As if the race for Deschutes County sheriff wasn’t sufficiently fraught, another investigation has been added to the hopper.
On Aug. 5, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission moved to investigate Interim Sheriff Ty Rupert’s alleged misuse of county resources during his current campaign for sheriff. Rupert was appointed interim sheriff by Deschutes County commissioners in July. He’s running against James “Mac” McLaughlin, a detective lieutenant who was hired at DSCO around the same time as Rupert, about 20 years ago.
During its preliminary review, the commission found a “substantial objective basis” that Rupert may have violated two statutes pertaining to the prohibited use of official position or office and methods of handling conflicts of interest.
After considering the preliminary review report, the commission voted to open the investigation on Sept.11. Rupert had been informed of the findings prior to the meeting, OGEC Executive Director Susan Myers told the Source.
The case could be resolved through an investigation report or through a stipulated final order, which is a written settlement agreement. Sometimes those agreements involve the levy of fines.
Rupert, who’s running on a platform of accountability and transparency, did not respond to several emails the Source sent him seeking comment for this story. (As a result, most of his following statements are from an Oct. 1 interview with the Source editorial board.)
But the interim sheriff is not the only one facing additional scrutiny this election season. This ethics investigation comes as the ongoing misconduct investigation into McLaughlin, stemming from a SWAT arrest McLaughlin supervised four months earlier in Sunriver, stretches on.
The investigation into Rupert
The OGEC investigation that’s moving forward revolves around an email — and the finding that Rupert didn’t properly handle the conflict of interest therewithin.
On Jan. 27, Rupert asked Jason Carr, the sheriff’s office spokesman, to use his work computer to email a campaign newsletter to several news outlets, according to the report. The email was in response to McLaughlin’s announcement about throwing his hat in the ring for sheriff. The commission’s report also indicates that Rupert, by not issuing a press release regarding the inherent conflict of interest in using county resources for campaign purposes, may have also violated ORS 244.120(2), which deals with proper ways of announcing those conflicts.
In the Jan. 27 campaign statement, which The Bulletin published the same day, Rupert stated, “this campaign is about who is best prepared to serve the public with integrity, transparency and sound judgment. I am confident that my record of leadership, financial stewardship and operational experience demonstrates that I am the strongest candidate to guide the sheriff’s office forward.”
Speaking with Oregon Public Broadcasting on Feb. 4, Rupert called it “a mistake” to have used public resources to send a campaign email, chalking it up to his inexperience as a political candidate.
“I didn’t think about it at the time and it won’t happen again,” Rupert told the outlet.
Oregon Statute 244.040 maintains that “… a public official may not use or attempt to use official position or office to obtain financial gain or avoidance of financial detriment for the public official… if the financial gain or avoidance of financial detriment would not otherwise be available but for the public official’s holding of the official position or office.”
Rupert also admitted to this misuse of county resources in his response to OGEC on June 29. He wrote that after the event, he consulted with the county’s legal department, whose officials told him it would be better if he sent such communication himself. Accordingly, Rupert asked county counsel about whether it was OK to have in-uniform, on-duty DSCO employees accompany him at his town halls. He was told it wasn’t a good idea.
The OGEC preliminary review report, however, cleared Rupert of the allegation that he misused county resources in the promotion of his town hall series throughout the county, which were publicized by DCSO spokesman Carr in emails and social media posts. The events were decorated with DCSO insignia and attended by members of DCSO brass. While Rupert did acknowledge that he was running for sheriff at these town halls, OGEC concluded that there isn’t enough evidence to show that Rupert obtained a financial benefit — or avoided a financial detriment — during these events.
But while OGEC officials cleared Rupert on those points, the commission found substantive evidence that Rupert not only misused county resources, but also did not properly declare that conflict of interest either before or after the event, per ORS 244.120(2), a conflict of interest statute.
Roxie Supplee, the criminal justice program director and assistant professor at Central Oregon Community College, reviewed the two statutes Rupert is accused of violating.
“It seems like Rupert messed up. He apologized,” Supplee told the Source. “He did what we teach our criminal justice students to do when they make a mistake. But there are still consequences to mistakes. We’ll have to see how this plays out.”
In conversation with the Source editorial board on Oct. 1, Rupert said, “anytime there is a conflict of interest, we need to look at having an outside independent investigator.” That investigator, Rupert explained, coordinates with the Deschutes County legal team and the DCSO professional standards unit, presently supervised by Lt. Blair Barkhurst.
It’s not clear whether Rupert has opened an administrative investigation into his having sent the Jan. 27 campaign release through county channels.
Numerous DSCO complaints
This is the second time a complaint into Rupert’s alleged misuse of county resources has been filed with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. The first one, filed on Aug. 5, involved DCSO employees mingling with Rupert at his campaign booth at the Deschutes County Fair. The commission cleared Rupert of any wrongdoing by late August.
And in September, Redmond City Councilor Clifford Evelyn filed a voluminous complaint with the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training — the state’s “police watchdogs,” in addition to the Oregon Department of Justice, the state attorney general’s office and even the FBI. Evelyn directed his critique not at either sheriff candidate but the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office as a whole. He says he’s frustrated that only two agencies have confirmed receiving his complaint.
“I’m a damn city councilman and even I can’t get answers,” Evelyn told the Source.
