Alumnus demands explanation from Board of Governors regarding recent actions and intentions
The following submission was sent in from a member of AMSOL Class of 2004.
---
With all due respect to AMSOL's excellent and courageous professors, our invaluable Dean Dobranski, and the superlative financial support of Mr. Thomas Monaghan: the alumni and students of AMSOL arguably have as (or more) legitimate an interest in AMSOL's record setting full accreditation from the ABA as any of the above-mentioned pioneers. In the view of this alumnus, the alumni and student property interest in AMSOL's accreditation demands--at a minimum--frank and sincere explanations from the board as to their recent actions and their intentions. As far as I understand it, the Board of Governors is about to steal my and my fellow alumni's law school accreditation and give it to a new institution that will have no resemblence to the institution I enrolled in as one of 75 students in the second class. I and--by far--the majority of my fellow enrollees passed up well-established institutions for the purpose of establishing THE premiere Catholic and legal institution in the nation: not its precursor. In the last year I have had no reassurances from Dean Dobranski, the Board of Governors or Mr. Monaghan that the institution that he (apparently) hopes to build in Florida is not a newly founded one, but the one I and my fellow alumni co-founded with Mr. Monaghan, Dean Dobranski, the Board of Governors and the faculty. I frankly would prefer AMSOL to remain in Michigan, but if it must move to Florida then AMSOL's co-founders--its alumni--must be assured that there will be no "new" AMSOL. There are more than a few alumni who have mortgaged their futures for AMSOL. The BOGs are acting as though the accreditation has been paid for, and is theirs to dispose of as they see fit. The alumni are left to "trust them." However, is trust allowing a group of people--most of whom we've never met--to take our institution thousands of miles from where we've left it when they have never explained why or what's in it for us?
---
Contributed by Extraneus on 8/12/05
6 Comments:
Not even Gordon Gecko would pull what Tom Monaghan has and is continuing to do.
I'm not a fan of stakeholder theory being applied to for profit entities, but I think the theory is entirely applicable to nonprofits like universities. He's violating ethical boundaries for philanthropic giving by taking some of the valid techniques of the corporate raider and misapplying them to nonprofits. Of course his ultimate goal is for profit with this silly Ave Maria town. I guess Monaghan's dream is to become a feudal lord. If you don't obey, Tom and his friar will kick you off their swamp.
Maybe you can elaborate on how you know that Monghan's ultimate goal is to profit from the town since you state that this is "of course" his objective.
Also, this post provides a good time to ask a question regarding the nature of Monghan's giving to the school. If I write a check to the law school simply as a donation, or maybe even with the understanding that my name will be displayed outside the moot court room, for example, then I don't have a right to expect much say in the affairs that follow. But if I enter into a partership with people, wherein I'll supply a lion share of the financial capital, and you'll supply the academic framework, administration, etc., and the understanding is that we have a partnership, and not just that I am funding an effort of yours, then I have more of a say in the affairs of that insitution than does the person in the first example. So here's the question: Did Monghan just give a donation to the actual founders to start the law school detailed in Safranek's talk, or did these people parter up, with the possibility of a joint University (whether in MI, FL, Japan, or otherwise) existing on the horizon from the beginning?
Torgo,
I have read the post you refer to, as well as the articles linked to therein, but I have to admit that I don't see where they establish that law school was intended to be a MI fixture. It may have become that in the mean time due to its unexpected success, and I think it can rightly be said that in the beginning, all of the schools were going to be in MI. That quote about making "Ann Arbor as famous for conservative Catholicism as it is for the joint-smoking, run-naked liberalism of the University of Michigan" should be attributed to the author of the article, and not anyone from the foundation. And even if it was someone from the foundation, it seems to be a humorous quip, and not a statement on which much can be hung regarding the future placement of any of the schools.
A review of the articles did turn up this quote, however, from a June 7, 2000 Detroit News Article:
"A university affiliation will be a very helpful thing. If you look at the best law schools in the country, they are all affiliated with universities," said Law School Dean Bernard Dobranski."
The article also noted that:
"The Ave Maria Law School, where the first class of students will start orientation Aug. 21, will likely affiliate with the new university within the year, an important step in getting accredited by the American Bar Association."
Now, this affiliation did not occur, and I can remember Dean Dobranski extoling the virtues of our independance while I was a student there, but association with the undergrad was on everybody's mind from the beginning.
Regarding Monghan's intentions, the post also seems to make that case that Monghan's goal of ensuring Ave Maria's presence in Ann Arbor was so important, that it was believable by some that he would attempt to fix an election to make it happen.
The articles quoted in the post answer the question asked in its title - what happened to making Ann Arbor a mecca for Catholic education is that the project, as envisioned, met with a lot of opposition that it was not met with when proposed elsewhere. Those articles make an even stronger case (although a strong case does not necessarily mean the truth) that the law school, from its very inception and certainly prior to opening its doors to students, was part of an overarching plan for a great new Catholic University.
The question that Monghan would have to answer then, is that given the fact that his dream cannot be achieved in Ann Arbor, and given the success of the law school in Ann Arbor, does he head off to FLA without the law school or with some loose affiliation with it, or does he dig in his heels and fight to move an entity that he does not consider himself an outsider to, but an integral part of.
One more thing, Torgo,
Would you please indicate where a promise was made that AMSOL would be a MI fixture, and provide evidence that a single person donated money based on this promise. My thinking is people probably made donations to the school based on its mission, and not because of assurances they were given that it would be a MI fixture. If people want to donate to Michigan fixtures, maybe they can ring up Conor O'Neills.
McTester,
That's a good question. Profit does not necessarily have to be thought of in the monetary or legal sense. Monaghan's profit in his legally defined "nonprofit" endeavors can be explained as the increased satisfaction an acting man gains from particular actions. So while a philanthopist may be losing money by giving a charity donations, he could be gaining "psychicly" by the increased satisfaction of seeing that philanthropy fulfill its mission (Here is the economist LVMises discussion on profit http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec8.asp).
In Monaghan's case, his psychic profit will be realized with the building of his complete Ave Maria enterprise all in Naples including AMU, AMSOL, and his real estate venture. I think his psychic profit extends to what an earlier post alluded to, which is Supreme Head, Lord Thomas of Ave Maria.
Through Lord Thomas we can own a home, send our kids to college and law school, and we can retire with his mutual funds (http://www.avemariafund.com/avemx.htm).
Here is my question, would the ABA have approved full accredidation if they thought the law school was really going to be transient?
Also has any law school ever moved across state lines before? The closest example of a move I can find is with Thomas Cooley where they are experimenting with satillite campuses, but these are all in the same state. Also Penn State bought and merged with the Dickinson School of Law but they didn't force the school to move to the State College, PA campus. Neither of these examples risked moving their original campuses even within state boundaries.
Post a Comment
<< Home