Doc. No.: 758
Date: May 4, 2001
Oral Reports of Standing Committees
The motion is carried and the report is adopted. Thank you, Winston.
I’m going to depart from the usual routine and
take things a little bit out of order because we have a number of people
presenting Resolutions and reports who have other commitments and need
to get on early. I’m going to start right away with a couple of Committee
reports and a Resolution or two. We’ve got a number of Resolutions today.
Then I’ll come back with the introduction of some of our distinguished
guests, which we usually do in the beginning. I’m going to defer that just
a bit. So, let’s start off right now with the report of the Chair of the
Salvage Committee, Jim Shirley.
MR. SHIRLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The Salvage Committee met on Wednesday morning
for an hour-and-a-half in the Haight Gardner Holland & Knight offices.
We had full attendance, as usual. We had 30-odd members of the Committee
attending, counting Phil Berns, one very odd member.
MR. SHIRLEY: We had a lot that could be talked
about in that Committee meeting, but because of some very good work that
Professor David Sharpe had done on a particular assignment, we devoted
the entirety of the meeting to that topic. We have a Resolution to put
before the membership.
If I may, Mr. President, I’m going to depart just
slightly from the procedure you and I agreed to, and before presenting
the Resolution, I would like to ask Professor David Sharpe to give a brief
review of the very meticulous study he did on this subject. It has to do
with whether the U.S. should implement legislatively the 1989 Salvage Convention,
whether the United States should denounce the 1910 Salvage Convention,
and whether we should amend the legislation as needed to do those things.
Professor Sharpe–I think I said this when we saw
the first part of his work on this issue, or his first report six months
ago–did a meticulous job. It’s even better now. I remember the old adage,
those who can do and those who can’t teach. Well, believe me, Professor
Sharpe can teach, can do, and has done.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Jim, give your card to the court
I’d ask everybody who is coming up to give their
card to the court reporter. I should have mentioned that earlier, but I
Go ahead, Dave.
PROFESSOR SHARPE: Thank you Mr. President, members,
guests. I will speak slowly but briefly. I have made notes on my card,
which says “red, right, returning.”
PROFESSOR SHARPE: What are we asking the Association
to do by our Resolution?
Although the United States has a bad reputation
in the international community for not adhering to treaties that we encourage,
here we have an embarrassment of riches. The United States is a state party
to both the 1910 Salvage Convention and the 1989 Salvage Convention. So
the Resolution proposition is to denounce the 1910 Convention.
Jim said the D word, “denounce,” and I just said
the D word. To denounce a treaty terrifies public law scholars, conveying
the idea that we should hunker down, prepared to shoot at any minute. But
the actual operation and intention of both the 1910 and the 1989 Conventions
has been for nations to assure one another that they will conform or harmonize
their domestic laws with the language of the treaties.
This is a different type of convention from a
public law agreement. This does not create relations between governments.
What it does is try to harmonize the private law of the nations involved.
And so if we substitute the 1989 language for the 1910 language, we have
in effect gone from one version of holy writ to a different version of
holy writ–except that, so far as I’m aware, there are no conflicts between
the languages of the two. Do not fear, then, to “denounce” this treaty;
all the word means is to “repeal” it. But in the language of international
law, there is no verb except “denounce.”
In the language of law, you recognize terms of
art that sound more violent than they are in application, such as vi et
armis, with force and arms, which was the minimum for stating a claim in
common law pleading. Today your complaint demands relief, which has the
practical effect of saying “Boo!”
PROFESSOR SHARPE: So don’t be afraid of denouncing
There is not much wrong with the 1910 treaty.
And yet I cannot help thinking with my learned brethren on the Salvage
Committee, that if you decide to pull up an old wreck, you always see marks
and scars on it. Somebody has hit the sucker and probably gotten hurt,
but often nobody filed a claim. Likewise, there is no reason to think that
the paucity of reported conflicts between the 1910 and the 1989 Conventions
is the sum total of all of the difficulties that have been considered by
counsel and the courts.
What are the risks of repeal or denouncing the
1910 Convention? I think none. We have no diplomatic relations that were
created by the Convention. We do have bilateral Salvage Conventions with
Canada and with Mexico. These treaties create government-to-government
relations having to do with the use of otherwise foreign-flag vessels in
domestic waters. If we were to denounce such a bilateral treaty, this would
be serious business. But shifting our attention from promising to conform
our domestic law from 1910 to 1989 should not cause pulses to pound.
There are some benefits. The 1989 Convention was
put in force primarily in order to take care of protection of the environment,
Articles 13 and 14, which express ideas that were nowhere treated in the
1910 Convention. If we had a conflict of laws problem with a nation that
is a state party only to the 1910 Convention, our having only the 1989
Convention would make our national policy quite clear, that we endorse
these measures to prevent and to abate pollution. I think this is important
because our salvage law is still growing by means of judicial decision.
Other national cultures tend to enact the Convention
language. We have not done that, and I rather hope we don’t. Why was this
not done in 1989? The United States Department of State, in advising the
President of the United States and the Senate of the United States to go
ahead with giving advice and consent to the 1989 Convention, was concerned
with economy of time and effort. The letter of transmittal said, “This
does not change U.S. domestic salvage law.” Everyone believes this. It’s
true. It saved putting the whole treaty through the Congress of the United
States. It also saved the hassle of going through denunciation of the 1910
Convention, which was considered to be simply unnecessary.
Why us now? This is a good-housekeeping measure
in some ways. The MLA is a law reform organization, as stated in the Articles
of Incorporation. And consequently, I stand before you to urge you to take
this tender step of endorsing our Resolution to denounce the 1910 Convention,
with the idea–if you believe me, and I hope you do–that it has some benefits
and no risks.
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Are you going to read the Resolution?
MR. SHIRLEY: Yes, Mr. President.
That will conclude the Committee report. However,
I would like to read the Resolution and move for its adoption by this membership.
At its meeting on May 2, 2001, the Committee on
Salvage unanimously passed the following Resolution and I now move it before
the Spring Meeting of the Maritime Law Association of the United States.
“Be it resolved, that the Maritime Law Association
of the United States recommends that the United States Government denounce
the Salvage Convention of 1910 to make it clear that the Salvage Convention
of 1989 is the only Salvage Convention that affects the law of the United
States, and that the President of this Association shall take such steps
as necessary to communicate this resolution and recommendation to the appropriate
U.S. Government official.”
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Is there a second?
(Chorus of seconds.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Is there any discussion, any
questions anyone wants to ask?
PRESIDENT DORSEY: If not, I’ll call the question.
All in favor of the Resolution say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Opposed?
PRESIDENT DORSEY: The Resolution is carried.
Thank you very much, Jim.
You know what this means, ladies and gentlemen,
it means that I now get to write a letter to either the President of the
United States or the Secretary of State urging denunciation of this treaty.
I can see CNN the next day, “Maritime Law Association creates International
incident. Denounces long-term treaty at convention.” Well, it’s going to
be a lot of fun.
I just want to let you know that Jim Shirley is
retiring as Chair of the Salvage Committee. I mentioned at his Committee
meeting earlier in the week that his Committee is one of our gems. One
of the reasons that is so is because of the leadership that Jim Shirley
has shown over the last four years. So thank you, Jim, very much for all
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thanks also to David Sharpe
for one of the really great pieces of research, thought and effort. He
has now written the definitive piece of work on the interplay of the Salvage
Act, the 1989 Salvage Convention and the 1910 Salvage Convention. I recommend
it to everyone.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Next we have Carriage of Goods,
and the CMI International Sub-Committee on Transport Law.
We are taking Michael Sturley first because he
is in the midst of drafting the outline instrument for the International
Sub-Committee, or participating in the drafting, I should say. The work
is going on as we speak, and he wants to make sure he gets back there so
that they get it right.
MR. STURLEY: We’re trying to get all of the law
professors out of the way first.
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, in October
I stood before you to report on our progress and predict our future schedule.
All of those predictions turned out to be wrong, but I nevertheless have
been invited back to try again with yet more predictions.
In February, the Issues in Transport Law International
Sub-Committee was reconstituted as Committee A at the Singapore Conference.
We had what I think was a very successful meeting in Singapore. We did
not try to go through the draft outline instrument section by section.
We only had a week in Singapore, after all. We instead focused on the so-called
“hot topics” that we thought would attract the most interest.
I think we got very good feedback on a number
of issues at the Singapore Conference. Perhaps navigational fault was the
most interesting issue. Roughly two-thirds of the member associations supported
the elimination of the section 4(2)(a) defense for error in navigation
or management, which was somewhat surprising for some of us. Of the remaining
one third of the national associations, the overwhelming majority of them,
about 70 percent, said that they were willing to discuss the elimination
of the navigational fault exception as part of a larger package. Very,
very few, in fact, only two, of the national associations supported the
retention of the error in navigation defense.
The CMI has come a long way on this project. We
still have quite a bit of work to do. At the end of the Singapore Conference,
the Assembly directed the International Sub-Committee to proceed with its
work to redraft the outline instrument in line with the information that
we had received at the conference. We are proceeding with this work on
an expedited basis.
Many of you may know Jernej Sekolec, who has been
with the UN Commission on Internatioal Trade Law (UNCITRAL) for many years,
and has been involved with the CMI’s work on Carriage of Goods for many
years. He has recently been elevated and is now the Secretary of UNCITRAL
and is very eager for UNCITRAL to begin its work formally on this project
as soon as possible. In particular, he has asked the CMI to produce a draft
outline instrument and deliver that to UNCITRAL by the end of this year.
