Today I had an interview with Ken Adams, the host of a show on KMUZ here in Salem, a community radio station. You can hear all about it in this link of the podcast, which appeared after the live broadcast was over. (Well, sort of live; Ken and I recorded it yesterday, because I don’t function well at 8 am.) I’ll also include the audio file directly, in case the link ever goes away.
Our subject was the findings of an investigation into the misdeeds of the Salem Mayor, Julie Hoy. I filed a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission that culminated in an extensive inquiry. This is how I introduced the interview on Facebook a little while ago.
Listen to my tell-all interview with Ken Adams of KMUZ today about how Mayor Julie Hoy did both a “bad” and “worse” thing when Hoy violated the Public Meetings Law in her zeal to get rid of City Manager Keith Stahley, then compounded her unethical behavior by lying to Councilor Nishioka that her private conversations with other city councilors revealed that a majority wanted Stahley to resign. Actually, only Hoy wanted this. Nonetheless, Nishioka told Stahley what Hoy said, and Stahley resigned, creating a fiasco that is still being sorted out.
If you’re really interested in this subject, I’ve written two posts about the investigation on my Salem Political Snark blog.
Ethics investigation concludes Mayor Julie Hoy and five city councilors violated Public Meetings Law
Lie. That’s a powerful word. As I said in the second post:
The investigation by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission revealed that actually none of the seven city councilors — zero, zilch, nada — had told Mayor Hoy that they wanted Stahley to resign. Hoy was the only one of the eight city council members who wanted this. That’s a long way from the majority of five that Hoy told Nishioka wanted Stahley to resign.
This was an obvious lie.
An error, mistake, or misstatement is when someone wrongly believes something to be true, but it actually isn’t. But Mayor Julie Hoy clearly lied. After all she conducted most of her conversations with city councilors between February 1-6. This is part of the timeline produced by the ethics commission investigator. (The # references pertain to investigative sources such as texts , emails, documents, and such.)
We all say things that aren’t true. But that doesn’t make us liars. To be a liar, someone has to know that what they’re communicating isn’t true. At least, that’s how I see it.
Either way, though — whether a false statement is purposeful or unwitting — truth has to be defended. This is a good thing both for society at large and the person uttering the lie or falsehood.
With exceptions, of course. We have to use common sense. If somebody gets a fact wrong in a conversation, and it isn’t all that important to the discussion, there’s no reason to interrupt the person with “Stop right there! You’re wrong!” Few people would want to talk with me if I did that.
However, when it comes to important things, like whether a City Manager is forced to resign because of a lie the Mayor told, I definitely hold that truth must be defended with zeal, though not with zealotry. Reality is too important to have it frittered away through falsehoods.
It is easier to defend reality when truth or falsehood can be determined through readily available evidence. Mayor Hoy lied because the investigator was able to check her assertion against what the city councilors Hoy spoke with actually told the Mayor. Of course, “actually” assumes they were telling the truth. That gets us into how evidence is assessed for veracity, which sometimes can be difficult.
When it comes to religious and supernatural beliefs, the situation is even murkier in one sense, while being crystal clear in another sense. The murky part relates to their being no demonstrable evidence that God, heaven, angels, astral regions, and such even exist, much less that they have the characteristics ascribed to them by believers.
The crystal clear part is pretty much the same thing: there’s no demonstrable evidence of those sorts of entities. So lack of evidence becomes the evidence in favor of reason, science, and atheism instead of faith, religiosity, and supernatural belief.
Again, though, there’s a difference between a lie and a falsehood. Most religious believers don’t consider that they’ve embraced a lie. They just have convinced themselves that what they believe, actually is true. I have more sympathy for these people, because I used to be one myself. Still, as in the case of worldly truth, it can be beneficial both to the religious believer and society at large when unfounded beliefs are challenged.
One of my favorite quotes on the subject came from a classics scholar, A.H. Armstrong, who has some apt advice about how to talk to fundamentalists. However, I’d change his “for the honor of God,” to “for the honor of our shared reality.”
