Union County, Oregon -- Public Records & Civic Accountability

At the May 17, 2016 primary election, Union County voters approved Initiative Measure 31-89, titled "Term Limits for Union County Commissioners." The measure capped commissioners at two consecutive four-year terms -- eight years total on the three-seat board. The vote was not close: roughly two-thirds of voters said yes, with 5,578 in favor and 2,599 opposed (source: NETWORK_INDEX.md).

The measure was a citizen-driven initiative, not a referral from the board itself. Jim Mollerstrom, a La Grande resident now leading the Union County Citizens for Good Government, served as the original chief petitioner. The campaign framed the measure as a direct response to decades of entrenched incumbency on a board that, at the time, rarely saw competitive races for sitting seats.

The validation petition later filed by the county in 2025 identifies the same measure -- Initiative Measure 31-89, passed May 17, 2016 -- as the voter action that produced Ordinance 2017-01 (source: court/lg-20332-notice-text.md).

On March 15, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2017-01, "In the Matter of an Ordinance Establishing Term Limits for the Office of Union County Commissioner." The ordinance implemented Initiative Measure 31-89 by converting the voter-approved cap into the county's binding code (source: court/lg-20332-notice-text.md).

The commissioners who adopted the ordinance were Steve McClure, Jack Howard, and Donna Beverage (source: court/ecourt-search-log.md). None of them are the same commissioners who would later vote in 2025 to ask a court to strike it down.

Shortly after Union County adopted Ordinance 2017-01, a sitting commissioner in Douglas County challenged a similar local term-limits ordinance. A Douglas County circuit court struck down that county's limits; the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld that result in 2018 (source: court/ecourt-search-log.md). For the next eight years, Union County's ordinance sat on the books unchallenged -- until the board decided, in January 2025, to put it in front of a judge.

At the regular Board of Commissioners meeting on January 22, 2025, legal counsel Wyatt Baum (OSB 111773) presented an agenda item labeled "Term Limit Clarification." Baum told the board that Douglas County's similar ordinance had been overturned in court, argued that Union County's ordinance could likewise be considered unconstitutional, and laid out options for the board -- including a county-initiated validation petition under ORS 33.710 (source: meetings/2025-01-22-full-minutes.md).

Commissioner Jake Seavert made the motion: "that the County request a special writ under ORS 33.710 requesting the court determine the legality of county measure Ordinance 2017-01." Commissioner Matt Scarfo seconded. The motion carried unanimously with all three commissioners -- Paul Anderes, Scarfo, and Seavert -- voting yes (source: meetings/2025-01-22-full-minutes.md).

On the record at that same meeting, Scarfo told the board he had "not publicly announced that he would like to run again, but he would like to see an option for a third term" (source: meetings/2025-01-22-full-minutes.md). He did not declare a conflict of interest before seconding or voting on the motion. That omission is the central allegation in OGEC Case 25-708ECF.

The board acted on the January 22 motion by filing Case No. 25CV22067 in Union County Circuit Court as a special statutory proceeding under ORS 33.710 to 33.720. The petition, signed by Wyatt S. Baum of Baum Smith, LLC, was dated April 7, 2025 and asked the court for a judicial examination of Ordinance 2017-01's "regularity, legality, validity and effect" (source: court/lg-20332-notice-text.md).

Under the validation statute, the county was required to give public notice and summons to "all qualified electors, freeholders, taxpayers, and other interested persons." The notice, designated LG-20332, was published once a week for three successive weeks -- April 16, April 23, and April 30, 2025 -- in The East Oregonian, the county's official newspaper under Court Order 2025-01 (source: court/lg-20332-notice-text.md).

The notice gave interested persons ten days after the final publication to file an answer contesting the ordinance at the Union County Courthouse, 1105 K Avenue, La Grande. That contest window closed in early May 2025 (source: court/lg-20332-notice-text.md). No answering party appeared to defend the voter-approved ordinance on its merits, leaving the county's petition essentially uncontested on the path to the Powers ruling four months later.

On August 25, 2025, Judge Thomas B. Powers of the Union County Circuit Court issued the ruling in Case 25CV22067, declaring Ordinance 2017-01 unconstitutional (source: court/ecourt-search-log.md). Powers's reasoning followed the Douglas County precedent: the court concluded that a locally enacted cap on consecutive terms impermissibly adds to the qualifications for county commissioner set elsewhere in the Oregon Constitution.