So what was described as an ambitious schedule six months ago has now been
The Working Group met on Monday and Tuesday this
week, and the drafting group, an even smaller subset, has continued work
Wednesday and today. Indeed, they are at work right now and I will join
them when I leave here. The revised draft will be circulated in a couple
of weeks when the drafting committee finishes its work. It will circulate
its proposals to the rest of the Working Group for their review, but we
expect that, not next week, but by the end of the following week, the revised
draft will be circulated to all of the national associations, interested
industry groups, and so forth.
With this revised draft there will also be what
we’re describing as a consultation paper. We will be seeking reaction from
all the member associations, including the U.S. Maritime Law Association,
all of the interested industry groups, and anyone else who has opinions
to express. Of course, everyone will get the draft. It’s a fairly substantial
draft. The purpose of the consultation paper is to call attention to some
very specific issues on which we feel the need for specific guidance. We
don’t want people to look through the draft and be overwhelmed by it and
not respond to our specific concerns on the hot topics, so we’re calling
some of those hot topics to people’s attention in the consultation paper.
We expect that some of the more industrious maritime
law associations will, in fact, go well beyond the issues in the consultation
paper and give us very full reports on the entire draft. I certainly expect
our Association to be one of those more industrious associations.
Answers will be due by September 28th.
Earlier answers will be encouraged. The earlier the answers come in, the
more time the Working Group will have to think about them in getting the
next draft ready.
While this consultation process is going on, the
International Sub-Ccommittee will also meet on July 16th, 17th,
and 18th, to focus on three specific chapters of the proposal:
the chapters on right of control, transfer of rights, and right of suit.
These are three topics that proved particularly controversial in Singapore.
Perhaps more significantly, they were three topics that the International
Sub-Committee had not had much time to focus on before the Singapore conference,
so they had been less fully considered than the other topics in the draft.
A meeting of the Working Group has been tentatively
scheduled for October 4th and 5th to revise the draft
instrument in light of the answers that we receive from the consultation
Remember, those answers are due on September 28th,
so the Working Group will have only a few days to think about them and
then meet and revise the instrument.
The proposal is that the International Sub-Committee
will then meet on November 12th and 13th to discuss
the proposed final draft, so that it can be forwarded to the Executive
Council in plenty of time for consideration at their meeting on December
7th and 8th. Assuming the Executive Council approves
the draft, the prospect is that it will go forward to the UNCITRAL, so
Jernej Sekolec can have it by the end of the year, as he has requested.
I will be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise,
I need to go down and help our Chairman Stuart Beare draft the consultation
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Michael, I have one question.
Do you think that the final draft will be ready
by the time of our meeting
in San Diego? You are going to have the Working
Group meeting on what, October the 4th and 5th, and
our meeting in San Diego is October the 15th. I just wondered.
MR. STURLEY: We’re meeting a week-and-a-half before
the San Diego meeting. It will depend a lot on what sort of reaction we
get through the consultation process. I suspect that there will be at least
a draft of the final report. I am not sure whether or not the Working Group
will have signed off on it before the San Diego meeting.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: The reason I asked is that one
of the things we are doing in San Diego, and it is a little bit out of
the ordinary this year, is to have a CLE Credit Committee meeting, which
is the Carriage of Goods Committee meeting. At that meeting we had planned
to have papers on the draft outline instrument and comparisons between
that and our COGSA meeting.
Well, thank you, Michael, very much.
Is there anyone else that has any questions for
If not, we’ll release you, Michael, with thanks,
and let you go back to work.
MR. STURLEY: Thank you.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Bob Connor, followed by Lisa
MR. CONNOR: Good morning. The bulk of what our
Committee is doing will be found in my formal report, but I just want to
report this morning on the status of the COGSA proposal. With the changes
in the administration of both the White House and in the Senate specifically,
we’re being delayed once again.
Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon is now the chairman
of the committee that is reviewing our proposal. At the present time, they
are more concerned with the proposed tax cut and confirmation issues. Quite
frankly, according to my conversation Tuesday with the new legislative
aide who is following this subject, Wally Chu, it appears that nothing
is going to happen until September.
We have been invited to come to Washington, a
small group, and speak with the legislative aide, Wally Chu, and some of
the other aides about the proposal to educate them so it will go forward.
Senator Hutchinson has moved to another committee, and she was the one
who was really shepherding this for us.
That’s my report, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thanks, Bob. Lisa Reeves, Limitation
MS. REEVES: Thank you, Mr. President, for taking
me out of order. Good morning, everyone.
For the past year, our Committee has been closely
monitoring an important limitation case that has now been resolved by the
Supreme Court. That case is Lewis versus Lewis and Clark Marine and it
originated in the 8th Circuit.
By way of a brief background, this was a single
claimant, adequate fund case. The claimant was a Jones Act seaman. He filed
suit in the state court just a few days after the vessel owner had filed
for limitation of liability in Federal Court. The claimant did not demand
a jury in his state court action.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed
the 8th Circuit, which had held that absent a jury demand, the
vessel owner was entitled to litigate its right to exoneration in Federal
Court, even though limitation of liability was no longer an issue in the
case, because the claimant had stipulated that his claim was less than
the value of the vessel. The Supreme Court held that although a vessel
owner need not confess liability in order to seek limitation, Supplemental
Admiralty Rule F does not create a freestanding right to have the issue
of exoneration litigated in Federal Court under circumstances in which
limitation of liability is not the issue.
The Court then found that the plaintiff’s failure
to demand a jury trial in State Court did not deprive him of his right
to have his case litigated in the State Court. In other words, the Court
found that plaintiff’s right to a jury trial was not the only right saved
to the suitors or the only remedy saved by the savings to suitors clause.
Therefore, if a single claimant makes the appropriate stipulations, the
limitation action should be dismissed or stayed so that the claimant can
pursue his remedy in State Court even in the absence of a jury demand.
The citation is 121 S. Ct. 993, and the decision
was rendered by Justice O’Connor in February of this year.
Fortunately, the Court did not find it necessary
to address the issue of whether Supplemental Admiralty Rule F was ultra
vires, which was something that had been initially raised by the claimant.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Lisa.
At this time I would like to introduce a number
of the distinguished visitors that we have here today.
Actually, I’m not sure I should refer to them
as visitors because they are here almost all the time at our meetings and
attend probably more Committee meetings than most of our members do. But
Captain Joe Ahern, who is the Chief of the Maritime and International Law
Division of the United States Coast Guard, and his assistant, Lieutenant
Dan Goettle, are here, and welcome to you both.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: It is invaluable to us to have
them here to report on what the Coast Guard is doing, and we very much
At lunch yesterday I made note of the fact that,
sadly, Lieutenant Goettle is moving on to another position in the Coast
Guard after his tour of duty with the Maritime and International Law Division
and he leaves that post this summer. We’ll miss you, Dan. You have been
terrific. I appreciate all of the courtesies you have extended to me, and
I hope that you keep in touch with us. Good luck in the future.
I also would like to introduce Lucienne Bulow,
who is the President of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators. Lucienne,
PRESIDENT DORSEY: This is a big year for the Society
of Maritime Arbitrators because they are hosting the 14th International
Congress of Maritime Arbitrators which will take place here in New York
City during the week of October 22nd to October 26th,
which is the week immediately following our meeting in San Diego. I might
add, the MLA is one of the sponsors of this international conference, and
we are assisting the SMA in the acquisition of CLE credits for this event.
There are some very handsome brochures pertaining to this International
Congress, and they are available. Lucienne, can people get a copy from
MS. BULOW: We have a few on the tables outside
this room. They have been mailed this week. If you do not receive them
within two weeks, call the SMA office and we will send you one.
I want to express our gratitude to you, Mr. President,
and to the Board for agreeing to issue the CLE credits, and to Larry Bowles,
the Chairman of the CLE Committee.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: You’re very welcome. We’re delighted
to do it. We have very close ties to the Society of Maritime Arbitrators
and we want to keep on with that close relationship.
We have a number of visitors from Canada. As a
matter of fact, at lunch the other day I wasn’t sure that we didn’t have
most of the members of the Canadian Maritime Law Association here. But
we have a number of them here today, and I would like to recognize them.
David Marler, who is head of the Canadian Average
Adjustors Association is back there.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Professor William Tetley, who
is not only a member of the Canadian Maritime Law Association, but he’s
also a long-time honorary member of this Association. So, Bill, where are
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Nigel Frawley was at the lunch
yesterday, but I don’t think Nigel is here this morning. Peter Cullen of
the Canadian Maritime Law Association, who is in charge of arrangements
for the Canadian Maritime Law Association’s 50th Anniversary
meeting, which will take place in June of this year, is here, and, Peter,
PRESIDENT DOSEY: And finally, Jim Gould, the President
of the Canadian Maritime Law Association is here. And, Jim, I would invite
you to say a few words about your upcoming 50th Anniversary meeting.
MR. GOULD: Thank you, President Dorsey. We also
thank you for the generous offers, the cocktail reception which you are
providing to us at our 50th Anniversary celebration, and the
mystery gift which is going to keep us fascinated now for well over a month.
MR. GOULD: We very much appreciate it, too, because
I think it symbolizes the very cordial and deep relationships between our
I’ll just give you a hint as to what we’re going
to talk about. Global warming, its effect on shipping in Canadian shipping
lanes with emphasis on the Arctic. We foresee very fundamental changes
occurring in the next 20 years. A northwest passage from Europe to Japan,
that is, say, from Rotterdam to Yokohama, would save 5,000 miles, it’s
5,000 miles shorter than through the Panama canal. Mr. Cullen has coined
the phrase Canama Canal. We’ll have some interesting speakers on this.
