On April 3, 2025, six Waldport city councilors voted to expel their newly elected mayor, stating she violated the city's charter by directing city staff when she asked them to scan and forward formal grievances about the city manager that were addressed to the mayor and sent to the City's PO Box. This allegation by the six council members were made as a result of 2 separate letters sent to the city council about the mayor's approach and demeanor during this interaction.
The city manager, Dann Cutter, scheduled an Executive Hearing (closed to the public) for the city council to consider 13 formal grievances, by members of the community, about him, as well as the 2 aforementioned letters about the mayor. The mayor's situation was scheduled to go first.
The mayor was encouraged to resign in the private Executive Meeting. When she did not, she opted for an "open hearing" which the council put in place immediately without time to inform the public, or for the mayor to retain council.
Justice for Waldport contends that this hearing was undemocratic and the unanimous vote to expel the mayor was unconstitutional.
You can listen to it using the player below. Beneath that are just some of the reasons why we believe the six city councilors mishandled the entire matter from dealing with the employee's letters, the mayor's response to the letters, and the flawed, improper proceedings that followed.
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Members of the Justice for Waldport coalition listened to the recording of the of the mismanaged, unethical hearing at which the six members of the city council unanimously voted to expel Mayor Heide Lambert. We noticed that the six councilors spent more time focusing on issues other than the Charter violation they were there to consider. Among these were their misunderstandings of litigation involving another city at which Mayor Lambert was once the city manager. In addition, several councilors focused their comments and questions on the Mayor's method of acting independently in the community to truly understand concerns that have been overlooked and disregarded by the entire city council before she took her seat.
There was also a lot of focus on "Beachcombers" which has not one thing to do with the purpose of the hearing. Rather, the nonprofit organization, Lincoln County Beachcomber Days is one of several organizations whose members attended the mayor's campaign Meet & Greets, invited her to speak at their meetings, and sought out her support once she was elected.
The mayor sat through what appears to be a "professional ambush." That she chose to sit there, listen to their unrelated criticisms, and answer unrelated questions without her own council is her only mistake, in our humble opinion. Yet we certainly understand how difficult a situation like that can be when in the middle of it, and we think she handled it all very professionally. In fact, this s0-called hearing exemplifies her skill at listening, tolerating disparaging remarks, and considering differing opinions. Still, it is our opinion that this entire production was an unethical interrogation.
As you read our notes below, please keep in mind that this is the Charter Rule that Mayor Lambert was accused of violating which was the subject of the hearing:
From the Waldport City Charter, published in 1996
Chapter V, Section 21(g):
Interference in administration and elections No member of the Council shall directly or indirectly, by suggestion or otherwise, attempt to coerce the Manager in the making of any appointment or removal of any employee; or to influence an award of contract contrary to City Code; or, except through the Manager, attempt to direct any City officer or employee under the Manager's supervision in the performance of his or her duties; or attempt to exact any promise relative to any appointment to be made by the Manager from any candidate for Manager. Nothing in this Section shall be construed, however, as prohibiting the Council, or Council members, from fully and freely discussing with or suggesting to the Manager anything pertaining to City affairs or the interests of the City. A violation of this subsection may occasion the censure or removal from office of the offending member of the Council, by the Council or a court of competent jurisdiction. 6 Neither the Manager nor any person in the employ of the City shall take part in securing, or contribute any money toward, the nomination or election of any candidate for a municipal office.
Notes:
Councilor Susan Woodruff states she is worried about the mayor's "agenda" and referred to her as "barreling in" when she took her position, and criticized her for "asking questions." She also states the mayor has "no faith or trust in our city manager," and states that the mayor said Dann needed to step away from his job and that the city attorney did not do his job. Councilor Woodruff also stated that she heard from Council President Dunn that the mayor said the city is going to get sued by Beachcombers, which the mayor disputed stating and clarified that she actually said she wanted to help the city avoid litigation on the part of Beachcombers. Earlier, she spoke about the mayor's relationship with Township 13 (a local Home Owner Association) being akin to "freelancing." None of this is about the purpose of the hearing.
