Last May, Mey sued RFA for harassment and illegal collection practices. In August, RFA’s lawyer failed to show up in court, so Mey testified unopposed. The judge called RFA’s actions “malicious” and ruled that all of the allegations were true. And then he awarded that record judgment of $10,860,000.

When “Nightline” went to RFA’s Orange County, Calif., office to ask about the case, it was abandoned. RFA is actually a fictitious business name for a company called Global AG, LLC. Records show it is just one of several collection companies run by the same people that often change names and move. “Nightline” also visited other offices registered to people named in Mey’s suit, but employees refused to talk and asked us to leave

I wrote a tribute to Judge Lee Creighton for the Olympia Historical Society newsletter (I’m the editor) who was Olympia’s first Municipal Court Judge.

Also, I’ve been relatively busy posting on my local long term planning blog—Notes on the State of Olympia. I’m also a commissioner on the Olympia Planning Commission.

When it is necessary to meet; when you do have a clear purpose of the meeting that has been clearly communicated; when you have successfully encouraged meaningful participation and preparation; how do you conduct a successful meeting? There are loads of blog posts, treatises, articles, upon heaps of information out there as to how to do this, but perhaps unsurprisingly, most of it can be boiled down to several basic and relatively intuitive guidelines. 

If you do any looking at all, you’ll find the same general set of guidelines for effective meetings:

1. Maintain agendas with time limits

2. Follow the agendas, including the time limits (e.g. use a timekeeper).

3. Ensure adequate preparation for the meeting

4. Respect all opinions presented during the meetings

5. Keep a record (minutes), including action items

6. Ensure follow through, including action items (See #3)

Keeping time is the easiest thing to do that no one does. A list without time limits is not an agenda—it’s a list. If you don’t include time limits, there is no way you’ll be able to properly determine the worth of the time spent on each particular agenda item. If you don’t keep time, there is simply no reason to write an agenda. If the group doesn’t have a concept of how much time is available for an agenda item, it will probably take more than it should. (If it doesn’t, it’s simply luck.) Humans generally don’t hold something in high regard when they don’t need to give anything up to acquire it.  Stated otherwise, if we don’t pay for it, we don’t value it. Thus it is with time: if someone isn’t pointing it out its passage, we probably won’t notice it. (That doesn’t mean you can’t suspend the time if necessary, but you should always make that a conscious decision.) All of these issues are critically interrelated and on full display in every single meeting across the land—from the suburban office park to the skyscraper. In days of paper thin margins, why not get the maximum return for your meetings?

An effective meeting doesn’t happen because people took a few steps or followed a few rules, but if the expectation is there from not only the leader, but all meeting participants, you’ll likely be able to encourage the recalcitrant members to using meeting time effectively. For me, this is basic respect among all members of the team. There are always excuses for lack of preparation and I’ll leave it to you individuals in your particular organizations to determine whether that lack of preparation is symptomatic of other, more serious issues.

The above are some basic ground rules and tips that any group can follow but there is a larger question of the incremental improvement that develops over time. Unless these guidelines are internalized instantaneously which is unlikely, you’re probably not going to notice a huge change after the first try. (These guidelines will probably be a turnoff for those who aren’t accustomed to them.) As your group embarks on the learning curve, meetings will probably be more painful, but meetings are very expensive allocations of your company’s assets and you should properly value them before and during those allocations. The suggested improvements I am advocating develop over time, and just as people in a meeting subsume themselves into another organism that I liken to a sluggish amoeba, that amoeba needs time to orient and direct itself. With time and sufficient dedication, your group amoeba evolves into something less repulsive and perhaps even pleasant. On the latter, I have my doubts; but that doesn’t mean the meetings can’t be effective even if they remain repulsive.

I consider an advisory meeting a group of people set together to advise a single individual in that individual’s decision making process. For example, you often hear of the President of the United States getting his (someday her) cabinet to obtain advice from the best and the brightest. Once the President hears all of the advice, he or she usually makes a decision.

The purpose of a deliberative meeting is to make a group decision. Continuing our previous example, the President could turn that advisory meeting into a deliberative one by setting the matter to a vote instead of deciding the matter on his own after taking the group’s advice. This is probably closer to what most of us have experienced in our professional meeting modes. I’ll save the methods of deliberation for several subsequent posts, but I want to draw a bright line here between these two purposes of meeting.

