During the weekly Board of County Commissioners (BCC) business sessions in Josephine County, a growing number of residents are raising concerns about a little-understood but increasingly common portion of the meeting agenda — a single item labeled simply as “Other.”
This agenda category, typically introduced at the beginning of each weekly session following a declaration of potential conflicts of interest, is intended to allow commissioners to add last-minute items of business or emergent topics not previously listed on the published agenda. While this might sound like a useful tool for governmental flexibility, many citizens and observers argue that “Other” has become a catch-all for vague and undisclosed government actions that lack explanation, documentation, or public debate.
The concern is not about the existence of the “Other” category itself, but rather about how it is used — or misused. In many cases, agenda items listed under “Other” appear only as a number (for example, “Item #23-217”) with no description, discussion, or supporting materials presented during the meeting. These numbered items are often voted on quickly, with little to no elaboration provided to the public. This has led to growing frustration and suspicion among residents who feel they are being left in the dark.
Despite campaign promises of openness and integrity, the current board — consisting of Commissioners Ron Smith, Andrea’s Blech (appointed, then appointed again), and Chris Barnett — appears to differ significantly in its approach to transparency. Commissioner Smith has consistently advocated for greater public involvement and fuller disclosures in meetings, frequently asking for clarification or insisting on more detailed information before voting. By contrast, Commissioners Blech and Barnett often push forward with votes on “Other” items with minimal context or explanation, creating the appearance of decision-making behind closed doors.
The heart of the issue lies in a fundamental question of governance: When exactly are the details of these “Other” items being discussed if not during the public meetings themselves? If there is no public discussion before a vote, and no detailed materials available in advance, many wonder whether those decisions are being deliberated in private — a potential violation of Oregon’s public meetings law, which requires that all decisions made by a quorum of public officials be conducted in the open.
Moreover, without public access to the content of “Other” items, there is no meaningful opportunity for public comment or input — a cornerstone of transparent and representative government. This practice has the effect of disenfranchising the very taxpayers and constituents whom the commissioners were elected to serve.
Transparency is not merely a campaign buzzword; it is a legal and ethical obligation. Voters elected these officials based in part on their promises of openness, honesty, and accessibility. When commissioners conduct public business with cryptic agenda labels and silent votes, it undermines public trust and accountability.
Some critics argue that Commissioners Blech and Barnett treat the county government as if it were a private enterprise — where decisions are made internally, and the public is informed only on a need-to-know basis. But county government is not a business, and its leaders are not CEOs. They are public servants, entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions transparently, in full view of the public they represent.
As it stands, the frequent use of the “Other” category without proper explanation raises legitimate questions about procedural integrity. Citizens have a right to know what is being discussed, debated, and voted on. If matters are being discussed outside of public view, or if decisions are being made in advance of meetings, it suggests a breakdown in ethical governance and possibly even legal compliance.
Moving forward, residents of Josephine County deserve clarity and consistency. At the very least, the board should publish full descriptions of all “Other” items before any votes are held and allow for public comment when appropriate. Otherwise, the board risks losing not only credibility but also the trust of the people it was elected to serve.