Meeting Minutes - Transition Board
Transition Board of Directors - Legal Aid of North Carolina
June 15, 2001 Meeting (BOD Mtg #4)
Joint Meeting with the Legal Services Planning Council
Wake Forest University School of Law
Present: Pender McElroy, Allen Johnson, Willis Williams, Leo Allison, David
Daggett, Linda Rollock, Glenn Barfield, Frank Queen.
Planning Council Guests: Gina Reyman, Ted Fillette, Melissa Pershing, Mary Lee
Hall, Jim Barrett, Kay House, Michael Hamden.
Guests: Jennifer Stewart, Bill Rowe, Debra Tyler-Horton, George Hausen, Mel
Ditz, Mary Lee Hall, Kellie Fleshman, Roselle Margolis, Lynn Chance, Janet
McCauley-Blue, Ken Schorr.
Introductions, Approval of Minutes and Agenda (Pender McElroy)
After all who were present introduced themselves, the board approved the
minutes from the previous meeting as written. The board approved the agenda with
one addition: The Planning Council Presentation.
Legal Services Planning Council Presentation The presentation began with
individual introductions by Planning Council members.
Jim Barrett serves at the executive director for Pisgah Legal Services
(PLS; Buncombe, Henderson, Madison, Polk, Rutherford, and Transylvania counties)
where he has worked for 18 years. PLS is a non-LSC-funded program. There are
about 60,000 low income people in his service area. About 16 advocates serving
those six counties including the advocates from Appalachian Legal Services (LSNC
program). Provided handouts for the group.
Willis Williams serves as a client board member of LSNC and spoke on behalf of
Vernessa Taylor (Planning Council member representing client issues). Clients
are concerned that the client council be involved in shaping the decision about
Legal Services configuration before the fact. The Client Council needs to be
involved with priority setting and it should take into account what the client
needs are. Clients want to see visible impact on their lives.
Michael Hamden serves at the executive director for NC Prisoner Legal Services
(statewide program) where he has worked for 15 years. His program employs 15
lawyers and 10 paralegals. Funding is a little different: 98% derived from a
contract with NC Department of Corrections. This program does not get federal
money. IOLTA is next largest funder. This program benefits from participating in
the Planning Council; effective means for a deliberate and coordinated means of
delivery of services.
Mary Lee Hall is the managing attorney of the Farmworker Unit of Legal
Services of North Carolina (statewide program for migrant farm workers). Her
role is to help be the voice of migrant farm workers. North Carolina has the
sixth largest number of migrant farm workers and the largest number of H2A
workers in the country.
Michelle Cofield serves as the director of public service activities for the
North Carolina Bar Association (NCBA). She has served four years as a legal
services attorney at North State Legal Services in the early to mid 1990s. She
serves as the Bar Association’s liaison to the legal services community and
helps coordinate activities to promote legal services within the NCBA.
Ted Fillette serves as the deputy director of Legal Services of Southern
Piedmont (Cabarrus, Gaston, Mecklenburg, Stanly, and Union counties), which is
an independent program that predated the creation of LSNC – 1967. He has been
there since in 1973 (except one year in an LSNC program in the east). Prior to
the LSC restrictions, this program did a significant amount of the legislative
advocacy and class action work statewide.
Kay House represents Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina (Davie,
Forsyth, Iredell, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin counties), established in 1962, where
she serves as the executive director. There are eight advocates and a total
staff of 16. Over the years, there have been a large number of landlord tenant
and consumer cases out of the appellate courts, e.g., Ellis case–effective
rights to claim exempt property. First money from LSC back before it was LSC
(office of economic opportunity). Thorns Craven was a former director.
Melissa Pershing services as the executive director of Legal Services of North
Carolina (for a few more weeks). LSNC recently celebrated 25 years of service.
LSNC was created by NCBA in the mid seventies to fit around preexisting programs
across the state. LSNC field programs serve 83 counties (which are the counties
not served by LSSP, LASNNC and NCLAP) LSNC employs about 200 staff, about 90 of
whom are lawyers. LSNC has 12 field programs. The field program directors are
represented on the Planning Council by the chair of the program directors’
group. LSNC’s Domestic Violence Initiative program is coordinated at the LSNC
Central Office. There is a domestic violence attorney in all LSNC programs.
There are three other statewide programs–Advocates for Children’s Services
(formerly the Mental Health Unit), Environmental Poverty Law Program and the
Farmworker Unit.
