📞 ODVA Director Silences Veteran

On December 4, 2024, Oregon Veterans Affairs Director Nakeia Daniels took offense at a question about basic respect the state of Oregon fails to show rank and file veterans.

If you remember me, I was at the town hall meeting earlier this year, and I made a comment about civil rights. My name is Logan Isaac, and in the meantime I started GIJustice.com. [To staff:] If you could put that in the chat, that would be great — or I can.

Dr. Daniels, I'll see you next week at the Senate hearing, Tuesday the 10th. I'm going to be presenting, I think closer to 4:30, because I have the last slot and I only have 10 minutes. I'll be talking about two legislative concepts that are going to be presented during the long session, thanks to the efforts of Senator Kim Thatcher and Representative James Hieb. The first is a memorial addressed to Congress, asking them to enforce hate crimes protections that have never been enforced for military families. The second is, hopefully, what will be the nation's first comprehensive Military Civil Rights Act.

And we need that, because veterans don't have civil rights — I'll say that again, just to be clear: after you serve, you become a specific legal entity, and you can then be denied protections under federal law as a veteran, because federal agencies either don't have laws to enforce that protect soldiers, veterans, and their dependents, or the laws that do exist — like the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 — have never been enforced, despite multiple violent crimes that have targeted service members and veterans. So if you want to hear about that, I encourage you to check out GIJustice.com, or come to the Senate hearing on Tuesday, December 10th, around 4:30, and I'll give more information there.

Question to Director Daniels

My question is a little more direct, and it's to Director Daniels. It feels to me — and this is pure speculation, circumstantial, whatever — but it feels like ODVA is not giving 100%. ODVA does not complete basic tasks necessary to convey that veterans are worth our best effort. I'll direct your attention to page 12 of the report, where ODVA failed to run a spell check — I'll let you find it — someone in your organization failed to run a spell check, or failed to hire a copy editor, and now we have a misspelled word in a top-level heading. That should be easily caught.

The other thing that really bothers me — because I've missed out on important resources, like the Stand Down at Grand Ronde that I wanted to attend, and NAMI peer support specialist training — is that the weekly digest bulletins, which I've been receiving since I became a resident of Oregon in July of '23, consistently give information that is backdated and therefore expired. I've gotten multiple bulletins calling my attention to, say, a September 11th remembrance meeting — sent on September 16th. This isn't just reflective of a lack of concern for the real veterans who receive it — it reflects a lack of care on your part and ODVA's part to do the basic tasks necessary to convey that veterans are worth our best efforts. The only logical, rational conclusion is that ODVA does not value veterans as real human beings, rather than as political pieces in sloganeering and the latest zeitgeist hot-button issue.

I want to be involved. But ODVA — certainly not deliberately, but through chance, incompetence, or negligence — is prohibiting me from taking part in resources, events, and other things I would love to participate in. And it's insulting. So my question is: why are vets not worth 100% of our best efforts?

Director Daniels: Hi Logan, thank you so much. I'm actually typing out a little bit of what you've stated, so I can make sure I address as much of what you've shared as I can. It's a very simple question — certainly you made statements I want to make sure I capture, but I'll restate the question: why does ODVA not treat veterans, in their actions, their deeds, and their language, as fully human?

So — one, I want to thank you for being here with us today, and honestly for, for the first time, meeting in person, for you attending the ODVA meeting we had at central office. I've met you at the Capitol before. I'm looking forward to seeing you again on Tuesday. You mentioned you and your wife have reached out and gone unresponded to.

What I want to acknowledge is your care, your concern, and your deep feelings for veterans.

[I attempted to interject here, this is not about feelings. It’s about actions and inactions.]

Mr. — Mr. — Mr. — thank you very much, thank you very much, thank you very much for not interrupting me. If you don't mind — I certainly gave you the opportunity to express yourself fully, so if you could give me the same courtesy, I would greatly appreciate that. Is that all right? Is that okay?

[I respond by repeating my question: why does ODVA not value veterans as full human beings?]

What we want to make sure we have is a respectful exchange, and thoughtful dialogue. So I'm going to ask you very kindly, once again, not to interrupt me when I'm speaking. Thank you.

