Rather than offering a narrative, I am providing direct access to the public record, including timestamps and meeting references, so you can see exactly what occurred and come to your own conclusions.

If you are hearing about this situation for the first time, it may be because it is now being referenced in the context of this election. My approach is simple: when questions arise, I don’t avoid them. I document, organize, and make the information accessible.

Not all of these events were clearly surfaced through formal meeting structures or public notice, so I took the time to organize them in one place. I believe accountability should be visible, and leadership should happen where the public can see it.

7/14 Regular Meeting - click to open video

4:51:25 After Executive Session the Council voted to terminate the City Manager Pro Tem’s contract and the mayor immediately adjourned the meeting. 

7/21 Special Meeting - click to open video

This is the meeting where the Council passed Resolution 2025-16 and I recused myself from the decision. The Council had not had a discussion on how to fill this vacancy as we had not met since the 7/14 meeting was adjourned. I had submitted a "statement of willingness" to be considered by the Council to serve for any temporary period of time to fill the vacancy, and recused myself stating a potential conflict at the beginning of the discussion. I self-reported an ethics complaint to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to gain clarity around whether I had made a mistake in not declaring the nature on my conflict. Ultimately I learned I never had a conflict at this meeting because the materials I submitted to HR were never presented to the Council. This matter was dismissed after the preliminary investigation stage.

7/28 Regular Meeting - click to open video

My Councilor Comments 

1:52:45 % For Art Clarification / Proactive Code Enforcement Statement & Motion

2:02:45-2:17:00 Resolution 2025-16 clarifying questions

I asked who decided to solely solicit existing department heads for their availability and the answer was “Legal & HR.” 

Both were listed as considerations for the appointment via Resolution 2025-16.

I asked multiple questions to bring clarity to the administrative delegation that Council had adopted, as I was not part of the discussion in adopting the resolution.

8/11 Regular Meeting - click to open video

My Councilor Comments

1:56:45 Engage LC / Ethics F&B Question 

2:01:15 Existing Council Direction / Tracking system

2:06:30 Library Diversity & Belonging Collection

2:08:15 17th St Restroom progress

2:09:35 Overdue Council Employee Performance Reviews

2:10:45-2:13:45 Ethics Statement Re 7/21/25 Link to details under 7/21/25 Special Meeting above.

8/21/25 1:59pm - click to see notice I received

I received notice the topic of the 8/25 (already noticed) Executive session had been changed because the Council had taken action to schedule an executive session under LCMC 2.04.170 B and ORS 192.660(2)(b) to consider the matter of allegations that I violated Lincoln City Charter Section 4.8 and LCMC 2.04.180 (Council Rules) 5.6, 6.1, 6.3 B, C and D. 

I exercised my right to an open hearing, as I knew the Council, as the governing body, had NOT taken this action (confirmed during the scheduling discussion during the Regular 6pm Council meeting on 8/25, timestamp 1:53:25) and believed there was immense public interest in this issue, considering I am an elected official. If I ever do something wrong, I want to be held accountable where the people can see and state law protects my right to ensure it does. 

8/25 Special Meeting 5:00 pm  - click to open video

Note:

• When the authority is explained the relevant city code is skipped, this is LCMC 2.04.170, as is stated on the meeting notice. 
• I submitted procedural questions related to LCMC 2.04.170 prior to this meeting and they were not answered due to the interpretation that it “had the makings of a serial meeting”... later addressed on 9/8 2:56:40. Those questions remain unanswered.
• The question is posed to the Council “whether or not they want to hold the meeting in the first place”, yet I had already received notice (including a certified letter) claiming the Council scheduled the meeting.
• It appears at the beginning, prior to the meeting being called to order, Councilors are reading out of a prepared red binder, which I held up and stated I would not be looking at. 
• The legal options outlined to the Council of how to proceed were to "Hold the meeting, continue the meeting, or schedule the meeting for a future date."
• It was publicly suggested in the 10/20 Work Session below that I had invited the public to disrupt the meeting. I want to be clear, this was noticed as a public meeting because I exercised my right to an open hearing. I did not ask anyone, even my family to come. I only let a few people close to me know I was the subject of the noticed hearing.

8/25 Regular Meeting 6pm - click to open video

06:30-19:28 Public Comment about the 5pm Special meeting being abruptly adjourned. 

1:53:25-1:55:10 Confirmation the Council did not give direction to hold a hearing for potential violation of council rules (LCMC 2.04.170)

2:02:15-2:06:51 Pro Tem Hiring process - Application Scoring tools were used and are not confidential from the Council

2:17:10-2:21:40 My last Two Weeks Summery of my Experience as an Elected Official.

