Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.



For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.







Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!






E-mail us here.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 14, 2004 1:17 AM. The previous post in this blog was Special edition. The next post in this blog is Speaking of process.... Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
TaxVox
Tax.com
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Conglomerate
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
myCorporateResource.com
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, March 14, 2004

When process is everything

We've been reading a fair amount from proponents of same-sex marriage lately about how the arguments over the process by which local officials decided to issue gay marriage licenses are just a distraction. As long as those officials turn out to be right about the constitutional infirmities of restricting marriage to monogamous hetero couples, they argue, the means by which they reached the right end is not important.

Au contraire. As it turns out, the California Supreme Court decision this week temporarily banning gay marriage licenses is all about process, and nothing more.

The California cases, Lockyer v. San Franciso and Lewis v. Alfaro, concern one isue and one issue only: whether San Francisco officials "are exceeding or acting outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the provisions of" California statutes that restrict marriage to hetero couples. The court has ordered those officials to disregard their "personal views of the constitutionality of such provisions."

In California, the case for process may be stronger than in Oregon. For example, the California Constitution states in relevant part:

An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

The Oregon Constitution contains no comparable provision. But it does limit the power of county officials to actions on "matters of county concern." It's not clear to me without further research that a judgment on the constitutionality of a state statute of general application is indeed a "matter of county concern."

And if it isn't, we could wind up right where San Francisco is now: tied up in knots, and all because the county didn't follow proper process.

Comments (21)

Isn't it an overarching principle of law that all statutes are presumed to be constitutional unless and until a court finds otherwise? As such, persons charged with administering the statute must either comply with it or challenge its constitutionality in court.

Well, it gets a little dicier when the official is both an administrator and a legislator, which is what you have in municipal government out here. As legislator, they're free to interpret the Constitution. As administrator, it's less clear; they take an oath to uphold it, but they probably don't have the power to interpret it.

Of course, in this case the officials in question shunned the legislative process altogether, insisting that they acted in an administrative capacity only. (They had to say that, or else they violated the open meetings law.) Which makes your point stronger, and their position weaker.

A privilege granted – under whatever scheme – cannot possibly be a violation of a constitutional prohibition on denial of a privilege. It is the interests of the opponents of the Multnomah County action that are seeking vindication in the court and their rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the privileges and immunities clause. Is it not a common principle not to pry into the minds and motivations of legislators (inclusive of county administrators) when determining the validity of legislation?

If the legislature itself seeks speedy resolution through a creative grant of original jurisdiction to the Oregon Supreme Court then we will be asking them for an advisory opinion. A Statesman Journal article noted the contemplation of a PERS style tactical solution of speedy review in the Oregon Supreme Court. The only question I see is whether the Oregon Supreme Court will, sua sponte, apply the rule of law and tell the litigants in such an orchestrated affair to go back and complete their political task in the political arena.

The posture of the present Multnomah County litigation is analogous to the same-sex folks demanding the court to invalidate marriage licenses granted to different-sex couples.

Jack say: Of course, in this case the officials in question shunned the legislative process altogether, insisting that they acted in an administrative capacity only. (They had to say that, or else they violated the open meetings law.) Which makes your point stronger, and their position weaker.

Regardless of what point is made stronger or weaker here, the County didn't argue that this was an administrative/executive decision merely to escape the public meetings law. They argued it because it was the case.

Since there is no Multnomah County code governing the issuance of marriage licenses, how the County does to is a matter of interpreting its statutory authority to do so (a function of the County Attorney), and so requires no vote-oriented legislative, action.

That said, I'm still not hearing persuasive arguments from the process camp that there's something inherently wrong about how the County did this, only a questioning of how politically appropriate it was, which is another matter altogether.

As I've argued elsewhere, the County had a choice between taking the advice of the County Attorney ASAP and responding to the inevitable lawsuits from the same-sex marriage opponents, or defer taking the advice of the County Attorney and responding to the inevitable lawsuits from same-sex marriage proponents.

Either way, the entire thing would end up in the courts where it belonged.

All things being sor tof equal in that regard then, obviously there was a political calcuation involved here, in that the Commissioners in question likely believed that since they considered this to be a civil rights issue, why not go ahead and begin issuing the licenses ASAP and then let opponents try to take them away. It just seems to be that some people seem to have a problem with this, while others do not.

J.B. said, "...we could wind up right where San Francisco is now: tied up in knots, and all because the county didn't follow proper process."

Maybe "tied up in knots", though inefficient, at least means we are spending some time looking at the problem.

One year ago same-sex couples had little/no hope of ever having access to the same legal rights and protections as hetero couples. Now there is hope. And middle-America, which used to be content with their cartoon image of gays as "Will & Grace"-style tokens, have at least opened their eyes and ears to the debate.

I admit to having some residual problems with same-sex marriage, and I do think the Multnomah County Commissioners (or at least 4 of them) were wrong to just go ahead and start issuing licenses.

But it IS fun to see the religious right drooling with rage over this whole thing.

And I like how this has exposed once again (as with voter approved assisted suicide and voter-approved medical marijuana) the utter hypocrisy of George W.'s and the Republicans' "states rights" mantra.

Professor Jack,

Article VI, Section 10 of the Or. Const., applied through caselaw, prohibits a locality from ruling on the constitutionality of a statute with statewide impact, unless it impacts a matter of the locality's "political form" (i.e. the number of commissioners, schedule of meetings, etc.)

