Executive Council Meeting Minutes -- November 20, 2009

FAMILY LAW SECTION EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 
Prepared By Brenda L. Storey

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

A. In attendance:  Marie Moses, Dick Rotole, Terri Harrington, Jen Feingold, Denise Cook, Beth Henson, Trish Cooper, Martin Brown, Kevin Sidel, Ann Gushurst, Peggy Walker, Cyndy Ciancio, Marc Kaplan, David Littman, Melissa Nicolletti, Kathryn Beck, Steve McBride and Brenda L. Storey.

B. Attending by phone: Carl Graham, Meredith Cord, Deb Anderson, Mike DiManna, Mary Jane Cox, Elizabeth Pierce-Durance and John Eckelberry.

C. Excused absences: Steve Epstein, Bill King, and Laura Page.

2. Approval of Minutes of October 2009, Executive Council Meeting:  
Trish Cooper move for approval of the minutes; Dick Rotole seconded it.  The vote carried. 

3. Approval of Treasurer’s Report:

Jen Feingold moved for approval of the Treasurer’s Report ending October 31, 2009.  That was seconded and the vote carried.  We were updated that Melissa is still working on report changes including the budget, and the variance, meaning the difference between the budgeted expense and actual cost of the expense.  Plus, she is going to add a column reflecting the actual amount spent last year on the same budgeted items.  

4. Chair Report (Marie Moses):

A. Marie advised that WeeCycle has contacted FLS for participation.  They are trying to provide strollers, bike gear, and the like to lower income families with infants and toddlers.  Trish Cooper and Beth Henson volunteered to co-chair our effort.  They will look into whether WeeCycle is looking for us to host something or to just collect items at monthly meetings.  Trish will also research whether it has 501(3) status, and obtain the tax deduction forms for donors to receive in exchange for their gear. 

B. Complaints regarding Judicial Districts.  Marie brought up the fact that when things go wrong in judicial districts, be it docket problems, concerns about specific judges, due process issues, often times there is discussion on the list serve including complaints that the Family Law Section is not addressing these kinds of matters.  As an example, just recently concern was raised on the list serve about judges/magistrates in certain districts prohibiting cross-examination of plaintiffs in Civil Protection Order hearings.  A council member raised that if this is accurate, that really is incompetency on the bench.  He opined that it behooves us as the Family Law Section to go to the chief judge of the particular district and advise of these concerns.  This is a question of getting a fair hearing and so, plain and simple, someone needs to be telling the chief judge.  He also opined that we need to get the word out to our members and advise them to appeal in every single case.  He suggested that perhaps we should go to Channel  9 news, too.   He proposed that we, as a Section, commit to filing grievances.  We do have the ability to publish, and we can highlight good and bad issues. 

Kevin Sidel abstained from the discussion.  

In the past, Dave Johnson has responded on the list serve that those are local bar issues.  Marie pointed out that the Family Law Section is not in the position to be policing individual districts.  However, these problems can be a result of insufficient judicial training, too many cases and not enough judges, new judges being assigned immediately to domestic relations, or judges that have absolutely no family law background.  It was suggested that if the judges had more accountability, such as more regular and stringent judicial reviews, that perhaps these issues could be nipped in the bud.

One council member advised that our past position has been that these problems are to be handled locally.  However, he also agrees that it is OUR problem that we can, as a Section, address district by district.  He pointed out that our Section has been described as one of the best in the CBA.  He believes that we can put something together– a committee, or some other form, or we ask individuals– to tell the districts of these concerns.  

Dick Rotole said that he would be willing to try to approach the first judicial district, as Dick has a good working relationship with Judge Berryhill.  The suggestion was that we try it out in the judicial districts where we have a friend to see if it will be successful and how we can approach this.

Marie Moses raised that if we want to address these problems as a group, how do we decide which specific issues or complaints to take on?   She questioned whether it is that this is determined by enough complaints on the list serve, or whether we, as a group, have enough problems within a certain district before we get involved. 

A council member asked whether we already have a process for addressing this, such as the judicial performance review committee or the code of judicial conduct.   

It was suggested that the officers who attend the brown bag lunches with the different judicial districts could ask the chief judge for a conference, and then so address. Somebody else raised that perhaps Kathryn Beck’s Judicial Liaison Committee could be the flow of information from our Section to the District and back to address the concerns.  It was also suggested that we need to establish a special relationship with the chief judges so that we can bring these issues to the various districts’ attention directly.  

