A year ago, Coos County Circuit Judge Michael Gillespie ruled that a quorum of Lane County commissioners had deliberated toward a decision outside of public view. Gillespie determined that a series of one on one meetings and electronic communications effectively constituted a quorum even though the meetings didn’t take place at the same time. The decision resonated across the state allowing citizens a new look at how local councils and boards may be operating.

The board members had serial private one-on-one meetings to discuss how to vote on the aides proposal, Gillespie’s ruling said.

“All involved knew that a quorum of the board was working toward a final decision outside the public meeting context,” Gillespie wrote at the time.

Now, a new bill is being introduced to define what constitutes a public meeting because Gillespie’s unchallenged ruling is now binding and believed to impair government functions.

State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that SB 1526 had been introduced as a result of the Legislature’s lawyers making a ruling that differed from Gillespie’s.

Prozanski said that legislative counsel had ruled that any separate private discussions between members of a public body that don’t feature a quorum were legal, even if they happen sequentially and in immediate succession.

But because Lane County commissioners had decided not to challenge Gillespie’s initial ruling, Gillespie’s decision was now binding for all Lane County public bodies, Prozanski said.

The ruling “shuts down the ability for government to function,” he said.

Asked to comment, the lawyer who brought the case against the Lane County commissioners, Nathan Rietmann says, “Obviously, local government has not shut down since this case was decided, either in Lane County or anywhere else. The fact that local officials across the state are being more careful about making sure their decisions are made in public meetings is a very positive result of the case. If anything, Judge Gillespie’s decision proves that Oregon’s public meeting law works and provides an effective means of holding public officials accountable for intentionally making public decisions behind closed doors.”

Rietmann also expressed concern over making changes to the public meetings law on short notice. “The legislature should not be making any changes to Oregon Public Meeting Law during a one-month session where the opportunity for public input is necessarily limited and there is not time for lawmakers to give the issue the consideration it demands and deserves.”