[WSBARP] BAR referendum
Carmen Rowe
carmen at gryphonlawgroup.com
Mon Mar 25 10:08:38 PDT 2019
I, too, with all respect to those that feel differently, echo Geoff.
Ultimately it is the BOG, not the ED, who governs - and too often both BOGs
and EDs forget that. Statistically a good ED lasts about 8 years. At that
point human nature kicks in. EDs are not "the boss" - but they start acting
like one, feel entitled to be one, feel they are the core of an
organization with a constantly revolving door of "bosses (the BOG, and
secondarily the members they represent - and *then *the ED), feel it is up
to them to run things correctly while crossing the line over what is their
purview - and what is not. The administrative end is the ED's domain. The
policy one, the BOG - but the line gets crossed, often by subtle
behind-the-scenes management that generally pushes a policy agenda of
control EDs are reluctant to relinquish at some point. Keep in mind - this
is not about Paula. This is basic general trends for any organization, any
ED. That is, by some reports, exactly what started happening here. There is
no blame. It is just basic human nature under very understandable and
almost "how could you not get that way" evolution. And it has no impact on
how superior or exceptional an ED is. Anyone in a political environment for
too long tends to get too entrenched. Perhaps inevitably. Again, human
nature. Not a personal critique. Just a dynamic that cannot be ignored.
And I see an uncomfortable number of people just jumping on a bandwagon
almost out of a sense of panic at having the apple cart tipped over
(without really knowing the state of the cart to begin with). That is not
directed to anyone specific here, it's coming from multiple directions; and
it is not a blame. Until some rather recent rude awakenings I have been one
of the most of us who just go along, and figure there are problems but
"everyone has problems."
But I know from experience, as we all do, really, that it's not that
simple. And it's not just about the person, but also the message. Are we
willing to make changes when they are so clearly and desperately needed?
Yes, sometimes you jump from the frying pan into the fire. But if the pan
is rusting out, well, you need to walk through fire to get somewhere else,
anyway.
On this, I have heard my share of the recently let go ED being part of an
increasingly condescending and ultimately dismissive of members tenor and
personality at the bar, who "know better" than the minion masses of the
lowly members so must force certain agendas a programs for the greater good
- the "benign monarchy" - and forget the members are their constituents,
it's *supposed *to be about what they want. I cannot speak from personal
experience about the former ED, but I will advocate for looking outside one
view. I can say the people I heard this from are smart, reasoned,
(formerly) very involved leaders who left some of the critical "lesser"
leadership positions (short of BOG) because of this treatment and attitude
and apparent inability to get past it. So there must be some issues on the
other side of the fence - which would be normal. Right, wrong, I don't even
know you can put those words to it. But we do need to look at the fact
there are two sides. And if we can't say with certainty from personal
experience or investigation from multiple perspectives, IMO we should not
be second guessing the leadership decisions from those who live it - and
should not be trying to govern from the nose-bleed section.
Again, I cannot emphasize enough - this is not "anti-Paula". It is
anti-knee-jerk reaction to keep an employee that many signatories have ever
met or worked with, based on the position of a few - however extremely high
regarded and eloquent - colleagues. There are* always* several sides to the
story. There are much deeper issues here that people should be focused on.
Whether to keep an ED or not is an easier, simpler cause - but also, in a
way, a distraction.
And, perhaps most important, Geoff's principle point. If you don't like
your representatives decisions, then change you representatives. They make
decisions based upon a day-to-day operation. I am sure many of us well know
what it's like to counsel organizations where members are trying to
over-haul their governors because they didn't like something, based on
information that is general knowledge - but often not the full story. That
is why you have representatives, they do. I am reminded of the adage
(Churchill?): democracy is a terribly flawed system, but better than any of
the others (or something like that).
And the other super critical point: IMO there is no question that WSBA
desperately needs an overhaul - and if you think it just needs some
"tweaks" there is likely a lot of investigation to do to really hear/know
what is going on behind the scenes. Again, not a critical. True with so
many organizations of any duration that operate by and large outside the
meaningful oversight (as in, anyone paying attention) of its members. The
vast majority of members have been apathetic and distanced from the bar.
Myself included!!!! As is extremely common and normal for most
organizations; and especially with those whose members are, frankly, so
busy with their practices they simply pay their dues and keep on moving.
