Guest Column
The State Bar Does Not Need a New Facility
By Robert R. Goepel
In September the Board of Governors authorized $10,000 to study sites
and requirements for a new Bar building. It now appears that both the
current Facilities Committee and the Project Vision Task Force have
adopted the view that a new building is needed. This is a direct
turnaround from recommendations and decisions made in the last several
years by the Facilities Committee and the Board of Governors.
In 1995 the Facilities Committee reported that a new building was not
required. It suggested that management proceed to relieve some apparent
overcrowding by: technologically enabling certain employees to work at
home; adapting flexible hours; and exploring "outsourcing " for
services.
In June 1996 the Board of Governors authorized management to rent
nearby space that could hold up to 18 employees. But management asserted
that the staff did not want to be split up and instead converted much of
the assembly hall on the lower level to office and conference space.
In December 1996 the Facilities Committee met again, deciding that
space was sufficient until at least the year 2000, but management should
get to work on the issues of working at home, flexible hours for use of
the building and outsourcing of services.
In June 1997 the Facilities Committee recommended that before
thinking about a new building, management should hire
consultants/specialists to examine staff needs and make recommendations
on the "reengineering" of staff. In 16 years we increased staff from 35
to approximately 78. No such professional study has been made.
Instead, the current Facilities Committee simply concluded that the
issue of a new building had been "studied to death" and now was the time
for action. Now is really the time for action on the following
items:
1) Study whether staff can be reduced.
2) Implement a plan for 10 percent of the employees to work at home
or offsite with minimal requirements of space at the Bar Center.
3) Implement a fair study of flexible hours for use of the
building.
4) Conduct a fair investigation of whether CLE Books and Seminars can
be located either close to the Bar Center or in an entirely separate
location, perhaps near Milwaukee.
5) Study whether we are housing too many related agencies such as
WisTAF, the Wisconsin Bar Foundation and the Coalition for Justice.
6) Interview members, judges and government leaders as to whether
moving the Bar Center out of downtown Madison sends the "wrong message"
to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Legislature, University and City of
Madison.
7) Implement a genuine study of adding a fourth level, which
engineering studies have consistently shown to be both feasible and
contemplated by the original design. (This idea has been currently
summarily dismissed because of the so-called parking problem.)
None of the above has been given a fair study or trial. Governance is
informed by management that "this option has not worked out very well"
or "the staff would not be happy with that idea."
We have a capable and well-paid staff. I have worked with them in
various capacities. Staff receives very good pay and benefits, and
appear to be perfectly happy working at the current location.
Our Bar Center and land is worth approximately $1.1 million and is
debt free. We are located one block from Lake Monona with easy access to
John Nolen Drive and to downtown Madison. We are within a couple blocks
of the new Monona Terrace and the new Kohl Center in an improving
neighborhood.
False arguments of proponents
Let me summarize for you the anecdotal arguments made by proponents
of a new building:
1) Parking. Proponents say that we must move due to
inadequate parking in the area. This is false. For 20 years parking has
been at a premium in that area, and yet we have gone from a $4 million
budget to $8.9 billion annual budget, all the time with such
profitability that dues represent only about 32 percent of total
expenditures. We have been able to obtain low-cost parking spaces at a
nearby business. Parking will improve dramatically by completion of
Monona Terrace, two blocks in one direction, and the Kohl Center, two
blocks in the other direction. Parking for staff and volunteers will
thus be addressed without relocating.
2) Meeting space for Board of Governors and
committees. Proponents claim that we need more space and
parking at the Bar facility for these functions. I disagree. The Board
of Governors does and should meet in various locations around the state.
Meeting outside of Madison is good for both the board and the members.
It gives both the opportunity to mix with local Bar members, keeping Bar
leaders in touch with the members. Committee meetings and CLE seminars
are best held offsite, except for the Executive Committee, Finance
Committee, Law-related Education and Lawyer Referral and Information
Service. If, for some reason, a committee needs to meet at the Bar
Center, it can certainly meet at the nearby Monona Terrace.
