By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews
NEWPORT – An attempt by Lincoln County commission chair Claire Hall and county counsel Kristin Yuille to put Hall in charge of the commission’s work and departmental oversight ran into opposition and some skepticism from two other commissioners Wednesday.
The attempt came during the last meeting of commissioner Kaety Jacobson, who is quitting Feb. 14 with two years left on her term. Until Hall and Miller appoint her replacement, that leaves the commission with two members struggling to work with each other and departments overseen by a county administrator who could be departing soon.
In addition, Miller is still not being allowed to work in county offices following an outside investigation that found he released confidential employee information last September but that he did not bully or harass county employees, as accused. Miller says he has also been frozen out of most communication with Yuille and county administrator Tim Johnson.
On Wednesday, Hall and Yuille tried to push through new commission responsibilities on its “consent” agenda – meaning commissioners approve everything on it without discussion. It’s a standard procedure for the routine grist of local governments and used mostly for contracts.
But the three items were not posted on the commission’s agenda until late Tuesday afternoon and drew immediate notice Tuesday night from staff and county critics. When it came time Wednesday for commissioners to approve the consent agenda, both Jacobson and Miller asked that the three proposals be moved so they could discuss them.
The proposals were to:
- Designate Hall as the sole liaison to 10 county departments ranging from the county counsel’s office to planning and development to human resources; allow Hall to designate someone to perform the duties of the county administrator “during a vacancy, absence or disability”; and be the sole commission representative to respond to employee grievances.
- Designate Hall as the sole commission representative to six county committees or boards and to the county’s management team, and be the only liaison to seven cities in the county and to the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians — unless she designates another commissioner “to serve in her place”; and
- Adopt seven rules for public comment at commission meetings, including placing a limit on a maximum of 10 people who could comment at a meeting. The proposed rules – except for the limit on speakers – were taken from the city of Newport’s guidelines.
“Why now?” Miller asked, saying he wanted more time to digest the proposed changes and that commissioners should seek comment from its committees and advisory groups. “… we need to let them know what’s going on,” he said.
Later in the discussion, Miller asked to get feedback from the county’s management team and that putting Hall in charge of administration if there is a vacancy “seems absolutely premature to me.”
Jacobson said while it might be a good idea to give Hall that authority during a management transition, “I don’t see this as permanent.”
Hall pushed back on allowing her to designate a county administrator. “If a vacancy occurs in that position, it keeps us nimble,” she said.
Hall then suggested letting the order expire in 30 or 45 days after a third commissioner is appointed. Jacobson countered with a 60-day limit and the motion passed 2-0 with Miller abstaining but objecting.
“The board is still going to need to come together to work these issues out,” Jacobson said. “You still need to do that.”
Miller said Wednesday he has tried repeatedly to seek work sessions or executive (closed) sessions to discuss commission or management issues but his emails to other commissioners, Johnson and Yuille have been met with silence.
The discussion over designating Hall as the sole commission liaison to committees, boards, cities and tribes also followed the same tack. Miller pushed for more outside comment and Jacobson sought to delay or limit it.
“This is a lot,” Jacobson said. “I don’t like this, to be honest. No offense, but one person can’t do this.”
After more back-and-forth between commissioners, Jacobson and Hall voted to make Hall the liaison to just the county’s management team and wellness committee after Yuille explained the request for help with those two came from human resources director David Collier. As for the rest of the liaison assignments, commissioners generally agreed to wait for the new commission appointment to divvy up those duties.
The third surprise agenda item was out-of-the-blue proposal for new rules on public comment procedures for the commission’s twice-monthly meetings that was never explained or discussed previously.
When questioned, Hall said many city councils and school boards across the country have tightened their rules on public comment and thought that the commission’s rules should be clear “so that people have the opportunity to address us but in a civil way.”
Jacobson and Miller did not disagree with that, but both were uncomfortable with placing a limit of 10 people commenting per meeting.
There have been just a few times in the past five years where there have been more than 1-3 people coming to commission meetings to comment on an issue or concern. The exceptions were during the debate over short-term rental restrictions and more recently when the county was discussing new FEMA flood plain rules.
