Brunini Law

Brunini Law

Five Things I Learned at Disney World

by

Last week, during my kids’ spring break, we finally took our epic family trip to Disney World (yes, I am the tightwad father that refused to take them until they were old enough to remember it because I didn’t want to “waste” the trip). We did it right, too. Instead of fooling with airports and all the unnecessary convenience they bring, we drove the whole way, 20 hours round trip, Clark Griswold style. It is sufficient to say that between that and the lines at Disney, we all received adequate practice in the development of that most wonderful virtue of patience.

I didn’t just take the week off, though. From the moment we passed under those storied gates to the tortuous wait for the final monorail with 100,000 of my closest friends at 11:30 pm on our final night, I observed several interesting facts and trends that will be tremendously useful in providing advice to my banking clients. Below are five of those lessons that I thought may be worth your time to consider.

1. The Debit Card is Dead (or At Least Will Be Soon)

Nobody who is anybody at Disney pays for anything with a debit card. For those that are staying at the resort, stylish wrist bands are the preferred form of payment. These wrist bands, which apparently come in an array of colors and styles, store all kinds of information about the Disney patron they belong to. This includes payment information, which means that paying $50 for a $10 meal can be as easy as waiving your wrist in front of pay terminal, but it also includes your reservation to ride Space Mountain at 9:15 pm without having to wait in line for an hour and a half, as well as your ticket into the park. It is your all in one golden ticket for everything Disney (as well as Disney’s golden ticket to all of your valuable personal information and preferences).

Of course, my children had the Dad that decided to use points for a hotel stay “off resort” instead of springing for five nights at the Polynesian, so they did not get to sport one of these trendy “Magic Bands.” However, their prevalence could not be avoided, along with the obvious enthusiasm with which they were embraced. A few times I pulled out a debit card to pay for light sabers or food and the attendant looked at me like I had just pulled out a check book. Obviously, Disney is still an isolated environment and the infrastructure it has in place has not yet been replicated throughout our broader economy, but the outcome to me appears inevitable. As trusting as we now seem to be of technology and as much as we welcome its convenience, the days of the uni-purpose debit card that merely allows access to your checking account are numbered. The alternative form of payment device, whether it be a pretty wrist band or an iPhone, that not only allows access to your checking account but also stores all of your personal information so that retailers can cater to your every stored preference is fast approaching, whether the law is ready for it or not.

2. Branding Success Does Not Mean Branding Complacency

This was the first time I visited Disney World since I was twelve, and while I do not remember everything about that trip, I remember enough to recognize that this experience was very different. Unlike a quarter of a century ago, I did not spend my time waiting in line to see Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck; instead I waited an hour to see Chewbacca and Kylo Ren. Whereas my last trip I rode “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride,” this time my eight year old made me ride Buzz Lightyear’s shooting gallery numerous times.
There is no question that Disney is the king of branding, which has helped them develop and maintain a tremendously loyal following that still brings untold millions to their parks every year in what can only be called an American cultural pilgrimage. Let’s be honest, no one above 25 goes to Disney World because it is “fun;” they go because it has become such a rite of passage for children that those who do not take their kids are subject to a visit from DHS for mistreating their offspring. It is that irresistible brand which lead me to spend St. Patrick ’s Day walking untold miles while being run over by numerous mothers wearing green and pushing strollers (one of which who wore a shirt that proudly said “I’ll Shamrock Your World”).

That being said, the brand Walt Disney made famous 80 years ago is not the same brand that continues to make $100 a head off of those obnoxious green crowds today. While you still see Mickey Mouse and Donald from time to time, you come in contact possibly more frequently with talking toys and Jedi Knights. Disney’s brand has evolved. Instead of resting on the laurels that brought them incredible success, they continue to look for ways to make their brand relevant to new generations, and it is working. If you doubt their success, just ask movie attendants about the costumed crowds they had to manage this past Christmas and the millions of dollars they paid to get a glimpse at an aging Harrison Ford. However, Disney has not forgotten its original charm, and it still uses that legacy brand as well, which was evidenced by the way my eight year old’s eyes lit up both times he rode “It’s a Small World.” Their ability to improve a brand without destroying it is one to be envied and modeled.

