Grants Pass Tribune - Wed. June 11, 2025 by Grants Pass Tribune

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

Despite Recall, Former Commissioner John West Still Faces Oregon Ethics Investigations By: John Oliver John West may have been voted out of office, but the shadow of controversy continues to follow the former Josephine County Commissioner. Even as the dust settles from his high-profile recall earlier this year, West remains at the center of ongoing investigations by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC)—and the latest findings suggest that his battles are far from over. At issue is a preliminary report by OGEC that has now recommended formal findings of ethics violations against West tied to his conduct while in public office. According to the commission’s initial review, West allegedly violated multiple provisions of Oregon Government Ethics Law, including misuse of office for personal gain and failure to properly manage conflicts of interest. Specifically, the report recommends that the commission make a preliminary finding that West violated the state’s prohibition on using one’s elected office for personal benefit, in violation of ORS 244.040(1). In addition, unless the commission determines that a particular exemption applies, West is also facing a preliminary finding of having breached Oregon’s conflict of interest requirements, under ORS 244.120(2)(a). The commission’s staff has further recommended that the case advance either to a contested case hearing—a formal legal proceeding where evidence is presented and testimony heard—or toward a negotiated settlement if West chooses that route. Either way, the legal and political fallout from his short and stormy

time in office is likely to stretch well beyond his removal. The findings stem from one of several ethics complaints lodged against West during his tenure as commissioner, which began with his election in 2022. While the details of this particular complaint remain partially confidential pending the outcome of the case, sources familiar with the matter indicate it relates to decisions West made while serving on the Board of Commissioners that may have benefited his personal or business interests. In plain terms, the OGEC staff is asserting that West used the authority and resources of his elected office in ways prohibited under state ethics laws. This could include, for example, influencing county decisions that intersected with his private ventures, failing to disclose conflicts, or acting in an official capacity where impartiality was compromised. Under Oregon law, ORS 244.040(1) clearly states that public officials are prohibited from using their positions to obtain financial gain or avoid financial detriment for themselves, their relatives, or businesses with which they are associated. The conflict of interest provision, ORS 244.120(2)(a), further requires public officials to publicly announce any potential conflicts and, in most cases, refrain from participating in official actions related to those conflicts. The OGEC’s recommendation is not yet a final ruling—West will have an opportunity to contest the findings or negotiate a resolution. Howev-

er, even at this early stage, the ethics watchdog’s conclusions send a strong signal about the seriousness of the alleged violations. For West, the timing could hardly be worse. Just months ago, he became the first Josephine County commissioner in modern memory to be recalled by voters, after a turbulent term marked by controversy, legal wrangling, and accusations of poor governance. The recall campaign cited, among other grievances, ethical concerns about West’s conduct and decision-making on the board. Now, with the ethics commission preparing to move forward, West faces the prospect of potential civil penalties or further legal consequences, even though he no longer holds public office. Oregon’s ethics laws make clear that officials can still be held accountable for violations committed during their term, regardless of whether they are subsequently removed or resign.

The broader implications of the case also loom large for Josephine County politics. West’s recall and ongoing legal troubles have deepened community divisions and intensified scrutiny of local government practices. They have also reinforced calls for greater transparency, ethics training, and public accountability in county leadership. The OGEC’s actions underscore a broader principle: holding public office is a public trust, and abuses of that trust are subject to accountability—even after an official leaves office. At the same time, the process itself is not without controversy, as questions have arisen over whether the pursuit of post-recall penalties risks appearing politically motivated. For now, the matter rests with the commission. If the case proceeds to a contested hearing, the public may learn more about the specifics of West’s alleged misconduct as evidence is presented. A negotiated settlement, if reached, could result in stipulated findings and possible fines, but without the full public airing of a contested case. Either way, the controversy that toppled John West’s political career is far from over. As the ethics investigation moves forward, Josephine County residents will be watching closely to see whether Oregon’s ethics watchdog delivers true accountability—or simply adds another chapter to one of the county’s most polarizing political sagas. And with County Commissioner Chris Barnett showing troubling signs of following in his predecessor’s footsteps, he too may soon find himself in the hot seat.

Lawsuit Against Grants Pass Highlights City’s January Decisions Sparks Debate Over Homeless Policies By E. Ward The ongoing legal battle between the City of Grants Pass and civil rights advocates has become a flashpoint in the city’s efforts to address homelessness. A recently filed lawsuit and resulting court injunction are forcing city leaders—and the public—to reckon with the consequences of a series of decisions made earlier this year. The legal action, brought by Disability Rights Oregon and the Oregon Law Center, challenges the city’s handling of homeless policies following a January 7, 2025, City Council meeting. The complaint alleges that the city’s moves to restrict camping options for homeless residents—many of whom live with disabilities—violated both state law and constitutional protections. At a recent town hall meeting, Councilor Erich Schloegl sought to explain the city’s position, attributing the current lawsuit in part to Oregon House Bill 3115, which requires cities to adopt “time, place, and manner” restrictions on public camping that are objectively reasonable. Schloegl labeled the legislation an “unfunded mandate” and described the former J Street campsite as a “massive crime

haven.” He also suggested that the origins of the lawsuit predate the Council’s January decisions. However, court records paint a different picture. According to the lawsuit, the City Council’s January 7 actions are central to the legal challenge. On that date, the Council voted to close the J Street campsite, which at the time hosted approximately 120 tents. Simultaneously, the Council imposed new restrictions on the hours of operation at the only remaining sanctioned campsite at 7th Street—mandating that it be closed daily between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Critics argue that these moves left hun-

dreds of homeless residents with no legal or safe alternatives, particularly during the harsh winter months. The smaller 7th Street site could accommodate only a fraction of those displaced from J Street and lacked accessible infrastructure to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. The lawsuit contends that these actions created life-threatening conditions for vulnerable residents. Specifically, the complaint asserts that the city’s policies violate ORS 195.530(2), which requires that restrictions on camping in public spaces be objectively reasonable. It further claims that the daily requirement to dismantle and move campsites dispro-

portionately harms people with disabilities who are unable to comply. The lawsuit also accuses the city of effectively criminalizing homelessness under the pretense of public safety and of eliminating viable, safe options for unsheltered residents. Adding to the controversy was the Council’s decision—made the same day it voted to close J Street and limit hours at 7th Street— to rescind $660,000 in funding for a proposed low-barrier shelter. The funding, part of the MINT (Managed, Integrated Navigation & Transition) grant, would have helped establish a facility aimed at providing more stable accommodations for homeless individuals. According to the lawsuit and advocates familiar with the case, the loss of this funding further undermined the city’s ability to comply with HB 3115. While the state law allows for reasonable restrictions on public

•

see LAWSUIT, page 3