Multiple residents and county employees used public comment at the Columbia County Board of Commissioners meeting on Sept. 10 to demand the board release an internal workplace investigation report concerning Commissioner Casey Garrett.

“Release the report,” Gloria Rice, a St. Helens resident, told the commissioners during the three-minute public comment period, adding that “the county residents and employees deserve to know the truth about the workplace investigation fraud against Commissioner Garrett.”

Commenters tied their requests to the county’s stated mission and values. An unnamed county employee who identified themself as part of the team that drafted Columbia County’s mission, vision and values reminded the board of the county’s commitment to “integrity, dedication, accountability, teamwork, respect, communication, equity, community, and livability,” and said those words “require action.”

Several speakers alleged a pattern of problematic conduct by Garrett. Tammy Magra, reading a letter from Tracy Smith, said that Smith’s late husband, Jeff, described an incident in which Garrett used a racial slur while directing workers, and that the episode contributed to workplace tensions. Magra read the letter: "I directly remember the day my husband, Jeff, came home and described in detail Casey calling his workers the n-word." The letter-writer and other commenters said a prior written reprimand (2016) and earlier incidents should factor into the board’s response.

Speakers also cited a public statement issued by the board on Aug. 26 and urged the commissioners to follow their stated commitment “to maintaining a safe, respectful and professional workplace” by releasing the investigation report. One commenter said the board had spent county funds defending Garrett and asked that the report be made public so employees and residents could see details and move forward.

Commenters asked for specific accountability, including a public apology from Garrett and, in some remarks, his resignation. Several speakers described the workplace impact on county employees and said they had lost confidence in county leadership when allegations were not fully disclosed.

No motion to release the report, public-records action, or personnel action appeared on the meeting agenda, and the board did not vote to release the investigation during the meeting. After public comment closed, the board moved on to a scheduled proclamation and other agenda items.

The public comment period included multiple speakers on the topic; the meeting record shows no formal directive, assignment or vote resulting from those comments during the Sept. 10 session.