A state ethics investigation centered on former Josephine County Commissioner Andreas Blech ended not with sanctions or penalties, but with a unanimous dismissal after Oregon Government Ethics Commissioners openly questioned whether the alleged violation was even clearly defined under existing law.
The case, argued before the Oregon Government Ethics Commission during a public meeting, focused on whether Blech failed to properly disclose ownership interests tied to aircraft hangars at the Grants Pass Airport while serving as a county commissioner. Investigators also examined whether Blech should have declared a conflict of interest during public discussions involving airport infrastructure improvements in 2025.
At the center of the dispute was a complicated question that repeatedly surfaced throughout the hearing: Are privately owned aircraft hangars sitting on leased county airport property considered “real property” under Oregon ethics law?
State investigators argued they were.
According to the investigative report presented during the hearing, Blech owned seven aircraft hangars located at the Merlin, Grants Pass Airport while leasing the land beneath them from Josephine County. Investigators concluded that the hangars constituted “real property improvements” and therefore created a “beneficial interest” in airport property that should have been listed on Blech’s Statement of Economic Interest filings.
The complaint also alleged that Blech failed to properly disclose conflicts tied to airport matters discussed during a July 17, 2025 Board of Commissioners meeting. Investigators ultimately acknowledged, however, that Blech publicly identified himself during that meeting as both a tenant and user of the airport facility before discussions took place. The commission’s investigator stated that disclosure appeared sufficient to satisfy conflict-of-interest requirements under Oregon law.
That left the debate focused almost entirely on the definition of the hangars themselves.
During testimony, Blech forcefully rejected the idea that the hangars should legally be classified as real estate. Speaking directly to the commission, he described the structures as movable personal property sitting on federally regulated airport land that private individuals cannot own outright.
“The law specifically requires the disclosure of real property, but the aircraft hangars in question are legally and functionally personal property,” Blech told commissioners during the hearing.
Blech argued that some hangars were built with hitches designed specifically to move them and noted that lease agreements did not transfer ownership of the structures to the county once leases expired. He also pointed to how the Josephine County Tax Assessor’s Office categorized the hangars separately from land ownership.
The hearing took a notable turn when commissioners themselves began expressing uncertainty about whether the ethics complaint rested on solid legal ground.
One commissioner openly stated that expecting an elected official to interpret the issue differently than the county tax assessor would be “a big reach,” particularly after investigators admitted the assessor’s office could not provide a definitive answer on whether the hangars legally qualified as real property.
Other commissioners questioned whether the case exposed broader ambiguity inside Oregon’s ethics reporting requirements rather than intentional misconduct by a public official.
Commission Chair Shenoa Payne acknowledged the issue appeared “thorny” and suggested the commission itself may need to develop clearer legal guidance for future elected officials facing similar disclosure questions.
Blech also defended his participation in airport infrastructure discussions, arguing the projects had been underway for years before his tenure and benefited far more than just airport tenants. He described the improvements as community-wide infrastructure investments tied to public safety, firefighting operations, medevac services, and general aviation activity throughout Josephine County.
After discussion among commissioners, the commission voted unanimously, 6-0, to dismiss the complaint entirely. No violations were sustained against the former commissioner.
The dismissal closes the state ethics case against Blech, but the hearing exposed a deeper issue that may continue to shadow local government in Josephine County: where the line exists between private financial interests and public infrastructure policy when elected officials themselves are part of the industries affected by county decisions.