Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 06-11-25_WEDNESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: June 11, 2025

John OConnor, former Fed Prosecutor, big legal mind, author of POSTGATE, talks the Newsom riots, the laws surrounding fed response, Jo County Commissioner Ron Smith with an update on the Budget process and what else is going on.

The Bill Myer Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at www.clouserdrilling.com. It's time to talk with John O'Connor. I'm so proud to have him back on. And we've had him on several times because he has a great legal mind. Of course, a former federal prosecutor has been involved in the law for a long, long time. And he's the author of Postgate, How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat Covered Up Watergate and Began Today's Partisan Advocacy Journalism.

John, it's great having you back on. Now, once again, Eric, now, are you, you're still an attorney, or are you still involved in the Fed system? Tell us a little bit for those that may have not heard of you until now, okay? Well, well, I'm, yeah, I've practiced law for 53 years now. So right now I just do some litigation. I do a lot of expert witness work, but I'm still involved as a lawyer. But over the years, I've done some interesting things, is really what I can say I've done about everything in terms of types of litigation. But I still like to keep my oar in the water.

My daughter's actually doing very well as a criminal defense lawyer in Southern California. So we keep it all in the family, Bill. All right. Glad to hear that. And you have an interesting neighbor in your neighborhood. Well, actually, it's in your little town, your little unincorporated town up in Northern California. Gavin Newsom.

Governor Gavin Newsom just bought a house in your neighborhood, right? That's right, that's right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's good and he's got very nice in-laws. The in-laws I've been friends with for a while and I actually the his father-in-law's a Republican, very good guy, very moderate type of guy and very successful. So very nice, he's got a very nice family. Now, what he's doing now, I think, is he's putting a lot of chips on the cum line here, I think, in his speech, his fiery speech yesterday. I think it will work because people will buy, at least a certain percentage of the population,

will buy the idea that somehow Trump is responsible for these riots getting out of control. I think just the opposite is true. But how dare, how dare the president enforce the law? He inflamed us by enforcing the law. It's an interesting argument, but yeah, it's true that weak minds might buy that. Right, well, it's the old logical fallacy after this because of this, and it's just not so well. So what happens is the notion is that everything was going fine until Trump comes in with the National Guard.

Well, Trump came in with the National Guard because things weren't going fine. And so that's why this happens. And it also is the case that you have all these people that are clearly operating, you know, as a unit in many cases, there's organizations involved with some heavy financing behind them. I mean, who is paying for... Like, for instance, I was listening to CNN and one of the commentators said, what proof is there that any of these people, any of these rioters are being paid? Well, you know, if you look at these, they have boxes of equipment that somebody's paying for. They all are dressed, at least certain people are dressed in black with gas masks or regular masks on as the case

may be. Yeah, they have radio communication provided to them also. Yeah, which implies not only funding but also organization and training. That also implies conspiratorial gear too and I think you have to be honest about that from a legal sense, right? right no that's that's that's exactly if look if this were an antitrust case and you're trying to prove collusion you've got it right there look these people are keeping prices down and they're talking to each other so that's the way you do an antitrust case to be open and shut and in this case is this organized of it is. It's organized and it is

not, you know, to use a democratic term, it's really astroturf. It's fake grassroots opposition in many cases. Now, I don't doubt for a moment that there are some immigrants who are not happy about the fact they may be rounded up. I mean, there's no doubt about that. And I hope Trump does concentrate on the bad guys just for all sorts of reasons. But nonetheless, you know, this is something that cannot be overlooked. It is just, it is clear challenge to the system and Trump has to win and the government has to win and the people have to win. We have to be able to enforce our laws. Even if you might say, oh gee, I don't like the way this is being done or I don't like the way these people are being selected, we're still enforcing

the law. That's the bottom line. So everything else is just a nicety to go back and forth. It's an inessential. John, everybody is in favor of First Amendment. I would hope that everybody's in favor of a First Amendment right to protest and certainly address your government and try to get a redress of grievances, I get this. When does it cross the line though? Because to me, as soon as the first bricks are being thrown and the first Waymo car is set on fire, you've moved into something completely different and the media has sort of portrayed this as, well you know you have to kind of let people have a little fun and burn a Waymo car or two

and watch it because everyone's got to blow off a little steam. At least it feels like it was is done that way. Would you agree? Well yeah, exactly. And that's because our media, the legacy media, is just brain-dead. They don't understand the difference between free speech and action in pursuit of a crime. You know, you don't yell fire in a crowded theater and all crimes involve some sort of communication just about. And wouldn't even the setting off of the fireworks in the crowds there,

