Executive Council Meeting Minutes -- September 18, 2009

FAMILY LAW SECTION
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September  18, 2009
Prepared by Brenda L. Storey

1. The meeting was called to order, attendance was taken.

IN ATTENDANCE: Richard Zuber, Marie Moses, Melissa Nicoletti, Peggy Walker, Bonnie Schriner, Gary Abrams, Greg Martin, Jennifer Feingold, Ann Gushurst, Elizabeth Pierce-Durance, Mary Jane Cox, Beth Henson, Laura Page, Bill King, David Littman, Cyndy Ciancio, Trish Cooper, Steve Epstein, John Eckleberry, Dick Rotole, Terri Harrington, Brenda L. Storey.

 ATTENDING BY PHONE: Meredith Cord, Denise Cook.

 EXCUSED ABSENCES: Kevin Sidel, Martin Brown, Mike DiManna and Marc Kaplan.

2. Introduction of New Council Members:  Elizabeth Pierce- Durance, from Avon Colorado, was introduced.  It was explained that her term ends July 1, 2010, because she filled the rest of Cyndy’s term when Cyndy was voted Treasurer.  We were also introduced to Laura Page from Castle Rock, and Peggy Walker from Denver.  Both of them have terms ending July 1, 2011.

3. Verification of Contact Information for Council Members was circulated.

4. Approval of Minutes of May, 2009 Executive Council Meeting.  Marie Moses moved for approval of the minutes, Richard seconded.  The vote carried.

5. Approval of Treasurer’s Report:  We were updated that through July 2009 we have received $23,535.00 in dues.  This is about $2,500.00 below target, but actually expected. Membership is down about 10%.  It is anticipated that more members/dues will trickle in throughout the year.  It was reported that the Bar Association membership is not down, but firms seem to be dropping section payments.  Marie Moses moved for approval of the Treasurers Report and Richard seconded it.  The vote carried.

6. Introduction to the CBA, by Melissa Nicoletti and Greg Martin:  Melissa and Greg told us that the sections of the CBA are simply smaller parts of the CBA as a whole, all of the wholes making up the substantive parts.   The CBA has an executive council, Amicus, committee, and legislative policy committee (which meets every Friday morning at 7:30 during the legislative session).  The Bar Association sections have an obligation to not put forward statements or positions in conflict with the Bar or other sections.  Sections, including ours, cannot put forth a position without going through CBA. 

It is the responsibility of the executive council members, representing the Colorado Bar Association and the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, to be independent of any other organizations or Board of Directors.  Our mission and our purpose are in the By-Laws at paragraph 7:  Supervision of Section Financial Matters; representation of the Section on policy matters and legislative matters; to undertake short range and long range planning for all areas of concern to the Section;  Nomination of  a slate of officers and candidates for Executive Council and conduct the annual elections as provided for in these By-Laws; publication of a periodic newsletter for all Section members; presentation of a CLE program for the section as appropriate; all things necessary to conduct the business of the Section; and each member of the Executive Council should also be a member of a Committee of the Family Law Section.   It is expected that members of the Executive Council will be aware of and know the By-Laws and the rules.  Also we as a Section are to organize, plan, and set goals.  The Section is here to serve the membership – 950 members of our Section.  We have a fiduciary responsibility that must be considered.  We are spending our members’ money.  We have to be accountable in doing what is in the best interest of our membership.  We are supposed to have public documents and transparent financial disclosure.  Our duties are different from CBA officers.  We are to be looking at the education, networking, enhancing the practice of family law and the issues important to our area of law. 

Melissa indicated that our Bar Association does give more leeway than other states.  Others tend to tell their sections how to spend their money, what their budget is, and what their programs will be.

The Bar is looking at bigger issues, such as “No on 40,” and is planning how to address those sorts of issues when they arise.  That is for the Bar and they approach Sections as needed.  For example, on the “No on 40” matter, because many Sections had lots of money in their accounts, Bill Walters, president at the time, asked the Sections to spend their money on the “No on 40” campaign.  But it is not the Section’s responsibility to save money for causes, challenges.  The purpose of our Section is to provide benefits to OUR members.  The Bar benefits from Sections because the Sections bring in members to the Bar and keep them. 