Bill Rowe represents the NC Justice Center & Community Development Center,
where he and deputy director, Debra Tyler-Horton, are serving as interim
co-directors. What is now known as the "Justice Center" was formerly called the
"Resource Center" for legal services. When legal services support units were
"defunded", the Resource Center closed and reorganized as the NC Justice &
Community Development Center. Litigation unit. Some class actions were inherited
and others were initiated by the Justice Center. Work and efforts undertaken by
the Justice Center include immigration work farm worker work, legislative work.
The Tax Center is a grassroots effort and works with the legal services effort.
Gina Reyman serves as the Planning Council chair. She works at North Central
Legal Assistance Program as the executive director. NCLAP has about 13 staff
members.
Thirteen members make up the Planning Council. Members who were not present:
Dale Deese (chair of the LSNC Program Directors Group), Stephon Bowens (Land
Loss Prevention Project), Deborah Greenblatt (Carolina Legal Assistance),
Vernessa Taylor (client rep).
Historical presentation of the delivery system: by Mary Lee Hall. Mary Lee’s
presentation was aided by transparencies and a handout outlining the historical
progression of the legal services delivery system. The presentation began in
1962 with the establishment of the Legal Aid Society in Winston-Salem, the
Office of Economic Opportunity (OEC; predecessor to Legal Services Corporation)
and the War on Poverty.
The presentation progressed through the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Hall passed
out a handout that tracked her presentation. (Please review the handout for this
portion of the presentation.)
Consolidation in 1998. Pisgah Legal Services (Asheville) left the LSNC
confederation. Appalachian Legal Services was created to serve that area with
Legal Services Corporation (LSC) funds. The Farmworker Unit was "defunded" and
folded into LSNC. The Grower’s Association tried to block all state funding for
all LSC programs.
In May 1999, the Planning Council was convened. (Handout on the Vision). The
Planning Council looked at the justice community broadly. Onion metaphor:
Towards the center of the onion–people involved with direct advocacy for poor
people, which includes the organizations presently on the Planning Council.
Federally funded and not federally funded programs are included. The Planning
Council is trying to figure out the best possible way to deliver services in the
best and most efficient way possible. The Planning Council hopes to gain
efficiencies by working together.
Gina Reyman, Planning Council chair, officially request that a member of the
Transition Board be appointed to the Planning Council.
Pender McElroy thanked the Planning Council for the presentation noting that
the historical presentation was fascinating.
McElroy called for motion to appoint member to the Planning Council. Moved by
Frank Queen. Seconded by Glenn Barfield. Motion passed unanimously. Frank Queen
consented to serve on the Planning Council.
Jim Barrett added that his program raised $650,000 in 1995. Currently they are
at $1 million. It is a big deal with his board to raise money locally. Pisgah
Legal Services has doubled the number of clients served since 1995. They have
also expanded the pie of money to serve low income people. Feels that he would
be remiss if he didn’t report this.
Report from Barfield Committee (Glenn Barfield)
Members: GlennBarfield, Willis Williams, Rick Fay, Ken Schorr, Ted Fillette,
Kay House, Michael Hamden, Pender McElroy (ex officio), George Hausen. The chair
suggested adding/appointing two additional Planning Council members to the
group–Gina has agreed. McElroy intends to secure another person and will report
this back to the Transition Board.
McElroy is concerned about timing of the work. He hopes that the Committee to
have a recommendation to the Transition Board at the July 27 meeting with
respect to the programs and services of the new entity and the Charlotte and
Winston Salem programs. Committee needs to schedule at least two in-person
meetings before July 27. Face to face meetings are crucial to this process.
Committee Report (Glenn Barfield)
The committee met for the first time on June 3, 2001 in Charlotte at McElroy’s
office. The issues addressed were: (1) How will services be provided in the
service areas served by Charlotte, Winston-Salem?; and (2) To what extent will
the resources be folded in? Retain resources/personnel?
The committee is looking at two models:
1. Plan A. Folds the majority of the resources into the statewide program.
Doing the same work that’s being done by the programs. Still allows to leave in
place some smaller units to do work that the Justice Center is doing now–network
of providers to do that work and working with the Justice Center in those areas
and other areas of the state. This plan contemplates more of a seamless
transition, would be subject to the general administration.
2. Plan B. More of a splitting of these programs. Would be two programs in
these areas providing basic field services. Would involve splitting some
practice areas. Maybe would involve an expansion of the practice areas. Basic
needs type assessments. Would do some unrestricted work. LSC–funded and locally
funded. Sharing of state resources. Missions would overlap to some extent. Would
need to cooperate on how to divide up the practice areas.
