State Ethics Commission may investigate Crockett on ethics violations

A complaint against Lakeside City Councilor Tim Crockett for alleged unethical practices involving his abatement duties was lodged with the State of Oregon Government Ethics Commission, LakesideInfo.com has learned.

According to an investigator at the commission, the case is in a preliminary review phase right now. At its conclusion, a report will be made to the commission to investigate or dismiss.

The document, filed last August by Americans for Prosperity, a government watchdog group, alleges that Crockett personally benefited what were overzealous enforcement actions and used his clout on behalf of a relative to strong arm the neighbor of his relative.

The complaint also alleges that Crockett also acted on a nuisance complaint that didn’t go through the filing process and which ended up redounding to his own personal financial gain.

During his term as a council member, which began in 2006, Crockett has also seen himself as beneficiary of a job on another local government body, the water board, having been hired there by Mayor Orville Nelson, in Nelson’s double duty as a board member of the Water Board. Both signed the pledge for a more open and honest government.

The latter financial benefit, however, is apparently outside of the scope of the ethics commission’s mandate.

The complaint document in the hands of the State Ethics Commision, in its entirety, follows:

“Although I am not a resident of Lakeside, I work for an organization that

assists citizens who are mistreated by municipal governments in Oregon. We
have received communications from a number of Lakeside residents who want
these matters investigated but fear personal retaliation in their small
town.

The first two allegations (A & B) are that Mr. Crockett used his public
office(s) for the personal gain of himself and/or his family, and the third
allegation (C) is that he acted in conflict of interest and abuse of his
authority by altering evidence necessary to resolve a land use dispute
involving a member of his family.

The creation of the position of Code Enforcement Officer came about in an
attempt to legitimize Mr. Crockett’s activities in the land use dispute
mentioned above (attached, Ordinance 08-261 – Evidece Doc. 2A).
In the capacity of Code Enforcement Officer, the evidence suggests that
Mr. Crockett abused his authority in what might be termed a “shakedown racket”
of city property owners. In these two known instances, Mr. Crockett
contacted landowners in his role as Code Enforcement Officer in an
effort to provide private contracting efforts to abate nuisances.

In case A, Crockett followed up the notice of abatement with an “offer” to
the landowner to get the nuisances cleaned up to code without having to go
through an official abatement involving city employees. Crockett accepted a
check for $180 from Randall Cuthbert ($10 per hour for 18 hours of work) for
work performed by himself and some “local kids” (that included his son). On
the attached video (6), Crockett admits that he performed some of the work
himself to “teach the kids a lesson.”

Mr. Crocket was paid the entire cost by check from the property owner
(confirmed by attached email, See #4), but it is unclear how (or if) any amounts
were passed to the “local kids” or whether state requirements for taxes or
worker’s compensation deduction were made. However, it is clear that Mr.
Crockett is not a contractor.

Further, it appears that the landowner may have been subject to unnecessary
billings as a “weed whacker” was used for several hours over an area (flat land)
where one might expect a lawnmower to be much more efficient.

In Case B, a resident (Dewey Gilkey) filed a complaint with the City of
about a hedge growing onto his property from his neighbor’s (Don
Littlejohn’s) property. In this case, Crockett apparently acted on the
complaint without issuing a notice of violation to Littlejohn by trimming
the hedge (presumably no trespass because the work occurred on Gilkey’s
property).  It cost Mr. Littlejohn $400.

The DVD evidence involves a city hall meeting where Crockett defends his
practices. It includes admissions of payment from Littlejohn of $400 and
that he hired his son for one of the projects.

Case C involves Crockett misuse of his authority to obscure evidence in a
property dispute to benefit a member of his family (Evidence #5). It appears that
Crockett removed a monument marker from the property of Curtis Hoyle, a
Lakeside property owner, for the benefit of his neighbor (who is believed to
be related to Crockett). Hoyle threatened to sue Crockett and the city over
this. I am informed that Crockett admitted to wrongdoing and the parties initially
reached a settlement, however Mr. Crockett apparently balked at a survey payment
and the case may have been reopened, perhaps both civilly and against the city.

A case file was opened (case #GLLKS2007046246) by the
City’s insurance provider, City County Insurance (Agent Jim McWilliams).
Mr. McWilliams can be reached at (541) 682-4518. Evidence of Crockett’s
relation to the neighbor in the land dispute was discussed at a previous
city council meeting, the video of which has been privately made and can be
obtained by complainant and made available upon request (should the evidence
be missing from city records).

During his term in office, Mr. Crockett was also hired by the local Water District
at the insistence of the mayor, who also sits on that water board. It was not clear
that Mr. Crockett was the best person for that paid job.

Evidence submitted:
1) Some snippets from Lakeside laws as to how city code enforcement is supposed to be handled vs. how it is apparently done currently by Crockett
2) Ordinance 170. The original Code enforcement ordinance passed a number of years ago
2a) Ordinance 08-261. Passed this year, probably as a result of the Hoyle incident
3) Violation filed against Don Littlejohn by Dewey Gilkey
4) Packet of email correspondences on the Cuthbert Complaint with evidence of payment to Crockett
5) Curtis Hoyle’s complaint against Crockett and the City (updated status is that this may be reopened since May 7)
6) Thirteen minute video of Crockett’s admissions upon questions about these incidents at a council meeting.”

Due to the backlog and understaffed nature of the Ethics Commission, who have three investigators who cover somewhere in the vicinity of 180,000 elected, appointed, and government workers at both the local and state government level, the preliminary  investigation findings have been delayed.

Crockett was absent from the first council meeting of 2009. Before the meeting, he said his wife was having minor surgery that day and he might be late.  Because he is serving a four-year team, Crockett never faced the electorate in last November’s General Election.