The Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) has determined that Lane County Commissioners may have violated public meeting laws in March 2024. This finding stems from the commissioners' handling of executive sessions related to a planned recycling diversion facility, raising questions about transparency and adherence to state regulations.

 

The Alleged Violations

 

The OGEC's investigation focused on two executive sessions held by Lane County Commissioners in March 2024. These sessions, which discussed a proposed recycling diversion facility, came under scrutiny for potentially improper public notice procedures.

 

Executive sessions are meetings where government bodies can exclude the public, typically to discuss sensitive matters such as lawsuits, collective bargaining, or confidential legal issues. While Oregon allows reporters to attend most executive sessions, they are prohibited from publishing the content of these discussions.

 

The core of the alleged violation lies in the commissioners' method of announcing these executive sessions. According to OGEC investigator Daniel Pacheco, the commissioners read the public notice for the executive session at the conclusion of their regular public meeting on the day prior to the executive session. This practice, which involved meeting solely in executive session the following day, was deemed insufficient to comply with Oregon's public meeting statutes.

 

Pacheco stated that doing a read-in at a regular meeting for a future-only executive session is insufficient to comply with the statute. He clarified that while executive-session-only meetings are permissible, the Lane County Commission failed to provide adequate public notice to meet legal requirements.

 

Historical Practice and County Response

 

In response to these allegations, Lane County officials have emphasized that the practice in question was not a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law. Attorney Liani Reeves, representing the county, testified that this was a historical practice that predated some or all the current commissioners. She added that until the recent scrutiny, the county was unaware of any concerns regarding their meeting notification procedures.

 

Lane County Commissioner Heather Buch echoed this sentiment during the hearing, stating that every board member intended to comply with the law. She emphasized that they know they are responsible for those meetings and have taken every chance to change and adjust once this came to their knowledge, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.

 

Upon being notified that their practices might not align with Oregon's open meeting laws, the county promptly altered its procedures. This swift action demonstrates the commissioners' commitment to rectifying the situation and ensuring future compliance.

 

The Complaint and Its Origins

 

The investigation into these potential violations was initiated by a complaint filed by the Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association. This organization has been a vocal opponent of the recycling diversion program, known as CleanLane or IMERF, which was the subject of the executive sessions in question.

 

Jake Pelroy, spokesperson for the association, framed the potential violations as evidence of the county's lack of transparency regarding the CleanLane project. He expressed concern that increased garbage prices resulting from the project would act as a regressive tax.

 

The association's involvement highlights the broader context of this issue, which extends beyond procedural compliance to touch on local environmental and economic policies.

 

Oregon's Public Meetings Law

 

To understand the significance of these alleged violations, it's crucial to examine Oregon's Public Meetings Law (OPML). The OPML is designed to ensure that the decision-making processes of governing bodies are transparent and that the public has access to the information underlying these decisions.

 

The law stipulates various requirements for public meetings, including:

 

1.    Meetings must be open to the public unless an executive session is permitted.

2.    Proper notice must be given for all meetings.

3.    Meeting minutes and votes must be recorded.

4.    The location of meetings must adhere to specific guidelines.

 

Recent changes to the OPML have further emphasized the importance of transparency. As of October 1, 2024, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission completed a rulemaking process that prohibited serial communications among governing body members. This change aims to prevent decision-making outside of public view.

 

Enforcement and Consequences

 

The OGEC's role in enforcing the OPML has been recently expanded. As of October 1, 2024, new administrative rules clarify the requirements for filing written grievances alleging OPML violations. These rules establish a structured process for addressing potential infractions:

 

1.    A written grievance must be submitted to the public body.

2.    The grievance must be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation.

3.    The public body has 21 days to respond to the complainant.

 

In the case of Lane County, the OGEC voted to investigate the matter and plans to provide the county with a letter of advice. This approach suggests that the commission views the violations as unintentional and correctable, rather than requiring more severe punitive measures.

 

Implications for Local Governance

 

The situation in Lane County highlights the challenges local governments face in balancing efficiency with transparency. While the commissioners argue that their practices were longstanding and unintentional, the incident underscores the need for vigilance in adhering to public meeting laws.

 

This case may prompt other local governments in Oregon to review their own practices regarding executive sessions and public notifications. It serves as a reminder that even well-established procedures should be periodically evaluated to ensure compliance with current laws and regulations.

 

Moreover, the involvement of the Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association in filing the complaint demonstrates how public meeting laws can be leveraged by interest groups to challenge government decisions. This aspect of the case illustrates the role these laws play in maintaining checks and balances in local governance.

 

The Broader Context: The CleanLane Project

 

The executive sessions at the center of this controversy were related to the CleanLane project, a recycling diversion program that has been a source of contention in Lane County. The Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association's opposition to this project adds a layer of complexity to the public meetings issue.

 

The association's concerns about potential increases in garbage prices highlight how decisions made in executive sessions can have significant impacts on local communities. This underscores the importance of transparency in government decision-making, particularly when it comes to projects that affect public services and costs.

 

Looking Forward

 

As Lane County adjusts its practices to ensure compliance with public meeting laws, this incident may serve as a catalyst for broader discussions about transparency in local government. It raises questions about how to balance the need for confidentiality in certain matters with the public's right to be informed about government operations.

 

The OGEC's ongoing investigation and forthcoming letter of advice will likely provide guidance not only to Lane County but to other local governments in Oregon. This could lead to more standardized practices for notifying the public about executive sessions and ensuring that all aspects of government meetings comply with state law.

 

Projected Resolution

 

The resolution of this issue is expected to unfold in several stages. First, the OGEC will complete its investigation and issue a formal letter of advice to Lane County. This letter will likely outline specific recommendations for improving compliance with public meeting laws. Lane County officials have already expressed their willingness to implement necessary changes, so it's anticipated that they will swiftly adopt new procedures in line with the OGEC's guidance. This may include revising their methods for announcing executive sessions, ensuring proper documentation of meeting notices, and potentially providing additional training for commissioners and staff on public meeting law requirements. The county may also implement a review process to periodically assess their compliance with these laws. As for potential consequences, given the commissioners' apparent lack of intentional wrongdoing and their proactive response, it's unlikely that they will face significant penalties. Instead, this incident will likely serve as a learning opportunity for Lane County and other local governments in Oregon, potentially leading to more robust and transparent public meeting practices across the state.

 

Conclusion

 

The potential violations of public meeting laws by Lane County Commissioners serve as a reminder of the complexities involved in local governance. While the commissioners maintain that any violations were unintentional, the incident highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing efficient governance with transparency and public accountability.

 

As Oregon continues to refine its public meetings laws and enforcement procedures, local governments must remain vigilant in their compliance efforts. The Lane County case demonstrates that even long-standing practices can come under scrutiny and may need to be adjusted to meet evolving legal standards.

 

Ultimately, this situation underscores the fundamental principle that government business should be conducted openly, with the public fully informed of deliberations and decision-making processes. As Lane County moves forward, its response to this incident will be closely watched, potentially setting a precedent for how other local governments in Oregon approach similar challenges in the future.