2017 ORS 183.685¹
Ex parte communications

(1) An administrative law judge assigned from the Office of Administrative Hearings who is presiding in a contested case proceeding and who receives an ex parte communication described in subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall place in the record of the pending matter:

(a) The name of each person from whom the administrative law judge received an ex parte communication;

(b) A copy of any ex parte written communication received by the administrative law judge;

(c) A copy of any written response to the communication made by the administrative law judge;

(d) A memorandum reflecting the substance of any ex parte oral communication made to the administrative law judge; and

(e) A memorandum reflecting the substance of any oral response made by the administrative law judge to an ex parte oral communication.

(2) Upon making a record of an ex parte communication under subsection (1) of this section, an administrative law judge shall advise the agency and all parties in the proceeding that an ex parte communication has been made a part of the record. The administrative law judge shall allow the agency and parties an opportunity to respond to the ex parte communication.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions of this section apply to communications that:

(a) Relate to a legal or factual issue in a contested case proceeding;

(b) Are made directly or indirectly to an administrative law judge while the proceeding is pending; and

(c) Are made without notice and opportunity for the agency and all parties to participate in the communication.

(4) The provisions of this section apply to any ex parte communication made directly or indirectly to an administrative law judge, or to any agent of an administrative law judge, by:

(a) A party;

(b) A party’s representative or legal adviser;

(c) Any other person who has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the proceeding;

(d) Any other person with personal knowledge of the facts relevant to the proceeding; or

(e) Any officer, employee or agent of an agency.

(5) The provisions of this section do not apply to:

(a) Communications made to an administrative law judge by other administrative law judges; or

(b) Communications made to an administrative law judge by any person employed by the office to assist the administrative law judge. [1999 c.849 §20; 2003 c.75 §18; 2009 c.866 §9]

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; Review of Rules; Civil Penalties, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors183.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 183, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano183.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.