Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Government Lawyer Section Executive Council Meeting
Friday, June 26, 2015 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Boca Raton Resort & Club, Boca Raton Almafi Meeting Room
1. Chair’s Welcome and Roll Call – Ellen Simon 2. Secretary’s report – Michael Schmid Exhibit A
a. Approval of Minutes 3. Treasurer’s Report—Francine M. Ffolkes Exhibit B 4. Chair Elect’s Report—Robert Downie, II 5. Board of Governors Report
a. General Report – Bill Davis b. Government Lawyer Seat Report – Carlos Martinez
6. Committee Reports a. Awards and Recognition—Tony Musto b. Budget – Robert Downie c. Continuing Legal Education – Tim Dennis d. Long Range Planning – Lynne Quimby Pennock e. Publications – Dwight Slater f. Legislative -- Stephanie Morse g. Certification – Francine Ffolkes h. Membership – Mary Ellen Clark i. Technology – Dustin Metz j. Claude Pepper Award – Keith Rizzardi k. Bylaws— Booter Imhof
7. Old Business a. The website-Report by Dustin Metz Exhibit C b. Update on Rule 4-4.2 Exhibit D c. New method of allocating administrative expenses Exhibit E
8. New Business a. 2015-2016 Slate
1
The Florida Bar Government Lawyer Section Long Range Planning Section Meeting
The Florida Bar in Tallahassee, FL Saturday, May 16, 2015
MINUTES
EC members present: Chair Ellen Simon, Chair Elect Robert Downie, Treasurer Francine Ffolkes, Secretary Mike Schmid, Immediate Past Chair Barbara Wingo, Diana Bock, Bruce Culpepper, Timothy Dennis, Deborah Fraim, Clark Jennings, Dustin Metz, Anthony Miller, Stephanie Morse, Hon. Lynne Quimby-Pennock, Linje Rivers, Dwight Slater, and John Glen Van Laningham.
TFB staff: Calbrail Bennett
Meeting called to order and remarks by Chair and Chair-elect. Introductions given by Chair Simon who also announced that on July 1st, GLS will get assigned permanent FL Bar Section Administrator. Long Range Planning 1. EC Membership update. Chair Simon sent out e-mail call out for EC applicants. After meetings were held, it was determined that geographic diversity was important. Calls were made and positions were slated as follows for 2015-16 term: EC Chair Robert: Downie Chair-Elect: Mike Schmid Treasurer: Francine Ffolkes Secretary: Steven Klinger Immediate Past Chair: Ellen Simon District Representatives Jason Nelson, Deborah Fraim, Bob Shillinger, John Bajger, Stacey Manning and out of state representative Michelle Buckalew. At-Large Representatives Diana Bock, Pamela Cichon, Bruce Culpepper, Patrick “Booter” Imhof, Jon Jouben, Anthony Miller, Judge Quimby-Pennock, Julie Rico, Linje Rivers, Jacek Stramski, and Judge John Van Laningham.
2
Chair’s Committee Appointments Diana Bock Budget Chair Patrick “Booter” Imhof Bylaws Chair Francine Ffolkes Certification Chair Keith Rizzardi Claude Pepper Award Chair Anthony Musto Awards & Recognitions Chair Russell Kent CLE Chair Stephanie Morse Legislative Chair Dustin Metz Long Range Planning Chair Angela Houston Membership Chari Dwight Slater Publications Chair Jacek Stramski Technology Chair Jesse Haskins Young Govt. Lawyer Chair Board Liaison is William Davis. Ex-Officio Members were also presented. 2. CLE 2015-2017 outlook. Report by Tim Dennis. Russell Kent has agreed to be next year’s CLE Chair. Upcoming webinar Interfacing with the Legislature is set late July. Will look at November and Feb 2016 CLE’s. Suggest we rotate CLE that GLS puts on in TLH on a rotating basis between the 2 major CLE’s – Practicing Before the Legislature and Practicing Before the FSC. Also looking at CLE idea in Washington DC, USSC Seminar. Michelle Buckalew appeared by phone from DC. Consider Survey Monkey to check interest. She has been working recently with DOJ on e-discovery. Bobbie Downie discussed fact he did DC in 2012 and would like to do a Spring trip in DC 2 nights in 2016. Would require commitment in advance. Ward Griffith ran last trip. Judge Quimby-Pennock suggested two dates be proposed. Other suggestions were to see live USSC oral arguments; see White House; and swearing-in by USSC. Keith Rizzardi put together first several trips. Had out-of-state FL Bar Members attend also. To avoid Cherry Blossom Festival, need to be late April. Welcome to former Chair Clark Jennings. 3. Newsletter update. Deadline is May 22nd; please submit articles for the Voice. Send to Dwight Slater. Also can put articles into FL Bar Journal. 4. GLS website. Current provider expires June 1, 2015. Design 2 Inc. will be our current website provider.