As an example: It took me a few years (ok, many) to look past the bar dues
fees issue and what it really represents. I personally see no problem with
the figure - small price to pay. I have always said people waste far more
time discussing it than just doing the work to cover it. I personally see
lawyer-support programs as important (even if some have gotten into social
issues, not just practice of law - that I'm less of a fan of). But the
excess, waste, and ignoring practical elements of both managing an
organization* for the members,* how money is spent, and how conversations
go (or, rather, don't) about what the bar does, programs and positions
(including the latest on mandatory malpractice) - now those issues, are
critical and highly concerning. And the bar dues represent them as an
off-shoot of those policies in what is funded where. So while the bar dues
are not much, what they represent is important. And it flat out took me a
while to get that - right up through this last round.
I have never been on the BOG. I have been on many other boards, and served
as general counsel for many others. What I see are typical issues. What I
see as the solution is a careful and meaningful overhaul* not* done by the
ones who have been part of it. My involvement has been at section levels -
which is it's own experience, and where most of us interact with the bar
(if at all). Perhaps different than as a leader at the higher level. We ran
into a rather astonishing attitude in running one of those sections, to the
point I started a separate independent listserv (not the first one to do so
due to WSBA dysfunction on the existing system), with 200 people nearly
immediately stepping over. And you know it wasn't "what" they did - it was
the attitude in which they did it. And that, I have been told, is a direct
result of a culture perpetuated and led by the then-ED. Again - I don't
know where it stems from. But I heard it from enough people and ones I
respect enough, who are not particularly political, that I recognize that
there is more to the story. You simply cannot support bringing someone back
in that others saw as part of the problem until you really talk to multiple
sides of the experience.
We have gotten to the point that many really experienced and esteemed
colleagues are just as happy seeing the bar disbanding, finding it so
dysfunctional and so many years of "pattern" that it just can't be changed,
it must be re-born. I find that a rather disturbing conclusion, as these
are people who have worked diligently to be part of the solution, and/or
have put their ears closer to the ground after brushing up against one
problem or the other.
Bringing back in one ED won't fix it. Saying "we don't want to change" when
everyone wants to see change is dangerous.
So that ended up being a bit of a soapbox … but not meant that way. More a
voice to chime in against signing petitions based upon a few admirable
advocates. I do admire them, and respect their positions, and find them
very valuable. I do get concerned with taking things at face value - and
also not considering the message it conveys, whether that person is the
most fantastic ED on the planet or not. We need change, we need to show we
are willing to effect it.
So how's that for a Monday morning
Carmen Rowe, Attorney/Owner
Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
Email: Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com
*Mailing address: *1673 S. Market Blvd. #202, Chehalis, WA 98532
*Olympia/Lacey office: *1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503
*Seattle office: *1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154
*We also offer virtual meeting options, and are often available to meet
with you in an alternate location convenient to you.*
*Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential. If you receive
this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard
any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing
this email with anyone.
If we are communicating with you regarding a debt or monies owed, THIS MAY
BE AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT, AND ANY INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR THAT
PURPOSE. You have the right to seek legal advice from an attorney. To the
extent that the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies, this
firm is acting as a debt collector for the firm's client named above. Any
information obtained will be used for collection purposes.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:01 PM <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com> wrote:
> Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
> wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: BAR referendum Petition (G. Geoffrey Gibbs)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:59:25 +0000
> From: "G. Geoffrey Gibbs" <ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com>
> To: "Steven G. Toole" <steve at sgtoolelaw.com>, Diversity Stakeholders
> <diversity-stakeholders at list.wsba.org>
> Cc: "Main at DRAW.groups.io" <Main at DRAW.groups.io>, WSBA Real Property
> Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, PAUL BASTINE
> <paulbastine at msn.com>, "WSBA-Family-Law at yahoogroups.com"
> <WSBA-Family-Law at yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] BAR referendum Petition
> Message-ID:
> <
> MWHPR14MB17751F5CA078FA7BC47A1C99CB5D0 at MWHPR14MB1775.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Although I respect Steve's position on the continued employment of Paula
> Littlewood, it strikes me as incredibly intellectually dishonest to defend
> the actions of Paula and Justice Madsen denying a vote on a legitimate and
> qualified referendum by the members on a dues increase to then suggest that
> a referendum is appropriate on what is clearly not a "policy" matter for
> which the bylaws authorize a referendum but is rather a personnel matter
> that is solely within the province of the Board of Governors.
