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

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.