by Jonathan Cote-Schiff

“The mind of man knows no employment more worthy of its powers than the quest of righteousness in human affairs.” Inscribed prominently on the proud marble façade of the Oregon State Capitol, the eloquent and directional maxim written by renowned American philosopher, poet, doctor, and scholar Hartley Burr Alexander conveys the importance of aspiration and rectitude for humankind. The centrality and consequence which emanates from the confluence of the need for individual integrity and just governance quite literally looms large over all who enter the Oregon Capitol, a direct, and yet subtle instruction to do the right thing.

The concept of conducting one’s self in an ethical way has evolved over time and across different cultural traditions. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle studied ēthos, the examination of moral character. The Latin word ethice concerns the science of right and wrong. In French philosophy, éthique denotes the moral value of human actions, a realm explored diligently by scholastic philosopher Peter Abelard.[1]

Commonly, a description of what would constitute ethical conduct would center upon an individual’s adherence to the principle of integrity. Merriam-Webster defines integrity as “the quality of being honest and fair.”[2]  However, in practice, the working definition of ethical behavior can be obfuscated by personal motivations and unique circumstances. For this reason, commonly organizations and institutions have established uniform codes, policies and procedures to outline collective standards which require constant and diligent adherence in order to avoid actual or perceived wrongdoing.[3]  Legislative bodies, including the Oregon Legislative Assembly thusly have established legally enforceable ethical guidelines, mechanisms, and laws to help ensure governmental and importantly, legislative business is conducted ethically.[4] This treatise will demonstrate the multifaceted governmental ethics enforcement regime set in place by successive generations of Oregonians clearly evinces the importance citizens attribute to Legislative ethics and displays the resilience of those ethical guidelines, procedures, and laws.

In many ways, the Watergate Scandal of the early 1970s acted as an impetus for states, including the State of Oregon, to enact modern ethics laws in order to address what was iconically referred to as “our [country’s] long national nightmare.”[5] The pervasiveness, or perception of pervasive unethical behavior in government during the post-Watergate era led some to not “have confidence that [government would] protect the public interest.”[6] In an apparent response to the Watergate break in of 1972 and first ever Presidential resignation by Richard Nixon in 1974, Oregon Voters approved by a margin of 73.67% in favor to only 26.33% opposed, a ballot measure to create the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. In conjunction with the establishment of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the Oregon Public Official Financial Ethics and Reporting Bill, also known as Measure 14, enshrined a series of rules pertaining to the regulation of public official’s financial and income matters.[7] Measure 14, which ultimately was a self-limiting initiative, was a legislatively-referred state statute and therefore was crafted by the Oregon Legislature and placed before the people of Oregon as a ballot initiative for the public’s approval. Recognizing the nature of Oregon’s multilayered governmental largess, drafters of Measure 14 included a provision where the prevue of the new Oregon Government Ethics Commission would reach down and apply to county level officials and city employees whose respective jurisdictions voted for enactment of the ballot measure. This overwhelming vote of support for Measure 14 ushered in new ethical oversight for 30 of Oregon’s 36 counties and 153 of Oregon’s 243 cities where registered voters supported the measure[8], thereby establishing a new an all-encompassing ethical milieu in the State of Oregon.

The necessity for a watchdog agency to set forth detailed rules and monitor possible ethical transgressions was and continues to be exceptionally pertinent. Oregon’s Legislative Assembly, being a biannually convening body, is composed of a majority of citizen lawmakers whom typically hold employment with private employers.[9] This dynamic allows for circumstances which could at the very least lead to an appearance of impropriety when the scope of governmental responsibility overlaps with private business dealings. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission is composed, by statute, of seven volunteer members, of whom four are appointed by the Governor at the behest of the Democratic and Republican leaders of both legislative chambers. The remaining three members are appointed directly by the Oregon Governor. All Oregon Government Ethics Commission seats are confirmed by the Oregon Senate as is consistent with executive appointments under the Oregon Constitution. Though Oregon’s ethical oversight commission is majoritarian in nature, statute dictates members to attempt at least to temper partisanship by restrictions on more than four same-party appointments to the seven member commission. With commissioners limited to a maximum of one four-year term, executive appointments are routine throughout the Oregon Governor’s typical two-term stewardship of the State.

