Chapter 244
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Statutory scheme of this chapter is not unconstitutionally vague. Davidson v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 300 Or 415, 712 P2d 87 (1985)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Simultaneous membership in church and local governing body as constituting potential conflict of interest, (1981) Vol 41, p 490; contractors that perform services for government as “public officials” subject to ethics law, (1990) Vol 46, p 350
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 19 WLR 701 (1983)
244.010
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Common law doctrine of incompatibility (i.e. that certain offices are inherently inconsistent or in conflict with one another) does not apply under this section to election of school district employe as member of district board because that doctrine is judicial and does not purport to modify legislature’s power to establish qualifications of public officers and employes. Columbia County Sch. Dist. 5 v. Prichard, 36 Or App 643, 585 P2d 701 (1978)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Public body employe serving as board member of same body, (1977) Vol 38, p 1441; Applicability of Oregon Government Ethics Law to contractors that perform services for government, (1990) Vol 46, p 350
244.020
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where banking firm paid expenses of public officials, their spouses and persons who were not public officials, there was “gift” as defined in this section because persons who were not public officials were associated with city project and “others” does not mean persons associated in that manner. Keller v. Oregon Government Ethics Comm., 106 Or App 727, 809 P2d 721 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Applicability of Oregon Government Ethics Law to contractors that perform services for government, (1990) Vol 46, p 350
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 399 (2007)
244.025
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Restriction on receipt of gifts does not violate Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 347 Or 449, 222 P3d 1077 (2009)
Restrictions on offering gifts impermissibly violate Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution and are void. Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 347 Or 449, 222 P3d 1077 (2009)
244.040
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Prohibition against public official using position for financial gain is not unconstitutionally vague because official uncertain whether conduct is prohibited may obtain advisory opinion under ORS 244.280. Groener v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 59 Or App 459, 651 P2d 736 (1982)
Law enjoining one not to “use” official position to obtain financial gain is not unconstitutionally vague. Davidson v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 300 Or 415, 712 P2d 87 (1985)
Where public official purchased automobile as “add on” to State Accident Insurance Fund purchase of fleet of cars and received discount not available to average buyer, official violated prohibition of this section against using public office for financial gain. Davidson v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 300 Or 415, 712 P2d 87 (1985)
In prohibition against public official using or attempting to use official office or position, phrase “would not otherwise be available” modifies “financial gain or avoidance of financial detriment.” Buntyn v. Government Standards and Practices Commission, 186 Or App 351, 63 P3d 37 (2003)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Purchase of surplus state property by state employes as conflict of interest, (1977) Vol 38, p 1401; committee establishing fund to defray expenses of elected official incurred in performing political functions of office, (1980) Vol 40, p 11; Applicability of Oregon Government Ethics Law to contractors that perform services for government, (1990) Vol 46, p 350
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 399 (2007)
244.042
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Restriction on receipt of honoraria does not violate Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 347 Or 449, 222 P3d 1077 (2009)
244.060
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 399 (2007)
244.070
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Confidentiality of identity of client for whom attorney performed service for fee in excess of $1,000 where Government Ethics Commission requests such information to investigate alleged violation of ethics laws, (1981) Vol 42, p 66
244.120
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where two of five county commissioners disqualified themselves because of previous involvement with matter in different capacities, their interests did not require abstention from quasi-judicial action on application for comprehensive plan change. Eastgate Theater v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 37 Or App 745, 588 P2d 640 (1978)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Avoiding disclosure requirements by abstention from voting, (1978) Vol 38, p 1995; discipline of legislator for failure to declare conflict of interest, (1999) Vol 49, p 167
244.130
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Policy of this section does not require members of quasi-judicial bodies, whose positions combine lawmaking with administration that is sometimes executive and sometimes adjudicative, to maintain strict “appearance of impartiality” required of formal judicial bodies, nor does due process requirement of 14th amendment go so far as to disqualify member’s vote solely because of failure to disclose business dealings with proponents of election where there is no indication of actual bias. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 742 P2d 39 (1987)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Avoiding disclosure requirements by abstention from voting, (1978) Vol 38, p 1995
244.260
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where Commission determined that it was unnecessary to make formal investigation of citizen’s charges against public official, contested case provisions of Administrative Procedures Act never became applicable. Fadeley v. Ethics Commission, 30 Or App 795, 568 P2d 687 (1977)
Cause to believe that violation may have occurred is lesser standard than probable cause. Brian v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 126 Or App 358, 868 P2d 1359 (1994), aff’d 320 Or 676, 891 P2d 649 (1995)
Commission authority to investigate and punish violations by public officials applies to former officials for acts committed while in office. Moine v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 128 Or App 681, 877 P2d 96 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 399 (2007)
244.280
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Commission was not required to issue advisory opinion requested by public official where that official’s inquiry related not to his own conduct but to the conduct of another public official. Fadeley v. Ethics Commission, 30 Or App 795, 568 P2d 687 (1977)
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 399 (2007)