Oregon State Bar
1999 House of Delegates Meeting
Summary of 1999 House of Delegates Action
|1.||BOG Resolution No. 1 - 2000 Fee Resolution|
|2.||Delegate Resolution No. 4 - Membership Survey on Disability|
|1.||BOG Resolution No. 2 - In Memoriam|
|2.||BOG Resolution No. 3 - Amended HOD Rule of Procedure 10.1|
|3.||BOG Resolution No. 4 - Amended DR 8-101 and DR 5-105|
|4.||BOG Resolution No. 6 - Supports adequate funding for low-income legal services|
|5.||Delegate Resolution No. 1 - Creates HOD listserves|
|6.||Delegate Resolution No. 2 - Creates BOG/HOD Annual Meeting study group|
|5.||Delegate Resolution No. 3 - Expresses appreciation to Senator Kate Brown and Representative Lane Shetterly|
|6.||Delegate Resolution No. 6 - Opposes constitutional amendments proposed by Ballot Measures 69-75 (Added to agenda by two-thirds vote.)|
|1.||BOG Resolution No. 5 - Amends DR 5-106 and DR 10-101|
|1.||Delegate Resolution No. 5 - Directs oversight of PLF lobbying|
Resolved, that the 2000 annual membership fees and Client Security Fund assessment be unchanged from 1999, except for payments of the fees not made by the due date, and shall be as follows:
1. Active Members.
A. For members admitted in any jurisdiction before January 1, 1998: $366.00.
B. For members admitted in any jurisdiction before January 1, 1998 who fail to pay their active fees and assessments of $366.00 by the due date: $416.00.
C. For members admitted in any jurisdiction on or after January 1, 1998: $302.00.
D. For members admitted in any jurisdiction on or after January 1, 1998 who fail to pay their active fees and assessments of $302.00 by the due date: $344.00.
E. For those members admitted in Oregon in 2000, the fees shall be apportioned. The Client Security Fund assessment of $15.00 shall be paid in full by each new admittee.
F. For those members who pass away in 2000, the fees shall be apportioned upon request of appropriate representatives. The Client Security Fund assessment of $15.00 and the increase of fees due to payment made after the due date shall not be included in the apportioned refund.
G. Exemptions to active member fees:
(1) Members who were admitted to practice law in Oregon prior to January 1, 1950, are exempt from the basic membership fee and assessments. These members are not exempt, based on admittance date, from the Client Security Fund assessment and must pay the Client Security Fund assessment of $15.00.
(2) Members who are on active military duty in compliance with the terms of ORS 408.450 are exempt from the payment of all active membership fees and assessments. Members who are in the VISTA or Peace Corps programs in compliance with Board of Governors Policy 10.302 are exempt from the payment of all active membership fees and assessments. The payment of active membership fees may also be waived if members satisfy the requirements of Board of Governors Policy 10.301 on hardship exemptions.
2. Active Emeritus Members.
A. For members admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction before January 1, 1985, who do not engage at any time in the practice of law except for providing annually a minimum of 40 hours of pro bono legal services to indigent clients referred by Oregon State Bar certified Pro Bono programs: $95.00. The fee includes an allocation of $80.00 for the basic membership fee and $15.00 for the Client Security Fund assessment. A listing of programs available for participation by members in this category shall be maintained by the Executive Director of the Oregon State Bar.
B. For those active emeritus members who fail to pay their active emeritus fees and assessments of $95.00 by the due date: $120.00 .
3. Active Retired.
For members admitted to practice law in Oregon prior to January 1, 1960, who do not engage at any time in the practice of law except for pro bono legal services to indigent clients referred by Oregon State Bar certified pro bono programs, volunteer service as bar counsel, or as a member of the SPRB or other disciplinary entity, the same fees and assessments as established for active emeritus members in paragraph 2 above.
4. Inactive Members.
A. The 2000 membership fee for inactive members shall be $80.00.
B. For those inactive members who fail to pay their fees of $80.00 by the due date: $105.00 .
C. Exemptions to inactive member fees:
(1) Members who were admitted in Oregon prior to January 1, 1950.