Thank you for your interest, thank you for your concern, thank you for your passion. To your point that ODVA does not value veterans — there's really little I can do to respond to that. What I'm getting from you, and from your question, is that there's not very much I might be able to say to quell how you're feeling right now. What I will say is that the Department of Veterans' Affairs — myself, our team — we do care about veterans. Are we a perfect agency? Are we a perfect entity? I'd invite you to name one. There are no perfect organizations, there are no perfect agencies, and we get things wrong, we miss things — but we also do a lot of good work, and we make a lot of difference in the lives of veterans, and there's data to show that.

So I want to acknowledge your passion, I want to acknowledge the feelings you're expressing here today, and I want you to know I appreciate this, because feedback is one of the most impactful things leaders have — if we aren't open to listening to people, whether or not they agree with us, whether or not they feel the same way we do, we're really not up for the work. So thank you again for coming here, for your consistency, for your passion, for your dedication.

Our agency is in transition. I don't know that you've ever worked in a state government agency — I don't know very much about your background. We are doing the very best that we can. Can we do better? Yes. Are we working to do better? Yes, we are. Some of what was shared earlier about budgetary support for our agency is going to help us do better. So what I'd invite you to do — and I know someone on our team is taking notes on some of what you've shared — is to continue to do that.

Can I answer the point about whether ODVA cares about veterans? I absolutely can. We do care about veterans, we absolutely do. Are there veterans who still need more help, more support, more from us? Yes. Both of those things are true.

What I'm not going to respond to is typos — a single typo, or maybe a couple of typos, in a document. I'm going to count that to human error. I'm going to count that to human error, and I'm going to elicit the spirit of grace, which I have for my team, and I have for you, and I have for all the veterans we serve across Oregon and partner with across the state. We have to live in a space of grace — because if we don't live in a space of grace, we're looking for perfection, and nobody can provide that. Not a single person on this meeting can provide perfection. We are doing the very best that we can, and we're going to continue to do that.

Why are veterans not worth our best efforts? Again, whether or not you agree, or whether or not others agree — the Department of Veterans' Affairs, as human as this team is, we are providing our best efforts. Can we do better? Yes, we can. Are we going to? Yes, we are. So if there are specific things you'd like to check in with us about, outside of typos, I'm happy to do that.

And I want to acknowledge that you said you reached out and didn't get a response — you and your wife. I do remember meeting you and your wife outside one of the hearing rooms at the Capitol, and I personally wanted to say that was not an intentional slight. There are a lot of inquiries and emails that come into the agency — do I wish I could respond to every single one, to every individual who emails me? I do, I really do. Will I try to do better, and am I eager to work to do better? Yes, I will.

But in addressing your question — as much as I appreciate your feedback, and as much as I genuinely, sincerely applaud you for the courage it took to come into this meeting and state what you stated as authentically as you can — I stand by my statements earlier and my statements today. We have an amazing team, and we are doing the best that we can, and are working every single day to do better, and lobbying as much as we can for more resources and support. So thank you very much for your question, thank you for your passion, thank you for your energy and efforts. By all means, continue to engage with us — your feedback, your energy, your passion, is just as important as anyone else's here. So thank you.

The Muting Incident

[This section is heavily overlapping crosstalk in the source audio. Several lines do not resolve into clean sentences even with careful listening.]

Director Daniels(to the room, apparently deciding whether to let Logan respond further): Do you want me to respond, or do you want me to keep — no. No, I don't, because I do want to move on to others, if we have other folks who have questions. No — what we are not going to do is take the VAC meeting over with an individual person. One — there are people — I don't want any more of your [unclear].

Logan:(attempting to speak, naming a specific staff member and asking whether they are still employed) — Tyler Frankie — is Tyler Frankie still an employee?

Director Daniels: Here's the thing, Logan — [unclear] — Tyler — if I were to lose my job over this, I run a respectful organization. We are going to respect — had I done what is being done by [name unclear, "Thea"?], I would have [unclear — possibly "fired" or "demoted"]. So I'm sorry that —

[I was muted around this point. The remainder of my sentence is not recoverable.]

