Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 82, No. 9, September 2009

You are probably aware that the State Bar’s finances are a great secret. As president I cannot see the payroll. Your treasurer cannot see the payroll. Your Finance Committee cannot see the payroll. This is due to a “policy” – and I can’t see that either. Yet more than half the budget is spent in the black box called “payroll.”

The rest of the budget items come through the Strategic Planning Committee. The committee historically had 22 members, nine of whom were State Bar employees, with full voting rights.

Projects to be considered for the budget are advanced by various groups, including committees, sections, divisions, and, of course, staff.

The Strategic Planning Committee assigned pairs of integers, from 0 to 5, for each proposal: The first number related to the degree the idea was in harmony with the State Bar’s strategic plan, and the second number was a judgment made of the instrumentality or the practicality of the plan in question. For example, the Lawyers Dispute Resolution Committee came forward with the idea that they wanted to increase the visibility of the State Bar with local bars by making a presentation to the Solo and Small Firm Conference in October. They sought to convince the Strategic Planning Committee that it would work toward the Bar’s goal number 4B, “Increase use/purchase/contacts/attendance of SBW programs, etc.” That project was given a 5 for its harmony with the stated goals, and a second 5 for its practicality. It therefore was a shoo-in to the budget. The suggested cost (and I don’t know whether this was known to Strategic Planning) was $925.

The budget is built by our staff around these pairs of integers. The budget is then presented to the Finance Committee as a one- or two-page document. At no point, unless they ask, is Finance told that the Lawyers Dispute Resolution Committee has been allocated $925 in the budget to make a presentation to the Solo and Small Firm Conference.

The budget is then sent on to the Executive Committee, which is charged to “prepare an annual budget for submission to the Board of Governors” (SCR 10.06(2)). But the Board of Governors also has no more information than the Finance Committee had.

Generally, some small part of the budget is put before the Executive Committee for a decision: This year it was a question of closing a $50,000 hole caused by the downturn in the stock market and poor performance of our investments. Staff suggested various things that could be cut out of the budget, and we (at Exec) managed to make up the $50,000. The project put forth by the Lawyers Dispute Resolution Committee for the October presentation was never a candidate for a cut. It was never specifically identified.

From there the budget goes to the Board of Governors. They can’t approve it fast enough. And indeed, how does a group of 50-some lawyers go about analyzing something as complicated as an $11 million budget? Like any good board, it ratifies the careful work of the Finance and Executive committees.

Here is an example of how this protocol can lead to problems.

This proposal came from an internal department. The idea was to engage in a “Wisconsin positioning program (brand), to establish a clear and defined position for the State Bar of Wisconsin that can be consistently communicated by staff and leadership to include: a. Identify core association attributes/brand promises; b. Design graphic identity program including … symbol, slogan, brand hierarchy…; d. Operationalize the brand…., etc.” So we’re about to be rebranded – again.

The plan was to “engage the members and staff to serve as brand ambassadors.” Folks, this is another logo coming your way. The one we did four years ago must be worn out.

The project was set forth in a four- or five-page memo that was given to the Executive Committee either after or just before it had approved the budget and sent it on to the Board of Governors. You can’t see that memo. The board can’t see that memo. The supreme court can’t see that memo. It’s under lock and key on the Web site for Executive Committee members only. (Don’t take my word for it – look for yourself.) And, while we are at it, don’t try to see the plans submitted to Strategic Planning: “The plans will be loaded to wisbar.org on the Strategic Planning Committee site under the member only area.” (Minutes of S.P. meeting 1/8/09.)

On to Strategic Planning it went, where it received 4 points for its harmony with the State Bar’s 7-point Strategic Plan (though the proponents revealed it is “our priority and goal does not support any of the priorities and goals” of the Bar’s Strategic Plan), and 3.6 points for its instrumentality. The projected cost (and again, I don’t know when or if this was revealed to Strategic Planning) was $91,915. Neither Exec nor Finance had any idea another “rebranding” was being considered. It slid into the budget slicker than a buttered doorknob.

I still don’t have any idea what this project is ultimately going to cost, but I do know that the staff spent $17,000 last year and plans to spend $55,000 this year on an outside consultant alone. I know of no breakdown of staff costs, publishing costs, or other costs that are connected with this project.

The proposed logo to date looks like this or perhaps like this .
The three columns make you think of a “W.” The lines across the top make you think of a building. Taken together they make you think of the front view of the State Bar building. The symbol therefore, I am told, will elicit in the most casual observer the notion of justice in Wisconsin.

I invite your attention to the logo that a Realtor in Wisconsin is using , one that is used by a trust company , and one that is used by some defunct savings and loan company .

I also invite you to look at the back of a penny – I think you’ll see this logo is already in use all over the country. I, for one, am not overwhelmed with the notion of justice in Wisconsin by these symbols. I doubt the board is either.

That’s how it is folks. If it stays in the budget, it will cost you about $4. I don’t know if this includes sentence fragments like “Expert advisors” or if that will require another consultant and another charge. The problem isn’t the four bucks – it’s that the program was approved by the board unwittingly.

Changes have been made. I made them. I hope you are pleased. There are no longer any of our employees on this committee. Any project that is approved by Strategic Planning will have a price tag attached to it and the fiscal realities will be shown to Finance and Executive. And they may want to “rebrand” the Bar – but at least the process will be based on transparency and accountability.

Hopefully this will improve the quality of the sausage.   

Wisconsin Lawyer