As reported by OPB, DPSST has referred the matter back to Deschutes County, which has until Nov. 2 to respond. That’s the eve of the General Election.
The future handling of misconduct investigations
During their Sept. 30 debate with KTVZ and the following morning in conversation with the Source’s editorial board, Rupert and McLaughlin shared plans for how they’d improve oversight and transparency at the sheriff’s office, should they be elected. A component of the “stabilization plan” Rupert submitted to Deschutes County commissioners is a citizen advisory panel. Carr told the Source DCSO is finalizing the application process in the coming weeks. Then the agency will solicit applicants for the seven- or nine-person panel of unpaid volunteers in the coming weeks.
“It’ll be a multi-purpose panel for me,” Rupert told the Source on Oct. 1. “It will be comprised of people from around the county. It’ll be a multi-role where we can learn of issues to better serve our community, but also in situations like this. They can understand the process, they can be involved in the process, but there is information through due process that is confidential — you can’t just share that with civilians.”
In contrast to Rupert’s volunteer citizen advisory panel, McLaughlin calls for a permanent ombuds with teeth — granted the power to make lasting administrative inquiries and certain deciding powers. That, he says, would be an important improvement to the current structure, where the sitting sheriff has the power to decide the fate of an employee who may also be an opponent in the race for sheriff. An ombuds office is not paid by the sheriff’s office; in theory, its staff instead would be employed by the county.
“I believe we need to bring someone who is truly outside,” McLaughlin said.
There’s precedent in the state. In November 2022, 85% of voters in Multnomah County passed a charter amendment adding the ombudsperson as a role in the county auditor’s office. The ombudsperson can assist the public by conducting independent, impartial investigations into administrative acts of county programs and recommending changes.
McLaughlin told the Source that the DCSO’s current way of conducting serious misconduct investigations, in which a sitting sheriff hires an independent investigator and then delegates the final ruling to the county manager, can come with some baked-in institutional biases. McLaughlin cited an investigator’s profit motive — wanting to make repeat customers of law enforcement agencies — as additionally problematic.
“I think it’s an engineering fault,” McLaughlin said.
McLaughlin also detailed opacity at the sheriff’s office regarding his own internal investigation. He told the Source he learned of key developments not through DCSO administrators nor command staff, but from local news outlets, including the Source.
During the Sept. 30 KTVZ debate, Rupert told voters that despite rising through DCSO ranks while misconduct and scandal engulfed others, he’s presently charting the sheriff’s office on a sound course.
“…It’s time for change,” Rupert said. “That’s why I put my name in last year to become sheriff, so we can make that change. I can’t change the past, but I can certainly change the direction we’re going, and we’re on a good trajectory so far.”
The Oregon Government Ethics Commission’s investigation into Rupert may last 180 days. The soonest date the commission will revisit the Rupert’s case is March 5, 2027 in a public meeting.
There, the case may see any of several outcomes. The commission might dismiss it; continue investigating for another month; or arrive at a finding of ethics violations. Negotiated settlements are common.
This March 5 revisitation into Rupert’s conduct will arrive four months past Jan. 1, 2027, when the sheriff-elect will begin a four-year term — and half a year past the 2026 General Election.
This article appears in the Source October 8, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Based on the tone and layout of this article and the story on the MacLaughlin investigation, it seems the Source is angling for MacLaughlin and is surreptitiously endorsing him for sheriff.
We don’t need to be surreptitious, Kevin. Our editorial board, which does not include this reporter, will issue an outright endorsement in the sheriff’s race next week. I wouldn’t call this straightforward reporting anything more than what it is: yet another story about the investigations into both candidates. The video of our editorial board interview is available for anyone to view at anytime, no paywall.
Still, having the publisher of this newspaper on the dais asking questions at the candidates debate…and lobbing softballs at MacLaughlin and the distinct difference in tone of the articles written about both candidates is telling. When one candidate, Rupert, made errors he apologized and owned up to it and swears to do better. Your favored candidate MacLaughlin laughed at another LEO talking of trumping up charges and appreciating vindictiveness {caught on video}, thinks he did nothing seriously wrong, and was recommended to be fired by an independent investigator. This is strange considering the socially progressive and equality concerned image The Source tends to promote. Perhaps you should make NO endorsement of either candidate…just to be fair.
Of course a complaint was filed by the McLaughable inner circle. Everyone sees the same group of supporters on every social media page, spewing nonsense, going after any opposing thought, dishonestly pushing an agenda like robots, all the while acting like they’re some type of authority. Calm down, nobody is buying it and you’re not impressing anyone. You’re all just proving there is close competition for the ‘Biggest Propagandist’ trophy in that camp. In fact, none of them are clever or skilled, just worthy enough to stay on payroll given the volume of deflections they post. Useful idiots.
Then as I thought more and more about all of this, I suppose any campaign with this many legitimate challenges (military service deceit, sustained findings (plural) of on-duty misconduct, poor leadership, lack of moral character, convenient omissions, rescinded party endorsement after the shameless last-minute vote-grab attempt, etc., etc.) needs a handful of low-ranking, public-relations staffers around to generate positive spin however possible. Your candidate has extremely deep character flaws, but sure, let’s talk about the groundbreaking news of a spokesman hitting the send button on an email to news outlets instead. Asinine.