192.630
Meetings of governing body to be open to public; location of meetings;
accommodation for person with disability; interpreters. (1) All meetings of the governing
body of a public body shall be open to the public and all persons shall be
permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by ORS 192.610 to
192.705.
(2) A quorum of a
governing body may not meet in private for the purpose of deciding on or
deliberating toward a decision on any matter except as otherwise provided by
ORS 192.610 to 192.705.
(3) A governing
body may not hold a meeting at any place where discrimination on the basis of
race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin,
age or disability is practiced. However, the fact that organizations with
restricted membership hold meetings at the place does not restrict its use by a
public body if use of the place by a restricted membership organization is not
the primary purpose of the place or its predominant use.
(4)(a) Meetings
of the governing body of a public body shall be held:
(A) Within the
geographic boundaries over which the public body has jurisdiction;
(B) At the
administrative headquarters of the public body;
(C) At the
nearest practical location; or
(D) If the public
body is a state, county, city or special district entity, within Indian country
of a federally recognized Oregon Indian tribe that is within the geographic
boundaries of this state. For purposes of this subparagraph, “Indian country”
has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. 1151.
(b) Training
sessions may be held outside the jurisdiction as long as no deliberations
toward a decision are involved.
(c) A joint
meeting of two or more governing bodies or of one or more governing bodies and
the elected officials of one or more federally recognized Oregon Indian tribes
shall be held within the geographic boundaries over which one of the
participating public bodies or one of the Oregon Indian tribes has jurisdiction
or at the nearest practical location.
(d) Meetings may
be held in locations other than those described in this subsection in the event
of an actual emergency necessitating immediate action.
(5)(a) It is
discrimination on the basis of disability for a governing body of a public body
to meet in a place inaccessible to persons with disabilities, or, upon request
of a person who is deaf or hard of hearing, to fail to make a good faith effort
to have an interpreter for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing provided at
a regularly scheduled meeting. The sole remedy for discrimination on the basis
of disability shall be as provided in ORS 192.680.
(b) The person
requesting the interpreter shall give the governing body at least 48 hours’
notice of the request for an interpreter, shall provide the name of the
requester, sign language preference and any other relevant information the
governing body may request.
(c) If a meeting
is held upon less than 48 hours’ notice, reasonable effort shall be made to
have an interpreter present, but the requirement for an interpreter does not
apply to emergency meetings.
(d) If
certification of interpreters occurs under state or federal law, the Oregon
Health Authority or other state or local agency shall try to refer only
certified interpreters to governing bodies for purposes of this subsection.
(e) As used in
this subsection, “good faith effort” includes, but is not limited to,
contacting the department or other state or local agency that maintains a list
of qualified interpreters and arranging for the referral of one or more
qualified interpreters to provide interpreter services. [1973 c.172 §3; 1979
c.644 §2; 1989 c.1019 §1; 1995 c.626 §1; 2003 c.14 §95; 2005 c.663 §12; 2007
c.70 §52; 2007 c.100 §21; 2009 c.595 §173; 2017 c.482 §1; 2019 c.286 §1; 2021
c.367 §12]
Notes of Decisions
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 59× “670 clarifies that the requirements of ORS 192.630 apply to meetings conducted “through the use of telephone or other electronic communication.”
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 385 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 10× “” ORS 192.630(2). Plaintiff filed this action claiming, among other things, that a quorum of the Lane County commissioners had violated that provision by engaging in a series of private communications to decide whether to comply with a public records request.”
Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 368 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 10× “Both mechanisms are contained in ORS 192.630. First, ORS 192.630(1) requires that any “meeting” of a governing body of a public body be open to the public, unless the topic of the meeting is one that the legislature has said may be addressed in an “executive session” or the…”
Harris v. Nordquist, 771 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs allege, in their first and second claims, that private meetings of a quorum of the board were held, at which no minutes were taken, in violation of ORS 192.630(2) and ORS 192.650. 2 The issue crucial to both claims is whether *24 some of the board’s members’…”
Rivas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 369 P.3d 1239 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 14× “In particular, plaintiff contends that the “file-pass” procedure used by the board to decide whether to order a second psychological evaluation of an offender in connection with a parole decision is a “meeting” that violates ORS 192.630(1) and other procedural provisions of the…”
Spray v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 624 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The petitioner first claims that it was error for the Board to deny his motion for a public hearing. We agree. Under the Public Meetings Law, all meetings of the governing body of a public body (the definiton of which includes the Board herein) shall be opened to the public…”
Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021).
“An attorney with the Department of Justice advised that the meeting would need to be noticed, pursuant to ORS 192.630(1), as a meeting of the agency’s governing body.”
Pre-Hosp. Med. Servs., Inc. v. Malheur Cnty., 896 P.2d 585 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 7× “In the writ of review proceeding, plaintiff argued that “[defendants exceeded their jurisdiction by intentionally violating Oregon public meetings laws, specifically ORS 192.630(2),” a ground for allowing a writ of review.”
South Benton Educ. Ass'n v. Monroe Union High Sch. Dist. 1, 732 P.2d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “District argues, however, that no offer made as a result of the executive session meetings could be binding on District without ratification at a public meeting, relying on ORS 192.630 and ORS 192.660(4). Association argues that ORS 243.”
Williams v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp., 958 P.2d 202 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“630 (state employees shall be hired without regard to disabilities); ORS 447.210 et seq. (policy of ensuring equal physical access to commercial facilities, public accommodations, private entities, churches, and private membership clubs for persons with disabilities); ORS 659.”
Oregon Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist. 24J, 767 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “District argues, however, that no offer made as a result of the executive session meetings could be binding on *33 District without ratification at a public meeting, relying on ORS 192.630 and ORS 192.660(4). Association argues that ORS 243.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.630(1) — 11 cases
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“670 clarifies that the requirements of ORS 192.630 apply to meetings conducted “through the use of telephone or other electronic communication.”
Walker v. Oregon Travel Info. Council, 484 P.3d 1035 (Or. 2021).
“An attorney with the Department of Justice advised that the meeting would need to be noticed, pursuant to ORS 192.630(1), as a meeting of the agency’s governing body.”
Rivas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 369 P.3d 1239 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In particular, plaintiff contends that the “file-pass” procedure used by the board to decide whether to order a second psychological evaluation of an offender in connection with a parole decision is a “meeting” that violates ORS 192.630(1) and other procedural provisions of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.630(2) — 8 cases
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“670 clarifies that the requirements of ORS 192.630 apply to meetings conducted “through the use of telephone or other electronic communication.”
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 385 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2016).
“” ORS 192.630(2). Plaintiff filed this action claiming, among other things, that a quorum of the Lane County commissioners had violated that provision by engaging in a series of private communications to decide whether to comply with a public records request.”
Harris v. Nordquist, 771 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“Plaintiffs allege, in their first and second claims, that private meetings of a quorum of the board were held, at which no minutes were taken, in violation of ORS 192.630(2) and ORS 192.650. 2 The issue crucial to both claims is whether *24 some of the board’s members’…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.630(3) — 1 case
Rivas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 369 P.3d 1239 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In particular, plaintiff contends that the “file-pass” procedure used by the board to decide whether to order a second psychological evaluation of an offender in connection with a parole decision is a “meeting” that violates ORS 192.630(1) and other procedural provisions of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.630(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.630(4)(a) — 1 case
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.