(2) Members in active military duty in compliance with the terms of ORS 408.450 are exempt from the payment of inactive membership fees. Members who are in the VISTA or Peace Corps programs in compliance with Board of Governors Policy 10.302 are exempt from the payment of inactive membership fees. The payment of inactive membership fees may also be waived if members satisfy the requirements of Board of Governors Policy 10.301 on hardship exemptions.
5. Payment Date: All fees and assessments shall be paid simultaneously, in one remittance, not later than the due date or within 60 days of date of admission to the Oregon State Bar, whichever occurs last.
6. Definitions: Apportioned fees pertain only to those members admitted in Oregon or who passed away during calendar year 2000. If the member is admitted or passes away in January, the apportioned fee or refund, as the case may be, shall be 12/12; February shall be 11/12; ...; December shall be 1/12. The calculation shall be rounded up to the nearest dollar for each fee allocation.
Whereas, the incidence of disability among lawyers and the level of disability access within the legal community and justice system are of great significance to the Oregon State Bar insofar as its missions to regulate and to educate Oregon lawyers;
Whereas, the level of disability access for the public within the legal community and justice system is of great significance to Oregon lawyers and is consistent with the mission of the Oregon State Bar to promote access to justice;
Whereas, the Oregon State Bar, its members, and the public have benefitted
from such projects as the
Diversity Summit, Race and Ethnic
Bias Task Force and the Gender Fairness Task Force, and OSB membership surveys;
Whereas, to date there has not been a comprehensive survey on disability incidence, access and concerns within the legal community and justice system in Oregon;
Whereas, the Disability Law Section has determined that a comprehensive
survey on disability issues will assist the Oregon State Bar in its missions
above-stated, and the Section seeks responsibility to undertake such a survey
in order to obtain baseline data on disability issues within the legal community
and justice system; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar, by and through the Disability
Law Section, shall sponsor a comprehensive survey of its active Oregon members,
to determine the incidence of disability and disability concerns among its members;
the level of disability access and disability concerns within the legal community
and justice system; and related issues; and the findings will be published for
the benefit of the Oregon State Bar, its members, and the public.
Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar shall propose a comprehensive assessment by the Bar and the courts to determine the incidence of disability and disability concerns among its members, the public, and the justice system, and the findings will be published for the benefit of the Bar, the courts and the public. Members of the Disability Law Section of the Oregon State Bar will be solicited to assist in this project. The financial contribution of the Oregon State Bar for this project shall not exceed $20,000.
Resolved, that the OSB House of Delegates and members assembled stand for a moment of silence in honor of the members of the Oregon State Bar whose deaths have been reported since the 1998 House of Delegates Meeting.
C.F. Addison, Salem
Sehar S. Ahmad, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania
Harry T. Allan, Amherst, Massachusetts
John H. Arenz, Portland
Lowell D. Barr, Salem
William L. Beatty, Portland
Metta B. Beeman, Salem
Richard D. Bennett, Lincoln City
Arthur V. Biggs, Portland
Harry D. Boivin, Medford
Robert D. Boivin, Klamath Falls
William H. Boland, Portland
Mervin W. Brink, Hillsboro
Gene L. Brown, Grants Pass
Kevin W. Carey, Denver, Colorado
Robert G. Chidester, Beaverton
Stanley R. Church, Warrenton
B. E. Comerford, Portland
Walter Cosgrave, Portland
Lorna Gene Dale, Bend
Frank S. Delia, Bellevue, Washington
Frank L. DeSimone, Medford
George B. Campbell, Portland
Fred K. Deuel, Medford
Hon. Patrick E. Dooley, Gearhart
John T. Flaherty, Vancouver, Washington
James O. Goodwin, Sun City West, Arizona
Theodore Heap, Portland
Carl G. Helm, La Grande
Martin J. Hoffman, Philomath
Edward Matthew Holpuch, Canyon City
Thomas A. Huffman, Hillsboro
Garland D. Hunter, Eugene
John S. Hutson, Vancouver, Washington
Darrel L. Johnson, Tigard
Hon. Folger Johnson, Portland
Ira W. Jones, Salem
Earl C. Kamsky, Portland
Richard W. Kapranos, Portland
Stephan Z. Katzan, Los Angeles, California
Daniel P. Keohane, Roseburg
