<Begin Segment 36>

MC: So Dale, I just want to take you back to, again, being the team leader or the team coordinator a little bit. And could you describe your management style a little bit?

DM: Not really. [Laughs] You know, I think... I tended to be really efficient. So meetings were run very efficiently, I mean, you could talk and have your say but we had to reach decisions. And that's still my style as far as running meetings. My whole theory is that if you get enough really good people together and you assign each a portion of the work, give them the whole perspective of what you have to accomplish, which is kind of the Japanese way in a way, give each person a piece of that and expect that they are going to come through on time, then you don't have to do a lot of work. Or you can accomplish a lot of work really fast. So I wouldn't say it wasn't very warm and fuzzy 'cause I think I felt, and we felt the pressure of litigating this case. I think it was very democratic in terms of our Korematsu group. It was a little bit harder with, when you fold in the Portland, Seattle group because we didn't have those type of joint meetings except at the start when we decided on our initial strategy as a group, as a complete coram nobis group.

MC: So they didn't fly down regularly to participate in meetings?

DM: No. And I think that created some problems and it's just a matter of distance in a relationship, distance in time.

MC: So it sounds like you delegate a lot. In other words, you sort of see who might be best to do a particular job and let that person do it.

DM: Absolutely. I think that was very true. I mean, I knew there were people in that group with more skills than I had in certain areas. My job as I saw it was overall coordination of the case and the legal political strategy that evolved.

MC: Now, you described earlier a conflict that you had with Min, one of your clients. Can you remember, or do you want to describe in any detail conflicts that you might have had with your fellow team members at any particular points?

DM: You know, I don't remember those as well, and it's probably, I'm probably just blocking, just like before. But I remember Peggy and I had some arguments, and they were arguments over, partly it was style and partly it was perspective. And we had a disagreement and I can't quite remember the subject matter. I do remember one meeting where I did go up to Seattle and I remember meeting in Seattle and the Portland and Seattle groups were not happy with the coordination the way I coordinated it and so we then changed the structure a little bit, that we would have Karen Kai more in touch with then the Portland and Seattle groups. And, which was fine with me in the sense that Karen was part of our group and at least there was gonna be some coordination. At least we'd know what was going on. I can't quite remember the specific problem and if you refresh my recollection I might be able to.

MC: Might it be over whether... over the substantive question of whether Min should appeal the ruling because the --

DM: There was an issue of that. I, and I don't remember the specific argument. I remember my position was that Min should not appeal. It was really clear that we had won our victory publicly with the Korematsu case. Hirabayashi, there's no choice. They had to appeal. They won half of it at the trial court so now I do remember that, thank you. And I think that's where Peggy and I had our argument. I just said I don't think Min should appeal for the reason that you can't, you don't gain anything from this. You're not, you're gonna, what they're gonna do is send it back to the trial court. And if they send it back to the trial court you're gonna get the same jerk you got that sent, that told you weren't going to, that he wasn't going to make a statement of findings. If you risk a statement of findings or statement of, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, he may come up with something really terrible that cuts against what the political point is we're trying to make, the educational point. I think Peggy's point, which I really understand, is that look, Min needs to have this hearing. In a sense he did not get a hearing in the Supreme Court. He didn't get a hearing here like you did, or Gordon Hirabayashi did. You know, Min deserves the chance to get a hearing. So it was personal versus political. And to that end, I mean, and I think the way I wrote to her expressing the fact that we are going to argue because I really respected her and I respected her point of view and I respected Min a whole lot after the issue... all we'd gone through. And so I knew there was gonna, there could be a disagreement about that. And I forcefully pressed my point and she forcefully pressed hers and in the end it was the client's decision to make. And I recognize that. I just wanted them, I felt that they needed, they needed to put that in the context of the redress movement and the legal political educational victories we had already won.

MC: So they went ahead with the appeal?

DM: They did.

MC: And Min died very soon thereafter, didn't he?

DM: He did. Min died when the case was on appeal. But it was on appeal for a different reason. As I recall, it was on appeal on a procedural issue.

MC: Right, a jurisdictional issue.

DM: Yeah. So it wasn't... to me it wasn't necessary because it wasn't the substantive issue. It was a difficult issue to appeal and then it would have dragged on and on as well, but that, that was their own decision to make.

<End Segment 36> - Copyright © 2003 Densho. All Rights Reserved.