The committee submitted proposed CSF Rule 6.5 to avoid the CSF Committee from having to go to the board each time it wanted to publicize a claim payment. There are two issues involved in making CSF matters public: (a) the exposure of unethical lawyers to the public; (b) the legal profession’s demonstration to the public that it can and will police itself in an appropriate manner.

Action:The committee recommended and the board passed unanimously Rule 6.5, which reads:

Mr. Scott gave a report on the findings of the Budget and Finance Committee concerning the reimbursement of HOD members when attending HOD meetings. While it is true some members could participate by phone, that defeats the purpose of getting the members together to interact and communicate in person. The committee suggested members living more than 50 miles from the location of the HOD meeting should be reimbursed for mileage.

Action:There was a great deal of discussion, the issue was left undecided and the board, by consensus, referred the matter to the new Recruitment Committee.

The Legal Heritage Interest Group ('Group'), led by Katherine O’Neil, joined the board meeting to petition for funding of its book of the history of the Oregon State Bar. Professors Gordon Dodds and Cathy Alzner informed the group of the process of compiling the information and preparing the manuscript. The rough draft is completed and the final draft should be ready by July, 2001. The Group submitted a document with the names of those interviewed for the book and asked board members to review the list and determine if they knew of others who should be contacted and interviewed. They were also asked to submit any photos or information pertaining to the chronology, which they felt, would be helpful to the completeness of the book. Carolyn Buant summarized the process for printing the final product. The book is patterned after a similar one done in Minnesota. The final copy will have a full color cover and the book itself will be in two colors, 5½ ' X 8½' and will be similar to a coffee table book. The Group proposed printing 2,000 paperbacks and 200 hard copies of the book. The retail price would be $35 for the paperback and $55 for the hard copy. Printing would be done in the Midwest because past experience shows it to be more economical. The Group and the board reviewed the budget to complete the project. To get the book to archive stage will require it to be completed, edited and proofed. For completion to production it will also need work with the designer and printer and finally marketing and production, with a final projected budget of $42,620. To get the book to archive stage will cost approximately $10,000. If the book goes all the way to production, the Group estimated the bar would recoup all costs and any excess could be used for marketing and to further defray production costs. Paul Nickell, editor of the OSB Bulletin, discussed his experience with publishing books. His sense of the project is it seems to be a topic of interest to bar members and it should sell well. Concerning marketing, he suggested full-page ads in the bar Bulletin, which are free for bar activities, when space is available. He also suggested the Oregon Historical Society might have interest in the book and have been interested in overseeing and warehousing similar projects in the past. There were questions concerning whether funding of the book had been a previous issue and if there was money in the budget. The board indicated to Ms. O’Neil that it would take the issue under advisement and get back to her on the amount of funding the board would be willing to provide and the conditions under which such funding would be made. After the Group left, Mr. Scott informed the BOG that Ms. O’Neil had spoken with the Budget and Finance Committee earlier that day. Though the committee felt the book project was an honorable undertaking, it did not feel it fell within the BOG’s priorities for strategic planning. The remaining funding would have to come from the contingency fund because it is not part of the current budget. The committee also felt the Group should have a marketing plan and there was none. The committee recommended that the bar loan the Group enough money to complete the information gathering process and to bring the project to the point of preservation contingent upon the Group submitting a viable marketing plan. It also recommended that the bar’s financial participation end at the $10,000 level.

Further discussion ensued and Mr. Harnden summarized the board’s discussion: the board would like the Group to complete the book to archival point and the board would revisit additional funding at its June 2001 meeting.

Action:Mr. Anderson withdrew his previous motion and Mr. Davis moved to have the board request that the Group provide a breakdown of costs to archive the project and present it to the board by May 15, 2001 and the board would review the matter at its June 2001 meeting. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion.

Further discussion ensued.

Action:After considerable discussion, Mr. Davis redefined his motion by moving that the board ask the Group to do sufficient work on the manuscript to create a document to archive point. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

Saturday morning a representative from the Legal Heritage Group returned to the board with a summary of information from the previous day’s presentation and proposed that the board provide $9,180 to bring the manuscript to the archive stage.

Action:Ms. Burrows moved, Mr. Scott seconded and the motion was carried (8-6; no: Anderson, Hytowitz, Williamson, Brown, Rinehart, LeSage; absent: Sowle) for the board to provide $9,180 to bring the manuscript to the archive stage. The board understood the Group would present a complete marketing plan to the board at a later date.