Someone raised that many individuals are afraid to go after these issues, for fear of ramifications.  An example was raised as to a previous group in Arapahoe County, who were trying to address problems with the bench there.  They were promised anonymity and requested to bring specific case examples reflecting the concerns they raised.  However, there was backlash to those who participated.  There was further discussion about the fact that if we address, it needs to be anonymous, if at all possible, to avoid retaliation against our own practices.  Further, we do not want to impact the impartiality of the judiciary.  

It was suggested that we create a complaint committee, where a formal complaint could be filed and that committee can review a file that reflects the alleged judge’s impropriety.

John Eckelberry indicated that he already had a meeting scheduled with John Gleason, and he would explore with Mr. Gleason options, ideas.  It was also suggested that we look to the Commission on Judicial Discipline.  Rick Hehmhoefer heads that commission.

Another member suggested that we have our own review of judges.  We could compile the reviews and send them to the chief judge of that particular district.  The idea is that we let the judicial districts know what our Section thinks about their judges.  It was suggested that the review results go to the chief judge of the district, as well as the individual judge that has been reviewed.  It was proposed that it be expanded so that the review would also go to the Supreme Court Judicial Performance Review Committee.  

A question was raised as to whether we have the capacity to do this.  We would need to consider whether this is to be an annual review or more frequent, who addresses, who ultimately handles?   A survey would have to be drafted, but it was suggested that the current evaluations were a good starting point for our purposes.

It was raised that we must stay focused on what is our overall goal, and consider any and all backlash.  We obviously would like to address the specific issue with a particular judge.  However, if we want to attract qualified judges, will we actually keep them away because they are afraid of a witch hunt or being skinned alive?  

One council member expressed that the bench really has no respect for the Family Law Bar.  There is a perception that our bar is the red headed step-child and we cause problems.  Everyone tends to treat us as a pariah.  So the suggestion was that we go after this problem strong, and we need to be unified.  

Marie Moses moved that there be a Judicial Accountability Committee, with one chair and four members.  The first objective would be to investigate the current state of affairs with regard to judicial accountability, such as grievances, judicial review, discussions with Mr. Gleason or/or Mr. Hehmhoefer.  Then, the survey procedures would need to be fleshed out, such as whether we conduct it annually, to whom are the results forwarded?  David seconded, Kevin Sidel abstained, and the vote carried.  Anyone who is interested in being on the committee needs to contact Marie Moses.

David Littman expressed concern that perhaps the practice of family law is beyond the competency of our current court system.  He indicated that we just do not hear about these kinds of issues in other areas of practice, such as civil or criminal.  He stressed that we need to be creative in our ideas of how to help families in transition.  He cautioned that there are dramatic risks of damage to children, families and multiple generations that follow.  He suggested that mediation or private judges or other creative avenues need to be considered.  He challenged us to look into the 21st Century, rather than just simply allow the court system to stand unchanged.

C. Family Law Task Force Best Practices:  

Steve McBride advised that Family Law Task Force’s Best Practices address some of the very concerns that have been raised in the meeting.  He pointed out that the Task Force has no authority to review anything.  Rather it has accumulated the facts and made recommendations.  He stated that it was a lot of work and there is still a lot more left to be done.  

One member suggested that as there is concern about judicial continuing legal education, perhaps we recommend judges have the same level of training as we require of CFIs.   It was proposed that we strengthen recommendations 12 and 13 of the Task Force’s Best Practices.  Steve, and Beth Henson who is also on the Task Force, agreed that the recommendations regarding judicial education can be beefed up.  However, input is needed as to what the specific requirements for the judges’ continuing education should be.  Is it a certain number of hours in all areas of law?   Should they include specific requirements such as the CFI training?  

It was suggested that we have a provision that the judges have a minimal standard of competency per Chief Justice directive 04-08, but not actually have to satisfy the 40 hour requirement.  It was clarified that judges do not need to learn how to apply for indegency pay and all the other intricate details that are taught during the 40 hour CFI training.  But, it is the core training that is needed by the judges.

