Kind of Like Beauty
Published on February 26, 2009
In a freestyle interview, Center for Justice founder Jim Sheehan explains the essence of justice, and the Center’s first ten years.
As part of the Center’s 10th year retrospective, CFJ founder Jim Sheehan sat down on February 12th for a long Q & A with Tim Connor.
Q. What you remember about day one?
Jim: We opened in the Minnesota Building over on First and it was really exciting because we invited a lot people. There was Gloria Porter, Karen Lindholdt, and Angie Stevenson. Angie was the receptionist. It was the four of us who started the Center. And we had flowers, and I can see the place. It was really fun. It was really neat. There were people who came, but there were not very 
many. We sort of sent out a press release. There was a small article in the paper. We had prepared for quite a while to get things going. We’d gotten our 501 c 3 status. We had done some renovation in the space. We had to get furniture and all that kind of stuff. So it was just exciting to get it started, January of 1999. It was a year and four months after I got the inheritance. I was actually practicing law at that time. I was the executive director but I was also practicing. Gloria did virtually nothing but family law. Karen, on the other hand, was really interested in doing environmental law and it was not long after we opened that we got the field burning case.
Q. So why here? You receive this bolt from the blue inheritance and you could go anywhere you want to go? Why Spokane?
Jim: This is my home. I think if you’re going to do anything, you’re going to do it locally. Change is not made nationally or internationally and all that. Real change is made locally. This is where my kids were raised. This is where I’d been the bulk of my adult, professional life. I had great years here when I was in law school. So it was a no brainer for me to stay in Spokane. But also, at the same time, I co-bought a ranch in California, in Half Moon Bay, and did quite a bit of work with some organizations in Oakland and San Francisco, but my heart was always here in Spokane.
Q. Why this? Why not just start a foundation, and give your money to other non-profits trying to do good works? Did you ever consider that?
Jim: I didn’t want to be a check-writing philanthropist. I wanted to be a person who was actually involved. The spirit of who I am is really important to be promulgated. I don’t mean that in an arrogant way. It’s that way for anybody, because my money is important and it opens doors, and there are things that can happen. But it’s the relationships that are important. That’s what changes culture. It isn’t the money. That may open doors, and it has for me in this community, but it is the relationship you have with everybody that’s the key, that’s what changes culture.
Q. I think one of the things that people know about you by now is how broad your vision is. You’re not just looking at the law, you’re looking at energy, agriculture, government. And yet your decision ten years ago was to do the Center for Justice. Why justice?
Jim: Because that was my profession and that’s what I knew. If I would have been a plumber I probably would have set up some sort of non-profit plumbing outfit, you know, because that’s what I would have known. But I knew law and I knew that that’s where I needed to be because that’s where my expertise was. And I also had experienced just the devastating blows and the horror that poverty can impose on people. I knew what that was about and I wanted to try to do something to change that.
We are the antidote to the problems that have been created by the culture. Almost all the things that we do here are counter-cultural even though they don’t appear to be, they really are. It’s so interesting because I get all kinds of accolades from people who say you’re doing great things and all that kind of thing. But it is really counter-culture. Community really is counter-culture.
Q. Was there anything in there that some people would term an axe to grind? Having been practicing locally? Was it any part of your thinking that this was a way to do what I’m doing, or trying to do, better, or better equipped, so that I can attack some issues that I find particularly bothersome?
Jim: No, no. When we started I just really wanted to give access to the system to people who never had access.
Q. In listening to you speak over the years, I hear two main criticisms of the American justice system from you. The first is that while we have a wonderful Constitution and a robust framework of law, the justice system isn’t really blind because of the way wealth and means determines one access to justice. The second critique is that even if you do get access to the courts because you can afford an attorney, even if you win the case you may not experience justice because a verdict by itself goes only so far. Is there something I’m leaving out?
Jim: Well, yes. One of the things that I would criticize is the Constitution itself. I think that it is a document that we’ve evolved past and we need to re-do it. And we need to re-do it in a way that’s realistic. But, given that, I think that its principles and the things that are said in the Constitution are great. They’re really wonderful. It’s just that it’s not real, it’s not honest, and it’s not true in the way that it’s implemented. And that is demonstrated by your first example of the things you’ve me say is you can’t experience justice, and the Constitution isn’t really working and viable if you don’t have access to the justice system.
