Really irritating that Oregon legislature may weaken public meetings law that Mayor Hoy violated

I’m a proud Democrat, but I’m not shy about criticizing my political party when it does something stupid. Like, being on the verge of passing a bill in the current short session of the Oregon legislature that markedly weakens a prohibition on “serial communications” — which basically means a governmental body, like the Salem city council, deliberating secretly rather than in a public meeting open to the citizenry.

Salem Mayor Julie Hoy was the ringleader of a scheme to use serial communications (individual conversations with members of the city council) so Hoy could force Keith Stahley, the city manager back in February 2025, to resign by telling him a lie concocted by Hoy: that a majority of the city council wanted him gone.

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission investigated complaints against Hoy filed by me and another person. The conclusion was that Mayor Hoy instigated the prohibited serial communications with members of the city council, who were also found to have violated the public meetings law, albeit unwittingly.

So the process worked. A couple of citizens filed complaints with the Ethics Commission about a violation of public meetings law. A thorough investigation took place. Letters of education will be sent to Hoy and the city councilors she drew into her get-rid-of-Stahley scheme. End of story. Except…

An attempt to weaken the ban on serial communications, HB 4177,  is making its way through the Oregon legislature. It’s really irritating that Democrats, who have large majorities in both the House and Senate, want to make it easier for local politicians (like members of the Salem city council) to be able to conduct public business outside of the public eye.

A story by Betsy Hammond  in the Portland Oregonian, “Lawmakers acknowledge law may undermine transparency, pass it,” says:

A bill to update and clarify Oregon’s public meeting law, while important and almost certain to pass, may need to be adjusted down the line because deep concerns raised by journalists may be legitimate, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman signaled Thursday.

Two other lawmakers, one a Democrat and one a Republican, said largely the same thing before voting to advance House Bill 4177. The bill, which journalists and the state’s government ethics chief warned could lead to secret meetings of local governments, got unanimous support from the House Rules Committee.

But it could be subject to future redos, three lawmakers said ahead of their vote.

“A lot of us heard … the concerns of some of our local journalism partners, and I want to flag that those are legitimate and serious,” said Rep. Dacia Grayber, a Portland Democrat.

Rep. Kim Wallan, a Republican from Medford who served on the work group that crafted the bill, echoed that. “I absolutely agree that if it turns out we did it wrong … we may have to come back.”

The bill was drafted in response to concerns from cities, counties, school boards and other local governments about a 2023 change to the state’s open meetings law. That update was designed to clarify that public officials can’t skirt requirements to discuss public business in public by holding serial conversations or sending serial texts that reach a quorum of the council, board or commission.

Wow. Legislators admit that House Bill 4177 is flawed and may have to be revised, but what the heck, we’re going to vote for it anyway because we like the idea of conducting the public’s business in secret. Laura Gunderson, the editor of the Oregonian, wrote a scathing editorial, “The cure for confusion about open meeting laws isn’t more secrecy.” Excerpt:

The problem is the bill could make it even harder to know when possible violations are occurring.

Susan Myers, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, also served on the work group and testified last week against the bill, saying it “gives me heartburn.”

She and other opponents say the bill should be revised — with more public input — and brought back during next year’s longer legislative session.

Myers’ agency already follows up on complaints that public agencies may have violated public meeting laws when holding closed “executive sessions,” which provide time for officials to discuss specific, usually sensitive issues.

Existing law requires public bodies to post notice that they’re holding an executive session. They also must provide a general description of why they’re meeting and take notes or record the proceedings. Journalists are allowed to listen but not report what they hear, as a form of checks and balances.

Those protections make clear public officials can have certain discussions in non-public settings. And they ensure a record for the commission to review if someone suspects a public meeting violation occurred.

That won’t be the case if HB 4177 passes and allows public business to be discussed behind closed doors. And, while lawmakers seem content to wait and see if it works, a lot of the public’s business could be done in the coming year with no notice, no minutes and no way to check for violations. That gives me heartburn.

Since it looks like Oregon legislators are determined to weaken the public meetings law, I’m hoping that Governor Kotek will do what’s right and veto House Bill 4177. Believe me, there is nothing wrong with the current ban on serial communications. I had no problem understanding this law and associated regulations.

Unfortunately, some public officials in Salem and elsewhere falsely claimed that the law didn’t allow city councilors to talk with their constituents, or with each other, which is complete and utter B.S. If anyone was confused by the ban on serial communications, they simply needed to read the guidance provided by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission and use their common sense.

Sadly, common sense often is lacking among politicians these days. I wish the Oregon legislature was an exception, but clearly it isn’t.