Meeting Minutes - Transition Board
Transition Board of Directors - Legal Aid of North Carolina
May 24, 2001 Meeting (BOD Mtg #3)
The Transition Board for Legal Services (LS) in North Carolina met for the
third time on May 24, 2001, at Camp New Hope, Chapel Hill, NC.
Board members present at the meeting were Pender McElroy (Chair), Willis
Williams (Vice-Chair), Tracy Barley, Glenn Barfield, Nellie Kearney, Rick Fay,
Leo Allison, Allen Johnson, Carolina Myers (replacement for Valerie Kight).
Others present at the meeting were Evelyn Pursley, Michelle Cofield, Michael
Hamden, Gina Reyman, Ted Fillette, Dale Deese, Kay House, Evan Lewis, Richard
Klein, Rozelle Margolis, George Hausen Ken Schorr, and Melissa Pershing. Cal
Adams, Elizabeth Cox, David Daggett, Jack Holtzman, Dorothy McHugh, Frank Queen
and Linda Rollock were unable to attend.
The meeting convened at 10:20 a.m. The first order of business was to review
the minutes from the April 27, 2001 meeting. Upon motion, second and unanimous
vote, the minutes were approved with minor changes. They will be posted on the
LS Transition Board website.
Willis Williams, Chair of the Client Council, gave a report on the Client
Council Meeting on May 17, 2001, held in conjunction with the LSNC 25th
Anniversary Celebration at the NC Bar Center in Cary, NC. A major issue for
the Client Council is how it can raise funds. The Council wants help with
identifying resources to write proposals for client based projects. It also
wants to reestablish contact with the Region 6 Client Council and begin
networking with this group again. The Client Council also seeks guidance on how
to get clients involved in the Access to Justice Campaign.
Gina Reyman, Chair of the Planning Council, gave a report on the Planning
Council meeting held on May 7, 2001 at Camp New Hope, Chapel Hill, NC. One major
topic of discussion was the dedicated funding bill in the legislature. The
Planning Council wants the whole state to get an equal share of the funding so
that no county would get more funds than any other. Another topic was how the
Special Providers Sub-Committee of the Planning Council will relate to the LSC
Transition Board.
Michael Hamden gave a report on the Special Providers Committee meeting that
was held on April 25, 2001 at LSNC, Raleigh, NC. Traditionally, the Special
Providers Committee serves special populations supported by restricted and
unrestricted funding. Now another issue has risen regarding unrestricted work.
These issues will be discussed further at the Planning Council teleconference on
June 6, 2001, and the Planning Council will meet with the Transition Board on
June 15, 2001, at Wake Forest University Law School, Winston-Salem, NC. The
Special Providers Committee will work with the Joint Committee for Unrestricted
Services to focus on restricted and unrestricted work for special populations.
Pender McElroy addressed the board about the process of the work of the
Transition Board and the importance of a full and open discussion of all issues
by all parties. This process is the last best hope we have in North Carolina of
reaching an agreement by consensus for the entire state about the entities which
will deliver legal services in the state, what services they will deliver, how
they will be funded and how they will be coordinated. Tough decisions will have
to be made after a full airing of all views. If we can end up with unity, then
clients will be far better served. The alternative would not be pleasant.
McElroy addressed the matter of what services LSSP and LASNNC might want to
provide after the merger/consolidation outside the LSC-funded program. He stated
that the issue is how can we come together as four diverse programs and reach a
result that is acceptable to all parties at this table and others who deliver
legal services in North Carolina. The issue is not whether we agreed to transfer
100% of our assets or not. The primary issue is whether at the end of this
process can we come out with a sense of unity and all parties are satisfied, or
will we come out with people not in agreement and dissatisfied. We need to
discuss how services should be configured, who does unrestricted work and
restricted work and how it is funded, how will work with the Planning Council.
We need an understanding of what everyone has in mind. We know that what we do
has to go back to the four boards and nothing is binding. Can we come out of
this process with something that we agree on and support?