CLE in Colorado, Inc. (“CLE”) is an official arm of the CBA.  They are a true non-profit, and their goal is provide low cost CLE and publications to our members.  All Colorado lawyers need continuing legal education.  The Bar expects CLE to serve all segments of the Bar membership, and all Colorado lawyers.   The respective roles of CLE and the Sections are that CLE provides the expertise on organizing, putting together and marketing the continuing legal education, whereas the topics and the expertise come from the Sections.   Luckily, CLE has the experience in organizing, running, and then also handling the negotiations related to, educational programs, so that it is a marriage between the Bar/Sections and CLE.

The Bar and CLE interface, in that if the CLE program is one hour in duration, the Section puts on the presentation with the help of the CBA staff.  If the program is to be over that time frame, the sections go to CLE staff  to help.  The CBA does not have the staff to do those larger presentations.  The Bar Association takes some of our dues to cover some of the CLE overhead.  We as a section get support from CBA and staff, and support from CLE staff. 

7. Chair Report (Marie Moses): 

i. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Amicus committee:  Mary Jane Cox, Deb Anderson, Bonnie Schriner

Book Sales/ Bench Book Committee:  Laura Page, Marc Kaplan, and Bill King.

Budget Committee:  Cyndy Ciancio (Treasurer), Beth Henson, (Chair) Kevin Sidel, Carl Graham, and John Eckelberry.

By-Laws:  Bonnie Schriner, Peggy Walker

Colorado Lawyer:  Meredith Cord, Trish Cooper

Education/CLE/Lunches:  Brenda  L. Storey 

Marie recognized Bob Malman for having done such a great job for our Section in the past, including in his efforts related to the Lunches Committee.  She reported that the officers voted to honor him and recognize him at one of our bigger luncheons.  Steve Epstein proposed a plaque or certificate costing not more than $100.00 dollars.  David Littman seconded.  The vote carried.

Family Law Ethics Task Force:  David Littman (as Liaison), Bob Hinds, Ann Gushurst, Joan McWilliams, Rob Hinds, Alec Rothrock, Dr. Dana Cogan, Dr. Les Katz, and Tim Merhtens.

FLI:  Richard Zuber, Meredith Cord.

Grants:   Richard Zuber, as Chair-elect

Judicial Liaison Committee:  Kathryn Beck, Ann Gushurst, Bonnie Schriner, Deb Anderson, Trish Cooper. Rob Hinds, who is no longer on council, is bowing out.

Legislative Committee:  Dick Rotole (chair), Marie Moses, Dave Johnson (on sabbatical), Mike DiManna, Brenda L. Storey, Jeremy Ramp, Chris Radeff, Jim Bailey.

Membership:  Terri Harrington (Chair), Elizabeth Pierce-Durance, Laura Page, and Carl Graham.

It was reported that membership is down a little, and we want more energy.  We challenged the committee to think about membership recruitment.

Mentoring:  John Eckelberry

Mentees need mentors – we have a huge need to refresh the mentor database.

Newsletter:   Ann Gushurst, Cyndy Ciancio, Ellen Squires, and Steve Epstein.

Nominating:  David Littman (past chair), Jen Feingold, Martin Brown.

Scholarships:  Denise Cook, Kevin Sidel

Young Lawyers:   John Eckelberry, Denise Cook & Jennifer Feingold

Website:  Robin Lutz Beattie

We were reminded that the website is only as good as the information that we give Robin.   We will give her the minutes, officers’ reports, and the newsletters to post.  We are going to try to beef up our content.

Board of Governors Liaison:  Helen Shreves

ii. JUDICIAL CANON EMAIL: We previously provided the Executive Council members with an email regarding a proposed Judicial Canon that addresses pro se parties. Discussion was had that the need for this was because judges are looking for more guidance with handling pro se parties.  Judges are concerned that what they have been doing is a violation, that they have not been following guidelines and rules, but they cannot get these cases done or anything done with the pro se parties. 

The language that is the hot button is “notwithstanding Colorado case law to the contrary.”  Prior case law indicates that pro ses are held to the same standard.  However, concern by judges is that they cannot comply with that, especially when children are involved.  The Appellate Section and the Litigation Section looked at the much bigger picture and the concern about a provision that says that they are no longer going to rely upon prior case law.  

There was discussion about the fact that this actually fits better in a Rule of Civil Procedure where we have special rules regarding family law, juvenile law, civil protection orders.  The Litigation Section is opposed to this being a Judicial Canon they believe that such matters should be appealable.  Canons are not appealable.

