Loading

Governor Mark O. Hatfield's Administration

Veto Messages, 1961

Source: STATE OF OREGON VETO MESSAGES BY MARK O. HATFIELD, GOVERNOR FIFTIETH AND FIFTY-FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES SALEM, OREGON JUNE, 1961

Note: All vetoes on which legislative action was taken by the adjournment of the 1961 session were sustained. (* Four vetoes made after adjournment will go before the next legislature.)

SENATE BILLS, 1961

SENATE BILL 96*

June 2, 1961

Senate Bill 96, while a laudable and humanitarian approach to the problem of mental illness or defect in a criminal case, is, in my judgment premature. The bill lacks adequate safeguards and there are not sufficient institutional facilities and trained personnel to employment that could become sideswiping changes in our concepts of criminality.

If a substantial percentage of persons who now are incarcerated in our penitentiary and other correctional facilities were to be helped by or in mental institutions, it is imperative we have assurance of adequate security both from the standpoint of the plant and the personnel who would maintain that security. Society should not be subjected to potentially dangerous criminal behavior in the instance of one found to have a mental defect of illness any more than by criminal activity by those with an insufficient mental defect to be absolved.

I have every sympathy with promotion of mental health. The Legislature passed the principle recommended to them in my message for community mental health clinics. I am impressed by diligent efforts, as in this bill, to modernize our statues and concepts.

Two national authorities tell us that “it was long believed that a clear distinction in kind exists between the normal mind and the abnormal mind; that each person is clearly and distinctly either sane or insane. Such a belief is no longer held by scientific students of mental problems. It is quite apparent that most normal individuals exhibit certain abnormal traits, and that many persons suffering from mental and nervous disorders exhibit some degree of mental integration and intellectual lucidity.”

With this I concur. But presented to me is a bill which would open the door to an era of complete re-evaluation of our approach to the criminal with mental problems. And even with full recognition of advances in sociology and psychiatry, I do believe we are not yet prepared for the custody and treatment problems which would result. Poor custody and inadequate treatment could set the program back by decades.

Ward 38 at the State Hospital in Salem has become a well-known facility both because of the nature of its occupants and because of some headline events which have occurred there from. There have been other instances of public alarm and concern as a result of the inadequacy of the facility to deal with some of those put in tits charge.

Until such time as we are adequately prepared to cope with these individuals --- both from the standpoint of treatment and custody --- they and society will be better served under present law.

Therefore, because of these objections, I file herewith SB 96 unsigned and unapproved.

SENATE BILL 510*

June 2, 1961

I file herewith Senate Bill No. 510, unsigned and unapproved.

This bill prides that the Highway Commission shall pay the cost of moving certain utility facilities that may be located on the highway right-of-way. The constitutionality of this bill is in serious doubt. This question was raised by the Chief Counsel of the State Highway Department before the House Committee on Local Government. He and other legal counsel believe such use of highway funds violates Article IX, section 3 of the Oregon Constitution and also, that it would be lending the credit of the state contrary to Article XI, Section 7. In addition, the classification of persons who would benefit from this bill is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Because of these objections, I am filing SB 510 not approved.

SENATE BILL 526*

June 1, 1961

SB 526, which authorizes a sixty-day injunction against action taken by the Liquor Control Commission in suspending or canceling licenses, here-with is filed without my approval or signature.

Oregonians have historically insisted upon close regulation and control of the sale of alcoholic beverages, although some departures from the original concept of the Knox law have occurred though vote of the people’s and legislative action. Maximum control can be realized only when substantial authority remains in the hands of the administrative agency. SB 526, with it provision for a sixty-day injunction against Commission actions, would in effect frustrate the administration of the law and would be a disservice to the people of the State of Oregon.

Some states believe in this concept so strongly as to permit no appeal at all. Oregon does have a procedure of appeal to the Circuit Court. The state is better served by the expeditious abatement of a public nuisance with a fair right of review than by providing a restraining order which would result in undesirable delays. Our enforcement efforts would be severely handicapped if this act were to become law.

My opposition to the principle involved herein is well known and was made clear during the legislative session. I cannot condone the continues operation of an establishment which has been shown, with reasonable basis, to be in violation of liquor control regulations. The fact that the existing statute has been fairly and equitable administered clearly demonstrates that this legislation is not needed. Because of these objections, I file SB 526 unsigned and unapproved.

