The State Bar is a public corporation within the judicial branch of government that manages the admission of attorneys to practice law in California, investigates complaints of professional misconduct and recommends appropriate discipline. It serves as an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court and its recommendations of bar admission and attorney discipline are routinely ratified by that body. The bar has more than 230,000 members who are all considered officers of the court. It is governed by a 23-member Board of Trustees that was called the Board of Governors until 2011.
Before the State Bar was created, California operated under a voluntary association aptly called the California Bar Association. In 1917, Judge Jeremiah F. Sullivan proposed the concept of an integrated, mandatory bar and provided a copy of a relevant Quebec statute as a model. This proposal was not taken seriously at the time.
In 1927, the Supreme Court of California heard Sullivan’s proposal and appointed the State Bar Commission, which in turn established the State Bar of California. More than 9,000 lawyers joined by the end of the year. A constitutional amendment approved in 1960 added the State Bar as an agency in the judicial branch of government.
The State Bar developed an active, effective and controversial lobbying capability over the years. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that lawyers must be allowed to opt out of paying a portion of dues if they objected to the political and lobbying activities of the bar. And in 1997, Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the fee authorization bill that allowed the State Bar to collect the nation’s highest annual dues ($478). Wilson also criticized the bar for its lobbying activities that included its Conference of Delegates taking a strong position in favor of abortion rights.
The bar was forced to lay off 500 of its 700 employees and halt its disciplinary activities for six months. The state Supreme Court stepped in and levied a mandatory emergency annual fee of $171 in 1998, but by then its backlog of cases had soared to 6,000. Governor Gray Davis resumed the fees in 1999, setting the level at $395.
In 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the fee allocation again, claiming the State Bar had become scandal ridden, inefficient and overly politicized.
In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 163, which changed the name and composition of the governing board. The Board of Governors is now the Board of Trustees and its size will shrink from 23 to 19 by October 31, 2014.
The State Bar finally cleared up its backlog of cases, reporting in January 2012 that a four-month effort eliminated a 1,500-case backlog that had existed six months earlier and resolved another 1,500 cases about to enter the backlog file.
About (State Bar)
Schwarzenegger Vetoes State Bar Membership Dues Bill (by Sherri M. Okamoto, Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
State Bar Achieves Zero (State Bar)
The State Bar of California is responsible for managing the admission of lawyers to the practice of law, investigating complaints of professional misconduct and prescribing appropriate discipline. All attorney admissions and disbarments are issued as recommendations of the State Bar, which are then routinely ratified by the Supreme Court. To practice law in California, State Bar applicants must pass a rigorous three-day examination, a test of their knowledge of the Rules of Professional Conduct and a screening for moral character. The exam, considered one of the toughest in the nation, is administered by the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE).
The Discipline System
The disciplinary system is a key component of the State Bar. It is designed to protect the public, the courts and the profession from attorneys who violate ethical rules covering their professional conduct. Complaints about an attorney can be reported by calling 1-800-843-9053, a toll-free number, or by filling out a complaint form on the State Bar’s website.
The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, which is responsible for reviewing charges of lawyer misconduct, then investigates and prosecutes these complaints. If a possible violation of the bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct seems to exist, a complaint form is sent to the caller and information gathering begins. In some cases, the bar has no jurisdiction, but seeks to refer the caller to an appropriate agency. In other cases, the bar, by intervening, successfully re-establishes a positive attorney/client relationship between the two parties. If there is reason to proceed with a complaint, it is sent to the Office of Investigation where formal allegations of misconduct are pursued.
The Intake unit of the bar received 17,904 written complaints in 2010, roughly equal to the previous year but strikingly higher than 2008 (13,600). Of those complaints received, 6,028 were forwarded to the Investigations unit for further consideration. Eventually, 1,362 complaints were sent to the Trial unit for review and that unit sent 636 cases to the State Bar Court for initiation of a hearing process.