3
5. SFGAP Certification update. Report by Francine Ffolkes. Exam was this week. 12 applicants and approximately 10 sat. FL Bar considering future study to brining uniformity to certification exams and even discussed future of the certification program. Clark Jennings explained history of certification for Administrative Law. It combined many topics. Covers State and Federal Administrative Law as well as litigation and it was contested over what to cover. Use to have prior review courses, but currently do not. However Admin Law Section has CLE seminars which have essentially replaced the review course. He mentioned that you can assemble materials through Google and finding articles discussing topics of exam. Review course went away due to attendance and costs. ALS does do Advanced Admin Law CLE that covers a lot of the topics. Chair Simon discussed a “Uniform Bar” license that may be in the future for Florida. Russell said may in part be driven by recent USSC case from NC Re Board of Dental Ass and anti-trust suit where Board was elected by Association. So where States which do not have an integrated bar are at issue. FL examining this issue and language of case as language in opinion is concerning. 6. Claude Pepper Award/Reception. Chair Simon discussed recipient will be Clark Jennings and presented at General Assembly in June. 7. GLS/BOG review of meeting with incoming President. Six met with President-Elect Aberdin in TLH a few months age. Many topics were discussed including telecommuting, Vision 2016, government lawyers’ role in the FL Bar, and the fact the City, County, and Local Section/GLS and BOG seat should be GLS this upcoming year. However, nothing has been communicated as far as the upcoming seat. Our section is not tied to particular practice area and thus we feel we are well suited to be on BOG as we represent all government lawyers. 8. Legislative session update. Stephanie Anne Morse discussed loan forgiveness made it farther along but still not passed. Budget still pending a special session and so we will not know how government attorneys will be affected. Bobbie Downie explained in Ch. 74, a revised information technology rule will be applied across all governmental agencies as it will require a lot of consultant work to do IT projects. Other discussion Budget update. Per Bobbie Downie, he believes dues increase has already passed. Calbrail discussed budget for sections has changed and will be better able to determine costs. Is a Power Point on this that can be shared. Per Chair Simon it will provide positive impact and provide more up front information of costs for an event.
4
New business. Chair Simon. Motion to approve minutes made and approved, as amended with typos corrected. Reports on Treasurer and Secretary passed. No new business on issues already discussed. Membership, Dustin Metz will be YLD liaison for ALS. New by-laws have passed with BOG and taken effect and will get posted on website. Rule 4-4.2: Discussion on GLS proposed changes to BRG and our version was superseded by another section’s proposal. A workgroup meeting was held in Orlando to try to reach a consensus. However, PDA is still not happy with proposed change as feel Rule limits PDA in certain situations. There is a new proposal and Chair wants to sign off on new proposal Rule comment. Motion by Diana Bock to approve comment as presently proposed and included in materials for this meeting, passed with ALJs present sustaining from voting. No discussion on old business. Chair thanked Section for opportunity to serve. Motion to adjourn, approved. CLE by Prof. Atkinson: The Hope of the Republic & the Helpers of Humankind.
