How do you run a successful campaign to become president of the State Bar of Wisconsin?
For attorney Douglas W. Kammer, it meant entering the race late, avoiding public appearances and campaigning on one issue.
The issue? That Wisconsin should have a voluntary bar and 1,871 attorneys supported Kammer.
“Almost 2,000 people said they don’t want to be forced to be part of the bar and that was the only thing I campaigned on,” said Kammer.
The Portage plaintiff’s attorney edged State Bar-selected candidates Kenneth A. Knudson of Superior (1,764 votes) and Thomas W. Bertz of Stevens Point (1,646).
Whether Kammer will be able to convince more than the 35 percent of voters who elected him to publicly support his initiative remains to be seen.
The mandatory State Bar survived a similar challenge when attorney Steven A. Levine was elected in 2005. In addition to promoting a voluntary bar, Levine also promoted elimination of diploma privilege and increased representation of State Bar members who live and work outside of Wisconsin.
Unlike Levine, Kammer is solely focused on abolition of the mandatory bar. He hopes the narrowness of his initiative will prompt more attorneys to voice their support, especially since more than 15,000 did not cast ballots in the election.
“Either they didn’t want to rock the boat, or they are so dissatisfied with the bar they didn’t even want to check a box,” said Kammer. “That’s the problem though. If people were not even willing to open an envelope and put an ‘X’ in a box, I don’t know if they will speak up.”
No Specific Plan
Kammer said he does not have a specific plan on how to overcome the issues Levine faced on the Board of Governors, but he will be “flexible and resourceful” in his efforts to recruit attorneys to publicly endorse a voluntary bar.
He also hopes the Supreme Court will be receptive to the change.
“The court could sure use 20,000 allies and not 20,000 adversaries when running for re-election,” said Kammer.
Levine, whose term on the board expires on July 1, said Kammer may have a slightly better chance at promoting change, but he is still only one vote.
Combining forces and petitioning the court on the grounds that two of the last four president-elects have favored a voluntary bar is also a potential avenue, according to Levine.
Long term, Levine said supporters could form their own party and elect members to the Board of Governors.
“We could get really serious about this and organize a voluntary State Bar party,” said Levine.
If anything, Kammer hopes the Board of Governors will consider a referendum on State Bar membership policies, something which Levine did not accomplish during his term.
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask an organization to find out what members think of that organization,” said Kammer.
‘One Trick Pony’
Current State Bar President Thomas J. Basting, Sr., criticized Kammer for his narrow focus.
“He apparently could care less about what the bar does for the court or the members of the bar and the public,” said Basting. “He’s a one-trick pony, and fortunately it is the Board of Governors who will dictate the policies of the bar, not Mr. Kammer.”
Bertz, who favors a mandatory bar and is a member of both the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee, said the composition of both is similar to when Levine presented the idea.
The initiative garnered little momentum among board members during Levine’s term, but Bertz did not know how it might be received, if and when Kammer presents a plan.
Kammer said one alternative to a voluntary State Bar, is to reduce bar dues to zero.
“If people want to continue bar programs, they should be the ones to pay for them, not everybody,” said Kammer.
Election Standards
One change Basting hopes the State Bar might make soon is how it conducts elections, given this year’s split results. Even though only 225 votes separated the first and third place candidates, Basting said Kammer’s win furthered a disturbing trend in State Bar elections.
Kammer, a petition candidate and self-described “rebel” because he favors change, won with only 35 percent of the vote, much the same way Levine did in 2005.
“Sixty-five percent of the voters did not want Mr. Kammer elected as president,” said Basting. “The process, in my opinion, is flawed.”
Basting suggested the State Bar adopt a “run-off election” whenever there are three or more candidates. Choosing between the two highest vote getters would assure a president would be elected by more than 50 percent of the vote.
According to Lisa M. Roys, Public Affairs Director for the State Bar, elections revisions could involve an “instant run-off” where voters rank their choices on one ballot.
Roys said that theoretically, if there were three candidates on the ballot, the one with the lowest vote total would be eliminated. Then the remaining votes would be redistributed between the two remaining candidates, depending on where voters ranked them.
There would be no additional costs for that process.
Basting was also disappointed with this year’s outcome, given that both Bertz and Knudson have played active roles in the State Bar for years. Kammer admitted that he did not write one speech or make one public appearance during the race to solicit votes.