Yuille suggested that commissioners could keep the 10-person limit but make an exception for special meetings or public hearings on contentious topics.
Commissioners voted 3-0 to adopt new rules on public comment, but to not limit the number of people who could comment.
But that did not stop commissioners from getting a three-minute tongue-lashing from Samantha Buckley, the county’s director of emergency services who said she was commenting as a private citizen. Buckley said she felt compelled to address commissioners only after seeing the agenda Tuesday night and reading the three consent items Wednesday morning.
“If some of these things had been put on the agenda sooner, we’d have more people here commenting on them,” she said. “But they seemed to be put on at the last minute.”
Buckley objected to having just one point of contact for the commission and one commissioner possibly taking over administrative duties “rather than allowing two others to help.”
“I have some questions and concerns about why we have a board if we are going to put the power to make some of these decisions in a single person,” she said. “We elected a board; the county elects a board. We want a board to have a say.
“I know we put a time limit on them and I know we have all these caveats,” Buckley said. “But I have to be frank — we’re not really in the political climate that caveats are trustworthy anymore. We’ve got to be careful if we’re going to go down this road.”
I do not understand why Casey Miller has been shut out of county offices even though the investigation said he did not bully county workers. I’m not a fan of his outbursts at two commission meetings that began this debacle, but he was elected and I question why the unelected county counsel and others are still giving him the cold shoulder.
Good question, they need to give us an answer.
Through our human resources department I asked Commissioner Miller if he would be willing to do mediation before he returned, given the broken relationships and trust. I heard back he was happy to do that. HR has been working with him to schedule this. I hope it’s soon. I want him back. We need him back.
It specifically says that Miller publicly shared confidential personal information. I believe he should face some kind of responsibility for that. Don’t you?
Don’t you think being out of the office since September, having his hands tied and his job limited for the last 6 months is enough? We elected him. It’s time be gets back to working for us. If trust is broken in the office, then let them figure it out there. I for one want both of our commissioners working and equally sharing the responsibility of leading our County.
Yes! I agree.
Makes one wonder why one of the highest paid people in the county might be leaving and there seems to be a lot of behind doors talk amongst Hall and Yuille. So, all this is being put into place so Yuille can control eerything? The sudden departure of Jacobson. These are all things that make folks wonder what is happening. If there were transparency, like Miller asked for, we wouldn’t need to wonder. The chaos and targeting to control the narrative and obtain complete control touting “past practice” and railroading contracts just to name a few are some of the many behaviors that we’ve been subjected to as a public, as employees and frankly, it’s alarming. Bottom line is that neither Yuille or Hall have the authority to place an elected official on leave, or whatever it is they are doing. Robert’s Rules of order do not allow for the moderator, chair, to make motions, second motions, etc. So, the motions that were made Wednesday should be revoked due to lack of a second. Super frustrating situation for so many people. If people know how to resolve this they need to do what they can. Just a concerned citizen… as we all should be.
You’re right, no one has authority to put an elected official on leave. It was a voluntary request, and he complied.
One has to wonder if a 5-person Board of Commissioners would result in better governance of Lincoln County. Three people instead of five reduces the diversity of thought, expertise, and overall brain power— not to mention fair representation— of our county’s leadership.
Good idea.
Fully agree, Lincoln County needs a five-member board (at the least). From throughout the region to fully represent its residents. This current board of 3, or 2, or 1.5, is not representing our county well. Perhaps a total recall and special election is necessary.
Go look at the amount of money they are paid and tell me we should be paying this to them and that we need 5. I think 3 has always suited our county until this train wreck, allowing so much to come from people that aren’t elected to do the work we expected them to do with transparency and dignity. Some of the stuff isn’t sitting well with so many.
If Commissioner Miller were allowed to work in the office, again, this would solve the problems about “point of contact.” If that can’t happen, then giving Commissioner Hall that designation might help things run more smoothly. I thought I heard Commissioner Jacobson state that this is just point of contact, not a reign of the board. In all honesty, though, we would be better off without Commissioner Miller’s juvenile, self centered, approach to his role. The county’s welfare seems secondary to his mission of improving his reputation–for $90,000+ a year (paid for by our taxes).
