Ward Thumbnail: An Oregon circuit court judge weighed in on the Curry County Board of Commissioners' dispute with Sheriff John Ward. | Screenshot An Oregon circuit court judge has issued an opinion outlining where the Curry County Board of Commissioners and the sheriff stand when it comes to their respective roles. However, one aspect of the county’s complaint against Sheriff John Ward — whether he’s required to provide “all records, information and supporting documents” to the Board of Commissioners upon request — will be the subject of a trial on Oct. 28. “Personally, I’m grateful to have this judgment determination in front of us,” Board Chairman Jay Trost told Redwood Voice Community News on Thursday, adding that the opinion may have implications that apply to other communities besides Curry County. “It just provides a path forward in clarifying some of the roles and responsibilities that have been in question.” In a Facebook post Thursday, Ward said a Wednesday press release from the county provided "limited and misleading information" about Stone's ruling. The sheriff noted that the press release fails to state that the judge stated that the Board of Commissioners can't compel the sheriff to attend its meetings. "The items that the BOC 'won' summary judgment on were largely not contested by Sheriff Ward," the post stated. "Sheriff Ward is pleased with the outcome of the cross motions for summary judgment hearing and looks forward to moving forward with his job of protecting the peace of Curry County." The opinion Oregon Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Martin E. Stone issued on Tuesday concerns whether Curry County Board Order 23510, adopted on Dec. 4, 2024, is lawful and whether the sheriff is required to comply with it. In his opinion letter, Stone sided with the Board of Commissioners, ruling that the provision in their order governing Contract Review Board rules, the transfer or distribution of county property, employee records needed by the county’s Human Resources Department, compliance with Board policies and access to county vehicles is lawful. The sheriff’s refusal to cooperate opens the county to legal liability, including potential litigation, the judge stated. However, Stone said that in requiring the sheriff attend their meetings as requested, the Board of Commissioners exceeded its authority. The sheriff is not required to attend BOC meetings, Stone said. The judge also opined on the Board of Commissioners’ assertion that they function as a county court, ruling that based on the Oregon statute dealing with the sheriff’s duties, they do not. “The reference to county court means the county courts that still exist in six other counties of the state and which exercise limited jurisdiction in judicial proceedings such as probate and juvenile cases,” Stone stated. “There is no county court in Curry County that exercises judicial authority, and the BOC does not have jurisdiction over judicial proceedings.” At a special meeting Thursday, the Board of Commissioners unanimously approved modifying Board Order 23510 so that if a judge rules that any of its provisions is invalid, the ruling shall not negate the order as a whole. The circuit court judge’s opinion is the latest development in a dispute between Ward and the Board that dates back to just after voters rejected a tax levy funding 24/7 law enforcement in May 2024. In July 2024, the Board, and County Counsel Ted Fitzgerald, differed with Ward over whether or not he had the authority to promise a Ford Explorer to the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office or place one of the county’s K9 officers in their care for fostering. Both the vehicle and dog were county assets, Fitzgerald told Ward, and he couldn’t promise assets that didn’t belong to him. The dog was ultimately retired and the county’s K9 program disbanded. In September 2024, Ward filed a state bar complaint against Fitzgerald, stating that the county counsel had accused him of wrongdoing “without specifics and conveyed contempt, animosity and disparagement” at meetings In January, the Board of Commissioners decided to seek declaratory judgment to try to solve the disagreement with the sheriff and to outline each party’s roles and responsibility. “Filing suit was an option of last resort that was taken after the Board and county legal counsel made multiple requests for cooperation, information and records from the sheriff’s office that were not satisfactorily fulfilled,” the county stated in a Jan. 22 press release. Stone Opinion Ltr 25CV02479Download Ward has accused commissioners of defunding his office and blaming him for it following the failed May 2024 levy. In March 2025, following the sale of four Ford Explorers to the Brookings Police Department for its K9 program, Ward said on Facebook that his patrol division was whittled down to three positions due to the failed levy. Two months later, voters rejected yet another levy, this one aimed at funding patrol deputies and dispatchers. Before Thursday’s meeting, Trost told Redwood Voice he was taken aback by the judge’s ruling regarding the county court reference. He cited a different Oregon statute, this one governing the organization powers and duties of boards of county commissioners. Under ORS 203.240 (2), “when a county has established a board of county commissioners any reference in the statutes to the county court of that county shall be considered a reference to the board of county commissioners of that county.” Trost cited that statute when he was questioned by Ward’s attorney, Erin Gould, during an Aug. 20 deposition. Trost said there is an avenue for appealing part of the judge’s decision that they disagreed with, though he’s not sure if it’s a viable option currently. “I think there will probably be discussions regarding the entirety of this decision largely after the trial on the 28th and the final order is submitted,” he said. Meanwhile, Trost said the sheriff hasn’t attended any Board of Commissioners meetings since the 2025-26 budget process when tensions thawed enough for both parties to agree to a staffing plan. That staffing plan included employing a lieutenant in the patrol division who would oversee four deputies, a forest deputy and a marine deputy. A community resource officer and part-time civil processor are also new positions for the sheriff’s office. The budget also included hiring two sergeants for the jail. However, according to Trost, the sheriff hasn’t provided any public safety updates to the Board since those budget hearings in June. As a result, he said, Curry County wasn’t able to apply for a Jail-based Medications for Opioid Use Disorder grant for the jail. “We had asked the sheriff to attend meetings to provide assurances to the Board moving forward and he chose not to attend any of those meetings,” Trost said. “It put us in the position that we weren’t able to apply for that grant and would have been beneficial to the county. It was disappointing.” Judge Stone’s opinion also comes amid a recall effort targeting Trost and his colleague on the Board, Patrick Hollinger. The chief petitioners have until Oct. 27 to collect 1,902 signatures for each recall effort. Chief Petitioner Andre Bay, who is leading the effort to recall Hollinger, referenced the dispute between the Board and the sheriff in his petition for recall.