Prineville, Ore. – Following an ongoing dispute over public records sought by the Prineville Review from Crook County since November, Oregon’s Public Records Advocate has raised serious concerns about the county’s handling of public records requests—both generally and in relation to this publication’s outstanding requests.
Findings issued last week by Public Records Advocate Todd Albert prompted the Crook County Commissioners to vote on delegating authority to County Manager Will Van Vactor to resolve the Prineville Review’s outstanding records requests by Friday. Van Vactor had told this publication before today’s meeting that the Commissioners were originally going to wait until next week’s meeting to bring up the matter.
The decision marks a clear reversal—at least for Commissioner Susan Hermreck, whose previous stance against granting a fee waiver or reduction, despite the public interest, led the Prineville Review to request facilitated dispute resolution through the Public Records Advocate. Commissioner Brian Barney, who was absent from the vote, had also opposed granting a fee waiver or considering a reduction.
Commissioner Seth Crawford—in a clear dissent from the other commissioners—has consistently argued since December that the county should reduce fees, citing transparency concerns—particularly after the Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC) admitted to violating Oregon’s public meetings law last year.
In 2017, Oregon created the Office of the Public Records Advocate (PRA) through Senate Bill 106 in response to widespread issues about government transparency and the accessibility of public records. The legislation was prompted due to growing frustration among journalists, advocacy groups, and members of the public regarding delays, excessive fees, and inconsistent compliance with Oregon’s Public Records Law by state and local government bodies.
Albert highlighted major concerns with Crook County’s public records policy, particularly the role of elected officials in determining fee waivers and the delays imposed on requesters.
“[A]mongst all the policies I have ever read or reviewed, Crook County is the only one whose elected officials make the determination as to whether or not to offer a public interest fee waiver or reduction in addition to staff (whose determinations are only permitted if the request is “di mimimus”),” said Albert in a message to Crook County officials.
Albert further explained that requiring requesters to wait weeks for an agenda item to be added to a public meeting could be considered “undue delay” under the public records law. His second key concern focused on whether the commissioners properly evaluated the necessary legal criteria for granting fee waivers, an issue central to the Prineville Review’s recent requests.
“(2) whether the commissioners are considering the necessary elements of determining whether to offer a fee waiver/reduction,” wrote Albert.
Albert was particularly critical of the Dec. 4, 2024, meeting, where the commissioners, in his view, failed to engage in the deliberative process required to determine whether the request was in the public interest.
“As to my latter point, I believe the meeting on 12/4 that resulted in the commissioners’ vote to authorize a partial fee waiver did not meet the requirements of the deliberative process necessary to determine on a case for case basis whether a request for a fee waiver or reduction is in the public interest. The reason I say so is that there was no actual discussion by the commissioners, or guidance from staff, about first determining whether ‘the waiver or reduction of fees is in the public interest because making the record available primarily benefits the general public’.”
Albert noted that commissioners failed to adequately consider the Prineville Review’s argument for a public interest fee waiver.
“As such, I believe Mr. Alderman made a clear argument as to why he believed there was a public interest, but that argument was not given its due consideration.”
Albert also pointed to subsequent discussions at the December 18 meeting, stating that rather than addressing the public interest argument, commissioners instead focused on the possibility of future fee waiver requests as a reason to deny the request. Multiple Oregon judicial rulings have made clear that using fees as an intentional deterrent does not comply with the law.
“Moreover, the subsequent discussion by commissioners on 12/18 that ensued after Mr. Alderman’s testimony did not address this issue either, and only deepened my concerns. Even an offer from an audience member to pay half the cost did not sway the commissioners, but instead resulted in further statements about future potential requests for reductions from Mr. Alderman as another reason not to grant the current one. Such statements do not align with the law or best practices,” said Albert.
Following Albert’s review, the Prineville Review called on the county to issue a full fee waiver for its outstanding records requests related to NRAC, promptly consider other outstanding records requests, and revise its public records policies to comply with state law.