We have the chief weather scientist and advisor to the Canadian Government;
we have an oceanographer from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography; we
have a retired legal advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Canadian
Sovereignty; and we have a Canadian Coast Guard navigator with experience
in ice navigation in the Arctic, and much more.
We invite as many of you as can come to celebrate
with us, as we celebrated with you for your 100th Anniversary.
Peter Cullen is the Chair; his phone number is (514) 397-3135. We hope
we see you in the beautiful city of Montreal on the 15th and
16th of June this year.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you. Can we bring our
own scientists on global warming?
PRESIDENT DORSEY: I have had the opportunity and
the privilege of seeing first-hand the Canadian Maritime Law Association
in operation. Although they are younger than we are and smaller than we
are, the quality of the work that they produce is really quite remarkable
and quite impressive.
Sometimes we have disagreements as to various
aspects of the law and positions that we take, but no shots have yet been
fired across the border between us and Canada, and long may it stay that
way. We have good relations with them and I certainly enjoy going there
and having the Canadians come to our meetings. It’s a very nice, close
Now, a little bit out of the ordinary. I just
want to make a few comments about the MLA Report.
The MLA Report was started in 1983 and the first
editor was David Owen. Actually, there have only been two editors of the
MLA Report since 1983. The current editor, Gordon Paulsen, took over that
job in 1991.
Gordon has indicated his intention to resign that
post effective today. Matt Marion is going to take over the role. I didn’t
want to let this pass without some recognition of Gordon, because during
his time as editor he has done a superb job in maintaining the professionalism
of that publication. It reflects so well on this Association. It is such
a good publication and he’s done a fantastic job as the editor. I think
all of us in this Association owe Gordon a very great debt of gratitude
for all of the effort and work that he has put in on this job over the
I have a small token of appreciation that I want
to present to Gordon. I’m coming down the stairway there, Gordon.
“The Maritime Law Association of the United States,
in Recognition and Appreciation of the services of Gordon W. Paulsen, as
Editor, MLA Report, presents this testimonial as a token of its gratitude.
/s/ William R. Dorsey, III, President May 4, 2001”
(Standing ovation and applause.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Now, I think we’ll hear from
Tony Whitman on the Arrangements Committee. Usually we do this at the end
of the day, but I would like to get as many people here to listen to what
Tony has to say about our meeting in San Diego, because I think it is going
to be a terrific meeting.
MR. WHITMAN: Thank you, President Dorsey.
I have great pleasure in once again addressing
you in connection with our meeting this fall at the Hotel Del Coronado
the week of October 15th. On the table in the hallway there
is for each of you a copy of the registration brochure which in the spirit
of thrift, which suffuses the Maritime Law Association at this time, will
also be sent to you by bulk mail in a second class slow boat, but it will
get to you within the next couple of weeks. Feel free also to take with
you, if you like, a copy of the Hotel Del Coronado brochure, which is also
out there. I have to say it does not do the hotel justice, but it’s a little
something to take with you as a memory jogger for this event.
We have a wonderful program planned. The schedule
is a little bit different from what it has been. The athletic events are
for the most part on Tuesday. That includes a golf tournament at Steel
Canyon Golf Course, which has been organized by Jim Moseley, Jr., and I
understand that’s going to be a wonderful event. The fishing and the sailing
are also that same day.
Also on Tuesday we have various family excursions
planned. There is a family trip by chartered bus to Disneyland and Disney’s
California Adventure Theme Park, which is a new theme park for all ages,
from the Hotel Del Coronado. Spend the day out there and come back on Tuesday,
or in the alternative, enjoy an afternoon at the San Diego Wild Animal
Park, which is also a terrific opportunity. All of those offerings are
described in the registration brochure.
I would ask that you pay close attention to the
fact that there are a limited number of rooms at the MLA rate. The Hotel
Del Coronado does sell out routinely, and so I would urge you to send in
both your MLA registration and your Hotel Del Coronado registration at
an early opportunity.
The cutoff date for saving $100 on the MLA meeting
registration is August 15th. That sounds like it’s a long way
from now, but I urge you not to wait until August 15th because
the best rooms are going to be gone, and it is certainly possible that
all of our MLA rate rooms will be gone by that time.
Take one of these with you, and look for it in
the mail, as well (indicating).
On the issue of power failure in San Diego, I
am assured of two things. Number one, the power company in San Diego is
not one of the ones that is currently having problems, but more importantly,
the Hotel Del Coronado was built before air conditioning existed, the windows
open, the ceiling fans work, and the weather in October will be perfect.
So plan to join us then, please.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Tony.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: I think we’ll call next on the
Fisheries Committee, another one out of order because we have a Resolution
from the Fisheries Committee. Then I’m going to start more back in the
usual order. Next will be ABA Relations.
MR. BIRKHEAD: The next topic we addressed was
some new fishing history, fishing permit cases, all coming out of the First
Circuit. They are cases of first impression. In fact, the First Circuit
decision that came out March 30th indicated in its own language that it
was clearly a case of first impression.
People familiar with the fishing industry will
know that the fishing history/fishing permit issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service is often the most valuable asset the fisherman owns;
more valuable, in fact, than the vessel. The question had never come up
before, at least had not been litigated to a decision before, as to whether
the fishing history which is assigned to a vessel is an appurtenance.
We now have two cases; one was a District Court
case in Maine, and another a District Court case in Massachusetts handled
by my partner, Eddie Powers, that have addressed that very question. Both
were foreclosures of maritime liens, not mortgages, but maritime liens.
The Maine case decided that, in fact, the fishing history, regardless of
the National Marine Fisheries Service regulations on how you can transfer
histories or licenses, did constitute an appurtenance to the vessel and
did pass to the high bidder at the Marshal’s auction of the vessel.
Our case was very similar to that. We had one
in the District of Massachusetts, and the District Judge of Massachusetts
agreed with the District Judge in Maine and found the same way, which unfortunately
was against our position.
The very day that Eddie was completing his appellate
brief to the First Circuit, the First Circuit came down affirming the Maine
case, and obviously two weeks later per curiam affirmed our case. Eddie
is now reviewing the possibility of petitioning for a writ of certiorari.
Interestingly enough, in our case the National
Marine Fisheries Service was also a party defendant and they took no position
as to whether there were any property rights in fishing history, whether
it constituted property or just a privilege.
In another recent case, the government was being
sued in the Court of Claims on a taking theory by a fisherman whose fishing
permit had been rendered valueless by a change in regulations. The government
successfully took the position that the fishing permit/history was not
a property right, but was merely a privilege granted by the United States,
which obviously is what argued unsuccessfully in Massachusetts. So that
question still is open to some extent and will be the subject, I’m sure,
of further litigation.
The third topic was the discussion of the New
American Fisheries Act. It is not that new now since it was passed in 1998,
but the implementing regulations have been dribbling out.
We have some deadlines that are hard upon us now.
For vessels under 100 feet in length with a Fisheries endorsement, the
Coast Guard is in charge. Any owner of such a vessel is required under
the new act to prove that it meets the new higher citizenship requirements
of the American Fisheries Act or lose the Fisheries endorsement.
For vessels 100 feet in registered length or greater,
the MARAD has jurisdiction. The MARAD requires a submission of proof by
affidavits and other documentation as set forth in their regulations, by
June 1st. October 1st of this year is the deadline
for receiving approval by the Maritime Administration for vessels under
its jurisdiction or losing the Fisheries endorsement. There is no grandfathering
provision under this statute at all.
It also imposes citizenship requirements for mortgagees,
again, with no grandfathering.
The mortgagees now have to be either (1) qualified
as a vessel owner to the same standard, which is now 75 percent at each
level and in the aggregate, 75 percent U.S. citizenship, or (2) a state
or federally chartered financial institution of 51 percent American citizenship
There is also a provision for what we all remember
from the old days, a trustee mortgagee situation via a qualified trustee.
There are no qualified trustees at this time, nor as far as we can determine,
have any applied. As I mentioned, there is no grandfathering provision,
and while the statute and regulations are not entirely clear, it appears
that if the qualification has not been obtained by October 1st
from the Maritime Administration, the existing good preferred ship mortgage
will lose its preferred status, and it is possible that the failure of
the mortgagee to qualify could also lose the innocent vessel owner his
It appears now that some of the mortgagees have
started to awaken to the problems we have here. We believe that there are
some political moves afoot to delay the effective date of October 1st
of this year for the implementation of either the owner citizenship requirement
or the mortgagee citizenship requirement.
In our Committee meeting there was unanimous approval
of a Resolution that the MLA go on record rging an 18-month delay in the
implementation of the mortgagee qualification provisions. That is what
I have come to present to the membership here today.
I do apologize to the Marine Finance Committee.
I was looking for Sandy this morning to go over the Resolution because,
as you can tell, it does slop over from one Committee to another.
The lead in this project has been Steve Johnson
from Seattle, who is a member of both Committees and has been a Joint Subcommittee
of our two Committees to do the research and to follow the regulations
as they have come dribbling out.
The Resolution which I will read to you now takes
no position on the merits of this statute, but urges only a delay in the
implementation of the requirements, a delay in the October 1, 2001 deadline
for qualification of the mortgagees:
“BE IT RESOLVED:
“The Maritime Law Association of the United States
takes a position in favor of extending the effective date of Section 202(b)
of the American Fisheries Act (the “AFA”) and 46 U.S.C. 12102(c)(4), as
implemented by the AFA for at least 18 months from the current effective
date of October 1, 2001, to permit development and consideration of amendments
to protect the interests of the current holders of preferred ship mortgages
on fishing vessels of 100 feet or greater in registered length and the
interests of the vessel owners.
