Business As Usual Is Unusually Bad
The latest Gateway pivot makes it clear that the City of Talent needs more ethical oversight.
The City of Talent had an interesting meeting on June 18th in which Council discussed whether to alter the scope of work for the Gateway project in order to build the TBA-proposed Talent Gateway Hub instead of developing more infrastructure. Wait no, don't go! It's not nearly as boring as it sounds! It’s actually quite a fascinating look into how Talent government works, and it’s one of those complicated but important things we should all try to better understand, because what’s happening in front of us right now will have a significant long-term impact on this community.
Ok first of all, to get this out of the way up front: the Talent Urban Renewal Agency (TURA) is just City Council. It’s literally all the same people, except the City Manager is called the “Executive Director” and the Mayor is called the “Chair.” Do we here at Talent Council Watch know why this group exists in this form? No we do not. We didn’t have time to do all the research and information sorting necessary to lay out the whole TURA backstory for this post, but there is indeed a story there that you could spend an evening or two on.
Whatever it was that brought TURA to its current formation, there is a separate monthly meeting for our City Councilors, called Members in this meeting, for when they’re discussing downtown infrastructure and development.
The issue at hand is that the PIER grant awarded to the City for 4.8 million to develop the Gateway (the lot at Valley View & Hwy 99 and the Roundabout to Nowhere) includes $1.7 million to extend Wagner Street through the Talent Irrigation District’s property to connect with the roundabout. The TID is predictably not at all interested in moving their headquarters unless the City builds them a super sweet, very expensive new facility somewhere else, and pays for the U-Haul. The City is predictably not interested in doing any of that. Stalemate. This is where revising the already awarded PIER grant comes in.
What if, City Manager Campbell asked TURA, we take the funds intended to build the Wagner Street connector (estimated at between $500k - 1 million after cost increases) and use it to start building the actual physical structure(s) of the Gateway Hub envisioned by the Talent Business Alliance (TBA) in their April presentation to TURA. This will, Campbell tried to explain, give TBA a leg up on being able to get enough funding to implement their bold vision for a front door gathering heartbeat to the future.
The main problems with this plan are that 1) it would mean the PIER grant’s advisory group would have to approve the new plan because it’s way different and more complicated than what they awarded the money for and 2) businesses operating in the Hub, including the Hub’s management entity itself (i.e. TBA), would be required to either *be* a qualified microenterprise or to create majority Low and Moderate Income (LMI) jobs. If these requirements are not met, the City would end up on the hook for re-paying that portion of the grant, even though it’s something that would be mostly out of the City’s control.
What the City could do instead of taking that risk is use the Wagner money to build more infrastructure on the property - think pathways, a central plaza, improvements to the promenade connecting Talent Ave., parking, utilities, benches. Possibly even solar panels over the parking area! (Actually a neat idea, thanks Member Collay). Installations that would benefit the community and relieve some of the cost burden of developing the property for whomever ends up building on it. Making the property more ready and usable all around and make building on it less costly could lower the barrier to development and attract a more diverse selection of potential developers. This option would not require additional reporting, restrictions, or approval. It’s the path of least resistance; no change required. The safe option.
The exciting new risky option is to build the TBA’s proposed Talent Gateway Hub structure instead because it would make it easier for TBA to secure enough additional funding to complete the whole incubator project, since these re-routed PIER funds wouldn’t cover the full cost. This is the much less safe option due to the potential repayment stipulation, but would apparently be more beneficial than infrastructure to certain stakeholders. Any other benefits to the Hub construction option, beyond it helping TBA accomplish their vision, were not fleshed-out in this discussion.
Read the TURA Staff Report from June 18th for more context.
Whether a micro-incubating heartbeat is the best use of the Gateway, or whether a majority of residents even want that, is not the point of this article, although we’re certainly curious about that. Nor is this about the question of whether the City should play it safe and sound with infrastructure or take a gamble on a TBA-friendly development project, although we do wonder if anyone other than TBA people really think trusting TBA to ensure rigorous grant requirements are met at the risk of taxpayer repayment is wise, warranted or financially prudent.