I know that nobody allows fireworks outside of even July 4th and you're certainly not gonna do it in the height of a hot fire season too, you know, in various other things. And it seems like there are so many arrestable actions that have been going on that get ignored. Well, that's what bothers me is the LA police, you know, are out there working and so forth, but they're not arresting people. I saw some, a picture that was flashed several times

of a woman coming right up to the front line of the police and slugging him. And then she steps back a couple steps, makes no effort to escape. Nobody arrests her. I mean, wait, do you get to hit a cop and not be arrested? Why is that? So this is not protest. This is not protest.

Protest is involved. There's some protest involved, sure. But by and large, what is being done here is not protest. It goes beyond that. They are acts that are illegal. Ultimately, Trump's going to have to crush this, though. He has to. Just to even have some modicum of authority, this has to be crushed under a boot. I'm talking about the bad behavior, not the protest.

I'm talking about the bad stuff because they're not touching it, really, still. Well, he's got a federalism problem here, and right now he's probably being advised to lay off. You know, it is not the National Guard or the Marines that are enforcing any of this, it is the cops, and he's allowing the LA to do its thing. The whole idea, we have this federalism issue and he may have federalized the National Guard, but nonetheless, they're still military under the commander in chief's direction.

So the, now the question is when does he, Here's why I lost my thought there. That's all right. When does he say, when does he say, okay, right now these guys are just observers. Now I'm gonna have him come in and take action. This is out of control because right now you don't have anybody... First of all, the LA cops are not arresting anybody and the federal troops are not involved, really. I mean, they're there... Is it more symbolism than anything, or just a show of force, or what's the purpose then? It's both. Number one, it keeps federal buildings from being touched. That's number one.

But number two, there's another federal function here, which is to protect ICE agents and to protect the whole process. And so I think that would justify far more than they're doing. But the federal forces certainly have the right to protect federal initiatives, federal action, federal property. Also, and there's a very fine line here, and it's just really one that is discretion and a matter of taste, is when does the president come in and say, okay, I don't care what you're doing at the state level, this is out of control, I'm going to bring him in and I'm going to have him take care of this crowd myself. I think he's doing the right thing right now to allow this thing to play out with the

police in the front line. And only if they get seriously outflanked or seriously defeated or the thing gets seriously out of control, will he bring in the federal troops. Because right now, I think he's playing it right. So what I'm telling you, Bill, is there is a real delicate issue here as to when you come in and say, okay, I'm the feds, I'm taking over now. The feds are not taking over, no matter how much people talk about Trump bringing in the troops. They're secondary, they're backup now, they have subsidiary functions. Now, can Newsom, you know, and they're not arresting that many people. I mean,

I think there've been like 75 people arrested. And I think there may have been a couple hundred people arrested last night, but when you look at the size of the crowd, that's pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. That's right. I didn't realize that about last night, but up to last night it was 75. Yeah, okay. But I take your point, and that is small potatoes. Absolutely right.

At least they're doing that, and maybe that's some deterrent. But I think there might come a time where let's just see how it plays out, because this could be a huge, huge story, and I can't understand why these groups, these anti-government groups, think this is a good thing to do. I don't get it, but they're doing it, that's for sure. Now on January 6th, John, John O'Connor with me once again, he's author of Postgate, How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, began today's partisan advocacy journalism, of course a big legal legal of many years' experience here.