Stephen M. King, Missoula, Montana
Keith T. Kramer, Coquille
J. Marvin Kuhn, Salem
Dwight Lear, Salem
Gordon L. Macpherson, Newport
Linden R. Martin, The Dalles
Janet S. McCoy, Salem
Harold C. McLean, Bend
Robert W. McMenamin, Beaverton
Raymond F. Mensing, Portland
Eric E. Merk, Portland
Hon. Robert L. Mills, Milwaukie
Sheila Anne Murphy, Keaau, Hawaii
Don A. Olowinski, Boise, Idaho
Beldon E. Owens, San Diego, California
William G. Paulus, Salem
Gerald R. Pullen, Portland
R. A. Rawlinson, Wilsonville
Alexander J. Rering, Ft Lauderdale, Florida
Eugene K. Richardson, Newport
Lorin M. Ricker, Enterprise
Alexander Schneider, Portland
Frances K. Schulte, Beaverton
Mildred A. Schwab, Portland
John Michael Seus, Hillsboro
Harry G. Spencer, Salem
Hon. Frederic H. Starkweather, Gold Beach
Edward D. Stubbs, Gresham
Robert M. Stults, Mazatlan, Mexico
Hon. Alfred T. Sulmonetti, Portland
John Toran, Portland
James E. Yacos, Hanover, New Hampshire
Orval D. Yokom, John Day
Anthony Yturri, Ontario
Resolved, that the OSB House of Delegates approves the following change to Rule 10.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the House of Delegates:
10.1 These rules may be amended by a vote of
a majority of the delegates present and voting. Only delegates may
propose amendments to these rules. Proposals for amending the rules must
be submitted to the Executive Director at least thirty (30)
forty-five (45)days in advance of the meeting of the House at which
the amendment is to be considered. Amendments of these rules are
effective upon adjournment of the meeting at which they are adopted.
Resolved, that the OSB House of Delegates approves the following disciplinary rule changes for submission to the Oregon Supreme Court:
Disciplinary Rule 8
Improper Conduct as a Public Official or Judicial Candidate,
Improper Criticism of the Judiciary
DR 8-101 Action as a Public Official
(A)A lawyer who holds public office shall not:
(1) Use the lawyer’s public position to obtain, or attempt to obtain, special advantage in legislative matters for the lawyer or for a client.
(2) Use the lawyer’s public position to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of the lawyer or of a client.
(3) Accept anything of value from any person when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the offer is for the purpose of influencing the lawyer’s action as a public official.
(4) Either while in office or after leaving office use confidential government information obtained while a public official to represent a private client.
(a) As used in this rule, the term 'confidential government information' means information which has been obtained under governmental authority and which at the time the information is used the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has legal privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the public.
(B) The foregoing provisions of DR 8-101(A) do not preclude a lawyer from acting under a law which specifically authorizes the performance of a governmental function, despite a conflict of interest, if the lawyer complies with all requirements of such law.
(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of DR 8-101(A) or any other disciplinary rule, and consistent with the 'debate' clause, Article IV, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, or the 'speech or debate' clause, Article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution, a lawyer-legislator shall not be subject to discipline for words uttered in debate in either house of the Oregon Legislative Assembly or for any speech or debate in either house of the United States Congress.
(D) A member of a lawyer-state officer’s or lawyer-legislator’s firm shall not be subject to discipline for representing a client in any claim against the State of Oregon provided:
(1) The lawyer-state officer or lawyer-legislator is screened from participation or representation in the matter in accordance with the procedure set forth in DR 5-105(I). The required affidavits shall be served on the Attorney General; and
(2) The lawyer-state officer or lawyer-legislator shall not directly or indirectly receive a fee for such representation.
Disciplinary Rule 5
Conflicts of Interest and Mediation
DR 5-105 Conflicts of Interest: Former and Current Clients
(G)Vicarious Disqualification of Affiliates. Except as permitted in subsections (D) and (F), when a lawyer is required to decline employment or to withdraw from employment under a Disciplinary Rule other than DR 2-110(B)(3), DR 5-101(A)(2), DR 5-102(A), or DR 5-110, no other member of the lawyer’s firm may accept or continue such employment, except as provided in DR 8-101(D).