It’s important to distinguish further here the purposes (advisory or deliberative) of a meeting from an advisory or deliberative function that is necessary to further the purpose of a meeting. For example, an advisory meeting can deliberate and a meeting set to deliberate can advise other groups or individuals. A prominent example for me is the Olympia Planning Commission. Its purpose is entirely advisory: we don’t actually make any final decisions, but in order to advise the city council we often undertake deliberative functions. The city council for example is not an advisory body. It’s a deliberative council that makes decisions. Similarly, the state legislature is a deliberative body, but its committees often take on advisory functions. The board of directors of a corporation is a deliberative body—it makes the decisions. The CEO’s staff, on the other hand could be either, but I imagine most of them are advisory with the CEO making the final decision.

Why is this distinction important? One of the great failures of any meeting mode is the inability to determine the meeting’s basic purpose. This is difficult for a conscientious leader to undertake because she often desires to avoid the appearance of tyranny by casting the meeting as a deliberative one (i.e. one which all participants have a vote) when in fact she would prefer it to be advisory. Likewise, leaders often subtly use the guise of either purpose to persuade the meeting participants of a certain course of action that she believes most appropriate. (A particular morale-killer is revisiting the decision after the meeting because the leader realizes she didn’t care for the result.)  In either case the meeting is advisory, but to buttress collective morale the leader is wont to admit it. She mistakenly believes that conformity with her ideas can be best achieved by persuading others to the righteousness of her cause through a rigged vote or quasi-consensus. This inhibits the presentation of alternative points of view, foments groupthink, and in the worst instances turns productive employees into pandering lackeys. 

I suggest that leaders widely proclaim the meeting’s purpose at the onset: if the meeting is advisory, let everyone know and expect their support once a decision is made. Should the meeting’s purpose be deliberative, formulate a fair process and encourage preparation and participation. We’ll discuss much more of how to do both later.

If you change nothing else about your meetings, you’ll still see dramatic improvement by implementing a clear distinction between the purposes of your meetings. And if you can’t decide for which purpose your meeting is, try getting some work done instead of holding one.

The meeting as a social phenomenon and trend occurs more often than ever. Furthermore, whether your employer or your company is an economic behemoth, a sole proprietorship, a nonprofit, or a government agency, you still need collaborate with people around you. And you probably do this by meeting with other people.

Once you enter the meeting space with another person, you cede a certain portion of your independence to the larger group in an interesting social contract. For this consideration, your organization should accumulate greater benefits for the time spent together than it would were any of the meeting participants spend the time alone. (That is the justification at least, though I wonder how often a meeting is viewed this way.)

In effect as a meeting participant, you and your fellow participants jointly become an entirely new and separate social entity. This is different from what happens with a friend or a spouse in only one respect: different motivations underlie your necessity to effectively collaborate. With a spouse, it is hopefully love and fulfillment; with friends, hopefully pleasure, leisure, or some form of enlightenment or social gratification. With co-workers, it is usually economic survival, coercion, or another form of compulsion. (One should consider whether he or she attends meetings by choice—I always need a better reason than desire.) Thus is formed the meeting-self (thanks JJR); born of necessity and the motivations which underlie its behavior depart from the more enjoyable forms of individual self-cession to a social end.

It’s fascinating that means of communication have increased dramatically but we remain with traditional and perhaps even archaic modes of personal interaction and collaboration. (For example, whether we conduct a meeting with an iPad or a PowerPoint presentation, we are still doing the same basic things that participants in a medieval guild meeting would have done (less perhaps the sudden strike by the hilt of your sword to the Hansea-Viking on your left). Usually that function is some form of advisory or deliberative process that requires the input of at least a few individuals. Our means of meeting (the tools at our disposal to conduct them) have advanced exponentially but our modes of meeting (the basic manner of conducting meetings and their results) have remained tragically static.

I have seen leaders of all stripes and sectors spend nearly every waking moment keeping current on all the new “business” books. However, they are missing the forest for the trees: without optimal meetings and actionable results of those meetings, the organizations that these leaders command and the individuals therein will only reach their potential by luck or chance. Without effective modes of meeting, visions cannot be communicated; strategic plans cannot be formulated; tasks cannot be allocated; and follow through cannot be ensured.

How do we effectively operate in our meeting mode? How do we communicate so that we all understand each other? How do we make decisions collectively? What tools do we use? And my favorite: why do we meet in the first place?

These are some of the questions that I’ll explore in the subsequent posts. I hope you’ll join the conversation.

