County counsel warns commissioners: new law codifies ban on serial communications; Ethics Commission can fine quorums

Rob Ovett, the county counsel and the planning commission—s attorney, gave a refresher on public meetings law and recent statutory and rule changes at the Dec. 4 meeting.

Ovett reviewed the origins of Oregon—s public meetings law (1973) and the Handy v. Lane County litigation history. He described two types of serial communications that can violate the law: direct examples (email chains in which a quorum is copied and substantive discussion ensues) and indirect examples (an intermediary relaying positions sequentially among commissioners to simulate a deliberation). He said the 2023 enactment of House Bill 2805 codified the Handy decision and expanded the Oregon Government Ethics Commission—s enforcement authority to include public meetings law; the commission can now issue reprimands and levy fines against individuals and entities.

"Serial communications among a quorum of governing bodies and public bodies are now prohibited," Ovett told the commission and urged staff and commissioners to avoid copying a quorum on substantive emails and to segregate public-business communications where practicable. He recommended using a separate business email address for public business to limit risks associated with subpoenas and public-record requests.

Commissioners asked about quorum size (Ovett said a quorum of nine members is five), how the rules apply to advisory boards and task forces, what happens if someone is copied into a violating email, and whether county counsel represents individuals during enforcement proceedings (he said the counsel can represent the commission or county entity but not an individual commissioner facing individual fines). Ovett also described the new complaint and cure processes the Ethics Commission now follows.

No enforcement action was taken at the meeting; the presentation was delivered as guidance and preventative advice.