ࡱ> lnijk#` $bjbj D$$$ . :::N===8.>?dN&R@R@.A 2M2M2MvM$M"$$$$$$h $:\n2M2M\n\n$::2M2M9vvv\nx:2M:2M"v\n"vv::v2MF@ {<A=u6v"O0v wv:vMf FY$vjagnMMM$$^MMM\n\n\n\nNNNd$<DNNN<NNN::::::  The Oregon Law Commission at Ten: Finding vision for the future in the functions of the past David R. Kenagy* I. Introduction If ever a little tug boat struggled to push a barge upriver, this article is that tug. The barge is big and holds a single cargo: retired Justice Hans Lindes substantive contributions to law revision in Oregon. His insights and infectious passion for the State of Oregon, its laws, and their just administration fuel each word. That same energy likely explains the related contributions of Professor Dominick Vetri and a host of former Linde colleagues and students as well. Others have documented the history of law revision commissions generally and the origins of the Oregon Law Commission (Commission) in particular. Since the Oregon legislature established the Commission in 1997, its design and operating experience have offered the raw material suggesting the elements of a vision for the Commission. Equipped with those insights, analysis of selected Commission projects gives definition to an institutional vision for the Commission. The Commissions mission comes from its legislative mandate. It must conduct a continuous substantive law revision program. This seven word mission statement tells the Commission what to do. Vision, in contrast, explains why the Commission does it. Vision addresses the question, Why do we do what we do? The Commission has never voted on a vision statement. Nor has the Oregon legislature mandated one. Outcome-focused pragmatists naturally leave visioning committees near the bottom of even imaginary agendas. The Commission is no exception. Throughout its history, however, the Commission has operated with something of a silent consensus about vision. This article attempts to express that vision through (1) observation of the Commissions design and operational experience; and (2) analysis of selected Commission law-revision projects. Addressing the Why are we doing this? question helps reveal and define a vision for the Commission. If supported by enduring values, that vision should serve the Commission as a sustainable guide for the future. II. The Commissions Design and Operating Experience Offer Clues to Institutional Vision A. Commission Design Grasping an institutions vision requires some understanding of the institution and its origins. Law commissions do not enjoy intuitive comprehension from the casual observer. Absent thorough explanation, misunderstandings abound. Without knowing more, a law commission could, presumably, be or do just about anything legal. Only complicating matters, the Commission is unique among Oregon governmental institutions. All of this makes it hard to explain the Commission to anyone for the first time. Its one-of-a-kind design touches most every operational dimension. Even so, the Commissions form, function, and funding offers some insight into the motivation behind its work. Evidence of its motivation from this source contributes to making express a vision for the Commission. 1. Unique Form When a decision is made by vote of the Commission, it reflects executive, legislative, judicial, academic, and state bar association authority. The Oregon Constitution demands separation of powers, and yet the Commission as an institution of government operates simultaneously within and on behalf of all three branches. Among the commissioners, the Oregon Attorney General sits with the Oregon Supreme Courts Chief Justice, the Oregon Governors appointee, and members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly. This oddity of form is resolved legally, of course, by express constraints on the Commissions power. It is limited to making only recommendations. The Commission has no power to affect a result other than by the implicit persuasion of well-considered recommendations. Though easily resolved legally, a practical resolution of the Commissions peculiar form is not so simple, especially if generating work product and measurable results matter. Comprised of all three branches of government, the academic community, and the state bar, the Commissions ubiquitous composition could be a painful hoax masquerading as a law reform group. Executive chefs do not work soda fountain counters very well. It gets crowded back there. Cooperation built on reliable personal relationships combined with the persuasive influence of ideas that meet public need allow the work of the Commission to advance. Recommendations from technically disinterested experts, rather than the usual agents of economic influence, provide a fresh source of credibility for the Commissions work product. This, in turn, contributes to a more willing acceptance of Commission ideas in legislative and administrative halls. It also reinforces the usefulness of the work product to those doing the hard work of law reform. This acceptance increases the likelihood volunteers will continue giving their expertise to the law revision process. The challenging form of the Commission invites the hovering potential for institutional disintegration. Motivation extracted from the intrinsic value of law revision projects counteracts that potential. A commitment to meeting the public need must motivate the people behind any law commission serious about achieving results. 2. Unique Function Visioning projects often suffer under the burden of planning industry-imposed jargon and clichs. Among the favorites, Where there is no vision, the people perish. Setting aside the quotes likely exegetical misapplication for a visioning project, the idea imposed on the quote certainly applies, but perhaps best in reverse. Where there are no people, any vision is sure to perish. This twist of phrase explains the disappearance of the Commissions historical antecedents. At the time of the Commissions creation, Oregon had a Law Improvement Committee. That committee and predecessor entities like it succeeded in getting some of their recommendations adopted by the legislature. But by 1992, the law professors and deans populating the Law Improvement Committee had substantially abandoned the work, or at best begrudgingly participated. They perceived a fruitless effort devoid of practical results. It just wasnt worth it. Consequently, by the mid 1990s the law revision function had become moribund. With the creation of the Commission in 1997, however, came a potential solution. By statute, Commission members and staff are permitted to appear before committees of the Legislative Assembly in an advisory capacity, pursuant to the rules thereof, to present testimony and evidence in support of the Commissions recommendations. Staff authority to support the recommendations of the Commission offered hope that the work of law reform experts would not be in vain. Someone might now advance the substantive work to fruition. Such a hope could dispel the perception of law reform service as wasted effort. The agency charged with keeping up a continuous substantive law revision program could now advance its recommendations in the Oregon Legislative Assembly. It could do this by appearing through its members and staff with testimony and evidence in support of its recommendations. The Commissions potential to achieve legislative results, indeed, to perform its function, was at hand. Its enabling statute defined the Commission staff as the Legislative Counsel and directed that office to assist the Oregon Law Commission to carry out its functions as provided by law. Asking an already fully engaged office to take on more work is a common and understandable, but sub-ideal approach to achieving a desired mission or mandate. Still, it was a start and proved to be a good one. The legislature charged the Legislative Counsel with assisting the Commission by providing drafting services, research for, and preparation of, legislative proposals, and such other services as are necessary to enable the commission to carry out its functions as provided by law. The relationship between Legislative Counsel and the Commission has proven indispensable. The experience of the defunct Law Improvement Committee taught of the practical necessity of advancing the work product of law revision to some useful end, legislative or otherwise. If the function of performing a continuous program of substantive law revision was to be carried out, staff with time and resources would be needed to make it happen. Since the Commission was also authorized to solicit and receive funds from grants and gifts to assist and support its functions, the logical next step was to solicit that help in the form of staff. To that end, the Commission later turned to the academic community and moved toward a unique funding relationship. The Commissions function is no less ambitious than that of other agencies charged, for example, with maintaining Oregons public transportation, utility, and communications infrastructures. Things wear out. Changed conditions create obsolescence. At the same time, innovations deliver more efficient ways to achieve the same ends. None of this is hard to imagine with roads, water systems, and communication links. Moving that awareness to the more abstract world of statutory law, however, is no mean feat. Even though the problems of obsolescence and change exist in statutory law, the necessity of a continuous program of law revision is difficult to describe. Broadly, the Commission functions to maintain and keep all of Oregons laws and legal institutions up-to-date. These laws and legal institutions are no less the publics than State Route 26. Highways wear out, develop cracks, and sometimes need straightening or widening. So do Oregons laws and legal institutions. But how does a part-time, modestly-funded legislature take on the ambitious yet largely invisible, politically unrewarding, and on-going task of law revision? Where will it get the ideas, potential solutions, and analysis needed for sound decisionmaking? Generally those with interests in a particular legal outcome step forward to provide ready and persuasive input. But is there reason to deem this input reliable per se? Is it entitled to a presumption of neutrality when provided from such a source? Is it even true? What are the consequences if it is not? The laws and legal institutions of a state, like its highways, belong to the public. They are no ones private domain. No less public, therefore, is the obligation to maintain them. So understood, a functioning Commission uniquely serves the people of Oregon with its charge to provide public maintenance of a vital public good. It is the only public agency so charged. Its tools are pencils, laptops, books, paper, and the people who know how to use them expertly. Its function is no less vital than the work of dump trucks, backhoes, shovels, picks, and the people who know how to use them expertly. 3. Unique Funding Even with the heroics of many, the Commissions need for staff of its own grew with appreciation for the scope of its mandate. On December 19, 1997, during the same meeting at which the Commission adopted its first work projects, the Commission also adopted a staffing resolution. The Commission took this action with the hope of encouraging legislative support for staff funding during the 1999 legislative session. The effort to meet staffing needs with public money itself discloses a nascent vision for the Commissions public function. Finding money became a priority. The authority to do so, while legislatively unlimited as to source nevertheless required a search undertaken fully mindful of the Commissions mission and emerging vision for the public good. Not every source of money appropriately funds the Commissions public function. An unlikely hypothetical perhaps best illustrates the Commissions funding dilemma. Imagine a self-proclaimed public-spirited individual with lots of money. This person, having observed the lavish use of money for the salaries of especially talented sports figures, takes exception. But rather than deny any one ballplayer an $8 to $10 million annual salary, this person decides to try balancing the public-private books with a generous offer to the state legislature. Perpetually strapped for cash, the hypothetical legislature pays itself a modest salary, preserving public resources instead for other needs. Given the political sensitivity to proposed salary increases, legislator salaries in the hypothetical state are objectively abysmal. In response, the philanthropist issues a press release offering to personally both increase and pay every legislators salary for the next five years. Noting how much money this offer will make available for other important social services, the philanthropist also observes that the entire annual legislative payroll will be less than the annual earnings of just one selected ballplayer. By publicizing this remarkable disparity, the philanthropist hopes to raise public awareness about some arguably misplaced social priorities. Without commenting on the philanthropists own priorities, why might the suggestion that one person pay every legislators salary raise a sort of visceral objection? What, if anything, is wrong with private dollars funding lawmakers salaries? When paying for the lawmaking process, are public dollars collected and disbursed under a state constitutions tax and spend authority somehow different in kind from the private dollars of an individual? At the risk of offering insight into the obvious, isnt the problem here simply one of