And that brings us to what troubles us the most: This is obviously a serious conflict of interest. Council is about to make a million-dollar decision that will directly and significantly benefit the personal and professional interests of several of the people making it.
The Chair of the TURA Board - aka the Mayor of Talent Darby Ayers-Flood - is also the Executive Director of the nonprofit that would operate the Gateway Hub and presumably stands to gain the most from redirecting this money. Remember from our last article, running a food-centric business incubator is her professional goal. This is about more than even a consistent paycheck for the Mayor, it’s about making her dream come true. So perhaps she’s not exactly a neutral party in this decision?
Two other TURA Board/City Council members are paid by the TBA nonprofit as well. All three of their careers seem likely to benefit more from a pro-Gateway Hub outcome than a pro-infrastructure one, and endorsing the project at this stage and rerouting funds to boost its development sure seems like it would help them secure their own roles with TBA in the years ahead.
One could argue that they aren’t deciding on who will manage the Gateway Hub right now, but simply whether the City should redirect funding to help build it for whomever does end up running it. But that hypothetical doesn’t really hold up to the reality of the situation.
City Manager Campbell stated in the TURA meeting that the Gateway Hub management model is going to be a nonprofit, one selected by this very same group of people.
“I think the working assumption of all of us is that such a building would likely be operated by a nonprofit entity that the City and the Board would select. And then that nonprofit entity would also be working with incubator customers. So we would have limited direct control.
-City Manager Alex Campbell, June 18 TURA Meeting
Given the structure of power in Talent and the unsettlingly close alignment between City Council and the Talent Business Alliance, it’s hard to imagine any other nonprofit being even considered. Anyone familiar with the political dynamics in Talent will recognize that this deck is already very much stacked. No way is anyone other than the Mayor & TBA getting this gig. It was her idea and she has an outsized role in shaping what does or does not happen in Talent.
An Abundance of Conflicts
The three individuals paid by TBA should not be anywhere near the deliberations on this issue. They are not neutral or unbiased public officials weighing a community investment, but personal stakeholders in the outcome, and their being part of the decision-making process undermines the integrity of the entire Gateway project.
And yet, none of them recused themselves from this important discussion. Why not?
It seems like every Council meeting these days starts with a declaration of a potential conflict of interest by multiple people, but then the meetings go on and the system continues to operate like it’s all business as usual. As if this is just how things work. They tell us that there’s a conflict and then do it anyway, again and again. That’s because it’s a baseline rule of OGEC to do so. They have to or they would be in violation.
Talent’s current crop of Councilors, or at least the ones with a few years in office with this Mayor, operate under a very specific understanding of what “conflict of interest” means. It's not an ethical term for them, it's a legal designation.
The definitional difference between Actual and Potential Conflict of Interest is about how certain it is that there is that a member will be affected financially in a positive or negative way by the outcome of a decision, and the real world impact of the difference is significant.
The email response the Mayor received from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) to her questions the day before the April meeting explains why the difference matters:
Given the definition of the term, a conflict of interest doesn’t actually arise until you are in a position to take an action or make a decision or make a recommendation in your position as Mayor that could or would have a financial impact on you or your relatives or a business with which you are associated.
If it’s a potential conflict of interest, publicly announcing the nature of the conflict of interest is all that is required. Once the conflict of interest declaration is made, the public official can proceed with taking actions, discussing or making recommendations on the issue/agenda item out of which the conflict arises. [ORS 244.120(2)(a)].
If it’s an actual conflict of interest, once the public announcement regarding the nature of the conflict is made, the public official is prohibited from participating as a public official in any discussion or debate on the issue out of which the conflict arises, or from voting on the issue. [ORS 244.120(2)(b)(A)]…
-Casey Fenstermaker, Compliance & Enforcement Coordinator at OGEC in an email to Mayor Ayers-Flood, April 15, 2025.
