As mentioned in our August 26th report about former Josephine County Commissioner Herman Baertschiger’s attempt to sabotage the Josephine County Sheriff’s Jail Levy renewal ballot measure, Baertschiger last week filed a lawsuit to challenge the ballot title language for the levy measure recently approved by the Josephine County Commissioners. Given the limited time for the County Clerk to finalize the measures and voters pamphlet for the upcoming November General Election, the court took up the case quickly this week.
On Wednesday morning, September 2nd, Circuit Court Judge Laurie Norman rejected Baertschiger’s petition to amend the ballot title language, for many of the same reasons as we stated in this column last week. It appeared to be a quick and easy decision by Judge Norman as the ballot title language was clearly within the legal parameters required for this type of local option levy “renewal” measure.
In attendance observing the hearing were Sheriff Dave Daniel and District Attorney Josh Eastman, given the importance of this levy to the county’s criminal justice system. County Legal Counsel Wally Hicks represented the County, while Herman Baertschiger was represented by attorney Stephen Joncus.
If the name Stephen Joncus sounds familiar to you, it’s because this is the same attorney that recalled commissioner John West used to sue several different local individuals that helped to lead the recall campaign against him despite the fact that they were just exercising their constitutional rights to put forward a recall petition. It’s the same attorney that John West used to sue the County Clerk for the state-approved method used to verify recall petition signatures. It’s the same attorney John West used to sue the publisher of the Grants Pass Tribune. It’s the same attorney recalled commissioner Chris Barnett used to sue the publisher of the Grants Pass Tribune.
And given all those lawsuits, it should be mentioned again that it has never been proven in a court of law that any of the parties that John West or Chris Barnett sued in the last couple years made any false statements as alleged in the lawsuits by these recalled commissioners.
This latest lawsuit, supported by the same attorney as all the other recent lawsuits by recalled county commissioners, reeked of yet another political stunt in my opinion. And while making the case in court in front of the judge this week, certain statements made by Joncus appeared to confirm my suspicion of a political stunt.
Judge Laurie Norman saw through the political noise and made a sound decision based on facts and the law.
I stated in last week’s column, “my opinion is that Baertschiger is grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to make the current county commissioners look bad so that his buddies such as recalled Commissioner John West have a better chance of getting back into office in the election this November.” And as Baertschiger’s attorney Stephen Joncus was arguing the case he nearly turned my opinion into fact.
Joncus filed a “Reply in Support of the Petition” late Tuesday night this week, the night before the court hearing. And in oral arguments Joncus took exception with the word “renewal” in the ballot title because he and Baertschiger claimed this proposed ballot measure didn’t obligate the County to explicitly fund 14 juvenile detention beds as previous voter-approved levies stated.
If the levy wasn’t considered a renewal legally, the word renewal could not be used in the ballot title, and a disclaimer would need to be made to warn voters that it may cause taxes to increase more than 3%. As suggested by Joncus, this would make it harder for voters to say yes.
Except, as noted by County Legal Counsel Wally Hicks during oral arguments, a local option levy is allowed to be called a renewal if it’s a “substantially similar purpose” and is at the same or lesser tax rate that the previous expiring levy. This new ballot measure funds the adult jail and juvenile detention, just like the last one did. This new ballot measure is the exact same tax rate as the last voter-approved levy.
Hicks pointed out that the operation of juvenile detention beds is an all or nothing type operation. No matter whether there are three beds filled or all 14 beds are filled, the juvenile detention program requires the same minimum staffing and therefore similar operating costs. Hicks also pointed out that it’s in the record of the Commissioners’ deliberations on this measure language that the Board intends to continue funding the juvenile detention program.
Judge Norman agreed. And in fact, Judge Norman went as far as to say it would be more misleading to voters if this was not called a “renewal.”
Judge Norman stated she went through the language from the most recently voter-approved levy and compared to the language of the newly proposed levy renewal measure. It still funds the same two programs, has the same tax rate, and the language is very similar between the two. The “petition is denied,” proclaimed Judge Norman.
Baertschiger’s attorney Mr. Joncus made a very telling statement during oral arguments. Instead of focusing on the strict legal requirements to call a levy a renewal, Mr. Joncus proclaimed that the “problem is the commission is not being wise with the people’s money.”
And there it is…the quiet part stated out loud. I rest my opinion case.
The only unresolved question in my mind here is why would Herman Baertschiger incur what is likely thousands of dollars of legal fees to challenge this ballot title with such a weak legal case? Or is somebody besides Mr. Baertschiger paying for the attorney’s legal costs in this case?
The Grants Pass Tribune reached out to Herman Baertschiger by email last week to ask him a few questions about this lawsuit and about this proposed levy renewal ballot measure. Mr. Baertschiger didn’t respond to those questions as of the date of this publication.