More TLC Shakeups

I haven't blogged much lately- feel crazy busy with work- but found this comment on a past post "Seeking TLC Feedback:"

I hear that earlier this week (February 2010), the TLC Board of Directors officially fired Fredi Sison from staff. Since you are on the F Warriors Board, would you please check on this? I hope it is not true or, if it is true, I hope it is a decision that can be reconsidered.

Fredi is simply one of the best. That's why she was chosen to be on the Board of Directors of Spence's Trial Lawyers College. When Jude Basile took over as President of TLC last year, he removed Fredi, Carl Bettinger, Kaitlyn Larimer, and Lynne Bratcher from the Board.

When we gathered in Dallas in November, for the F Warrior retreat, someone asked Jude if these former Board members would return as staff members. He said they would, and went on to say that he wanted to open up the process by which staff are chosen.

So why no openness around this new development? I don't know, but I found another comment, which further intrigued me:

So, when are you or someone going to write about Fredi Sisson, Mary Pekam and Carl Bettinger being taken off staff by Jude Basile? What the hell is wrong with TLC and why are the alumni letting the new leadership get away with throwing the best teachers off the staff? The silence is deafening!

Here's your answer: Because of the silence, only a few people even know! And because no one knows the facts, the few that know about these "firings" (they're volunteers who pay their own way to TLC events!) can only speculate, like this commenter:

I have heard that Fredi Sison, Mary Peckham and Carl Bettinger are all off staff because they are friends with the former Executive Director. Can you please write about this? Who else has been taken off staff and why? If this is true, it is bogus and bullshit! What makes me the most sick is how no one speaks up, complains about or protests the very unTLC like actions of the new president and of Spence himself.

I agree that the "silence is deafening" and that someone needs to check on this so the alumni know the facts. I haven't heard anything from any other FWB members, so assume that this will be news to them too. But, in an effort to answer these questions and separate fact from speculation, I sent this email to the FWB:

"I've heard from several sources that the Board removed Fredi Sison, Carl Bettinger and Mary Peckham from TLC staff, but have heard nothing about this on the listserve or from other FWB members. I've also been asked by several people to find out more information about this. Isn't this in direct contradiction to what Jude promised in Dallas in response to a question about whether former Board members would return as staff? Isn't is also in contradiction to Jude's promise to strive for more openness about such matters?"

Will we hear more silence or are we entitled to the facts, and maybe an explanation if it turns out Fredi, Mary and Carl are no longer on staff?

$100 Flat Fee for Misdemeanors?

See any problems with an attorney who is willing to take cases for this rate? I found this World Herald article from May 12, 2005:

A court-appointed lawyer in Douglas County Court who spends 20 minutes representing someone with a traffic ticket is now paid the same as a lawyer who spends 20 hours defending a suspected murderer.

Douglas County judges have changed the pay for court-appointed attorneys from $50 an hour to a flat fee of $100 for any traffic or criminal case. The attorneys represent indigent defendants when a public defender has a conflict of interest.

The change, which took effect May 1, is expected to save the county $10,000 a year, said presiding Douglas County Judge Thomas McQuade.

Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley and some Omaha attorneys are concerned that a poor person charged with a crime could see second-rate representation as a result of the change.

Riley said the pay change causes him concern and raises some questions.

"It puts a lot of lawyers in private practice in the difficult position of deciding whether they're going to take appointments and represent the indigent," he said.

Riley said that a lot of young lawyers cut their teeth on court- appointed work and that the lower pay could discourage them from getting involved.

McQuade said yearly increases in attorneys' fees prompted the change.

Years ago, he said, the county spent between $30,000 and $35,000 to pay the attorneys. Now, he said, it's up to between $85,000 and $90,000.

"It's been kind of a creeping thing," he said. "This is just a way that we thought we could just control our budget a little bit better."

He said the change won't jeopardize poor defendants. He said 90 percent or more are represented by the Public Defender's Office.

McQuade said the judges asked some lawyers before changing the pay whether they would accept court-appointed cases at $100 a case, and many said yes.

"We got a very large list of lawyers who said, 'Absolutely, we'll do that,'" he said.

But Eric Whitner, an Omaha defense attorney who took 10 to 15 appointments per year under the old pay structure, said he'll no longer take on the cases.

Whitner, who charges $150 per hour for misdemeanor cases and $200 an hour for felonies, said the $100 rate is "an insult to me. It's an insult to my staff."

