|
RICHARD R. ORSINGER
Attorney At Law
Tower Life Building, Suite 1616
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(210) 225-5567
Fax (210) 267-7777
January 23, 1998
CHAIRS OF THE SECTIONS
OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS
Re: Proposal for Section Representation on the State Bar Board of Directors
Dear Section Chair:
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of a Section of
the State Bar of Texas about Section representation on the State Bar
Board of Directors, and the process for implementing that
representation.
This is to inform you of recent actions by the State Bar's Ad
Hoc Committee on Bar Section Relations, and recent actions by the
State Bar Board of Directors, to give you information necessary to
determine your Section's view on the issues before the next Council of
Chairs meeting tentatively scheduled for February 27, 1998.
During this State Bar fiscal year, I have been a member of the
State Bar's Ad Hoc Committee on Bar-Section Relations. That Committee
presented recommendations to the State Bar Board of Directors at its
most recent meeting in Lubbock, on Friday, January 16, 1998. After the
presentation, the Ad Hoc Committee was disbanded. Therefore, this
letter is not written in any official capacity, but rather to inform
you of the situation.
At the January 16, 1998, Board meeting, the Board unanimously
approved some of the recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Committee.
Other recommendations will be reviewed by the State Bar of Texas'
Executive Committee, then presented for action at the Board meeting to
be held in Austin, on April 17, 1998.
The recommendations that were adopted by the Board on January
16, 1998, are reflected in the enclosed amendments to the State Bar of
Texas Board Policy Manual. While there were some minor amendments from
the floor that are not reflected on the enclosed pages, the important
changes are reflected.
New Section 6.01.01(c) establishes two new standing
committees: the Council of Chairs and the Section Coordination
Committee. The purposes of these two Committees are set out in Section
6.02.09 and 6.02.10.
The Council of Chairs is to select the four (4) section
members who will sit on the Section Coordination Committee, by
appointment of the President.
It will therefore be necessary for the Council of Chairs to
make its determination of nominees for the Section Coordination
Committee at an upcoming meeting--probably at the meeting tentatively
scheduled for February 27, 1998.
The principal Ad Hoc Committee recommendation to be submitted
for Board vote on April 17, 1998 involves the creation of a new State
Bar standing committee called the "Section Representatives to the
Board Committee." This Committee would be composed of six Section
representatives, selected by the Council of Chairs, who would be
non-voting "representatives" to the Board of Directors.
These six non-voting Section representatives, who make up the
Section Representatives to the Board Committee, would receive agendas
for each Board meeting, and could participate in discussions, but
could not vote.
The parameters of the Section Representatives to the Board
Committee, as proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, are set out in the
"Subcommittee B Proposal" which is enclosed.
Under the proposal, the Council of Chairs would pick the six
members of the Section Representatives to the Board Committee, who
would serve staggered 3-year terms. Sections are divided into three
categories: (i) 2,001 + members, (ii) 501-2000 members, and (iii) 500
or fewer members. The seven large sections would have 3
representatives. The 19 medium-sized sections would have 2
representatives. The smaller sections would have 1 representative. It
is contemplated that membership would rotate, so that over time all
sections in a given category would have a representative on this
Committee.
There is no prospect at this time that the Board of directors
will approve this Committee is the cost is to be paid by the State
Bar. There is a significant chance that the Board will create this
Committee if the Sections agree to underwrite the expense (primarily
the cost of attending the Board meetings).
In light of the political reality (and putting aside for now
any debate over whether the Bar should fund this cost), the Ad Hoc
Committee has proposed paying the cost of section representation in
the following manner. The seven largest sections would pay 60%, and
the nineteen medium-sized sections would pay 40%, and the smaller
sections would pay nothing. Committee expenses would be capped at
$12,000 per year. That allows $500.00 per committee member per board
meeting. Other committee operating expenses (mail, long distance,
etc.) would be paid out of whatever money is not used going to Board
meetings. It is expected that costs will be less than $500.00 per
representative per Board meeting. For example, when a Committee member
lives in a town where the Board meeting is held, there would be no
airplane or hotel expense. When a Committee member flies in and out
the same day, there would be no hotel expense.
