Oregon’s legislative workplace rules would allow confidential misconduct reports

The Legislative Equity Officer would review misconduct reports and prepare written allegations when an investigation can proceed. Anyone could report conduct within five years of when it occurred, using any form or means. An affected person could decline to participate, but the officer could investigate without that person. The accused person would receive the written allegations. The officer could extend the investigation deadline if the investigator gives participating affected people and the accused person advance notice and an explanation. The five-year reporting limit would cover older conduct but would not reopen claims already barred under earlier rules. Investigations would have an 84-day deadline starting when the accused person receives the allegations. The amendments would apply to reports and complaint statements made on or after adoption and their investigations. The transition rule would expire December 31, 2030.

Covered people would have to avoid prohibited misconduct, and lawmakers and designated supervisors would have to promptly report suspected violations. The rules would cover lawmakers, legislative workers, lobbyists, contractors, other state workers, and Capitol visitors. They would reach legislative work online and conduct elsewhere that contributes to a hostile workplace. Required reporters would report conduct they reasonably believe may violate the rules. Contractors and their employees would have reporting duties when their contracts require them. People would not have to report themselves. Officials could recommend temporary safety steps, such as separate work locations or no-contact orders. Lawmakers would receive notice and a chance to respond before imposed measures, which must protect their core legislative work.

The Legislative Equity Officer could help affected people and the accused person voluntarily resolve an investigation. The officer could use mediation, negotiation, or another voluntary way to reach an agreement. An agreement would end the investigation for affected people who join it, while leaving other participants’ cases open. It would end the investigation for the accused person only if every participating affected person agreed. People joining the process would keep their other rights under state or federal law. The investigation deadline would stay paused until the officer concludes that an agreement will not be reached.

Investigators would decide whether rules were violated, responsible officials would choose corrective action, and final reports would become public under different rules for lawmakers and others. Disclosure rules would distinguish lawmakers from other people accused of misconduct. A conduct committee would make the final decision about a lawmaker’s violation. For legislative employees, the person with hiring and disciplinary authority would choose corrective action with the Human Resources Director. Employees could appeal only based on newly discovered evidence, a claimed process error, or bias. Agreements resolving investigations involving lawmakers, or written summaries, would be public. Identifying details of people who are not lawmakers could be removed. A lawmaker’s resignation after an investigation starts would not stop the investigation or committee proceedings. The committee would hold a hearing within 21 days of receiving the report. Employees could appeal no later than seven days after corrective action is imposed.