Justice Bender’s committee put this in late in the process.  This just came to us yesterday.  We have to fast track it because October 1st is the deadline for people to have comments for the October 22nd hearing.  The Bar’s Executive Council meeting is the end of next week.  They have indicated that the Family Law Section should be involved.  Dick Rotole and Marie Moses will deal with it in the Legislative Committee, and then take a vote by Council.

The specific language in question is: “Notwithstanding Colorado case law to the contrary, the steps that are permissible insuring a self-represented litigant’s rights to be heard according to law include but are not limited to liberally construing pleadings; providing brief information about the proceeding and evidentiary and foundational requirements; modifying the traditional order of taking evidence; using plain English rather than legal jargon; explaining the basis of the ruling; and making referrals to any resources available to assist the litigant in preparation of the case.”  Melissa Nicoletti will send all of us pages 34 and 35 with the relevant language that is causing the flap. 

We are looking at whether this proposal will help the overall practice, or does it give an inside track to “get the judge to represent the pro se party.”  The litigation does not want Rules or Canons that “notwithstanding case law to the contrary.”  This is a slippery slope.

A straw poll was taken, to see if we supported it as read.  It was concluded that from the straw poll that we did not support the language– it was practically unanimous.

John Eckelberry commented that it prejudices clients who retain attorneys, so he very firmly believes there is no way that we should support this. Ann Gushurst indicated that this is really just dealing with the “crazies.”  Dick Rotole indicated that this is not just the crazies, but those who do not want to pay for lawyers.

The easy answer is to oppose the Canon as presented.  But then do we fix the problem as we go along or do we propose some language that would work?  Steve Epstein suggested that we all want access to justice, and we should not just oppose it as written.  He suggested that we be proactive, and try to redraft either a Canon that would be acceptable or a Rule.  It was noted that we only have a few more weeks to form our own recommendation regarding the Canon.  Marie Moses would like to submit an alternative Canon, or alternative proposed Rule of Civil Procedure.  Someone brought up that our Task Force ideas may need to be incorporated.  Marie Moses indicated that anyone can start drafting.  Steve Epstein volunteered to try his hand at redrafting the Canon, or drafting Rule. However, we need a yes/no vote before October 1st regarding whether we are going to support the current Canon. 

iii. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts:  We went out of the order of our agenda, but we had special quest, Gary Abrams, from CLE in Colorado, Inc., was in attendance to address the 2010 AFCC Conference that will be in Denver, June 2-5, 2010.  Richard Zuber indicated that there are actually two issues with respect to CLE that need to be addressed. 

First, at our May 2009 Executive Council meeting, we had to vote on CLE’s request for financial contribution to the 2009 FLI.  We approved $4,000, as well as approved considering $1,000 to $2,000 more after we receive our dues information in July.  It was noted that our Executive Council has had discussions in the past about that FLI seems to make money, so why is it that CLE needs money from our Section to subsidize?  

The second issue is that the 2010 FLI is in August, but in June of 2010 AFCC will be hosting its annual conference here in Denver.  AFCC’s is an international conference.  Historically we have sent two members of Executive Council to the conference.  They have quality topics and speakers.  This is a great national conference.

Richard Zuber advised that he was contacted by the executive director of AFCC, through a referral by Dave Johnson.  The executive director requested that the Family Law Section promote the AFCC program and partner with them.  This would include announcing it at our luncheons, talking about it amongst our members, possibly recruiting speakers.  They would offer us a table at their conference.  The question for us is whether promotion of the AFCC conflicts with our Family Law Institute scheduled for just two months later.  It is a question of whether people can attend, are we giving short shrift to FLI if we promote AFCC?  

Richard Zuber and Gary Abrams have discussed any negative repercussions, and how this could impact our Family Law Institute.  Richard is concerned about whether our membership can attend both, will attend both, whether we will have quality presenters or will they limit our speaker pool because they are going to be asked to present at AFCC.  Richard commented that if we can put on our program without care of attendance/money generated by the Family Law Institute, we can all agree to support this.  Additionally we can all agree that AFCC is wonderful, they have good programs, and it is great to have them here.  Richard just expressed serious concern regarding the fact that AFCC did not discuss their date with us before they scheduled their conference here. 

Richard also reminded us that the cost to put the FLI on in Steamboat is higher, and with there being a greater distance, there may be some less attendance as a result.  Richard indicated that he wanted Gary Abrams to make a presentation.

