An Interview with Lincoln County Commissioner Claire Hall

By Brian Bahouth

Since early August, “Recall Hall” signature gathering tables could be seen on yards and in parking lots across Lincoln County. On December 2, Lincoln County Clerk Amy Southwell announced the petitioners had gathered the 3,945 signatures needed to initiate a recall election of Lincoln County Commissioner Claire Hall.

Commissioner Hall has decided to remain in office and stand for the recall election, which, according to Amy Southwell, will likely occur sometime in January at a cost of roughly $50,000 to the taxpayers of Lincoln County.

Hall has been a county commissioner for 22 years and was elected to another four-year term in November 2024. I spoke with Commissioner Hall by phone.

Q: I’ve studied the ostensible reasons for the recall, but I’m curious to know your perspective. What’s this about?

A: If you look at their listed concerns, it’s really a bunch of innuendo and speculation. They say, I’m alleged to have done this, I may have done that, but the reality goes far deeper. 

I really believe that this is an attempt not only to remove me because of what are perceived as my liberal leanings and my work over 20 years on the Commission, but also removing me would really be the first domino to fall in what they hope is going to be a change of the entire makeup of the Board of Commissioners, from dominant blue to dominant red. 

Commissioner Miller has been consorting with people who are intimately involved in the recall. He has declared he’s going to run against Commissioner [Walter] Chuck next year. I really think they want to see a brand-new slate on the Commission, a slate which will be open to a lot of things that we haven’t been willing to entertain up till now.

Q: One of those things, I suppose, is the Board of Commissioners’ relationship with the District Attorney’s office. Can you talk a little bit about that? The District Attorney has been very vocal, issuing press releases impugning you directly for, I guess, prohibiting the release of funds for activities in her office. Can you talk a little bit about your relationship with the DA and that contention?

A: Sure, glad to. The problem here is that we’re entering a period of new fiscal austerity. Our costs are rapidly rising faster than our revenues, and everybody, every manager and elected official in the organization, is being asked to make some very tough choices, to prioritize things. 

We’ve imposed a limited hiring freeze to attempt to manage this situation without having to resort to layoffs. But I think that could very well be a possibility in the coming budget year. But for now, the District Attorney is, I believe, looking for a blank check. She is putting out misleading crime statistics, trying to create a climate of anger and fear in the community, because she is not getting her way with the Board of Commissioners, and I believe that is the essence of the problem between the BOC, or at least me, and the District Attorney. 

And can I point out one more thing about public safety and this narrative that I or the Board somehow don’t care about public safety. 

For many years, public safety has made up 50% of our general fund budget, and I expect that it will continue to do so, and almost all of the rest goes for functions that may not be as glamorous or attention-getting in the public as public safety is, but they are vital. They are legally required. I’m talking about things like the Clerk, the Treasurer, the Assessor, planning and development, as well as the essential support functions for an organization this size. So frankly, I think the idea that public safety is somehow being starved is absolutely absurd.

Q: But this is a contention of the folks who are organizing the recall, saying that this deficit occurred quite rapidly and without transparency. Can you talk a little bit about this, the change in budget fortunes for the county?

A: First off, I’d like to say it’s really not a deficit. A deficit suggests planned overspending, but this is a revenue shortfall. We’re coming in at about $4 million for the year less than we had anticipated. And something that they don’t seem willing to acknowledge is the fact that this is far from unique. About two thirds of Oregon counties are dealing with a similar problem, most of them on scales greater than ours. Other local governments as well. 

If you follow news from school districts around the state, you have several districts talking about things as severe and immediate as mid-year school closures. So, you know, I don’t know how we could have been more transparent about the facts, but the facts are there for anybody really interested in looking at the picture, understanding what’s happening, and not just making a lot of public noise about it.

Q: You mentioned Commissioner Miller. Part of the contention is that he is, I guess, being muted or suppressed or not being able to fully realize the authority of his being a commissioner. What is your perspective on your relationship with Commissioner Miller?

A: Commissioner Miller, really, it seems like, irreparably damaged his working relationships, not only with me, but with the entire office, and it’s reverberated significantly through the operation.

At our September 18, 2024, meeting, he launched into an absolutely unprecedented diatribe, attacking me, attacking Commissioner Jacobson, attacking staff, many by individual names. And up to now, he has really shown no acknowledgment whatsoever, no remorse for the damage he has caused, and has taken no steps to try to repair that damage. 

Now, instead, he has created, again, a public climate where people suddenly are listening to his cries of “transparency, transparency.” Well, he and the District Attorney have been trying to drag some things primarily related to personnel issues into the public forum, which by custom, and in some cases as required by our bargaining agreements, are always left to be dealt with confidentially. I’m not really sure what his game is, except, ultimately, I think, to try and create a public climate of anger, and as a result of that, we had, at one recent meeting, a woman storm into the room in her bathrobe, shout over the people who were speaking, utter an obscenity, and leave. 

And unfortunately, that hasn’t been an isolated incident, we’ve had multiple people shouting in the middle of the meeting trying to override speakers. And despite my efforts, and then, more recently, Commissioner Chuck’s efforts, it’s becoming very hard to even conduct the basic public business, which is the purpose of our business meetings. And again, I think the only people who benefit from that are Commissioner Miller and the District Attorney.

Q: One of the contentions of those organizing the recall is that there is sort of a contentious workplace. What’s your perspective on the mood of the workplace at the County?

A: I think everybody is still committed passionately to our work and to our mission. We’ve got a lot of good, experienced people who really know their jobs, know the framework they’re operating under. They want to do the best they can for the people, which is exactly what I want. I think a lot of them are extremely frustrated, disheartened by, you know, the game playing. I’ll just call it what it is, game playing by Commissioner Miller and the District Attorney. 

It’s creating a huge time-sucking waste and distraction of resources. But everybody’s attitude, I would say, is that somehow we have to push through this. Somehow we have to get beyond this and get the job done.

Q: Is there something else you’d add about this that’s important that I’m not asking you?

A: Maybe a little historical perspective. Until this District Attorney and her immediate predecessor, who threatened to throw the commissioners in jail if we didn’t do her bidding, and also filed a completely frivolous and fruitless lawsuit against us, we had had a degree of harmony on our management team that has just been shattered by this action. 

Now, this is not to say it was Kumbaya before this, and everybody held hands and marched off together toward the beautiful sunset, but everybody was professional. They understood their job. They understood that we had to work together, sometimes very difficult negotiations to try to come to equitable solutions. They never resorted to turning our public meetings into public grandstanding sessions. They never sent out blizzards of press releases, they behaved like responsible, mature, adult professionals.

Q: Commissioner Claire Hall, I want to thank you so much for taking time to chat with me. 

A: Thank you.