When it comes to January 6 6, you recall how the federal government was able to practically take everybody and get around up within a few days. All they had to do is they're pinging cell phone towers and all the rest of it. Not that that gives me any comfort or things like that. Is that perfectly legal for them to go out there and just say, okay, let's get the radio signals, the signal intelligence, let's gather it all up, let's connect it with people, and let's go have a talk with him. Can they do things like that legally like what they did in Washington, DC on January 6th? Well, that's a real good point, isn't it? That maybe

even if the feds don't jump in now, they can certainly jump in in the aftermath because there are some federal crimes involved here and any, I believe it is a federal crime now to assault a local police officer. I think there's something in the code now, but there's plenty of crimes here to look at afterwards. But I'm still concerned about this thing getting out of control. Maybe there's a certain amount of you let a bunch of it happen and then you're monitoring what's going on and almost like tracking the dirtbags up to larger dirtbags up the food chain. It happens, I guess, right? Well, that's right. I don't think the feds are going to do much after this unless it

really gets out of control. If it gets out of control, then I think they're going to do sort of a January 6 thing, which brings me to the fact that how can you compare January 6 to this type of stuff? You know, when Newsom talks about, oh about how terrible January 6 is, well, there were some bad aspects to January 6, remember. It was a four-hour thing in which people had a particular goal of trying to break through a door, a passageway in the Capitol, which is not a good thing, and no one can dispute that. But then magically they open the doors and ushered people in after a while too it's like okay well that's

right that's right there was only one door really where there was a real real struggle and it was very limited and and had Trump been allowed to position his national guard troops he called them out he called them out. He called them out. They just didn't ever make it into the city because the city wouldn't let them once again. The city and in that case the Capitol Hill police, both of them rejected Trump's federal troops which are right across the river waiting to come in. So he gets, even though he gets the blame from people like Newsom for January 6, to the contrary, if Trump had his way, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

All right. Now, let's flip it into this story because now Newsom is suing, saying that Trump violated California's rights by sending the troops into Los Angeles, but yet we're looking at — there are many laws that permit the the president to federalize National Guard for all sorts of insurrectionist or violent activities, are there not? Well certainly. Certainly he has that right and Trump can decide whether civil order is being breached and can bring them in. And recall this, Hurricane Katrina, George Bush wanted to bring in the National Guard,

and the mayor and the governor down in Louisiana refused his request. So Bush was a nice guy and said, okay, I'll respect that. And then Bush gets criticized because things went out of control. And then he got criticized for not bringing in the National Guard and saving all these people. So, you know, it's a tough thing to deal with people who just want to find you at fault. But he has every right to step in. I think probably discretion is the better part of valor here, and it's okay for Trump to hang back here. And again, it's very delicate, but if it looks like the thing is getting out of control, he's got to bring him in and do something. And

I think it's a big mistake on the part of the protesters. Everybody is watching this in real time, and it's very, very disturbing to most people. It goes about two-thirds, one-third in the polling right now. And so I think that Trump's playing it right. And I'm just really concerned that this thing does get out of control. Do you think that Gavin Newsom wins in court when they finally have their hearing? Federal judge threw out the desire to say, hey, that Trump couldn't do it, but they say, hey, they're going to have a court hearing on it. I believe it's this week, Thursday or Friday maybe, they're doing this.

Well, first of all, yeah, I know the judge a little bit from past days. He was a heck of a prosecutor, and he's a very bright guy. He's the brother of Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court judge. Yeah, and he's a very bright guy. He's the brother of Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court judge. Yeah, and he's a very bright guy, Charles Breyer. And he's got the case. And I think he was very wise that he turned down the original request for a TRO, which would have immediately enjoined Trump from having troops in there. And so he gave breathing room to Trump by just simply setting a briefing schedule, which I thought was very wise. He didn't turn down or embarrass Newsom, but nonetheless,

didn't give him what he wanted. Now, he's a Democratic guy. He was, as Judge Breyer, a very staunch Democrat. But he's also a very savvy guy. And I can't see him trying to go so far as to order the President of the United States regarding national defense. I think he's bright enough to know that there's a big red line there. One of the things you don't want to do is in any way, if you're a judge, get in the way of national defense decisions, military decisions. And this really, you're talking about an insurrection. And should a district court step in and do that? And I think there's enough discretion.

