LEGISLATIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held on
February 11, 2000 in Orlando, Florida

Attending: Mary Anne De Petrillo, Hazel Lucas, Anne Swerlick, Dacia Roberts, Dorene Barker, Bruce Scott, Tommy Blackmon, Don Freeman, Mary Ann Robertson and Eugenia Williamson

Not Attending: Betty Jackson and James Tucker

Welcome: Mary Anne De Petrillo. Ground rules of meeting reviewed.

Introductions: Committee members paired up and interviewed and introduced each other. They gave their program affiliation, their interests, and prior work.

Overview of Planning Process - Mission and Goals, History, Process: Mary Anne De Petrillo gave an overview of the state planning process and the state planning timeline. The materials for the meeting were given out. The committee's goal to make recommendations on the best way to effectively and efficiently provide and use legislative and administrative advocacy on behalf of clients was stated. The definition of energetic affirmative advocacy was given.

Overview of Legislative Administrative Advocacy: Anne Swerlick explained what legislative/administrative advocacy is and how it impacts all areas of law. The different levels of legislative/administrative advocacy were discussed (local, state, and national). The materials that had been mailed out previously were reviewed, including articles, FLS planning report, and the policy manual from Legal Services of Greater Miami. It was encouraged that other members provide helpful materials and the importance of collaboration. The desired outcomes of the meeting were reviewed.

Group Discussion: The committee split into two groups to discuss their vision of legislative/administrative advocacy. How should the system work when we have a specific reason to change the law for a client? The committee rejoined to discuss.

Vision

1. The system should be client centered. 2. Due to the diversity of issues between programs a coordinated approach to the legislature was discussed. Using a regional approach instead of individual. 3. A system of spotting issues. The frontline people need to be involved in issue spotting. 4. Discussed having a point person in each program to handle legislative/administrative advocacy. Someone who is enthusiastic and wants to get involved and participate. 5. The domestic violence clearinghouse model was discussed as an example to form a model for legislative/administrative advocacy. Have quarterly meetings and trainings. Who should be part of the clearinghouse, including community groups. Have the clearinghouse people report back to the committee. 6. The importance of a seamless system. 7. The capacity to respond at all levels of government. 8. Networking not only with legal aid/services program but also with community groups and powerful people. 9. Staffing capacity "personalities" to pursue a variety of legal strategies. 10. Good flow of communication between advocates at all levels. 11. Self-help legislative/administrative advocacy. 12. Holistic approach to clients. 13. Collaboration with field and clients to determine state and national legislative/administrative advocacy priorities. 14. Steady flow of compelling client stories. 15. Personal contact between committee members or telephone conferencing in lieu of written.

The committee stayed together to discuss Barriers:

Barriers

1. LSC restrictions: a. Adversaries using restrictions as "a sword". b. Not able to ask for attorney fees (e.g. special education cases). c. Legislators do not know about restrictions. d. Companion delivery system "kinks". e. Board members. f. Lack of understanding of what can and cannot be done. g. Lack of consensus among directors about restrictions. h. Lack of understanding and a fear regarding Cohen-Bumpers Amendment. i. Multiple funding sources complicating this. 2. Funding for special programs driving priorities/use of time. 3. Multiple funding sources require lots of staff resources/time. 4. Lack of pro bono attorneys due to conflicts on legislative/administrative advocacy (especially large law firms). 5. Florida Bar has ineffective lobbyists. 6. Conflicts with private attorney lobbyists. 7. Geography is barrier to pro bono participation. 8. Local level access to lobbyists. 9. Lack of connection with local Bars to get assistance. 10. Lack of understanding on how to recruit and support pro bono attorneys. 11. Lack of effective process for moving legislative/administrative advocacy issues (too many seams in the process). 12. Workgroups not a good vehicle for communication on legislative/administrative advocacy. 13. Lack of expertise in programs on legislative/administrative advocacy (no "ownership" of these issues). 14. FLS docket too long. 15. Do not know how to effectively look for clients. 16. Too much paperwork at the intake level. Checklists do not work. 17. High caseloads. 18. Lack of funding. 19. Board of Directors' priorities differs across the state. 20. Legal services so fragmented statewide and across the country. 21. Legal practice more complex. 22. FLS does not get referrals from the field (e.g. cannot file rule challenge). 23. Field programs communicating less between each other. 24. Not all programs participate on workgroups. 25. General "chronic" lack of communication. 26. No identified people in programs for legislative/administrative advocacy (someone who is a "champion" of these strategies).

