REPORT OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION WORKING GROUP ON THE REPORT OF THE NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

14 Vesey Street

New York, NY 10007-2992

REPORT OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION WORKING GROUP ON THE REPORT OF THE NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

This Report was approved by the Executive Committee of the New York County Lawyers’ Association at its meeting on February 23, 2010.

The New York County Lawyers’ Association (NYCLA) Working Group, co-chaired by Hon. Margaret A. Finerty and Susan B. Lindenauer, was established by NYCLA President Ann B. Lesk to review the Report on the Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct developed by the Special Committee to Review the Rules of Judicial Conduct of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA). The Working Group, which draws on the considerable experience of judges and lawyers identified at the end of this Report, comprises the co-chairs and members of the NYCLA Task Force on Judicial Selection, a co-chair of the NYCLA Task Force on Judicial Independence, the chair and members of the NYCLA Judicial Section, the director and a member of the NYCLA Ethics Institute, a co-chair of the NYCLA Committee on the Supreme Court and NYCLA officers. After a thorough review of all the Proposed Rules, the Working Group prepared the following recommendations for changes to the Rules, Terminology and Comments and for new Rules and Comments.

REPORT

RULE 2.2: IMPARTIALITY AND FAIRNESS

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.

NYCLA Proposal

A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

Proposed Comment [2] seems to be a substantial carve out from the Rule, so NYCLA recommends its inclusion in the black-letter Rule.

RULE 2.5: COMPETENCE, DILIGENCE AND COOPERATION

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

2.5(B) A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.

NYCLA Proposal

2.5(B) A judge should shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the procedural administration of court business.

The proposed NYSBA Rule 2.5(B) changes the word “should” to “shall.” NYCLA proposes retaining “should” and adding “procedural” before administration of justice. We have concerns that the use of the word “shall” relating to cooperating with other judges and court officials may challenge the independence of the judiciary. For the same reasons, we recommend that cooperation be limited to the procedural administration of court business.

RULE 2,6: ENSURING THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

2.6(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.

NYCLA Proposal

2.6(B) A judge may should encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not should act in a manner that coerces any-party-into settlement consistent with these Rules.

We suggest changing “shall” to “should” because of our concern that judges may be blamed for a settlement decision that a client does not like in retrospect. It is vital that judges have sufficient latitude to facilitate settlements without fear of being disciplined because they stepped over an ambiguous line.

RULE 2.7: RESPONSIBILITY TO DECIDE

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 2.11 or other law.*

NYCLA Proposal

A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 2.11 or other law.*

NYCLA recommends that this Rule not be adopted. It is essentially new and in the NYCLA’s view, a serious breach of this Rule would necessarily be a breach of Rule 2.5(A). We are also concerned that the Rule has the potential of being harmful as a judge may be required to justify the reasons for recusal.

RULE 2.9: EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter, except as follows:

A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and provides a copy of such advice if the advice is given in writing and the substance of the advice if it is given orally and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received.

A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.

A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers on agreed-upon matters in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.

A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by law to do so.

A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

NYCLA Proposals

Title

This proposed Rule is entitled “Ex Parte Communications” but is far broader in scope. We suggest a more accurate title such as “Judicial Communications.”

Add to Terminology or Section (A)

“Ex parte communication” means a communication about the subject matter of an impending or pending matter between the judge in that matter and a party or party’s counsel or unrepresented party when opposing counsel is not present.

We recommend that the term “ex parte communication” be defined. Judges (and others) would likely benefit from a clear definition. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “ex parte communication” as follows: “A communication between counsel and the court when opposing counsel is not present. Such communications are ordinarily prohibited.” Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), communication. We propose to include the text above either in the Terminology section or in the text of (A).

Section (A)(2) and Comment [7]

A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and provides a copy of such advice if the advice is given in writing sand the substance of the advice if given orally once obtained and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received. A judge may always consult ethics advisory committees, outside counsel, or legal experts concerning the judge’s compliance with these Rules because such consultations are not subject to the restrictions of this subdivision (A)(2).

This subdivision modifies existing Rule 100B.3(6)(b) by allowing a judge to obtain “written advice” of a disinterested expert on the law provided the parties are given advance notice and an opportunity to object and respond, but fails to eliminate inconsistent text from the existing provision allowing the judge to convey “the substance of such advice if given orally.”

Comment [7] states that a judge may consult ethics committees, etc. concerning the judge’s compliance with these Rules, and that such consultations are not subject to the restrictions of Rule 2.9(A)(2). This seems substantive and thus should be included in (A)(2).

