The investigation report was the subject of a GRAMA request from the Standard-Examiner. That request has yet to be fulfilled, but in an email to the Standard-Examiner, Crofts sent the redacted report pending final approval along with his comments on the investigation.

The investigation was conducted by Kristin A. VanOrman of Strong & Hanni. VanOrman represented Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old retired optometrist, in a 2023 case against actress Gwyneth Paltrow following a Utah ski accident.

“Because of the potential liability for both Davis County and Commissioner Crofts, I was asked to conduct an independent investigation regarding such concerns,” VanOrman wrote in her report to Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings and Chief Civil Deputy Neal Geddes.

VanOrman said the investigation began in November 2025 and spanned a five-month period of time.

It included 26 individuals, both current and former employees of the county, as well as former coworkers of Crofts who have not worked for the county.

VanOrman said she met with Crofts to discuss the concerns.

“While concerns continue to be raised and the investigation is not officially complete, I believe there is sufficient information for me to share my findings at this time,” she said.

She noted that the identity of the individuals who participated in the investigation would not be included in the report, which she said was intentional because “the vast majority” of the witnesses interviewed feared retaliation

“After meeting with twenty-six individuals, it was clear that the concerns shared in the investigation were not unique to one, two or even ten individuals,” she said. “The concerns that are detailed below were shared by nearly every individual who was interviewed. While some had more direct information than others, each witness was consistent with the concerns that I uncovered and only one person, other than Commissioner Crofts himself did not know of or experience first-hand similar issues.”

In his email, Crofts called the investigation “frivolous and costly” and noted that it resulted in no criminal activity found.

“The former or current employee interviews are compiled into a document riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations, omissions, and claims that are plainly untrue,” he said. “Some of the allegations are so preposterous that they would be humorous if this entire process had not consumed substantial taxpayer resources and distracted county government from serving the public. All during an active political cycle.

“I understand change is very challenging for most people. I will continue to lead with hard work, kindness, and empathy in the workplace, and any employee who has concerns about my work, ethics, or behavior is welcome to communicate with me directly; my office door is always open.”

Defamation

VanOrman said “the most concerning claims” she investigated were of defamation.

“In my opinion, it is these claims that bring the greatest potential for liability both to Davis County and personally to Commissioner Crofts,” she said.

Among what she called “some of the more egregious and legally defamatory statements” were:

• “Stating in social media that certain elected and appointed leaders (Brian McKenzie and Curtis Koch) have not been transparent and are hiding things from voters”
• “Accusing the Davis County Clerk’s office of inappropriate and illegal actions”
• “Accusing Brian McKenzie of four words redacted pending review”
• “Spreading a rumor that Name redacted pending review was having an affair with Name redacted pending review. This included claims that he saw the Name redacted pending review running Name redacted pending review hands down Name redacted pending review back and that the Name redacted pending review claimed, ‘Name redacted pending review nailed Name redacted pending review but Name redacted pending review was not very good.'”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review and others of lying”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review of having borderline personality disorder”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review of being a pedophile and molesting children at Name business redacted pending review”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review of illegal conduct”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review of making his money through fraudulent details removed pending review”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review of having an affair as well as word redacted pending review mismanagement of the County”
• “Accusing Davis County officials of breaking the law and of criminal activity”
• “Accusing (Commissioner) Name redacted pending review of violating the Hatch Act”
• “Accusing Name redacted pending review of illegally collecting fake signatures to support Name redacted pending review for Name redacted pending review against Name redacted pending review”

Crofts denied making any of the statements, according to VanOrman.

“In my opinion, the statements above, if they were in fact made, are clearly defamatory,” she said. “The statements would not be considered opinion, and unless the statements were true (as truth is a complete defense) Commissioner Crofts would have a difficult time escaping liability. If Commissioner Crofts was acting with his capacity as a commissioner when he made the statements, liability could also be imputed to Davis County.”

VanOrman said she found Crofts’ denial “disingenuous” but did not believe he held any malice toward most of the individuals.

