Chapter 192

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Attorney General’s Public Meetings and Records Manual, (1973) Vol 36, p 543; public meetings and records manual, (1976) Vol 37, p 1087; prohibition on disclosing marriage records, (1998) Vol 49, p 21

192.005

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Public Welfare Division records showing cost of medical services to welfare recipients as public records, (1972) Vol 35, p 1143

192.060

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In this section, the words “shall be deemed” are interpreted as “shall be considered” or “shall have the same effect as,” and county clerk is not required to alter recording system so as to assign specific “book or volume” number to each roll of microfilm. Bauer v. Poppen, 13 Or App 474, 510 P2d 1346 (1973)

192.311 to 192.478

(formerly 192.410 to 192.505)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Failure of legislature to include reference to courts and court records such as those particularly named in ORS 192.005 tells against application of these sections to courts. State ex rel KOIN-TV v. Olsen, 300 Or 392, 711 P2d 966 (1985)

School district’s blanket policy exempting public records from disclosure without individualized showing, violates public records law and is therefore unenforceable. Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School Dist., 310 Or 32, 791 P2d 854 (1990)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Financial statements of hospitals as public records, (1974) Vol 36, p 893; criminal records subject to Public Records Law, (1974) Vol 37, p 126; power of county to refuse the right to copy maps, which are public records, with an individual’s own equipment and to refuse to supply magnetic tape containing public records, (1979) Vol 39, p 721; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool is fundamentally private-sector body, under virtually total private control, created by state to fulfill public purpose and is not state agency or public body subject to Public Records Law, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; applicability to prison work program records, (1996) Vol 48, p 134; disclosure of personal information obtained from motor vehicle records, (1998) Vol 49, p 127

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 354-363 (1974); 55 OLR 354-359 (1976); 56 OLR 387 (1977)

192.311

(formerly 192.410)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Oregon State Bar is state agency for purpose of Public Records Act and must submit challenged records to Attorney General for review and determination. State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 91 Or App 690, 756 P2d 689 (1988), aff’d 307 Or 304, 767 P2d 893 (1989)

Oregon State Bar is state agency under subsection (2) of this section and Attorney General is thus proper person to receive and review petitions for production of bar’s records. State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 307 Or 304, 767 P2d 893 (1989)

Where public body’s only basis for claiming records are exempt from disclosure as confidential is contract whereby it agreed to keep them confidential, it did not make other required showings under [former] ORS 192.502 for exception. AA Ambulance Co., Inc. v. Multnomah County, 102 Or App 398, 794 P2d 813 (1990)

Factors relevant to whether entity is “public body” are origin, nature of function, scope of authority, nature and level of government financing, nature and scope of government control and status of entity officers and employees. Marks v. McKenzie High School Fact-Finding Team, 319 Or 451, 878 P2d 417 (1994)

Whether entity is government agency or department is governed by same factors used to identify public bodies. Laine v. City of Rockaway Beach, 134 Or App 655, 896 P2d 1219 (1995)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Information concerning allegations of unfair labor practices of public record, (1976) Vol 38, p 467

192.314

(formerly 192.420)

See also annotations under ORS 192.010 and 240.120 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

This statute creates right of access to public records that is not dependent on the requestor’s need or motivation; a public body may not refuse to produce records subject to inspection under this section just because requestor already possesses them; and plaintiff’s possession of the records does not justify trial court’s refusal to declare the records public and subject to disclosure. Smith v. School District No. 45, 63 Or App 685, 666 P2d 1345 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

The public interest in disclosure of public records was not satisfied by “disclosure” of summarizing document, regardless of whether summary satisfied individual need of requesting party. Coos County v. Ore. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 86 Or App 168, 739 P2d 47 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Public body was not required to disclose protected health information contained in tort claim notices because unauthorized disclosure of protected health information is prohibited under public records law. Or. Health & Sci. Univ. v. Oregonian Publ. Co., LLC, 362 Or 68, 403 P3d 732 (2017)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Background materials concerning agenda matters for city and county governing bodies as public records, (1978) Vol 38, p 1761

192.318

(formerly 192.430)

See also annotations under ORS 192.030 to 192.430 and 240.120 in permanent edition.

