Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Concerns about government transparency prompted Oregon Governor Tina Kotek to veto a bill her party supported in the last legislative session in Salem, Oregon.

I have written before about the bill – House Bill 4177 – that was designed to help elected officials in local governments in Oregon function more effectively, fixing a situation that had arisen from the last time Oregon’s long-standing public meetings law was adjusted in 2023.

However, HB 4177 represented a poor fix and even some legislators who voted for it described it as inadequate.

Kotek agreed.

Here, based on reporting by the Oregonian newspaper, is how she described reasons for her veto:

“House Bill 4177, championed by Democrat Representative Nathan Sosa of Hillsboro, would have created a broad exemption for some or all members of local governments to meet in secret to ‘gather information related to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.’

“That would have allowed a quorum of a city council, county commission or school board or even the full body to meet privately to learn about a potential policy change, personnel action or spending choice without notifying the public of the meeting or the topic, journalism leaders and good government advocates said.”

In her official letter explaining her veto, Kotek indicated she sees a genuine need for more clarity to guide public officials on how they can legally communicate with each other and with constituents outside of public meetings.

She called on officials with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission “to work urgently, diligently, and openly with the Legislature, my 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.”

Why do I care about this?

Well, when I served on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (my second and final term ended last December), my colleagues and I encountered this issue.  We dealt with a number of complaints against local government elected officials who weren’t sure how to act under the 2023 law changes.

One of those changes prohibited “serial communications,” but that new term created difficult circumstances, as well as uncertainty.

The question was how to allow local elected officials to talk with each other outside of a public meeting without a “meeting in private” violation of the public meetings law.

As I have mentioned before, my fix was – and is — this:

I would allow elected officials to talk outside of a public meeting – otherwise there is only silence – and then, at the ensuing public meeting, if their conversations came to light, ask those officials to attest, perhaps even under oath, that they did not intend for a quorum to result from their conversations.

If they could so attest, they would avoid any penalty.

So, whether this one or something else, the need for a fix remains.  The work will be done in the 2027 legislative session that starts early next year.

I’ll be watching from my new post on the sidelines.