Scaling back the already insufficient pay "sends the wrong message," he said, and raises a concern that indigent defendants won't get access to experienced, knowledgeable lawyers if the Public Defender's Office can't defend them.

"They deserve adequate representation, just like anyone else," said Whitner, a member of the Nebraska Minority and Justice Task Force.

McQuade said there's "no question" that the court-appointed lawyers do more than $100 worth of work representing the defendants from the time of arrest until a case is concluded in County Court or transferred to District Court.

Under the old payment system, the "vast majority" of court- appointed lawyers made agreements with judges to charge only between $50 and $150 per case, even though they worked more than one to three hours, McQuade said.

"Obviously, they were willing to go ahead and sacrifice something just to help out," he said.

The flat fee applies only to cases in county court. In district court, attorneys are paid $65 an hour for out-of-court work and $80 an hour for in-court work. The pay is capped at $12,000 for first- degree murder and $3,500 for any other criminal charge. A judge has flexibility to pay more for an extended or complex case.

Court-appointed attorneys in Lancaster County Court are paid $50 per hour, with no limit on the number of hours, said Becky Bruckner, the court's judicial administrator.

Omaha defense attorney Mike Fabian, who has done a lot of court- appointed work, also questioned the change.

"It just causes me some concern that there is no means by which different types of more serious cases can be reviewed and adjustments made so that all of the assets are there to defend the case," he said.

McQuade said the county's first duty is to make sure indigent clients have adequate, competent representation.

"If we can get it done for less money, the same kind of work, I think it's our duty to make sure we try to do that," he said.

What do you think? Can we truly "get it done for less money" with the "same kind of work?" How many misdemeanors get tried to juries when the lawyer's fee is capped at $100? Not one that I know of in ten years.

What do you think Thomas Jefferson, who called trial by jury "the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" would say about such an arrangement?

Seeking TLC Feedback

As I've driven across the city this week, I've written many blog posts in my head, silently promising to write them down when I get home. Somehow, the brilliant idea doesn't sound so great once I find the chance to type and I postpone writing long enough to forget what I meant to say.

But when I sit down tonight, still trying to adjust to Daylight Savings Time, hoping to write something worthwhile, that sheds more light than heat, it occurs to me that, as Gerry Spence once said, there's a good reason why we were given two ears and only one mouth.

So rather than talking, I'd rather listen.

Rather than telling you what I think, I want to hear what you think about the Board Shakeup at TLC, the alumni meeting in Dallas, and whatever else is on your mind. Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep things civil while still keeping it real.

What's on your mind, that you'd like to see the F Warrior Board discuss in Dallas?

Good News!

I don't know about you, but I can use some. While a lot of news is bad, I came across a story that hasn't gotten much attention but which I found uplifting. As a prelude, one year ago tonight, Obama was elected. When he proposed to sit down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and the Police Sergeant who arrested him, James Crowley, people reacted largely according to the way they voted: some admired the gesture and some laughed at it.

But when I read this week that two men met quietly in a Cambridge bar, talking for an hour over a couple beers, out of the spotlight and barely reported in the press, I thought it was a good sign. The two men? Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Sgt. James Crowley, minus Barack Obama. As the article described it:

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge police Sergeant James Crowley were spotted at a pub in Cambridge Wednesday night.

The owner of "River Gods" told WBZ the two sat in a booth together and talked for about an hour.

While many of Obama's campaign promises have been broken and many of Bush's worst policies continued, the fact that what was called the "Beer Summit" led to a second round of talks, and beers, I take that as Reason for Hope.

Email from the High School

Went to a seminar this afternoon about malpractice risks for attorneys, simply for the insurance discount, bored to death and thankful for the internet access. Halfway through, I get an email from my daughter's high school:

We were alerted by the Omaha Police Dept. that a student had left his home earlier today and was probably armed. While no threats of any kind were directed toward the school or any students, we followed our established procedures to ensure the safety and security of all students. Furthermore, we also worked with the Omaha Police Department who did find the student a short time after they had alerted the school of this matter, thus bringing this incident to a close.

Knowing what I do about bureaucracies, I cynically suspected either exaggeration or minimization, but also suddenly realized what was important, why I leave the house in the morning, and that risks can appear where you never suspected them.

Is TLC a Cult?

A commenter leaves a message:

Do you think TLC is a cult?