Recommendations:

Streamlined response - No long delays. Don Freeman - Lead; Mary Anne De Petrillo

Coordinated system - Clearinghouse model; including natural allies for networking and clients. Jeannie Williamson - Lead; Tommy Blackmon

Shared Information - Between field programs and statewide programs and client population. Two-way flow of information. Mary Ann Robertson - Lead; Bruce Scott; Dorene Barker

Holistic approach to clients' issues - Issue identification. Dacia Roberts - Lead; Hazel Lucas; Anne Swerlick

It was decided to try to have the next meeting on March 3 at the Tampa Airport. Mary Anne De Petrillo to secure date, time and place. The subcommittees are to work in the interim on recommendations and circulate the information to the other committee members.

Meeting adjourned.

Submitted by,

Mandy Silvestris

Attending: Mary Anne De Petrillo, Hazel Lucas, Anne Swerlick, Don Freeman, Bruce Scott, Tommy Blackmon, Mary Ann Robertson and Eugenia Williamson.

Not Attending: Betty Jackson, James Tucker, Dorene Barker and Dacia Roberts.

1. Reviewed subcommittee reports: Copies of reports attached.

a. Information sharing.

b. Coordinated system.

c. Holistic approach to client issues.

d. Streamlined response.

2. Questions regarding vision and barriers:

What additional information? Should we modify? How to draft?

3. Networking with community groups:

a. Recommend

-proactive in pushing staff to be involved in community groups

-community education/brochures

-problems with community groups

b. Community person

c. Link between clearinghouse and community group needed

4. Review of other committee reports and how issues would impact our recommendation.

5. Discussion of process/substantive issues.

6. How to interest first line staff in adm/leg advocacy.

7. How to energize advocates with substantive expertise.

8. Regional approach - cooperation between programs - proactive approach.

9. State plan/statewide system.

Clearinghouse

1. Who decides legislative advocacy?

2. Will legislative advocacy share info? Do work? What is their role?

3. Natural allies identification; client, groups of clients, pro bono, other advocacy groups.

Clearinghouse Training

Education about:

1. How the legislative process works year round.

2. How to identify legislative/administrative issues.

Issues Bin

1. How to manage need for retainer.

a. Need statewide procedure.

2. Resolving LSC restrictions as to legislative/administrative advocacy to reach consistency between project directors (e.g. client retainers, board lobbying).

3. How will FLS decide statewide priorities? Consensus FLS must have final decision.

4. Managing the listserve. Who to do this? FLS logical choice; programs must keep updated.

5. Dealing with emergencies; marshalling support; short time frames; need for stories, information, phone calls.

6. Solicitation.

Legislative/Administrative Advocacy Liaisons

1. Need to be linked to local and statewide substantive advocates.

2. Need to be committed to sharing information at program level.

3 Collect stories.

4. Identify state and local natural allies, includes client, client groups, pro bono attorneys.

a. links - impacted entities.

Recommendations

1. Some type of statewide substantive advocacy network is needed in order for legislative/administrative advocacy process to be effective.

2. Project directors should achieve consensus on consistent interpretation of LSC regulations on legislative/administrative advocacy.

Final Recommendations of the
Legislative/Administrative Advocacy Action Committee

Description of Committee Purpose:

The purpose of the committee was to make recommendations on the best ways to effectively and efficiently provide and use legislative/administrative advocacy on behalf of clients.

Each recommendation was measured against the standard of energetic affirmative advocacy. Energetic affirmative advocacy was defined as representing all clients, whether in direct service or impact cases, in ways that reflect a high level of legal practice skill as well as a willingness to learn, challenge assumptions and take risks. It is an inclination to consider and, if necessary, address directly the underlying causes of a client's problem. It is maximizing resources and building strategic alliances on behalf of clients by working with other advocates, community groups, and providers from around the state. It is working with individual clients in ways that recognize and affirm their wholeness as individuals and community members.

