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.

Ad-Hoc and Advisory Committees – Avoiding Traps Under Oregon Public Meetings Law

/in , /by

By Ross Williamson

This article discusses one area where governing bodies sometimes unintentionally slip up in maintaining strict compliance with Oregon public meetings law. Addressed here is the issue of quorum and how quorum impacts your governing body in ways that are not always obvious.

For clarification, this article does not discuss issues related to serial electronic written communications or intermediaries. Those concepts are related, but we will leave them for future discussion.

The scenario here is a common one for governing bodies (city councils, district boards, etc.): an issue before the governing body needs a little extra attention and study, so two members accept the task of diving into the issue and reporting back to the full body with recommendations for next steps. This is super helpful and a great use of time – the full body does not need to learn all the specifics and the two volunteers with interest in the issue can do their work without taking up the time of the full governing body. Plus, the two volunteers for this assignment do not constitute a quorum of the governing body. A true win-win.

Careful!!!

To get at the problems with this scenario, let’s start with some public meeting basics.

Local governments are “public bodies.” Oregon public meetings law creates the term “governing body,” which is defined as the “members of any public body that consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration.” (ORS 192.610(5).) Stated another way, governing bodies are groups of public officials that are authorized to make recommendations or decisions on behalf of the local government entity.

We know that the public meetings law applies to the primary policy-making body of the local government (e.g., city council or district board of directors) with the authority to make decisions on behalf of the government entity.  But the public meetings law also applies to “advisory bodies” – bodies formed by a public body to make recommendations to the public body on policy or administration. These concepts are codified by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission in OAR 199-050-0010(1), which provides:

“The Public Meetings Law applies to the following types of governing bodies:

(a) Decision-Making Bodies. A decision-making body is a body with the authority to make decisions for the public body on policy or administration. A body meets this standard if its decision-making authority includes the power to exercise governmental power and act on behalf of the public body.

(b) Advisory Bodies. An advisory body is a body with authority to make recommendations to a public body on policy or administration.”

With these concepts, we know as few as two people can form a committee and, if that committee of two people has “the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration,” they are a “governing body” and subject to Oregon public meetings law. For example, a five-member fire district board of directors and a seven-member city council are both governing bodies. In addition, a two-member city council ad-hoc committee is itself a “governing body” if it is authorized to make recommendations back to the full city council.

Let’s revisit our scenario above. While the two-member ad-hoc committee in our scenario is not a quorum of the main five-member board, the ad-hoc committee is its own governing body. These two volunteers have been tasked to review information and report back to the full body with recommendations. As a result, the two members of the ad-hoc committee are the quorum for the “advisory body” and must meet in a public meeting to discuss their recommendations back to the full five-member board.

Once a quorum of an advisory body is present, any deliberation toward decisions, deliberation towards recommendations, or decision‑making itself must occur in compliance with the public meetings law. This includes providing notice, allowing public access, and keeping minutes.

Another word of caution is that advisory bodies can be made up of officials, citizens, or staff. As long as the advisory body is itself a governing body (making a recommendation to the public body), the fact that its members may all be private citizens is not relevant. Thus, the scope of the public meetings law extends even to citizens, employees, and others without any decision-making authority, when they serve on a group that is authorized to advise a public body.

Lastly, let’s quickly mention two important carve outs from public meetings law related to this advisory committee scenario. The first carve out is for fact-gathering committees. If the only authority for the body is to gather and provide information (e.g., making no recommendations), then the body is not an advisory body or governing body. The second carve out is that a “public body” does not include an individual official. As a result, an advisory committee that makes recommendations to an individual official (e.g., city manager, fire chief, special district chief executive), and does not otherwise exercise governmental authority, is not subject to the public meetings law.

Labor Law-Related Legislative Changes ~Three Things That You Should Know

/in , /by

By Diana Moffat

During the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions, several labor-related bills passed that you should be aware of if you have unions, and some that also apply to non-unionized employees, as well.

PLO and OFLA

SB 69 makes a number of primarily technical modifications to Paid Leave Oregon (PLO) and to the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA). Among the changes in this bill, it specifies that if a claimant files an appeal with Paid Leave Oregon, the statute of limitations period for complaints filed with BOLI, as well as for civil actions related to that complaint, are tolled while the appeal with Paid Leave Oregon is pending.