Legislative ethics law can be broadly described as proactively addressing three potential areas of misconduct. The first and most comprehensive area of ethical enforcement concerns ethical standards for legislators, their staff, and volunteers. Oregon government ethics law, contained in Oregon Revised Statute chapter 244, holds that public office or association with public office cannot be used for personal financial gain. Meticulous effort was expended to outline the precise parameters of expected ethical behavior and therefore the boundaries that if overstepped would ensnare a legislator or legislative worker in ethical misconduct. Ostensibly of paramount importance, financial ethics are prominent and oft regulated in Oregon ethics law. Legislators are prohibited from either soliciting or receiving any gifts in excess of $50.00 from any individual or entity which has a known legislative or administrative interest.[10] Interestingly, along with most ethical guidelines, the “gift limit” regulation applies to the primary party (legislator, staff or volunteer) and members of the aforementioned party’s household as well. Interviews conducted with Oregon legislative staff indicated a strong awareness of the $50.00 gift limit and effort to comply with both the spirit and letter of that regulation. Although chapter 244 gift limit regulations do apply to family members of legislators, interviews revealed a dearth of anecdotal accounts of gifts being offered to Oregon legislative family members.[11]

In addition, being that most Oregon legislators are professionals, specific guidelines have been established to address impropriety associated with honoraria. Legislators are specifically forbidden from receiving payment for speeches and appearances which in any way are linked to their position as a public official.[12] However, this regulation is weakened somewhat with the exception specified in subsection 3.a which offers allowances for honoraria relating to private professions.[13] Inquiries with legislative staff regarding the prevalence of honoraria indicated the practice to be widespread.[14]

Oregon’s 2014 omnibus budget encompassed expenditures totaling $28.3 billion dollars.[15] With exorbitant sums of money supporting important governmental functions and priories such as education enhancement, public safety, infrastructure improvement and economic development, the opportunity for corruption is ripe for legislators and those seeking lucrative government contracts. In order to proactively prevent personal enrichment of those who are recently public officials, Oregon statutes ardently restrict any person who has held public office within the previous two years from applying for or taking public contracts.[16] The appearance of public resources being ferretted away to the well-connected in smoke-filled rooms led to stringent embargos on contracting to former legislators and those on their employ.[17]

In alignment with State and Federal tax filing deadlines, a myriad of Oregon’s public servants from the top of the Executive Office, i.e. Oregon’s Governor, to all Legislative Branch members, Judicial Branch employees and even the State’s Librarian must file statements of financial interest with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission by April 15^th of each year.[18] Candidates for applicable public offices are also required to file financial disclosure forms within 30 days of filing for their respective candidacy even if that individual has not been duly elected.[19] The wide net cast by Oregon’s financial disclosure laws seeks to provide both citizens and journalists with enough information to tease out irregularities, possible conflicts of interest, and provides for a uniform structure of information accessibility to benefit open and transparent government.[20]

Observers of either the Oregon House of Representatives or the Oregon Senate occasionally note the practice of a Legislator publically disclosing a possible conflict of interest pertaining to an issue before their respective legislative body. This custom directly stems from the guidelines for handling possible conflicts of interest within Oregon State Law. The public announcement of the possibility of a conflict is required before taking any steps to mitigate the situation.[21] The establishment of such guidelines is intended to foster openness rather than minimization and damage control among legislators. After public announcement of a possible conflict of interest, Oregon statute requires legislator’s abstention from discussion, debate or voting on that particular matter.[22] Interviews performed with legislative staff indicated broad-based understanding of public conflict of interest disclosure requirements and a general inclination by legislators to err on the side of disclosure in questionable situations.[23]

In an effort to allow for multifaceted oversight of legislative conduct, Oregon law provides for a complaint and adjudication process which can be initiated by intergovernmental complaint, citizen, non-profit or private non-governmental agencies. According to Oregon statute, any person may file a complaint with the Oregon Governmental Ethics Commission alleging a violation of ethical standards which then is reviewed as per standard investigatory guidelines, with safeguards for accused legislator’s due process rights.[24] Due process rights include a four year statute of limitations on investigating ethics complaints and 48 hour notification of the legislator whom a complaint is filed against. After initial review of an allegation of unethical behavior on the part of an Oregon legislator, if the Oregon Ethics Commission finds cause to undertake further inquiry, the investigatory phase commences where the Commission may “administer oaths, take depositions and issue subpoenas to compel attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, records, memoranda or other information necessary to complete the investigation.”[25]