Legislative/Administrative Advocacy Action Committee Members:

Mary Anne De Petrillo, Executive Director (Chair) Dacia Roberts, Staff Attorney Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Assn. Legal Services of North Florida 100 E. Robinson St. 2119 Delta Blvd. Orlando, FL 32801 Tallahassee, FL 32303 (407) 841-8310 (850) 385-9007 #102 (407) 648-9240 FAX (850) 385-7603 FAX mdepetrillo@legalaidocba.org dacia@tlsnf.org

Anne Swerlick, Deputy Director (Co-Chair) Mary Ann Robertson, Staff Attorney Florida Legal Services Legal Aid Service of Broward County 2121 Delta Blvd. 609 Southwest First Ave. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (850) 385-7900 (954) 765-8950 (850) 385-9998 FAX (954) 765-5149 FAX anne@floridalegal.org marobertson@legalaid.org

Dorene Barker, Attorney/Legislative Advocate Bruce Scott, Paralegal Florida Legal Services Central Florida Legal Services 2121 Delta Blvd. 315 Magnolia Ave. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sanford, FL 32771-1915 (850) 385-7900 (407) 322-8983 (850) 385-9998 FAX (407) 324-3868 FAX dorene@floridalegal.org bruces@cfls.org

Tommy Blackmon, Regional Managing Attorney Eugenia Williamson, Deputy Director Withlacoochee Area Legal Services Bay Area Legal Services 611 U.S. Hwy 41 South 829 W. Martin Luther King Blvd., 2nd Fl Inverness, FL 34450 Tampa, FL 33603-3331 (352) 726-8512 (813) 232-1343 (352) 726-0177 FAX (813) 232-1403 FAX walscit@atlantic.net jwilliamson@bals.org

Don Freeman, Deputy Director Betty Jackson, Lay Member Jacksonville Area Legal Aid 5802 Pondwood Ct. 126 W. Adams St. Orlando, FL 32810 Jacksonville, FL 32202-3849 (407) 650-3800 #3195 (904) 356-8371 (407) 650-3759 FAX (904) 356-8285 FAX b.godwinjackson@worldnet.att.net don.freeman@jaxlegalaid.org

Hazel Lucas, Staff Attorney James Tucker, Lay Member Florida Rural Legal Services P.O. Box 188 423 Fern St., Suite 220 Hastings, FL 32145-0188 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (904) 825-6850 WK (561) 820-8902 (904) 692-1004 HM (561) 820-8892 FAX (904) 692-2808 FAX hazel@frls.org tunss@aug.com

Background for Recommendations:

In order to make recommendations, the committee reviewed the current system in Florida for legislative/administrative advocacy for low-income clients by legal aid and legal services programs. The committee identified a variety of areas for improvement.

One area of concern with the current system for providing legislative/administrative advocacy is its unwieldy structure and disjointed parts. Advocates in Tallahassee are charged with the responsibility for advocating positions on key issues, but there is often little support or "buy-in" from the field with supportive stories and clients willing to testify. At the same time, advocates in the field who have viable issues are unsure how to get advocacy efforts started - Do you get workgroups approval first? How about the Project Directors Association (PDA) committee? Which approves priorities? Do I just call Florida Legal Services (FLS) directly? Does my Director or our Board have to hear this first? Many opportunities for "filtering" or blocking these issues exist to the point where many staff simply give up and assume that there is nothing that can be done.

The current system is too slow and too removed from the client and client groups and advocates who first confront an issue that might be subject to resolution through legislative/administrative advocacy. There are many hoops to jump through - Legal Services Corporation (LSC) regulations, project directors, workgroups, PDA committee, FLS priority process, etc. There must be a system created so that an advocate can quickly know whether FLS or a companion delivery system advocate can help. If so, in which forum and when? If not, guidance needs to be provided to the advocate on what he/she can do, or what the client/client group can accomplish on their own (or with supportive education and/or training on how to do "pro se" legislative/administrative work). What other groups could they work with? Which local politicians might be approachable?

