President's Perspective

We have seen the future, and it better be us

By Susan R. Steingass

Many of you now know that on Jan. 27, 1999, your Board of Governors voted a $35 increase in dues, beginning next year.

This was a very difficult decision for me personally. Though I eventually came to support and vote for the dues increase, I had been against it. I knew at the beginning of this fiscal year that a future dues increase was inevitable, despite efforts of the Finance Committee, on which I have served these last two years, to curb expansion and trim all fat from the budget. But our last dues increase was four years ago and I knew, as do you, that virtually all costs have increased over that time. Even so, I was concerned that an increase would be associated by some with the new building and could hamper our ongoing fund-raising efforts.

After looking closely at the budget and future projections, and looking at them every way I could to avoid a dues increase, I reluctantly concluded that we, as the Finance Committee, had no other fiscally responsible choice than to recommend a modest dues increase to the Board.

The Board of Governors debated the question at length. Some members thought about the effect on fund-raising and the association of the increase with the new building. Others thought that we should consider slashing expenses by extensive program and personnel cuts, as necessary. Still others thought the entire membership should have more opportunity for input before the vote. In the end, the great majority thought that a $35 increase was necessary and that it would be fiscally irresponsible to put the inevitable decision over for a future Board to face. The motion carried by a vote of 27 to 12.

Everyone would like to see costs go down, not up. But that belies common sense and experience, whether you're a fiscal conservative or not. Four years ago, the then-Board grappled with the same issues. The Bar's cost projection showed the necessity for a $25 dues increase in this fiscal year 2000 budget. Whether to approve it prospectively was actively debated, and that Board decided not to bind this Board by such a vote. That Board, as this one, had to have known that even without expansion, costs increase over time. They had to know, as do you, that paper, postage, and, yes, salaries, have to increase.

While that $25 increase has been long projected and comes from increased costs and not the new building, it would be naive to argue that none of the $35 increase comes from the new building. It is surprising that only a small portion - between $8 and $10 of the $35 - is related to the new building.

Why? Again, common sense tells us that a 40,000 square foot building costs more to buy and operate than the current 20,000 square foot Bar Center. For example, we have to snowplow 200 free parking spaces, not 25.

But a variety of factors have kept the cost of the new facility as low as it is. Our current building was sold at a favorable price. We have obtained a unique and extremely favorable financing arrangement with our lender. We converted short-term reserves to further reduce the price, though we thereby sacrificed the interest earned on that money in prior years - money that was used for programming.

Our fund-raising efforts have been extremely successful (almost $1 million by mid-February), but we did not dare hope to raise the full $2.3 million needed to avoid borrowing against the debt for the new building.

But there are far larger issues at work than increased costs. There is the future to consider. The State Bar is not and should not be a static association. It must plan its finances with an eye toward the future of the practice of law and an organization that looks very different in the future, a future that is close at hand.

Just think of the changes over the last 10 years and multiply that exponentially into the future. Technology experts predict that dramatic new technological advances will not occur every five years, but each and every year. The impact on your practice and the State Bar is unprecedented, and the Bar must be ready to meet it.

Ten years ago, we didn't have fax machines, let alone computers. Today, we fax from our computers. Ten years ago, we sat in rows and listened to experts speak for our continuing legal education. Today, the State Bar must prepare for the increasing alternatives for delivering information and knowledge in ways we cannot now even fully imagine.

You have already seen the results of the State Bar's efforts to use new technologies to deliver information: partnering with LOIS to deliver lower cost legal research alternatives; free case law on WisBar, the Bar's Internet site, delivered to your desktop; CLE by telephone; CLE books in electronic form, complete with links to related primary source material; and a searchable membership directory with email links to facilitate lawyer-to-lawyer referrals and communication.

But we can't stop here. The State Bar is developing hands-on computer training to help you stay abreast of technology changes. We are working on an "electronic storefront" on WisBar that pulls together State Bar information - whether from a CLE book or seminar, a Wisconsin Lawyer article, or a convention outline - making it easy for you to find what you want, when you want it. We are working on high-quality, more flexible distance-learning alternatives. And, we will continue to partner with other service providers to provide low-cost or free access to historical case law, agency decisions, and public records. The infrastructure in the new Bar Center is designed to accommodate these changes.

All of this costs money. This modest dues increase will responsibly pay for our present and our future. We have seen the future, and it had better be us if we want to remain dynamic and relevant to our members.

Wisconsin Lawyer