During my service on the Facilities Committee we asked staff to check
with Monona Terrace and got back a very bleak report. But when a
committee member personally spoke with Monona Terrace officials, we
learned that they would be delighted to have committee meetings and CLE
seminars at Monona Terrace, which would provide low-cost parking, and
pick up and delivery service of instructional materials. There has been
absolutely no fair attempt on management's part to work out such an
arrangement with Monona Terrace.
3) We need a "smart" building. Proponents simply
assume that even with adding a fourth level our building could never be
outfitted for information-age communications such as delivery of CLE
through cable and/or satellite communications. There has been absolutely
no professional study of whether we could simply add on a fourth level
and build in the types of communications required for the future.
4) Claim of an unsafe neighborhood. Proponents claim
that crime is on the increase in this neighborhood and that the
employees are "afraid" to walk in the neighborhood. I believe that our
employees like this neighborhood, enjoy its proximity to downtown
Madison and feel quite safe. It is a near perfect mix of business and
residential. After suffering through many years when the neighborhood
was less than it is now, it is ironic for proponents to claim we must
now move because it is unsafe. Milo Flaten (formerly of the Board of
Governors and the Facilities Committee) advises
that the neighborhood is now much more desirable from the standpoint
of improvements and reduction in crime. Statistics he received from the
City of Madison police department and Plan Commission confirm that crime
is decreasing in our neighborhood.
5) Need for seminar space and parking. Proponents
claim that we need a bricks-and-mortar solution for successful CLE
programing in the Madison area. Yet CLE seminars are conducted statewide
at various rented locations which have paid for their own buildings and
parking. Lawyers further than 60 miles from Madison are not likely to
travel to Madison. Using State Bar funds to furnish this approach to CLE
in Madison would simply require attorneys statewide to supplement Dane
County attorneys, including Milwaukee attorneys who have their own CLE
facilities connected with the Milwaukee Bar Association.
6) Member education about a new facility. Proponents
argue that if only members understood how overcrowded the Bar facility
is, then they would certainly want a new Bar Center. I disagree. I think
if the members understood the current anecdotal and sloppy approach
taken in lieu of genuine professional studies, they would be appalled.
Proponents argue that the issue has been "studied to death." The fact is
that none of the recommendations noted above has ever received more than
lip service from management.
7) Financial implications. Proponents have been
strangely silent about how much a new building would cost, how it would
be paid for, and so on. Make no mistake. Whether our profit-generating
enterprises continue to earn money, the costs of a new facility fall
squarely on the shoulders of each member. Budget projections for the
next three years show proposed spending of more than $800,000 on a new
facility, which would be assumed to cost more than $4 million. Even a
slight dropoff in our CLE books and seminar income could result in a
hefty dues increase. Nevertheless, proponents and a few staff will
collaboratively invent fantastic figures based on "projected" savings
and so on, which show that spending a lot of money on a new building
will be the best thing since the bull market. Those are the kind of
figures that lie.
Robert R. Goepel, Chicago-Kent 1982, of
Goepel Law Office, Racine, is the immediate past chair and a former
member of the State Bar Board of Governors.
A political decision
It is my belief that when management converted much of the assembly
hall on the lower level to office space, rather than rent nearby space
for 12 to 18 people, it did so for the political reason of keeping the
building crowded. They formulated figures demonstrating savings from
renovation of the lower level as compared to renting nearby space. But
in the end, if the failure to rent nearby space results in a decision to
finance an entire new facility, was any money saved? In summary, a new
building is not needed, is staff driven (with help from a few "elders"
of the Bar), poorly documented in terms of exploration of alternatives,
a burden upon the members and sold by a campaign of misinformation.
Questions or Comments?
For more background on the State Bar facility or to provide feedback
to the Facilities
Committee, please visit WisBar's
Bar Center Homepage.
If you prefer to contact Facilities Committee members by phone or
fax, please consult the online roster.
Wisconsin
Lawyer