3. Expectation and Perception are the Keys to Customer Service

While Disney’s branding is second to none, its crowd management is still a work in progress. Waiting an hour and a half for a minute and a half ride can really take it out of you. However, I noticed that my level of patience varied dramatically depending on how long they estimated the wait to be. When the estimated waiting time for the “standby” entrance to a ride was 90 minutes, I was thrilled when I only had to wait 60; however, when another ride estimated a waiting time of 35 minutes, I was fighting mad when that same 60 minute wait became a reality. I have always heard that you should under-promise and over-deliver when it comes to customer service and not the other way around. Disney is a very tangible expression of that truism.

In order to better manage crowds, Disney has developed something called the “Fastpass” which allows patrons to reserve preferred treatment in waiting lines for three separate rides at one park each day. The rules for the application of the concept are somewhat cumbersome and confusing, but the idea makes sense: spread out crowds at different times during the day in order to shorten wait times for everyone. The biggest problem is that everyone usually wants to ride the same three rides, so the bums who did not get their “Fastpass” reserved in time have to sit in line and watch the chosen ones pass easily to the front of the line. In theory, we all had the same opportunity to secure those reservations, but that didn’t help my feelings a bit when my child had been hanging on me and whining for the last 45 minutes and I had to watch a 19 year old and his girlfriend walk by me just by waiving their pretty wrist bands in front of a terminal until the Mickey Mouse outline turned green. Therefore, my suggestion for Disney, or any other customer service representative, is this: always over-estimate the amount of time that I am going to have to wait for your service, and if someone is jumping ahead of me, you had better not let me know about it, even if I had the same chance earlier and chose not to take it.

4. Sometimes You Just Have to Start Over

As Daddy’s reward for waiting in those long lines, we also decided to take in some Spring Training baseball while we were there. For those of you who don’t know, the Atlanta Braves Spring Training home is at Disney World, and this provided a much needed reprieve from the exhausting hustle and bustle of the Magic Kingdom. I and my youngest son are Braves fans, and we had an opportunity to watch them tie (unfortunately no free baseball in Spring Training) my oldest son’s favorite team, the St. Louis Cardinals. Incidentally, my oldest son was raised a Braves fan but unfortunately jumped ship (somewhat understandably) when the Braves decided to trade or run off every player he had ever known. He instead decided to proudly wear Cardinal colors and bask in the glory of 100 wins instead of hide from the shame of 95 losses.

However, while I constantly had my nose in the program looking up names of Braves players I have never heard of, I did notice that there was a lot of good, young talent on the field wearing navy blue. Not only that, but there seemed to be an energy and enthusiasm generated from so many optimistic minor leaguers looking for a job that you couldn’t help but feel that better days are ahead for the Braves. If you have followed the Braves like I have, you know that they spent at least a decade just above mediocrity holding onto the idea that what they had been doing for several years would ultimately bring them back to where they were in the 90s. To their credit, their management finally said enough, and they have decided to blow up a moderately successful model in hopes of achieving even greater success with unproven but incredibly talented prospects. Their ultimate destination is still unknown, but I don’t think there is any doubt that this was probably their only chance to again build lasting success. Baseball teams are no different from any other organization, including banks. Those who are happy with mediocrity can plod along with an outdated model, but to truly reach new heights in a changing environment, sometimes it is necessary to start all over.

5. We Must Continue to Dream

The dramatic success of Disney and everything it stands for is not an accident. It is directly related to the vision of its amazing creator, Walt Disney, who foresaw much more than a mouse on a piece of paper when he began the organization that has now become a cultural phenomenon, much less an American corporate giant. That vision lead to a corporate culture that fostered dreaming and dreamers and pushed the company to greater heights than its creator could have even imagined. Had Walt Disney, or his corporate heirs, ever allowed themselves to be motivated only by short time pursuits or quarterly earnings goals, the company would have never become what it is today. Dreamers may not be profitable every quarter, but their potential for greatness is much higher than pragmatists. Obviously both are needed, but they must balance each other, and one cannot be allowed to push the other to the side.