> My position on the continued employment of Paula Littlewood is irrelevant
> to the discussion above. Having served on the Board of Governors and as a
> Treasurer, and having and continuing to serve as general counsel to many
> corporations (profit and not for profit), my view is that the selection of
> the manager of the company is solely within the province of the governing
> Board. If the shareholders (i.e., the members) disagree with the decisions
> of the Board, then elect a new Board. Ironically, this is exactly what has
> happened in the last few years. The members were dissatisfied and did
> elect a restructured Board (now referred to as a reform board).
> This boils down in reality to the efforts of a group of members who want
> to continue the prior direction of WSBA and a group that does not; the
> latters' position that wants to put the members' interests in the forefront
> along with regulation of the practice, protection of the public, and other
> core goals. Having attended (personally or electronically) most of the
> recent meetings, the direction of the Board to change leadership was by
> more than a 2/3 majority (9-4 in most cases). The WSBA will not rise or
> fall on whether the current Executive Director is retained. It will rise
> and fall on the dedication of the members to the organization itself; the
> thousands of volunteers that have contributed their time, efforts and
> expertise to advancing the rule of law. The actions of the management (not
> the BOG necessarily) have alienated a huge percentage of the members.
> While we all recognize that ultimately the Supreme Court has plenary
> authority over the practice of law, they have for decades delegated this to
> the Board of Governors. They have largely been absent landlords from the
> regular and ongoing activities of the Board of Governors except in rare
> circumstances. The SC has insufficient time, experience or commitment
> administer the WSBA on an ongoing basis. There will be some form of
> organization that will need to be created or WSBA maintained to do so.
> Sign a referendum if you will but it is hardly what we need at this
> point. It is clear from the discussions at the legislative level that many
> legislators have heard from attorney constituents about the actions taken
> to deny the members vote on a dues increase and its patent disregard for
> WSBA's own bylaws. Retaining the current Executive Director is only going
> to exacerbate the issues connected with ESHB 1788 (advancing changes to the
> underlying State Bar Act) which is coming to a vote in the Senate Committee
> next week as I understand it. Signing the petition will only further
> entrench the already polarized positions. What is needed now is an active
> and meaningful discussion in the SC-created "work group" to determine the
> future of WSBA and the future governance on the practice of law.
> With respect to my friends and colleagues, Steve Poole and Ken Masters,
> this referendum is ill conceived and not appropriate.
> Geoff Gibbs
>
>
> G. Geoffrey Gibbs | Anderson Hunter Law Firm
> 2707 Colby Avenue, Ste. 1001 Everett, WA 98201
> PO Box 5397, Everett, WA 98206-5397
> Phone: (425) 252-5161 | Fax: (425) 258-3345
> ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com<mailto:ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com> /
> www.andersonhunterlaw.com<http://www.andersonhunterlaw.com/>
> [Description: Description: AH Color Large-no-tag]
> This email message may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized use is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
> original message.
>
> From: Steven G.Toole <steve at sgtoolelaw.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 10:57 AM
> To: Diversity Stakeholders <diversity-stakeholders at list.wsba.org>
> Subject: [diversity-stakeholders] BAR referendum Petition
>
> I don't know if this is a proper use of this list serve. If it isn't,
> then I will apologize in advance. However, this concerns matters that are
> imperative for the health of the Diversity Stakeholders in the State of
> Washington. I know all of you are aware of the chaos regarding the WSBA
> and its Board of Governors, as well as the BOG's decision to terminate the
> services of Paula Littlewood as Executive Director, effective April 1. If
> not, then I suggest you read the two attached letters. One was penned by
> Justice Madsen and the other is a letter from Ken Masters, resigning as
> President of the Washington State Bar Foundation, in protest of the actions
> of this Board of Governors.
>
> Although I certainly don't claim to speak for many, if any of you, I
> strongly suspect that the vast majority of those receiving this email who
> are WSBA members, do not support the radical change of direction being
> taken by our current BOG and, to the contrary, do not want to see Paula
> fired as Executive Director. It is not too late to take action that can
> prevent this from occurring, but you all must act NOW. If anyone is
> telling you it's too late to prevent Paula's termination, they are wrong.