I remember our history is that, you know, everybody applauded it when Eisenhower brings in the National Guard to enforce desegregation and so forth. And I think John Kennedy then did it and so forth. And so I think, you know, you've got to pick when you want the feds to come in, and that's a matter of discretion, and I think the president's got that discretion. So I don't think as a matter of law there's any, you know, black-letter issue here where the president is wrong. It's in his discretion and he's playing it right. And I don't think the court...what is he going to say? What is he going to say? The federal...he can't employ right now...all that's happening

is that the federal troops are there to protect property and also to protect ICE agents, and they haven't stepped in yet to the front lines. So what's the judge going to say? Oh no, you can't be there? I think... Yeah, yeah, you have a duty to take destruction, destructive mobs, yeah. Something else that struck me though is that in the Constitution we have a right to a Republican form of government. And in essence, isn't anarchy on the streets of Los Angeles an affront to that principle that we all have a right to a Republican form of government? Rule of law, things like that.

Yes, and we also have a right to just very simply to be safe and secure, and we give to the government the power to enforce laws, and those things should be enforced. We have laws. I mean, if we have a democracy and we pass laws, and then those laws are not enforced, we don't have a democracy, do we? Because nothing's happening. So we have laws, and it's very democratic to come in and enforce them. And if we do not enforce them, then we don't really, really have a country. And so this really gets right down to the very nub of the authority, like you say, of our Republican government. And we have a long-standing tradition of states nullifying federal laws. It's one thing for California to say, all right, or Oregon for that matter too, because

Oregon is stupidly a sanctuary state, you know, the entire state is considered this way. It's one thing to say that you will not use state functionaries or state money to enforce immigration law. It's quite another thing to block or impede federal officials from doing this. Isn't this the difference when it comes to nullification? Oh, absolutely, Bill. And I'll tell you this, you're actually not right. It's a crime. If you are obstructing justice, if in the name of being a sanctuary city or a sanctuary state, you are actually interfering with federal

law enforcement, that is obstruction of justice. And if what you're trying to do is protect people who are criminals, you're also harboring a fugitive. That's what harboring is. Any aid to assist a fugitive, that is someone wanted by the law, is a separate crime. So you're obstructing justice, you're obstructing law enforcement. Is aid, is providing aid to a suspect though not helping the federal government? Is that defined as providing aid though? That's kind of what I'm wondering as a point of law. I don't know if I'm correct in that question

or not. Well, it's one thing to stand there with your arms down and not do anything. You can do that. You can say, I'm not doing anything. I'm just going to stand here. I'm going to have my officers stand there, my clerks and so forth, and not do anything to help the government. That actually is okay. You may think badly of it, but there's no crime there. But the moment you do anything that has the effect of impeding federal functions, you are committing a crime. So could not Governor Gavin Newsom, in his inaction, in his allowance of mob

rule and the attacking of ICE agents, the barricading of the court in LA and such, is that not in essence committing a crime? No, not if it's just inaction. That's the thing. But you have to find some action of Newsom that actually impedes federal functions. Now, if he does that, or he orders people to do it, or Karen Bass orders some of her people to keep troops from doing what they want to do, now she's committing a crime. So she should watch her Ps and Qs here, and she should not do that. I don't think...we're really getting into a sense that it varies when we're talking about indicting local officials. But the fact is they can't do

that. It's the differences between inaction, just sheer inaction, and then enforcing inaction in the sense of...I mean, where you're actually taking some kind of action, as I'm trying, I'm stumbling on my words here, but it is some positive act that interferes. Some positive act that interferes, not just in action. Okay. Now, another question kind of off the beaten track. Governor Tina Kotec in Oregon just the other day said that there is no way that President Trump would be allowed to do what he's doing in Los Angeles in Oregon. I'm kind of thinking she's talking out of her backside. Would you agree on that overall or is this just maybe political rhetoric you're trying to show your political supporters that I'm standing