The sharing of information between clients, field programs, and FLS staff is very poor in the current system. It is the committees' impression that most field programs do not have active intake systems that enable staff to solicit information from clients on a broad range of problems impacting the low-income community. Most programs solely depend on a client's capacity to identify legal issues. Field programs are generally not identifying potential legislative/administrative advocacy issues or compiling client stories for FLS on these issues. FLS could do a better job in collecting and disseminating to all programs in the delivery system information about legislative/administrative issues of statewide importance. In many programs information as to legislative/administrative advocacy activity is shared only at the upper echelons of local programs. The sharing of information in the current system takes too long. By the time an issue goes from an advocate in the field, to a workgroup, to a PDA legislative committee, to the PDA, then to FLS, a year or more has passed. Often a client is out of touch and an advocate has lost their initial enthusiasm. The process is currently too slow to be an effective remedy for clients.

In the current system advocates are not receiving consistent and uniform instruction from project directors about permissible legislative/administrative advocacy under LSC restrictions. For example, most field advocates in LSC restricted programs are not aware that they can pursue rule challenges under the Florida Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Consequently, field programs have little expertise on APA strategies available to assist their clients. Further, advocates do not receive adequate information to understand their program's capacity to identify potential legislative/administrative advocacy issues and their obligation to work cooperatively with the companion delivery system to pursue these issues.

In summary, the current system in Florida for providing legislative/administrative advocacy presents barriers to energetic affirmative advocacy. The current system is too unwieldy and disjointed. The process in place takes too long. The current system is too removed from clients and "front-line" advocates in field programs. The sharing of information in the system is in need of much improvement at all levels.

Recommendations:

Recommendation One:
A Florida Clearinghouse for legislative/administrative advocacy should be created.

A. Composition:

1. Would be made up of one advocate from each legal service and legal aid program and the companion programs.
2. The advocate would be selected because he/she has an interest in this approach.
3. The advocate would demonstrate a willingness to serve as a liaison between the Clearinghouse and the individual program's advocates.
4. The liaison would be the focal point in the individual program for information that needs to be communicated to someone on the staff of FLS who has been designated as the "point person" for legislative/administrative advocacy activities statewide.

B. Duties of the program liaisons:

1. Gather information from their individual field program advocates, both proactively and passively, about clients' legal problems needing legislative/administrative remedies.
2. Pass information along in a timely fashion to the statewide point person in the FLS office in Tallahassee.
3. Communicate with its program advocates the need to identify affected clients related to issues selected by FLS as appropriate for legislative/administrative advocacy.
4. Attend periodic statewide meetings for the purposes described above.
5. Convey information from the FLS statewide point person to individual program advocates about action taken on issues referred from individual programs to FLS, and about legislative/administrative advocacy activities and developments.

C. Meetings of the Florida Clearinghouse for Legislative/Administrative Advocacy

1. Would take place at a central location quarterly.
2. Would be an opportunity for liaisons to learn how to work with the advocates in their individual programs to help them develop their ability to identify issues that could be addressed through legislative/administrative advocacy.
3. Would be a forum where individual program liaisons and FLS staff (and perhaps representatives of natural allies) could work together to design an effective statewide communications system that meets the needs of individual programs for relaying information about legislative/administrative advocacy both to and from FLS (this should be coordinated with the Statewide Technology and the Training and Technical Assistance Committees).
4. Would be an opportunity to share effective approaches to working with natural allies on a community level around legislative/administrative advocacy issues (e.g. to educate the community and to help identify clients for legislative/administrative efforts).

Recommendation Two:

A. A system needs to be implemented which provides a faster, more streamlined "seamless" system of communication and decision-making from clients - to field staff - to legislative/administrative advocates - and back again. This system needs to allow FLS advocates to quickly obtain support from clients and field staff on issues that they are working on. Clients and field staff should also be able to quickly access and get feedback on whether advocacy can be provided on either a national, state, or local level. In such a system, clients and field staff will be able to find out whether an issue can be advocated, in which forum, and by whom. If Tallahassee is not the appropriate or best forum, perhaps a local forum would be successful (witness the title loan work carried in a number of local jurisdictions after the State Legislature proved resistant). The use of technology is key to speed up the process and decision-making about the commitment of resources to legislative/administrative advocacy projects.