SENATE BILL 90

May 4, 1961

Senate Bill No. 90 would reduce the maximum penalty for a proactive which is universally condemned by our society and by most other societies, as well.

There is ample leeway in present law for consideration of extenuating circumstances. There is no need to restrict, as this bill would do, the imposition of a sentence severe enough to deter those who would deliberately engage in a criminal activity that helps to lure others into lives of immorality and crime.

This bill is not the public interest. I, therefore, return it unsigned and unapproved.

SENATE BILL 32

May 4, 1961

As I indicated earlier in my suggestion that Senate Bill No. 32 be recalled from my desk when passed in its original form, I do not feel that valid data is not available to justify the proposed tax reduction to operators of large trucks. THE tests being conducted by the American Association of State Highway Officials are under way and their results are expected to provide needed additional information which may provide a factual basis for lessening or realigning the tax burden now borne by the trucking industry. I would certainly recommend to the 1963 Legislature that appropriate action be taken to reflect the date provided as a result of these tests.

THE Legislature has amended the original bill which reached my desk, to place a time limitation upon the reduction. I cannot endorse what I believe to e an improper act merely because it has an automotive termination.

Not only have I received the consistent counsel of the State Highway Commission against such reduction, but I have also followed with interest the statements of the President of the United State on the subject. President Kennedy favors additional taxes, increasing the share trucks would pay for federal highway construction. I have not been willing to concur in this view, even at the urging of the Chairman of the Governors’ Conference, who sought my endorsement before the Congress of this proposal for an increase.

Oregon’s highways are the envy of much of the nation. We have made rapid progress, yet much remains to be done. The trucking industry supported financially a major share of this progress but it has also benefited substantially because of the reduction in travel time and distance resulting for our highway improvements.

Oregon highways needs remain great in all parts of the state. The factual data to support a reduction of needed revenues is not yet available. In view of these facts, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. Therefore, I return Senate Bill No. 32, unsigned and unapproved.

SENATE BILL 457

April 14, 1961

Upon the advice of legal counsel, including that which I am informed is forthcoming formally from the Attorney General next week, I return herewith, without my approval, Senate Bill No. 457, a bill relating to major political parties.

This bill is so broad that its passage would incite violation. It appears to contravene the Oregon Constitution.

I return Senate Bill No. 457 to the Senate unsigned and unapproved.

HOUSE BILLS, 1961

HOUSE BILL 1653*

June 2,1961

I am filing herewith House Bill No. 1653, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it appears to be unconstitutional. The Chief Counsel for the State Highway Department, appeared before committees in both houses and raised the issue as to the constitutionality of the bill as an illegal diversion of highway funds in contravention of Article IX, Section 3, and as arbitrary and discriminatory in contravention of Article I, Section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.

ON May 1, 1961, In Opinion No. 5211, the Attorney General ruled that this bill, if passed, would provide for an unconstitutional diversion of highway funds contrary to Article IX, Section 3, of the Oregon Constitution.

For these reasons I am filing HB 1653 without my approval.

HOUSE BILL 1015

April 14, 1961

As government grows and becomes more complex it opens up the potential for magnitude beyond proper management, control and coordination. The people of Oregon have repeatedly, both in expressions by the electorate and in the history of the Legislature, indicated a desire to have state institutions and headquarters of major departments located in the capital city.

To legislate prohibitions which would prevent the location of a department headquarters in the capital city would be a backward step and would invite further encroachments upon clearly administrative responsibilities of the Chief Executive. Moreover, the expression of intense regional interests as they relate to possible future locations of state departments could result in log-rolling of a nature the State of Oregon has to a remarkable degree avoided over the years.

It is my conviction that the people will be better served through the location of the State Public Welfare Department in the state capital than they are with the headquarters elsewhere. IT is my hope that better communications, coordination, and service will result though closer inter-agency actions between the Welfare Department and such other state activities as those which deal with employment, vocational rehabilitation, veterans affairs, most state institutions, electronic computation, labor, budgeting and like matters.

