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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 423.549 (2026)

State positions in community corrections branch; abolishment; county authority; affected employees; pay

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

      423.549 State positions in community corrections branch; abolishment; county authority; affected employees; pay. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 236.605 to 236.640, all state positions in the state community corrections branch of the Department of Corrections, the funding for which is transferred to counties, are abolished on January 1, 1997. Counties have sole discretion in the development of methods and means of county community corrections operation under ORS 423.500 to 423.560 including establishment of wages, benefits and working conditions and selection of any employees to operate supervision programs or other services and sanctions under ORS 423.478 and 423.525. The implementation of this section does not give rise to any bargaining obligation under ORS 243.650 to 243.809. Notwithstanding any collective bargaining agreement, the department shall first offer to any employee so affected and not hired by a county a vacant position in other department branches and operations for which the employee is qualified. This preference lapses 90 days after the operative date of this section. The department has sole discretion in selecting and filling vacant positions from among affected employees having preference.

      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, for each month of employment during the period of January 1, 1997, through June 30, 1997, a county shall pay each affected employee hired by the county in regular full-time employment to provide or to support the provision of community corrections programs and services the same minimum gross monthly salary or hourly wage that the affected employee received in state employment immediately prior to termination of the employee’s state position. In the event an affected employee formerly employed by the state in a supervisory position is hired by a county in a nonsupervisory position, the county shall pay the affected employee during this period the same minimum gross monthly salary or hourly wage to which an affected employee in the nonsupervisory position would have been entitled to receive in state employment at the top step of the state pay classification for that position immediately prior to its termination. A county shall also provide to each affected employee during this period the same benefits provided to existing county employees performing the same or substantially similar work, giving full consideration to the length of the employee’s state service as though the service had been in and for the county. [1995 c.423 §16 (enacted in lieu of 423.550)]

 

      423.550 [1977 c.412 §10; 1987 c.320 §227; 1989 c.607 §3; 1989 c.614 §3; 1993 c.680 §2; repealed by 1995 c.423 §15 (423.549 enacted in lieu of 423.550)]

 

      423.551 [1989 c.614 §5; repealed by 1995 c.423 §31]

 

      423.552 [1989 c.510 §2; repealed by 1995 c.423 §30]

 

      423.553 [1989 c.510 §3; repealed by 1995 c.423 §30]

 

      423.554 [1989 c.510 §§4,5; repealed by 1995 c.423 §30]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Fed'n of Parole & Prob. Officers v. State Ex Rel. Oregon Dep't of Corr., 928 P.2d 335 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed'n of Parole & Prob. Officers v. State Ex Rel. Oregon Dep't of Corr., 928 P.2d 335 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 34× “The issue is whether ORS 423.549, which transfers to the counties the duties of state parole and probation officers, but does not transfer the officers themselves, violates various provisions of the Oregon Constitution.”
Brock (D. Or. 2026). “See ORS 423.549 (abolishing the state-run probation system and transferring authority to the county governments).”
Brock (D. Or. 2026). “See ORS 423.549 (abolishing the state-run probation system and transferring authority to the county governments).”
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.