Pursuant to Oregon ethics law, if a person is found to have violated ethical standards outlined in chapter 244 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, a legislator, or, if the case may be, a former legislator can face civil penalties ranging from $10 for failing to file a financial disclosure form on time, up to $25,000 for acting to influence legislation for financial gain within two years of leaving elected office.[26] Likely more damming for a legislator, the Director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission can issue a letter of reprimand outlining adjudicated wrongdoing on the part of elected officials. Though the written chastisement can be issued in conjunction with the imposition of monetary fines, the possibility of being issued such a scarlet letter surely motivates members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly to conduct governmental business in an aboveboard way.[27] The assertion that an Oregon Government Ethics Commission reprimand is taken seriously by legislators is substantiated anecdotally through interviews conducted with legislative staff.[28]

Along with the ethical standards for legislators outlined in detail in chapter 244 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, the second area of great import when understanding Oregon’s ethical regime, enforced by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission pertains to the regulation of lobbying in the State. Guidelines crafted to address influence peddling within legislative government exist with the understanding that the free flow and exchange of information, opinion and advocacy is a paramount and crucial component of representative democracy. For the purpose of transparency and disclosure, Oregon law demands that “persons who engage in efforts to influence legislative action […] should regularly report their efforts to the public.”[29] This guideline holds that professional-compensated lobbyists must register with the state. The idea of lobbyist registration upholds the ideal that there is a public benefit to identifying the financial motivations of those who make a profession of trying to influence legislation for outside entities and interests.[30] Registration of lobbyists is seen as a tool to help determine advocates’ motivations according to interviews conducted throughout the Oregon State Capitol.[31] In addition to identifying one’s identity as a lobbyist, Oregon law requires extensive financial disclosure of funds spent in pursuit of legislative goals. In 2014, 804 individuals registered their intent to influence legislation while expending $91,920.91 in reportable funds while working to achieve those goals.[32] Regulations of lobbying activities also require those who employ registered lobbyists to report total expenditures spent on issue advocacy.[33] In 2014, $26,849,550.59 was allocated, spent and reported for the purpose of lobbying by 890 organizations in the State of Oregon.[34]

In addition, lobbyists and legislators are mutually prohibited from participating in certain specified conduct. Explicit regulations proscribe the promise of monetary benefit in exchange for legislative support for an initiative and, conversely, also prohibit the threat of financial opposition of a legislator for supporting or opposing a legislative measure.[35] In addition to Oregon law prohibiting financial quid pro quo amongst advocates and legislators, Oregon law also disallows the practice of offering support for policies and legislation in return for agreement on unrelated matters. Contingency lobbying, as it is referred to in Oregon Revised Statutes, is the practice of offering to lobby an issue only upon the contingency of successful consideration of an unrelated matter.[36] This type of issue-based quid pro quo is forbidden on the principle that each matter before legislators should be judged on that issue’s merit, rather than in an issue-based bargain with paid lobbyists.[37] When questioned about the prevalence of contingency lobbying in the Oregon legislative process, interviewees indicated that support for ancillary issues is often negotiated when discussing legislation; however support for disparate or unconnected subjects is rarely linked during negotiations.[38]

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission is vested with the responsibility to investigate complaints, irregularities and alleged wrongdoing by registered lobbyists and their clients with the aforementioned investigatory review process outlined for probing ethics complaints under Oregon Revised Statute chapter 244. These procedures include fact finding processes and the ability to issue compulsory subpoenas for testimony and pertinent evidence. Civil penalties for violating lobbying ethics regulations can reach up to $5,000 and/or a written letter of reprimand[39], though the financial disincentive for lobbyists is most likely the most effective deterrent wielded by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

