Congratulations are in order for the citizens of Milton Freewater in Northeast Oregon. Last year, the city council designated the front lawn of City Hall as a public forum where all viewpoints may be expressed and exchanged.

Our congratulations are a bit tongue-in-cheek because the public forum really was created by the city councilâs desire to allow a local church to use the front lawn of City Hall to set-up a living nativity scene in the month of December. Upon learning of the city councilâs decision to allow the nativity scene, the ACLU of Oregon wrote a letter to the Mayor of Milton Freewater asking that "appropriate fact-finding be conducted, immediately, to determine: 1) whether the front lawn of City Hall is a public forum; and 2) whether any public funds have been or will be used for the benefit of this religious display."

We asked these questions to determine whether the nativity scene is constitutionally permitted. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits private displays of the cr�che, menorah, or other religious symbols on government property that is not a public forum open to expression by all. Additionally, Article I, Section 5 of the Oregon Constitution states, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religeous [sic] or theological institution·"

Doug Hojem, attorney for Milton Freewater responded to the ACLUâs inquiry by explaining the front lawn of city hall had been used by a group protesting domestic violence in the previous year. He further explained that by permitting the domestic violence protestors and the church the use of the front lawn, "the City has committed the subject area to a public forum." Hojem stated that the City did not intend to provide any free services to the church. If any services were provided, the church group would be charged the fair market value of the services.

ACLU of Oregon Associate Director Jann Carson responds that even if this nativity scene on public property squeaks by as constitutionally protected, the display is inappropriate. "It sends a message that anyone who is not a member of the religion being celebrated at City Hall is a second-class citizen."

The ACLU hopes the citizens of Milton Freewater make full use of their newest public forum to express any and all ideas. We want to hear if any group or individual is denied access to this new forum.

A case with national implications has been unfolding in state court in Newport, Oregon. In Oregon, and across the country, hospitals, health systems and medical groups are merging with each other in efforts to reduce costs and increase services.

In Newport, the Pacific Communities Health District, a municipal corporation, had negotiated an operating agreement with the Providence Health System-Oregon, a Roman Catholic health care system. The operating agreement effectively delegated to Providence the Districtâs governmental responsibility for providing health care services to it residents. At the same time, the operating agreement required the District or a selected member of the Districtâs Board to oversee, guide and facilitate Providenceâs provision of health care services.

A group of citizens, concerned about the constitutional implications of an operating agreement between the public health District and a religious-based health system, intervened in a court proceeding to stop the validation of the operating agreement. The ACLU Foundation of Oregon provided an amicus curiae or friend of the court brief in the case. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia-Willamette, Oregon NARAL and the Oregon Death with Dignity Legal Defense and Education Center joined ACLU as amicus interests on the brief filed in Lincoln County Circuit Court.

In our brief, ACLU laid out for the court the many ways in which religious tenants permeate the Providence Health System. As a Roman Catholic health care system, Providence is bound by the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services," created by the National Conference of Bishops. Under the Directives it is clear Providence would not be able to provide many kinds of services related to contraception, infertility, termination of pregnancy or assistance permitted under Oregonâs Death with Dignity Act.

The ACLUâs brief concluded the operating agreement "yields an excessive entanglement between a public health district and a Catholic hospital: it creates a twenty-nine year relationship that deeply and impermissibly enmeshes religion in the affairs of government and government in the affairs of a religious corporation....Such an arrangement is a direct violation of both Article I, Section 5 of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

At the time this article was written, Providence had decided to terminate the operating agreement. The question before the court is whether the issue is moot or whether the court may still exercise control over any future agreements between the District and Providence.

The ACLU is indebted to the tremendous services of several attorneys who represented the ACLUâs interests in this case. Our thanks to local cooperating attorney Will Aitchison, Julie Steinberg and Jody Yetzer, staff attorneys with the National ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, and Margaret Crosby, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

Measure 62 was filed primarily as a vehicle to stop Bill Sizemore and his organizationâs assault on the private and public employees unions. The measure amended the state constitution by adding ten new sections. The proposed sections required disclosure of political contributions to candidates and ballot measure campaigns, created new regulations for individuals who collect initiative petition signatures, guaranteed the right to participate in the political process through payroll deductions (and other ways), and required disclosure of the identity of persons who pay for political advertisements.

The state plans to appeal the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. The main issue on appeal will be whether the Oregon Supreme Court will adopt the Court of Appeals strict definition of how to determine whether two or more changes to the constitution are "closely related."

The Court of Appeals has said that if a vote in favor of one change does not imply a vote in favor of another change, then the changes are not "closely related." If review is granted, ACLU will urge the Supreme Court to adopt the Court of Appealâs narrow definition of closely related because we believe this will better protect the Oregon Bill of Rights from wholesale changes that may diminish the fundamental rights of Oregonians.