For purposes of public understanding it is important to note that location of top administrative arm of Public Welfare in the state capital will not reduce the effectiveness of services performed to the individual welfare recipient. These services are provided through the county welfare offices. Moreover, it is intended to retain branch offices of such services as may deal with private organizations operation in the Multnomah County area.

The foregoing reasons, together with the belief we can achieve new harmony and effectiveness through the inclusion of the Public Welfare Department in the more direct relationships in a geographical as well as an administrative sense, form the basis of my decision.

Opposition to this position has been based to a large extent on the fact that Multnomah County is the largest in population and therefore should retain the Public Welfare Department. This argument would locate virtually the entire state capital activities in Portland. It is not a sound position in my opinion.

I am, therefore, returning House Bill No. 1015 unsigned and unapproved for the objections cited herein.

SENATE BILLS, 1959 SENATE BILL 500

May 29, 1959

I am filing Senate Bill No. 500 unsigned and unapproved.

My objections to this bill are that it could make the selection of medical services a matter of court review. The claimant now may choose the first series a matter of court review. The claimant now may choose the first doctor to treat him; and the Commission, I know, upholds the principle of free choice of a doctor. Under present law, however, the Commission has the right, seldom exercised, to reject a doctor’s services in a particular case and, I believe, it would be costly to the state and most cumbersome to the Commission if court appeal from such a refusals were permitted. In the rare case when a particular doctor’s services are refused, there are many others from whom the workman may make his choice. It is the duty of the Commission to husband the rust fund, and it must be allowed to exercise authority and discretion in preferment this duty.

SENATE BILL 366

May 29, 1959

I am filing Senate Bill No. 366, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it adds to the number of positions exempt from civil service.

There is room, I believe, for improvement in the Multnomah County system, such as removal of the discriminatory age and residence requirements. THE overall effects of this bill, however, are detrimental to county civil service, and for that reason it has been opposed by Multnomah County employees and their civil service commission.

SENATE BILL 526

May 28, 1959

I am filing Senate Bill No. 366, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it adds tot he number of positions exempt from civil service.

There is room, I believe, for improvement in the Multnomah County system, such as removal of the discriminatory age and residence requirements. The overall effects of this bill, however, are detrimental to county civil service, and for that reason it has been opposed by Multnomah County employees and their civil service commission.

SENATE BILL 459

May 5, 1959

I return herewith Senate Bill no. 459, unsigned and unapproved.

My objections to this bill are that it prevents an elected official from holding his office until the time of accepting a second, to which he has also been elected, and it does not consider the possibility of an election contest, which may not be settled until later than the vacancy date expressed in the bill, not does it consider the possibility of a tie vote for Governor, which would have to be resolved after the Legislature convenes in January.

The right to hold an office until the acceptance of a second one is well recognized in our system of government and has served us well. There is no need to change this concept now. When the people elect a person to one office and then elect him to another, there is not reason to deny them arbitrarily and almost immediately his services in the former.

Furthermore, there is a serious question as the constitutionality of the bill as it applies to offices, the terms of which are fixed by the Oregon Constitution.

SENATE BILL 446

May 5, 1959

I return herewith Senate Bill No. 446, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it unnecessarily limits the conditions upon which a public official’s resignation must be based. I feel that there is no need for such legislation. It places undue restrictions upon a public official who may which to resting upon the occurrence of an event the time of which is not known in advance. Prospective resignation should be encouraged rather than discouraged so that decisions to resign may be known early and plans for orderly transfer of the office can be made. Laws concerning resignations of public officers must be flexible in order to meet the great variety of situations that will develop. Restrictions should be limited to hose t hat are necessary to give the law meaning and workability and protection to the public.

SENATE BILL 420

May 5, 1959

I return herewith Senate Bill No. 420, unsigned and unapproved.

This legislation is unnecessary and establishes again the beginnings of a myriad of boards, commissions, and advisory units diffusing responsibility by statute. Because the Board of Control can, and no doubt will, appoint an Advisory Committee to serve as a Board of Visitors to the Fairview Home, it is my opinion that we need not at this time add to the statutes with such groups as indicated in the proposed legislation.

Believing that one or the other of these companion bills- Senate Bill No. 419 and Senate Bill No. 420 --- might be desirable, but not both, the Board of Control will attempt to combine the desirable features of each into the single committee to be appointed.