One aspect of Disney World that made an impression on me as a kid was the optimistic focus on the future and the possibilities it could bring. From Spaceship Earth at Epcot to Tomorrowland in the Magic Kingdom, my twelve year old sensibilities were fascinated by not only the amazing future the park imagined, but just how inevitable that future seemed to be. Maybe it was a difference in age and perspective, or the fact that my first visit was in the eternally optimistic 1980s while my most recent visit was during a much more pessimistic period of time, but for some reason, when I visited the park last week, those exciting views into the future seemed to be a retrospective window into past dreams rather than a thrilling prediction of future progress. It made me sad to feel that we, our companies and much worse our country, are losing the capacity to dream. When I was a kid, I spoke of becoming an astronaut often, but I rarely hear space discussed in my house these days unless it is in the context of “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” Heck, our country doesn’t even have a space program anymore. I know that dreams and imagination are difficult to nurture in this age of Great Recessions / Terrorism / unbearable regulation / (insert current fear hear), but we can never allow our urge to defend against our worst fears impair our courage to pursue our wildest dreams. To do so would lead our lives, our families, our country, and our world to a fate worse than death.

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held March 8, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-6842.

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on March 8, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.  The Board approved minutes from the February Regular meeting along with non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the February meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases.

Surface Mining Bond Releases:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Columbus Brick Company Clay P94-095 Initial 60% Release
Columbus Brick Company Clay P84-005 Initial 82% Release
Talbot Bros. Const. Co. and Talbot Bros. Grading Co. Grenada P12-007 Initial 60% Release

Surface Mining Permits to Transfer:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Kyle M. Mallette (Ms. Haidee Oppie Sheffield, Administrator of Estate) transfer to Jackie L. Richards, Jr. Jackson P98-057A Approved
Buford Partners, L.P. transfer to Mississippi Sand Solutions, LLC Warren P80-005T2 Approved

Surface Mining Permit:

James Matheny, with the Office of Geology presented the Surface Mining Permit Application of Lee Allen and Associates, LLC (Hinds County, Permit Number A1929) to the Permit Board.  The Application is a modification/expansion of a previously-exempt 4 acre surface mine and proposes to open pit mine 50 acres to a total depth of 10 feet for borrow material.  There were two Visitors from the Presidential Hills Subdivision who spoke in opposition.

Board members posed questions on several potential issues including (but not limited to):

  • Zoning;
  • Stormwater Permit;
  • Buffer Zone;
  • Notification of adjoining property owners as well as State and Federal Agencies;
  • Environmental Justice;
  • Increased drainage into the Bogue Chitto Creek, and
  • Reclamation Plan

The Board approved a motion to continue the matter until the Applicant submits documentation from the City of Jackson that the subject property is properly zoned for a surface mine and also submits a more detailed engineering analysis as to the runoff rates, stormwater control and flooding issues.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ Legal Counsel stated that the Star Landing Rubbish Site matter (DeSoto County) will be scheduled for the May 10th or June 14th meeting.  He also reminded the Board to file their Statements of Economic Interest.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on April, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

U.S. EEOC Alters Key Investigation Procedures

by

Since the beginning of 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has made several key changes to its standard operating procedures concerning the handling and investigation of charges of discrimination.  The result of these changes continues the recent trend of bolstering legal protections provided to employees by the EEOC.

Proposed Changes to Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation

At the end of January 2016, the EEOC issued a 76-page proposed update to its retaliation enforcement guidance—a document that hasn’t been updated since 1998.  The enforcement guidance serves as the EEOC’s interpretation of federal employment laws (Title VII, ADA, ADEA, GINA) based on court rulings.  Most notable among the 76-page update is the EEOC’s expansion of what activity it feels deserves protection from retaliation.

For example, the proposed guidance enhances the EEOC’s interpretation of retaliatory “causation”—that is, the requisite connection between a “protected activity,” such as reporting discrimination or sexual harassment, and an adverse employment action, such as termination.  Part of the expansion focuses on the ruling from one appellate court, which held that a charging party can discredit the employer’s explanation and demonstrate a causal connection by offering a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would support the inference of retaliatory animus.” Many scholars agree that, for employers, this is too broad of an interpretation.

