One of the most surprising—and honestly, sobering—aspects of my time on the Commission has been realizing just how deeply the process and its outcomes can wreak or ruin a person’s life. It’s not just about their role in public service; an ethics investigation can impact their reputation, their career, and even their personal relationships. That weight is something I’ve felt throughout every case we’ve handled. 

It’s a reminder that while we have a duty to uphold the law and maintain public trust, we also have a responsibility to handle each situation with care, fairness, and a full understanding of the consequences. These aren’t just names on a docket—they’re people, often trying to serve their communities. That awareness has shaped how I approach the work and how I hope future commissioners will too. 

When I was first appointed to the Commission, meetings were held just once every six weeks, and this was before COVID—so everything took place in person at the Salem office. If someone wanted to present their side of an issue or give testimony, they had to physically be in the room. It was a different time, and I remember how structured and rigid the process felt compared to now.

In 2021, while I was serving as Chair, we made the shift to hybrid meetings—part in person, part virtual. That transition was one of the most meaningful changes I was part of. Oregon is a large state, and for many people, traveling to Salem just isn’t feasible. Moving to virtual access allowed more equitable participation in the process, which I believe is essential for any public body. Of course, it came with its own learning curve—balancing fairness and clarity in a virtual setting, especially during sensitive testimony, required us to rethink how we communicated and engaged. But ultimately, it brought the Commission closer to the people it serves, and I’m proud of that. 

When I was appointed, the position was limited to a single four-year term. Now I’m in my eighth year, thanks to a policy change that occurred while I was Chair, allowing commissioners to serve a second term. That was another major turning point for us. A full term involves around 40 meetings, and I can say from experience that you don’t truly begin to understand the deeper responsibilities and nuances of the role until you’re halfway through. We were seeing valuable commissioners leave just as they were gaining momentum and insight. Supporting the second-term policy was about continuity, yes—but also about respect for the time and growth it takes to be truly effective in this work. 

One of the more challenging aspects of this role has been managing public response during high-profile cases—like those involving John Kitzhaber and Shemia Fagan. These cases tend to heighten public awareness of ethics laws, which is a good thing in many ways. But they also lead to an influx of complaints—some well-founded, others clearly made out of frustration or misunderstanding. That’s when the work becomes more intense, and the importance of fairness and discernment becomes even clearer. 

What I’ve learned through all of this is that good governance depends on thoughtful, fair-minded people who are willing to make difficult decisions while remaining grounded in the principle of public trust. Serving on the Commission has deepened my appreciation for that balance. It’s taught me patience, sharpened my judgment, and reinforced how vital it is to listen—really listen—to both the letter and the spirit of the law, and to the people behind each case. 

I’ve seen that many public officials come into their roles freshly elected, often with very limited exposure to ethics laws. There's a real learning curve, and I think it's important that commissioners keep that in mind. If someone makes a technical mistake without any harmful intent, we need to be careful that we don’t overcorrect in a way that discourages good people from serving. 

The real challenge—and the responsibility—is in drawing a clear line between those who knowingly misuse their public positions and those who are genuinely trying to do the right thing but may lack proper training or clarity. That’s not always easy, but it’s crucial. 

My hope is that future commissioners approach each case with the same principles that have guided my own service: fairness, empathy, and a deep respect for both the law and the people doing their best to uphold it. At the end of the day, our role isn’t just about enforcement—it’s about protecting public trust while also encouraging ethical public service.