up for Trump? I don't know but how do you see it? Oh yeah, that's just bravado. I mean she doesn't know what she's talking about. I mean, it's just absolute nonsense. Of course, of course, there's no different principle that applies in Oregon than it does in California. Well, we had a situation, a hundred days of summer of love activity in Portland, and hopefully we never see that again. Okay. I know that Seattle's a mess right now too, from the sounds of it. Oh my goodness. Well, yeah. And what's interesting is that the Democrats are putting all their chips on this.

I don't think this thing plays out well for the public. I think it might be refreshing to see a Democrat say, hey, you know, we can't have this and look like you're a law and order Democrat. That probably would be very, very appealing. You know, most Democrats want a peaceful street and neighborhood too. I'd be willing to bet. Sure they do. Sure they do.

And that's why I think if a politician doesn't just look to the extreme base, but looks more to the middle ground, they're going to pick up a lot of support. And you know, and say to the far left, listen, we're the only place you can go. You've got to go with us, but let us be moderate and enforce the laws. But everybody in the Democratic Party is playing to that far left base. That's the most active. That's where you get a lot of your contributions and a lot of your people marching and, you

know, so forth and so on. So politicians play to that, but I think a politician should be more like Bill Clinton and appeal to sort of a more moderate part of the Democratic Party, because I think otherwise this party's going under. People are getting sick of this, and I think this is the reaction to these mob riots are so far different than the euphemistically entitled summer of love of 2020. Well I think Bill Clinton you know would have looked at this in horror back at the time of this had been occurring. You know the bottom line I would say though, though, is that Clinton, for his faults, was certainly a smooth politician.

Now, Gavin Newsom, play acts of being a smooth politician, but he's kind of misstepping at this point, especially someone who claims to want to be president next time around, wouldn't you say? Well, that's right. In the mold of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, both of whom were Irish moderates, I think Newsom would aspire to be that, but he's in California and he's been pushed to the left. And I think that's just really too bad. He comes from a line, his dad was a very moderate Democratic politician, his late father. And I hate to see this, because that's really where the sweet spot is for him and for the Democratic Party in general. I don't like the idea of the Democratic

Party failing so miserably because it hurts our two-party system. I'd like to see a more realistic Democratic Party that really gives Republicans a run for their money. Right now, I think the country is saying, look, I may not love Trump or his personality, but where else do you go? He's the only guy that represents common sense. John O'Connor, the book is Postgate, How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Cover book is Postgate, How the Washington Post Betrayed, Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, Began Today's Partisan Advocacy Journalism. One of those partisan advocacy journalists, Terry Moran, got fired yesterday, ABC News.

No big surprise there, huh? Well, I'll tell you this, it's a good sign because I think these stations are realizing, these networks are realizing that they can't, that they're revealing themselves. They can't be so abjectly partisan and Moran just showed his true colors and it's like, what are you doing? Yeah, you at least have to hide it better. Exactly. It's like, we all know that Uncle Walter Cronkite was a communist. We don't know that now, but you know, at least he did a reasonably good job of hiding it back in the day,, all right John always a pleasure talking with you. Thanks so much great book by the way to bought a copy of it It's a it's a great read. Thank you so much all right a bill

Thanks good talking to you important stuff indeed seven thirty eight ran a little long there KMED KBXG Bill Meyer show glad you're here though We have way too much stuff like two huge warehouses that are bursting at the seams too much stuff. So this is KMED. Yay, it's 742. Hey, Matt's here. Matt, you wanted to weigh in on John O'Connor, the talk with, you know, about Gavin Newsom, the Democrats, everything else, what's going on.

And you have a phone? Hey, thanks, Bill. Just one quick comment on him. And then I did call on jobs Americans won't do. My only comment is I disagree with him about having a robust Democrat party. I mean, quite frankly, it's hilarious to watch various shows on Fox, just grinding down on what Democrats need to do to correct all their problems. And as I said to you a long time ago, we all know what they want.

