County questions constitutionality of term limits for commissioners
UNION COUNTY — Are term limits for county commissioners legal under the Oregon Constitution?
This is the question the Union County Board of Commissioners wants to bring before the court. Commissioners are limited to two terms, but the legality of term limits have been challenged in other parts of the state.
' What we're looking at here is whether or not the county wants to take any action to remove that potential prohibition for county commissioners going forward,' county counsel Wyatt Baum said during the regular session meeting Jan. 22.
Residents brought forward an initiative petition in 2017 that proposed limiting commissioners to two terms. The county board of commissioners adopted that under Ordinance 2017-01.
Baum explained that around the time term limits were implemented locally a similar ordinance was challenged elsewhere in the state. Former Douglas County Commissioner Susan Morgan brought the lawsuit after the county clerk's office refused to allow her to file for a third term, according to reporting at the time by The News Review.
In 2018 the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the 2016 Douglas County Circuit Court's decision, which found the term limits unconstitutional.
The Oregon Constitution outlines the necessary qualifications for every county officer. The state constitution says every count officer must be an elector of the county. It goes on to say that other qualifications may be prescribed by law for the county assessor, county sheriff, county coroner and county surveyor.
The News Review reported Presiding Judge Rex Armstrong said in the appeals court decision this means counties do not have the power to add qualifications, including term limits, for commissioners.
'It overturned limitations, essentially saying that is impermissible restriction on a qualification of a county commissioner under the Oregon Constitution,' Baum said.
However, Baum told the county board the court's decision only overturned the limitation in Douglas County. It did not overturn term limits statewide and many ordinances remain on the books across the state that impose term limits for county commissioners.
The commissioners have a few choices, Baum said. The county could wait until a sitting commissioner decided to run for a third term. When this happens it would be up to the county clerk to bring the issue before the Union County Circuit Court where a judge would determine whether or not the limitations on term limits is legal.
However, Baum said a more proactive option would be for the county to petition the court for the validation of a legal government action, which asks the court to rule on the issue.
' The court's ability to hear it once somebody runs is going to be very limited and that's going to slow things down,' Baum said. 'But if you did it now, you'd be able to get ahead of whether or not anybody in the future wants to run to address this issue.'
Union County commissioners for the 2024-25 fiscal year receive a salary of $83,316. Commissioners also receive health insurance, money for a retirement fund and other benefits.
Commissioners Matt Scarfo and Paul Anderes are nearing the end of their second terms. While Anderes said he has no plans to run for the seat again, Scarfo expressed interest in another term.
' I would definitely like to see a third term,' he said. ' Two terms is definitely not enough in this position.'
Scarfo said he's been working to acquire funding from the Legislature for the Union County Fairgrounds water and wastewater infrastructure project for the past seven years.
Commissioner Jake Seavert said he is not against term limits in general, but as someone who recently stepped into the position, he understands it takes time to learn the intricacies of how Union County operates.
Commissioners unanimously voted to bring the issue before the courts to determine the legality of the ordinance.