5
Report : 1 of 1 Page : 1 Program : YAZAPFR Unaudited Statement of Operations Date : 6/08/15 User id : JSMITH ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Time : 8:59:56 May YTD 2015 14-15 Actuals Actuals Budget Percent Budget Government Lawyer Section ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 31431 Sect Dues 113 22,573 21,128 106.84 31432 Affil Dues 0 225 125 180.00 ------- ------- ------ ------- Total Dues Income Net 113 22,798 21,253 107.27 ------- ------- ------ ------- 32001 Registrations 0 0 2,542 0.00 32010 Legal Span On-line 0 215 0 * 32191 CLE Courses -409 3,262 2,000 163.10 32293 Sect Differential 68 590 900 65.56 35700 Member Srvc Prog 600 2,400 0 * 38499 Investment Alloc -116 326 1,749 18.64 38700 Leadrshp Acad Contr 0 0 900 0.00 ------- ------- ------ ------- Other Income 143 6,793 8,091 83.96 ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- Total Revenues 256 29,591 29,344 100.84 ------- ------- ------ ------- 36998 Credit Card Fees 11 55 75 73.33 51101 Employee Travel 0 528 1,430 36.92 71001 Phone/Direct 0 487 600 81.17 81411 Promo Printing 0 0 500 0.00 81412 Promo Mailing 0 0 500 0.00 84001 Postage 0 9 100 9.00 84002 Printing 0 12 50 24.00 84003 Officers Office Exp 0 0 25 0.00 84009 Supplies 45 55 25 220.00 84010 Photocopying 0 2 25 8.00 84051 Officers Travel Exp 0 844 2,500 33.76 84052 Mtg Travel Exp 0 0 1,000 0.00 84053 Out Of State Travel 0 0 500 0.00 84101 Committee Exp 0 174 200 87.00 84201 Board Or Council Mtg 0 77 300 25.67 84202 Annual Mtg 0 0 1,000 0.00 84204 Midyear Mtg 0 507 600 84.50 84205 Section Service Prog 8 20 0 * 84209 Retreat 738 738 2,000 36.90 84301 Awards 0 58 2,000 2.90 84302 Scholarships 0 1,000 0 * 84422 Website 0 2,450 5,000 49.00 84701 Council Of Sections 0 300 300 100.00 88252 Course Credit Fee 0 0 300 0.00 ------- ------- ------ ------- Total Operating Expenses 802 7,316 19,030 38.44 ------- ------- ------ ------- 31433 Section Mgmt Fee 35 15,701 14,560 107.84 86431 Mtgs Admin 0 0 172 0.00 86543 Graphics & Art 63 1,923 1,337 143.83
6
Report : 1 of 1 Page : 2 Program : YAZAPFR Unaudited Statement of Operations Date : 6/08/15 User id : JSMITH ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Time : 8:59:56 May YTD 2015 14-15 Actuals Actuals Budget Percent Budget Government Lawyer Section ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------- ------- ------ ------- Total TFB Support Services 98 17,624 16,069 109.68 ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- Total Expenses 900 24,940 35,099 71.06 ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- Net Operations -644 4,651 -5,755 -80.82 ------- ------- ------ ------- 21001 Fund Balance 0 37,115 58,309 63.65 ------- ------- ------ ------- Total Current Fund Balance -644 41,766 52,554 79.47 ------- ------- ------ -------
7
1*
2*
3*
4*
5*
77.51%
EXPENSES 30,384 24,938 (5,446) 22,699 109.86%
TOTAL REVENUE 22,345 29,586 7,241 38,169
% of Budget
107.26%
42.63%
18.63%
Statement of OperationsPrior
Year to Date
Current
Year to DateVariance
Budget
2014‐15
The Florida Bar
Government Lawyers Section Overview
Ten Months Ending April 30, 2015
REVENUES
DUES 21,690$ 22,795$ 1,105$ 21,253$
OTHER REVENUE (3,532) 6,465 9,997 15,167
INVESTMENT ALLOCATION 4,187 326 (3,861) 1,749
30.05%
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 56,788 37,115 37,115 63.65%
CURRENT OPERATIONS (8,039) 4,648 12,687 15,470
56.61%CURRENT FUND BALANCE 48,749$ 41,763$ 73,779$
Other Revenue. Includes ticketed events, advertising, licensing, etc.
Sponsorships.
Net Operations Comparison:
Section CLE and Service Programs.
Section's 80% share of net profit of joint CLE.
Section Differential. The premium paid by non‐section members for CLE.
$(8,039)
$4,648
$(5,723)
$15,470
Prior YTD Current YTD Projected EOY Budget
SECT SVC PROG (1*) 80% CLE COURSES (2*) SECT DIFFERENTIAL (3*) OTHER REVENUE (4*) SPONSORSHIPS (5*)$0
$5
$10
$15
Thousands
YTD Non‐Dues Revenue Sources by Category
Budget
Actual
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
YTD Net Operations by Month
2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15
$(40)
$(20)
$‐
$20
$40
$60Prior YTD Current YTD Budget
Thousands
Government Lawyers
DUES OTHER REVENUE INVESTMENT ALLOCATION EXPENSES
$‐
$20
$40
$60
$80
Thousands
Fund Balance
(EOY Actual for Prior Years, Projected EOY for Current Year)
(Projected)
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Executive Council, Government Lawyer Section
FROM: Dustin William Metz, Outgoing Chair, Technology Committee Jacek Stramski, Incoming Chair, Technology Committee
SUBJECT: Website Maintenance and ADA Compliance
DATE: June 16, 2015
At the January 2015 meeting in Orlando, the Executive Council voted to approve Design
2, Inc., as the Section's new website maintenance provider due to Holmes New Media, LLC's
notice of resignation effective July, 1, 2015.
