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