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the President of the Association is hereby
directed to communicate this position to the appropriate members and committees
of the United States Congress.”
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Do you move the Resolution?
MR. BIRKHEAD: I move the Resolution.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Is there a second?
(A chorus of seconds.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Are there any questions or any
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Are you ready for the vote?
All in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Opposed?
PRESIDENT DORSEY: The Resolution is carried.
MR. BIRKHEAD: Thank you.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you for your four years
of service on the Fisheries Committee. A job well done. Bill is going to
be replaced by David Farrell of Cape Cod as Chairman of the Fisheries Committee.
Thank you very much, Bill.
MR. BIRKHEAD: Thank you.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Next I’ll call on Frank Wiswall
to give a report with respect to the American Maritime Law Foundation,
and Chet will be next.
MR. WISWALL: Thank you, Mr. President.
The former CMI American Foundation has almost,
but not quite, completed its name change to the American Maritime Law Foundation.
In the process of this transition I want to acknowledge
this morning a very generous and anonymous gift–or series of gifts–from
a non-lawyer member of this Association; this has materially advanced our
ability to participate in such programs as the recycling of used law books
to foreign and even in some cases American law libraries by helping to
underwrite the postage costs, to offer–of course–the Elliot Nixon Prize,
and a new venture which we are embarking on.
Sometime about the middle of this summer there
will be a website for the American Maritime Law Foundation. On this website
will be posted the rules for the Elliot Nixon Prize. We decided not to
press ahead with a new prize competition until the name change was complete.
It would be too confusing. We are also going to have news of our other
endeavors and some links to other useful sites.
I hope you will look in on this site, and I don’t
think you will find the web address too difficult to remember. It is www.silver-oar.org.
Just don’t forget the dash in the middle.
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Frank. Chet Hooper,
ABA relations, and next, I’ll call on Jim Bartlett for Practice and Procedure,
who has a Resolution.
MR. HOOPER: Thank you, Mr. President, members
I attended the San Diego midyear meeting of the
ABA House of Delegates right after the CMI Plenary in Singapore. It was
a fun exercise to travel from Singapore, through London to Los Angeles
and rent a car and get to San Diego. And I made it.
The ABA mentioned two things of interest to our
Association. Jim Bartlett will describe one of them, which is the multi-jurisdictional
practice. Jim is the head of an Ad Hoc Committee to work on that problem.
The other topic discussed at the ABA meeting was
the International Conference on Harmonization of Laws. We were invited
to attend, mainly because my partner has been President. This day-long
session was attended by the head of the IBA, the head of the Law Society
of England and Wales, and various ABA section heads who were interested
in international affairs. Each attendee generally described the work of
all of his or her association. I was in a position to describe the very
recent work of our Singapore CMI meeting. I think we’ll see further meetings
concerning these issues sponsored by the ABA.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Chet. Next Jim Bartlett,
Practice and Procedure and Multi-Jurisdictional Practice.
MR. BARTLETT: Thank you, Mr. President.
A few things that the Committee is doing: We have
an ongoing project of trying to work to harmonize Rules C and B with the
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. § 983. There
are various little bits and tucks, things that have to be corrected or
harmonized, and that is an ongoing project headed by Robert Zapf.
Another thing, we have completed a study or a
survey of local admiralty rules dealing with the security deposits required
in the various districts and the notice requirements. We are finalizing
that survey. We will make it available to the membership when it is in
The Committee unanimously passed a motion recommending
that the Association adopt the following Resolution, and I so move its
“Be it resolved, that The Maritime Law Association
of the United States supports an amendment to Rule B to clarify and define
the time for determination of when the defendant is ‘not found within the
district’ to be at the time of the filing of the complaint and affidavit
required by Rule B(1).
“And be it further resolved, that The Maritime
Law Association of the United States encourages the Advisory Committee
to include a comment cautioning practitioners about the necessity of filing
the complaint and affidavit together in order to obtain Rule B process.”
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Is there a second?
(Chorus of seconds.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Any discussion or comments or
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Seeing none, I’ll call the question.
All in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Opposed?
PRESIDENT DORSEY: The Resolution is carried. Jim,
thank you. You have got some other things to say.
MR. BARTLETT: Yes, I do. President Dorsey has
appointed an Ad Hoc Committee entitled now the Ad Hoc Committee on Multijurisdictional
Practice. This is a Committee that the President has directed provide the
Association with recommendations as to the Association’s position regarding
a study being conducted by the American Bar Association dealing with multijurisdictional
The President has appointed various or has directed
that the heads of various Committees participate or delegate someone to
participate in this Ad Hoc Committee. Those constituent Committees are
the American Bar Association Relations Committee, the Carriage of Goods
Committee, the Comité Maritime International Committee, the Marine
Financing Committee, the Marine Insurance Committee, the Maritime Arbitration
and Mediation Committee, the Navigation and Coast Guard and Government
Regulations Committee, the Practice and Procedure Committee, the Uniformity
of U.S. Law Committee, the U.S. Maritime Legislation Committee and the
The President has been kind enough to appoint
me Chair of this Ad Hoc Committee. We are on sort of a fast track. There
is a comment period that actually ends in June, but more importantly, they
would like formal input from the Association before the end of the year.
Consequently, our Committee met yesterday at 2:00
o’clock at Haight’s office and we are moving quickly to study the various
proposals and to make recommendations to the Board of Directors, which
will then presumably be passed on and hopefully approved by the Association.
And we will have our recommendations presented to the Board of Directors
by the San Diego meeting in October, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you.
MR. BARTLETT: Thank you.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Jim.
This Ad Hoc Committee on Multijurisdictional Practice
obviously is an extremely important one for this Association, in my view,
because the problems of multijurisdictional practice are certainly ones
that every maritime lawyer faces from time to time in his practice. It
cuts across a broad line of the work that we do, it cuts across a broad
line of the various Committees that we have, and hopefully we’ll get the
input that we need.
If there are others who are not on this Committee
who think that they can contribute to the work of the Committee and advance
the work of this Ad Hoc Committee, please contact either me or Jim Bartlett.
Our goal is to come up with some specific proposals, comments, recommendations
to the ABA Commission that is studying this problem. And as Jim says, the
time is short because the ABA Commission has to report by next year at
this time, and so we’ve got to get our comments in to them in time for
them to consider them and look at them. I regard this work as extremely
important for the Association.
Next we’ll have Michael Marks Cohen for the CMI
Committee, and following him will be Ann Miller for the Cruise Lines and
Passenger Ships Committee.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, Mr. President.
There will be a formal written report of the CMI
Committee. I just want to mention a few things this morning.
First, President Dorsey lead a very big and well
prepared delegation to the CMI conference in Singapore. We were one of
the largest delegations there. I want to single out particularly several
people in our Association who put in a great deal of effort in order to
make sure that the delegation was well prepared. This includes, of course,
Vince DeOrchis, Chet Hooper, George Chandler and Michael Sturley on issues
of transport law; George Gabel, Sam Menefee and Frank Wiswall on piracy;
Howard Meyerson and Howard McCormack on General Average; and Jean Knudsen
and Gray Staring on Marine Insurance. We were, I think, the best prepared
delegation from our Association to the CMI conference in all the CMI conferences
that I’ve been attending in the last 20 years.
The CMI will hold a colloquium in September 2002
in Vancouver, and the next Plenary will be in September 2004 in Greece.
I’m told, Crete.
I just want to mention two other things.
First, if you’re throwing out your advance sheets
and your obsolete maritime law treatises, please don’t do that. Get in
touch with me, because there are maritime law schools abroad that would
like to have your advance sheets and treatises as a way of building up
a library on American maritime law. American Maritime Cases is donating
ten sets of 26 years of AMC’s with digests, which will be sent to law schools
abroad. The American Maritime Law Foundation has very graciously agreed
to provide matching funds for postage and handling.
Finally, I want to mention that Francesco Belingieri
at the Singapore conference announced that he was setting up a case base
to collect summaries of cases from around the world implementing maritime
conventions that the CMI was instrumental in getting adopted. If you have
a case involving one of those conventions, you ought to be able to come
up on the CMI website, and there will be a special place there where you
can look to see whether the Admiralty courts in other countries have given
the convention an interpretation of the particular issue that you’re involved
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Michael. I join Michael
in his commendation of the people that he mentioned. I would also say that
there were others who were there from the American MLA, Michael Sturley
was rapporteur for the International Sub-Committee on Transport Law; Sam
Menefee was the rapporteur to the group working on piracy–Frank Wiswall
chaired that session–and John Kimball was the rapporteur on the Working
Group on UNESCO and spoke at the plenary session.
I think we were well prepared and I think that
the one person that Michael omitted in that connection was himself, because
I’m a bit of a rookie when it comes to CMI and without Michael’s assistance
and energy, typical of him, I might add, I don’t think we would have been
anywhere near as prepared as we were. There were many people involved in
getting us ready for that conference and a lot of people deserve kudos
for that, but at the top of my list is Michael Marks Cohen. Michael, thank
you very much.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: I might comment in connection
with that conference, and particularly with respect to me, again, being
a rookie with respect to CMI, on the help and assistance I got from Frank
Wiswall concerning the inner workings of the CMI, or, if you will, the
politics of the CMI, the procedures of the CMI. Frank was very gracious
and helpful to me in squaring me away on where the bodies were buried and
what I should be doing.