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Public Welfare Division records showing cost of medical services to welfare recipients as public records, (1972) Vol 35, p 1143

192.324

(formerly 192.440)

See also annotations under ORS 192.020 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Although fees charged by public body to provide edited copies of public records were authorized by city ordinance, public body failed to carry its burden under this provision to show that fees charged were reasonably related to its actual costs, when it provided no evidence to determine its actual costs. Davis v. Walker, 108 Or App 128, 814 P2d 547 (1991)

Public body could not require payment of copying fee where records were not made available for examination without copying. U.S. v. Van Horn, 156 FRD 231 (D. Or. 1994)

Public body’s decision whether to grant or deny fee waiver or reduction must be objectively reasonable under totality of circumstances. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Home-rule county may not charge fee in excess of actual cost incurred in making public record available, (1979) Vol 39, p 721

192.345

(formerly 192.501)

See also annotations under ORS 721.050 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 192.500)

Records of criminal law investigations are generally available for public inspection when the criminal law purpose has ended. Jensen v. Schiffman, 24 Or App 11, 544 P2d 1048 (1976)

The Public Records Law is constitutional. Sadler v. Ore. State Bar, 275 Or 279, 550 P2d 1218 (1976)

Bar disciplinary records are not exempt from disclosure. Sadler v. Ore. State Bar, 275 Or 279, 550 P2d 1218 (1976)

Revenue Department’s subpoena of corporate records and information concerning machinery used by taxpayer in making cement pipe was properly enforced even though exemption of such business records from disclosure might not be sufficient to protect taxpayer’s interest in secrecy. Eola Concrete Tile & Products Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 288 Or 241, 603 P2d 1181 (1979)

Roster of names of substitute teachers in school district was not information “of a personal nature” or information “submitted to a public body in confidence” so as to exempt school district from disclosing it. Morrison v. School District No. 48, 53 Or App 148, 631 P2d 784 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Names and addresses of employers against whom open unlawful employment practice complaints have been filed are not exempt from public disclosure as “investigatory information” relating to complaint. Pace Consultants v. Roberts, 297 Or 590, 687 P2d 779 (1984)

Social security numbers of government employes are not “public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulations....” AFSCME v. City of Albany, 81 Or App 231, 725 P2d 381 (1986)

Any “chilling effect” that disclosure of documents may have on future communications within agency, because of potential embarrassment to agency or its employes, is not sufficient to overcome presumption favoring disclosure. Coos County v. Ore. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 86 Or App 168, 739 P2d 47 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

In general

Exemption for materials or documents supporting personnel discipline action does not apply where investigation of complaint does not result in disciplinary action. City of Portland v. Rice, 94 Or App 292, 765 P2d 228 (1988), aff’d 308 Or 118, 775 P2d 1371 (1989); City of Portland v. Anderson, 163 Or App 550, 988 P2d 402 (1999)

Where plaintiff brought civil rights action against police chief and police officers to recover for use of excessive force during arrest and moved to compel discovery, documents about psychological or psychiatric referral, evaluation or treatment of police officers for past incidents of violence or arrest were not privileged. Mueller v. Walker, 124 FRD 654 (D. Or. 1989)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 192.500)

Release of patient’s confidential case records, (1974) Vol 36, p 1080; change of names in public records, (1977) Vol 38, p 945; release of materials to prisoners with respect to parole hearings, (1978) Vol 38, p 1881; Personal information of public library records as exempt from Public Records Law, (1981) Vol 41, p 435; Routine job performance evaluation material concerning local school district superintendent as within personal information exemption of Public Records Law, (1981) Vol 41, p 437; Executive sessions of Oregon Investment Council, (1982) Vol. 42, p 392

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 192.500)

53 OLR 362, 363 (1974)

192.355

(formerly 192.502)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where vehicle registrant asked Motor Vehicles Division not to reveal address to public and took other steps to assure privacy, she brought address within “information of personal nature” proviso of this section. Jordan v. MVD, 93 Or App 651, 763 P2d 420 (1988), aff’d 308 Or 433, 781 P2d 1203 (1989)

