Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Seaside signal. (Seaside, Or.) 1905-current | View Entire Issue (March 20, 2015)
4A • March 20, 2015 • Seaside Signal • seasidesignal.com District attorney: Recording illegal, not prosecutable ‘Everyone knew they were being recorded’ By Katherine Lacaze Seaside Signal Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis has received calls from multiple people regarding the record- ing Gearhart City Admin- istrator Chad Sweet made of an October conversation between Mayor Dianne Wid- dop, former City Councilor Joy Sigler and himself. Marquis said his answer always has been the same: The recording was illegal but KLVRI¿FHZRXOGQRWSURVHFXWH LWEHFDXVHRIWKHVSHFL¿FIDFWV in this case. Sigler met with Widdop and Sweet in October during the weekly “Coffee With the Mayor” event at Gearhart City Hall on Wednesdays. Sigler asked to record the conversation, and all parties consented. Sweet then start- ed his own recording on his phone — in plain sight, he said. “I saw the direction (the conversation) was going, and I became concerned (Sigler) would then have the only recording, because that re- cording could be shortened or parsed,” Sweet said. “In my mind, I thought that would be OK because she had a record- ing, I have a recording.” Answer not different Harold Gable, who is leading a recall effort to oust Widdop, said on his recall pe- tition statement that Widdop attempted to distribute the re- cording. Widdop has denied JOSH MARQUIS those allegations. In her guest column in the Seaside Signal published March 6, Widdop states, “I was informed later that both the city attorney and the Clat- sop County District Attorney had determined that the city’s recording was perfectly legal and could be distributed to anyone.” Sigler said she was alarmed the paper published Widdop’s column “with al- leged communication to our district attorney.” She said she was told by someone at WKH GLVWULFW DWWRUQH\¶V RI¿FH that Marquis did not speak di- rectly with Widdop, Sweet or Gearhart City Attorney Peter Watts. Marquis said he does not believe he’s “ever spoken to Ms. Widdop,” although he’s spoken to people who hav- HQ¶WLGHQWL¿HGWKHPVHOYHVE\ name but have claimed to be on one side of the recall elec- tion or the other and asked about this case in particular. He does believe, however, Sweet was one of several people who called him. “The answer doesn’t get different for different peo- ple,” he said. Oregon law One-point conversations, such as over a telephone, can be taped without prior authorization of both par- ties, but it is generally ille- gal to tape person-to-per- son conversations without all parties being informed, according to Oregon law. (YHQODZHQIRUFHPHQWRI¿- cers must inform individu- als if they are making a re- cording of their interaction, Marquis said. That being said, his of- ¿FH KDV QRW DQG ZRXOG QRW ¿OH FKDUJHV LQ WKLV LQVWDQFH because one party was re- cording with everyone’s pri- or authorization. “I wouldn’t submit that charge, and the reason I wouldn’t is because one of the defenses would be, ‘Hell, everyone around that table knew they were being recorded,’” he said. He would not, however, advise someone to behave in that way because it is not in conformance with the law. Widdop said that was not the impression she got from Sweet, who “was really con- cerned because he was the one who did the recording.” “I wasn’t at fault with this anyway, because I hadn’t done anything,” she said. She agreed she did not talk to Marquis. 6ZHHWFRQ¿UPHGKHWDONHG to the district attorney. Sweet said he “may have told (Widdop) that there was no problem here,” which was what he took away from his conversation with Marquis. His understanding, he said, was that this was not a pros- ecutable offense. Letters to the Editor Vote for recall To the editor, When the new mayor of Astoria was re- FHQWO\LQDXJXUDWHGWKH¿UVWWKLQJVKHGLGZDV to congratulate the loser in a bid to bring the city together. In the last mayoral election for the city of Gearhart, I lost by a mere handful of votes to Mrs. Dianne Widdop. Mrs. Widdop never par- took in such pleasantries and thus set the tone for her regime. In fact, her personal animosity was evident when she stated in a City Council meeting that she disdained a council member because the council member had endorsed me. Now the city is split, with council members RSHQO\UHEXNLQJKHUDQGWKHFKDPEHUV¿OOHG with disgruntled citizens. Mrs. Widdop set off into her administration with an avalanche of ordinances as if she en- visioned the city of Gearhart as Dog Patch in a Lil’ Abner cartoon. We were inundated with the following ordinances: an abandoned car ordinance, a burning ordinance, a light ordi- nance, a noise ordinance, a fence ordinance, a Christmas light ordinance, a vacation home ordinance and a proposed RV ordinance. When I ran against her, none of these items were on the table. Mrs. Widdop did not bring up any of these concerns for debate before the election. She had no mandate. We were told that the ordinances were necessary because of