[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6210270,"mediaKeyId","3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2","parentId",3720481,"title","Bill would allow chief sponsor nonvoting seat on rule‑making advisory committees; opponents warn of separation‑of‑powers and undue influence","audioSeconds",943,"startMs",2473280,"endMs",3417250,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2&start=2473&end=3417","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2/thumbnail_2473280.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6210270/Oregon/Bill-would-allow-chief-sponsor-nonvoting-seat-on-rulemaking-advisory-committees-opponents-warn-of-separationofpowers-and-undue-influence","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210270-422c26bb7d3516a83bc7cf594a8d8725/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568415&Signature=BRYmvj7-ER1f3Hb8dxfHYnl9fSgCVPehhltKpjfJ1t~nEN-CBm1AblC7Hp1tHfJwPHHkwkx1JTNIWBZz2eSY9hFUEwUGHX08vJ7jOOYKI4wc0nbvQahtLz7Qeo2O4DzKCzO7GudDYiLSW1MCKYFLYcbxVko6mx7pblZeMwFpcUf1ygtX49L7q-30gnmMxU9Em7rxllAkFwArIHUwYlXI8SKWAKboZcqJK9y4FIM~Yzyhl8h5wx~Q14oGG~rjkBUpQjNON5wKrehpbeEw5PDMjVFX33O8KpJgw-jm~7eZqZbvzMfCIggn9Y3eJ-mkD-mZp0T78lBKMPjsKzH3j-qDGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-06-04T13:00:00Z","article","House Bill 35‑69 would require state agencies to invite the chief sponsor of newly enacted legislation — or the designated designee or a committee chair for committee‑sponsored bills — to serve as a nonvoting member of an initial rules advisory committee charged with drafting rules to implement that legislation.

Representative Mark Gamba, who sponsored the bill in the House, told the Senate Committee on Rules the measure is a targeted fix for a recurring problem: when the legislative intent of a passed bill is lost or reshaped during the rule‑making process. Gamba said the bill is explicit that a sponsor would serve only in an advisory, nonvoting capacity and that Legislative Counsel had concluded a nonvoting role avoids constitutional separation‑of‑powers problems so long as legislators do not vote.

Supporters included former state senator Lee Beyer, who said legislators have long complained that some agency rules bear little resemblance to the bills passed by the Legislature, and welcomed a modest way to allow sponsors to “raise that concern” during rulemaking.

Opponents included 1,000 Friends of Oregon and WaterWatch of Oregon, which testified that the bill is unnecessary and risks upsetting the balance of power. Mary Kyle McCurdy of 1,000 Friends said that by the time a bill is enacted it reflects the intent of the whole Legislature, not a single sponsor, and that RACs are statutorily intended to advise agencies about implementing the final legislation. McCurdy also argued the bill continues to raise separation‑of‑powers concerns because RACs are advisory and do not vote; adding legislators to RACs would not cure that constitutional question. WaterWatch said existing statutory and administrative tools (including legislative counsel review under current law) already protect legislative intent and that permitting sponsor participation could inject imbalance and chill frank discussion.

Committee discussion included a question about the ability of a sponsor or chair to designate a non‑legislator designee; sponsors and staff said the bill is silent on that point and that the invitation is permissive, not mandatory.

