Decisions, opinions, and conflicts within the law

When a generic couple who were legally married finds themselves in deep financial trouble, they might seek bankruptcy protection. And they might be absolutely right to do so. While filing bankruptcy is a serious step that requires careful consideration and a solid understanding of the ramifications that might follow, it is a legal option that all American's have available to them. Or maybe not.

Adding some specific names and descriptions to the generic example can complicate the issue, significantly.

The question at the core of this issue isn't bankruptcy, it's marriage. There is no standard agreement in the United States at this point as to what specifically constitutes a marriage. The issue is being openly debated in the public forum, and in the courts. That quandary leaves some American's in a difficult position. They legitimately do not know if a legal protection offered to their neighbors is extended to them, too.

In June, twenty of the twenty-four judges sitting on the largest consumer bankruptcy court in the United States sided with a gay couple, Carlos Morales and Gene Balas, who had filed for bankruptcy protection and in the process found themselves running afoul of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Although Morales and Balas were legally married in California in 2008, they found they were not able to avail themselves of the full range of legal protections another, more conventional, two-gender couple might enjoy.

The question of what is, and what it not a marriage will continue to be an issue in our country for some time. And while that may not seem to be an argument that has an impact on all of our lives, it truly does. Our system of law will one day have to decide on a workable definition of what a marriage truly is, and settle on a method of dealing with the issue at the federal level, while states disagree on the point. For a mobile society like ours, that question, and the potential answers that spring up as a result, could very well impact each and every one of us at some point in our lives.

The high cost of interpersonal strife

At some point we all hit a bump in the road of life. For some of us that snag is a personal and private matter that we would prefer to keep that way. For others it is fodder for newspapers and entertainment programming. No matter what your status or level of fame, it hurts. It can be costly, too.

The two most obvious examples of this currently might be the recently announced split between singing sensations Jennifer Lopez and her husband of seven years, Marc Anthony; and the apparently growing turmoil over the wealth and property amassed by Hungarian born actress, Zsa Zsa Gabor over the course of her long, high-profile career.

The emotional pain of divorce, prolonged illness, and death can take a toll on any of us. In fact, the odds are good that each of us will fall prey to these sorrowful situations at some time in our lives. We may pay the monetary price along the way, too. As these two stories show in unique and differing ways, transition in any form has its price, both emotional and financial. There is at least one lesson for us to learn from these events as they unfold. More than likely we can learn more than just a single lesson that is pertinent to our own lives.

Hopefully the lesson you take away is a good one, that serves you well in the future.

Is this light's out?

Thomas Edison may have famously invented the incandescent light bulb, but that leading indicator of the industrial age is on its way out – or is it? In the pitched battle over energy use, the United States Congress has been wrestling with a law that was signed by President Bush in 2007 without much fanfare, but that otherwise innocuous law seems to have become of much greater interest lately.

At issue is the future of the incandescent light bulb. Under the current law 100 watt incandescents will be barred from the production floor by New Year's Day 2012. They'll still be in stores until the supply runs out. But that's it. No more hundred watt incandescents will be made for sale in the U.S.

Lower wattage incandescents will remain in production, but they'll be phased out over a two-year period. It won't be long now until American's will be reading by the warm glow of a cool running compact florescent bulb, or an LED lamp, or a hot and power hungry halogen, or a hot and note quite as power hungry halogen. Incandescents, the old standby that we all grew up with in our homes, will be out of the picture, however. Unless you hoard them now, while the store shelves are well stocked with them.

Or maybe not. As with anything that once existed and is being phased out by law, there is opposition. And while incandescent bulbs are famous for throwing off lots of light in exchange for a fair amount of heat, the debate that is raging in public these days is heavy on the heat, and lacking on the light. Misunderstandings of the law abound.

I certainly have no answer to the questions that rage around dinner tables and over water-coolers about which bulb is best, or even whether the cessation of most incandescent bulbs is a good thing or a bad thing. The theory of the law was to encourage the use of more energy efficient lighting sources. Although there are certainly those who will make more efficient choices when they change our their lamps, or their bulbs – there are others who will go the other way and select higher energy lights for their homes and offices.

People are people, where ever you go.

What will happen in the end? Who knows. Texas has introduced legislation that says incandescents made and sold within the borders of the state don't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and so they believe they can continue to manufacture the big bulbs. Perhaps that initiative will gain steam. Perhaps not. Maybe other states will join in with a similar perspective. Then again, maybe this is much ado about nothing. It remains to be seen. No matter which direction it goes, you have to admit, it's an interesting show.

Who would have ever thought that it would be the lightbulb itself that was in the spotlight, center stage?

