Formal Request for Legal and Ethical Review Regarding Executive Director Conduct and MACRD Governance
To:
Board Chair Deanna Seibold
Vice Chair Dr. Jinnell Lewis
Madras Aquatic Center Recreation District (MACRD)
1195 SE Kemper Way
Madras, OR 97741
Date: June 26, 2025
Dear Chair Seibold, Vice Chair Lewis, and MACRD Board Members,
We, the undersigned citizens and taxpayers of the Madras Aquatic Center Recreation District (MACRD), submit this letter to express our grave concerns regarding the ethical, legal, and administrative conduct of the Executive Director, and the apparent failure of the Board to uphold its fiduciary duties and legal obligations. Recent decisions have deeply undermined public trust, district credibility, and the mission of the MACRD.
1. Executive Compensation and Ethical Violations
At the June 18, 2025 board meeting, the Executive Director introduced a revised job description with minimal changes, primarily adjusting her compensation from a salaried to an hourly rate. However, this new scale does not align with the current contract and was adopted without disclosure or discussion of the discrepancy. Immediately following adoption, the Executive Director leveraged this inconsistency to negotiate a personal pay raise, insisting she would not work for less than the mid-range of the new scale. This maneuver presents a clear conflict of interest and raises ethical concerns under ORS 244.040 and MACRD’s bylaws.
When a board member questioned the equity of her compensation, the Executive Director claimed, without staff consultation or evidence, that employees supported paying her more 'so she does not leave.' Speaking for subordinate staff in this context is unethical and constitutes misuse of authority for personal gain, as outlined in ORS 244.040.
2. Budget Misrepresentation and Legal Violations
During the FY 2025-2026 budget process, the Executive Director presented scenarios including reduced hours and pay, which she ultimately rejected, indicating those figures were not submitted in good faith. These misleading practices appear to violate ORS Chapter 294 (Local Budget Law), which requires accuracy and transparency in public budgeting.
3. Governance Failures and Lack of Oversight
The Board did not convene an executive session as allowed under ORS 192.660(2)(a) to discuss the Executive Director’s compensation or contract revisions—despite the significant implications of these changes. Sensitive personnel matters, including salary negotiations and performance evaluations, are best handled in executive sessions to ensure candid, informed deliberation among board members. Instead, these discussions occurred openly and in the presence of the Executive Director, which likely inhibited honest dialogue and undermined the integrity of the process.
Furthermore, there is no public record indicating that an independent legal review or financial analysis was conducted by the Board prior to discussing the rate change of salary to hourly on a contract that was outside of the adopted wage scale. The Board ultimately voted to maintain the Executive Director’s existing contract, undermining their previous budgetary decisions, without sufficient discussion, analysis, or justification provided to the public.
Additionally, there appear to be multiple violations of ORS 192.650(2)(c), which requires that the official minutes of public meetings include the name of each board member and their corresponding vote on all formal motions. In multiple recent meetings, votes are recorded simply as “4-0,” without listing board members by name. This practice directly violates Oregon Public Meetings Law. Compounding this, the minutes frequently fail to note when individual board members arrive late or leave early—creating discrepancies between the number of members shown present and the votes recorded. These omissions raise serious transparency concerns and call into question the validity of actions taken during those sessions.
This failure to exercise due diligence and utilize appropriate governance procedures reflects a serious lapse in board responsibility. It contributed to decisions that appear misaligned with the District’s financial reality and the community’s expectations for ethical and transparent leadership. Moreover, under ORS 192.245, governing body members of public entities are expected to complete training on public meetings and records laws to ensure compliance and uphold public trust. The recurring procedural errors—such as the mishandling of executive sessions, improper minute documentation, and vague voting records—suggest that such training has either not been completed or not been adequately applied by the current Board. This lack of adherence to both the letter and spirit of Oregon’s public governance laws continues to erode confidence in MACRD leadership.
4. Conflicts of Interest and Dual Roles
The Executive Director’s simultaneous service as an elected official on the Jefferson County School District Board—currently the only entity receiving services from MACRD—presents an active conflict of interest. Under ORS 244.040(1), public officials are prohibited from using their position for the benefit of themselves or an associated organization. In light of closure of services to the remainder of the public, this dual role must be investigated and properly disclosed under ORS 244.120.