So, Frank, thank you very much again.
Ann Miller for Cruise Lines and Passenger Ships.
We have some interesting developments here.
MS. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Cruise Line Committee met yesterday at the
DeOrchis offices, as usual, and mainly discussed the Athens Convention
and the proposed new protocols that are being discussed in the Legal Committee
of the IMO.
There was a comment earlier today that there was
hope that the Protocol would be ready to be sent to the Diplomatic Conference
after the October meeting. But I think that those who are very close to
this project now believe that that may be a bit premature. Although there
has been much discussion about the proposed changes to the Athens Convention,
only recently have the clubs and now the cruise industry become individually
very aware of what is going on. In fact, yesterday at the Cruise Committee
we were presented with a position paper from the International Council
of Cruise Lines–its President, Michael Crye, attended–and they cited the
various portions of the Athens Convention, which I won’t go into today,
but they relate, of course, to strict liability, reverse burden of proof
and direct suits against insurers. The position paper reflected what the
cruise lines are beginning to consider, at least by a representative body,
and began with:
“Dear Mr. Dorsey:
“We at the International Council of Cruise Lines
have reviewed the proposed new protocol to the Athens Convention and believe
the proposed changes are inimical to the maritime industry in general,
the United States based cruise lines and in the long run the consuming
“We are strongly opposed to these proposed changes
and will urge the United States delegation to the IMO not to endorse or
sign the new protocols currently drafted.
“We urge the Maritime Law Association to adopt
a similar position.”
The position paper concluded in that same vein.
The clubs working through the secretary and executive
officer of the International Group of P&I Clubs are also I think taking
notice of the significance of some of these changes. And so I suspect we
are going to be very active in the next few months, which brings me to
great disappointment to having heard this morning, Dan Goettle, that you
are going to be moving on, because it has been a real pleasure working
with you. Thank you very much.
It has been said that the MLA is receiving input
from these various representative bodies, if you will, or individuals or
entities which have an interest in the Athens Convention. It is really
Joe Ahern and Dan Goettle who as our representatives to the IMO Legal Committee
are seeking this input. We are seeking it to assist them and so that the
Association through President Dorsey can take a position. That is what
we’ll be working on in the next few months. If any of you have input or
wish to give input, you can feel free to contact me, or if you know of
anyone that you believe we should contact, I will be happy to do that.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Ann.
Just some background: Joe Ahern and Dan Goettle
have been trying to elicit comments from concerned industry sources for
quite some time, really since last October. Ann Miller has been trying
to do that, as well. But it’s only just within the last couple of weeks
that we really have begun to get a reaction. So the pot is now boiling
and things are coming to a head. We are going to get some interesting comments,
I think, and we’re moving ahead on that issue.
Next we’ll have Sam Menefee, International Law
of the Sea, followed by Matt Marion on Marine Ecology.
DR. MENEFEE: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Committee on the International Law of the
Sea met at the South Street Seaport Museum. One of our major concerns was
a reorganization of the Committee’s Subcommittees. Depending upon interest,
we hope to have two levels of Subcommittees; the first dealing with an
overview, and the second dealing with substantive matters within the purview
of our Committee.
The four Subcommittees dealing with overview will
be the Subcommittee on the Law of Sea Convention and Other International
Agreements, which is an expansion of the current Subcommittee on the subject,
the Subcommittee on the ICJ and the International Tribunal of the Law of
the Sea, the Subcommittee on Foreign Decisions and Legislation, and the
Subcommittee on Customary Law on International Incidents.
Insofar as specialized Subcommittees, we’re going
to continue to have a Subcommittee on Offshore Exploration, we are upgrading
our Piracy Working Group to a Subcommittee on Piracy and Maritime Crimes
of Violence, and we’re going to have a Subcommittee on Marine Mammals.
There were also three suggestions that came up
at the meeting which I did not mention to the Committee Chairs so I’m going
to mention them now. If anybody feels that we are treading on other people’s
toes, please let us know and we will see what arrangements we can make.
It was suggested that we have a Subcommittee on
Defense and Naval Warfare, one on Illegal Immigration, and a temporary
Subcommittee dealing with the Ocean Policy Commission.
If there are any young lawyers who are interested
in working in this, in any of these areas, we would like to put you to
There were 469 reported piratical attacks last
year, according to the statistics, which is a rise of 57 percent over 1999
and four-and-a-half times the number of attacks in 1991. In the year 2000,
72 seafarers were killed and 99 were injured.
We now have 135 ratifications of the 157 signatories
to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and next week there is going to
be a meeting of the open-ended informal consultative process held in New
York, which will deal with technology transfer and with piracy.
The Committee reviewed several decisions of the
International Tribunal for Law of the Sea, which basically dealt with fishery
disputes, seizures of fishery vessels. We also noted that the rules of
procedure for the Commission on the Shelf have now been issued.
Doug Burnett brought to our attention the fact
that there is an Ocean Policy Commission which has been appointed similar
to the earlier Stratton Commission. This is going to have six public meetings
and issue a report within two years. It was suggested that the MLA be proactive
in the area and this matter be taken to the Board of the Association for
We would like the Association through the Committee
on the International Law of the Sea and other interested Committees to
participate in public hearings of the Ocean Policy Commission of 2000 by
attending all public hearings. Hopefully that can be done by people in
the area, and making summary reports of the proceedings available to MLA
members. It was also hoped that the MLA might be able to find partial costs
That concludes my report.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Sam. Matt Marion
next, and then following Matt will be Sandy Knapp from Marine Financing.
MR. MARION: Thank you, President Dorsey.
The Marine Ecology Committee met Wednesday afternoon.
We received reports from ten Committee members. My allotted time probably
wouldn’t do justice to any one of those reports, but I’ll mention a couple
of the cases and recent developments that we discussed.
As you may recall, Maritrans filed suit against
the U.S. Government alleging that the single hull tank vessel requirements
imposed by OPA ’90 effected regulatory takings of Maritrans’ fleet of single-skin
barges. At our Committee meeting, we received a detailed report from Maritrans’
trial counsel about the recent trial of that dispute.
Maritrans claims $73.5 million in damages resulting
from the scrapping and sale of eight tank barges whose commercial life
in the United States, they claim, was shortened by the double hull regulations.
The government has argued that no takings occurred because the barges still
have a useful life and could be retrofitted or otherwise sold for service
outside of the U.S. That case has survived a motion to dismiss by the government.
A decision is expected shortly and we’ll report on the result in due course.
In a recent Circuit Court decision, Southport
Marine v. Gulf Oil, the First Circuit denied a claim for punitive damages
under OPA ’90 and held that OPA preempts remedies otherwise available to
claimants under the general maritime law. However, the Court specifically
recognized the continued availability of properly pleaded claims under
state law. The decision isn’t remarkable, but sometimes there is comfort
in reading what we expect to read in a circuit court decision.
One insurance-related matter that we discussed,
something I think of considerable interest to all of us involved in marine
casualties, was a report from counsel for WQIS regarding a claim they’ve
lodged with the National Pollution Fund Center. As you may know, WQIS was
the guarantor and insurer for the responsible party in the Morris J. Berman
casualty. The responsibility party was charged with, and pleaded guilty
to, certain intentional criminal acts related to the incident.
Subsequently WQIS lodged a claim with the National
Pollution Fund Center seeking recovery of the $10 million that it paid
out under the applicable Certificate of Financial Responsibility and insurance
policy on the ground that its assured’s conduct constituted a defense under
the Certificate and under the policy.
The National Pollution Fund Center has not yet
acted on WQIS’s claim. However, the issue is obviously of importance as
it suggests, among other things, that overzealous criminal prosecutions
may threaten the guaranteed insurance coverage otherwise available to pay
pollution costs and damages resulting from casualties. We expect to receive
a follow-up on that issue.
There have been several major settlements in the
last six months. I’ll mention two such examples. The Morris J. Berman is
certainly at the top of the list. The amount involved in the settlement
was $83.5 million. Notably, a cargo owner, Caribbean Petroleum Corporation,
agreed to contribute $16.5 million based on its potential liability arising
from the oil spill. In a second settlement, the Igloo Moon case, the National
Park Service announced that it will receive a million dollars from the
owner and operators of the Igloo Moon for reef damage caused by the vessel.
This is the largest settlement ever under the Parks System Resource Protection
Act, which is a strict liability statute like OPA.
We received excellent summaries of pending state
laws and regulations which we will publish in the next MLA Report. We also
received a report on recent developments under criminal law. I know that
Fred Kuffler is here and will be giving a report, so I won’t steal Fred’s
thunder, but I would like to note his he always makes a significant contribution
to our Committee’s work.
Last, but not least, we received a report on developments
under Canadian law from John O’Connor, who is my counterpart from the Canadian
MLA. We’re grateful for John’s support and look forward to working with
him in the future.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Matt, and thank you
very much for agreeing to take over as editor of the MLA Report. I should
have mentioned earlier that the latest copy of the MLA Report is on the
desk over there.
Following Sandy Knapp will be Jean Knudsen on
MS. KNAPP: Mr. President, thank you, fellow members.
Before your eyes start glazing over, I’ll try and talk quickly. I just
want to let you know some things that I think are important to the general
membership, and that’s why I decided to address you today.
We continue to be very active. We have various
Subcommittees and Ad Hoc Committees. We’re monitoring legislative efforts
and protocols and regulations, including the changes in the Liberia Corporate
and Maritime Code and the Marshall Islands’ Corporate and Maritime Code.