In addition to the legislative ethical guidelines specified in chapter 244 and the legislative lobbying guidelines outlined in chapter 171 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, government policies with the aim of enhancing transparency in routine government business allow for public oversight. Commonly known as Oregon’s “Open Meetings Law”, the regulation established with the goal of fostering “an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies[40]” dictates that members of the public must be allowed to monitor legislative sessions and committee meetings that do not deal with certain issues which may require executive sessions to be closed to public oversight.[41] Though legislators may close committee meetings that deal with issues relating to a specified listing of acceptable topics, the primacy of maintaining open meetings is an overarching goal and principle meant to guide legislative sessions. As a mechanism of oversight, if an allegation is made that Oregon’s open meeting statutes have been improperly violated, any person may petition the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to have the session reviewed and investigated with the possibility of civil penalties being leveraged against legislators or staff.[42]

Importantly, Oregon’s Open Meeting Laws help to establish an ethical ambiance surrounding the legislative process. The message that citizen’s be included in governmental functions and have recourse in the form of filing a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission helps to reinforce openness and ethical practice for legislators.

Another mechanism contained within Oregon State law which acts to encourage ethical government conduct is the State’s Public Records statutes. The ability of citizens, journalists and advocacy organizations to review documents generated while conducting business on the behalf of citizens acts as an added layer of oversight in the State of Oregon. Former Oregon Attorney general Hardy Meyers, who served the people of Oregon for three consecutive terms as the State’s top law enforcement official expounded, “Open records laws that are effective and well-understood are a fundamental component of democracy.”[43] According to the Oregon Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, the definition of a public record is “any writing that contains information relating to the conduct of public business that is prepared, owned, used or retained by a public body.[44]” The Oregon Legislative Assembly, being a public body is considered to be subject to Public Records regulations.

The process of seeking public records, as provided for in Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 192, instructs those pursuing records to submit a written “Request for Public Records” form. [45] This request is made directly with the government agency in possession of the documents in question. Thusly, if an Oregon citizen seeks to gain insight relating to the conduct of a legislator or legislator’s office, a request for public office would be made directly with the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The assumption expressed in Oregon statutes is that all records are public with the exception of information that would unduly invade individual’s privacy such as “public employee addresses, Social Security numbers, birth dates and telephone numbers.”[46]  If a citizen or journalist seeking government records is denied access to those records by a representative of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, the seeker of those documents may seek redress by petitioning the Oregon Attorney General.[47] If the Attorney General deems the petition for legislative records to be valid, a Public Records Order will be issued compelling the custodian of the records in question to make said records available.[48] Legislative records requests may incur a processing fee equal to the cost of “summarizing, compiling or tailoring a record to meet the person’s request.”[49] However in an effort to ensure fees are not punitive or dampen an Oregonian’s ability to realistically obtain public records, a fee may not exceed the actual cost incurred in producing records. Interviews with legislative staff indicate that commonly, if a public records request is perceived to be focused and narrow, no fee is charged by legislative staff. However if a request is unrealistically broad and therefore intensely time consuming, the requestor of the records will be notified that a fee will be charged in an effort to avoid expending onerous amounts of staff time on the request, according to legislative staff interviews.[50] In an effort to provide an exception to the incursion of records request fees, an exception for requests that are “in the public’s interest to release the records”[51] may be produced without any fees being assessed.

The Oregon Court of Appeals’ characterization that citizens have the right “to monitor what elected and appointed officials are doing on the job”[52] provides an explanatory justification that citizens are entitled to oversee government business. This oversight acts as a motivation for legislators to conduct that very business ethically and helps create an ambiance of ethical governance within the Legislative bureaucracy.

The uniqueness and distinctiveness of some circumstances in government can in some cases challenge the existing processes set in place to adjudicate ethical dilemmas and situations. Instances such as those which embroiled former Governor John A. Kitzhaber’s administration in 2015 present a modern case study that serves to test the efficacy of ethical regulations established previously. This most recent and prominent example of ethical irregularities within the State of Oregon centered on the entanglement of Cylvia Hayes, John Kitzhaber’s fiancé and his gubernatorial office. Though a panoply of allegations revolved around Oregon’s 37^th governorship, this exposition will dissect a select few in order to better understand Oregon’s evolving history.

