CLE and Sacrifice By Deb Garrison It's 7:30 a.m. and I've been up for the past two hours preparing for this particular morning. I'm in the Best Western parking lot manhandling the third, yes tllird, fifty pound box of books out of the back end of my Izuzu Trooper. My only thought: "Please, God, let the coffee be read y." I get to the registration table where I am greeted by a man who looks rabid. "Surely," I think, as my mind starts racing, this man is in the wrong place. Registration doesn't ~tart until 8:30 a.m. I got up at an ungodly hour this morning just so 1 could have registration set up before ... "Is this that eLf seminar?" he bellows, his voice filled with loathing. "Family Law?" I reply with a tentative smile, hoping against hope that thin maniacal man is in the wrong place. "That's it," he barks, "I dun'l know
what this CLE is good for. Can lead a horse to water but you can't make him
drink."
To make a long story short, I spent much of the next six hours listening to this man's tirade about CLE, the Bar
Association, the Supreme Court and every other goshawful institution known to man. He never let up. Even as other lawyers made their way through the registration line.
Because I was polite and allowed him to vent, we ended up "good friends." As we left the Best Western that afternoon, he let me know that if it ever became necessary for him to sue the Bar Association, he would ~xc1ude me from the lawsuit. I thanked him and went home where 1 promptly downed three vodka tonics to the sounds of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon." It was not a good day. I though that most of the resistance to mandatory CLE had died down in the last few years. Boy, was I wrong. Becoming an employee of the Arkansas Bar Association (as I did last September when AICLE was merged into the Association) has forced me to take a second look at CLE. "Fixing CLE n The movers and shakers within the Association tell me that all is "ot well with eLE in Arkansas. They report that
28
ARKANSAS LAWYER
SUMMER 1993
certain factions want to "increase the number of carry-over hours" because they have to "travel out-of-state to get quality CLE:' Others say that they hear continued complaints that "CLE is inconvenient" or "it costs too much." Still others who would like to shape the Association's approach to CLE, say that, in their opinion, there is "too much CLE." Both of the candidates for PresidentElect of the Association have been quoted in Ti,e Daily Record as saying that, if elected, they would "stress" continuing legal education. I'm not sure what that means, but I get the feeling that with all of the bad rap, they've probably got some pretty definite ideas about how to "fix" CLE. The CLE staff has tried to "fix" CLE. We've cut back on wasteful spending, thus insuring low registration fees. We've tried to make seminars available throughout the state, thus insuring convenience. We've tried to work with our speakers and program planners to improve quality through such measures as early planning and guidelines for presentations and course materials. We've tried to encourage our speakers to use effective adult learning methodology - or at least use auuio-visual aids, if appropriate. We've even hosted a faculty development workshop. Stilt according to most accounts by those in the know, many of you are dissatisfied with CLE. Don't misunderstand me. There is room for improvement. Staff is probably more in touch with the shortcomings of CLE than you'll ever know. (We actually read those evaluation forms you turn in.) We are always trying to improve what we do - within a limited budget. An You Willing to Sacrifice Your Time to Make CLE Beller? I think you'll find the CLE staff is ready and willing to do what it takes to make our s~minars better. My question to the nay-sayers is this: Are yo" willing to do what it takes to make CLE better? To the nay路sayers who have abandoned the cause by only attending out-of-state programs - when is the last time you offered to help us make our CLE seminars better? Are you willing to volunteer your time to plan a program or
speak? What have you learned at those programs that would work here? Tell us. To the nay路sayers who have volunteered in the past - are you willing to take even more time away from your practice to attend a workshop to help you improve your presentation skills? Are you willing to study effective adult learning techniques and put them into practice in your next CLE presentation? Are you willing to learn how to properly use audio-visual aids to help our attendees get more out of CLE seminars? To the nay-sayers who have planned programs in the past - are you willing to work with us to develop more intensive, problem-solving workshops workshops which require a BIG time commitment? (Try at least two, preferably three, planning meetings with faculty and a problem-drafting session at least 9 months in advance) To the nay路sayers who hold or aspire to hold policy-making positions within the Association - are you willing to commit the resources - budgetary and otherwise - to staff as we implement all of these innovative methods in CLE programming? Are you willing to sacrifice atl~ndance numbers (and registration fees) for the smaller workshop approach? Are you willing to take the time and spend the money to find out the needs of the entire membership, not just those who are most active? Are you willing to consider that, in the face of increased competition for the CLE dollar, we should offer more high-quality, convenient and cost effective seminars? And finally, to nay路sayers in general - when you attend one of our programs, you're a recipient of CLE credit courtesy of your fellow lawyers - busy lawyers who have volutlteered to plan programs, write outlines, and prepare oral presentations. Every time you badmouth CLE, you bad-mouth your peers. Isn't that lawyer- bashing at its worst? If your answer to at least some of these questions is "yes/' caU me at 3753957. If you're ready to make the sacrifice, I'm ready to work with you to improve CLE.