Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Hollinger defends disclosure of sheriff-related training material; county files motion to compel discovery in declaratory-judgment case
Summary
Commissioner Patrick Hollinger defended his disclosure of material from a sheriff‑training session and said the county has filed a motion to compel in a declaratory‑judgment lawsuit seeking clarification of roles between the board and the sheriff.
Commissioner Patrick Hollinger used his allotted time during the June 4 meeting to read a prepared statement defending his actions after the Oregon State Sheriffs Association (OSSA) and local sheriff publicly criticized him earlier in the week.
Hollinger said the OSSA’s letter and the sheriff’s public posting mischaracterized his actions and that he had acted to promote transparency and accountability. “I will not be intimidated. I will not be silenced,” Hollinger said, reading prepared remarks in which he accused the OSSA and the sheriff of using their institutional weight to intimidate an elected county official.
County counsel and other commissioners addressed the legal context during the meeting. Counsel and staff cited ORS 206.345 (authority to enter intergovernmental contracts) and other state statutes while urging reliance on statute and process rather than rhetoric. County counsel said the statute cited in the OSSA letter does not criminalize Hollinger’s reported actions and argued the association’s public posture risked misrepresenting the law.
Separately, commissioners provided an update on a pending declaratory‑judgment action the county filed against the sheriff to clarify roles and responsibilities under state law. Counsel said four attempts to obtain discovery from the sheriff’s office had gone unanswered, and the county therefore filed a motion to compel; a hearing on that motion was set for July 1. Counsel said depositions will be scheduled following the court’s ruling.
Commissioner Hollinger and other commissioners framed the dispute as a disagreement about transparency and the correct interpretation of state law. Commissioners said they hoped litigation would provide a final judicial resolution to the governance dispute.
No action to remove or discipline any official was taken at the meeting; the board reported the matter is now in the court process and staff are treating it as such.
