- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
- Date Filed: 04-27-2022
- Case #: A172134
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Pag谩n, P. J. for the Court; Lagesen, C.J.; & DeVore, S.J. concurring
Cummings, city councilor, refused to provide her handwritten notes upon Bialostosky’s request because she did not believe they were “public records” under ORS 192.311(5), nor that she was considered a “public body” under ORS 192.311(4). The trial court granted her motion for partial summary judgment, concluding she was not a public body. Bialostosky assigns error to the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of Cummings’s similar motion, arguing that Cummings is a “public agency of this state”, and therefore a “public body” under the statute. “‘Public body’ includes every state officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board and commission; every county and city governing body, school district, special district, municipal corporation, and any board, department, commission, council, or agency thereof; and any other public agency of this state.” ORS 192.311(4). The Court ruled in Bialostosky’s favor, finding that the text and context of the statute supported the conclusion that a city councilor is a public body within its meaning. The Court also determined that the legislative history indicated an intent to improve citizens’ access to public records, further supporting Bialostosky’s argument. Reversed and remanded.