No direct appeal was filed within the applicable 30-day window. The August 2025 judgment therefore became final; a later motion to set it aside was denied in May 2026.

On September 3, 2025, Union County Clerk Lisa Feik informed the sitting commissioners of the decision at a regular meeting (source: court/ecourt-search-log.md). Candidate filing for the May 2026 primary opened eight days later.

Candidate filing for the May 2026 primary opened on September 11, 2025. The same day, Matt Scarfo filed for a third consecutive term in Position 2; Ordinance 2017-01 was no longer enforceable after the Powers ruling (source: NETWORK_INDEX.md).

Scarfo's filing was the realization of the option he had told the board he wanted at the January 22 meeting: not a public announcement, but "an option for a third term" (source: meetings/2025-01-22-full-minutes.md). He has since cited the Union County Fairgrounds water and wastewater project -- a roughly seven-year effort he chaired -- as his principal reason for seeking another four years (source: players/matt-scarfo.md).

Commissioner Paul Anderes, who voted with Scarfo and Seavert in January to challenge the ordinance, said on OPB in September 2025 he was "probably not" running again. He did not file for the May 2026 election (source: NETWORK_INDEX.md).

At its February 6, 2026 meeting, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission heard the preliminary review of Case 25-708ECF against Matt Scarfo. Compliance and Enforcement Coordinator Casey Fenstermaker presented two categories of alleged violations: ORS 244.040(1), use of official position for financial gain, and ORS 244.120(2), failure to declare a conflict of interest (source: ethics/ogec-case-25-708ECF.md).

OGEC's allegations, as presented by Compliance Coordinator Fenstermaker, are that Scarfo used Union County counsel -- a publicly funded resource -- to pursue a legal challenge to a term-limits rule that, if overturned, would directly benefit him by preserving his ability to run again; and that he seconded and voted on the January 22, 2025 motion authorizing that challenge without declaring his personal interest in the outcome (source: ethics/ogec-case-25-708ECF.md). These allegations were the basis for the 7-0 vote to investigate; no finding of violation has been made.

Commissioner McAuley moved to find a "substantial, objective basis" for believing Scarfo may have violated both statutes. The roll call was unanimous -- Resendiz Gutierrez, Metler, Helt, McAuley, Thompson, Burke, and Chair Shenoa Payne all voting Aye, 7-0 (source: ethics/ogec-case-25-708ECF.md). Scarfo, present by Teams, asked the commission to dismiss and said the county counsel work was not for personal use. The commission moved to a full investigation.

A fresh search of OGEC's final-disposition portal returned no published disposition for case 25-708ECF as of August 9, 2026. That means the public record supports the investigation authorization, but this site does not claim that OGEC has made a final finding or that the matter remains procedurally active beyond the last published agency record.

On April 16, 2026, Levi Bakke moved for relief from the August 2025 judgment and sought to intervene. Union County responded on April 28, and Bakke replied on April 30. The OECI register of actions records that Judge Powers signed and entered an opinion and order on May 4 denying both the motion to set aside the judgment and the motion to intervene.

The eight-page order says the claimed notice defect was, at best, procedural. It found that the La Grande Observer did not qualify for the April 2025 validation notice, that the East Oregonian did qualify, and that the Oregon Court of Appeals decision in State ex rel. Smith v. Hitt controlled the constitutional issue. The order also notes that no appeal was taken from the August 2025 judgment.

A fresh OECI check on August 9, 2026 showed no later docket event. The case remains listed as closed.

Union County posted official final results for the May 19, 2026 primary on June 10, 2026. In Commissioner Position 2, Matt Scarfo received 3,408 votes (39.43%), Donna Beverage received 3,193 votes (36.94%), Rosa Rice received 2,010 votes (23.25%), and write-ins received 33 votes (0.38%). Total votes in that contest were 8,644 (source: Union County official final results).

In Commissioner Position 1, Cory D. Miller received 5,101 votes (61.76%), Mark Simmons received 3,135 votes (37.96%), and write-ins received 23 votes (0.28%). Total votes in that contest were 8,259 (source: Union County official final results).

The public-records question did not end with the primary totals. The same documentary record remains relevant: the 2016 voter-approved term-limits measure, the January 22, 2025 commissioner vote to challenge it, the August 25, 2025 Powers ruling, and OGEC Case 25-708ECF.