complaints, yet no infor- mation regarding complaints, nor amount of complaints was ever given. How do we know if the complaints came from neighbors, the city or the mayor herself? A big issue has been the “barn.” In actions reminiscent of the monomaniacal Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick, Mrs. Widdop is obsessed with this issue. There is plenty of fault to go around, however; the mayor’s personal clashes and failure to settle this issue indicate her inabil- ities as a fair and balanced mayor. As Starbuck said, “Ahab’s quenchless feud seemed mine.” At present, the city is on a Nantucket sleigh ride, hooked onto Moby Dick/the barn with LUBA (state Land Use Board of Appeals) ap- peals, potential lawsuits, ill will and increasing costs to the city. Out-of-town vacation homeowners are looked upon as cash cows to be taxed and regulated, yet their voices are dismissed out of hand; another case of Mrs. Widdop alienating people of the city. Furthermore, perhaps if Mrs. Widdop had put her time and efforts into seeking water rights with the same enthusiasm shown as harpooning Moby Dick, we would be better off, and our home values would have been protected. Please vote to recall Dianne Widdop. Bob Shortman Gearhart Big stink needed To the editor, Gearhart, or what some out-of-town home- owners call “our little Mayberry.” We love our Gearhart community. Our quaint little town and the locally owned family businesses have sustained Gearhart for over a century. Their contributions to our economic growth are what keeps our town alive. They are the heartbeat of the community, and Gearhart’s city government needs to sup- port these businesses. Gearhart’s city govern- ment needs to ask, “What can we do for you?” and, “How can we support you?” Members of our Gearhart city government should not in- volve themselves in gossip and innuendos de- signed to intimidate or control business own- ers and/or residents. We love our weekend coffee and pastries from the local bakery, lunch or dinner with friends and family. The convenience of shop- SLQJIRUJLIWVJURFHULHVKRPHGHFRUDQGÀRZ- ers for our garden, ice cream with the grand- kids and haircuts from the local barber, all of which create lasting memories that are import- ant to a healthy community. Keeping Gearhart special is our goal. Unnecessary, poorly written ordinances un- dermine the livability of what we all hold dear. We now have a burn ordinance and a fence or- dinance, all of which require a permit — but we do not have to pay for said permit. What, exactly, are these ordinances designed to do? A noise ordinance, complete with the lo- cal police using a decibel meter to measure a backyard barbecue party, your children’s laughter or your dog’s bark. The silencing of Gearhart’s residents is an act of bureaucratic vandalism that deeply upsets and offends the vast majority of the Gearhart population. In 20 years of local government involve- ment, Dianne Widdop has learned very little about the community she lives in. What we have so far from Dianne Widdop’s reign as PD\RULVWREXWWRQXSWKHFRPPXQLW\WR¿WKHU agenda. When public servants are acting an- ti-democratically, a big stink needs to be made. Make a big stink. Vote yes to recall Mayor Dianne Widdop. Jae Young Gearhart Inappropriate interference To the editor, So, let me get this straight. Gearhart’s May- or Widdop approached a store owner with the “friendly” suggestion that posting politi- cal signs in the business district is “not right” (per Widdop in an Oct. 29, 2014 recorded ex- change with former counselor Joy Siegler). OK; advice given. So what was the purpose of the mayor’s second and third calls to comply with her counsel? This much energy devoted to the re- moval of one sign appears to tip beyond the observation of the “friend” to an attempt at coercion by the mayor. Widdop’s disapproval of the candidate in question is well known. A suggestion, friendly or otherwise, lodged three times constitutes inappropriate interference with the democratic process. Absolute power, unchecked, is dangerous. The mayor’s long tenure has created a cul- ture of intolerance for dissenting opinions that smacks of totalitarianism. Michael Bird Gearhart Outstanding mayor To the editor, Dianne Widdop is doing a terrific job. I have been involved with the Gearhart Home- owners Association for years. Since she was elect- ed mayor she regularly attends (never misses) our meetings. Usually, at the end of the agenda, she brings us up to date on Gearhart — from elk, to the water works, to beach signing — everything we need to know. I have been impressed. She is positive, enthusi- astic, informative and brief. And, she holds the line. I know one of the issues involves the old barn. The owners want to have events there. But the old barn is too much of an old barn. It is not up to code. In my experience, Dianne Widdop has been an outstanding mayor of Gearhart. She wants what we want: Keep Gearhart, Gearhart. Gary W. White, past president Gearhart Homeowners Association Gearhart do, lies and fear, mixed in with a lot of sweet