Oregon Communities

For a Voice In Annexations

Promoting and Protecting Citizen Involvement in Land Use Issues



  Home
  About OCVA
Mission & history
Officers & board
Member cities
  Issues and initiatives
Voting on annexations
ORS 195 annexations
SDC reform
Controlling growth
SLAPP suits
  Newsletters
  Alerts
  Join OCVA!
  OCVA in the news
  Resources
Links
Documents
Articles
Legislative scorecards
  Member services
Change address
Alert list
  Contact us
 

OCVA's anti-SLAPP Initiative

 

From the Corvallis Gazette Times

Senate panel OKs anti-SLAPP bill
5-18-01
By CHRISTIAN HILL
Gazette-Times reporter

SALEM - A state Senate panel passed a bill Thursday that would give judges the ability to quickly dismiss lawsuits aimed at silencing citizens from speaking out chiefly against land-use proposals.

House Bill 2460, which won approval in the House earlier this month, now goes to the full Senate for consideration.

However, some backers of the bill are unhappy with the amendments the Senate Judiciary Committee made to the legislation before passing it on. They now are weighing whether to pull their support for the bill.

Other backers and the bill's co-sponsor said they are comfortable with the amendments. "I think this is a positive development, a significant step to protect citizens from intimidation through litigation," said Randy Tucker, a lobbyist for 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land-use advocacy group.

Bill supporters say developers and others have used lawsuits or threats of litigation to intimidate citizens and discourage them from speaking out on public issues such as development proposals. They say Oregon has examples of defendants of so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, spending thousands of dollars in legal costs before a judge ruled the lawsuits frivolous and threw them out.

A group opposing the Parkland Village annexation in Corvallis recently received a letter from the developer's attorney asking its members to retract statements made in a flier it circulated or the developer would begin litigation. Group members said the letter was a SLAPP. The developer argued the group was giving out false information that needed to be corrected. Corvallis voters defeated the annexation measure during Tuesday's election. The bill would give defendants in such lawsuits a legal tool known as a "special motion to strike." A judge could grant the motion and dismiss the lawsuit before defendants' legal costs mount.

A defendant who prevails on the motion would be awarded attorney fees and costs. If a judge rules that the defendant's motion is baseless, the plaintiff would receive the same compensation. In addition to some technical changes, the amended bill wouldn't allow defendants to receive punitive damages and doesn't include language that explains the reason for the bill. It also adds language that while the bill creates a procedure for seeking dismissals of claims, it does not "affect the substantive law governing those claims." Some backers feel the amendments give up too much. Both the League of Women Voters of Oregon and Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations are deciding whether to withdraw their support for the bill.

Other backers believe it's time Oregon's legal code recognizes SLAPPs. Merilyn Reeves, president of Friends of Yamhill County, said her lawyers have assured her that the amendments do not weaken the bill.

"Oregon is a public participatory state, and they need this law on the books," she said. "Let's hope it works."

Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, who sponsored the bill along with Rep. Lane Shetterly, R-Dallas, said he's "very comfortable" with the amendments.

"This is a strong, anti-SLAPP statute," he said. A bill introduced last session would have given civil immunity to speakers who make statements at certain public hearings. That bill passed the House but eventually died in the Senate. This session's bill is stronger, Schrader said, because it not only protects speech but also written statements and conduct. "We're in great shape," Schrader said. "I like it."

If the Senate passes the bill - which backers are confident will happen - it would need to go back to the House for its concurrence to the amendments.

The bill would go to a conference committee if the House rejects it. The committee allows members of both chambers to iron out differences in the bill.

If it passes out of the Legislature, it then heads to Gov. John Kitzhaber for his signature before it can become law.

Christian Hill is the government reporter for the Gazette-Times. He can be reached at 503-362-7377 or "chill AT proaxis.com".

Back to the OCVA SLAPP page



 
Google