The Case File (Annotated Bibliography)

In the spirit of transparency and to provide a comprehensive resource for understanding the legal and factual basis of the claims in this book, we have compiled an extensive collection of supporting documents. Due to the volume and complexity of these materials—including court filings, official correspondence, historical records, and expert declarations—we have organized them into a dedicated online repository at www.oastl.org/legal. This site allows readers to access full, original versions of the referenced items for deeper review. For example, if you wish to examine OSU President Jayathi Murthy's November 13, 2023, letter formally withdrawing Oregon State University from its proposed role in overseeing the Elliott State Research Forest, it is readily available there, along with searchable archives and related context. This appendix complements the online repository by serving as an annotated index to the most pivotal documents, highlighting their relevance to the alleged breaches of trust.

Getting all the links below to work correctly is taking longer than expected. -- Dave Sullivan  8-20-25

Foundational Constitutional Provisions

The Land Ordinance of 1785
The Land Ordinance established the township system of land survey and required that the sixteenth section of every township be reserved for the support of public schools. This provision created the national precedent that school funding should be permanently tied to land, ensuring that every new state would have a dedicated financial base for education. For Oregon, this law meant that from the earliest settlement, the concept of school trust lands was woven into the fabric of governance.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

The Oregon Admissions Act (1859)
This act of Congress admitted Oregon into the Union, granting two sections of every township for the use of schools. This binding compact with the federal government obligated Oregon to hold these lands in trust for its schools, creating fiduciary duties that continue to this day.
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-11/pdf/STATUTE-11-Pg383.pdf

Oregon Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 2
This section accepts the federal school land grants and establishes the Common School Fund as “separate and irreducible.” The fund’s principal cannot be spent, only invested, and its earnings are to be applied exclusively for the support of schools. This is the foundation of Oregon’s duty of loyalty to its school beneficiaries.
Link: https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/state-constitution.aspx

Oregon Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) (1968 Amendment)
This amendment added the phrase "for the greatest benefit of the people of this state" to the description of the Land Board's duties, creating the ambiguity that has been used to justify prioritizing other political goals over the financial benefit of the schools. As the AG Opinions below clarify, this did not repeal the primary duty to the trust.
Link: https://ballotpedia.org/Article_VIII,_Oregon_Constitution

Oregon Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 8
This section establishes the legislature's separate but related duty to provide for a public school system that meets specific quality standards (the Quality Education Model), a duty the state has consistently failed to meet.
Link: https://ballotpedia.org/Article_VIII,_Oregon_Constitution

Oregon Statutes

ORS 530.490 — Greatest Permanent Value
This statute directs the State Forester to manage state forest lands “so as to secure the greatest permanent value of those lands to the state.” The Department of Forestry has interpreted “value” primarily in ecological and recreational terms, disregarding the explicit trust obligation to generate revenue for the Common School Fund. This statute is central to the legal conflict over fiduciary mismanagement.
Link: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors530.html

ORS 530.450 (1957) [repealed 2025]
This 1957 law, which explicitly and permanently prohibited the sale of the Elliott State Forest, was the forest's ultimate protection until its repeal by SB 147 in June 2025.
Link: [Insert Google Drive link]

ORS 526.806 — Log Export Ban (public timber)
This statute prohibits the export of unprocessed logs harvested from state or public timber lands. It restricts the market for timber products from trust lands, limiting potential revenues and raising questions of breach of duty to maximize return.
Link: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors526.html

ORS 30.275 — OTCA Notice
The Oregon Tort Claims Act requires notice before suing the state. In trust cases, this procedural statute creates additional barriers for beneficiaries to hold the trustees accountable in court.
Link: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors030.html

ORS 72.1060 — Definition of “Sale”
This statute defines “sale” within the Uniform Commercial Code. It has been invoked to argue whether certain transactions involving state timber constitute sales, triggering trust obligations to secure full value.
Link: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_72.1060#google_vignette

ORS 130.650–130.710 (Uniform Trust Code excerpts)
These statutes codify general trustee duties, including loyalty, impartiality, prudence, and the duty to enforce claims. They provide a framework against which Oregon’s performance as trustee of the Common School Fund can be measured.
Link: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors130.html

