At the Grants Pass Tribune, we take our role as a community newspaper seriously—and we take our readers even more seriously. This week, we received emails and shared public posts from several concerned residents who are asking for transparency and accountability in local government. These concerns revolve around the recent Grants Pass City Council workshop and the homelessness grant process currently under review.
It’s not every day we see this level of civic engagement, and we thank residents for not only voicing their concerns publicly but also taking the time to include us in their outreach. One email in particular—from Toni Webb—stood out for its clarity, urgency, and call for accountability. While much of this discourse unfolded on social media, including posts by other involved citizens, Webb’s email reinforced the importance of ensuring these concerns reach beyond Facebook and into the hands of residents who may not be online. This is how community journalism works at its best—by serving as a bridge between public institutions and the people they serve.
Here’s what we know.
During a recent Council workshop, Councilor Indra Nicholas questioned the lack of transparency in the homelessness grant selection process. Under the City’s current Request for Proposals (RFP), which was issued June 19, 2025, a review panel evaluates and scores each submission. However, only the highest-scoring applicant is presented to the City Council for consideration. The scores, names, and evaluations of other applicants are withheld from Council members until after the final award is made and becomes public record.
This “top-scorer-only” model has raised eyebrows, especially when compared to prior grant programs in Grants Pass—like the Tourism Promotion Grant and ARPA Affordable Housing funds—which provided broader insight to Council and the public by sharing information about multiple finalists. Although not required by past RFPs, that added transparency helped foster community trust and allowed for more robust discussions at the Council level.
The current RFP process does allow Council the authority to accept, reject, or request modifications to the recommendation, and Council members may still ask for anonymized score breakdowns or additional context. Public records laws also ensure that scoring data will eventually be made available after the final decision. But the concern being raised by residents is about the lack of proactive transparency—especially when the City is preparing to award up to $1.2 million in taxpayer funds to a single entity.
Critics have pointed out that Council is being asked to make a high-stakes decision with limited information, and that this “blindfolded” process leaves little room for public trust or meaningful debate. Questions have also been raised about the absence of background checks for applicants, a step that other Oregon cities reportedly include in their processes.
The broader issue here isn’t just about one grant or one meeting. It’s about the importance of visibility, due diligence, and open government. When residents speak up and demand better oversight, it’s a sign that democracy is alive and well. It’s also a reminder that procedures, while legal, aren’t always aligned with what’s right—or what’s expected from an engaged community.
To those who reached out to us: thank you. To the rest of our readers: we encourage you to do the same. Ask questions. Attend meetings. Request documents. Hold your public officials accountable—not because they’re doing something wrong, but because transparency is the foundation of public trust.
We are here to listen, to report, and to reflect the voice of our community. Keep talking. We’re listening.