From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Thu Sep 4 15:17:36 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:17:36 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Case Retention Policy Message-ID: <48BFEE00.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> All, Please see the attached letter and case retention policy. This policy also applies to cases you were appointed to before July 1, 2008, but close with the Program after July 1, 2008. You will keep your files in your offices and we will collect them from you once per year. If you mail them to our office, you will not be reimbursed for the postage. Let us know if you have any questions. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080904/6f66658e/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to GALs - re archiving policy 8-25-08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 105346 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080904/6f66658e/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Policy on Retention of Files 8-25-08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 211748 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080904/6f66658e/attachment-0003.pdf From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Fri Sep 5 09:55:08 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:55:08 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Clarification Message-ID: <48C0F3EC.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Just a quick clarification on the case retention policy. The policy states you must send us your closed file within 60 days of the closure date. You will be required to send us a case closure memo when you close the case, but as our letter stated, you will not have to send us your files. We will travel the state once per year to pick them all up. We fashioned it this way to save all of you the cost of postage. Let me know if you have any other questions. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080905/5920e2e9/attachment.htm From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Fri Sep 5 09:31:43 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:31:43 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] September GAL Newsletter Message-ID: <48C0EE6F.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Attached is the first edition of the GAL Newsletter. Don't forget to call in for Child Chat this month, details in the newsletter. Enjoy! Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080905/97fd4e11/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAL Newsletter - September 2008.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 894603 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080905/97fd4e11/attachment-0001.pdf From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Fri Sep 5 11:01:18 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:01:18 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Closure Memo Message-ID: <48C1036E.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> All, Attached is the form you will need to send to us when you close a file. Remember that you will not be required to send your file at that time, just the form. We will arrange for pickup of your files at a later date. For those GALs in Cheyenne or who travel to Cheyenne, you can always drop your closed files by our office at any time. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080905/32ed4ebc/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CASE CLOSURE MEMO.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 191353 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080905/32ed4ebc/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CASE CLOSURE MEMO.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15373 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080905/32ed4ebc/attachment-0001.bin From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Wed Sep 10 17:25:16 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:25:16 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Urgent Response Needed Message-ID: <48C7F4EC.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> ** High Priority ** GALs, We are about halfway through all the transmittal sheets. There are 18 of you, so far, that have sent in your transmittal sheets, but did not send all that was required. You needed: -the transmittal sheet -the petition -the signed Order appointing you as the GAL We have compiled a list of what was missing. Please be sure you are not on this list. If you are, I must receive the missing paperwork by September 15, 2008. If I do not receive it, it may impede your ability to be paid or to keep a continuing contract. You may mail or fax the missing documents. In a few cases, I didn't even have docket numbers. I did not want to list client names on a listserv, so please contact me if you are unsure which cases I am referring to. Also, if you have not sent in your transmittal sheets yet, I must have them by September 15 as well, or it will affect your ability to be paid and continue contracting with the Program. Thank you all for taking the time to send in this information. I know that it was time consuming this first time due to all the cases you had before July 1, 2008. Let me know if you have any questions. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080910/c56b0cde/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Missing from Transmittals 8-10-08 (no client names).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 158175 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080910/c56b0cde/attachment-0001.pdf From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Thu Sep 11 11:16:19 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:16:19 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] GAL Program Rules - Second Notice Period Message-ID: <48C8EFF3.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Please see the attached Notice of a second comment period for the Wyoming Guardians ad Litem Rules. Do to changes made in response to public comment and public hearing, a second comment period was needed. The revised Rules can be found on the Program website at http://gal.state.wy.us. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080911/3d79189c/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAL 2nd Comment Period Notice 9 9 08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66695 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080911/3d79189c/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAL 2nd Comment Period Notice 9 9 08.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080911/3d79189c/attachment-0001.doc From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Wed Sep 17 09:26:29 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:26:29 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] LSO Audit of Department of Family Services Message-ID: <48D0BF35.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> The Legislative Services Office has released their report on the Department of Family Services Audit. It can be found at: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/progeval/fs.htm Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/a53f215a/attachment.htm From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Wed Sep 17 11:16:31 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:16:31 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Message-ID: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/7d50de3a/attachment.htm From juve.law at msn.com Wed Sep 17 11:43:37 2008 From: juve.law at msn.com (Juve.Law JUVE) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:43:37 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Message-ID: Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ................................ Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/a8911f24/attachment.htm From DCameron at parsonscameronlaw.com Wed Sep 17 11:47:12 2008 From: DCameron at parsonscameronlaw.com (Dameione Cameron) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:47:12 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Message-ID: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> i absolutely agree.....Dameione Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. Parsons & Cameron, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1909 Warren Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 307.778.2822 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ________________________________ From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Juve.Law JUVE Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:44 AM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/e4dd05d4/attachment-0001.htm From toniahanson at vcn.com Wed Sep 17 12:15:56 2008 From: toniahanson at vcn.com (Tonia Hanson) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:15:56 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re[2]: Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails In-Reply-To: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> Message-ID: <6584790593.20080917111556@vcn.com> Thank you, Jane, for saying this so succinctly. Not only does the interruption cause huge amounts of loss in billing time, but 9 out of 10 pieces of correspondence comes in the form of e-mails now, not via US postal service. I use to not keep track of reading and responding to e-mails (because in my mind it did not take as long) but when I started keeping track (at my bookkeeper's suggestion) I found that more than 3 hours was spent EACH DAY in reading and responding to e-mails. Obviously an attorney must bill for that time! Tonia Hanson Omohundro & Hanson Law Offices, LLP 130 S. Main Buffalo, WY 82834 (307)684-2207 (307)684-9364 (fax) Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 10:47:12 AM, you wrote: DC> i absolutely agree.....Dameione DC> Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. DC> Parsons & Cameron, P.C. DC> Attorneys at Law DC> 1909 Warren Ave. DC> Cheyenne, WY 82001 DC> 307.778.2822 DC> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: DC> This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the DC> Electronic DC> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain DC> information intended for the DC> specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you DC> are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering DC> the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified DC> that you have received this communication in error and that any review, DC> dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the DC> contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have DC> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e DC> mail and delete the original message. DC> Thank you. DC> ________________________________ DC> From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu DC> [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Juve.Law JUVE DC> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:44 AM DC> To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht DC> Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano DC> Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails DC> Stacey - DC> You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. DC> Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading DC> an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. DC> As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take DC> into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other DC> work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my DC> thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind DC> away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my DC> mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 DC> minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time DC> is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. DC> If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for DC> that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an DC> email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In DC> private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even DC> 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the DC> government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can DC> understand things from our perspective? DC> Thanks for your time and consideration DC> ............................... DC> Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY DC> 82301 DC> Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com DC> This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any DC> unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. DC> ----- Original Message ----- DC> From: Stacey Obrecht DC> To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu DC> Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano DC> DC> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM DC> Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails DC> Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for DC> text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone DC> calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave DC> a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails DC> that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would DC> be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. DC> The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by DC> e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for DC> each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened DC> to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks DC> that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the DC> Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. DC> Please let us know if you have any questions about this new DC> policy. _______________________________________________ DC> WyoGAL mailing list DC> WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu DC> http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal From DPlayton at uwyo.edu Wed Sep 17 14:24:14 2008 From: DPlayton at uwyo.edu (Dona Playton) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:24:14 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] FW: NLCHP News: Back to School, McKinney-Vento Awards, and Victory in Hawaii Message-ID: Dona Playton UW DV Legal Assistance Project 1000 East University Avenue, Dept. 3010 Laramie, WY 82071 (307) 766-3664 From: Maria Foscarinis [mailto:nlchp at nlchp.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:23 PM To: Dona Playton Subject: NLCHP News: Back to School, McKinney-Vento Awards, and Victory in Hawaii IJT Logo A publication of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty ) Lawyers Working to End Homelessness Vol. 7, No. 9 In this issue * From Maria's Desk * 2008 McKinney-Vento Annual Award Winners Announced! * Groups Around the Country Promote Homeless Persons' Voting Rights * Extended Deadline: Submissions for Children's Art Contest * NLCHP urges DOJ to Consider Housing Needs of Survivors of Domestic Violence in Indian Country * NLCHP Comments on Guidance for Homeless Students with Disabilities * Victory for Hawaii's Homeless Children * NLCHP to Celebrate World Habitat Day with Training on October 6 * Thanks to our Pro Bono Partners! >From Maria's Desk Maria It's back to school season, and this year some children are facing more challenges than ever, as more and more families are poor or homeless . While figures have yet to be compiled for many communities, all indications are that as more families are affected by the foreclosure crisis, more are becoming homeless. Among those are renters, who lose their homes simply because of foreclosure on the property they are renting. Meanwhile, along with their parents, children of these families face terrible trauma and instability. Too often, this is compounded by school instability. Once they lose their housing, these children are subject to the same barriers as all homeless children. A bright spot is that the McKinney-Vento Education Program can help, and NLCHP has materials to help you understand and use the law . We are working with partner groups to create more targeted resources. Please let us know if you are seeing increases in homelessness due to foreclosures-affecting either owners or renters-in your community by writing to Info at nlchp.org. Maria Foscarinis Executive Director 2008 McKinney-Vento Annual Award Winners Announced! NLCHP is pleased to announce the recipients of its annual McKinney-Vento Awards. These awards recognize individuals and organizations that have advanced solutions to homelessness and poverty. These awards also pay tribute to two outstanding national leaders in the fight to end homelessness, Stewart B. McKinney and Bruce F. Vento. The Stewart B. McKinney Award will be presented to Richard E. Schaden, founder of Quiznos Subs and America's Road Home, for the national effort he has initiated to address homelessness. We are delighted to present U.S. Representative Judy Biggert from Illinois with the Bruce F. Vento Award. Ms. Biggert has been a major proponent of recent legislative successes on behalf of homeless children. The Pro Bono Counsel Award goes to Hogan & Hartson for its significant pro bono work in the past year, especially for preparing the 2008 Voting Rights Report. Hogan & Hartson has demonstrated its commitment to ending homelessness in America since 1989, when the firm assisted NLCHP with its incorporation and application for tax-exempt status. Tonya Bullock of Baltimore, MD will receive the Personal Achievement Award. After her family lost their home and moved to a shelter in Baltimore County, Ms. Bullock faced significant difficulties in attempting to keep her son in his school. She has since found stable housing for her family, has started work for the State of Maryland and has enrolled in Community College -- all while making sure that her son has been able to continue his education. This year's reception and dinner will be held on Thursday, November 6, at the elegant Jones Day law firm in Washington, DC, overlooking the U.S. Capitol. A special thanks to Jones Day! Information on sponsoring this year's event is available on our website or by contacting Jordan Lamb at jlamb at nlchp.org. Groups Around the Country Promote Homeless Persons' Voting Rights Dozens of service providers and advocates around the country will be holding voter registration events to help ensure homeless persons' voices are heard this election year. Over 50 groups in almost 20 states will be hosting voter education and registration events during National Homeless & Low Income Voter Registration Week from September 21 through September 27. "We are thrilled to see so many groups from across the country participating in the Voter Registration Week. These efforts are an important way to include homeless persons in the political process and ensure their concerns are addressed by our government officials," said Tulin Ozdeger, Civil Rights Director at NLCHP. NLCHP released a report in July of this year documenting the problems that homeless persons face when registering and voting. Homeless persons face barriers with identification, mailing address, and durational residency requirements when attempting to register or vote, according to an NLCHP survey highlighted in the report. Homeless persons often find it challenging to get themselves to the polls in order to participate. While homeless persons face some challenges in voting, the report provides recommendations on how to overcome those barriers, as well as suggested policy changes that could help homeless persons have better access to voting. For more information about National Homeless & Low Income Voter Registration Week, contact Tulin Ozdeger at tozdeger at nlchp.org. You may also access NLCHP's 2008 Voting Rights Report on our website . You can