These OGEC guidelines are being treated by some of our Council like a map of loopholes rather than a baseline for ethical governance. As long as they don’t technically violate the law, they believe they're fully in the clear and seem proud of themselves for even checking first.
But OGEC rules aren’t meant to be the gold standard of behavior in office. They’re supposed to serve as the minimum threshold for avoiding formal charges.
We’ve lost count of how many times a Council member has justified their declaration by citing recent communication with OGEC. On the surface that might look like diligence, but what does it really say about them? In a government culture built on transparency and public trust, officials shouldn’t need to call the state ethics board every time they face a decision that could benefit them personally. They should already be guided by a strong internal standard where integrity and public perception matter as much as legal compliance.
Do they consult OGEC so frequently because of the oft-cited “abundance of caution?” Or is it because they operate in such a tightly controlled circle of overlapping interests that they’re constantly coming up against the line and need to make sure they won’t technically step over it? Maybe in a healthier system they wouldn’t need to ask so often, because the people in charge wouldn’t be so personally invested in the outcomes of so many of Council’s decisions.
About These Conflict Declarations
The instances in which our Councilors do decide to declare conflicts are incoherent and inconsistent. There is no predictability to it, no way for the public to know ahead of time whether they will be voting or not, even when we have all the available information. It may simply depend on factors we’re just not privy to. Perhaps which conflict to declare is more of a politically strategic decision than any kind of real ethical consideration?
For example, take the April 16, 2025 TURA/Council Study Session (YouTubeVideo here) where a civilian business owner and member of TBA first presented the TBA’s vision for the Gateway Hub. Here’s how that meeting started:
COUNCILOR PARE MILLER: So I am needing to declare an actual conflict of interest for this agenda item. I'll be recusing myself from this item which will be pretty much the entire presentation And this is because I work for the Talent Business Alliance as a paid employee. So with an actual conflict it means that I will recuse myself and not participate in discussion and not vote and I know that I may stay at the dais, but I'm going to be sitting in the audience or possibly in the next room because it's such a full house.
COUNCILOR BYERS: Yes I also have a conflict of interest because I currently have a contract with the Talent Business Alliance as an independent contractor, so this means that I cannot participate in discussion, ask questions or participate in a vote. I checked with the Oregon Ethics Commission and I am not required to step off the dais and I may or may not depending on if we have the room.
MAYOR AYERS-FLOOD: I do want to just remind everybody that this is a study session and there won't be any decisions tonight…
..So that just is also another layer to add to this I also will be declaring recusing myself. If I were to act tonight it would be an actual conflict of interest because I am an employee with Talent Business Alliance.
…It's interesting I just want to add that the Ethics Commission is a little bit of a moving target in that they add to their rules and regulations on this on a regular basis. So I too reached out just for the most recent rules and regulation and I got a very thorough explanation of conflicts and when to declare them and when the actual conflicts happen and that would be if I stayed up here and I acted on this item I would, that's at the point that the conflict would be caused. So for that reason I will be stepping down from the dais even though I don't need to. I just am not, according to the rules, to act on this item.
BYERS:… I also followed up with the Ethics Commission on this point and asking if it was any sort of conflict for me to Chair just the order of business through this study session and I was told it was not as long as I did not comment on any information that was shared today or ask any questions or contribute to the discussion.
-The TBA Crew fully recusing themselves from a presentation Study Session, April 16, 2025.
Some interesting things about these statements that jump out at us-
First, this frequency of contact with OGEC by multiple Board members supports our argument that these folks are using the agency to determine which loopholes they can cite to justify their own conflicts on a case-by-case, meeting-by-meeting basis. As opposed to, for example, just not participating when they know it’s ethically questionable out of respect for their constituents.
Second, nowhere in all those many words does anyone explain how this is an Actual conflict of interest. (It’s not). They're supposed to explain the nature of the conflict, not list off what they are supposed to do about it.
