To the Editor,
In light of the ongoing recall effort in Josephine County and the unexpected appearance of an appointment item on the December 4 agenda before verification of petition signatures, it is important for the public and press to understand a documented pattern involving Commissioner Andreas Blech. This letter presents only verifiable facts drawn from official minutes, Charter Review Commission files, and recorded public meetings. Together, these records reveal a clear contradiction between Commissioner Blech’s demonstrated knowledge of county governance and his later public behavior as an elected official. That behavior has often appeared to minimize or obscure his understanding of the very rules he once helped design.
Between October 2021 and November 2022, Commissioner Blech served on the Josephine County Charter Review Commission, the body responsible for evaluating and proposing revisions to the county’s foundational governing document. The charter defines board structure, vacancy procedures, meeting rules, appointment authority, and the distribution of commissioner powers. During his service, Blech actively debated, refined, and voted on topics that he would later suggest confusion about once elected to office. These subjects included the number of commissioners, the nature of partisan elections, the distribution of county powers under Section 7, and the detailed meeting requirements under Section 12 that guide notice, agenda posting, public comment, and the conditions under which appointments may occur. He voted in favor of adopting these rules.
Throughout these deliberations, county legal counsel briefed the Commission extensively on the distinctions between workshops and business sessions, which meetings require public comment, how appointments are initiated, and the timing requirements governing all actions taken by the Board. Commissioner Blech received, discussed, and approved this information directly.
Yet in multiple public meetings held in 2024 and 2025, Commissioner Blech expressed uncertainty or confusion regarding the very rules he helped craft. His statements have suggested a lack of clarity about why workshops do not permit public comment, how meeting structures operate, and whether certain actions may be taken under specific conditions. These public remarks stand in direct contradiction to the documented record of his prior knowledge and involvement.
This contradiction becomes especially significant given the timing of the December 4 agenda item titled Appointment of New Commissioner or Commissioners. Recall petition signatures have been submitted, but verification remains pending. The charter specifies that if one commissioner seat becomes vacant, the remaining two commissioners control the appointment. If two seats become vacant simultaneously, appointment authority expands to include other elected officials. Therefore, the timing of any appointment action is consequential. It directly affects who controls the selection process and how the recall outcome may influence or be influenced by that process.
Given Commissioner Blech’s clear and documented understanding of the charter’s structure and his direct involvement in designing the appointment rules, the decision to advance appointment discussions at this moment raises legitimate governance concerns. The public deserves transparency regarding why this timing was chosen and whether it serves the public interest or the interests of those facing recall.
This issue is not about partisan conflict. It is about clarity, accountability, and ensuring that procedural authority is not used to shape the outcome of a democratic process that involves a sitting commissioner. Commissioner Blech helped write the governing rules, voted to adopt them, later acted uncertain about their contents, and now stands in a position to use those same rules during an active recall effort.
These circumstances warrant immediate public scrutiny. Citizens deserve to understand the factual record, why the timing matters, and how the mechanics of county government can influence the trajectory of elections and recalls. Transparency is essential, especially when trust in local government is at stake.
Respectfully,
A very concerned citizen of Josephine County