The Complaint, the Investigation, the Lawsuit, and the Settlement
I want to walk through what happened in 2024 and clear up some confusion about what has been called an “independent investigation” involving me.
For the court documents, see the Court Filings page.
Where This Began
For many years, the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners (BOC) held bi-weekly Staff Meetings. These meetings were listed on the county calendar, a quorum of commissioners attended, and county business was discussed. Most often, the discussions focused on scheduling and agenda-setting, though at times topics later considered by the Board were discussed.
Because the meetings were not broadcast and no minutes were made available to the public, I became concerned that the process may not have provided the same level of public access as our regular meetings.
In July 2024, I raised these concerns internally but did not receive a response. I subsequently contacted staff at the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) to ask whether our Staff Meetings aligned with Oregon’s public meetings law. I was advised informally by OGEC staff that it may not.
On September 18, 2024, while serving as Chair at a public BOC meeting, I raised these concerns on the record. My point was straightforward: if these meetings were already publicly noticed, recording them would allow the public to better understand what was being discussed and help ensure consistency with Oregon’s public meetings law.
Shortly thereafter, the long-running Staff Meetings were discontinued.
The Next Day
On September 19, 2024, I was informed that a complaint had been made against me and was instructed to leave the county administrative offices.
I have never been given a copy of that complaint. To this day, I have not been told who made it.
I am not aware of any public vote, agenda item, or recorded action by the BOC authorizing my removal from the office, initiation of an investigation, or retention of outside counsel.
I am also not aware of any public vote, agenda item, or recorded action by the BOC authorizing the public release of the report.
The Outside Report
County staff hired an outside law firm to prepare a report regarding the complaint made against me.
The report concluded I had not engaged in bullying or harassment, but did allege that I violated Lincoln County’s Personnel Rules on confidentiality. The process took several months and cost taxpayers approximately $65,000.
Following the release of the report, official County communications characterized the report as indicating that I had created a “toxic work environment.”
I am not aware of any public vote, agenda item, or recorded action by the BOC authorizing that communication, and the report itself does not contain that conclusion.
No court or adjudicative administrative body has made any factual findings regarding the allegations described in the report to date. I am also not aware of any public vote, agenda item, or recorded Board action adopting the report’s legal conclusions as findings of the Board.
Since then, the situation has changed. On October 23, 2026, the federal court entered a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, agreed to by both sides, returning me to the regular rights and prerogatives of my office as a Lincoln County Commissioner. That includes access to a physical office and county buildings and to the meetings and communications that any other commissioner would be included in. You can read the order and the rest of the court record on the Court Filings page.
There’s an important detail here: Personnel Rule 6(C) states that “Elected Officials are governed by rules set forth by applicable laws. They are expected to administer the Personnel Rules for their appointed employees.”
The provision distinguishes between the legal framework governing elected officials and their responsibility to administer the Personnel Rules for county employees, rather than expressly subjecting elected officials to those Rules themselves.
The report also states that “County Personnel Rules require employees, including elected officials” to comply with those Rules. That statement reflects the report’s interpretation of Personnel Rule 6(C).
In other words, the report reflects one firm’s legal analysis and interpretation regarding the applicability of the Personnel Rules. It is not a court decision, not an administrative ruling, and does not constitute a binding factual or legal determination by any adjudicative body.
Why This Matters
The term “independent investigation” is often understood to involve a formal adjudicative process. This was not a court proceeding or an administrative adjudication, and it did not result in any binding determination regarding my ability to perform the duties of my elected office.
In fact, I am aware of individuals with relevant information regarding my September 18, 2024 remarks who have indicated that they were not interviewed.
Specific Allegations Referenced in the Report
The report alleges that I violated the Personnel Rules on confidentiality on three occasions.
First, it alleges that during my September 18, 2024 public remarks, I revealed an employee’s private medical information. In that meeting, I stated that the County Administrator might be out on a “medical absence,” and I did not share any diagnosis, condition, or other medical details.
Second, it alleges that during my September 18, 2024 public remarks, I disclosed information regarding the County Administrator’s potential departure. Prior to speaking publicly, I requested that an Executive Session be scheduled so the matter could be discussed privately with the Board. That session was not scheduled. As a result, I raised my concern during a public meeting.
Third, it alleges that during my October 2, 2024 public remarks, I disclosed that a complaint had been made against me in a manner that violated the confidentiality of the complainant or complainants. In that meeting, I did not disclose any names or identifying details regarding the complaint.
In each instance, my public remarks were limited to employment-status or process-level information and did not include other personnel details such as diagnosis or disciplinary information.
In Conclusion
I believe government works best when processes are transparent, lawful, and clearly explained. That’s why I’m sharing this — so residents can understand what happened and what that outside report does, and does not, represent.
To date, no court or adjudicative administrative body has determined that my actions constituted harassment, bullying, or misconduct.