undue influence, real or perceived? If one person pays for the lawmaking process, that one person probably has an inside edge over the public at large. That doesnt feel right in a democratic republic. The idea of public dollars for public purposes is foundational to public confidence and trust in the lawmaking process. For sale signs do not properly hang outside legislative offices. Private money, not purged of its private source through the public collection and disbursement system, is money with an interest attached. It is money with a memory chip implanted. Public money, in contrast, is technically disinterested. It owes nothing to anyone. The same is true in theory of public employees and officials. It is this money and these people to whom governance is entrusted by the people. Public money, therefore, is qualitatively different from private interested money. Paying for a lawmaking process with public money protects against interest or purely market-driven lawmaking. The publics laws and legal institutions are not available to the highest bidder. Still, when an economic or other interest of sufficient magnitude is placed in jeopardy or requires legal support, those with the resources to protect or advance that interest are expected and encouraged to make their needs known to the legislative process. In this important sense, market-driven representative democracy, our republican form of government, may have its limits in setting an authentically public-serving agenda. Not every legal inefficiency, ambiguity, or flaw has its economic champion. The need may be universally recognized as needed and yet left undone due to an absence of resources to carry it out. Everybodys business may actually be nobodys business, as the old saying goes. But with a law commission in place, somebody is always charged with asking questions about what would otherwise often be nobodys business. A law commissions best work is found between the cracks. If funded without the influence of private, interested money, a law commission may freely operate to ask even the questions left unasked in the purely market-driven lawmaking process. To fund its staff but also to preserve the disinterested nature of that funding, the Commission logically turned to the academic legal community. There, principles of academic freedom and relative independence from private economic influence offered technically disinterested staff expertise and leadership. Pursuant to its December 19, 1997, resolution, the Commission issued a Request for Proposals to the three law schools in Oregon seeking an Executive Director and related services. By December 11, 1998, after site visits to each school submitting a proposal, the Commission selected and announced its academic home for the Executive Director and related staff services. Subject to legislative funding, the Willamette University College of Law would house and support the Commission. It would provide support matching any initial legislative contribution. Willamette University, while gladly accepting its selection by the Commission, also realized the challenge of obtaining legislative support still lie ahead. Public and academic money together could establish a public-private partnership suitable for use in the law revision field. If successful, disinterested funding sources would combine to support the endeavor. This result was not to obtain, however, until the legislatures Emergency Board met in April of 2000. Approval of Commission funding from the State of Oregon came with the encouragement of many and the supporting vote of the Emergency Board. With that support, the Commissions public-private partnership between the State of Oregon and Willamette University began. That relationship remains functional to date. B. Commission Operating Experience For a decade now, the Commission has pursued its mission from the legislature by performing a continuous program of substantive law revision. This experience reveals a journey toward institutional vision. A number of operating challenges have marked the Commissions progress. Five are worthy of note for their role in sharpening the Commissions evolving vision. The approaches to these challenges crafted by the Commission offer unspoken clues to the vision behind its work. 1. Project Selection Though given its statutory mandate by the legislature, the start-up Commission needed to decide how to implement that mandate. After addressing its organizational needs by electing Representative Lane Shetterly as Chair and Senator Kate Brown as Vice Chair, the Commission turned at its next meeting to selecting its first law reform projects. In performing this task, the Commission enjoyed some guidance from a broad list of subject areas included, without limitation, in its legislative authorization. The Commission had its compass. But it still needed a map. This came during its meeting held December 19, 1997. Project selection guided by happenstance displays no vision. Principled project selection, however, does. Consistent with its mission, the Commission adopted both project selection guidelines and priority sources for project suggestions. These remain in place unchanged since their adoption. Known as Program Committee Selection Criteria, the highest priority for Commission projects is given to private law issues that affect large numbers of Oregonians and public law issues that fall outside particular regulatory areas administered by state agencies. This short priority statement offers a glimpse into the public-spirited nature of the Commissions motivating vision. Whatever the Commission decides to do, it first chooses work that will benefit large numbers of citizens, not necessarily recognized groups. A group likely has one or more interests that explain why it exists, and is able to watch for needed change in the law and urge those changes to the legislature. A group, in other words, can usually care for itself in the lawmaking process. Simple economic or market-driven incentives bring group resources to bear on behalf of group needs. Group-organizing interests, however, are precisely what large numbers of citizens do not have. Individual citizens are infrequently affected personally by costly private law issues, do not see the same legal issue repeatedly and, even if they do, may be unable or unwilling to seek advocacy assistance in the lawmaking process. The citizenry at large expects and must rely on the laws and legal institutions of the state to work effectively to meet their needs. They may knowingly have only one such problem in a lifetime. When it arises, however, if the governing laws and institutions are outdated, obsolete, or broken, the citizen may incur enormous expense or suffer disaffecting bitterness with the system. The Commissions project selection priorities offer hope that these otherwise invisible issues will be addressed for the public good. The same idea is at play in the public law arena of Commission project selection. Where state agencies already administer particular regulatory areas, they do so because of governmentally-recognized group needs. The interested agency uses its public resources to keep an eye on the legal needs of the regulated group of citizens. The Commission need not undertake projects in those areas. The needs are presumably already being addressed. The Commissions project selection priorities speak to unmet broad public need in the lawmaking process. These kinds of needs are visually the equivalent of a suffocating oil slick on a pond. Though very thin and practically invisible from above, underneath the surface the fish can see it, but not one of them has the wherewithal to do anything about it. Sooner or later, however, theyll all wish they had. Cleaning up the oil slick is dirty, thankless work. Yet for the fish, it is absolutely necessary. Commission projects are usually neither glamorous nor likely to garner their proponents even one minute, much less fifteen, of fame. The work can even seem perplexing to those accustomed to thinking only in terms of market-driven lawmaking. Why, they reason, would anyone work on a project where no group has come forward with the resources sufficient to demand change? The clich If it isnt broken, why fix it? emerges from these observers. They do not see as broken anything affecting only the silent, disorganized, large numbers of Oregonians unable individually to commit the resources necessary to influence the lawmaking process. The idea of first taking projects affecting large numbers of Oregonians has, at its base, the best interests of the public, not any one group, at heart. 2. Work Groups Thirteen Commissioners, all of whom have full-time employment elsewhere, meet quarterly or more often as needed. They receive updates on projects and vote on actions necessary to accomplish the mission of the Commission. Without the substantive efforts of volunteers and staff providing ideas, communications, research, and drafting, there could be virtually no Commission work product. By statute, the Commission is authorized to establish such advisory and technical committees as the commission considers necessary. These committees serve to aid and advise the Commission. Much of the day-to-day work of Commission staff relates to organizing and motivating the Commissions volunteer experts into functioning, outcome-producing law revision project committees or Work Groups, as they have come to be called. This work is a central operating challenge for the Commission. Work Groups are the Commissions engine. Law revision projects are proposed to the Commission through the Program Committee. It serves as the project gate-keeper for the Commission. This committee screens project proposals for suitability measured by the Program Committee Selection Criteria. Project proponents present proposals in writing, assisted by staff and guided by the Program Committee: Project Proposal Outline. This outline has proved a useful tool in focusing project descriptions by answering the question Is this project well-suited for study by the Oregon Law Commission? Through the use of these tools, developed by staff for the Commission and made available through the Willamette University website, the mechanics of getting a project proposal before the Commission have become regularized. Commission expectations regarding the exercise of independent professional judgment by Work Group members have likewise become regularized. In light of the Commissions intent to address the needs of large numbers of Oregonians, Commission Work Group members are urged in writing at the time of their appointment to leave their individual or group representational interests, if any, at the door of the Work Group meeting room. When any particular individual or group employs a representative to advance its interests on a Commission Work Group, it risks a diminution of the purposes of law revision as contemplated by the Commission. If large numbers of Oregonians interests are to be served, specific individual or group interests must not overwhelm them. Expertise, not interests, guides the Work Group deliberations. At the same time, however, the Commission must include in the expertise present on a Work Group the interested parties or potential stakeholders. With rare exception, experts in a field of law developed their expertise through representation of clients over many years. The on-going challenge for the Commission is to tap that vital source of expertise and yet use it free of the very representational interests from which it grew. Unless Commission Work Groups are to become indistinguishable from interim committees or task forces of the Legislative or Executive branches, this delicate and deliberate decoupling of expertise from representation must be maintained. In an attempt to consistently achieve this result, in 2001 the Commission authorized its staff to explain this obligation in writing to Work Group members at the time of appointment. The Commission adopted a November 9, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding to this end at its December 14, 2001 meeting. The key language of the memorandum provides, Work Group members are not to subject their individual and professional judgment to representation of client or employer interests when participating in the Work Groups decisions. When important interests must be heard during Work Group deliberations, representational interests should be disclosed. If a potential Work Group member cannot comply with the expectations of the Commission regarding the advancement of representational interests, that expert may still participate, but as an Advisor to the Work Group rather than as a voting member. In this way, the representational character of the Advisors input can be processed by the Work Group members and proper weight given it during deliberations. These expectations sometimes limit the pool of available Work Group members even though non-voting advisory positions on Work Groups are essentially unlimited. These expectations also make recruiting and retaining Work Group members a more complicated process. On balance, however, it is a necessary continuing effort. Work Group membership must rest on the expertise of those willing to put the interests of large numbers of Oregonians ahead of their own and of their past or present clients. This choice of approach by Work Group members is fundamental to preserving the qualitative difference between the Commissions law revision work and that of other law improvement groups. Expertise-driven, not representational interest-driven performance must continue to