SENATE BILL 419

May 5, 1959

I return herewith Senate Bill No. 419, unsigned and unapproved.

This legislation is unnecessary and establishes again the beginnings of a myriad of boards, commissions, and advisory units diffusing responsibility by statute. Because the Board of Control can, and no doubt will, appoint an Advisory Committee to serve as a Board of Visitors to the Fairview Home, it is my opinion that we need not at this time add to the statutes with such groups as indicated in the proposed legislation.

Believing that one or the other of these companion bills --- Senate Bill No. 419 or Senate Bill No. 420 --- might be desirable, but not both, the Board of Control will attempt to combine the desirable features of each into the single committee to be appointed.

SENATE BILL 371

May 5, 1959

I return herewith Senate Bill No. 371, unsigned and unapproved.

The essence of a presidential preference primary is that delegates reflect to the base of their ability, at the national nominating conventions, the expressed wish of the majority of their political party. An omission from this bill, as finally passed by both chambers, leases the proposed measure considerably weaker than existing statutes. I formed this opinion after simultaneous consultation with the state chairmen of both major political parties, Mr. Dave Epps and Mr. Peter Gunnar. Bi-partisan attempt was made this morning to have the Senate recall the bill from my desk for repassage with the complete amendment included. But, because of the time facto and owing to the lateness of the hour in the 50th Legislative Assembly, I am advised it did not seem practicable to recall the bill.

Believing, therefore, that present law is preferable to this proposal in the form in which it arrived at my desk, I am, therefore, returning it disapproved.

HOUSE BILLS, 1959

HOUSE BILL 617

May 29, 1959

I am filing House Bill No. 617, unsigned and unapproved.

This bill is unnecessary. It merely recognizes the long-standing practice of creating interim committees by joint resolution. Moreover, the bill attempts to make a resolution the same as a law, which it is not.

HOUSE BILL 455

May 29, 1959

I am filing House Bill No. 455, unsigned and unapproved.

For almost half a century, the management of certain of our state institutions have been vested in the Governor, Secretary of State, and State Treasurer acting as a Board of Control.

To many observers, the existence of the Board of Control is objectionable as a division of executive authority, a weakening of the Governor’s position. There has been --- and properly so --- recognition that if we are to hold the Governor responsible for the acts of the administration, the Governor should have power to appoint and direct the heads of administration departments. But, there is one group of agencies to which such administrative logic does not apply. Their residents of our institutions do not have freedom of political action. We, therefore, require special assurance that these wards of the state are cared for by a state agency that assures breadth of wisdom and experience and iniquity of policy, through consideration of administrative issues, at open meetings.

The best device we have found for these purposes is the Board of Control.

I cannot assent to its abolition at this time. I would appoint out that the provisions of House Bill No. 126 authorizes government reorganization plans to be submitted to the 1961 Legislative Assembly. Reference will very likely be made to the management of our state institutions in a comprehensive presentation for reorganization.

HOUSE BILL 215

May 29, 1959

I am filing House Bill No. 215, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it could prevent lumbermen from financing their payrolls and other expenses by means of warehouse receipts, because banks could no longer rely upon the value of such receipts. This would unduly hamper and discourage lumber operations that depend in any substantial degree upon warehouse receipts. There appears to be no actual necessity for such legislation; and the harm it could cause to this vial Oregon industry, and the jobs dependent thereon, far outweighs any of its possible advantages.

HOUSE BILL 211

May 29, 1959

I am filing House Bill No. 211, unsigned and unapproved, for the reason that both the Fish Commission and the Game Commission, at the present time, have sufficient authority under existing statutes to take fish and shellfish for the purposes deprived in the proposed legislation. Present laws are sufficient to discourage vandalism or molestation of racks or other obstructions or the fish or eggs they hold.

The bill places no limit on the length of time racks, traps et cetera, may remain in a stream. It is questionable whether this latitude should be given since an entire run of anatropous fish might be lost to the stream.

It is suggested that the Legislative Interim Committee on Natural Resources may wish to give further study to this problem.

HOUSE BILL 656

May 28, 1959

I am filing, herewith, Hose Bill no. 656, unsigned and unapproved.

