Josephine County has once again found itself under scrutiny—this time from within its own courthouse. On July 30, 2025, District Attorney Josh Eastman issued a formal order addressing two public records appeals submitted by resident, and investigative journalist, Jay Meredith, who has repeatedly raised concerns over the county’s transparency and responsiveness. The DA’s ruling exposes delays, vague responses, and questionable redactions in the handling of Meredith’s records requests—issues that reflect deeper concerns about how the county manages public information.
The dispute centers on two separate but related records requests. In April 2025, Meredith asked the county to provide complete details of the salary and benefit packages for Michael Sellers, the county’s Director of IT and Emergency Management. Meredith specifically requested this information as of two dates—April 1, 2024, and April 23, 2025—during which Sellers held different administrative titles. Meredith’s request included not only base salary and retirement contributions but also sought details on fringe benefits such as vehicle or phone allowances.
At the time of these requests, Michael Sellers was the acting supervising manager and the “gatekeeper” for all public records requests. What followed was a delayed and incomplete response. More than a month after the original request, the county replied with a one-paragraph salary summary and a one-page excerpt from a department budget. Neither document addressed the specific dates Meredith had requested. Despite multiple follow-up emails clarifying the scope and intent of his request, the county continued to insist it had fulfilled its obligation, citing the budget excerpt as sufficient. Under Sellers’ supervision, the process not only lacked transparency but also raised concerns about whether the county was actively obstructing access to relevant public information.
District Attorney Eastman disagreed. In his ruling, he noted that the county’s response was not only untimely under Oregon’s public records law—which requires acknowledgment within five business days and a full response within ten—but also nonresponsive in substance. Meredith had asked for two clearly defined records, yet the county failed to provide the requested information, or explain why it could not be retrieved. Eastman emphasized that the delay and lack of clarity were particularly problematic given the public interest surrounding the records. At the time of the request, Sellers had recently served in a temporary leadership role, and concerns over county payroll practices were already the subject of public scrutiny.
The district attorney also addressed a second, separate request involving personnel forms related to changes in Sellers’ salary or reimbursements since his employment began in 2023. In June, the county provided ten pages of records, but heavily redacted the names and signatures of those who had approved or authorized changes. Meredith appealed again, asking not to see the actual signatures but to know who had signed the forms.
Eastman sided with Meredith a second time. He determined that the redactions were not justified under state law, which only protects personal privacy when specific criteria are met. Since the names of public employees approving salary changes are not considered sensitive information in this context—and given the broader public interest—he concluded that the county must release the names and remove the redactions from the documents in question. He also reviewed a particularly large redaction on one page and found no grounds to withhold the information, ruling that it did not contain personal or private content.
While the district attorney stopped short of issuing a financial penalty, he made it clear that if the matter came before him again, he would consider levying a $200 fine for undue delay and noncompliance. His remarks underscored the seriousness of the issue, not just in terms of legal compliance but also in relation to public trust. The prolonged wait for a short paragraph and one-page document was, in Eastman’s view, unjustifiable.
This decision comes at a time when county officials have been criticized for a lack of transparency in other areas, including budget oversight and administrative hiring. The DA’s intervention may signal a turning point, or at least a warning, to a county government that has increasingly faced accusations of stonewalling public accountability.
For now, Josephine County is on notice: failure to produce timely, complete, and accurate public records will not go unchallenged.