In addition, the bill allows an employee to begin taking OFLA leave without prior notice to their employer when leave is required because of the closure of the employee’s child’s school or child care provider due to a public health emergency, unless the declaration of the public health emergency was issued by the Governor at least 30 days before the start of the leave.

SB 69 took effect on September 26, 2025; however, some provisions of the bill did not become operative until January 1, 2026.

Law Enforcement

HB 4138 mandates clear identification for law enforcement.

This bill prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings during the normal course of their duties. However, the bill also allows officers to wear masks when necessary for health and safety purposes and to protect undercover detectives. The legislation further requires police uniforms to display a name tag or other individual identifier and a patch to identify the employing agency. HB 4138 may also apply to federal agencies that may routinely mask during regular duties.

The bill declares an emergency, effective on its passage. The governor signed this bill on March 31st of 2026.

Striking Public Sector Employees

Historically, employees who were out of work due to a labor dispute were not eligible for Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits. SB 916 significantly changes this situation by providing that an individual who is otherwise eligible for UI benefits may receive benefits, or waiting week credit, for any week that the individual was unemployed due to a lawful labor strike. An individual who is otherwise eligible for UI benefits is only disqualified from receiving UI benefits or waiting week credit during the first week of a strike. After the first week, the individual may receive benefits or waiting week credit as normal, for up to ten weeks.

The employee may be required to repay the benefits if they are overpaid due to later receipt of back pay as part of a retroactive pay settlement for the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the employer. However, any recoupment of those benefits will involve strategy in consultation with your employer labor representative.

SB 916 took effect on January 1, 2026.

Code Enforcement Remedies

/in , /by

By Truman Stone

Multiple (and confusing) methods of code enforcement?

Code enforcement typically is related to health and welfare, animals, garbage or other quality of life issues for the community.  After the governing body adopts those standards by legislation, it becomes the responsibility of staff to implement and enforce those codes.  Some of our clients have dedicated code enforcers, some house the function in the police or public works departments, and for some it is just one more responsibility of city management.

If your position includes code enforcement as a duty, you know that it is often easier to pass the code standards than it is to enforce the code standards.  Often the difficulty is the type of people who are unable to comply or are resistant to the code.  However, over the years I have observed that the code itself may make your job harder.

Code enforcement remedies come in several flavors (if you will).  These include: criminal remedies as a misdemeanor or violation; an administrative process with staff or the council; self-help or seizure; imposition of liens; and civil actions in municipal or circuit court.  Like all things in life, each have pros and cons, and no single method is perfect.  Often the code leaves these options to the discretion of the code enforcer without guidance or policies to help evaluate which method is most appropriate.

To the point of this article, because codes are typically adopted piecemeal over many years, the multiple enforcement methods are in the same ecosystem of the code and frequently include multiple cross references.  Those may include confusing or conflicting procedural protections and requirements.  Sometimes we see a client start one process and then switch to another process mid-stream, creating notice or procedural issues.  Sometimes we see multiple remedies pursued simultaneously with conflicting remedies and confusion over jurisdiction.  While most clients attempt progressive steps at enforcement, ratcheting up potential penalties and remedies, it may ultimately be most effective to start with the method that ensures success.

To avoid potential problems, here are some suggestions:

    • Review your code to analyze remedies and familiarize yourself with the options.
    • Check cross references for expired links or inconsistent provisions.
    • Clearly separate criminal remedies from civil remedies.
    • Eliminate remedy provisions which your municipality have never used or are unlikely to ever use.
    • Adopt code provisions or policies that prioritize methods of enforcement.
    • Develop flowcharts or checklists for each method to ensure clarity and compliance.
    • Consider completion of one method (or clear abandonment) as a requirement before attempting another method.
    • The more complexity you introduce into any system the more likely failure will occur in the system (See, Perrow, Charles. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies New York: Basic Books, 1984).
    • Contact your attorney early in the process to weigh pros and cons, and develop a plan to proceed.

It is important to keep in mind that code enforcement must not violate constitutional procedural and substantive due process.  It also must not impose an excessive fine.  Discussion of these areas is complex and beyond the scope of this article.

As noted earlier, code enforcement is difficult at its best because it involves people.  Don’t let an overly complex system make it more difficult.