Although the goals which this legislation seeks to accomplish are desirable, these same goals can be realties without the adoption of this Act into law. THE legislation is unnecessary and merely adds to the cast number of statutory boards, commissions and advisory units.

Since there is a need for a study of the operation of the industrial Accident Commission, and a review of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, A Governor’s Committee can and will be appointed to undertake the necessary studies. An executive committee can perform the function without adding to the complexity of the statutory structure of state government and can readily disband if and when its purpose is completed.

HOUSE BILL 496

May 26, 1959

I am filing, herewith, House Bill No. 496, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that at a time when traffic deaths are mounting at an alarming rate there can be no justification for easing the driver controls exercised by the Department of Motor Vehicles. License suspension is one of our most effective deterrents to traffic violations and is a major part of our traffic safety program.

The Motor Vehicle Department has a definite responsibility for the quality of drivers using our public streets and highways, and this responsibility can be discharged only by removal of those drivers who repeatedly violate traffic laws. Such control in necessary to protect the public safety.

The department has recently established a workable and fair procedure for granting special license to deserving drivers and has thus removed whatever necessity there may have been for legislation on the matter. Furthermore, experience in other state, where attempts have been made to legislate occupation licenses, has shown such laws to be impractical.

HOUSE BILL 138

May 28, 1959

I am filing, herewith, House Bill No. 138, unsigned and unapproved.

Collective bargaining, the essence of labor-management relations in private enterprise, cannot operate effectively in a government setting. Government, with its civil service, legislative process and many other personnel procedures unlike those of private enterprise, has most of the protections, and opportunities for which unions were formed. Government must always remain responsive to the governed. The introduction of collective bargaining would be contrary to the requirements of democratic processes.

The entity with which the union would bargain such as a department head, school superintendent, county official is not the final source of decision in setting salaries. Bargaining with a department head cannot accomplish budgetary changes which are decided by legislature or a city council; bargaining with a school superintendent does not determine the outcome of the school budget election; the same is true with respect to the county court or commissioner and the county budget.

The strike, used by unions which collective bargaining fails, is an essential element in true collective bargaining. But no government can concede the propriety of strikes by public employees.

A need for this legislation has not bee demonstrated.

HOUSE BILL 47

May 28, 1959

I am filing, herewith, House Bill No. 47, unsigned and unapproved.

It is my conviction that this legislation would be injurious to the effective functioning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, would jeopardize the relationship of physicians with the Industrial Accident Commission and would result in no benefits to the worker. In a since, the legislation would violate the confidential relationship existing between the doctor, the claimant and the Commission. At the present time physicians feel free to giver the connected, with the injured workman’s condition, which is of course, to the workman’s advantage. If these reports are not confidential, the physicians will be concerned that some of their statements could be misinterpreted by the patient and they would be reluctant therefore to give full and completely frank reports.

I believe the legislation would lead to increased legislation, which would further congest the courts and increase the cost of administration of the law without any corresponding benefits to the injured workman.

If medical reports are necessary, they may be secured by subpoenaing the examining physicians at the time of a trial.

HOUSE BILL 72

May 8, 1959

I am filing herewith House Bill No. 72, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it will not accomplish the purpose for which it is intended. The purpose of the bill, as tasted by this proponents, is to provide rate protection for log truckers to eliminate some of the hardships which now exist because of competition in the industry.

Experience in other states has shown that enforcing rates of log trucking is not administratively feasible. The Rate Division of the Public Utilities commission of the State of California, in a report dated April 15, 1959, said, “considering the difficulties and the substantial continuing expense which the establishment and maintenance of such rates would necessarily entail, it must be questioned whether the undertaking would be justified as a matter of public policy.” IN Washington, where a law similar to House Bill No. 72 has been in effect for some time, representatives of the Public Service Commission have recognized that the law cannot be equitable enforced, and reportedly they have virtually abandoned any attempt at its enforcement. The attempts that have been made appear to have met with resentment from both logging operators and truckers.

After a thorough review, The Oregon Public Utility Commissioner feels that the administration and enforcement of this bill in a manner acceptable to the log and dump truck operators, large and small, is impossible, principally because the many factor upon which rates would be based are unstable and do not land themselves to generalization.

