Wilfred R. Caron, Esquire

bepress Legal Repository

Business Meeting & Report of the General Counsel, NCCB/USCC

St. John's University School of Law

The Catholic Lawyer Volume 30 Number 3 Volume 30, Autumn 1986, Number 3 Article 11 September 2017 Business Meeting & Report of the General Counsel, NCCB/USCC Wilfred R. Caron, Esquire Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl  Part of the Catholic Studies Commons Recommended Citation Wilfred R. Caron, Esquire (1986) "Business Meeting & Report of the General Counsel, NCCB/USCC," The Catholic Lawyer: Vol. 30 : No. 3 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl/vol30/iss3/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact selbyc@stjohns.edu. BUSINESS MEETING &REPORT OF THEGENERAL COUNSEL,NCCB/USCCWILFRED R. CARON, ESQUIRESince our last meeting, there have been some changes in the staff oflawyers in the office. The arrival of two new ones last week makes this agood occasion to make some introductions. What I'd like to do is say afew words about each. Some you know, and some you don't. I shall askeach to rise in his own turn, but please hold your thundering applauseuntil the end so we have a single, warm earthshaking roar.First, of course, there's my deputy, Gerry Lamberti. Now, he wrotethis for me. It says, "The old man in the office who keeps reminding us ofthe good old days." Well, I'm dutiful, so there it is, Gerry. Gerry wasadmitted to practice almost 28 years ago and began his career as law clerkfor Chief Judge Albert Conway for the New York Court of Appeals. Hecame to the Conference after more than 20 years of federal service, duringwhich his experience included administrative law, legislative analysis andlitigation. Gerry's major substantive responsibility in the office is in immi-gration law. With that I would just ask Gerry to rise.Next is John Liekweg whose nearly ten years in the office makes himsenior in tenure. When I find him sitting in my chair, I think maybe hethinks he's senior in rank. Many of you know John and are quite familiarwith his very exemplary cooperative attitude and spirit and his diversifiedexpertise, particularly in the fields of civil rights, education, and relatedFirst Amendment issues. John received his law degree from the Univer-sity of Maryland in 1974. His service at the Conference was preceded byservice as law clerk to the Honorable DeWitt S. Hyde of the SuperiorCourt of the District of Columbia. John, could you do a turn for us?The third member of the staff whom I'd like to introduce is DierdreDessingue - I'm gonna do it, Dierdre - often referred to by one of ourpreeminent laymen as "yummy counselor." Because of her substantialtelephone practice, many of you know her well. A Phi Beta Kappa stu-30 CATHOLIC LAWYER, AUTUMN, 1986dent, Dierdre received her undergraduate degree summa cum laude fromCatholic University and her law degree in 1975 from that university's LawSchool, where she served on Law Review. Before coming to the Confer-ence, Dierdre was a senior tax law specialist at the National Office of theInternal Revenue Service where she worked for five years and developedher expertise in the area of tax-exempt organizations, which is her pri-mary area of responsibility. Dierdre, would you rise please?The fourth lawyer with whom I'm privileged to work is KatherineGrincewich. Katherine was a Phi Beta Kappa student and a member ofseveral honor societies at the University of Delaware where she took herundergraduate degree. She received her law degree with distinction fromCatholic University Law School in 1981. While in law school Katherineserved as intern in the Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal Communi-cations Commission, and after graduation she became an associate in thecommunications department of a prominent law firm in Washington, D.C.As you know or surmise, Katherine's principal responsibility in the officeis in the field of communications. Her expertise is also available on atimeshare basis to the Catholic Telecommunications Network of America,which is, as I think you know, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Confer-ence. Katherine!And now I come to our two very recent arrivals. In alphabetical orderthey are Mark Chopko and Regina McGranery. Mark received his gradu-ate degree summa cum laude from the University of Scranton, and in1977 received his law degree cum laude from the Cornell Law School. Af-ter graduation and before joining the staff, Mark served in various litigat-ing capacities in the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. He has handled appellate work involving the constructionand operation of nuclear power plants, such as Diablo Canyon, and re-lated accidents such as Three Mile Island. He's been involved in severalSupreme Court cases, and has district court litigation experience involv-ing the Commission's licensing and enforcement activities. Mark, pleaserise.And finally, it's a pleasure to present Regina McGranery. Regina re-ceived her undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Trinity Collegein Washington, D.C., and received a law degree in 1970 from the LawSchool of the University of Virginia. After law school Regina served aslaw clerk to Chief Judge Edward M. Curran, the U.S. District Court, Dis-trict of Columbia. In 1973 she became an Assistant United States Attor-ney for the District of Columbia where she served until she joined ourstaff. During the last six years she was a senior appellate assistant. Shehad primary responsibility for civil cases, as well as criminal prosecutions,and she practiced in both federal and local courts. One personal noteabout Regina! Her father, James P. McGranery, was Attorney General ofthe United States under President Truman.BUSINESS MEETINGThese are the lawyers in the office. I would like them to stand, to beacknowledged.The staff is building, in quantity and quality. I should make a specialpoint about the obvious increase in our litigation capability. We'll be ableto do more now, not only by way of amicus curiae participation, but alsoby being of more immediate and concrete service to you, especially incases involving church-state issues of potential national significance.I should say that as I go through my fifth year, which I started on St.Patrick's Day, I intend to make a very substantial reassessment of theneeds and capabilities and mission of the office. I don't know what I'llcome out with at the end, but I certainly expect to complete that exercisebefore the end of my fifth year.What I should also do, and am pleased to do, is ask George Reed tobe acknowledged. George has been with you a long time, and as my pred-ecessor is a person on whom I have leaned considerably from time totime. George, would you be good enough to rise?A few observations about the meeting next year. As you know, I'mgeneral counsel of Catholic Telecommunications Network of America.With us today is Wasyl Lew, its president. Was, would you stand up? I'vehad some preliminary discussion with Was about the possibility of ar-ranging some live coverage and teleconferencing during selected sessionsof our Chicago meeting. This would allow you to invite your chancerystaff and others to sit in on the meeting, so to speak. Whether this will beeconomically or practically feasible is a very open question. However, Ithought you might like to know that with Was's cooperation, we mightjust be able to do something like that.I should add that this opportunity would be available only to dio-ceses which are affiliated with CTNA. At present, there are 47 affiliatescomprising 52% of the Catholic population. Twenty-six of those are al-ready on the air, reaching roughly a million and a quarter cable house-holds. Those 26 have a potential household cable population of aboutfive-and-a-half million. This is by way of saying that while it has a way togo, CTNA is an operating reality.[Mr. Caron then discussed problems associated with litigation againstdioceses rising out of the torts of diocesan priests.]I'd like to move on then, at this point, to brief comments on the law-suit in Tucson on which Dave Young touched yesterday. Most of youknow all about it. It's a defamation action brought by a Catholic priestagainst people in his own parish and diocese. To prepare the defense ofthe action, the defendants subpoenaed the priest's personnel file in thechancery. The Bishop declined to produce the file on grounds of confiden-tiality under the canon law, thus giving rise to services issues under theFirst Amendment. I don't propose to talk about the merits of the casebeyond underscoring its adverse potential for the church in the field of30 CATHOLIC LAWYER, AUTUMN, 1986constitutional law.What I do want to talk a little bit about are the solicitations of ami-cus curiae briefs in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Because ofthe problems with the case, the Conference, with the understanding andsupport of the Apostolic Delegate, has considered it important that theFirst Amendment issues tendered in this case be decided in a case whosefactual content is more hospitable to the argument. Mooting the appeal isa desirable result, and to that end I'm pursuing an amicable resolution ofthe suit and the collateral discovery effort.In response to the diocese's extensive solicitation, some dioceses didseek permission to file an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit. I had a checkmade last week, and we were informed by the clerk of the court that twodioceses had been allowed to file amicus briefs, and that motions for leaveto file by 13 others had been denied.Now I must make these observations: First, I do want to thank thosewho correctly perceived the national implications of the case, and placedthe matter of amicus support within the aegis of the Conference and itsOffice of General Counsel. The bishops and diocesan attorneys from morethan 30 dioceses contacted us, and we were in a position to share ourviews, analyses and concerns. This was a very useful employment of