Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court determined whether a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) executed by the Oregon Department of Transportation constitutes a "rule" under the state's Administrative Procedures Act. The court concluded that the CWA prescribes policies of general applicability for the agency's community benefit program, thereby triggering mandatory notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. Consequently, the court declared the CWA invalid due to ODOT's failure to comply with those procedures.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) is a "rule" under Oregon's Administrative Procedure Act.
- Whether ODOT was required to comply with notice‑and‑comment rulemaking procedures before adopting the CWA.
Holdings
- The CWA is a rule because it is a statement of general applicability that prescribes agency policy.
- ODOT was required to follow the APA's notice‑and‑comment rulemaking procedures; the CWA is therefore invalidly promulgated.
Key quotations
“The CWA is an ODOT statement that prescribes policies that generally apply to its community benefit program. That makes it a “rule” under the APA, and ODOT was required to follow the APA’s notice‑and‑comment rulemaking procedures before adopting those policies.” (405)
“The purpose underlying the notice‑and‑comment procedures and the legislative intent to grant agencies flexibility to contract for community benefit projects were both satisfied in this case.” (405)
Factual background
ODOT negotiated a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) with labor unions to set terms for community benefit contracts without complying with the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act's notice‑and‑comment rulemaking procedures. AGC challenged the CWA as an invalidly promulgated rule.
Procedural history
The Oregon Court of Appeals certified the rule challenge and upheld the CWA. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed whether the CWA is a rule subject to APA notice‑and‑comment requirements.