Breaking: State ethics commission finds Smith likely violated law
Published 4:15 pm Friday, December 12, 2025
Investigator reports Smith has yet to pay back money from raise the Columbia Development Authority Board did not approve
SALEM — An investigation into Greg Smith has found he likely violated state statutes when he failed to disclose a conflict of interest as well as using his office for financial gain.
As a result, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission voted on Friday, Dec. 12, to move the case to a contested case proceeding or that a negotiated settlement be entered.
Smith is a Republican representative in the Oregon Legislature representing House District 57 as well as executive director of the Columbia Development Authority.
In a report to the commission, investigator Casey Fenstermaker wrote Smith faced numerous conflicts of interest that he failed to declare relating to a 2024 Office of Local Defense and Community Cooperation grant application approval process.
In the application approval process, Fenstermaker said Smith negotiated a salary increase for his role as executive director of the CDA. The salary increase was to be part of the grant for which the CDA was applying.
“Smith was faced with an actual conflict of interest because he would financially benefit from those negotiations,” Fenstermaker said. “He should have disclosed that conflict in writing.”
Fenstermaker said Smith recommended approval of the 2024 OLDCC grant application during a June 24, 2025, CDA Board meeting, which included a $66,000 salary increase for himself. That, too, was a conflict of interest he should disclosed, Fenstermaker said.
Smith asserted pay raise should be retroactive
Another conflict of interest arose when Smith sent an email to the Port of Morrow’s chief financial officer on June 26, 2024, asserting the new salary should be retroactive to April 1, 2024. Fenstermaker said there were no discussions during public meetings between Nov. 23, 2023, and June 24, 2024, regarding the salary increase, when it should be effective and whether it should be retroactive.
Fenstermaker wrote in her report, “The evidence establishes that (Smith) used his position as executive director to obtain a retroactive pay increase for himself that had not been previously approved by the CDA Board, violating ORS 244.040(1).” That’s the Oregon Revised Stature prohibiting the use of an official position or office for financial gain.
“Smith did not tell the board that the grant application included a pay increase for himself,” Fenstermaker wrote.
According to meeting minutes, the CDA Board voted to require Smith repay the unapproved salary. According to Fenstermaker, Smith has not repaid the money.
The statute does not prohibit asking for a pay increase, but Fenstermaker pointed out, “taking actions and making decisions to obtain or attempt to obtain a pay increase that was not authorized by the board is prohibited under Oregon Government Ethics law.”
The commission voted 7-0 to move the case to a contested case proceeding or that a negotiated settlement be entered. Neither Smith nor his attorney were present during the meeting.