Anxious for an unhappy year to end

by Wendy Borcherdt

This is my fourth year as a public member on the State Bar Board of Governors, and this year has not been a happy experience.

In the past, I often disagreed with other members of the board. But our differences were discussed congenially and the atmosphere remained collegial.

Not so this year. From the very beginning it was clear that the bar's business was to be run by a small clique of lawyer members.

Committee chairmanships were denied to qualified public members. Committee assignments were made to eliminate critical viewpoints on key issues. Important decisions were made behind closed doors.

The results have been disastrous. The bar's office of governmental affairs was privatized at a cost of about one million dollars.

When some public members voiced their concerns about the decision and the way it was made, they were attacked by the bar leadership and its senior staff.

As it turned out, one key provision of the contract -- a $75,000 bonus to the lobbyist for securing a multi-year dues bill -- was illegal. It was nullified. But attempts by the board to remedy other portions of the contract apparently will remain forever secret.

And, oh, yes. Where was our high-priced lobbyist when the board of governors met to discuss important legislation at its last meeting? He was on his way to China.

As public member John Morris pointed out last month, the same oligarchy is now at work selecting a new executive director, in setting criteria and naming a search firm and, until they were caught, holding unannounced secret meetings.

Public members were placed on the board by the legislature some 20 years ago to protect the public interest and to provide expertise in areas where lawyers may be deficient.

For many years this arrangement worked well. Now it would seem to be ended. And I have to believe the State Bar is the loser. For example:

• How does the bar benefit when the recommendations of a public member, who is an investment advisor, are ignored?
• What did the bar gain by dumping a public member who is a respected journalist of almost 50 years standing from his association with the California Bar Journal? No longer will the newspaper, which he helped found and build into a profit-making and award-winning publication, be able to utilize his experience and expertise. Why? Because he wrote a column which offended the oligarchy.
• Why are public members with political experience and influence walled off from Sacramento, where the bar needs all the help it can get?
• Why do public members with business experience have to fight to be influential in the process to name an executive director to head this $90 million-a-year business?

A lot of damage has been done by these selfish and short-sighted policies.

But the one good thing about this bar year is that it's almost over. Soon we will have a chance to name a new president and executive director. And, if we're smart, to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Wendy Borcherdt, a political consultant from Los Angeles, was appointed to the bar board by Gov. Pete Wilson. She also is a member of the California Bar Journal editorial advisory board.