Based on the Executive Council's vote, the Technology Committee drafted and
submitted a contract to the Florida Bar for approval. This draft contract was based on other
voluntary bar sections' contracts for website maintenance that were previously approved by the
Florida Bar.
Unfortunately, the Florida Bar did not approve the contract for website maintenance, as it
was silent on the issue of ADA accessibility and compliance. The Florida Bar now requires all
voluntary section websites to be ADA compliant. This requirement was not present in the
previously approved templates utilized by the Technology Committee. However, Holmes New
Media, LLC has graciously agreed to continue providing website maintenance services until a
new vendor is in place.
ADA compliance essentially requires government websites to convert audio content into
visual content and vice versa. The website must accommodate the use of a "screen reader" to
convert written text and images into audio format. Likewise, audio files must be subtitled to
accommodate the hearing impaired.
To achieve ADA compliance, the Technology Committee received two bids to retrofit the
Section's website. Design 2, Inc., the previously selected vendor for website maintenance,
submitted a bid that was only $10.00 higher than the lowest bidder. Based on efficiencies in
billing, communication, and security, there will likely be greater than $10.00 in savings by
consolidating both functions into one vendor.
9
The Technology Committee recommends the Executive Council approve Design 2, Inc.,
to conduct a Website Retrofit to ADA Compliance, as outlined in the attached bid, for a contract
price of $1, 150.00.
Since~rely, . ,/ ~ ·-· ·~T'=?-·-., ,.-·-··"···-"···--····--··· '6 .__) ~---
Dustin William Metz Isl Jacek Stramski Jacek Stramski
10
D ·ES· ·· .. '
·····N·:··.'C: .. ~. "'
PO Box 907 • Mary Esther, FL 32569 • 941-360-0988
Website Options for the Government Lawyer Section of the Florida Bar
For ADA Compliance 6/4/2015
Scope of Services: Website Retrofit to ADA Compliance • Retrofit existing website to follow ADA compliant guidelines • Changes that include, but are not limited to:
o Update font settings throughout o Add appropriate tags to images throughout o Add appropriate ALT tags throughout
• · Begin reviewing new PDF files and make suggestions about how to make them more com pliant/ accessible.
• Add links to add-ans/other software that would aid in the accessibility of the site.
Website Retrofit to ADA Compliance $1150.00
Scope of Services: Website Redesign and ADA Compliance • Complete website redesign: new look and organization • Update text/content as needed • Incorporate existing graphics; update as needed • New Website to follow ADA compliant guidelines
o Set variable font sizes o Incorporate appropriate tags to images o Incorporate appropriate ALT tags o Review new PDF files and make suggestions about how to make them more
compliant/ accessible. o Add links to add-ons/other software that would aid in the accessibility of the
site.
Redesign Website and ADA Compliance $1900.00
11
Website Design and Development:: Website Hosting and Maintenance :: Database Design and Management
Work Order
www.elykinnovation.com i 1764 Marco Beach Drive Suite i
Jacksonville, Florida 32224 904.998.1935 Phone
904.997.6223 Fax
This document details an agreement between EL YK Innovation Inc. (The Consultant) and the Government Lawyers Section of the
Florida Bar (The Client)
Project description - The Consultant will update the section website published at the domain http://www.flgovlawyer.org/ Per the ADA Best Practices.
Detailed below are a series of question provided by the ADA to determine if a website meets compliance. Our review and answers to the questions provide an estimate of time to bring the website current with the standards.
ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments www.ada.gov
PURPOSE OF THIS CHECKLIST: This checklist is designed for use in conducting a preliminary assessment of the accessibility of your agency's website. The goal is to review your website and your agency's website policies and procedures and see if there are red flags alerting you to ADA accessibility concerns.
MATERIALS AND INFORMATION NEEDED: To assess the accessibility of your website you will need:
If already created, a copy of your Website Accessibility Policy.
Information describing specific actions taken to make your existing website accessible to people with disabilities.
Information about website accessibility training taken by staff and/or contractors responsible for developing and posting webpages and content.
Information about any procedures used to obtain input from people with disabilities regarding the accessibility of your website.
Any input provided by people with disabilities about their experiences accessing your website.
The assistance of your website m.anager.
12
Assessing Current Webpages and Content on Your Website
This section will help you determine if your website has some of the most common accessibility problems. It will not identify all website accessibility problems.
1. Does the top of each page with navigation links have a "skip navigation" link? (This feature directs screen readers to bypass the row of navigation links and start at the webpage content, thus enabling people who use screen readers to avoid having to listen to all the links each time they move to a new page.)
