By all appearances, Maywood Park is a quiet, tight-knit community. But beneath its tree-lined streets, a political storm has been brewing. In the past two months, a wave of public resignations, legal threats, and growing frustration has revealed deep fractures in the city’s leadership—fractures many now trace back to Mayor Michelle Montross.
On April 7, Councilor Aika Topolski issued a rare and striking public statement, describing a toxic culture of obstruction and hostility within the council. She named both Mayor Montross and Councilor Agnes Hall as key contributors to the dysfunction, and backed her claims with specific examples: repeated dismissals of her role, hostile emails ahead of meetings, and an aggressive outburst during a work session where Hall yelled at her to “go ahead and walk out”—with Montross taking no action to intervene.
Rather than speak in vague terms, Topolski laid out concrete proposals: that council work sessions be recorded and made public; that members participate in ethical leadership and workplace respect training; and that the council reinstate two meetings per month or hold monthly town halls with structured work sessions. She made clear that without those safeguards, she would not meet privately with either Montross or Hall.
And if those basic standards could not be met, Topolski said, it was time for one—or both—to step down.
What followed wasn’t reform—it was a series of setbacks. Missed opportunities, mixed signals, and a breakdown in trust that left many Maywood Park residents searching for answers. In the days after Topolski’s statement, Councilor Hall briefly posted an apology to the city website, only for it to be quietly taken down. A budget meeting was held on April 21, but for the first time in recent memory, public comment was capped at 20 minutes. Mayor Montross used up a significant portion of that time herself, leaving many residents cut off or unable to speak at all. Then, without explanation, the May 5 council meeting was canceled and pushed to May 19.
Meanwhile, something even more consequential was unfolding behind the scenes.
On May 9, long-serving Council President Mike Reynolds resigned, citing “a lack of respectful communication, collaboration, and responsiveness” from some of his peers. The resignation was never formally acknowledged by the city—it was omitted from the website, excluded from the following meeting agenda, not brought to a vote, and never communicated through any official channels. Many residents only learned of his departure days later when Reynolds posted in a private Facebook group. In that post, he explained that he had “made the difficult decision to step down from the Maywood Park City Council” because he could “no longer align [himself] with the current leadership.” He closed by thanking residents for their trust, writing, “My sincere thanks to each citizen of this wonderful community who entrusted me with your vote. I will continue to be an active community member.”
By the time the May 19 meeting rolled around, the council was once again unable to conduct business due to the absence of Montross and Hall. Rather than let the evening go to waste, Councilors Topolski and Akers held an open community forum. Mike Reynolds also attended—not as a councilor, but as a long-time, active community member. For the first time in months, residents had a chance to voice their concerns—and what emerged was explosive.
Councilor Topolski presented documentation of inappropriate communication between council members. A resident raised concerns about the mishandling of the 2022 election. Another attendee publicly disclosed that Mayor Montross had a criminal record for theft and check fraud, and that her partner—who held several volunteer roles within the city, including on the budget committee, park watch, and playing Santa at the annual tree lighting—was a registered sex offender. It was later confirmed that his offense involved the abuse of minors.
Concerns did not stop at personal conduct. Long-simmering procedural issues were suddenly thrust into the light. Many residents spoke of feeling dismissed or disrespected by the council for years. Several pointed to inconsistent enforcement of rules, especially regarding public comment and meeting access. Others raised concerns about Montross’s use of city funds for personal expenses, even when reimbursed.
In the weeks leading up to the May 27 council meeting, new information surfaced about how stipends had been handled under Mayor Montross’s leadership—raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability. A 2018 city resolution established equal compensation for all councilors: $100 per month, paid in two $600 installments. But Montross quietly altered that structure without council discussion or a new resolution, redirecting a larger share to herself and then–Council President Mike Reynolds.
While a couple council members worked tirelessly to stabilize operations, the leadership crisis deepened—complicated by last-minute resignations, legal ambiguity, and competing narratives.
At the May 27 meeting, Councilor Reynolds formally rescinded his resignation, which the council accepted following guidance from the city attorney. That same evening, Mayor Montross, Councilor Hall, along with all five members of the budget committee abruptly submitted their own resignations—Hall specifically citing what she called a “mean girl clique.” The council, caught off guard, accepted the resignations but noted that they had been submitted just before the meeting, leaving no time to prepare for the fallout. Given that each budget committee member had been appointed during Montross’ term, the coordinated nature of the departures raised immediate concerns about political alignment and intent.