Under this payment scheme, and assuming every Section
participates, the seven larger Sections would pay a maximum of
$1,028/yr, the nineteen medium-sized Sections would pay $252/yr, and
the smaller Sections would pay nothing.
For your information, of the approximately 65,000 members of
the Bar, the seven largest sections (2,001 + members) represent 28,730
members, the nineteen medium-sized sections represent 22,246 members,
and the smaller sections represent approximately 1,960 members. These
numbers cannot be compared in an absolute sense, because sometimes one
lawyer belongs to several sections of different sizes.
To recap:
|
# Sections
|
Members per Section
|
# Representatives
|
Annual Cost/Section
|
|
7
|
More than 2,000 members
|
3 representatives
|
$1,038.00
|
|
19
|
From 501 - 2,000 members
|
2 representatives
|
$ 252.00
|
|
11
|
500 or fewer members
|
1 representative
|
- 0 -
|
So you will know, it is not possible to actually change the makeup
of the Bar Board of Directors to provide for voting members without
(i) having the Legislature amend the State Bar Act, and (ii) having
the State Bar of Texas change the State Bar Rules, which would require
a referendum among Texas lawyers. This can be done over time, but the
new standing committee of Section Representatives to the Board can be
created by majority vote of the Board of Directors on April 17, 1998.
In order for this proposal to work, most if not all of the Sections
will have to agree to participate in funding the expenses of the
Section Representatives to the Board Committee. If some Sections
decline the invitation, it is still possible to make the numbers work
with the remaining Sections participating and just picking up an
incrementally greater share of the expenses. The Council of Chairs
could then decide not to nominate a representative of a Section that
does not contribute to the cost of the Committee.
The Council of chairs will be discussing the Subcommittee B
proposal at the upcoming Council of Chairs meeting tentatively
scheduled for February 27, 1998. It is the view of those of us
involved in the process that the Council of Chairs must take
affirmative steps to show that Section representation on the Board is
an important issue, and is in fact important enough to warrant
spending a little Section money in return. A vote by the Council of
Chairs, including wide-spread support of this proposal, and a
willingness to shoulder the cost, is deemed crucial to the proposal's
success.
There is an alternative proposal suggested by another
subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Section Committee. That is the
"Subcommittee A" proposal, a copy of which is enclosed. Under this
proposal, the State Bar would go to the Legislature in the next
session, and have the State Bar Act amended to establish 15 voting
section representatives to the Board of Directors. The cost of these
members would be paid by a "head tax" of 25 cents per section member.
Please study the proposal closely.
It has been suggested that the Council of Chairs needs to line
up behind one or the other proposal, so that the Board learns that the
Sections are unified in their view of the best approach. It is my hope
that the Council of Chairs, at the February 27 meeting, will align
itself with one of these two proposals, and will agree to participate
in funding the expenses.
My personal and unofficial view is that the Subcommittee B
approach is more practical as a first step. The number of persons
added to the Board is not unwieldy, the costs are not great, and the
impact of having Section representatives alerted to matters brought
before the Board of Directors, and participating in the discussion, is
almost as good as having all that plus the right to vote. In my view,
going to the Legislature, and/or having a referendum on voting
representation on the Board of Directors, is a long-term process. The
Subcommittee B proposal can be implemented immediately, by Board vote,
and can serve as a testing period that can be examined whenever the
issue comes before the Legislature about amending the Act to provide
for voting section representatives.
We have a lot of ground to cover and not much time to cover
it. Some of us involved in the process feel that the Sections must act
now, and be aligned before the representation on the Board will die
with it.
Thank you for giving your attention to these important issues.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Richard R. Orsinger
Vice-Chair, Family Law Section
Immediate Past chair, Appellate Section
RRO/je
Enclosures
cc: Frank Newton, president
Guy Harrison, Board Chair
Antonio Alvarado, Executive Director
|
