192.670
Meetings by means of telephone or electronic communication. (1) Any meeting, including an
executive session, of a governing body of a public body which is held through
the use of telephone or other electronic communication shall be conducted in
accordance with ORS 192.610 to 192.705.
(2) When
telephone or other electronic means of communication is used and the meeting is
not an executive session, the governing body of the public body shall make
available to the public at least one place where, or at least one electronic
means by which, the public can listen to the communication at the time it
occurs. A place provided may be a place where no member of the governing body
of the public body is present.
(3) All meetings
held by a governing body of a public body, excluding executive sessions, must
provide to members of the general public, to the extent reasonably possible, an
opportunity to:
(a) Access and
attend the meeting by telephone, video or other electronic or virtual means;
(b) If in-person
oral testimony is allowed, submit during the meeting oral testimony by
telephone, video or other electronic or virtual means; and
(c) If in-person
written testimony is allowed, submit written testimony, including by electronic
mail or other electronic means, so that the governing body is able to consider
the submitted testimony in a timely manner.
(4) The
provisions of subsection (3) of this section:
(a) Apply to
hearings under ORS 197.797, 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780
regardless of whether a governing body or governing body’s designee, including
a hearings officer, conducts the hearing; and
(b) Do not apply
to contested case hearings under ORS chapter 183. [1973 c.172 §7; 1979 c.361 §1;
2011 c.272 §2; 2021 c.228 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case:
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “630(2) and ORS 192.670 [8] because a quorum of the Commissioners (the individual defendants) conducted meetings in private for the purpose of deciding or deliberating toward the decision to meet in emergency session on May 3 (and also deliberated prior to that meeting about…”
Miller v. Heimuller (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 20× “Second, Defendants argue that a separate provision of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS § 192.670, contains independent authorization for the District to conduct virtual-only meetings.”
Miller v. Heimuller (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Miller also does not challenge, and the Court does not opine upon, whether online-only meetings held pursuant to ORS § 192.670 infringe on First Amendment rights.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.670(1): 2 cases
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“630(2) and ORS 192.670 [8] because a quorum of the Commissioners (the individual defendants) conducted meetings in private for the purpose of deciding or deliberating toward the decision to meet in emergency session on May 3 (and also deliberated prior to that meeting about…”
Miller v. Heimuller (D. Or. 2024).
“Second, Defendants argue that a separate provision of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS § 192.670, contains independent authorization for the District to conduct virtual-only meetings.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.670(2): 1 case
Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“630(2) and ORS 192.670 [8] because a quorum of the Commissioners (the individual defendants) conducted meetings in private for the purpose of deciding or deliberating toward the decision to meet in emergency session on May 3 (and also deliberated prior to that meeting about…”
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.