The people of Grants Pass are watching—and they’re beginning to ask hard questions. At a time when public trust in government is already on shaky ground, local residents are demanding more from their elected officials, especially those who promised transparency, reform, and a clean break from politics as usual. Among them is newly elected City Councilor Erich Schloegl, who now finds himself under increasing scrutiny for a series of actions that appear to contradict the very values he ran on.
Already under formal investigation by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC), Councilor Schloegl’s role in the appointment of his spouse, Christina Schloegl, to the Grants Pass Budget Committee has raised red flags and serious concerns among residents and ethics officials alike. At the heart of the issue is Schloegl’s participation in the interview process of his own wife—something that interim city attorney Mark Bartholomew has already publicly acknowledged as a violation of Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 244.177(1)(b). This statute prohibits public officials from participating in decisions that could present a conflict of interest involving family members.
The OGEC’s investigation has since expanded to include potential violations of ORS 244.277(3)(b), which relates to the appointment of a relative to a “public body.” Under Oregon law, the city budget committee qualifies as a governing body, and if found to be a second violation, it could further damage the credibility of both Schloegl and the broader City Council that approved the appointment.
While the investigation remains pending, a new and equally troubling concern has surfaced. On March 31, Councilor Schloegl submitted public testimony on Senate Bill 210, a piece of legislation unrelated to the ethics probe but submitted as part of his role in public office. However, in the testimony, Schloegl listed his city of residence as Rogue River—not Grants Pass, where he currently serves as a city councilor.
This inconsistency has left many citizens questioning whether Schloegl truly resides within the city limits of Grants Pass, a legal requirement for holding a seat on the council. According to publicly available records, Schloegl’s residential address appears to be listed as 221 Whispering Drive, which is within the Grants Pass city limits. However, his correspondence and certain online profiles also associate him with a Rogue River post office box. Given that his wife is employed by the Rogue River School District and their children attended school in Rogue River, some residents are asking whether this was an innocent oversight—or a sign of something more problematic.
The issue has opened a broader conversation about accountability and the responsibilities elected officials owe to the public. When a councilor already facing one ethics investigation submits official testimony to the state legislature with inaccurate or misleading information, it raises legitimate questions about judgment, transparency, and fitness for office. Even if the discrepancy turns out to be a clerical error, constituents have a right to expect precision and honesty from those tasked with representing their interests at the local and state level.
Whether Schloegl misunderstood the distinction between a mailing address and a legal residence, or whether this points to something more serious, the optics are undeniably poor. These questions are especially unsettling when viewed against the backdrop of an active ethics investigation. Inconsistencies—whether unintentional or not—can quickly snowball into larger issues of credibility when a public official is already navigating allegations of misconduct.
For voters and taxpayers in Grants Pass, this situation is a sobering reminder that real reform requires more than campaign slogans and promises of transparency. It demands a consistent commitment to ethical governance, legal compliance, and public trust. Public service is not merely about winning office—it’s about earning and maintaining the confidence of the community through accountability, honesty, and a willingness to lead by example.
The stakes are high, not just for Schloegl, but for the entire City Council. As these investigations and inconsistencies continue to unfold, they risk undermining the integrity of the local government as a whole. If residents begin to perceive that ethical standards are being selectively applied or conveniently overlooked, faith in democratic institutions suffers.
At a time when communities are demanding greater oversight and cleaner governance, any lapse—no matter how small it may seem—can be magnified under the public eye. In this case, the citizens of Grants Pass deserve clear answers about where their elected representative lives, why a conflicting city of residence was listed in state testimony, and whether ongoing ethical concerns are being taken seriously.
The bottom line is this: public office is a privilege, not a right. And with that privilege comes the expectation of transparency, adherence to the law, and a commitment to put the public interest above personal convenience. For Councilor Schloegl, and for all elected officials in Josephine County and beyond, the message should be clear—honesty and integrity are not optional; they are the foundation of public service.
