Prineville, Ore. — Crook County commissioners are seeking additional information and an independent third-party review of the Crook County Vector Control District after concluding the district’s response to concerns raised earlier this year failed to adequately address a series of governance, financial oversight, and public meetings questions.
Earlier reporting by the Prineville Review addressed questions surrounding a management contract awarded to a company owned by District Manager Cliff Kiser, including concerns about insider contracting and the transparency of compensation paid through the arrangement. The reporting also identified taxpayer-funded meals and luxury resort stays, which were paid by a debit card issued to Kiser while he was an actual employee before the transition to his company getting the management contract. The questions have led to broader questions about financial oversight, governance practices, and the district’s handling of potential conflicts of interest.
While the district is a separate special district, Oregon law provides the respective Board of Commissioners in each county with the power to investigate and oversee some of the district’s financial and work project management.
During this week’s board of commissioners public meeting, commissioners directed County Manager Will Van Vactor to seek additional documentation from the district within 30 days and expressed interest in holding another joint meeting after receiving further information.
The latest developments stem from a February joint meeting between the county and the Vector Control District, where commissioners raised concerns regarding governance, public meetings compliance, financial management practices, and the district’s use of a contracted manager. That meeting came after the district also ignored a December 2025 request sent by the County, prompting commissioners to set the meeting without any response.
According to Van Vactor, the district recently responded to the county’s inquiries, stating that public meeting materials had been distributed to board members, consultations had occurred with the district’s attorney and accountant, and that district officials believed they were operating within applicable requirements.
The response did not appear to satisfy county commissioners.
“I’d like to see some more in-depth look at the financial management practices,” Commissioner Seth Crawford said during this week’s meeting. “It would be nice to have a third party that maybe isn’t currently working with them to look into some of the concerns that were brought to our attention, like bank accounts, how credit cards are used, and the fact that the manager is a contractor, but acts as an employee, and buys lunch for them at meetings.”
The comments are significant because several of those same issues have been the subject of previous reporting by the Prineville Review, including questions surrounding district expenditures, financial oversight, and the role of District Manager Cliff Kiser, whose company contracts with the district.
Crawford also suggested the district had not fully completed another request made during the February meeting, including seeking some review from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC).
“If I remember correctly, we didn’t ask them to print off things that were for public meetings,” Crawford said. “It was to go to OGEC and again share concerns that people in the public and the media brought up about how their public meetings were going.”
“I would like them to call OGEC and give them a laundry list of concerns that people had and see what their thoughts are on that,” he added.
Commissioner Susan Hermreck likewise said she wanted more than verbal assurances that district practices had been reviewed by professionals.
“The other thing is he states that the accountant and the legal feel that everything’s okay. I would like to see a written opinion from the accountant and legal that why they feel that practices have been going on are okay,” Hermreck said. “Basically we’re going on hearsay.”
Hermreck also suggested that district officials complete ethics training, which like public meetings training, is also provided by the OGEC. She also wanted Vector Control to provide documentation showing what changes, if any, had been implemented following the concerns raised earlier this year.
Commissioner Brian Barney echoed those concerns.
“I agree. I think they just need to step up and understand what they’re doing, and implications, and some of the problems that have arisen from the way they’re operating,” Barney said.
Following discussion, commissioners directed county staff to request additional information from the district and seek responses within 30 days before they schedule a follow-up joint meeting.
Questions over follow-up efforts
The county’s continued concerns come as records obtained by the Prineville Review suggest the district was slow to respond to county inquiries following the February joint meeting.
According to records obtained through a public records request, Van Vactor first followed up with Kiser on April 13th, asking for an update on actions taken after the joint meeting. In that email, Van Vactor wrote that his recollection was that commissioners had asked the district to contact the Oregon Government Ethics Commission regarding public meetings compliance concerns and seek outside review of certain business practices.
After receiving no response, Van Vactor sent a second follow-up email on May 28th requesting an update.
Kiser ultimately responded on June 2nd, apologizing for the delay and stating that he had spoken with the district’s accountant and attorney, reviewed relevant laws, and believed the district was operating within applicable requirements. He also stated that public meeting materials had been distributed to board members and would be discussed at a future meeting.