Mr. Oleson distributed a handout with legislative contacts and BOG members were encouraged to contact their legislators and discuss the bar’s agenda with them. There were also samples of how letters should be addressed to the various dignitaries and talking points to be discussed. This is a crucial time at the legislature because things tend to move very quickly at this stage in the session and bills tend to be introduced on the spur of the moment. Though bar funding does not go through the legislative budget process, the judicial budget does. The judicial branch has not been treated kindly in the budget process in the past however, this year things appear to have improved and there is a possibility that some of the items previously cut will be added back into the budget. There are four bills, which were discussed by Mr. Oleson and Mr. Harnden, about which the BOG will probably receive questions and with which they should make themselves familiar: (a) HB 3677 - the statutory construction bill, (b) court facilities study, (c) judicial budget and (d) HJR 7. Mr. Tyner commended Mr. Harnden, Ms. Garst, Mr. Oleson, Ms. Grabe and the bar staff for their contributions and diligent work in Salem.

There is a budget shortfall of $15 million, though there is still 'wriggle room' and a possibility that the judiciary can get some of its requests for funds through the Ways and Means Committee and into the budget.

Mr. Williamson reported the committee has contacted Linda Clingan for a presentation at the May A to J Committee and the June BOG meeting concerning the efforts for pro hac vice fees, Endowment and General Fund for legal aid.

E. Awards Special Committee

Mr. Hytowitz reported that the Awards Committee has received three nominations for awards. He indicated this is not unusual because in the past most award applications came in during the week of the deadline. Nonetheless, he encouraged the board to remind members of the bar they come in contact with to submit their nominations. The deadline for nominations is April 20, 2001. To submit a nomination the submitter need only send a letter to Mr. Hytowitz or Ms. Bowen and can follow up with the official form at a later date. After all of the nominations are completed a notebook will be compiled for the members of the committee to review. The members will evaluate the nominations and then make its recommendations regarding the awards.

Mr. Zarov reported the PLF had lost $7.8 million in 2000. Though this seems to be a large amount, it is not alarming as the fund is still in excellent financial condition with $2.2 million in retained earnings. The year 2000 was an anomaly and the losses were due in part to the volatile stock market and in part to large claims settled during 2000. Though the number of claims was not substantially more than previous years, the amount paid out on each claim was higher than previous years. Due to the apparent increase in the severity of claims, the PLF is considering a possible increase in the assessment next year. The timeline for the decision on whether there would be an assessment increase will be completed by the BOG meeting in September 2001. Even if the large cases were factored out of the budget, the claims and losses overall for 2000 were more severe than in years past. The number of claims did not impact the fund as significantly as the severity of the claims. It is too early to tell if this can be construed as a trend. The communications between the bar and the PLF is excellent and the two bodies are coordinating information. The upcoming move for the PLF is proceeding well. Currently the PLF is looking at tenant improvements and all is going well. Once the PLF moves out of its area, the carpets will be replaced in the work areas and Discipline will move in. A committee of bar staff members will review the different areas and with the help of a designer determine the location of departments with the anticipation that Executive Service will be located on the first floor and CLE Publications will have an area on the second floor. At the next BOG meeting, Mr. Zarov will present information regarding how PLF budget issues are decided.

Action:Mr. Scott recommended that the board accept the recommendation of the committee to pay the claims. Mr. Williamson seconded the motion and the motion carried. (13-1; abstaining: Mr. Brown, absent: Ms. Sowle)

After the vote, Mr. Hytowitz informed the board he believed that in at least one instance the PLF might pay the claim. If this occurs, he suggested the CSF be reimbursed.

Mr. Sapiro clarified the demonstration of competency upon reinstatement requirements. When the board approves reinstatement under BR 8.1, it is a recommendation only and the Supreme Court makes the final decision. Regarding the issue of having applicants retake the bar exam, this is an option, which is rarely implemented; it is more common to have the applicant take additional CLE hours. If an applicant has been practicing law in another jurisdiction during the time he/she is inactive in Oregon, there usually is no need for additional CLE hours, however if the applicant has been away from the practice of law for an extended time period, additional CLE hours are usually recommended. For reinstatement applicants involved in drug and/or alcohol abuse, the board may reinstate the person conditional on the completion of a drug/alcohol rehabilitation program or compliance with other requirements.

Did not appear

Did not appear

Mr. Riemer discussed the Administrative Law Section’s request to file an amicus brief in the case of Ford v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. He indicated the request fits within the board’s policy.

amicus brief by the Administrative Law Section in the case of Ford v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision and the motion carried unanimously.

Agenda without changes and the motion carried unanimously.

6.Appointment to Quality of Life Committee