Special Committee recommends presidents exercise more discretion in non-voting board appointments
Saying a discretionary policy has morphed into one of fixed expectations, the Special Committee on Non-Voting Board Appointments has recommended the policy be “enforced as written, with each president having the authority and discretion to issue such invitations as that president may decide.”
President John Stewart has directed the Rules Committee to review the findings of the special committee and report back to the Board of Governors in June.
Stewart announced his decision at a May 15 board meeting after special committee Chair Eugene Pettis described the committee’s final report and its extensive review of diversity and non-voting board representation.
The committee’s deliberations center around Standing Board Policy 1.20, which allows Bar presidents to name non-voting members to the board to ensure diverse representation from all parts of the Bar. Over the years, Pettis said, the policy has “evolved” to a tradition of having non-voting representatives from the Cuban American Bar Association, the Virgil Hawkins Florida Chapter of the National Bar Association, the Florida Association for Women Lawyers, as well as a government lawyer representative, and representatives of the statewide conferences of circuit and county court judges.
Pettis told the board that policy has not been updated since at least 2001, and that after conducting a town hall meeting at the Winter Meeting in Orlando, and surveying current and former board members, the committee determined that Bar presidents should have more flexibility to make non-voting board appointments.
“No one is entitled to the position,” Pettis said. “The president, whoever he or she will be, has the right and the obligation to look to make sure that these appointments are done with consideration of what’s needed at that moment in time.”
At least one of the special committee’s 10 recommendations would require a formal amendment to standing board policy, Stewart said, and the Rules Committee should closely review the report.
“I know that there will be more discussion on this because it is critically important,” Stewart said. “Our goal is not to exclude anybody. . . but to be as inclusive as possible.”
Standing Board Policy 1.20(d) reads: “The Bar president may invite representatives of state, voluntary or local bar associations or groups to attend board meetings and may provide them with pertinent portions of the agenda and relevant backup. Representatives of state, voluntary and local bar associations or groups may not attend executive sessions.”
In a letter to committee members, Stewart said he wanted to “ensure diverse representation and inclusion in the board’s deliberations from all groups of which The Florida Bar could benefit.”
Pettis said that while women, African Americans, and other minorities have made great strides in Bar leadership, more work needs to be done to ensure their representation. Meanwhile, he said, veterans, the LGBTQ community, the disabled, and government lawyers are far underrepresented.
At the town hall meeting, representatives of the CABA, the Virgil Hawkins Florida Chapter of the NBA, and FAWL — all of whom traditionally hold non-voting seats on the board — told the committee the Bar “got it right” the first time and that they should retain their non-voting positions, although they were not opposed to expanding board participation.
Virgil Hawkins Florida Chapter President Grasford Smith told the board that he is concerned that a Bar president in the future may not see the value of his group’s representation on the board.
“I want there to be consideration for…a permanency there,” Smith said.
Board Member Roland Sanchez-Medina, a former CABA president who once served as the group’s non-voting board representative, said CABA should also retain its seat at the table.
“It’s the largest voluntary bar organization, as far as I know, in the state of Florida, with close to 2,000 members,” Sanchez-Medina said. “That exposure to the board, and truly the special people that serve on it, was eye-opening.”
The recommendations also include:
• To fulfill the plain meaning of Standing Policy 1.20, each Bar president should determine which organizations and/or individuals, if any, he or she will invite to attend a Board meeting or multiple meetings on a non-voting basis, during his or her tenure.
• It would be helpful for such appointees to be provided with an orientation at the time of appointment to provide an understanding of the board, its authority, protocols and processes. By having appointees informed and comfortable, they would be better able to contribute to the order of business.
• The committee recognizes in an ever-growing Bar there are often multiple issues for which the board could benefit from the input of a special appointee or invitee. Above and beyond the policy, the president has the power to invite speakers from Bar and other organizations to address the Board on a desired topic at any point in time.
• In addition, the committee encourages inviting voluntary bar associations and other Bar and community leaders in an area where the Board is meeting, to attend receptions and events to create an opportunity for Bar members to interact with the Board of Governors and to establish informal lines of communication.
• The committee recommends consideration of amending the policy to limit the number of appointees, allowing the president to invite, at his or her discretion, up to (3) state-wide and (3) regional / local organizations or individuals to be seated at any one time. The president would not be obligated to fill each of these potential appointments, nor would this limit the president’s ability to invite any number of individuals to address the Board on a particular subject matter.
The Committee also encouraged future presidents to utilize the policy, at least in part, to include in the deliberative process the broader definition of underserved members.
“[D]espite great progress, the Bar has had a chronic underrepresentation of public sector lawyers, veterans, lawyers with disabilities, public interest lawyers and the LGBTQ community,” the committee said. “At a time in which there are noticeable gains in some of the traditionally underserved constituencies, there is still much work to be done. The Bar should redouble those efforts. In addition to maintaining the focus and efforts of the Bar’s traditional diversity and inclusion outreach on gender, national origin, and racial bases, the Bar should continue to assess the current state of its underserved and underrepresented membership. The Bar should have the flexibility to enlarge its focus.”
Board member Thomas Bopp, who served on the committee, defended the recommendations. He said the committee faced some of the most difficult choices he has seen in his years of Bar service, and that “there were no right answers and there were no wrong answers.”
“There are a lot of underrepresented groups in the state of Florida,” he said. “They all would like to have a seat at the table, but because of time and space restrictions, we had to keep it limited.”