Relatively shortly after John Kitzhaber’s unprecedented election to a fourth term as Governor of the State of Oregon in 2014, inquiries from various news organizations brought multiple ethical concerns to the forefront of political discussion in the State. Kitzhaber’s fiancé, Cylvia Hayes, whom the governor addressed with the moniker First Lady, had an established a distinguished career as a consultant specializing on economic development and green energy issues prior to the governor’s assumption of office in 2010. Reporters began to bring to public attention the intersections of Hayes’ private business dealings which centered on green energy issues and her official standing as Oregon’s First Lady and as an advisor to the Governor. As conjecture swirled in political circles regarding the professional and personal relationship between the Governor and Ms. Hayes, the Portland Tribune reported on January 27^th 2015 that Ms. Hayes had received a lucrative contract for $118,000 from a Washington D.C. based green energy organization.[53] The intersection between Ms. Hayes consultation work for the Clean Economy Development Center and her position as an advisor to Governor Kitzhaber who counseled him on the very issues which she was being compensated troubled many Oregonians.

In an effort to address the perception of a conflict of interest, the Governor’s Office offered the explanation that Ms. Hayes was an “unpaid advisor” to the Governor and therefore did not assume the same responsibilities or standing of a paid advisor or governmental employee. Seeking to bolster the justification that the delineation between an “unpaid advisor” and a paid advisor provided ethical cover for Ms. Hayes, the Governor asked the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to render a judgement as to whether or not Ms. Hayes’ should be considered a public official and therefore be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[54] Interviews conducted with employees of the Oregon State Capitol regarding the Kitzhaber-Hayes matter emphatically indicated bipartisan rejection of the “unpaid advisor” explanation of Ms. Hayes’ involvement with executive branch decision making.[55]

In a unanimous decision, the seven member board of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission declined to offer an advisory opinion regarding Ms. Hayes’ ethical situation as advisory opinions can only be issued for hypothetical situations. The board moved instead, at the Executive Director, Ron Bersin’s behest, to investigate the actual allegations that Ms. Hayes sought to inappropriately enrich herself.[56] The commission’s decision to examine Ms. Hayes’ private contracts was facilitated by two ethics complaints which were made in accordance with the legal procedure referenced previously in this disquisition which were contained within chapter 244 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. The Commission’s investigatory scrutiny stemmed from the Oregon Republican Party and State Representative Vicki Berger’s, Republican of Salem, submission of complaints with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission in late 2014.[57]

In addition to Governor Kitzhaber and Ms. Hayes’ struggles with accusations of conflicts of interest, news media investigations spawned additional ethics controversies. On December 29^th, the Oregonian Media Group requested all email correspondence from three of Ms. Hayes’ email accounts which pertained to official business.[58] This request for records was made under the egis of the Oregon Open Records laws detailed previously in this essay. The Oregonian did not receive a response from Ms. Hayes or her legal representatives, therefore per statutory guidelines, Oregon’s largest newspaper petitioned the Attorney General, Dianne Rosenblum for legal redress. The Attorney General did ultimately on February 12, 2015 issue an order compelling the release of email correspondence pertaining to the Oregonian’s records request.[59] Rosenblum wrote, “We are persuaded by Ms. Hayes extensive, high-level involvement in the executive branch of Oregon’s state government.”[60]

Ultimately, the crush of ethics controversies led to the resignation of Oregon’s 35^th and 37^th Governor, John Kitzhaber.[61] Kitzhaber acknowledged he had become a liability to the legislative process. However, he maintained, “that [he had] not broken any laws nor taken any actions that were dishonest or dishonorable in their intent or outcome.”[62] When asked for the general view of the Kitzhaber resignation, legislative staff expressed concern within the capitol that public trust in government was being severely diminished and therefore the resignation was seen as necessary to avoid lasting damage to the institution of government.[63]

The peculiar nature of the ethical snafu which befell Governor John Kitzhaber and his fiancé revealed grey areas within Oregon’s venerated ethical policies which public officials and citizens alike recognized needed to be addressed. Kate Brown, Oregon’s Secretary of State whom constitutionally succeeded Governor Kitzhaber, offered a wide-ranging package of ethics proposals after assuming her position as Oregon’s Chief Executive. Among the newly inaugurated Governor’s priorities for strengthening Oregon’s ethics regime included House Bill 2019 which was submitted by Democratic and Republican legislative leadership. This measure would increase the number of seats on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission from seven to nine and reduces the number of commissioners appointed solely at the Governor’s discretion from three to one.[64]  House Bill 2019 also shortens the preliminary review phase which the Oregon Government Ethics Commission undertakes when investigating possible ethics irregularities from 135 days to 30 days.[65] The effect of these ethics regulatory changes would reduce the State Executive’s influence on the composition of Oregon Government Ethics Commission and quickens mandated responsiveness to ethical abnormalities.