It was also raised that there is an implementation issue.  The judicial conference has been cancelled, further exacerbating the dearth of training judges are receiving.  One member expressed that some judges have a feeling that they should not have to pay for their own continuing legal education.   Another member added that judges with mixed dockets are being pulled out by every section.  The judges do work full time and there is only so much that they can put on their plate.  So, we need to consider whether we, as a Section, should be supporting, and perhaps even subsidizing, judicial training.  It was opined that we, as a Section should be offering our services.  We want to increase our stature, be respected, and so we need to be teaching the judges.  Meredith Cord told us that they are trying to involve the bench at the Family Law Institute.   She reminded us of the judges’ track, and advised us that they are applying for a grant to help the judges attend.  Brenda Storey suggested that our Section give money to CLE for judicial training.   Brenda suggested that because we are a non-profit, and our goal is to help our members, perhaps utilizing our resources to provide funding for the judges to attend CFI training or other specific training would serve our members well.   Dick Rotole stressed that we, as a Section, have an obligation to make this training available.

The following motion was made:  That the Family Law Section adopt the Best Practices recommendations of the Family Law Task Force, with amendments to twelve and thirteen, and then work towards implementing them throughout the state.  This was seconded.  There was no opposition, and the vote carried.  Steve McBride will talk with Dave Johnson about proposed specific language and report back to us recommendations for amendments to twelve and thirteen.

Dave Johnson is interested in taking the Best Practices to the Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues.  We will need Section approval first, and then CBA approval. 

It was pointed out that the problems that exist at each district are different.  There obviously needs to be some analysis of what is appropriate in each district.  The hope is that we can get local people to work with the chief judges to implement the Best Practices.   It was proposed that the Task Force send a letter to each chief judge and local bar association president, asking them to look at the Best Practices and please consider.  It was raised that the main impediment to implementation would be money.  Someone suggested that the Family Friendly Courts Act, or other groups proving federal or local grants, could be good resources.  It was raised whether it was the responsibility of our group to research funding sources.

An Implementation Committee was proposed.  Members of the Task Force would be consulted, but would not necessarily be on the Committee.  It was suggested that we need to tap into our 900+ members, and get local interest.  If there is local interest, there is a greater likelihood that the Best Practices will be accepted and implemented.  If they are simply imposed, they are more likely to be rejected and it will be a failure.  We need to light fires within local bars and get their help.  We were asked to consider individuals who we think should spearhead.   It was suggested that there may be a family law attorney interested in being paid to be webmaster and to coordinate this across the state. 

The first issues, which are big ones, are how we implement the Best Practices, how do we promote them, and where is the funding for it?  It was proposed that this implementation committee be akin to our Legislative Committee, meaning it is chaired by an Executive Council member and then others in the Section, but not necessarily on Council, can make up the balance of the committee.  It was proposed that we solicit others who want to be on the Executive Council but have not gotten elected.   People who are not on Executive Council seem to have the impression that they cannot be involved.  This is a chance to get the word out that they can contribute significanty, and we want all members to be involved. 

Cyndy Ciancio, Treasurer and Budget Committee member, suggested we consider setting aside funds to promote the initiative, as well as funds to put on conferences and classes.  She suggested that we initially support one of the proposals and its implementation financially.  

Marie moved that we form a Family Law Task Force Implementation Committee, the Chair of the committee be someone from Executive Council, the members be appointed from Family Law Section members that are selected by the Section Chair and Committee Chair.  Kathryn Beck seconded, nobody opposed. 

5. Secretary’s report by Brenda L. Storey:

A. Brenda reported on the recent officers’ brown bag lunch with Adams County Bench.  For specific details of the update, reference the minutes from the brown bag lunch. 

B. Brenda reminded that she had been asked to look into whether we should change the location of our luncheons and to where.  Brenda sought input about conducting a survey of our members.  Many council members shared that people do not respond to surveys, making them of little value.  It was suggested that Brenda do an informal survey as she talks to others, assessing whether people want to stay at the Pepsi Center.   Members on the executive council seem split, many liking the locale and wondering if there was a need to change. 

C. It was once again raised that we are losing money on lunches and it was suggested that perhaps we raise our prices.  Brenda pointed out that we have been told repeatedly that most Sections lose money on their luncheons, but part of what they do for their members is subsidize the luncheon costs.  It was suggested that we need to look at what is impacting our attendance.  It was raised that the topic choices seem to be the main driving force.  That day’s topic, parenting plans for younger children, was going to be very well attended based upon reservation numbers. 

6. The Treasurer’s report by Cyndy Cianco:

Cyndy advised that the Budget Committee does not yet have their revised report.  They anticipate being able to present an update at our January meeting. 