I’m very disappointed in Hall. Made me wish I hadn’t voted for her. Why is she trying to consolidate power? Why should she have that power? Why would the Commission give it to her? Let Miller return. Why isn’t he being allowed? There seems to be a lot of shennigans going on with the County Commissioners that makes me think the house is sour. Good job Samantha Buckely for your comments. Employees of the County should be concerned about this unacceptable power grab. And if the administrator is on his way out, then let him out and stop this will he/won’t he? And how can Miller and Hall agree on a replacement when there is this obvious power grab happening? What a shame.
I completely agree. I would like to add when power begins to flow to one person it’s time for that person to step down. Because it’s no longer about the county, it’s about seizing and holding power.
Let’s go back a step and question why Hall is going to get to replace the next commissioner that fills Jacobson’s spot. Power grab is an understatement. There should be a special election to replace that commissioner and particularly with Miller blocked out, it begs the question of why not? Beasley came in second by only 100 votes and should be the natural replacement without a voter choice. I don’t appreciate Jacobson waiting to resign so we do not have a voice. Very poorly run county with the current commissioners.
State law calls for the commissioners to replace a resigned commissioner. My understanding is there is not provision for a special election. And Beasley absolutely should not be the replacement. He’s a right-wing extremist and this is a blue county. The only reason he did as well as he did in the election was Claire Hall’s waning energy.
Commissioner Miller is not locked our of the appointment process. He and I jointly chose the finalists, the two of us will interview the candidates together, and then make the final choice together.
Curious why Beasley was left out of the choices given that he nearly beat you out of your position? Don’t you think that’s what the people wanted? What is the plan when you and Miller do not agree on a common candidate? The people demand more transparency … are you willing to do that?
There is no power grab. Three of these four proposed policies are “Continuity of Operations” policies adopted in counties nationwide, including Oregon. The county counsel explained this, and I was surprised they weren’t in place.
An example of a “Continuity of Operations” policy is the process for what happens if Miller and Hall can’t agree on a third commissioner. In Oregon, the current governor makes the decision. Is this a power grab? Hardly. It is good governance through planning.
The fourth proposed policy concerned public input. Reminding the public that remarks are made to the commission, not to an individual commissioner is appropriate. During public input at the board meeting on Oct. 2, 2024, I publicly criticized Commissioner Miller for
disclosing confidential personnel information, placing the county in legal jeopardy, and disrespecting staff as BOC Chair at the Sept. 28, 2024, BOC meeting. These remarks were pointed and directed at Miller, prohibited under the new public input policy. During public comment at the Sept. 28 meeting, problems with the Deflection Program were blamed on two commissioners. Had the public input policy been in effect, Chair Miller could have stopped the meritless personal attacks on Sept. 28 against Commissioners Hall and Jacobson and County Counsel Yuille.
Commissioner Miller is not a whistleblower. Only employees are whistleblowers and the first step in legal whistleblowing is to file a written complaint with BOLI, not to make accusations at a public meeting like Miller did. https://www.oregon.gov/boli/civil-rights/Documents/whistleblower-protections.pdf
I hope Commissioner Jacobson’s replacement has excellent communication and facilitation skills as well as experience in conflict resolution and a sense of humor.
Under Robert’s rules,Limitations: even if a commissioner is granted decision making authority there may be l limits. For example, Major decisions, Especially those involving Significant financial Implications or changes to bylaws, Typically require border approval from the full group of the board.
First and foremost the replacement of Katy Jacobson should be done through a special election. The position is an elected position by rule and we the tax payers are entitled to make a decision by voting for the person who we see is the best person to represent us. This situation right now is embarrassing at best. Department heads need to step up and help make this right.
A special election would be great, but the Oregon Revised Statutes lay out our required path to filling vacancies. It specifically says the commissioners have to fill the jobs by appointment until the next regular election.
This may help clarify why Commissioners Miller and Hall must appoint the person who will fill Jacobson’s seat.
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_236.210
I’d like to switch the conversation from the process to the four candidates. I believe Walter Chuck is by far the superior candidate with experience on the Port Commission and a thoughtful and affable personality.