They're basically Marxists now. Yeah, yeah. And so I don't want a robust Democrat party. Well, at least certainly not as constituted. But I am okay, though, with parties checking and balancing one another, the extremities of the extreme of either side of that aisle. I think there's a use for that in a republic, wouldn't you? Twenty years ago, I would have agreed with you, except we have enough Democrats in the Republican

Party that it doesn't matter. Yeah, all you have to do is look at the state legislature, man. I'll tell you. You've made the point thousands of times over the last eight years, and that's the point I'm making is we have enough arguments within the party. I mean, look what's going on with Elon Musk and Trump. But here's why I call grilling. Hey, you know, the job thing though, could we talk, could you give me a call next hour? Like 8.30 or so for that.

Could we do that? Sure. Oh yeah, I'm just a little short on time. I got the commissioner Ron Smith standing by here too. So I don't want to cut into it in his time, but hey, we'll catch up. Give me a call in an hour, we'll talk about the jobs issue, all right? Okay. All right we'll see you then. 743. Malik Construy and I'm on 106.7 KMED. Quarter before 8, Josephine County

Commissioner Ron Smith here. But again enough getting what's happening in Josephine County. How you doing this morning Ron? Good to have you on. I'm doing great Bill thanks for having me on your show. Where are we in the budgeting process right now? That's kind of the main thing because there's been a lot of drama, a lot of tears, a lot of ink spilled, a lot of conversation about managing where the money's going to go because Josephine County, as we well know, in a real challenging financial position. I know everyone was looking at Jackson County, Jackson County, a we well know, in a real challenging financial position. I know everyone was looking at Jackson County, Jackson County, a lot more money in the till. That's how that goes. Yeah, big difference between Jackson County and Josephine County. I wish I had their budget

and their tax base. We don't have that, unfortunately. We're a smaller county, and I like to say that we're one of the poorest little rich counties in the western United States because we're actually not poor, we just don't have any self-autonomy here in Josephine County. Most of it is dictated from the states and the feds. That's the problem. Yeah, a lot of federal control of lands, we know that. I know this might be a little bit off the beaten track of the budgeting process here, but I know that you for years have talked about wanting to do more forestry activity and to get some of this. Is

President Trump's plan to monetize more of what's happening in the federal forests potentially helpful for Josephine County looking long-term? I don't think this is anything that happens on a turn of a dime, so to speak. Well, I truly believe that we got a strike while iron's hot. We've not had an administration in DC in a long time that actually looked at public lands like the Trump administration has, and I think my whole reason for running, and what I've spent most of my adult life, is dealing with issues on public lands. Because personally, I don't see a bright future for Josephine County without some

benefit from that 67.7% of the federally controlled lands in our county. So it's almost 60%, almost six out of every 10 acres in there? Well, it's actually 6.7.7, almost 68% is federally controlled. Almost 68. So you have no tax base, you have no tax base in Joe County, right? Plus, plus we have the lowest tax rate in the state and we don't have a citizen strong incentive to increase taxes here in Josephine County. So it makes it very difficult. And I know that a lot of times folks move to Josephine County because of that lower

tax rate, but then it's very difficult then when other people that would want higher services. It's always a balancing act, I would guess, in Joe Canha, right? Well, it's a very serious balancing act because my personal opinion, the whole reason we established government is public health and safety. So that is the priority in our budget. And I want to try to do everything I can to make sure the sheriff gets what he needs to be fully funded, 24 patrol, and get the detectives back in this department because public health and safety is the number one goal. Now, aren't you about to appoint a public health

administrator? We already have an interim. You do? Okay, so you're taking care of that then. Yes. All right, let us go back a budgeting process. Where are we on this? When are the when's the ink going to be dry I suppose on the spreadsheet for that? Huh? What's a you? The final say so will be June 18th here will come before the Board of County Commissioners to make any last-minute judgments, adjustments to the budget. What are the highlights or the low lights as you might call them? I don't know but what are we looking at? Well we're going to pass a budget that's about a hundred and eighty two million five hundred and forty thousand some change. Okay that's a two percent over increase of last year's budget but