7. Legislative Committee report by Dick Rotole:

Dick circulated to council the proposed §14-10-124, incorporating therein the criminal code’s definition of domestic violence.   At least one more draft is anticipated.  Dick moved on behalf of the Legislative Committee for our Section to support changes to §14-10-124 to include the domestic violence definition per §18-6-800.3.  Marie Moses seconded, and the vote was approved.

8. The Judicial Liaison Committee report by Kathryn Beck:

Kathryn updated that they are getting feedback from various districts.  The next step is to talk to our group or Robin Beattie, webmistress, on how to organize and present the information that is being received from the districts.  Rather than wait until they have in all information from all districts, it was suggested that as the Committee gets sufficient information in from a district that they get it to Robin to post on the webpage.   Kathryn complimented how our webpage looks, and proposed that we have a separate link about district information or judicial district data.  She suggested that this was too much to put into the newsletter, unless we do a few districts at a time. 

It was requested that announcement be made at each luncheon regarding the webpage.  It was suggested that we also contact Steve Harhai for permission to make announcements about the webpage and about the district information.  Brenda also suggested that we do a separate email to our members advising them of all our webpage offers, including the district information.  

It was suggested that the people from the local districts who are our contacts could be the ones to whom we would direct our concerns about the bench, as raised previously. 

It was also suggested that the committee member who is the liaison for a district be invited to our brown bag officers’ lunch for that particular district.  Cyndy Cianco, who organizes those lunches, needs to be provided with the liaison list so she knows with whom to coordinate. 

Jen Feingold volunteered to take the committee position left vacant by Rob Hinds.

9. Family Law Institute Update by Meredith Patrick Cord:

Meredith reported that she and Richard are all on track. She reminded us that Drs. Dana Cogan and Mac McShane are heading up the mental health track.  Meredith and Richard hope to have a brochure out by January. 

10. The Colorado Lawyer update by Trish Cooper:

Trish advised that we have articles for January, are anticipating one for March authored by Jim Kyle, one for May authored by Ann Gushurst and a DU student, and a future one authored by Laura Page and one of their associates.  

Trish indicated that this does not mean that we have enough articles.  She stressed that we still need articles, and we always appreciate anybody who has ideas for articles or who want to draft one.  

We all complimented Dave Johnson’s recent letter in The Colorado Lawyer about family lawyer practitioners.  As a Section we thank Dave for his words! 

11. Request for Low Pay/Slow Pay attorney referral list:

Marie advised that there have been requests, including a recent request by Judge Arkin, for a list of attorneys willing to take low pay/slow pay.  There was concern about whether our compilation of such a list would be perceived as us endorsing the attorneys who are on that list.  

It was raised that perhaps Metro Volunteers Lawyers has such a list when people do not qualify for MVL’s services.  If they do, we can solicit from our membership more individuals who would be willing to take a low pay/slow pay case.  If MVL does not yet have such a list, we can hopefully partner with them to create one for them to have available.  Then, judges can simply refer parties to MVL, referencing that they have such a list. 

John Eckelberry will contact MVL to inquire about whether they have already started such list or have such underway, or their willingness to have such a list.  Brenda Storey volunteered to compile the names of our members who are interested.   Marie can make announcements at lunches, and any who are interested in being included on the list can contact Brenda and John.  It was proposed that in order to be on the list, the attorney must be a Family Law Section member. 

12. Young Lawyers Division update by Jen Feingold:

Jen updated that they are planning s happy hour social event in the new year.  She requested $250.00 for the event.  Brenda Storey seconded, and it was approved. 

13. Mentoring update by John Eckelberry:

John advised that the recent mixer in October was well attended, and in March they anticipated hosting a dinner.  John advanced $300 for the mixer, and anticipated the dinner would cost $700.  Brenda Storey moved for $1,000 from our budget, $300 to reimburse John and $700 for the March dinner.  This was seconded, and approved.

REMINDER:   Once the Executive Council approves a money request, the person asking for the money needs to follow up with a written request to the Treasurer for actual payment.  The Treasurer verifies the request was approved, and then submits the request to Melissa for payment and onto the books. 

John also updated that DU is putting on a mentoring CLE December 2nd.  It is a free CLE with credits.   Marie Moses will announce it at the luncheon.

14. Adjournment:

Marie moved for adjournment.  Dick seconded, and the vote carried.
 
The next meeting in January 15, 2010, commencing at 10:00 a.m.