Curry County Commissioner candidate Shelia Megson says an “overzealous, unqualified” building inspector “attempted to trample on our rights” when an “unsafe to occupy” notice was posted on property she owns and shares with Bill Bailey in Sixes in November of 2018. A public records request chronicled several visits by at least two County employees to the property and include notes from conversations about multiple alleged violations. In these records, Megson admits the project was being built without plans or permits and by unlicensed contractors.
The Curry County Building inspector who posted the building unsafe to occupy was Richard Stauffer. Commissioners Tom Huxley and Sue Gold voted to hire Stauffer in the Fall of 2018 over the objections of Curry County Commissioner Court Boice. Boice claimed at the time in an open letter to curry citizens that Stauffer was inexperienced and uncertified. Stauffer is a licensed State of Oregon Building Official who was fired in January of 2019, immediately after Christopher Paasch was elected to replace Tom Huxley as a Curry County Commissioner; but before his firing, in December of 2018, Stauffer reportedly penned a detailed, dated account of what appears to be interference and preferential treatment by Commissioner Boice with regard to the Megson/Bailey alleged code violations.
That account claims Stauffer was asked to meet with Boice and Bill Bailey on December 3, 2018, about the unsafe to occupy notice. In his notes, Stauffer says he was unfamiliar with Bailey, because his interactions had been, until then, exclusively with Megson. According to Stauffer’s notes, Bailey said he refused to abide by any code actions that had been handed down so far by Curry County, and Boice told Stauffer that the not safe to occupy notice would not be enforced. Stauffer also says he was provided a response letter from Bailey. Megson says the case was “closed and supposed to be disposed of” and says her attorney has advised her not to share any additional documents. Boice says he has different views and recollections about the meeting between Stauffer, Bailey, and himself.
Sources have confirmed that Stauffer’s account was part of the Megson/Bailey file, but Stauffer’s notes were not part of the public records released by the County, nor was the response letter from Bailey. Sources familiar with the case also say there were photographs of the alleged code violations taken at the property, but no photos were attached to the information released by the County as part of the Public Records request. Information seems to be missing from the file, and it appears to still be an open case.
Things that don’t surprise me after 2 years working at the County: 1) favors by Commissioners; 2) failure of citizens to properly file for permits; 3) hiring without due process or background vetting; 4) disappearance of building file information; 5) commissioners not able to recall most anything they did or said; 6) using commissioners who are always politically working vs. representing citizens to solve issues that should follow State regulatory guidelines; 7) the issue of unpaid fines that citizens refuse to pay, then complain to BOC who inappropriately get involved and stall or cause fines to be written off is my pet peeve. This negates the real and good work by qualified staff and affects funds that are not coming into the County, that should be paid, I.e. real mismanagement. It speaks to the Incompetence and pettiness our BOC makes as a priority with their time and our tax monies.
You all have some nerve. Journalists like you are the problem in this world. Shame on you for posting this absolutely ridiculous article. I have a feeling you will get what is coming to you though because Karma is a B****
Ethics is something that has, arguably, been lacking in many forms and in many different arenas in media throughout not only the United States, but the world in general. Oddly, it is usually the smaller market media outlets who hold themselves to a higher standard, given the limitations of audience and the trust necessary to maintain a solid relationship with that audience. Concerning a story such as the one above, there are a plethora of standards that must be maintained to avoid even the slightest appearance of bias (most especially from a non-commercial entity such as KCIW, particularly in reporting of news concerning politics); factual analysis– which should be the mainstay of any reputable journalist– must be held to an even tighter focus concerning standards when operating from a small, limited market. Omissions in reporting in all markets are, sadly, all too common; it is a tool used by the unscrupulous to imply rather than accuse, thus maintaining the impression of non-biased reporting while claiming a stance that one is simply reporting facts. Public accountability is the most powerful tool in the arsenal to prevent the misuse of media as a method of propaganda– which is why smaller markets such as ours can usually be found to hold themselves to a far higher standard than broader, far-reaching markets; less audience means a smaller body available to judge ethics. Reporter Lori Gallo Stoddard communicated in an email to Shelia (that’s shuh-LEE-uh, correct pronunciation also being a part of small-market investigation) Megson: “…these documents were sent anonymously. I tend to follow up on things and source my reporting, which is why I contacted both you and Mr. Boice…” That, were it an earnest and honest statement, is admirable and is a basic tenet of journalism, often brought up in the very first class attended by journalism students. It’s one of the basic rules of ethics governing journalists. However, the statement exposes a lack of integrity and hints at the true and political intent of this story when one takes into account that another key, critical character mentioned in sourced documents and in the story released to the public (specifically, Bill Bailey) was not contacted at all, for a comment or otherwise. Bill Bailey is a public figure (and news director with 20 years experience) that has previously commented on the questionable ethics of KCIW and their biased reporting on many occasions, and a very quick Google search provides several email addresses and work phone numbers that could easily have been used to contact him. The fact that Bill Bailey– a central character in the narrative and alleged documentation– was not contacted gives lie to Stoddard’s claims of journalistic due process and, more importantly and ominously, shows the motivation for the story was political in nature as opposed to factual in nature. Given that the story link on this web-page is right next to prominent links to Sue Gold information, and a KCIW history of support for Sue Gold, it further indicates the intended assassination(s) of character implied by the story. The FCC has– as you well know– very limited scope when dealing with issues such as these, as audience often dictates how far a media organization is allowed to go concerning ethics violations. However, they are not entirely without teeth, and the first step in beginning an investigation and thorough inspection of ethics violations is for a complainant to contact the offending entity. Consider this a 24 hour opportunity to present a story that is not politically motivated, a story that in essence simply takes a public look at my underwear drawer. Citizens– in the public eye or not– do not have anything to hide in that underwear drawer, but the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that no entities either public or private have a right to see that underwear drawer without due process. Given an obvious disregard for gathering all possible facts of the story (i.e. not contacting an integral person of interest), this thinly veiled hit piece goes far past accepted journalistic integrity and ethics lines and makes a mockery of our freedom of speech. Contacting the offending media entity for resolution– in this case, I believe a public apology and a confession of political motivation to be in order– is the first step before filing a complaint to the FCC. This is my attempt at resolution before I make that complaint.
Are any of the asserted facts specifically denied?