that's due to the increasing Indian fund balances. So we're going to pass a pretty big budget but but unfortunately part the 87% of that is restricted, not available for general programs. We can only access about 13% of the county revenue for this founder, the general fund. So in other words, the other 87% of that money, what, pass-through money, grant money, things that are... Yeah, Mark. Yes. Yeah, it's around this amount of grant money comes into Josephine County. And that's part of our concern. There's a couple of big concerns on the horizon. It's one we've heard from the Trump administration, his desire to cut grants. And I think the state's

a little bit concerned about that too. And if it affects the state, it's going to affect Josephine County pretty severely. And the other issue is we have a juvenile justice and jail levy that was a great thing passed because it gave a lot more relief to the sheriff's department. But that levy's up in two years. And so it's uncertain whether the voters will pass that again or not. And if that doesn't pass, it's going to be a real adjustment. Yeah, then we're right back to where we were before. I was kind of curious though, what was the thought process with the reauthorizing release that vote towards

reviving OSU Extension? No, pass up you know getting rid of that there was a lot of conversation that the that the kids were not really taking part in the 4-H there and they had gone off into the private sector after a 4-H went all woke and there was concern and so the passport of commissioners ended up lowering or not charging people the levy. So what was the thought process? Because I know you and Commissioner Barnett ended up voting in favor in the budget meeting about this and bringing it back. I think first of all, understanding, oh, your extensions is a whole lot more than just 4-H. And the problem that there was in 4-H was one bad person at the local 4-H association, and that has been alleviated. But OSU Extension is much more, and I got requested from the Farm Bureau and requested from other people that they wanted some of that

OSU Extension back in the county. What are some of the activities that we have been missing with Joe County not having that OSU extension money? Well, the access for the farmers are to get answers to the crops and any problems they have with crops. We got the Master Gardener program that many people wanted and it does do some great benefits. There's a lot of things, there's shooting sports. People need to understand OSU Extension is a whole lot more than just 4-H. And 4-H is where the big problem was. That problem's been alleviated.

I think the benefits to the counting outweigh the negatives. Okay, you were talking about the Master Gardener program, but I was led to believe that Master Gardeners pay for their own fees and that's kind of a private club. What's the government getting involved in a private club for? Well, their money depends on us matching their funds. So basically, we stopped, last board stopped all OSU extinctions, and they didn't focus. I would have liked to have handled it a little bit different, but I can't go back in history. I think it should have been handled through negotiations and stuff instead of just curtailing

the whole program. I believe in competition. So if you have 4-H and you have a youth and addicts, they can compete and that will make a better product for any, I believe in competition in every level of society because it creates a better environment for the people who want the services or the consumers. Okay, all right.

I'm just, of all the moves that happened recently, that one kind of caught me because there was such a push to get rid of it before i was surprised to see that come back alright well you know this is the opinion of two so that's going to make it into the budget that right that's that's going to be uh... done that's a final decision yet or not uh... completely voted that that that that that in the in the budget that's already

but about it are there any other well you know what are there any other actions being taken in this budget that you'll be voting on and finalizing next week that you think people will find interesting, maybe concerning, maybe headed off? What do you think? What's going on? Well, I don't know if people will find it interesting because I don't know how many people actually pay attention to the budget that closely. I mean, we had budget meetings and we had very sparse attendance in a budget meeting. I don't know how many people watched it online. Well, let me put it this way. Are there going to be any additional cuts and

reduction in force coming to Josephine County departments? Well, there was a lot of talk in the budget meeting and there were some on the budget committee that wanted to reduce general funds access by 30%. And I thought, well, that won't work. I mean, we're going to cause a real problem. What does that mean to reduce general fund access? I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I understand that. Well, certain departments are relied on a certain amount of general fund money. I mean, I could go through the whole list. Most of the county departments need some of that general fund, especially the district attorney and sheriff and assessor. Those are the three big ones that require general fund money. But when we decided to do that, we exempted certain departments from a reduction.

