MINUTES

The Florida Bar
Environmental and Land Use Law Section
Executive Council Retreat
Friday & Saturday, September 26 & 27, 2003
Somewhere in the Straits of Florida and Our Lucaya, Grand Bahamas

Friday, September 26, 2003

I. Call to Order

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at approximately 8:20 A.M. by George Gramling.

II. RETREAT TOPICS

The primary subject of discussion were the updated and revised Section Committee descriptions prepared by George and Bob Fingar to replace the descriptions. A copy was distributed to all attendees and is attached to the filed version of these minutes.

George provided an introduction. The general focus of the discussion was whether the current goals are descriptive of committee function. He is to give a written report of the Section’s goals and policies to the Board of Governors.

One item of business prior to discussion of the retreat topics was for Sid to post the business records exception request from the Senate on the listserve.

A. ABA Liaison

Michelle would like the description to describe what she does. She suggested including bullets as follows:
1) Attend Annual meeting of the Section of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources
2) Join State and Regional Environmental Cooperation Committee and work with them on their programs and marketing of programs
3) Be involved with the Region IV Regional Council
4) Report to the Section on activities and post opportunities on web site four or five times a year
5) Share mailing labels, and
6) Inform the Executive Council of upcoming opportunities.
Paul is to review the ABA program booklet.

B. CLE Committee

Discussion started with regard to the role affiliates play, in general, with respect to this committee and then became more focused on the affiliate workshop. It was questioned whether all of the effort expended was productive given the low turnout at the affiliate workshop. The general consensus was that the effort was worthwhile. Mary reminded the group that the original intent was to incorporate affiliates into the programs. Giving the affiliates a program of their own was a fairly recent change. Bob Fingar indicated that lack of attendance may be due to timing, since the workshop occurs just after a number of other programs. However, he pointed out that the PE CLE requirements should create more interest in our program. He noted that PEs are required to attend Rules and Laws and that our Rules and Laws workshop, for now, offers the only alternative other than sitting through a four hour enforcement meeting. He indicated that the Administrative Law section was interested in being a co-sponsor. Bob added that it is the providers who are approved and not the courses.
George suggested that we alternate the summit and rules and laws. The name affiliate workshop is dead. Mary suggested that the workshop be more of a joint venture between the Affiliate and CLE committees. The Section also needs to market the workshop more and help recruit new affiliate members. It was pointed out by Gary that many of the current affiliates have existing relationships with section members. Bob Fingar is to prepare a report on what professional engineers and geologists really want and need.
Sid suggested an ad hoc committee with Mary, David, Gary and Allen Watts.
Paul discussed marketing in this context, in particular, how to get the word out about the summit and rules and laws programs and also having good affiliate speakers incorporated into programs when appropriate.
Irene suggested that the program chair booklet be updated. Joe Richards is to post the booklet on the web. Paul will work on the program chair booklet.

Mary discussed having field trips. A proposal should be made to the Bar to see what happens. Jackie indicated that the Bar feels that field trips are not conducive for learning. Irene pointed out that other sections are getting credit for field trips. The issue is one for Legalization and Specialization. It was suggested that Larry Sellers be contacted.
Paul indicated that he is working on some changes in format such as a more interactive/socratic format. ABA formats were discussed but the ABA also has more money.
Two changes to the committee description were made as follows:
1) strike four seminars and two workshops, and
2) include a bullet that reads: “develop aggressive marketing.”
The remainder of the committee description was fine.

C. CLE Committee Liaison

Delete “decide whether speaker training should be mandatory or voluntary.” Remainder of the committee description was fine.

D. Continuing Legal Education Treatise

There is a continued interest in maintaining the publication. This publication extends our outreach. Sales need to be encouraged.
Discussion of the proposed committee and subcommittee structure followed.
George stressed how the structure helps to make the process manageable. Discussion of the role and responsibilities ensued. It was decided that it would be best to let the subcommittees define the issues and solutions. Among these issues was managing editor burn out and non-responsiveness of authors.
“Written” was to be added to the proposed language. A new bullet was to be added as follows: “Adding new topics and deleting obsolete topics.” Also to be added was: “alternative forms of publication such as online, etc.” to reflect Richard Hamann’s long standing quest to make the treatise more available. Also, to be added was: “ law school and law firm involvement.” Remainder of the committee description was fine.