We are monitoring House Bill 1098, which passed
the House and is now in front of the Senate. I spoke about this at the
fall meeting. Essentially it permits the filing of a notice of claim of
lien with the Coast Guard, even though there is no preferred mortgage of
The MLA has not taken a position on this legislation,
so you are on your own. If you are interested, if you have any questions
or comments, please contact Dave Williams, who is one of our Committee
members and former Chair of the Committee. He has been monitoring it for
We are also following the regulations under the
American Fisheries Act, which you have heard about. We passed a Resolution
that Bill proposed. Steve Johnson has been reporting to us on that. And
although we did not address the same Resolution, I would like to state
for the record that based on the discussion at our meeting, I’m sure there
will be no objection to us supporting a delay in the deadline of October
There have been regulations on foreign repairs,
numbering of undocumented barges and the vessel identification system.
The UN Convention on Movables is also of interest to us, for it will essentially
be an international registry of security interests. Charley Donovan, Charlie
Brown and Christie Helmer are now our little study group on that and will
be drafting and following the progress of other equipment protocols which
now include satellites, rail cars, and some other items, aircraft included.
We’re also following the Uniform State Boat Title
Act. Bob Fisher is following that for us. And on Wednesday, the date of
our meeting, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rule making
regarding the foreign leasing provisions found in 12106(e) of Title 46.
With respect to these last two items, I went to the Board of Directors
meeting yesterday. We asked for permission to engage in discussions and
monitor the session on behalf of the MLA with respect to that Uniform State
Boat Title Act. We will go back to the Board if there are any substantive
changes to maritime law upon which we would like to comment. But I want
you to understand that this law will essentially eliminate the various
titling statutes of the states and establish a uniform system. That is
the plan. I do not know how long that will take, but you can imagine each
state having its own system is quite a nightmare, not only for vessel owners,
but also lenders.
I also brought up with the Board our need to comment
on the regulations regarding the foreign leasing companies. As you may
or may not know, a foreign leasing company can own a coastwise trade vessel
as long as a bona fide U.S. citizen has a demise charter on that vessel
for a three-year period, among other requirements. There’s a 60-day window
on those regulations, which is, naturally, before the Association’s Fall
meeting. We have comments. We will work with the Board on those comments.
As you heard, we have also been appointed part
of the Multi-Jurisdictional Practice Ad Hoc Committee. Our designee is
Christie Helmer of Portland. We all do interstate transactions and it’s
very relevant to our Committee. We are also involved in the Title 46 Recodification
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Sandy. Now, Marine
Insurance, Jean Knudsen, and then following Jean, Don Kennedy on Maritime
MS. KNUDSEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Subcommittees and main Committee of Marine
Insurance met this Wednesday, and we are delighted to announce that the
annotations to the P&I policy have been completed. They will be published
by the MLA and sent to the general membership in June. They are an excellent
work, and are in excess of 300 pages. I want to extend thanks, on behalf
of the Marine Insurance Committee, to Simon Harder, who chaired this project,
and to all of those individuals who worked so hard and made excellent contributions.
During the course of our meetings we reviewed
the ongoing projects, and I wish to highlight and mention that our Committee
has put out a newsletter which is available in the foyer, along with a
summary of the CMI International Working Group on Marine Insurance discussion
paper, which was issued at Singapore, as well as Gray Staring’s paper on
marine insurance, which was also presented at Singapore. It’s an excellent
work and I urge everyone to take a copy and review it.
The CMI has set up a Working Group on general
average. At the request of President Dorsey, next Tuesday I’ll be attending,
along with Howard Myerson, a meeting in London to discuss the proposal
to set up a working group to consider a revision to the Antwerp Rules.
We’ll look forward to representing the MLA and
the Average Adjustors’ Association and will report in due course.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thanks, Jean. Don Kennedy, and
following Don, Harold Watson on Maritime Legislation and Title 46.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. President. I will
be submitting a formal report to the Association, but just a couple of
We have been working on proposed amendments to
the Federal Arbitration Act. Those amendments were unanimously approved
by our Committee at the Spring meeting. But we wanted to get some input
from the American Arbitration Association on their reaction to our proposed
I’ve had discussions with the General Counsel
of the AAA, and the Associate General Counsel of the AAA attended our Arbitration
Committee meeting this week. Basically the AAA’s position is they don’t
favor any amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act. Their nightmare scenario
is that somebody tries to propose an amendment to the FAA and someone else
will put an amendment in that provides for an appeal of an arbitration
award. It’s not that they take issue with our proposals; it’s the philosophical
approach. They have no objection to our tacking on our amendments or putting
them in another statute, if that’s possible.
What the Committee has decided to do is to reevaluate
the procedural aspects of moving forward with the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments as such have been published in the MLA Report and
the Proceedings of this meeting. I don’t believe they’re controversial.
What we’re going to do is look at this again,
and if there is a realistic shot of getting something done, we’ll come
back in November and ask for a Resolution.
In addition, the AAA feels that arbitration is
under attack in the United States. As many of you know, there have been
a lot of cases dealing with manifest disregard of the law as a basis for
overturning an arbitration award. Our Committee had a program this week
which was moderated by Don Murnane, and it was sort of a debate between
Glenn Bauer and Jay Paré, pro and con against this issue, and we’ll
try to get that published one way or another soon.
Thirdly, I have been a member of the State Department
delegation, participating in the UNCITRAL meeting, the Working Group on
arbitration. I attended a meeting in November. I’ve been invited again
to participate in the delegation which will be meeting in New York later
this month in early June.
Finally, I would like to thank Jay Paré
and Keith Heard for the newsletter that they put together. It has a lot
of very interesting cases and an excellent analysis.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Don. Harold Watson,
followed by John Schaffer.
We’re getting toward the end the meeting. I would
like to finish this by noontime. By my brief calculation of how many more
people we have to speak, and what we still have to do, I would say three
MR. WATSON: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Maritime Legislation Committee met on Thursday
and discussed, among other things, the House Bill 1098 that Sandy Knapp
The principal point of our discussion, however,
was the Title 46 recodification effort. As most of you know, there’s a
proposal to recodify Title 46. We have been coordinating with the Assistant
General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, who has put this proposal
together, and he has indicated that he would welcome our comments on it.
The proposal is intended as a recodification.
It is not intended to affect substantive changes in the law. I think we
have to be careful to make sure that that, in fact, is the case. I think
some people have taken a look at it and think there are substantive changes.
We have been in contact with various Committees
of the Association and asked for their input on particular portions of
this proposed legislation that fall into the bailiwick of the substantive
Committees of the Association, and we’re going to be gathering comments
from those individuals within those Committees who have been appointed
to take on this job.
As far as a timetable for this, we understand
that it probably will be a year before there is any action on it in Congress,
but the Coast Guard has set this July as their timetable for making their
comments, and we would like very much to coordinate with the Coast Guard
and be able to get our comments in at that time, as well. So if any of
you have been asked to take this on from the various Committees, I would
hope that you would keep that in mind and that we do that with some dispatch,
and make some progress in the next month or so, so we can get our comments
Thanks very much.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you. John Schaffer, and
next Warren Marwedel on Proctor Admissions.
MR. SCHAFFER: Good morning, everyone.
The Personnel Committee met yesterday afternoon
and we had 34 members and guests participate in a very lively conference.
We are involved as a Committee in the Title 46
recodification, and we’re also involved–and I have to read this because
I haven’t been able yet to get it memorized–the IMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert Working
Group on Liability and Compensation regarding Claims for Death, Personal
Injury and Abandonment of Seafarers. It goes along with the Athens Convention
in making liability strict and the clubs being on the hook directly as
defendants. We’re just going to have to see where it goes. In fact, that
Ad Hoc Committee is meeting this week in London as we speak.
We also talked about any possible changes to the
Death on the High Seas Act, as well as punitive damages, which is always
an area of interest. There are about three cases that are before the Supreme
Court right now in the personnel area and we expect to have decisions shortly.
We discussed and reviewed about ten different
decisions from all over the country on various areas involving claimants,
shipowners, as well as the P&I clubs.
As always, we welcome suggestions from the Association
for new or interesting projects and we’re always looking for people to
join our group.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank, John. Warren, and next
after Warren, Don Greenman for Recreational Boating.
MR. MARWEDEL: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen.
Just a short note: I assume everybody here is
a proctor, but we would like to make sure that you look at the other members
in your firm, associates, and make sure that they join the organization.
Some of them are active in Committees and somehow haven’t necessarily joined.
But more importantly, as they get their experience in the Committees and
after they’re a member for four years, get their application in to be a
proctor member. You can download it from our website. It’s not an onerous
application. But I think it’s the minimum standard for people who want
to be active in the organization and move ahead and be Committee Chairs,
et cetera. So I encourage you to get everybody in your office that is doing
maritime law, get those applications in.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Warren. I second
that. You cannot be a Committee Chair of this Association unless you’re
a proctor member, and you can’t be a member of the Board of Directors unless
you’re a proctor member. I hope that people will keep that in mind.
Don Greenman and after Don, Frank Billings for
Stevedoring and Terminal Operations.
MR. GREENMAN: Thank you, Mr. President. I’ll be
fairly brief and shall be submitting a formal report.
First, I would like to thank Frank DeGiulio, who
once again has put together Boating Briefs. You will find that on the table
in front to keep you advised of what is going on in the boating law.
The principal thing I wanted to talk about at
this meeting is something that is a little bit of old news.