Where public body’s only basis for claiming records are exempt from disclosure as confidential is contract whereby it agreed to keep them confidential, it did not make other required showings under this section for exception. AA Ambulance Co., Inc. v. Multnomah County, 102 Or App 398, 794 P2d 813 (1990)

Five-part test for determining whether information supplied to agency in confidence is exempt from disclosure is whether: 1) information was submitted voluntarily; 2) agency can show that nature of information is such that information should be kept confidential; 3) agency has undertaken good faith obligation to maintain confidentiality; 4) disclosure might harm public interest; and 5) information was actually submitted in confidence. Gray v. Salem-Keizer School District, 139 Or App 556, 912 P2d 938 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Conditional prohibition on public disclosure of personnel files does not exempt files from discovery under federal rules. Brown v. State of Oregon, Dept. of Corrections, 173 FRD 262 (D. Or. 1997)

Option of invoking or waiving confidentiality of personnel record belongs to agency possessing record, not to individual who is subject of record. Oregonian Publishing v. Portland School District No. 1J, 152 Or App 135, 952 P2d 66 (1998), aff’d on other grounds, 329 Or 393, 987 P2d 480 (1999)

Investigatory report that is not specific to employment of individual employee is not part of personnel file and therefore is subject to disclosure. Oregonian Publishing v. Portland School District No. 1J, 329 Or 393, 987 P2d 480 (1999)

Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting violation of Oregon Safe Employment Act (ORS 654.001 to 654.295) is subject to disclosure depends on complainant’s good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)

Requirement for showing that public interest weighs against disclosure in “particular instance” prevents categorical disclosure exemption for advisory communications within public body or between public bodies. Kluge v. Oregon State Bar, 172 Or App 452, 19 P3d 938 (2001)

Oregon Health and Science University records or information is “not customarily provided to business competitors” if not ordinarily provided to business competitors of university or of its business partners. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)

Where plaintiff pharmaceutical company and defendant entered into confidentiality agreements, defendant is limited only from disclosing product that plaintiff itself produced and not contractually obligated to protect its own work product under public records request, even if defendant’s work product includes some of plaintiff’s work product. Pfizer Inc. v. Department of Justice, 254 Or App 144, 294 P3d 496 (2012)

When read together with [former] ORS 192.505, this section exempts from disclosure only information in contract between municipal utility and biomass energy producer for purchase of biomass-generated energy that is sensitive business, commercial or financial information and disclosure of information would cause competitive disadvantage for municipal utility or retail electricity customers, but does not exempt from disclosure entire contract. Brown v. Guard Publishing Company, 267 Or App 552, 341 P3d 145 (2014)

Although attorney-client privileged documents that also are public records are generally exempt from disclosure, such documents older than 25 years are required to be disclosed. City of Portland v. Bartlett, 304 Or App 580, 468 P3d 980 (2020), Sup Ct review allowed

Bill-drafting-request communications made between state agencies and Legislative Counsel before and during bill-drafting process are exempt from disclosure under lawyer-client privilege. Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services, 314 Or App 253, 498 P3d 830 (2021), Sup Ct review allowed

192.390

NOTES OF DECISIONS

192.401

(formerly 192.450 (4) to (7))

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 363, 364 (1974)

192.410 to 192.505

See annotations under ORS 192.311 to 192.478.

192.410

See annotations under ORS 192.311.

192.411

(formerly 192.450 (1) to (3))

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where party petitions Attorney General for review before agency has taken action on request for records production, party fails to satisfy prerequisite for circuit court review. Morse Bros., Inc. v. ODED, 103 Or App 619, 798 P2d 719 (1990)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 363, 364 (1974)

192.415

(formerly 192.460)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 363, 364 (1974)

192.420

See annotations under ORS 192.314.