No
Estimated time to implement: 1 hour
2. Do all links have a text description that can be read by a screen reader (not just a graphic or "click here")?
No-
Estimated time to implement: 2 hours
3. Do all of the photographs, maps, graphics and other images on the website currently have HTML tags (such as an "alt" tag or a long description tag) with text equivalents of the material being visually conveyed?
No
Estimated time to implement: 1 hour -
4. Are all of the documents posted on your website available in HTML or another textbased format (for example, rich text format (RTF) or word processing format), even if you are also providing them in another format, such as Portable Document Format (PDF)?
No
Estimated time to implement: 7 hours: this items may require assistance from the section Admin. (estimated 25 PDF's ) - however, current accessibil,ity technology allows visually impaired users to access the PDF content with a text reader as long as the PDF has embedded text and is not a scanned image. This appears to be the case, but the section would need to sign off that they are comfortable with leaving PDFs as is.
13
5. If your website has online forms, do HTML tags describe all of the controls (including all text fields, check boxes, drop-down lists, and buttons) that people can use in order to complete and submit the forms?
NIA
6. If your website has online forms, does the default setting in drop-down lists describe the information being requested instead of displaying a response option (e.g., "your age" instead of "18 - 21 ")?
NIA
7. If a webpage has data charts or tables, is HTML used to associate all data cells with column and row identifiers?
NIA
8. Do all video files on your website have audio descriptions of what is being displayed to provide access to visually conveyed information for people who are blind or have low vision?
NIA
9. Do all video files on your website have written captions of spoken communication synchronized with the action to provide access to people who are deaf or hard of hearing?
NIA
10. Do all audio files on your website have written captions of spoken communication synchronized with the action to provide access to people who are deaf or hard of hearing?
NIA
11. Have all webpages been designed so they can be viewed using visitors' web browser and operating system settings for color and font?
Yes (after we tag the pictures as indicated above)
14
Website Accessibility Policy and Procedures
This section will help you identify potential problems with the ongoing process of Ensuring website accessibility
12. If the site meets all these criteria, it is likely accessible to people with disabilities. The best test is to obtain feedback on the site's ease of use from people who are blind, deaf, and have mobility disabilities, then address their feedback with site improvements.
When collecting feedback, ask users what type of adaptive technologies they use. This will allow you to cater your website to your particular clientele, and will help you appoint resources toward the best compliance options. Navigating the Internet is particularly challenging for people with limited or no vision. Many blind people use specialized web browsers and software that works with standard web browsers, like Internet Explorer, that have features that enable users to maximize their Internet use and experience. This screen reading software reads the HTML code for websites, and gives the user a verbal translation of what is on screen.
13. Is the website accessibility policy posted on your website in a place where it can be easily located?
No -to our knowledge, the section does not have a policy.
14. Have procedures been developed to ensure that content is not added to your website until it has been made accessible?
No- however we can adopt this going forward.
15. Does the website manager check the HTML of all new webpages to confirm accessibility before the pages are posted?
No- however we can adopt this going forward.
16. When documents are added to your website in PDF format, are text-based versions of the documents (e.g., HTML, RTF, or word processing format) added at the same time as the PDF versions?
15
No- however we can adopt this going forward.
17. Have in-house staff and contractors received information about the website accessibility policy and procedures to ensure website accessibility?
No - we can review with our team after a policy is finalized.
18. Have in-house and contractor staff received appropriate training on how to ensure the accessibility of your website?
Yes- our team can handle all requirements.
19. Have in-house and contractor staff who create web content or post it on your website received copies of the Department of Justice's technical assistance document "Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities"?
No
20. If your website contains inaccessible content, is a specific written plan including timeframes in place now to make all of your existing web content accessible?
No-this document is the 1s1 step.
21. Have you posted on your website a plan to improve website accessibility and invited suggestions for improvements?
No
22. Does your website home page include easily locatable information, including a telephone number and email address, for use in reporting website accessibility problems and requesting accessible services and information?
No
Estimated time to implement: 1 hour, this will also address item 23.
16
23. Do you have procedures in place to assure a quick response to website visitors with disabilities who are having difficulty accessing information or services available via the website?
No - see item 22 above
24. Have you asked disability groups representing people with a wide variety of disabilities to provide feedback on the accessibility of your website? (Note: Feedback from people who use a variety of assistive technologies is helpful in ensuring website accessibility.)
No
25. Have you tested your website using one of the products available on the Internet to test website accessibility? (Note: Products available for testing website accessibility include no-cost and low-cost options. These products may not identify all accessibility issues and may flag issues that are not accessibility problems. However, they are, nonetheless, a helpful tool in improving website accessibility.)
