The Sentence Local News Left Out

In April, before Union County voters cast their primary ballots, I wrote that the ethics question surrounding Commissioner Matt Scarfo would be decided by the state. The Commission had opened an investigation, but it had not reached a final result. [10]

Now it has.

On August 14, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission unanimously approved an agreement ending the case. Scarfo received a letter explaining the ethics rules. He paid no fine. There was no formal hearing. [1]

It was a mild and ordinary result.

But the order also says the Commission's evidence, if presented at a hearing, “would establish a preponderance of evidence” supporting findings that Scarfo violated Oregon's conflict-of-interest law twice. More likely than not: that is the ordinary-language meaning of the standard. [1]

That was not a ruling entered after a hearing; there was no hearing. But it was not an exoneration either.

Elkhorn Media Group and The Observer reported the light outcome. Neither reported the sentence explaining what the Commission said the evidence showed.

THE VOTE BEHIND THE CASE

The ethics case did not begin with an abstract legal question. It began with voter-approved term limits and Scarfo's own interest in serving beyond them.

In 2016, Union County voters approved a two-consecutive-term limit for county commissioners with 68 percent of the vote. There were 5,578 votes in favor. The county later implemented that decision through Ordinance 2017-01. [10]

At the January 22, 2025 Board of Commissioners meeting, Scarfo said he had not announced whether he would run again, but “would like to see an option for a third term.” He said eight years was not enough time to complete projects he had in mind. He then seconded the motion for the county to seek a court ruling on the term limits and voted yes. No commissioner declared a conflict. [11]

During that same meeting, the board also selected the East Oregonian as Union County's official newspaper for public notices. [11] The lawsuit proceeded without an opposing party. Its legal notices later ran in the East Oregonian, no Union County voter appeared, and the court struck the limits down. [7]

Those events drove the earlier stories in this series. They also explain why the final ethics order matters.

The order says Scarfo should have announced a possible conflict when the term limits first came before the board on January 8, 2025. At the later meeting, when the commissioners discussed and voted to use a county lawyer to obtain a court ruling, the order describes his conflict as actual. Scarfo did not announce it, did not abstain from the discussion and did not abstain from the vote. [1]

The financial benefit identified in the order was straightforward: Scarfo would not have to spend his own money bringing a legal challenge that could clear the way for another term.

The Commission asserted two violations of ORS 244.120: one for failing to announce a potential conflict, and another for failing to announce an actual conflict and abstain. It then said the evidence would support findings on both. [1]

The final order also narrowed the case. An earlier theory that Scarfo had improperly used his office for financial gain did not appear as a violation in the settlement. Scarfo maintained that he did not intentionally violate the law. He said the board sought only a ruling on whether the limits were legal, and noted that other officials had not declared conflicts or faced complaints. [1]

Scarfo signed the agreement, accepted the education letter and gave up a formal hearing and judicial review. The Commission settled and released the claims covered by the case. [1]

The case ended without a fine or a hearing. It was a settlement of two asserted conflict-of-interest violations, resolved through education.

A NORMAL COMMISSION RESPONSE

Because Scarfo argued that other officials had not faced complaints, we compared his result with the Commission's past decisions.

Valor reviewed 109 final orders issued from 2017 through 2026 that expressly stated a violation of the same conflict-of-interest law. Fifty-three ended with education only. Fifty-one imposed a financial penalty without education. Two included both, and three fell outside those categories. [2]

We narrowed the comparison again to orders stating exactly two violations, as Scarfo's did. There were 11. Five ended with education only, five with a penalty only and one with both. [2]

Scarfo's outcome falls squarely within that history and on the lighter end of the Commission's available responses. Oregon law expressly allows the Commission to use education instead of, or together with, a formal violation finding or fine. [5]

No comparison makes every case identical. It cannot tell us why someone else was not named in a complaint. But it gives us no basis to accuse the Commission of bias or favoritism in this resolution.

That conclusion matters: the Commission's response was normal. The way the response was presented to local readers was incomplete.

WHAT THE STORIES REPORTED

Elkhorn Media Group did serious reporting. Its account described the meetings, quoted the settlement terms, identified the other commissioners involved and included Scarfo's defense. It told readers that the Commission had asserted violations. [3]

The Observer's shorter article accurately reported the unanimous vote, the education letter, the term-limits history and Scarfo's decision to resolve the case before the investigation was complete. It linked to the Commission document and noted that Scarfo was again running for office. [4]

Both outlets were right that the outcome was modest. Neither invented the settlement or hid the complaint.

But neither printed the preponderance sentence.

That omission was especially important in Elkhorn's story because the article referred to a “dropping of the charges” and quoted Scarfo saying the outcome “clears my name” and that the decision was “in my favor.” Those statements were newsworthy. The Commission's contrary language belonged beside them. [3]

The Observer left out more. Its story did not tell readers about the agreed facts describing Scarfo's potential and actual conflicts. It did not identify the two violations asserted by the Commission. It did not report that the evidence would support both. [4]

After the stories appeared, I contacted Jim Mollerstrom, who filed the ethics complaint on behalf of Union County Citizens for Good Government. He told me neither outlet had contacted him for comment. Mollerstrom also voiced concern about Ashley O'Toole's separate interviews with Scarfo, which he said were one-sided and painted him in a bad light.

The effect was simple: readers received the part of the order that favored Scarfo without the sentence that limited what he could fairly claim from it.

That does not prove either outlet acted intentionally. It does not prove coordination or favoritism. It does show why completeness matters.

WHAT I GOT WRONG

The Observer's place in this story also requires candor about my own earlier reporting.

In April, I wrote that The Observer remained legally qualified to publish Union County's public notices because its newsroom was still operating online. Judge Thomas B. Powers later ruled that I was wrong. I published that correction with both earlier term-limits articles.

The judge found that The Observer had ceased its print and standalone online publications around July 2024 and did not qualify to publish the April 2025 legal notice. He also found that the East Oregonian did qualify and that Union County's notice was legally sufficient. He denied my attempt to reopen the term-limits judgment. I did not appeal. The case is closed. [7]

The court's ruling does not change another fact: no Union County voter appeared to oppose the lawsuit. The record does not establish why.

Nor does the newspaper history prove that The Observer later favored Scarfo on purpose. We found no evidence of motive or coordination. But the publication whose status became part of the term-limits case later reported on the ethics case born from that dispute without telling readers the Commission's central conclusion about the evidence.

That omission deserves scrutiny. It does not justify inventing an explanation.

THE ANSWER

In April, the ethics case was still an open question. It is not open now.

The Commission did not come down hard on Scarfo. It imposed no fine and used a common education-only resolution. The historical record gives us no basis to call that decision biased.

The Commission did not clear him either. Scarfo ended the case under an agreement stating that the evidence would support two conflict-of-interest violations.

Both facts belong in the same story.

The local reports gave readers the first. The sentence they left out contained the second.