2017 ORS 244.280¹
Commission advisory opinions
  • effect of reliance on opinion

(1) Upon the written request of any person, or upon its own motion, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, under signature of the chairperson, may issue and publish written commission advisory opinions on the application of any provision of this chapter to any proposed transaction or action or any actual or hypothetical circumstance. A commission advisory opinion, and a decision by the commission to issue an advisory opinion on its own motion, must be approved by a majority of the members of the commission. Legal counsel to the commission shall review a proposed commission advisory opinion before the opinion is considered by the commission.

(2) Not later than 60 days after the date the commission receives the written request for a commission advisory opinion, the commission shall issue either the opinion or a written denial of the request. The written denial shall explain the reasons for the denial. The commission may ask the person requesting the advisory opinion to supply additional information the commission considers necessary to render the opinion. The commission, by vote of a majority of the members of the commission, may extend the 60-day deadline by one period not to exceed 60 days.

(3) Except as provided in this subsection, unless the commission advisory opinion is revised or revoked, the commission may not impose a penalty under ORS 244.350 (Civil penalties) or 244.360 (Additional civil penalty equal to twice amount of financial benefit) on a person for any good faith action the person takes in reliance on an advisory opinion issued under this section. The commission may impose a penalty under ORS 244.350 (Civil penalties) or 244.360 (Additional civil penalty equal to twice amount of financial benefit) on the person who requested the advisory opinion if the commission determines that the person omitted or misstated material facts in making the request. [1974 c.72 §15; 1975 c.543 §9; 1977 c.588 §8; 1987 c.566 §19; 1991 c.272 §2; 1993 c.743 §13; 2007 c.865 §12; 2007 c.877 §25a]

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)

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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 244—Government Ethics, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors244.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 244, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano244.­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.