House Bills Update: Gifts, Grub, and a Governor’s Veto

/in , /by

By Mark Wolf

 Food, Beverages and Swag provided to Public Officials

House Bill (HB) 4161 now clarifies that a public body may provide food and beverages to its public officials during meetings or other official events.

Why the change?  Oregon’s ethics laws prohibit public officials from using their office to obtain a financial benefit that would not otherwise be available to them. In May of 2025, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) concluded that a public body providing food and/or beverages to its elected officials and staff could constitute an impermissible “financial gain” under ORS 244.040, unless the food and beverages are  (1) part of the public officials “official compensation;” or (2) offered to members of the public.

What does the bill do?

HB 4161 now exempts the following actions from the ORS 244.040 prohibition on using one’s office for personal financial gain or to avoid financial harm:

“Food, beverages or both provided to a public official by a public body during meetings or other official events held by the public body or as otherwise required to be provided by law or rule of this state.” ORS 244.040(2)(j).”

And:

“Merchandise provided to a public official by a public body if the cost of the merchandise does not exceed $100 in a calendar year, except as otherwise provided by policy of the public body.”  ORS 244.040(2)(k).”

So, local governments can now safely provide meals to their boards, councils, and commissions, as well as to their employees and volunteers during council or board meetings, trainings, and other official meetings.

In addition, local governments may also provide merchandise, such as branded clothing,  hats, drinkware, and other recognition items so long as the total cost does not exceed $100 per year for each public official.  The statute also allows local governments to choose a cap of less than the $100, or to allow none at all.

 A Governor’s Veto

House Bill (HB) 4177 was vetoed by Governor Kotek.  It was meant to provide clarity on what constitutes “deliberation” under Oregon’s Public Meetings Laws to help prevent public officials from inadvertently engaging in serial communications in violation of Oregon’s open meeting laws. Specifically, the definition of “deliberation” would have changed from “discussion or communication that is part of a decision-making process” to “discussion or communication in which the members of a governing body examine, weigh or reflect upon the reasons for or against a decision that is subject to the jurisdiction of the governing body.”   The change would have required a quorum’s discussion to have more meaning or purpose for or against a decision for it to rise to the level of “deliberation.”

HB 4177 would have also expanded the list of communications that do not apply to Oregon’s Public Meetings Law.  Those communications that would have been statutorily allowed were those that:

  • Are purely regarding  procedural matters and convey no deliberation or decision;
  • Contain only factual or educational information;
  • Share the views of someone other than a member of the governing body, including but not limited to published articles or constituent letters;
  • Are communications to news media representatives, constituents, members of the public or other persons, unless those persons are being used as intermediaries to allow the governing body to engage in deliberations or make a decision; and
  • Are made for the purpose of gathering information related to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.

Governor Kotek vetoed this bill on April 16, 2026, citing “concerns that some of the new language could be utilized to circumvent transparency.”  She urged the OGEC to work with the legislature, her office and key stakeholders to provide more clarity between now and the next legislative session in 2027.