Several meetings ago we brought up the subject
of whether the Sail Racing Rules and the Inland Rules of the Road can be
made to match. There is a proposal to amend the Inland Rules to take into
account the Endeavor decision, 1995 AMC 2678, in the First Circuit which
said that when parties are racing, they are bound by the racing rules rather
than the Rules of the Road. In my last formal Committee report, I said
that we had tabled the motion to do so, and I discovered that people actually
read your reports, because it now has become untabled.
What we are doing now is putting together a working
group to study the issue of whether the Association should take a position
on the subject and, if so, what position we should take.
I know that there are a lot of members of the
Association who, apart from whether they are interested in the law, are
also sail racers, and so there has been an expression of interest from
outside our Committee in this project. I would invite anyone who might
be interested in making their views known or working with us to see me
or send me a note or letter after the meeting.
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank your, Don. Frank Billings,
and after Frank Billings will be Pat Cooney for Uniformity.
A VOICE: He’s here, but probably outside.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: We’ll get him later or maybe
he loses his place. After Pat, we’ll go to Josh Force.
MR. COONEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Uniformity Committee met on Wednesday at Donovan,
Perry and we were privileged to have their usual fine hospitality. We had
an interesting and a fairly unique meeting.
We focused on the recent case out of the New York
Court of Appeals, Cammon v. City of New York, which involves injury to
an individual who is a harbor worker who was involved in repairing a garbage
dock and apparently hit his head as a tug passed by and surged the platform
on which he was standing. He has sued the City of New York and through
contractual arrangements liability was passed down to his employer in a
third-party situation. The New York courts have chosen to apply the New
York Labor Law, more precisely the Scaffolding Act, which is a strict liability
statute. It does not provide for comparative negligence, which runs directly
in the face of the law, and maybe even after Miller, a characteristic feature
of the maritime law: comparative fault.
The meeting was unusual because both sides in
the case have applied for assistance from the Association to appear as
amicus in support or in opposition to a petition for certiorari. Counsel
were all local: Michael Mitchell and James Power with Haight Gardner,and
Paul Hoffman for the plaintiff. We invited them all to attend and have
it out at our meeting, and we invited the Board of Directors and the officers
to attend. We had a very lively discussion and it was extremely useful.
I have to report that after due consideration,
the Board of Directors have decided to not appear as amicus in support
of the petition, but reserve their right to get involved should the Supreme
Court decide to grant a writ in this case.
What we are dealing with is a real concern after
the Miller case as to the viability of Jensen, and the articulation of
Jensen uniformity standard. Those who listened to Professor Force last
year understand the considerations and are searching for an articulation
of uniformity that will be meaningful to the current Supreme Court. As
a result, we are trying to pick our cases very carefully.
It was the decision of the Board that this was
not the case to go up on, but if the Court decides to take it, we’ll be
there, most likely, because I assume that one of the other parties will
again ask us to appear.
One other case that I would ask you to keep on
your radar screens, one that we were not involved with, the Garris case.
It has been argued before the Supreme Court on April 3rd. This,
of course, is the case that deals with the question as to whether there
is a maritime cause of action for wrongful death resulting from negligence,
and it is with the Court now and we shall be seeing what they do and we’ll
all watch it with interest.
Mr. President, that concludes my report.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Pat. Let me just
comment a minute on the Cammon case.
Not while I have been on the Board has there been
an opportunity for the Board to consider an amicus request at one meeting
where everybody is sitting around the same table. Usually these requests
come in between our scheduled meetings and require fast action. So what
happens is you send the papers out to all the members of the Board, and
in essence they review the issues alone in their office, talk to whoever
they want to talk to, and then make their own decisions. We poll the Board
and that’s the way we get the vote on whether we participate or don’t participate.
But this case, which is very interesting and involves
the very problems of federalism that Professor Force spoke to us about
during the Healy lecture and that Professor Robertson has written about,
both taking different sides on the issue as to what rule the Supreme Court
This particular case arose just prior to our meeting
here in New York, and so provided an excellent opportunity to get views
of attorneys on both sides. Then, at our Board meeting, we had a chance
to debate the matter among ourselves and hear everybody else’s comments,
which was unique in my experience and certainly a beneficial.
As Pat said, we declined to take any action one
way or the other. We’re not going to oppose the petition for certiorari
and we’re not going to support the petition for certiorari.
I think if certiorari is granted by the Supreme
Court, we want to know about it because, while I won’t predict what we
will do, but the question will then be, well, should we participate on
the merits, and if we do participate on the merits, which side will we
take and what position we should put forward. Professor Force would say
we should be on one side and Professor Robertson would say you ought to
be on the other side. So, it’s a fascinating case.
Joshua Force for the Young Lawyers. Then next
will be Fred Kuffler, Environmental Crimes.
MR. FORCE: Thank you, Mr. President. I’ll try
to keep my remarks on the Young Lawyers and not weigh in on the professors’
The Young Lawyers Committee met yesterday.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: You were on one side of the
issue in the brief that you submitted, were you not?
MR. FORCE: I still seem to be able to get dinner
every now and then.
The Young Lawyers Committee met yesterday. We
had 25 members and guests that attended. We also hosted a social function
last night with another 20 members and guests in attendance.
We began our meeting yesterday by introducing
the new slate of officers for the Committee. I am the new Chairman of the
Committee. We also have a new Vice Chair, who is Larry Kahn of New York,
and a new Secretary, Katharine Newman of New York.
In connection with the change in the leadership
and the officers of the Committee, we gratefully recognize Doug Muller,
who has been the Chair for the past two years, and has provided us with
great leadership and guidance over that period of time.
At present, the Young Lawyers Committee is engaged
in assisting the various Standing Committees in approximately 15 projects.
We’re working with ten of the Standing Committees in the Association.
One of the projects that I would like to mention
that has been alluded to earlier is a project that we’re working with President
Dorsey on, and that is indexing the various MLA publications. The index
looks similar to the AMC index, it follows a similar type of format, and
Alex Giles, who is one of our members, has completed already the indexing
for one year. He presented that to us yesterday, and we were able to review
In addition to that, we’re working with a number
of other Committees. One other that is worth mentioning is we are working
with the Arrangements Committee in organizing part of the CLE presentation
for the San Diego meeting, which will involve recent developments and presentations
by various members of our Committee.
In addition to discussing the old and new projects
that we’re working on, we also had a very lengthy discussion on how to
get more young lawyers involved not only in our Committee, but also in
the Association and with the Standing Committees.
One proposal that we adopted was to draft a letter
that would be sent by the Chair of the Young Lawyers Committee to all new
members of the Association encouraging them to participate in not only
our meetings, but also in the works of the various Standing Committees
and hoping to introduce them, at a very early stage, to what our Committee
does and help facilitate the introduction of new members to the Standing
In addition to that, I also ask all of you to
encourage the younger members of your firms, or as we were reminded yesterday,
the younger at heart, to attend our meetings, our social functions, or
to contact me or any of the officers if they wish to participate in any
of the activities of our Committee.
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Josh, thank you very much. We
continue to rely more and more on assistance from the Young Lawyers Committee,
and we’ve been very fortunate over the years in having such capable leadership.
I’m delighted that Josh is going to be the new Chair. I want to extend
my thanks and appreciation to Doug Muller, who is the past Chair of that
Committee. And, Doug, if you’re here, if you’d come up after the meeting,
I have a little certificate of appreciation I would like to present to
Now Fred Kuffler on Environmental Crimes and next
it will be John Kimball on UNESCO.
MR. KUFFLER: Mr. President, Board members, ladies
and gentlemen, I have attempted to stay in line with the first report I
gave here about two-and-a-half years ago. This was a long-term project
the Committee had been assigned.
Before talking about what is going on with the
Committee I’m privileged to chair, I would like to in bullet fashion talk
very briefly about some recent cases and the fallout from things that are
happening in this area.
The first one is the Neptune Dorado. There is
a plea agreement in that case out in San Francisco. That was a prosecution
for failure to report before arrival a hazardous condition as required
under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. The interesting part of that
case is there was no environmental incident as a result of this hazardous
condition, but there was a prosecution and plea agreement nevertheless.
The Fritja Jutlandic matter in Baltimore has resulted
in the indictment of the vessel’s ISM designated person. I don’t expect
that that is a particular surprise, but it appears to be the first case
in which that has actually happened.
The Supreme Court recently refused certiorari
in the Stepanski matter. That involved prosecution of a state law crime
that took place on the vessel about 100 miles offshore. The significance
of this case I think is that it demonstrates the jurisdictional reach that
prosecutors are engaging in and the support that the courts will give to
We also have the example of the Command matter
on the West Coast several years ago, and before that Royal Caribbean prosecutions
I want to mention for a moment the fallout from
these plea agreements. People are not going to jail at the moment and there
are the obvious, very heavy penalties, but more than that, we’re finding
individuals who are convicted or enter guilty pleas are finding themselves
prohibited for certain amounts of time from serving on vessels which call
in U.S. ports.
The owners and operators are being subjected to
very stringent environmental compliance programs with the added fill-up
that the governmental authorities are supervising performance under these
programs; and of course for a civil practitioner a guilty plea or conviction
can severely hamper our ability to defend the civil litigation which will
follow many of these incidents.
Let me turn to what my Committee has been doing
since the last time I stood before you.
First of all, Liz Burrell mentioned the statement
that was drafted for President Dorsey to submit to the Coast Guard. That
was done, and unfortunately we find that the program which lead to the
Coast Guard’s call for comment on its environmental agenda is now on hold.
