2015 ORS 183.502¹
Authority of agencies to use alternative means of dispute resolution
  • model rules
  • amendment of agreements and forms
  • agency alternative dispute resolution programs

(1) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, agencies may use alternative means of dispute resolution in rulemaking proceedings, contested case proceedings, judicial proceedings in which the agency is a party, and any other decision-making process in which conflicts may arise. The alternative means of dispute resolution may be arbitration, mediation or any other collaborative problem-solving process designed to encourage parties to work together to develop mutually agreeable solutions to disputes. Use of alternative means of dispute resolution by an agency does not affect the application of ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) to 192.505 (Exempt and nonexempt public record to be separated) to the agency, or the application of ORS 192.610 (Definitions for ORS 192.610 to 192.690) to 192.690 (Exceptions to ORS 192.610 to 192.690) to the agency.

(2) An agency that elects to utilize alternative means of dispute resolution shall inform and may consult with the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, the Department of Justice and the Oregon Department of Administrative Services in developing a policy or program for implementation of alternative means of dispute resolution.

(3) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government and the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, may develop for agencies model rules for the implementation of alternative means of dispute resolution. An agency may adopt all or part of the model rules by reference without complying with the rulemaking procedures of ORS 183.325 (Delegation of rulemaking authority to named officer or employee) to 183.410 (Agency determination of applicability of rule or statute to petitioner). Notice of the adoption of all or part of the model rules must be filed by the agency with the Secretary of State in the manner provided by ORS 183.355 (Filing and taking effect of rules) for the filing of rules.

(4) When an agency reviews the standard agreements, forms for contracts and forms for applying for grants or other assistance used by the agency, the agency shall determine whether the agreements and forms should be amended to authorize and encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution in disputes that arise under the agreement, contract or application.

(5) The Department of Justice, the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services and the Governor shall collaborate to increase the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve disputes involving the State of Oregon by:

(a) Assisting agencies to develop a policy for alternative means of dispute resolution;

(b) Assisting agencies to develop or expand flexible and diverse agency programs that provide alternative means of dispute resolution; and

(c) Providing assistance in the efficient and effective selection of mediators or facilitators.

(6)(a) The Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Justice shall work cooperatively in designing the program under ORS 36.179 (Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution services for public bodies) that is intended to provide services to, apply to or involve any state agency.

(b) The Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Justice shall enter into an interagency agreement that includes, but is not limited to, provisions on appropriate roles, reporting requirements and coordination of services provided to state agencies by the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government pursuant to ORS 36.179 (Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution services for public bodies).

(c) Before providing dispute resolution services in a specific matter to a state agency under ORS 36.179 (Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution services for public bodies), the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government shall notify the Department of Justice of any proposal to provide such services.

(7) Agencies with alternative dispute resolution programs shall seek to identify cases appropriate for mediation and other means of alternative dispute resolution and to design systems and procedures to resolve those cases.

(8) The purpose of the agency alternative dispute resolution programs is to:

(a) Increase agency efficiency;

(b) Increase public and agency satisfaction with the process and results of dispute resolution; and

(c) Decrease the cost of resolving disputes.

(9) An agency may use the services of an employee of another agency or of the federal government to serve as a mediator or facilitator, and may provide the services of an agency employee to another agency or to the federal government to serve as a mediator or facilitator. An agency may enter into an agreement with another agency or with the federal government to determine reimbursement for services of an employee acting as a mediator or facilitator under the provisions of this subsection. This subsection does not apply to mediation under ORS 243.650 (Definitions for ORS 243.650 to 243.782) to 243.782 (Representation by counsel authorized). [1993 c.647 §2; 1995 c.515 §2; 1997 c.706 §5; 1997 c.801 §42; 1997 c.837 §7; 2001 c.581 §2; 2003 c.791 §§27,27a; 2005 c.334 §§1,2; 2005 c.817 §6]

Note: 183.502 (Authority of agencies to use alternative means of dispute resolution) was added to and made a part of ORS chapter 183 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

See annota­tions under ORS chapter 183.

Chapter 183

Notes of Decisions

A legislative delega­tion of power in terms as broad as those used in [former] ORS 471.295 (1) places upon the administrative agency a responsibility to es­tab­lish standards by which the law is to be applied. Sun Ray Drive-in Dairy, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 63, 517 P2d 289 (1973)

Administrative regula­tion providing that failure to perform responsibilities adequately was a ground for employee's dismissal. Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 18 Or App 442, 525 P2d 1047 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where it was determined that agency invalidly terminated substantive policy, trial court did not have authority to order agency to resume policy in absence of validly adopted agency rule. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 39 Or App 819, 593 P2d 1262 (1979), aff'd 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

"Trending factors" published by the Depart­ment of Revenue and used to appraise prop­erty for purposes of prop­erty taxa­tion are not "rules" within the meaning of this chapter. Borden Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 567, 595 P2d 1372 (1979)

Appellate court may review pro­ceed­ing meeting defini­tion of contested case whether or not pro­ceed­ing was formal administrative hearing. Patton v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 293 Or 363, 647 P2d 931 (1982)

Circuit court could not entertain ac­tion for declaratory judg­ment di­rected at PERS, because PERS is subject to APA, which provides exclusive method for review of its ac­tions. FOPPO v. County of Marion, 93 Or App 93, 760 P2d 1353 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Board of Educa­tion approval of textbook for use in state public schools was not "rule," but was "order in other than contested case," and jurisdic­tion for judicial review is in circuit court. Oregon Env. Council v. Oregon State Bd. of Ed., 307 Or 30, 761 P2d 1322 (1988)

Preponderance of evidence standard applies where initial license applica­tion is denied based on willful fraud. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 882 P2d 606 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions

Wright v. Bateson, 5 Or App 628, 485 P2d 641 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 405 US 930 (1972)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

State Speed Control Board subject to Administrative Procedures Act, (1974) Vol 36, p 1024; proxy voting at board meeting, (1974) Vol 36, p 1064; student con­duct pro­ceed­ings as "contested cases," (1976) Vol 37, p 1461; rulemaking authority of Statewide Health Coordinating Council and of Certificate of Need Appeals Board, (1977) Vol 38, p 1229; 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 Administrative Procedures Act (APA), (1989) Vol 46, p 155

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 245 (1971); 53 OLR 364, 365 (1974); 10 WLJ 373, 420 (1974); 13 WLJ 499, 517, 525, 537 (1977); 57 OLR 334 (1978); 22 WLR 355 (1986); 36 WLR 219 (2000)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 183—Administrative Procedures Act; Legislative Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 183, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano183.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.