Appointment Process

MEDIA STATEMENT – Commissioner Casey Miller
February 5, 2026

There has been some confusion about what Oregon law requires when a vacancy occurs on the County Commission.

On January 14, County Counsel referenced ORS 236.210(2) – Filling vacancies in county offices when discussing the vacancy. At the February 4 meeting, a separate statement was made that the vacancy must be filled within 30 days “by statute,” without identifying a specific statutory provision.

ORS 236.210 does not contain a 30-day deadline for completing an appointment. No subsection of that statute sets a specific timeframe.

I support filling the vacancy in a timely way. At the same time, it’s important that deadlines presented to the public are grounded in the text of the law and that the Board establishes a transparent, fair process in public.

My focus remains on good governance, public trust, and following the law as written.

Commissioner Vacancy Process – Applicant, Media & Community Q&A – 2.5.26

---

Is there a 30-day legal deadline requiring the Board to immediately appoint a commissioner?

No. ORS 236.210 does not contain a 30-day deadline for completing an appointment, and no subsection of that statute sets a specific timeframe by which the Board must make an appointment.

ORS 236.210 addresses when a vacancy occurs and the authority to fill a vacancy, but it does not mandate that the appointment be completed within 30 days. Oregon law does not require the Board to rush the process at the expense of transparency, public participation, or compliance with public meetings law.

---

Does the absence of a deadline allow the Board to proceed thoughtfully and transparently?

Yes. In the absence of a statutory deadline, the Board retains discretion to structure a lawful, transparent, and inclusive process that includes public notice, scheduled meetings, open deliberation, and opportunities for community input.

Urgency does not override Oregon’s Public Meetings Law or Public Records Law. Deliberation must still occur publicly, and process integrity remains essential.

---

Why is Commissioner Miller emphasizing process over speed?

Commissioner Miller supports filling the vacancy in a timely manner but not at the expense of legality or public trust. A rushed process that occurs behind the scenes, without public deliberation or clear scheduling, creates legal risk and undermines confidence in the outcome. A transparent process protects applicants, the Board, and the community.

---

What is Commissioner Miller’s position moving forward?

Commissioner Miller remains hopeful that a lawful and transparent process will move forward and continues to advocate for:

• Clearly scheduled public meetings
• Open deliberation on the record
• Compliance with Oregon law
• Fair treatment of applicants
• Meaningful public participation

Why were commissioner vacancy applications posted online?

The applications were posted to ensure transparency in a public appointment process. Appointing a county commissioner is a public decision, and Oregon law supports open review of applicant qualifications by both the Board and the community.

---

Was confidential information released?

No. The County’s official vacancy application explicitly states that only Page 1 is confidential under Oregon law and that all remaining pages will be shared publicly as part of the application process. Only the non-confidential portions of applications were posted.

---

What were applicants told in advance about confidentiality?

The application itself prohvides clear written notice:

“Lincoln County considers the information on page 1 to be confidential pursuant to ORS 192.355(2)…Information on following pages will be shared publicly as part of the application process for Board of Commissioners.”

Applicants were informed of this distinction before submitting their materials.

---

Does posting applications violate applicant trust or privacy?

No. Posting applications consistent with the County’s own written application language honors applicant notice, consent, and Oregon public records law. This approach is also consistent with practices used by other Oregon counties, including Clackamas County.

---

Why won’t the Board deliberate privately or allow staff to collect or compare commissioners’ “top lists”?

Oregon’s Public Meetings Law requires that deliberation toward a decision occur in a noticed public meeting. Having commissioners privately rank candidates and submit those rankings to staff—who then compare or aggregate preferences—would constitute deliberation toward a decision outside public view.

Guidance from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) makes clear that using staff as intermediaries to collect or relay commissioner preferences can amount to an unlawful serial meeting. The public has a legal right to observe not only the final vote, but also how deliberation occurs.

---

Why can’t staff manage rankings if staff aren’t making the final decision?

Staff may lawfully collect applications and provide neutral, factual information. However, staff may not evaluate commissioner preferences, narrow the field, identify “top” candidates, or compare rankings unless explicitly authorized by the Board in a public meeting.

Comparing or synthesizing commissioner rankings goes beyond fact-gathering and into decision-making or recommendation, which must occur publicly under Oregon law.

---

Are commissioners allowed to share their preferences at all?

Yes—but only in a noticed public meeting. Commissioners may bring their preferred candidates or rankings to a public meeting and deliberate openly, on the record, in front of the community.

---

Do private rankings also raise public records concerns?

Yes. Rankings or “top lists” created by commissioners as part of this process are public records. Creating and using those records privately to shape outcomes deprives the public of the ability to observe how decisions are made and undermines transparency requirements.

---

Has Commissioner Miller requested public meetings to address the vacancy process?

Yes. Commissioner Miller has repeatedly requested public meetings and agenda items to clarify authority, process, and timeline for the commissioner vacancy. These requests were made during public meetings and through written memos to Commissioner Chuck, County Counsel, and staff.

---

Are future meetings currently scheduled to be deliberated on the vacancy?

At this time, despite Miller’s requests, there are no confirmed future public meetings scheduled specifically to deliberate on the commissioner vacancy process. This lack of scheduling contributes to uncertainty for applicants and the community.

---

What process has Commissioner Miller proposed?

Commissioner Miller has proposed a lawful, transparent, inclusive framework that includes:

• Public notice and publication of applications
• Clearly scheduled public meetings
• Open deliberation by commissioners in noticed meetings
• Opportunities for community feedback
• Consistency with Oregon law and best practices used by other counties

This proposed framework has been shared publicly and in writing.

---

Is collaboration guaranteed going forward?

It remains uncertain whether county staff or Commissioner Chuck will collaborate in implementing the proposed process. Nevertheless, Commissioner Miller remains hopeful that a lawful, transparent, and community-centered process will unfold and continues to advocate for public deliberation and clear scheduling.

---

Did County staff identify the commissioner vacancy applications as confidential when they were provided to Commissioner Miller? (Added on 2.6.26)

When County staff provided the application materials to Commissioner Miller, they were already redacted in places the County determined should not be public. However, the materials were not accompanied by any written designation that the remaining content was confidential, privileged, or restricted from disclosure. That raises a reasonable process question: if County staff now believes additional portions of the applications should not be public, it would be helpful for County staff to clarify what legal authority applies and when that determination was made. Commissioner Miller’s position is that transparency about the process — including how public records are reviewed, redacted, and released — builds public trust.

---

Has the County explained what legal standard it is using to decide what parts of the applications can be released to the public? (Added on 2.6.26)

Not publicly. Commissioner Miller has asked for clarity so the process is consistent, understandable, and legally sound.

---

What should applicants do if they have concerns or questions?

Applicants with questions about confidentiality, redactions, or process are encouraged to contact a commissioner directly.

Commissioner Miller can be reached at –
clmiller@co.lincoln.or.us  

Commissioner Chuck can be reached at –
wchuck@co.lincoln.or.us

Administrative Staff can be reached at –
boc@co.lincoln.or.us Requests will be evaluated in accordance with Oregon public records and public meetings law, included in “public comment” for the public record.