Council Got an Earful. The Appointment Machine Kept Rolling.

North Plains councilors heard demands for accountability Monday: stop stacking unaccountable appointments, explain who authorized consequential decisions, and understand what you’re throwing away before throwing it away.

The majority decided to proceed with the appointments and the throwing away anyway.

“A council of appointees are appointing more appointees,” resident Cindy Smith told them. She acknowledged that the charter allows appointments, then urged Council to wait until after November’s election. Watch her testimony.

Susan Brown warned against groupthink and urged Council to choose someone who would “challenge assumptions and pressure test ideas through real debate and deliberation.” Watch.

Instead, after rejecting Trista Ugarte’s motion to postpone, Council proceeded with an applicant field disclosed publicly only that afternoon. Former Mayor Cynthia Hirst withdrew in protest. Mark DeForge, Anna Warrington and Don Weber then selected Michael Don Shurts, 3–2, over Thomas Murdock, whom Ugarte and Jason Ruston supported. Watch the appointment.

Readers of our appointment-chain investigation know the plot: Weber was appointed, then nominated DeForge and Warrington. Monday, those three added Shurts.

Speakers got three minutes. The majority got another colleague.

The questions about power extended beyond the vacant seat.

Chris Edmonds, representing landowners in the east-side UGB study area, asked who authorized the commitment described in Paul Koch’s housing-ordinance memo and through what public process.

“Everyone gets a voice, but a voice is not a franchise,” Edmonds said. “Frequent access does not create governmental authority.” Watch his testimony.

City Attorney Emily Matasar later corrected Koch’s memo: the City agreed to a voluntary remand, not withdrawal of Ordinance 489. That distinction matters. It does not resolve the authorization question behind our August 11 reporting. Watch her correction.

On the Housing Needs Analysis itself, Russ Sheldon said residents deserved to understand “what would be lost, what would replace it, and what the consequences would be before that decision is made.” Watch.

Other speakers supported abandoning the analysis. Council’s opponents of readoption cited litigation risk. But the preparedness problem was startling: Matasar said Shurts had not received roughly 20 emails she had sent Council on the subject. Watch.

Shurts voted anyway.

“This thing is actually kind of confusing,” Shurts said. On needing another analysis later: “That’s fine. So be it.” Watch his explanation.

He joined DeForge, Warrington and Weber against readoption; Ugarte and Ruston supported it. The motion failed 4–2, leaving the ordinance null and void, as the city attorney had explained. A future UGB amendment would require a new analysis.

That is a remarkably casual approach to a consequential planning decision.

Residents asked Council to show its work. Their new appointee helped bury it.

Another seat filled. The same questions unanswered.