To: Interested Parties
From: Hardy Myers, Chair, Oregon Law Commission Work
Group on Judicial Review of Government Action
Re: Judicial Review Procedures Act
Date: October 6, 2000
Changing the procedure for seeking judicial review of state and local government action has been a recurring issue in Oregon for many years. The current system of multiple writs for reviewing local government action, and shortcomings in the system for reviewing state government action, have spurred repeated calls for change, especially from the Oregon judiciary.
In 1995, the Legislature passed SB 107 relating to review of state government action. The Governor vetoed the measure, in part because review of local government action had been removed from the measure before passage.
During the 1998-99 interim, the Oregon Judicial Conference and Department of Justice developed a new judicial review measure which was introduced in the legislature's 1999 regular session as HB 3578. That introduction, however, came too late in the session to permit the careful legislative study the proposal required.
After adjournment of the 1999 regular session, the Oregon Law Commission decided to include judicial review of government action as one of its law improvement issues. State Representative Lane Shetterly, the Commission's chair, appointed me to head a Work Group with a membership that includes: Circuit Judge Pamela Abernethy; Richard Benner, Administrator of the Department of Land Conservation and Development; Senator Ginny Burdick; Robert Cannon; Clackamas County Counsel Jim Coleman; Wendie Kellington, of Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt; former Supreme Court Justice Hans Linde; Clackamas County Special Legal Advisor Scott Parker; Steve Schell, of Black Helterline; Assistant Attorney General Phil Schradle; and Representative Shetterly.
Using HB 3578 as its point of departure, the Work Group has worked for several months to develop a revised measure. The Work Group's interaction of state and local government, private practitioners and the judiciary has produced Work Group agreement as to many provisions. The pending draft, however, is not yet a consensus measure. Local government does not support these provisions as now framed:
(1) Section 2 (Definitions);
(2) Section 5 (Time limitations on filing notice of appeal);
(3) Section 6(1)(f), which local government proposes to delete; and
(4) Section 16(4), which local government proposes to delete.
Also, because the measure proposes to amend ORS 294.100, local government wants to amend that statute further to add an element of scienter to make that statute consistent with ORS 30.285.
The Work Group invites you to review the enclosed pending draft of the measure and to provide your comments. Although we welcome comments on any part of the measure, we particularly direct your attention to the provisions, noted above, that are not supported by local government; and to the whole of Section 16, which is the heart of the measure.
Thank you very much for your assistance. If you have comments, please submit them by October 18 to Mary Hamilton in my office by e-mail email@example.com, by fax (503) 378-4017, or by mail to 1162 Court Street, NE, Salem, OR 97310.
cc: Oregon Law Commission Work Group
on Judicial Review of Government Action