Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee refers open-meeting complaint over July 9 candidate selection to city solicitor
Summary
The Salem City Committee on Government Services voted July 16 to send a complaint alleging preselection of a candidate at the July 9 meeting to the city solicitor for a written response. Councilor Sidorjak moved the referral; Councilor Flynn seconded and the motion carried.
The Salem City Council Committee on Government Services voted July 16 to refer a complaint alleging violations of the state open meetings law during the committee’s July 9 candidate-selection meeting to the city solicitor for a written response.
The complaint, read into the record by the committee chair, alleges that committee members and other city councilors "intentionally preselected the chosen candidate" and held discussions about the candidates "prior to the meeting and outside of public observation," in violation of open meeting requirements. It also says that immediately after public interviews a motion was made to elect the chosen candidate "with no discussion of the candidate's qualifications, their answers to the questions posed during the interview process, or city council's goals and expectations." The complaint lists attached emails and a recording link as supporting evidence.
The complaint further alleges that the committee chair replied to the complainant in a manner the complainant characterized as retaliatory: "documents retribution for exercising my free speech rights, threats threats of litigation, and intimidation and coercion," language included verbatim in the complaint as read to the committee.
Councilor Sidorjak moved to refer the complaint to the city solicitor for a written response; Councilor Flynn seconded the motion. The chair called for the vote and stated, "Let the record show I see 3 votes plus my own," after which the chair declared the motion carried. The committee did not take further public comment or make a substantive finding at the meeting; the referral directs the solicitor to review the complaint and provide a written response.
Meeting logistics noted in the record include that the meeting began at 6:00 p.m., notice of the meeting had been posted on July 13, 2026 at 4:27 p.m., and the meeting was being recorded; the committee adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
Next steps: the city solicitor is expected to provide the requested written response; no timetable was given in the committee discussion recorded on July 16.