B. The system we recommend would operate in the following manner:

1. A client or client group has a legal problem. The advocate in the field program determines that the best solution or remedy for the problem necessitates legislative or administrative advocacy.
2. The advocate then meets with the program's legislative/administrative liaison and together they complete a legislative/administrative request form. The form includes a summary of the client's problem along with a short explanation of why the matter cannot be solved at the program level and is better served by a legislative/administrative systemic approach. The form would also contain a statement as to the desired result/outcome.
3. The request form is then sent by the legislative/administrative liaison to their project director and to the other members of the legislative/administrative clearinghouse. (We assume they will have a computer list serve of the members who will be able to be alerted easily). Liaison members then can begin sharing the problem with members of their program to see if they have clients also similarly affected. If so, they will pass that information along to the originating liaison. The project director will have the opportunity to review the request and discuss the matter with others if appropriate.
4. If the project director has no objections within 30 days, the form will be sent on by the originating liaison to the designated staff member at FLS along with any other information gathered from other liaisons during the 30-day period.
5. The FLS designated staff member will then pass the information along to the FLS statewide substantive contact; (the substantive contact will be someone on FLS staff with expertise in a particular area of law. The FLS staff member may consult with other substantive experts in the field) who will in kind pass on to allies until FLS decides on a response. FLS will then internally make a decision whether or not they will pursue this legislative/administrative issue.
6. If FLS says yes they will communicate their decision and course of action to the members of the legislative/administrative clearinghouse. The liaisons will then inform their individual program staff who will in turn contact client groups and human service providers. These groups will be requested to identify affected individuals and give client stories to the liaison to send to FLS. FLS will then look for legislative contacts and more stories and records. FLS will also provide periodic reports on the status and outcome achieved which will be shared with the clearinghouse liaisons who will in turn share them with their project directors and with the originating program advocate and client.
7. If FLS declines to take on the issue they will explain why and suggest other options if available. They will communicate this to the clearinghouse liaisons who will in turn inform their programs that will in turn inform the client.
8. If FLS says maybe, they will explain why and also inform the clearinghouse liaisons of other options or other information needed. If more information is needed the liaisons will pass the information request along to the substantive staff advocate to collect and provide to FLS. If FLS suggests other options the liaisons will pass the information along to their project director and to the staff advocate who will inform the client. The advocate and client could then explore the other options or trash the idea.
9. Communication flow charts explaining the process are attached.

Recommendation Three:

Project directors must achieve consensus on the consistent interpretation of the LSC regulations on legislative/administrative advocacy. This requires coherent, uniform instructions from project directors to staff about what is permitted and what is their obligation to work with the companion system in providing and obtaining information and clients on these issues. The PDA needs to develop uniform instructions for advocates in LSC restricted programs on permissible legislative/administrative advocacy activities. Field program advocates also need additional training on strategies and remedies available to their clients under the APA and what APA advocacy is permitted under LSC restrictions.

Recommendation Four:

Programs need to develop better outreach and intake strategies to identify problems in their client communities which may be addressed through legislative/administrative advocacy. Several other components in the overall delivery system are recommended to strengthen our proposed legislative/administrative advocacy proposal. Programs need to develop and implement outreach and intake strategies that enable staff to solicit information from clients on a broad range of problems impacting the client community. They should not solely depend on clients' capacity to identify legal issues. These outreach and intake strategies also need to give field programs the capacity to gather information and stories from individual clients and client groups on problems in their communities regardless of the program's capacity to do the advocacy work needed to address these problems. FLS or others may be able to help out clients by use of these stories. Programs also should gather information from the other human services organizations serving low-income clients, on priority concerns that may be potential legislative/administrative advocacy issues. These may provide valuable information for the program's liaison to pass on to FLS to assist clients when programs are unable to do so.

BACK to Action Committees Page