The Prineville Review further indicated that if Crook County does not grant a full waiver—at least for the NRAC-related requests—a public records petition was still likely to be filed with the Crook County District Attorney. The publication cited the Public Records Advocate’s findings and the months of delay caused by the county’s failure to provide due consideration as key factors in our impending decision on whether to seek review by the district attorney.
However, the decision today did not fully conclude that the County will end up providing any waiver of fees, although it appeared likely in light of the discussions by the commissioners to delegate the decision to Van Vactor. It only confirmed that a final decision by Van Vactor was due to be made by Friday.
Public records battle started after illegal public meeting admitted to by county officials
In November, the Prineville Review uncovered that the NRAC held at least one secret meeting on Oct. 16 with officials from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This discovery prompted the submission of a public meetings grievance just one day before the 30-day deadline from the meeting date.
Further investigation revealed that the NRAC had held numerous subcommittee meetings in recent years without proper public notice, according to its own meeting minutes.
Under current Oregon law, public meetings grievances must be filed within 30 days of the violation—not when the violation is discovered. This has led to concerns that illegal meetings often go unchallenged because the public only learns of them after the deadline.
The issue has sparked bipartisan support in the Oregon Legislature for House Bill 3638, which would extend the deadline to one year for executive session violations—a reform aimed at preventing government bodies from evading accountability through secrecy.
Amid the public records dispute between the Prineville Review and Crook County, additional concerns surfaced regarding NRAC member Cliff Kiser. Kiser was part of a subcommittee working with USFS officials on a large potential federal land purchase in the Ochoco Mountains in eastern Crook County, discussions which took place during the secret Oct. 16th meeting.
However, Kiser—through his business Kiser & Kiser—had not disclosed private contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with the USFS, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
Under Oregon ethics laws, public officials must disclose both actual and potential conflicts of interest.
Shortly after the Prineville Review reported on Kiser’s undisclosed contracts, his reappointment to the NRAC was delayed due to what was described as a delay in getting a “reference check”—according to NRAC Chair Steve McGuire during a January meeting.
During an earlier meeting in early December, McGuire suggested blacklisting this reporter and other Prineville Review journalists simply for filing the public meetings grievance—a move endorsed by Crook County Counsel Eric Blaine.
Blaine, who drafted the NRAC’s response to the public meetings grievance, also claimed that the Oct. 16th meeting was open to the public despite also admitting it made no public notice.
McGuire, as well as other NRAC members, argued the grievance should have been handled informally, which would have allowed the 30-day deadline to lapse, effectively preventing any formal challenge. The Prineville Review has not filed a formal complaint, which is an optional second step after submitting a grievance.
Notably, grievances do not trigger investigations by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC), the agency responsible for enforcing the state’s ethics and public meetings laws.
The lack of any responses to inquiries, as well as a failure to record audio or video of the Oct. 16th meeting, made the production of records even more important to reveal more details behind the County’s handling of the meetings.
Kiser’s reappointment despite ethics questions
Shortly after the January meeting where it was revealed that there were delays with Kiser’s appointment, Crook County officials announced they were accepting applications for the NRAC position, with the deadline closing in late February. Both Kiser and another applicant applied.
A special NRAC meeting was held on March 3, with a notice stating:
“The principal subject anticipated to be discussed is a review of applications and [to] make a recommendation of one Committee appointment for the County Board of Commissioners.”
Before any discussion or review of the applications, an NRAC board member immediately moved to recommend Kiser for reappointment. Only after the motion was made did any discussion occur. The motion was then unanimously approved.
Two days later, on March 5, Commissioners Susan Hermreck and Brian Barney voted to reappoint Kiser. Commissioner Seth Crawford was absent due to conferences in Washington, D.C.
The Board of Commissioners had published an agenda for its Mar. 5th meeting the week prior, indicating the NRAC was going to make the recommendation, although it was not a foregone conclusion that NRAC would be making a recommendation. The NRAC had yet to hold its Mar. 3rd special meeting when the Board of Commissioners listed the agenda item on its notice.
Immediately after his reappointment, Crook County Manager Van Vactor stated that he was not aware of any effort by the County or Board of Commissioners to investigate and inquire into potential conflicts of interest by Kiser while serving on the NRAC.