2:24:31-2:24:50 Though the councilor's comments make it sound personal, I want to be clear, for me it was always about following LCMC 2.04.170 and properly addressing anonymous complaints.

2:28:17 Reading Charter Section 4.8, which I had just been accused of violating, and had received no due process, appears to be an insinuation of guilt.

My understanding is per Robert’s Rules I had the right to respond but was instead gaveled over. 

What I explained after the mics were cut was that my question regarding the application scoring tools was directly related to the City Manager Pro Tem hiring process, which falls under the Council’s authority, not the city manager’s office. I also mentioned Council Rule 6.2b and asked about equal accountability for everyone following all the rules. 

9/08 Regular Meeting (my birthday!) - click to open video

2:03:30 Reading of Marie McFarland’s Questions

2:12:00 Actions if any - First Council Motion related to LCMC 2.04.170b 

2:14:45 I called a Point Order (ignored) because I had the floor during discussion of a motion. I challenged the ruling of the chair (also ignored) to bring attention to the rules. 

2:18:40-2:20:30 Discussion of the authority Stated that only the governing body has jurisdiction to discipline elected officials and that it can not come from Council employees or administration.

2:20:30-2:42:55 Council Mark’s motion - He changed “investigate” to “explore”

2:46:55 My councilor comments

• New public comment script
• 4th of July Decision
• Barriers to affordable housing- planning commission recommendations
• Admin website statistics? Viewership #?
• Library Update thanks!
• RSWAC update
• LCHAB update
• Engage LC meeting update

2:53:00 Prepared statement reading for OGEC

2:54:45 Making of a serial meetings - My unanswered procedural questions 

2:55:50 I welcome an outside unbiased investigation of all parties beginning July 14th

9/22 Regular Meeting - click to open video

2:45:45 Scheduling the meeting regarding Councilor Baker 

2:48:40 Process discussion, due process concern, unanswered questions - ignored. Discussion postponed to 9/29 Special Meeting

3:14:50 Councilor Comments

• Emailed procedural question follow up - making of Serial meeting question 
• Application scoring tools? 2.04.180 6.2 B
• 3:21:25 statement that four outside attorneys consulted on my public records requests
• 3:23:20 statement that the council decided in executive session not to receive the scoring tools (not allowed)
• 3:23:40 My explanation of why the scoring tool was relevant to the decision made 
• 3:26:20 Roberts rules of order questions regarding chair, proper discussions, and point of order being ignored - feeling pressured to censor myself, rushed discussions
• 3:28:35 Resolution 2025-16 Clarity around city manager pro tem back & fourth tracking
• 8/25 approved minutes Mayors refusal to sign
• “Business Meeting” decorum
• 3:32:15 Call to rebuild public trust Statement (clip)

9/29 Special Meeting - click to open video

1:14:45 Scheduling discussion for Baker meeting

I ask - “Does staff feel the motion to explore my actions provides sufficient specificity to draft a lawful notice, and give clear authority to act under 2.04.170B? If so, what definition of "explore" and what details would staff be relying on?” I explained - Council rejected “investigate” and passed “explore.” Explore isn’t a defined purpose under LCMC 2.04.170(B), and staff cannot lawfully draft a notice without specificity.

1:26:45 Memo requested “about procedure” confidential by email

1:26:55 - My motions around due process:

• Motion for Specificity  “I move that Council clarify the scope of its prior motion ‘pursuant to LCMC 2.04.170(B)’ by identifying the specific council rule, ordinance, charter, or state law that is alleged to have been violated, by what specific actions, and by defining what ‘explore’ is intended to mean in this context. This clarification is necessary to ensure staff can prepare a lawful notice under 2.04.170(B), as the code authorizes only investigations of specific violations, not undefined explorations.”

Failed 3-3 Mayor states we will move forward with a confidential memo from the city attorney.

Yes: Baker, Barker, Hoagland 

No: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke

• Motion on Conflict of Interest  “I move that, due to an apparent conflict of interest, the City Attorney not be assigned to draft or manage any process related to the Council’s motion concerning Councilor Baker. Instead, an independent party (not referenced or involved in any of the exploration) shall prepare the materials.”

Failed 4-2

Yes: Hoagland, Baker

No: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke, Barker

• Motion on Presiding Authority  “I move that, given the presiding officer’s direct involvement in the matters at issue, the Mayor shall not preside over any executive session held under LCMC 2.04.170(B) concerning the motion referencing Councilor Baker and that Council select an alternate presiding officer.”

