The Josephine County Board of Commissioners convened for its administrative workshop session yesterday; a meeting so brief it ended almost as quickly as it began. Yet in those two minutes, the Board’s actions signaled a much larger issue now unfolding in plain view. With an active recall in motion, mounting public scrutiny, and no formally vacant seat, county leadership has begun moving forward with an application and interview process for potential commissioner appointments. The decision has raised a wave of legal, procedural and ethical concerns that now demand thorough examination.
During the brief meeting, the Board discussed placing an ad for a new commissioner and beginning the application process, which will be posted as the county begins accepting submissions. All of this is scheduled for this coming Monday, meaning applicants will have only a few hours’ notice before the public posting, followed by interviews that same day and a selection of a replacement before the day is over. The accelerated timeline signals to many that Barnett and Blech have already selected their preferred candidates and that the posting and interviews are merely theater.
For many residents, this has prompted a fundamental question: how can the county begin replacing commissioners when none have resigned, been removed or otherwise vacated their positions under the Home Rule Charter or Oregon law? At this moment, there is no resignation on record. The recall election has not yet taken place. No commissioner has died, relocated outside their district, been convicted of a felony or been deemed ineligible under the Charter. These are the only conditions under which a vacancy is officially created, as outlined in Chapter VI, Section 4 of the Josephine County Charter and Oregon Revised Statute 236.010. None of them currently apply.
Because no vacancy exists, the formal appointment process defined by the Charter cannot legally begin. That process includes a required sequence. First, the vacancy must exist. Second, the Board must publish official notice of that vacancy. This public notice must include a call for qualified applicants. Only after that notice is issued may the Board receive applications, conduct interviews, deliberate on candidates or make an appointment. With step one unfulfilled, the steps that follow cannot be triggered. Nonetheless, the county has opened applications and is signaling interviews as early as next week. This raises the possibility that the county is processing applications outside the legally mandated framework.
Oregon Public Meetings Law also reinforces this limitation. Governing bodies may deliberate only on matters for which they have legal authority. Without an existing vacancy, the Board has no lawful authority to weigh successors or plan replacements. Any attempt to do so during a workshop, business session or informal setting risks violating the statutes designed to keep government activity open, accountable and within its proper scope. Ethical concerns deepen the longer the process continues. Two current commissioners are facing active recall proceedings. Under Oregon ethics law, public officials may not participate in decisions in which they hold a personal or political interest. Shaping the terms of their own potential replacement, directing staff to prepare for it or engaging in deliberations that could influence who eventually fills their seat places commissioners in a direct conflict of interest. ORS 244.120 makes clear that such involvement may justify intervention by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
Yesterday’s meeting added another layer of confusion. Public notification for commissioner applications has not yet appeared in the county’s paper of record, even though the Board indicated interviews could take place next week. The first notice is not scheduled for publication until tomorrow. Without public notice, the Charter’s requirement for open opportunity, equal access and fairness in the appointment process remains unfulfilled. Residents are now asking how a process can begin when the very first step has not been met. The concern extends beyond timing. Many question whether the county is attempting to preselect an appointee before the voters finalize the recall or before a vacancy is even created. Because the recall petition has already been certified as sufficient, a five-day window opens for an official to resign before the recall election proceeds. But even during that period, recalled commissioners cannot choose their replacement. The law grants them only the choice to step down or move forward into the election. It does not authorize them to participate in future appointment procedures.
Those familiar with the Charter emphasize that once a seat becomes formally vacant, the timeline and conditions of the appointment process are not optional. They are binding and enforceable. Circumventing them exposes the county to legal challenge, potential injunctions and scrutiny from state agencies including the Elections Division, the Oregon Department of Justice, the Government Ethics Commission and the Oregon State Bar. County Legal Counsel also holds a responsibility under state law to prevent unlawful Board actions and protect the county from liability. If the Board continues to advance an appointment process prematurely, the counsel’s failure to intervene may itself become a matter of professional concern.
What troubles many observers is not merely that the county plans to begin accepting applications. It is that these applications are being treated as though they are part of the Charter-mandated process, when no vacancy exists to authorize such a process. Applicants submitting their forms now are entering an informal, nonbinding pool unrelated to the process that state and county law require. Once a vacancy does occur, the Charter resets the clock. A fresh notice must be issued. A new opportunity must be opened. All candidates must be considered equally, and only then may official proceedings begin.
Community members are beginning to voice concerns that the current actions undermine transparency and circumvent the intent of recall law. Because the recall signature verification is complete, the voters of Josephine County have already determined that they wish the question placed on the ballot. Yet by advancing prematurely toward appointment planning, the Board gives the appearance of insulating itself from the consequences of that public action. Questions now rise about legitimacy, public trust and the appropriate boundary between governing and self-preservation.
As the political landscape continues to shift, the importance of due process becomes even more pronounced. A recall places the power of decision firmly in the hands of the voters, and the Charter outlines the framework that must be followed if the outcome of that recall creates a vacancy on the Board. Deviating from that framework places the county in a precarious position, both legally and ethically, as the eyes of the state begin to turn toward Josephine County’s unfolding situation.
The meeting may have lasted only two minutes, but its implications will likely reverberate far longer. The public’s expectation is clear. The law must be followed as written. Vacancies must be recognized only when they formally exist. Appointments must proceed only when properly noticed. And the recall, initiated by the people of Josephine County, must be allowed to run its lawful course without premature intervention by the very officials it concerns.
At this moment, one central fact remains. No vacancy exists. Until one does, the appointment process cannot legally begin, no matter how brief or uneventful yesterday’s meeting may have appeared on the surface.