Gary Abrams clarified that CLE, Inc. is “our CLE.”  He reminded that the FLI is not a CLE event, but an FLS event put on through CLE.  Gary clarified that it is hard to expect people to go to two conferences.  He used as an example that attendance at the Collaborative Law conference was down this year.  People just do not have the same disposable income.  They have a set amount of time for continuing legal education credits.  He also noted that AFCC’s conference will help our economy and it is an honor to have them here.  However, Gary argued that their June conference here is a detriment to our Section and we put on FLI at a great low cost to our members.  Gary clarified that he cannot quantify the loss of money posed by AFCC’s June conference and it is purely speculative.  Greg Martin cautioned that the Section not promote the AFCC conference to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot.   He suggested that we not give up our customer list, which is the email addresses of our members.  He urged that we not dilute our own email messages by giving others our memberships’ emails.   It was suggested that we just do not just allow our members’ email boxes to be flooded with emails, because then they will just not read ours either.  It was suggested that we provide our mailing list at a discount with the Executive Council’s approval.

Gary wanted to go back to the Introduction to the CBA.  Gary discussed that CLE, the Sections, the CBA all have a relationship.  He stressed that the idea was for the Sections to provide benefits to their membership and for the members.  CLE suggested that when the Sections were coming and saying that we have these judges that need to be educated and we have members who need to be educated, CLE stepped up and offered free or low cost tuition assistance program, as well as assistance to judges attending, to get this accomplished.  The ultimate benefit goes back to the legal community.  Gary also clarified that CLE is non-profit, they do put on other programs that are financially “losers” but that benefit the legal community. Gary indicated that they cannot really evaluate how each seminar does, because they would need to include the corresponding staff overhead.  Gary clarified that allocation of CLE overhead is substantial.  They put on about 130 programs per year, and it would be a nightmare to break down what overhead applies to various programs.  So, they do not break that down by seminar.  Gary did advise that in some years FLI has generated revenue over direct expenses.

Gary reported that when FLI was held in Steamboat in the past (2004 was the last year), there were fewer people attending.  The perception is that Steamboat is further away, is a longer trip.  But it is more convenient for members in other parts of the state.  It was also clarified that the economy is obviously going to play a part in attendance this year.   Steve Epstein made the comment that this is just not the year to have the FLI in Steamboat.   However, it was clarified that it has already been locked in at Steamboat.

John Eckelberry asserted that we should look at collaborating with AFCC.  He proposed that we have a discussion regarding teaming up with them to promote their conference and our FLI.  It was explained that AFCC has a different target audience, and they have very different presentations.  Theirs are research-based, looking at the psychological, social science, and mental heath components.  In contrast, our FLI is practical with a heavy law basis.  Our goals seem very much the same but our content is totally different.

Another idea was to broaden the scope of our FLI to try to appeal to out of state people who would be attending the AFCC and would want to return for our FLI.   We could agree that they would promote us and we would promote them.  But again the main question is whether by promoting the AFCC we are taking an opposing stand to our Family Law Institute.

It was again pointed out that AFCC only has a small law component.  It was also raised that people do not attend the FLI just to learn and get credits.  It is also to socialize and network. 

Jennifer Feingold pointed out that she is on the AFCC Colorado Board.  She stated that their goals are education and networking with our membership.  She stressed that we need to support AFCC coming into our backyard.  Cyndy Ciancio reminded that the fact is that the AFCC conference is coming to Colorado in June --it’s a done deal.  She urged that we have to support it with all that we have.  It was argued that collaboration is an advantage to us our membership.  

It was also noted that the Family Court Task Force just issued their report on how we improve the system and how do we improve the services being offered. AFCC is dedicated to educating lawyers, mental health practitioners, and others--- all with whom we deal.  This is a unique year and opportunity to bring all together for the benefit of our membership.

Marie Moses reminded us that our Section has historically found the AFCC conference to be of such value that we have sent two people each year.  It would be a disservice to our members not to announce it to them.  The conference is an amazing opportunity to attend, and get access to the information provided.   The AFCC would be good for us and the members.  It is great information that can be given to our members that we can encourage and support it.

It was expressed that it would be political suicide not to embrace the conference that we have supported in the past.  The question is how do we get AFCC to support the Family Law Institute?  One suggestion was that we would commit more money to the Family Law Institute CLE and really promote it hard.

