OAR 736-050-0260
State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation: Committee Procedures for Review and Approval of Nominations to the National Register
(1)
The Committee shall review all National Register nominations meeting the documentation requirements of the National Park Service and shall recommend to the SHPO whether or not each nomination meets the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.(2)
Due dates for receipt of nominations are not less than 80 days prior to a scheduled meeting and are published in the Handbook.(3)
Neither the SHPO nor the Committee chairman shall entertain a request to add a nomination proposal to a closed agenda unless both the property owner(s) and head of the affected local jurisdiction(s) waive the normal commenting period.(4)
During Committee meetings, the nominations coordinator or other SHPO staff shall present a summary statement to introduce the nomination proposal, using slides for illustration and noting any written comments received prior to the meeting. Staff shall recite the criteria under which the nomination proposal is appropriately evaluated and shall provide recommendations concerning eligibility of the nominated property.(5)
Members of the Committee shall disclose and act upon actual or potential conflicts of interest in accordance with state law, and shall avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is described as any action taken by a Committee member in the course of Committee business that results in, or might result in a direct pecuniary benefit or detriment to the Committee member, to a member of the Committee member’s household, or to the Committee member’s business as defined by statute (ORS 244). As this relates to meetings of the Committee the following applies:(a)
A member shall publicly announce an actual or potential conflict-of-interest prior to any Committee action on the matter in conflict but need not disclose any monetary value involved. The member shall disclose the nature of the conflict. Each member is responsible for ascertaining and disclosing his or her respective actual or potential conflicts-of-interest, but not conflicts of other members;(b)
In order to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of-interest in the conduct of the Committee’s affairs, each member shall publicly announce the existence of any circumstances that might appear to a reasonable person to pose an actual or potential conflict-of-interest as that term is defined in this rule. Upon such disclosure, the remaining members shall determine on a case-by-case basis by a majority vote whether the appearance of a conflict exists;(c)
A member having an actual or potential conflict of interest, as confirmed by vote of the Committee, may not vote concerning the matter in conflict and must absent himself or herself from the meeting during the discussion, review, scoring of, and voting on the matter in apparent conflict. If removal of a member(s) from discussion and voting would result in loss of a quorum, as defined by statute, the members(s) shall not withdraw and shall vote. If a quorum is present, a majority vote of the five-member quorum or a majority vote of the remaining members voting, whichever is greater, shall be required to approve an action;(d)
The nature of any actual, potential, or apparent conflict of interest disclosed by a committee member and the disposition of the matter in conflict by the committee shall be recorded in the meeting’s minutes.(6)
In order to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of- interest in the conduct of the Committee’s affairs, a member shall not:(a)
State or imply that he or she is able to influence any action by the Committee;(b)
Accept anything of value from any person when the member knows or should know, or that it may be perceived by the public, that it is for the purpose of influencing his or her action as a Committee member;(7)
Failure to observe conflict-of-interest provisions of this rule shall be considered due cause for the State Historic Preservation Officer to recommend the Governor’s request for a member’s resignation.(8)
In regard to historic district or multiple property submissions, the following applies:(a)
The chairman may, at his or her option, assign a Committee member to monitor the progress of each historic district or multiple property nomination. Members responsibilities in this regard can include: Meeting with the proponents or consultants, inspecting properties (with owner consent) and proposed boundaries, or review of draft nomination documents;(b)
The proponent shall present a draft of the nomination to the Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Committee. At that time, the proponent shall provide the justification for and geographic scope of the proposed nomination and an overview of the contributing and non-contributing resources within the district or property group using slides for illustration. The proponent may report on such other aspects of the work in progress as may be appropriate or called for by the Committee;(c)
The Committee may approve a district or multiple property nomination at its first reading, or choose to hold over the district or multiple property nomination to a subsequent meeting.(9)
Once staff has presented a nomination, the chairman shall call for comments from the proponent, opponent or other interested parties present. The total time allowed for testimony shall be determined by the chair.(10)
The SHPO and DSHPO may participate in discussion of a nomination, but shall not be voting members of the Committee.(11)
Members of the Committee should not abstain from voting except on a matter involving conflict of interest, in which case the reason for abstention will have been disclosed.(12)
A nomination for which approval has been denied may be reconsidered by the Committee at a later meeting if the proponent has resolved the objections or deficiencies in a revised nomination. The reason(s) for the Committee’s vote to deny approval can be explained or reviewed for the proponent at the meeting, or relayed to the proponent in writing after the meeting.(13)
Pursuant to 36 CFR 60.12, a proponent or local government may appeal directly to the Keeper of the National Register to evaluate a nomination for which a recommendation has been denied by vote of the Committee. An appeal to the Keeper also may be made, for any Committee-recommended property which the State Historic Preservation Officer has failed to nominate to the National Register.(14)
If the Committee has recommended nomination of a property and the property owner (or majority of owners of property within a district or multiple property group) has objected to the nomination by notarized statement pursuant to 36 CFR 60.6(s), the registration form nonetheless should be forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register for a Determination of Eligibility. A property determined eligible is not listed in the National Register, and the property may not be listed until the Keeper receives a notarized statement from the property owner(s) that he or she (or they) no longer objects to listing.(15)
Nominations of federally-owned property which are submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer for a signature of concurrence in accordance with federal Executive Order 11593 may be reviewed by the Committee following normal procedures or may be deferred to the next regular meeting. In such cases, the Committee shall vote on whether or not the property meets the criteria of the National Register and the nomination should have the State Historic Preservation Officer’s signature of concurrence.
Source:
Rule 736-050-0260 — State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation: Committee Procedures for Review and Approval of Nominations to the National Register, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=736-050-0260.