MINUTES

Access to Justice Board Retreat

May 10-11, 2001

Sleeping Lady Resort

(These Minutes contain only key decisions of the ATJ Board. Much of the retreat was spent on team building, reviewing the work of the previous year, and setting goals for the coming year.)

Present: Chair Judge Chip Small, Judge Rebecca Baker, Pete Dewell, Dwight Williams, Christine Crowell, Scott Smith, Pam Feinstein, Michele Jones, Judge Greg Tripp, Ada Shen-Jaffe, Jim Bamberger, Leonard Schroeter, Joan Fairbanks, Leslie Johnson, Adina Gordon, Sharlene Steele, Pam Inglesby.

The ATJ Board had a brain-storming session about factors to consider in recruiting non-attorneys for the ATJ Board – as well as for the ATJ Board's committees:

Low and moderate income representation

Geographic diversity

Professional or client?

Access to justice experience and/or commitment

Relevancy of experience/background to the needs of the ATJ Board

Do we "co-opt" those who oppose/don't understand the mission?

Cultural diversity

Underrepresented groups or areas of expertise

Expansion of influence to constituencies we would like to reach

Connection to resources (money and influence)

This discussion will continue in subsequent meetings of the ATJ Board to further define the categories of non-attorneys and to develop recruiting strategies.

The Board agreed that it should make an even greater commitment to get non-attorneys on all its committees.

The ATJ Board will proceed on a "dual track" with respect to long range solutions to the funding crisis: (1) it will continue its efforts to raise $100,000 for a legal needs study, with the goal of financial contributions from OAC, WSBA and other key justice system partners; (2) the Board will send a letter to Chief Justice Alexander requesting that he convene a high level legal services funding task force.

The ATJ Board also recommended that Seattle University School of Law's Access to Justice Institute and the Schroeter Constitutional Justice Center jointly pursue a jurisprudential approach to long term funding in the form of a "Civil Gideon"/right to counsel. The ATJ Board will not be directly involved because of the potential conflict of interest by its judicial members.

September 14 (Seattle)

October 26 (Seattle)

November 30 (Seattle)

January 11 (Seattle)

February 21 (Seattle, in conjunction with Goldmark Awards Luncheon)

March___ (to be scheduled – annual meeting with the Supreme Court)

May 17-18 (Chelan, annual retreat at Campbell's Resort)

June 7 (Yakima, in conjunction with ATJ Conference)

July 27-28, 2001 (Sun Mountain): Dwight Williams

September 14-15 (Seattle): Pam Feinstein

October 19-20 (Vancouver, WA): Chris Crowell

November 30-December 1 (Poulsbo): Scott Smith

January 18-19, 2002 (Olympia): Michele Jones

February 15-16 (Tacoma): Pete Dewell

April 5-6 (Ellensburg): Judge Rebecca Baker

May 10-11 (Skamania): Judge Greg Tripp

July 26-27 (Lake Quinault): Scott Smith

September 13-14 (Seattle): Pam Feinstein

ATJ Board's relationship with the Court and the Bar: how can we support and enhance them?

After a wide-ranging discussion, the ATJ Board agreed upon the following strategies:

1. Presentations (annual?) to the Board for Judicial Administration and District and Municipal Court and Superior Court Judges Associations
2. Ensuring that Judicial News has continuous and broad coverage of ATJ (Pam Inglesby will talk with Editor Wendy Ferrell about how this can be accomplished)
3. Reaching out to new judges through expansion of the Judicial College curriculum, offering ways for judges to participate/contribute, etc. (The ATJ Board's Education Committee is focusing primarily on judicial education)
4. Asking the judicial associations to help the ATJ Board develop long-term plans for developing ATJ/judicial partnerships
5. Adding judges to all ATJ Board committees

After reviewing the progress on its goals set at last year's retreat, the ATJ Board developed a list for the coming year. These will be finalized and voted on at the June 8, 2001 ATJ Board meeting.

As part of the review of existing committees and their work, the ATJ Board discussed whether the mission of the Media Committee, currently a joint committee with PLE, needed some review. A question was raised about whether it would serve both groups better to have separate ATJ and PLE Media Committees. The ATJ Board feels it's important that there be a brief information brochure that can be handed out to the public and others, and suggested that the Media Committee may be the appropriate committee to develop this. Additional thoughts included: developing cards with the web site address and distributing CLEAR brochures to lawyers.

Respectfully submitted,

Joan Fairbanks

Justice Programs Manager