Issuu

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2026

GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

Simon Hare Returns to Josephine County Ballot as Old Controversies and New Questions Converge By John Oliver Josephine County politics has a long memory, and one of the names tied to some of its most turbulent chapters has now returned to the ballot. Former county commissioner Simon Hare is once again seeking public office, filing as a candidate for Josephine County Commissioner Position No. 2. His return to the political stage is already stirring debate across the county, not simply because of his prior time in office, but because of the network of unresolved controversies and unanswered questions that continue to follow him. Hare previously served as a Josephine County commissioner and later remained connected to county affairs through various contractual roles. During different periods he has also described himself as a whistleblower regarding county operations, placing himself both inside and outside the political establishment depending on the issue at hand. That history alone would place him in the public spotlight as he campaigns for a return to county government. Yet the circumstances surrounding this new campaign reach beyond his earlier time in office. Repeated attempts were made by the Grants Pass Tribune to contact Hare directly regarding his candidacy and the matters now circulating in public discussion. Several emails requesting comment were sent in re-

cent weeks. As of publication, those inquiries have gone unanswered. Among the issues drawing attention is an ongoing Department of Justice investigation involving individuals connected to former Josephine County Commissioner Chris Barnett. According to information referenced in reporting inquiries, Hare’s partner, Kristina Stickler, has been identified in connection with aspects of the federal investigation related to allegations of coercion. Federal authorities have not yet released full details of the inquiry, and at this stage the scope of potential findings remains under investigation. However, because Hare is now seeking elected office, questions surrounding the situation have inevitably reached the campaign trail.

Hare was asked directly whether he had any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the investigation and whether he wished to address his partner’s alleged involvement. He was also asked whether he had any involvement in the matter or prior awareness of the investigation. Those questions remain unanswered. Beyond the federal investigation, Hare’s campaign is unfolding alongside questions tied to Josephine County’s troubled broadband grant effort, an initiative that has continued to raise concerns long after the initial funding discussions took place. The broadband project involved several figures who have remained prominent in county political disputes, including former commissioner

John West and Michael Sellers, who has also been referenced in connection with federal investigative interest. The project itself became widely criticized after confusion surrounding its structure, oversight, and public accountability left lingering doubts about how the proposal was developed and who ultimately stood to benefit. Critics argue that Hare’s proximity to individuals involved in that process deserves closer scrutiny as voters evaluate his return to county politics. Some supporters, on the other hand, maintain that Hare’s experience in county governance provides him with insight that newer candidates may lack. Another layer of controversy involves Hare’s business relationship with fellow commissioner candidate Chad Hansen. Both men are currently running for the same Position No. 2 seat while also maintaining business ties through Patriot Solutions LLC. That relationship came under public scrutiny last year when Hansen appeared before the Board of County Commissioners seeking grant funding tied to a project. During the application process, the business partnership with Hare was not disclosed. After the omission became known, the grant connected to the application was ultimately rescinded. The situation has left some voters asking

•

see SIMON., page 4

New SNAP Purchase Restrictions Spread Across the Country, but Oregon Remains Unaffected By Ellen Ward A growing number of states across the country are placing new limits on what can be purchased with federal food assistance benefits, but Oregon residents who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will see no changes to their benefits at this time. The policy shift centers on SNAP, the nation’s largest food assistance program, which provides monthly grocery benefits to more than forty million Americans. The program has long allowed recipients to purchase most grocery items while prohibiting alcohol, tobacco products, vitamins, and hot prepared foods. Foods such as soda, candy, snack foods, and desserts have historically remained eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. That framework is now beginning to change in several states. More than twenty states have begun implementing or preparing to implement restrictions targeting products considered to have little nutritional value. These changes are being made through waiver requests submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the

federal food assistance program. Under the waiver process, states may request permission to modify the list of items that can be purchased using SNAP benefits within their borders. Once approved by federal officials, those states can restrict certain products while continuing to operate under the broader structure of the national program. The latest states approved to move for-

ward with restrictions include Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming. Their approvals join a growing list of states pursuing similar policies, including Texas, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. Each state’s policy differs slightly, but most focus on limiting purchases of sugary beverages, energy drinks, and candy. In several of these states, the restric-

tions are scheduled to take effect beginning in 2026, with some locations implementing phased rollouts that could extend into later years. In those areas, SNAP cards will no longer be accepted for certain high sugar products that have traditionally been allowed under the program. Supporters of the policy changes argue that federal food assistance should encourage healthier grocery purchases. Advocates point to ongoing national concerns over diet related health issues such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. They believe limiting the use of SNAP benefits for sugary beverages and highly processed snacks could steer purchases toward foods such as fruits, vege

•

see SNAP., page 3