talk. Retaliation for signing the petition? Free speech rights being violated? Come on. I have heard the allegations. They have been answered to my satisfaction by Mayor Widdop (“The Gearhart recall decision,” The Daily Asto- rian, March 3). And yet this little group continues to ignore facts and simply repeat their allega- tions. They sound like a broken record. It appears to me that this group studied at the “Sarah Palin school of political activism.” Just make up your own facts and couch them in sug- ary, cute phrases. Mix with a big dose of patri- otic rhetoric citing the Constitution, free speech, diversity, honesty and kindness. And there you have it: the campaign to recall Mayor Widdop. If anyone is being pushy with the recall efforts, it is the group seeking to oust Mayor Widdop. In the space of a 24-hour period, the doorbell rang three times at my full-time Gearhart residence. The third time a petitioner rang the bell, (it was one of the same women who rang our doorbell earlier), she was somewhat rude and pushy when I pointed out that we had already stated we were not interested in signing the petition. I asked that our name and address be taken off of their list of houses to canvass. I got the “big stink eye” at my request. One last thought: Who is going to pay for this recall election that will cost around $7,000? Not Clatsop County. The costs will be passed on to Gearhart taxpayers. Perhaps the recall group could cover that bill. In their vendetta to oust the mayor, they are the ones creating a divisive com- munity. Restore trust? I don’t think so. Randy Wiltgen Gearhart Pettiness needs to stop To the editor, This letter is in support of our Gearhart Mayor Dianne Widdop, and I would like to encourage the residents of Gearhart to vote no on recalling :LGGRSIURPRI¿FH It should be noted that the Gable group of pe- titioners have lost their focus as to why they are recalling our mayor. What started out as a simple misunderstanding turned into a gossip fest. Each time the story was told and repeated, it changed and changed, depending on who told the story and who was or was not listening. Listen up peo- ple, we’re not in high school anymore. All this pettiness and vindictive action against the mayor needs to stop. Mayor Widdop has served this community for 20 years as a city councilor, volunteer and as mayor. Her accomplishments overrule any bad publicity and rumor mill this group has caused, not to mention the amount of dollars the city has accrued because of this mess to recall. In closing, let’s not forget who is at the root of all this trouble, and that is Shannon Smith, the barn owner, whom, I might add, has been very quiet during the whole proceeding of recalling Mayor Widdop. I personally would like to see an HYHQWVFHQWHULQ*HDUKDUW,WKLQNLWZRXOGEHQH¿W all the businesses in town and would be a great accomplishment. However, the problem is with Shannon Smith. She is wrong, and if she wants to renovate the his- toric barn into an events center, then it’s simple, Shannon Smith needs to follow the laws, be ac- countable and bring the barn up to code, legally. Brier C. Porter Gearhart low-density residential character of Gearhart. 7KHSODQOLVWVVSHFL¿FJRDOVDQGJXLGHOLQHVIRU the preservation of Gearhart’s unique environ- ment and quality of life, and restricts commercial activity to the needs of the resident population. Widdop’s allegiance to that plan has been the hallmark of her political career. This is, and must be, the basis of our trust in her leadership: We know she will support the comprehensive plan, no matter how loudly or (in the present case) abusively the special interests may protest. Gearhart must not be forced to abandon that trust. We must not allow the community to be poisoned and bullied by a mini-faction’s un- founded rumors and allegations. We urge all citizens, and especially those who were hood- winked into signing the recall petition, to vote no on the recall. As for that mini-faction’s spokesman on the City Council, we trust that, when the dust has set- tled, he will remember the voices of his better an- gels who had urged him to resign from the coun- cil (“Jesse asks Gearhart mayor to bow out,” The Daily Astorian, Jan. 8). He chose instead to ask for Widdop’s resignation, ironically alleging that it was Mayor Widdop, and not in fact his own partisans, who were “splitting the community apart” — and are now burdening the city with the nearly $6,000 cost of a recall election. Bill Berg Kent Smith Gearhart No on recall To the editor: The scenario being played to recall Gear- hart Mayor Dianne Widdop and the hilarious cast of characters who are staging it prompts me to recall the popular TV show “Seinfeld.” A clever comedy with a consistent theme; each episode was about NOTHING. This local sitcom amounts to nothing more WKDQVRPHVSLWHIXOSXI¿QJDERXW127+,1* Vote “no” on the recall. Dorothy Well Gearhart Need new mayor To the editor, I have been coming to Gearhart with my family to visit my stepmother, Eleanore La- tourette, since the early 1970s. We’ve had our own home