244.280
Commission advisory opinions; effect of reliance on opinion. (1) Upon the written request of
any person, or upon its own motion, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission,
under signature of the chairperson, may issue and publish written commission
advisory opinions on the application of ORS 192.610 to 192.705 or any provision
of this chapter to any proposed transaction or action or any actual or
hypothetical circumstance. A commission advisory opinion, and a decision by the
commission to issue an advisory opinion on its own motion, must be approved by
a majority of the members of the commission. Legal counsel to the commission
shall review a proposed commission advisory opinion before the opinion is
considered by the commission.
(2) Not later
than 60 days after the date the commission receives the written request for a
commission advisory opinion, the commission shall issue either the opinion or a
written denial of the request. The written denial shall explain the reasons for
the denial. The commission may ask the person requesting the advisory opinion
to supply additional information the commission considers necessary to render
the opinion. The commission, by vote of a majority of the members of the
commission, may extend the 60-day deadline by one period not to exceed 60 days.
(3) Except as
provided in this subsection, unless the commission advisory opinion is revised
or revoked, the commission may not impose a penalty under ORS 244.350 or
244.360 on a person for any good faith action the person takes in reliance on
an advisory opinion issued under this section. The commission may impose a
penalty under ORS 244.350 or 244.360 on the person who requested the advisory
opinion if the commission determines that the person omitted or misstated
material facts in making the request. [1974 c.72 §15; 1975 c.543 §9; 1977 c.588
§8; 1987 c.566 §19; 1991 c.272 §2; 1993 c.743 §13; 2007 c.865 §12; 2007 c.877 §25a;
2021 c.264 §1; 2024 c.14 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 8× “280 [3] provides the exclusive statutory procedure by which a public official in doubt about the propriety of a proposed transaction can resolve the questioned action by obtaining an advisory interpretation on the issue.”
Groener v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 651 P.2d 736 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “040(1) is unconstitutionally vague, because it is a penal statute that does not adequately define the proscribed conduct 1 ; and (2) because respondent may issue on its own motion advisory opinions on the requirements of ORS chapter 244, see ORS 244.280; the Commission could…”
Fadeley v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 568 P.2d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “3 Advisory Opinions Petitioner’s request for an advisory opinion is based upon the mandatory language of ORS 244.280 which provides: "(1) Upon the written request of any public official, or upon its own motion, the commission shall issue and publish opinions on the requirements…”
Fadeley v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 551 P.2d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “3 Petitioner’s further reference to the Ethics Commission’s refusal to issue an advisory opinion is based on ORS 244.280(1) 4 and ORS 183.410. 5 The latter statute does contemplate direct review in the Court of Appeals when an agency does issue a declaratory ruling.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 244.280(1) — 2 cases
Groener v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 651 P.2d 736 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“040(1) is unconstitutionally vague, because it is a penal statute that does not adequately define the proscribed conduct 1 ; and (2) because respondent may issue on its own motion advisory opinions on the requirements of ORS chapter 244, see ORS 244.280; the Commission could…”
Fadeley v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 551 P.2d 496 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“3 Petitioner’s further reference to the Ethics Commission’s refusal to issue an advisory opinion is based on ORS 244.280(1) 4 and ORS 183.410. 5 The latter statute does contemplate direct review in the Court of Appeals when an agency does issue a declaratory ruling.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 244.280(2) — 1 case
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985).
“280 [3] provides the exclusive statutory procedure by which a public official in doubt about the propriety of a proposed transaction can resolve the questioned action by obtaining an advisory interpretation on the issue.”
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.