distinguish Commission recommendations from those of interim committees or task forces. While difficult to achieve without constant vigilance, this objective should remain a perpetual element of the Commissions work. 3. Session Amendments to Commission-Recommended Bills The purview of the Commission is to recommend. When a Work Group presents its law revision project to the Commission, several options emerge. The project may require more work. After a narrowing of issues during Commission deliberations, the project may be sent back to the Work Group for refinement. The Commission may also decide that a project outcome is best suited for administrative agency application and pursue its advancement outside the legislative process. Commission Work Group projects may also receive a recommendation of the full Commission that will be advanced to the Legislative Assembly. Sometimes the Commission amends the Work Groups recommendations in part. Upon receiving a recommendation, the project documents enter the Legislative process for possible adoption into statutory law. Commission-recommended legislation is then reformatted from Legislative Counsel draft form to House or Senate bill designation and is formally introduced, usually through a pre-session filing process with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Work Group Report, after approval by vote of the Commission, is used by Commission staff while advancing the bill in the legislative process. The report customarily follows the bill into each legislative committee hearing and is submitted as written testimony that becomes an official part of the legislative history. This allows legislators to see the people, process, and analysis of issues addressed by the Work Group. Showing its work in writing is an important distinction of Commission-recommended legislation. Unlike the Commissions law revision function, political considerations must guide elected officials decisionmaking in a representative democracy. An experts best solution may or may not enjoy political support. To be sure, the Commission and its Work Groups do not operate in a political vacuum. They remain sensitive to the political realities around each proposal from the beginning, as the Commissions project selection process attests. Just because a law revision recommendation is the best the experts can propose, it may not be politically acceptable in a representative democracy. Most Commission-recommended proposals advancing to the legislative process enjoy a reasonably good prospect of approval precisely because of the Commissions sensitivity to the political constraints surrounding the legislative process. But even so, many Commission recommendations encounter the need for some amendment during the legislative process. This may be due to anything from a minor technical omission to an important political consideration. Session amendments to Commission proposals present a challenge of the first order. If one word is changed due to a technical oversight, should the entire bill lose the Commissions recommendation? Should staff at that moment cease to support the bill on behalf of the Commission or even move to withdraw support? Presumably, one changed word should not suffice to require such drastic action, but what about the addition of entirely different legislation appended to the Commission-recommended bill through the convenience of a broad relating clause? The Commission addressed this issue at the request of its staff after the close of the 2001 Legislative Session. The Commissions projects entered the 2001 Legislative Session for the first time with the support of staff of its own. During the Session, staff faced occasions on which preserving Commission recommendations came in potential conflict with the needs of the political process. Since session amendments come in all sizes and descriptions, no one solution would fit each case. Staff needed broad guidance from the Commission on how best to proceed. In reaction to this need, staff drafted a Memorandum of Understanding designed to provide both staff guidance and Commission confidence that when session amendments to Commission-recommended bills occurred, all could anticipate a reasonably uniform Commission response. After presenting the Memorandum of Understanding for Commission consideration and amending it to reflect the Commissioners input, the Commission adopted it on September 21, 2001. Situational flexibility perhaps best characterizes the Commissions approach. Advancing Commission recommendations while remaining sensitive to the political process as manifest in session amendments requires more than unguided guesswork. Depending on the extent of an amendments impact on the core Commission recommendation and the time likely available for full Commission reconsideration, a range of options emerged. At each turn, the goal remained the same. Staff would attempt to advance Commission recommendations but without jeopardizing the integrity of either the Commissions recommendations or the legislative process itself. While not an easy task and certainly requiring the exercise of judgments easily second guessed, the Memorandum has served the Commission and its staff well. It displays the importance of thoughtfully anticipating problems when engaging the law revision process with the politics of legislative lawmaking. III. VISION-DEFINING PROJECTS A. Sources of Institutional Vision If an institutions vision is first revealed through the motivations embedded in its design and operating experience, then that vision achieves definition through analysis of the work actually done. The Commissions law revision projects address the Why are we doing this? question; Commissioners, staff, and volunteers define institutional vision by the work they do. Institutional leadership may sometimes pause to reflect on the subject and in that moment give voice to vision. But the press of daily work and the practical demands of obtaining prompt results conspire to defer the formal definition of institutional vision. Subjectivity plagues attempts at defining institutional vision. When stated, institutional vision likely either over- or under-includes. It usually gives every stakeholder something to complain about. Consequently, no sober-minded person is anxious to first distill vision into words. The risks are worth taking, however, because institutional vision may also give every stakeholder something to agree about. B. A Five-Fold Vision for the Commission 1. Using Resources Efficiently One persons efficiency is anothers misguided adventure or, worse yet, hidden agenda. To some, law revision striving for efficiency describes only a playground for egg-headed lawyers trying to improve something that is not broken. On this view, the same hankering that moves some to annually buy a new car moves law reformers to biennially change the law using efficiency as a convenient excuse. But law revision motivated by a vision for efficient resource use is different. It is not a matter of fashion or trend. It is about using public money for maximum intended gain. The Government Borrowings Project from the 2007 Legislative Session illustrates a project motivated by resource use efficiency. The Government Borrowings Project involved a comprehensive revision of the state and local government borrowing statutes of three Oregon Revised Statute chapters. The statutes in these chapters affected all Oregon governments that borrow money and had not been comprehensively reviewed and revised for over thirty years. During that time the statutes became ambiguous, inconsistent and difficult to navigate for several reasons. The legislature had added and amended bits and pieces over the years, the chapters lacked generally applicable terms and definitions, particular governments were occasionally left out of certain bonding authority, overriding authority provisions were added to certain restrictions, and the capital markets experienced tremendous innovations. In short, temporary fixes to the law had become band-aids atop band-aids, and government authority to bond was less than clear. The Commissions Government Borrowings Work Group took on this project and Oregon House Bill 3265 (HB 3265) was the result of more than two years of work by representatives of the Office of the State Treasurer, the Oregon Municipal Debt Advisory Commission, the Department of Justice, cities, school districts, nationally recognized bond counsel, academia, financial advisors and underwriters. The bill ultimately repealed chapter 288 of the Oregon Revised Statutes and rewrote, modernized, clarified, and simplified chapters 286 and 287 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. The Work Group concluded that these changes will make Oregon government borrowings more efficient and cost-effective, ultimately reducing costs for citizens throughout Oregon. 2. Overcoming Institutional Inertia Public bodies across Oregon bring law improvement proposals to the legislature each session. Even so, some interests of the public served by that body may go unmet. Law improvement addresses such service gaps when caused by flaws in legal processes or institutional design. But resource limitations constrain this function. A public body cannot reasonably address every observed shortcoming in its implementing laws. It must establish priorities. When the laws of two public bodies overlap, budget disincentives mutually discourage the use of either bodys resources to solve law revision problems perceived as belonging to the other. Each is primarily responsible for keeping its own laws up-to-date and functioning well. The result of this conundrum is institutional inertia. The Administrative and Judicial Child Support Orders Project from the 2005 Legislative Session illustrates a project motivated by a desire to overcome institutional inertia. Child support orders in Oregon are established or modified primarily in two forumsbefore a trial court or in an administrative proceeding. The procedures and record-keeping methods for both institutions have been well-developed and functional for some time. The problem, identified by the State Family Law Advisory Committee in their request to the Commission to conduct a law reform project, was that these two institutions did not smoothly function together, complicating child support matters for families and ultimately, increasing costs to the Oregon taxpayer. The existence of these two separate processes and the procedural legal requirements at the time, made it possible for the issuance of multiple orders (one or more through each process) for the same children and family. Multiple orders create confusion regarding which order should be enforced, what back child support is owed, and which tribunal is in control of the case. Public money is poorly spent when such confusion requires the justice system to handle the same issue repeatedly. After studying the scope of the problem presented to the Work Group, the Work Group divided its work into two topics: (1) preventing multiple support and conflicting child support orders; and (2) reconciling multiple and conflicting support orders. The Work Groups recommended bills, Oregon House Bill 2277 (HB 2277) and Oregon House Bill 2645 (HB 2645), addressed these two problems respectively. HB 2277 required that the moving party (e.g. obligor, obligee, state agency, the court) provide a certificate of information about existing or pending child support proceedings in their filings. Notification is a first step toward law improvement in this area because it should reduce the occurrences of multiple orders. The Work Group believes that with knowledge of a pre-existing order, the Administrator or court will not purposefully enter a contradictory support order for the same family. HB 2645 provided a process and guidelines for establishing the terms of child support where multiple orders exist. At the end, a court will generally issue a governing child support judgment that specifies the controlling terms. The Administrative and Judicial Child Support Orders Project improved two institutions by harmonizing processes that had previously functioned in isolation. What neither public body might have attempted alone, due to institutional inertia, the Commission addressed for the benefit of both and the public served by each. 3. Increasing Outcome Predictability Increasing outcome predictability in private and public law matters reduces litigation by encouraging dispute resolution under the guidance of clear rules. In the event of unresolved disputes, outcome predictability offers guidance for judicial decisionmaking. Codification of private law matters in the commercial setting arguably stimulates commerce by reducing transaction costs both during transaction formation and in the event of any subsequent dispute. The Conflicts Law Applicable to Contracts Project from the 2001 Legislative Session illustrates a project driven by the desire to use private law codification to increase legal outcome predictability. Contracts that transcend interstate or international boundaries can raise questions as to the governing law, should a dispute arise. Because Oregon had no statutory rules for selecting the governing law, courts or other tribunals had to decide on a case-by-case basis. Oregon Court decisions were characterized as eclectic, indeterminate, difficult to reconcile, biased toward Oregon law, and difficult to apply. With ad hoc judicial decisionmaking, multiple problems arise, including increased litigation costs, waste of judicial resources, and an increased danger of judicial