Q. So your criticism of the Constitution is that it’s blind to these underlying realities?
Jim: The Constitution is a document that ensures that the wealthy stay wealthy and that the powers stay in power. It sounds like it’s a way for the people to have access to justice but that’s not the way it really works. What we need to do is have a new Constitutional Convention so that we can actually create a system that is truly equal.
Q. Equal in terms of access to the justice system?
Jim: Yeah, well you know in the Constitution we have the three-fifths compromise in that document. Well, when you have that–that’s where slaves at that time were three fifths of a person–when you have that, that is an attitude that kind of permeates the system, and the document.
Q. A lot of your interest in justice and the creation of justice outside the court system through negotiation and mediation, that you don’t need to have conflict of litigation to resolve differences. We were sitting in the Red Lion Tavern the other day on Breean’s 5th anniversary with CFJ and I noticed that instead of sports they had Perry Mason on the television. The great thing about Perry Mason, of course, is that by the time the show’s over, the truth always comes out and it’s always very satisfying when that happens. Don’t we need the courtroom for that to happen, or is the Perry Mason paradigm a fiction compared to what actually happens in real life with the law?
Jim: That’s a fiction. I think that the courtroom a lot of the time is hiding the truth. The reality is that both sides are hiding the truth as much as they are trying to expose the truth. Our system evolved out of the Anglo-American system and it dates back to the middle ages. And some of the rules that we have date back to before America was even a viable country. It clearly was before the discoveries of Freud and Jung and the sociologic and philosophical discoveries. We need to evolve past that in the system that we have. I think there are things that we can do. I think we can take the judges off the pedestal and bring them down to an even place where the rest of us are, and come together in a way that is absolutely realistic in searching for what is real, what is true. Mediation and arbitration do that in a much better way. The courtroom scene is really a play. I’ve tried just dozens, and dozens and dozens of cases, and I know that it’s an act.
Q. But through that construct there are things like discovery. It seems that part of the plague we deal with is that people with power can use that power to hide the truth of what they do and how they do it. Going back to the Perry Mason analogy, that’s one of the ostensible beauties of the democracy incorporated into the judicial system is that no matter how rich and powerful you are, you can be called to present facts, to present testimony, to turn over documents. Isn’t that an important ingredient, given that justice is inextricable from the truth, or at least the meaningful pursuit of the truth?
Jim: I don’t think justice is the end of the court system. I don’t think that truth is the end of the court system. I think what’s the end of the court system is winning, when you get there. Most people don’t have any clue as to what justice is all about. They try to put it into a conceptual framework and that’s not what it is. Justice is an experience and it’s something you can’t explain but you can say you’ve experienced it. It’s kind of like beauty. It is beauty. It’s the same thing. But our system doesn’t work that way. Our system isn’t interested in that. Our system is interested in winning and preservation of your own self-interest, and that’s what you’re fighting for and you’ll do whatever you have to do to attain that. The system doesn’t step in and say, ‘no, you can’t do this.’ I mean, it does it sometimes. Yes. And it does it enough so that it looks good. But the reality is, you know, you’ve seen it a million times, where the rich and the wealthy just circumvent it all, totally, they totally circumvent it and are not held answerable. Those who are held answerable and accountable are poor people.
The river isn’t going to get changed with a lawsuit. It’s going to get changed politically when the people demand it. It will be like field burning. That was a great example of a practice that was archaic and just beyond it’s time. Maybe at some point it was a positive thing. But we didn’t need to do that any more. And so ultimately that was solved politically. And that’s what will happen with the river too. We may not see it in our lifetime (laughs) but that’s will will happen. And it will happen because it’s insane to put stuff into the river.
Q. You and the Center have adopted the philosophy that it is better to negotiate solutions than to litigate. Yet, I think you would agree that time and again when people become recalcitrant and unwilling to negotiate or negotiate in good faith that, quite often, the reason is that they’re unwilling to accept the facts of what they’ve done, the reality of what they’ve created that has, in turn, created a problem for the people that we represent. And it’s a living question. As you know it came up in Karen Dorn Steele’s article the other day when Breean was asked about one of the cases with Spokane County. The question is about balance. Can you successfully negotiate without a threat or specter of litigation that has some teeth in it?
