certain subjects. Often the JEBs or ABA sections or committees suggest that a par- ticular law would be appropriate. The ULC Committee on Scope and Pro- receives suggestions—from any
gram
source—and determines whether state law on the subject should be the same or sim- ilar and whether a project seems feasible. Often the Scope Committee recom- mends the appointment of a study commit- tee to further develop a promising project. Once a proposal is well developed, Scope makes a recommendation as to whether to appoint a drafting committee. The ULC Executive Committee deter- mines whether to accept the recommen- dation in the light of the ULC’s resources and commitments. If it does, the president appoints a drafting committee, usually of eight to twelve members, and a reporter.
BP: Are they paid staff? RC: Typically, the reporters are law pro- fessors who have expertise in the relevant field. They receive a small honorarium for their work. The most relevant ABA section will desig- nate a liaison from the American Bar Asso- ciation. The drafting committee will encour- age other interested parties to send repre- sentatives to the process. Anyone can be an observer and many participate actively. The drafting committees then meet to begin drafting a statute, sometimes work- ing from an initial draft prepared by the re- porter, or from an issues list. Our drafting committees spend long weekends meeting in hotel conference rooms. They read the draft and talk through the policy issues, re- fining as they go. Usually, a drafting com- mittee will meet twice before the draft is presented for the first time at an annual meeting.
BP: What happens at the annual meet-
ings? RC: Our members—none of whom are paid—work hard at annual meetings. We are in session every day from 8 or 9 AM, de- pending on the agenda, until 5 PM or later. We usually take Sunday afternoon off. In session, the Conference functions as a committee of the whole. The drafting com- mittee sits on a dais in the front and each member of the drafting committee reads a section of the act. Once a section has been read, any member of the conference may make a comment or observation, ask a question, or propose an amendment. We proceed through the entire act. By the fall, the drafting committee has the transcript of the proceedings. It
will
look through the comments again, and re- consider everything at a several more draft- ing committee meetings. That shapes a fi- nal draft for the second annual meeting. Sometimes acts take longer.
16
At a final annual meeting, the draft will
be read again—section by section—and commissioners again have the chance to question, comment, make observations, and propose amendments. A final text will be agreed upon and then voted on the last day of the meeting by a roll call. Each state has one vote. When that is done, a uniform law exists. There is one more step before the mat- ter is presented to the ABA and the state legislatures: The Committee on Style re- views the draft and makes non-substantive changes to maintain consistency with our drafting manual.
BP: You said each state has one vote, which raises a question. Are the delega- tions from each state the same size? RC: No. States choose how many com- missioners to appoint. South Carolina has only three commissioners; Wisconsin ap- points eight commissioners plus life mem- bers and Texas has appointed ten members and life members. But the size of a delega- tion does not define its effectiveness or in- fluence. My friend, Commissioner Langrock, for example, is one of the most effective members in floor debate. Peter has broad expertise, and is not afraid to be wrong. He will ask questions and sometimes an emi- nent law professor who is serving as a re- porter will have to say, “I never thought of that before, we need to reconsider.”
BP: Do the members of the commission have copies beforehand? RC: Oh yes.
BP: So you have done your homework
beforehand? RC: Different commissioners have differ- ent practices. Virginia for example, assigns a draft to each member so they have one go-to person who they expect will follow that drafting process in detail, so that they can have the maximum impact.
BP: How does the vote work? We’ve got six members. Do we let the caucus decide what the state’s vote is going to be? RC: In theory. As a practical matter, it is a consensus building process. It’s hear- ing people out on the merits and asking, can we address that concern and make this useful and broadly acceptable legislation? A commissioner may not agree with every policy judgment that has been made on an act, but usually after final reading, most members are on board.
BP: I cannot imagine if you have two or
three hundred lawyers in the room and you get to the final vote that there is not always just one more comment or one more ques- tions. RC: Mostly, we have talked the dissent
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • WINTER 2014
out. In recent years, there is usually no de- bate at the time of the roll call of the states. Once in a great while, a commissioner will move to have an act re-designated from uniform to a model, and there might be some brief debate. In my nineteen annu- al meetings I have never seen an uniform act fail, or be re-designated a model. I be- lieve the last time it happened was in 1991, when the Employment Termination Act was re-designated a Model Act during the vote by states. Ironically, that was what led me to seek appointment!
BP: Is consideration at two meetings the
standard? RC: Yes. The constitution requires it, un- less the Executive Committee waives a reading. I have only seen that happen once, because of a particular need to finish an act quickly. If an act is not ready, it will be read at more than two annual meetings.
BP: I think some of our members may know that Vermont Commissioners have appeared in our legislature during the ses- sion as witnesses on bills introduced as a uniform acts. I am not sure folks really un- derstand that it’s one thing to do this at a theoretical level and quite another to take it back to fifty legislatures and see it through. RC: One of the expectations of commis- sioners, who are not judges, is that they will pursue enactment, to the extent that an act is appropriate for the home state. We are “lobbyists,” although we are not lobbyists in the legal sense, because we are not lob- bying for any private interest.
BP: I understand that you expect to be- come the president of the ULC. Tell us about that? That sounds like quite an op- portunity. RC: It is a tremendous opportunity. I was seated at this desk about three years ago when the president of the Conference called and said that he would like to ap- point me to chair the Committee on Scope and Program. I told him that I needed to think about it, as I knew that that appoint- ment is the beginning of an informal leader- ship ladder. The usual course is service for two years chairing that committee, then ap- pointment as chair of the Executive Com- mittee for two more years, and then the practice is election by the membership to be the president of the Commission. After some reflection and consultation, I agreed. That’s why I don’t plan to accept life mem- bership soon, as I would become ineligible to be elected president. I am almost mid- way through the leadership track now, be- ing half-way through my first year as chair of the Executive Committee,
BP: You expect to become president sometime in 2015?
www.vtbar.org
Interview with Rich Cassidy
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36