Speaking for LSSP, Ken Schorr stated that he was somewhat taken aback because
this process did not start with what assets will go where. This is a time of
opportunity, not just to design a program, but to design a "system" that will
serve North Carolina clients in the coming years. By the time this planning
process ends, we will not make major revisions to the plan we write now again
for a long time. In 1996, on short notice, with the cut in funding and moving
assets, we created the NC Justice Center and divided up Carolina Legal Services.
Schorr confirmed that LSSP will participate in the design and be a part of the
LSC funded system.
LSSP wants the system we design to accomplish several goals:
* Create a strong statewide LSC-funded program that will deliver first class
services to clients.
* That program to have a substantial presence in the Charlotte area.
* To have much of LSSP be a part of that program.
Schorr stated that we care about what the program looks like, who it serves
and how it fits in with all programs in the state. We want the LSC-funded
program to be a part of a system that provides a full range of service to a full
range of clients. With the LSC restrictions, if these services are to be
available to clients everywhere in the state, non-LSC funded organizations must
exist and have sufficient resources to provide these services everywhere in the
state, especially to do class actions and lobbying before the legislature and
administrative bodies, state and local. Right now ineligible alien families in
Wilson and Charlotte get no services in North Carolina. The Immigration Center
is in Raleigh and cannot serve clients in other areas. The NC Justice Center
does some class actions, but does not have the capacity to do administrative
lobbying. We should look at attorney fees generated by consumer cases.
Schorr passed out two articles he felt were directly on point from the Summer
2001 Management Information Exchange Journal, entitled "Restructuring of the
Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley -- A Review of the First Year," and "A State
Planning Experience: the Georgia Joint Resource Development Assessment Project,"
which focused on fundraising. We should look at how we deal with restrictions
and how we deal with local resources.
Regarding the LSSP inventory of resources, LSSP currently has 24 funding
sources. This year the Access to Justice Campaign raised $170,100.00 from the
local bar. Ken Schorr believes that this system need three components:
* A statewide LSC-funded provider.
* A system of statewide non-LSC funded special providers.
* A "constellation" of non-LSC funded regional organizations to do
unrestricted work, in the Charlotte area, perhaps Asheville, Winston-Salem, the
Triangle and/or East.
We need a geographic location for ineligible aliens, and one place is a part
of LSSP in Charlotte. Schorr pointed out that the Tull and Echols' October 2000
Configuration Recommendations report stated that "an expanded physical presence
around the state does appear to be necessary for representation of individual
clients," particularly with respect to "undocumented people and other
non-citizens who cannot be represented with LSC funds." Our idea is to expand
areas served by regional organizations to cover the entire state so every part
of North Carolina is served by both the statewide LSC-funded organization and by
a regional non-LSC funded provider and by the statewide special providers.
Schorr outlined the future of LSSP by stating that there are two alternatives.
* Alternative #1 would be for LSC and LSSP to both provide services in our
local service area, LSC with LSC funds and LSSP with some combination of state,
IOLTA and local funds in different office locations, perhaps with LSC in
Gastonia or Concord, and LSSP in Charlotte.
* Alternative #2 would have the larger part of LSSP be a part of the statewide
program and a separate program to do a piece of statewide work in the areas of
government benefits, statewide litigation, and administrative advocacy.
We should look at Pisgah's ability to do controversial work, which LSSP has
also done. This plan needs IOLTA and foundation funding, which affects the NC
Justice Center and Special Providers much more than the LSC-funded entity. We
are looking at regional services (composed of 20 - 40 - 50 counties) that the
statewide LSC-funded entity could not provide for the Hispanic community and
other ineligible aliens. Recently, the Reynolds Foundation called a meeting to
discuss legal services for the Spanish community with funding from local money
and religious organizations. There is also some local work supported by local
funds that are not mobile which there is no reason for such work to be
statewide, such as DSS Petitions for neglect and abuse juvenile cases where
lawyers are appointed by Judges and receive court-appointed fees. This local
work would stay in the separate program.
