Ron Cass called the Council meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

The first order of business was to nominate and elect Ernie Gellhorn and Ted Olson as section delegates to the House of Delegates.

The Council then considered the proposed recommendation and report of Sid Shapiro, Co-Chair of the Regulatory Initiatives Committee, proposing an administrative system with exclusive jurisdiction to resolve asbestos injury claims now before the federal courts. Distributed just before the discussion was a memo with comments from Christopher Eddy urging support of HR1283. His memo contains a draft of a proposed recommendation.

Sid Shapiro gave a report on the proposed recommendation. He observed that the proposal, dealing with a complicated matter, had proceeded out of concern that Congress in proposed legislation had not considered an administrative system for resolving the claims. The committee had been quite general in its recommendation in terms of describing the process. It now has become more specific in its recommendation.

Ron Cass expressed two concerns. First, he was concerned about a proposal that was too general, particularly when Congress, in proposed legislation had proposed a fairly detailed system for adjudicating asbestos claims. Second, he was concerned about how to involve other ABA sections and division that had an interest in this issue. Hal Bruff echoed this concern.

Jack Young commented that putting forth a proposal for an administrative solution where none existed before was a contribution and "advanced the ball." He suggested urging the ABA to establish a separate task force or commission to develop a more formal recommendation.

Leonard Leo commented that any proposal should be fairly detailed if it were to be submitted since Congress= had a fairly detailed proposal. Many commented that it was important to get more definitive information on the status of the legislation before Congress.

Ron Levin observed that a more protracted ABA process that Jack suggested might be a good idea. He then observed that the way to engage other sections in the development of a proposal was to develop and circulate a proposal and let other sections "shoot at it."

Hal Bruff cautioned against proposing an ABA task force as, in his experience, such efforts may take an issue away from the Section but not produce results.

Randy Robinowitz, Labor Co-Chair of the ABA Labor Section, observed that the proposal did not adequately protect the interests of workers and its purposed seemed to be to streamline the process for the benefit of companies.

David Cardwell raised some tactical considerations and suggested that the issue merited debate and the evolution of a proposal. Dan Troy suggested that we send out the proposal widely and invite comments. The we should set time aside at the Annual Meeting to discuss the proposal and comments.

After further discussion, a consensus evolved in the Council whereby the Council would consider the proposal again at the Annual Meeting in greater detail and that sufficient time be set aside for council discussion. The council will also invite other Sections of the ABA and other interested parties to present their positions and participate in the discussion. The Committee would then incorporate comments into a revised recommendation for final consideration at the fall meeting.

Ed suggested that the Council send the proposal to TIPS, and other groups within the ABA which would be interested in the proposal.

The meeting was adjourned.