“Public Research Integrity Act”

An Act Relating to Fraudulent Research by Public Officials; Creating a New Crime; and Prescribing Penalties

SECTION 1. Short Title

This Act shall be known and cited as the "Public Research Integrity Act."

SECTION 2. Findings and Purpose

The Legislative Assembly finds that:

1. The integrity of research, reports, and guidance issued by public agencies and officials is essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring effective governance.
2. Fraudulent research undermines legislative priorities, deceives stakeholders, and erodes public confidence.
3. To protect the public and uphold transparent government, it is necessary to establish strict penalties for public officials who knowingly engage in fraudulent research practices.

The purpose of this Act is to create criminal penalties for any Oregon public official who knowingly creates, participates in the creation of, or disseminates fraudulent research in official reports, guidance, or documents intended to inform public policy, agency action, or legislative mandates.

SECTION 3. Definitions

As used in this Act:

1. "Public official" means any person elected or appointed to any office, position, or employment within the state government, including but not limited to state agencies, departments, commissions, boards, and authorities, as well as employees of local government entities.
2. "Fraudulent research" means any research report, analysis, study, guidance document, agency plan, or other official documentation or communication that:

a. Is intended to mislead or deceive others by containing material misrepresentations, falsified data, or intentionally manipulated conclusions.

b. Omits relevant facts or data with the intent to mislead.

c. Is created or disseminated with the knowledge that it does not accurately represent the evidence or information required to address legislative priorities or agency responsibilities.

SECTION 4. Prohibited Conduct

1. It shall be unlawful for any public official to:

a. Knowingly create, authorize, or contribute to the creation of fraudulent research as defined in Section 3(2) in response to:

i. Reports or analyses requested by legislation or by a legislative committee.

ii. Agency plans or documents aimed at addressing priorities or requirements set by the legislature.

iii. Guidance documents intended for agency staff, local agencies, or the public.

b. Participate in, or knowingly approve, the dissemination of such fraudulent research or documentation.

SECTION 5. Criminal Penalties

1. Any public official who violates Section 4 of this Act shall be guilty of a Class A felony.
2. Upon conviction, the official shall be subject to penalties provided for a Class A felony under Oregon law, including but not limited to imprisonment, fines, and a permanent ban from holding any public office within the State of Oregon.

SECTION 6. Additional Remedies and Enforcement

1. Any agency or individual directly affected by fraudulent research may seek an injunction or other equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the dissemination or reliance on such research.
2. Nothing in this Act shall preclude additional administrative penalties or civil remedies as permitted under Oregon law.

SECTION 7. Severability

If any section, subsection, sentence, or clause of this Act is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Act, which shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8. Effective Date

This Act takes effect on [date], and applies to all actions of public officials occurring on or after that date.

SECTION 9. Reporting and Investigation

1. Reporting Allegations:

   Complaints or tips regarding violations of this Act shall be submitted directly to the Oregon Department of Justice.

2. Investigation Authority:

   The Department of Justice shall conduct preliminary assessments of complaints to determine if a violation may have occurred.

   If the complaint is substantiated, the Department of Justice shall initiate a formal investigation and may involve other relevant agencies as needed.

3. Confidentiality and Whistleblower Protection:

   The identity of individuals reporting suspected violations shall be kept confidential, and any person providing information or testimony shall be protected from retaliation.

4. Public Disclosure of Findings:

   Upon completion of an investigation, findings shall be reported to the public unless confidentiality is required by law.

   SECTION 10. Standard Definitions for Consistent Use by State Agencies
   
   To ensure clarity and consistency in government research practices, the following terms are defined and shall be applied uniformly across all public records, research reports, agency plans, guidance documents, and official communications by state agencies and public officials:
   
   
   1. Research-Based:
      
      

      Definition: Refers to practices, programs, interventions, or educational strategies that are directly founded on or derived from scientific research or evidence, establishing a direct link between research findings and the approach.

      Example: A "research-based" teaching method is developed based on educational psychology studies, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving student learning outcomes.

