Josephine County has a brand-new Board of Commissioners who just completed their first month in office. Chris Barnett keeps saying that this is a new board and that he wants a fresh start. On the surface, this request seems very reasonable. The new board should not be held accountable for the sins of their predecessors. The problem with this request is that the new board seems inclined to take actions that look very similar to those of the last one. On day one in office, they chose to renew attacks on the library by giving a thirty-day cancellation notice on the library’s lease. What an auspicious way to begin a new term of office.
The board finished their first month by firing Board Secretary Wendy Watkins in a controversial manner. If that seems familiar, it’s because the previous board did the same thing to then-Secretary Trish House. These two terminations have a surprising number of similarities.
First, neither employee had been disciplined in the past. They had completely clean records. Despite never being disciplined, both employees were fired for their first offense. County policy on discipline states, “discipline shall…generally be progressive in nature.”
Second, both employees were investigated without the investigator even interviewing them. It is very unusual to conduct an investigation without interviewing the subject.
Third, neither Trish nor Wendy was allowed to see the investigation report before being marched in front of the board to try to defend themselves. How can someone possibly put up a defense if they don’t know what they are being accused of or what the evidence is?
Fourth, both employees were fired for offenses that traditionally would have warranted lower-level discipline. Trish House was accused of saying inappropriate things about the board to two members of the public. This is behavior that the County would normally discipline for, but no other employee was fired for it on a first offense. Wendy Watkins was accused of missing a timeclock entry and initially putting in the incorrect edit, and for using a mobile clocking method the new board chair hadn’t approved. Both of these missteps were very low-level offenses that typically would result in lower-level discipline.
Fifth, both Trish and Wendy were involved with complaints about potentially illegal behavior from the board. Trish House was a witness in a BOLI complaint that a previous commission (Herman Baertschiger) violated employment law by retaliating against a county department head. That complaint, as well as an identical one against recalled commissioner John West, was sustained by an independent attorney the County hired to investigate the claim. In Wendy Watkins’ case, she complained to HR Director Sandy Novak that the board made decisions in executive session (a violation of public meeting law). There is evidence to substantiate Wendy’s claim. On 1/22, the board went into executive session to discuss employee discipline with counsel. This is permitted, but the board is not allowed to make decisions in executive session. Once in open session, the board gave no direction and just closed the meeting. It took 19 seconds. Despite not getting direction in a public meeting, Sandy Novak placed Wendy Watkins on paid administrative leave and started an investigation. That action required board authorization made in a public meeting. It appears she received the orders in executive session, which would be illegal. After Wendy Watkins made the complaint about the potentially illegal decision, Sandy Novak expanded the investigation from a simple timeclock error to unspecified offenses dating back to 2023, when the County had a completely different board. This escalation gives the appearance that it may have been retaliatory.
The current board, like the last one, used executive session questionably. The rules for executive session are very strict. Boards can only go into executive session for a small number of approved items and then can only discuss the exact item noticed. Three people testified in the Trish House case that the board discussed items in executive session that weren’t noticed. In fact, ex-commissioner Dan DeYoung drove up to an ethics hearing in Salem and testified that he and the other commissioners did, in fact, break the law, urging the ethics board to convict him. However, the ethics board dismissed the case. On Friday, the commissioners went into executive session and made two errors. First, they refused to allow a member of the media into the meeting, which is required by law. The media member in question was me. Clearly, I am media, as I am writing this article. I occasionally do freelance work for the Grants Pass Tribune. Lastly, they received legal advice. That would have been legal, except the board noticed the meeting as potential discipline of a county official (ORS 192.660 (2)(b)). This exemption does not allow legal advice, and by law, the board can only discuss what is noticed.
There is one final similarity between this board and the previous one. This one is personal for me. In both termination cases, I voiced my concern over the board’s decisions as a private citizen. I live in Josephine County and, for ten years, proudly served as the County HR Director. In both cases, I made it very clear that my speaking out was as a private citizen and not representing the agency I currently work for. I also did so on my own time while off the clock. After both of my complaints, the commissioners called and attempted to get me disciplined or fired just because I exercised my First Amendment rights. They used classic bullying tactics to attempt to silence me.
Commissioner Barnett has said he wants a fair, fresh start. I would love to give him one. However, until this current board stops governing through intimidation, threats, and legally dubious employment practices, I am unwilling to give him the fresh start he asks for. Respect is earned. I hope the new board is willing to change their behavior and earn the respect of the citizens they represent.