Report from LSSP on Plan B (Ted Fillette)
Unrestricted component of the Charlotte program by looking at what they do
best and what they have done historically. How they could work with the types of
needs the clients have and how the restricted work could fill those needs?
Reorganizing the resources to give them more flexibility to help the clients and
helping other practitioners in the state to do things they need help with that
the Justice Center may not be able to help with and other impact work. Three
main areas of practicing this approach makes sense to their organization:
1. Benefits. Prior to the Justice Center, LSSP did most of the statewide
benefits work. Doug Sea (LSSP staff attorney) has been doing most of this work
for more than 20 years. There is a need for administrative advocacy that goes
hand in hand with the litigation. Time to re-establish that capacity.
2. Hispanic Population. New phenomenon for them. Increased more than 1000%
since 1999. Between 40K and 50K Hispanics in their service area. LSSP has hired
3 bilingual lawyers. Can’t serve undocumented people. Makes sense for the
bilingual lawyers to serve whole families/communities. Administrative advocacy,
community organizations, etc. Funding by unrestricted sources so that they can
provided remedies that make sense.
3. Landlord Tenant work and Housing. Before JC, most of the legislature and
administrative housing work for the state was done out of Charlotte. Helped
start the Resource Center. Fillette was one of those people. Practitioners from
across the state call Charlotte for help with their cases. That role continues.
A lot of the lobbying needs to be done on a local/regional level. Charlotte
could continue to provide this service on the regional/local level. Work that
can be done now. Some of it is already being done now by their staff who "work
of the clock" and go under someone else’s umbrella. Question of reorganizing how
the two programs would work together. Staff would like to have the additional
capacities. Doesn’t want to split up the staff. Think they can do this by not
splitting up the staffs.
Report from LASNNC on Plan B (Kay House)
LASNNC was very impressed with what Pisgah had done with local fundraising and
decided to take a look at that. LASNNC has tripled their United Way funding over
the past three years. Forsyth County has the highest per capita United Way
giving than any other in the nation. LASNNC has diversified its funding
portfolios. Diversity of funding sources is crucial to stable funding. Her board
asked her to do a feasibility study to determine if they could increase the
range of services and range of funding. Access to Justice Campaign–wants 21st
JD to increase their contributions over a specified period of time. They gave
her a cautious "yes." LASNNC has become more collegial with the other attorneys
which has helped the relationships. LASNNC should be just like the private bar
in what they do–21st JD agreed.
The various funding sources have some restrictions based upon what the grant
is for. LSC says that you cannot use another. If LASNNC can get support from
Transition Board, the Planning Council and IOLTA, they think they can do some
sort of collaboration "lap joint" with the colleagues in Greensboro (Central
Carolina Legal Services). LASNNC would export the LSC money to the rural areas.
LASNNC feels it needs a local board with local control. To convert on the fund
raising piece, they would have to be a basic field service program and cooperate
with Greensboro.
Advantages of Plan A (George Hausen)
This board needs to keep its focus on establishing a program for the basic
needs of the poor people–to establish a basic legal services program. Hausen
thought the Planning Council would decide how the unrestricted work should get
done. The Planning Council should have a voice in the conversation of taking
money from basic field services out to go to local programs and not to
speciality programs. Not sure that legislative will agree with that. Pisgah
state funding is not the same situation in other areas. Each of the other
funders impose restrictions; concerned about that. You follow the money and not
the need in many instances. Not always able to fund the need.
Barfield favors Plan A. He is concerned about Plan B in that you have to
depend upon two separate organizations and boards to work out to be cooperative.
He is also concerned that their may be competition and that splitting things up
will mean competition for PAI (private attorney involvement) and local
connections. LSNC has worked hard to resolve the issues in Asheville. Saying you
will cooperate does not mean it will be done. There are differences of opinion
about state funding based upon history, etc.–some think the legislature would
want funds to go to the state program and others think that general assembly
would be willing for it to be divided up differently.
Hausen also believed that the way the proposals are now, the statewide funded
program would be limited to its LSC money. That would mean no competition for
local money, no local attachment for the local bar or community. Statewide
program would end up with the characteristics of the local DSS (department of
social services) office. Pisgah Legal Services continues to do basic needs cases
and is very concerned about continuing to raise money for those kinds of cases.
Appalachian Legal Services (LSNC) does what Pisgah does not do. Pisgah has a
stronger PAI program.
McElroy wants the Barfield Committee to stick to the July 27 deadline in
coming up with their recommendation. Williams is concerned that clients may not
be able to sort through the delivery of basic legal services.
