Subject: FW: Thoughts in Preparation for Special SWLF Meeting
From: [email-masked]
To: e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:31:37 -0700 (PDT)

For your consideration in preparation for Friday's meeting.
David

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Bradford G. Keithley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:08 AM
> To:	David Winn
> Cc:	Patrick H. Martin; 'Jim Armour'; Stuart Hollimon; Tim West;
> Janice Hartrick
> Subject:	Thoughts in Preparation for Special SWLF Meeting
>
> In anticipation of this Friday's meeting I thought I it might be
> useful to synthesize my thoughts on the Membership Committee report.
> As you did with the responses on the Program Committee questionnaire,
> please feel free to circulate these thoughts as appropriate.  I have
> copied these thoughts directly to the members of the Membership
> Committee, Jim, Stuart, Tim and Janice (if I have left anyone out I
> apologize in advance):
>
> 1.	The general outline of the Committee's report is great and I
> commend the Committee for its efforts.  I support expanding the scope
> of the Center, moving to a simplified dues based membership and
> rotating (with some modification) the membership of the Executive
> Committee.
>
> 2.	I have some concerns with some of the specifics inside that
> broad outline, however.
>
> 	a.	My perspective is somewhat parochial.  I am concerned
> primarily about preserving the Center as a vibrant forum for oil & gas
> lawyers.  I concur in the recommendation of the Membership Committee
> to expand the scope of the Center to include a broad segment of the
> energy industry, but we should be careful to find a way to do so which
> does not impair the ability also to maintain focus on specific
> segments of the industry.  As a way of accomplishing this goal, my
> thought would be to provide for separate "practice groups" (e.g.,
> committees) within the Center for oil & gas, power, energy marketing &
> trading ("emt") and coal & nuclear ("energy mining") (and possibly
> others).   There would be no limitation on belonging to more than one
> practice group.  (As a side note, this would actually serve to
> increase Jones Day's participation because we would have separate
> lawyers on each committee who might not otherwise participate if we
> did not provide an opportunity for such "pluralism").
>
> 	b.	As part of the effort at maintaining "pluralism," my
> thought also is to provide for a seat on the Executive Committee for
> the chair of each practice group.  This would help avoid the potential
> that the Center might become dominated (as occurred, for example, with
> the old SONREEL) by one group or another.  To assist in
> institutionalizing the diversity, the Executive Committee would be
> composed of the officers, the chairs of the various committees
> (program, membership, information, etc.) and the chair of each
> practice group.  In order to preserve the rotation anticipated by the
> Membership Committee recommendations, the chairs of the committees and
> practice groups could be limited to two year terms.  They would stay
> on the Executive Committee once their term as chair expired only if
> selected to an officer position within the Center.  The initial terms
> of the practice group chairs could be staggered so that not every
> chair would rotate off at the same time.  In order to provide maximum
> opportunity for participation in leadership positions, the term of the
> officers could be set to a year.
>
> 	c.	I think it is also important as a part of maintaining
> "pluralism" to ensure that the individual practice groups (rather than
> an overall Program Committee) serve as the primary focus for the
> development and presentation most of the Center's programs.  In other
> words, the oil & gas practice group would be responsible for the
> Annual Oil & Gas Institute; the power practice group would be
> responsible for developing an Annual Power Institute and so on.  This
> would ensure that the Center's programs remain responsive to the
> individual interests of the practice areas rather than become tilted
> in one direction or another.  The practice groups could decide to put
> on joint programs with each other and, each year, the overall program
> committee chair would decide whether to put on one or more overall
> programs (such as an "Introduction to Energy Law" program).
>
> 	d.	While I would leave it to the individual practice groups
> to decide on the location and length of the Institutes, I must admit
> that I am uncomfortable with going to a one-day Annual Oil & Gas
> Institute.   I think that such an approach would limit the ability of
> the chairs to provide quality programming and would limit the
> attractiveness of the programs.  Thinking personally for a moment, I
> would be less inclined to incur the travel dollars (or to authorize
> the travel dollars of others in the Firm) if they are only going to
> "buy" a one-day program.  If we are going to incur CLE-related travel
> dollars, especially to remote sites such as Calgary or London, my view
> is that the bigger bang (credits) for the buck, the better.
>
> 	e.	Finally, as a potential contributor, I want to make
> certain that the significant contributors have some continuing role in
> the operation of the Center, even if they don't have a representative
> on the Executive Committee.  I think that the Advisory Committee is
> well placed to serve that function.  To that end I would suggest that
> the Advisory Committee be composed of former officers (in the manner
> suggested by the Membership Committee report), plus a member
> designated by every company/firm stepping up to a given dues level.
> Unlike the Executive Committee, the members of the Advisory Committee
> (other than those participating in their status as former officers)
> should not be required to rotate.  A company/firm can maintain its
> same delegate to the Advisory Committee for as long as it desires.
> This would preserve some continuity and, also, not interfere with
> decisions made by those bodies maintaining financial commitments to
> the Center.
>
> Anyway, these are my thoughts.  I look forward to the discussion
> Friday.
>
> _________________________________
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney
> client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public
> information.  It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated
> recipient(s).  If you are not an intended recipient of this message,
> please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete
> it from your system.  Use, dissemination, distribution, or
> reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not
> authorized and may be unlawful.  Thank you.
>
>
>                    Bradford G. Keithley
>              Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
>
> Jones Day Building                Chase Tower
> 2727 North Harwood               600 Travis Street, Suite 6500
> Dallas, Texas 75201              Houston, Texas  77002
>
> Tel/Cell   	214-675-0038
> Fax       	214-969-5100
> Email     	[email-masked]
> AOL IM/MSN Messenger      bgkeithley
>
>  <<Bradford G. Keithley (Bradford G. Keithley).vcf>> 
 - Bradford G. Keithley (Bradford G. Keithley).vcf