No
26. Are alternative ways of accessing web-based information, programs, activities, and services available for people with disabilities who cannot use computers?
N/A for webmaster
ACTIONS:
If the answer to any of the above questions is "No," there may be accessibility problems with your website. Here are some steps to take to ensure that your website - and the programs and services offered on it- are accessible to people with disabilities.
Establish a policy that your webpages will be accessible and create a process for implementation.
17
Check the HTML of all new webpages. Make sure that accessible elements are used, including "alt" tags, long descriptions, and captions, as needed.
Ensure that your webpages are designed in a manner that allows them to be displayed using a visitor's own settings for color and fonts.
If images are used, including photos, graphics, scanned images, or image maps, make sure to include text equivalents for them, using "alt" tags and/or long descriptions for each. Ensure that the text equivalents convey the meaningful information presented visually by the image.
If you use on line forms and tables, make those elements accessible.
Ensure that videos appearing on your website include appropriately synchronized audio description and captions.
When posting new documents on the website, always provide them in HTML or another text-based format (even if you are also providing them in another format, such as PDF). If documents are provided in both formats, provide both formats at the same time so people with disabilities have the same degree of access as others.
Develop a plan for making your existing web content accessible, including specific steps and timeframes. Describe your plan on an accessible webpage that can be easily located from your home page. Encourage input on accessibility improvements, including which pages should be given high priority for change. Let citizens know about the standards or guidelines that are being used to provide accessibility. Make accessibility modifications to the more popular web pages on your website a priority.
Ensure that in-house staff and contractors responsible for webpages and webpage content development are properly trained on your web accessibility policy and procedures.
Provide a way for visitors to request accessible information or services and provide feedback about accessibility problems by posting a telephone number and email address on your home page. Establish procedures to assure a quick response to people with disabilities who use this contact information to access web-based information or services.
Periodically enlist people with a variety of disabilities to test your webpages for accessibility and ease of use; use this information to increase your website accessibility.
Consider using one of the no-cost or low-cost resources available on the Internet to test the accessibility of your website. (Please note, however, that these products may not identify all accessibility problems on your website.)
Ensure that alternative means are available for people with disabilities who are unable to use computers to access information, programs, and services that are normally provided on your website.
Terms
18
Total estimated time to com lete 12 hours Houri rate $95.00/hr. Total estimated cost $1 140.00
Proposal acceptance This Agreement represents the entire understanding among the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all prior understandings, agreements, or obligations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Client and the Consultant have duly executed this agreement as of the day and year written below.
Accepted by: The government Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar
Signature:-----------Client:
Signature:--------Consultant: EL YK Innovation Inc.
Date: _/_/15
Date: 06/01/15
19
May 18, 2015
Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics Board of Bar Governors The Florida Bar 651 E. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
c/o Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel
Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 4-4.2, Rules of Professional Conduct
Honorable members of the Board Review Committee:
For the past several months, dedicated members of the City, County and Local Government Law Section, the 8-overnment Lawyers Section, and the Florida Association of County Attorneys (collectively the "Rule 4-4.2 Work Group") have worked diligently to prepare a comprehensive amendment to Rule 4-4.2 in an effort to address the concerns that were expressed at a February 27, 2015 roundtable meeting of representatives from various sections of the Florida Bar. While we have come to realize through these efforts that it is not possible to fully satisfy all concerns, the Rule 4-4.2 Work Group believe that the attached proposed revisions to Rule 4-4.2 represent best efforts to satisfy the majority of all concerns expressed.
The proposed revisions address or clarify the following:
1. Communication with public officials is permitted under certain circumstances when there are matters in dispute. This revision is intended to address the "constitutional" argument relating to right of access to redress grievances.
2. Communication is not intended to provide direct access to public officials on discovery matters, extensions of time, or scheduling matters in litigation.
3. Meaningful prior notice of the communication must be provided to the government lawyer.
4. Communication with public officials and employees is permitted on general policy and administrative matters, including lobbying matters that have not been referred to the government lawyer.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our comments and the proposed amendments to the rule. Please let us know when the item will come up on agenda so that we may be available to discuss the matter at that time.