subjectivism, which has been aptly described as judicial particularistic intuitionism. . . . In turn, judicial subjectivism leads to dissimilar handling of similar cases, which in turn tests the citizens faith in the legal system and tends to undermine its very legitimacy. The Conflict of Laws Work Group sought to codify a stable, concrete set of rules to guide judicial and other decision-makers. The Work Groups end product gained Commission approval and ultimately passed into law via Oregon House Bill 2414. By simply writing down the choice-of-law rules for contracts in a comprehensive, thoughtful way, a potential legal vortex finds its gravitational center. This provides, in turn, the outcome predictability essential to the benefits inherent in the rule of law. 4. Decreasing Invisible Economic Burdens Oregonians harbor a special disdain for taxes. Their legendary rejections of a proposed sales tax confirm the obvious point. But sometimes invisible taxes burden the resources of large numbers of citizens. Precisely because these economic burdens are not called a tax and because they only affect individual citizens on infrequent occasions and at relatively modest expense, no one person will likely enter the lawmaking process as the champion for change. But the combined economic and social impact of these burdens, while likely immeasurable, is nevertheless significant. Unclear or confusing laws may prevent a citizen from easily knowing and promptly taking needed steps in relation to a governing authority. In that instance, private resources otherwise available for productive personal use divert into the process of untying the red tape of government hoping to achieve a needed result. Such sand in the gears of government operates to discourage citizens about the operations of their government, increase frustration, and undermine trust and confidence in the system. The Infractions and Violations project from the 1999 Legislative Session illustrates law reform motivated by anticipated reduction of invisible burdens on both public and private resources. In Oregon, many minor criminal offenses do not provide for a sanction of imprisonment. Until the Commissions work, these offenses were scattered throughout the Oregon Revised Statutes and were classified as violations and infractions. Police, district attorney, and trial court procedures were different for each even though any rationale for the differences seemed to have disappeared over the years. The tax was confusion, wasted time, unnecessary legal consultations and fees, and general inefficiency for all. Laws and procedures for infractions (e.g. traffic, state park, boating, and fish and game) often represent the sole interaction Oregonians will have with the criminal justice system. It seems obvious that if those laws are confusing, the law has failed in a fundamental fashion. Among other things, the bill recommended by the Work Group, Oregon Senate Bill 20, successfully developed uniform definitions, directed uniform citation forms, and consolidated and established procedures for offenses that do not provide for terms of imprisonment. The bill deleted Oregon Revised Statutes references to infractions and thus today offenses that do not provide for imprisonment are uniformly denominated as violations and have clear and efficient procedures. As enacted, the bill eliminated costly bail and first appearance requirements for infractions and substituted payment of a fine. While a low profile project politically, this outcome served a highly practical end. For the person confronting an infraction, what might have taken days of work and costly legal fees to resolve is today a matter of straightforward resolution. At no cost to the rule of law, with legal standards left fully intact, the citizens of Oregon have enjoyed invisible tax relief through the Commissions law revision efforts. 5. Leaving Footprints for the Future Not every law improvement idea enters the legislative process and becomes law. In fact, most do not. Relatively few bills introduced during a legislative session actually become law. Viewed by some as a source of frustration, others see this as simply the way the system works. Ideas come and ideas go. When they go, the moribund bill and the memory of its legislative proponent may comprise the total record of the ideas existence in the legislative process. In that case, the idea, no matter its merits, will likely vanish. However, where the happenstance of a legislators longevity, persistence, and good memory allow, ideas may return to the legislative process many times over many years. A change in circumstances, different priorities, unforeseen exigencies, new leadership, or majority party control may bring the old idea back to life. This happens, however, only if someone remembers it. If so, the idea may revive, but likely gone are the sources of documented information supporting it, the arguments and materials for or against certain aspects of the idea and even the names of the people who knew most about the idea and its rationale in the first place. These losses are substantial. If the idea is resurrected at all, only with enormous and now redundant effort will the idea credibly reenter the legislative arena. Legislative or other law revision outcomes may be decades in the making. Leaving footprints for the future requires preserving the input, analysis, research, arguments, and thinking of those who worked on deferred or only partially enacted law revision recommendations. The Commission shows and preserves its work in the Work Group Reports adopted by the Commission and used during the advancement of legislation through the legislative process. These Reports and the Biennial Reports containing them are the stock in trade for the Commission. Even if a law revision idea is deferred or only partly advanced, the all-important project thinking and analysis is preserved. The public is served well by keeping ideas and the work behind them readily available in the public domain. The Judicial Review Procedures Act project from the 2001 and 2003 Legislative Sessions illustrates the Commissions preservation of useful ideas for the future. This project resulted in recommended legislation and detailed explanatory reports to the Oregon Legislative Assembly for both the 2001 and 2003 legislative sessions, but ultimately the legislation did not advance through the legislative process or pass into law. What issue of law did the Judicial Review Procedures Act Project look at? The general label judicial review applies to those proceedings in which a court is asked to determine the legality of a governmental action or its application under specific circumstances. In Oregon, the rules for judicial review of state and local government actions and inactions are comprised of a patchwork of old writs, inconsistent statutes, and case-by-case judicial improvisations. The result is confusion for judges, lawyers, and parties, and all at a substantial cost of money and time. Many groups and people previously recognized the need for law reform of judicial review and even made proposals for revision well before the Commission began its work in 2000. Chief Justice Edwin Peterson wrote: If a person intended to create an inefficient, unpredictable, ineffective, expensive, unresponsive system for review of governmental acts, he or she would use the system we have in Oregon as a perfect model. Ours is senseless and cries for revision. Most agree with the former Chief Justice that Oregons system for judicial review is indeed broken. The devil is in the details of this complicated area of law. Producing a politically palatable law revision product has proven challenging despite the best intentions and hard work of two Commission Work Groups and other groups before. The proposed bills that came out of the Commissions work were intended to clarify the law of judicial review of government action. The bills set out to provide a uniform set of procedures (no longer guesswork on which writ or claim to file and in which court to file) and to provide clear standards of review for challenges to government action for judges to follow. The reports identified issues of agreement and disagreement within the Work Group and carefully explained the purposes of each bill section. These bills and reports perfectly illustrate the law revision footprints that preserve the ideas, thinking, hard work, and analysis behind a needed change whose time has not yet come. And when its time arrives, the fate of its historic proponents will not matter: their ideas are firmly lodged in the public record. IV. Values Sustain the Commissions vision People are the repository of institutional vision. If people are not attracted to an institution, its vision will perish. Put simply: no people, no vision and, eventually, no institution. The absence of institutional vision accelerates institutional abandonment. Without vision, people ignore a work and probably should. There are always better things to do. Conversely, institutional vision attracts and retains people. It keeps experts motivated and involved. With so much depending on institutional vision, how might the Commission best sustain its own? Values speak to this question. Values do not change. They are the constant behind an institutions vision. As mission explains what the Commission does and vision explains why, values display the personal motivations of the people doing the work. Not every person willingly engages in the hard work of law revision. But some do. Personal values inform that choice. Values involve the character of the people who choose to pursue a work. If the work is unimportant to people, they wont do it. People combine to successfully engage in a work where they share common attitudes toward the work and its importance. By engaging their mission, the people of the Commission disclose and define an institutional vision. They also reveal the values of Oregons law revision community. The things they value most are displayed in their willingness to undertake the work of the Commission. Values serve to sustain institutional vision when the content of the participants characters are consonant with the institutional vision. The law revision community serving the Commission has demonstrated four central values. These, in turn, sustain the vision of the Commission. A. Relationships For better or worse, the Commissions institutional form is unique. So is the assembled collection of humanity serving the Commission. Gathering members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches for a common task is challenge enough. So is building Work Groups with the addition of volunteer members and advisors from the state bar, the academic community, the lobby, interest groups, and citizen stakeholders. Though challenging, however, it is also necessary to a thorough, well-considered work product. Work Group members and advisors work together with the potential for conflict being their constant companion. Yet progress-stopping controversy has rarely plagued the Commissions work. Of course, disagreements arise among Work Group participants. Conflict testifies to the strongly held views of many and the importance of the issues addressed. It is not in itself a sign of anything wrong. Not every decision enjoys universal support. Even experts disagree on what is best. But the social benefits of making progress toward useful law revision goals are sufficiently valued as to make disagreeing agreeably the norm. Behind the Commissions work is an enormous pool of personal and professional good will. It is an elusive commodity but broadly shared among Oregons law reform community. It is based on a respect for others and their views that places high value on knowing and relating positively to each other. It is an expression of the value placed on establishing, maintaining, and even enjoying other people. It shows the surpassing worth placed on personal relationships. Like a good camper who knows to leave only footprints behind, the Commission community knows to leave only friendships behind. This demands an attitude of cooperation supported by the value placed on lasting relationships among the participants. The public benefits achieved by relationally-minded people of good will serving the Commissions vision hold the entire work together. Relationships are therefore a sustaining value. B. Trust Definitions of trust abound. A narrow working definition for present purposes is seen in the operation of the Commission. Trust as a personal value in the law revision context is simply the voluntary assumption of the duty to place the interests of others before your own. This practical definition has guided the Commissions staff as a litmus test for proposed actions. But the definition itself emerged from watching the Commissioners and Work Group participants confront project issues. In striving for best results, the work is guided by outcomes of benefit to large numbers of Oregonians without regard to the personal self interests of those addressing the issue. Trust permeates the people and therefore the work of the Commission. As with the trust department in any bank, the Commission must hold and use the intangible asset of good government in only ways that benefit its owners, the citizens of Oregon. If this sort of trust is absent, the work of the Commission loses its purpose. Trust is therefore a sustaining value. C. Neutrality Technically disinterested law revision involves more than excelling at the appearance of non-partisan attitudes, beliefs, and actions. It is not enough to declare the Commission