April 2000

Letters

Editor:
The adage is an old one, and I apologize to those who are familiar with its precise wording, but it roughly holds that no right, liberty or property is safe when Parliament is in session. Our current WSBA president has proven the accuracy of that warning. In a brazen proposal to undermine our democratically elected Board of Governors, President Eymann has advocated the non-democratic installment of additional governors to our Board.

To his credit, Mr. Eymann makes no effort to conceal his distaste for democracy. In fact, he shamelessly states that the existing one-person, one-vote system of bar elections "reflects shortcomings of our current selection process for the Board of Governors." In other words, we, the people, aren't enlightened enough to correctly choose those who would govern us. Therefore, to deal with those who haven't voted in accordance with his wishes, Mr. Eymann plans to rectify this situation by allowing special-interest groups to perform a more informed job on our behalf.

Initially, he advocates the installment of a "minority" Governor. Of course, he ignores the fact that we've had forceful minority Governors in the past. Moreover, he sidesteps the issue of what exactly would constitute a "minority" Governor. Allow me to suggest a few options for Mr. Eymann's consideration. How about a Christian Governor? Believe me, they're in the minority in our Association. Or a Jewish Governor? Or a Muslim? Not interested in religious minorities? How about blondes? Redheads? Those below a certain height? Perhaps the "folliclely-challenged"? How about Swedes? Germans? Iranians?

Of course, Mr. Eymann has no such minorities in mind. But perhaps this underscores my point, which is: How many "minority" bars is the WSBA willing to charter? Everyone is a minority if he or she is isolated and divided into sufficiently disparate parts. How viciously will pre-existing groups fight to retain their share of the pie and to exclude others? Which groups can top others in terms of entitlement? But more importantly, why would we want to invite such chaos? Currently, we are free from this balkanized nightmare, due to the tried-and-true, "one-person, one-vote" process. Under this system, if a given minority votes en masse for one candidate, fine. They have that right. But this democratic option isn't sufficient for Mr. Eymann; he prefers to "stack the deck," and allow a Governor to be chosen by a small handful of pre-selected, politically acceptable groups. Shame on him. This only invites continual maneuvering and requests for recognition among other "minority" groups, thus defeating the entire purpose of this ill-conceived act. The Association deserves far better from its President. Perhaps we should propose an alternative amendment, wherein members can elect the President directly, instead of leaving such a duty to the Board of Governors. But I digress. There are further initiatives by the ever-active Mr. Eymann.

Perhaps his most amazing proposal is not the installation of a "minority" Governor (whatever that is), but the added installation of a "young lawyer" to the Board. In no other occupation is youth so elevated. Are there "young bricklayer" associations? Young carpenters? Young salesclerks? Yet Mr. Eymann, rushing in where angels fear to tread, advocates awarding a Governor's spot based purely and solely on occupational inexperience. Once again, if the "young lawyers" of our association want to band together and elect one of their own — and assuming they speak with one voice, an assumption inferred by Eymann yet almost certainly not true — then fine. Do so with the blessings of Jefferson, Hamilton and all the founding figures that instigated our democratic form of government. But no one should expect such a privilege to be handed out on a platter. Neither the experience-challenged nor any other group deserves it, despite the youthful exuberance that so enchants Mr. Eymann. Indeed, if they comprise one-third of the bar — yet still refuse to elect a "young" representative — surely that suggests the absence of a monolithic viewpoint, and thus mitigates against the need for a special seat.

As if all this weren't enough, in a final blaze of discredit, Mr. Eymann refuses to submit this proposal to the membership for a direct vote. His reluctance is understandable, because a majority would certainly insist upon democracy, warts and all. Instead, he proposes to slip this insidious proposal past the more pliable Board of Governors, hoping the Board will ignore the implied insult that it isn't representing its members adequately. Again, shame on him. A change of this magnitude should not be withheld from the direct vote of every member of the Association, because every member will surely be affected by this change.

Editor:
In your column in the February issue of Bar News (President's Corner), you asked for feedback on the proposal that the Board of Governors designate one seat each for a young lawyer and a representative of a minority bar association. I like the way you approach your President's columns. You take a stand on a principle you believe in, and generate discussion. I think that's healthy for our Bar Association, and I think this discussion is a good one. However, you acknowledge in your column that some may feel your proposal is tokenism. You're right, I do.

The chief impediment to young lawyer and minority representation on the Board of Governors is neither ageism nor racism. Often, these (usually unopposed) candidates have come forward only at the last minute after significant arm twisting. There is no objective evidence that young lawyers, lawyers of color, or any other group is being impeded in its efforts to gain seats on the Board. Rather, it is the daunting prospect of spending at least 500 hours a year serving in the position that gives them pause, as it should. Unless this is changed, the only representatives on the Board of Governors will be people, like me, who should have their heads examined.

Setting aside a special position for a young lawyer or a minority lawyer sends the wrong message. It conveys the idea that the rest of the Board members are not responsible for representing these interests. We already fall short on this. With a "special" representative for these interests sitting on the Board, it will be even easier for the already over-burdened Board members to delegate these concerns to those representatives, and for the Bar Association to feel complacent without a programmatic commitment to serving young lawyers or the minority bar community.

Your proposal is also unworkable. To expect an African American attorney to speak for Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Native American, Gay/Lesbian, or physically disabled attorneys is unfair and unrealistic.

I salute the spirit of your initiative in putting this out for discussion. I am also grateful for your spirited leadership of this Bar Association. I know you'll continue to keep us on the right track.

Editor:
To any members of the Board of Governors who have known me over the years, it will come as no surprise that I strongly support your proposal to add two additional seats to the Board of Governors, one for a young lawyer and one for a designee of the minority bar associations. It is an idea that has been a long time in coming.

I know from personal experience that the Governors work hard and diligently try to represent the views of whomever they conceive to be their constituency. The problem, as you note, is that from all appearances, the constituency of young lawyers and attorneys of color have been underserved.

You did not discuss the details of your proposal in the February issue of Bar News. In that regard, I would like to make one suggestion. Throughout the years, it has been my observation that the Board of Governors works hard to develop and maintain a sense of cohesiveness and to create strong relationships among the Governors. This is one of its greatest assets. It could also be a tremendous liability if the young lawyer and minority designees were elected to only one-year stints. They would never have the time to develop the kind of relationships that are so important to the actual functioning of the Board. Therefore, I recommend that individuals so appointed serve a full three-year term.

I keep in the credenza of my office a notebook that I started in 1989. The label reads "WSBA BOG Seat." In it I have countless letters from Bar leaders across the country touting the benefits of having a young lawyer designee. I have statistics (now outdated, of course) about where such positions exist. I have letters and testimonials about the benefits that such a position would provide to our state. Periodically, I have considered throwing that book away, but have hesitated because I actually never fully gave up on the idea. I bequeath it (figuratively) to you.

I urge you and the other Governors to proceed with this approach. Although I aged out of the Young Lawyers Division years ago, I continue to believe that young lawyers have different needs, issues and perspectives that would benefit the Board. And, just as I constantly learn from my colleagues of color, I trust the Board of Governors would do so, as well.

Rosemary Daszkiewicz
Seattle, WA

Readers are invited to submit letters of reasonable length to the editor. They may be sent via e-mail to comm@wsba.org or provide on disk in any conventional format with accompanying hard copy. Due date is the 10th of the month for the second issue following. The editor reserves the right to select excerpts for publication or edit them as appropriate.

Back to table of contents >>