Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Statute Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harney County Court delays action on proposed ORS resolution affecting county authority
Summary
The court discussed a proposed resolution tied to "ORS 111" to change how Harney County is affected by a state statute but deferred action until staff and commissioners consult Rep. Owens' office, AOC, and neighboring counties; the item was pushed toward August.
The Harney County Court discussed but declined to act immediately on a proposed resolution described in the record as tied to "ORS 111," citing concerns about unintended consequences and the need to coordinate with other counties and legislative staff.
The County Judge introduced the item and asked whether the court should proceed now or first contact other counties and the Association of Counties for coordination. Commissioners said they did not want Harney County removed from the statute in a way that would strip the county of probate authority without local consent; one commissioner said, "It's gotta be our decision and our decision the people's decision in Harney County," noting major governance changes should not be forced on residents.
Commissioners discussed two routes: asking the legislature to remove Harney County from the statute (potentially quicker) or requesting a statutory amendment that would explicitly allow each county to opt in or out. One commissioner noted prior timing problems when a similar request was made too late in the legislative session and suggested contacting Rep. Owens' office to clarify potential effects and whether legislative staff could draft precise language to save county legal fees.
Rather than vote, the court agreed to postpone the matter, conduct outreach (including to Rep. Owens and the Association of Counties), and present the issue at upcoming district meetings in the fall. A commissioner suggested the item be revisited in August after preliminary outreach and drafting work.
The record contains inconsistent spellings and unclear statute numbering in the transcript; the transcript references "ORS 111" and later a passage that sounded like "ORS 203." The court did not adopt final language or take a formal vote on the resolution during this session.
