Professor Karin MIka’s paper, Innovation in the Classroom– The Future of Technology, published in the Spring 2014 issue of the AALS Section on Teaching Methods, was listed on SSRN’s Top Ten download list for “Law Educator: Courses, Materials & Teaching eJournal.”

In this paper, Professor Mika reviews the 2014 Reinvent Law conference and describes various software packages that have been developed to enhance the efficiency of providing legal services.  This article suggests that law schools should be teaching students how to use the software that is now becoming an essential part of practice.

Professor S. Candice Hoke presented a co-authored paper entitled Self-Regulation of the Online Behavioral Advertising Industry: Empirical Analysis and Regulatory Competence at the Privacy Law Scholars Conference at George Washington University on June 6-7.  This prestigious conference was co-hosted by the University of Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law and the George Washington University Law School.  

Professor Dennis Keating  spoke about “Regional Equity” on a panel on “Equitable Community Development” at the 13th annual Social Equity Leadership conference of the National Academy of Public Administration.  This conference took place on May 29 at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

Professor Matthew Green published a new article entitled What’s So Reasonable about Reasonableness? Rejecting a Case-Law Centered Approach to Title VII’s Reasonable Belief Doctrine in the University of Kansas Law Review (62 U. Kan. L. Rev. 759 (2014)).

This year, the Justice for All (JFA) Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association will present Professor Pamela Daiker-Middaugh with the JFA Volunteer of the Year Award.  The JFA Committee serves as the oversight committee to coordinate and support the CMBA’s pro bono and public service programs. It annually recognizes a volunteer for his/her outstanding service to the profession and community. Professor Daiker-Middaugh  is being recognized as this year’s JFA Volunteer of the Year Award, for her dedication as a volunteer for many of the CMBA’s pro bono and community programs, her leadership at the Bar, and for her invaluable assistance in encouraging volunteer service among law students and graduates.  The Award will be presented to Professor Daiker-Middaugh on Friday, June 13, at the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s seventh annual meeting and inaugural luncheon at the Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center.

Professor John Plecnik published an article entitled “Three reading rule explanation” in The News-Herald.  The text of the article is available below.

Three-reading rule explanation

The three-reading rule requires legislation to be “read” or considered three times prior to a vote.  The U.S. Senate and House, Ohio General Assembly, and Ohio municipalities all embrace some version of the rule.  However, the rule is far older than Ohio or even the United States.

The Canadian Parliament, which also follows the rule, traces its source back to 15^th and 16^th century England, when it became the usual practice for the House of Commons.  However, multiple-reading rules are older still.  In the Reforms of 403 B.C., the Athenian Assembly adopted a two-reading rule, whereby each ordinance was read, then posted in the marketplace, and then read a second time prior to a vote.  Athens learned about the dangers of rash legislation the hard way.  In 406 B.C. during the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian generals failed to rescue their drowning sailors from the Spartan navy.  Over Socrates’s objection, the Athenian Assembly immediately voted to execute their generals.  Of course, without their generals, the Athenians soon lost the war.  Realizing their mistake, the Athenians adopted their two-reading rule.

Today, the three-reading rule is oft-criticized as inefficient.  In emergencies, most versions of the rule allow waiver by super-majority vote.  Critics waive the rule in most cases.  In fact, a survey by the Northeast Ohio Media Group shows that many Cleveland suburbs waive the rule nearly 90% of the time.  Before my election, Willoughby Hills also waived the rule in most cases.

Why object to waiver?  It might be more efficient to have a dictator, king, tyrant or mayor make all of our decisions.  But government is not a business and efficiency is secondary to fairness.  The three-reading rule is an ancient right of the people to a deliberative process and to participate in all the workings of their legislature.

According to Jeremy Bentham, the rule has five purposes:  “1. Maturity in the deliberations, arising from the opportunities given to a great number of persons, of speaking upon different days, after they have profited by the information which discussion has elicited; 2. Opportunity afforded to the public, to make itself heard—and to the members, to consult enlightened persons out of doors; 3. Prevention of the effects of eloquence, by which an orator might obtain votes upon a sudden impulse; 4. Protection to the minority of the assembly, by securing to it different periods at which to state its opinions; 5. Opportunity for members absent during the first debate, to attend when they perceive that their presence may influence the fate of the bill.”

But what of delay?  In true emergencies, the three-reading rule should be waived.  In all other cases, Bentham replies, “terrible decrees of urgency, the decrees for closing the discussion, may well be remembered with dread:  they were formed for the subjugation of the minority—for the purpose of stifling arguments . . . .” 

But why would your council wish to stifle argument? 

Sometimes, in the words of Professor Lawrence Keller of Cleveland State University, it is simply “sloppy government.”  Some councils are too lazy for three readings.  Sometimes, however, there is a more sinister reason.

In Willoughby Hills, our first major legislation of the year was passing appropriations for road and sewer projects.  Three council members, myself included, insisted on following the three-reading rule. In response, another council member claimed the service superintendant told him—absent immediate action—a dangerous sinkhole could develop on SOM Center Road.  By the third reading, we learned there was no immediate danger of a sink hole.  Worse still, we learned that the same member who warned of a sinkhole voted on similar appropriations for years that were ultimately paid to a company named Landco.  Public records show that Landco was not only the member’s employer, but owned by his parents.  Had council voted immediately, in all likelihood, more city money would have been paid to Landco before these revelations.

Some may say things have changed since the dawn the democracy, and modern technology obviates the need for three readings.  But the internet is no substitute for deliberation or confronting your council members face-to-face.  The three-reading rule has stood the test of time for good reason.

The Charles R. Emrick Jr. – Calfee Halter & Griswold Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Enrichment, Milena Sterio, participated in the “Talking Foreign Policy” radio show on WCPN 90.3 on June 5. Professor Sterio has been a regular participant in this quarterly radio show, hosted by Interim Dean and Professor Michael Scharf of Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and dedicated to the discussion of current foreign policy issues.  This episode, entitled “Russian Roulette: Ripples from Ukraine,” focused on the crisis in Ukraine and the American-Russian relations as this crisis unfolds.  Other participants included Professor Paul Williams of American University Washington College of Law, and Dr. Shannon French, Director of Case Western’s Inamori Center for Ethics and Excellence.  This episode will be broadcast on WCPN 90.3 on Tuesday, June 10, at 9:00 p.m.