Attorney General Opinions

37 Op. Att’y Gen. 569 (1975)
Concluded that the state’s fiduciary duty required it to obtain full market value for trust resources and could not be subordinated to other policy goals. This opinion supports the strict trust law position.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h1OYHr0jlXDJ0Az2bGqx8MHZCe7thbfW/view?usp=drive_link

38 Op. Att’y Gen. 850 (1977)
Reaffirmed the trustee obligation to maximize revenue from school trust lands, emphasizing that environmental or recreational objectives could not take precedence over fiduciary duties.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/130p12HJPBcpoUtKSZg1YfQeOvOWWz793/view?usp=drive_link

46 Op. Att’y Gen. 468 (1992)
Shifted tone by suggesting broader discretion for the State Land Board, softening the earlier strict fiduciary standard. This illustrates the erosion of legal clarity that has allowed breaches of trust to proliferate.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M27fkCVFBF4LPz55eD-BLFAEYFHhWiO4/view?usp=drive_link

Implied DOJ Litigation Positions (2021–present)
The state's legal arguments in the four lawsuits filed by trust beneficiaries represent an "implied" opinion that directly contradicts its prior formal opinions. By defending the State Land Board's actions, the Attorney General's office has taken the position that the trust duties are secondary to the political goals of the trustees.

Official Correspondence & Memoranda

Aug 4, 2021 — DSL Director Vicki Walker & OSU Dean DeLuca to ESRF Advisory Committee
Letter defending the Elliott State Research Forest plan as consistent with the public interest, despite expert warnings that it would dramatically reduce revenues to the schools.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3Ouu8JU6c2-3NabAJlmHwUwFJckhvZt/view?usp=drive_link

Dec 11–12, 2022 — Margaret Bird letter & John A. Charles testimony to State Land Board
Advocacy and testimony highlighting Oregon’s ongoing violations of fiduciary duties, urging the Land Board to reject plans that harm the schools.
Charles Letter Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKIbVtFp7vzqJkZzyt8Kn4kvI94DgeQL/view?usp=drive_link
Bird Letter Link: 

Oct 13, 2023 — Geoff Huntington (Governor’s Office) memo
Policy memo acknowledging that the Elliott State Research Forest plan was designed to meet political objectives, not fiduciary obligations to the schools.
Link: [Insert Google Drive link]

Nov 13, 2023 — OSU President Jayathi Murthy letter
Announced Oregon State University’s withdrawal from leading the Elliott State Research Forest, citing insurmountable legal and political risks. Also, more detailed letter from Dean DeLuca to  the College of Forestry community written on the same date.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-YBi1ICLiFxTKneEB6tud26B-_m3suKe/view?usp=drive_link
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dPRiFJu3sa738CjMQyl9-J-XzKX-i4qV/view?usp=sharing

Feb 14, 2024 — DSL Director Vicki Walker report to Legislature
Acknowledged the ongoing controversy and financial losses to the Common School Fund but defended the state’s balancing of interests.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ACsY_fZeVPOG0l6mIBxAh8Zq-6QrQrr/view?usp=drive_link

Mar 20, 2025 — Ellie Forness (DSL) letter re: SB 147
Explained DSL’s support for SB 147, legislation that effectively eliminated fiduciary accountability for school trust lands.
Link: drive.google.com/file/d/183DGvRCzKMVYhzgIrU57OLiPTRMttwgY/view?usp=sharing 

State Land Board meeting packets/minutes (2017–2025)
Record of meetings showing repeated warnings ignored and decisions made without prioritizing fiduciary duties.
Link: https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/Pages/state-land-board.aspx

Litigation History

This section provides a chronological record of key filings in the multi-year legal effort to hold the State of Oregon accountable for its management of the Common School Fund. The timeline illustrates procedural challenges without a hearing on the merits to date, reinforcing barriers discussed in Chapter 6.