Nevertheless, I continue to believe that that program afforded us another
opportunity to put forward the Association’s views on some of the things
that are going on in this area.
Now, the Committee met Wednesday noon at the offices
of Healy & Baillie, and again Healy & Baillie hosted a very nice
luncheon, although we all had to sing for our supper. The main subject
of the meeting was what do we do next.
The consensus was now that the election is over
and there’s a new administration in place, the opportunity to reach out
and try to establish a dialogue, particularly with the Department of Justice,
had probably arrived. So it was agreed that we would put together a proposal
to be submitted to the Board with a view that, if approved, it would be
taken to the Justice Department, to the Coast Guard, and now unfortunately
we have another big player in this game, the Environmental Protection Agency.
There was some discussion about how that approach
should be made. We have some ideas, but the first thing is to put together
a program. In broad form, we’ll be putting the flesh on the bones of the
positions advanced by Former President McCormack in a statement he submitted
to Congress about two years ago, and President Dorsey’s statement to the
Coast Guard at the end of last year. We will suggest we continue to support
elimination of the use of crimes of strict liability in the aftermath of
an environmental incident; that there be certain qualified privileges and
immunities for cooperation with investigators, particularly casualty investigators
on the theory that OPA ’90 has set a priority for government policy, and
that is clean-up and prevention take priority over all other considerations
in ordinary circumstances.
As an adjunct to that, we will be looking at possible
privilege for ISM audits, and perhaps environment audits of a broader nature.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Red light is on.
MR. KUFFLER: The red light is on.
Then let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying
that the suggestion has been that this summer would be a very good time
to try and begin approaching these various agencies. With that in view,
we’re going to try very hard to get something to the Board for an action
in time for your summer meeting.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you very much.
MR. KUFFLER: Thank you, and I apologize you had
to flash the red light.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: No, no, problem. You had the
disadvantage of being placed at the end of the meeting when we start truncating
I want to advise everyone that Fred was on the
panel with me at Tulane. Actually his was the major paper which was delivered
on this subject, and it will be published in the Tulane Law Review. It’s
a terrific paper and all of us who are concerned with this subject should
read Fred’s article. He spent a lot of time on it and did a great job.
John Kimball is next, and then Tony Whitman will
do the Navigation Committee.
MR. KIMBALL: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The UNESCO Study Group has been monitoring the
development of a Convention that has been under discussion by UNESCO for
about five years now. This is a Convention that would deal with the protection
of underwater cultural heritage. For our purposes, underwater cultural
heritage includes old shipwrecks and other property on the ocean floor.
The Draft Convention is of particular concern
to our Association because of its potential impact on the Law of Salvage.
In its draft form, the Convention would abolish the application of the
Law of Salvage with respect to property covered by the Convention.
The Study Group has worked closely with the United
States delegation, and, in fact, I have been honored to be a member of
the United States delegation.
I’m happy to report that during the meeting that
took place this past March there was some progress made in adopting language
which should have the effect of preserving the application of the Law of
Salvage with respect to property covered by the Convention. The proposed
clause would place limitations on salvage operations, and would require
that salvage operations be conducted in conformity with the Convention.
The Convention includes very broad annex rules
that basically have been devised by the marine archeological community
that would certainly regulate the activities of salvors. But the good news
from our standpoint is the Law of Salvage would seem to have a continuing
role, as would the United States Admiralty Court, our District Courts.
The fate of the Convention hangs in the balance.
There will be a further meeting in July.
I was very happy to hear the Treasurer’s report
early on today. I am one of the guilty people who has been depleting our
treasury and I’ll continue to do so by making a trip to Paris in July as
a member of the United States delegation and we’ll see what happens.
It’s very unclear whether the Convention will
get through. I personally doubt that it will, but that’s a personal prediction.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, John. Tony Whitman.
MR. WHITMAN: Thank you Mr. President.
Very briefly, the Navigation Coast Guard Government
Regulation Committee met on Tuesday of this week. Dennis Bryant being out
of town, I had the honor of chairing that meeting, which Joe Ahern and
Dan Goettle attended. I think the swelling numbers of attendees at this
particular Committee meeting is an indication of the practical appreciation
that people have for the opportunity to speak one-on-one with members of
the Coast Guard officials and I thank you again for that.
For the two or three of you who might not be on
the e-mail address list for Dennis Bryant’s Bryant-Grams, which are coming
out on an almost hourly basis, Dennis does a fabulous job with this Committee
and with updating members on what is happening with the Coast Guard. If
you’re interested in being on his e-mail list, I’m sure he will be happy
to add you.
A couple of issues of interest that we touched
on that have not been mentioned by other Committee Chairs who have, in
fact, talked about many of the issues that we talked about. One is that
it appears that the Coast Guard is no longer pushing for a strict enforcement
of the Ocean Dumping Act; that if it had been strictly enforced, it would
have found us in conflict with MARPOL on a couple of issues. So that’s
a good situation.
Secondly, we discussed the legislation for gray
water and black water discharge in Alaska, which is something that people
should be aware of as a potential model for gray water and black water
discharge legislation nationwide.
Also, on the very day of its issuance, we heard
of the notice of proposed rule making for ballast water discharge, which
was published as of May 1st. This is really looking for a solution
to this significant problem rather than trying to mandate anything.
Finally, Joe mentioned the interagency memo of
understanding with regard to oil spill response, which as Fred just said,
does acknowledge that the chief priorities are spill response, personnel
safety and environmental protection. Criminal enforcement not being among
those highest priorities.
If I may have 30 more seconds, I would like to
cure an oversight earlier. You heard from Josh Force on the CLE, and Bill
Dorsey has mentioned the CLE for the San Diego meeting. I might also add
that among the CLE presentations will be something that I think you will
find very interesting: a panel presentation led by David Taylor, and including
as panelists Steven Martin of Steamship Mutual and Fred Pietropola of Marsh
on where we are in the marine insurance industry and where this industry
is going as a whole. I think that everybody will find that very interesting
on Thursday morning of the week in San Diego.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. This concludes
both of my reports.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Thank you, Tony.
Frank Billings, is he here?He’s done good service
for us for four years and I gave him his certificate at the Committee Chairs’
meeting. He is going to be replaced by John Ryan of Norfolk.
I think that concludes the regular Committee reports.
Before we go to the Nominating Committee report, just a few announcements.
The dinner tonight includes a 6:30 reception on
the fifth floor in the Westside Ballroom of the Marriott Marquis Hotel,
followed by the dinner at 8:00 p.m. upstairs on the sixth floor.
This afternoon there will be a CLE presentation
in this room. The speakers will be Captain Malcolm Williams, who is well-known
to all of us, and Lieutenant Commander Bruce Dalcher, who is also well-known
to us. Their subject has the intriguing title of “Coast Guard as Maritime
Enforcer.” I don’t think we should miss that. There is probably a lot of
concern about that. So I think that should be a very interesting topic.
Now, before I do call on Howard McCormack, I just
want to say a word about the four retiring members of the Board, who are
Jim Bartlett, George Koelzer, Bruce King and Jean Knudsen. I told them
yesterday at the Board meeting that if it were up to me, I would appoint
them directors for life. I can’t say how much I have appreciated the effort
and work and support that they have put forth during their term of office,
and believe me, they served you and the Association well and truly.
Fortunately, they are not going anywhere. They
are not going to be forgotten, nor are they going to be gone, and my hope
is we will have their help and advice and assistance for many years to
So, I wish you would give a round of applause
to those Board members.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: And now the envelope, please,
MR. McCORMACK: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Nominating Committee met on Wednesday afternoon
to consider nominations for officers and four new directors. It is my privilege
and pleasure to announce the results of the Nominating Committee as a recommendation
to this body.
For President, William R. Dorsey, III; First Vice
President, Raymond P. Hayden; Second VicePresident, Thomas S. Rue; Secretary,
Lizabeth L. Burrell; Treasurer, Patrick J Bonner; and Membership Secretary,
Winston E. Rice.
For four directors to replace the four excellent
directors who are leaving as their term of office expires, the Committee
has recommended the following:
James Patrick Cooney of Houston; Armand J. Paré
of New York; Robert J. Zapf of Los Angeles; and Joanne Zawitoski of Baltimore.
Mr. President, that concludes the recommendations
of the Nominating Committee.
I would ask if there are any further nominations
to be heard from the floor.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Seeing none, I will call upon
Mr. Healy to make a motion in support of the nomination.
MR. NICHOLAS J. HEALY: Mr. President, ladies and
You all have heard the report of Howard McCormack
as Chairman of the Nominating Committee, and there being no other nominations,
I move that the secretary be directed to cast one ballot in favor of all
of the candidates named in the report, for the respective offices to which
they have been nominated.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Is there a second?
(Chorus of seconds.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: All in favor?
(Chorus of ayes.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Opposed?
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Motion is carried. The Secretary
is so directed. I see she has cast the ballot, and I declare the nominees
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: I’d also say my thanks to the
Nominating Committee for presenting me and the other officers with a superb
group of four lawyers to help us over the next number of years. I look
forward to working with them. For those that are here, I would ask you
to come see me immediately following this meeting, because we want to put
you to work right away.
I don’t think there is any other business to come
before this group. I see it is just two minutes before 12:00 and I would
entertain a motion to adjourn.
Do I hear a motion?
MR. NICHOLAS J. HEALY: So moved.
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Second?
(Chorus of seconds.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: All in favor.
(Chorus of ayes.)
PRESIDENT DORSEY: Carried.
The meeting is adjourned.
(Time noted: 12:00 o’clock p.m.)