Open Oregon Public Records Guide 2019

Protecting the public’s right to know.

A Quick Reference

Guide to Oregon’s

Public Records Law

For local and state officials, members of Oregon boards

and commissions, citizens, and nonprofit groups

The guide is published as a public service by Open Oregon: a Freedom of Information

Coalition in cooperation with the Oregon Office of the Public Records Advocate.

Last Updated: March 2019

A Time-Saving Reference -------------------------------

This guide is brought to you as a joint project between Open Oregon: A Freedom of

Information Coalition (www.open-oregon.com) and the Oregon Office of the Public

Records Advocate.

Original funding for this guide came from the National Freedom of Information

Coalition, through a generous grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

How to Use this Guide -------------------------------------

This summary is intended as a quick reference to the Oregon Public Records Law, last

updated January 2019. The entire law, which was renumbered in 2017, may be found in

Oregon Revised Statutes 192.311 to 192.513. Additional information may be obtained by

sending an e-mail request to [email protected] or sending a letter to Open

Oregon, ℅ The Oregonian 1500 SW First Ave, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97201.

For a comprehensive analysis of the law, refer to the latest edition of the Attorney

General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual, available on the Attorney General’s

Website:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/public-records/public-records-a

nd-meetings-law/.

What is Open Oregon?---------------------------------------

Open Oregon: A Freedom of Information Coalition is a nonprofit educational and

charitable organization with a single purpose: to assist and educate the general public,

students, educators, public officials, media and legal professionals to understand and

exercise:

● Their rights to open government.

● Their right and responsibilities under the Oregon public records and meetings laws.

● Their rights under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Open Oregon is a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation. Go to www.open-oregon.com for more

information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE SPIRIT OF OREGON’S PUBLIC RECORDS LAW ……….……..……………….3

OREGON’S PUBLIC RECORDS LAW ……………………………….………………...4

POLICY………………………………………………....…………………………….…..5

WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW? …………………………………………………..…6

HOW IT WORKS …………………………………………………………………….......8

CITE THE LAW ……………………………………………………………………...…..9

HOW RECORDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE ……………………………………..….. 11

WHAT IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW ……………………………………………......13

PUBLIC INTEREST VS. CONFIDENTIALITY …………………………………..…..15

KEEPERS AND SEEKERS ……………………………………………………....…….16

REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS DECISIONS (APPEALS) …………………….…..18

FEES ……………………………………………………………………………...……..20

RESOURCES ………………………………………………………………….………..21

THE SPIRIT OF OREGON’S PUBLIC RECORDS LAW

The state of Oregon has a policy of openness. The most important advocate for open

government is the public itself. The news media acts on the public’s behalf in seeking

public records in order to inform citizens about the work done in their name. Individual

citizens also perform this watchdog function or use the public records law to inform

themselves how, or how well, government is functioning.

⚖

“Under ORS 192… ‘every person’ has a right to inspect any nonexempt public record of

a public body in Oregon.”

— Oregon Attorney General

Public records “should generally be accessible to members of the public so that there will

be an opportunity to determine whether those who have been entrusted with the affairs of

government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their function as public

servants.”

— Oregon Supreme Court

MacEwan v. Holm

Oregon has a “strong and enduring policy that public records and governmental

activities be open to the public.”

— Oregon Supreme Court

Jordan v. MVD

“'Every person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state,

except as otherwise expressly provided...”

— Oregon Court of Appeals

City of Portland v. Anderson

⚖

OREGON’S PUBLIC RECORDS LAW

Oregon’s public records law – ORS 192.311 – attempts to balance the need for efficient

government with the need for the public to know how government operates.

In 1973, Oregon joined many other states across the country in enacting the Public

Records and Public Meetings Law. At the time it was passed, Oregon’s law was one of

the most sweeping in the nation. In the decades since, however, lawmakers have steadily

chipped away at the provisions requiring openness, adding exemption after exemption

allowing more information to be kept from the public. In recent years, heightened

concerns about privacy, public safety and homeland security have caused agencies to

further limit release of information.

In 2017, legislators enacted several important reforms.

First, the 2017 reforms created timelines in the law, requiring agencies, under normal

circumstances, to acknowledge a request within five business days (ORS 192.324) and

either respond or at least provide a reasonable estimated date of completion within fifteen

business days (ORS 192.329).

Second, the Oregon Sunshine Committee was created to conduct a comprehensive review

of all exemptions and make recommendations to the legislature. More information on this

Committee is available at:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/public-records/public-records-re

form/oregon-sunshine-committee/.

