Inside the Bar
Improving Governance
Efficient, Effective Governance
This month marks the end of the State Bar's fiscal
year and the end of the first year of a new way of doing business for
the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee.
by George C. Brown,
State Bar executive director
UNLESS YOU READ THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS' minutes, you probably
haven't noticed that the roles of the Executive Committee and the Board
of Governors have changed. Indeed, you probably haven't noticed the
effect of the changed roles. But you will.
One result of the strategic planning initiative, begun in 1997, was a
review of how the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee
actually did their work to determine whether they were functioning as
efficiently and effectively as possible. A Special Committee on Board
Governance Structure developed recommendations, which the board adopted
in June 2000.
The report called for measures to clarify the State Bar
decision-making process, improve its operation, and thereby enhance
service to its members. Recognizing that the organization is well run,
the committee envisioned that the board would become a more deliberative
body, serving more in the legislative or policy-making mode, and have
the opportunity to obtain input from representatives statewide to
establish the basis upon which the organization should be run. To give
the board the time to deliberate and decide on the more strategic issues
facing the Bar, the Executive Committee would take a more active role in
implementing board policy as already authorized by the current Supreme
Court Rules (SCRs).
Implementation of the report has taken place in two phases. The first
phase began this fiscal year as the Executive Committee assumed greater
responsibility for implementing board policies. The committee met
monthly, and its work allowed the board to spend most of its time
deciding issues of importance to the profession and the association.
The second phase began at the board's final meeting for this fiscal
year. Historically, the Executive Committee has consisted of the
officers of the association and four members of the board appointed by
the president. The committee served as an advisory or "kitchen" cabinet
for the president. The Board Governance Structure Committee proposed
that the number of elected Executive Committee members be increased and
that specific seats be established for representatives of the three
State Bar divisions who serve on the board. That final change is what
occurred at the May meeting. Six members of the fiscal year 2002 board
were elected to serve on the Executive Committee; 13 members now
constitute the Executive Committee. And, for the first time, one of the
three public members of the board appointed by the supreme court, Tess
Arenas, was elected to serve on the committee.
In facing the future, the Board of Governors now has the time to
properly evaluate the strategic issues before it, and the Executive
Committee now is more fairly representative of the board as it
implements policy and fulfills its other respon-sibilities under SCRs.
Ultimately, the members and the public should benefit.
Wisconsin Lawyer