Turning to LSSP's assets, Schorr explained that LSSP owns its own building
that has a market value of about $800,000.00, and LSC has a lien on it of an
unspecified amount. In his view, both the LSC-funded organization and the
separate organization can operate out of the same building. The local
Mecklenburg Bar Foundation assisted LSSP in buying the building with a loan, and
it would have to be involved if the ownership changes. If there are two separate
providers and LSC owns the building and the separate program has to pay rent
then that much more unrestricted funding will have to be found to make the
non-LSC-funded program viable. However, if the separate program owns the
building and the LSC-funded program pays rent, then that money would be legal,
clean and unrestricted money. We would have to same number of staff with one
desk, chair and terminal for each staff position. There are 24 different funding
sources covering 6 different fiscal years from public, private, local, regional,
state, and national. Some of these funds are transferable, some not, some maybe,
and some funding are matching grants. The non-LSC-funded program will need some
state and IOLTA money in the transition, and the annual Access to Justice
Campaign will have to be shared.
Schorr said LSSP wants the system to work for clients and it would be a
tragedy for LSSP to merge with the statewide LSC program and not be able to do
unrestricted work. For all services to be provided to all clients in North
Carolina, the LSC Transition Board must create a new organization that can be
part of, in the words of LSC, a "justice community," or, in the words of the
Planning Council, "a sustained, comprehensive, integrated, statewide system to
provide the most effective legal service to people in North Carolina."
Pender McElroy asked the Board if there were any comments. There were none. He
recommended that the Board appoint a committee to consider the issues raised by
Ken Schorr in a smaller group for discussion and negotiation to see if there is
ground for agreement. Glenn Barfield, Rick Fay, George Hausen, Ken Schorr and
Ted Fillette were selected for this new sub-committee to discuss these issues
and report back to the Board at the June 15, 2001 meeting.
Ted Fillette reminded the LSC Transition Board that we have these other
groups, such as the Special Providers Committee of the Planning Council and the
Joint Committee for Unrestricted Services which were charged with developing a
complete picture of the types of statewide unrestricted work needed and to
identify what sources of funding are needed to support what work. We need to get
a state level picture of what work is needed and what is the order of decision
making. He pointed out that the Special Providers Committee was meeting on May
30, 2001, and Gina Reyman and Michael Hamden are on that committee.
Michael Hamden responded that the Special Providers Committee had envisioned a
much longer process with statewide assessment surveys including on-site
evaluations. This is a more urgent need to estimate what unrestricted work
should be done. Pender McElroy said that this is sort of like an octopus. There
are a lot of parties involved and some are not here. We have to coordinate with
everybody but we have time constraints.
Mr. McElroy asked Mr. Hamden to serve on the committee, Mr. Hamden agreed to
do so.
Ted Fillette said that we have an extraordinary opportunity to look at things
not looked at for 25 years. We don't have to make decisions about funding and
staff this year. Pender McElroy pointed out that the political reality is that
if we are going to reach a consensus here and go back to the four boards, it has
to be done in the next few months. The internal political need doesn't fit with
the ideal of long range planning. Ted Fillette said we might have to wait until
we see what the Special Providers Committee can produce and then meet with the
Joint Committee for Unrestricted Services maybe in July. We should have the
small committee to meet at least once. The Transition Board is planning to meet
until the end of October, and if it gets recommendations in August that may be
enough time. Pender McElroy responded we will have to do our best, but we need
to know what assets do not get rolled into the LSC-funded entity.
Michael Hamden said that we, the Special Providers Committee, will do
everything we can to work with LSC. We will try to move the timetable forward to
identify the unmet needs and the desire to continue separate programs.
The transfer of assets is unique to individual programs, and we must do
everything to advance this process. Glenn Barfield was asked to be the convenor
and chair of the committee (the "Barfield Committee"), and Pender McElroy will
be an ex-officio member.
