Jim Horner, Medford School Board dissenter

"Wow, talk about questionable mature judgement!"

Support Husted/Attack Starchvick

Jim Horner, Medford School Board member, was writing in defense and support of Kevin Husted. 

Husted was in the midst of public criticism over an Instagram post he had written saying he wanted to "rape and pillage shit" and get away with it. A photo depicted Husted with a middle finger to the camera. 

It was a startling post, unexpected from an adult running for a School Board. It went viral. 

But Husted had defenders, including Jim Horner. The quotation at the top of the page was not a criticism of Husted. It was a criticism of Husted's election opponent, Karen Starchvick.

Horner had a one-two punch.

Punch one was minimizing the Husted post, saying it was four years old and an example of an occasional "step backwards" of the kind people do routinely, no big deal. 

Punch two was making an equivalency between Husted's now-viral "rape and pillage shit" post and photo, and something he said Karen Starchvick might do, and did do. 

Horner cited as an example of her poor judgement, something supposedly equivalent. She had invited some fellow members of the board to watch election results for a school bond at a Medford pub. He noted they were there to "imbibe alcoholic beverages" and that five members at the same place could imply a public meeting. Talk about questionable mature judgement, he wrote. 

Horner had asked me to print the entirety of his letter supporting Husted and attacking Starchvick. I did. (Readers can scroll back to yesterday's post, or click here: Click) 

I gave Starchvick an opportunity to respond. 

She said the gathering was perfectly legal and appropriate. Here is her response to Horner, also in full and verbatim:

     "I just want to point out that social gatherings are exempt from public meeting law, and specifically permitted.

  

     The election night gathering was witnessed by a member of the press who later reported in the Mail Tribune that no Board business was ever discussed, and that I in fact re-directed conversation more than once when someone (including the reporter herself) tried to comment or ask a question about Board business. 

     

     There were four members there, plus me, five total.

     Karen."

The Mail Tribune had an article on that election night event shortly afterwards. It backs up her version of the event. 

https://mailtribune.com/news/top-stories/quorum-can-gather-without-violating-the-law

The newspaper article makes two points. One is that the meeting was perfectly legal, and that social gatherings are specifically anticipated and permitted under the law.

The second is that Starchvick was witnessed being scrupulous about obeying, and indeed enforcing, the Public Meeting law: They wrote: "The Mail Tribune reporter who was present for more than an hour noted Starchvick redirecting conversation twice when it did stray into matters that the Board makes decisions about."

Horner brought up an old charge, and one that had been debunked. Horner surely knew that the newspaper had followed up on the issue of his accusation, and had resolved it in Starchvick's favor. He brought it up anyway.

I inquired of him yesterday if he disagreed with the Mail Tribune understanding of the Public Meetings law and that if he stood by his accusation. I also asked if he continued to support and defend Husted and Husted's candidacy. Husted has ended his campaign, but his name is still on the ballot.

Horner has not yet responded.