the trust of the community for the vote to succeed.
One councilor, Micki Varney, responded to written questions from Salem Reporter on Wednesday, Feb. 12.
Varney said she talked by phone with Hoy on the evening of Sunday, Feb. 2, about the city manager. She said she didn’t commit then to supporting Stahley’s removal.
“I said I needed more information in order to make a decision either way,” Varney said in her email. “I said that we, as a council, needed to collectively discuss what needed to change and then provide that information to Mr. Stahley. I told her that Mr. Stahley needed to decide himself as to whether he could comply with our directives before we as a council could discuss any further action.”
Councilor Shane Matthews told Salem Reporter that he too had a private conversation with Hoy and the two discussed a recently released performance audit of the city manager’s office. He said he was not asked directly if he would support Stahley’s resignation and he didn’t indicate support for that action. He said Hoy asked him how he felt generally about city leaders and the audit.
Councilors Vanessa Nordyke and Paul Tigan declined to comment. Hoy and Councilors Deanna Gwyn, Irvin Brown, and Nishioka haven’t responded to emailed questions about when they decided the matter of Stahley’s resignation and to whom they communicated that decision.
So nobody on the City Council other than Mayor Hoy and Councilor Nishioka have indicated that they wanted Stahley to resign. Yet Nishioka claimed to represent both Mayor Hoy and a majority on the council in asking for his resignation.
I'm seriously considering filing a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
What Mayor Hoy and Councilor Nishioka did was wrong, and seemingly illegal. Keith Stahley wasn't a perfect City Manager, but he appeared to be a damn good one. He deserved better than to be forced to resign under false pretenses, especially when the scheme cooked up by by Hoy and Nishioka also violated the rules of the City Council and Oregon's public meeting law.
NEXT DAY UPDATE: Today, February 14, the Salem Reporter has another story about the forced resignation of Stahley, "Councilor Micki Varney breaks the silence about city manager's resignation." This is Varney's statement, which reflects her concern about the inappropriate way this debacle was handled:
“I write this feeling great sadness and regret at what has transpired over the past week. It has eroded the trust and transparency we as a Council have been trying to rebuild over the past year.
The public has every right to, and deserves, an explanation of the events leading up to and following the city manager’s submission of his letter of resignation. The public has a right to demand that their elected officials follow the rules and statutes they all took an oath to uphold when they took office.
I believe that trust matters and respect is the currency of trust. I also believe that my duties, as your elected city councilor, include the sharing of concerns when warranted, and in a timely manner.
Transparency is a standard you have every right to expect of your government.
Members of the public and members of the Council deserve answers. The manner in which the city manager’s resignation occurred is untimely and unacceptable. I believe we all must continue to ask questions in order to discover exactly what actions were taken, and by whom and why, between the timing of the recent audit report and the abrupt resignation of the city manager earlier this week.
I am unaware of what really happened over the past few days, and I believe it is essential that we understand the reality of how we ended up in the situation we now find ourselves. Namely, we are now without a city manager while beginning the city budget setting process for the upcoming fiscal year.
There are many reports circulating around the various media speculating what may or may not have occurred. This suggests that either the facts were not provided to the media, or someone, or someones, misreported the facts to purposefully shape the larger narrative for a desired outcome.
It is apparent the city manager accepted a request to resign from a representative of the whole or (at least as stated in the resignation document), a majority of the council. However, no single city councilor – or mayor – has the authority to ask for a resignation absent a vote of the entire council. In this instance, this never occurred.
I, and to the best of my knowledge many of my fellow councilors, were not aware of what was transpiring during the week prior to the city manager’s resignation. We were following the rules which specify that we do not communicate with one another regarding city matters outside of a public meeting.
I was shocked to hear of the city manager’s resignation.
I am looking forward to being able to fill in many of the gaps as more facts are brought forward. I urge patience as more information is gathered.
In conclusion, I ask our city and community to remain engaged and participate in the steps ahead of us. I recognize the need for trust-building and truth-telling, and that is precisely why I am sharing my concerns with you in this message.
Together, I believe we can and will move Salem forward, but it will take all of us working together to be able to achieve that objective.”
