Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.716

Board members not to engage in political or business activity that interferes with duties as board member; oath and bond required

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      656.716 Board members not to engage in political or business activity that interferes with duties as board member; oath and bond required. (1) No member of the Workers’ Compensation Board shall hold any other office or position of profit or pursue any other business or vocation or serve on or under any committee of any political party, but shall devote the entire time to the duties of the office of the member.

      (2) Before entering on the duties of office, each member shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation:

      (a) That the member will support the Constitutions of the United States and of this state and faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office.

      (b) That the member does not hold any other office or position of profit that will interfere with the ability of the member to fully perform the duties of the member’s position with the board.

      (c) That the member is not pursuing and will not pursue, while a member, any other calling or vocation that will interfere with the ability of the member to fully perform the duties of the member’s position with the board.

      (d) That the member does not hold and while a member will not hold a position under any political party.

      (3) The oath or affirmation shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.

      (4) Each of the members of the board shall also, before entering upon the duties of office, execute a bond payable to the State of Oregon, in the penal sum of $10,000, with sureties to be approved by the Governor, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of office. The bond, when so executed and approved, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. [Formerly 656.408; 1977 c.804 §27; 1987 c.373 §41; 1999 c.1020 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2003–2003 · leading case: Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst (2003) orctapp · cites it 3× “Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.716(1) — 1 case
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst (2003) orctapp “Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.716(2)(a) — 1 case
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst (2003) orctapp “Fred Meyer argues that the board abused its discretion in issuing those orders because (1) there was no employer representative, and (2) the board failed to give an adequate explanation for its sudden change of policy.”
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.