' Any parties that object to it will have the opportunity to come in before the judge and make that argument also,' Baum said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Department of Homeland Security removes list of sanctuary cities that included Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach was listed on a since-removed Department of Homeland Security list of sanctuary cities that were 'defying federal immigration law' late last week, something Mayor Pat Burns called either a misprint or a serious mistake. The list was published on May 29, but removed from the DHS website on Sunday. It included California as a whole and listed a majority of the state's 58 counties, though Orange County was not included. There was also a list of cities deemed sanctuary cities, and Huntington Beach was the only city in O.C. to be named. DHS officials said in a news release that the list included cities, counties and states that are deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens. President Trump signed an executive order on April 28 that directed Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to identify and publicly highlight jurisdictions that won't cooperate with federal immigration authorities. But Huntington Beach leaders say that description is flat-out wrong, given the city's policy. In January, Huntington Beach declared itself a nonsanctuary city that was friendly to President Trump's immigration policies. Around the same time, the city filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California, arguing that the sanctuary state law that limits local police from working with federal immigration officials violated the Supremacy and Naturalization clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In a news release issued by the city on Friday night, Burns said that city Resolution No. 2025-01, which applied to immigrants in the country illegally, remained intact and unchanged. He said he had already reached out to his federal contacts to have Huntington Beach taken off the list. 'We adopted a formal policy on this,' Burns said. 'It went before the council, and we unanimously agreed that Huntington Beach is not a sanctuary city. We took deliberate action to make our nonsanctuary stance clear.' Burns added that he had heard that other jurisdictions on the list, including Shasta County in California, had also either declared themselves nonsanctuary jurisdictions or followed nonsanctuary policies. The DHS sanctuary list itself was scrutinized over the weekend by both city political leaders and law enforcement. National Sheriffs' Assn. President Sheriff Kieran Donahue called the list 'arbitrary' and created without any input, criteria of compliance or method of objecting to the designation. Noem said on the Fox News show 'Sunday Morning Futures' that she had heard anger from officials about the list, but defended it. 'Some of the cities have pushed back,' Noem said. 'They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Notably, Santa Ana, the only county city that has actually declared itself a sanctuary city, was not on the May 29 DHS list.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Yahoo
Elizabeth City man receives 78-month sentence for fentanyl possession
The video above is from an Aug. 2024 report about a new crime initiative during which the suspect in the case below was indicted. ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. (WAVY) – An Elizabeth City man will spend 6 1/2 years in prison on fentanyl charges he received after leading law enforcement on a pursuit. Rashawn Baum, 29, was sentenced on May 22 on charges of possession with the intent to distribute a quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl. He pleaded guilty in February. According to court records, officers with North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement and Elizabeth City Police tried to pull Baum over after witnessing him speeding, but he refused to stop. During a short pursuit, Baum's vehicle crashed into two other cars before eventually coming to a stop. Baum and a passenger got out of the vehicle and started to run, but were quickly caught. Law enforcement searched Baum's vehicle and found a green Crown Royal bag that contained a substance later confirmed to be about an ounce of fentanyl. They also recovered a .357 semi-automatic pistol. While imposing the sentence, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Dever, III said 'fentanyl is destroying thousands of lives.' Elizabeth City Chief of Police Eddie Graham added that 'drugs ruin people's lives, break up families, and have a disastrous effect on our community.' Chief Graham said this 'will no longer be tolerated.' Baum's 78-month sentence will begin after he finishes an unrelated state sentence in 2031. New multi-agency strategy leads to 21 arrests in northeast North Carolina for violent crimes According to a previous news release, Baum is a member of the Blood Gang. Last August, WAVY reported that Baum was among 21 people indicted as part of a recently launched Violent Crime Action Plan, which is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina, sheriffs of at least eight counties surrounding the Albemarle Sound, city and town police chiefs and other state and federal law enforcement agencies. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Yahoo
State Rep. Bobby Levy weighs in on bills close to family business while lawmakers weigh regulations
Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, works on the House floor at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023. (Amanda Loman/Oregon Capital Chronicle) On Feb. 5, state Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, urged legislators at a hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire to oppose a bill that would have required large farm owners to report their fertilizer use to the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The goal of the bill, which died in the committee after the hearing, was to help curb groundwater pollution that's become a growing issue in Levy's district in northeast Oregon. 'Making the suggestion that over application (of fertilizer) is widespread is both inaccurate and unfair,' she told the senators. A month later, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality identified 'the Levy farm' in a citation as having over-applied fertilizer on corn fields owned by the family's business throughout 2023, causing pollution to waters of the state, in an already contaminated aquifer. Levy's opposition to the fertilizer reporting bill — Senate Bill 747 — did not include any mention of her own farmland holdings or the income she gets from her family business, Windy River, proprietor of those fields of corn. 