The Oregon Court of Appeals on Friday allowed Gov. Kate Brown's administration to delay the release of more than 260 proposals for bills that could be introduced in the 2019 legislative session.

A Marion County judge had ruled Wednesday that the governor's administration could not rely on attorney-client privilege to keep the bill requests confidential until after the Nov. 6 election. Circuit Court Judge Audrey Broyles ordered the state to release the records by 5 p.m. Friday, saying that doing so would be in the public interest.

But on Friday afternoon, the Court of Appeals granted a stay requested by the state pending a decision on its appeal to that panel. The court found that the appeal was filed in good faith and not an attempt to delay the release of the bill proposals until after the election. It also made clear it would not render a decision until after the election.

"The court is not oblivious to the political context of this case and that a stay may work to the advantage of one party or candidate (or that denying a stay may work to the advantage of another party or candidate) in the general election that concludes in early November 2018, well before a department of this court can render a decision on the merits of the appeal," wrote James Nass, appellate commissioner for the court.

However, Nass compared attorney-client privilege to a genie that "cannot be put back in the bottle" if the records were released now and the court later decided privilege applied.

The governor's staff did not comment on its win Friday. Spokesman Chris Pair did not respond to a general request for comment, nor a specific question about how the delay benefits the public.

With less than two weeks until the Nov. 6 election, the documents would have provided more insight into policies Brown's administration wants to pass in the 2019 legislative session. The governor has proposed a range of policies for the next two years but has declined to say how she would pay for some of them.

A spreadsheet listing 276 executive branch legislative concepts gives a tiny glimpse at the bills Brown's administration has been considering. The Oregonian/OregonLive obtained the Department of Administrative Services list from Priority Oregon, a business-allied political nonprofit that does not disclose its donors and has been running ads against Brown. The list includes some bill ideas The Oregonian/OregonLive has found in other public records.

One bill is described as "Janus cleanup," apparently a reference to the Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year that public employees who opt out of union membership cannot be required to pay "fair share fees" intended to cover the cost of contract bargaining and administration. It's considered a major setback to unions, and one question is how state leaders will respond to it.

There's a bill proposal related to financial regulation of the state's Medicaid administrators known as coordinated care organizations, a bill that would allow police and firefighters to join health plans offered to state employees and teachers, a bill to increase a utility fee assessment, a bill dealing with state Department of Energy lending programs and a bill focused on "modifications to wage/compensation criteria."

State agencies file the bill requests each year, after getting signoff from the governor's office. Since 2010, Portland business lawyer Greg Chaimov has requested and received the forms from the governor's office, which he shared with clients of the firm where he works, Davis Wright Tremaine.

This year, the governor's lawyers told Chaimov they did not have the forms; he requested them from the Department of Administrative Services, which responded that the forms were confidential under attorney-client privilege, according to court records. Although executive branch agencies are usually represented exclusively by the Oregon Department of Justice, the administrative department claimed it had an attorney-client relationship with the Legislature's lawyers who draft bills.

The state claimed the bill requests were covered by attorney-client privilege, while explicitly acknowledging on the forms that agency officials discussed the bill ideas with special interests, according to court records.

Chaimov file a lawsuit seeking the records, which led to the Marion County court decision and Court of Appeals stay this week.

-- Hillary Borrud | 503-294-4034 | @hborrud