UNION COUNTY — The Oregon Government Ethics Commission unanimously voted to move forward with an investigation of Union County Commissioner Matt Scarfo.
The commission will investigate if Scarfo violated government ethics laws when he voted in his role as commissioner to bring the issue of term limit constitutionality before a Union County judge. Scarfo holds the allegation in the complaint against him is untrue.
“I take great pride in my ethics and serving the citizens of Union County,” he said to the commission.
The OGEC met Feb. 6 to discuss the preliminary investigation Casey Fenstermaker conducted. The agenda for these meetings are confidential until they are posted to the government ethics commission website. Recordings of the meeting are available for public viewing after the conclusion of the meeting.
“That vote today is simply to decide whether to move to investigation,” Chair Shinoah Payne said. “ There will be no decision today whether there has been any violation of government ethics laws. It is simply to decide whether to investigate further.”
Jim Mollerstrom filed the complaint in November 2025 with the commission, according to the preliminary review. Mollerstrom is the director for the newly reactivated Union County Citizens for Good Government.
He accused Scarfo of using the county’s legal counsel for personal use when he voted in favor of seeking a court decision regarding the constitutionality of commissioner term limits.
Residents brought forward an initiative petition to limit commissioners to two terms, and 68% of county voters supported the measure in the 2016 primary election. The county board of commissioners adopted term limits the following year under Ordinance 2017-01.
In 2025 commissioners unanimously decided to bring the issue before the court. Union County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Powers ruled the county ordinance limiting commissioners to two terms was unconstitutional.
In his complaint, Mollerstrom argued Scarfo financially benefited from the action given his interest in serving a third term.
Scarfo walked members of the government ethics commission through the timeline as he understands it.
He said in May 2018 the county administrator asked Union County counsel Wyatt Baum at the request of the county clerk for a legal opinion on local term limits. This was in light of a 2018 Oregon Court of Appeals decision, which deemed a similar term limit measure in Douglas County unconstitutional.
Baum issued an opinion the following month, Scarfo said, and presented three suggestions to the board of commissioners.
First, the commissioners could file a petition for validation of a local government action. Secondly, the county clerk could file the same type of petition once a person attempted to file for a third term. Lastly, a commissioner who already served two terms could file a suit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance.
“It is important to note that I did not begin serving as Union County commissioner until January of 2019,” Scarfo said. “So saying I used county counsel for personal use is untrue when the opinion had already been issued the prior year.”
Baum reviewed his 2018 opinion with the commissioners in 2025, Scarfo said, and recommended the county file the petition. Union County Clerk Lisa Feik supported this as well. She said she fielded many questions about term limits and wanted clarification.
Scarfo added that Baum was present during the discussion and when commissioners made the motion.
“At no point did he suggest or advise that action would represent an ethics violation,” Scarfo said. “I have complete confidence in Union County’s legal counsel and would follow the advice offered to the board of commissioners in this matter.”
Fenstermaker looked into two issues during the preliminary investigation — whether there was a conflict of interest and if there was a prohibited use of office.
A conflict of interest under Oregon Law is any action, decision or recommendation a public official made that would lead to a private financial benefit or detriment for themselves, a relative or a business associated with the person or the person’s relative.
Public officials are required to declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest.
If it is a potential conflict of interest then they are allowed to discuss and vote on the matter. Oregon law, however, requires that in the instance of an actual conflict of interest the public official refrains from taking part in any discussion or debate on the issue and does not vote on the issue.
The only exception to this is if the public officials vote is needed to meet the required minimum number of votes.
In her preliminary investigation, Fenstermaker reported there was both a potential and actual conflict of interest for Scarfo when commissioners decided how to handle the question of term limits.
First, she reasoned, there was a potential conflict of interest because Scarfo could have personally financially benefited from a ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional by collecting salary and benefits from another term.
This was only a potential conflict of interest since there was no guarantee the court would rule term limits unconstitutional and there was no guarantee Scarfo’s bid for reelection would be successful.
He did, she believes, also have an actual conflict of interest. The board of commissioners had three options for how to proceed with the issue of term limits. Fenstermaker explained that by voting to have the commissioners file the petition rather than filing a petition himself as a candidate, Scarfo took an action that would result in a financial benefit to himself.
“Specficially, Commissioners Scarfo was not required to obtain and pay for his own legal counsel to pursue the question of whether the ordinance was unconstitutional or to pay for any legal fees associated with filing his own lawsuit,” Fenstermaker wrote.
She went on to explain there is no indication Scarfo declared a conflict of interest and evidence suggests he both took part in the discussion and voted on the issue. Therefore, he may have violated Oregon law about conflicts of interest.
Oregon law also prohibits public officials “from using or attempting to use their official position to obtain a financial gain or avoid a financial detriment” for themselves if it would not otherwise be available except for their position.
In her report, Fenstermaker said if commissioners filed the petition or the county clerk filed the petition then Scarfo could avoid the financial downside of any filing fees for pursuing the matter in court and the cost of an attorney if he hired one.
It is unclear, however, whether Scaro took steps that would constitute a use or attempted use of his public position. Commission staff will need to evaluate during the investigation why the matter was initially raised for legal counsel review and consideration.
Members of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission voted 7-0 to move the case to investigation.
Vice Chair Jonathan E. Thompson noted the case could benefit from further investigation about how everything transpired, especially more information on the dates.
Payne added it seemed like the county made a decision to not have Scarfo challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance himself, which he could have been required to do.
“It seemed to me that there wasn’t just an allegation of using county counsel for personal gains, but there was a lot of discussion about how the county was going to make this challenge to the court and those discussions happened when Mr. Scarfo was in office,” she said.
The Oregon Government Ethics Commission has 180 days to investigate a case once it is moved into the investigation phase. Staff will prepare a report at the end of this phase, which will be presented and considered by the commission during a regular public meeting.
Construction
Companies
Construction
Site Security
(916) 672-2660
Contact us
Construction Site Camera
sales@mrsecuritycamera.com
(916) 672-2660
