You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Moine v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission

Citations: 128 Or. App. 681; 877 P.2d 96; 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 977Docket: 92E-326; CA A81630

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; June 29, 1994; Oregon; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a former major of the Oregon State Police contesting an order by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission that mandated the payment of substantial civil penalties and forfeitures due to ethical violations under ORS chapter 244. The core legal issue was whether the Commission possessed the jurisdiction to investigate and penalize former public officials for misconduct committed while they were in office. The petitioner engaged in unethical transactions, including improper exchanges and the disclosure of confidential information, prior to his retirement. Despite the petitioner's argument that the Commission lacked jurisdiction post-retirement, the court upheld the Commission’s authority, grounded in ORS 244.260, to investigate and enforce penalties for violations committed during the petitioner’s tenure. The court emphasized that the statutory framework, including ORS 244.350 and amendments to definitions of public officials, supported the Commission’s actions. Ultimately, the petitioner's claims regarding jurisdiction were rejected, affirming the Commission's imposition of civil penalties and reinforcing the statutes’ applicability to actions taken while serving as a public official, regardless of current status.

Legal Issues Addressed

Authority to Investigate Violations of ORS Chapter 244

Application: The Commission's authority to investigate alleged violations is derived from ORS 244.260, enabling investigations based on its own initiative or a signed complaint.

Reasoning: Instead, the authority comes from ORS 244.260, which permits the Commission to investigate alleged violations based on its own initiative or a signed complaint from any person.

Conflict of Interest and Notification Requirements under Former ORS 244.120

Application: Public officials were required to report conflicts of interest in writing to their appointing authority, a procedure unfulfilled by the petitioner.

Reasoning: Former ORS 244.120(1) mandated that public officials encountering potential conflicts of interest must notify their appointing authority in writing, detailing the conflict and requesting its resolution.

Definition of 'Public Official' and Statutory Amendments

Application: The definition of 'public official' was revised to include individuals serving at the time of an alleged violation, clarifying the statute’s applicability.

Reasoning: The definition of 'public official' has been revised from former ORS 244.020(16) to newly numbered ORS 244.020(15), now encompassing anyone serving the state or its subdivisions, regardless of compensation, at the time of an alleged violation.

Imposition of Civil Penalties by Ethics Commission

Application: The Commission is empowered to impose civil penalties for violations of ORS chapter 244, with fines up to $5,000 for specific infractions, irrespective of the violator's current status.

Reasoning: The Commission’s power to impose civil penalties is derived from ORS 244.350, allowing penalties up to $1,000 for violations, and up to $5,000 for specific violations like ORS 244.045.

Jurisdiction of Ethics Commission Over Former Public Officials

Application: The court upheld the Commission's authority to investigate and penalize individuals for violations committed while they were public officials, even after they have retired.

Reasoning: The court affirms the Commission's authority to do so.

Prohibited Conduct for Public Officials under ORS 244.040

Application: The petitioner was found in violation of prohibitions on using their position for personal gain, soliciting excessive gifts, and misusing confidential information.

Reasoning: The petitioner does not dispute the Commission’s findings of violations of ORS 244.040(1, 2, 6) and former ORS 244.120(1)(d).