At the May 7 Board of Governors meeting, President Thomas J. Basting Sr. ad-dressed the impact of a recent initiative, the Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee.
In the aftermath of another contentious Supreme Court race where less than 20 percent of voters turned out, Basting said the committee will focus on educating the public prior to next year’s election.
He hopes to develop a public forum to discuss such topics as merit selection, public financing and recusal standards this fall in Madison.
“Voters showed they clearly have little interest in the Supreme Court election,” said Basting. “We want to get people talking and looking at these issues.”
Basting was especially critical of the legal community for not voicing their distaste for the negative campaign tools used in this year’s race.
“I didn’t see lawyers come forward and say, ‘What the hell is wrong here?’” said Basting.
“Frankly, I was embarrassed by that.”
But other board members said the committee’s actions were more of an embarrassment to the State Bar. Gov. Daniel F. Rinzel, who is a member of the Non-Resident Lawyers Division, applauded Basting’s effort, but said the end result hurt the State Bar’s image.
“I think it ended up looking like the [State] Bar was an issue in the campaign and that’s not a good thing,” said Rinzel.
Basting said he respected the criticism, but indicated he never intended the committee to become speech police.
“Was it an embarrassment to the [State] Bar? I don’t think so,” said Basting.
Basting added that he is not sure what shape the committee will take in the future, given its need for a permanent funding source and the potential that membership may change.
Access to Justice Will Return
President-elect Diane S. Diel also presented a revised proposal to establish an Access to Justice Commission. More than one year ago, the board adopted recommendations contained in a report to help provide more legal assistance for poor people in Wisconsin.
Since then, a $1 million allotment was included in the state’s biennium budget and ready for dissemination among several legal service providers in the state. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich said the check from the government is expected as early as July 1.
At its June 27 meeting, the board will vote on whether or not a permanent commission should be established. A new wrinkle in the proposal states that the State Bar will provide funding and staff for the commission for the first three years.
“By then, it will have to justify itself,” said Diel, who added that no permanent funding solutions have been discussed with the state judiciary or Legislature.
The State Bar will invest $20,000 in start-up costs and an additional $50,000-$60,000 during the second and third year. Bar funding will come from a $300,000 reserve fund.
Gov. Gwendolyn G. Connolly questioned whether or not the project can proceed without some indication from state officials that financial support will be available in three years.
“Without any specifications, are we just subject to the whims of the Legislature and the courts to pony up money?” said Connolly.
1 Comments on This Article
1
At one time, the Wisconsin Law Journal was the place to get the best news on State Bar Board of Governors meetings. No more. Now the best place is at WisBar. http://www.wisbar.org/
Nowhere in this article is there any discussion of a possible $10.00/member dues reduction for the next bar year. Nor does the article mention the Board's discussion over the true cost of the Access to Justice program. Instead, it simply parrots the "$20,000" cost without any mention of the staffing costs which are considerable. I estimate them to be $75,000/year, give or take $10,000. That would make the true first-year cost $95,000, not $20,000. Is that difference worth reporting? I guess here it is not.
Lastly, there is no mention of how $300,000 of member money ended up in a "reserve fund." The Board of Governors never voted for that; it's input on what to do with last year's $775,000 surplus was not solicited. Rather, the executive committee made that decision for the full Board. When the bar runs a large surplus, should it give some of that money back? That is what its members want. I think it should. I also think that it should be reported so that members can make up their own minds and act accordingly.
Comment ByNick Zales Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 3:51 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".
