The Josephine County Commissioners’ meeting yesterday left many community members bewildered, angered, and questioning the integrity of the county’s leadership. Commissioners Chris Barnett and Ron Smith unanimously appointed Andreas Blech to fill the seat vacated by recently recalled Commissioner John West. This decision has sparked widespread outrage, particularly given Blech’s support of West throughout the recall process and his controversial closing statement that characterized the recall as a “mistake.”
With this appointment, many in the community see the move as a blatant consolidation of political power—a calculated step to align county leadership more closely with the ideologies and practices that led to West’s recall in the first place.
Andreas Blech’s appointment raised immediate eyebrows. A regular defender of John West during the contentious recall campaign, Blech stood by West even as allegations of ethical misconduct, poor leadership, and a lack of accountability swirled around him. For critics, Blech’s appointment feels less like filling a vacant seat and more like planting a loyal ally of Barnett and Smith—a gesture that underscores the public’s perception of an increasingly insulated and unaccountable commission.
At the heart of the controversy is the question: If the community resoundingly rejected West’s leadership, why appoint someone who not only supported him but went so far as to call the recall a mistake? For many, this decision appears to dismiss the will of the voters entirely.
“It’s as if they took the community’s frustration, balled it up, and threw it right back in our faces,” said one resident on social media.
The decision-making process itself left much to be desired. The meeting began with Commissioner Barnett adopting what some attendees described as an increasingly performative demeanor, sporting more decorative “flare” on his sport coat—a trend some say recalls his military background but comes across as a theatrical nod to authority rather than professionalism.
Barnett’s tone throughout the meeting was, according to observers, condescending toward the public, even as he seemed to guide Commissioner Smith through the motions. Smith, ostensibly the chair of the commission, appeared uncertain and unsteady, fumbling over his own prepared questions during the interview process.
“If he can’t even read the questions he wrote, how can we take this process seriously?” another resident chimed.
The interview itself was shockingly brief, with only a handful of questions posed to both Baertshciger and Blech before the commissioners retreated into deliberation. Just minutes later, Barnett and Smith emerged with their decision, unanimously selecting Blech. To many, the speed of the decision-making process betrayed an air of inevitability, as though the outcome had been predetermined.
Critics argue that Blech’s appointment is emblematic of deeper issues within the county commission—a body now perceived as riddled with conflicts of interest and political cronyism. Barnett and Smith’s decision to appoint Blech seems to cement a factional dynamic that many fear will exacerbate existing divisions within the community.
The public is particularly concerned about the potential for backroom dealings and lack of transparency in county decision-making. With Blech now seated, the commission appears to be doubling down on an insular leadership style that prioritizes loyalty over accountability, raising serious questions about how conflicts of interest will be managed—or ignored.
“Ethics complaints and charter violations are already mounting,” said a local advocate. “This isn’t just about bad optics; this is about whether our leaders are operating within the bounds of the law.”
For many community members, the appointment of Andreas Blech is a call to action. Organizers are already mobilizing to prepare for what they see as the inevitable fallout from this decision. Some are openly discussing the possibility of launching recalls against Barnett and Smith, noting that under Oregon law, such efforts can begin in six months.
“Recalling one commissioner costs the same as recalling three,” another pointed out, hinting at the community’s growing frustration and willingness to take on the fight.
The recall of John West served as a stark warning to county leadership about the consequences of ignoring the will of the people. Yet, Barnett and Smith’s decision to appoint Blech suggests they may not have absorbed the lessons of West’s downfall. By doubling down on a controversial figure, the commissioners risk alienating an already disillusioned public even further.
The implications of yesterday’s decision extend far beyond the appointment itself. For many residents, this moment represents a broader struggle over the direction of Josephine County. The recall of John West was, for many, a moment of hope—a signal that the community could hold its leaders accountable. Now, that hope feels threatened.
“We’re at a crossroads,” said one community leader. “This isn’t just about Andreas Blech or Chris Barnett or Ron Smith. This is about whether the people of Josephine County have a voice in their own government or whether our leaders will continue to act as though they’re above accountability.”
As the dust settles, all eyes will remain on the county commission. The decisions they make in the coming months will likely determine whether they can rebuild public trust—or whether they’ll find themselves facing the same fate as John West.
The appointment of Andreas Blech has reignited tensions in Josephine County, exposing deep divisions between the leadership and the public they serve. Whether Barnett and Smith are able—or willing—to address these concerns remains to be seen.
For now, one thing is certain: the community’s eyes are fixed on the commissioners, and their actions will not go unnoticed. If they fail to heed the lessons of the past, they risk facing the same grassroots uprising that led to John West’s removal. Commissioner Barnett promised a fresh start, but his actions speak louder than his words—offering a stark reminder that trust is earned through deeds, not rhetoric.