Jim: No. Absolutely. I think the thing that makes the whole Community Building project that we’re doing and the other things we’re trying to do, the thing that is unique is the Center, is the Center for Justice and that stick that we carry to say, ‘you can’t do this, and here’s why you can’t do it, so let’s not do it any more and if you don’t at least talk to us about it then we can file a lawsuit.’ And our track record so far is impeccable, really, because we don’t file lawsuits unless, you know, we win. And that’s one of the reasons we’re at the table in so many areas now is because people know that. But it’s all about evolution. When you are stuck in a system that is in cement, it takes time to get out of it.
Q. But doesn’t it have as much to do with personalities? It is an evolution but you also get situations where people come to power who have some really interesting ideas about what having public office and having power means. And sometimes I can impose my will, ‘go ahead and threaten your lawsuit, see you in court pal.’ I guess my question to you as founder and board member is how do you look at the balance and determine whether the Center is hitting the right balance between litigation and negotiation?
Jim: For me it’s doing what we can do always to resolve the thing, the issue, and I think there’s a point where we’re proactive, but then we can’t control the other side. We give our position, and we’re saying constantly, we’d like to negotiate this out. And then we react to what the other side does. I know there’s not a single time that we’ve ever gone into anything with the idea that, you know, we’re going to put this in your face and slam the door, and we’re going to court and we’re going to litigate, and do this, and you need to be taught a lesson and all that kind of stuff. Because that doesn’t change things, that just creates ill-filling. But if you are open to negotiating constantly, constantly, constantly, and take it to the nth degree. Then when it finally doesn’t work because the other side is not willing to continue, then we will react with litigation.
Q. As you know, we have been having some success with the City of Spokane where they will now send over proposed legislation–I’m thinking most recently of the Panhandler Ordinances–saying, in effect, here’s where we’re going on this, what are your concerns Constitutionally and otherwise.
Jim: Right.
Q. And I think most people would agree that it was a fruitful exercise, in that it really did change that law for the better, which is not to say it was perfect where it wound up, but it got better.
Jim: It did.
Q. If I were mayor and came to the Center and said, ‘okay, I want to do this on substantial pieces of legislation, I like this process, but I want something from you, no more litigation against the city.’ Is that a good deal?
Jim: No. You can’t do that (laughs).
Real change is made locally. This is where my kids were raised. This is where I’d been the bulk of my adult, professional life. I had great years here when I was in law school. So it was a no brainer for me to stay in Spokane.
Q. Did the Center evolve the way you expected it to?
Jim: That’s an interesting question. I’ve really thought about that and I have to say I don’t know. I really have to say I didn’t have an expectation of how things were going to unfold. I just didn’t. I just kind of knew what I wanted to do with what we were putting together, but I really didn’t have an expectation of how things would unfold. I’m really pleased with the way things have unfolded.
Q. Did things go in any direction that surprised you, in retrospect?
Jim: No, not really. Everything we’ve done has been done with intention. And I think we’ve decided this is what we’ve wanted to do and then gone and done it.
Q. Are there two or three things that just delight you, that you didn’t anticipate but that you look back at and say, ‘that was a great insight, I’m so glad we took that on?’
Jim: Yeah, there’s a couple of things. I think what we’ve done on the river has been really positive. I was just talking to Bonne (CFJ attorney Bonne Beavers) this morning and she was saying, ‘well we haven’t really done anything and everything is still out there,’ and I’m saying yeah except that if it wasn’t for us it would have been business as usual, and all the permitting would have already happened and all the licenses would have been given. And all the pollution would have been pouring in. The river isn’t going to get changed with a lawsuit. It’s going to get changed politically when the people demand it. It will be like field burning. That was a great example of a practice that was archaic and just beyond it’s time. Maybe at some point it was a positive thing. But we didn’t need to do that any more. And so ultimately that was solved politically. And that’s what will happen with the river too. We may not see it in our lifetime (laughs) but that’s will will happen. And it will happen because it’s insane to put stuff into the river. But it just takes time. You don’t change a mindset overnight. So, the river work is great. The other thing that I really like is Community Advocacy. I really like that because that keeps us grounded. When Carl Jung was traveling and he was writing a lot about the unconscious and archetypes, he went to Africa and he went to the American Southwest and he got involved in a lot of the rituals that were done by native peoples. And he said I could have easily lost myself because those rituals were so rich. But they were unconscious. They were wonderful and great, and the people did incredible things but they were doing it for reasons that were unconscious. And so he was bringing it to consciousness. And what he said was he always had a practice, he always had patients, he always did therapy because the way he phrased it, he kept one foot on the earth. And that’s what Community Advocacy does for us. Because we feel the pain of ordinary people then, and we continue to feel that. And if we don’t feel that and stay grounded we become, you know, the ACLU east, and that’s not what we want to be. I mean that’s an important part and we do a lot of that, but we’ve got to stay grounded in the pain and suffering of individual people. So that you actually empathize with it, you actually feel it yourself rather than just sympathize with it.