The committee heard both pro and con testimony and closed the public hearing; no committee vote on the bill was recorded at this hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Rules 06/04/2025 1:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 35‑69 would require agencies that appoint rules advisory committees (RACs) to invite the bill’s chief sponsor — or a designated designee — to serve as a nonvoting RAC member when implementing newly enacted legislation.","taxTitle","Rules, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17994,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6210279,"Senate committee adopts amendment shortening wait time and allowing facilities to post Death With Dignity policy",976,2560,978575,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2&start=2&end=978","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2/thumbnail_2560.jpg","/articles/6210279/Oregon/Senate-committee-adopts-amendment-shortening-wait-time-and-allowing-facilities-to-post-Death-With-Dignity-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210279-59e6fde850aa22ef5613a3c8a201b343/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568415&Signature=gzKELoR5Gq1tnm-wFMkNt4FlCINRQkU7Tsmnh29VFLdeQbq85xfjFXqhoN3NBlfG~b3ayiTZWNPgNq9koM4eWN07VONLVfBjIOnScSi2BI4ghC9fTrPDvrA6uSaX8udUUENkUhQSXTyqn4LjE8mPwtVyXItF9eUy29rlggabnqjOBNoCqkhM4q6nZM76pXTcpUrXDPM9HRUgT1H3AhvEiAMhDvXqLqMjMG1t4z6EzFHa7EKLeSvwzUODymTea4dfJLwo-hryrobUXg0rXQ8wAVr7JtCLhVkPbqHInAX3xzvixOTOPqcImHPp9bIRcy8cgcyjvcsh~i0UGm4Try7JTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Rules on June 4 adopted an A5 amendment to Senate Bill 1,003 A, a measure that modifies provisions of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act and sent the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation and referral to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Committee staff summarized the bill as revising terminology in the Death With Dignity Act, authorizing electronic transmission of prescriptions and reports, shortening minimum waiting periods from 15 days to seven days, modifying witness and consulting‑practitioner criteria, and requiring disclosure of hospice and health‑care facility policies related to the act. As staff put it, the amendment “permits a healthcare facility other than a hospice program to either post the facility’s policy regarding an admitted patient’s ability to participate in the act on the facility’s website or provide written notice to the individual before or at the time of the individual’s admission to the facility.”

Senator Prozescu, who explained the A5 amendment at the committee’s request, said the amendment was added after conversations with facilities that wanted the option to post policy on a website instead of using the prior posting requirement. He described the A5 change as “allow[ing] for those facilities to either post it on their website or have in written form policy to give to an individual that may be looking at utilizing the facility as their care facility and residents.”

Committee debate reflected sharply held but civil views. Some senators questioned whether the bill reduces safeguards for vulnerable people. Senator Gullin said the bill “does materially reduce safeguards especially for vulnerable people” and voiced particular concern that language addressing evaluation of an individual’s capacity and coercion had been removed. Other committee members said the measures addressed earlier concerns and that the bill, as amended, does not substantially reduce protections for patients. One senator described personal experience with end‑of‑life care and said the changes did not, in his view, materially reduce safeguards.

The committee took two formal actions recorded in the hearing. On the A5 amendment the roll call recorded these votes: Yes — Senator Golden, Senator Manning, Chair John (Fords); No — Senator Thacker, Vice Chair Bauchner. The motion to adopt the A5 amendment passed. On the motion to refer Senate Bill 1,003 A as amended to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation and referral to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, a separate roll call recorded a similar division and the motion passed.

Staff noted the amendment had a fiscal impact statement with no revenue impact and directed members to the full staff measure summary posted on OLIS for the detailed amendment language.

The committee closed its work session on Senate Bill 1,003 A and moved on to public hearings on other bills.

Background: The bill would update parts of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, including terminology (from “attending physician” to “attending practitioner”), electronic prescriptions, witness and consulting‑practitioner provisions, and a reduction in minimum waiting periods. The A5 amendment specifically creates an option for non‑hospice healthcare facilities to post or provide written notice of their policies at admission.

No further action on the bill was recorded in the Rules committee hearing beyond the committee’s recommendation to the floor and referral to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.","The Senate Committee on Rules on June 4 adopted an A5 amendment to Senate Bill 1,003 A, which revises several requirements in the Oregon Death With Dignity Act and sent the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation and referral to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":46,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6210263,"Public records overhaul advances to address fee waivers and commercial requesters; counties, cities and schools raise concerns",2263,5680725,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2&start=3417&end=5680","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2/thumbnail_3417250.jpg","/articles/6210263/Oregon/Public-records-overhaul-advances-to-address-fee-waivers-and-commercial-requesters-counties-cities-and-schools-raise-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210263-e383532158f32ab23373ec2cdbd52599/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568415&Signature=i-dz8XabljBakug6rp2iJcZ~bgyPow8hUWOuXlAHCE2Rk04Ih3mTAeDMuYP-yM6vtMl7vNeiMYW3S0TnHLQunc3JOn2f5r0KgAHIDx-DmuKnjsWv8r6hwH-7~eQZsY3kkMK9T9HVYfViJZCdJlpmRvH3e~DqlW8XekCLayVc4nBnS7VVimF4Kw0MJcfL7rDmkVagwERfX44ZOqWzv2oua9uFJWf9a6hnYBQEA1gja9MM3HP-gypqDDM9Wgg5-jW9mBfQ5NyZjZC63EPB22ve92eAljGxNV4C2X4XnyadNZ3odW~ONmtI1R5xnJtwI80AyXtAaqOExI7hrbTu-LUGog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Rules on June 4 heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill 10‑77 (dash‑1), a comprehensive proposal to revise public records law in Oregon. The amendment defines “commercial requester,” authorizes a fee structure that can charge more for certain commercial requests, creates a formal process for fee waivers in the public interest, establishes a public records fund to adjudicate appeals, and in many cases transfers review of public records appeals from county district attorneys to the Oregon Attorney General’s civil attorneys.

