After four-month probe, investigators say Lincoln County commissioner Miller violated one personnel rule but did not harass staff

 

By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews

Lincoln County Commissioner Casey Miller violated personnel rules by publicly disclosing confidential issues concerning the county’s top administrator but did not bully or harass staff with a statement or questions during September and October public meetings, outside investigators have found.

After a four-month investigation by a Portland law firm, the attorneys could not conclude – but said it was likely – that Miller also violated personnel rules by making comments that could discredit the county.

The county hired outside attorneys to investigate Miller after at least two people accused him of bullying and creating a toxic work environment by his statements and questions during Sept. 18 and Oct. 2 public meetings.

Miller was first informed of three potential personnel rule violations and the investigation Sept. 19. The probe was extended to include the Oct. 2 commission meeting when Miller tried then to ask questions about the investigation process but was cut off by county counsel Kristin Yuille and commissioners Kaety Jacobson and Claire Hall walked out.

Miller is no newbie to the county, its policies or procedures. Although he was elected to his first four-year term in November 2022 and took office in January 2023, he had worked as the county’s public information officer for 15 years.

During his 30-minute September statement Miller – who was the commission chair at the time — laid out a litany of issues that he felt commissioners were not addressing and topics he had been unable to get placed on meeting agendas. These included unsuccessful attempts to evaluate Tim Johnson after 2½ years as the county’s first full-time administrator and mentioning a potential departure, concerns about setting up a state-required drug deflection program, possible open meetings law violations, and Yuille’s role in administrative procedures during Johnson’s absences over the summer.

The county’s Sept. 19 notice told Miller he was being investigated for three potential personnel rule violations. The second notice Nov. 20 said he was under scrutiny for six, including retaliation, harassment, bullying, personnel disclosures, rules on code of ethics and conduct, and use of personal equipment and communication devices.

At a cost of up to $440 an hour, the county hired the Portland legal firm of Miller Nash to investigate Miller’s actions during the two meetings. In the report released Friday, attorneys substantially narrowed what they investigated to include county rules that:

• Prohibit the disclosure of confidential personnel information;
• Prohibit bullying or disrespectful behavior towards commissioners and county staff; and
• Prohibit conduct that reflects poorly on the county or were for personal gain.

The attorneys interviewed 15 people and concluded that Miller:

• Violated county personnel rules Sept. 18 by disclosing confidential information about Johnson and again on Oct. 2 by trying to discuss employee complaints against him;
• Did not engage in prohibited bullying or disrespectful conduct;
• “Likely” violated personnel rules against discrediting the county and acting against its best interests.

Their report did not address other possible rule violations outlined in the county’s Nov. 20 memo to Miller.

Because Miller is an elected official, there is no disciplinary action the county can take except for Hall and Jacobson to vote to censure him. A censure is a formal statement of disapproval in the form of a resolution but carries no penalties. Jacobson declined comment Sunday; Hall did not respond to a request for comment.

Miller at the end of Wednesday’s regularly scheduled commission meeting he apologized to county staff.

“My sincere apologies to the employees of our organization, our county administrator, my immediate team and our management team for any discomfort and distress they have experienced resulting from comments I have made in public,” Miller said in a weekend email to YachatsNews. “It was not my intent, nor will it ever be my intent to willfully harm or make people feel unsafe. In my effort to protect the county it was never my intent to hurt our reputation. I want to be accountable, open to learning and correcting my mistakes. I will continue to support our organization and represent our constituents with respect and conviction.”

Turmoil and missteps

The county’s top elected and administrative offices have been in turmoil for months.

This includes:

• Miller’s organizational frustrations and his restrictions from using his office or communicating since Sept. 19, even as commission chair;
• The hotly contested and razor-thin November re-election of six-term incumbent Hall;
• Jacobson’s surprise resignation effective Feb. 14;
• Questions about Johnson’s performance and the inability of commissioners conduct an evaluation;
• Yuille’s role outside of providing legal advice; and
• Disputes or tension with three other elected officials including former sheriff Curtis Landers, district attorney Jenna Wallace and presiding circuit court judge Sheryl Bachart.

There is also the unusual release of the Miller investigation.

The county teased the Friday, Jan. 17 release of the report with a two-page email to the media two days earlier containing portions of 11 witness statements and saying erroneously that the investigation concluded that Miller had created a toxic workplace environment.

There was no such conclusion in the investigator’s 15-page report – and Miller told YachatsNews he will ask the county to retract the statement and issue a public apology.

Despite repeated witness comments in the report criticizing Miller’s conduct during the September and October meetings, investigators said “Commissioner Miller has no known record or history of bullying or disrespectful conduct; multiple witnesses consistently stated that his conduct at the Sept. 18 board meeting was out of character.”

While the county said attorneys interviewed 15 people, it is not clear if all of them were participants in the Sept. 18 or Oct. 2 meetings, if they were in the audience those days, or had simply gone online to see a recording of the meetings – as some indicated. The report quoted witness’ comments 46 times to bolster its three findings and overall conclusion, but did not indicate which ones were from the same 15 people they interviewed.

The investigators’ report also insinuated that Miller was involved in attracting “an unusually large audience” to the Sept. 18 meeting “including supporters of the sheriff and district attorney’s deflection model and an opponent in a highly-contested election against Commissioner Hall, raising suspicions of political motivations that were not necessarily in the best interests of the county.”

But investigators never tried to interview Landers, Wallace or Bachart.

After the report’s release Friday, all three told YachatsNews that they agreed among themselves to attend the Sept. 18 meeting and use the public comment period to express concerns about the setup of the drug deflection program and their inability to get a discussion of it on the commission’s agenda.

“I was surprised not to be interviewed,” Wallace said. “I had a lot of information and perspective that could have helped.”