Third, the Office of the Public Records Advocate was created to provide dispute

resolution and advice on public records issues, provide training on the public records law,

and chair the associated Public Records Advisory Council. More information on the

Office is available at: https://sos.oregon.gov/public-records/Pages/default.aspx.

Fourth, the Attorney General is directed to maintain an up-to-date list of all public

records exemptions. This list is available at:

https://justice.oregon.gov/PublicRecordsExemptions/.

Fifth, bills that come up before the Oregon legislature that impact public records are

flagged with Open Government Impact Statements, written by legislative counsel. A list

of these statements can be found at:

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/open-government-impact-statements.

POLICY

On its face, Oregon’s public records law sounds simple. It applies to all government

records and writings. The public body must consider each request for records on a

case-by-case basis. The law favors disclosure as the rule, and agencies have the burden of

proving an exemption allows them to withhold information. And even then, those

exemptions for the most part do not prohibit agencies from releasing the information –

they simply allow them to choose to withhold it.

In practice, though, the law is more complex. The attorney general’s office, 36 county

district attorneys, the Office of the Public Records Advocate, and Oregon’s courts all

have a role in interpreting the application of the law. A helpful in-depth resource is the

Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual, which is reviewed and updated

for consistency after each legislative session. Each new edition also incorporates

appellate court decisions interpreting the public records law. The Manual is available at:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/public-records/public-records-a

nd-meetings-law/.

For the text of Oregon’s public records law law as of January 2019, go to:

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors192.html.

It’s worth noting that Oregon courts and the legislature have repeatedly affirmed the

requirement that Oregon governments provide public information — it is the law, not a

suggestion.

“Oregon’s Attorneys General have long recognized that this transparency is vital to a

healthy democracy. Public scrutiny helps ensure that government spends tax dollars

wisely and works for the benefit of the people,” reads the introduction to the Attorney

General’s public records manual. “...When public bodies do have the authority to exclude

the public from some types of discussions, or withhold certain records from public view,

that authority is an exception to the general rule of openness. The scope of such an

exception must be interpreted narrowly in order to preserve to Oregonians the power to

understand and oversee the activities of their government.”

WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW?

The law applies to any “public body,” and it defines that term broadly: 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 the

state. Schools, police and fire departments, county and state agencies, cities: all are

subject to the public records law. Notably, Oregon’s public records law applies not only

to state and local agencies, but also to state and local elected officials.

The public records law does not apply to private entities such as nonprofit corporations.

In 1994, however, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the law applies to an entity that

is judged the “functional equivalent” of a public body. Determining if an entity is the

functional equivalent of a public body depends on the analysis of six factors established

by the state court:

⚖ RULING ON PRIVATE BODIES ⚖

● Was the entity created by government or independently?

● Is the entity’s functions traditionally performed by government?

● Does it have authority to make binding decisions or only recommendations?

● How much financial and non-financial support does it receive from government?

● Does the government employ the entity’s officers and employees?

● Scope of governmental control over the entity.

Even some organizations that sound public or conduct some public functions are not

public bodies. Oregon Public Broadcasting and the Oregon School Activities Association,

for example, are not public bodies, according to the Attorney General’s office.

The law does apply to elected officials on the state and local levels, but it makes an

important distinction between elected officials and other public bodies. The law applies to

each similarly but two differences are noteworthy:

● The law imposes a deadline for elected officials to respond to a records request. It

is seven business days. (Public bodies also have a deadline but it is fifteen

business days.)

● The law provides for no administrative appeal of an elected official’s denial; the

requestor must file a lawsuit in court to pursue the denied records. (Denials by

non-elected public-body officials may be appealed to either the county district

attorney or the state attorney general, depending on whether the agency is a state

agency or a local agency, before any lawsuit is contemplated.)

HOW IT WORKS

The law defines “public record” as “any writing that contains information relating to the

conduct of the public’s business… prepared, owned, used, or retained by a public body

regardless of physical form or characteristics.” [ORS 192.311(5)(a)]

This includes not only physical records, but digital records as well, and not only

traditional “documents,” but also photographs, videos, spreadsheets, and other media.

Public bodies are not required, however, to create documents (including summaries of

existing documents) in response to a records request. Nor does this law require that

agencies answer inquiries, including legal inquiries. Agencies are only required to

provide documents already in existence.