5. Suspension of Services Despite Stable Revenues
Despite no significant reduction in property tax revenues, MACRD has closed the pool for three months, suspended all land based recreation programs, and reduced staffing to 4.5 FTEs. These service cuts, paired with efforts to raise executive compensation, contradict the purpose of voter-approved local option levy and may constitute misuse of public funds. If the MACRD reduced services and staff without a corresponding financial shortfall, while increasing executive compensation, it could be argued that the funds are being used for purposes not aligned with the voter-approved intent of the local option levy, a clear violation of ORS 294.100(1).
6. Misleading Wage Comparisons
The Executive Director’s proposed raise is based on salary comparisons that do not reflect her actual duties or local cost-of-living standards, resulting in misleading and inflated data. At the March 19, 2025 board meeting, the ED claimed she recused herself from the salary survey process due to a conflict of interest and delegated it to the Board Chair. However, public records show the ED unilaterally dismissed the original HR Answers survey—which recommended a salary range up to $120,122, well within her current contract—and independently requested a revised version with “CEO” added to the title, prior to consulting the Chair. Only the inflated version, with a range up to $199,194, was presented to the board, with little explanation and framed as accurate yet unaffordable to the district. Despite these concerns and the Board Chair’s absence, the ED pushed the board to adopt the FY 2025–26 wage scale immediately. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the process and may constitute a violation of ORS 244.040, which prohibits public officials from using their position for personal financial gain. Using the title "CEO" in a salary survey for a nonprofit Executive Director of a taxpayer-funded recreation district is ethically questionable and potentially misleading as this term is inconsistent with public sector norms.
After deeming the “CEO” salary scale unaffordable, the Executive Director presented her personally viewed compromise via a set of salary comparisons, referencing roles such as the Jefferson County Administrator, City of Madras Administrator, and department heads from both agencies. The Executive Director stated that the position's responsibilities fell “somewhere in the middle” and claimed to have shared this data with the Board Chair, who then drafted the final wage scale. However, no public records have been provided to verify this communication, the development process, or the Executive Director’s claimed recusal due to a conflict of interest. This ongoing lack of transparency raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the process and may constitute a violation of ORS 244.040(1) for self-dealing, and ORS 244.120 for conflict of interest.
As concerned community members, we compiled independent wage data from the League of Oregon Cities, specifically considering comparable Parks and Recreation Directors serving districts with similar populations and levels of service. This data shows an average salary of $90,829.71—significantly lower than the proposed compensation for the Executive Director. These Directors typically work evenings, weekends, and engage directly with the District Population served during recreation events and outreach—duties not regularly expected of the current ED, despite ongoing community feedback. This comparison offers a more realistic compensation benchmark and highlights the growing disconnect between the Board’s decisions and public expectations.
7. Misrepresentation of Prior Executive Director Compensation Data
A growing source of tension between the Board and community members stems from inconsistent and misleading claims about historical compensation for the Executive Director position. Statements such as “The current Executive Director makes less than the last two” have been repeatedly used by Board members to justify inflated wages. These claims are based on a document titled “Executive Director Total Compensation (salary, health benefits/opt out/retirement),” which lists a line graph and a highest-paid figure of $169,250 FY2018-19.
Following a public records request and thorough review of this document, multiple issues have been identified that raise significant concerns about its accuracy, integrity, and use in decision-making. Key issues identified are as follows:
- Inaccurate Monthly Valuations: There is an arbitrary amount of $750/month for years on end which is assumed as benefits, rather than actual recorded amounts. You would expect to see those actual numbers change from year to year. This casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the totals used in compensation comparisons.
-Commingled Consultant Fees: Consultant payments appear to be included in total compensation figures for the Executive Director though only salary is referenced in the graph titles. This misrepresents the true cost of a salaried executive position and inflates the comparison base used to justify the current wage scale.
-Misrepresentation of Interim Compensation: Compensation during leadership transitions—such as interim or consulting roles—is often higher due to short-term service demands. However, failing to disclose that these payments were temporary and not part of a standard salaried position, and then using them to compare against or justify the current Executive Director’s base salary, is misleading. This misrepresentation distorts the public understanding and undermines informed decision-making by the Board.
-Unverifiable Cell Calculations: The calculated figures in the Excel document cannot be reconciled with the District’s approved budget or Profit & Loss statements, indicating that the reported salary, contract, and retirement amounts may not reflect actual expenditures. Any document used to represent actual expenses should be fully supported by source records to allow for verification.
