When the Board of Commissioners voted on August 6 to explore a levy supporting Lincoln County’s Veterans Service Office, most people in the room — including Commissioner Casey Miller — understood the proposal as additional support for a well-regarded program that currently receives general fund dollars.

But that’s not what ended up on the ballot.

The measure now before voters tells a different story: if passed, the Veterans Service Office would receive no general fund support at all during the five-year levy period, replacing baseline county funding rather than supplementing it.

Commissioner Miller says that shift occurred after the public meeting — and without the Board ever reviewing the final ballot language.

In a statement released Monday (included below), Miller took responsibility for not catching the change sooner, but was blunt about what happened:

“The motion passed by the Board directed staff to prepare the necessary materials for a levy — but it did not include a contingency for reviewing or approving the final ballot language… My signature was applied to that order without my having had the opportunity to review or approve the final text.”

The official order calling for the election (Order #08-25-330) shows all three commissioners’ signatures. Yet Miller says he did not see the final language before the measure was submitted to the Clerk and mailed to voters.

So the question becomes: Was the ballot measure legally adopted?

Why It Matters

Under Oregon law, ballot referrals by a governing body must reflect the direction and intent of the public vote as discussed and authorized in open session. The August 6 agenda listed the levy as an “action item,” but no draft ballot language or cost analysis was presented. The Board had only a single letter from the Veterans Service Officer requesting levy authority.

There was no discussion — at least in the public meeting — about removing the Veterans Office from the General Fund.

Yet the ballot language voters received describes exactly that.

If the text materially differs from what the Board actually voted to authorize, a taxpayer could request judicial review and challenge the measure on procedural grounds. Oregon courts have invalidated measures before when the process was mishandled.

Who Would Be Responsible?

If a court found the action improper, responsibility could potentially fall on:

• The Board majority, if they approved the shift outside of public session, or
• County Counsel, who drafted the explanatory statement, or
• County Administration, if signatures were applied without commissioner review.

Miller does not accuse anyone of bad faith — but his statement makes clear that something about the process went off the rails.

The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse

This comes while the Oregon Government Ethics Commission is already reviewing multiple complaints involving the County Commissioners — including accusations of decision-making outside public meetings.

If this levy change was discussed privately rather than publicly, it may become Exhibit A in that broader investigation.

Support for Veterans Isn’t the Issue

Everyone involved — Miller included — says they support the Veterans Service Office and its mission. The disagreement is about process, transparency, and whether financial decisions are being made in full view of the public.

For voters, the question is straightforward:

Did the Board follow the law when it referred this levy?

If not, the remedy may not be political — it may be legal.

A single taxpayer could have standing to challenge the validity of a ballot measure if the County failed to adopt it properly.

And in a county already struggling with trust in its elected leadership, few questions are more consequential than whether the public’s business is being conducted in public.

Here’s the complete text of Miller’s statement:

Commissioner Miller – Clarification Statement on Veterans Levy –  10.27.25

 I want to be clear: I fully support our Veterans Service Office and the veterans of Lincoln County.

I have not engaged in any discussions that foreshadowed the removal of general funds to our VSO office prior to the levy proposal. I’ve previously asked the Board to have detailed and open discussions about our overall financial situation.  I’ll continue to advocate for our collaboration.

If our VSO office anticipates projected general fund staffing vulnerabilities these were not specifically articulated in the August 6^th meeting.

My concern is not about the overall inherent value of the VSO office or its mission; it’s about how this levy proposal came forward, the finer details of discussion in the meeting and how the levy was processed following the motion.

When the idea of a levy was first presented at our August 6 Board of Commissioners meeting it was placed on the agenda as an action item. I understood it as a proposal to augment existing General Fund support—not to replace it.

At that meeting, the Board received a single letter from the Veterans Service Officer. No draft ballot language or supporting fiscal analysis was presented or discussed. The motion passed by the BOC directed staff to prepare the necessary materials for a levy—but it did not include a contingency for reviewing or approving the final ballot language.

After the meeting, Order #08-25-330—the official order calling for the election—was drafted. My signature was applied to that order without my having had the opportunity to review or approve the final text. Did my fellow commissioners review this document?

My mistake was not asserting the BOC, and the public had a full chance to review the language before the measure was sent to households.

The result is that voters are now being asked to consider a proposal that many, including me, initially understood differently. The ballot language reflects a shift from augmentation to replacement of General Fund support—something that was not articulated clearly in our open session. I take responsibility for not catching this and asserting we circle back well before ballots were distributed.

I believe our community wants to support veterans but also deserves full transparency about the financial implications and timing of this proposal.

A deeper look at our General Fund, the continued  impact to  all  departments,  the long-term sustainability of the VSO, and whether this philosophical shift—moving a department from the County’s base budget to a levy—is truly the right approach. Imagine a truly inclusive discussion and what we might learn.

If the levy passes and there are surplus dollars, shall we simply create a reserve fund within this budget? With increased service demand (thanks to PACT Act, etc.), our local office may further need additional outreach, faster claim assistance, and more staff. Our veterans deserve care and compensation, and we are compelled to ensure their protection. The levy may help match capacity to demand that is yet foreseen.

As a commissioner, it’s my responsibility to ensure the community has the clarity and information it deserves to make decisive, informed choices. I regret not asking these questions when they would have been most helpful.

I remain committed to our veterans and to transparent, responsible county governance. Moving forward I will continue to advocate for articulate and timely financial analysis of the use and sustainability of taxpayer resources.

Sincerely,
Commissioner Miller