Section (A)(3) and Comment [5]

A judge may consult with (i) court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities or (ii) with other judges who are neither disqualified nor likely to review the case on appeal about procedural and other matters other than any ultimate merits or factual issues that the judge is likely to need to decide, provided that in all cases the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the case.

Comment [5] seems substantive and thus should be included in the black letter of the rule, with the term “ex parte” deleted. We, therefore, suggest the inclusion of the substance of that comment with further elaboration of the types of issues that may be discussed with other judges.

Section (A)(4)

A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers on agreed- upon matters in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.

This subdivision changes existing Rule 100.3B(6)(d) by restricting consensual ex parte communications with parties and their lawyers to discussions involving settlement of the pending matter. The existing provision allows such discussions involving “agreed-upon” matters. No explanation for the change is provided in the Comments and we are loathe to restrict the ability of judges and the parties to deal with consensual discussions on “agreed-upon” matters. We also note the Rules are intended to cover all judges although different courts may follow different procedures in the course of disposing of pending matters.

Section (A)(5)

A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by New York law to do so.

This subdivision permits a judge to ex parte communicate when “expressly authorized by law.” This seems to leave some ambiguity about whether non-binding decisional law, such as in federal court or another state court, would create an exception. We propose to revise it to clarify (and also to delete reference to “ex parte” in order to permit any communication expressly authorized by law).

Section (C) and Comment [6]

A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums; including electronic.

We recommend that a portion of Section (C) and all of Comment [6 ] be deleted. We see no difference between information a judge already has and factual information the judge may obtain from a search of printed or electronic materials, provided the judge does not thereafter rely upon that information to supersede the evidence presented in reaching his or her decision in a pending matter. We also see no issue with a judge’s conducting independent background research when such research is designed to better equip the judge to understand the facts as presented. For example, if a judge were hearing a personal injury case involving a special kind of building, the judge is permitted to do a Google, Yahoo or Bing search for background on that type of building. Or if a judge is hearing a case involving technological questions, the judge is permitted to research articles or other general information about the area of technology in question. Moreover, it is understood that judges are permitted to read newspapers and otherwise stay apprised of current events, including articles that relate to a matter before the judge.

Other NYCLA Comments to the Rule

Comment [1] To the extent reasonably possible and subject to the exceptions noted in the Rule, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.”

This change is necessary to accurately summarize the Rule.

Comment [4] A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-solving courts, mental health courts, or drag courts. In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.

This change is necessary in order not to limit the prohibition to ex parte communications.

RULE 2.10(A): JUDICIAL STATEMENTS ON PENDING AND IMPENDING CASES

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge shall not make any public statement about a matter pending* or impending* in any court within the United States or its territories, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing in such a court.

NYCLA Proposal

A judge shall not make any public statement comment about a matter pending* or impending* in any court within the United States or its territories, or make any nonpublic statement comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing in such a court, except that a judge may comment on legal issues for an academic purpose. For purposes of this rule, comments made in an academic setting shall be deemed to be nonpublic comments.

The proposed NYSBA rule changes “comment to statement” and adds non-public statement. NYCLA recommends retaining the word “comment.” In our view the word “statement” is unduly restrictive and may prohibit a judge from discussing and analyzing in an academic setting substantive issues that might arise in pending or impending matters. In making this suggestion, NYCLA has taken into consideration the significant contribution judges make to legal education and that teaching is one of the limited permissible extra-judicial activities.

RULE 2.11: DISQUALIFICATION

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances;

4) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary* or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, or any member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, *has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.

NYCLA Proposals

Expand Terminology to Include a 5th Exception to the Definition of Economic Interest

“Economic interest” means ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable interest. Except for situations in which the judge participates in the management of such a legal or equitable interest, or the interest could be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding before a judge, it does not include:

5) Any interest held through an entity such as a blind trust over which a judge or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, child or any member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household has no ability to make investment decisions and no knowledge of investments held by such entity.

Disqualification is required under Rule 2.11 (A) (4) when a judge, the judge’s spouse, domestic partner or certain other family members has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding. NYCLA recommends that a 5th exception be added to the definition of “Economic interest.”

Alternative Proposal: Amend (A)(4)

If this additional exception to the definition of “Economic interest” is not adopted, then we recommend adding this language to (A)(4) to read as follows:

(A) (4) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary* or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, child, or any member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, *has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding except that this rule does not apply to any interest held through an entity such as a blind trust over which a judge or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, child or any member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household has no ability to make investment decisions and has no knowledge of the investments held by such entity.

