Miller Investigation

Was it a real investigation, or just a political hit-job?

Findings Summary

At the September 18, 2024 Lincoln County Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting, Commissioner Casey Miller read a report lasting approximately 30 minutes into the public record. In that report, Miller encouraged Commissioners Claire Hall and Kaety Jacobson to convert long-standing, privately held “Staff Meetings” into public meetings, citing ORS 192.630(2). Shortly thereafter, the Staff Meetings were permanently cancelled.

Following the September 18 meeting, the County authorized an external investigation into Commissioner Miller. Approximately $65,000 in public funds was spent on this investigation. The decision to authorize the investigation was made without a public vote or public notice.

The investigation concluded that Miller did not engage in the anonymous bullying and harassment allegations raised against him. However, the outside law firm conducting the investigation asserted that Miller violated certain provisions of the County’s Personnel Rules:

Applicability of Personnel Rules to Elected Officials

Lincoln County Personnel Rule 6(C) states that “Elected Officials are governed” by state and federal law, not by the County’s Personnel Rules:

Despite this provision, the investigation report applied Personnel Rules to Commissioner Miller. This creates a dispute as to whether those rules apply to elected officials.

In addition, ORS 260.432 expressly excludes elected officials from the statutory definition of “public employee.”

Even if an elected official were to voluntarily agree to follow Personnel Rules, the Rules themselves state that elected officials are not governed by them.

Alleged Professional Responsibility Issues

Because the investigation report applied County Personnel Rules to an elected official despite the above authorities, it has been argued that the attorneys involved — Ed Choi and Liani Reeves — may have violated certain Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC).

The following potential violations have been alleged:

1. ORPC 4.1(a) — Truthfulness in Statements to Others
   “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.” 

2. ORPC 8.4(a)(3) — Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
   “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

3. ORPC 4.4(a) — Respect for Rights of Third Persons (to the extent the allegations lacked a legitimate investigatory purpose)
   "A lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.”

It could be argued that applying Personnel Rules to an elected official — where the Rules themselves state they do not apply — constitutes a misstatement of law.

In response, Choi and Reeves could argue that Commissioner Miller functioned as a County employee and that the Personnel Rules therefore applied to him. That position is weakened by the language of Rule 6(C) and by ORS 260.432, which excludes elected officials from the definition of “public employee.”

Alleged Personnel Rule Violations

Despite the disputed applicability of the Personnel Rules, the investigation report alleged that Commissioner Miller violated:

1. Article 12, Section B.4 – Workplace Rules and Prohibited Conduct

2. Article 12, Section L – Confidentiality

Both provisions restrict disclosure of confidential information:

The report asserted that Miller violated these provisions in two instances:

1. By disclosing “confidential employee information concerning the County Administrator”

2. By “discussing employee complaints against [Miller]”

Allegation 1: Statements Regarding County Administrator Tim Johnson

The report alleged that Miller publicly discussed:

A. Administrator Johnson’s medical leave, and

B. Johnson’s potential departure from his position

A. Medical Leave

During the September 18, 2024 meeting, Miller stated that the Administrator had been absent due to “legitimate family issues.” He did not identify any medical condition or provide specific medical details.  See "Miller's Testimony" below.

Miller raised questions about how administrative duties were being handled during the Administrator’s absence and referenced Ordinance 517, which governs appointment of an Acting County Administrator in the event of a permanent vacancy. Miller expressly stated that a medical absence might not constitute a permanent vacancy.

According to former County Administrator Tim Johnson, Johnson consulted two attorneys regarding whether Miller’s statements violated his rights, and both attorneys advised that Johnson did not have a legal claim.

B. Potential Departure

Miller also stated that discussion of the Administrator’s role and performance should occur in executive session, not in public. During the meeting, Miller repeatedly emphasized that such matters belonged in executive session.  See "Miller's Testimony" below.

Prior to the September 18 meeting, Miller had requested an executive session to discuss the Administrator’s performance evaluation. That request was denied. Between July 17, 2024, and July 17, 2025, Miller made nine such requests, all of which were denied.