also visit our website for information on the Five Fundamentals Campaign, a challenge to candidates for public office to address homelessness. Extended Deadline: Submissions for Children's Art Contest NLCHP is seeking submissions from homeless or low-income children and youth for its annual artwork contest! Each year, NLCHP selects one winner and two runners-up whose artwork will be displayed at the McKinney-Vento Awards ceremony, along with other selected artwork from this and previous years' contests. The winning artwork will also be used on the four awards that will be presented to the honorees at the event, as well as other NLCHP outreach materials. Submissions will be accepted from children who are enrolled in after-school programs or art-related organizations serving homeless and low-income children or are currently residing in shelters. Entries in the contest must meet all criteria listed in the guidelines, and must also include the entry & release form, signed by a parent or legal guardian. The deadline for submissions is September 15, 2008. Visit the NLCHP website for more information. We will continue accepting submissions until October 10, 2008. Visit the NLCHP website for more information. NLCHP urges DOJ to Consider Housing Needs of Survivors of Domestic Violence in Indian Country NLCHP, along with the ACLU Women's Rights Project and the Native American Indian Housing Council, submitted a joint statement urging the newly convened Violence Against Women in Indian Country Task Force to consider the housing needs of survivors of domestic violence on tribal land. According the Department of Justice, 37.5% of American Indian and Alaska Native women and 12.4% of American Indian and Alaska Native men are raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner in their lifetimes. We know that the lack of safe and affordable housing is one of the reasons that survivors choose to stay in relationships, and we know that survivors experience evictions and housing denials directly related to the violence against them. There are very few, if any, emergency shelters or safe transitional housing options for survivors who choose to flee the violence on most tribal lands. While survivors living outside of the tribal land can utilize the housing protections of the Violence Against Women Act and state law, these protections do not apply to survivors living on tribal land. The joint statement urges the task force to make recommendations with respect to improving safe housing options and protecting the housing rights of survivors on tribal land. To view the statement, visit our website . NLCHP thanks the Waitt Family Foundation and the Freddie Mac Foundation for support of its Domestic Violence Program. Click here for more information on our Domestic Violence Program NLCHP Comments on Guidance for Homeless Students with Disabilities In May's Edition of In Just Times, we shared a story about the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services of the U.S. Department of Education issuing a Question and Answer document for guidance on implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in conjunction with the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to serve homeless children with disabilities. This document included significant language suggested by NLCHP and its partners, the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children & Youth (NAEHCY) and the National Center on Homeless Education . NLCHP and NAEHCY felt there were a number of areas in which the Guidance could be further clarified to ensure all students receive the services to which they are entitled, including enrollment, record requests, and evaluations for highly mobile youth, and have been working with the Department of Education to promote these changes. However, with the new school year approaching, the Department widely promoted the Q&A to state homeless education coordinators, and NLCHP and NAEHCY felt it was necessary to issue a formal response to the Guidance. NLCHP and NAEHCY will continue to work with the Department to ensure the comments are integrated in future drafts of the document, and in the meantime, we hope the comments are read together with the official guidance as school personnel interpret these laws for the benefit of homeless children with disabilities. NLCHP thanks the Freddie Mac Foundation for support of its Children & Youth Program. Click here for more information on our Children & Youth Program Victory for Hawaii's Homeless Children In October 2007, Lawyers for Equal Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the law firm of Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing, with technical assistance from NLCHP, filed a class action lawsuit, Kaleuati v. Tonda, on behalf of all homeless children in Hawaii seeking to ensure access to education. Following class certification and a temporary injunction in February 2008, the state entered into serious settlement discussions, resulting in a settlement signed in August 2008. Notable features of the settlement include: $185,000 in attorneys fees; Dedicated personnel in each school district and at each school to help homeless parents and train all school personnel who have contact with youth on identifying homeless youth; Requirement to inquire of all parents withdrawing or transferring children if the withdrawal is due to loss of permanent housing due to economic hardship; Community outreach including annual advertising in mainstream newspapers and multi-lingual brochures; Development of automatic prompting in computer programs to inquire as to homeless status; A dedicated bus making stops at frequently used homeless congregation areas; Compensatory education where the school fails to transport a homeless child NLCHP has included links to the court documents on its new wiki-website, officially launching later this month, as a resource to other lawyers seeking to protect the rights of homeless students. NLCHP to Celebrate World Habitat Day with Training on October 6 NLCHP will celebrate the annual UN World Habitat Day by hosting a training session about housing and human rights on October 6, from 2-3pm EDT. The training will be a free teleconferenced introduction to human rights as they apply to housing issues. In keeping with the World Habitat Day theme, "XXX," the training will cover issues like promoting affordable housing using a human rights-based framework and combating the criminalization of homelessness with human rights. This training will serve as an introduction for people new to the concepts and as a refresher for those already familiar with them. It will also lay the basis for more advanced discussions at NLCHP's National Forum on the Human Right to Housing, coming in early 2009. Registration is available at NLCHP's events page. NLCHP would like to thank the US Human Rights Fund and the Butler Family Fund for their generous support of the Human Rights program. Click here for more information on our Human Rights program Thanks to our Pro Bono Partners! We are proud to report that in 2007, our pro bono partner firms contributed almost $1.9 million worth of pro bono work to NLCHP, doubling the amount of pro bono support provided in 2006. Many of our most significant victories were made possible by this support from the private bar. Visit our website for more information our Lawyers' Executive Advisory Partners (LEAP) program. Quick Links... * Donate now! * More About NLCHP * NLCHP Publications * Upcoming Events * CFC #11947 NLCHP is a 501(c)(3) organization. Visit our website at www.nlchp.org! Contact us at (202) 638-2535 or email us at nlchp at nlchp.org Forward email Safe Unsubscribe This email was sent to dplayton at uwyo.edu by nlchp at nlchp.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe (tm) | Privacy Policy . Email Marketing by NLCHP | 1411 K Street, NW, Suite 1400 | Washington | DC | 20005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/fe3d5699/attachment-0001.htm From BrandLawOffice at aol.com Wed Sep 17 15:17:10 2008 From: BrandLawOffice at aol.com (BrandLawOffice at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:17:10 EDT Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Message-ID: Stacy: Has this policy really been though out in all its ramifications? I would just say that in regard to my own cases, I stay connected to the people on my teams via email and we send long and briefer, substantive emails to one another, whether it be foster parents, DFS caseworkers, the DA's office, etcetera. It is a lot more convenient, and ultimately less expensive for the GAL Program for me to send a single substantive email to 5 people, than to call up those 5 people and have the same substantive phone call with each one. Emails are a legitimate form of correspondence and to my knowledge there is no other government attorney contract reimbursement plan, state or federal, that does not allow billing for legitimate correspondence. I understand, somewhat, the issue about .1 phone calls and emails where you don't speak to someone, but there's a huge gap between a .1 email and a 1/2 hour email, and I have sent and received many legitimate emails that take .2 or .3 of my time. This new blanket rule that you can't bill for email that takes less than a 1/2 hour to draft seems unfair and arbitrary, and chilling to an effective and inexpensive way of keeping case teams in regular contact. Lori L. Brand Brand Law Office, P.C. 2614 Pioneer Avenue, Suite 210 Cheyenne, WY 82001 ph: (307) 635-2494 fx: (307) 637-4788 BrandLawOffice at aol.