The State Bar Court makes a determination of disciplinary action but the ultimate authority to impose a sanction rests with the Supreme Court.
Of the 13,235 cases that were closed by the Intake unit in 2010, 1,866 respondents resigned or were disbarred. Another 1,032 cases continued to be monitored for possible criminal activity. Another 13 lawyers resigned at the Investigations level and three more at the Trial level.
Overall, in 2010, 128 lawyers were disbarred, 10 received “summary” disbarment, 444 were suspended and 104 received “reprovals.”
Filing a Complaint (State Bar)
2010 Annual Discipline Report of the State Bar of California
Ethics Hotline
This hotline enables attorneys to discuss ethical questions with trained staff members who will refer them to the appropriate rules, opinions and case law so an informed decision can be made. With authorization from the State Bar, lawyers who commit minor misdeeds may attend the State Bar’s Ethics School.
Lawyers Assistance Program
If attorneys experience problems with substance abuse or burnout, they can receive confidential assistance by calling the Lawyers Assistance Program. This program, established in 2001, offers confidential rehabilitation support for attorneys dealing with substance abuse or mental illness.
Client Security Fund
The Client Security Fund was created to reimburse clients who lose money as a result of an attorney’s theft of client funds while acting as a lawyer.
Mandatory Fee Arbitration Program
This program arbitrates fee disputes between attorneys and their clients in an informal, out-of-court setting. Arbitration is mandatory for the attorney if requested by the client.
Education
California attorneys are required to complete 25 hours of continuing legal education every three years. The State Bar offers programs through 16 sections: antitrust & unfair competition, business, criminal, environmental, family law, intellectual property, international, labor & employment, law practice management & technology, litigation, public law, real property, solo & small firm, taxation, trusts & estates and workers’ compensation.
About (State Bar)
Legislative Activities
The Office of Governmental Affairs works to facilitate relations between the State Bar and the executive and legislative branches of government. It advocates for legislation supported by the bar’s Board of Governors, coordinates outreach programs and works with the Judicial Council, the Bench/Bar Coalition, the governor’s office, lawmakers and other elements of the legal pantheon in California to attain those ends.
The office’s activities are funded entirely through voluntary sources, like the Legislative Activities Fund (an annual dues checkoff for State Board members).
The State Bar’s $129.9 million budget in 2010 was funded primarily through membership fees and donations (57%), examination application fees (12.7%), grants (8.2%) and trust account revenue (5.2%).
The bar’s largest expenses in 2010 involved the disciplining of lawyers (38.5%), grants (22.8%), examination costs (13.5%) and general operating expenses (11.4%). It receives grants from the State of California and distributes those grants to nonprofit legal aid organizations.
In addition to its income stream, the State Bar holds substantial assets. Its net assets totalled $100.2 million as of December 31, 2010.
At the end of 2010, the State Bar had approximately 230,237 members, making it the largest unified state bar in the country. Membership fees for 2010 were set by the Legislature at $410 for active members and $125 for inactive members.
Lawyer Assistance Program Criticized
Ten years after the State Bar established a program that monitors lawyers recovering from drug or alcohol abuse, the California State Auditor found repeated instances of participant noncompliance and inadequate monitoring.
The result is “leaving the public unnecessarily at risk of attorneys’ practicing law while potentially relapsing in their abuse of drugs or alcohol,” the auditor’s 2011 report said.
Participants enter the program for various reasons, including satisfaction of disciplinary requirements by State Bar, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel or the Committee of Bar Examiners.
The auditor reviewed the files of 25 participating attorneys and found 34 instances when the lawyers broke program rules, including the skipping of lab tests and testing positive during screenings. One lawyer failed to comply with his plan 20 times during the first three years of his participation. Yet, in his case, as in many of the cited cases, the case manager did not bring these violations to the attention of an evaluation committee in a timely fashion as required.
The State Bar did not contest the findings and agreed to follow recommended reforms.