Currently, the EEOC is still seeking public comment on the proposed guidance.  And, even if adopted, the guidance is just that—it does not carry the weight of a statute or an administrative decision.  However, employers should be aware that the EEOC’s enforcement guidance remains a powerful tool, as it serves as a key reference for EEOC investigators during the investigation stage.  As such, many employers rely on the guidance in evaluating personnel decisions.

Charging Party Access to Employer Position Statements

In February 2016, the EEOC announced new procedures for its investigation of EEOC charges.  Under these new procedures, a Charging Party can obtain a responding employer’s position statement from the EEOC upon request, and then file his/her own response to that position statement within 20 days.  The new procedures apply to position statements requested by the EEOC on or after January 1, 2016.

This marks an important change in the process by which charges of discrimination are handled at the EEOC.  Previously, a charging party was not entitled to obtain an employer’s position statement until after the EEOC closed its investigation.  Even then, the charging party could only obtain the position statement through an official Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  Additionally, the charging party did not have an opportunity to review and/or respond to a position statement during the course of the agency’s investigation.

The EEOC feels this new procedure “significantly improves” its investigative process, by facilitating a meaningful exchange of information and allowing investigators to consider responses.

Going forward, a typical EEOC investigation process proceeds as follows:  First, the charging party files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.  The charge is then assigned to the EEOC’s Mediation Unit, which notifies each party of the opportunity to participate in its voluntary mediation program.  If both parties agree, mediation is scheduled with an EEOC Mediator.  If one or both parties do not agree to mediation—or mediation fails to resolve the issue—the charge is transferred to the EEOC’s Investigative Unit.  At that point, the employer is required to submit a written position statement to the EEOC within 30 days (although extensions of time are common).

With the new procedure in place, after the respondent submits its position statement, the charging party may request the position statement from the EEOC Investigator, who will provide the position statement (and all non-confidential attachments) to the charging party.  Then the charging party may submit a response to the position statement to the EEOC within 20 days.  The charging party is not required to provide his or her response to the respondent; and the respondent may not obtain the charging party’s response from the EEOC.

These changes to the EEOC’s internal handling signal an increased effort on behalf of the agency to provide employees with a strong shield in interactions with their employers.  In turn, employers are advised to become more diligent in dealing with personnel issues—especially those that raise the specter of potential EEOC involvement.

This Newsletter is a publication of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Clients

by

On February 18, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court of Louisiana’s award of summary judgment to the firm’s clients in a civil RICO action accusing the clients and others of alleged racketeering activities in connection with the awarding of debris removal and clean-up contract work in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina.  The District Court entered summary judgment in the clients’ favor on March 13, 2015, and plaintiffs appealed.  The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on February 2, 2016, and affirmed for the clients soon after on February 18, 2016.  The clients were represented by David Kaufman, Patrick McDowell (argued), and Benje Bailey.

Related Attorneys

Benchmark Litigation has named the Brunini firm Mississippi’s “Firm of the Year” for 2016. David Kaufman and Patrick McDowell accepted the award for the firm at the Benchmark Litigation Awards ceremony in New York City on February 11.

by

Benchmark Litigation focuses exclusively on litigation in the United States.  Benchmark Litigation Award winners are determined through extensive interviews of the nation’s leading private practice lawyers and in-house counsel to identify the leading litigators and law firms in each jurisdiction.  The Brunini firm is proud to be recognized among the country’s most distinguished law firms.

Related Attorneys

Brunini Attorney Named Mississippi Business Journal’s 2015 Lawyer of the Year

by

JACKSON, Miss. – Watts Ueltschey, a partner in the Jackson office of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC was recently named Mississippi Business Journal’s 2015 Lawyer of the Year at the MBJ’s Leadership in Law dinner.  He is the first attorney from Brunini to ever receive this award.

Brunini’s Ueltschey has been recognized by Martindale Hubbell Preeminent rating; Best Lawyers in America® in the fields of Energy Law, Mining Law and Oil and Gas Law; Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business in the field of  Energy and Natural Resources; and Super Lawyers in the fields of Energy and Natural Resources and Real Estate.

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held February 9, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-6842.

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on February 9, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.  The Board approved minutes from the January regular meeting along with non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the January meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases and permit to transfer.

