The League of Oregon Cities and several municipalities submitted testimony in favor of House Bill 4177, which estates, “the serial communications prohibitions for public meetings law purposes.” Several media outlets, including Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, and Oregon Society of Professional Journalists, submitted testimony in opposition to the legislation. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission notes its own concerns.
League of Oregon Cities lobbyist Scott Winkels submitted testimony on behalf of the LOC, Association of Oregon Counties, Special Districts Association, Oregon School Boards Association, Oregon Public Ports Association, and Metropolitan Mayors’ Consortium.
We support the intent of Oregon’s public meetings laws and the work of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) to ensure transparency in government decision-making and to prevent the misuse of public office for personal gain. However, recent legislation, rulemaking, and agency opinions have unintentionally limited the ability of local elected officials and governments to conduct routine business, organize meeting logistics, gather information, and support volunteers. These constraints have created uncertainty and fear among public officials and made public service a less attractive option.
Immediate action is needed to refocus Oregon’s ethics framework on its core purpose: addressing true misconduct while allowing local governments to function effectively and transparently.
We appreciate Representative Nathan Sosa’s leadership in convening stakeholders to advance a practical path forward. We urge support for the three bills emerging from this interim workgroup:
• HB 4177 – Public Meetings Law & Serial Communications Clean Up
Ensures that substantive deliberation by a quorum occurs in public while allowing individual officials to seek information, discuss procedural matters, and communicate with constituents and the media without penalty.
Media advocates accused local governments of trying to hide public business from their constituents.
Therese Botomly, Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association
While the timing and training changes have merit, the attempt to add clarity to what communications are allowed dangerously muddies the waters for members of public bodies. The current statute and guidance draw a bright line, requiring deliberations and decisions to be made in public. The changes to section 5 do nothing but sow confusion. Although the Oregon newspapers association was not invited to the work group on this, I understand the bill attempts to answer questions regarding permitted communications. I argue there are better avenues for the desired clarity. OGEC now, by statute, can offer advice, rather than just punish after the fact.
Nick Rudnick, Society of Professional Journalists, Greater Oregon chapter
Our Code of Ethics calls upon SPJ to ensure the public’s business is conducted openly. We appreciate that Rep. Sosa involved SPJ in the work group. In recent weeks, our due diligence concerning late-breaking changes in the bill led to discovery of other problems with it. We appreciate Rep. Sosa’s diligence in trying to address some of the issues raised. Unfortunately, the bill’s most problematic areas remain — including a provision that appears to significantly narrow what the public is allowed to know about (Section 1) and language (Section 5) that we believe creates major loopholes that could be used to block members of the public from knowing how decisions affecting them are made. We believe these changes would erode public trust, while eliminating the sideboards that have helped well-intentioned volunteers and elected officials operate in a way that honors Oregonians’ expectations and the Legislature’s intent.
Rachel Smolkin, Oregon Public Broadcasting
Far from adding clarity, the Section 5 carveouts from public meeting laws create a wide new swath of topics and correspondence that are shielded from public meeting requirements entirely. Yet the outer margins remain unclear, and this bill serves as a green light to engage in risky conversations that may readily cross the line. Under current law and guidance, governing boards are advised to be cautious. A meeting convened for a valid purpose may cross the line as it unfolds if it ventures into improper deliberations. By writing in a longer list of green-lit topics that are exempt from coverage entirely, many kinds of governing body communications now visible to the public may go dark. This revision also invites decisionmakers to have conversations that could readily turn risky, and set officials up for violations that could have been avoided. We believe that narrower language could readily be drafted to meet true needs for clarity – particularly if groups outside government play a meaningful role in the revision process.
Cities Clarify Meaning and Intent of Legislation
The Cities of Milwaukee, Rogue River, and Wilsonville submitted letters of support for the legislation, highlighting interference in standard communications with constituents and the press that the Oregon Government Ethics Commission may now penalize.
Milwaukie City Council
… HB 4177, will clarify the definition of “deliberation” in Oregon public meetings law. It is an important step, but a deeper dive into public meetings law is warranted ahead of the 2027 session to make Oregon law better serve the goals of transparency and ensuring that residents have an opportunity to comment on local government actions that impact them.
Ryan Nolan, Rogue River City Administrator
HB 4177 makes several important improvements:
• Restates and clarifies the rules governing serial communications between members of governing bodies, ensuring that rules are clear so that elected officials understand that sequential or back channel conversations should not unintentionally violate Oregon’s open meetings requirements.
• Identifies communications that are not subject to public meetings law, giving public officials clearer guidance.
• Affirms that public meetings may be held in person, electronically, or in hybrid formats, increasing accessibility.
• Improves the complaint process by requiring complainants to provide essential documentation to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission before a complaint is considered filed.
• Ensures public officials receive appropriate training on public meetings law and clarifies when that training must occur.
• Allows the Commission to proceed against a public body rather than individuals when a violation is the result of administrative error.
• Establishes clear pathways to cure certain public meetings law violations.
Mayor Shawn O’Neil, City of Wilsonville
HB 4177 seeks to resolve an issue with OGEC’s interpretation of the legislative intent behind HB 2805 (2023). HB 2805 arose out of serious, evidenced violations of Oregon’s longstanding and highly regarded public meetings laws. Wilsonville supports transparency and accountability in our public process, and we applaud the legislature for taking action with HB 2805 to strengthen and modernize Oregon’s rules. However, OGEC’s overly broad interpretation of HB 2805 and its related regulations has hamstrung local governments’ ability to do business and actually harmed public process, rather than improving it. Broad definitions in statute and administrative rule, conflicting interpretations from OGEC staff, and penalties imposed on elected officials who only received a communication rather than actively participating have led to our attorneys suggesting an extremely cautious approach where public discourse with elected officials is discouraged. Essentially, local elected officials have been told: “if not in a public meeting, don’t talk to anyone.”
Mayor O’Neil writes further:
To put it bluntly: local elected officials are in fear of OGEC sanction from attending a tour of a local business, having coffee with a constituent, speaking with staff to gain clarity on an issue, and countless other functions important to having an engaged and educated city council. For the good of public process, for the good of transparency, for the good of Oregon, this untenable situation must change.
Next Steps
The legislation passed out of the Rules Committee with a Do-Pass recommendation and a subsequent referral to the Joint Committee on Ways & Means. A public hearing has yet to be scheduled in the current committee. Members of the public can voice their opinions about this legislation to their local governments and legislative representatives in Salem.
Editor’s Note
Right Now Oregon, LLC President Alex McHaddad is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the City of Elgin’s City Administrator. Elgin is an LOC member and has taken a position of support for the bulk of the LOC’s legislative agenda during the 2026 legislative session. Right Now Oregon, LLC has no editorial stance on the legislation discussed in this article.
About the Author
Discover more from Right Now Oregon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