“Three words redacted pending review, Mr. Crofts talks about others in disparaging ways or ‘stirs the pot’ in order to get others to like and accept him,” VanOrman said. “He does not want to hurt anyone and does not have ill intent, he just wants to be liked and respected. Unfortunately, this approach has the opposite effect and makes employees uncomfortable and fearful of their jobs.”

Hostile work environment

A substantial portion of the report was dedicated to claims of a hostile work environment.

It notes that since Crofts was sworn into office in January 2025, his executive assistant has resigned, his office manager has left and the animal care director quit. Furthermore, VanOrman said, a number of employees said they are actively seeking new employment.

“While these resignations are not solely based on Commissioner Crofts, it became clear during the investigation that interactions with him played a significant part in their decisions,” VanOrman said. “Nearly every witness that I interviewed experienced what they termed a hostile work environment. This includes being yelled at, being told they are a liar to their face, having their job threatened due to their political affiliation, being attacked and slandered in public meetings if they disagree with his views, and being publicly accused of both criminal and personal misconduct.

“Mr. Crofts has repeatedly asked employees during their first meeting if they have ever been criminally indicted. He has asked employees about their political and religious affiliation and expressed his displeasure if those affiliations did not line up with his own preferences. Employees are scared of their jobs and fear they will be retaliated against. According to a number of witnesses, Commissioner Crofts has publicly stated that ’employees will learn to fear the commission.’

“Witnesses have indicated that Commissioner Crofts frequently talks poorly about those he is not happy with and warns employees that he likes ‘to be careful who they align with at the County.’

“Witnesses have said that if they are seen conversing or having lunch with someone on Commissioner Croft’s ‘hit list’ they too will be treated differently and targeted in their job. Several employees have passed on appointed positions with the County in order to remain in their protected merit positions due to the fear that they would be targeted and lose their job.”

Examples were shared, including one involving Davis County Clerk Brian McKenzie and former Davis County Controller Curtis Koch.

“It is clear that there is no love lost between these individuals,” VanOrman said. “Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Koch do not trust Commissioner Crofts, and Commissioner Crofts has publicly opposed Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Koch. While open disagreements are not inappropriate, it is my opinion that Commissioner Crofts has used his political position inappropriately due to this personal animus.”

The example shared involved a request from Crofts “for a legal review of the Proposed Ordinance: Davis County Privacy Program (Clerk) Government Data Privacy Program Ordinance.”

According to VanOrman, a legal review of a proposed ordinance is not inappropriate on its face, but it is clear political animus drove the request.

“Commissioner Crofts directly stated in his request for a legal review that: ‘The goal is to provide the Board of Commissioners with an in-depth understanding of whether the Clerk is acting beyond the scope of his statutory authority through the proposed ordinance. The request also seeks legal guidance on the broader implications of the Board of Commissioners delegating even more authority to a Clerk who has demonstrated a pattern of non-transparency and behavior inconsistent with the expectations of collaborative governance,'” VanOrman said.

“From the request alone, it is clear that Commissioner Crofts has requested the Davis County attorney to utilize time and county resources to assist him in a personal vendetta that he has with Brian McKenzie. This conduct is extremely troubling and is a blatant misuse of County time and resources.”

Political favoritism

Political favoritism and discrimination was “one of the most common concerns that nearly all witnesses shared,” according to VanOrman.

VanOrman states that many employees said Crofts asked who they voted for in the election or if they were a delegate.

“He would warn employees upon meeting them to ‘be careful who they align themselves with’ at the county,” VanOrman said. “If an individual voted for Name redacted pending review, Crofts sought retribution. He would make it clear that they were his enemy, that they would be placed on his hit list, and that he would find a way to get rid of them from their position with Davis County. He would then ask others for information on such individuals in an attempt to get them out of office or out of their job. Crofts would also frequently state publicly that ‘Davis County needs to get rid of the Democrats in the County.’ This created an ongoing fear and concern by employees for their jobs that their employment was not based on merit but was based instead on their political affiliation.”

Religion

VanOrman stated that nobody said they were discriminated against based on their faith, but there were concerns over Crofts incorporating religion into the workplace where it didn’t belong.