The law does not specify how records requests must be made, so — in the absence of an

agency policy specifying how requests will be received — requests can be made in

person, by letter, e-mail or phone. However, the law does allow public bodies to create a

public records policy which outlines how the public body will receive public records

requests. If a requester does not comply with this policy, the request may be rejected.

Most agencies prefer – and specify in their policies – that initial requests be made in

writing. But media members, for example, often begin with a phone call and, if requested

by the custodian, will follow up with a more detailed written request.

CITE THE LAW

A request in writing should say that the request is being made under provisions of the

Oregon public records law, ORS 192. It should be as specific as possible about the record

sought, with record title and date if possible. It should include a request that the agency

cite any exemption it relies on in its response and include a provision that fees over a

specified amount (say $10 or $50, depending on the scope of the request) should be

discussed in advance. If you are going to request a public interest fee waiver or reduction,

that should be included, with

supporting arguments, in your

initial public records request to

the agency.

If you are uncertain of the

number or exact nature of a

specific document, a good

approach is to tell the custodian

what you are trying to learn and

enlist the person’s help in

seeing if that information can be

retrieved through public

records.

The law includes a five business

day timeline for the agency to

acknowledge your request and a

fifteen business day timeline for

agencies to either produce the

records or provide you with an

estimated date of completion.

There is, however, an exception

to that for agencies that are

facing significant backlogs or

staff shortages. In the case of

agencies who meet that exception, they must respond “as soon as practicable” and

“without unreasonable delay.” That depends on the size and scope of the request, how

accessible the records are and whether someone needs to review the documents to redact

exempt material.

HOW RECORDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE

The “custodian” of the public record is the public body mandated to create, maintain and

control records. The custodian is required to provide “proper and reasonable

opportunities for inspection and examination” of such records. In short, custodians, or

record holders, are directed to take “reasonable” steps to accommodate members of the

public while they inspect records. That often includes copying of records, but custodians

are not required to “create” an entirely new record for a requestor.

Record holders are required to

adopt “reasonable” rules

necessary to protect their

records. For example, people

requesting information don’t

have the right to rummage

at-will through file cabinets, file

folders or electronic files. The

inspection of original

documents is ordinarily allowed

if requested, but administrative

measures may be adopted to

supervise review of such

documents.

HELPFUL HINTS FOR

CUSTODIANS:

● Designate one person to

coordinate responses to

requests.

● Make that person’s contact

information, including phone

number, easily available on your

website so that requesters with

questions can reach out.

● Proactively reach out to

requesters to assist them in

narrowing requests and submitting requests to the correct agency or office. Seek

clarification if a request is ambiguous, overly broad or misdirected.

● Clarify whether the requestor merely wants to inspect the records or actually wants

copies.

● As soon as possible, estimate the time and expense required to respond. If the request

is broad and will take a large amount of time and money to process, reach out to the

requester to discuss this and offer to assist in narrowing.

● Consider whether any exemptions apply; if so, whether the public body wants to

disclose the record despite an exemption.

● Release of records may be delayed to consult with legal counsel about exemptions.

● When denying a request, cite the specific exemption(s) on which you rely. Also try to

give the requester an explanation regarding why these exemptions apply.

● If no exemptions apply, coordinate release of the records in a timely manner.

WHAT IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW

The guiding principle of the records law is: Exemptions do not prohibit disclosure; they

merely exempt the public body from the law’s mandate to disclose public records.

Many exemptions are contained within ORS 192, especially in subsections 345 and 355.

Others are scattered across Oregon law and Federal laws and regulations. As part of the

2017 public records reforms, the Attorney General is now required to keep an up-to-date

list of all exemptions online. That list is available here:

https://justice.oregon.gov/PublicRecordsExemptions/.

All exemptions are also currently being reviewed by the Oregon Sunshine Committee:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/public-records/public-records-re

form/oregon-sunshine-committee/. Interested requesters are encouraged to follow the

Committee’s work and engage by submitting testimony and comments.

Many exemptions are “conditional.” These conditional exemptions are not stated in

absolute terms. Instead, they involve a balancing of interests, which grants discretion to

public bodies. For example, ORS 192.355(5), allows for withholding of “[i]nformation or

records of the Department of Corrections, including the State Board of Parole and

Post-Prison Supervision, to the extent that disclosure would interfere with the

rehabilitation of a person in custody of the department or substantially prejudice or

prevent the carrying out of the functions of the department, if the public interest in

confidentiality clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Conditional exemptions contained in ORS 192.345 all rely on the same “public interest”

balancing test. That is, documents should be exempt “unless the public interest requires

disclosure in the particular instance.” Some conditional exemptions are also contained in

ORS 192.355, but those exemptions each have unique balancing tests, which are included

in the text of each exemption.