State Bar of California— Its Lawyer Assistance Program Lacks Adequate Controls for Reporting on Participating Attorneys (State Auditor) (pdf)
State Bar’s Substance Abuse Monitoring Falling Short (by Ryan Gabrielson, California Watch)
Schwarzenegger Blocks State Bar from Collecting Dues
Taking a page from Governor Pete Wilson’s 1997 veto book, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blocked the State Bar from collecting dues from its members in October 2009, charging the bar was “overly political, unresponsive . . . and inefficient.”
He also questioned the State Bar’s “impartiality in considering judicial appointments.” Although the governor didn’t say it, that charge probably grew out of the leaking in August of a confidential ranking of Schwarzenegger’s pending appointment of conservative former GOP state Senator Chuck Poochigian to the State Court of Appeal. The bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation gave Poochigian the lowest possible ranking of “not qualified.”
Among his complaints, Schwarzenegger cited an auditor’s critical report of the bar’s finances and an embezzlement scandal involving a bar employee.
The governor signed the legislation three months later. In the interim, a State Bar task force led by Schwarzenegger appointee William Gailey investigated the leaked Poochigian ranking but failed to find the culprit.
Governor Signs State Bar Fee Bill (State Bar press release)
Schwarzenegger Bashes California Bar, Blocks It from Collecting Dues (by Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times)
Schwarzenegger Vetoes State Bar Membership Dues Bill (by Sherri M. Okamoto, Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
Auditor Questions Disciplinary System
Eighty percent of the State Bar’s General Fund expenditures are devoted to its attorney disciplinary system. In a 2009 report, the State Auditor found that despite rising costs (from $40 million to $52 million) from 2004 to 2008, the number of disciplinary inquiries declined. But the auditor couldn’t accurately gauge the efficiency of the system overall because of the way the State Bar tracked cases.
It didn’t account for its expenses by key disciplinary function such as investigations and trials, and was unable to track the time it took to close a case. The auditor said the bar didn’t report its backlog accurately and didn’t include all pertinent information in its reports.
The auditor also noted that if the State Bar made some relatively simple changes in its billing procedures and conducted a cost-benefit analysis of collection efforts, it could save significant money. Some of the suggestions made by the auditor had also been made in earlier audits, but not followed.
The internal weaknesses and the failure to implement corrective action has the potential for causing substantial problems, the auditor said, referring to an alleged embezzlement of $676,000 by a former employee after the auditor had warned the State Bar about particular shortcomings.
State Bar of California: It Can Do More to Manage Its Disciplinary System and Probation Processes Effectively and to Control Costs (State Auditor) (pdf)
Disciplining Prosecutors
A report by the State Auditor in 2009 was critical of the State Bar’s overall disciplinary system, but an October 2010 report zeroed in on how the bar handled prosecutorial misconduct, in particular, and was sharper in its criticism.
The report by the Northern California Innocence Project at the Santa Clara University School of Law ostensibly focused on the scope of a problem seldom examined, bad behavior by prosecuting attorneys. The study reviewed 4,000 state and federal appellate rulings in California between 1997 and 2009 where prosecutorial misconduct had been alleged and found 707 cases in which the courts agreed that the allegations were valid. In 548 of those 707 cases, however, the court ruled that the misconduct did not affect the outcome of the trial.
About 97% of felony criminal cases are resolved without a trial, making it difficult to know the true extent of prosecutorial misconduct. And the Innocence Project did not look at allegations of misconduct at the trial level that were not reflected in appellate court documents. But it is safe to say that the misconduct extends beyond the 707 cases noted in the study.
Yet, the State Bar rarely brings actions against prosecutors.
Of the 4,741 public disciplinary actions by the bar between 1997 and 2009, only 10 involved prosecutors and only six were for conduct in the handling of a criminal case. The courts didn’t report the alleged misconduct, the prosecutors denied that it occurred and the State Bar almost never disciplined for it.
