A new grievance has been formally filed alleging improper conduct by the Josephine County Board of Commissioners and Finance Director Sandy Novak, raising concerns over violations of Oregon’s public meeting laws. The complaint specifically accuses the commissioners of participating in a “serial meeting” to predetermine a decision involving the reorganization of county departments, a practice that may contravene the state’s guidelines on transparency.
The issue at the heart of the complaint is a decision made during an Administration Meeting on August 22, 2024, to move the county’s Human Resources (HR) department under the Finance Department. According to the grievance, this decision was made in a scant two minutes and thirty seconds, without the necessary debate or public discussion, prompting allegations that discussions took place behind closed doors, in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 192.685(2)).
Key Allegations
The complainant outlines several points of concern to substantiate the claim:
- Lack of Public Deliberation: The complainant points out that such a significant change in county operations would typically require extensive discussion. However, the meeting reportedly featured minimal conversation before the vote was cast. The complainant argues that the commissioners must have reached an agreement outside of public view, as no substantial deliberation occurred during the public session.
- Commissioner Baertschiger’s Comments: In the meeting, Commissioner Herman Baertschiger was quoted as saying, “I’ve talked to Sandy, and I think she’s talked to the other commissioners about moving HR into Finance.” The grievance asserts that this statement implies that Sandy Novak, the Finance Director, had facilitated conversations with each commissioner prior to the meeting. This, according to the complaint, serves as evidence of an improper serial meeting.
- Sandy Novak’s Admission: During the meeting, Novak is alleged to have commented, “We’ll do it fairly quickly because the conversation’s been happening for quite a while.” The complainant interprets this as an admission that discussions about the departmental move had taken place outside the formal public meeting process, further supporting the accusation of serial communications.
- Pre-determined Decision: Another piece of evidence presented is a statement attributed to Novak regarding a conversation she had with the interim HR Director, Michelle Simpson. According to the complaint, Novak had already informed Simpson of the decision prior to the August 22 meeting. This indicates, the grievance argues, that the decision was pre-determined, and the public meeting was merely a formality, rather than a genuine opportunity for debate.
The complainant draws parallels between this case and a similar incident involving Lane County officials, where private conversations between a county executive and commissioners led to legal repercussions. The complainant suggests that the situation in Josephine County mirrors that of the Lane County case, particularly in terms of how private discussions were allegedly held in lieu of public debate.
In response to the grievance, the county reportedly acknowledged that Finance Director Sandy Novak had spoken with Commissioner John West about the departmental shift but maintained that no substantive conversations took place with the other commissioners. However, according to the grievance, this contradicts Commissioner Baertschiger’s statement, wherein he suggested that Novak had spoken to all commissioners about the issue.
Furthermore, the complainant notes the inconsistency in the county’s position, pointing out that all three commissioners are experienced business owners who would likely demand more in-depth discussions before making such a significant organizational change. The brevity of the meeting and the lack of substantive debate raise suspicions that the commissioners were already aligned on the decision, allegedly due to prior private communications.
If the allegations prove true, the decision-making process involving the HR department’s move to the Finance Department may violate state public meeting laws, which require transparency and open deliberation. Serial meetings, where officials engage in private discussions to reach a consensus without public input, undermine the accountability required in public governance.
The outcome of this grievance remains to be seen, but the complaint underscores growing concerns about the transparency of Josephine County’s governance and its adherence to ethical standards.
As the case develops, both sides will likely continue to provide evidence to either substantiate or refute the claims of an improper serial meeting, with potential implications for the future of county decision-making processes.
This case will be closely monitored as it proceeds, especially in the context of state law regarding public meetings and the potential legal repercussions for the county commissioners and Sandy Novak.