Just days later, an anonymous post appeared in the Friends of Maywood Park Facebook group. It claimed that Michelle Montross had resigned under “duress” and had abruptly changed her mind. The post did not address Councilor Hall or the five budget committee members who also resigned that night, raising more questions about individual motives and why all the resignations happened at the same time.
By the June 5 work session, the remaining three councilors were putting in long hours to keep city operations on track. But persistent inventory issues, unclear contracting processes, and intentionally opaque administrative practices revealed just how much had been allowed to operate without oversight.
Questions also surfaced about unclear financial records, including unexplained expenditures and purchasing decisions made during Montross’ time in office. Councilors noted lack of financial protocols, exposes the city to liability, and raises serious concerns about oversight and accountability. Several councilors acknowledged that they were still uncovering transactions and decisions that had not been shared with the full council, expressing frustration over how often they had been excluded from critical information.
These operational challenges were felt in real time during the meeting itself. Audio problems made it difficult for in-person attendees to hear much of the discussion, reportedly due to the missing speaker equipment. Until recently, the mayor’s partner had access to the storage shed where such items were kept, while sitting councilors did not. Despite the technical hurdles, the council remained focused on moving forward. They turned their attention to planning the upcoming Fourth of July celebration, discussing a return to the community picnic, reducing reliance on outside catering, and encouraging greater neighborhood participation. Residents were invited to share ideas or volunteer by emailing the city directly.
Even as the council worked to re-engage the community, a more complicated issue loomed: whether the recent resignations could legally be reversed. At least six residents have applied to fill the two vacant council seats, but that process is now on hold as attorneys debate the legality of rescinding resignations that were submitted, accepted, and publicly documented.
Montross, now represented by legal counsel, is invoking an Oregon law arguing it allows her to retract her resignation days after it was publicly submitted and formally accepted. The city attorney has firmly rejected that interpretation, stating that once a resignation is accepted in a public meeting, it is final. Hall has also requested reinstatement, it’s unclear if she has retained legal representation.
Multiple residents have spoken out against Montorss’ reversal request, viewing the legal maneuvering as an attempt to stall progress and drain already limited city resources.
Perhaps the most poignant moment at the recent work session came when Councilor Jim Akers, with over 25 years of service, delivered a candid and unflinching statement about the toll of years of dysfunction and conflict. He recounted a pattern of personal attacks, unfounded accusations, and ongoing bullying by Mayor Montross that significantly hindered his ability to serve effectively. Though his words reflected deep frustration and fatigue, they also made clear his resolve to prevent such behavior from continuing. His remarks echoed earlier concerns from Councilor Topolski and Councilor Reynolds, both of whom had described Montross’ conduct as corrosive to public trust, council cohesion, and the basic functioning of city government.
What began as a call for accountability and better governance has evolved into a prolonged and difficult chapter for Maywood Park. It continues to test the city’s capacity for resilience, clarity, and collective leadership.
The Bottom Line
In the time following Councilor Topolski’s April 7 statement, none of her requests were addressed by Mayor Montross or Councilor Hall. Instead, the city experienced a wave of meeting cancellations, abrupt resignations, and attempted retractions that deepened public frustration. Once Montross stepped down, the remaining councilors began working to implement the transparency and structure that had long been obstructed. Still, the emerging progress now faces a new threat. A former mayor’s attempt to rescind her resignation, backed by legal threats, continues to divide the community and stall the city’s ability to move forward.
This isn’t just about a single meeting or resignation. It’s about whether Maywood Park moves forward with leadership grounded in transparency, respect, and accountability; or reverts to the patterns that have undermined public trust.
Take Action
In Maywood Park, connection and shared responsibility run deep. After months of disruption, residents are ready to rebuild trust and refocus on what matters—with leaders who listen, communicate openly, and serve the whole community.
Recent meetings have drawn former councilors back into the room—including Robin Wisner, Miriam Berman, and others—signaling that this moment matters to those who’ve long helped shape Maywood Park. And with six residents stepping up to fill vacant seats, it’s clear that Maywood Park is moving forward with renewed energy and purpose.
The choice is clear: let’s move forward—together, and with intention.