In recent months, members of governing bodies subject to Oregon’s Public Meetings Law (“OPML”) have faced uncertainty about what the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (“OGEC”) considers to be a serial communication in violation of the OPML. OGEC has taken an expansive view of what constitutes an illegal serial meeting, and during the 2026 short session, the Legislature stepped in attempting to narrow the field. HB 4177 passed on March 6, 2026, and would have added clarity around what activities and communications can and cannot take place outside of a public meeting. Last week, after significant pressure from media outlets throughout Oregon, Governor Kotek vetoed the bill.
History:
In 2023, the Oregon Legislature enacted several changes to OPML by passing HB 2805. HB 2805 essentially codified caselaw from the Oregon Court of Appeals establishing the prohibition on serial communications (i.e., Handy v. Lane County, 274 Or App 644 (2015), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 360 Or 605 (2016).
In 2024, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (“OGEC”) adopted administrative rules about serial meetings. Those rules clarified the OPML’s prohibition on serial meetings by prohibiting any communications, directly or through intermediaries, for the purpose of deliberating or deciding on any matter within a governing body’s jurisdiction. OAR 199-050-0020. This prohibition is, essentially, consistent with the OPML and Handy. The rules went a step further, however, and expanded the types of activities that qualify as a “deliberation” for purposes of prohibited serial meetings to include “the process a governing body engages in to make a decision, such as: (a) identifying or selecting the nature of the decision to be made; (b) gathering information related to the decision to be made; (c) identifying and assessing alternatives; (d) weighing information; and (e) making a decision.” OAR 199-050-0005(4). This expansion, arguably, exceeds the what the Oregon Court of Appeals and the OPML consider to be deliberation.
After enacting the administrative rules described above, OGEC began signaling that it would interpret the OPML’s, and its administrative rules’, prohibition on serial meetings broadly to proscribe many types of communications that were previously thought to be permissible. Specifically, communications among members lacking an intent to deliberate can violate the OPML. For example:
- OGEC released an FAQ in July 2025 on prohibited serial communications. One of the FAQ’s fact patterns demonstrating a prohibited serial communication is as follows: Using an example of a governing body comprised of seven members and a quorum of four members: Member A calls Member B on May 1st to discuss lowering the downtown parking fines by 10%. On May 15th, Member B emails Member C to see if Member C would also be supportive of lowering the downtown parking fees by 10%. The next day, Member A sends a text message to Member D to see if Member D would support lowering the downtown parking fees by 10%. In this example, four members - a quorum - have deliberated about whether to lower the downtown parking fees by 10%. In this situation a prohibited serial communication has occurred in violation of the Public Meetings Law.
In this fact pattern, Member D did not solicit information or respond to communications with any of the other members. Regardless, OGEC considers Member D to be part of deliberating quorum and, potentially, in violation of the law (regardless of any intent to do so).
As a result, members of governing bodies in Oregon have been advised to refrain from speaking about any matters within their jurisdiction outside of an open meeting for fear of participating in a prohibited serial communication – OGEC has signaled that a member of a governing body can violate the law by speaking to another member about a particular matter if other members also speak outside of a meeting about that same matter. These communications could also, theoretically, take place through intermediaries like members of the media and constituents. One can envision a scenario where a constituent or member of the media speaks with a quorum of members of a governing body one-on-one about a particular topic and relays portions of its previous conversations with other members in those meetings. Under OGEC’s administrative rules and fact patterns, it is conceivable that those members would be considered to have had a prohibited serial meeting with the constituent or media member acting as an intermediary.
Legislative Fix
HB 4177 would have amended the OPML to clarify what does, and does not, rise to the level of being a “deliberation” that a quorum must have in a public meeting. Specifically, the definition of “deliberation” would have changed from “discussion or communication that is part of a decision-making process” to “discussion or communication in which the members of a governing body examine, weigh or reflect upon the reasons for or against a decision that is subject to the jurisdiction of the governing body.” In other words, a quorum’s discussion would have to rise to the level of actually considering reasons for or against a decision to be a deliberation. Furthermore, HB 4177 expanded the list of communications between or among members of a public body to which the OPML does not apply to include the following:
- Communications that are purely to procedural matters and convey no deliberation or decision on the substance of the matter in question;
- Communications that contain only factual or educational information or that share the views of someone other than a member of the governing body, including but not limited to published articles or constituent letters;
- Communications that are made to representatives of the news media, constituents, members of the public or other persons, unless the persons are being used as intermediaries to allow the governing body to engage in deliberations or make a decision; and
- Communications that are made for the purpose of gathering information related to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.
Additionally, HB 4177 added language to clarify that the reason serial meetings are prohibited (whether through an intermediary or otherwise) is to keep a governing body from “circumventing the requirement[]” that all meetings of a public body be open to the public. As a whole, these amendments would have provided much needed guidance for public officials about how to comply with the OPML when communicating outside of public meetings.
HB 4177 Veto – What Now?
After the Legislature passed HB 4177, numerous media outlets published op-eds urging Governor Kotek to veto HB 4177, arguing that the bill decreases transparency government decision making. Last week, the Governor appeared to side with those media outlets and vetoed HB 4177. In her veto letter, the Governor acknowledged a lack of legal clarity in the OMPL that creates uncertainty about how members of governing bodies should engage with the public. Specifically, the Governor acknowledged that OGEC’s “inconsistent guidance and training for public officials, many of whom are volunteers, has further complicated the situation.” The Governor also directed OGEC to “work urgently, diligently, and openly with the legislature, [her] office, and key stakeholders to provide as much clarity as possible between now and the next legislative session and develop workable language for passage in the 2027 session.”
Given the language of the veto letter, we will likely see another serial meetings bill during the 2027 Legislative Session. In the meantime, public officials and governing bodies should work closely with legal counsel to interpret the OPML’s serial meetings prohibition, and to develop strategies for complying with the OPML while balancing the need to perform their duties to the public.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