It was reported that IOLTA would really like us to do a needs assessment of
special populations, whether we are using our money in the best way. Some of
this discussion will take place in the Planning Council.
McElroy agreed that the purpose of the Transition Board is to formulate set of
programs for one statewide program to be funded by LSC money in all 100 counties
in the state. It’s not quite that simple in his view. There are some of the
other questions that need to be addressed in this group. Meetings are open. Not
trying to go around the Planning Council. Time frame for making decisions is
shorter tan the Planning Council’s ability to look at things long range. We also
have four strong ind programs to work out as a statewide with all coming
together. Two of them think things out to be done in a way that will work out as
suggested–contrary to the entire purpose of this board. Need to try to address
these other issues in order to accomplish the ultimate goal.
Pershing felt that there has not been a really good vision for Plan A. Vision
of Plan A would be based upon what Willis said: How do clients get to where they
need to go? All basic needs would be met. Statewide program is like a primary
care physician. The intake/patient history would happen at that level. When
there is a need for a specialist (doing what is restricted or the program can’t
do) then there would need to be a referral out. Concerned about splitting
resources and having so much overlap. There is a realization about funding
sources: Three sources of funds can be used for operation and infrastructure
(LSC, IOLTA, State) with LSC being the most stable funding source. IOLTA and
State funds would not be enough together to provide this. Must ensure that
client basic needs are being met in all 100 counties. System needs to be
navigable by clients and talk to attorney within 24 hours. Consistency in the
level of service. LSC funds are the only ones available that can put together
that kind of system.
Barfield Committee’s next meeting: LSNC’s Central Office will send out dates
he will propose. Possibly July 13 and 14 at the same time as the client council
meeting in Wilmington. Bob Gross (LSC) will attend this meeting if he is
available.
Reports from Planning Council
(No other reports from the Planning Council.)
Subgrants/Youells Letter (Pender McElroy)
Regarding the June 6, 2001 letter from Randi Youells (LSC vice president for
programs).
Note page 3: short term subgrants. If we are not ready by January 1, 2002, LSC
would permit us to continue under the current configuration through short term
subgrant while finalizing. Obvious advantage is time.
Discussion surrounding the advantages and disadvantages of the LSC subgrant.
Some saw it as an advantage for the larger programs to have that time frame to
make the transition to a statewide program. It was also suggested that by
accepting the LSC subgrant (the Transition Board), there would be another set of
complexities involved with receiving that money. For example there may be a full
audit for the three-six months’ worth of money received. It was also suggested
that by contemplating a six-month subgrant, staff may feel that there is more
stability.
The notice requirement for the subgrant is part of the LSC grant application
which is due July 2, 2001. By giving notice in the July 2 grant application, we
would preserve the option to accept the subgrant. If the program is not merged
by December 31, 2001, then LSC will require the subgrant.
If we contemplate the use of the subgrant for the purpose of garnishing more
time for planning and decision-making, then that is not the best reason to use
the subgrant. It was also suggested that if we do accept the subgrant, there
needs to be an administrative office and support personnel in place to receive
and administer the grant.
McElroy stated that the board needs to decide whether it will submit a notice
of the potential to apply for a subgrant. The notice says: "intends."
Glenn Barfield moved that the Transition Board and the four LSC-funded
programs/boards sign the forms for the intent to submit the subgrant. Seconded
by Frank Queen.
Discussion: Kay House stated that she did not feel that she could make the
decision about the subgrant as the executive director. She plans to discuss this
with her board at their June 25 meeting. She also further stated that she hoped
that there would be the understanding that they (LASNNC) would work to preserve
the option but not a commitment to be an LSC grantee. McElroy stated that he did
not see that there was a problem with signing the subgrant intent document. This
is a consensual process and no one is forced to stay at the table. The motion
passed.
Governance Committee Report (Glenn Barfield)
McElroy appointed Barfield to co-chair this Committee, to step in when Cal
Adams (chair) cannot participate. McElroy stated that because we are on a tight
time schedule the committees should accelerate their work.
Barfield stated that not much progress since last transition board. Good
consensus on how they put the board together. Wants to come to next transition
board meeting with recommendations regarding local boards of trustees or
advisory boards. Need info from management committee on the delivery system.
Will help with determining matters of the local boards.
Ran Bell has completed the A/I (articles of incorporation), the draft of
bylaws and the IRS stuff in the handout here.
The Client Council will have a request to increase the board by two client
members. By adding client slots the board composition would be within the LSC
guidelines. Barfield will make that suggestion.