Kay House presented a report on the intentions of LASNNC. There are two things
that LASNNC is focusing on: resources and the range of work supported by those
resources. With Newt Gingrich's "Contract for America came the restricted work
with whole forums being blocked out. LSC chooses to tell Boards what to do with
everybody else's money. This brought about the need for separate programs. There
is a potential silver lining in what Pisgah has done in Asheville with a
community of only about 100,000, it has raised local funds in the same way as
Charlotte. IOLTA and the General Assembly decided to increase funding to Pisgah
because they lost federal money. The response to the "Contract for America" was
to spilt off the NC Justice Program and three special providers. The reason we
do well in Winston-Salem is because we have resources and a range of advocacy.
In 1962 when the Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina was created, John
Kennedy was President and Martin Luther King was marching in the streets. It was
not created in response to federal money. Now we have about 50% LSC money. Five
years ago we faced a substantial cut in funding.
Kay House explained that LASNNC wants to increase the total size of the pie
and increase the number of clients served. We want to increase the range of
services and increase the number of client issues we meet. Historically, cities
compared to rural areas were over served because that is where poor people live.
We are a long way from getting an office in every county in North Carolina. The
Executive Committee of the Forsyth Count Bar is meeting next week to discuss
whether we can raise local money to free up federal money. We want to expand the
pie and expand the range of issues we address. We want to do class actions
against trailer parks that don't pump out septic tanks and do advocacy to get
housing codes in rural areas.
Kay House said we are tired to fighting for our existence. LASNNC accepts the
notion of a separate corporation that LSC is not in control of. It will be
easier to take this to the Planning Council with the support of the Transition
Board. As for assets, LASNNC purchased the Patton Building in 1978 before we got
LSC federal funding. The United Way paid the mortgage payments. It will be a
nasty fight between United Way and LSC if LSC tried to take our building. LSC
has asked LASNNC to please sign a reversionary agreement, but we said not
because there is not legal reason to do so. LASNNC owns the building that is
worth between $350,000 and $500,000, and the mortgage is almost paid off. We use
a lot of volunteers, and we house the Wake Forest University Law School Clinical
Program.
Regarding resource, LASNNC receives about $400,000 from LSC, $200,000 for
IOLTA and other private funders and $150,000 from the United Way. We want to
expand the pie and the range of services we provide. LASNNC will keep the
building and rent space to LSC. As we raise money locally and reduce staff
through attrition, we will become self-sufficient. This will need backing. We
believe that this 2-prong approach, expending the total pie and range of
services, should be done in every urban area large enough to support local
funding. We can start in Charlotte. We are recommending this as a strategy to
LSC as a way of being a part of an overall integrated delivery system to serve
clients in North Carolina. We can do it better with a locally grounded program
to expand the range of services. We can ask for attorney fees in unfair debt
collection cases and do class actions in local situations. LASNNC's pre-Gingrich
policy was that Kay House could sign off on class actions but no one else. We
use General Assembly money for core services.
Kay House said that if you don't support us then we will have to fight. We
think this is an opportunity to consider this position. When Jim Barrett talked
about Pisgah, we felt it our obligation to explore whether we can recreate
expanding the pie. Kay House recommended that the LSC Transition Board adopt
this as a policy.
Pender McElroy asked Kay House to serve on the Barfield committee, and she
agreed to do so.
Pender McElroy turned to the next agenda item concerning the Notice of Intent
to Compete that is due on May 25, 2001. Melissa Pershing has already filed a
Notice to Compete on behalf of the Transition Board. McElroy stated that the
question is what other organizations should file - all four entities or just one
of them. Based on a conversation with Ran Bell of Womble Carlyle who is an
expert in charitable organizations and non-profit corporations, we are exploring
whether we should form a new 501(c)3 and go through the IRS filing process, or
should we use an existing program, perhaps NCLAP, the Durham program and merge
the other programs.