NYCLA recommends that an explanation be given for the above exception/inclusion of “blind trust” and suggests using the following language approved by the NYCLA Executive Committee on June 22, 2004 in a report by the NYCLA Task Force on Judicial Selection Sub-committee on Disqualifying Economic Interest:

“This device is widely used by government officials, especially those brought in to serve from the private sector, and shields the judge from any knowledge of the holdings contained in the trust. Blind trusts are run by fiduciaries charged with maintaining that secrecy as long as the trust is needed in existence. Such trusts serve the double purpose of avoiding any disqualifying economic interest, because the component knowledge is missing, while at the same time affording judges and their families the economic benefits of investing in securities.”

New Subdivision (D) to Rule 2.11

The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. In matters that require immediate action, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and make reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.

NYCLA recommends adding to the black-letter Rule a subdivision (D) about the rule of necessity, currently contained in Comment [3] to the black letter-Rule. Such an inclusion would be an important exception to the disqualification Rule.

RULE 2.14: DISABILITY AMD IMPAIRMENT

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge having knowledge that the performance of a lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall take appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.

NYCLA Proposal

A judge having knowledge that the performance of a lawyer or another judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall should take appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.

We suggest changing “shall” to “should” because the concept of “appropriate action” is highly situation specific and subject to second guessing in retrospect. We believe that the intent of this Rule is to provide judges with a safe harbor for action they deem appropriate, rather than as a basis for discipline when they do not act. We believe judges already have sufficient incentive to report impairment that will have an impact on proceedings.

PROPOSED NEW RULE 2.17. COOPERATION WITH REVIEW, SCREENING AND NOMINATING COMMITTEES

NYCLA Proposed New Rule

A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or believed to have assisted or cooperated with a nominating commission or screening or review panel established by governmental authority, political party or bar association for the purpose of assessing the qualifications of. recommending, or nominating persons for judicial office, A judge shall not favor such a person either.

NYCLA Proposed New Comment

[1] Political parties are included because their recommendations may lead directly to nomination and office of a judge, as are senators’ screening panels. A bar association is never a nominating commission, but a judiciary committee of a bar association might be considered a screening panel depending on the circumstances.

We propose the following new Rule, which is not in the ABA or current New York Codes of Judicial Conduct, as we believe the Rules should prohibit a judge from retaliating against anyone who cooperates with an appropriate body to assess qualifications and recommend or nominate persons for judicial office.

RULE 3.1: EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL

Proposed NYSBA Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or these Rules. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:

(E) make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment or other resources, except for incidental use for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or unless such additional use is permitted by law.

NYCLA Proposal

make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment or other resources, except for incidental use for permitted activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or unless such addition use is permitted by law

We suggest permitting incidental use of court premises, etc., for any extrajudicial activity that is permitted by law.

RULE 3.5: USE OF NONPUBLIC INFORMATION

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s judicial duties.

NYCLA Proposal

A judge shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s judicial duties. This Rule is not intended to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of these Rules.

Comment [2] to the Rule states that the rule is not intended to affect a judge’s ability to protect the judge, judge’s family, court personnel or other judicial officers. We believe that such a clarification merits black-letter inclusion in the Rule.

RULE 3.6: AFFILIATION WITH DISCRIMINATORY ORGANIZATIONS

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, color, creed, disability, marital status or sexual orientation.

A judge shall not use the benefits or facilities of an organization if the judge knows or should know that the organization practices invidious discrimination on one or more of the bases identified in paragraph (A). A judge’s attendance at an event in a facility of an organization that the judge is not permitted to join is not a violation of this Rule when the judge’s attendance is an isolated event that could not reasonably be perceived as an endorsement of the organization’s practices.

NYCLA Proposals

A judge’s membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise of the freedom of religion is not a violation of this Rule.

This Rule does not apply to national or state military service.

Comments [4] and [5] state that membership in a religious organization and military sendee do not violate/fall under the Rule, We propose that they be incorporated into the black-letter Rule as new Sections (C) and (D).

RULE 3.7: PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, CULTURAL, FRATERNAL, OR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

(A) Subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, a judge may participate in activities sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and those sponsored by or on behalf of educational, religious, charitable, cultural, fraternal, or civic organizations not conducted for profit, including but not limited to the following activities:

(1) assisting such an organization or entity in planning related to fund-raising, and participating in the management and investment of the organization’s or entity’s funds, but shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities. A judge shall not, however, use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation, but may be listed as an officer, director or trustee of such an organization. Use of an organization’s regular letterhead for fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate this provision, provided the letterhead lists only the judge’s name and office or other position in the organization, and, if comparable designations are listed for other persons, the judge’s judicial designation.

