In the wake of recent decisions by the Josephine County Board of Commissioners (BoC), citizens and local journalists are raising alarm over a series of actions that bear a troubling resemblance to the infamous scandal in Bell, California. In 2010, Bell became a symbol of government corruption when a series of investigative reports by the Los Angeles Times revealed that city officials had awarded themselves exorbitant salaries and taken steps to suppress public dissent. Now, as public outcry mounts in Josephine County, some wonder if their own leaders are walking a similar path toward unchecked authority and public disengagement.
Bell, a small city in Los Angeles County, erupted in scandal over a decade ago when Los Angeles Times reporters Ruben Vives and Jeff Gottlieb exposed how several officials, including the city manager, were quietly collecting some of the highest public salaries in the nation. With oversight lacking, Bell’s leaders were able to silence local critics and press, paving the way for years of unchecked spending and self-serving policy decisions. This scheme to enrich themselves eventually came crashing down when public outrage and media attention brought about legal consequences and reform.
At yesterday’s Josephine County BoC meeting, citizens showed up ready to voice their concerns over the proposed sale of over 1,800 acres of county-owned forest land. However, they were met with unexpected resistance: the board abruptly shut down public comment, stifling citizens who had taken time off work specifically to address their concerns. With the sale advancing rapidly and on a sealed-bid basis, many fear the lack of transparency is shielding the board from public scrutiny and allowing private interests to prevail over the public good.
Critics have pointed to specific examples of the BoC’s so-called “double speak.” At the meeting, some commissioners blamed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for not permitting deed restrictions on the sale, yet Chas Rogers publicly countered this claim, indicating that the BoC had not pursued a discussion with the BLM on the matter. This inconsistency, along with the lack of deed restrictions on the sale, has left many citizens questioning the integrity of the board’s process and its commitment to honest governance.
Concerns extend beyond the forest land sale. Inquiries into county expenditures have revealed that Josephine County’s IT services contractor is earning $6,000 monthly for travel and training—a figure that has led some to question whether the county is getting fair value for its investment. Additionally, despite a formal request made on November 1, the county has yet to provide electronic records related to the release of funds from the Extension Service District, leaving the community in the dark on crucial financial decisions.
These actions have led to widespread frustration among Josephine County residents, who are beginning to see parallels with Bell’s scandal. Like Bell, where city officials insulated themselves from accountability, the Josephine County BoC seems to be erecting barriers to public engagement, whether by shutting down comment periods or delaying public records requests. Some commissioners appear to be sidestepping important questions, such as Commissioner Baertschiger’s evasion on whether the county is receiving value from certain expenditures.
This growing sense of disenfranchisement has galvanized the public and prompted calls for increased transparency, accountability, and a commitment to preserving local control. Citizens argue that without such reforms, Josephine County could continue down a dangerous path, one that erodes public trust and allows self-serving governance to flourish.
The situation in Josephine County is rapidly becoming a test of the community’s resilience and commitment to democratic principles. Much like Bell, Josephine County now faces a choice: to continue on this course or to heed the voices of its citizens, allowing for open debate, transparent fiscal practices, and responsible stewardship of public assets. With a vocal public demanding change, the BoC must choose whether to deepen its commitment to the community it serves or risk becoming a cautionary tale of governance gone awry.