Umatilla council cautions mayor, limits his meetings with staff after city manager complaint

The Umatilla City Council on a special meeting day voted to caution Mayor Sykes and to adopt limits on his interactions with the city manager after hearing a complaint from City Manager David Stockdale that alleged the mayor publicly undermined staff and interfered with administrative functions.

Stockdale told the council his memo documented several incidents in which he said the mayor’s public comments and private meetings undercut staff and the council’s decisions. “Because the mayor is an elected official who does not report to the city manager, the only recourse for the city manager to raise complaints about the mayor’s conduct is to bring them to the council,” Stockdale said during his presentation.

The council discussed remedies described by counsel, including a formal censure, a written caution and a resolution that would restrict the mayor’s interactions with the city manager to functions specifically set by council rules and require a third party or the city manager to attend certain meetings. After debate, councilors approved a motion to caution the mayor that said meetings with individuals or companies engaged in potential city contracts may create the appearance of influencing ongoing negotiations and recommended avoiding those meetings without appropriate city involvement.

Mayor Sykes responded at length in the meeting, saying he viewed many of his remarks as personal opinions and as protected speech. “I have a right to express my personal opinions even as the mayor,” he said, while asserting he did not intend to coerce staff or interfere with the city manager’s work.

The council also approved a separate resolution prohibiting the mayor from representing the city at outside meetings or events unless explicitly authorized by the council or invited by the city manager; councilors said the measure was intended to reduce confusion about when the mayor spoke for the city in negotiations or procurement discussions. The council voted to take no action on a complaint tied to the mayor’s submission of an annual performance-evaluation form for the city manager.

Counsel and multiple councilors cited the city charter and council policy in framing possible remedies and the limits of elected officials’ administrative authority. During deliberations, counsel noted that the charter and council code limit attempts by elected officials to direct day-to-day administrative actions and described three general remedy paths: a resolution restricting interactions, public censure, or no action.

The council did not record formal roll-call tallies for every motion in the public transcript; the minutes show motions were moved, seconded and announced as carried for the caution and the restriction on representation. Councilors asked that the restraint measures be formalized in resolutions and drafted for a subsequent meeting so the legal language and enforcement mechanisms can be reviewed.

The council president said the public forum for the discussion — held after some members questioned whether this matter should have remained in executive session — was intended to provide transparency. Several councilors urged clearer processes going forward and suggested that any meetings involving the mayor and external parties related to contracting should include the city manager or a designated witness so the city’s administrative interests are protected.

The council’s next procedural step is to formalize the adopted remedies into resolutions for subsequent action and to circulate drafted language to counsel for review. No litigation or disciplinary penalties beyond public admonitions or restrictions were announced at the meeting’s close.