in Little Beach since the mid- 1980s, so I feel I have inherited the long-stand- ing Gearhart mindset that I love: Unwind and enjoy the quiet lifestyle of the beach. After attending Gearhart City Council meetings for the past year, I have pieced to- gether the bigger picture. In summary, this wonderful lifestyle is being taken away under the administration of Mayor Dianne Widdop. We really need a new mayor. To the editor, In 20 years of city government, the last two It is unfortunate that I got involved in a as mayor, Mayor Widdop has learned very lit- political controversy that should have already tle about City Council and how it functions. abated. She has no understanding of, or the importance Upon my starting a business in Gearhart, of, following Robert’s Rules of Order, making Dianne Widdop introduced herself and offered many in the audience wonder: “Was that done assistance in my venture. We had lunch, and correctly?”; “Is this going to be legal?”; “What are they doing up there?” Gearhart’s city attor- I found her to be a nice woman and a good ney offers little, if any, guidance to help sort source of information. out the chaos. When I gave permission to Kevin Willett to There is a repeated voting pattern consist- put up a sign promoting his pursuit for a po- ing of the same individuals in a 3-2 decision sition on the City Council, I did not envision each time. It’s as if the decisions were made such turmoil. I was doing so at his bequest. As ahead of time, in what’s called in the corporate a recent acquaintance, I found no issue in being To the editor, world a “daisy chain.” All perfectly legal, but it friendly and allowed a sign to promote his can- 'LDQQH:LGGRS¶VGHWUDFWRUVKDYH¿QDOO\JDU- doesn’t pass the smell test. It has become clear didacy in front of my business. If John Duncan nered enough signatures for a vote to unseat the that we have a major blockade in service to the had asked me, I would have done the same. I was not aware of the history between peo- elected mayor of Gearhart. The chief recall peti- citizens of Gearhart. Residents’ comments are ple in the community, or the politics that I had WLRQHUDQGWKHVKDGRZ\¿JXUHVKHUHSUHVHQWV not respected as valuable during City Council become intertwined with. There is no need to have never made their motivations clear, since meetings, or at coffee with the mayor. Mayor Widdop has her own hidden agen- rehash the scenario that ensued. Widdop was their rhetoric relies not on fact, but on innuendo. obviously disturbed by my gesture and has since We’re not to know, for example, the nature of Di- da: New, and/or pending ordinances; burning apologized to me for her words and actions re- anne Widdop’s alleged “retaliation” against the SHUPLWV IRU UHVLGHQWLDO ¿UH SLWV VKRUW WHUP petitioners, or what powers she could possibly rentals, mandatory garbage, a new pending garding the matter, and I accepted her apology. recreational vehicle parking ordinance. All un- ,I WKHUH DUH WKRVH LQ *HDUKDUW ZKR ¿QG LW use to cause such injury. Mayor Widdop herself is no stranger to carry- necessary. All of these are a “solution” where necessary to want to recall Dianne Widdop as mayor for other reasons than just my scenario, ing petitions door-to-door in Gearhart. Just a few there is no problem. The “Restore Trust” movement to recall that is another issue. I do not wish to be the ex- years back, she used the referendum process to make the City Council reverse its annexation of Mayor Widdop has been based on full facts ample or reference for her misuse of powers. The circumstances that brought my situ- so-called “gated communities,” which had been and integrity supported by Oregon’s Secretary ation to the forefront should not be one that outlawed in our zoning ordinance. That action of State. These values are not going away in propagated her forfeiture of being mayor. I was typical of her courageous stands over the the last few days of this recall election, and would not like anyone to use what transpired past 20 years in support of the Gearhart compre- need to be re-established with the election of a new mayor in Gearhart. between Dianne Widdop and I as an advantage hensive plan and its implementing ordinances. You can read more at RestoreTrustGear- A generation ago, when we first set our signa- LQUHPRYLQJKHUIURPRI¿FH Linda Goldfarb tures to the comprehensive plan, we understood it hart.com, We spoke to residents for three full Gearhart to be the city’s covenant with the community, and months. Most want a successful recall — we’re the basis of all its laws, from land use to public safe- called the “silent majority.” Please join all of us and vote yes to recall ty. More than a vague statement of “collective stan- To the editor, dards and values,” it’s a very specific document, Mayor Dianne Widdop. Those campaigning for the recall of Gearhart reaffirmed by the people’s representatives over Harold T. Gable, Mayor Dianne Widdop have resorted to innuen- the past four decades, that defines the semi-rural, Gearhart Just for the record Split apart Innuendo, lies, fear