Passed 4-2

Yes: Mark, Baker, Barker, Hoagland

No: Hohnbaum, Wahlke

• Motion for Complete Record Review  “I move that the Council’s direction to ‘explore actions’ explicitly include review of all communications, complaints, and risk assessments regarding Councilor Baker dated August 13 forward, including timestamps and participants, to ensure context and completeness.”

Failed 3-3

Yes: Baker, Barker, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke, Hoagland

10/20 Work Session - click to open audio only record (standard for work sessions)

03:00- 1:50:00 Headphones recommended. I know it's long, but this is where the details are regarding discussion of the anonymous complaints against me.

Unfortunately most folks struggle to tell who is who. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. (541)554-5425

The memo provided that is referenced throughout is a public record, and I have my highlighted copy if anyone wants to meet up to see what I came prepared with for this narrowly defined examination of my actions.

10/27 Regular Meeting - click to open video

There were a lot of motions made during the "Actions if any based on work session, executive session, or public comment" section of the meeting.

My motions, and the motion made to reprimand me, that failed to mention LCMC 2.04.170 Violation of Council Rules are in bold.

I voted no on that motion because I had not been afforded due process as I understand to be required by LCMC 2.04.170.

If you read the motions I have made you will see what I mean when I say, "I have already been doing the work."

1:50:10 Actions if any…

1:50:50 Baker:

Asked for clarification on application of public records law to public comment, particularly questions submitted in writing.

1:52:14 Hoagland:

I make a motion to direct staff to give us clarity in regards to public comment and the application of public records law, in reference to questions submitted in electronic and written form.

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker, Wahlke

No: Mark

Passed 6-1

Immediately Answered: The submitted question must request a record to automatically be considered a public records request.

1:56:39 Unanimous consent to have staff write a “1-pager” explanation of the answer provided and discuss with IT having that information provided on the website adjacent to information regarding “public comment”.

1:58:00 Baker:

I move that we direct staff to bring back proposed amendments to sections 9.2, 9.3 of the council rules, and 2.04.110 to ensure our meeting rules uphold constitutional rights, clarify what constitutes disruption, require warnings before removal unless there’s a physical threat, or warranted arrest and provide an appeal process for anyone removed.

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker

No: Mark, Wahlke

Passed 5-2

2:05:30 Baker:

I move the Council’s next scheduled work session shall include an agenda item prioritizing our existing potential work session topics; including but not limited to the list consolidated by Councilor Baker presented at our October 27th regular meeting. 

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker, Mark, Wahlke

Passed 7-0

2:15:20 Hohnbaum:

I move to approve designating $11,500 of the budgeted non-profit grants be awarded to North Lincoln County Historical Society, who turned in a 

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Barker, Mark, Wahlke

No: Baker

Passed 6-1

2:18:35 Mark:

I’d like to make a motion regarding Councilor Baker’s emails and interactions with staff in August (read prepared statement - submitted to recorder) On that basis…

2:20:40

I move that Councilor Baker be reprimanded by Council for violating Charter section 4.8 titled "Interference in Administration” which reads, 

A member of the council shall not coerce or attempt to coerce the manager or any other city employee in carrying out the duties of the office…

also for violating LCMC 2.04.180 Council rules paragraph 6.1 which reads,

 …Council requests for information shall be to the city manager except for minor requests that can be quickly handled by staff…

and also for violating paragraph 6.3(c) which says Councilors should 

Limit individual contacts with city officers and employees so as not to influence staff decisions or recommendations, interfere with staff work performance, undermine the authority of supervisors…

Discussion: 2:23:15 - 2:42:16

Yes: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke

No: Baker, Barker, Hoagland

Excused / Abstained: Peterson

Failed 3-3 

2:45:00 Baker:

I move to direct the city manager to ensure all written city policies that apply to Elected officials and/or volunteers, including but not limited to the City’s EEO Policy, be provided to all covered parties by October 31st, 2025. 

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Hoagland

No: Mark, Wahlke, Baker, Hohnbaum

Failed 4-3

2:47:00 Baker:

I move the council schedule an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(b)

to consider the dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against the city attorney. 

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Hoagland, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke, Barker

Passed 4-3

2:48:20 Hoagland

Question regarding legality of ballot vote to appoint Councilor Peterson. 

Answer: It was legal.

3:09:30 Hoagland

Motion to direct staff to investigate ways the city can fill in gaps in federal funding deficiencies in regards to food, housing, and utilities for our local residents.

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Barker, Hoagland, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke

Passed 5-2

The topic regarding complaints against me has not been raised since this meeting.

This was also the first meeting the new City Manager Pro Tem was present.

If you continue watching meetings, or just to more recent ones, you will see our public comment, decorum, workflow, and public interactions have been much improved since.