'Workers and families with polluted drinking water need good representation on this issue and aren't getting it,' Kaleb Lay, policy director at Oregon Rural Action, said via text. 'We're going to need leadership from the legislature to hold polluters accountable in the Lower Umatilla Basin.' Although Levy has named seven businesses in the statement of economic interest she submits annually to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, Levy isn't barred from sponsoring, testifying on or voting on bills that would directly benefit the family businesses that she receives income from. In fact, by Oregon law, she said she and other legislators are required to vote on bills even when they've declared a conflict of interest. 'As a member of the House of Representatives, it is my honor and obligation to comply with the rules of the House, state law and the Oregon Constitution,' Levy said in an email. 'House rules require me to attend all committee meetings unless I am excused. House rules require me to vote and prohibit me from abstaining from voting. If I am faced with an actual or potential conflict of interest, House rules require me to announce the nature of the conflict prior to voting on the issue that is creating the conflict.' Kate Titus, executive director of Common Cause Oregon, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group focused on public policy in the state, said many other states have laws that recommend or require lawmakers to abstain from voting on bills where they've declared a financial conflict of interest. 'Oregon is behind on these ethics laws,' Titus said. Two bills currently being considered by legislators would change that and offer more transparency. Senate Joint Resolution 9, sponsored by state Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, would refer a ballot measure to Oregon voters in November to decide whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit legislators from voting on bills when they've declared a conflict of interest. Little action has been taken on the proposal, which has been sitting in the Senate Rules Committee since January. Another proposal, made at the request of Gov. Tina Kotek for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, would expand Oregon's conflict of interest laws to apply to other members of a public figure's household. This means officials would need to declare conflicts of interest not only if they or their business would materially benefit or suffer from a bill, but if it would benefit or damage a relative or a member of the official's household, or any businesses associated with relatives or members of the household. The proposal — House Bill 2930 — unanimously passed the House in April and is awaiting a final vote in the Senate. The interests of Levy's family businesses also hew closely to a bill she's sponsoring and another she's opposed, related to power and data centers. Levy is sponsoring a bill that would exempt Umatilla County from Oregon's 45-year-old statewide nuclear ban — an exemption that would favor tech companies already investing billions in small nuclear reactors in the region to power their growing number of energy-hungry data centers and AI processing servers. She also opposed a bill that would create a separate rate class for data centers to ensure costs of grid and infrastructure expansion needed to power them aren't passed onto utilities' residential customers. Demand for power from the Umatilla Electric Cooperative, which supplies electricity to much of Levy's district, has grown 556% in the last decade, according to recent analysis by the nonprofit research organization Sightline Institute. Nearly all of that is from Amazon data centers in the county. Levy did not disclose while she lobbied for and against these bills that the family business Windy River has made deals with Amazon, including selling the company more than 100 acres of its land in 2021 for nearly $3.7 million, to build a new data center that is nearing completion. Windy River still holds the water rights to that land. Levy also did not share that Windy River's farm acres get wastewater to use for irrigation from another Amazon data center, according to the Port of Morrow's most recent wastewater permit. Oregon law does require disclosures of donations to public officials' campaigns, which show Levy accepted a $2,000 donation from Amazon in November. The company gave similarly sized donations to a number of lawmakers from both parties in 2024. Levy contends she did not need to declare a conflict of interest related to the Senate bill that would have required fertilizer reporting because it never went to a vote. The only reason the environmental quality department knows about the overfertilized fields at the Levy farm is because the farm gets wastewater from J.R. Simplot Company and the Hermiston Power Plant. J.R. Simplot has a state-regulated wastewater permit that allows it to supply the Levy farm with wastewater, and in return Simplot is required to report how much fertilizer farmers are laying down on those wastewater-irrigated fields, and to allow DEQ to test wells nearby the farm fields for contaminants. Windy River, the Levy family's company, is now trying to stop receiving water from Simplot, meaning their fields would no longer be monitored under Simplot's state-regulated wastewater permit, and DEQ would no longer be able to monitor Windy River's fertilizer use. Levy said the other bills currently being considered do not require disclosures because they do not and will not directly financially benefit her or her family's businesses, and that she is following all of Oregon's ethics laws. 'The founders of this great state had the wisdom to enshrine in our constitution protections to ensure that legislators have the freedom to engage in robust debate in determining what laws to enact, without fear of being questioned by others outside of the legislature about what is said in that debate,' she said. 'This protection enables me to advocate for the interests of my constituents to the best of my abilities, without fear of malicious prosecution by those who do not hold my constituents' best interests to heart.' Titus said regardless of Oregon's ethics laws being behind the times, public officials should strive for a high degree of transparency and disclosure. 'At some level, you can't fault legislators for playing by the rules, but it's important that elected officials uphold the highest standards of transparency,' she said. 'We elect legislators because they have expertise that represents our community, or certain experiences in our communities. We don't want to prevent them from voting on things that broadly affect them, too. But at some point, when it's related to a very specific private, economic interest, they should need to recuse themselves.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