Pender McElroy said that the LSNC Board felt like it maybe should file a
Notice of Intent to Compete and file for the grant if the Transition Board does
not come out of this process with an agreement. Glenn Barfield said that a lot
of people on the LSNC Board are concerned that we will not be able to work
through the issues that Kay House and Ken Schorr talked about, and they felt
they had a fiduciary duty to file. Glen Barfield offered that he had
reservations about such a filing because some would see it as LSNC's lack of
commitment to this process. The LSNC Board meets today by telephone. There is a
way for LSNC to carry out its fiduciary obligation without filing a Notice of
Intent to Compete. Glenn Barfield felt that he can report that the Transition
Board's action in appointing this new sub-committee shows that they are serious
in addressing these issues, and LSNC can protect its obligation by not filing
the Notice of Intent to Compete. Barfield reiterated to the Transition Board and
others the complete commitment of LSNC to this process and to commit all of
LSNC's resources to the statewide LSC-funded program. We will not signal a
reduction of our commitment to the statewide entity to satisfy our fiduciary
duty of our obligations.
Rick Fay pointed out that for LSNC to file a Notice of Intent to Compete is
not the symbolic gesture that the LSSP Board would like to see. It is hard to
explain the e-mails which have been divisive and not cohesive. This type of
self-protection move by LSNC will give me problems with my LSSP Board.
Ted Fillette said that there is no other program here that can form a
statewide program except the Transition Board. Neither Charlotte, nor
Winston-Salem, nor a few people in Raleigh can plan a statewide program. Glenn
Barfield said that each board left open the possibility that even if the
Transition Board comes up with a plan which the Planning Council signs off on
which is taken back to the four boards, one or more of the boards can still say
no. If this process does breakdown and the four boards do not approve the plan,
the LSNC Board wants to be in a position to step in, but whatever comes out of
that action, it won't be as effective service to the state as what the
Transition Board comes up with.
Kay House stated that letting go is a gradual process. All three boards have
said we will not compete for LSC funding. To file a Notice of Intent to Compete
would suggest that LSNC is not supporting the other three boards on this. Kay
House said she hopes that whatever the LSNC board decides that people in this
room will be committed to the work of the Transition Board. Although it is a
hard decision, she stated she can do that. Whatever happens, make it happen
here. We need to come out of here with a consensus. If we have three breakaway
programs, we will have chaos and that would be the worst thing. We need to keep
our perspective and our vision on this process and our commitment. We need to go
back to this is what we think is best for clients and services. We can say we
have worked hard, we recommend this and we want you to support it.
Willis Williams commented that we have committed to seeing this process work
and it is worthwhile for clients for us to see this process through. Glen
Barfield responded, like Kay House says, letting go takes time. The deadline for
the Notice of Intent to Compete is an artificial one. We will make a positive
report and the prospect for success at the LSNC Board meeting.
Gina Reyman said the Durham board chooses not to file a Notice of Intent to
Compete for LSC funds in 2002. The Durham board has decided not to file, but
consistent with whether the Transition Board asks Durham to file because of
corporation and tax purposes, it will file a Notice of Intent to Compete. As
already mentioned, Melissa Pershing has filed a Notice of Intent to Compete on
behalf of the Transition Board. We also need to keep in mind that LSNC is the
only program currently with offices geographically statewide.
Glenn Barfield made a motion for the purpose of holding open the option of
keeping an existing 501(c)3 corporation for the option of merger that NCLAP, the
Durham program file a Notice of Intent to Compete. Rick Fay seconded that
motion. Gina Reyman responded that the Durham board has not met, but she doesn't
think that filing the Notice of Intent to Compete will be a problem if it's
easier to merge into an existing corporation. Gina Reyman said that,
symbolically, she would rather try to get a new 501(c)3 done. Willis Williams
said that we can always have a name change for an existing corporation if it
makes sense to go the merger route which seems easier.
George Hausen pointed out that if we take the merger option we can
legitimately raise with funders that it is not a start-up corporation, that it
has been a 501(c)3 corporation for 25 years and has a track record.
Barfield's motion passed unanimously.
After the lunch recess, Gina Reyman reported that she had talked with Bob
Echols who has agreed to do the 40-page narrative report for the grant
application. He has already reviewed information on technology and personnel.