Senator Kim Thatcher, carrying the bill from the dais, said the dash‑1 amendment is the product of multi‑stakeholder work that began after an earlier bill did not pass in 2023. Supporters including public‑records advocates and newsroom representatives said the bill balances the public’s right to know with the administrative costs of producing records.

Carrie Hawthorne, testifying on behalf of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, supported moving most appellate reviews to the Attorney General and said many county DA offices lack the civil legal resources and bandwidth to manage complex public records appeals under tight statutory timelines. Hawthorne said the change would allow DA offices to focus on core public‑safety work while letting specialized civil attorneys at the Attorney General’s Office handle appeals that can be voluminous and legally novel.

Journalists and public‑records advocates, including Richard Barn (Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access), Steve Suo (journalist and Public Records Advisory Council member) and Nick Budnick (Greater Oregon Society of Professional Journalists), said the bill reflects years of stakeholder work. They emphasized measures to protect public‑interest requesters, reduce prohibitive fees for requests that serve the public good, and create a clearer appellate path.

The dash‑1 amendment drew opposition from local governments and school officials. The Association of Oregon Counties, the League of Oregon Cities, the Oregon School Boards Association and the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators raised three recurring concerns: (1) the proposed definition of “commercial requester” is unclear and could sweep in entities not intended to be treated as commercial; (2) allowing fees up to five times the actual cost for some commercial requests (the amendment includes a 500 percent cap in some circumstances) is unprecedented and could be administratively complex for small jurisdictions; and (3) moving appeals to the Attorney General reduces local control and could impose accounting and administrative burdens — for example, splitting fee revenues between state and local entities to fund fee‑waivers and appellate processes.

Local government witnesses gave concrete examples of burden. Tim Dooley of the Association of Oregon Counties described how a typical crash report fee of $20 could rise to $120 under a 500 percent multiplier and noted the mechanics of distributing that revenue (two‑thirds to DOJ, one‑third retained locally) create accounting complexity in small jurisdictions. School representatives warned about records requests involving children and FERPA: they said many small districts lack communications staff or in‑house counsel and could face increased litigation risk and costs.

Supporters said the aim is to protect public‑interest access (for example, news organizations and recognized nonprofits) by enabling fee waivers where disclosure serves the common good and to push routine commercial data aggregators to cover the costs they impose on public bodies. They also said the bill creates standardized procedures for fees, explanations and an appeal process to improve transparency and predictability.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the definition of commercial requester and whether news media would be excluded. The dash‑1 text explicitly excludes news media and certain nonprofit entities (internal revenue code 501(c) organizations) from the commercial requester definition, but several committee members requested follow‑up clarifications on lines such as which 501(c) subcategories are intended to be excluded.