When claims to possess an exclusive revelation of God or to speak his word are made by human beings (and it is always human beings who make them), they must be examined particularly fiercely and hypercritically for the honor of God, to avoid the blasphemy and sacrilege of deifying a human opinion.
Or, to put it less ferociously, the Hellenic (and, as it seems to me, still proper) answer to “Thus saith the Lord” is “Does he?,” asked in a distinctly skeptical tone, followed by a courteous but drastic “testing to destruction” of the claims and credentials of the person or persons making this enormous statement.
The comments on a recent guest post by Graeme Docherty are worth reading, because they address the basic question of this post: what is the best way of defending truth against lies and falsehoods?
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good morning Brian,
Happy birthday!
Celebrate, live it up, and cherish the gift of getting another year older.
Oh, your birthday, is it. Happy Birthday, Brian! 🥳
Wow you’re obsessed with this issue.
There were no lies. We know this because the entire council unanimously voted to fire Keith Stahley. And the council did so knowing that firing Stahley would result in the city honoring the contract it made with Stahley to pay him severance.
Now, is it possible that Stahley was doing a great job as city manager, and therefore, his firing was potentially politically motivated, or otherwise suspect? If there was a smidgen of evidence for that, I guess I might be up in arms about his firing too (if I were a local citizen, which I’m not). It would at least be understandable. But neither you or anyone else has come forward with any evidence in that line. The brouhaha seems to be all about your dislike for the Mayor.
In any case, there’s ample evidence that Keith Stahley was doing a poor job as Salem City Manager. Here is Grok’s condensation of the facts of Stahley’s tenure at that job:
———————————
Keith Stahley was appointed as City Manager on September 12, 2022, following a competitive recruitment process. His employment agreement with the City of Salem included the following key terms, based on public disclosures around his February 2025 resignation and separation agreement:
Salary and Compensation Base annual salary: $270,000 (following a raise approved in 2024, making it one of the highest-paid positions in city government).
Severance and Termination Provisions
Eligible for severance benefits if resigned at the request of a “duly authorized representative” of the City Council or if terminated without cause.
Severance package: Eight months of continued salary and benefits, including contributions to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and health insurance coverage.
Additional payout for accrued leave (vacation, sick leave, etc.).
Total value of the severance package approved upon his resignation: Approximately $256,000 (including the eight months’ pay and accrued leave payout of $255,845.97).
(Note: We do not know the full terms of Stahley’s contract with the city of Salem. On one important point especially, we don’t know the duration of his contract. The full employment agreement is not publicly posted online but was referenced in city council actions and separation documents. For official records, contact the City of Salem’s City Clerk’s office.)
====================
Then I asked Grok: Was there ample evidence that Keith Stahley’s job performance was poor? Grok sayeth:
“Yes, there was ample evidence of poor job performance by Keith Stahley as Salem’s City Manager, primarily stemming from a formal 2024 performance audit that highlighted significant leadership and operational deficiencies. This audit, conducted by the consulting firm Moss Adams and commissioned by the city’s finance committee amid an $18 million budget deficit, was based on interviews with city staff, executive leaders, and elected officials. It served as a key catalyst for the City Council’s push toward his resignation in February 2025, with Mayor Julie Hoy explicitly citing concerns from an early draft of the report in private communications with councilors.”
“The audit’s findings painted a picture of ineffective management under Stahley’s leadership, including Poor Communication and Decision-Making: Stahley was criticized for making decisions using unclear criteria, often without involving or adequately informing his 12 direct reports or other staff, leading to operational disruptions, staff confusion, and burnout. There was no citywide communications strategy, and the communications manager position had been vacant since September 2024, resulting in inconsistent messaging to employees and the public.”
“Overworked and Understaffed Teams: Departments faced an “unsustainably high” span of control for leaders, with Stahley himself bogged down in day-to-day tasks rather than strategic oversight. This exacerbated inherited understaffing issues, with no systems to track priorities, resident inquiries, or initiative progress, causing duplicated efforts and neglected goals like addressing homelessness.”