Council President Greg Dunn criticized Mayor Lambert for wanting to meet the city's attorney, and for suggesting the city manager step aside from working with the LCBD nonprofit since the relationship had become antagonistic, in an effort to help the city avoid mitigation (a very logical, organizational approach by the way). He said the mayor was "trying to run a one-person show." None of this is about the purpose of the hearing.
Councilor Rick Booth expressed concerns about the mayor reaching out to the city's insurance provider's attorneys for guidance on how to handle complaints against the city manager. Booth said the mayor had no reason to seek legal council, or go to the League of Oregon Cities either. Later he asks the city manager, Dann Cutter, when the mayor should get involved in "these kinds of things." Again, this is not what the hearing was about.
Councilor Jayme Morris askes the mayor why she needed to speak with legal council prior to receiving complaints against the city manager. Later she says that the problems with Beachcombers had settled down before Mayor Lambert met with them. She literally says, "...then you had your meeting again and [inaudible] to me that's when this all started up again" and that she has not slept in weeks because of Beachcombers. Again, this is not what the hearing was about.
City Manager, Dann Cutter, chimes in several times. Toward the end he speaks about the Mayor's March 17 meeting with him and Council President Greg Dunn stating that the Mayor asked about why there hadn't been a 3rd party investigation into the Beachcombers and that Beachcombers had not mentioned an investigation until after meeting with the mayor. This is not true. In fact a member of the Beachcombers nonprofit had publicly requested an investigation at a city council meeting--at least once. Then he talks about how the letters of complaint that were submitted against him, with the exception of one, used the "same refrain." Later, he responds to Councilor Booth's questions about protocols for the mayor receiving complaints against the city. He states he forwarded the complaints against him to the council. Nothing said, here, was not the subject of the hearing.
Councilor Michelle Severson said she had reflected on the mayor's situation and thought about what she would have done regarding receiving the multitude of complaints about the city manger. She said she would have simply asked the city manager how to deal with it. At one point she referred to the city manager as the mayor's boss (the city manager is a subordinate of the entire city council which includes the mayor). This is about what she would do but not about the subject of the hearing.
Councilor Jerry Townsend, who attended the hearing remotely via telephone speaker, at first has some pertinent questions that do appear to be related to the purpose of the hearing. Then he is quiet throughout the incessant questioning of the mayor by the councilors in the room, about matters unrelated to the issues involving the hearing. At one point he interrupts the mayor to say some inaudible but it sounds like "poppycock" or some thing of the sort, then he snickers as do some of the councilors in the room while Jayme Morris says, "Go ahead Jerry." But he doesn't go ahead. Later, he motions to have the mayor expelled. Incidentally, in the following days, he pens and signs a statement about the mayor's expulsion that is full of inaccuracies and false narratives, and we assume the six councilors voted to have the city manager post it to the city's website, since that is where it is to this day.
This was not a hearing. They all had their minds made up about ousting our duly elected mayor. Greg Dunn attempted to bring on the vote without a motion and made it very clear, in what he said prior to that--that Mayor Lambert's choices were to resign or be voted out. How did he know what the vote would be?
It is important to point out that on May 8, 2025, Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge Sheryl Bachart ruled a Writ of Stay in this case, essentially putting the six councilors' actions on hold, temporarily reinstating Mayor Lambert. Then on May 27, 2025, the six members of the city council who unanimously voted to expel the mayor, voted to revoke the expulsion, and the mayor was immediately, permanently reinstated. However, the City Council President, Greg Dunn, has made it clear that the city council does not admit to wrong doing or regret expelling the mayor, that their decision to revoke the expulsion was strictly financial as they did not want to cost the tax payers the exorbitant legal fees necessary to defend themselves in court.
The city council has remained uncollaborative and publicly antagonistic toward Mayor Lambert and many, many people in the community. They have also condoned the city manager's unprofessional, combative, and injurious social media campaigns. Even so, our coalition extended an "olive branch" to the city council on August 16, 2025, but the council cannot meet our expectations of accountability, transparency, collaboration, and effective supervision of the city manager. In fact, Councilor Greg Dunn states he wants the Recall efforts to move forward.
​