Most exemptions are conditional and disclosure is favored.

EXAMPLES

● Police might withhold investigatory information compiled for criminal law purposes

if untimely release would compromise a specific investigation.

● Agencies might withhold records generated by the threat of litigation if release would

give private parties an advantage in that litigation.

● Public bodies might withhold information regarding their real estate transactions if

release might give the other party an advantage in negotiations.

Some exemptions are “unconditional” and affirmatively prohibit disclosure.

Balancing tests are not appropriate for “unconditional” exemptions because the

Legislature already has struck the balance of these competing interests and has concluded

that confidentiality interests outweigh public disclosure interests in the matter of law. For

example, under ORS 247.973(5) “[i]dentifying information relating to a disability of an

elector that is entered into official voter registration records by an elections official is

exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.311 to 192.478.”

Agencies should also be aware that in 2017, the legislature added a new provision to the

law which protects agencies from liability for public records disclosures unless the

disclosure was affirmatively prohibited by statute (that is, unless the exemption was an

unconditional exemption). Because most of Oregon’s public records exemptions are

conditional, most agency disclosures will no longer subject the agency to liability under

this new provision.

PUBLIC INTEREST VS. CONFIDENTIALITY

The phrase “public interest in disclosure” is not defined in the records law. The Oregon

Courts of Appeals has stated, however, that the law “expresses the Legislature’s view that

members of the public are entitled to information that will facilitate their understanding

of how public business is conducted.” Similarly, the court has characterized the public

interest in disclosure as “the right of citizens to monitor what elected and appointed

officials are doing on the job.”

Federal courts have ruled that requestors must identify the public interest in disclosure

with “reasonable specificity” whether they are simply seeking records or waivers of fees.

Relevant specific factors include the requestor’s identity and purpose, the character of the

information, whether the information is already in the public domain, and how able the

requestor is to disseminate the information to the public.

For that reason, even though the identity and motive of anyone requesting a public record

are considered irrelevant and are not required by law, when seeking to overcome an

exemption with a public interest balancing test, requesters should provide relevant

information.

The requestor’s motive (government accountability, say) and ability to spread the word

(quickly and widely) often become deciding factors on whether a conditional exemption

or disclosure shall rule.

EXAMPLES

● Community concern can equal public interest. In one case, a district attorney ordered

police shooting reports released because “(t)his matter has been one of great

community concern ... (and) (f)ull disclosure can only prompt a more intelligent and

informed public debate on the issues involved.”

● Public interest can mean furthering the public’s watchdog role and citizens’ interest in

transparency. When a secret agreement between an Oregon port and private

companies was ordered released, the public interest was described this way: “It is

inappropriate for a public body ... to participate with certain private enterprises in an

investigation and evaluation of the pollution of the public waterways under

circumstances hidden from public view. The public interest is not served by such

secret agreements.”

● There is more public interest in top officials and – in general – when public safety,

financial oversight or a pattern of problems is involved. A district attorney ordered a

city agency to release its investigative findings in the public interest because “we are

dealing with a high ranking public employee responsible for the expenditure of the

public’s money.”

KEEPERS AND SEEKERS

While most public records are readily provided to those requesting them, conflicts can

arise between those seeking records and the public employees who are in custody of the

information.

Because disclosure is the spirit of the law and most records are fit for public

consumption, regular seekers of records often simply assume that the records they seek

exist and are accessible. Seekers say conflicts often occur when recordkeepers are

unaccustomed to requests or don’t realize that their only concern should be whether the

request is allowed under the law.

KEEPERS: Some tips for those responding to records requests include:

● Make sure that any claim that the record is not public is supported by the law.

● Make sure that processing fees are reasonable.

● Make sure that the seeker’s reason for wanting the record doesn’t influence your

response or the timeliness of it in a negative way.

● Pick up the phone: a conversation about the record in question could focus the request

and save both of you time.

● If you are tasked with multiple requests, keep a spreadsheet and calendar reminders to

stay on top of response deadlines.

● Utilize file-sharing software, like Google Drive or DropBox, to share large files or to

multiple requesters quickly and easily.

● If an easy-to-fill request comes in, feel free to take care of it right away. First-come,

first-served policies run counter to the spirit of timely transparency that Oregon

Public Records Law requires.

