SL City Council tables proposal to cut mayor's salary, for now

S0AP LAKE — Soap Lake city council members on Wednesday agreed to temporarily table a proposal to cut Mayor Peter Sharp’s monthly pay from $600 to zero while allegations of misconduct on his part continue to be investigated.

Sharp disputed their authority to suspend his salary stipend. He said both state law and the city’s own municipal code do not allow an elected incumbent’s salary to be adjusted during the incumbent’s current term in office. Such an adjustment could only apply to the office holder in a future term, he contended.

City attorney Julie Norton of Wenatchee disagreed, saying the council is responsible for establishing the mayor’s salary and members had the legal authority to amend it. The restriction on salary adjustments only applied to the council members themselves during their current terms, said Norton.

The monthly stipend for the mayor’s position, which is considered part-time, was approved by ordinance years ago by a prior council.

But to allow for additional research, council members Kayleen Bryson, Susan Carson, John Carlson, and Judith Gorman voted to table their draft ordinance on the salary reduction until their May 6 meeting. A fifth councilman, Andrew Arnold — who has previously called for the mayor to resign — was absent from last night’s session.

Language in the draft ordinance refers to formal investigations by the Grant County Sheriff’s Office and the Washington State Auditor’s Office now underway against Sharp. There are allegations that he has secretly recorded employees and gifted public funds or made unauthorized expenditures without council approval.

If adopted as currently written, the pay reduction would remain in place until the city council approves a separate ordinance to restore or “otherwise modify” the mayor’s salary. That consideration will hinge on the investigations yielding no findings of misconduct or criminal conduct by the mayor, and a council determination that “circumstances which gave rise to this ordinance” have been resolved in “the best interest of the City and its residents.”

Sharp said the proposal is the latest effort by the council and attorney to force him out of office following his interim appointment in August 2024 and election last November to an unexpired two-year term which began this January.

Earlier this month, council members approved a resolution which revoked the mayor’s access to city bank accounts and credit card use and directed city staff to preserve all physical and electronic documents involving Sharp during his mayoral tenure.

In March, the council adopted another resolution, largely symbolic, citing no-confidence in the mayor. Nine city employees subsequently submitted a public letter supporting the council’s position.

Last night, Bryson — Soap Lake’s mayor pro tem — said the council’s actions were not personal. “We’re trying to protect the city,” she said. “We have to take (the allegations) seriously.”

Both Bryson and Carlson said they have also heard comments that Sharp has not been taking calls or responding to public requests for information on grants, planning, and other matters.

“The rest of us are picking up (those) responsibilities,” said Bryson. “If he’s not here (at city hall), why is he being paid?”

Sharp said he previously spent long hours addressing city business, but was now being criticized for doing too little. And, he said, he does “reach out to people” but referenced that his previous city email address had been locked.

Norton said the address was locked to protect the investigations — seemingly alluding to concerns that information might be deleted. Soap Lake’s technology services are maintained by Grant County and Norton said Sharp still could make public records requests for any emails on the old address.

“There’s no legal issue. They can forward all old emails. It’s not a big deal,” said the attorney, noting that Sharp remains as mayor, still has access to city hall, and was not being “dethroned.”

Sharp, in response, said he “disagreed 100 percent. That is exactly what you and the council are trying to do.”

But Carson said the mayor had been withholding information from auditors and ignoring others. “Don’t play the victim,” she said.

Carlson later said the salary reduction proposal is “probably symbolic,” but added there has been “a lot of disruption” during Sharp’s time as mayor.

Gorman felt the ongoing public debate was inappropriate and “not moving toward a solution.” She asked Sharp to use his new designated email address, saying, “You are still the elected official. You need to work it out.”

During a public comment period, local resident Nancy Miller said she “had no idea what the fight is about,” but asked, “Do we want to be known as a three-ring circus?” She said council members should determine “what the public thinks,” adding “Be mindful. It’s good to be polite and respectful.”

Another resident, Carla Adkins, whose husband is a city employee, said he had “minimal awareness … and no involvement” in her ensuing comments. With that caveat, Adkins said the mayor had not acknowledged mistakes on his part or taken action to restore public trust. “Instead, what we are seeing is continued denial, deflection and division,” said Adkins, who commended the council and city staff for taking “extraordinary steps to regain basic operational control” over Soap Lake’s finances, communications, and functions.

In a separate, but related matter, another local resident, Danielle Hubley-Taylor, filed a petition Wednesday morning in Grant County Superior Court seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to bar the council’s draft ordinance.

Hubley-Taylor said she was bringing her action — filed pro se, that is, without an attorney — as “a concerned citizen and taxpayer.” She similarly cited Sharp’s contention that the council’s proposal was in violation of state law and the city’s municipal codes.

Her request for a temporary restraining order was denied later in the morning by Superior Court commissioner Tom Middleton, who wrote there was “an insufficient basis to grant relief” and that “due process” was required to notify the affected parties — both the city and the council members.