Miller Investigation

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

The "Findings"

At the September 18, 2024 BOC meeting, Lincoln County Commissioner Casey Miller read into the record a 30-minute report. In the report, Miller encouraged his fellow commissioners Claire Hall and Kaety Jacobson to convert their privately held long-standing Staff Meetings to be public meetings, as required by ORS 192.630(2). (Aside: The Staff Meetings were permanently cancelled immediately afterwards.)

Instead of heeding Miller's call for openness, Hall allowed the County to spend approximately $65,000 to allegedly "investigate" Commissioner Miller. This back-room decision was done without a public vote, or public notice.

The "investigation" found Miller was innocent of all the anonymous bullying and harassment charges that were leveled against him.

But the Portland law firm hired to conduct the "investigation" alleged Miller had violated the County’s Personnel Rules.

Here are their alleged "findings":

But the above allegations are false, as Rule 6(C) in the County's Personnel Rules explicitly states that "Elected Officials are governed" only by State and Federal laws:

Therefore, it could be argued that Miller Nash's attorneys, Ed Choi and Liani Reeves, have violated multiple ethical Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), that lawyers vow to follow. Specifically, it could be alleged that Choi and Reeves violated the following ORPC rules:

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.”

In response, Choi and Reeves could argue that Commissioner Miller is an employee of the County, and therefore that the Personnel Rules still apply to him. However, that argument is weakened by the fact that ORS 260.432 expressly excludes elected officials from the statutory definition of “public employee.”

If Miller had voluntarily signed a document that he would agree to follow the Rules, that wouldn't bind him to the Rules, as the Rules themselves state he is not bound by them.

The specific allegations

So, even though the Personnel Rules don't apply to Commissioner Miller, as he is an elected official, the "findings" allege Miller violated two Personnel Rules:

1. Article 12, section B.4: Workplace Rules and Prohibited Conduct
2. Article 12, section L: Confidentiality

Both of these rules prohibit disclosing confidential information:

Specifically, Choi and Reeves allege Miller violated Sections B.4 and L in two instances:

1. "confidential employee information concerning County Administrator [sic]"; and
2. "discussing employee complaints against [Miller]."

Let's drill into these two allegations.

Allegation 1: "confidential employee information concerning the County Administrator"

Page 8 of the full report alleges:

"Commissioner Miller publicly discussed Administrator Johnson’s medical leave and potential departure from position [sic]."

So, there are two allegations: 1. Johnson's medical leave, and 2. Johnson's potential departure from  his position.  

In regards item 1. "Johnson's medical leave", Miller testified:

"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 only mentioned that Johnson was out for "legitimate family issues." And he only alluded to Johnson being absent due for medical reasons. And he never mentioned what medical condition(s) Johnson may have had. According to former County Administrator Tim Johnson, Johnson asked two different attorneys if he could sue Miller for violating his rights, and both attorneys said he didn't have a case.

In regards item 2. "Johnson's potential departure", Miller testified:

"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)

Note that Miller mentioned that he wanted to discuss Johnson's potential departure in executive session four times. And just prior to the 9/18/24 public meeting, Miller had asked the BOC to meet in executive session specifically to discuss the administrator's Performance Evaluation, but his request was denied. In fact, Miller had asked to meet in executive session on nine separate occasions between 7/17/24 and 7/17/25, but he was rebuffed every time.

So, given that Miller was denied the opportunity to discuss his concerns in executive session, he chose the only legal avenue available to him, which was to discuss his concerns publicly, as it's against Oregon's Public Meetings Law to discuss or deliberate with his fellow commissioners outside of either a public meeting, or an executive session. ORS 192.630(2).

In fact, Miller had a fiduciary duty to bring forth his concerns to his Board. And given that the BOC refused his request to meet in executive session, it could be argued the BOC violated ORS 192.630(2) by privately denying his request to hold an executive session. That decision should have been done in a public meeting as that is what the Oregon Public Meetings Law requires.

Allegation 2: "discussing employee complaints against [Miller]"

The day after the 9/18/24 BOC meeting, Commissioner Miller was informed that an anonymous complaint had been made against him, and that he was banned from entering the office until further notice. (As of 12/25/25, he still is barred from returning to the office).

On 10/2/24, the BOC held its next regularly scheduled public meeting. At the tail end of meeting, Miller started to testify:

"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)

Commissioner Kaety Jacobson interrupted him and said "This is confidential employee information."

Commissioner Hall interjected "Even involving yourself, it's confidential."

But actually, it wasn't confidential. The "employee" that they were talking about was Miller.  As the respondent to the complaint, he was under no legal obligation to keep the fact that a complaint had been raised against him.

In fact, as a public officer,  Miller had a statutory right to demand an open hearing so the public could hear the charges brought against him. ORS 192.660(2)(b). The county, including County Counsel, Kristin Yuille, never advised Miller of this right available to him. Instead, he was silenced by Hall and Jacobson by their falsely claiming he was divulging "confidential employee information." Because the "employee information" he was disclosing was his own, he had every right to clear his name, and disclose his own information, if he so chose.

And it wasn't a secret that a complaint had been filed, as everyone in the office knew, as Miller had been banned from entering the courthouse on 9/19/24. He raised the complaint publicly as he was simply asking for guidance on how to continue to oversee the organization if he was no longer allowed to interact with the county staff he was responsible for and to.

Note that Miller never identified the name of the complainant(s). In fact, at that time, Miller didn't even know the name of the complainant(s). The County only provided Miller the complainant(s) names in early December, 2025.

Also, by denying Miller his right to be able to defend himself publicly against factually baseless anonymous allegationsallegationsallegationsallegationsallegations, his Sixth Amendment right were violated.

In Conclusion

Based on the facts outlined above, the Miller "investigation" was simply a taxpayer-funded $65,000 political hit-job.

Let's not allow Commissioner Hall to ever use her power again to attack another elected official, as she did to Miller.

Last updated 12/23/25 11:49pm