Journalists, Oregon publishers call on governor to veto bill changing public meetings law

by Alex Baumhardt, Oregon Capital Chronicle
March 19, 2026

Professional journalist groups and Oregon news publishers are calling on Gov. Tina Kotek to veto a bill passed last month by the state Legislature that the groups, along with government ethics watchdogs, say erodes public meetings laws.

In recent letters to Kotek and in editorials, the Oregon chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Oregon News Publishers Association, The Oregonian and roughly a dozen small publishers, called on the governor to veto House Bill 4177.

Kotek has until April 9 — 30 days after it got to her desk from the Legislature — to sign, veto or let it take effect by default. When asked what action she’ll take or if she has reservations about the bill, Kotek spokesperson Elisabeth Shephard told the Capital Chronicle in a short email that: “The governor reviews all bills that come to her desk.”

House Bill 4177 is meant to clarify a 2023 law prohibiting public officials from deliberating and deciding measures via text, phone call and other chain conversations — essentially meeting through the ether outside the view of the public — to circumvent state public meetings law. House Bill 4177 exempts from the law such “serial communications” if they are “made for the purpose of gathering information relating to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.”

Proponents of the bill say it’s needed to clarify that public officials aren’t violating state law when they text an article related to an issue to one another, or share their opinion with a reporter ahead of a vote, who then shares that opinion with other members of the governing body in the course of the reporting.

But journalists and leaders of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the latter tasked with enforcing the public meetings law, say the bill fundamentally redefines what constitutes meetings and deliberations in a way that would allow public officials to do important work in private with little transparency.

Ethics leaders in a memo to the House Rules Committee on March 2 warned of unintended outcomes.

“Much of the information gathering that normally occurs in public meetings (work sessions or executive sessions) could instead be done privately,” they wrote of the bill’s consequences. “The transparency and accountability that comes with public meetings, where the public has notice of what a governing body is discussing and the media can observe an executive session, will be lost.”

State lawmakers passed it anyway just a few days later, vowing to come back in 2027 to make fixes that might be needed.

In a statement Wednesday evening, Susan Myers, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, said though there are “good and well intentioned changes” being made to public meetings laws in the bill, “there are also areas of serious concern.”

“OGEC is all in favor of having an informed, considered review of the laws and making updates that work for the public bodies, public officials, members of the public and the media. That is why OGEC has suggested getting the Oregon Law Commission to take on this project,” she said. “In the absence of that, we would support further workgroups, legislative or otherwise, to address not only any issues raised with the implementation of HB 4177, but to consider other changes and updates that may be needed.”

Clarifying or confusing

Rep. Nathan Sosa, D-Hillsboro, a former chair of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission who backed the 2023 law, sponsored House Bill 4177 during the February session. It was conceived of by a workgroup Sosa convened made up mostly of lobbyists and attorneys representing cities, counties and school boards. A lobbyist for the Society of Professional Journalists was the sole press advocate in the group, and several bipartisan lawmakers and state ethics leaders participated in meetings and were consulted about drafts of the bill.

The lack of journalist representation on a bill that could affect reporters’ access to public meetings and information is among the sticking points for many of the publishers calling on Kotek to veto the bill, as well as what it does not define. Though it allows public officials to text, call and otherwise communicate privately for the purpose of “gathering information” it does not define what “gathering information” means, according to Laurie Hieb, executive director of the Newspaper Publishers Association.

“As written, the bill would allow public bodies to meet secretly as a quorum, selectively receive information, include or exclude interested members of the public from the meeting and hold private discussions about public issues,” she wrote in the group’s letter to Kotek.

Leaders for the Society of Professional Journalists also raised concerns that Sosa did not share with them or the wider workgroup several emails and memos from state ethics officials he received before the session, warning of the bill’s unintended consequences and requesting that legislative action be delayed to 2027.

Nick Budnick, sunshine chair of the journalists group, said they only saw those when journalists filed a public records request for communications after the session.

Sosa said the emails and memos were a restatement of the questions, objections, and concerns raised in workgroup meetings by Myers of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, and the feedback was discussed and debated at-length during meetings.

“Government ethics and transparency are topics that I care deeply about,” Sosa said in an email. “This bill was a good faith effort to provide greater clarity for everyone while preserving the purpose of our public meetings laws.”

Other members of the workgroup confirmed they had not seen the emails or memos but they would not have changed their support for the bill.

Chilling effect

Scott Winkels, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, said the 2023 law and the government ethics commission were having their own chilling effects on news gathering and public information.

That’s because commission trainings meant to help public officials understand the new law included materials insinuating that an official of a governing body might be in violation of serial communications rules if they discussed a voting matter with an “intermediary,” such as a constituent or reporter, who then talked about it with other members of the governing body, Winkels said.

“Simply answering constituent questions should never be discouraged. Talking to a reporter — nobody should refuse a speaking engagement. I mean, it got to the point where we had told our members to take our training class and avoid the OGEC one, and we still haven’t lifted that advice,” he said.

He said some public officials — many who are volunteers on boards and committees — opt out of staying in their roles, fearing the reputational damage that can come from being found guilty of a state ethics violation, even if unintentionally perpetrated.

The government ethics commission has reviewed, or is in the process of reviewing, 50 members of eight public governing bodies for potential violations of the 2023 law banning “serial communications” since it was enacted, according to commission data. Of them, 90% of the complaints against the public officials were dismissed with no penalties.

Note: Oregon Capital Chronicle Editor Julia Shumway is board treasurer of the Greater Oregon Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, which is requesting Kotek veto the bill referenced in this article. She did not participate in the editing of this item.

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: [email protected].