Surface Mining Bond Releases:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Burns Dirt Construction, Inc. Oktibbeha P13-010 Final 50% release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Holmes P97-027 Final 20% release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Holmes P98-004 Final 20% release

Surface Mining Permit to Transfer:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Riverwind Construction, Inc., requests that P08-036 be transferred to Sikes Equipment Company, LLC Rankin P08-036 Approval of transfer

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Liza Ouzts, MDEQ Senior Attorney, informed the Board that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been completed subsequent to the evidentiary hearing that was held in September 2015 regarding the NPDES permit issued to the West Rankin Utility Authority (MS0061743).  Following the hearing, the Board affirmed the issuance of the NPDES permit.  Copies of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were submitted to West Rankin Utility Authority and the City of Jackson.  Both parties made comments regarding elements of the hearing that were absent from the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  Consequently, MDEQ staff developed a redline version that incorporated the requested elements.

Pursuant to the MDEQ staff recommendation, the Board voted to accept the redline version of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Council, reminded Board members to submit their statements of interest.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on March 8, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

Five Things I Learned as a Community Banker

by

In my last blog post, which I am ashamed to say was all the way back in May of last year, I concluded by noting that, between 2010 and 2014, a bank’s ability to control costs appeared to be more closely correlated to its earnings performance than its ability to grow interest income. I also stated that my next article would examine whether or not that correlation should hold in a rising interest rate environment. However, since it appears that interest rates will never again rise meaningfully (notwithstanding the Federal Reserve’s feeble attempt to start the process last month, one they may very well need to reverse soon the way 2016 is starting out), I decided to scrap that whole series altogether. Instead, I decided to start the new year with a different idea that will highlight five important ideas or facts about different subjects that I feel are important to community bankers (or maybe just important to me, who knows).

First of all, I must admit that I stole this idea from the Wall Street Journal who, from time to time, runs articles on “Five Things” ranging from interesting notes on that most revered pursuit of intellectual superiority known as the presidential race to reasons why J.J. Abrams had to kill off Han Solo (a development that I am still quite upset about). Luckily, my legal help is cheap, so if the Journal has a problem with me using their format, maybe it will all work out OK.

For my first article in the series, I plan to focus on five things I learned as a community banker that are still useful to me today. As a matter of fact, since they are so countercultural for many in my current profession of law, they may benefit me more now than they did when I was banking. Follow along and see how many of these traits community banking has conditioned into your character as well.

1. Always Call People Back As Soon As Possible

I know this one sounds simple, but you would be shocked to know (or maybe you wouldn’t) how many attorneys act like their voicemail doesn’t exist. Trying to get them to return a message is like trying to get your ten year old to give you change back after a trip to the concession stand; it just doesn’t happen. I’m not sure if they are scared of their phone, or if they are actually that busy, but either way, it is enough to drive you mad. Not that it is excusable, but I can somewhat see why they now refuse to return my calls since I am not their client but instead an attorney that is often representing an opposing viewpoint (even so, the undue delay does nothing but hinder their client’s interest). However, I am sad to say that I had the same experience when I was a community banker AND A CLIENT. Either most clients are much more patient than me, or those attorneys are so good it doesn’t matter. Regardless, community banking taught me that you must always return your phone calls. Not only does it prevent the bank down the street from fielding a subsequent call from that same person, but common sense tells you that it benefits you and your community reputation in the long run to respect the time and effort people put into trying to contact you. Since common sense is often in short supply in the legal world, maybe that is why bankers are just better at this.

2. No Job is Below Your Pay Grade

I must admit, one community banker comes to my mind as the embodiment of this lesson, and it is my father. Since I was a kid, I have watched him pick up paper in the parking lot of the bank while carrying the title of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, a practice that he also exhibited several times while me, as his employee, failed to notice and walked right by the tootsie roll wrapper that he bent down to pick up. In the world of legal runners and billable hours, this just doesn’t happen unless it can be done for $235 per hour and itemized on some poor soul’s bill. However, I learned from my father that doing the small jobs that need to be done doesn’t just make you look more down to earth; it also places the needs of your organization above those of your own in order to make sure that it accomplishes its utmost potential. After all, as the organization rises, so do the prospects and aspirations of its members. Unless the organization prospers, though, the realized potential of the members making up that organization is limited by the weight of that underperforming organization. There are too many small jobs for the runners and administrative staff to do alone; some of them require non-billable hours now for a more profitable practice later.

