Director of Oregon ethics commission to face external inquiry into alleged ethics violations

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission on Friday agreed to ask another state agency to probe allegations of ethics violations against its executive director, as commissioners debate the best way to combat what they describe as a rise in politically-motivated complaints.

Commissioners voted 6-0 with one abstention to tap another Oregon agency, such as the Oregon Department of Corrections, to assist in hiring an outside investigator for an initial review into Executive Director Susan Myers, who faced a June 24 ethics complaint. The commission has declined to release details surrounding its allegations, and it faces a 60-day timeline to complete the review and present findings to commissioners to determine if there is cause for a deeper investigation. 

“The report will be considered by the commission in a future executive session,” Casey Fenstermaker, the agency’s compliance and enforcement coordinator, wrote in an email. “If the commission believes that there is a substantial objective basis to believe that a violation of the law may have occurred, then the case will be moved to investigation.”

The additional scrutiny facing Myers comes amid ongoing criticism from lobby groups representing local governments and public bodies over the commission’s enforcement of public meetings law. A 2023 law empowered the commission to enforce Oregon’s public meetings law, and Gov. Tina Kotek vetoed a 2026 bill backed by local governments that would have cleared the way for a majority of members of public bodies to discuss issues relevant to their work and make some decisions outside of the public eye in text messages, emails or private meetings.

On Monday, leaders of the League of Oregon Cities, Association of Oregon Counties, Special Districts Association of Oregon and Oregon Community College Association wrote a scathing letter to the commission blasting the leadership of Myers and her handling of the issue. They complained about shifting guidance the commission has offered on “serial communications” and the ability for local elected officials to communicate with news media and members of the public. 

“Our collective trust has been eroded by a pattern of behavior where the OGEC’s Executive Director’s public statements are in direct conflict with her private actions,” the groups wrote. 

Members defend agency’s actions

During their Friday meeting, several commissioners openly acknowledged that their agency was fielding a rise in complaints to their agency involving public bodies in areas such as Lincoln and Josephine County that they described as further entrenching the agency in local politics. They debated whether there should be more onus on Oregonians filing complaints to attest to their motivations and whether those changes would require legislative action in 2027.

“What I would like to do is just make it so that when they’re filing a complaint, they’re stopping, pausing, and saying, “I’m doing this for the right purposes. I agree that I’m doing this for the right purposes, and I’m also being honest and truthful in filing my complaint,” Commission Chair Shenoa Payne told her colleagues. “But I don’t want to have any punishment, retribution (or) fear if they get it wrong.”

Members of the commission, however, drew a line at criticisms of the agency as a whole. The local organizations’ letter cited commission data showing total fines from public meetings law cases have remained flat over the past two years, despite overall cases rising dramatically. 

Payne said that “seems very inconsistent with their statement that we’re overpenalizing individuals at the front and being unfair to these public bodies.” She emphasized that she looked forward to inviting the groups to a “productive” conversation in August during the commission’s next public meeting.

“I think a lot of the statements in the letter are unfair,” she said. “I am joining the legislative work group along with Executive Director Myers and am looking forward to tackling the issues related to the public meeting laws. And I recognize that there’s been a lot of confusion around the serial meetings provision.”

Jonathan Thompson, the commission’s vice chair, was more blunt, with his comments earning the agreement of several of his fellow commissioners. He said that the organizations could rely on their lobbyists to relay their concerns with state law if changes are necessary. 

“I hear and appreciate these groups’ wants for a better relationship with us. That said, taking a shot at our integrity when they don’t know most of us is a poor start,” he said. “I’m going to chalk that up to an overzealous mistake on their part, and I’m going to assume that it will not happen again.”

Oregon lawmakers passed House Bill 4177 this year to address concerns with the ethics commission’s rollout of investigations into serial communications violations. The bill would have exempted serial communications from the public meetings law if they were “made for the purpose of gathering information relating to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.”

Supporters of the legislation contended that it gave necessary clarity to local governments and public bodies to do the behind-the-scenes work to draft proposals and conduct their business, but Gov. Tina Kotek vetoed it in April amid concern from Myers and journalists that it would hamper transparency at the local level.