Landers, who took the unusual stance of supporting Hall’s opponent Rick Beasley in the November election before his retirement this month, told YachatsNews “none of us got contacted and none of us knew what was going on.”

“I was never contacted by an investigator related to any investigation,” Bachart said in an email to YachatsNews.

The investigation’s findings

The investigators’ clearest finding was that Miller violated the county’s personnel rules by disclosing confidential employee information concerning Johnson, including the administrator’s medical leave and potential departure “topics that should have been handled confidentially in executive session and are exempt from public disclosure …”

Attorneys wrote that Miller acknowledged in his interview that “these details should not have been aired in a public forum” and that he knew an executive session was “the appropriate mechanism for addressing sensitive employment matters.”

Attorneys also said Miller violated county policy by seeking to discuss employee complaints against him during the Oct. 2 board meeting.

“His belief that no violation occurred because the identity of the complainant(s) remained confidential and anonymous is not consistent with county policy,” the attorneys wrote. “Further, his public remarks are potentially intimidating and threatening and could have interfered with an ongoing investigation.”

Attorneys concluded that Miller’s disclosure of confidential employee information “is a clear policy breach and reveals a critical lapse in judgment and reasonable care that may have adverse implication for the county’s credibility and erode trust among staff.”

But the investigators also found that Miller did not engage in prohibited bullying or disrespectful conduct. Attorneys said the county’s rules define “bullying” as repeated, intentional intimidation causing risk to health or safety.

“The evidence does not meet that threshold,” the report said. “While we find that (name redacted) genuinely felt disrespected, Commissioner Miller’s statements — though potentially thoughtless and poorly phrased — do not constitute bullying or harassment under the county’s policy standards.”

The attorneys also said that when Miller raised his voice to Yuille during the Sept. 18 meeting to say he was giving Bachart additional time for her comments “… we find that he could have expressed himself in a more courteous manner, we do not find his remarks to be sufficiently disrespectful to give rise to a violation of county policies.”

In their third finding, the investigators wrote that Miller “likely violated” personnel rules against discrediting the county and acting against its best interests.

“Commissioner Miller raised concerns about possible serial meetings, public meeting law violations by staff and fellow commissioners, and flaws in evaluation process for county administrator in a public forum, portraying the county as disorganized, dysfunctional, and engaging in potential misconduct,” the attorneys wrote. “Some of his concerns appear to be genuine based on evidence of prior emails related to compliance with  public meeting laws, and he may have sincerely believed that a public forum was the only viable option for a full discussion to address the issues raised. But his decision to publicly air multiple sensitive topics in this manner discredited the county, which were further amplified by subsequent media coverage.”

The attorneys also referenced the Sept. 18 board meeting, which had a large audience supporting the sheriff and district attorney’s deflection recommendations but which also included Hall’s general election opponent “raising suspicions of political motivations that were not necessarily in the best interests of the county.”

Miller disputed that characterization by investigators.

“Commissioner Miller maintains he had no intention of influencing the election or orchestrating any political advantage to Rick Beasley,” the attorneys wrote. “However, we do not find it credible that Commissioner Miller was unaware of the potential political impacts of his report, which were obvious and foreseeable.”

Investigators said Miller acknowledged that his report could potentially reflect poorly on the county to some people but not to others. Investigators said Miller, in retrospect, would “not change the substance or content of his report but may have changed the volume of what he put into a single report.”

But that’s where the attorneys said they could not definitively prove that Miller violated county policies against discrediting the county or acting against its best interests.

“Ultimately, even if some of his concerns were valid, the method and forum used to communicate them were arguably detrimental to the County’s reputation and image,” the attorneys said. “While there is no direct evidence of malicious intent, the report does appear to have been motivated at least in part by political interests; and in any event, intent is not a necessary element under the applicable county personnel rules.”

Miller’s public response

In a long statement to YachatsNews, Miller apologized for releasing “inappropriate or confidential information while trying to ensure fair treatment of our county administrator …” But he also said he does not believe the requests for an executive session to discuss Johnson’s evaluations were inappropriate and that personnel rules need to re-examined to account for the administrator’s position created in 2021.

Miller also questioned the investigator’s finding that he released confidential information Oct. 2 when he asked about the complaint process because the human resources director was not responding to his emails.

“How is it that my public announcement of my investigation is a release of confidential information when I feel I am being unfairly treated and have been turned away by my own board?” Miller said. “I recommend a work session or executive session to grapple with this question and to update our personnel rules as necessary.”

Miller also said his statement and questions during the Sept. 18 meeting was an attempt “to engage with my fellow commissioners regarding my questions and concerns” because under Oregon’s open meetings law it is illegal for any two of the three to meet privately.

“I hoped and expected that they would be proactive and supportive to help me resolve my uncertainties,” his statement said. “Instead, the following day I was accused of harassment and bullying.”

Miller also questioned what he termed “the mixed message” of the public release of his investigation and how it might apply to other county employees.

“I don’t want them to think this release sets a precedent of what they should expect of all other employee investigations,” he said. “It does suggest to me that the commissioners should further discuss the definitions and use of confidentiality as defined in our personnel rules and how it possibly should differ for elected officials.”

But Miller also apologized to any employees who may have been hurt by his Sept. 18 comments and said he is looking forward to returning to work.

“I ask that the county support my ability to have conversations or mediation with any employees who may have doubted my intentions or may have lost trust in me during the last few months,” Miller said. “I remain committed to their fair and safe treatment as employees of the county and expect that our leadership team will move forward and be proactive in resolving any uncertainty.”

• Quinton Smith is the editor of YachatsNews.com and can be reached at YachatsNews@gmail.com

To read the investigator’s letter to Lincoln County, go here

To read the investigators’ report and witness comments, go here