An Open Letter To Jackson County Regarding My Decision To File The Ethics Complaint

As County Auditor, I would like to provide some clarification as to the events

surrounding the Ethics Commission investigation of Commissioner Breidenthal. First, Id
like to remind everyone of the importance of the presumption of innocence and ask that
everyone patiently allow the Ethics Commission to do its work.
As I stated when I asked the Ethics Commission to review the events, I have no opinion
as to whether a violation occurred. I had questions as to whether his actions violated
state ethics law and so I referred the issue to the Commission, which has the authority
to definitively answer those questions. The Commissions forms use the term
complaint for what was in essence a request for a review and determination.
Commissioner Breidenthal stated that the County Administrator directed me to file the
complaint. That is not true. As County Auditor, I made the decision to file the complaint
and I expressed that decision while in a closed-door meeting with the County
Administrator and County Counsel.
My decision, as I explained in my memo dated October 22nd , was made because I
believe that In order to hold ourselves accountable, to ensure transparency, and to also
retain the publics trust and confidence, I believe it is the best interest of Jackson County
that an independent investigation be conducted by the Oregon Ethics Commission.
That is why I chose to file the complaint.
After hearing my explanation as to why I believed the complaint should be filed, the
County Administrator agreed with and supported my decision. That is not the same as
directing. It is worth noting that statute does not limit who may file a complaint. If I
had felt the issue did not necessitate referral to the Ethics Commission, the County
Administrator could have filed it himself.
The decision to file was not made lightly. As I stated in my memorandum:
In submitting the complaint/request, I do so with knowledge and concern that
some individuals may jump to the conclusion that a violation occurred and that
resulting damage may occur to both Commissioner Breidenthals reputation
and the reputation of Jackson County. However, given the circumstances and
in order to uphold the integrity of the Jackson County government, I believe
that it is both my personal and professional responsibility to make this
complaint/request regardless of these potential consequences.
In a statement sent to NBC5 News Commissioner Breidenthal stated, It is unfortunate
that the Jackson County Administrator did not take the time to fully research and
understand these laws before he directed staff to file the complaint. Responding to the
Ethics Commission ruling, Commissioner Breidenthal stated, clear rules do not exist

to guide Oregons elected officials and he indicated that legislation is needed to bring
clarity to the rules.
I point out the contradictions in Commissioner Breidenthals statements for the purpose
of assuring the public that time was taken by County Counsel to fully research the laws.
The County cannot be faulted for not taking to time to research the issue if as the
Commissioner asserted the problem is that the laws are not clear and need to be
rewritten.
County Counsels research indicated that the laws may have been violated. I asked the
Ethics Commission to make that determination. The Commission is an objective third
party that has been established by statute for the purpose of reviewing matters such as
this.
The Ethics Commissions ruling affirms that the questions need to be answered. The
Commission ruled that Although Mr. Breidenthals legal counsel made a number of
arguments in support of his position that dismissal is appropriate, it appears that
there is a substantial objective basis to believe that violations of Oregon Government
Ethics laws may have occurred and that Mr. Breidenthal may have committed such
violations.
In response to the ruling, the Commissioner stated This is proving to be a costly
endeavor for the citizens of Jackson County The Ethics Commission does not charge
the County for conducting investigations. I would like to assure the public that the only
cost to the County has been a few dollars in postage spent mailing the documents to the
Commission and the cost of time spent researching and understanding state ethics laws,
preparing documents for the ethics complaint, and time spent responding to inquiries
from the press.
Commissioner Breidenthals response also stated that this could have been simply
avoided if the administrator had asked for an opinion from the Oregon Ethics
Commission. The Commission will issue an opinion if a person asks for an opinion
before he/she engages in an activity but not after. Think of it as asking for permission.
The County could not ask for an opinion regarding events that already occurred.
After a person engages in an activity, he/she can self-report to the Commission. When
that happens, the Commission takes into consideration that a person was forthcoming
and self-reported the incident and (if a violation is found to have occurred) generally
reduces the resulting penalty.
It was suggested to the Commissioner that he self-report but he chose not to. As a
result, I chose to report the issue rather than ignore the question.

I provided the Commission with the information I had. Additionally, the Commissioner
provided a statement and his lawyer made a number of arguments positing that
dismissal was appropriate. The Commission reviewed this information and determined
that it appears that there is a substantial objective basis to believe violations of Oregon
Government Ethics law may have occurred
Their decision validates that I had reason to be concerned about a possible violation and
that I acted appropriately given the responsibilities of my position.
The Commission will make its determination whether or not a violation occurred. I ask
that everyone patiently wait for that decision and do so with faith that Jackson County
holds itself accountable to the public and when questions of ethics arise, we seek
answers from the Oregon Ethics Commission.