Committee hears bill letting officials vote on budgets that include their pay after public disclosure

The House Committee on Rules on June 5 heard testimony on Senate Bill 983, which would permit a public official to take part in discussion and vote on adopting a local budget that provides compensation or benefits to the official or a relative after publicly announcing the nature of the actual conflict of interest.

Committee staff told members the bill declares an emergency and would take effect on passage. The measure, as presented, creates a narrow exception allowing governing body members to participate in budget votes that include their compensation once they publicly state the conflict.

The bill drew support from Scott Winkles of the League of Oregon Cities, who told the committee the measure “simply corrects” an unintended consequence of an Oregon Government Ethics Commission interpretation. Winkles said the commission’s opinion about the prohibited-use-of-office statute, ORS 244.040, created uncertainty when local officials vote on budgets that contain their stipends or other benefits. “There is an OGEC interpretation of … 244.040” that could make such votes a potential violation, he said, and the bill is meant to remove that uncertainty so cities and other home-rule entities can adopt budgets and compensation without running afoul of the ethics statute.

Susan Myers, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, told the committee the bill was developed with the Oregon School Boards Association after an earlier statutory change allowed school districts to grant stipends to volunteer board members. Myers said the 2023 law permitted stipends of up to $500 a month for school board members, but it did not address the conflict that arises when boards later adopt an annual budget that includes those stipends. “That is all that the bill is designed to address,” Myers said, explaining the bill adds a conflict-disclosure exception for governing-body members voting to adopt a budget that contains compensation for them or for relatives.

Myers told members the commission’s prior advice also led to questions about whether items such as food provided at an official event should be considered part of a compensation package; the commission’s interpretation indicated food might need to be part of official compensation in some circumstances, which could require a vote. She said the emergency clause is intended to allow the change to be available during budget-adoption season in June.

Committee members asked whether the legislative branch handles its own compensation differently; Melissa, a committee staff member, noted members of the Legislative Assembly are already exempt from the particular OGEC statute for legislative functions. Several members also raised broader questions about the ethics commission’s enforcement choices and the scope of matters the commission has issued opinions on.

The committee did not take formal action on Senate Bill 983 during the public hearing and closed the hearing after testimony and questions.