Bob Echols has asked that a small group be appointed to meet to discuss the
progress of the grant application. After being informed that Pender McElroy and
Melissa Ditz had already been charged with that responsibility, Bob Echols
suggested that George Hausen be added. Gina Reyman said that Bob Echols is only
to do the narrative part of the grant application, and there are other parts
that also need to be drafted.
Bob Echols needs instruction on three things: The board structure, the
timetable for the management structure, such as when we plan to hire the
executive director by such time, and some discussion about the service area. We
can use office locations and sites that already exist. George Hausen said that
he had already volunteered to join the grant writing team, and Pender McElroy
said let's make it official. The executive directors of the four LSC-funded
programs were also asked to contribute. George Hausen agreed to be the point
person to pull together information which Bob Echols does not yet have.
Glenn Barfield gave a report on the activities of the Governance Committee. He
described the proposed composition of the board structure. The "overlay" model
would have the majority of board members assigned to particular districts or
service areas assigned to particular bar associations and client based
associations, with the assignments rotated around the state. Barfield reported
that Cal Adams thought that the "overlay" model was too complicated and proposed
that permanent seats would be assigned to 5 bar associations. The bars that have
supported the 3 independent programs in Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Durham
would have a specific seat in those service areas.
There would be 24 member seats, 16 attorney and 8 client permanent seats.
In addition to the bars in Charlotte, Winston-Salem and Durham, there would be
permanent seats for the six affinity bars:
* North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers,
* North Carolina Women Attorneys,
* North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers,
* Insurance Defense Bar and
* Gay and Lesbian Attorneys Bar.
Although the Insurance Defense Bar is usually not viewed as supporters of poor
people, they are a large body of litigators to tie in with the Volunteer
Lawyers. Seven seats would be split between the North Carolina Bar Association
and the North State Bar, with the President as a non-rotating seat. Four seats
would rotate outside of the 3 independent programs would include rural and
geographically diverse areas. One seat would be designated to IOLTA. It is
important for IOLTA to have voice on the LSC-funded entity. It is recommended
that five seats go to the North Carolina Bar Association since they are the
parent of LSNC. They also provide cover and have influence with the NC
Legislature.
There would be eight client member seats, with a permanent seat for the Chair
of the Client council and the others split between rural and urban areas, with
four going to rural areas and three to urban centers.
We need a mechanism for defining where client members come from to appoint
from geographically diverse regions. Willis Williams has been asked to find out
what the Client Council wants to do about this. We need some regionalization so
that local boards can select clients.
The affinity bars can also rotate their seats geographically, which will mean
that we will have nine attorney seats rotating around the state. We can have an
overlaying rotation in conjunction with regional service areas. The overall
geographic diversity depends on what the Management Structure Committee decides.
Input from local boards means local buy-in and local tie-in with the statewide
program, which is important for fundraising and private attorney involvement. To
develop a good volunteer lawyer program, local lawyers need to feel connected
with the statewide program. Local boards of trustees will also help with local
priority setting.
George Hausen commented that if we have local programs with lots of autonomy,
the positive side of having local boards will be community ownership where they
control the local budget, participate in local fundraising, and set local
priorities. In Georgia, the branch office of Atlanta does not have the same
sense of community ownership and local involvement. When the local board has
actual control of resources, this may inure to the model Ken Fillette outlined.
Michael Hamden said that it would be good to draw form local board of trustees
with members of local bars to be on the statewide board. Glen Barfield said that
the first plan that he thought of was the "overlay" plan but some Governance
Committee members were concern that this was too complicated. Assigning a member
from Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Durham is similar and is a combination of the
two models. We need to see what the Management Structure Committee proposes as
far as the regions, it may come closer to the "overlay" model. If the affinity
bars choose members through a geographic rotation system this will be a
demographic benefit to legal services systems across the state as well.
Pender McElroy asked if the Governance Committee was looking to the Transition
Board for guidance on local boards. Glenn Barfield said that giving service
areas that have had their own programs like Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and
Durham, a permanent seat is an exceptionally good idea as part of their buy-in
to the statewide program. Allen Johnson said that it is okay for the Client
Council to have a permanent seat, but we need to have the clients come from a
regional structure. Glenn Barfield said there might be seven or eight regions.