SEEKERS: While a seeker’s approach should not technically influence whether or not a

custodian will release a record, human beings are social creatures. The projection of a

professional, flexible demeanor can go a long way in enlisting the record holder’s

cooperation. Custodians say that most media representatives who work with them wisely

try to build a level of trust with recordkeepers.

Tips for those requesting records include:

● Keep in mind that most record request processers are not the person who actually has

custody of the record. The record processer is relying on other government officials to

provide records and does not necessarily control the timing or outcome of their

response.

● Be aware that many agencies do not have access to centralized cloud computing

servers or high-quality search tools.

● Familiarize yourself with the department that holds the records you keep.

Organizational charts (“org charts”) are a very handy first request, if they are not

already available online.

● Exhibit patience along with your persistence, since many offices handle dozens of

requests each day.

● Avoid using offensive language and don’t threaten the staff with lawsuits.

● Be clear with a request, which helps speed the information-gathering stage and

creates a realistic public interest claim if the seeker is denied access.

● Don’t stiff the recordkeeper – if you agree to the cost of production, pay up.

● Offer to narrow or clarify a request in order to facilitate faster, less expensive

processing.

REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS DECISIONS

(“APPEALS”)

If the initial request for a record is denied, the custodian should be prepared to give a

written explanation for the refusal, including citing all exemptions that have been applied.

It is suggested that upon first denial of access by a subordinate agency employee, the

requestor should seek a decision at a higher agency level. In order of hierarchy, this could

be the record custodian’s boss, the head of the agency, the elected body that governs the

agency and, finally, the public at-large who can be informed online or through the news

of the agency’s request denial. In some cases, there can be a negotiation that allows the

release of portions of record while protecting the confidentiality interests involved.

The Oregon Office of the Public Records Advocate is a possible avenue for assistance,

facilitated dispute resolution, and advice regarding public records requests. Requesters

who encounter obstacles in obtaining documents, including fees, long delays, denials, or

assertion of exemptions, may contact the Office of the Public Records Advocate for

assistance. If a requester asks for assistance regarding a request to a state agency, the state

agency is required under ORS 192.464 to engage in facilitated dispute resolution in good

faith. Other public bodies are not subject to the same mandate.

Public bodies may also avail themselves of the services of the Office of the Public

Records Advocate if they want facilitated dispute resolution or have questions regarding

fees, exemptions, timelines, or other public records matters.

More formal avenues of review are also available under ORS 192. A requester may

appeal a public body’s failure to respond within the statutory timelines (fifteen business

days), the public body’s estimated date of completion, the public body’s denial of a

request for a fee waiver/reduction, or a public body’s decision to withhold records (in

whole or in part).

If the public body denying the request is a state agency, then the requester can file a

public records petition with the Oregon Attorney General. If the public body is a locality,

city, county, or other non-elected body, the requester can file a petition with the local

district attorney. The appeal should include:

EXAMPLE

● The name of the agency from which the records were requested and denied;

● Name of the custodian of the record and how to contact them;

● The procedural background: when was the request submitted, how the agency

responded (or failed to respond);

● A copy of the request;

● Any written responses or communications from the public agency, if available;

● Other information that clarifies the requestor’s position.

● Much of the above information can be contained in the email thread with the agency

about the request. Forward the thread but add to the top a summary of the discussion

and outline your arguments for why the Attorney General or district attorney’s office

should rule in your favor.

Since the records law is one of disclosure and many of the exemptions are voluntary, the

Attorney General or district attorney may simply recommend that the public body in

question release the records – even if they could be covered by an exemption.

If the agency refuses to disclose voluntarily, the merits of the case are reviewed by the

Attorney General or district attorney. A decision is made — within seven working days,

as the law requires — to either deny the appeal or issue an order that forces disclosure of

the records.

If a petition is denied, the requestor may still file a lawsuit in circuit court to try to force

disclosure.

If a petition is granted, the public body has seven business days to decide what to do and

then seven more days to actually do it. Typically, when ordered to release the records,

agencies do so promptly. If the agency wishes to fight the order, it must file a lawsuit

against the requestor in circuit court.

FEES

Under the law, requestors are legally bound to pay for the expense required to release

public records. Fees are calculated to reimburse the agency for its “actual cost” of

fulfilling the public records request – and no more. Charges may include time spent

locating the records, reviewing in order to delete exempt material, supervision, attorney

time spent reviewing documents (but not conducting legal research), and copying and

sending records.

Requestors who regularly seek public records,

such as media representatives, consider fee

negotiations an important part of the process.

They ensure a fee is established before the

work begins, and many will ask for a fee

waiver if, in their opinion, the release of

specific records is in the public’s interest.