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential of legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/1cdc360d/attachment.htm From shotwellc at aol.com Wed Sep 17 15:23:36 2008 From: shotwellc at aol.com (shotwellc at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:23:36 -0400 Subject: [WyoGAL] reimbursement for emails, etc. Message-ID: <8CAE71A660C0354-B40-325F@mblk-d11.sysops.aol.com> Hi Stacey-I have to agree with my colleagues and also note that people will not quit using e-mail and so this policy will simply make some attorneys charge .3 or .4 or .5 hours for an e-mail that may well have only taken .1 to send.? It seems to me that the policy will force some, at least, to pad their bills.? Carole Shotwell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/54923d62/attachment.htm From DCameron at parsonscameronlaw.com Wed Sep 17 15:25:39 2008 From: DCameron at parsonscameronlaw.com (Dameione Cameron) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:25:39 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails References: Message-ID: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0F7@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> again, i agree with lori....wow, you read my mind... Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. Parsons & Cameron, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1909 Warren Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 307.778.2822 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ________________________________ From: BrandLawOffice at aol.com [mailto:BrandLawOffice at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:17 PM To: Dameione Cameron; juve.law at msn.com; WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Cc: RRODEN at state.wy.us; DLOZAN at state.wy.us Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacy: Has this policy really been though out in all its ramifications? I would just say that in regard to my own cases, I stay connected to the people on my teams via email and we send long and briefer, substantive emails to one another, whether it be foster parents, DFS caseworkers, the DA's office, etcetera. It is a lot more convenient, and ultimately less expensive for the GAL Program for me to send a single substantive email to 5 people, than to call up those 5 people and have the same substantive phone call with each one. Emails are a legitimate form of correspondence and to my knowledge there is no other government attorney contract reimbursement plan, state or federal, that does not allow billing for legitimate correspondence. I understand, somewhat, the issue about .1 phone calls and emails where you don't speak to someone, but there's a huge gap between a .1 email and a 1/2 hour email, and I have sent and received many legitimate emails that take .2 or .3 of my time. This new blanket rule that you can't bill for email that takes less than a 1/2 hour to draft seems unfair and arbitrary, and chilling to an effective and inexpensive way of keeping case teams in regular contact. Lori L. Brand Brand Law Office, P.C. 2614 Pioneer Avenue, Suite 210 Cheyenne, WY 82001 ph: (307) 635-2494 fx: (307) 637-4788 BrandLawOffice at aol.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential of legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. ________________________________ Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/763712ce/attachment.htm From mmburns at mccollochlaw.com Wed Sep 17 15:36:47 2008 From: mmburns at mccollochlaw.com (Michelle McColloch Burns) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails In-Reply-To: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> Message-ID: <933890.16285.qm@web702.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have to agree with Ms. Brand. I know that I if I am reading a fairly short e-mail and have to provide a limited response, I am only billing .10 for both of those tasks together, which sometimes very easily takes 3-6 minutes. Carbon copying it to several of the MDT members also allows me to further cut down on the time spent. E-mail is a very efficient and cost effective method to transmit information quickly and easily. So am I to understand that if I start taking care of these types of tasks in a formal letter sent via snail mail, that that is an appropriate task to bill, where the e-mail would not? Presumably now these items will take upwards of the .10 creeping up to .20 or .25 to complete in order to compose a formal letter with correct addressing, formatting, etc., as opposed to the .10 that these e-mails were taking prior. Seems to me this is inviting more expense to be billed to the program, not less. While I understand to a lesser extent the 30 second message, I don't think anyone is taking only that 30 seconds. The time it takes for me to stop what I am working on prior to working on the particular case, get out the file, get the appropriate name, and phone number, dial, get a secretary or voice mail and leave an appropriate message--always takes longer than 30 seconds, and to then pick back up on the previous case I was working on, takes time. Also I believe that there IS a value to the program in getting necessary and important messages to the people that need the information. I think that this policy was not well thought out and needs to be examined further before imposing it on a group of attorneys that are already providing services at reduced rates. Michelle M. Burns Attorney at Law 500 Greybull Avenue Greybull, WY 82426 Dameione Cameron wrote: i absolutely agree.....Dameione Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. Parsons & Cameron, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1909 Warren Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 307.778.2822 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail and delete the original message. Thank you. --------------------------------- From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Juve.Law JUVE Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:44 AM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/2f490217/attachment-0001.htm From DPlayton at uwyo.edu Wed Sep 17 15:47:53 2008 From: DPlayton at uwyo.edu (Dona Playton) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:47:53 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails In-Reply-To: <933890.16285.qm@web702.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> <933890.16285.qm@web702.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Reduced rate? Boy I hope the public defenders in the PDs office don't see this listserv discussion. Wyoming is the only state that pays its GALs $100/hour. Speaking of padding bills, it is my understanding that this is one of the reasons the legislature moved the program to the PDs office in the first place-to try to get control of the program spending. I think it is reasonable to ask people to seriously consider the minimum increments for which they are charging. I'm sure the majority of us on this listserv remember quite well doing this work for a heck of a lot less than what we can do it for now. Dona Playton UW DV Legal Assistance Project 1000 East University Avenue, Dept. 3010 Laramie, WY 82071 (307) 766-3664 From: Michelle McColloch Burns [mailto:mmburns at mccollochlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:37 PM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails I have to agree with Ms. Brand. I know that I if I am reading a fairly short e-mail and have to provide a limited response, I am only billing .10 for both of those tasks together, which sometimes very easily takes 3-6 minutes. Carbon copying it to several of the MDT members also allows me to further cut down on the time spent. E-mail is a very efficient and cost effective method to transmit information quickly and easily. So am I to understand that if I start taking care of these types of tasks in a formal letter sent via snail mail, that that is an appropriate task to bill, where the e-mail would not? Presumably now these items will take upwards of the .10 creeping up to .20 or .25 to complete in order to compose a formal letter with correct addressing, formatting, etc., as opposed to the .10 that these e-mails were taking prior. Seems to me this is inviting more expense to be billed to the program, not less. While I understand to a lesser extent the 30 second message, I don't think anyone is taking only that 30 seconds. The time it takes for me to stop what I am working on prior to working on the particular case, get out the file, get the appropriate name, and phone number, dial, get a secretary or voice mail and leave an appropriate message--always takes longer than 30 seconds, and to then pick back up on the previous case I was working on, takes time. Also I believe that there IS a value to the program in getting necessary and important messages to the people that need the information. I think that this policy was not well thought out and needs to be examined further before imposing it on a group of attorneys that are already providing services at reduced rates. Michelle M. Burns Attorney at Law 500 Greybull Avenue Greybull, WY 82426 Dameione Cameron wrote: i absolutely agree.....Dameione Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. Parsons & Cameron, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1909 Warren Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 307.778.2822 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ________________________________ From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Juve.Law JUVE Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:44 AM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/c6786ca6/attachment.htm From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Fri Sep 12 19:19:40 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:19:40 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Revised Transmittal Sheet Message-ID: <48CAB2BC.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> In response to comments and after reviewing the transmittal sheets we have collected so far, we have revised this form. We hope it is easier to fill out and requires less time. Beginning Monday, on all new cases you are assigned, please use this Transmittal Sheet to send in your new cases. You do not need to send this immediately, just send it with your first bill for your new case. You also do not need to send the Order to the contact attorney, just be sure and attach the Petition and the Order to this form when you send it in to us. Let me know if you have any questions. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080912/d7c98147/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPOINTMENT TRANSMITTAL SHEET Rev. 9-12-08.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 300198 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080912/d7c98147/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPOINTMENT TRANSMITTAL SHEET Rev. 9-12-08.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15554 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080912/d7c98147/attachment-0001.bin From juve.law at msn.com Wed Sep 17 16:37:35 2008 From: juve.law at msn.com (Juve.Law JUVE) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:37:35 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails References: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local><933890.16285.qm@web702.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, reduced rate compared with what the same work does pay in the private sector .... and trust me, there is no shortage of work available in the private sector for a competent attorney. With all due respect, Dona, I seem to recall any number of speeches and memos assuring everyone that "nothing" was going to change as a result of moving the program to the PD office .... it was simply putting it under a different office that would administer it. I thought that was a political sales pitch at the time but hoped I was wrong. Enough said. Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dona Playton To: Michelle McColloch Burns ; WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Reduced rate? Boy I hope the public defenders in the PDs office don't see this listserv discussion. Wyoming is the only state that pays its GALs $100/hour. Speaking of padding bills, it is my understanding that this is one of the reasons the legislature moved the program to the PDs office in the first place-to try to get control of the program spending. I think it is reasonable to ask people to seriously consider the minimum increments for which they are charging. I'm sure the majority of us on this listserv remember quite well doing this work for a heck of a lot less than what we can do it for now. Dona Playton UW DV Legal Assistance Project 1000 East University Avenue, Dept. 3010 Laramie, WY 82071 (307) 766-3664 From: Michelle McColloch Burns [mailto:mmburns at mccollochlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:37 PM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails I have to agree with Ms. Brand. I know that I if I am reading a fairly short e-mail and have to provide a limited response, I am only billing .10 for both of those tasks together, which sometimes very easily takes 3-6 minutes. Carbon copying it to several of the MDT members also allows me to further cut down on the time spent. E-mail is a very efficient and cost effective method to transmit information quickly and easily. So am I to understand that if I start taking care of these types of tasks in a formal letter sent via snail mail, that that is an appropriate task to bill, where the e-mail would not? Presumably now these items will take upwards of the .10 creeping up to .20 or .25 to complete in order to compose a formal letter with correct addressing, formatting, etc., as opposed to the .10 that these e-mails were taking prior. Seems to me this is inviting more expense to be billed to the program, not less. While I understand to a lesser extent the 30 second message, I don't think anyone is taking only that 30 seconds. The time it takes for me to stop what I am working on prior to working on the particular case, get out the file, get the appropriate name, and phone number, dial, get a secretary or voice mail and leave an appropriate message--always takes longer than 30 seconds, and to then pick back up on the previous case I was working on, takes time. Also I believe that there IS a value to the program in getting necessary and important messages to the people that need the information. I think that this policy was not well thought out and needs to be examined further before imposing it on a group of attorneys that are already providing services at reduced rates. Michelle M. Burns Attorney at Law 500 Greybull Avenue Greybull, WY 82426 Dameione Cameron wrote: i absolutely agree.....Dameione Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. Parsons & Cameron, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1909 Warren Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 307.778.2822 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Juve.Law JUVE Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:44 AM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration .............................. Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/11885700/attachment-0001.htm From John at ChambersLawWyo.com Wed Sep 17 18:25:15 2008 From: John at ChambersLawWyo.com (John D. Chambers) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:25:15 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails In-Reply-To: <933890.16285.qm@web702.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6E9BB5A1963A9D4A94B8939DE21F29D504E0EC@parsonsdc.parsonslaw.local> <933890.16285.qm@web702.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019501c9191c$a4578e70$ed06ab50$@com> Is this decision not in breach of our contracts? Our contract states that we must submit an "invoice for that preceding month's services, which itemizes, the GAL's charges by client, date and service provided, explaining and showing all hours expended on each case during that month. The itemization shall include, if applicable: . . . . (1) a further itemization of any time spent for phone calls, text-messaging, emails, and letters and legal documents drafted in furtherance of the case. . . ." All of these items are implicitly recognized under the contract as services done in furtherance of the case. The decision by GAL Program announced today appears to unilaterally eviscerate the bargained-for consideration of our time for involvement in the cases we are working. I am sure that many of us would reconsider how much time we invest in a case (or whether we would accept a case in the first place) if we knew we were not going to be reimbursed for the reasonable value of our time. We are carrying overhead expenses that include rent, storage, computers, copiers and printers, fax and telephone, internet, legal research access, staff, utilities, etc., all of which are necessary costs for doing business and reflected in the rates we charge for our time and work. As private practice attorneys, many of us do not get paid sick time or vacation time, nor do we have someone else paying for our CLEs or licensing fees and malpractice insurance (or have student loan forgiveness for working in the public sector). While the amount paid is considerable in comparison to other types of work, it is not at the rates typically charged in the legal field for other types of legal work. The reduced (but still competitive) rate is provided, presumably, to ensure high quality legal representation to the children most at risk in our society. I understand that the GAL Program has been transferred in an attempt to control costs. However, to unilaterally make major changes to industry standard practices without a dialogue with the professional constituents involved is not likely to go smoothly. It appears the State is making assumptions about the propriety of current practices despite the consistency between those practices with industry billing standards for the private practice of law. The constituency would likely participate in coming up with model practices that may differ from current practices and that would standardize the methods used in billing for GAL cases in the State of Wyoming. These model practices could then be implemented with the continued contracts that will go into effect beginning January 1, 2009. I agree with the prior responses. This decision is inconsistent with the contract that we signed and constitutes a material change to those contracts. We are told that "all bills will be billed to the closest tenth of the hour, i.e. every six (6) minutes" (i.e., the minimum billable increment is (0.1)). Zero is not a tenth of an hour. The issue should be stated as follows: "Was this time spent necessarily and legitimately in furtherance of the case?" If the answer is "yes," then it should be billable. We do not control whether a person is in their office and able to respond, nor do we control whether that person calls us back. However, if the time is spent working on the case, it is time that is not spent working on another matter for which we could, potentially, otherwise be billing (or if the pay is the same, we could spend that time fishing, reading tea leaves or furthering studies in omphalomancy). This decision may adversely impact the "full and independent case investigation" and the independent recommendations made by individual attorneys because the services provided by the GALs are not acknowledged or compensated. Telephone Calls: In making telephone calls, particularly to an agency, it is necessary to get through the gatekeeper, get transferred to the person's extension, and if that person is not there, to listen to the recording prior to leaving a message about the issue to fast-track a response or to pass on the information if no response is needed. There is or may be time spent getting the file, looking up the number, recording the contact and later billing for that information (all of which is overhead built in to the 0.1 billable increment). There may also be more telephone calls that are