Elizabeth Pierce-Durance indicated that we are looking to boost our membership and she suggested that perhaps we get a discounted rate to AFCC for our members.  Somebody else raised that it does not really matter who educates our members, and we are not the sole source of educating our members.  It was concluded that the AFCC may impact FLI, but we must support this international conference that is coming here.  We must commit to support the FLI.   We must embrace, support, and partner with AFCC.

It was also pointed our that Bob Smith is chair-elect of the AFCC, he has been a member of the Executive Council and member of the state AFCC.  Further, the outgoing Colorado AFCC is Judge Arp.

Marie Moses moved that proceed with collaboration with AFCC, to make their conference known to our membership.  Dick seconded it.

It was concluded that the AFCC conference may impact FLI, but we must support this international conference that is coming here.  We must embrace, support, and partner with AFCC.   The Family Law Section will actively promote AFCC, call for presenters, and will collaborative with them. We must also commit to support our 2010 FLI to make it successful.

Marie Moses indicated that she would contact AFCC to talk to them about the fact that we want to collaborate, so we will get the word out and we will make a call for presenters.  We will put this in our newsletter; we will make announcements at our meetings.  We will discuss the financial components with CLE, including at what rate we should sell our mailing list, but not sell our email address list.

David Littman moved for outreach to AFCC, to get them to promote our Family Law Institute.   Steve Epstein seconded it.  The vote carried.   Marie Moses indicated that she would contact AFCC.  Joan McWillams challenged us to think about how we can best support the 2010 FLI, how we can draw a bigger crowd, including thinking about possibly through national exposure.

As to additional financial contribution to the 2009 FLI, Marie Moses moved for an additional $1,000.00.  Bonnie Schriner seconded.  Two opposed, and Brenda L. Storey abstained because she is also a board member for CLE Inc.   The vote carried.
 
  iv. ONGOING PROJECTS:

FAMILY COURT TASK FORCE: Marie Moses asked that we all read the Task Force Report by our next meeting.  It will be circulated to the Executive Council via email, with the report in one email and the appendix in a second email.  Dave Johnson, who formed the Task Force when he was chair, wants to know what to do with the report. One proposal to consider is sharing it with the Standing Committee on Family Issues.

ICON AWARD: The 2009 Icon Award winner Joan McWilliams designated Family First for her charitable contribution. 

NUGGETS GAME: We are not going to pursue it this year.  If anyone feels strongly otherwise, they need to let us know. 

MVL CASE ASSIGNMENTS:  John Eckelberry will be promoting MVL cases at the luncheons with Marie’s help.

ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ISSUES (WHAT FLS CAN DO FOR MEMBERS):  $200,000 was set aside by CBA to members for tuition credits.  They want us as a Section to think about how to help our members who are not doing well financially.  Kevin Sidel and Denise Cook are working on within the Scholarship Committee.

BROWN BAG LUNCHEONS: The officers meet with the Adams County bench on September 22nd.

v. UPCOMING LUNCHEONS:

Marie Moses discussed the fact that our next meeting is tentatively set for October 30, 2009.  (Note: Date was subsequently changed to October 22nd).  The luncheon dates and topics are:

October 30, 2009: Ethics for domestic relations.
November 20, 2009: Parenting plans for young children
December 2009:  No meeting
January 15, 2010:  Case Law Update by Ron Litvak and/or Tim Mehrtens
February 19, 2010:  Post-decree maintenance modification 
March 19, 2010:  Post-decree child support /college modification
April 16, 2010:  Post-decree financial issues - judges’ panel
May 21, 2010:  Legislative update

We will be having an Executive Council meeting with each of those luncheons.  In the past we have skipped some of those; however, Marie Moses is going to go ahead and have Executive Council meetings on all dates that we have a luncheon. 

8.  LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT: 

Dick Rotole updated us that the Coalition Against Domestic Violence proposed a change to the Civil Protection Order statutes that would allow judges to protect animals in domestic violence cases.  Also, they are wanting to define “spousal abuse” in §14-10-124 so as to incorporate the domestic violence and criminal code definitions. 

Claire Levy is pushing the UPA reform that was dropped on us last year.  The Legislative Committee has established a sub-committee to look at the reform: Jim Bailey, Jerremy Ramp, Seth Grob, Paula Smith, and Kim Willoughby.  Dick updated us that initially the thought was to survey our membership about whether we should oppose the new proposal.  However, they only got five responses to the initial email soliciting comments.  Dick clarified it is hard to do a survey without it having a leading question.  So, instead the sub-committee will come up with a formal suggestion as to what the Section’s position should be.  On October 2, 2009 the Uniform Law Commission will be meeting.  Dick advised that we would be asking for more time and this was at the suggestion of Michael Valdez.  Dick did inform us that Representative Levy continues to want to listen to our Section.  Dick anticipates having a recommendation from the sub-committee by October 30th.

