1ÅÝֱܽ²¥

The documents and meetings of the county’s have up to this point freely disclosed who is applying to get assistance to protect against wolves and compensation for livestock. how it might be less open.

One idea was to redact the names of individuals and ranches in discussions and committee materials. Full details might be sent out in emails to committee members, so they could better understand applications and issues. The details in the documents for public meetings might have identifying information stripped out. Committee members would refer to applicants using terms such as “Rancher B.�

We are not experts on Oregon law. It does allow some information to be exempt from disclosure. There are at least four important questions.

Has anyone actually been harassed? That was not clear to us from the discussion.

Could the committee in its meetings exempt some information from disclosure? We think the answer would be yes. It would be perilous, though, to authorize payment of public money and not make it clear who was getting it.

Would the committee be required to disclose all the information, though, if a public records request was made? That we cannot answer. In general, it can be a balancing test between the public’s right to know and an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The “mere fact that the information would not be shared with strangers is not enough to avoid disclosure,� . “A general desire to be left alone is also insufficient grounds for a public body to assert this exemption.�

And finally don’t Oregonians have a right to know how public money is being spent, especially on such a contentious issue as wolves? We think so.

The committee didn’t reach any conclusions Monday. It was going to speak with the county’s attorneys first.

You can tell the committee what you think at jen.patterson@deschutes.org.