In Josephine County, political insiders are once again raising concerns over a pattern of favoritism and backdoor dealings that many believe reflect entrenched cronyism rather than effective governance. At the center of the latest controversy is former County Commissioner Simon Hare, who has recently been awarded not one, but two separate county contracts—totaling $48,200—for roles that he has no history of qualifications to perform.
The contracts—first as the county’s Broadband Coordinator and then as its Budget Officer—have left many residents and observers questioning the transparency, legality, and motivations behind these appointments.
Simon Hare, whose prior tenure as Josephine County Commissioner was marked by both controversy and budget mismanagement—including the issuance of 200 pink slips after a gross miscalculation—has returned to the public payroll under curious circumstances. In 2024, he was quietly contracted to serve as Broadband Coordinator for the county, a role focused on bridging the digital divide in rural Southern Oregon.
The seven-month contract, effective June 21, 2024, pays Hare $2,500 per month with up to $2,500 in mileage reimbursement, capped at $20,000. According to the agreement, Hare was tasked with coordinating broadband stakeholders, developing outreach strategies, and spearheading grant efforts aimed at improving internet access in underserved areas.
The problem? There appears to be no publicly available scope of work or documentation of any completed tasks. A public records request submitted by the Grants Pass Tribune was delayed for 90 days, only receiving a response after a tort claim was threatened against the county. Even then, the county demanded $516 to release what it called “some” of the documents, raising further concerns about accountability and transparency.
The records request, based on Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 et seq.), sought payment records, mileage reimbursements, and evidence of budgetary appropriations under ORS 294.305. The delay and partial response have only intensified public skepticism.
No Broadband Results, But a Budget Job Next?
Despite no visible deliverables under the broadband agreement, Hare was soon granted a second contract—this time as the county’s Budget Officer. The short-term agreement, dated March 7, 2025, and running through June 30, 2025, tasks Hare with preparing the 2025–2026 county budget in compliance with Oregon law.
Again, critics point to Hare’s lack of qualifications. His publicly listed résumé describes him as a “rancher,” with no evident background in finance, accounting, or municipal budget preparation. Nonetheless, he was awarded a one-time payment of $25,000, issued within the first seven days of the contract’s execution.
Unlike typical hiring processes, there was no public posting of the Budget Officer position, no opportunity for qualified applicants to apply, and no recorded vote from the full Board of Commissioners. According to the contract terms, Hare could be compensated in full even if he worked only a single day.
The circumstances surrounding this contract raise serious concerns about the integrity of the county’s hiring and financial oversight processes. The absence of transparency, defined deliverables, and a competitive selection process underscores a broader pattern of questionable governance. Public funds are being allocated with little to no scrutiny, and the lack of oversight makes it nearly impossible to determine whether taxpayers are receiving any value in return.
The “Good Ol’ Boys” Network in Full Swing
These developments are not isolated incidents but seem to reflect a deeper pattern within Josephine County politics. The recent reappointment of Andreas Blech as County Commissioner—his second appointment in less than two years—has raised additional concerns.
Blech, a longtime business associate of now-recalled Commissioner John West, was appointed to replace Dan DeYoung following DeYoung’s resignation over the infamous “Sit on my lap” comment to Finance Director Sandy Novak. Before his ousting in a successful recall campaign, West used his remaining political clout to install Blech, a move supported by Commissioner Herman Baertschiger, who has since retired but continues to exert influence behind the scenes.
Blech quickly began reshaping county leadership, notably appointing Michael Sellers as the County Operations Director. Sellers now oversees at least six departments and was the official who approved Hare’s second broadband contract—despite the glaring absence of a defined scope of work or project deliverables. (Yes, there were two contracts: one approved by all three commissioners, and one that was not—but was paid anyway.)
Sellers, whose rise through the county ranks coincided with Baertschiger’s tenure, has become emblematic of the tightly woven network of political and personal alliances that seem to dominate decision-making in Josephine County, and beyond.
At the heart of the controversy is a troubling lack of transparency. The contracts awarded to Hare were not subject to standard public vetting. There was no competitive bidding process, no clear documentation of qualifications, and no performance reviews. Instead, these contracts were issued quietly, under the radar, and in this case, without the approval of all three county commissioners coming to a public vote.
In Hare’s case, the contract to serve as Budget Officer explicitly states that a single $25,000 payment would be made within seven days of signing. It includes provisions for early termination but offers no metrics for success, no deliverable deadlines, and no mechanism for performance evaluation. For a payment of $25,000 to be approved, there must be a vote from all three commissioners—and that never took place, once again bringing the legality into question.
Worse yet, the appointment took place without any form of public notice—effectively eliminating any chance for qualified professionals to compete for the role.
The handling of the contract appears to run counter to the principles of fair and open public contracting. By bypassing competitive hiring procedures and failing to secure proper board approval, the process not only lacks transparency but potentially conflicts with both the intent and requirements of Oregon’s public contracting laws. For taxpayers, it represents a troubling example of how public funds can be distributed without adequate oversight or accountability.
Following the Money
One of the most damning aspects of this saga is the complete lack of clarity regarding how grant money tied to the broadband initiative is being managed. As of April 2025, no records have been released detailing how the initial $150,000 broadband grant has been spent—or if it has been spent at all.
Requests for information about those expenditures have been met with silence or prohibitive fees, further fueling suspicions that funds may be misused or misallocated.
Even the Oregon Broadband Office, a key stakeholder in regional development efforts, has reportedly received little to no communication from Hare or the County regarding project updates or grant coordination.
Beyond the optics of cronyism and favoritism, the legal implications of these appointments could have far-reaching consequences. The Budget Officer contract requires Hare to comply with Josephine County Code 2.10.060, maintain confidentiality, and produce all materials as property of the county. But without proper oversight, enforcement of those provisions is unlikely.
If Hare fails to fulfill the terms of either contract—or if it’s proven that state or local laws were circumvented in the hiring process—Josephine County could face not only public backlash but potential litigation.
What’s Next—A Power Grab?
Some fear that this pattern of behind-closed-doors appointments signals an even larger consolidation of power. With Blech now solidifying control, and figures like Hare and Sellers strategically placed in key operational roles, many wonder if the next step could be to unseat sitting Commissioner Ron Smith—one of the few dissenting voices—and replace him with another loyalist.
“This group doesn’t care about optics anymore,” said a former county employee. “It’s about control. It’s about protecting their own, giving jobs and contracts to friends and family, and keeping outsiders locked out.”
If Josephine County residents want change, observers say, the time to act is now. Transparency measures, ethics investigations, and independent audits must be pursued if trust is to be restored in local government.
At the very least, the county owes its residents a full accounting of how public funds are being spent—and an explanation as to why positions like Budget Officer and Broadband Coordinator are being handed out to politically connected insiders without public oversight.
Until then, the cycle continues. The same names. The same faces. The same deals. Business as usual in Josephine County.