The danger, as the report pointed out, is that “the courts’ reluctance to report prosecutorial misconduct and the State Bar’s failure to discipline it empowers prosecutors to continue to commit misconduct.”
Many of the prosecutors (11.2%) in the 707 cases were repeat offenders. Three of them showed up four times each in the study and two showed up five times each.
The report singled out one particularly egregious example of unpunished prosecutorial behavior. In 2007, a California Court of Appeal found that the deputy district attorney who successfully pursued a death penalty prosecution of Mark Sodersten had withheld audio tapes from a key witness interview that would have exonerated the accused. Sodersten died in prison of natural causes after spending 22 years there. Despite his death, the appellate court felt compelled to make public its findings:
“To do otherwise would be a disservice to the legitimate public expectation that judges will enforce justice. It would be a disservice to justice. Most of all, it would be a disservice to [Sodersten] who maintained his innocence despite a system that failed him.”
The prosecutor was not disciplined by the State Bar, which concluded in April 2010 that “we could not prove culpability by clear and convincing evidence.” The prosecutor, Phillip Cline, has absolute immunity from any civil liability for his conduct and without State Bar action is virtually untouchable. Cline was elected district attorney of Tulare County in 1992 and was still in that post as of October 2011.
Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997– 2009 (by Kathleen M. Ridolfi and Maurice Possley, Northern California Innocence Project, Santa Clara University School of Law) (pdf)
State Bar of California: It Can Do More to Manage Its Disciplinary System and Probation Processes Effectively and to Control Costs (State Auditor) (pdf)
Employee Fraud
Sharon Elyce Pearl, an employee of the State Bar, was charged in April 2009 with embezzling more than $675,000 from the organization over an 8-year period. Pearl handled rent checks from tenants in property that the bar owned in San Francisco and deposited them into an account of the Piedmont Light Opera Theatre where she served as administrator and had access to the money. Pearl, who was the bar’s director of Real Property Operations, reportedly spent the money on “spa treatments, designer clothes, lavish meals and fancy hotel rooms.”
Pearl was sentenced in February 2010 to two years, eight months in prison and was required to pay full restitution of nearly $900,000, including taxes, penalties and lawyers’ fees.
Brown Announces Former State Bar Employee Will Spend 2 Years, 8 Months in Prison for Embezzlement and Tax Fraud (Governor Brown press release)
California State Bar Employee Charged With Embezzling $675K (by Chris Marquet, FraudTalk blog)
People v. Pearl (Declaration in Support of Arrest Warrant) (pdf)
People v. Pearl (Official complaint) (pdf)
Keller v. State Bar of California
The State Bar was an aggressive participant at the height of social and political activism in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and usually with a liberal bent. Those efforts, often in the form of filing briefs and lobbying for reform and legislation on issues like gun control, abortion, the death penalty, special education and immigration, wasn’t universally embraced by members of the bar, lawmakers and the electorate in general.
In 1982, a group of lawyers filed a complaint with the bar, challenging the use of their manadatory dues to finance political activities they didn’t necessarily agree with. After a protracted court fight, the California Supreme Court ruled for the State Bar, declaring that it was a state agency and state agencies had always been allowed to assess mandatory fees.
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disagreed and ruled that attorneys who are required to be members of the state bar, as in California, have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities. The court admitted that the line between permissable and impermissable activity was unclear, but said the principle was not. Compulsory state bars were compelled to determine what percentage of dues were spent on impermissable activity and allow dissenting members to subtract that from their fees.
The California State Bar began taking steps to simplify the matter by spinning off its more controversial programs but the battle didn’t end. The conservative Pacific Legal Foundation sued the bar in 1991 on behalf of 43 attorneys who alleged the bar hadn’t properly followed the high court’s directive in Keller about using dues for political purposes. The State Bar settled after losing in Sacramento Superior Court in 1999 and paid the foundation’s $900,000 legal fees in 2001.