192.422

(formerly 192.470)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where public body fails to transmit public record to Attorney General or district attorney, public body necessarily fails to meet burden to sustain actions but does not forfeit right to institute or defend court action for relief. Klamath County School District v. Teamey, 207 Or App 250, 140 P3d 1152 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

192.427

(formerly 192.480)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 365 (1974)

192.430

See annotations under ORS 192.318.

192.431

(formerly 192.490)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where plaintiff obtained alternative writ of mandamus compelling defendants to produce public documents district attorney had ordered defendants to disclose under Public Records Law, plaintiff was not entitled to costs, disbursements or attorney fees because mandamus under ORS 34.110 is not proceeding for injunctive or declaratory relief under this section. State ex rel Oregon Television, Inc. v. Prophet, 97 Or App 525, 776 P2d 592 (1989)

This section does not support award of attorney fees against private party that intervened to defend public body’s refusal to disclose record. Western Communications, Inc. v. Deschutes County, 100 Or App 706, 788 P2d 1013 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Where plaintiff publishing company prevailed in suit by establishing that school district’s policy exempting public records from disclosure is unenforceable, plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal. Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School Dist., 310 Or 32, 791 P2d 854 (1990)

When, instead of complying with procedures stated in this provision for either complying with or challenging order to disclose public records, public body filed petition for review of case raising some of same issues in present case, trial court erred in denying attorney fees to plaintiff. Davis v. Walker, 108 Or App 128, 814 P2d 547 (1991)

Good faith of party failing to comply with Attorney General order is irrelevant to award of attorney fees and costs. Gray v. Salem-Keizer School District, 139 Or App 556, 912 P2d 938 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Failure of public body to provide Attorney General or district attorney with statement of reasons for believing public record should not be disclosed does not prevent public body from asserting disclosure exemption in action for declaratory or injunctive relief. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)

Circuit court has authority to review reasonableness of public body fees. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)

Failure to comply with Attorney General’s order “in full” refers only to noncompliance with Attorney General’s order to disclose record to petitioner under [former] ORS 192.450. Klamath County School District v. Teamey, 207 Or App 250, 140 P3d 1152 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

“Attorney fees” means reasonable value of services performed by attorney, including services performed by attorney who acted pro se. Colby v. Gunson, 349 Or 1, 238 P3d 374 (2010)

Where public body did not possess or control public records at time of receipt of public records request, public body did not “improperly withhold” requested records. Upham v. Forster, 316 Or App 357, 504 P3d 654 (2021)

192.440

See annotations under ORS 192.324.

192.450

See annotations under ORS 192.401 and 192.411.

192.460

See annotations under ORS 192.415.

192.470

See annotations under ORS 192.422.

192.480

See annotations under ORS 192.427.

192.490

See annotations under ORS 192.431.

192.500

NOTE: Repealed September 27, 1987; ORS 192.338, 192.345 and 192.355 (formerly 192.501, 192.502 and 192.505) enacted in lieu

See annotations under ORS 192.345 and 192.355.

192.501

See annotations under ORS 192.345.

192.502

See annotations under ORS 192.355.

192.520

See annotations under ORS 192.558.

192.555

See annotations under ORS 192.586.

192.556

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Definitions of “individually identifiable health information” and “protected health information” in this section are substantively comparable to definitions of “individually identifiable health information” and “protected health information” under federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Or. Health & Sci. Univ. v. Oregonian Publ. Co., LLC, 362 Or 68, 403 P3d 732 (2017)

192.558

(formerly 192.520)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 192.525)

Defendant hospital’s duty of confidentiality did not extend beyond patient to patient’s family where facts disclosed did not concern family and did not arise out of any family involvement in patient’s treatment. Doe v. Portland Health Centers, Inc., 99 Or App 423, 782 P2d 446 (1989)

192.586

(formerly 192.555)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

District court did not err in denying defendant opportunity to establish that state officials seized financial records used against him at trial in violation of Oregon law as evidence seized in compliance with federal law is admissible without regard to state law. U.S. v. Chavez-Vernaza, 844 F2d 1368 (1987)

Financial institution must reach suspicion of violation of law independently for exemption related to suspected violation to apply. State v. Bobbitt, 249 Or App 181, 275 P3d 187 (2012)

192.590

See annotations under ORS 192.606.