Top 10 Icebreakers offer guide for blogging

Another subject that I wanted to bring to your attention is a recently published book recommended by one of my colleagues.  It helps with the starting points for getting and keeping good relationships.  My goal as a legal counsel is to connect as well as to deliver good legal counsel.  I thought you would find these “icebreakers” to be helpful suggestions.

Debra Fine, author of The Fine Art of Small Talk  offers a lot of helpful advice on networking and connecting with people while networking.  In her book she includes a list of her top 10 icebreakers. She suggests using them at any occasion where you have few established relationships.  We’ve all been at those types of events – school meetings, business events, fundraisers, cocktail parties, dinners, and conferences/conventions where you need to start a conversation with people you don’t know well or those “strangers” you would like to meet.

Top Ten Icebreakers

1.            What is your connection to this event?

2.            What keeps you busy outside of work?

3.            Tell me about the organizations you are involved with.

4.            How did you come up with this idea?

5.            What got you interested in  … ?

6.            What do you attribute your success to?

7.            Describe some of the challenges of your profession.

8.            Describe your most important work experience ….

9.            Bring me up to date.

10.         Tell me about your family.

According to Fine, the theme to these ten icebreakers is that they are personal, but not too personal. “Your goal is to build a business relationship,” she says, “while still getting to know more about a customer or potential customer. If you are talking to an existing customer, they probably already know you are good at what you do, so you just want them to see you on a more human level.” Thinking about this –when you establish that comfortable connection on the human level, they are more likely to refer you to a friend or associate. 

The other thing to note about these icebreaker guidelines is that they give the new person control to decide just how much information they are willing to share and where they want to set the parameters of the conversation.  On your part,  your job is to help the other person feel comfortable with you as a person.  You never want to overwhelm them with complex topics.  You never want to slip into insider jargon.  And you never want to put your audience on the spot regarding religion or politics.

Many of our friends and acquaintances could be more effective using these 10 icebreakers, so I encourage you to forward this link to them.  Let’s all communicate more effectively.  And you are invited to contact me, so we can get better acquainted.

Austerity pains in the Golden State

Imagine living in a town where the budget is so tight, and the future looks so bleak, that the only solution the city leaders can think of is to outsource municipal jobs that are normally held by city employees. Welcome to the way it is in Costa Mesa, California. Life really is tough all over.

In March the city issued layoff notices to almost half the city's workforce. Many of those imperiled workers are represented by the Costa Mesa City Employees Association, which is in turn represented by the Orange County Employees Association – two union groups that have petitioned the courts to put a stop to the plan.

Judge Tam Nomoto Schumann is on the bench, and she has issued a preliminary injunction in the case, preventing the city from implementing its plans. She allowed the city until Friday to file objections, prior to the judge issuing her ruling.

At issue is whether the city has followed the proper processes when laying off workers, as well as the question of whether the workers being targeted for layoff can be legally laid off for the reasons given.

The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper focusing on Costa Mesa, quotes City Attorney Tom Duarte from a press release, “This ruling doesn't affect the city's ability to research outsourcing possibilities and, if it's prudent, to outsource city jobs down the road.”

Clearly there is trouble brewing. No matter which side of the issue you're on, you're focused on the substance of the legal arguments, the process as it moves along, and ultimately – the judge's ruling. No matter which way it goes, it is a virtual guarantee that this issue will remain at the forefront of the minds of those hundreds of employees, and their families. City officials will have their hands full either way, too. They either have a fiscal problem, a public relations problem, or both. And no matter what they do, they are going to have at least one very sticky problem to work out.

Things truly are tough all over. This Costa Mesa case is a good reminder that the answers to difficult questions can be a whole lot harder to come to grips with than they might at first appear, especially if the people on the other side of the equation aren't in agreement with the solution you come up with.

It is good to remember that if the solution to one problem depends on a new problem being created for someone else – you may not have truly found the solution you were looking for. The people of Costa Mesa are certainly learning that lesson right now – regardless of whether they work for the city or not.

We'll be curious how the judge rules in this case. I'm sure you will be, too. Feel free to leave a comment if you have a thought, or hear the news before we do.

People are talking...

Last Friday New York became the most recent state to legalize gay marriage. Governor Cuomo signed the bill, which passed through the Senate with support from a handful of Republican lawmakers, including at least one who had run for office with the promise that he would oppose gay marriage in the state.

Issues with significant and obvious social overtones tend to create a furor in the public square, and as expected, people are talking about gay marriage, straight marriage, and what should or should not be under the law.

