Alfalfa Fire District under state investigation over alleged election law violations tied to levy campaign that would double taxes
Editor's Note: The Prineville Review is a content partner with KTVZ News through the Oregon Journalism Project
By: Justin Alderman
Alfalfa, Ore. (Prineville Review) — The Alfalfa Fire District and its Chief are reportedly under investigation by the Oregon Secretary of State’s Elections Division for potential violations of state election law related to advocacy for a local levy measure, officials confirmed this week, adding to a growing list of legal and ethics questions surrounding the chief, including issues raised through records and reporting related to alleged nepotism and questionable financial management.
Crook County Clerk Cheryl Seely said Monday that the state has formally opened an investigation after concerns were raised about the district’s conduct during the ongoing levy campaign.
“[T]here has been an investigation opened on the Alfalfa Fire District’s possible Election Law violations,” Seely told the Prineville Review. “The investigations team at the Secretary of State’s office will conduct this investigation.”
The inquiry follows a referral made by Seely and Deschutes County Clerk Steve Dennison, whose jurisdictions both include portions of the district. Alfalfa Fire District spans Crook and Deschutes counties, with its administrative office located in Deschutes County.
Dennison said his office became aware of the issue after speaking with Seely regarding the reported issues, prompting his coordination on the subsequent referral to the state.
“I didn’t have any awareness of that until she called me,” Dennison said, referring to Seely’s outreach after the Prineville Review had reached out to Seely seeking information about election law requirements prompted by the reader tips.
From there, Dennison said the decision to elevate the matter was based on the nature of the information presented and the potential implications under Oregon election law.
“She and I talked, and I certainly felt like it was relevant enough to bring up to the state’s attention,” he said.
The concerns center on social media posts attributed to LaVallee and the district that encouraged voters to support Measure 9-184, a property tax measure on the May ballot. Posts reviewed by the Prineville Review included messaging urging a “yes” vote and were shared across platforms such as Facebook and Nextdoor, in some cases using official district branding and accounts.
Dennison confirmed that those postings were the primary factor behind the referral.
“It was really based on their social media postings,” he said, adding that, “on the surface, [it] looks like something that should be looked into.”
He emphasized that while county clerks play a role in identifying potential violations, their offices do not conduct investigations themselves. Instead, those matters are handled at the state level.
“I don’t have an investigative branch or leg to our office,” Dennison said. “All of those… investigators are with the Secretary of State’s office for election law violations, and that’s where this one resides.”
Dennison described the process as largely referral-based, noting that once a concern is elevated, the state assumes responsibility.
“We refer it, and then they take it from there,” he said, adding that local officials typically do not receive updates unless the state requests additional information.
The Prineville Review began examining this more recent issue after receiving tips from residents who questioned whether the district and its chief were improperly advocating for the levy using public resources. Those concerns included the use of official district social media accounts, the district’s official logo, and messaging explicitly urging voters to approve the measure. LaVallee had also posted the same material on Nextdoor using an account under his name that is almost exclusively used for official district communications, based on the account’s posting history in recent years.
Recent criticism of the district’s management under Chief Chad LaVallee has fueled tensions on social media, particularly on the platform Nextdoor, where LaVallee has personally engaged in heated exchanges with residents and responded directly to critical posts.
Those interactions reflect a broader pattern cited by critics, who point to a history of contentious exchanges between LaVallee and members of the public. His conduct has previously drawn scrutiny, including during his brief joint tenure as chief of the Detroit-Idanha Fire District in early 2022.
During a tense February 2022 board meeting in that district, LaVallee attempted to prevent members of the public from offering comment as a crowd gathered to oppose efforts to remove a longtime administrative staffer, according to the meeting’s minutes. LaVallee was not a member of the board and was only serving as an interim chief. The board ultimately allowed public comment to proceed despite his objections. During the same meeting, LaVallee also asserted that attempts by citizens to influence board members were “illegal,” a statement that drew pushback from attendees.
Under Oregon law, public bodies and public employees are restricted in how they engage in political advocacy. Guidance from the Secretary of State’s Elections Division states that public resources may not be used to promote a “yes” or “no” vote on a ballot measure. Government entities are permitted to provide neutral, factual information to inform voters, but may not advocate for a specific outcome.
Dennison pointed to those distinctions, noting that public entities must be careful to remain within clearly defined boundaries when communicating with voters.
He also noted that the state offers a “safe harbor” process for public bodies to seek guidance before distributing materials related to ballot measures.
“There’s a safe harbor process where they can run materials by the Secretary of State’s office to say, ‘Hey, is this in line with election law?’” Dennison said.
Additional questions emerged following a recent Alfalfa Fire District board meeting attended by the Prineville Review, where officials discussed producing videos and yard signs in support of the levy, including board members acknowledging the use of staff and volunteers to assist with the process. Seely indicated she would not be able to evaluate those concerns until she reviews the meeting recording.