non-partisan or even apolitical. Neutrality goes further. It speaks to the absence of any influence on the exercise of expert professional judgment in the law revision process. It holds as an ideal a decisionmaking process detached from everything but the personal and professional conviction of what is best for large numbers of Oregonians. Neutrality demands vigilance. The meticulous avoidance of interests other than those of large numbers of citizens is not easy. If a Work Group member has an income, and most do, of course, that source of livelihood itself is a potential source of a distracting influence. The answer is not a collective vow of poverty, but personal and institutional attention to the sometimes insidious injection of influences other than the public good. Commissioners, Work Group members, advisors, and staff must all exercise such attention. Any income source or personal possession can undermine detached, disinterested professional judgment in law revision. Even the best appearing outcome may be tainted by such subtle influence. The oft-spoken, ongoing concern for neutrality within the Commission and the law revision community at large displays its importance. Neutrality legitimizes Commission work. If the work is not neutral, it is not a work of law revision. Neutrality is therefore a sustaining value. D. Integrity As witnessed in the law revision setting, integrity is nothing more or less than always doing what one says will be done and never doing what one says will not be done. Easy to say. Hard to do. It is an ideal, to be sure, but one the people of the Commission display in action. Conduct taken contrary to assurances given or statements made in the law revision process are deadly. It undermines relationships, destroys trust, and brings motives into question, suggesting a lack of neutrality. In its own way, therefore, integrity is the value behind every other. Integrity begins with the Commissions leadership. The Commissioners themselves set the tone for the work of the Commission. Their words and, more importantly, their actions have shown high regard for integrity over the years. In this way, the Commissioners have helped the volunteers, Work Group members, advisors, and staff to know and value integrity as well. Integrity is as basic as always telling the truth and never telling a lie. These sorts of absolutes, while rejected by some, held in silent disdain, or subject to situational revision by others, are nevertheless controlling in the context of human relationships. Tell a lie, lose the game. Integrity matters, especially when the public trust is at stake as in every law revision project. Integrity is therefore a sustaining value of the Commission. V. Conclusion The Commission has never suffered from a lack of substantive work. The outer boundaries of a continuous substantive law revision program remain uncharted. But as a further consequence of its simple yet expansive mission, the Commissions vision remains a work in progress. Its vision evolves, disclosed subtly in the Commissions design and operating experience and defined by analysis of the law revision projects it undertakes. The Commissions vision is a fragile thing requiring intentional and regular attention. The Why are we doing this? motivation behind its work on any project may become subject to potentially diverting influences. Preserving the public spirited motives behind the Commissions work requires protection of the five-fold vision. By valuing relationships, trust, neutrality, and integrity, the Commission provides that protection. Without value-driven watch over the vision, self-interested motives for law revision may arise, potentially subverting the best interests of the public. Misplaced values have the power to transform the Commission into a vehicle for the financial protection or gain of the organized few rather than an institution for advancing the best interests of large numbers of Oregonians. Market-driven lawmaking serves most republican democracies well. The influence of dollars in moving goods and services efficiently through an economy is a rational, workable system for resource allocation. In the political arena, those with sufficient dollars and the organizations, groups, or even grass roots movements they support tend to enjoy the ability to potentially secure or advance their lawmaking objectives. Growing donations to parties and campaigns illustrate the pervasiveness of market-driven lawmaking. But what of the large numbers of people who do not participate in that way and yet live under the laws and legal institutions created through their representative democratic lawmaking process? Law commissions uniquely serve these people and the many others who, while sometimes participating, may nevertheless experience the burdens of governmental inefficiencies. Funded only by public and, in the case of the Commission, academic dollars, there is no source of influence other than the vision to do the public good. That is why a vision for publicly-minded law reform matters to the law revision process and to the operation of any law commission. Offering the legislative and administrative processes the benefit of technically disinterested, expertise-driven law revision provides an alternative to interest-driven lawmaking in all its forms. It offers a balance to market-driven lawmaking and helps assure representation of interests otherwise overlooked. All of this only raises more questions than it answers when looking to the future of law commissions generally and the Commission in particular. Do law commissions provide a balance to market-driven lawmaking thereby increasing the likelihood of a republican democracys operation on behalf of the public good? If a law commission functions as an alternative to the influence of market-driven lawmaking, is it potentially as important to republican democracies as the time honored separation of powers doctrine? If so, is private and therefore potentially interested money of any kind, even academic, appropriate for funding a law commission? Would efforts to limit a law commissions legislative mandate or otherwise control its mission or agenda through budget manipulation introduce a vision-violating element of interest-driven law revision? By offering a continuous forum for disinterested law revision, can law commissions serve as moderating influences on the market-driven interests, sometimes propelling even the initiative processes? If so, should law commissions play a larger, more visible role in assisting elected legislators with law revision needs? Without a vision for good government of the sort that has guided the Commission in Oregon, some of these questions are likely ripe for discouraging responses. But with something akin to the five-fold vision observed in the design and operation of the Commission, defined by the Commissions work and supported by the values of people of good will, the answers seem promising. * Dean Emeritus, Willamette University College of Law; Executive Director, Oregon Law Commission 20002007; member, Oregon State Bar; J.D., University of California Los Angeles, 1977; B.A., Pomona College, 1974. The author wishes to thank Wendy Johnson, Daniel Rice, and Lisa Ehlers for their assistance in research and editorial support for this article. 1. Hans A. Linde, Law Revision in Oregon, 20 Willamette L. Rev. 211 (1984). Justice Linde has served as the Governors appointee to the Oregon Law Commission since its inception in 1997.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The author wishes to thank Hans Linde for infecting him with a bit of Lindes enduring and widespread contagion of thoughtful public policy analysis in Oregon.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Those words, however, are the authors only, as the lack of terse expression, use of needless hyperbole, error or omission attest.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Dominick Vetri, Communicating Between the Planets: Law Reform for the Twenty-First Century, 34 Willamette L. Rev. 169 (1998). Vetri has served as the University of Oregon Law School Deans designee to the Oregon Law Commission since its inception in 1997.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 169 (identifying participants in the 1997 adoption of the Commissions current enabling statute: in one way or another, most were moved by the unseen hand of Hans Linde.).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 17076.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 173.315357 (1997) (Act of Oct. 4, 1997, ch. 661, 1997 Or. Laws 1760).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 173.315(1) (1997).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The 20072009 Law Commissioners include: Lane Shetterly, Chair; Professor Bernie Vail, Vice-Chair; Representative Greg Macpherson; Senator Floyd Prozanski; Chief Justice Paul De Muniz; John DiLorenzo, Jr.; Sandra A. Hansberger; Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai; Professor Hans Linde; Gregory R. Mowe; Attorney General Hardy Myers; Dean Symeon C. Symeonides; and Professor Dominick Vetri.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Or. Rev. Stat. 173.315(2)(a)(g) (2005).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Const. art. III, 1.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Or. Rev. Stat. 173.342(1).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Commission Chair, Lane Shetterly is perhaps the best example of how leadership of the Commissions structurally awkward form can produce results. Shetterly served as State Representative from Benton and Polk Counties (1997-2001) and Benton, Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties (2001-2003), was Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development from 2003-2007, is currently in private practice with Shetterly Irick & Ozias, and has served as the Commissions founding and only Chair (1997present). As chair, Shetterly has led the Commission with consistent attention to detail, personal availability, and great skill throughout his tenure.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See, e.g., infra Part III.B.15.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See infra Part II.A.3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Proverbs 29:18a (King James).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 173.315 (1995) (repealed 1997). The Law Improvement Committee was abolished concurrently with the establishment of the Oregon Law Commission, effective October 4, 1997, supra note 7.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Vetri, supra note 4, at 171 n.8.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Authors conversation with Robert L. Misner, former Dean and Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law (circa 1992).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Vetri, supra note 4, at 171.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 173.347 (2005).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. 173.335(1).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. 173.338(2).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. 173.335(2)(a).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. 173.335(2)(d).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See infra notes 30 and 31.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Statutory change is not the only measurable outcome for a law revision project. Proposed administrative rules, procedures, or even agency guidelines may actually have a greater practical impact in some cases and should not be overlooked as contributors to the public good served by law revision. The same can be said for Commission Work Group Reports even where no public law implementation results. These reports memorialize the ideas, objections, arguments, and proposed solutions to problems that will likely persist in state government. The reports are submitted to the legislature as written testimony and are also included in the Commissions Biennial Report. A source of expert analysis can prove useful when the issue is next addressed. See discussion infra Part III.B.5.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT  Or. Rev. Stat. 173.355.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The record of the Commissions start-up years would be incomplete without reference to the Oregon Office of Legislative Counsels staffing contributions. Deputy Legislative Counsel David Heyndrickx, with the support of Legislative Counsel, Greg Chaimov, provided his skill and experience to advance the Commissions early agenda, even producing the Commissions first Biennial Report (found in the Archives Division of the Oregon Secretary of States office). Heynderickx was aided by the office of the Joint Judiciary Committee under its Counsel, Bill Taylor, and assistants Sarah Watson and Patsy Wood. Together they provided the day-to-day operating wherewithal for the Commission. In doing so, they established a high level of understanding and cooperation with those who later became Commission staff, housed at Willamette University. That tradition of understanding cooperation continued through the 2006 interim and the 2007 legislative session with the efforts of Legislative Counsel, Ann Boss, aided notably by Heidi Altmaier, Jennelle Barton, Harrison Conley, David Heynderickx, Dexter Johnson, Doug McKean, Josh Nasbe, Ted Reutlinger, Joan Robinson, and Kate Tosswill.