Here’s some reading:

Negotiating the Best Office Lease for Your Business

Leasing Office Space

Leasing an Office Space That Works for You

“Leasing An Office Space That Works For You”

It’s also a good idea to have a lawyer look over your lease before you sign it.

Here is some reading to get you started:

The S Corp Versus the LLC: Small Business Trends (you should read this blog often)

Top legal mistakes entrepreneurs make: Choice of entity

The Choice-of-Entity Maze: Journal of Accounting

What kind of a business structure makes sense when starting a business? Escape from Cubicle Nation (Another favorite!)

1. Practice Realistic Optimism
2. Build More Bridges
3. Add Value Every Day
4. Give Yourself a Break

See the link above for the full discussion.  You won’t regret it. Each of these points are particularly relevant for any one trying to make it as a business owner these days.  I’d say at least one of them is missing in any given individual (perhaps most often the inability to take a break).

This article leaves the reader with good advice, because its core assumption is that people are good and generally are trying to do the right thing in difficult times.  I don’t think I need to convince any one of the collective ability of a dedicated group of people to accomplish great (or awful) things.  It’s all about the choices we make each day.

I think Tony Schwartz is correct: our ability to bring out our best turns on our determination to be realistic and optimistic, conciliatory and tolerant.  If we do so, we will be able to add value to our companies and our lives.  As for taking a break, to each his own.

In Bustamante, USCIS decided against the applicant after he had filed the 1447(b), on the basis that the applicant had committed manslaughter many years earlier.

“Defendants then brought a motion to dismiss the Section 1447(b) petition as moot based on USCIS’s denial of the application. Bustamante countered that USCIS’s denial of the naturalization application had no legal consequence because the filing of the Section 1447(b) petition divested USCIS of jurisdiction.”

The District Court liked USCIS’s argument and dismissed the case.  In the appeal that followed, the Circuit Court took on the question of jurisdiction and mootness determining that the defendant was correct as to who has exclusive jurisdiction—District Court.  In so doing, they produced this curious gem:

In holding that the district court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to decide a naturalization petition as to which a Section 1447(b) complaint has been filed, we do not suggest that upon the applicant’s invocation of a district court’s Section 1447(b) jurisdiction, USCIS is barred from continuing its consideration of the naturalization application or from reaching a tentative determination. Certain practical realities might support such agency action. Section 1447(b) is triggered, after all, by agency delay. No one’s interest are served by compelling further delay. Inevitably, the district court will solicit the parties’ views on a Section 1447(b) petition before determining whether to reach the merits of the application or remand to the agency. The parties will likely stipulate to a remand if USCIS tentatively recommends that an application be granted. Even with applications that USCIS intends to deny and for which no stipulation would be expected, USCIS is entitled to request a remand. Thus, a system of district court/agency cooperation where, even upon the former’s acquisition of jurisdiction, the latter continues its consideration of a matter, but requires court permission before it can put any decision into effect, may make sense. Such coordination is not unprecedented. Cf. Toliver v. County of Sullivan, 957 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding that “the district court may grant a rule 60(b) motion after an appeal is taken only if the moving party obtains permission from the circuit court,” and that “this court must first give its consent so it can remand the case”).

Is it a chink in the armor or a one time situation quickly to be resolved or mooted?  Stay tuned.  As long as there are stalled naturalization applications, there will be the glorious provision of 1447(b) to jump start them.

The plaintiff in Popnikolovski v. DHS, USCIS, et. al appeared for his naturalization interview during which the hearing officer requested he produce various forms including tax returns. He promptly did so but this courtesy was not extended to him by way of a decision on his naturalization application. Instead he waited eight months (as I’ve said elsewhere, 1447(b) requires a decision within 120 days), before filing an action under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b). The plaintiff received notice of a second interview rather than a favorable decision on his naturalization application. Shortly thereafter, USCIS denied his application because, among other reasons, he failed to appear for his interview.

Thus the issue is who has the right to make the decision, the USCIS, the arbiter of naturalization decisions, or federal court, the arbiter of disputes over naturalization applications? USCIS argued that because the USCIS had requested application materials from the plaintiff, they retained jurisdiction over the matter and the dispute should be dismissed. In essence, USCIS argued that its examination process was not yet complete and that 1447(b), the statute granting jurisdiction to federal court, had not been triggered. USCIS typically argues that the examination is a process of potentially endless duration (as long as it benefits USCIS) in these cases, but thankfully for the applicants caught in stalled naturalization, the courts don’t typically buy this argument.