The use of this flawed and unverified document to influence or justify financial decisions may violate the following Oregon statutes:
ORS 244.040 – Prohibited Use of Official Position for Personal Gain
A public official may not use or attempt to use their position to obtain a financial benefit that would not otherwise be available but for holding that position.
▸ Using inflated or misleading salary data to secure a raise for the Executive Director may fall under this statute.
ORS 244.120 – Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Public officials must disclose actual or potential conflicts and recuse themselves from decisions involving personal financial interest.
▸ If the Executive Director compiled or promoted this data without disclosing a conflict, it could represent an ethical breach.
ORS 162.415 – Official Misconduct in the First Degree
Occurs when a public official knowingly performs unauthorized actions with intent to benefit themselves or harm others.
▸ Deliberately presenting misleading compensation data to sway board decisions could meet this threshold.
ORS 294.100 – Expenditures Exceeding Appropriations / Misuse of Public Funds
A public official may not authorize spending for purposes inconsistent with legal budget authority.
▸ If financial decisions were based on misrepresented figures, it could constitute misuse of public resources.
8. Public Confidence and Leadership Accountability
The public has already demonstrated a lack of confidence in MACRD leadership by voting down two recent ballot measures aimed at restructuring the District’s tax base. This distrust appears directly linked to decisions made by the Executive Director and Board, particularly regarding compensation and governance practices. Board meetings have featured more discussion around adjusting the Executive Director’s salary than addressing how to restore or expand public services—raising valid concerns about misplaced priorities.
Recent developments indicate that the Board’s handling of the Executive Director’s contract and wage scale may expose the District to both legal and financial risk. This includes potential public liability for the misuse of taxpayer funds generated through the $0.40 local option levy, despite significant cuts to recreation services. Ongoing inaction by the Board only increases this risk and further undermines the District’s long-term credibility and ability to secure future funding from the voters.
We urge a formal review of MACRD’s bylaws, specifically regarding term limits and personal or professional relationships between Board members and the Executive Director. It is especially troubling that the current Executive Director served as a consultant to the Board in different capacities for multiple years before transitioning into the leadership role, disrupting the appropriate balance of authority and oversight between the Board and staff. This precedent undermines the integrity of the District’s governance structure and, given the ethical concerns and lack of progress under current leadership, warrants immediate review and correction.
We formally request the Board take the following actions:
1. Commission a third-party legal review to determine:
- Whether the Executive Director violated Government Ethics Law, Local Budget Law, or Official Misconduct;
- Whether Executive Director actions constitute grounds for termination without severance under her contract.
2. Reassess MACRD’s compliance with:
ORS Chapter 244 – Government Ethics Law, including 244.040(1) (prohibited use of position for personal gain) and 244.120 (conflict of interest disclosures);
ORS Chapter 294 – Local Budget Law (proper use of public funds and expenditures, estimate revenues and expenditures in good faith);
ORS 192.660 – Public Meetings Law (executive sessions, transparency and training requirements);
ORS 162.415 – Official Misconduct in the First Degree (unauthorized actions taken by a public official for personal benefit or harm to others);
MACRD’s own bylaws and personnel policies.
3. Rescind the FY 2025-2026 wage scale adoption until:
A formal evaluation of the Executive Director's role is completed
An independent, third-party compensation review for all leadership roles;
Development of a district-wide wage scale free from undue influence by individuals with a vested interest in the outcome.
4. Provide a clear and public timeline for the restoration of suspended public services.
We’d also like to take this opportunity to remind all parties that any such referenced actions may also fall under the oversight of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Oregon Secretary of State - Audits Division.
If board members are unwilling to take action to restore transparency and ethics, we respectfully ask you to consider whether your loyalty lies with the community or the Executive Director—and, if not with the public, to step aside so others can lead with integrity.
We believe in the mission and value of MACRD. However, the District cannot regain public trust without meaningful accountability, ethical leadership, and transparent governance. Please consider this a formal public request to be entered into the record and addressed at the next public board meeting.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens and Taxpayers of MACRD
Disclaimer on Protected Participation
The undersigned submit this letter under their constitutional and legal rights to engage in civic oversight and petition public officials. Any form of retaliation—direct or indirect—including actions targeting individuals, their businesses, nonprofit affiliations, or associates, or efforts to discredit them publicly or online—is strictly prohibited under state and federal law. Such conduct may violate Oregon Government Ethics Law (ORS Chapter 244), whistleblower protections (ORS 659A.203), and the First Amendment. Any attempt to intimidate or retaliate against concerned citizens will be documented and reported.