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See discussion infra Part II.A.3. Like their staff, the founding Commissioners pressed forward with little in the way of resources other than a personal desire to serve the citizens of Oregon. The members of the Commission as of October 31, 1997 were Dean Robert Ackerman (Willamette University College of Law), M. Janise Augur, Senator Kate Brown, Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Jr., Jeff Carter, Dean James Huffman (Lewis and Clark Law School), retired Justice Hans Linde, Gregory Mowe, Attorney General Hardy Myers, Representative Floyd Prozanski, Representative Lane Shetterly, Dean Rennard Stickland (University of Oregon Law School) and Max Williams. Vetri, supra note 4, at 195 n.94 (citing Oregon Law Commission, Introductory Meeting (Oct. 31, 1997) (Tape 1, Side A at marker 003-043)).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See supra notes 30 and 31.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Vetri, supra note 4, at 198 n.109, 202 n.113.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Or. Rev. Stat. 173.355.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Roy Pulvers, Separation of Powers Under the Oregon Constitution: A Users Guide, 75 Or. L. Rev. 443, 449 (1996) (noting Oregons constitutional taxation and budget powers).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 244.010 (defining public office as a public trust).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT U.S. Const. art. IV, 4.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT By resolution, the Commission determined to seek an Executive Director who would be a full-time professor, preferably tenured, at one of Oregons law schools, and who would devote one-half of his or her time to the Commission. Vetri, supra note 4, at 198 n.109 (citing Oregon Law Commission, Quarterly Meeting (Dec. 19, 1997) (Tape 5 and Tape 6, Side A)).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. The resolution provided in relevant part, The Commission should . . . (B) Invite each law school in Oregon to submit a proposal to provide and help support the described position [of Executive Director]. Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Minutes of the Oregon Law Commission, Dec. 11, 1998 (Tape 19, Side B, at marker 028-086).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The support of the Willamette University College of Law faculty through its Law and Government Committee, the enthusiasm of Professor Claudia Burton in particular, Willamette College of Law Dean Robert Ackerman, and Willamette University President M. Lee Pelton all contributed to Willamette Universitys willingness to commit resources to the housing of the Commission on the Willamette campus. Finding legislative support to match Willamette University's commitment remained the last step to completing the Commissions move to its academic home.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Minutes of Emergency Board Meeting, Apr. 28, 2000 (noting boards approval of $100,000 in funding for the Commission), available at http://www.leg.state.or.us/ comm/lfo/400eboard.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Testimony in support of Commission funding was offered before the Emergency Boards Subcommittee on Education on April 27, 2000 by Attorney General Hardy Myers, Representative Max Williams, and the author. An audio recording of the testimony can be streamed from http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/ (last visited Sept. 12, 2007). Without the efforts of many others who shared the vision for disinterested law reform in Oregon, neither the 1997 creation of the Commission nor the 2000 funding would have been possible. In addition to those mentioned by Professor Vetri, including Ms. Linda Ziskina, then-third year law student at the University of Oregon Law School interning for Senator Jeanette Hamby; Senators Jeanette Hamby, Kate Brown, Susan Castillo, Gene Derfler, Marilyn Shannon, Thomas Wilde, and Representative Tony Corcoran who sponsored S.B. 1115; the author and Professor Dom Vetri who explained the proposed legislation to create the Commission to legislators individually and in legislative committees; Deputy Attorney General David Schuman who provided testimony in support before both the Oregon Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives committees; and Attorney General Hardy Myers and Professor Maury Holland of the University of Oregon who wrote letters of support, supra note 4, at 169, early assistance came from then-Willamette University College of Law student Ross Day, then-State Representative Bryan Johnston (D-Salem), and then-Oregon State Bar public affairs representatives Bob Oleson and Carl Meyers. Indispensable support for the project, however, came from former state legislator and Congressman Bob Smith, who represented parts of southeast Oregon in the Oregon House of Representatives from 1961 through 1972, including service during the 1969 and 1971 legislative sessions as Speaker of the House, and Oregons Second Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives from 1983 though 1995 and 1997 through 1999. Smiths instant grasp of both the need for and usefulness of law revision in Oregon carried out in partnership with Willamette University, together with his articulate, persuasive encouragement of many of his colleagues and friends to support the Commission, go far to explain the Commissions existence.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Without exaggeration, this relationships survival is due to the abiding commitment of the Willamette University College of Law Dean and Professor of Law, Symeon C. Symeonides. In 2000, he contributed resources from his own administration by appointing a law school Associate Dean as the Commissions first Executive Director. In each year thereafter, he increased the College of Laws financial commitment, patiently endured the uncertainties of legislative funding and budget processes, supported efforts to strengthen the Commission staff, and improved its technology and facilities. As part of his development efforts, by 2008 the Commission is slated to occupy offices in the College of Laws Civic Justice Center. This Center will occupy the refurbished Carnegie Library building on the Willamette campus, immediately across the street from the Oregon statehouse.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 173.315(1) (2005).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Vetri, supra note 4, at 195 n.96.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT ORS 173.338(1)(a)(e) provides: (1) The specific subject areas to be part of the law revision program of the Oregon Law Commission include but are not limited to: (a) The common law and statutes of the state and current judicial decisions for the purpose of discovering defects and anachronisms in the law and recommending needed reforms. (b) Proposed changes in the law recommended by the American Law Institute, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law, any bar association or other learned bodies. (c) Suggestions from judges, justices, public officials, lawyers and the public generally as to defects and anachronisms in the law. (d) Such changes in the law as the commission considers necessary to modify or eliminate antiquated and inequitable rules of law and to bring the law of Oregon into harmony with modern conditions. (e) The express repeal of all statutes repealed by implication or held unconstitutional by state and federal courts. Or. Rev. Stat. 173.338(a)(a)(e).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Vetri, supra note 4, at 200 n.111, 201 n.112.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 2005-2007 app., at 205 (2001). The Commissions Biennial Reports are required by Or. Rev. Stat. 173.342 (2005) and contain the best source for observing the work of the Commission. Hard copies are located both in the Willamette University College of Law Library and the Archives Division of the office of the Oregon Secretary of State. The reports are also available online at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/olc/reports/.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See id. These guidelines are used by the Commissions Program Committee in making project selection recommendations. The Program Committee hears project proposals designed pursuant to a standardized form (Program Committee: Project Proposal Outline), applies the Program Committee Selection Criteria, and then makes recommendations for projects to the Commission as a whole, with whom the final decision for action rests.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT One notable challenge to this ideal relates to the potential for linkage between specific law revision projects and legislative funding of the Commission. Only once in its history, the Commission undertook a specific project subject to legislative funding. The Ethics Project, see generally Wendy J. Johnson, Samuel Sears & Daniel Rice, Oregon Government Ethics Law Reform, 44 Willamette L. Rev. 399 (2007), the results of which were presented for legislative consideration in the 2007 legislative session, was funded by the legislature at the close of the 2005 session. Because the project otherwise met the Program Committee Project Selection Criteria, it was recommended to the Commission, subject to funding and undertaken as a project when funded. The Commission added staff as needed, enjoyed a period of growth with flexibility but, while alluring, it created a sub-ideal situation. While the project provided a major contribution to Oregon lawmaking and its ultimate results are not known as of this writing, in principle, the idea of funding dependent projects presents risks to the Commission. Most notably, such projects risk off-mission results driven by possible legislative outcome expectations and perceived competition with an existing legislative political agenda. Where, in the case of some appointed and funded task forces in which the desired outcome or answer to an issue is known at the time of the funding and creation of the task force or committee, the only question is how to get there, even if by exhaustion of any opposition. The Commission does not undertake projects with the answers known in advance.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Or. Rev. Stat. 173.328.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. 173.352.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 2005-2007, 205 (2007).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 206.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Web site development was among the earliest staff contributions to the work of the Commission. The Commissions website, www.willamette.edu/wucl/oregonlawcommission, serves as the communications center for the Commission and contains the Program Committee Selection Criteria and Program Committee: Project Proposal Outline. It also provides calendars for Commission and Work Group meetings, Work Group Reports, current bill status during legislative session, as well as historic information including Commission meeting minutes. Michelle M. Mhoon served as the Commissions first lawyer-assistant to the Executive Director and, in addition to preparing the 1999-2000 Biennial Report of the Commission, brought the original content and design of the Commissions web page into existence. She was aided by the Willamette University Integrated Technology department. At present, Willamette University staff Legal Assistant Lisa Ehlers and Deputy Director and General Counsel Wendy Johnson, maintain and update this essential communications tool for use by the Commissioners, Work Group members, other volunteers, and the general public.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See discussion supra Part II.B.1  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Memorandum from David Kenagy, Executive Director of the Or. Law Commn to the Commissioners of the Or. Law Commn (Nov. 9, 2001), Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 20012003 (2003).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Minutes of the Oregon Law Commission Meeting, Dec. 14, 2001 (Tape 6, Side A at marker 52-277).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Memorandum from David Kenagy, supra note 60.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See supra note 12.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Project results include the Work Group Report and any accompanying proposed legislation. The reports are usually prepared by one or more Work Group members or staff and circulated electronically among the Work Group members. During that process, modeled loosely after the American Law Institutes approach to law improvement projects, the reports are modified with dissenting views added or supplemented as necessary. Once approved by the Work Group, they are ready for presentation to the full Commission. These reports, essential to the presentation and preservation of the expert insights, arguments, analysis, and problem solutions offered by the Work Group members are prepared in conformity with an Illustrative Outline of a Report to the Oregon Law Commission. Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 2005-2007, 207-208 (2007).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor and Indus., 859 P.2d 1143, 1145-47 (Or. 1993).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Selection of Issues for Study/Development of Legislation, in Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 1997-1999 pt. IV, D (1999) (the Commission should select issues that can "produce legislative proposals with a good prospect of approval by the Legislature and Governor).