3. Sometimes You Have to Wear More than One (Or Twenty) Hats

Don’t get me wrong, attorneys are great multi-taskers and are forced every day to juggle more than one file at a time. However, for some time now the phenomenon of professional specialization has taken a foothold within many law firms so that most attorneys limit themselves to one or two practice areas and rarely venture across the borders of those specialties for fear of having to touch base with their professional liability carrier. Community bankers, though, have never had that luxury. As a matter of fact, as regulation increases and the pool of qualified talent decreases, the thought of specialization is nothing more than a pipe dream for all community bankers, or at least those that want to survive the current super-competitive environment to fight another day. Truth be known, technology and competition is quickly changing the legal profession as well, and an obstinate adherence to strict specialization may not be possible for most attorneys much longer, either. Luckily, I had six years of community banking that taught me to wear more than just one hat.

4. People Don’t Really Care What You Know Until They Know You Care

It scares me sometimes to think about how many people I work with every day (both within my law firm and within other firms whose attorneys I work with on different issues) that have more impressive IQs and resumes than I do. As a profession that peddles knowledge, attorneys often place the highest premiums on intellectual talents while discounting bedside manner. However, while I was a community banker that tried to convince my attorneys that I just didn’t need that twenty-page memo regardless of how well it was researched, I realized that clients really can’t trust your knowledge until they can trust that you will use it in their best interest. The duty of loyalty to a client doesn’t just mean you put their needs above those of a third party; it also means that you must put their needs above those of your own, no matter how much you need billable hours or words of affirmation extolling your vast legal research skills. Unless your knowledge benefits your client, it is better to just keep it to yourself, especially when your hourly rate contains three digits.

5. Never Tell A Customer “That’s Not My Job”

While I was at the bank, there was a sweet old lady that would call me at least once a month to help her balance her check book. At first, this aggravated me. After all, my ego told me that I have a CPA and a law degree; surely such a menial task can be performed more efficiently by a customer service representative, or possibly even a teller. However, I later noticed that there were other customers that would walk into my dad’s office asking the same thing, and he never hesitated to help them out. I’m not talking about customers who were going to bring the bank a two million dollar loan from time to time. No, I’m talking about the 85 year old man that was trying to make sure his social security check would stretch until the end of the month. Eventually, it dawned on me that God gives us a calling for reasons other than to generate income in the most efficient manner; he also places us within a profession to help make the world a better place. Those who realize this don’t just earn a living, they also live out a calling that makes their work more rewarding. At the same time, that two million dollar loan customer is watching more often than not and takes notice of their character. Such character demands loyalty, and loyalty is always good for business.

So, there’s my list of the five most valuable things I learned as a community banker. I know for sure that it is not comprehensive, and there very well may be other more important lessons you have learned that I failed to mention. If so, please e-mail them to me at twalker@brunini.com. I would love to learn from your experiences as well.

* This Newsletter is a publication of the Commercial Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held January 12, 2016

by

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-6842.

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on January 12, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.  The Board approved minutes from the December Regular meeting along with non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the December meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases.

Surface Mining Bond Releases:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Eutaw Construction Company, Inc. Monroe P96-002T Final 10% release
Eutaw Construction Company, Inc. Monroe P97-018T Final 10% release
King Equipment & Dozer Services, LLC Jasper P08-006 Additional 20% release
S&B Industrial Minerals North America Monroe P00-041T Final 10% release
Valley Gravel Company Lowndes P97-039 Initial 10% release

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Construction and Building Materials Branch

The Board approved coverage for OFP Match Worx Shooting Facility in Leake County under the Construction Stormwater General Permit (MSR107027).  MDEQ staff stated that this facility was cited in October 2015 for conducting land-disturbing activities on a site larger than 5 acres without a permit.  Since this time, the facility developed a SWPPP and submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to MDEQ.  Staff have reviewed the facility’s SWPPP and NOI and stated that it is complete.  Further, the facility has appropriate plans for safety and hours of operation.