Review of Corporate Documents prepared by Ran Bell (Pender McElroy)
Legal Documents prepared by Ran Bell. Unable to meet with us until August. It
takes up to 4 months for the 501(c)3. Bell can file an amending document if
necessary. She will file Articles of Incorporation and adopted bylaws and send
in the IRS application for 501(c)3 status. Bylaws here are generic to a legal
services organization. Initial directors are to get this off the
ground–representative from each of the programs--Cal Adams, Glenn Barfield,
Tracy Barley, Pender McElroy. The interim board would be the Transition Board
for the time being. Once all done, then the Transition Board members become the
directors.
Call for motion to approve filing of articles of Incorporation, have initial
directors adopt bylaws, and file the 501(c)3 application. Moved by Williams.
Seconded by Barfield. Discussion: Allen Johnson concerned that there is no
client members on the initial board. McElroy explained that the Transition Board
members then become members of the new entity. The motion passed.
Governance Committee Report (continued)
Adding additional members gets the board up to about 27 members—1/3 affinity
bar, 1/3 attorneys geographically, 1/3 clients selected geographically. Local
boards is a question–more locally based than the regional structure they are
talking about. Open question as to what duties would they have. Important for
the local bar to have much input.
It was clear from discussion that it is very important to have the local
connection with local bar associations for volunteer lawyers programs and
fundraising. There was the sense that the Transition Board members would want
local boards or advisory boards. It is important to the Client Council that
there be local involvement. Banks are a good analogy. Local boards have the
advisory capacity. No particular authority, but forms local base of support and
constituency.
Management Structure Committee Report (Allen Johnson)
McElroy appointed Allen Johnson co-chair of this committee.
June 8 conference call. Regionalism and management structure. Soft boundaries
would be easier across boundaries.
1. All local offices maintained and provide local services.
2. Five regions: Charlotte (and west), Triad, Triangle, Northeast, Southeast.
3. Each region would be responsible for its own local fundraising,
coordination of advocacy, training, etc.
There was no agreement where it should be located. This Committee suggested
that it is possible for it to be located within a program. Look at each function
to determine whether they should be relocated. For example, technology is
currently in WS. Guidelines should be developed. 12-18 months.
There is a need to have someone in the executive director position. No
agreement whether it would be an interim or an acting. Would bring it to this
board to make this decision.
There was committee disagreement on what authority should be delegated to
local boards. The committee disagreed on actual structure. The committee asked
program directors to come up with their views.
There was discussion by the Committee about the autonomy of regional directors
and how they relate to the executive director. Power should rest with the
executive director, power should rest with regions (flatter management model).
People within the regions would be on the team concept. Leadership within the
region would rotate around.
McElroy stated that there is a need to have some one who is clearly in
charge–executive director. He stated that he supports having for regional
directors, but you cannot manage by committee. Maybe we will have an interim
director; maybe the new board ought to hire the new exec director.
The Committee had some concerns about traditional management structure.
Pershing stated that she was not necessarily a proponent of the team management.
Teams are formed according to what needs to get done. Wants there to be a
discussion on what the options are. Potential for chaos given this community and
where we are at this particular time. Queen stated that he was against uniform
regional structure across the state. There is some benefit of regional when
there is a large geographic areas and lots of offices.
Some of the other issues expressed during this report include the ability for
the managers within the new organization would be able to bring their ideas to
the group as a team and to be able to come to consensus. It was noted that it is
part of the Legal Services culture to make decisions by consensus. The executive
directors will provide this committee with more detail by the next meeting of
the committee. It was also suggested that local boards would be able to help
make determinations regarding how things may work in regions.
There was a lot of discussion about the size of the regions. Some concern was
expressed about the West region’s size, i.e. everything west of Charlotte. There
was concern that there was no regional center in another part of western North
Carolina. Some discussion that the size of the regions may depend upon what you
do with the local programs.
Johnson invited comments from everyone regarding the management committee’s
charge. The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for June 20 by conference
call.
Available resources on agenda
(skipped)
New Entity or Durham
The Board decided not to decide whether we will form the new entity or use
the existing entity of North Central Legal Assistance Program.
New Name
During the board’s discussion of a name for the new entity, a number of
issues were discussed including: the Client Council’s recommendation that "aid"
be in the name in that it represents free services, the marketing study showed
that "legal aid" supports the Client Council’s recommendation, that each office
have a dba ("doing business as"), e.g. Legal Aid of Gaston County, and that the
name be simple so that clients can find the office.
Motion (by Queen): "The new entity be named Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc."
Seconded by Allison. The motion carried.
New Business
(No new business.)
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent.
Minutes prepared by Michelle Cofield
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.