Instead, the court took the plaintiff’s argument that the “examination” is the interview. Further, that is the date from which applications can safely begin to start the 120 time limit to process their naturalization applications.

The Sixth Circuit had a look at this question in Rahman v. Napolitano.  Their answer? No. The court decided:

Bound by the essential holding in Zayed concerning the effect of § 1429 in an action under § 1421(c), we conclude, as other courts have, that § 1429 similarly limits the scope of the district court’s review and circumscribes the available remedies in an action brought under § 1447(b) when removal proceedings are pending against the applicant.

Avoiding excessive detail, in order to avail oneself of the remedy of 1447(b) when your naturalization application has stalled, you can’t have any blemishes on your record, e.g. criminal convictions or violations of immigration regulations.  Further, the courts have concluded that while 1447(b) can remove jurisdiction to decide your case from the USCIS, there are exceptions and this recent case details one of them.

Of particular note is the rise of for profit learning institutions, some of which are owned in part by publicly listed companies.  Perhaps not surprisingly, these institutions have the greatest rate of default for student borrowers.

But it’s the high rates of default at for-profit institutions that are likely to get the most attention from members of Congress, who have recently raised concerns about the cost and quality of for-profit higher education. Fifteen years into repayment, two out of every five loans made to students who attended two-year for-profit colleges are in default.

Two of five is extraordinary high, and is a problem that needs to be resolved with progressive, perhaps revolutionary proposals.  Either those who take the education are poor personal finance managers or their income does not match the debt burden.  I’m sure each case is unique, but trends are made up of a mass of unique cases.  Nonetheless, no one is going to argue against an educated labor force.

I believe education should be subsidized to such an extent that anyone with the academic ability and the financial need should be able to avail themselves of a quality education.  High income earners can pay the sticker price.  Socialism?  Perhaps, but I think our version of capitalism has certainly proven that some aspects of life, education among them, suffer when the profit motive is the driver for their provision.

Essentially, if a legal permanent resident’s (LPR) naturalization application is not processed from 120 days of the applicant’s examination (typically construed to mean the interview date), the LPR may file suit in federal court to obtain an order that the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service make a decision on the application. 

Obviously, the LPR must be in complete compliance with all laws and application requirements.  Assuming so, the judge is basically bound to issue the order.
In my experience with these cases, many a creative argument have been offered by the assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to them, but they are seldom compelling enough for the judge to dismiss the case.  As I started this post with an allusion to a rant, this is one area where I must applaud both the law and its implementation toward greater transparency and accountability in our federal government. 

A thoughtfully set-up profit and loss statement generates meaningful data that can inform your business decisions. Here’s how to de-clutter yours and make it more user-friendly.

Small Business to gain by internet sales tax?

But I believe that small businesses have the most to gain by having this tax. A main advantage for small businesses is that they are a part of the community. This enables trust, a higher service level, and loyalty. In fact, most small businesses, even those that offer ecommerce, principally sell to their local market — most often offline. Plus, most consumers want to see an item before they purchase it (that’s why so many online stores offer free return shipping). Today, many consumers actually look at a product locally and then buy online to find a cheaper price — and to avoid sales tax. But once the tax loophole is closed, small businesses can grow their local customer base, where they have a true competitive advantage (price is never a competitive advantage).

InfoGrok

InfoGrok can be defined as a network and information platform which is geared at professional users. Its core user group is that of senior professionals who are employed within industries such as Technology, Media, Energy, Pharmaceutical, Healthcare, Financial Services and Construction industries.
The content that is offered here includes industry news along with business metrics, whereas best practice guides and an intelligence database are there to make career decisions that little bit easier.

Initial Unemployment Claims rise which is somehow unexpected

The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims increased this week by 6,000 to 473,750.

Are Trade Shows a Waste of Time? (I suppose it depends on which trade shows you attend.)

In Las Vegas, with the decline in sales and no great rebound in sight, you might have thought the mood would be somber. It was anything but. Hope seemed to have been replaced by confidence, and fear by a plan. People were enthusiastic. The suppliers were relieved.
There appear to be two things happening. One is survival of the fittest. Many frame shops have closed, and many more will close as their leases expire. This will leave more business for the survivors. It happened in the bicycle business, the eyeglass business, the floral business, and many others.
The other thing that is happening is evolution. Many shops are adapting, getting into digital printing, getting into the art business, getting out of the art business, or expanding their offerings to include home accessories.