Opinion ID: 1247804
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statutory and factual background

Text: ORS 9.010(1) defines the bar as a public corporation and an instrumentality of the Judicial Department of the government of the State of Oregon   . It further provides that the bar is subject to    ORS 192.410 to 192.505 (the Public Records Law) but that the bar is not subject to any other statute applicable to a state agency, department, board or commission or public body unless the statute expressly provides that it is applicable to the Oregon State Bar. The Public Records Law declares that [e]very person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state unless that record is expressly exempted from disclosure under ORS 192.501 to 192.505. ORS 192.420. If a public body does not allow a person to inspect a public record, that person may petition for an order requiring that he or she be given access to the record. A two-track system exists for the petition-review process. Petitions on denials by a state agency are directed to and reviewed by the Attorney General. ORS 192.450(1). Denials by a public body other than a state agency are reviewed by the district attorney of the county in which the administrative offices of the public body are located   . ORS 192.460. Whether a public body is a state agency or a public body other than a state agency turns on ORS 192.410, which provides in pertinent part: (1) `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. (2) `State Agency' includes every state officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board and commission. The underlying facts in this case are as follows. After the bar filed a disciplinary complaint against him, an accused attorney asked the bar to disclose records. [1] This request was made pursuant to the Public Records Law. The bar denied the request, asserting that the documents were exempt from the Public Records Law's disclosure requirements. Pursuant to ORS 192.450, the accused petitioned the Attorney General to review the disclosure denial. The Attorney General asked the bar to produce the requested documents so he could examine them to determine whether they were exempt from disclosure. The bar denied the Attorney General's request on the ground that it was a public body other than a state agency and therefore under ORS 192.460 a district attorney was the appropriate officer to make an exemption determination. The bar also claimed that intercession by the Attorney General, an officer of the executive branch, breached the constitutionally prescribed separation of governmental powers and unduly interfered with the judicial function of disciplining attorneys. The Attorney General petitioned for an alternative writ of mandamus to compel the bar to turn the documents over for inspection. The Marion County Circuit Court granted the writ and the relief sought by the Attorney General. The bar appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the bar is a state agency and that application of the Public Records Law to these facts did not result in any constitutional violation. State ex rel. Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 91 Or. App. 690, 756 P.2d 689 (1988).