Whereas, providing equal access to justice and high quality legal representation to all Oregonians are central to the mission of the Oregon State Bar; and
Whereas, programs providing civil legal services to low income Oregonians are a fundamental component of the Bar’s effort to provide such access; and
Whereas, legal services are unavailable for 80% of eligible clients needing help; and
Whereas, federal funding for Oregon’s civil legal services programs is substantially less than it was in 1980 and there have been severe restrictions imposed on the work that programs receiving LSC funding may undertake on behalf of their clients; and
Whereas, Oregon lawyers and the Bar have long supported mechanisms to provide funding for civil legal services programs, including the surcharge on civil filing fees, the fundraising efforts of the Campaign for Equal Justice, and the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts program; and
Whereas, assistance from the Oregon State Bar and the legal community is critical to maintaining and developing resources that will provide low-income Oregonians meaningful access to the justice system: now therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Oregon State Bar:
(1) Strengthen its commitment and ongoing efforts to improve the availability of a full range of legal services to all citizens of our state, through the development and maintenance of adequate support and funding of civil legal services programs for low-income Oregonians.
(2) Request that Congress and the President of the United States make a genuine commitment to equal justice by adequately funding the Legal Services Corporation.
(3) Actively participate in the efforts of the Campaign for Equal Justice to increase contributions by establishing goals of a 100% participation rate by members of the House of Delegates and of a 50% contribution rate by all lawyers.
(4) Support the Oregon Law Foundation and its efforts to increase resources through the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program, and
(5) Encourage Oregon lawyers to support civil legal services programs through enhanced pro bono work.
Whereas, since the creation of the House of Delegates (HOD) it has become apparent that communication between and amongst Delegates through the Board of Governors (BOG) is cumbersome and inefficient; and
Whereas, it would be to the benefit of the Oregon State Bar (OSB) if a better communication system utilizing modern technology enabled Delegates to communicate with each other in real time; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the OSB create, institute and maintain a general HOD listserve and one for each HOD region dedicated exclusively to HOD members and HOD business.
Further resolved, that the OSB shall include the following information on the OSB website, regularly updated:
(1) Minutes of BOG meetings
(2) Budget of OSB
(3) Attorney disciplinary matters Final disposition
of attorney disciplinary proceedings that resulted in reprimand suspension,
disbarment, or Form B resignations within the last 20 years
43) Current OSB membership list with address (regular
and e-mail) and membership number; however, an attorney may choose not
to list his/her address on the website.
Further resolved, that this listserve and other information be up and
December 1 March 1, 1999
Whereas, the annual meeting of the Oregon State Bar for decades served as a focal point for social, professional, educational and sporting activities between Bar members as well as their families; and
Whereas, the annual convention of the Oregon State Bar served as an opportunity for new lawyers to meet older members of the Bar and become acquainted with the benefits of Bar membership; and
Whereas, the annual convention of the Oregon State Bar brought together lawyers from all the different factions and specialties within the Bar and provided a means for lawyers to communicate with one another as colleagues rather than adversaries; and
Whereas, a large number of members of the Oregon State Bar wish to see the annual meeting reinstated; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Delegates that:
(1) The president of the Oregon State Bar shall appoint a committee consisting of two members of the Board of Governors and three members of the House of Delegates and the executive director of the Oregon State Bar to study means by which the annual convention of the Oregon State Bar may be reinstated on a cost-effective basis;
(2) The committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the Board of Governors on or before February 1, 2000 and the Board of Governors shall proceed to reimplement an annual meeting of the Oregon State Bar as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than the year 2002 if the Board of Governors finds that the annual meeting can be reinstated in a cost-effective fashion;
(3) The committee report shall be mailed to the members of the House of Delegates on or before July 1, 2000, together with a summary of the Board of Governors’ actions pursuant to the report.
