Waldport Council Addresses Complaints Against The City Manager

At the August council meeting the Waldport City Council held a tense public hearing to address multiple citizen complaints against City Manager Dann Cutter, centering on his social media activity, his communications with law enforcement and prosecutors, and his handling of a whistleblower-style allegation involving the Siletz tribe.

After more than an hour of sometimes chaotic discussion, councilors did not discipline or dismiss the city manager. Instead, they voted to send three key complaints to the city’s attorney and its insurance provider, CIS, for guidance on whether a formal third-party investigation is warranted.

The complaints came from resident and Todd Swift, recall organizer and volunteer Judith Heath, and Siletz Tribal CEO Curtis Barker.

At the heart of the hearing were two big questions: whether Cutter’s online comments about critics and petitioners were protected free speech made as a private citizen, and whether his digging into people’s past employment and court records amounted to city business or an overreach of his role.

Swift complaint: free speech or improper targeting?

Swift’s complaint focused in part on Cutter’s posts on a private Facebook page called “Waldport Free Speech,” where Cutter, using his personal account, questioned Swift’s law enforcement background and referenced a past civil case that led to a $5 million settlement.

Cutter repeatedly framed his comments as constitutionally protected speech. “I did not lose my rights to free speech just because of my position,” Cutter told the council. He stressed that he did not identify himself as city manager or claim to speak for the city in those posts.

He also pointed to case law, saying “the Ninth Circuit has cautioned against treating mere speech made in response to speech itself as a First Amendment violation, while recognizing that public officials retain their own speech rights.”

A core concern for some councilors and complainants was whether Cutter used city time and city resources to research Swift’s background. The facebook threads were not presented to the council to be able to review.

Mayor Lambert said she had been told by legal counsel that for salaried employees, even breaks during the workday could be considered time when they represent the city.

“What I’m saying is, he’s (Swift) saying I’m paying tax dollars for someone to trash me on social media and investigate me,” she said, adding later, “I honestly… don’t know the timestamps. There’s a lot of questions I have.”

Cutter responded that, under his contract, “the time, place, and manner of my employment is entirely determined by myself,” and argued that even an investigation into whether he was on city time would not change the legal protection of his speech.

Judith Hees complaint: political speech and privacy

The second complaint, filed by recall organizer Judith Hees, also stemmed from social media activity. Hees alleged that Cutter had researched her background and publicly shared information she believed was private, in connection with her role in a recall effort.

Cutter said the post in question did not name Hees and that she could not be identified “without looking into additional details.” He described her as a “limited public figure” engaged in political action and said his comments fell under “protected political speech.”

He argued that everything he used came from public court records and that no privacy rules were broken.

Barker complaint: whistleblower or overreach with Siletz Tribe

The third major complaint came from Siletz Tribal CEO Curtis Barker, who objected to Cutter’s strongly worded emails pressing the tribe to pursue what Cutter believed was a criminal misallocation of funds originally intended for a 4-H program.

Cutter acknowledged his tone with Barker was “very direct and very forceful,” but said that was tied to his duty to report what he believed was attempted theft, based on records from Oregon State University and a conversation with the deputy district attorney.

Cutter told the council he filed a whistleblower complaint through the tribe’s own process and argued that Barker’s complaint to the city was “a direct retaliation for protected speech.”

“This complaint should be dismissed,” he said, “because the tribe’s grievance is inconsistent with the tribe’s own whistleblower policy.”

Councilors wrestled with whether the tribe considered itself a victim, what had actually happened with the money, and whether any of that was the city’s role to judge. Councilor Dunn pointed out that even if the money was repaid to the tribe, the 4-H youth who never received the funds could reasonably be seen as victims.

In this matter it referances a 4-H leader who had applied for multiple grants for a 4-H program. Funds came from through from two different granting programs, one being the Siletz tribe. Since the program received more funding than needed, the grant was returned to the tribe. The money was returned within the grant cycle.

Mr. Cutter stated he sent the email and spoke about the stewardship of public and charitable funds on the basis of records he obtained and law enforcement communications he received. He added that his statements are protected expression and protected whistleblower activity under Oregon law.

Mayor Lambert pushed back on the council trying to decide whether a crime occurred.

“It’s not us to be the judges of a crime if it occurred or not,” she said. “That’s what the police are for. That’s what the judges are for.”

Call for investigation versus legal risk

Throughout the hearing,Mayor Lambert repeatedly argued the council did not have enough information to resolve the complaints and should bring in a third-party investigator to review Facebook records, emails, server logs, and Cutter’s contract.

“I believe that we should be having an investigator look into if the city manager overstepped his scope of work or not,” she said. “Right now we’re looking at a very little bit of what’s going on.”

Others worried about cost and legal exposure. The mayor noted that a past outside investigation in another jurisdiction cost around $15,000, but said that was “nothing compared to the legal fees of the liabilities that we’re being put in the middle of right now.”

Another councilor pointed out that the city attorney and CIS had already warned the council about disciplining a city manager over private speech, saying, “If we have, and… his evaluation is another step… these are specifically on free speech rights.”

Outcome: complaints sent to attorney and CIS

In the end, the council:

• Formally allowed the mayor to withdraw her two older complaints from September of last year, which she now considers moot after council minutes were corrected in January.

• Voted unanimously to refer the Swift and Hees complaints to the city attorney and CIS “to see if they think it warrants further investigation.”

• Voted, with two no votes, to send the Barker complaint to the attorney and CIS as well for advice on next steps.

Cutter emphasized that if the council chose any option other than “no further action,” its own process required consulting the attorney and CIS before moving ahead.

As the meeting closed, the council agreed it still needs to conduct an overdue performance evaluation of the city manager, where broader concerns about tone, judgment, and relationships with the public and partner agencies are expected to come back to the table.

When Mr. Swift was questioned if he was satisfied with the outcome of the hearing he responded "No I think they went off the rails because my complaint specifically, it was never about whether he was on the clock or not. It was his conduct as a public employee and being professional."

Swift gave an example of when he was a Sheriff's Deputy, " I couldn't go on Facebook and trash the Sheriff or the DA. Peple just don't get to do that." Swift noted he felt Cutter was "doing whatever he wants, trashing the citizens and then hiding behind Free Speech, except you are a public employee and there are limits to your speech."

When Mr. Cutter was asked how he felt about the outcome of the hearing he stated he would be responding legally within the next 48 hours.

No timeline was set in the hearing for when the attorney or CIS will respond, or when any follow-up public discussion will occur. The council packet contains the complaints and responses from the city manager.