We came up with a 12% reduction in certain departments, and I'm just not happy with the way that goes. I'm going to try to adjust that in our budget meeting that's coming up with the Board of Commissioners. Am I to surmise then this has to do with like not wanting to cut DA courts, things like that, really serious stuff? Yeah, the sheriff would be exempt, the district attorney, I think, I don't remember all the other ones, but certain things that could survive a reduction in general funds money. One department I'm very concerned about is the Treasury Department,

where all the money of the county is collected and organized. So I don't want to cut that department. It's only a four-person department. And I just don't see that that could withstand a 12% decrease in general funds money. I can also understand not wanting to do too much to hurt the DA's office because what's the point of having the sheriff's department talking about 24-7 patrols and all the rest of it? If you're not able to prosecute people you arrest, it doesn't help much, I guess. You've got to have both sides of that coin. No, we're required to support that department and we've decided not to touch that or the

sheriff or certain key departments. I'm not happy with the 12% reduction and I'll work to change that a little bit in this upcoming meeting. I don't want to see us cut so hard that we cause a problem. We are concerned about the future and people need to understand that we're trying to do the best to give the most services to the people at the dollar amount we have to give. Is there a pathway to actually increasing the income in the Joe County? Because the amount of money that you actually control as a county commission for the actual money that's not already saying, hey, it has to go into public health and hey, this has to go into this road and where this department or this that and the other. Is there much that could be done you think to actually work on that that positive side? Well okay so we're right back to that sixty sixty seven point seven percent of the land that's

federally controlled has been in the historic history of Josephine County been a tremendous asset. In fact, it was what funded everything. Well, now it's a burden. We know that. And now that which was such a great asset to the county has become a tremendous liability. We need to change that. And this is really the reason I ran for commissioner because that's where I want to focus, increasing the income so we're not struggling every year to fund the sheriff. I want to see a fully funded sheriff.

I want to see a fully funded county government. And the only pathway forward is to look at that 67.7% of land called federally controlled lands and work to get some benefit from that land that's positive for the county. Could you sell off any county surplus property at this point and possibly help out too or is some of that locked up for one reason or another?

Well, no, we're working on that. Our goal of this particular board is to get rid of all, what we call all excess property. And that's, we're not gonna touch the county timberlands because that's actually a positive. goal of this particular board is to get rid of all what we call all excess property. We're not going to touch the county timberlands because that's actually a positive. It's about the only department that brings in a plus revenue for the county. So that one is working for us and I think it's getting better all the time. But trying to work with the amount of money that we have is not going to sustain us long term.

It's like I said, I don't see a bright future for Joe Spring County without some economic benefit from that federally controlled land. I know that in Medford they tend to hang a lot of economic development on tourism. Is there anything that Joe County could do in that particular event? Well, I like tourism. It's a good seasonal business. It's really partly dependent on how much smoking you have in the air and how many fires you have going. It's a positive. It's not full-time work for a lot of people, but it is a plus for us. I don't know what the big draw is. The

biggest draw we have in Josephine County is the Rowe River. And it does draw a lot of people to it, but it's not going to sustain us into the future. All right. Commissioner Ron Smith, we appreciate a quick update. And I guess we'll get in touch after the budget gets passed and then we'll see how it shakes out in the end. Okay. Thank you so much. I'd be glad to come on the show and talk about it, Bill. You have a great day. Thank you for having me on the show. My pleasure. Eight o'clock. This is KMED, KMED HD1, Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass, wherever you are. And we'll catch up on some more news here in just a moment. Speaking of counties, tomorrow we're going to be looking into Jackson County's

budget and Administrator Danny Jordan is going to be joining the at 810 and we're going to talk about what's going on here. Recent budget was passed and there's talks about expansion to the airport and various other issues here. Yeah, we'll have to talk about what might be happening with law enforcement, jails, things like that. And that'll be happening tomorrow at 810 if you want to tune in for that.