made than recorded-if multiple calls are made, but only one call gets through, an attorney may only log the call that got through, even though time was spent attempting to contact other persons or attempting to contact the same person at an alternate telephone number, such as a work or cell phone. When calling a school, it is almost always necessary to leave a message to have a teacher return a call because the teacher is usually teaching during the day. There is value to this expenditure of time, as previously noted by by our contracts, President Lincoln and Ms. Juve. Email: Without a doubt, some emails are longer than others, and some take longer to draft or respond to than others. However, the length of an email is not necessarily commensurate with the time or thought that went into drafting a response. Implicit in such interactions may be time spent fact checking or verifying from prior correspondence or notes that the information is correct, looking up additional contact information, confirming availability in a calendar system, establishing a tickler system so that important meetings, MDTs, or court dates are not missed or double-booked, etc. Further, I would question the accuracy of the assertion that many GAL's are billing 0.1 for every text message, every email, or every phone message. At times, this may be true if that is the only contact during that time period, but not always-there may be multiple emails or calls during that same period which are billed as 0.1 or 0.2, based on the time actually spent in furtherance of the case. This is consistent with industry standards-see ABA publications, or compare with private practice attorneys throughout the State of Wyoming. Additionally, some people can think and respond in writing faster than speaking, but for others it takes more time. There are some cases where email is almost the exclusive means of communicating due to the difficulty of getting through to the parties during business hours, or due to the number of people involved, and thus email is the most cost-effective means of communicating. Suggestion: Before making a blanket decision that appears to be in breach of our contracts, it would seem more prudent to make a list of scenarios, and come up with a model way of billing for that time in a way that is both fiscally responsible to the State, and rationally related to the work spent in furtherance of the case to provide safety and permanency to the children and families with whom we work. In making this decision, it would be advisable to understand current standard billing practices for private practice attorneys, as opposed to the public sector attorneys where billing practices and protocols are either not required or not stringently adhered to. If there are individual attorneys with whom the GAL Program is concerned, speak with that attorney to address the issue or to learn what is actually occurring rather than making assumptions about what is occurring. Lastly, there needs to be flexibility and discretion left to the GALs if the attorneys are going to remain Independent Contractors. We can adhere to a standard but we need to know what that standard is. John D. Chambers 152 N. Durbin Street, Suite 325 Casper, WY 82601 (307) 237-5945 (307) 237-5947 (fax) This E-mail (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information for the addressee, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not read, copy, retain or disseminate this communication. If you receive this e-mail by error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or by phone at 307-237-5945 (collect if you wish), and delete the email and it's attachments from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank you. P.S. If I could be sued for malpractice or lose my contract for not performing a task or taking note of a pleading (e.g., Notice of Setting, MDT Notice, etc.), then that is, by definition, necessary for the furtherance of the case, and I will bill for it (administrative tasks excepted). From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Michelle McColloch Burns Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:37 PM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: [SPAM] Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails I have to agree with Ms. Brand. I know that I if I am reading a fairly short e-mail and have to provide a limited response, I am only billing .10 for both of those tasks together, which sometimes very easily takes 3-6 minutes. Carbon copying it to several of the MDT members also allows me to further cut down on the time spent. E-mail is a very efficient and cost effective method to transmit information quickly and easily. So am I to understand that if I start taking care of these types of tasks in a formal letter sent via snail mail, that that is an appropriate task to bill, where the e-mail would not? Presumably now these items will take upwards of the .10 creeping up to .20 or .25 to complete in order to compose a formal letter with correct addressing, formatting, etc., as opposed to the .10 that these e-mails were taking prior. Seems to me this is inviting more expense to be billed to the program, not less. While I understand to a lesser extent the 30 second message, I don't think anyone is taking only that 30 seconds. The time it takes for me to stop what I am working on prior to working on the particular case, get out the file, get the appropriate name, and phone number, dial, get a secretary or voice mail and leave an appropriate message--always takes longer than 30 seconds, and to then pick back up on the previous case I was working on, takes time. Also I believe that there IS a value to the program in getting necessary and important messages to the people that need the information. I think that this policy was not well thought out and needs to be examined further before imposing it on a group of attorneys that are already providing services at reduced rates. Michelle M. Burns Attorney at Law 500 Greybull Avenue Greybull, WY 82426 Dameione Cameron wrote: i absolutely agree.....Dameione Dameione S. Cameron, Esq. Parsons & Cameron, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1909 Warren Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001 307.778.2822 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. '' 2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail and delete the original message. Thank you. _____ From: wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu [mailto:wyogal-bounces at lists.washlaw.edu] On Behalf Of Juve.Law JUVE Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:44 AM To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden; Diane Lozano Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/1647e2e7/attachment-0001.htm From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Wed Sep 17 18:16:38 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:16:38 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] September Child Chat Message-ID: <48D13B76.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> REMINDER Child Chat for September is tomorrow, September 18, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. This is approved for one hour of CLE. The presenter is Sylvia Hackl from CASA of Laramie County. The materials for her training can be found on our website under the Child Chat tab. Here is the link: http://gal.state.wy.us/childchat.php The constituents are Glenn and Ruth Moore, long-time advocates with the CASA Program. They have represented about thirty children through the CASA Program. Hope you all can call in for the training. Just dial 1-800-270-1153 a few minutes before 11:00 a.m. and enter Participant Code 169128#. Stacey Stacey L. Obrecht Attorney Director Wyoming Guardians Ad Litem Program 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 201 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: 307-777-3650 Fax: 307-777-5331 Website: http://gal.state.wy.us ( http://gal.state.wy.us/ ) E-mail: sobrec1 at state.wy.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080917/179ff737/attachment.htm From janf at fiberpipe.net Thu Sep 18 16:55:54 2008 From: janf at fiberpipe.net (Jan Flaharty) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:55:54 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> Message-ID: <00fe01c919d9$53cc10d0$6500000a@valued3a4cf466> I agree with almost all of the comments that have been made in response to Stacey's e-mail concerning limiting payment for GAL work done by e-mail. The use of e-mail is extremely important in my work as a GAL. It is not only an effective way to communicate with the numerous persons involved in juvenile court cases, but it is an efficient way. It takes far less time to communicate with people by e-mail than it does by letter and by playing phone tag with people. Most of my e-mail communications are relatively short in duration -- 5 to 10 minutes. It is the rare (the very rare) e-mail in which I spend 30 minutes or more. But, over the course of a day, I spend a significant amount of time writing and responding to e-mails. So, under the State Program's new policy, I will not be paid for a significant amount of the time I spend representing children. My understanding of the state of attorney GAL representation prior to the State-funded GAL program was that many children were not represented as well as they might otherwise have been, because it was difficult for attorneys to devote the necessary amount of time to GAL cases when they had to devote the majority of their time to cases from which they received adequate compensation. The Legislature appropriated funding for attorney GALs to alleviate this problem. This new policy of limiting payment for e-mails seems a step backwards and could result in less effective representation for children, as well as a smaller pool of attorneys willing to serve as GALs. This new policy seems to be based solely