Q. What you’ve done here and on this block surprises a lot of people because it doesn’t fit their image of Spokane as a very traditional, conservative place with a politically ossified power structure. And this is you taking your vision and gardening with it, not just with the Community Building. You are clearly trying to ignite something here, in a good way. But it’s also clear, in the last six months, that we’re headed into a recession that if it’s as bad as many economists predict, the whole fabric of our society and our social safety nets are going to be tested. What do you say so somebody who would say that what you’re trying to create here is really expendable, an ornament, that it’s really not something the community can afford?
Jim: Yeah. What I would say is that it’s exactly the opposite of that. We are the antidote to the problems that have been created by the culture. Almost all the things that we do here are counter-cultural even though they don’t appear to be, they really are. It’s so interesting because I get all kinds of accolades from people who say you’re doing great things and all that kind of thing. But it is really counter-culture. Community really is counter-culture. All you have to do is look at the number of gated communities we’ve got . So when things get tough, you throw walls up around yourself so you can protect yourself. And community is exactly the opposite of that. When things get tough you break down the walls and come together and are connected with each other. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do here. So the response I would have is that if we did that as a culture, as a people, we would respond to this crisis in a much, much better and more human way than the way we appear to be responding to it. So, yeah, what we have here, or what we’re trying to do here is the antidote to the problems that we’ve got.
Q. In Spokane there are some traditionally safe non-profits and social support agencies that are safe to give money to because they so clearly help poor people with their material needs. This experiment is a little bit different.
Jim: Right.
Q. Because it has something called justice attached to it.
Jim: Exactly.
Q. Which, talk about counter cultural, also has the effect of pursuing causes and issues and defendants that make people nervous, because of the questions you’re raising.
Jim: The way I look at it Tim, a lot of the organizations that you were talking about there, where you’re safe because they really help poor people, doesn’t change the status of poor people. What we’re trying to do is change that. We’re actually saying, ‘you can’t do this and something else has to be affected, and we have to do it in a different way,’ that actually changes the whole system, that actually changes the policy, it changes the way you approach something. So change is the key we’re trying to effect. Not just getting something for a poor person. It’s really a raising of consciousness, ultimately, so that we will see–as we being we as a culture–will see that we’re doing things that are not just, not fair, not equal, not loving, not beautiful, but is based in something other than that. And we want to change that.
I don’t think justice is the end of the court system. I don’t think that truth is the end of the court system. I think what’s the end of the court system is winning, when you get there. Most people don’t have any clue as to what justice is all about. They try to put it into a conceptual framework and that’s not what it is. Justice is an experience and it’s something you can’t explain but you can say you’ve experienced it. It’s kind of like beauty. It is beauty.
Q. So what have been the best days? What are the moment or two when you could see this getting somewhere, that you’d really hoped for?
Jim: It’s really hard to get to a specific thing. You know? The faces of clients when we see that they’ve had access. And it doesn’t even matter if they win necessarily, but they got access. And, of course, most of the times we win, so to see their faces and the tears and the joy that is there. That’s been really rewarding. But also one of the things that I feel really great about is watching the lawyers and the law students and staff when they’ve actually accomplished something, and you really feel their joy in experiencing justice. That’s been the most rewarding thing for me. And I’m thinking mostly about the staff because, you know, I’m really close with everybody and it’s really great when they feel like, wow, we’ve really done something here.
Q. If I were you, I think one of the things I’d be most proud of is how you’ve created a framework for the people who work here to fulfill themselves, an environment for them to work that may not otherwise have been possible or as easy for them to get to. It’s one of the longstanding criticisms from young people here, in Spokane, that there’s no place for you to flourish here, you’ve got to go somewhere else.
Jim: Yeah, one of the things for me that’s really been rewarding is, to quote Ray Kinsella [Kevin Costner's character in Field of Dreams], or that voice out in the corn field, “if you build it they will come.” And that’s absolutely true. Ray built it and they did come. And that’s sort of the way I feel. I built it and they did come. And they’re coming constantly.
–CFJ