20
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Crosby-Collier Immediate Past Chair City, County and Local Government Law Section
lt-ML Ellen Simon Chair, Govermnent Lawyers Section
Patrick McCormack St. Johns County Attorney for the Florida Association of County Attorneys
Copies via e-mail:
Gregory W. Coleman President The Aorida Bar
Carl B. Schwait Chair Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics
Hans Ottinot Chair Emeritus City, County and Local Government Law Section
21
RULE 4-4.2 COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL (draft dated 4- 16-15)
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer must not communicate about. the subject of the representation with a person the Jawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. NotwithstaHdi0g the fofegoiHgHowever, a lawyer may, without s:9€h-prior consent, communicate with another's client to meet the requirements of any rule, statute or contract requiring notice or service of process directly on a person, in which event the communication is strictly restricted to that required by the court rule, statute, or contract, and a copy must be contemporaneously provided to the represented person's lawyer.
(b) An otherwise unrepresented person to whom limited representation is being provided or has been provided in accordance with Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1 .2 is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this rule unless the opposing lawyer knows of, or has been provided with, a written notice of appearance under which, or a written notice of the time period during which, the opposing lawyer is to communicate with the limited representation lawyer as to the subject matter within the limited scope of the representation.
Comment
This rule contributes to the proper functioning of the legal system by protecting a person who has chosen to be represented by a lawyer in a matter against possible overreaching by other lawyers who are participating in the matter, interference by those lawyers with the lawyer-client relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation.
This rule applies to communications with any person who is represented by counsel concerning the matter to which the communication relates.
The rule applies even though the unrepresented person initiates or consents to the communication. A lawyer must immediately terminate communication with a person, if, after commencing communication, the lawyer learns that the person is the one with whom communication is not permitted by this rule.
This rule does not prohibit conununication with a represented person, or an employee or agent of such a person, concerning matter outside the representation. For example, the existence of a controversy between a government agency and a private party, or between 2 organizations, does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating with nonlawyer representatives of the other regarding a separate matter. If a lawyer does not know whether the government agency. private person or organization is represented in a matter, the lawyer should make inquiry, and in all instances, identify himself or herself as a lawyer who is representing a client.
This rule does not prohibit a lawyer from communicating with public officials and employees ofa government agency about a matter on the lawyer's own behalf. Nor does this rule prohibit a lawyer in representing a client (rom communicating with public officials and employees of a government agency on general policy issues. procedural matters relating to the
22
administration of the government agency. or lobbying for the passage ofa law. statute. ordinance or regulation, unless it involves a matter with the government agency that the lawyer knows has been referred to the govemment lawyer.
In representing a client who has a dispute with a government agency. a lawyer may communicate about the subject of the representation 1r11ith the public officials who have authority over the government agency even if the lawyer knows that the government agency is represented by another lawyer in the matter, but the communication may only occur under the following circumstances
(] ) the sole purpose of the communication is to address a policy issue. including the possibility of resolving a disagreement about a policy position taken by the government agency.· and
(2) adequate and meaningful prior notice of the communication must be made to the government lawyer to afford an opportunity for the public official to discuss with the government lawyer the advisability of receiving the communication.
This rule does not pemiit communications relating to other issues or with any other officials or employees represented by the government lawyer in the matter without the vrior consent of the government lawyer. Nor does this Rule permit a lawyer to bypass the government lawyer on every issue that may arise in the course ofa dispute with the government agency. It is intended to provide a lawyer with access to decision makers in the government with respect to a genuine dispute, such as to present the view that the governm ent' s basi c p oli cy posi ti on w it h respect to a dispute is faulty. It is not intended to provide direct access on routine disputes such as ordinary discovery disputes, extensions of time or other scheduling matters, or similar aspects of litigation or adversarial proceedings. The term "public offl cial " includes a public officer of the United States government, or ofa state. or ofa county, city, political subdivision, or other government agency who has authority to take or recommend action in the matter. The term "adequate and meaningful prior not ice" in communications with a public official means
notice that is reasonably provided and that contains sufficient information for the government lawyer to act on it and to be present, if deemed appropriate. to protect the client's interests . T he ti me and place of the intended communication and the identity of the public official should be included. Nor daes this
This rule does not preclude communkation with a represented person who is seeking advice from a lawyer who is not otherwise representing a client in the matter. A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this rule through the acts of another. See rule 4-8.4(a). Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the cHent is ]egally entitled to make, provided that the client is not used to indirectly violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Also a lawyer having independent justification for communicating with the other party is pennitted to do so as set forth in sebdivision section (a). Peffi'titteti Cfl19iHiwnieatiens include, far ~ample, Jhe right t>fa: lcnvyer whe is a party fe a centFeversy with a gevernment egeney te spee.k with gevernmenl afficials rthew the nuittcr, er the right e;f ft lawyer te speak with gevernment effleials flheb# ci matt er en the law ycr's ewn behalf. Also, in representing a client in a matter
with a government agency. a lawyer may communicate with a government otfi.cer or board as part ofa
23
public hearing when an administrative matter or quasi-judicial matter is pending before that agency as permitted by rules 4-3.5 and 4-3.9
Code: Underlines and cross os~s are Amendments recommended to the Board of Governors by the B.O.G Rule Committee. Words underlined and erossea ol:lt in italics are proposed new Revisions following The Florida Bar Rule 4-4.2 Revision Workshop held on February 27, 2015.