When questioned, Kiser had told the Prineville Review earlier in the day during its June 2nd meeting that he did not receive any emails from Van Vactor or the county.
The response became the focus of this weeks county discussion, with commissioners indicating they were seeking substantially more information than was provided.
Prior statements raise additional questions
The county’s concerns also follow questions raised during a June 2nd Vector Control District meeting.
Prior to the meeting, Kiser told the Prineville Review that they had not received emails from Van Vactor regarding the county’s follow-up inquiries throughout April and May.
However, records later obtained by the Prineville Review show Kiser responded directly to Van Vactor later that same day.
The discrepancy has raised questions regarding the district’s handling of the county’s requests and whether commissioners’ concerns were ever formally discussed by the board.
While Kiser reported consulting with the district’s legal counsel and accountant, available meeting minutes reviewed by the Prineville Review do not appear to show any board discussion authorizing those consultations, directing a response to the county, or formally reviewing many of the concerns raised during the February joint meeting.
The Prineville Review previously asked district officials whether those matters were being handled separately from the board, including any communications with attorney Jered Reid. No documentation has been identified showing that the board formally delegated those responsibilities. Kiser also confirmed that Reid does not represent his company, but it was unclear if the legal guidance Kiser alleged to the County was given to him or the board.
Van Vactor said that commissioners appeared serious about ensuring the district is complying with applicable requirements and obtaining the information needed to fulfill the county’s oversight responsibilities.
“Based on their comments today at the meeting, they’re taking it seriously, and they want to make sure that they get the information they need to feel like everybody’s in compliance across the board.”
Based on the direction provided this week, county staff are expected to seek additional documentation from the district, including information related to financial oversight practices, obtaining the third-party review, public meetings compliance efforts, written input from the district’s attorney and accountant, and other concerns raised by commissioners.
Commissioners also expressed interest in holding another joint meeting with the Vector Control District after the requested information has been provided.
Board action by former director & appointment of “friends and family” to budget committee
Separate from the county’s ongoing review, newly obtained county records indicate that Vector Control Director Bob Hindman’s appointment expired at the end of 2025.
In response to a records inquiry, Crook County Clerk Cheryl Seely stated, “I show that Position 1 expired December of 2025. Here is the appointment showing the expiration date for that position. No one has been appointed to fill that position.”
County records show Hindman was appointed to Position #1 on the Vector Control District Board in December 2021 for a four-year term ending Dec. 31st, 2025.
Despite that, Hindman continued attending meetings and voting as a director, including on the district’s recent budget.
Additional questions also remain regarding the district’s budget committee appointment process.
During prior discussions, district officials, including Board Chair Ken Fahlgren, acknowledged appointing individuals they described as friends and family members to the budget committee. Those appointments included an individual identified by Fahlgren as a personal friend and the son-in-law of Cliff Kiser, whose company contracts with the district and acts as its contracted manager.
Kiser himself also serves as the district’s appointed budget officer, and issue that has raised further questions under Oregon ethics laws which the commissioners appeared intent on seeking answers for.
Vector Control officials, including Falhgren and Kiser, defended the appointments by stating the district had difficulty finding individuals willing to serve. Other directors declined to comment when asked for their position on the appointments.
However, records reviewed by the Prineville Review have not identified efforts by the district to publicly advertise budget committee vacancies or broadly solicit applications from county residents. Unlike many local special districts, the Crook County Vector Control District’s boundaries encompass the entire county, potentially providing a large pool of eligible applicants.
The issue has drawn additional scrutiny because budget committee members play a significant role in reviewing and approving the district’s annual budget.
The Prineville Review is seeking additional comment from county commissioners regarding their views on the appointment process and whether broader recruitment efforts should have occurred before appointing individuals with personal or familial ties to district leadership. Commissioner Crawford provided a brief response indicating that the practice was both “concerning” and “irregular”, but indicated he would respond further at a later date.
Note: This story was updated shortly after publication to correct a formatting issue and to upload links to public records.
Mr. Alderman is an investigative journalist specializing in government transparency, non-profit accountability, consumer protection, and is a subject matter expert on Oregon’s public records and meetings laws. As a former U.S. Army Military Police Officer, he brings a disciplined investigative approach to his reporting that has frequently exposed ethics violations, financial mismanagement, and transparency failures by public officials and agencies.