While that lawsuit played out, Governor Pete Wilson in 1997 vetoed the annual bill that allowed the State Bar to collect dues, temporarily throwing its finances into total chaos. Governor Gray Davis restored the dues collection in 1999 but the controversy over State Bar political activities continued.
Lobbying and Optional Program Deductions for 2002 Membership Fees (State Bar) (pdf)
State Bar President’s Legal Funding Statement Has Appearance of Partisan Political Utterance (Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
State Bar Agrees to Pay $900,000 in Legal Fees in Brosterhous Case (Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
San Francisco Litigator Jeffery L. Bleich Elected State Bar President (by Tina Bay, Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
The Unified Bar in the Courts (by Bradley A. Smith and Allan Falk, Mackinac Center for Public Policy)
Keller v. State Bar of California (FindLaw)
Restructuring
Some have argued that the State Bar should be run similar to how other state agencies are run. There is also concern for the ability of the State Bar to protect the broader public, outside of attorneys, calling for a regulatory structure similar to that of the bodies that regulate other businesses and profession. There have also been issues regarding the ratio of board members and how they are elected. And still argument continues on how member fees are used.
But in October 2011, Governor Jerry Brown approved legislation making significant changes in the structure of the State Bar. The passage of SB 163 authorizes the State Bar to collect active membership dues of up to $410 for the year 2012, which continues the current active dues amount. Those dues fund only mandatory programs of the State Bar and members can deduct $5 if they do not wish to support lobbying and other legislative activities. SB 163 also directs $10 of dues to legal services unless a member elects not to support those activities.
It also replaces the Board of Governors with a Board of Trustees and changes the way its members are selected. The board, which consists of 23 members, will be reduced to 19 by October 31, 2014. Until that time, the governor will continue to select four public members and the leaders of the Legislature will select two. Eventually, six attorney members will be elected, one from each Court of Appeal district; five will be appointed by the Supreme Court and two will be selected by legislative leaders. The State Bar is charged with devising the transition plan.
Consumer Advocate Calls for Major Structural State Bar Change (by Kenneth Ofgang, Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
Governor Brown Signs Bill Restructuring State Bar (Metropolitan News-Enterprise).
Floor Analysis of SB 163 (Around the Capitol)
Plan to Implement Transition to 19-Member Board of Trustees (State Bar)
Who Should be Admitted to the Bar?
Sergio C. Garcia went to community college, California State University in Chico and law school before passing the state bar exam in 2009. He applied for admittance to the California State Bar in 2011 and seemed like an ideal candidate except for one troubling fact.
He is an illegal immigrant.
Garcia was brought to the United States from Mexico by his parents when he was 17 months old. He was working as a paralegal when he applied to the bar and was in the process of applying for U.S. citizenship but that could take up to 15 years.
Ultimately, the decision if he can practice law in California is up to the state Supreme Court.
Should he be admitted to the bar?
Should the California Bar Accept this Illegal Immigrant? (by Jacob Sapochnick, Visa Lawyer blog)
California Bar Weighs Illegal Immigrant's Application (Associated Press)
The Other “Sergio Garcia” Wants to be a California Lawyer Even Without Legal U.S. Residency (by Maurice R. Hernandez, blogger)
Illegal Immigrants Should Be Eligible
California passed the Dream Act in 2011 because of people like Sergio Garcia, who are looking for a path to citizenship after being brought to this country as young children. He has studied hard, obeyed the law and worked to improve himself.
He was not a party to the decision to break the law and enter the United States. So, Garcia supporters say, he is not guilty of “moral turpitude,” a disqualifying act for admittance to the bar.
As Garcia has said, “What was my moral duty at 17 months?”