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Session amendments to bills are typically limited only by the relating clause, or title, appearing at the heading of the bill. Article IV, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution provides that bills must embrace only one subject that is expressed in the title. The requirement, however, does not preclude adding matters otherwise germane to the same general subject to a bill through the amendment process. Or. Const. art. IV, 20, para. 2. Thus, hypothetically, a Commission bill relating to public safety but dealing only with recommendations for how best to address cracked sidewalks, may be amended during session to include legislation addressing sex offender registration. But see Masons Manual of Legislative Procedure 402 (2000) (delineating when amendment is germane to bill). In this hypothetical, a potentially simple law revision suggestion may become a politically-charged controversy.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Memorandum from David Kenagy, Executive Director of the Or. Law Commn to the Commissioners of the Or. Law Commn (Sept. 6, 2001); Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 2001-2003 15-16.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Minutes from Oregon Law Commission meeting (Sept. 21, 2001), Tape 4A at markers 51-103.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Memorandum from David Kenagy, supra note 68 (describing a four-level hierarchy of steps in managing mid-session amendments).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT This five-fold vision for the Commission is only the authors, of course. It developed while watching the good people of the Commission carry out their legislative mandate.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Specifically, the project addressed revisions to ORS ch. 286 (primarily relating to state government borrowings and the duties of the Office of the State Treasurer); ORS ch. 287 (primarily relating to local government borrowings and duties of the Oregon Municipal Debt Advisory Committee); and Or. Rev. Stat. ch. 288 (relating to public borrowing provisions applying to certain state and/or local government borrowings). Harvey W. Rogers, Government Borrowings Work Group: Revision of State and Local Government Borrowings Laws Found in ORS Chapters 286, 287 and 288 (HB 3265) in Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 2005-2007, 107-16 (2007).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 108-09.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 108 (Unlike private entities, state agencies and local governments need very clear authority to borrow money. A borrowing that is done by a state agency or local government without clear legal authority can be declared ultra vires and void by a court. . . . Because of the risk of an ultra vires determination and the need for unqualified opinions, there is a significant and unnecessary cost to the state and its local governments if Oregons borrowing statutes are ambiguous or inconsistent.).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 109.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 116. Work Group members included the following: Commissioner Lane Shetterly, as Chair; Harvey Rogers, Partner, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, as Reporter; Cynthia Byrnes, Assistant Attorney General, State of Oregon Department of Justice; Pat Clancy, Principal, Western Financial Group and Chair, Oregon Municipal Debt Advisory Commission; Ed Einowski, Partner, Stoel Rives LLP; Doug Goe, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Eric Johansen, Debt Manager, City of Portland; Bob Larson, Debt Manager, Oregon Housing & Community Services; Laura Lockwood-McCall, Debt Management Division Director, Oregon State Treasurers Office; Angie Peterman, Administrative and Support Services Director, Oregon School Boards Association; Jim Shannon, Partner, Mersereau and Shannon; Dave Taylor, Vice President, Seattle-Northwest Securities; and Frederick Thompson, Professor, Willamette University Atkinson Graduate School of Management. Work Group advisors included the following: Greg Blonde, Associate, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Courtney Muraski, Associate, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Christine Reynolds, Associate, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Kate Cooper Richardson, Chief of Staff, Oregon State Treasurers Office; Michael Schrader, Of Counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; and Gulgun Ugur, Associate, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates & Ellis LLP. Staff included the following: Harrison Conley, Deputy Legislative Counsel and Dexter Johnson (formerly Senior Deputy Legislative Counsel), Wendy Johnson, Deputy Director and General Counsel for the Commission and Benjamin Stewart, Commission law clerk.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 116. See 2007 Or. Laws 97. The bill was warmly received by both Oregon House and Senate Revenue Committees, sailed through both chambers and was signed into law by the governor.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Rogers, supra note 72, at 116.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT This expectation of agency effort to address agency statutory need explains why, in its Issue Selection Criteria, the Commission avoids projects that would fall within the ambit of particular regulatory areas administered by state agencies. See Nature of Issues, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 1999-2001 pt. B, at 8 (2001).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See, e.g., Or. Rev. Stat. 107.085 (2005) (trial court proceeding for annulment, dissolution, separation); id. 25.080 (administrative child support proceedings).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Sandra Hansberger, Administrative & Judicial Child Support Orders: Resolution of Multiple Orders Report 3 in Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission (20012003) (on file with the Commission); Sandra Hansberger, Administrative & Judicial Child Support Orders: Certificate Requirements Report, in Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 20012003 app. K, at 2, available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/oregonlawcommission /home/work_groups11.html.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Hansberger, Resolution of Multiple Orders Report, supra note 82, at 2; Hansberger, Certificate Requirements Report, supra note 82, at K-2  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Hansberger, Resolution of Multiple Orders Report, supra note 82, at 3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 3-4; Hansberger, Certificate requirements report, supra note 82, at K-3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Members of the Work Group included the following: Professor Sandra Hansberger, Chair, Lewis and Clark College of Law; Kevin Anselm, Hearings Officer Panel, ALJ; Jean Fogarty, Department of Justice, AAG; David Gannett, David G. Gannett LLC; Drake Lightle, Gevurtz Menasche Larson & Howe PC; Carol Anne McFarland, Clackamas Co. District Attorneys Office; Judge Maureen McKnight, Multnomah Co. Circuit Court; Marsha Morasch, Yates Matthew & Morasch PC; Judge Keith Raines, Washington Co. Circuit Court; Ronelle Shankle, Department of Justice, Child Support Division; Carl Stecker, Marion Co. District Attorneys Office; BeaLisa Sydlik, Office of State Court Administrator. Other participants included the following: Susan Grabe, Oregon State Bar; Wendy Johnson, Oregon Law Commission; David Kenagy, Oregon Law Commission; Judge Dale Koch, Multnomah Co. Circuit Court; Doug McKean, Office of Legislative Counsel; Craig Prins, Judiciary Committee; Bradd Swank, Office of State Court Administrator and William Taylor, Judiciary Committee. Hansberger, Certificate Requirements Report, supra note 82, at K-3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT 2003 Or. Laws 695.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT 2003 Or. Laws 794.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Hansberger, Certificate Requirements Report, supra note 82, at K-4.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at K-2.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Hansberger, Resolution of Multiple Orders Report, supra note 82, at 2.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT James A.R. Nafziger, Conflicts Law Applicable to Contracts, in Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 1999-2001 app. B, at 2 (2001).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 5-6.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Symeon C. Symeonides, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future 424 (2006).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Work Group members included: J. Michael Alexander, Justice Wallace Carson, Mildred Carmack, Jonathan Hoffman, Professor Maurice Holland, Douglas Houser, Professor Hans Linde, Donald Large (replaced by Professor Gilbert Carrasco), Professor James Nafziger (Reporter), Professor Eugene Scoles, William Snoufer, Dean Symeon Symeonides and Professor Dominick Vetri (Chair). Ex Officio members included: Representative Lane Shetterly, Senator Kate Brown, David Heynderickx, and Susan Grabe. Nafziger, Conflicts Law Applicable to Contracts, supra note 94, at 1 n.1.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 6.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT 2001 Or. Laws 382 (codified at Or. Rev. Stat. 81.100 81.135 (2005)).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See supra text accompanying note 97.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Ashbel S. Green, Sizemore Gives Anti-Taxation Plenty of Representation, The Oregonian, Sept. 6, 1996, at A1 (noting Oregon voters rejection of nine ballot measures seeking to implement state sales tax).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 19971999, 27-28 (1999), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/1999 report.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 27.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 28.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The work group was appointed by the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee (CJAC) and included Commissioners (Representative Floyd Prozanski and Janise Auger), representatives from the district attorneys offices, Oregon State Police, Legislative Fiscal Office, the State Court Administrators Office (Bradd Swank), and the courts. Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT 1999 Or. Laws 2595.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn, Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 1997-1999, 29-31 (1999).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 28, 32.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 27, 30.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The 2007 legislative session, for example, featured the introduction of 2,744 bills, not including resolutions or memorials. The list of bills can be found at http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/. Of these bills, 910 were enacted into law, meaning a little more than 33% of bills became law.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See discussion supra Part II.B.3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See H.B. 2246 (Or. 2001); H.B. 3027 (Or. 2003).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See generally Attorney General Hardy Myers, Prof. Hans Linde, David Schuman & Philip Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Oregon Law Commission Report (2001), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/judicial_ report.pdf; Attorney General Hardy Myers & Philip Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Report (HB 3027) (2003), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/ pdf/olc/judicial_review_report.pdf; Janice Krem, Judicial Review for Government Actions: (HB 3027) An Alternative Review Report (2003), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/krem_analysis_lc1564_2_6_03.pdf; Steven R. Schell, Judicial Review for Government Actions: (HB 3027) Alternative View Report (2003), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/steve_schell_2_03.pdf; Ruth Spetter, Paul Elsner & Scott Ƶer, Judicial Review for Government Actions: (HB 3027) Alternative View Report (2003), available at http://www.willamette. edu/wucl/pdf/olc/jud_rev_local_gov_objections_report_2_03.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT H.B. 2246 was in the Oregon House Judiciary Committee upon adjournment of the 2001 Oregon Legislative Assembly. The bill received a hearing on March 2, 2001 and April 6, 2001. H.B. 3027 was in the Oregon House Judiciary Committee upon adjournment of the 2003 Oregon Legislative Assembly. The bill did not receive a hearing.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Myers & Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Report, supra note 115.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The Oregon Judicial Conference sponsored a proposal in 1995. Id. at 4. Interim legislative committees worked on reforms for several sessions as well. Id. Attorney General Hardy Myers (then Representative Hardy Myers) chaired the Joint Interim Committee on the Judiciary in the interim of 1983-1984. See House Judiciary Committee, (Mar. 2, 2001) Tape 17 A. That committee developed the first unified judicial review proposal and it was introduced in the 1985 session. Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT  Myers & Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Report, supra note 115 (citing Forman v. Clatsop County, 681 P.2d 786, 788 (1984) (Peterson, C.J. concurring)).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The 2001 Work Group included the following members: Attorney General Hardy Myers, Chair; Hon. Pamela Abernethy; Richard Benner; Senator Ginny Burdick; Robert Cannon; James Coleman; Wendie Kellington; Professor Hans Linde; Scott Ƶer; Steve Schell; Philip Schradle; and Representative Lane Shetterly. Resource persons included: Peter Kasting; David Schuman; Thomas Sponsler; Paul Snider; and Richard Townsend. Staff included Deputy Legislative Counsel David Heynderickx. Myers, Linde, Schuman & Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Oregon Law Commission Report, supra note 115, at 1 n.*. The 2003 Work Group members included: Attorney General Hardy Myers, Chair; Hon. David Brewer; Paul Elsner; Janice Krem; Professor Hans Linde; Scott Ƶer; Meg Reeves; Steve Schell; Philip Schradle; Representative Lane Shetterly; and Martha Walters. Interested parties included: Lorey Freeman; Christy Monson; Paul Snider; and Ruth Spetter. Staff included: Deputy Legislative Counsel David Heynderickx; David Kenagy; Wendy Johnson; and Rosalie Schele. Myers & Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Report (HB 3027), supra note 115, at 2 n.*.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Myers, Linde, Schuman & Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act, supra note 115, at 1 n.*; Myers & Schradle, Judicial Review Procedures Act Report, supra note 115, at 2 n.*.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See discussion supra Part II.A.2.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT The Commission has never voted on its values, nor is any vote on such a thing anticipated. The values chosen here for identification and discussion reflect the observations of the author.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See discussion supra Part II.A.1.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Blacks Law Dictionary defines trust as A fiduciary relationship regarding property and charging the person with title to the property with equitable duties to deal with it for anothers benefit . . . . Blacks Law Dictionary, 1546 (8th ed. 2004).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See supra note 8.    FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT WLR44-2_Kenagy_12_17_07  DATE 12/17/2007  TIME 6:07:59 PM  PAGE 204 willamette law review [44:169  FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT WLR44-2_Kenagy_12_17_07  DATE 12/17/2007  TIME 6:07:59 PM 2007] the oregon law commission at ten  PAGE 203  FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT WLR44-2_Kenagy_12_17_07  DATE 12/17/2007  TIME 6:07:59 PM  PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 169 "1  p q 2 3 o p   D E p q  ) , 34CDwx{|ij?@RhFV7hku hNhkuhGhNhN6h'jhNhN0JUhzsKhNhNNHhN hNhNJlq G  rs  ?#$N&'-gd',gd'+gd'gdN+gdN(gdN'gdN~#RS-.fg  NO-.qrDEKNcg =>tu C D !!" "'"("hFhkujhNhN0JUhFV7hNhNNH hNhNh[S("'#(#$%{%|%&&&&m'n''' ( ((())))))))d*e****+"+#+++++a-b-l-----..// / ////D0J0006171 2 2E2F222222233y4z444Z5[56hFV7hMo hNh ~ h ~h ~h ~jhNhN0JUhNhNNH hNhNO'f*c,;.l022{4579#;<>۰ԴE;>>>??鰪°ݰAA45BBBٰChB]jhNhN0JUhNhNNH hNhNh\FRssssttt#t.t/tDtEtttttttuuuu vv9v}}}|~}~~~hk|h]hBNhNhNNHjhNhN0JUh>6BhFV7 hNhNhGP%&jkghTU؂قNOST҃Ӄ^_܄݄ۅ܅^_#$ab?@MNPSrs@ACDIJijnosthNhN6hFV7h7j2hNhNNH hNhk|jhNhN0JU hNhNhk|Oˊd ƙs\£Y6ګ޵`gd<gdFV7gd8gd'-gd',gd'gdN*+eoxyѐҐ346@B56rs1245vw˜ĘŘߘQR JKh8h9@h_jhNhN0JUh7j2hNhNNH hNhNhFV7RKyٜڜtukl+,RSUVABIJqrZ[٢ڢ]^ΤϤޥߥ'(ĦŦݦަfgϧӧާߧhFV7h<h8jhNhN0JUhNhNNHh[ hNhNSߧөԩ234556}~ɫʫҫӫVW_`߭!"bcıűƱDZnohY(hFV7hPRhz hFV7h< jhFV7hN0JCJH*U hFV7hNh<jhNhN0JUhNhNNH hNhNE-.2389PQ´ôӵԵܵݵ޵^_$%:; !@Abcvw VW%&< hNh.h.hFV7hPRhNhNNHhY(jhNhN0JUh0@ hNhNO+;co`9}t'!a,gd'+gd'gdN-gd'<=]^dvwz{01FM |}YZLMefxyuv-0NhNhN6hlhzsKh\h5Rh.jhNhN0JU hNhNhNhNNHNNOkl?@@A}~rtz{Z[>?@A degh@Fxkl/001uh[hNhN6h0@ hljhNhN0JU hNhNhNhNNHRa"0Wa@AAt'gdN+gd'gdNuv>AbcTUcd)*LMab56`a_`*+AB@ABCETjܻճhNh8i6 hQ)vh8ihQ)vh8i0J<H*hNh8iNH hNh8ih8ihh0@ hNhN6 hNhNhNhNNHFjo;<bc +9<Obcȶȶȶȶȶh8ijhNh8i6U h8i6hNh8i6jhNh8i0JUjhNh8iUhNh8iNHhNh8i: hNh8iF ;<=>?[\]^acfitu56789UV^_:@LMU^hNh8iNHhNh8i:jhNh8i0JUjhNh8iUh8i hNh8ijhNh8i6UhNh8i6C #45AB_`abc89<=?AB_`abcӺ˺˺˺ӲӧӧӧӧjhNh8iUhNh8i6jhNh8i:Uh8ihNh8i: hNh8ijhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]A8UVabz{23456RS\^cpqtu '(EFGHIefghkmpshNh8i:jhNh8iUhNh8i]jhNh8i0JUhNh8i6jhNh8i6Uh8i hNh8ihNh8iNHE   % . / L M N O P l m p x }             S T q r s t u                      - . / 0 1 M N Q ` a ~   ÿïh ~h8i6hNh8i:h8ijhNh8iUjhNh8i0JUjhNh8i6UhNh8i6hNh8iNH hNh8iE'.  S   `   Y  X3V'%:;!6"Y+/c//gdN                  # $ % & ' C D G Y Z w x y z {                 D E k l   nopq <hNh8iNHh8ihNh8i6jhNh8i6UjhNh8i0JUh ~h8i6jhNh8iU hNh8iH<=>?@CEHKLMXYvwxyz'(%6>W`WX2634QRSTUqru涬ͬhNh8i6hNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]hNh8iNHjhNh8i0JUh8ihNh8i: hNh8i hpWh8ijhNh8iU@3;{ "#   '(/4VWtuvwxֿ䧿hNh8i:jhNh8i6UjhNh8iUjhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]hNh8i6hNh8iNH hNh8ih8i>EJU'(EFGHIefqhNh8i6hNh8iNHjhNh8i:Uh8ijhNh8iUjhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]hNh8i: hNh8i>%&CDEFGcdg6:;XYZ[\xy|4?op" # J K   .!/!;!/?/@/hNh8i6]hNh8iNHjhNh8i0JUjhNh8iU hNh8ih8i hGh8iJ@/A/D/F/I/L/c/d/////////////////000000000!1"1222222333333333344444.4/464;4]4^4{4|4}4~4444̻jhNh8i:UhGh8i:hNh8iNHh8ihNh8i6jhNh8i0JUjhNh8iU hNh8ihNh8i:D/3]46f8 ?f???@@AE)F=GGOHH:LL,NQ SSgTUU/X}XXZgdN444444444444+5,5/51545755566}66666666666666 77d7e77777f8g888888888899999й릹랗 hqh8ihqh8i]jhNh8iUhNh8i6jhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]hNh8iNHh8i hNh8i h8i:hNh8i:;9: :2:>:::::;;;;<<T=U===E>F>>> ? ?'?(?)?*?+?G?H?K?M?N?Q?S?V?Y?d?f?g??????????????????ɴ߬߬߬ߝߝߝߝɴhB]h8i6jhNh8iUh8ihNh8i:jhNh8i0JUhNh8i6jhNh8i6UhNh8iNH hNh8ihqh8i:aJ hqh8ihqh8i6:?????@@@@@5@6@8@F@_@c@l@q@r@|@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@AAAAAAA:A;AAZA[AAABB C C$C%CRCSCCϽϽϽhNh8iNH h'h8ijhNh8iUh8i h8i:jhNh8i0JUhNh8i:jhNh8i:U hNh8ihNh8i6jhNh8i6U>CCDDDD0E1E4E5EEEEEEEEEEFF FFF)F*FGFHFIFJFKFgFhFkFFFFFFFFFFFFGG$G)G*G/G0G4G;G=G>G[G\G]G^G_G{G|GGGGGGGHHHH!H@H½½½½ h8i:hNh8i:jhNh8i0JUhNh8i6jhNh8i6Uh8i hNh8ihNh8iNHJ@HEHNHOHPHmHnHoHpHqHHHHHHHHHHHHH.I/I=I>IJJ3J4JOJPJJJJJDKEKKKKKKKK LLLLL(L)L*L1L8L:L;LXLYLZL[L\LxLyLL쮩 h8i:hNh8i:hNh8iNHjhNh8iUjhNh8i0JUhNh8i6jhNh8i6U hNh8ih8ihB]h8i6@LLLLLLLMMMMNMPMRMSMlMpMyM~MMMMMM,N-NJNKNLNMNNNjNkNNNzO{OOOPP0P1PQQQFQjQkQQQQQQQRRRºƺƺӯӯӯӯӺӦӦӺӦӺӦәhNh8i6jhNh8i6UhNh8iNHjhNh8iUhNh8i:h8i h8i:h1Dh8i6 hNh8ijhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]9RRR6R7R:RuRvRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR S S*S+S,S-S.SJSKSNSzS{SSSSSSSSSSSSST TTT2T3TgThTTTTĺĭĺĺ㙭jhNh8iUhNh8iNHjhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U] h8i:hNh8i:h8i hNh8ijhNh8i6UhNh8i6VeVfVVVVVVVVV9WIWKWWWWWXXXX X-X.X/X0XMXNXOXPXQXmXnX̻̩̩̳̒̒̒jhNh8i:UhNh8i:] h8i: h8i6hNh8i]h+Fh8i6] h+Fh8ihNh8i:h8ijhNh8i0JUhNh8iNHjhNh8iU hNh8i6nXpXqX|X}X~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYYYY#Z.ZqZrZZZZZ[[[[[6[7[:[C[D[a[b[c[d[e[[[[[[\\\\]\\\]]]]^^^^_` a adaeabhNh8iNHjhNh8i0JUhNh8i6jhNh8i6Uh8i hNh8ih+Fh8i6LZC[bbWcdeghGiijnnJoopppqqIrrYuu*vvw{x7gdPRgdNbbb b!b"b#b?b@bDbLbOb]bfbbbbbccccc7c8c@cFcLcMcOcUcVcWcXcucvcwcxcycccccdddddddddddd׳ޫף׎׎׎׎룙 h8i:jhNh8iUhNh8i:]hNh8i]hNh8i:jhNh8i:UhNh8iNHh8ihNh8i6] hNh8ijhNh8i0JUhNh8i6jhNh8i6U6dde e e e e(e)e2e4eBeeeeeeeeeeeee f ff fufvfwfyffffffffDgEgFgHgYgrgvgӸӫ˫˫˫˜{Ӥ˒t˅ˀ h8i:] h8i] h8i: h8i6hNh8i]h+Fh8i6]h+Fh8i6 h+Fh8ijhNh8i:UhNh8iNHh8h8i6aJhNh8i: hNh8ijhNh8i0JUhNh8i6]jhNh8i6U]-vgggggggggggggghhhhh6h7hAhChghihnhshzh{h~hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhi i i0i1i2i7iu@uFuXuYuZuwuxuyuzu{uuuuuuֶֶֶֶֶhyOh8i6 h8i: hyOh8i h8i6h8ijhNh8iUhNh8i:jhNh8i:U hNh8ijhNh8i0JUjhNh8i6UhNh8i6*jhNh8i>*U hNh8ijhNh8i6UhNh8i6,~p!"$a$$ !PBd.a$$ !l PABd.@a$ !PB$d&dNPP&dPgdNđőϑБґӑّڑ-.EFGHNOYZ\]cdnopvْؒڒےмжֶ h8i6;h8i h8iCJh8i0J6;hN00JmHnHu h8i0Jjh8i0JUhN0:CJmHnHu h8i:CJjh8i:CJUC "#$ۼ hNhNhthN0CJmHnHu h8iCJjh8iCJUh8ihN0:CJmHnHujh8i:CJU h8i:CJ"#$gdNB 0 0003&PP:p4/ =!@ "@ #$@ %@ BD@D NormalOJQJ_HkHmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List nOn _Journal font$d1$a$'CJOJQJ_HkHmHnHsH tH uXOX _Document $ l@@@` mH sH u4@4 Header  !4 @"4 Footer  !:)@1: Page Number OJQJkHROBR _FootNote! lhX@@d8`CJ>OAR> _FootNotePara h`hNOaN _NoterefInTextCJH*OJQJS*aJkHHOqH _NoterefInNoteCJH*OJQJkHBOABB _1StQuoteFNhh]h^hBOABB _2NdQuoteFNh]h^BOABB _3RdQuoteFNh8]h^8BOABB _4ThQuoteFNh]h^ZOZ _1StQuoteTXT$d]^`CJZOZ _2NdQuoteTXT$Hd]^H`CJZOZ _3RdQuoteTXT$d]^`CJZOZ _4ThQuoteTXT$d]^`CJNON _Toc0* $ lPJ]`a$\O\ _Toc18!$ lXPB@JX]^X`a$ZOZ _Toc25"$ lP@Jp]^`pa$TOT _Toc3/# l@P@J(]^(`ZOZ _Toc45$$ lhP@J]^`a$ZOZ _Toc55%$ lhP@J]^`a$XOX _SectionHead&$$ $d*$a$ 56;CJ$\O\_Head1-Article'$$ $d*$a$ 5;CJhOh_AuthorName1-Articles($$ $d*$a$:CJ\O\_AuthorName2-Student)$$ $*$a$:^O^_AuthorName3-BookReview*$$ $*$a$ROR _SubHead1!+$$ $ @x*$a$:ROR _SubHead2!,$$ $ @x*$a$6bOb _SubHead31-$$ $ @px*$^`pa$6bOb _SubHead41.$$ $ @px*$^`pa$6bOb _SubHead51/$$ $ @px*$^`pa$6\O\ _IndexHeading0$$ $dL*$a$5CJ&& TOC 11&!& TOC 22jOj_Contributions-Authors3$$ $ @d8*$a$CJ:O:_END4$$ $d*$a$BORB _WILLogo5$($d0a$5;NOQbN _WILVolume/Issue 6p$d ;CJ:@r:  Footnote Text7CJBOB _1stLineQuoteFN 8`414 TOC 39 PF 4A4 TOC 4: PF 4Q4 TOC 5; PF @&@@ NFootnote ReferenceH*HH zsK Balloon Text=CJOJQJ^JaJB'B kuComment ReferenceCJaJ44 ku Comment Text?@j@ kuComment Subject@5\6U@6 G Hyperlink >*B*php2oD-  N '{m !!d"*y,Z-4W8:<>?Q@ABlCDD0G(HIIJEWW_YY[q\]]^_de.llfqsjx{^|~r4ߐQٔt+RAqZݞfӡ4VƩn8Pܭ^ @b%]0 e$  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~#C=g g : MTy5+$~Y| M!!K#`$$a'\(1&555::<>/EEEFFFBGKOLcMNuNN`RRRTX2YYZ{[U^^^aia'hi}ikknnmoo?ptupuu>vvww$xoxy{{P||}~~5xW:No@z+\R$lqGrs ?Nf"c$;&l(**{,-/1#346Y8n9;=S@zBD=??O@@:DD,FI KKgLUM/P}PPRCSZZW[\]_`GaabffJgghhhiiIjjYmm*nno{ppqRqr1sstbtu(vvzI||}]}sT6,}~p!"%'0(0+000000+0,000-000000-000000000000-000000000000000,00-000000000-000000000-0000000000+0,000,0-0000-0000000-000000-000000-00000000+0000,00000,000,0000,0000+000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@70@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000@000@000@000@000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000~p%@0@000$`f* 0 @00 0 @`f@0@0 00 '''R("6(L`sKߧ<Nuj <"@/49?C@HLRTnXbdvgDin pquw7z|ـ$  '(Uˊa'/Z{x~"$  # %=?FQT[fhos $'BZ\cnpw ! ! !#ADa #@!$A3Cad=[^{  7 g > A ^ g : X [ x .MknTruy5SVs+ILi$BEb~Ywz-0M| !M!k!n!!!!!!K#i#l##`$~$$$$%%;%a''''\(z(}((1111&5D5G5d5555556 6(6:4:7:T:::::<<<<>>>>/EMEPEmEEEEEEEEFF;F>F[FFFFFFGG9GBG`GcGGK LL-LOLmLpLLcMMMMN#N&NCNuNNNNNNNO`R~RRRRSS7SRTpTsTTXv\v_v|vvvvww%w(wEwwwxx$xBxExbxoxxxxy.y1yNy{{{{{{{|P|n|q||||||}}}~~~~~~  )5SVsx"%BWux *:X[xƂ +Nloۄބ *o5@^a~׍z+ILi7:W\z}۔ޔٕ֕7:WRpsTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT _Hlt181159918 _Hlt181159919 _Hlt181123477 _Hlt181123478__yy%@@@@__yy%A* TTUB* TSUC* RUD* SUE* SUF* TUG* QUH* SUI* 6]J* RUK* <]L* l]M* ]N* ,]O* ̊]P* ]Q* g]R* g]S* \T* \U* \V* \W* t\X* 4\Y* $\Z* \[* \\* \]* W]^* W]_* S`* |Sa* ]b* |]c* |Sd* ?A@BCDEFGHIJKLMNPOQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_a`bcedfghkijlmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~} bbf f C%C%&&n)n)A!A!ACCCCCC]]]CCs((ڟڟ00BBjyF}QQGG   11ttjjOOgg99#%%%J&Q&Y&a&h&h&&&1+1+,,Z4Z47777c8c888<<<??DDDDpEpEJJPPqPqPPPQQRR:S:SSSCZCZ>[>[\\^^v_v_aaaahhhhiiii@j@jmmppqqQqQqrrssttVtVt}}\}\}}}rr55%  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?A@BCDEFGHIJKLMNPOQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_a`bcedfghjkilmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~}=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName8LL*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateBzz*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace y<zLLwx{| **'D(D1D2D%F&FOWPWkkkkkk?@MNijnostzzɣʣңӣ$%ABBC*+tu^_45z{pqVV((((((++,,,,,,..113262c7d78898B8C8}8}888>>>>/?0?4?;?CCCC*D*D1D8DENEOESEEEJJJJMM9N>NNN9OIOKOO P PnPpPqP|PTTU UUUVVWWXXXX ^^w^^^^^^^^F_Y_________7`A`~``a aaabflfggWhah i3i\ioimmnnoooo&p'pCpCpnpoppspsrsss|s}ssssswwww9x9xXxYxqxqxpzpzzzzzzzzzHI+}~~Љ҉ FGZ\ostvيڊ "%&02SsBW++,,P7e7:88N8OO.PnP|PM__ ibiciin)n+~~"%333333333333333333..wx{|R S J J MMcg  ..6%6%2'2'''I(I(P(P(**..77== CCCC'D(D1D2D%F&FFFLLMMOOOWPWWW a aaaaaffkkkkkkll-l-ldldlmmmm4n4nnn6o6o#p#ppprrrrrrsssstt&x&xxx`y`yUzUzazazO{O{{{{{}}K}K}?@MNDDJJijnostzz||ΈΈ҈҈1166BBYY[[bb55ĐĐy##**,,IIPPӡӡZZɣʣңӣƩƩ..33QQݭޭ$$$%))}}==SSXX,,JJllxkl01TUcd)* _`AB@ABC*+tu^_:@U^458z{pq,,NQ^^DGWWkl=MVV % 6 > W `       2 6     3;OO{"#4?412{Q$R$$$$$%%%%i&i&((((((!(!(**++,,,,,,,,,,..//111>2447777778889999$;%;<<4=5=>=>===>>>>>>>+?/?0?4?;?@@N@=A>A3B4BBBBBDCEC}C}CC*D.D.D/D/D1D8DESElEpEyE~EEEEEEEEE(F(FIIIIuJvJwJwJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKzK{KKKKKKKLLMM9N>NNNKOOPP P PPP P PnPpPqP|PSZ]ZfZZZZZ?[?[L[M[\\\\]]]]w^^^^^^^^^Y_r_v_____________7`7`C`C`g`z`|`|`~`~`````aa a a0aCaEaEaaaaaaaaaabbbbb:b:bXbfffDgHgggggggWhWhchchhhhh5ioiiiiiiiiijj)kXmmmnnlnrnnnoo p ppp!p"p&p'p(p(p6popq r*s/spssssssssssu"u/u?ufufuuujvjvvvzvvvvvvvywwww,xYxqxqxxxyyczzzzzzzz{{{{{{||||||Y~g~~~~~S_dkkrryyȂ`eDDIKRR\\25jHI+}~~Љ҉ FGZ\optvيڊ %~~"%ed]%?E-\_0@ 'XNQ'<N8|"Q,#6w-N07j2@p24qi4FV7LB>6B&DGKH JzsKBNhOyOPRadS/VpW]e[N`_p`8i_mFvnMoIptkuQ)vVxz 4 V/9lXU+F\FH.qo ~B]S>[zok| <9@FElm%wI9:\`\5R}iCT-P.%1D7 /xZ^CY(@$@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial9TimesTen5& zaTahoma#1Ӌ&&&${${4d__2QHX ?N2RC:\Documents and Settings\wu_stu\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\_SETUP10.dotwu_staffwu_staffOh+'0  8 D P \hpx wu_staff _SETUP10 wu_staff6Microsoft Office Word@F#@A@ h4A@@QA$՜.+,0 px  Micron Electronics, Inc.{_  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`bcdefghmRoot Entry F>Ao1TableWordDocumentDSummaryInformation(YDocumentSummaryInformation8aCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q