2021 — Sullivan v. State (Polk County - 21CV15024) Complaint
The initial pro se lawsuit focusing on the State Land Board's mismanagement of the Elliott and the unlawful removal of the State Forester.
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsdD8_RbzBkEQTA8o483h0TuTKGtPKL1/edit?usp=drive_link

June 2021 — Sullivan v. State (Polk County - 21CV15024) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
The State argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacked standing (no injury to a legally recognized interest) and that any tort claims were barred by sovereign immunity for discretionary policy decisions.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/172vlAxDM2J8qq9sF8myBNS0PP7BIwdPN/view?usp=drive_link

Feb 2022 — Sullivan v. State (Appeal - A177308) Appellant's Opening Brief
This brief appealed the Polk County dismissal, arguing the trial court erred in deferring to the State Land Board's "policy decisions" when those decisions violated state law, and that the plaintiff had standing.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q86xX2JxuCK5vY6CC_L168igb2PFzMRQ/view?usp=drive_link

Feb 2023 — Sullivan v. State Land Board (Marion County - 23CV06471) Petition for Review
This action challenged the State Land Board's December 2022 votes to sell the Elliott based on a flawed "investment value" appraisal.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/153gTp6xMHUNId1NNNvb6MwNFkNPxFPFT/view?usp=drive_link

Apr 2023 — Sullivan v. State Land Board (Marion County - 23CV06471) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
The State argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the State Land Board's votes were not "orders" under the APA and that the petitioner lacked standing because he was not personally injured by the votes.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11n5OMKkCGyR7kb1IXXqUrcpuoIBE8Ucr/view?usp=drive_link

Sep 2023 — ASTL et al. v. State (Coos County - 23CV39056) Complaint
This action, with an expanded list of plaintiffs, challenged the State Land Board's December 2022 vote to "decouple" the Elliott, arguing breach of trust and unconstitutionality of the enabling statutes.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ers3kIdAh29dF4HQlU9gSSur5E3zYNAU/view?usp=drive_link

Dec 2023 — ASTL et al. v. State (Coos County - 23CV39056) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
The State argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing, failed to provide timely Oregon Tort Claims Act notice, and that the claims were barred by legislative and sovereign immunity.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iLDcnCJX9uUy3jVlr8nPCjH_TJx1BJi7/view?usp=drive_link

Feb 2024 — ASTL et al. v. State (Coos County - 23CV39056) Judge's Letter Opinion
Judge Combs dismissed all claims, finding the legislative claims barred by legislative immunity and the fiduciary claims barred by sovereign immunity due to a failure to comply with Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirements.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6trpOvfqMFLcKFQokZ-_BR5ZoQ6m-f9/view?usp=drive_link

Aug 2024 — Siuslaw School District 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) Initial Complaint
This complaint focused on new breaches from 2024, including the transfer of the "1000 Road" parcel for no consideration and the approval of a budget for school lands that projected a net loss.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qk4ysU3MFHLmGk7v8Uv2c7iKYr2Vc0AI/view?usp=drive_link

Aug 2024 — ASTL et al. v. State (Appeal - A184055) Appellants' Opening Brief
This brief appealed the Coos County dismissal (23CV39056), arguing the trial court erred in applying sovereign immunity and that the Oregon Tort Claims Act did not bar the claims.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bTnDeBGlyAps8cuesRwMEZDrzHulJgdQ/view?usp=drive_link

Dec 2024 — Siuslaw School Dist. 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) Defs' Reply ISO Rule 21 Mtns
Motions on time bars and discretionary immunity; highlights "war of attrition" tactics, counterable under Ex parte Young (1908) for injunctive relief.
Link: [Insert Google Drive link]

Mar 2025 — Siuslaw School District 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) Judge’s Letter Opinion
Judge Combs dismissed claims related to pre-2024 acts based on sovereign immunity and claim preclusion; allowed claims related to 2024 acts to proceed, finding plaintiffs have standing and no sovereign immunity bar.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GKlbgBDo7blkTWOoFqbQcmwyse9_JpXf/view?usp=drive_link

Apr 2025 — Siuslaw School District 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) First Amended Complaint
This amended complaint streamlined the claims to focus specifically on the 2024 breaches of fiduciary duty that the court allowed to proceed.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L_WH-buZ3O_C8E3HGj3pfLPtQj94a9Q4/view?usp=drive_link

June 2025 — Siuslaw School Dist. 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
The State introduces new arguments, claiming for the first time that only the Attorney General can sue the State for breach of a public trust. The motion also demands plaintiffs make the complaint "more definite and certain" by pleading exact damages, despite the State controlling the financial records.
Link: 

