Roseburg EDC receives conflict-of-interest and ex parte communications briefing

The Roseburg Economic Development Commission received training on conflicts of interest and ex parte communications at its Feb. 27 virtual meeting.

The session was led by attorney Webb Kittinger, invited to review what constitutes an actual versus a potential conflict and when disclosure or recusal is appropriate. "Disclosure is the key," Kittinger said, advising commissioners to err on the side of transparency when an issue could financially benefit or harm the commissioner, their relatives or associated businesses.

Kittinger described relatives as parents, spouses, siblings and children and said businesses should be treated as a conflict when the commissioner personally owns or holds a financial stake. He drew a distinction between an "actual" conflict—where a vote will definitely affect a commissioner financially—and a "potential" conflict, where effects are uncertain. "If you own a business that is guaranteed to have a contract based upon something that is going to be voted on by the council, that is an actual conflict," he said.

The attorney also reviewed ex parte communications, defining them as private conversations about an active issue that exclude other parties. He said such private contacts can undermine due process because other stakeholders may not have an opportunity to respond to information introduced privately. "If you are not disclosing that there's been extra information or perhaps someone's swaying your opinion, then that's just, it kinda adds fuel to the fire," Kittinger said.

Commissioners asked for guidance on borderline cases. One commissioner described serving on outside boards that occasionally apply for grants; Kittinger said lack of personal financial gain generally removes a conflict but recommended disclosure because board membership could influence decisions. Another commissioner asked about stock holdings and regulatory votes; Kittinger recommended disclosure and, if uncertainty remained, recusal.

Staff advised commissioners to contact legal counsel or staff ahead of votes if they identify a possible conflict. The training closed with staff offering to consult with commissioners on specific packet items before votes and encouraging recusal when necessary.

The briefing was placed early on the agenda as part of commissioner training for newer members and was informational only; no formal action accompanied the training.