Talking heads pontificate on television. Editorialists editorialize. Neighbors discuss, and occasionally argue. And politicians step up on the stump and make promises, take credit, or vow a reverse of course is in the offing.

What few do is actually read the law. That's not just true of this new law in New York, it's true of most laws in most states, and in the nation as a whole. The vast majority of those who publicly express an opinion on topics such as this one have little knowledge of what the law actually says. Instead the interpret what the law means, what the intent of the legislators was, and what the ramifications of the change will be.

Almost all of what they have to share is conjecture. It has little basis in reality, and that is the shame of it. We learn when we have solid information on hand to guide us. Rumor, innuendo, suggestions, and misunderstandings of the facts can lead to worry, anger, and even violence under extreme circumstances. History has proven humans to be an emotional bunch who are prone to doing less than noble things when a big enough crowd gathers to vent their emotions - often with little real information to base their rage on.

I won't quote the entire New York marriage equality act here, but I will share a few sentences that are of interest and pertinent to the discussion, no matter which side of the argument you might be on.

“Marriage is a fundamental human right.” It says that using those very words. Regardless of whether you are married or single, divorced or widowed, engaged or commitment-phobic, it is reasonable to come to the same conclusion the New York legislature did on this one point, if you base your position on the traditions of the human race, throughout history. We marry. We always have. In fact, marriage is considered by many to be a cornerstone of civilization.

You'll notice there is no mention of gender, race, ethnic origin, or religious conviction on that simple sentence. “Marriage is a fundamental human right.” The legislature was concise on that point, at least.

“It is the intent of the legislature that the marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples be treated equally in all respects under the law.” That sentence is in the bill, too. Again, it is short, to the point, and suggests an attempt to be fair, even-handed, and respectful of the rights of the citizens of New York.

If you take the time to read the bill you will notice that there is no place where special privileges are granted, or special rights are bestowed. With one exception. There is an amendment to the bill that acknowledges that while the state recognizes marriage as a right, and that same-sex and different-sex marriages should be treated under the law as equivalent unions – no person or entity can be compelled to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. These points are included in the religious exemption to the bill.

So while some of us may be in favor of this new law, and some of us may be opposed to it, the bill itself contains an important lesson in specifics for all of us. Because the truth of the law is may not be found in the pundit's pronouncements or the politician's speeches – it is laid out for all to see in the bill itself. As is the case with any bill, in any state, on any topic.

The world we live in really is an open book. We just need to be sure we take the time to read it ourselves once in a while. That's the key to truly knowing what's what – really!

Is a lifelong deal really a lifelong deal?

The Fox Theater in Atlanta, Georgia is one of the great entertainment palaces of the 20^th Century. Originally built as a venue to host movies and live performances, as well as to provide a home base for the Shriner's organization, the Fox has seen good times and bad. The doors opened just after the stock market crash that set off the Great Depression, but the Fox muddled through. With changes of ownership and management, the Fox maintained a presence in the community until the 1970s, when its future became truly tenuous.

Enter Joe Patten. Joe is a force of nature. He is the man most responsible for pulling together the resources and bringing sufficient attention to bear, which allowed Joe and his crew to save the Fox from demotion during those dark days. In return Joe was granted a lifetime lease on the 3,640 square foot apartment that lies under the domed roof of the theatre.

But that was yesterday, as the saying goes. The lease was actually signed on December 28, 1979, and it stipulates that Joe is granted the privilege of living rent free in the Fox for the rest of his life. Yet by the summer of 2010 there were rumblings that the board of directors of Atlanta Landmarks, an organization that Joe helped to form, and the current owners of the Fox, were suggesting that perhaps it was time for Joe to move along.

As you can imagine, the story made the papers, and caused a bit of an uproar in the community and across the Internet.

The publicity was arguably beneficial to Patten, who was in receipt of the letter suggesting that his time as the sole resident of the apartment above the Fox was coming to an end. That same media attention was less than beneficial to Atlanta Landmarks, however, which got a bit of a public relations black eye for being perceived as less than grateful or gracious to the man who had saved the landmark that he had called home for more than 30 years.

Only recently it would seem that Patten's attorneys have been able to hammer out an agreement with Atlanta Landmarks that will keep Joe Patten in his home, atop the Fox, until the end of his days. At 83 years of age, it no doubt provides some welcome relief to a proud octogenarian of considerable accomplishment to know that his coveted lifetime lease truly is valid for the remainder of his lifetime.

At least in this case, a lifetime lease really has turned out to be good for a lifetime. Congratulations, Joe. Long may you enjoy your home, without the fear of a moving van rolling up to the door unexpectedly.