Newly appointed Oregon Sen. Lisa Reynolds at her pediatrics clinic in Portland on Friday, Dec. 13, 2024. (Photo by Rian Dundon/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

Reynolds, a Portland Democrat, did not disclose that she had sought an opinion from legislative attorneys prior to input from ethics watchdogs and Capital Chronicle reporting

 

A Portland-area lawmaker facing scrutiny over a bill she wrote that could benefit her medical practice has been cleared by legislative lawyers of any potential conflict of interest.

Oregon Sen. Lisa Reynolds, D-Portland, told the Capital Chronicle in an email Tuesday that a May 16 opinion from the Office of the Legislative Counsel “clarifies that I am a member of an exempted class, and as such, have no legal conflict of interest, nor a need to declare one” when it comes to Senate Bill 28. Reynolds is co-sponsoring the bill, which would require commercial insurers to reimburse independent primary care clinics at similar rates to hospital-owned clinics.

Reynolds’ position as a doctor in a Portland-based primary care clinic raised questions about whether she would improperly benefit from the legislation. A May 30 Capital Chronicle article reported that the Oregon Government Ethics Commission referred Reynolds to Legislative Counsel for further clarity on whether she was exempt from declaring a conflict of interest. Reynolds had previously told the Capital Chronicle the advice was “reassuring,” and that she would consider seeking further counsel.

But in fact, she already had.

In its May 16 opinion, Legislative Counsel found Reynolds qualifies for a “class exemption,” a rule that allows public officials to take official action that would equally impact all members of a “class,” such as business owners or members of a particular industry. The opinion, which Reynolds shared with the Capital Chronicle on Tuesday, is signed by the Legislative Counsel Dexter Johnson and staff attorney Wenzel Cummings.

“Because you are a member of the smaller class of primary care providers who would be permitted the reimbursement rate under the terms of SB 28, you are excluded from the obligations to announce a conflict of interest, whether actual or potential, prior to voting on the measure in committee or on the floor of the Senate,” the opinion reads.

Reynolds apologized for “not having this clarification ahead of your article of May 30” in her email to the Capital Chronicle.

“I have still been very open about the impacts this bill could have, and I strive to always be very open and honest with the public and with my constituents,” she wrote. “The legislature’s rules around conflicts of interest are complicated and I am learning as I go, as well, and trying my best to follow the advice I’m receiving.”