Miller stated that, absent an executive session, the only lawful forum available to discuss these issues with his fellow commissioners was a public meeting, as deliberations outside a public meeting or executive session are prohibited under ORS 192.630(2).

Allegation 2: Discussion of Complaint Against Miller

On September 19, 2024, the day after the September 18 meeting, Miller was informed that an anonymous complaint had been filed against him and that he was barred from entering the courthouse. As of December 28, 2025, Miller remains barred.

At the October 2, 2024 public BOC meeting, Miller stated that HR had notified him that a formal complaint had been made. Commissioners Jacobson and Hall interrupted, stating that he was disclosing confidential employee information.  See "Miller's Testimony" below.

The complaint discussed concerned Miller himself. As the subject of the complaint, Miller was not legally obligated to keep the existence of the complaint confidential. He did not identify the complainant(s), and at that time did not know their identities.

As a public officer, Miller had a statutory right under ORS 192.660(2)(b) to request that allegations against him be heard in open session. The County, including County Counsel, did not advise Miller of this option.

At the time of the October 2 meeting, the existence of a complaint was already widely known within the courthouse, as Miller had been barred from entry beginning September 19.

Conclusion

Based on the record described above:

1. Commissioner Miller was cleared of the substantive misconduct allegations.

2. The remaining findings relied on County Personnel Rules whose applicability to elected officials is disputed by the Rules themselves and by state law.

3. The investigation was authorized without a public vote or public notice.

4. Certain legal and ethical concerns have been raised regarding the application of law in the investigation and the professional conduct of the attorneys involved.

To prevent similar situations in the future, voters may reasonably conclude that Commissioner Hall should not retain the authority to initiate or authorize actions that could be used against another elected official, as occurred in the case of Commissioner Miller.

Miller's Testimony

On September 18, 2024, Miller testified regarding allegation 1.A.:

"Additionally, as you are aware, our county council has provided backup when administrator has been out and this has happened several times due to legitimate family issues. I think it's prudent that we receive a list of activities that council is performing in our administrator's behalf while he has been out. I think this will help develop an accurate picture of who is doing what and who should do what uh when the position is vacant. Note that ordinance 517 states when a permanent permanent vacancy occurs in the position of county administrator, the board shall designate an an acting county administrator until such time as a new county administrator is appointed."

"While medical absence may not rise to the level of permanent vacancy as a practical matter, I think it's prudent to be more structured than we have been in the past. So my other question is do you think it would be informative to have a list of functions and activities that council has done uh or is doing in the absence of our administrator as a staff report?" (@ 1:38:55)

Miller also testified regarding allegation 1.B.:

"They were not a reflection of his desire for continuation. At this point, I'm confused. Administrator Johnson is confused. I've spent a great deal of time preparing for an executive session to have a fair, equitable, and dynamic performance-based conversation with or without the administrator in that executive session."

"In my opinion, the next best step is that all of us meet to discuss the administrator's role and performance in executive session. Let's compare notes and make sure that we are on the same page about what constitutes performance. Let's be sure to evaluate both style and substance. You know, I'm not thrilled much with our current management evaluation form."

...

"Do all three of you agree it would be of benefit for us to meet in executive session to discuss administrator's performance? If not, what is the best alternative from your point of view? In the interim, I suggest that we let administrator Johnson uh continue his work as he is doing for us and I can talk with him about bringing you an excellent strategy or succession plan for his remaining tenure in the coming months that allows him time to finish and/or hand over the projects he's been tasked with in a manner that captures the best of what has been provided to us from him. And it allows us to create create clear and reasonable expectations of him during his final tenure."  (@ 1:41:33)

On October 2, 2024, Miller testified regarding allegation 2:

"And just a few things for everyone as I'm sort of navigating myself moving forward what I feel like was, you know, kind of a a heavy drop on everyone. And, right now what I'm working through is, HR's notified me that the formal complaint has been made." (@ 3:11:00)

Last updated 12/23/25 11:49pm