The district has not yet released the recording or minutes from that April 8th meeting, despite prior statements in response to a public meetings grievance filed by this publication that it would comply with Oregon public meetings law regarding the timely release of meeting records.
Legal guidance from the Oregon Attorney General generally requires public bodies to make meeting records available within a reasonable timeframe, which it says is a few days. Smaller districts may have additional flexibility for written minutes that provide up to three weeks, but that does not extend to audio/video recorded meeting minutes.
Last year, the district’s board voted to transition to providing video recordings in lieu of written minutes. That decision came after the district initially declined to make its meeting records remotely accessible, prompting a formal public meetings grievance filed by the Prineville Review in early 2025.
Seely confirmed Monday that the absence of those records could also draw scrutiny.
“I don’t see the recording of their last meeting posted yet,” she said. “But when I do I will listen and possibly report that as well.”
As of publication, the district’s board has still not published its recorded minutes as required under Oregon law (ORS 192.650)
State law also has a clear distinction between elected or appointed board members and public employees on political advocacy, but places restrictions on both when acting in an official capacity.
Under state law, board members — including those serving on fire district boards — are prohibited from engaging in political advocacy while performing official duties. That includes during public meetings, while working on board-related matters, or when participating in official communications such as district publications or website content. While board members may express personal political views or even use their titles to endorse a measure, they must do so on their own time and not while acting in their official role. For example, the state specifically notes that providing endorsements during a public meeting would not be allowed, as members are considered to be acting in an official capacity.
For public employees, including hourly staff such as a fire chief, the restrictions are even more direct. State guidance defines “work time” broadly to include any compensated time, and prohibits political advocacy during that period. Additionally, certain activities are always considered official duties regardless of timing — including drafting or approving content for an agency’s website, distributing official communications, or appearing as a representative of the agency. In those contexts, advocacy for or against a ballot measure would fall under prohibited conduct.
Together, those guidelines suggest that both statements made during official board meetings and communications issued through district platforms — including social media or the district’s website — could raise potential election law concerns if they are found to go beyond neutral, factual information.
In addition to the social media posts, questions have also been raised about content published on the district’s official website. An informational page regarding the May levy appears to include language that goes beyond neutral explanation and into potential advocacy, further contributing to concerns about whether public resources were used in a manner consistent with state election law.
A past case in Oregon highlights how state election law is applied to public officials. In 2011, the Oregon Secretary of State fined two West Linn city officials after determining they violated election laws by distributing a city newsletter that included language advocating for a local ballot measure. Investigators found that even though the material contained factual information, certain wording was not neutral and crossed into political advocacy. The officials disputed the findings but were still fined, and state officials emphasized that public bodies must ensure all election-related communications remain impartial and within legal guidelines.
Measure 9-184 would increase property taxes by $1.75 per $1,000 of assessed value to fund fire and EMS services if levied by the district. The measure is a local option levy that would last for five years.
It would also effectively double the current taxes for the district, which currently sit at $1.75 per $1,000 of assessed value, and reportedly make the Alfalfa Fire District one of the highest-taxing fire districts in the State of Oregon. For property owners with $300,000 assessed value home, they would pay an additional $525 per year, for a total of $1,050 just for the fire district.
For residents who believe a violation may have occurred, Dennison said the appropriate course is to contact the Secretary of State directly.
“If somebody… perceives that an election law violation is being conducted, I recommend that they call the state each time,” said Dennison.
When reached in person earlier this month at the district’s fire station, LaVallee declined to answer questions on multiple issues, instead directing inquiries to the Alfalfa Fire District’s attorney, whom he identified as Jered Reid. Attempts to reach Reid for comment prior to publication on Thursday were unsuccessful. The Chief also demanded that we leave the property and contacted the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office, but no enforcement action took place.
We had also attempted to seek information from the Chief regarding reports that he used grant funds to quietly increase his own pay beyond what was reportedly only a part-time position, as well as overtime pay from a second grant for both himself and his wife, according to state grant records.
Among our unanswered questions was whether the levy was intended to also make his position full-time. No clear discussions have occurred during any public meetings involving the board on the levy. Information provided by the district was unclear, instead saying the levy funding would provide for “Two additional full-time Firefighter/EMTs”.
The levy campaign comes amid broader scrutiny of the district and LaVallee. Recent reporting by this publication has detailed concerns over Chief Chad LaVallee’s handling of an annexation effort involving the Juniper Acres community in Crook County, where properties were improperly classified as annexed and taxed despite the process not being lawfully completed or approved by voters.
That reporting has also raised additional questions about governance within the district, including concerns from residents and sources regarding potential nepotism and possible ethics issues tied to LaVallee’s past handling of grant-funded positions and district employment practices, including the continued employment of his wife even after the initial hiring and just over half-year employment was uncovered in early 2024 by KTVZ News’ own investigative reporting.
Investigations may result in civil penalties or criminal prosecution, as seen in cases where city officials were fined for using public resources to influence ballot measures.