E. Law School Liaison

Emphasis on greater efforts to pull in student members. University of Florida speaker series noted as an example.
The word “Florida” should be stricken to indicate that students from out of state schools are welcome too. Reference to “activities and projects” to be deleted. Remainder of the committee description was fine.
Students are to be encouraged to join as affiliates and to participate in committee activities.
Law school committee, utilizing alumnae, is to cultivate a law student subcommittee which may be chaired by a law student. There was a suggestion that the section pay for a law school student on the committee to attend Council meetings.

F. Florida Bar Journal Column

Robert Manning indicated that the reference to publishing an ethics article should be deleted. He also mentioned that we haven’t had many affiliate authors.
Coordination with the Reporter means that excess articles can be printed in the Reporter. Excess articles have not been a problem lately.
The possibility of converting treatise articles and seminar articles to Bar Journal articles was discussed. Republication of treatise articles might help market the treatise. A new bullet for the treatise committee was discussed as follows: “coordinate topics and contents with the Bar Journal.” It was decided that all of this should be coordinated with the Treatise committee.
Irene queried whether there was any policy against republication. Robert will talk with Ken and Cheryl about this.

G. Affiliate Membership

No discussion other than a reminder of what was discussed regarding the CLE committee. Changes made to the committee description were fine.

H. Membership

Changes made to the committee description were fine. Michelle suggested a welcome letter to new Bar members.

I. Section Reporter

The committee description was fine.

J. Legislative Review

The committee description was fine.

K. Public Interest Representation

Reference to affiliates is to be added (attorneys and affiliates). Also “and technical” is to be added after “environmental.” Remainder of committee description was fine.
Erin indicated a goal of diversifying the membership of the committee to go across areas and disciplines.
The PIC program for February was handed out.
Irene suggested PIC interact with CLE with respect to nature outings and field trips as previously discussed.

L. Access to Justice

It was stressed that this committee serves a different function than the PIC. The attendees still want to keep it. The committee description was fine.

M. Council of Sections

Tabled until Saturday.

N. Internet Committee

The purpose of the student subcommittee chair is to help build a student base. It also provides an opportunity to interact with the law school committee. Changes consisted of adding “publications” to news and events and adding the “listserve.” The remainder of the committee description was fine.
Irene raised a concern that adding Council members email addresses, as was discussed, could create spam problems.

III. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 A.M. and was to reconvene at 10:00 A.M on Saturday.
 

Saturday, September 27, 2003

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:00 A.M. by George Gramling.

II. RETREAT TOPICS (continued)

O. Certification

Certification will require that a committee be formed to develop the test, set the standards and grade the test. Requirements for certification/designation will include a minimum number of years of practice, a multiple choice/essay test and CLE requirements. Members of the committee that develop the test can obtain certification without taking the test.
Discussion ensued on the pros and cons of certification. Advantages that could be thought of were marketing opportunities for section members and revenue for the section from a certification review course. A big disadvantage was that it was likely to be a distraction from the treatise.
Encouraging members interested in certification to seek an LLM as an alternative was also raised.
Action on this item is as follows. Michelle was tasked with checking with the ABA and finding out what other states, especially California are doing. Bob Fingar is to discuss the pros and cons of certification for 10-15 minutes at the next update and take a nonbinding vote. The pro/con articles on certification in the administrative reporter are to reprinted in the Section Reporter. Mary Hansen volunteered to write a short preface. Sid will post the issue on the list serve.

P. CLE Issues

The focus of the discussion was a concern that the Big Bar and the Big Bar’s CLE committee might be interested in taking over section CLE seminars. The Big Bar has noted that not all sections are paying their fair share of their CLE overhead. Currently, only ½ of section dues are being used for section expenses. The Big Bar has raised the base fee for CLE programs and add on costs. A task force has been formed to look into the issue. The task force, however, is not supposed to be addressing CLE splits. Sid is to contact Marsha on the task force.
The Big CLE committee also wants to do its own seminars. This has created problems. An example being the Big CLE committee’s ethics course which consists of material pulled from other courses. It provides 5 hours of CLE for $50. General Practice, in comparison, which does its own ethics CLE is forced to charge standard rates.
The Council of Section position is that the Big Bar CLE committee refrain from conducting its own CLE, limit itself to oversight and not compete with the sections.

This situation emphasized the need for attendance at Big CLE committee and Council of Section meetings. Paul Chipok is the Section’s Big CLE representative and will attend its retreat in Key West. Paul is to find out what is going on and to use his best judgment. The next Council of Sections meeting is in Orlando in January and attendance is necessary. This matter should also be brought to the attention of Larry Sellers.
Raising section dues from $20 to $25 was also considered.

Q. Webmaster

Consensus against one person serving as webmaster for all sections.

III. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Riggio