Vol. 70, No. 12, December
1997
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
|
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. |
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.
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.
|