Bill would add household members to conflict‑of‑interest rules to align statutes, commission says

House Bill 2930 would amend conflict‑of‑interest definitions to include members of a public official’s household, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission told the House Committee on Rules on Jan. 27.

Susan Myers said the change is intended to make definitions consistent across the ethics code. The commission noted that other statutes — including the prohibited use of office, nepotism, and the gift clause — already mention members of the household, and the omission in the conflict‑of‑interest definition can cause confusion.

Myers said the practical effect is to make clear that a decision creating a financial benefit for a household member can create a conflict of interest; however, she acknowledged that many cases implicating household members are already addressed under other statutory provisions in practical investigations.

Committee members asked whether the change would be substantive and whether the commission could address concerns through guidance. Myers said the proposal is partly substantive — it would explicitly capture household members in conflict‑of‑interest rules — but that the agency also aims for simpler, more uniform statutory language to reduce inadvertent violations.

Why it matters: the proposed change would broaden the set of relationships that can create a conflict of interest; the commission described the amendment as reducing confusion between statutes so that officials do not unwittingly act in ways that violate a different provision of the ethics code.