>
> The most immediate action is a very simple one: click on the below link
> and vote in favor of the Petition for Referendum of the decision of the
> WSBA Board of Governors to fire Executive Director Paula Littlewood. As
> president of the WSBA in 2010-2011, I worked closely with Paula and know
> first-hand how incredible an executive director she has been and still is.
> I know first-hand of how revered she is by the leadership of bar
> associations throughout this country. However, if for no other reasons
> than those set forth by Justice Madsen in her attached letter, please sign
> the Petition. We need about 1,700 signatures and since Paula's last day on
> the job is March 31st, we would like to be able to file the Petition before
> she is officially terminated.
>
> The other thing I would encourage you to do, is to forward this email and
> the attachments to any WSBA lawyers you may have contact with on an email
> list and urge them to also sign the Petition.
>
> LINK FOR SIGNING PETITION FOR REFERENDUM:
> https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/wsba-referendum-re-executive-director-termination.html
> <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gopetition.com%2Fpetitions%2Fwsba-referendum-re-executive-director-termination.html&data=02%7C01%7Cggibbs%40andersonhunterlaw.com%7C9deb9d768acb49cb72e808d6b0822f32%7Ccfd348433b124bd6850ebd6b59fd6f90%7C0%7C0%7C636890470544821420&sdata=4Gpuf%2BuWQqdAXhpPFg5u8iaiG1EeKj1dgz2BvA47bu4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> YOU WILL NOTE THAT BY SIGNING THE PETITION, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE BOG
> CAN'T TERMINATE PAULA AS WSBA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO GO
> THROUGH PROPER DUE PROCESS AND PRESUMABLY WILL GET FEEDBACK FROM OTHER
> GROUPS, ENTITIES, BOARDS AND MEMBERSHIP BEFORE DOING SO.
>
> Thank you. STEVE TOOLE, WSBA President, 2010-2011
>
>
> Steve Toole
> Steven G. Toole Mediation Service
> PO Box 50008
> Bellevue, WA 98015-0008
> p: (425) 455-1570 | f: (425) 455-1954
> steve at sgtoolelaw.com<mailto:steve at sgtoolelaw.com>
> www.sgtoolelaw.com<
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sgtoolelaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cggibbs%40andersonhunterlaw.com%7C9deb9d768acb49cb72e808d6b0822f32%7Ccfd348433b124bd6850ebd6b59fd6f90%7C0%7C0%7C636890470544821420&sdata=AEtKnv2i92efnCVU6dSaL5kmN0EYHKcf6VEBFmo4reU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> [cid:image001.gif at 01D10A53.83918350]<
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avvo.com%2Fattorneys%2F98015-wa-steven-toole-6334.html&data=02%7C01%7Cggibbs%40andersonhunterlaw.com%7C9deb9d768acb49cb72e808d6b0822f32%7Ccfd348433b124bd6850ebd6b59fd6f90%7C0%7C0%7C636890470544831428&sdata=lxSjAv%2BaViQJ4e7BTzeV63rUOR06lDh3yPwE9KVGylM%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to diversity-stakeholders as:
> ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com<mailto:ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com>.
>
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://list.wsba.org/u?id=13100041.020d0490363d0ee51c2fa20e318dc2b9&n=T&l=diversity-stakeholders&o=863888
> <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.wsba.org%2Fu%3Fid%3D13100041.020d0490363d0ee51c2fa20e318dc2b9%26n%3DT%26l%3Ddiversity-stakeholders%26o%3D863888&data=02%7C01%7Cggibbs%40andersonhunterlaw.com%7C9deb9d768acb49cb72e808d6b0822f32%7Ccfd348433b124bd6850ebd6b59fd6f90%7C0%7C0%7C636890470544831428&sdata=Ha0P%2FjH6OG3W%2F%2BvU92whFfpee2B%2By0SWwix72TNdzAg%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to
> leave-863888-13100041.020d0490363d0ee51c2fa20e318dc2b9 at list.wsba.org
> <mailto:
> leave-863888-13100041.020d0490363d0ee51c2fa20e318dc2b9 at list.wsba.org>
>
> If you have any questions, or wish to change your email address, please
> contact the WSBA List Administrator<mailto:
> owner-diversity-stakeholders at list.wsba.org>.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190324/e6064ddb/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 1721 bytes
> Desc: image002.jpg
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190324/e6064ddb/image002-0001.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 979 bytes
> Desc: image003.jpg
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190324/e6064ddb/image003-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 54, Issue 19
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190325/967c56ad/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list