Third, the Mayor is misleading us when she says the rules are “a moving target.” They’re not. They’re relatively stable and are only changed when the Oregon Legislature amends them, which is infrequent and usually happens during regular sessions every few years (2024 was the last revision). Changes to the rules are not made as casually as she is implying. Frequent contact with OGEC is not necessary for her to be able to keep up, it’s far more likely that she’s just constantly brushing up against ethically problematic areas because she's involved in the leadership of so many overlapping local organizations.
And finally, given the fact that this was a Study Session and no vote would be held or decision made, it’s especially peculiar that all 3 of the TBA-paid Councilors fully recused themselves with Actual Conflicts of Interest.
From Talent’s own Council Rules of Procedure:
Remember OGEC’s rule that a Conflict of Interest applies only when an “Official Action” is to be taken. Isn’t that impossible in a Study Session? What are we missing?
Aside from that detail, it was an early discussion in the TBA Gateway Hub sequence of council events, still sitting in the theoretical phase, that was guaranteed to not end in a decisive vote and no money was directly at stake. This was before staff had even informed Council that the Wagner St. extension was off the table and that extra ~million dollars was in need of a new way to get spent.
Read the TURA Staff Report for the April Study Session for more information.
So then why did they consider their TBA connection an Actual Conflict of Interest for the April Study Session, but the June meeting - one in which a highly consequential vote was possible concerning directing a lot of money to the development of TBA’s project - got a quick and dismissive Potential Conflict without any recusals?
This was the Mayor’s conflict statement at the June 18th TURA meeting:
At this time, I'd like to declare a potential conflict of interest. I'm employed by the Talent Business Alliance and Talent Business Alliance may in the near future present a proposal to the Urban Renewal Agency regarding the Gateway Hub.
-Talent Mayor & TURA Board Chair Ayers-Flood at the TURA meeting June 18, 2025, before advocating in favor of redirecting the City’s funds to the project her organization may at some point present a proposal on, maybe.
And then there’s Councilor Paré-Miller’s distant shrug of a conflict:
Yes, I am also an employee of the Talent Business Alliance, so I am declaring a potential conflict. And like the Chair said, that is just because Talent Business Alliance is the organization who originally presented this Gateway Hub concept to this board.
-TURA Board and City Council Member Paré-Miller, TURA meeting June 18, 2025, before agreeing with everything the Chair/Mayor - her boss at TBA - had already said on the topic.
These both look to us like strategic understatements that frame direct, serious, consequential conflicts of interest as some hypothetical future possibility based on a loose connection. We think that disclosing these conflicts in this way minimized a valid public concern and was a disingenuous attempt to downplay the financial ties already well established.
But beyond the cringey performative element, it also makes no sense why for this meeting their positions at TBA were considered only a Potential Conflict while the previous meeting they were all Actual. Could it be that they get together and decide beforehand what kind of conflict they will declare for the meeting in order to maximize their impact on the important decisions, avoid violations and appear ethically diligent, all at the same time?
In other words, are they declaring Actual conflicts when it’s convenient to do so because nothing meaningful is on the line and it makes them look good to sit it out? But then when the stakes are high and their personal interests are actually impacted, the Actual gets inexplicably downgraded to Potential so that they get to stay in the room to debate and vote? If so, they’re doing it all backwards; the exact opposite way as what political leaders with a strong moral compass would do. But hey at least no laws are being broken, right?
But that’s all speculation on our part about what may be happening behind closed doors. It’s also possible that they’re just really, really confused.
Beyond Compliance
Earlier this month we at TCW were informed that Ana Byers Consulting was awarded the City contract to manage the 2025 Harvest Festival. Yeah. Same Ana Byers from City Council and TURA. Same Ana Byers who TBA hired to manage last year's Harvest Festival with the City’s money. Given the obvious ethical concerns with this, we decided to reach out to Councilor Byers to see what she had to say about it. Here is the exchange:
Hello Councilor Byers,
In the interest of transparency and accountability, we believe it is important for our community to understand the justification for awarding this contract to a sitting member of the City Council. As you are no doubt aware, such arrangements deviate from standard municipal contracting practices.