The question of what constitutes “moral turpitude” is, itself, open to debate. “I thought lawyers usually became criminals after joining the bar but if you are undocumented, you need to try harder,” law student Prerna Lal snarked on her blog in July 2011. Lal says she knows lawyers who admitted to drug use and passed the bar’s “character and fitness” test. “But I suppose the bar is concerned more with ‘fraud’ and the use of fraudulent documents than real crimes.”
The fact that someone scrapes up the money to go to law school and passes the bar, she argues, says far more about character and fitness than shading the truth on intrusive documents.
The State Bar didn’t begin asking applicants if they were illegal immigrants until 2008, so in all probability Garcia wouldn’t be the first to get a license. It also indicates that the State Bar didn’t think the question was particularly relevant.
Although federal law—The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996—says that illegal immigrants, with a few exceptions, are not eligible for a professional license issued by a state or local government agency, it remains to be seen if the state Supreme Court is technically an “agency” for purposes of granting a law license.
“I don't think that's been addressed,” says professor Gerald Uelmen of the Santa Clara University School of Law.
Why We Should Find a Way for Sergio C. Garcia to Practice Law (by Scott Herhold, San Jose Mercury-News)
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
Can an Undocumented Immigrant Be Admitted to Practice? California Supreme Court Must Decide (ABA Journal)
Morons of the Week: California State Bar Association Turns Into ICE (Prerna Lal blog)
Illegals Shouldn’t be Practicing Law
This is a no-brainer for those who feel illegal immigration is a major problem facing the country and should be a high priority for law enforcement officials and elected representatives. They would toss out all illegal immigrants wherever they surface under almost all circumstances.
But for those who want to discourage illegal immigration but recognize that the issue is slightly more complicated than that, especially in California, the argument against Garcia is more nuanced.
For them, how can an officer of the court, “a person who is charged with upholding the law and administering the judicial system,” himself be in violation of the law? Yes, he wasn’t morally culpable when he was 17 months old, but he is an adult now and has most likely signed a fair number of documents over the years misstating the facts of his life.
Membership in the California bar requires good moral character. A candidate must show honesty, trustworthiness and respect for the law. For whatever reasons, his critics argue, Garcia has not done that. Even if he were permitted to pursue a pathway to citizenship via the Dream Act, and even attain it, a lifetime of dishonesty disqualifies him from practicing law.
Ethics Dunce: The California State Bar (by Jack Marshall, Ethics Alarms blog)
Accredited vs. Unaccredited
California allows unaccredited law school grads to practice law. Unaccredited law schools have provided education to those who do not qualify or are not acceptable to accredited law schools due to test scores, lack of degrees, etc. Some offer part-time, night and weekend classes unlike most accredited law schools. Unaccredited law school grads, however, can only practice law in the state of which they graduated. Accredited law schools have the State Bar’s approval and graduates can practice in a few other states like Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which allow graduates of accredited institutions in other states. Arguments have risen over the years as to whether graduates from just an accredited law school should be allowed to practice law in California or if both unaccredited and accredited schools’ graduates can practice.
Just Accredited
Some argue that unaccredited law schools are more laid back on education and do not properly prepare students to practice law. To compensate, the State Bar exam has been made tougher to weed out the unprepared, which is unfair to those who have passed proper examination and courses taught in accredited law schools. Proponents of unaccredited schools also argue that the schools mislead persons unqualified to become lawyers and charge large fees for inadequate education.
Accredited and Unaccredited
The American Civil Liberties Union has backed the fight to keep unaccredited law school graduate’s right to practice law in California. Supporters of unaccredited schools say the schools offer opportunity to enter the legal profession to persons who have historically been excluded.