Kristian, if you are right, the party will be interrupted very soon.

Gordo-

what does it mean to have "residual problems" as opposed to just plain old problems?

Jyah13: It just takes getting used to, that's all.

I think Serena Cruz' and b!x's research into Eugene v Cooper puts a big dent in the theory that the MC4 overstepped their bounds. Not only are the commissioners charged with upholding the OC, it is expected that they may have to actually interpret it in service of it. Further, Oregon's SC has been explicit in directing agencies to give the OC precedence over statute. So far all four lawyers who have addressed the issue have reached the same conclusion: the law does not meet muster.

I hate to disagree with such distinguished legal scholars as Serena Cruz and Bix, but I haven't heard anyone address the argument raised in this post and these comments -- that the county overstepped its powers over "matters of county concern," as specified in Art. IV, sec. 10 of the Oregon Constitution.

Regarding Article 6, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution.

The Cooper case cannot apply here because of Article 6, Section 10, combined with the fact that the county is not an arm of the state (unlike the adminstrative agency in Rogue Valley and Cooper). Home rule prevents counties from making judicial determinations of the constitutionality of statewide statutes for this very reason. Otherwise, county officials could say they got an opinion (or just thought themselves) that any of Oregon's laws were unconstitutional.

Marriage licenses are granted by county officials. A lawsuit filed by Person X who was desirous of a same-sex marriage but was denied would be captioned Person X v. County Clerk. How is marriage not a matter of county concern?

I don't see how you distinguish Cooper here. The "adminstrative agency" you refer to is School District No. 4J in Eugene. A local school district is an arm of the state, and a county is not?

There is a long and somewhat torturous discussion of the legislative history of the "county concern" phrase in Gte Northwest v. Or. Puc, 179 Ore. App. 46. Ultimately, the Court seems to helpfully conclude that whether a matter is a county concern turns on whether it's "a matter of predominantly statewide or predominantly local concern." Gee, thanks.

Seems like there's a good argument to be made on both sides. But let's remember the context. This discussion ultimately won't matter to the resolution of the issue of whether gay marriage is legal or not.

If the legislature set uniform requirements for issuing marriage licenses, then it would seem to follow that it is a matter of statewide concern.

I'm beginning to think the "Sisters of Hawthorne" are gonna be hosed on the process argument.

I wonder...

How many more fans will they have if the county has to pony up for the legal fees of the Defense of Marriage folks?

Jack....

I'm mildy disappointed in your legal research. When a county is given the duty to do something by the legislature (see Chapt 106), isn't legally fulfilling that duty a matter of "county concern"?

Additionally, you should know better than most that a local government, or the public for that matter, can't vote on whether or not to follow the law. It's the law. B!X's cites to Cooper & Rouge Valley indicate that, regardless, a government official always has the reponsibility to ensure his or her actions are constitutional. That's why we make them take an oath to uphold the Constitution. (Art. XV, Sec. 3)

And process -- I'll give you and Kelly Clark a big, fat, wet kiss if you can explain to me how in the world deciding, as a CEO, to follow the law is a "decision" under 192.610(1)(Public Meetings Law), which reads: "'Decision' means any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present." (emphasis mine)

Isn't it the role of a CEO to ensure her organization is law abiding? Especially if the Supreme Court, in dicta or otherwise, has stated as much?

I know you don't like Linn at all, but sometimes even the bad politicians take good actions.

Best,
K

K

How can a vote be required on a vote?

"'Decision' means any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present."

Talk about poor research.

"First we look at the text..." PGE v BOLI

I'm mildy disappointed in your legal research. When a county is given the duty to do something by the legislature (see Chapt 106), isn't legally fulfilling that duty a matter of "county concern"?

Actually, no.

hob -- are you disagreeing with the statute's definition or my reading that the phrase "on which a vote of the governing body is required" qualifies the definition? just curious.

Jack -- what, in legal terms, is ensuring county practices comport with Oregon law? If it's not a concern of the county under the Constiution, is the county ever allowed to act when it believes its practices may be in violation of the law?

A "decision" under ORS 192.610 does not mean only something on which a vote is required. It's a facile and patently false reading of the statute to suggest as much.

Further, k, only matters that affect the County's form of governent (i.e. how many Commissioners, how often they meet, what their rules of taking testimony are, etc.) are matters of "county concern" within the meaning of Art 6, sec 10. Redefining marriage, and/or ruling on the constitutionality of a state statute (or changing longstanding county policy to comport with some hired gun's view of the law) is NOT "county concern" within the meaning of the constitutional provision.

Look at the Multnomah County court clerk case from the late 1980s.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When process is everything:

» The Night Before The Next Stage from The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE
Tomorrow at noon, Multnomah County will announce what it tends to do, or not do, as a result of Attorney General Hardy Myers releasing his opinion, and Myers and Governor Ted Kulongski urging the County to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses until ... [Read More]

» The Night Before The Next Stage from The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post. Tomorrow at noon, Multnomah County will announce what it tends to do, or not do, as a result of Attorney General Hardy Myers releasing his opinion, and Myers ... [Read More]


Sponsors


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009

The Occasional Book

Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria DermoČ—t - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 220
At this date last year: 67
Total run in 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269


Clicky Web Analytics