Here's the statement from the City of Salem regarding Stahley's resignation. It's good to have this, as it alone provides a solid basis for a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
A STATEMENT FROM THE CITY OF SALEM REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER'S RESIGNATION
News Release from City of Salem
Posted on FlashAlert: February 13th, 2025 11:08 AM
Salem, Ore. - The City Manager is the sole employee of the City Council. Decisions regarding the City Manager's employment are made by Council collectively and in a public setting. The City Council accepted Mr. Stahley's resignation at the City Council meeting of February 10, 2025. To-date, Mr. Stahley's resignation letter dated February 9, 2025 has been made available to the public. Following the City Council's acceptance of his resignation, and execution of Mr. Stahley's separation agreement, the City is able to release more information about Mr. Stahley's separation from the City.
- February 7, 2025. As Mr. Stahley noted in his resignation letter, Council President Linda Nishioka met with Mr. Stahley and discussed his potential resignation. Councilor Nishioka met with Mr. Stahley because she believed that Council could conduct a public process leading to Council asking Mr. Stahley for his resignation. She has stated that she wanted him to avoid the potential embarrassment of that process. Due to public meeting law limitations, Councilor Nishioka was concerned that speaking with other members of Council about this issue would violate the law. She relied on her understanding of the situation after speaking with Mayor Julie Hoy. This conversation triggered an Executive Session to consider the dismissal or discipline of an employee (ORS 192.660(2)(b)).
- February 9, 2025. Mr. Stahley submitted his resignation to the City Attorney via email on Sunday evening. Mr. Stahley submitted his resignation without speaking to other members of Council. Under his employment agreement, he would only receive those benefits if he resigned upon being asked "by a duly authorized representative" of Council or was terminated, which may explain his choice of words in his letter. He removed his personal effects and name plate from his office before 8 a.m. Monday morning. He informed staff that he would not be at the City offices on Monday.
Upon receipt of the City Manager's email, the City Attorney provided the resignation letter to City Council and informed them an executive session would be scheduled for Monday, February 10, 2025 for City Council to consider his letter. As provided by Oregon law, Mr. Stahley had the right to attend that executive session or require that the discussion occur at a public meeting instead. The City Attorney advised Mr. Stahley of his rights, and he chose not to attend the executive session or require it occur at a public meeting.
- February 10, 2025. Immediately prior to the City Council meeting that evening, the City Council met in executive session to consider Mr. Stahley's resignation. At the City Council meeting, the Council unanimously agreed to accept his resignation.
- February 12, 2025. Mr. Stahley's separation agreement was executed. As noted in the separation agreement, Mr. Stahley will receive severance benefits as outlined in his employment agreement, which includes compensation equivalent to eight months of salary and benefits, such as PERS and health insurance. The total severance compensation, including a payout of accrued leave totals approximately $255,000.
"We are each called to serve our community and strive to do so with our community's best interests at heart," said Mayor Julie Hoy. "This was a hard decision for each member of Council. The City's business is done by the City Council together. Throughout this transition, our actions have been guided by a commitment to effective leadership and continuity during this time of change."As Salem's City Manager, Keith Stahley advanced decisions about Salem Willamette Valley Airport investments to attract commercial air service, improvements to the development review process, recruiting members of an executive leadership team (including Fire Chief and Deputy City Manager for Community Services), and transitioning emergency medical services to the City's portfolio. Mr. Stahley's commitment to public service is demonstrated by his more than 30 years of local government experience."Keith was focused on service to this community with integrity and trust, and we are grateful for his leadership," said Krishna Namburi, who is acting-in-capacity as City Manager. "My immediate goals are to provide continuity and support the Council, the organization, and the community through this transition. I am grateful to be part of this organization and the continued commitment of our staff to our community. In keeping with that spirit, the City's priority is to move forward and provide the highest quality service to our community."
If your point is that council appears to have violated the Public Meetings Law, it's a good one. It certainly seems possible. I think there's another question, too: did this process meet the requirements for Stahley to get the large severance package, since it appears council never voted to fire him?
Posted by: Christine | February 14, 2025 at 12:14 PM