Also, in an apparent direct response to former Governor Kitzhaber’s ethics morass, House Bill 2020, cosponsored by both Democratic and Republican leadership of the Oregon Legislature, clarifies that the partner of the Governor, as well as other statewide officials are considered to be public officials. In addition, policy advisors, even “unpaid advisors” (a seemingly direct rebuke to the former Governor) and attorneys working for the Governor’s office in any capacity would be required to file statements of economic interest, a process detailed previously in this exposition, to be subsequently reviewed by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.[66] House Bill 2020 also would bar statewide officials from being compensated for speaking engagements and increases civil penalties for willful violations of ethical regulations set in place to prevent using government positions for financial self-enrichment.[67] Interviews conducted with staff responsible for constituent interactions indicated anecdotal support for new ethics regulations offered subsequent to the resignation of John Kitzhaber.[68]  The clarification of which individuals within the Governor’s orbit constitute public officials and the strengthening of penalties for taking knowing steps to gain monetarily from governmental association quite evidently addressed the ethical points of contention surrounding Ms. Hayes’ murky role in the Executive Branch.

Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward artfully explicated that ethics, “is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”[69] Oregonians have expressed and shown over decades a desire to align their hopes for ethical governance with the implementation of concrete ethical standards. This pursuit reaches back through history past President Nixon’s resignation and the subsequent ratification of new ethical standards which established the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. The refinement of ethics laws extends forward as Oregon legislators and a new Governor seek to better position the State to handle conflicts of interest such as those which embroiled state politics in 2014 and 2015. Harvard University director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Lawrence Lessig wrote that failure to maintain independent ethical standards which prevent undue monetary influence results in inappropriate dependency. ”Where there is such dependency, those responsible for the effectiveness of the institution must ask whether that dependency too severely weakens the independence of the institution. If they don’t ask this question, then they betray the institution they serve.”[70] This dissertational examination of Oregon’s history and responsiveness to problematic situations exemplifies a healthy ethical rigor across governmental institutions. The Legislative initiatives which provide a framework for adjudication, regulation and oversight of ethics in the State reflect and typify the diligence of government to adapt to new ethical environments. It also shows the commitment of successive generations of Oregonians to evolving and improving ethical standards.

[1] Mews, Constant. “Abelard and Heloise.” Oxford University Press, Xviii, no. 308 (2005): 214-15.

[2] “Integrity” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster

[3] Hedges, Chris. Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. New York: Nation Books, 2009.

[4] Preston, Noel, Charles Stampford, and Carol-Anne Bois. Ethics and Political Practice Perspectives on Legislative Ethics. London: Federation Press/Routledge, 1998.

[5] Ford, Gerald. “Swearing In Ceremony.” Ford Library Museum.

[6] Bowman, James S. “Ethics in Government: A National Survey of Public Administrators.” Public Administration Review 50, no. 3 (1990): 345-53. doi:10.2307/976616.

[7] Meyers, Clay. “State of Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet.” Oregon State Library.

[8] “Oregon Blue Book: Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 1972-1978.” Oregon Blue Book: Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 1972-1978.

[9] Rosenthal, Alan. Engines of Democracy: Politics and Policymaking in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009. 211.

[10] “Chapter 244.025 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[11] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[12] “Chapter 244.042 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[13] Rosenthal, Alan. Engines of Democracy: Politics and Policymaking in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009. 212.

[14] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[15] “State’s Proposed & Enacted Budgets | NASBO.” State’s Proposed & Enacted Budgets | NASBO.

[16] “Chapter 244.047 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[17] Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. Party Government. Transaction Publishers, 1977.

[18] “Chapter 244.050 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[19] “Chapter 244.050 subsection 4 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[20] Smith, Robert W. “Enforcement or Ethical Capacity: Considering the Role of State Ethics Commissions at the Millennium.” Public Administration Review, 2003, 283-95.