“I don’t have anything to do with the State Bar, because I believe it has nothing to offer members,” said Kammer, who begins his term as president-elect on July 1.
5 Comments on This Article
1
It would be freeloading, but I'll leave that for another day.
State Bar dues are and have been $224 a year for the past 4-5 years.
A subscription to the WLJournal is $259 a year.
Given the results of the election, I think it would be wholly appropriate for the Board of Governors to convene a meeting during this next bar year devoted solely to member relations and the questions raised by Doug Kammer. It would be a discussion and not a vote on any particular proposal. So far, the debate has been wholly one-sided. All we've heard from is one person who says the bar is worthless. The bar itself could not get into the election issues and asking the other candidates to promote the bar, considering all the other issues involved and important to 2/3rds of those voting, was unreasonable. That is why a discussion and debate on the issues would be a good idea. The Chinese say "may you live in interesting times." Thanks to Doug Kammer they just become a lot more interesting.
Comment ByNick Zales Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
2
we wouldn't be freeloading. we'd still be paying for the board of bar examiners, olr, etc.
as far as benefitting from the bar goes by virtue of my position, nothing could be further from the truth -- one year's annual bar dues is about the same as an annual subscription to this paper. i'd like nothing more than for that money to be freed up to buy this paper instead.
Comment Byziemer Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 9:06 AM
3
I commend Dave Z for predicting the election results. He was right and I was wrong. However, given that this newspaper writes stories on the State Bar of Wisconsin, albeit a lot less than it used to, as editor he is clearly benefiting from the bar. As for not using bar CLE, books, seminars, resources and the like, Dave is in the minority.
A voluntary bar plays right into the hands of those who would destroy the rule or law and replace it with anarchy. It would allow lawyers to become freeloaders off the backs of members and would divide, rather than unite lawyers and thus dilute the message. As the federal government continues to erode rights, engage in illegal wars and make a mockery of the rule of law, a voluntary bar would only serve to further the agenda of anarchy.
That said, I would support polling our members along with the election ballots to be mailed in the Spring of 2009. The question could be: "Do you want a voluntary bar?" However, sometimes, just because the people want something does not mean they will get it. 80% of the public wants the US out of Iraq - but it won't happen.
Comment ByNick Zales Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 3:19 PM
4
A voluntary bar is hardly an attack on the legal system. It's required to preserve the constitutional right of association.
Personally, I always got all the CLEs I needed from voluntary bar associations, and research tools from Westlaw. So count one member who never benefitted from the Bar in any way.
Furthermore, under a voluntary bar, no officer would be elected with less than 50% of the vote. We wouldn't be voting and spoiling the elections. The Bar could run Tweedle-Dee versus Tweedle-Dum, and we wouldn't mind a bit.
Under a voluntary bar, we would not have a "pony" in the race, "one-trick" or otherwise.
Comment Byziemer Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
5
I agree with Tom Basting, some sort of run-off or primary must be considered. A vote implies the will of the majority will prevail. In this case, the will of the minority prevailed. No candidate for State Bar officer should be elected with less than 50% of the vote.
Doug Kammer says the bar is worthless, because "it has nothing to offer to its members." He will soon find out just how wrong he is. What member has not benefited from a State Bar CLE program, CLE book, the bar convention or service on a committee? How much money have lawyers saved with Caselaw Express and Pracitce 411? Those are only a few of the worthwhile programs the bar runs.
The bar could use some reform though, but the issue of voluntary vs. mandatory is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Our legal system has been under attack by this president and his ilk for almost a decade. Honor and dignity have been replaced by a glutinous need for profits while harming the average person at the same time. The State Bar for many years has lobbied on issues that favor the average person. We need to do a better job of that, and be more vocal. Likewise, we need to inform the membership of what the bar does for them. Change can be good, but this is no time to be divided when larger forces in society are attacking the rule of law. This is the time to stick together and fight for fairness for our members and the public as a whole.
Comment ByNick Zales Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Commenters, let's maintain a civil discussion here. Please observe the following guidelines:
Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
Do not personally attack or bait other commenters.
Express your own views; don't just argue for argument's sake.
Sarcasm doesn't work on the Web. Either avoid it or clearly label it so you aren't misinterpreted.
Don't make the same point repetitively.
No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it's relevant to the discussion.
Putting your name on your comments increases their value and credibility. However, if you must conceal your identity, please choose one pseudonym and stick to it. No "sock puppets".
How do you run a successful campaign to become president of the State Bar of Wisconsin?
