However, today I am not officially an old guy. It feels much like yesterday, except I have a bit more feeling that I need to get about my business. No more lollygagging - unless my business is lollygagging.First thing is the long walk for health and friendship and taking photos to remind me - years from now - what they heck I am doing.
We stopped by the ballot drop box at Highpoint so I could cast mine.
--
I had dithered over responding to WSBA's request for comments on a proposal to change the WSBA's Mission Statement. I've always felt that the current formulation was a terrible Mission Statement because it didn't really say anything, but it was not worth arguing about. However WSBA's current president asked for comment on a proposal as part of a response to current issues. I talked it over with Jeff during a recent Lo Bono meeting, and then responded briefly on the bar leaders listserve, then decided what the heck, I'm enough to voice my opinion even if I'm not a hotshot important person. So what I sent:
"Dear WSBA:
Speaking as an individual member of the WSBA with no special expertise in the subjects of racism or unlawful use of force that motivate our most recent look at the WSBA Mission Statement, I offer these general comments.
The proposal's big change is using "promote[] an effective legal system, accessible to all" in place of "champion justice". This states the mission more clearly. It defines WHO is being acted on ("legal system") and WHAT should be done (make "effective" and "accessible to all").
Can we agree that members of the public who don't have fair access to the justice system, or whose disputes are not resolved effectively (where "effectively" means "on the merits and without waste"), would have reason not to care whether WSBA exists? This is our keystone mission and therefore should be stated most explicitly in our Mission Statement.
Can we agree that members of the public who don't have fair access to the justice system, or whose disputes are not resolved effectively (where "effectively" means "on the merits and without waste"), would have reason not to care whether WSBA exists? This is our keystone mission and therefore should be stated most explicitly in our Mission Statement.
In contrast, "champion justice" may have been intended to mean the same thing, but is a problem because neither "champion" nor "justice" have agreed-on meanings. "Justice" means different things to different people; were it otherwise, there would be fewer legal disputes. "Champion" can have at least two meanings: eliminating unjust laws (...a worthy endeavor, but often outside WSBA's scope...) and promoting equal access to the justice system (arguably WSBA's keystone).
The other changes seem clerical. Repeating the language of the current version, "ensure the integrity of the legal profession" is a clear and necessary mission, encompassing our licensing board function, e.g. exam, discipline, education. The anodyne "to serve the public and the members of the Bar" could be said by any professional organization. To the extent that it reminds us that we are not operating only to our own benefit but also the public's, and vice versa, it may be worth keeping in a subordinate clause.
I appreciate the seriousness and good faith of this discussion and look forward to learning more.
Sincerely
Randall Winn, WSBA 25833
No comments:
Post a Comment