Several visitors attended the meeting and stated their concerns regarding the proposed shooting range.  These included water contamination, air pollution, and safety and noise disturbances.  Visitors also asked that MDEQ hold a public hearing before issuing coverage. Mr. Snodgrass of the Board noted that this facility was requesting a general permit—which has no public hearing requirement.  Further, Mr. Snodgrass clarified that the Board was not responsible for local landuse and zoning decisions.  The Board approved the coverage based on MDEQ staff recommendation that all environmental requirements are now satisfied.

Solid Waste and Mining Branch

The Board approved a reissuance of the Solid Waste Permit for Unified Waste Systems, L.L.C., Starling Rubbish Disposal Facility (SW0170020518).  This as a 55-acre Class I rubbish disposal site located in DeSoto County.  Standard permits for Class I facilities allow operation for a 10-year period.  MDEQ staff stated that this permit contains language allowing the facility to operate for 5 years (until July 7, 2019).  After this time, the facility must obtain a conditional use approval from the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors and submit such approval to MDEQ to continue operation.

A resident of DeSoto County addressed the Board, requested an additional public meeting and time for review of the permit, and voiced concerns about the current operation of the site.  Concerns included a report of unauthorized waste being accepted at the site and an alleged fire within the landfill.  The resident is also concerned the facility would endanger nearby schools and negatively impact future development.  The Board clarified that it is not in charge of local zoning, but rather ensures compliance with state and federal environmental regulations.  Further, the permit contains special language that requires the facility to provide documentation of the local Board of Supervisor’s continuing approval of the site.

MDEQ staff inspected the facility on January 6, 2016 and found no compliance issues and no physical evidence of a fire in the landfill.  The Board approved the permit based on the MDEQ Staff’s recommendation that all environmental requirements are satisfied.

Joint Matter of the Office of Geology and the Office of Pollution Control

The Board approved the Surface Mine application (A1927) and modification of the Mining Stormwater Coverage (MSR322500) for Pierce Construction and Contract Hauling, Inc., Tucker Mine in Monroe County.  MDEQ staff stated that the modification would allow a 23-acre mine for borrow material.  A public hearing was held in Monroe County in December 2015.  At the hearing, attendees expressed concerns regarding traffic near the facility and the number of permitted mine sites near Hamilton, MS.  However, MDEQ Staff explained that there are only 1 permitted surface mine and 3 “exempt” sites (less than 4 acres) located near Hamilton.

MDEQ staff stated that the facility has met all requirements for modification of the facility and recommended the Board’s approval.  The Board separately approved the facility’s Surface Mining Permit and modified the Mining Stormwater Coverage.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ Legal Counsel reminded the Permit Board members that they need to file their annual ethics statement.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on February 9, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

Curt Hébert Named 2015 Mississippi Business Journal “Top Ten” Leadership in Law Recipient

by

The Mississippi Business Journal announced its 2015 Leadership in Law Class, and Curt Hébert, Jr., was among the Top Ten Leaders in Law. Hébert joins a group of Brunini attorneys who have received similar awards over the last six years, including Eddie Brunini, 2010; David Kaufman, 2011, Walter Weems, 2012, John Milner, 2012, Granville Tate, 2013 and Sam Kelly, 2014.

Curt Hébert, Jr., is the former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the former Executive Vice President for Entergy Corporation.  Hébert has advised energy companies and corporations throughout the Southeast, Northeast, and Midwest, as well as companies in Europe, on numerous matters, including building accountability and transparency into corporate governance, improving the quality of regulatory filings, reporting and relationships, and executing complex, structured regulatory settlements. He has developed broad and deep experience in all segments of the energy sector, spanning exploration and production, natural gas transportation, electric generation and distribution, nuclear, chemicals, and mining.  He also brings a thorough knowledge of national and international energy markets, policy and regulatory processes.  Hébert has extensive experience years in the telecommunications, transportation and water/sewage sector on regulatory filings and administrative hearings.  He has been widely published and speaks regularly as well as interviews on national television networks on energy and business issues.

Related Attorneys