Law Schools in California approved by the ABA (State Bar)
Law Schools in California accredited by CALS (State Bar)
Unaccredited Law Schools in California (State Bar)
California Law School Teaches “Nuts and Bolts” (New York Times News Service)
Stricter Rules for The Bar (by Arthur Ribbel, Lodi News-Sentinel)
California’s Tough Bar Exam Ripped (The Press-Courier)
Law School Shutdown Hit (Modesto Bee)
Luis J. Rodriguez, 2013-2014
Patrick M. Kelly, 2012-2013
Jon Streeter, 2011-2012
Bill Herbert, 2010-2011
Howard B. Miller, 2009-2010
Holly J. Fujie, 2008-2009
Jeffrey L. Bleich, 2007-2008
Sheldon H. Sloan. 2006-2007
James O. Heiting, 2005-2006
John K. Van de Kamp, 2004-2005
Anthony P. Capozzi, 2003-2004
Hon. James E. Herman, 2002-2003
Karen S. Nobumto, 2001-2002
Palmer Brown Madden, 2000-2001
Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, 1999-2000
Raymond C. Marshall, 1998-1999
Marc D. Adelman, 1997-1998
Thomas G. Stolpman, 1996-1997
James E. Towery, 1995-1996
Donald R. Fischbach, 1994-1995
Hon. Margaret M. Morrow, 1993-1994
Harvey I. Saferstein, 1992-1993
John M. Seitman, 1991-1992
Hon. Charles S. Vogel, 1990-1991
Alan I. Rothenberg, 1989-1990
Colin W. Wied, 1988-1989
Paul Terry Anderlini, 1987-1988
Hon. Orville A. Armstrong Jr., 1986-1987
David M. Heilbron, 1985-1986
Burke M. Critchfield, 1984-1985
Dale E. Hanst, 1983-1984
Anthony Muray, 1982-1983
Samuel L. Williams, 1981-1982
Roberto D. Raven, 1981
William F. Wenke, 1980-1981
Charles H. Clifford, 1979-1980
David J. Levy, 1978-1979
Garvin F. Shallenberger, 1977-1978
Edward Rubin, 1977-1977
Ralph Gampell, 1976-1977
David S. Casey, 1975-1976
Leonard S. Janofsky, 1972-1973
David K. Robinson, 1971-1972
Forrest A. Plant, 1970-1971
J. Thomas Crowe, 1969-1970
Samuel O. Pruitt Jr., 1968-1969
John H. Finger, 1967-1968
Stevens Halsted Jr., 1966-1967
John A. Sutro, 1965-1966
Augustus F. Mack Jr., 1964-1965
Samuel H. Wagener, 1963-1964
Hon. William P. Gray, 1962-1963
Theodore R. Meyer, 1961-1962
James C. Sheppard, 1960-1961
Burnham Enersen, 1959-1960
Graham L. Sterling Sr., 1958-1959
Edwin A. Heafey, 1957-1958
Joseph A. Ball, 1956-1957
James H. Farraher, 1955-1956
DeWitt A. Higgs, 1954-1955
Eugene M. Prince, 1953-1954
Charles E. Beardsley, 1952-1953
Hon. Emil Gumpert, 1951-1952
Homer D. Crotty, 1950-1951
Archibald M. Mull Jr., 1949-1950
Harry J. McClean, 1948-1949
F.M. McAuliffe, 1947-1948
Hon. Julius V. Patrosso, 1946-1947
Hon. O.D. Hamlin Jr., 1945-1946
M.B. Wellington, 1944-1945
Russell F. O’Hara, 1943-1944
Frank B. Belcher, 1942-1943
Philip H. Angell, 1941-1942
Lloyd Wright, 1940-1941
Gerald H. Hagar, 1939-1940
Paul Vallee, 1938-1939
Gilford L. Rowland, 1937-1938
Alfred L. Bartlett, 1936-1937
T.P. Wittschen, 1935-1936
Norman A. Bailie, 1934-1935
H.C. Wyckoff, 1933-1934
Guy Richards Crump, 1932-1933
Peter J. Crosby, 1931-1932
Leonard B. Slosson, 1930-1931
Charles E. Beardsley, 1929-1920
Thomas C. Ridgeway, 1928-1929
Joseph J. Webb, 1927-1928
Past Presidents (doc)
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