Director Daniels: Thank you very much. We have respectful engagement here. We have respectful engagement here. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Daniels —

Logan (or possibly another speaker — unclear): — that you have been disrespectful to veterans. So if you want us to treat you with respect, I'm asking why — [cuts off] — very convenient to silence the —

Committee Discussion (Stand Down / Digest Issue)

Unidentified committee member: Yeah, it's — you know, from the committee standpoint, it's our job also to have time to listen to other veterans' issues, and sometimes that brings resolution. I'm sorry that Mr. Isaac is upset. I hear this often, coming from veterans — unfortunately, a lot of times there are underlying issues that are better resolved in a different platform.

I would like to hear more from Mr. Isaac, but he brought up a point I think is interesting — about the information that went out for the Stand Down. I'd like to know what happened, if it did happen, and what we can do to make sure that information is going out in a timely manner, so veterans can connect with those resources, because I think it's important.

I want to acknowledge that, and — [staffer name, transcribed as "Nick Hof" / "Nicole," referred to as "she," apparently Director of Strategic Communications] — is here, and could speak in more detail. I do want to acknowledge there are going to be times we miss the mark — sure, there just are. If we could catch everything, I promise you we would. Is this something we can address? Absolutely. Are there a number of things Mr. — [unclear, transcribed as "Logan race"] — that we can address? Absolutely, in a respectful manner, and in a different forum. This really belongs to the Veterans Advisory Committee.

So, Chris — I have no issue with [the staffer] responding to the point you raised, and I appreciate you for raising it. Did you finish your point?

Committee member (possibly "Chris"): I just want to — when I look at situations like this, if there was a failure point here, it's usually not a failure of people, it's a failure of process. That's how I always perceive these things. If that did in fact happen, I'm just curious.

Response: Thank you, absolutely. Thank you, [staffer name].

Staffer ("Nicole"/"Nick Hof" — Director of Strategic Communications): Yeah, thank you, committee, thank you, Director. We will look back in our system to see what went out around the Stand Downs. We do communicate quite broadly around many different community events, including events other than ODVA's own — we have a lot of partnerships with the community, and a lot of this information comes in through our strategic partnerships and the Appeals and Special Advocacy division. As much as we gather this information through communications and deploy it through our channels, we will look back specifically at that September 16th distribution for the Stand Down that was obviously overdue.

Excuse me — Mr. Isaac, we will respond to you directly about what happened there. That must have slipped my awareness, but we will get confirmation, and if there was a miscommunication, or a communication that went out after the fact, I will forward that information to Mr. Isaac. I do know this doesn't happen very frequently, but my deep apologies as well if that was an oversight by our team.

Committee: I can actually speak to it specifically if you'd like, Director — or we can move on.

Vice Chair: I want to give you a moment, if that's all right with the Vice Chair, just so we can wrap things up. I see Derek Hofbower's [name as transcribed; spelling unconfirmed] hand has been up — thank you, Derek, for your patience. Vice Chair —

Tyler(staffer, apparently a second communications team member): If we could, very, very briefly, and then we'll turn the meeting back over to the Vice Chair — I'm sorry, and I also want to echo apologies to Mr. Isaac for some of the issues we may have been involved in that he was speaking to. But just to echo what [the previous staffer] was talking about — these types of things, we do sometimes receive these emails, and I feel it's because we over-communicate, in a sense. Both the September 11th event and the Stand Downs received multiple communications before they actually happened, and then if one or two go out after, people ask how come they didn't hear about it sooner.

For the Stand Down one, we do a compilation of all the Stand Downs happening that month — so as the month goes on, some on the list may have already happened, but that's just because it's one graphic covering everything happening that month. For the September 11th one — I'm not sure I'm picturing exactly what Mr. Isaac was referring to, but there is a digest that automatically scrapes and compiles stories for the week, through AI or bots. We put that out as a service, but it's not a manual process where we're hand-selecting events — so it can sometimes pull things that have already happened. That's robot error.

Vice Chair (closing): Thank you, Tyler. And as I mentioned, I see Derek's hand — I just want to say, I encourage, and I think everybody here encourages, feedback. We certainly do. We also want to make sure we're being respectful of each other's humanity while being as passionate as we need to be. I would really like to stress that we greatly appreciate the points being made — but do not initiate personal attacks. So if we could move on to —

[Transcript ends mid-sentence.]