Lawsuit for Syrett campaign asks judge to halt recall election, claims petition contained false statements

The campaign for Eugene City Councilor Claire Syrett is asking a judge to invalidate the petitions that were submitted to qualify a recall in Ward 7 and to halt the Sept. 6 special election.

Ballots were mailed Thursday in the recall election for Syrett's ward, which includes Santa Clara, River Road, Trainsong and Whiteaker neighborhood associations.

A lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of the campaign in Lane County Circuit Court claims the recall effort was based on false information.

Petitioners, who started recall efforts in the spring, have cited frustration over MovingAhead, a yearslong transportation project that could result in bus-only lanes for an Emerald Express, or EmX, route on River Road.

In the petition, they state that MovingAhead will remove two lanes for cars on River Road, take substantial property away from businesses, cause traffic congestion and involve an increase in taxes.

The lawsuit calls out those statements as false.

“These statements make assertions of objective fact that are false and cannot reasonably be interpreted in any manner that would make them factually correct,” the complaint said.

You can read the complaint in its entirety, without exhibits, at the end of the article.

Petitioners used those false statements to convince people to sign the recall petition, the complaint said, and at least one voter was only told their signature would “prevent the removal of car lanes on River Road.”

That voter told Syrett they felt “duped” for their signature, according to an email attached to the lawsuit as an exhibit.

The lawsuit names six defendants:

• Recall Claire Syrett, the petition committee

• Meta Maxwell, who helped gather signatures

• Gerald Morton, the chief petitioner for the recall

• Mark Osterloh, the treasurer for the petition committee

• John P. Hammer, the registered agent for JP Hammer, which donated to the petition committee

• Eugene Business Alliance, which donated to the petition committee

Maxwell called the claims in the lawsuit "baseless" in a Friday morning email that served as a response from all defendants and showed highlighted portions of a report on MovingAhead.

Lane County Clerk Dena Dawson said Wednesday that drop boxes for ballots will remain open.

“We’re moving forward with the recall election and of course would respond to any court rulings,” Dawson said.

In the special election, a majority of votes in favor of a recall would remove Syrett from the position. The remaining seven city councilors would then choose her successor. A majority of votes in opposition to a recall would mean Syrett finishes her term.

Complaint: Syrett has been ‘effective advocate’

Syrett was first elected to city council in 2012. She ran uncontested for reelection in 2016 and defeated two challengers to win reelection again in 2020. Her current term expires in January 2025.

During her three terms, the council has voted on close to 190 resolutions and passed more than 300 ordinances along with annual budgets, the complaint claims. Syrett has voted on all of those with “few exceptions, due to excused absences,” the lawsuit adds.

Syrett has been a “diligent and effective advocate” on several issues, the lawsuit claims, including housing the unsheltered, supporting public safety, making streets safer, addressing climate change and protecting working families.

Related:Q&A with Eugene Councilor Claire Syrett and a lead petitioner in efforts to recall her

Syrett has said people are entitled to have strong opinions about the issues they say prompted the recall effort, but expressed frustration that they went this route instead of running someone against her in the next election.

Campaign highlights four parts of statement as false

Morton filed a prospective petition in April to recall Syrett from office.

The petition was on an SEL 350 form, which specifies that “any factual information provided must be true.”

The statement supporting the recall on the form cites Syrett’s vote for a resolution to approve locally preferred alternatives for the MovingAhead project and makes claims about what will happen to River Road as a result.

That statement contains false information, the lawsuit alleges, specifically pointing to statements that MovingAhead:

• “Will remove two lanes for cars on River Road”

• Will “leave only one lane for cars in each direction and take substantial private property from businesses, including removal of parking and trees”

• Will increase traffic congestion

• Will result in increased taxes

Those claims are false because there is no final design and no final decision that would make them true, the lawsuit alleges.

Maxwell refuted that in the Friday morning email, pointing to specific pages in an alternative analysis report for the project. Her email highlighted portions of the 2018 report talking about the possible need for 2.2 acres of combined property acquisitions, potential impacts to off-street parking, potential displacement of businesses and the removal of up to 118 street trees.

But Lane Transit District, which is partnering with Eugene and the Oregon Department of Transportation on the project, agreed the statements are based on misinformation.

“It is might, not will,” transit district spokesperson Pat Walsh said in an email. “The Eugene City Council and the LTD board of directors vote instructed staff to further research EmX on River Road. It is a not a (done) deal by any stretch of the imagination.”

There will be more public outreach about the project next year, Walsh added.

The transit district’s transit tax, which funds operations, is “already maxed out or will be soon” based on state-set limits, Walsh added.

Complaint: False statements forced ‘unnecessary, invalid election’

Morton signed the prospective petition “attesting that any factual information in the prospective petition statement was true as required,” the complaint says, then created a recall committee with Maxwell and Osterloh.

The petitioners then used the false information to get more than 2,000 signatures, the lawsuit alleges.

The complaint adds more than one voter told Syrett they were “urged to sign the prospective petition under false pretenses.”

Ultimately, the lawsuit alleges, the false statements forced an “unnecessary, invalid election”

The lawsuit makes a claim for relief based on false publication relating to a candidate or election and asks a judge to declare:

• The petition is invalid because of the false statements

• Certification of the petition was invalid

• The special recall election is invalid

• Lane County is not authorized to count ballots related to the recall election

• The city recorder is not authorized to certify the results of the recall election

Editor's note: This story has been updated to correct the date of the report cited by defendants in their initial reaction to the lawsuit. That report is from 2018.

Ward 7 Recall Challenge - No Exhibits by Megan on Scribd

Contact city government watchdog Megan Banta at mbanta@registerguard.com. Follow her on Twitter @MeganBanta_1.

This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: Lawsuit for Syrett campaign asks judge to halt recall election