“Inefficient Processes: Weekly leadership meetings lacked agendas and direction, devolving into rehashed discussions. The city reacted to minor issues with undue urgency while failing to prioritize core challenges, such as public distrust in spending.”
“These issues were substantiated by interviewee accounts describing limited strategic capacity and a culture of treating all tasks as equally urgent, which hindered overall city performance. Stahley’s resignation occurred just one month after the audit’s release on December 3, 2024, amid ongoing budget shortfalls (projected at $13.8–$18 million) that amplified scrutiny of his management. While the audit acknowledged some progress under his tenure—such as airport investments and executive hires—it urged nine specific recommendations, including better priority tracking, clearer decision frameworks, and workload assessments. Stahley responded by welcoming the feedback as an opportunity for improvement but noted disagreement with some points, emphasizing recent achievements like infrastructure projects and emergency response changes.A subsequent state ethics investigation (concluded in June 2025) focused on procedural violations in how the council handled the ouster—such as illegal serial private meetings—but reaffirmed the audit as the central concern driving the decision. Public reactions, including from councilors, expressed regret over the process but did not dispute the underlying performance issues. Overall, the audit provides concrete, documented evidence that Stahley’s performance fell short in critical areas, contributing directly to his exit.”
============================================================
It’s pretty clear that the Mayor and the City Council had just cause to fire Stahley. Who can disagree, given the results of this audit? Stahley was doing an objectively poor job, and that affected the entire city. The wrong thing to do would be NOT to fire a bad employee.
Now, the question: Should the matter of Stahley’s possible firing have been made a public matter of debate? On that point, I acknowledge that you are technically correct.
However, Hoy et al stated the reason for not making this firing a public matter is that it spared Stahley a public inquisition. That seems to me like a humanly valid reason for skirting a minor rule in your city’s government hiring practices.
As I’ve said before, I’m at a loss to wonder what arguments you or any other Salemite would put forward to keep Keith Stahley on. You have no knowledge of his job performance besides the findings of the official 3rd party audit, which concluded that…
KEITH STAHLEY WAS DOING A POOR JOB AS SALEM’S CITY MANAGER.
It seems you’d rather your city endure an objectively ineffective city manager than the Mayor get away with skirting a minor procedural rule for the sake of sparing the feelings of the person she was replacing.
But wait. Did the Salem council members all vote to let Stahley go FULLY KNOWING he would receive a large severance package per the terms of his contract?
This would seem to be a key issue. If the council members were in the dark about the cost to the city re Stahley’s severance, then there is just cause to claim there was lying and skullduggery involved.
So I asked Grok about it, and Grok said (emphasis mine):
“Yes, the Salem City Council unanimously voted to accept Keith Stahley’s resignation on February 10, 2025, and the severance package was EXPLICITLY DISCUSSED during the public meeting as a key factor in the resignation process, per his employment contract. The council added Stahley’s resignation to the agenda and approved it UNANIMOUSLY in a public session, following a prior executive session to discuss employee discipline or dismissal. This action was taken at the council’s request, as Stahley had submitted his resignation letter on February 9, 2025.”
“During the discussion, Councilor Paul Tigan noted that the resignation structure allowed Stahley to receive severance benefits as outlined in his contract, describing it as an “important part” of supporting the transition. Council President Linda Nishioka echoed this, stating she was “happy” Stahley would receive “all benefits and severance packages he deserves.” Mayor Julie Hoy referenced performance concerns from a draft audit but did not address severance directly. The contract entitled Stahley to eight months of salary and benefits (totaling approximately $256,000, including accrued leave payout) if the council requested his resignation or terminated him without cause, which triggered eligibility here.”
“While a later ethics investigation (concluded in October 2025) found violations in pre-meeting serial communications among the mayor and five councilors that pressured Stahley to resign, THE PUBLIC VOTE ITSELF WAS UNANIMOUS AND TRANSPARENT REGARDING THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS. This process ensured all seven council members were aware of the severance terms when casting their votes.”
