No Taxpayer Funds for Sheriff’s Office Leadership’s Legal Expenses
Over the past few weeks we have written extensively about multiple tort claims filed against Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson and members of his leadership. These notices were filed by:
- Sergeant James McLaughlin whose case we wrote about in “Tort Claim Notice Filed by Sergeant McLaughlin”
- Sergeant Jay Minton whose case we wrote about in “Tort Claim Noticed Filed by Sergeant Jay Minton”
- Deputy Matthew Palmer whose case we wrote about in “Tort Claim Notice Filed by Deputy Matthew Palmer”
In their tort claims notices these employee describe a clear and repeated pattern of malfeasant acts committed against them by Sheriff’s Office leadership.
In our prior articles we repeatedly used the words “malfeasance” and “malfeasant” when describing the behavior of Sheriff’s Office leadership. As we had previously stated, we did this with intent, because malfeasant acts have statutory implications that may have severe personal ramifications for folks like Shane Nelson, William Bailey, Paul Garrison, Joe DeLuca, Jayson Janes and other defendants in what will certainly be future lawsuits brought against them by McLaughlin, Minton and Palmer.
law.com defines “Malfeasance” as:
“Intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons”
Black’s Law Dictionary further defines “malfeasance” as:
“The wrongful or unjust doing of some act which the doer has no right to perform, or which he has stipulated by contract not to do”
There are two notable statutes governing the requirement for public bodies, such as Deschutes County, to defend and indemnify their employees against tort claim actions.
The first is ORS 30.285 (Public body shall indemnify public officers) which in its first two paragraphs states:
(1) The governing body of any public body shall defend, save harmless and indemnify any of its officers, employees and agents, whether elective or appointive, against any tort claim or demand, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section do not apply in case of MALFEASANCE in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty.
The second, ORS 30.287 (Counsel for public officer), states in it’s first paragraph:
(1) If any civil action, suit or proceeding is brought against any officer, employee or agent of a local public body which on its face falls within the provisions of ORS 30.285 (Public body shall indemnify public officers) (1), or which the officer, employee or agent asserts to be based in fact upon an alleged act or omission in the performance of duty, the officer, employee or agent may file a written request for counsel with the governing body of the public body. The governing body shall thereupon engage counsel to appear and defend the officer, employee or agent unless after investigation it is determined that the claim or demand does not arise out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of amounted to MALFEASANCE in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, in which case the governing body shall reject defense of the claim.
(All emphasis added)
Given the claims made McLaughlin, Minton, and Palmer in their tort claim notices, the potential cost to the Deschutes County taxpayers in legal expenses and penalties is potentially in the multiple millions of dollars.
We believe that it’s in no way justified for the taxpayer to pay for the alleged reckless and irresponsible actions of Sheriff’s Office leadership.
All too often public bodies will by default use public funds to defend their employees against legal claims without properly investigating whether the allegations against said employees justifies spending public funds in their defense and indemnification.
With this mind, we believe the Board of County Commissioners must exercise their fiduciary duty and at the appropriate time and under ORS 30.285 and ORS 30.287 require Deschutes County Legal Counsel to conduct a full investigation into Sheriff’s Office leaderships’ actions against their employees.
Should such an investigation determine the actions of Sheriff’s Office leadership were malfeasant or otherwise fall outside of the relevant statutes, then Deschutes County should refuse to indemnify and reject any demands for legal defense by involved members of the Sheriff’s Office leadership as required by law.
As we have said previously, it is these men, and not the Deschutes County taxpayer, who should shoulder the costs of their own legal defense and any penalties levied against them by a court of law for their malfeasant actions against their own employees.
At the end of the day, it is up to the taxpayers and voters of Deschutes County to demand action by their elected representatives.
Follow us on Facebook
REFERENCES
