Oregon Ethics Commission warns officials against conversations on city issues

During the City Commission Regular Meeting on May 7, 2025, significant discussions emerged regarding the Oregon Government Ethics Commission's (OGEC) recent interpretations of state ethics laws, which have raised concerns among city officials in Oregon City. The meeting highlighted the implications of these interpretations on communication practices among elected officials and their interactions with constituents.

The executive director of OGEC, Patty Mulvihill, provided an update indicating that city officials should refrain from discussing city issues with one another to avoid potential violations of the law concerning serial meetings. This advice extends to interactions with city management and constituents, as any conversation that could involve a quorum of officials may be deemed problematic. This interpretation has sparked frustration among commissioners, who argue that it undermines their ability to effectively communicate with the public and manage city affairs.

Commissioners expressed their disbelief at the stringent nature of these guidelines, suggesting that they could hinder essential dialogue necessary for governance. One commissioner remarked on the absurdity of being unable to discuss budgetary matters if they had received reimbursement for meals, indicating a broader concern about the practicality and fairness of the ethics regulations.

Additionally, there was acknowledgment of ongoing discussions between the OGEC, state legislators, and the governor aimed at clarifying these interpretations. Some commissioners noted that the original intent of the legislation was not to impose such restrictive communication barriers, and they are hopeful for a resolution that would allow for more reasonable interactions among officials.

The meeting also touched on the challenges faced by commissioners in navigating the ethics training and evaluation processes, with some expressing dissatisfaction over the lack of clarity and responsiveness from the ethics commission. This sentiment reflects a growing concern about the effectiveness of the OGEC and its impact on local governance.

In conclusion, the discussions at the May 7 meeting underscore a critical moment for Oregon City officials as they grapple with the implications of the OGEC's interpretations. The potential for legislative changes could reshape how city officials communicate and operate, ultimately affecting their ability to serve their constituents effectively. As these conversations continue, the commission remains vigilant in advocating for a more balanced approach to ethics in local government.