Agencies should generally grant requests for

fee waiver or reduction that are made by media

representatives. News reporters are, almost by

definition, interested in government activities

that will interest a broad cross-section of the

public and therefore operate within the public

interest.

In considering requests for fee waiver or reduction made by non-media representatives,

agencies should consider the person’s intention and ability to disseminate information to

the public and whether or not the information would benefit the public at large (instead of

just the person making the request).

EXAMPLE

● A neighborhood association president seeking records concerning military aviation

safety at an airbase near the neighborhood — to be disseminated to the general public

— may satisfy the public interest standard for a waiver if it is demonstrated that fee

requirements inhibit the neighborhood’s ability to obtain the government records in

question.

Waivers are up to the agency, which can charge only a “reasonable amount.” The public

body is directed to weigh the public interest issue when deciding on the fee. An agency

may even decide, as some do, that provision of government information is a core function

and therefore part of its fiduciary responsibilities to the public.

Agencies, however, are not required to grant a complete fee waiver, even if the public

interest test is met. A requestor dissatisfied with a denial of either a waiver or a reduction

may petition the Attorney General or district attorney in the same manner as a person

appeals when inspection of a public record is rejected.

RESOURCES

Local:

↠ Open-Oregon.com keeps updated materials, including this guide, online.

↠ The Oregon Public Records Advocate has resources and advice for requesters and

public servants alike.

↠The Attorney General’s Public Meetings and Records Manual offers a comprehensive

look at the state requirements.

↠ The Oregon Sunshine Committee is charged with reviewing exemptions to public

records law.

↠ The Society of Professional Journalists’ Oregon Territory Chapter organizes

educational events and advocacy efforts in Oregon among full-time and freelance

journalists.

↠ For issues involving the City of Portland, its Ombudsman Office can offer advice and

solutions.

↠ The State of Oregon maintains a public records request log and the governor’s public

calendar.

↠ For a list of previous public records appeals decisions in Multnomah County, visit the

district attorney’s public records page.

↠ Search previous Public Records Orders issued by the Attorney General’s Office.

National:

↠ The National Freedom of Information Coalition advocates for open government

nationwide.

↠ The Society of Professional Journalists Freedom of Information Committee offers

numerous resources online. The reporter-only organization also has a Legal Defense

Fund and a First Amendment Forever Fund, which may be able to supply financial

resources.

↠ The American Society of News Editors organizes Sunshine Week every year (usually

in March) to draw attention to information freedom issues and celebrate successes.

↠ The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information conducts and collects research on

public records policies nationwide.

↠ The Electronic Privacy Information Center focuses on digital information.

↠ The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press does pro bono legal work and

offers legal guides on open government topics.

↠ The Sunlight Foundation offers resources and advocates for broad and technologically

advanced access to government.

↠ Investigative Reporters & Editors has thousands of online tip sheets and organizes a

popular annual conference called NICAR.

↠ News Media for Open Government, a D.C.-based coalition

↠ Fourth Estate advocates for journalists and conducts strategic litigation.

↠ ClearGov offers computing solutions for government recordkeeping.

↠ The Freedom of the Press Foundation focuses on a broad range of issues in 21st

Century journalism, including digital security.

↠ FollowtheMoney.org is run by the National Institute on Money in Politics and offers

trainings and data analytics for looking into campaign finance.

↠ Open the Government advocates for reductions in government secrecy.

↠ MuckRock offers public records request templates and a free tracker tool.

OPEN OREGON BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Shasta Kearns Moore, President, journalist, Pamplin Media Group

Duane Bosworth, Vice President, attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine

Therese Bottomly, Treasurer/Secretary, Editor, The Oregonian/OregonLive

Lisa Phipps, executive director, Tillamook Estuaries Partnership

John Schrag, executive editor, Pamplin Media Group

Ginger McCall, public records advocate, State of Oregon

Tim Gleason, professor, University of Oregon School of Journalism

Mary Beth Herkert, state archivist, State of Oregon

Lee van der Voo, managing director, InvestigateWest

Gail Holmes, West Linn civic leader

Norman Turrill, president, League of Women Voters of Oregon

Emily Harris, reporter and producer, Reveal from The Center for Investigative

Reporting

Open Oregon is a 501(C)3 nonprofit corporation in Oregon and a chapter of the National

Freedom of Information Coalition. Visit open-oregon.com for more information and

resources.

A Quick Reference Guide to Oregon’s Public Records Law