Transparency in Josephine County government has once again come under fire, as the Restore Josephine County Political Action Committee (Restore Jo Co PAC) is demanding answers from the Board of County Commissioners over allegations of a behind-closed-doors promotion involving public funds. The group, which has been gathering support for recall measures against Commissioners Andreas Blech and Chris Barnett, says the matter cuts to the heart of accountability and fiscal responsibility.
According to Restore Jo Co PAC leaders, multiple county insiders reported that IT and Emergency Management Director Michael Sellers has been elevated to a newly created Chief of Staff position. The problem, according to the PAC, is that no public board decision was made — a requirement under Oregon law for such a significant appointment. Chief Petitioner Jim Goodwin, who worked for Josephine County for nearly three decades, has been outspoken in his call for clarity. “We demand immediate clarity on this matter,” Goodwin said. “We won’t rest until transparency is restored.”
The rumored promotion carries serious financial implications. Reports circulating in county offices suggest the Chief of Staff role could pay in the range of $170,000 annually, with a compensation package nearing a quarter of a million dollars when benefits are included. That figure is raising eyebrows in a county where three full-time commissioners already receive salaries and benefits exceeding $130,000 each to oversee operations. For many voters, the idea of adding another high-paying unelected administrator is a non-starter.
This is not the first time Sellers’ career trajectory has sparked controversy. Just months ago, Chairman Andreas Blech attempted to promote him into a Director of Operations role with an estimated $388,000 compensation package. That move collapsed under public backlash, forcing Sellers to return to his original position. Restore Jo Co PAC points to that episode as one of the primary reasons behind their recall petition against Blech, viewing it as part of a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and backroom maneuvering.
The timing of the rumors is particularly sensitive. Commissioners recently implemented deep cuts to the general fund budget, raising questions about priorities and necessity. If the reports are true, residents are asking why such a costly new role is necessary, why it wasn’t debated in public, and why it appears to have bypassed open recruitment. Critics also question whether the candidate’s experience justifies the position, especially at such a steep cost. For those who have pushed for more investment in law enforcement, public safety, and direct services, the suggestion of creating a six-figure unelected position is seen as both tone-deaf and insulting.
Goodwin and other PAC leaders are drawing attention to more than just the alleged promotion. They note a troubling pattern of behavior that includes the dismissal of department heads and staff departures under the current board. Those moves have left many departments strained, while elected officials continue to prioritize administrative restructuring. For Restore Jo Co PAC, the issue is not just about a single position — it is about whether county leadership is serving the people or entrenching power behind closed doors.
The political stakes are high. Restore Jo Co PAC launched its recall effort in August, targeting Blech and Barnett with petitions that highlight not only the Sellers promotion attempts but also broader concerns about transparency, spending, and governance. “The public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent and who is making these decisions,” Goodwin has stated in meetings and interviews. “We believe the commissioners owe voters clear answers, not secrecy.”
Public memory is still fresh from last spring’s uproar over the failed promotion attempt, which saw residents flood meetings, send letters, and demand accountability. The fact that Sellers’ name has resurfaced in connection with another high-level appointment has reignited frustration among watchdogs and everyday citizens alike. The PAC insists that these types of maneuvers are precisely why voters have become skeptical of county government and why recall is necessary to restore accountability.
Commissioners, for their part, have not issued a formal response to the allegations. The silence has only fueled speculation and distrust. In small counties like Josephine, where every budget decision is felt directly by taxpayers, trust in government is not a luxury — it is a requirement. Without it, every rumor becomes a flashpoint, every move a source of suspicion.
The Restore Jo Co PAC argues that until commissioners open their decision-making processes and reaffirm their commitment to lawful governance, these controversies will continue to undermine confidence. For now, the group says it will press forward with its recall campaign while demanding an explanation from the board about whether Sellers has in fact been promoted, what the role entails, and how much it will cost the public.
The tension underscores a broader theme in Josephine County politics: a battle between elected officials who see administrative restructuring as essential, and citizens who see it as wasteful and opaque. In the absence of transparency, the whispers of insiders have become the loudest voice in the room, and Restore Jo Co PAC has positioned itself as the conduit for those concerns. Whether the commissioners respond with openness or continue to remain silent will likely shape not just the outcome of the recall effort, but the long-term trust between government and the people it serves.