192.606

(formerly 192.590)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Provision making evidence obtained without following prescribed procedures inadmissible is not superseded by ORS 136.432. State v. Thompson-Seed, 162 Or App 483, 986 P2d 732 (1999)

192.610 to 192.690

NOTES OF DECISIONS

A retained labor negotiator is neither a member of a public body nor a governing body, and ORS 192.610 to 192.690 therefore have no applicability to negotiations conducted by a retained negotiator. Southwestern Oregon Publishing Co. v. Southwestern Oregon Community College Dist., 28 Or App 383, 559 P2d 1289 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Secret ballot under “Public Meeting Law,” (1974) Vol 37, p 183; quality of openness in public meetings of public governing bodies, (1976) Vol 38, p 50; information-gathering sessions as public meetings, (1977) Vol 38, p 1471; Home-rule cities and counties as subject to Public Meetings Law, (1980) Vol 41, p 28; Deliberation of Land Use Board of Appeals following hearings as subject to Public Meetings Law, (1980) Vol 41, p 218; Application of Public Meeting Law to meeting of Multnomah County Committee for Indigent Defense Certification, (1981) Vol 41, p 417; Discussion of salaries of public body in executive session, (1982) Vol. 42, p 362; Student government committees recommending fee assessments and allocations as subject to Public Meetings Law, (1984) Vol 44, p 69; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool is fundamentally private-sector body, under virtually total private control, created by state to fulfill public purpose and is not state agency or public corporation subject to Public Meetings Law, (1989) Vol 46, p 155

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 339-354 (1974); 55 OLR 519-536 (1976)

192.610

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: City council as “governing body,” (1979) Vol. 39, p 525; county court deliberations on subdivision permit appeal and annexation to translator district, (1980) Vol 40, p 388; application to workshop session of board of special district, (1980) Vol 40, p 458; panel appointed by Governors of Oregon and Washington to assess Washington Public Power Supply System options as subject to Public Meetings Law, (1981) Vol. 42, p 187

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 345, 346, 348, 349, 351 (1974); 58 OLR 521 (1980)

192.620

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The absolute privilege afforded to members of legislative bodies in the course of their duties extends to all public bodies to which the state has extended legislative powers. Noble v. Ternyik, 273 Or 39, 539 P2d 658 (1975); Adamson v. Bonesteele, 58 Or App 463, 648 P2d 1352 (1982), aff’d 295 Or 815, 671 P2d 693 (1983)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Secret ballot under “Public Meeting Law,” (1974) Vol 37, p 183; preemption of city charter provision requiring secret vote, (1979) Vol 39, p 525

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 339, 340, 352 (1974)

192.630

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Agency may not deny licensee public hearing on proposed disciplinary action. Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311, 624 P2d 125 (1981), as modified by 51 Or App 773, 627 P2d 25 (1981)

This section does not prevent collective bargaining agreement previously reached through negotiations from being enforceable against employer. South Benton Ed. Assn. v. Monroe Union High, 83 Or App 425, 732 P2d 58 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Where evidence showed only that quorum of public body gathered in private for social purposes and no evidence showed that any decisions or deliberations toward decisions occurred at those gatherings trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought under this section and ORS 192.650. Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19, 771 P2d 637 (1989)

Entity making recommendations to individual officer of public body is not making recommendation to “public body.” Independent Contractors Research Institute v. Department of Administrative Services, 207 Or App 78, 139 P3d 995 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Prohibition that quorum of governing body not “meet” in private for purpose of deliberation may apply to deliberation other than “meeting.” TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 362 Or 484, 412 P3d 162 (2018)

Quorum is concept applying to every organized public body. TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 362 Or 484, 412 P3d 162 (2018)

Requirement that all persons be permitted to attend meetings of governing body of public body does not prevent governing body from removing persons from meeting for purpose of maintaining order at meeting. State v. Seidel, 294 Or App 389, 432 P3d 304 (2018), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Application of section to Tri Agency Dog Control Authority, (1977) Vol 38, p 1584