Allen Johnson noted that county by county problems are very different. Glenn
Barfield said with seven slots, we can determine how best to represent the
interest of clients.
Willis Williams commented that we don't have client organizations like the
organized bar. How do we get client organizations that can select client
members? The LSC regulations for board composition say it should be 60%
attorneys and 40% client members. This is not even 40% for clients. Allen
Johnson said that we are talking within the Client Council that maybe we should
have sub-committees of groups that have particular affinity such as common goals
and common needs.
Melissa Pershing pointed out that there are some statewide client umbrella
groups such as the NC Justice Center, La Raza, CDC's, and the Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, and there might be a way to do the same with them as with the
affinity bars. Rick Fay asked can't you ask the appointing organizations to
appoint from rural areas? Glenn Barfield answered yes we can, we already
checked. Melissa Pershing noted that it didn't used to be able to do that but
the LSC regulations have changed because it is the only way to achieve
geographic diversity.
Rick Fay asked if the Governance Committee had thought of length of terms, two
years or three years, with a two- term maximum? Glen Barfield responded that
this is the complicated part. This is one thing tricky about the rotation
systems and having terms staggered.
Willis Williams said the main point is how do you have urban and rural
diversity. He was not concerned about the rotation system, he was more concerned
that clients are represented from North Central. Now clients from North Central
select client to serve on the statewide board, and if this is taken away, I
don't know what will happen. That's why the regional "overlay" model is
important. Having local boards is important, and we need to find a way to keep
the local process involved in the selection of statewide board members.
Pender McElroy asked whether the Transition Board was in agreement with where
the Governance Committee is headed. It was. Pender McElroy asked Glenn Barfield
if the Governance Committee needed any other direction from the LSC Transition
Board. Glen Barfield said that they were only interested in the direction of
where the Management Structure Committee is headed. The Governance Committee
hoped to have a written statement by the June 15, 2001 Transition Board meeting.
Tracy Barley gave a report on the activities of the Management Structure
Committee. She said that they had wanted to have the information that they had
requested from the four programs but they had just received it. They have it now
but it is so voluminous they didn't have a chance to review it. The information
is divided between advocacy and administration. We don't have a full
understanding of what people are doing now, how much money will we have, and
will staff be cut. We have given out assignments and we have to teleconference
set up for June 8, 2001 to discuss how to get information in a format to compare
apples with apples. We now have organizations charts, names, salaries, years of
experience, a lot of information. Gina Reyman' assignment is to come up with an
ideal of what the structure should look like and develop an organization chart,
with benefits, assets, etc. Gina Reyman, Kay House and Ken Schorr have given us
information on available resources, and that's what we have assembled for the
Management Structure Committee. It is a lot of material to go through but it is
very detailed.
Michelle Cofield gave a report from the Community Education Committee. Willis
Williams and Rozelle Margolis are on this committee which met eight months ago.
The last document produced is dated April 23, 2000. We conducted a survey of
what legal services programs, not just LSC-funded programs, to see what type of
community education is being provided. The Community Education Committee report
made the following recommendations:
* Community education be made a priority with the client community actively
involved.
* All legal services providers collaborate to develop annual work plans at a
community education training summit.
* All legal services providers should be conscientiously thinking about
community education.
* Educate the client population at task force meetings, advocacy and legal
services training.
The main issue is that ownership for community education should come from the
top down. It is very important to the delivery of legal services, especially
when there is a gap in type of services. It also relates to empowerment of
client.
Melissa Pershing gave a report on the dedicated funding bill in the NC
legislature. She said that dedicated funding is not dead. The bill provides
$1.15 court cost fees for the first year. The language of the dedicated funding
bill had $250,000 off the top for Pisgah that created a triple dip for Pisgah.