on dollars and cents without any consideration of why we're all here in the first place: to do what's best for children. ----- Original Message ----- From: Juve.Law JUVE To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080918/e235c6b7/attachment.htm From cundifflaw at vcn.com Thu Sep 18 17:19:03 2008 From: cundifflaw at vcn.com (Shelley A. Cundiff) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:19:03 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> <00fe01c919d9$53cc10d0$6500000a@valued3a4cf466> Message-ID: I also agree. It is not appropriate to deny payment for time spent on e-mails and telephone calls. In the private sector these are all billable and are valid billable hours. I too utilize the e-mails to carry out a significant amount of business. It is much chearper that the old way. Shelley A Cundiff Attorney at Law PO Box 502 Dayton Wyoming 82836 307-655-9172 307-752-2918 ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Flaharty To: Juve.Law JUVE ; WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails I agree with almost all of the comments that have been made in response to Stacey's e-mail concerning limiting payment for GAL work done by e-mail. The use of e-mail is extremely important in my work as a GAL. It is not only an effective way to communicate with the numerous persons involved in juvenile court cases, but it is an efficient way. It takes far less time to communicate with people by e-mail than it does by letter and by playing phone tag with people. Most of my e-mail communications are relatively short in duration -- 5 to 10 minutes. It is the rare (the very rare) e-mail in which I spend 30 minutes or more. But, over the course of a day, I spend a significant amount of time writing and responding to e-mails. So, under the State Program's new policy, I will not be paid for a significant amount of the time I spend representing children. My understanding of the state of attorney GAL representation prior to the State-funded GAL program was that many children were not represented as well as they might otherwise have been, because it was difficult for attorneys to devote the necessary amount of time to GAL cases when they had to devote the majority of their time to cases from which they received adequate compensation. The Legislature appropriated funding for attorney GALs to alleviate this problem. This new policy of limiting payment for e-mails seems a step backwards and could result in less effective representation for children, as well as a smaller pool of attorneys willing to serve as GALs. This new policy seems to be based solely on dollars and cents without any consideration of why we're all here in the first place: to do what's best for children. ----- Original Message ----- From: Juve.Law JUVE To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ WyoGAL mailing list WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080918/6f42bf0c/attachment-0001.htm From hrhollon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 19 11:03:05 2008 From: hrhollon at hotmail.com (Rick Hollon) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:03:05 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails In-Reply-To: References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> <00fe01c919d9$53cc10d0$6500000a@valued3a4cf466> Message-ID: I would like to add my voice to those respectfully requesting that the GAL Program's new policy (concerning not paying for the GAL's time spent on communications by email) be reconsidered. It was interesting to note that the CASA volunteers presenting in yesterday's Child Chat stated that they communicate with the GAL almost exclusively be email. Under the new policly the GAL would not be paid for the time spent on these communications. My experience is that email can also be a valuable, effective, and time-efficient way to communicate with caseworkers and therapists. GALs are already not be reimbursed for expenses such as long distance telephone calls, copies, and mileage. Now the GAL is not going to be paid for time spent communicating by email either. From: cundifflaw at vcn.comTo: janf at fiberpipe.net; juve.law at msn.com; WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; SOBREC1 at state.wy.usDate: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:19:03 -0600CC: RRODEN at state.wy.us; DLOZAN at state.wy.usSubject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails I also agree. It is not appropriate to deny payment for time spent on e-mails and telephone calls. In the private sector these are all billable and are valid billable hours. I too utilize the e-mails to carry out a significant amount of business. It is much chearper that the old way. Shelley A CundiffAttorney at LawPO Box 502Dayton Wyoming 82836307-655-9172307-752-2918 ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Flaharty To: Juve.Law JUVE ; WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails I agree with almost all of the comments that have been made in response to Stacey's e-mail concerning limiting payment for GAL work done by e-mail. The use of e-mail is extremely important in my work as a GAL. It is not only an effective way to communicate with the numerous persons involved in juvenile court cases, but it is an efficient way. It takes far less time to communicate with people by e-mail than it does by letter and by playing phone tag with people. Most of my e-mail communications are relatively short in duration -- 5 to 10 minutes. It is the rare (the very rare) e-mail in which I spend 30 minutes or more. But, over the course of a day, I spend a significant amount of time writing and responding to e-mails. So, under the State Program's new policy, I will not be paid for a significant amount of the time I spend representing children. My understanding of the state of attorney GAL representation prior to the State-funded GAL program was that many children were not represented as well as they might otherwise have been, because it was difficult for attorneys to devote the necessary amount of time to GAL cases when they had to devote the majority of their time to cases from which they received adequate compensation. The Legislature appropriated funding for attorney GALs to alleviate this problem. This new policy of limiting payment for e-mails seems a step backwards and could result in less effective representation for children, as well as a smaller pool of attorneys willing to serve as GALs. This new policy seems to be based solely on dollars and cents without any consideration of why we're all here in the first place: to do what's best for children. ----- Original Message ----- From: Juve.Law JUVE To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Stacey - You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so that you can understand things from our perspective? Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. _______________________________________________WyoGAL mailing listWyoGAL at lists.washlaw.eduhttp://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________WyoGAL mailing listWyoGAL at lists.washlaw.eduhttp://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _______________________________________________WyoGAL mailing listWyoGAL at lists.washlaw.eduhttp://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal _________________________________________________________________ Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn ?10 hidden secrets? from Jamie. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080919/bd104f3e/attachment.htm From jerryh at vcn.com Fri Sep 19 11:51:18 2008 From: jerryh at vcn.com (jerryh at vcn.com) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:51:18 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails In-Reply-To: References: <48D0D8FF.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> <00fe01c919d9$53cc10d0$6500000a@valued3a4cf466> Message-ID: <20080919105118.18592m7h2xc1tz8k@webmail.vcn.com> This will express my general agreement with the numerous recent comments about the "new" policy on emails, but, as an "old hand", also express my long held concern about use of email when dealing with confidential matters, In view of the fact the majority of what a GAL does after assignment can directly or indirectly involve confidential matters,use of any email should be with this duty of confidentially in mind. Jerry Hand Quoting "Rick Hollon" : > > I would like to add my voice to those respectfully requesting that > the GAL Program's new policy (concerning not paying for the GAL's > time spent on communications by email) be reconsidered. It was > interesting to note that the CASA volunteers presenting in > yesterday's Child Chat stated that they communicate with the GAL > almost exclusively be email. Under the new policly the GAL would not > be paid for the time spent on these communications. My experience is > that email can also be a valuable, effective, and time-efficient way > to communicate with caseworkers and therapists. GALs are already not > be reimbursed for expenses such as long distance telephone calls, > copies, and mileage. Now the GAL is not going to be paid for time > spent communicating by email either. > > From: cundifflaw at vcn.comTo: janf at fiberpipe.net; juve.law at msn.com; > WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu; SOBREC1 at state.wy.usDate: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 > 16:19:03 -0600CC: RRODEN at state.wy.us; DLOZAN at state.wy.usSubject: Re: > [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails > > > > I also agree. It is not appropriate to deny payment for time spent > on e-mails and telephone calls. In the private sector these are all > billable and are valid billable hours. I too utilize the e-mails to > carry out a significant amount of business. It is much chearper that > the old way. > > > Shelley A CundiffAttorney at LawPO Box 502Dayton Wyoming > 