Whereas, State Senator Kate Brown has served in the Oregon Legislature as a Representative from 1991 until 1996 and in the Oregon State Senate from 1997 to date; and
Whereas, Kate Brown is minority leader of the State Senate; and
Whereas, Kate Brown has served on the judiciary committees of the House and Senate during her tenure as a legislator; and
Whereas, Kate Brown has been a member of the Oregon State Bar since 1985; and
Whereas, Kate Brown has worked constructively and tirelessly to improve Oregon’s justice system, to protect the rights of Oregon citizens and to assist the Oregon State Bar in improving the laws of the State of Oregon; and
Whereas, Lane Shetterly has served for two terms in the Oregon State House of Representatives and chaired the Judiciary Committee in 1997 and the Civil Law Judiciary Committee in 1999; and
Whereas, Lane Shetterly has been a skillful and effective moderating force bringing about consensus between opposing factions in the furtherance of improving Oregon’s justice system and assisting the Oregon State Bar in improving the laws of the State of Oregon; and
Whereas, Lane Shetterly has been a member of the Oregon State Bar since 1981, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the House of Delegates of the Oregon State Bar hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to Senator Kate Brown and Representative Lane Shetterly for their hard work and dedication to the improvement of the laws and the administration of justice in Oregon. The House of Delegates is especially grateful to members of the Bar such as Senator Brown and Representative Shetterly who have sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice professional and financial gain in order to serve the public in the Oregon Legislature.
Whereas part of the core mission of the Oregon State Bar is to advance the science of jurisprudence, improve the administration of justice, and apply professional knowledge and experience to the public good; and
Whereas the Oregon State Bar regards the constitution as a framework for government with a time-tested system of checks and balances, and which defines enforceable rights; and
Whereas the Oregon State Bar regards the Oregon Bill of Rights, contained in Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution, as containing fundamental protections for individuals accused by the State of having committed a crime; and
Whereas the Oregon State Bar regards the constitution as a framework that should not be casually or repeatedly amended each election cycle to include matters that are more properly the subject of legislation, or to include rights that are unenforceable against the state; and
Whereas the Oregon State Bar believes that amending the constitution in order to avoid court challenges to legislation, or to avoid subsequent legislative amendment, is a process that tends to undermine the essential purpose of our system of checks and balances; and
Whereas in 1996 the Oregon State Bar House Of Delegates unanimously resolved to oppose Measure 40; and
Whereas the Oregon Supreme Court declared Measure 40 to be unconstitutional in that it amended more than one section of the constitution without a separate vote; and
Whereas in 1997 the Oregon Legislature passed implementing legislation for Measure 40, known as SB 936, which enacted laws that largely remain in effect today; and
Whereas the 1999 Legislature has referred certain measures (Measures 69-75) to the voters with the representation that they are nothing more than separate provisions of former Measure 40; and
Whereas many of the proposed ballot measures would dangerously alter the system of checks and balances; and
Whereas many of the measures would unfairly diminish certain rights
of accused citizens under the Oregon Bill of Rights; and
Whereas many of the measures would unnecessarily clutter the constitution by placing matters in the constitution that already exist in current law; and
Whereas these measures would unnecessarily clutter the constitution because the rights they establish would be unenforceable against the state through legal action; and
Whereas many of the measures may properly be the subject of legislation, but are not appropriate constitutional amendments; now therefore, be it
Resolved that Ballot Measures 69-75 should be defeated at the polls
because they degrade the State Constitution, and they alter the system
of checks and balances
by tying the hands of judges and future legislatures,
they needlessly erode Oregon’s Bill of Rights, they unjustifiably alter the
balance of the criminal justice system by granting power to the State and increasing
the danger of convicting innocent individuals accused of crime, and are unnecessary
as constitutional measures.
The Oregon State Bar is also instructed to take reasonable steps that will assist the people of the State of Oregon in understanding the impact of these measures by taking the following action:
1. Transmitting the position expressed in this resolution to the editorial boards of the state's major newspapers and broadcast media;
2. Sponsoring citizen forums to discuss and debate these measures in various locations around the state prior to the November 1999 election, including Portland, Pendleton, Eugene, Bend, and Medford, such sponsorship to include the expenditure of communications funds for purposes of renting space and public address equipment, and for advertising the forum in the intended locale.
