Josephine County’s recent administrative restructuring, which consolidates several critical government functions under a single individual, has prompted significant scrutiny throughout Josephine County — and with good reason. Michael Sellers, the county’s newly appointed “Director of Operations,” now oversees Information Technology (IT), Human Resources (HR), Finance, and Emergency Management — an unprecedented concentration of authority for a county serving approximately 90,000 residents.
When comparing Josephine County’s approach to neighboring jurisdictions, the difference is stark.
In Jackson County, the largest neighbor with a population nearing 225,000, responsibilities are separated among distinct directors. Jackson employs a dedicated HR Director (JJ Scofield, notably a former Josephine County employee), a Finance Director (Shannon Bell), and maintains a standalone IT Department, though its directorship is currently vacant. Each division remains distinct and independently managed.
Douglas County, with about 112,000 residents, mirrors a similar structure. Michael Kurtz leads Human Resources, Ron Tait manages IT, and Dan Wilson serves as Chief Financial Officer — three separate roles, three specialized departments.
Even Klamath County, with a population around 70,000 — smaller than Josephine County — has only partially consolidated its operations. While HR and Risk Management are combined under Daneen Dail, IT and Finance remain separate and independently supervised.
Curry County, the smallest of Josephine’s southern neighbors at approximately 23,000 residents, has also opted for partial consolidation. Kiena Wolf oversees both Finance and HR, while IT management remains distinct under Philip Dickson.
By contrast, Josephine County’s decision to entrust one person with oversight of all four critical operational areas — technology, human resources, finance, and emergency management — is highly unusual. In fact, based on a regional comparison, it appears unprecedented for a county of its size.
This raises a pressing question among both policy analysts and concerned residents: is concentrating this level of authority in a single unelected official truly sustainable or safe?
Proponents of consolidation often argue that it can streamline decision-making, reduce overhead costs, and improve interdepartmental coordination. In times of financial constraint, it may appear to offer an efficient solution to budgetary pressures. Additionally, those who support the model suggest that a strong, capable leader could feasibly manage multiple departments if given sufficient resources and autonomy.
However, experts caution that such an arrangement invites significant risks. Consolidating critical functions like finance, IT, HR, and emergency response under one person removes essential checks and balances that traditionally serve to protect public interests. Financial oversight, cybersecurity, workforce management, and public safety require different skill sets, each with high stakes for error or mismanagement.
The biggest concern, according to public feedback at recent meetings and online forums, centers on transparency and accountability. With so much authority concentrated into one office — and without direct voter oversight — questions have emerged:
- Why was such a major change implemented now, and with so little public discussion beforehand?
- What specific benefits are county leaders expecting from this level of consolidation?
- How will the county guard against burnout, conflicts of interest, or systemic failures if too much depends on a single individual?
- What contingency plans are in place if the “Director of Operations” becomes incapacitated or resigns?
Thus far, answers have been limited. While county leadership has stated that consolidation was necessary to improve internal operations, many residents remain unconvinced that the benefits outweigh the potential risks — especially given Josephine County’s history of financial and administrative challenges.
Further complicating the issue is the fact that Sellers, unlike a county commissioner or department head, is not elected by the people. Without the direct accountability afforded through elections, the responsibility for oversight falls entirely on the Board of Commissioners, which some constituents worry is not a sufficient safeguard.
Moreover, if the consolidation model proves unsuccessful, it could take years to disentangle — leaving crucial departments under-resourced or improperly managed in the interim.
In the broader context, neighboring counties have clearly favored a model of separate department leadership, even as they face similar fiscal and operational pressures. For Josephine County to diverge so sharply from regional norms without a robust public explanation is, at minimum, a gamble.
Ultimately, the success or failure of Josephine County’s consolidation will likely hinge on the performance of Michael Sellers and the willingness of county commissioners to monitor the situation closely, solicit public input, and adjust course if necessary. Whether residents are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt remains to be seen.
For now, one thing is certain: Josephine County is charting its own path — for better or for worse.