Politics is the arena of complaint. And we who indulge in armchair quarterbackiing must accept responsibilitiy for the weight of our own words on others.
Let us always proceed lightly, for all these issues are intersecting lines on a thin piece of tracing paper. They are derivative of life, but themselves lifeless. And in a moment, like tissue paper in the rain, it is gone, and with it everything drawn and written upon it.
Truth is generally a matter of perspective. Whether an object is in front or behind depends entirely upon one’s own viewpoint. And gathering more information in defense of that viewpoint simply defends a single point in space and time, and does not give a full picture of all the points from a higher perspective. From that higher perspective, these points, lines and words that seem in conflict are a very, very small part of a great design. And they are actually in harmony. So no need for anything more than dispassionate .observation, understanding (instead of opinion) and acceptance.
In this arena of complaint we have various opinions, well defended from their vantage point but entirely defenseless from another.
Businesses often hire and fire based upon likability and popularity. You might think these are not to be confused with performance until you witness people dismissing or outright disobeying a colleague, subordinate or superior they don’t want to acknowledge.
And even when that person has done fine work, it means nothing in a toxic culture that doesn’t value what that person has done.
Rather, making them wrong, making them a failure serves a greater purpose to those leaders, colleagues, even employees.
Is the lesson to fight all that? No. It is to withdraw and find a less toxic place to earn a living.
Adjustment is the lesson.
Voting with one’s own feet is the most powerful influence any of us have, and it happens with zero debate.
When your actions speak, don’t interrupt.
This tempest in a teapot over Stahley’s dismissal is beyond silly.
These council members, who all now say they had no opinion on Stahley’s resignation? They all voted to accept it—every one of them.
Moreover, these council members all approved giving Stahley a quarter of a million dollars in severance. They did this knowing that Stahley was only due that money if the council had requested his resignation.
Now the council is very upset that this happened. But again, they voted for it!
Something else worth pointing out: Clearly the Mayor Hoy didn’t like Stahley and wanted him gone. But she didn’t need the city council’s approval to put the firing of Keith Stahley on the CC agenda. As Mayor, she had the power to do that all on her own. Per the city charter, a mayor “can request agenda items for public or executive session to review performance or removal prospects. No vote needed to add.”
It seems Hoy was prepared to do just that, and Stahley wanted no part of being a public spectacle. Stahley wasn’t interested in the findings of the audit — that he was subpar as a city manager — being something for the city council to thrash around.
And so, the most humane thing was done: Stahley was told the writing was on the wall (the audit results), it was best he go elsewhere, and the city of Salem would give Stahley an easy out from the situation. With full severance package.
Keith Stahley accepted this. To my knowledge, Stahley was happy to part ways with the city of Salem, is not bitter, and has not asked for his job back. (One funny thing: No one has bothered to ask Keith Stahley what he thought about any of this…truth is so important, etc, right)
As I said, this Stahley thing is merely a tempest in a tiny teapot. Call it a great victory for truth and pat self on the back….I struggle to see what was accomplished.
1) A city manager gets a poor rating from an audit.
2) The city’s mayor — quite understandably, and for the good of the city she serves — would like this underperforming city manager replaced.
3) The hapless city manager is told that pressure will begin that he must move on, or he can be given a severance package for resigning.
4) The city manager accepts that severance package with nary a complaint.
5) The city then hires a new city manager
Somewhere in all this, we’re led to believe that a Great Crime has been committed. What was it again? Oh yes, the city council actually loved this Keith Stahley guy and wanted to keep him on.
But that’s not true, for the city council alllll voted to let Stahley go on to greener pastures. No complaints, no objections, no moaning about all the money they were giving him in severance.
Sorry, but it all just strikes me as so very silly. Oregon is facing huge challenges from drugs, homelessness, and civil unrest. Why not focus on fixing that, or making some kind of positive contribution to the community, rather than playing political tiddliwinks?