theresolution you adopted in Savannah in 1981, which was subsequently en-dorsed by the administrative board of the USCC. Second, I must observethat our efforts to bring about an amicable resolution are not advancedby amicus support which drives the engine the other way.Third, and perhaps most important, the denial of 13 motions by thecourt of appeals was a predictable rejection of duplicative and unnecessa-rily burdensome amicus participation. That action underscores the needfor good order in our ranks. In short, it does seem that a due regard forthe role of the Conference best serves the church's interests. That doesnot mean that there cannot be legitimate differences of opinion, but itdoes mean that orderly processes have value in themselves and do notderive their wisdom or their validity from an unattainable unanimity.There is miscellaneous business that I should touch on at this point,related to the welfare of the Association. The first is the matter of fi-nances, and that gives me the chance to ask Paul McMahon to deliver hisannual financial report. Paul!MR. McMAHON: Although this is somewhat of a disaster, I musturge you to resist the temptation to file under chapter 11. Results of oper-ations and changes in fund balance, year ended December 31, 1983: Reve-nue-membership fees - $18,814. Allocated investment income - $3,867.Total revenue - $22,681. Expenses, conventions and meetings -$15,008; printing and supplies - $6,222; postage and mailing - $3,465;telephone and telegraph - $350; professional services - $5,739; stafftravel - $3,215. For total expenses of $33,999. Excess of expenses overBUSINESS MEETINGrevenue - $11,318. Fund balance, January 1, 1983 - $56,284. Fund bal-ance, December 31, 1983 - $44,966.MR. CARON: So on a current basis, we are beginning to experiencesome red ink. Now the fact is the dues have not been increased since1976. I think that all in all you've done very well without increasing duesover the course of these very difficult eight years of inflation. When I metwith the members of your executive group on Sunday, we discussed theneed to change the dues structure. With your consent, what they haveapproved is that my office take a hard look at the financial position, andthen implement a different dues structure for the next year after consult-ing with them. It's got to be effective for next year. These meetings aregetting better, but they are also getting more expensive. So unless there isa difficulty with that procedure, that is what I would expect to do.The next item relates to membership. This is a relatively small, butimportant item. There are no longer firm criteria for membership. Thisorganization began as a diocesan attorney's group, but has expanded on arandom basis to include others. I'm not suggesting that that's not a goodthing, but I believe we ought to understand what constitutes the ranks sothat when someone asks to attend our meeting or to be on the mailinglist, we will have criteria to guide us. That's something that we should getinto quickly, and I think I shall poll the group to see what your feelingsare on the matter. This is not my decision to make.The third item relates to the National Legal Data Bank and referralservice for diocesan attorneys, about which I've talked in the past. Lastyear the Conference, at my request, allowed a budget of $10,000 - this isConference money, now - to determine the technical and practical feasi-bility of such a system. We're presently working with Coopers & Lybrandon the matter, as well as consulting with our own data processing depart-ment and Wasyl Lew of CTNA.In this regard, I would note that depending upon the system whichemerges, a diocesan affiliation with CTNA could be invaluable. Dioceseswhich are already on air would have a built-in capability for data bankupdating and information retrieval.Within a week or two, you'll be receiving a questionnaire which weprepared with Coopers & Lybrand. It borrows from the good work whichwas done by a certain small group of you to generate the kinds of topicswith which you deal in your work for the church. We've pruned thatdown from something like 700 or 800 to something in the range of 450.The purpose of the questionnaire is to ask each of you to identify thetopics you think are important, and to indicate whether you have workproducts in existence for the system. We've been working pretty hard atthis for your benefit. I hope that the response you give to the question-naire will be complete and prompt.Well, I think that does it. Let me close by saying that I am very300 30 CATHOLIC LAWYER, AUTUMN, 1986grateful for your help, your attendance, your interest; and we'll go on nowto the last substantive topic on the program. I hope you will have a goodand safe journey home. Thank you.

English

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2226&amp;context=tcl

Business Meeting & Report of the General Counsel, NCCB/USCC

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

St. John's University School of Law