These two provisions have now been eliminated. Now there is only the poverty
population distribution calculation for Pisgah. We added language pertaining to
"successor entities." There are two ways we can get funding, through the actual
dedicated funding bill and under the budget bill that is low on the radar
screen. Right now the Appropriations and Budget Committees are meeting behind
doors. We are working with people to talk to the legislators. We need to send
out information on how to contact. She said that lack of information is
positive. There are three key people: Dan Clodfelter, Fountain Odom, and Jim
Black.
Pender McElroy gave a report on the possible corporate structure. He had
talked with Ran Bell. Formation of a new nonprofit corporation can be done
fairly quickly. It may take up to four months to receive confirmation from the
IRS of tax exempt status. We might not be able to get grants during the window
of IRS approval, but it does relate back to the application date when IRS
approval is granted. There will be no members to select the board. It will be a
self-perpetuating board. McElroy had asked Gina Reyman to send him the NCLAP
(Durham) by-laws. Ran Bell is kind to help us because the process involves a lot
of work. Ran Bell will wait for guidance from the Transition Board before
proceeding.
Gina Reyman said that her preference is to get the initial articles of
incorporation in now with the North Carolina Secretary of State. Ran Bell could
go ahead and form the shell non-profit corporation. She had boiler plate
by-laws. Glenn Barfield said that one way is to get the boiler plate language
from Ran Bell to help him understand the structure. Ken Schorr noted that LSC
regulations require other organizations to name the board. The initial by-laws
can name the initial board. We can use the Transition Board as the initial
board. Pender McElroy commented that we can do all of those things.
The last item on the agenda was the selection of a name for the new entity.
After contributions from several members, the following list of names was made:
* LEGAL AID OF NORTH CAROLINA
* LEGAL AID SERVICES OF NORTH CAROLINA
* LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF NORTH CAROLINA
* LEGAL ASSISTANCE CORPORATION OF NORTH CAROLINA
* LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION OF NORTH CAROLINA
* LEGAL SERVICES GROUP OF NORTH CAROLINA
* NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
It was suggested that we have a reference to "client centered" in the name
which will keep us focused. There was a national survey done which said that
"legal aid" has historical and traditional name recognition. Some people think
"legal services" means "pre-paid legal services." Melissa Pershing noted that
"legal aid" is the generic term. Ted Fillette said "legal aid" was used before
1967. When OEO created legal services, it said they wanted a different name
because it was a different program. Within the current program, personnel have
more affinity with "legal services." It was pointed out that most existing
organizations have "legal services" in their names. Pender McElroy pointed out
that we haven't addressed the issue of changing names of the existing program.
Pender McElroy will prepare a memorandum on the list of names and Kay House
will send it out to the field for feedback on the preferences in the field.
Glenn Barfield said that an important consideration in dropping local names is
the negotiating heft when you call from a statewide entity with statewide
resources. We have to balance this with the local buy-in. With statewide
prestige, we can give the name for ourselves and our adversaries. Michelle
Cofield pointed out that a good marketing campaign can take of a new name. Not
changing names kind of goes against the grain of what we are doing.
Glenn Barfield said that we need to let staff know where offices are going to
be, where staff will be and how we will restructure. We need to give the new
board a plan of reorganization and say that the implementation of the
reorganization plan will take at least 12 to 18 months. We will not make a
change earlier than that. We need to reconsider how we will communicate with the
staff earlier. Let's put that on the June 15, 2001 agenda. Ted Fillette
volunteered to do the next statement to the staff and will send it out to Janet
to distribute with the reminder for the next meeting. Richard Klein said that's
important, especially in rural areas for lead time, since it's much more
difficult to hire new staff.
The meeting concluded around 3:15 p.m.
Minutes prepared by Janet K. Ledbetter
Disclaimer
The materials contained on this website are for information and educational
purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Please contact your
Legal Aid of North Carolina office or a private attorney if you need to speak to
an attorney regarding your particular situation. See our complete
disclaimer.
Mission Statement
Legal Aid of North Carolina is a statewide, nonprofit law firm that
provides free legal services in civil matters to low-income people in
order to ensure equal access to justice and to remove legal barriers
to economic opportunity.