The bill can be of no benefit to the affected carriers, but with its companion, House Bill No. 29, would impose upon them a substantial increase in fees as well as added burdens in the way of hearings, complicated reporting, detailed record keeping, and adherence to numerous restrictive regulations.

I fee the bill is not in the interest of either the trucking industry or the general public. For the above reasons, I have vetoed House Bill No. 72.

HOUSE BILL 29

May 8, 1959

I am filing herewith House Bill No. 29, unsigned and unapproved.

My objections to house Bill no. 29 are that it and House Bill No. 72 have been considered as companion measures. House Bill no. 29 was designed to provide the funds necessary for the administration of the provisions included in House Bill No. 72.

Since House Bill No. 72 is not being approved, House Bill No. 29 has no purpose, and it is hereby vetoed.

HOUSE BILL 23

May 8, 1959

I am filing herewith House Bill No. 23, unsigned and unapproved.

House Bill No. 23 creates a separate Board of Tax Appeals without altering the responsibilities or organization of the State Tax Commission.

I find the bill objectionable because it creates an agency without a legislative appropriation to cover its necessary expenditures.

For these reasons, I veto House Bill No. 23.

HOUSE BILL 626

May 5, 1959

I return herewith House Bill No. 626, unsigned and unapproved.

My objections to the bill are that it creates no material benefits but rather imposes additional labor, complications and expense upon the offices of sheriff and county treasurer, especially in Easter Oregon countries where staffs are small and in some cases part-time. The transfer of tax collections to the treasurer on or before the 10th of each month, as now required by law, has proved satisfactory wherever covered. The acceleration of such transfers would only work an unnecessary hardship on both offices in the majority of counties. Distribution to the taxing districts by the treasurer would still have to await the sheriff’s statements and his destination of the funds to which the moneys are to be allocated.

HOUSE BILL 404

May 1, 1959

I return herewith House Bill No. 404, unsigned and unapproved.

Passage of this proposed legislation would be discriminating, potentially disturbance-creating, and offensive to some patrons. Entertainment on premises such as those affected by his bill has been permitted in the past entertainment in taverns. It would be a mistake to commence a return to those former conditions.

Furthermore, the bill applies to Class A and Class B retail malt beverage licenses only and on to restaurants licensed under ORS471.25909 subsection (1) nor under subsection (2), nor to dispensers licensed under ORS 472.110, subsection (2). This makes the legislation discriminatory.

The potential for disturbance is considerable in neighborhood taverns. Unless separate singing facilities are provided some patrons would find singing objectionable whereas hushed conversation is not.

Taverns do not have as their purpose the provisions of setting for singing. The need for this legislation has not bee amply demonstrated. Objections to it far outweigh what pleasures it might bring to a vocal minority.

HOUSE BILL 366

May 1, 1959

I return herewith House Bill No. 366, unsigned and unapproved.

My objection to this bill is that it extends the racing season in Oregon form six months to eleven months and thereby encourages operators to increase racing facilities and activities thought the state. In y opinion legislation which may contribute the multiplication of racing facilitates out of proportion to the state’s present population look not in the best interest of our people.

HOUSE BILL 148

May 1, 1959

I return herewith House Bill No. 148, unsigned and unapproved.

My objections to this bill are that it would open the door to a rash of lawsuits against the state of Oregon and would require the Highway Commission to pay from State Highway Funds for the effect of grade changes occurring along county roads being build with Federal aid money. Actually, the Highway Commission is service merely as an administrator of the Federal program for the benefit of counties and nay required grade change is a benefit to the county, not to the state; and, its costs should be paid from country of Federal money, not state.

It is, therefore, wrong for the state to have to pay out of its highway fund for damage to property by reason of a grade change.

Also, the bill makes the state liable for “any damage.” This term is undefined and must too broad. Furthermore, the bill makes provision for joining many pontiffs in one suit, which omission could lead to an unbearable multiplicity of suits, In addition, section 4 of the bill appears to giver to the court the power to settle claims of persons not before the court and thus deprives them of constitutional rights.

Oregon Secretary of State • 136 State Capitol • Salem, OR 97310-0722
Phone: (503) 986-1523 • Fax: (503) 986-1616 • oregon.sos@state.or.us

© 2013 State of Oregon All Rights Reserved​