Contact the Facilities Committee

Guest Column

State Bar's Programs
Outgrow Current Facility

By Gerald M. O'Brien

The State Bar's current facility, built in the 1950s and expanded in the early 1980s, no longer meets the association's needs. For more than five years,

During the next couple months, you will read and hear much about this issue, and you should be well-informed when the committee brings a recommendation to the Board of Governors in January. You will have an opportunity to voice your opinion and get answers to your questions. First, though, let me bring you up to date on the activities during the past few years.

Facilities study history

In June 1993, after member concerns were raised about the lack of space for CLE seminars and other member services, the Long-Range Planning Committee, chaired by G. Lane Ware, reported to the Board of Governors that "the Board should decide either to reduce the current level of Bar activities or make plans to acquire a larger facility that can be used as the base for Bar operations." The Board of Governors chose not to reduce the level of Bar member service and public outreach programs and thus subsequent facilities committees have attempted to provide more physical space for State Bar operations.

In April 1994 the Facilities Committee authorized the Zimmerman Design Group of Milwaukee to provide initial space-planning analysis and cost estimates. The committee also examined adding an additional story to half of the Bar Center and purchasing or leasing existing space near the Bar Center. The committee concluded these solutions were not long-term options.

In August 1994 then chair Jim Pouros said he "had reached the same conclusion that the Long-Range Planning Committee had reached in 1993: the State Bar needs a new facility in order to continue to deliver services to the members."

During the first half of 1996, the Facilities Committee explored the purchase of the WIPRO building, a facility several miles west of the current Bar Center. The committee also looked at major remodeling of the Bar Center. Both eventually were rejected as inadequate solutions.

In July 1996 the Board of Governors authorized a modest remodeling of the Bar Center basement as a short-term solution to some of the space problems at the Bar Center. Meanwhile, the Facilities Committee decided to continue studying whether acquiring a different facility should be a goal of the State Bar. The committee continued looking at the availability of existing Madison office buildings and the possibility of expanding the Bar Center at its present site.

In January of this year, Mary Lynne Donohue, then chair of the Facilities Committee, reported to the Board of Governors that: 1) the current remodeling will enable the State Bar to remain in the current Bar facility for the next two or three years, giving the Bar time to study thoroughly any long-term decisions; 2) the issue requires Bar officials to take a measured view of its goals for the next 10 to 15 years; and 3) the Facilities Committee should be part of the long-range planning process.

How should the Bar Center serve its members?

Past president John Decker recently outlined his views on the purposes of the State Bar's headquarters. He often has represented architects and construction contractors over the past 20 years, and believes that the Bar should prioritize its needs and identify the functions of a Bar Center. His list includes the following:

• adequate space for CLE seminars equipped with the necessary audiovisual equipment;
• space for alternative dispute resolution proceedings (including fee arbitrations);
• space for material storage; shipping and receiving;
• space for printing (not including books or Wisconsin Lawyer);
• adequate space for administration, including clerical and support staff, equipment and facilities, financial and legal record-keeping and functions; space for program management such as publications, seminars, governmental and public relations and other current programs;
• space for meetings of State Bar committees, sections, divisions and commissions, including telephone conferencing equipment.

It is important to realize that the present Bar Center meets none of the functions above very effectively. Space studies indicate the Bar Center should have 40,000 square feet to serve our membership. At present, only 20,000 square feet is available. Several staff members work primarily at home and others share working space originally allocated for one. The State Bar rents another 4,000 square feet at a separate site for printing and mailing operations, and spends nearly $100,000 a year for off-site meeting, printing and storage space.

No large meeting space is available for CLE seminars or large group meetings. CLE seminars are only occasionally held at the Bar Center. And those seminars that are held at the Bar Center often present parking challenges for members who attend. There are only 25 parking spaces in the State Bar's lot, and there is very limited parking on the street, greatly inconveniencing members who try to attend meetings or seminars at the Bar Center. The downtown location also creates access problems for most members who must exit the interstate and work their way through construction and the maze of one-way streets in downtown Madison.

The only large meeting room was converted last year to meet State Bar program requirements. Most of the Bar's nearly 50 committees, 23 sections and three divisions are unable to meet at the Bar Center.

Governor Mark Pennow, chair of the Electronic Bar Services Committee, has pointed out several technology issues that must be taken into account when considering building design and location. These include satellite technology and high-speed data lines needed in the future for online CLE and CLE videoconferencing. It would be inefficient to tack some of these technologies onto an older building.

The State Bar adds 400 new attorneys to its membership rolls each year, with membership currently at more than 19,000. Studies reviewed by the committee in recent years indicate that additional services will be required to support the growth, even if a moratorium were to be put on all new programs.

Where are we today?

Conditions have worsened since 1993. There is more crowding in the building, less space for meetings and CLE seminars, and fewer opportunities for technology upgrades. Past facilities committees also have examined other alternatives, including leasing or buying an existing facility, adding to the current facility and encouraging work-at-home arrangements by employees. It is obvious that none of these alternatives is an effective long-term solution. Consequently, the current Facilities Committee has concluded that a larger, more accessible building is needed.

In September I reported to the Board of Governors our findings so far, including previous studies, problems posed by the current facility and possible solutions. I told the board we have concluded that a larger, more accessible building is needed. The board allocated $10,000 to pay for consulting to assist the committee with a more precise recommendation for consideration at an upcoming board meeting.

I believe previous facilities committees have done an excellent job in researching issues and exploring all possible solutions. It is now up to all of us to move forward and determine what type of facility we should have to make the State Bar a highly successful member-service organization in the coming years.

It is a major goal of the Facilities Committee to keep members well-informed and to receive their input. We plan to survey members on the services and features they want in a bar center and will report on our findings. Committee members are available to meet with local bar associations and State Bar sections and committees. We also are putting information on the Bar's website.

The accompanying sidebar lists the Facilities Committee members. Feel free to contact me or any committee member if you have questions or comments.