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.

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.