“Examples of this include asking people what their faith is, making comments to others about the picture of Jesus hanging in his office, and calling Name redacted pending review a word redacted pending review” VanOrman said. “Commissioner Crofts also shared his religious beliefs regarding his ‘Tribe’ as well as his religious beliefs regarding his ‘calling and election’ and shared those beliefs freely in the workplace.”

“While there are no issues with Mr. Crofts holding these beliefs, the discussion of religion and religious topics in the workplace should be avoided so that issues of perceived discrimination do not develop.”

LGBTQ discrimination

Many employees expressed concerns about discrimination toward the LGBTQ community, according to VanOrman.

“According to the witnesses, the current Name redacted pending review hung a LGBTQ flag at the library,” VanOrman said.

“This action apparently upset Commissioner Crofts. The Name redacted pending review was told to remove the flag. This conduct alone was not problematic. However, according to the witnesses, the issue continued and escalated. After the initial problems with the flag, Commissioner Crofts began challenging Name redacted pending review. According to witnesses, Mr. Crofts began trying to find ways to get Name redacted pending review. Issues were also created regarding the artwork designated for the library. The issue with Name redacted pending review is an example of a pattern that emerged during this investigation. Time and time again, if Commissioner Crofts was challenged, or if someone took a path that he did not agree with, instead of agreeing to disagree or attempting to solve the problem and work with the individual, an attempt to discredit, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of the individual (either by termination or resignation) occurred. This practice occurred over and over again throughout numerous divisions of Davis County.”

Fitness for duty

Several individuals, according to VanOrman, expressed concerns with Crofts’ fitness for duty “due to bizarre stories he would tell.”

VanOrman said that the stories were “clearly fabricated or at a bare minimum exaggerated” but did not seem to be the result of “mental instability.”

VanOrman said part of Crofts’ personality involves telling these kinds of stories.

“While it is unknown why he engages in this form of conduct, it appears to be an attention seeking mechanism, similar to his spreading rumors about others having an affair, in an attempt to either fit in or curry favor with those around him,” VanOrman said.

Conclusion

In conclusion, VanOrman wrote:

“From the sheer number and consistency of complaints of current and former employees at Davis County, I have significant concerns regarding the potential liability for both the county and for Commissioner Crofts personally. So many of the allegations cross the boundaries of acceptable conduct and could be considered actionable in a court of law.

“While Mr. Crofts denies most all of this conduct, he demonstrated a clear willingness to change. As mentioned above, I did not find that there was any malice in Mr. Croft’s actions. I believe that he genuinely does not realize that he is doing anything wrong. While that is concerning, it also gives me hope that positive changes can be made. I would strongly recommend that Commissioner Crofts undergo training in leadership, management, and proper workplace conduct. In this manner, he can hopefully learn what is and is not appropriate conduct in this position of authority as a commissioner.

“Mr. Crofts has also indicated a willingness to cease writing his commentaries online which were a common source of defamatory statements. It is my hope that this investigation has brought many concerns that Davis County employees share to light with the hope of making positive changes. From my meeting with Commissioner Crofts, I am hopeful that he will implement positive changes, obtain recommended training and modify the way he treats others that he works with. In my opinion, this is the only way to avoid significant liability exposure in the future.”

Crofts’ statement

In his email, Crofts said there has been “an increasingly political and deeply flawed process” directed at him over the past several months while he did what he was elected to do, which included challenge government spending, question bureaucracy, demand transparency and represent taxpayers first.

“This so-called investigation was built largely upon anonymous complaints, subjective opinions, political disagreements, hearsay, and unchallenged accusations,” he said. “Employees were given anonymity.  A question that remains is how did confidential personnel information in this opinion-based report become disseminated to news media outside of official county channels?

“Commissioner Crofts further believes that Davis County taxpayers deserve answers regarding how internal county disputes, political infighting, and bureaucratic dysfunction were allowed to escalate into an expensive and divisive process that has distracted from the actual business of governing.

Crofts said he was not elected to protect bureaucracy or preserve the status quo, even if it “ruffles the feathers of those who are fearful of change.” He said that is exactly what he will continue to do.

Contact Standard-Examiner editor Ryan Comer at rcomer@standard.net.