NYCLA Proposals

(1) assisting such an organization or entity in planning related to fund-raising, and participating in the management and investment of the organization’s or entity’s funds, but shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities except that a judge may solicit contributions for such an organization or entity, but only from members of the judge’s family, or from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority. A judge shall not, however, use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation, but may be listed as an officer, director or trustee of such an organization. Use of an organization’s regular letterhead for fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate this provision, provided the letterhead lists only the judge’s name and office or other position in the organization, and, if comparable designations are listed for other persons, the judge’s judicial designation.

We recommend the revision because certain types of solicitations by judges do not violate what we believe is the purpose of the Rule.

RULE 3.8: APPOINTMENTS TO FIDUCIARY POSITIONS

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judge shall not accept appointments to serve in a fiduciary* position, such as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other personal representative, designated by an instrument executed after January 1, 1974, except for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family,* and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. For good cause shown, a judge may apply to the Chief Administrator of the Courts for exemption from the provisions of this Rule.

If a person who is serving in a fiduciary position becomes a judge, he or she must comply with this Rule as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than one year after becoming a judge. For good cause shown, a judge may apply to the Chief Administrator of the Courts for exemption from the provisions of this Rule.

NYCLA Proposals

(A) A judge shall not accept appointments to serve in a fiduciary* position, such as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other personal representative, designated by an instrument executed after January 1, 1974, except for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family,* or, with the approval of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, a person not a member of the judge’s family with whom the judge has maintained a longstanding personal relationship of trust and confidence, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. For good cause shown, a judge may apply to the Chief Administrator of the Courts for exemption from the provisions of this Rule.

(D) If a person who is serving in a fiduciary position becomes a judge, he or she must comply with this Rule as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than one year after becoming a judge. For-good cause shown, a judge may apply to the-Chief-Administrator–of the Courts for exemption from the provisions of this Rule.

We prefer the current formulation that simply requires approval of the Chief Administrator rather than “good cause” for requests for exemption.

RULE 4,4: CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES

NYSBA Proposed Rules of Judicial Conduct

A judicial candidate subject to public election may establish a campaign committee of responsible persons during the permissible Window Period, to manage and conduct a campaign for the candidate, subject to the provisions of these Rules. The candidate is responsible for ensuring that his or her campaign committee complies with applicable provisions of these Rules and other applicable law.

A judicial candidate subject to public election shall direct his or her campaign committee:

to adhere to the applicable provisions of the Election Law, including but not limited to campaign contribution limits, and

to comply with all applicable requirements of law for the raising, expenditure, disclosure and divestiture of campaign contributions.

NYCLA Proposal

We have no comment on the black letter of Rule 4.4 as proposed, but we do suggest revising Comment [3] to Rule 4.4. That Comment states that although lawyers may contribute to a judicial candidate’s campaign, that “the candidate should instruct his or her campaign committee to be especially cautious in connection with such contributions, so they do not create grounds for disqualification if the candidate is elected to judicial office,” [Emphasis added]. Because we do not understand what “especially cautious” means, we suggest additional explanation be added to the Comment. For example, if the idea is that the judicial candidate should emphasize to the campaign committee that it should not imply or promise that the hopefully successful candidate will be influenced by such contribution in cases where the lawyer appears, then perhaps the comment could be clarified to say as much.

RULE 5.1: APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

NYSBA Proposed Rule of Judicial Conduct

(A) General application. All judges in the unified court system and all other persons to whom by their terms these rules apply, e.g., candidates for elective judicial office, shall comply with these rules of judicial conduct, except as provided below. All other persons, including judicial hearing officers, who perform judicial functions within the judicial system shall comply with such rules in the performance of their judicial functions and otherwise shall so far as practical and appropriate use such rules as guides to their conduct.

Administrative Law Judges. The provisions of this Part are not applicable to administrative law judges unless adopted by the rules of the employing agency.

NYCLA Proposed New Comment

[3] While the Proposed Rules are not precisely applicable to administrative law judges, rules supporting the independence and integrity of administrative law judges acting in their judicial capacity, similar to those approved for administrative law judges by the NYSBA House of Delegates, should be adopted either by executive order and administrative rule making or by legislative action.

NYCLA proposes the new comment to encourage the adoption of similar rules for administrative law judges.

NYCLA WORKING GROUP ON THE PROPOSED RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Susan B. Lindenauer and Hon, Margaret A. Finerty, Co-Chairs

Members

Morrell I. Berkowitz

Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellenn

Hon. Helen E. Freedman

Norman L. Greene

James B. Kobak Jr.

Wallace L. Larson Jr.

Ann B. Lesk

Hon. Joan A. Madden

Paul J. O’Neill Jr.

Susan J. Pogoda

Hon. Michael R. Sonberg

Lewis F. Tesser

Staff

Marilyn J. Flood