The question reminds me of a line from the movie The Survivors when Walter Matthau's character confronts Robin Williams' "Donald Quinelle" who's joined a cult of survivalists:

Sonny Paluso: You think Wes is God, don't you.
Donald Quinelle: No, not God, Just an ordinary man. Maybe a little ahead of his time, but just an ordinary man.
Sonny Paluso: Wes is an asshole.
Donald Quinelle: Blasphemy! Oh, you'll smoke a turd in hell for that!

In other words, Gerry isn't a God, he's just an ordinary man and anyone who says differently has blasphemed our Dear Leader and must be either reprogrammed or shunned! Boil up a batch of Kool Aid, somebody's starting to sober up!

Just kidding. My honest answer is that I don't think it is. But I fear it's becoming a cult of personality, more loyal to personalities in power than to the principles that made it such an amazing experience.

I'm on the F Warrior Board. One of our rules, newly created, is that we can't divulge internal discussions. I'm not saying I agree with it or not, but it's a rule, voted in, after a particularly heated argument.

I bring it up to demonstrate why I edited the email I sent to the rest of the FWB tonight. I didn't selectively edit for my own purposes, in other words, but to comply with the rules. What I said might answer the question:

I was looking forward to Dallas but responses like [X's] that accuse the questioner of being "distrustful" make me think our meeting, so helpful last year, will likely degenerate into personal attacks and tests of loyalty (which is defined as not asking any tough questions) rather than an honest dialogue about what's best for the alumni.

It's true that change is hard, but it's also true that what organizations need is a variety of viewpoints and people with a willingness to ask tough questions and debate honestly. It's also true that our mission is independent of the TLC Board and that our Board was designed to support the alumni rather than the TLC Board.

In fact, dig out your Spring '06 Warrior where [] describes the beginnings of the F Warrior Club as "from the moment of its inception, it was designed to be comprised of the Alumni, by the Alumni and for the Alumni.. While supportive of TLC the F Warrior Club was always meant to be autonomous, answering only to the needs of the Alumni."

He goes on to say that the FWB was then created and "was never meant to govern, but only to serve the interests of the club."

Are we living up to that foundation now, assisting the President as he drafts explanations of his decision to "reorganize" the board toward obsequiousness, accusing each other of being "distrustful" when someone respectfully asks questions or points out that what she saw at Grad II differs from the official company line, undoubtedly in the name of fulfilling her role representing her regions' alumni?

And rather than accusing people who ask questions like this of having [issues] or of [spreading innuendo] perhaps we should be asking ourselves what is the best way to carry out our mission statement, the best way to "answer only to the needs of the alumni" as [T] put it several years ago.

Our interpretations of how to serve the alumni will differ, which is why we're all necessary. My fear is that our meeting will quickly become part witchhunt (for whoever forwarded [Y]'s email to [Z]) and part loyalty test where anyone who asks tough questions won't have them answered but will instead be attacked personally, accused of being distrustful for daring to speak out. My other fear is that, much like the TLC Board, we will degenerate into sycophancy toward personalities rather than carrying out TLC principles.

Not exactly what the alumni need right now, at such a trying time, in my opinion. How about instead we strive for transparency to the alumni who may be, understandably, confused about what's going on inside TLC?

Why not encourage all of us to speak openly, without fear from personal attack, much like we're taught to honor the gifts jurors share with us in voir dire?

I'm glad you're optimistic, [] but I'm not so sure, given what I've seen so far. Gerry says "love is always the winning argument" but I'm afraid we've forgotten it and that it will tear us apart in Dallas when we so desperately need to come together...

P.S. [X], Thank you for your courage in speaking out and being real. We know what happens to people who dare to exhibit these traits on the TLC Board, but we should encourage them on ours if we're truly "answering only to the needs of the Alumni."

TLC Board Shakeup

Just heard that new TLC President Jude Basile made some changes to the TLC Board of Directors, the "Big Board" as it's known. Out are Kaitlyn Larimer, Fredi Sison, Carl Bettinger, Lynne Bratcher, and Gerry's wife Imaging Spence.

As I said on our F Warrior conference call when asked my feelings about these changes:

"I think it's bullshit. Those people are my heroes"

And they are. But they're gone. And they, other than Imaging, also were the three highest vote receivers in Norm Pattis' blog survey.

I was surprised, but apparently others, at least those who voted, were not.