The committee closed public testimony on the bill after hearing from dozens of organizations; members indicated further work would be needed to address definitional issues, fee distribution mechanics and appeals processing before final passage.","Senate Bill 10‑77 (dash‑1) would revise Oregon public‑records law by defining commercial requesters, enabling a public‑interest fee‑waiver process, creating a public records fund for appeals and, in many cases, moving appeals from county district attorneys to the Oregon Attorney General’s civil attorneys.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6210274,"Lawmakers, small‑city officials urge tiered grant matches, cite projects stalled by high local matches",1494,979115,2473140,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2&start=979&end=2473","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720481-75ae28a87f702f3847c66d6567d7fad2/thumbnail_979115.jpg","/articles/6210274/Oregon/Lawmakers-smallcity-officials-urge-tiered-grant-matches-cite-projects-stalled-by-high-local-matches","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210274-beb3b6e7859bd455c6e4e770cd33183d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568415&Signature=Y-mJAqHq5ISjWnjv~B~LJgsaNJHwS~EYwiDvPZVCqhUgpSikhmhjMfKuGn7oPtv1JcRucHemLo-lXskxRF0MBiJY4NrDsppcqjCd5rBwToI-0kMtF95t2AtgJH6x1cxMppLLnjf2JyxpRDAculKM9y~ugk31ejpwy-~vcS41n2hwMYUNaCu9nXckhxzm-OhaN2L~x3oqAQz~oXKQYSzVVtqC143Aze8yTUpJKmswe1sAX9MZMm7Fn1PO63T-n7KNScnwqV8vGqv67z08~s8PbbvMeqVe~qIPUY-v5ipXV~Sqcwr5op5B1xF2vAeJ3U2j0PpaJQgmSTUxlJ3sYtTc4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers and municipal officials on June 4 urged the Senate Committee on Rules to advance House Bill 36‑54, which would set maximum matching fund requirements for state capital construction and municipal infrastructure grants to incorporated cities with fewer than 20,000 residents and allow grant funds to be used for all project phases including engineering and planning.

Representative Ed Deal, sponsor of the bill in the House, said the measure creates a sliding scale of matching percentages tied to city population and narrows the grants covered after agency review. He told the committee the dash‑2 amendment refines eligibility and the list of applicable grants and that the amendment language for Business Oregon, water resources and parks grants was provided by agencies.

Senator Todd Nash and Sean Tate, representing the Small Municipalities Advocacy Coalition, described how most Oregon cities are small and lack reserves, staff and borrowing capacity. Tate said 87 percent of Oregon’s cities have fewer than 20,000 residents and the average city’s population is under 7,400 — factors that “force a severely disproportionate fiscal impact when seeking critical infrastructure upgrades.”

City officials described projects they cannot afford under current match rules. Michelle Eldridge, city administrator of Harrisburg, said her city’s water project doubled in cost from its original bond estimate and that a $5.5 million replacement project would require a standard 20 percent match of $1.1 million; under the bill’s proposed sliding scale Harrisburg’s match could drop to 5 percent, or about $275,000, making the project feasible within a shorter timeframe. Brianna Parra, city administrator of Halsey, said a two‑block street project priced at about $250,000 could require a match approaching $140,000 under existing match rules — an amount she said could take the city roughly 10 years to save.

Ginger Allen, city manager of Scio, testified that aging sewer lines (some 60 to 66 years old) and small reserve balances prevent small cities from preparing engineering studies needed to even apply for grants. She said Scio’s sewer reserve rose from $86,193 on June 30, 2017 to $103,461 as of June 30, 2025 — a $16,268 increase largely from interest — and that without the ability to use grant funds for planning and engineering, many small cities “don’t even get up to bat.”

Supporters framed the bill as a matter of equity and economic resilience, arguing that easing match requirements and allowing grant dollars for planning will help small cities complete infrastructure projects that support housing and economic development. Several testifiers emphasized they were not seeking elimination of local responsibility but a more level playing field.

No formal committee vote on the bill was recorded in the Rules committee hearing; the measure received public testimony and the hearing was closed.

Background and clarifications: The dash‑2 amendment replaces the introduced measure and specifies the grants, funds and projects to which the maximum matching provisions would apply. Supporters submitted agency‑provided lists of eligible grants to the committee through OLIS. Testimony included concrete projects and local fiscal data; staff and agencies were cited as sources for the amendment wording.","Testimony at the Senate Committee on Rules public hearing backed House Bill 36‑54, which would cap state matching requirements and let small cities use grant funds for planning and engineering; city officials described projects they could undertake sooner if matches were reduced.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would allow chief sponsor nonvoting seat on rule‑making advisory committees; opponents warn of separation‑of‑powers and undue influence

Senate committee adopts amendment shortening wait time and allowing facilities to post Death With Dignity policy

Public records overhaul advances to address fee waivers and commercial requesters; counties, cities and schools raise concerns

Lawmakers, small‑city officials urge tiered grant matches, cite projects stalled by high local matches