Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.620 (2026)

Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      192.620 Policy. The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.705 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. [1973 c.172 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (Trimet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 412 P.3d 162 (Or. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (Trimet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 412 P.3d 162 (Or. 2018). · cites it 2× “" ORS 192.620. The two provisions that explicitly give effect to that policy of open deliberations are ORS 192.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Comm., 817 P.2d 1299 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “690, specifically ORS 192.620; 7 (2) ORS 174.130; 8 and (3) the University of Oregon’s policy statements on animal research, and implementing code of ethics.”
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “According to ORS 192.620, “The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made.”
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 509 P.3d 99 (Or. 2022). “See ORS 192.620, ORS 279A.015. To be sure, with each of those statutes, a balance must be struck that promotes those val- ues, while ensuring that government agencies can conduct their business efficiently and without unreasonable cost or delay—and it is up to the legislature to…”
Harris v. Nordquist, 771 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “ORS 192.620. 1 That is not to say that ORS 192.”
Adamson v. Bonesteele, 671 P.2d 693 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “[6] That extension of immunity was accorded on the reasoning that the Oregon system of governing through various boards and commissions depends upon the willingness of volunteers to serve, often without compensation, that such service should not be discouraged, that the Oregon…”
Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 368 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “” *516 ORS 192.620. To that end, the law regulates the decision-making process of "governing bodfies]” of “public bod[ies].”
Marks v. McKenzie High Sch. Fact-Finding Team, 878 P.2d 417 (Or. 1994). “ORS 192.620 (“The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made”) (emphasis supplied).”
State v. Seidel, 432 P.3d 304 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “However, Senator Heard stated that his intention was to enact a "skeleton" for a strong, comprehensive, and realistic *395 open meetings law with which governmental bodies would be able to comply. Tape Recording, Joint Special Committee on Professional Responsibility, SB 15, Feb.”
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 769 P.2d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 192.620, which declares the legislative policy underlying the act, recognizes the distinction between, on the one hand, deliberations and decisions and, on the other hand, the information upon which decisions are made.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Comm. of the Univ. of Oregon, 794 P.2d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Defendant’s post-September 26, 1988 resubmittal of the [professor’s] proposals to members of the IACUC without the convening of an IACUC session violated the requirements of openness contained in ORS 192.620 and ORS 192.630, the requirements for the convening of the IACUC…”
Sw. Oregon Publ'g Co. v. Sw. Oregon Cmty. Coll. Dist., 559 P.2d 1289 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Plaintiff argues that the Public Meetings Law is ambiguous and that the following policy statement expressed in ORS 192.620 should govern: "The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.