June 2025 — Siuslaw School Dist. 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition
Plaintiffs counter that the State's new arguments are improper and legally incorrect, and highlight that the recent passage of SB 147 (June 14, 2025) makes the illegal sale of the Elliott ripe for litigation, signaling intent to amend the complaint again.
Link: [Insert Google Drive link]

July 2025 — Siuslaw School Dist. 97J et al. v. State (Coos County - 24CV38372) Defs' Reply ISO MTD
The State argues dismissal on immunity, notice, and standing.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tR9eAogr39ywp7-TvQ90YU5K--zZs5tC/view?usp=drive_link
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12_SQp2EGP8Rhb-8HvTm5XRVSwpPeuQe9/view?usp=drive_link

Expert Declarations

Bob Zybach, PhD — Peer Review of ESRF Forest Management Plan (Aug 4, 2024)
Forestry expert critiqued the Elliott State Research Forest plan, concluding it would drastically reduce timber harvests and revenues, violating fiduciary duties to the schools.
Link: [Insert Google Drive link]

Other Expert Declarations
Includes testimony from legal, financial, and trust-management experts confirming that Oregon’s policies fail to meet basic fiduciary standards.
Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yzzoLAqPyfs2cIOtu97lA5fugwmopH_x?usp=drive_link

Precedent Court Cases

Trustees of Vincennes Univ. v. Indiana (U.S. 1852)
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that school land grants are a trust and must be administered for the benefit of schools.
Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/268/

Lassen v. Arizona (U.S. 1967)
Reaffirmed that state trust lands must be managed with undivided loyalty to their beneficiaries, requiring full compensation for any use or sale.
Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/458/

County of Skamania v. State (Wash. 1984)
Washington Supreme Court held that the state violated fiduciary duties by releasing private companies from timber contracts, emphasizing the strictness of trustee obligations.
Link: https://casetext.com/case/county-of-skamania-v-state

State ex rel. Ebke v. Bd. of Educ. Lands & Funds (Neb. 1951)
Nebraska Supreme Court required strict adherence to fiduciary duties, striking down statutes inconsistent with the trust obligation.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/1951/32971-0.html

Oklahoma Educ. Ass’n v. Nigh (Okla. 1982)
Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the legislature could not divert trust revenues for non-school purposes.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1982/5326.html

Idaho Watersheds Project v. State (Idaho 1999)
Idaho court struck down below-market leases of school trust lands, reinforcing the requirement to maximize financial return.
Link: https://casetext.com/case/idaho-watersheds-project-v-state-board-of-land-comm

Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer (D. Colo. 1997)
Federal court invalidated state constitutional amendments that weakened fiduciary protections, holding that trust obligations take precedence.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/958/1501/1419177/

Holdner v. State (Or. 2006)
Oregon case recognizing the Land Board’s fiduciary duties but declining to enforce strict standards, illustrating the state courts’ reluctance to act.
Link: https://casetext.com/case/holdner-v-state

Pendleton Sch. Dist. v. State (Or. 2009)
Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged the legislature’s constitutional duty to fund schools adequately but declined to impose enforceable remedies.
Link: https://casetext.com/case/pendleton-sch-dist-v-state

Other Reports and Books

Jerry Phillips, Caulked Boots and Cheese Sandwiches (ODF, 1999)
History of the Elliott State Forest and Oregon’s forestry policies, showing how financial returns for schools were gradually subordinated to other goals.
Link: http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orww.org%2FElliott_Forest%2FHistory%2FPhillips%2FPhillips_1998-201.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw01n6Bb_Kv57XzzVpCi_-xl

Quality Education Commission — QEM Report (2024)
Biennial report documenting the actual costs of providing constitutionally adequate education in Oregon. Consistently shows billions in underfunding relative to constitutional standards.
Link: https://www.oregon.gov/ode/reports-and-data/taskcomm/Documents/M000266%20DOE%20Quality%20Education%20Model%20Report%202024.pdf

SITLA/SITFO Annual Reports (Utah model)
Examples from Utah where strict fiduciary management of trust lands has produced dramatically higher returns for schools.
Link: https://trustlands.utah.gov/information/financial-reports/