Issuu

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2026

GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

After Recall, Barnett Pushes Appointment Authority He Does Not Hold By John Oliver In the final weeks before his mandated exit from office, recently recalled Josephine County Commissioner Chris Barnett has intensified a campaign that centers on an authority the public has already withdrawn. Despite a decisive recall election and the passage of statutory time limits designed to prevent last-minute power plays, Barnett has repeatedly asserted both publicly and in private email correspondence that it remains his “objective” to appoint a new commissioner. The record now shows that this objective is not only unattainable, it is outside the scope of his remaining duties. The recall outcome could not have been clearer. In the January 6, 2026, special election, 19,246 Josephine County residents cast ballots. Of the 19,224 votes officially tallied, 12,101 voters 62.95% voted to recall Barnett, while 7,123 voted to retain him. The margin removed him from office within his first year and sent an unambiguous message about public confidence and accountability. Under Oregon recall law, once signatures are certified and voters render their decision, the process moves toward transition not consolidation of power. Yet email correspondence obtained by this newspaper illustrates a markedly different posture. In a January 12 exchange with a local resident, Barnett wrote, “Please be assured, my objective is to appoint a com-

missioner. I trust you will review the charter to fully comprehend this initiative.” This assertion was made after his recall and after the 30 day statutory window that guards against precisely this sort of maneuvering had elapsed. Those safeguards exist for a reason. Oregon’s recall framework is built to prevent an official who has lost the confidence of the electorate from reshaping government on the way out the door. Once the relevant

time period passes, appointment authority no longer rests with the official, recalled, or not. In Josephine County’s case, that authority transfers to the remaining, duly elected board members acting collectively and in accordance with law. It does not belong to a single commissioner operating alone, and it certainly does not belong to a commissioner who has been removed by voters. The emails also reveal a growing im-

patience from residents who have followed the charter, the legal opinions of county counsel, and the clock. In response to Barnett’s stated intention, the resident wrote that merely wishing an outcome into existence “does not make it so,” adding that the public would “wait out the remaining ballot validation time” that would confirm what voters already knew, that the recall had succeeded and that Barnett would soon be, in the words used, “be gone.” Throughout the exchange, the resident emphasized that the work of the county belongs to the people, not to a departing officeholder’s personal agenda. This tension did not arise in a vacuum. The vacancy Barnett has sought to fill traces back to the resignation of Andreas Blech, which created an opening on the board before the recall was completed. Rather than allowing the lawful process to unfold, Barnett scheduled agenda items and signaled an intent to act unilaterally, even as questions mounted about whether such actions complied with the county charter and state law. The impasse reached a critical point when Commissioner Ron Smith declined to participate in an appointment process that could expose the county to legal risk. That refusal effectively halted any attempt to move forward while Barnett remained in

•

see FINAL, page 5

Procedural Dispute Marks Grants Pass Council Reorganization and Rekindles Broader Governance Questions By John Oliver The opening moments of a recent meeting of the Grants Pass City Council, typically reserved for routine organizational business, instead drew public attention after a contentious and prolonged process to select a new council president exposed divisions over procedure, decorum, and public messaging. The council convened to elect a presiding officer, a role responsible for guiding meetings, recognizing speakers, and ensuring adherence to parliamentary rules. Councilor Rob Pell was ultimately chosen for the position, but the path to that outcome was marked by confusion regarding how nominations should be taken and which voting method should be used. The discussion extended well beyond what is customary for a reorganization item, with repeated interruptions and disagreement over which procedural option should govern the vote. During the exchange, city staff attempted to explain that multiple lawful approaches were available under standard parliamentary practice, including Robert’s Rules of Order. Those explanations did not immediately resolve the disagreement, as councilors continued to debate recognition, sequencing, and authority over the process.

While the council eventually proceeded with nominations and a vote, the episode created a visible sense of disorder and tension that was evident to viewers watching the public broadcast. Former council president Victoria Marshall, who was acting as chair at the start of the meeting, played a central role in the procedural dispute. Her handling of the opening item and the tone of the exchange drew scrutiny from some observers, particularly given that the issue at hand was administrative rather than policy-driven. The meeting concluded with Marshall switching seats with the newly elected president, a mo-

ment that underscored the abrupt and strained nature of the transition. The incident quickly became a point of public discussion, not only because of the confusion surrounding parliamentary procedure, but also because it occurred against a backdrop of heightened sensitivity to governance issues in Josephine County. Recent recalls, legal disputes, and contentious public meetings have sharpened attention on how elected officials conduct themselves and communicate with constituents. In that context, even routine matters are now closely examined for signals about leadership

style and institutional stability. Attention expanded beyond the council chamber after Marshall made public comments on social media concerning a separate county-level recall effort. In those comments, she asserted that the County Clerk had the ability to fully verify all recall petition signatures and urged residents to pressure the clerk to do so. The statements prompted responses from community members familiar with Oregon election law, who noted that signature verification procedures are governed by state rules rather than local discretion. Under Oregon law, recall petitions that require more than a specified number of signatures are subject to a mandatory statistical sampling process established by the Secretary of State. For recalls of this size, county clerks are required to

•

see GRANTS, page 8