Resolved, that the OSB House of Delegates approves the following disciplinary rule changes for submission to the Oregon Supreme Court:
Disciplinary Rule 5
Conflicts of Interest and Mediation
DR 5-106 Mediation
(A)A lawyer serving
may act as a mediator for multiple
parties in any matter if the lawyer must clearly
inform s the parties of the lawyer’s role as mediator,
including that the lawyer is not representing any party in the matter in
mediation and they obtain the parties’ consent
in writing to this arrangement.
(B) A lawyer serving as a mediator may draft, and may file in court,
a settlement agreement,
including a stipulated order or
judgment, and other documents to implement the settlement agreement
reached in mediation, but must advice and encourage
recommend in writing that each party the parties
seek independent legal advice before executing it
D C) A lawyer serving as a mediator shall
withdraw as mediator if any of the parties so request , or if any
of the conditions stated in DR 5-106(A) are no longer satisfied.
Upon withdrawal, the lawyer shall not continue to act on behalf of any of
the parties in the matter that was the subject of mediation.
C D) A lawyer serving as a mediator or who
has served as a mediator may not represent one any
party against the other in the matter in mediation or in
any related matter proceeding unless all parties
to the matter consent after full disclosure.
Disciplinary Rule 10
DR 10-101 Definitions
(B)(1) 'Full disclosure' means an explanation sufficient to apprise the recipient of the potential adverse impact on the recipient of the matter to which the recipient is asked to consent.
(2) As used in DR 5-101, DR 5-104, DR 5-105, DR 5-106, DR 5-107, DR 5-109 or when a conflict of interest may be present in DR 4-101, 'full disclosure' shall also include a recommendation that the recipient seek independent legal advice to determine if consent should be given and shall be contemporaneously confirmed in writing.
Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Liability Fund consulted with legislators as early as November, 1998, regarding proposed amendments to ORS 419B.010, the mandatory child abuse reporting statute, advocating certain changes which were designed to diminish the protection afforded children by that statute;
Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Liability Fund presented written testimony in support of House Bill 2226 and specifically in support of that portion of HB 2226 which abolished private causes of action for violation of the mandatory child abuse reporting statute (ORS 419B.010);
Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Liability Fund, during a meeting of a work group of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in support of HB 2226, denigrated the family members who would seek to impose civil liability on non-reporters and obtain compensation on behalf of child abuse victims;
Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Liability Fund did not clearly have and should not have had authorization from the Board of Governors to advocate such changes and to present such testimony or make such comments;
Whereas, the Oregonian published an article by columnist Steve Duin highly critical of the activities of the Oregon State Bar and the Professional Liability Fund in seeking to immunize lawyers from civil liability for violations of the mandatory child abuse reporting statute, a type of publicity which was both foreseeable and inconsistent with the Bar’s public education efforts;
Whereas, none of the activities of the Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Liability Fund was within any policy adopted by the Board of Governors or the House of Delegates and each of these activities was in violation of the mission of the Oregon State Bar and its duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Board of Governors is directed to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the Professional Liability Fund, whether acting through its Board of Directors or its Chief Executive Officer
(1) Refrain from any lobbying activities; or in the alternative,
(2) Refrain from any lobbying activities unless specifically authorized or directed to engage in such activities by the Board of Governors; and
(3) Honor all aspects of its mission and that of the Bar, including consumer protection and public respect for the law.
Further resolved, that the Board of Governors is directed to amend Chapter 11 of the Board’s Policies, applying to Legislation and Public Policy, to specify clearly that these policies apply to the Professional Liability Fund and its Chief Executive Officer.
Further resolved, that all lobbying activities by anyone representing the Oregon State Bar or any of its committees, sections or other entities subject to its oversight (including the Professional Liability Fund, its Board and its Chief Executive Officer) comply with the requirements of Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 US 1, 110 S Ct 2228, 110 L Ed 2d 1 (1990) and Board of Governors policies regarding legislation and public policy.
Further resolved, that the Board of Governors report back to the House of Delegates by publication in the February, 2000 issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin, with a full presentation at the next House of Delegates meeting, regarding the actions taken in response to this resolution, and specifically what procedures have been put in place to monitor the legislative testimony, including written submissions, of anyone representing the Oregon State Bar, its committees, sections and other entities subject to its oversight including the Professional Liability Fund.