 |
CBA Home | CLE Home | Contact Us |  Cart - empty |
Search |
|||||||||
Most Viewed |
September 2007FAMILY LAW SECTION EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Kathryn Beck, at 10:15 am. The following members and/or past chairs, attended in person: Kathryn Beck (Chair), David Littman (Chair Elect), Marie Moses (Secretary), David Johnson (Immediate Past Chair), Meredith Cord, John Eckelberry, Jennifer Feingold, Terri Harrington, Katie Hays, Beth Henson, Marc Kaplan, Ellen Squires, and Brenda Storey. Mary Jane Cox and Martin Brown attended as guests. Members present by telephone: Deb Anderson, Dick Rotole and Kevin Sidel. These members had excused absences: Denise Cook, Steve Epstein, Robert Malman, Joan McWilliams, Jackie St. Joan and Richard Zuber. Melissa Nicoletti was present from the CBA. A motion was made to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2007 meeting. The motion was seconded and was approved without opposition. OFFICER’S REPORTS CHAIR’S REPORT BY KATHRYN BECK: 1. Kathryn Beck went over the Committee Assignments. Committee Chairs were instructed to maintain their own lists of committee members. These lists should be posted on the FLS Website and in Executive Council Notebooks. Committee Chair(s) Notes Scholarship Denise Cook 2. A motion was made and passed to send a card and two gift certificates (totaling $200) to Koann Lawrence, family law mediator. 3. Report on 2007 Family Law Institute: There were over 300 attendees. The surveys had very positive feedback. There were requests for more content focused on Child and Family Investigators, Decision-makers and Parenting Coordinators. David Littman and Brenda Storey will use these comment sheets to help plan next year’s conference. VICE CHAIR’S REPORT – DAVID LITTMAN: 1. The 2008 Family Law Institute will be held August 8 -10, 2008 at Beaver Run in Breckenridge. The planning committee will consist of David Littman, Brenda Storey, Ann Gushurst (Collaborative Law), Yvonne Zuber (Financial Issues), Koann Lawrence (Mediation), Hon. Robert Russell (Judicial) and Les Katz (Mental Health). Marie Moses will chair the 2009 FLI committee and should work with Gary Abrams to select an alternative location prior to the summer of 2008. Check-in is a major problem at Beaver Run. Conference attendees liked the breakfast that was provided and the longer breaks between sessions. For 2008, a CD with the written materials will be provided to conference attendees. Additionally, we will try to provide audio recordings of all sessions so that attendees aren’t disappointed at missing a session because of a conflict with another interesting topic. Additionally, we will try to have written materials accessible on the website with a password. We hope to have more mental health professionals attend in 2008 and are hoping that Dr. Les Katz will be able to develop that “track.” The planning committee will look at whether it is possible to do some CFI training at the conference. SECRETARY’S REPORT- MARIE MOSES Contact Lists were circulated. TREASURER’S REPORT BY MELISSA NICOLETTI: Melissa Nicoletti presented the newly formatted Treasurer’s Report. This report has a more detailed description of spending categories. We have received $22,530 in dues income, which is approximately 98% of all dues income that will be received this fiscal year. The treasurer’s report was approved. OLD BUSINESS 1. FLS Luncheons: October’s luncheon will be on the topic of military law. A speaker from DFAS in Washington DC will share the podium with Carl Graham. The members of the Military Law Section will be invited. January’s luncheon will be a presentation of Professionalism Vignettes. February’s luncheon will be the Case Law Update. April’s luncheon is typically the Attorney/Mediator Dialogue. However, there has been a lessening of interest in the Attorney/Mediator Dialogue among section members and the question has been raised whether the FLS should continue to participate. The conference was created many years ago to encourage the use of mediation in the family law context. Because mediation is so well established in the domestic relations context, it was the consensus of the council that the conference may no longer be as relevant as it once was. Alternative ideas for April’s luncheon topics were discussed including the anticipated revisions to the CFI standards or a discussion of the common law marriage issue. There will not be a Judges’ Reception or Luncheon this year. 2. Communication with Courts: We would like to be able to send our newsletters and notices to judges, magistrates and court personnel, but have trouble with distribution lists. Melissa Nicoletti will contact Alicia Davis at State Judicial to get the email lists of the court administrators in each district so that we can send notices to the administrators for distribution to judges, magistrates and domestic relations staff. 3. Grant Requests: We received a $20,000 grant request from the Juvenile Law Clinic at the University of Colorado School of Law. Historically, we gave $10,000 to the clinic in 2005 and $10,000 in 2006. They need a grant of $5000 to be able to obtain $5000 in matching grant funds. A discussion was had that addressed the following factors: disparate treatment between giving grants to CU vs DU; the “good fit” between the FLS’s goals and those of the Juvenile Law Clinic; providing private funding to a public institution; the need to reserve funds should there be another “Amendment 40” type of ballot issue; and a desire to strengthen the mentoring opportunities between students interested in Juvenile/DR work and the FLS. A motion was made to give the Juvenile Law Clinic a $5000.00 grant and to request more participation of CU students in FLS activities. The motion passed with one dissenting vote. 4. Common Law Marriage: Martin Brown addressed the Executive Council concerning the work that the CBA is doing on the issue of whether Common Law Marriages should be abolished in Colorado. The CBA is in the process of trying to determine the following: 1) should the CBA take a position on the movement to abolish common law marriage? 2) What should that position be? 3) Should there be a statutory definition of common law marriage? 4) Should there be an education campaign to educate the public about the standards for creating a common law marriage? 5) If it is abolished, how should issues of retroactive or prospective application handled? Martin reported that the Sam Cary Bar Association and the Hispanic Bar Association oppose the abolition of common law marriage. The Workers Compensation Bar does not believe a position is necessary. The Probate section believes that common law marriage creates too many problems. Martin discussed methods that the FLS might use to determine whether there is a consensus among our members as to whether we believe common law marriage should be abolished all together, retained in its current form or retained in a statutory form where there are requirements for registering the common law marriage. A straw poll was taken of members of the Executive Committee, at is appears that there was more support for abolishing common law marriage than there was for retaining it. It was agreed that we would ask the CBA to conduct a poll by way of email of the FLS members to determine the opinions of the members. NEW BUSINESS: 1. CBA leadership has expressed a concern that the proponents of last year’s Amendment 40 may be considering bringing a similar measure to the Colorado voters. It is hoped that one way to make this type of effort less successful is to increase the accountability of judges and magistrates. It is anticipated that the Judicial Performance Review process will gain increasing importance and that magistrates may be added to the review process. 2. The Office of Attorney Regulation is contemplating making grievances public. Concern was expressed that this would be particularly onerous on domestic relations attorneys because of the high rate of grievances filed in this area and the limits placed by confidentiality concerns on an attorney’s ability to defend their conduct. The FLS will try to have input into the decision of whether to make these grievances public. ADJOURNMENT: A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. |
||||||||
