In the wake of a judicial opinion issued by the Lane County Circuit Court, Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-South Lane and North Douglas Counties) introduced SB 1526 to better define the meaning of “deliberations” in public meetings laws. The stated purpose of Oregon’s public meetings laws is to ensure that the public is aware of the deliberations and decisions of their governing bodies and that these decisions be arrived at in a transparent and open way. To that end, all meetings of a public body must be available and open to the public to attend – a meeting defined as “the convening of a governing body of a public body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision…”
The Lane County decision, Dumdi v. Handy (2011), muddled an already fuzzy line between what does and does not constitute a public meeting. In particular, Dumdi made two assertions that, arguably, were counter to common understanding and practice for many public bodies. The first was that communication over email is subject to public meetings law restrictions. The second was that a quorum of members of the public body need not be assembled at the same time and in the same place. These serial interactions amongst pairs of officials may amount to a quorum and, if the officials are also engaging in decision making or deliberation, would constitute a public meeting.
Senator Prozanski and a collection of stakeholders, including the ACLU and also the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties, and the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, convened to review the initial proposal and very quickly concluded that, while we can all agree that the current law is unclear and needs improvement, the details are too complex for a short session. The Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Prozanski is the Chair, held a brief public hearing on the bill in order to explain on the record the issues and the intent of SB 1526, but carried over the issue to an interim workgroup. Our interest is in maintaining the philosophy behind the public meetings law, which is to make sure that decisions and deliberations of public bodies happen in public, and we will participate in the workgroup to make sure that interest is preserved.
NEUTRAL: Bill did not move forward. Further work expected in the interim.
