This meeting was called to order by Judge Hartz (as AJC chair) who then turned it over to Justice Enoch (as AJEI president) who then turned it over to Judge Sackett (as Task Force chair).

Judge Sackett reported that the Council of Chief Judges of the Courts of Appeals (CCJCA), the appellate judges who are not members of the CCJCA (for ease of reference, the AJC), and the Council of Appellate Lawyers (CAL) had agreed to hold a joint conference in San Francisco in 2005, preferably in October. Rebecca Greenan then stated that, because the conference planning staff at the Omni in San Francisco was unavailable, they had been unable to find out what dates were available and that she would e-mail everyone on the AJC board and the various representatives at the meetings regarding the available dates. She and Dean Attanasio also confirmed that they plan to schedule a January date for a combined education committee meeting with representatives from each of the groups and that those individuals would be speaking at the law school.

Then we got to CASA. Rebecca confirmed that we were scheduled for a July 2005 separate conference. When Judge Hartz asked "who approved" the scheduling and planning of that conference, Rebecca advised him that she had called Justice Enoch from Park City. Although it was not entirely clear, it appeared that the Dean did not learn of this until after he returned from Europe in August. Justice Enoch acknowledged that he had agreed but then said nothing else. Discussion ensued regarding CASA's need for a separate summer conference. I explained that, as Paul McGrath had indicated during the earlier AJC/AJEI meeting and at our task force meeting, we welcomed the participation of both judges and CAL at our conferences but that it was the impression of our executive board that we needed a summer conference because of scheduling concerns for our members. I was then asked (again, as I had been during the August AJC meeting in Atlanta) if we had polled our members regarding the need for a summer conference. I said no, but that I would advise the executive board that we had been so asked and that we would have the results from such a poll available at the ABA Midyear meeting in Salt Lake City.

Judge Hartz and Judge Armstrong then both questioned why a summer meeting was required, both stating that scheduling was not a problem for their staff. I reminded them that family considerations were also an issue for CASA and the Dean stated that he understood but that economic considerations were an issue, too. I then reported that we had agreed to decrease our education committee costs by holding meetings at the time of our annual seminar and by using phone and e-mail conferences. I posed the hypothetical to them of whether they would want us to continue with a summer conference if a significant number of our members indicated that they could only attend a summer, and not fall, seminar, and they all, including the Dean, indicated that such information should certainly be considered. The Dean then responded that if we went forward with our summer 2005 seminar it would be on a year-by-year basis and that we must not only come in with a surplus to cover our expenses but also enough money to cover administrative costs which he defined as our portion of the stated administrative costs ($77,000) or $10,000-20,000 over expenses. He reminded everyone that SMU (AJEI) would pay no honoraria.

Judge Irwin reported that, although CCJCA had agreed to a joint conference and would stay in the same hotel, there was a strong dissent. He stated that they wanted a staggered time schedule, which would permit them a lot of time separate from the other groups. He also commented that they were frustrated with the lack of information regarding the specifics of the administrative costs and requested better information. He then said that they would do their part.

The Dean responded that he would provide a specific, line-item list of all administrative expenses for everyone's use and requested that Roland Webb (who was in attendance) forward that to everyone following final accounting of the kickoff. To the surprise of apparently everyone, he then said that SMU's direct cash contributions to the kickoff included the buses used to transport the judges between the various hotels and their functions, the lunches at SMU, the receptions and dinners.

The final item of business at the meeting was consideration of the proposal for a position on the AJEI board for both CASA and CAL. After consideration as to whether this should be the Chair of the respective entity or a separate officer, the Board decided that it should be the Chair or a designee in the Chair's absence. A vote was taken and approved unanimously.