What a system: You can't vote on your relative's business... unless you're the swing vote! Hysterical.

If I understand the article correctly, Commissioner Dwyer said that Mr. Stewart was entitled to the waiver, but voted against it anyway. If he thought Mr. Stewart was entitled to the waiver (as he told the newspaper), then he should have voted for it the first time.

Bojack:
Straight out of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission guidelines. Declare conflict and leave room. No voting unless it's split; then vote. Looks like the Commissioner followed exactly the commands of ORS 244.120.
Unless you can convince someone that it was a Lane County "planning" commission, which it did not appear to be, in which case the action was a violation of ORS 244.135

What no mention of Ms Rojo-deSteffey arranging for the county to loan her friend $450K for a business that by the county's own objective measure is circling the drain.

We don't want our elected officials messing around with the appearance of impropriety. We're holding out for actual impropriety.

Why didn't they just send it to circuit court?

A succesful claimant gets attorney fees if forced to go to court.

Jud, what happens when someone declares a conflict of interest and still votes? Is it in violation of any part of OGSPC? This happens all the time at PDC.

If it means giving a guy back the property rights that the state stole from him - vote away!!!!

It's always seemed as if the "property rights first" wackos were bereft of any real moral principles other than the one where the ends justify the means. Thanks for that little bit of confirmation, mmmarvel.

"Jud, what happens when someone declares a conflict of interest and still votes? Is it in violation of any part of OGSPC? This happens all the time at PDC."

In general, with a potential conflict of interest (the person "might" benefit), there is no problem if the person declares the potential conflict and then goes on their merry way and participates in the activity.
In the case of an actual conflict (the person "will" benefit), the person should announce and not participate. The person can participate (as in the case noted by Bojack) if the conflicted person's vote is required for the body to take action. The actual conflict is *not* a problem if the benefit is one that belongs to a class of people and not specifically to the conflicted person (i.e. a general tax break from which the conflicted person will benefit).
In other words, not every conflict is fatal to participation, and most are not. However, it's generally best to avoid potentially or actually conflicted action when at all possible.

"It's always seemed as if the "property rights first" wackos were bereft of any real moral principles other than the one where the ends justify the means."

That's a major problem with the land use arena imho; extreme positions too often frame the discussion, so we tend to gloss over real constitutional issues regarding notice, hearings, equal enforcement, and yes, even regualtory takings. Forums like this one are quite nice actually because they permit exploration of the middle ground.

That's regulatory.

Jud: On the issue of "class of people", what is the legal definition? For example, if OHSU votes on a issue that can be shown they will receive monetary gain or advantage, and the vote also favors in other parts of the motion that other developer(s) of NM would benefit from the vote, is a "class of people" created? Or should both OHSU and the developer(s) excuse themselves from the vote?

What is the protocol when the conflict of interest and/or the vote is based on false and material misrepresentation to the voting body?

And involves substantial amounts of City, State and Federal tax dollars?

And no effort by the voting body is made to recover the taxpayer funds distributed based on the fraud?

Off-topic, but what about journalistic ethics. Recall, The Oregonian's series on the meth "epidemic" and Willamette Week's thin-watered, weak attempt at debunking it? Well, though I thought WW's article was light on the facts and numbers, a recent Associated Press article supports the weekly's contention that any epidemic is poppycock.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1150322653140460.xml&storylist=orlocal