Opinion ID: 1580181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Properly Approve Amicus Brief on Divisive Issue

Text: The Florida Bar's Standing Board Policy 8.10(a)(3) provides that sections of the Bar may not submit an amicus brief in pending litigation if the issue involved carries the potential of deep philosophical or emotional division among a substantial segment of the membership of the bar. The issue of homosexual adoption is undeniably divisive. The Florida Bar does not argue otherwise. The majority opinion does not hold otherwise. The Bar has consistently recognized the divisive nature of homosexual adoption in the past. In 2004, the Bar rejected the Family Law Section's request to lobby for the repeal of Florida's law specifically because it determined that the issue of homosexual adoption had the potential of creating a deep philosophical and emotional divide among members of the Florida Bar. See Alan B. Bookman, Our Legislative Role, Fla. B.J., Feb. 2006, at 8. Then, in 2005, the Bar again recognized the divisiveness of the issue when it denied the Family Law Section's request to lobby that some homosexual parents be permitted to adopt. See Jan Pudlow, Family Law Section to File Gay Adoption Case Amicus, The Florida Bar News, Feb. 15, 2009. In this case, based upon the meeting minutes from January 30, 2009, it is not at all clear that The Florida Bar made any determination regarding divisiveness or even that it recognized that Standing Board Policy 8.10(a)(3) required it to do so. The meeting minutes simply state: The board voted to not disallow the Family Law Section filing an amicus brief with the Third District Court of Appeal in the case, In the Matter of the Adoption of John Doe and James Doe, supporting the ruling of the trial court judge in that case. The judge ruled F.S. § 63.042(3) unconstitutional and allowed homosexual foster parents to adopt two brothers they had raised for four years. The Board of Governors' action does not constitute The Florida Bar's formal endorsement of the section's position. It acknowledges the subject matter is within the purview of the section's area of expertise and permits the sectioncomposed of and funded entirely by voluntary membersto go forward. No Bar membership fees will be expended to advocate the brief put forth by the section and the amicus will be written by a volunteer. Board member Larry Ringers recused himself from the vote. The Florida Bar Board of Governors, Regular Minutes (Jan. 30, 2009), at 5-6. These meeting minutes do not mention whether the Bar determined the divisiveness of homosexual adoption as its policy required. The only indication of any discussion by the Board of Governors comes from a Florida Bar News article cited by Liberty Counsel. See Pudlow, supra. The article indicates that some members of the Board of Governors considered the merits of homosexual adoption, not the divisiveness of the issue. For instance, one board member is reported as having been moved by the Holocaust and the movie, Judgment at Nuremburg, where the leaders did not do the right thing. Id. at 1. This board member is quoted as saying, [W]e are the leaders of the Bar and I think we should send a message to Floridians that we are here to uphold the law, and we are here to do the right thing. Id. Another board member is quoted as saying, To consider children are being prohibited from having the right to be adopted by appropriate and very caring individuals is completely wrong, and we should not let that go forth. Id. These comments, indicating support for the merits of the proposed amicus position, do not address the divisiveness issue at all and are contrary to the Board's minutes indicating there was no endorsement. Even though the issue is divisive, the Board of Governors could have voted to waive the application of its Standing Board Policy 8.10(a)(3) with a two-thirds vote, pursuant to its bylaws. [15] Yet it did not do so. Specifically, Bylaw 2-9.2 provides: The board of governors shall adopt standing board policies governing the internal administration and operation of The Florida Bar and the board of governors. The board of governors may adopt, amend, or rescind standing board policies by a majority vote of the membership of the board of governors provided any amendment to any standing board policy shall not be effective until 30 days after adoption. Such standing board policies may be adopted, rescinded, or amended by a majority vote of those present at any regular meeting of the board of governors provided advance written notice is given to the members of the board of governors of the proposed adoption, repeal, or amendment of any standing board policy. The provision of any standing board policy may be waived by a two-thirds vote of those present at any regular meeting of the board of governors. R. Regulating Fla. Bar, Bylaw 2-9.2 (emphasis added). Voting to waive the standing board policy is the only method by which the Bar may take contrary action, as approved by this Court. See Fla. Bar re Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar, 494 So.2d 977, 992-93 (Fla.1986) (adopting Bylaw 2-9.2); see also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-11.2, 1-11.3 (explaining that this Court reviews objections to proposed bylaws and may amend bylaws adopted by the Bar at any time). This Court is not micromanaging the affairs of the Bar by requiring it to comply with the bylaws approved by this Court. There are no provisions for an implicit waiver in any applicable standing board policy provisions or bylaws of the Bar. However, the majority holds that the unanimous vote by the Board implicitly waived the Bar's standing board policy. See majority op. at 192. Contrary to the majority's holding, Bylaw 2-9.2 expressly requires a two-thirds vote to waive such policies. And because Bylaw 2-9.2 expressly requires a waiver by a two-thirds vote, a two-thirds vote is the only possible method of waiving standing board policies. See Bush v. Holmes, 919 So.2d 392, 407 (Fla.2006) (defining the principle of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another, by explaining that when the manner of doing an act is prescribed, the manner prescribed is exclusive). Therefore, the Board's unanimous approval of the Family Law Section's amicus brief does not constitute a legally recognizable waiver of Standing Board Policy 8.10(a)(3). Significantly, the Bar must comply with Robert's Rules of Order when conducting its meetings, which do not permit an implicit waiver. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar, Bylaw 2-9.6 (The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall be the rules that govern the conduct of all meetings of The Florida Bar, its board of governors, its sections, divisions, and committees.). Robert's Rules states that rules contained in an organization's bylaws cannot be suspendedno matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may beunless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order. Henry M. Robert III et al., Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised § 25, at 254 (10th ed.2000). The Bar's Bylaw 2-9.2, which provides for the waiver of standing board policies by a two-thirds vote, does not specifically provide for the suspension of Bylaw 2-9.2 itself and is not a rule of order. As a result, the particular manner for waiving standing board policies prescribed by Bylaw 2-9.2 cannot be suspended no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be. Id; see also id. § 25, at 257-58 (explaining that suspending a rule by unanimous consent, rather than by making a formal motion to suspend the rules, is accomplished prospectively by asking for unanimous consent and then asking if anyone objects). Therefore, under Robert's Rules of Order, a unanimous vote does not retroactively cure the Bar's failure to comply with Standing Board Policy 8.10(a)(3) or waive the policy in the manner prescribed by Bylaw 2-9.2. The majority's holding that there was an implicit waiver of Standing Board Policy 8.10(a)(3) is contrary to the Bar's specific bylaws regarding how a waiver may be obtained.