[21] “Chapter 244.120 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[22] “Chapter 244.120 subsection A – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[23] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[24] “Chapter 244.260 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[25] “Chapter 244.260 subsection 5.b – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[26] “Chapter 244.350 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[27] Rosenson, B. A. “Against Their Apparent Self-Interest: The Authorization of Independent State Legislative Ethics Commissions, 1973-96.”State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2003, 42-65.

[28] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[29] “Chapter 171.730 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[30] Rosenthal, Alan. Engines of Democracy: Politics and Policymaking in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009. 212.

[31] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[32] “Oregon Government Ethics Commission Public Records.” Oregon Government Ethics Commission Public Records.

[33] “Chapter 171.745 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[34] “Oregon Government Ethics Commission Public Records.” Oregon Government Ethics Commission Public Records.

[35] “Chapter 171.756 subsection 2 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[36] “Chapter 171.756 subsection 3 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[37] Lassell, Jeni. “The Revolving Door: Should Oregon Restrict Former Legislators from Becoming Lobbyists.” 2003.

[38] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[39] “Chapter 171.992 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[40] “Chapter 192.620 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[41] “Chapter 192.660 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[42] “Chapter 192.685 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[43] “Quick Reference Guide to Oregon’s Public Records Law.” Portland Online – Open Oregon.

[44] “Citizen’s Guide to Public Records and Meetings.” Oregon Department of Justice.

[45] “Chapter 192 – Oregon Revised Statutes.” Oregon Legislative Assembly.

[46] “Quick Reference Guide to Oregon’s Public Records Law.” Portland Online – Open Oregon.

[47] “Citizen’s Guide to Public Records and Meetings.” Oregon Department of Justice.

[48] “Citizen’s Guide to Public Records and Meetings.” Oregon Department of Justice.

[49] “Quick Reference Guide to Oregon’s Public Records Law.” Portland Online – Open Oregon.

[50] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[51] “Citizen’s Guide to Public Records and Meetings.” Oregon Department of Justice.

[52] “Quick Reference Guide to Oregon’s Public Records Law.” Portland Online – Open Oregon.

[53] Borrud, Hillary. “First Lady’s Consulting Work Leaves Some Scratching Their Heads.” Portland Tribune, January 27, 2015.

[54] Gunderson, Laura. “John Kitzhaber Asks for Formal State Review of Cylvia Hayes Contracts, First Lady Role.” The Oregonian. October 13, 2014.

[55] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[56] Gunderson, Laura. “State Ethics Commission Denies John Kitzhaber Request to Review Cylvia Hayes Contracts, First Lady Role.” The Oregonian. November 7, 2014.

[57] Borrud, Hillary. “Panel: No Advisory Opinion on First Lady’s Role.” Portland Tribune. November 7, 2014.

[58] Budnick, Nick. “Oregon Attorney General Orders Cylvia Hayes to Disclose Emails to The Oregonian/OregonLive.” The Oregonian. February 12, 2015.

[59] Budnick, Nick. “Oregon Attorney General Orders Cylvia Hayes to Disclose Emails to The Oregonian/OregonLive.” The Oregonian. February 12, 2015.

[60] Hoffman, Hannah. “Gov. Kate Brown Releases 94,000 Cylvia Hayes Emails.” Statesman Journal. April 6, 2015.

[61] Van Der Voo, Lee, and Kirk Johnson. “Gov. John Kitzhaber of Oregon Resigns Amid Crisis.” The New York Times. February 13, 2015.

[62] Kitzhaber, John. “Governor Kitzhaber Announces Resignation.” Oregon Governor’s Office – Newsroom. February 13, 2015.

[63] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[64] “House Bill 2019.” Oregon Legislative Information System.

[65] “House Bill 2019.” Oregon Legislative Information System.

[66] “House Bill 2020.” Oregon Legislative Information System.

[67] Theriault, Denis C. “Kate Brown’s Ethics Reforms Begin March through Oregon Legislature.” The Oregonian. April 7, 2015.

[68] Interview with legislative staff, Oregon Legislative Assembly. May 6th, 2015.

[69] Augustine, Norman. “Ethics and The Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The Bridge 32, no. 3 (2002): 111-57. Accessed May 28, 2015.

[70] Lessig, Lawrence. Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress–and a Plan to Stop It. New York: Twelve, 2011.