Commissioners Still At Stalemate On Commission Appointment

NEWPORT — Lincoln County commissioners remained deadlocked Wednesday, June 17, over how to fill the vacant Position 2 seat, revisiting a dispute that has stretched for months: whether to appoint one of two finalists from the county’s earlier application process or instead appoint Curtis Landers, who won the May primary for a different commission seat.

At the start of the meeting, Board Chair Casey Miller read a prepared statement about a recent federal court injunction granting him the right to return to his courthouse office. Miller said he appreciated the judge’s “careful consideration” and emphasized his focus on “ensuring the people of Lincoln County have full representation and a fully functioning county government.”

The vacancy dispute centers on a separate question: who should serve in the open seat, how quickly it should be filled, and what process should guide the appointment.

Commissioner Walter Chuck pressed Miller on why he had not moved forward with the two finalists, Marci Baker of Lincoln City and Cristen Don of South Beach. Both had applied, been interviewed, and been named as top candidates earlier this year after Commissioner Claire Hall’s death in January left the Position 2 seat vacant.

“You did not second that motion, and I just want to know what was your thought process, because we were supposed to interview these people after they applied for these positions, and I think we owe it to them to at least discuss why you do not feel that either one of them is qualified to be filling the vacancy,” Chuck said.

Chuck repeatedly argued that relying on election results “was not part of the original process” and “also isn’t what the statute says.” He urged the board to “respect the process, and let’s go with the people that applied for the opening.”

Miller said the appointment process had become entangled with the 2026 election and had created public confusion over the difference between filling the temporary vacancy and electing a commissioner for the next term.

“For me, the appointment process in ’25, ’26, there were a lot of challenges I had with the process, period,” Miller said.

Miller said the process “intersected” with the election and that “election neutrality” had become important to him. He said he had proposed a possible policy for future vacancies that would lean more heavily on election results where possible.

“The framework that I wanted us to look at before we even started, we didn’t do that right,” Miller said. “We didn’t do it in a deliberate way.”

By Wednesday’s meeting, Miller said he believed the most sensible option was to appoint Landers, who had won the May primary for Position 3.

“This just seems to be so sensible to me to choose the clear winner of the election,” Miller said.

Miller argued that Landers could be effective immediately and would require “no onboarding.” He said Landers had experience, had been chosen by voters, and was ready to serve.

“I don’t want to create any other kind of dissonance in this elections process,” Miller said.

Chuck disagreed, saying state law already provides for elections when more than half a term remains. He also pointed to Don’s performance in the Position 2 primary.

“I think Ms. Don has done pretty well,” Chuck said. “I think she almost tripled up almost everyone that was in that election. And so I think she’s qualified to do that and to fill this position, and we’ll see what happens in November. It’s just for six months.”

Chuck said the board should follow what he described as the process the commissioners had agreed to. Miller countered that the board had not addressed the appointment framework he wanted before the process began, and the two commissioners remained at an impasse.

“I also believe in finishing a process,” Chuck said.

“Well, thank you. I hear you. I hear you also,” Miller replied.

The commissioners then moved on without taking action on the vacancy.

Later in the meeting, during public comment, Baker urged commissioners to focus less on personalities and more on what could be accomplished during the remaining unexpired term. She said the most useful work over the next six months would be improving “administrative clarity,” particularly after the county administrator’s departure.

Baker said county government needed a clearer public understanding of how administration is currently functioning, what authority has been delegated, what challenges have emerged, what costs have been incurred, and what decisions still need to be made.

“The county needs a clear point of accountability and a clear path forward,” Baker said.

Baker emphasized that she did not see herself as the only person capable of doing that work, but asked commissioners to engage in “a public deliberation directly addressing what work needs to be accomplished over the next six months and who is best positioned to help accomplish it.”

Her remarks drew praise from Miller, who responded, “Wow, thank you, Ms. Baker. Beautifully put.”

Despite that, the board made no change to its deadlock over the Position 2 appointment, and the meeting ended with the vacancy still unresolved.

The Position 2 seat has remained open since Hall’s death in January. With only two commissioners currently serving, Miller and Chuck must agree before an appointment can be made. Their disagreement has left the county board operating without a third member during a period that has included budget decisions, management questions, and broader debate over commissioner authority.

The vacancy remains unresolved, and no new appointment timeline was set.