      Order of Process: Conduct research ? Develop lessons ? Implement in classrooms.

   2. Research-Supported:
      
      

      Definition: Indicates that there is empirical evidence or scientific studies supporting the effectiveness of a particular approach, practice, or intervention. This does not imply direct development from research but that existing research validates the approach's use.

      
      
      

      Example: A "research-supported" program is created independently but validated by studies showing its effectiveness in meeting educational goals.

      Order of Process: Create lessons ? Validate through research ? Implement in classrooms.

   3. Research-Aligned:
      
      

      Definition: Refers to programs or practices that generally align with principles or strategies recommended by relevant research. This term does not imply a direct evidence base or specific empirical support for the program itself.

      Example: A "research-aligned" curriculum incorporates strategies research suggests are effective, even if the curriculum itself has not been the subject of specific studies.

      Order of Process: Review untested research ? Develop lessons ? Implement in classrooms (with students as the initial subjects).

   These definitions shall be utilized in all communications and documentation related to educational programs, practices, and interventions to maintain transparency, uphold standards, and ensure a shared understanding across all public agencies in Oregon.
   
   Additional Components for Further Consideration
   
   This section highlights supplementary ideas that should be considered when drafting the full legislative bill. While the core legislative concept is kept straightforward, these components provide valuable detail to address potential gaps, enhance transparency, and mitigate risks.
   1. Appeals Process: Establish a mechanism for reporters to appeal if they believe the Oregon Department of Justice has failed to meet required timelines, issued an incorrect ruling, or mishandled the process. This ensures an additional layer of accountability and fairness.
   2. Justification for Financial Incentives: Include a detailed rationale for financial incentives. Reviewing and validating research is often time-intensive, requiring meticulous verification of information from potentially hundreds of citations in a single report. Financial incentives offset these costs, encouraging individuals and organizations to undertake this vital work.
   3. Penalties for False Reports: Introduce penalties for submitting false reports of research fraud, particularly when done maliciously or with the intent to disrupt legitimate research. These penalties could include fines or compensation to the authors of the research for costs incurred in defending their work.
   4. Public Reporting of Fraud Investigations: Require the Oregon Department of Justice to maintain a publicly accessible database of research fraud reports. This should include the date of the report, the research in question, examples of the alleged fraud, the agency's status on the investigation, and the final outcome. Reporters should have the option to remain anonymous or have their name/organization listed publicly.
   5. Expedited Review for Related Reports: Establish a process for expedited review when fraudulent research is identified in reports that share similarities with others issued by public bodies across the country. Reporters could link their findings to previously identified fraudulent reports to streamline the review and investigation process.
   
   
   Examples of Research Fraud
   
   These are just two examples of research fraud in Oregon. These articles identify the instances of fraud, primarily by the Oregon Department of Education, and how they have led to misguided programs, practices, and content that are causing issues in our public schools today.
   • Unveiling Oregon Department of Education's ontroversial Methods: A Deep Dive into Research Flaws and Lack of Oversight
     
     

     In September 2022, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) delivered a research report on high-school graduation requirements to the legislature in response to Senate Bill 744 (2021)

     ODE’s report misrepresented evidence, made unsubstantiated claims, and contained plagiarism

     When the legislature didn’t take immediate action on their report, ODE bypassed them and went to the State Board of Education in late 2023 to implement some of their misguided recommendations

     
     
     

     This report continues to influence legislation and policy decisions and has not yet been retracted

   • Another "F" Grade for the Oregon Department of Education - Fact-Check Finds 2016 Chronic Absenteeism Plan is Biased and Flawed

     This December 2016 “Chronic Absenteeism Statewide Plan” and its related research report were created in response to House Bill 4002 (2016)

     Like the previous example, there were many falsehoods, biased statements, and fraudulent representations of research

     Chronic absenteeism has continued to get worse in schools around the state, which is no surprise given the plan was not research-based but instead manipulated by its authors to implement radical, unproven programs and practices

     --Donna Bleiler
     
     

     Post Date: 2024-12-14 14:00:00

     Last Update: 2024-12-15 17:20:27