82836307-655-9172307-752-2918 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jan Flaharty > To: Juve.Law JUVE ; WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht > Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails > > I agree with almost all of the comments that have been made in > response to Stacey's e-mail concerning limiting payment for GAL work > done by e-mail. The use of e-mail is extremely important in my work > as a GAL. It is not only an effective way to communicate with the > numerous persons involved in juvenile court cases, but it is an > efficient way. It takes far less time to communicate with people by > e-mail than it does by letter and by playing phone tag with people. > Most of my e-mail communications are relatively short in duration -- > 5 to 10 minutes. It is the rare (the very rare) e-mail in which I > spend 30 minutes or more. But, over the course of a day, I spend a > significant amount of time writing and responding to e-mails. So, > under the State Program's new policy, I will not be paid for a > significant amount of the time I spend representing children. > > My understanding of the state of attorney GAL representation prior > to the State-funded GAL program was that many children were not > represented as well as they might otherwise have been, because it > was difficult for attorneys to devote the necessary amount of time > to GAL cases when they had to devote the majority of their time to > cases from which they received adequate compensation. The > Legislature appropriated funding for attorney GALs to alleviate this > problem. This new policy of limiting payment for e-mails seems a > step backwards and could result in less effective representation for > children, as well as a smaller pool of attorneys willing to serve as > GALs. This new policy seems to be based solely on dollars and cents > without any consideration of why we're all here in the first place: > to do what's best for children. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Juve.Law JUVE > To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu ; Stacey Obrecht > Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails > > > Stacey - > > You have told us how not to bill for receiving and reading an email. > Please advise how it is you would like us to bill for time spent > reading an email or for calling someone who ends up not being there. > > As you consider your answer to that question, I would like you to > take into consideration the interruption not only of my time spent > on other work to stop and read an email or other correspondence, but > also of my thought processes. When I am focused on a project, it > takes my mind away from my present process, shifts it onto another > topic, and then my mind has to shift back to my other work. This > takes more than 0 minutes, which is what I read your email as > saying. "A lawyer's time is his stock in trade." Abraham Lincoln. > > If I am reading a letter delivered by the post office, can I bill > for that time? If this is acceptable, why not for the time spent > reading an email. Why are we distinguishing based upon mode of > delivery? In private practice, an attorney would bill a 6 minute > minimum (some even 15) for reading an email. Why should I do it for > free for the government? Have you ever been in private practice so > that you can understand things from our perspective? > > Thanks for your time and consideration ............................... > > > Jane H. Juve | Attorney & Counselor at Law | P.O. Box 1044 Rawlins, > WY 82301 Direct:307.324.5226 | Fax:888-221-0140 | juve.law at msn.com > This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. > Any unauthorized disclosure is prohibited. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stacey Obrecht > To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu > Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16 AM > Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails > Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text > messages, e-mails or phone messages. This does not include phone > calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you > leave a message or listen to a message. This also does not apply to > e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as > this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent > by e-mail. The Program does understand that a lot of business is > done by e-mail and phone. Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing > .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or > listened to. The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of > these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete. When > billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work > performed. Please let us know if you have any questions about this > new policy. _______________________________________________WyoGAL > mailing > listWyoGAL at lists.washlaw.eduhttp://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal > > > _______________________________________________WyoGAL mailing > listWyoGAL at lists.washlaw.eduhttp://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal > > > _______________________________________________WyoGAL mailing > listWyoGAL at lists.washlaw.eduhttp://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/wyogal > _________________________________________________________________ > Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn "10 hidden secrets" from Jamie. > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008 From jkbwyo at yahoo.com Fri Sep 19 16:35:08 2008 From: jkbwyo at yahoo.com (jackie brown) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Message-ID: <815746.80323.qm@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have been?busy this week working on a few emergencies dealing with juvenile issues.?? I agree with everyone's comments about the efficiency of e-mails.?? Often I can?communicate important information?to the DFS worker, the parent's attorney, the foster parent, the school and others by one simple e-mail.??? It may only take me a few minutes to compose the e-mail?but usually I have?left my desk, pulled the file, reviewed the file and then responded to the e-mail.????As others?have said this may result in a billing of only 0.2 vs having to send the same information via letters to each of the parties involved which would double or triple my time.?? Am I the only?one who thinks it is ironic that?the program recognizes?e-mail is very effective and cost efficient method to communicate with all of us?vis this very list serve yet the program? does not believe that same efficiency is good for our case work???? E-mail can be a very efficient, cost effective means of communication.?? Obviously, you need to watch what you put in e-mails, but I think?there is a lot of information that can be communicated via e-mail and that e-mail is cost effective.?? Our contract now dictates very clearly certain?requirements and things we must do in order to be paid, we are doing this at a reduced rate (half of what most of us would normally charge), now the program wants us to not charge for our time for e-mails unless it amounts to a half hour or more.?? Originally, the concern was GALs weren't doing the work.?? Now that we are doing the work required, they don't want to pay for it.? At what point does it become absurd.??? I enjoy helping kids but I need to earn a living as well.?? ?Jacqueline K. Brown Attorney FAMILY LAW CENTER, LLC 254 N. Center, Suite 104 P.O. Box 937 Casper, WY 82602 phone:(307) 237-1300 fax: (307) 265-6832 ----- Original Message ---- From: Stacey Obrecht To: WyoGAL at lists.washlaw.edu Cc: Ryan Roden ; Diane Lozano Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:16:31 AM Subject: [WyoGAL] Texts, Phone Messages and E-mails Beginning immediately, the GAL Program will no longer pay for text messages, e-mails or phone messages.? This does not include phone calls where you speak to someone involved in the case, just if you leave a message or listen to a message.? This also does not apply to e-mails that require more than 30 minutes of your time to draft, as this would be viewed as a substantive letter, even though it is sent by e-mail. ? The Program does understand that a lot of business is done by e-mail and phone.? Unfortunately, many GALs have been billing .1 for each and every e-mail, text message and phone message sent or listened to.? The Program cannot afford to pay $10 for each one of these tasks that takes no more than 30 seconds to complete.? When billing the Program, you must consider the worth of the work performed. ? Please let us know if you have any questions about this new policy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/wyogal/attachments/20080919/962a3f9b/attachment.htm From SOBREC1 at state.wy.us Fri Sep 19 17:15:22 2008 From: SOBREC1 at state.wy.us (Stacey Obrecht) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:15:22 -0600 Subject: [WyoGAL] From Diane Lozano Message-ID: <48D3D01A.F311.0072.0@state.wy.us> I have read your responses to the email concerning billing practices. I have considered your comments and appreciate those who have engaged in a helpful dialogue with us on this matter. When this program was transferred to the Office of the Public Defender, there were several concerns about how the program had been administered from 2005-2007. Most of the concerns were financial in nature. There was the appearance that the program was being "gouged" by excessive billing practices. I believe we were given this program so that high quality representation would be provided to children in a fiscally responsible manner. Without knowing exactly what was occurring in regard to the quality of representation nor in regard to the attorney billing practices, we chose to keep the hourly rate the same for the initial short-term contract period. We now know that the financial c