The Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) has launched a preliminary investigation into Josephine County Commissioner John West over allegations of ethics violations related to potential conflicts of interest and the use of his official position for personal financial gain. The decision to move forward with an investigation comes after an initial review of a complaint filed by JJ Scofield on August 8, 2024.
The complaint claims that West, who serves as the Chair of the Josephine County Board of Commissioners, failed to disclose a conflict of interest during a public meeting on July 30, 2024. The meeting’s agenda included discussions on the county’s Community Development fee, a 1% fee imposed on certain development permits, which supports Community Development Department functions.
Scofield alleges that West, who owns development and contracting businesses within Josephine County, did not declare a conflict of interest when he raised the issue of potentially pausing or reducing the Community Development fee. According to the complaint, West’s decision to discuss the fee may have been motivated by personal financial considerations, as his businesses reportedly own multiple properties that could benefit from reduced fees. The complaint estimates that a suspension or reduction of this fee could save West’s businesses approximately $50,000.
In addition, Scofield claims that the fee discussion was scheduled on a day when Community Development Director Mark Stevenson had a personal scheduling conflict, which may have limited his ability to counter West’s proposals effectively. Stevenson attended the meeting but had to leave shortly afterward to accompany his wife to a medical appointment.
According to meeting records, West questioned the structure and application of the Community Development fee. Stevenson explained that fees from new construction permits are used to fund Community Development services, with methodology guidelines set by the state. West, however, expressed concern that some of these fees might be improperly allocated toward code enforcement, which he argued was not relevant to his projects or others that had not violated any codes.
During the meeting, Stevenson outlined that for new developments, such as a 35-lot subdivision, the Community Development fees could reach about $1,000 per lot, creating a substantial financial burden on developers. He clarified that although West’s businesses do not routinely apply for building permits, clients who engage West for development projects may still benefit if fees are reduced, thereby indirectly benefiting West’s businesses.
West, accompanied by his attorney, disputed the complaint’s claims in a statement to OGEC investigators. He emphasized that his intention was to seek clarity on the fee’s allocation, following concerns from constituents about the fund’s use. West asserted that he had not suggested any action be taken and that the meeting was purely informational. He denied any financial motivation behind his comments, noting that his businesses primarily sell undeveloped land and do not typically apply for permits that incur Community Development fees.
Additionally, West disputed Scofield’s claim of owning 43 properties, clarifying that he owns eight properties personally. However, county records reveal that West and his businesses hold a total of 15 properties within Josephine County.
Under Oregon law, public officials must disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest when their actions could financially benefit themselves or associated businesses. OGEC guidelines further stipulate that officials are prohibited from using their office to secure financial gain unavailable to the public.
The investigation will determine whether West’s involvement in the July 30 discussion constitutes a prohibited use of office and whether his omission to declare a potential conflict of interest may have violated state ethics laws. Specifically, OGEC investigators are reviewing whether West’s influence on discussions related to the Community Development fee could lead to personal financial benefits through his associated businesses.
The OGEC may also consider if the “class exception” to conflict of interest regulations applies in this case. The class exception allows officials to avoid disclosure requirements if the potential benefit applies equally to a broad group. West and his attorney argue that his role as a developer positions him within a recognized class that could be similarly affected by fee changes, which they believe exempts him from conflict of interest disclosures.
Pending approval, OGEC will move to a full investigation to further assess the extent and implications of West’s involvement in the July 30 meeting.