The Uniform Collaborative Law Act does not have a sponsor yet.  It is very clearly at the formative stage. We were informed that there is a sub-committee with Diane Powell, Kathy Hogan, Riley Madden, Terri Harrington and Kelly Keane.  Kathy Hogan testified before the ethics committee when they were considering the Collaborative Law ethics opinion.  That ethics opinion, Opinion 115, conflicts with the draft Uniform Collaborative Law Act.   October 2, 2009 is the date to meet with the Uniform Laws Commission.  Dick clarified that it will be similar to a status conference, to find out where they are going to go from here.  It was pointed out that ABA has a proposal out as well.  It was noted that Colorado has taken a minority position when it comes to the ethics of Collaborative Law.  The Uniform Act Commission is exploring what to do in Colorado and wants to hear input from our Section.  Marie Moses and Dick Rotole were invited to meet with them.  The Uniform Laws Commission will tell us if they want us to do anything.  Our sub-committee has been challenged with reviewing the Act, providing comments regarding what should happen with it, and suggesting how we reconcile it with the contrary ethics opinion.  We do need to reconcile any Uniform Act with our ethics opinion.  If we do nothing, will be behind the 8-ball.  So instead, the goal is to do the work up front so our Section can help make the decision.  It was stressed that it would be ludicrous for us to take no position that absolutely impacts our Bar.  The collaborative groups are going up against litigators who don’t like to be tied to it. 

9. CHAIR-ELECT (Richard Zuber):

CASA GRANT: David Littman pointed out  that CASA got $500,000.00 last year from the legislature. It seems like they retained all or most of it.  The Executive Director has resigned, and CASA is in flux.  It was proposed that we table this until we get the Budget Committee Report approved and finalized, at which point we consider the cost of this grant request.  Richard moved to table the CASA grant request.  Marie seconded.  The vote was approved.

2010 FAMILY LAW INSTITUTE.  It is August 6, 7, and 8, 2010.   Richard updated that there will be a judges’ track-- an actual track that is for judges and lawyers as well.  They are looking at having Judge DuBois, Judge Arkin, Judge Montgomery and Judge O’Hara.  The golf tournament the last two years has been on Thursday, but Richard and Meredith are thinking of having it on Friday morning.  Richard is looking into to whether the discounted group rates could apply for rooms for Thursday night as well.  Ann Gushurst updated that the golf tournament would once again be sponsor by Collaborative Law.  Steve Epstein expressed that we should not delegate track planning to mental health practitioners or CPAs.  He suggested that we do not let them set the agenda.  Richard clarified that we have not been delegating, and instead that we have been working together with their assistance.  Richard assured that he would be “hands on.” Steve expressed that mental health practitioners and CPA’s were simply utilizing the FLI track that they were organizing to market themselves. 

 10.  SECRETARY (Brenda L. Storey): We are going to explore whether we change the location of our lunches.  Anybody interested in signing up for the committee to look into this just needs to contact Brenda.

 11. TREASURER (Cyndy Ciancio): The Budget Committee prepared its report, authored by Beth Henson, which was sent out to the Executive Council in advance of the meeting.  We need to allot enough time to the committee to discuss.  Given the time crunch, it was proposed that we table this until we have a full opportunity to discuss.  Everybody was requested to read the Budget Committee’s report before the next Executive Council meeting, and think about what we heard regarding the money is to serve our members, our Section is not to be stock piling.
 Beth Henson proposed that we start our next Executive Council meeting earlier, as we have so much to cover and things tend to be rushed at the end of the meeting.  A start time of 9:00 a.m. was proposed.

 12. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
 
  MENTORING PROGRAM:  John Eckelberry reported that they will be having the Mentoring Dinner again.  It will be at the end of October, and he warned he will be asking us for $1,000.00.  He also indicated they are having a mentoring education program with ethics credit December 3, 2009.  This is to cover how to mentor and looking at law students and lawyers.  John stressed that he thinks we have been too lax with Executive Council and that everybody who is on the Council should be a mentor at some level.

 13. ADJOURNMENT:
  Marie moved to adjourn, which was seconded and the vote carried.