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 345, 349 (1974)

192.640

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Notice which apprised petitioners of actual location of property and of nature of action under consideration was sufficient and petitioners suffered no prejudice because notice was posted nine rather than ten days before hearing. Turner v. Washington County, 70 Or App 575, 689 P2d 1318 (1984)

No emergency existed which would allow advancement of nonemergency meeting to earlier time to allow instead consideration of separate emergency matter at time initially noticed for nonemergency meeting, and “emergency” could not be predicated solely on convenience or inconvenience of members of the governing body. Oreg. Assoc. of Classified Emp. v. Salem-Keizer, 95 Or App 28, 767 P2d 1365 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

192.650

NOTES OF DECISIONS

This section does not purport to require or authorize public officials to make statements outside of public proceedings or to extend an absolute privilege to officials who choose to do so. Adamson v. Bonesteele, 58 Or App 463, 648 P2d 1352 (1982), aff’d295 Or 815, 671 P2d 693 (1983)

This statute does not create a duty of public official to speak to the public through the press. Adamson v. Bonesteele, 295 Or 815, 671 P2d 693 (1983)

Where evidence showed only that quorum of public body gathered in private for social purposes and no evidence showed that any decisions or deliberations toward decisions occurred at those gatherings, trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought under this section and ORS 192.630. Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19, 771 P2d 637 (1989)

This section requires that minutes of executive sessions be kept for reasonable time, and one year is reasonable. Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19, 771 P2d 637 (1989)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Recording and making available to public all votes of “governing bodies,” (1979) Vol 39, p 525

192.660

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Members of news media have no statutory right to attend executive sessions held pursuant to this statute for purpose of discussing labor negotiations; city council’s decision to exclude plaintiff, member of one of unions with which it was carrying on labor negotiations, and not other representatives of news media was purely matter of discretion. Barker v. City of Portland, 67 Or App 23, 676 P2d 1391 (1984)

Where representatives of employer and employees conducted labor negotiations, this section applies to negotiations only if negotiations are conducted in “meeting” under Public Meetings Law. TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 276 Or App 513, 368 P3d 50 (2016), aff’d 362 Or 484, 412 P3d 162 (2018)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Constitutionality of nondisclosure requirement with respect to information obtained by newsmen during executive session, (1978) Vol 38, p 2122; executive session of board of education to consider personnel evaluation of community college president, (1979) Vol 39, p 480; high school newspaper reporter attendance at executive session of school board, (1979) Vol 39, p 600; constitutionality of section under Oregon and United States Constitutions, (1979) Vol 39, p 703; city council executive session to conduct performance evaluation of city manager, (1980) Vol 41, p 262; inability to take disciplinary vote in executive session, (1998) Vol 49, p 32; clarifies meaning of “representatives of news media” and related terms identifying members of news media organization allowed to attend executive sessions of governing bodies, (2016) No. 8291

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 58 OLR 521 (1980)

192.680

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where reversal would have the effect of voiding the decision, there was no difference between “reverse” and “void.” Egge v. Lane County, 21 Or App 520, 535 P2d 773 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Plaintiffs who alleged that they were residents and employes of defendant school district have standing to bring action under Public Meetings Law. Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19, 771 P2d 637 (1989)

Members of student organization having goal to educate public about animal exploitation had standing to seek judicial review of alleged violations of Public Meetings Law by university committee taking actions concerning treatment of research animals. Students for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 113 Or App 523, 833 P2d 337 (1992)

192.690

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Exemption from Open Meetings Act for “deliberations” of Board of Parole does not apply to information-gathering portions of Board’s meetings. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. Board of Parole, 95 Or App 501, 769 P2d 795 (1989)

Board of Medical Examiners did not wrongly exclude petitioner and his attorney from its deliberations because this section specifically excludes “deliberations ... of state agencies conducting hearings on contested cases.” McKay v. Board of Medical Examiners, 100 Or App 685, 788 P2d 476 (1990)

192.990

NOTE: Repealed as of May 26, 2015

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 4 EL 454, 455 (1974)