24
The Florida Bar
Discussion of New Method for Allocating Certain Administrative
Expenses
Council of Sections January 24, 2015
25
Administrative Overhead Allocation
What do we allocate?
CFO, Accounting & Budget, Cash Receipts, HR, IT, Office Systems, Print Shop and Mail Center that have not been reimbursed by
billable project.
Not all administrative costs are allocated to the various program areas
26
Basis
Current Process uses COSTS
1.Not Timely (can’t be calculated until after all other costs have been recorded),
2.Not predictable (depends on what all programs spend, not just one group),
3.Not easily explained or documented so it appears to lack transparency.
each program receives a prorated share of overhead based on all programs costs
27
A Better Basis
Is to use TIME
WHY? 1. Data is readily available,
2. More accurately reflects how we are using our
primary resources, and
3. Is not dependent on external 3rd parties for timely response.
28
What is the Fiscal Impact Redistributing FY 13-14 Overhead
Program FY 13-14 As Reported Revised
Regulation of Practice of Law 43% 59%
Unauthorized Practice of Law 5% 6%
Cost of Member Services * 28% 15%
Public Service Programs 2% 2%
Communications 11% 8%
Certification 3% 6%
Client Security Fund 1% 1%
Administration & Governance 2% 1%
*Section Management and CLE Programs are part of Cost of Member Services 29
How does this impact Sections?
Move away from the cost
reimbursement fee for service
based on expected resource usage
For Section Management and CLE Programs
30
Fee Design Elements Section Management CLE Events
Three basic effort levels Six levels of effort
Established fee per paying member for each effort level
Established fee per program hour for each effort level
Designed to be inclusive of time & overhead
Designed to be inclusive of time and overhead
No retroactive billing for adjustments (unless requested
by Section)
All fee adjustments made to following year rates (no year
end recovery) 31
Proposed Fee for Service Processes
Establish Plan
Measure Effort
Required
Categorize the
Outcome
Apply the Price
Monitor for Adjust.
At the beginning of the budget cycle or CLE development
Price is inclusive of previously billed OH
32
Management Fee Will Cover
Daily Section Support & Office Expenses
3rd Party Coordination, Correspondence & Accounting/Membership
Section Service Programs (NOT CLEs)
Certain Special Projects (Small Effort)
33
Items That Will Continue to be Billed as Direct Expenses
• Staff Travel • Contracted
Meeting Support
Unique Based on Requirements
• Printing, Copying & Postage
• Adv. in TFB Pubs & Course Approval Fees
Priced at Established Rates
• Audio & Video Conf. Svcs
• Video Recording • Credit Card Fees
Billed as Used
34
No Clear Definition of a Section Service Programs
SBP 6.21 • A section may provide educational programs
independent of CLE Committee
• Sections shall pay all direct costs and bear any financial loss
• Sections may retain $3K of profit per program with an annual limit of $5K
35
What is needed is a solid definition of Section Service Programs
Proposed SBP 6.21 (c) • A section may provide educational service programs
independent of CLE committee, • Limited to section members, • Conducted in one continuous session, • Not designed to result in post market sales, • All revenue and expenses are the responsibility of the
section, • There will be no additional administrative overhead
assessed beyond those charged to the section for general management.
36
New Categories of Events Section Svc. Programs Joint Sponsored CLE Section Sponsored CLE
•Accounted for in Section Budget & OH expenses covered in Section Mgmt. Fee •No more cap on sponsorship income.
•Shared Risk and Revenue with CLE Committee, •Only Profit or Loss streams to Section’s Budget, •OH Charged to the program on a per program hour rate •Recorded content eligible for In Reach Catalog.
•No Shared Risk or Revenue, • Accounted for like a Joint Sponsored CLE without Loss or Revenue sharing, • After market sales limited to DVDs, CD or Books.
37
Benefits of Joint Sponsorship with
CLE Committee
Larger Revenue Stream
On Demand
Natl Sales
Opport.
Risk Sharing
38
Reminder CLE Committee Authority
• Sections •Divisions • Committees
Accept Recommendations
• Fees • Content
Quality
Set Minimums •Areas •Dates • Locations
Resolve Conflict
39
40
VALET
the blue
41
