A $25,000 payment issued by Josephine County for budget work that officials say was never completed has become a growing point of public concern, placing former County Commissioner Simon Hare under increasing scrutiny as he campaigns for County Treasurer.
The contract in question dates back to the county’s 2025–2026 fiscal cycle, when Hare was brought in to serve as Budget Officer. According to statements made during a recent public meeting, the agreement resulted in a full upfront payment of $25,000. Officials indicated the contract lacked clearly defined performance benchmarks, measurable deliverables, or structured checkpoints to ensure progress before payment was issued.
What followed has raised significant questions.
County officials confirmed that Hare resigned from the position before completing the assigned budget work. They further stated that the work itself was left substantially unfinished, leaving the county without the expected results tied to the payment. Over the months that followed, officials reported making repeated attempts to contact Hare regarding the incomplete work and the status of the funds, though those efforts, according to their statements, did not produce a clear resolution.
The matter has since moved beyond an internal administrative issue and into a broader financial dispute. Josephine County is now seeking repayment of the $25,000, asserting that taxpayer funds were disbursed without receiving the contracted work in return.
The situation carries added weight given Hare’s current candidacy for County Treasurer, the office responsible for overseeing and safeguarding public funds. For many residents, the overlap between an unresolved financial matter and a campaign for a financial oversight position has intensified public interest and concern.
From an economic standpoint, the issue highlights the risks associated with public contracts that lack defined accountability measures. Upfront payments without enforceable deliverables can leave governments exposed when expectations are not met. In this case, the absence of structured safeguards appears to have complicated the county’s efforts to recover the funds.
As of now, several key questions remain unanswered. County officials have not publicly confirmed whether any portion of the $25,000 has been repaid or whether a formal repayment plan has been established. It is also unclear whether legal action is being pursued or considered to recover the funds if voluntary reimbursement does not occur.
Equally important is Hare’s response. There has been no publicly confirmed explanation from him addressing the county’s claims, the status of the work, or his intentions regarding repayment. Whether he has formally responded to the Board of Commissioners remains unclear, leaving a gap in communication that continues to draw attention.
For Josephine County residents, the issue has grown beyond a single contract. It reflects broader concerns about transparency, oversight, and accountability in the handling of public money. The expectation is straightforward: when taxpayer funds are issued, the work should follow, or the money should be returned.
The $25,000 now stands as both a financial question and a test of public trust. As the county seeks answers and voters evaluate candidates for a key financial role, one question continues to surface across the community.
Where is the repayment, and when will a clear answer be provided.