What was the process by which your company was selected by the City to coordinate the event? Were you aware of any competitive bidding process or opportunity for any other qualified vendors to apply? If not, why was the public not informed and invited to apply? Especially given that there was enough planning time this year to bring more interested vendors to the table, unlike in 2024.
Was there any public notice, agenda item, or meeting discussion where this contract was presented or discussed?
Are you concerned about the appearance of an actual conflict of interest, or misuse of public office in this case, even if the arrangement is technically legal?
How do you respond to concerns that the lack of both public awareness and competition for this contract indicates normalized insider access to City funds?
What steps, if any, do you believe the City should take in the future to prevent preferential treatment toward elected officials or their affiliated businesses?
We appreciate your time in addressing these questions. As a nonpartisan civic integrity group, our goal is to ensure that all city decisions (especially those involving public funds going to elected officials!) are made in a manner that upholds transparency and accountability standards.
-Talent Council Watch, email to Councilor Byers June 12, 2025
Her response:
Hello,
I encourage you to approach the City Manager with your questions about the procurement process for independent contractor services, including those of the Talent Harvest Festival coordinator.
As for myself, prior to responding to the RFP for this project on 6/2/25, I contacted the Oregon Government Ethics Commission on 5/27/25 to make sure I have and will continue to follow the necessary requirements.
Ana Byers
-Response to TCW email inquiry, June 13, 2025
It’s unfortunate she didn’t take the opportunity to answer any of the questions asked, we’re genuinely interested in her perspective on this stuff. But the reason to include her tepid response here is that it is very much on brand with today’s theme of doing the bare minimum to avoid legal trouble. They do that with more than just conflict declarations at meetings! This ‘as long as it’s not illegal’ attitude permeates many facets of our City government. Minutes, meeting access, public notices, subcommittees, public input, City contracts. You name it, Talent does only what it has to for it.
Which underscores the need to build better systems of oversight for Council, with far more robust checks and balances. Because without those, this compliance-only culture will keep dominating our democratic processes and Talent will continue to be governed by people regularly attempting to game the state’s rules in their favor with zero consequences other than a way-too-long post in an Anonymous Blog.
Talent Council Watch would like to encourage members of Talent City Council to propose the establishment of an independent ethics committee to help address these types of common issues. A group composed of regular citizens with the authority to review conflicts of interest, evaluate concerns raised by the public, and issue formal recommendations, and that isn’t appointed by the Mayor like every other committee is. Right now there’s simply no meaningful, accessible mechanism for accountability when our elected officials are in the position to benefit personally from the decisions they make, albeit within the boundaries of the law. Something has to change. We deserve better than this.
The same tiny circle of people controls pretty much everything in Talent - the access to information, the narrative, the committees, the funding, and all of the decision-making - making transparency nearly impossible without a more local and immediate level of ethical oversight. If Talent leadership cares about restoring public trust after years of discouraging missteps, a committee like this would be a good place to start. We can assure you this proposal would have significant public support. We can all see that self-policing isn’t working, and Council essentially relying on the honor system for conflicts of interest has gotten us to the ethically questionable place we are now with the TBA Gateway Hub.
-Talent Council Watch
Corrections, questions, tips and comments are welcome! Send us an email at talentcouncilwatch@gmail.com
DISCLAIMER: Talent Council Watch is an independent and non-partisan watchdog publication offering investigative commentary, criticism, and occasional jokes about Talent, Oregon’s government. All content is based on public records, public meetings, email communication, and firsthand observation. Opinions herein are protected speech under the First Amendment. Public officials who are concerned about being written about by TCW should consider behaving more ethically.