Alumni Resolution to Board of Governors
UPDATE: The following email and alumni resolution was sent to Dean Dobranski yesterday (Wednesday).
---
Dear Dean Dobranski,
Attached is a resolution addressed to the Ave Maria School of Law Board of Governors signed by many of the AMSL alumni. Briefly, I would like to present a little background concerning this resolution.
1. This was a grassroots alumni effort.
2. This was sent out to a few alumni late last week, and all alumni early Tuesday morning
3. It was sent mainly only to alumni email accounts, which many alumni do not check on a regular basis
4. Alumni were only given less than 36 hours to respond
5. Of the responses received, there was a ratio of 7-1 in favor vs. against. (49 for and 7 against overall)
6. The number represents about 27% of the approximately 185 alumni of the law school
7. The signatories will be supplemented at the alumni meeting on Saturday with additional names.
On behalf of the signatories, I look forward to your response and for a productive discussion at the alumni meeting this Saturday.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terrence McKeegan
Class of 2003
---
Resolution
To: Dean Bernard Dobranski and the Board of Governors of Ave Maria School of Law
From: Undersigned Alumni of Ave Maria School of Law
Subject: Recent and Upcoming Decisions by the Board of Governors; Annual Alumni Meeting
Date: 11/1/2005
In the light of the recent memos from respected members of the Ave Maria School of Law administration and respected members of the law school's Board of Governors, many of alumni have been compelled to proactively address what we perceive as divisive issues within our law school community.
There have been two very different views concerning recent votes by our Board of Governors, as well as concerns regarding potential votes anticipated in the near future. In the spirit of Catholic charity, and recognizing our roles as lawyers, we wish to approach these issues in a civil, open, and thorough manner. To that end, we offer the following resolution, with specific requests of the Board of Governors to ensure a judicious process and full disclosure of the relevant information so that each individual person can determine what is in the best interest of the long-term viability of our beloved Alma Mater based upon the facts, and not upon conjecture and hearsay.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. All of the undersigned have concerns about the direction of the law school and the prospect of moving the school from Michigan to Florida. As alumni, we are directly impacted by a move of the law school as it could seriously compromise the value of our law school degrees and our ability to obtain future employment. We recognize that these same concerns apply to current students.
2. We ask for all relevant documents and information concerning the recent Board votes in relation to term limits, as well as all any future vote on moving the law school to Florida. To meet this standard of full disclosure, we ask that the Board, through the Dean, provide the following information at or before the November 5th Alumni meeting:
- The Minutes and the Agendas of all Board, Committee, and/or Sub-Committee meetings for 2005.
- The Minutes and the Agenda of any Board, Committee, and/or Sub-Committee meeting where a move to Florida was discussed, including the September 2003 meeting of the Board.
- The most recent ABA Feasibility Study for Florida. Included with this request we wish to see the most recent internal reports from the administration and faculty regarding such a proposed move.
- The most recent five-year financial plan for the law school created by the Financial Affairs and Endowment Committees of the Board. Further, if the information is not found in the five year financial plan, a detailed statement of the law school's finances, including how much money our primary benefactor has pledged to the school, what percentage of the school's operating expenses are presently covered by his contributions, and what conditions and or restrictions may apply to this financial support.
- We also request detailed and specific reasons why the law school is considering a move from Michigan. Specifically, what are the details of the proposal for moving the school from Michigan, with respect to the proposed site and whether the law school would be incorporated into Ave Maria University? We presently assume that financial considerations are the primary motive for relocation. If there are other valid reasons, we respectfully ask that they be shared with all alumni.
- If the law school has obtained an opinion from the ABA regarding a move from Michigan to Florida, does the ABA consider this a "major change" under ABA Standard 105, or a transfer of assets under Standard 101?
- As an alternative to moving the school from Michigan, has the Board of Governors considered opening a satellite campus in Florida, independent of, but in cooperation with Ave Maria University, while keeping the Michigan campus fully operational? If so, have they rejected such a possibility?
- We respectfully call for a delay of the implementation of term limits to any current Board members until a final vote on the potential relocation of the law school is recorded. We call for the recusal of members of the Board who serve on both the Ave Maria School of Law and Ave Maria University Board of Governors, as membership on both Boards, when a question of vital importance to both institutions is under consideration, constitutes a de facto, and quite possibly, a de jure conflict of interest. In the event that an AMSL Board seat becomes open, we recommend that the replacement be as close a professional match as possible to the person leaving the board.
3. We call on the Board to add two ex-officio seats with all voting privileges and responsibilities to be filled by a founding law school faculty member and by a graduate of the Ave Maria School of Law. We further suggest an ex-officio, non-voting student representative be added to the Board.
4. We call on the Dean, the administration and the Board of Governors to promote a full, frank and open process in any decision concerning a potential relocation of our Alma Mater. This includes the right and responsibility of free and open student, faculty, and alumni comment, without fear of disciplinary measures, both collectively and individually, on issues of import to the law school.
9 Comments:
This sounds eminently reasonable. Good luck to you!
I think that the most intelligent way to achieve clarity and success in these issue is to funnel them through the duly constituted Alumni Board. I know that those folks are on our side. Perhaps we need to speak with one voice. I think it is something to consider. Try contacting President Negri. Surely this ought to be submitted at the annual alumni meeting this saturday.
Interesting perspective, Uhaul.
I suppose if God told me to jump off a cliff, I ought to do that because I might actually survive and become a superstar? Such notoriety would surely provide a way to be a messenger, no?
Or, if God told me make a million bucks, I should do it by any means available... even selling drugs, etc? It would make the million bucks, no?
Or, if He told me to have many kids, should I try to impregnate as many women as possible? I would be doing a good thing by bringing more children into the world, no?
I didn't hear God say anything about moving the school, so I can't comment on those things. I do know a thing or two about the way things are supposed to work, however, so I comment on that when I can.
Throwing around God's will is a bit of a fallacy when it comes down to speculating. I can make an equal argument against yours that God wants it to stay in Ann Arbor, and will make it bigger and better because it stays.
The point is not prophesying God's will and lording it over others, it is to find the reasonable path for the school as it exists and follow it.
sunshine,
I'm surprised that you thought I said God would want the law school destroyed. I can find that comment no where, nor inference to it in my comment.
Faith and Reason. Yes, that's what I said in my post. I think you mischaracterize what I say to call it condescending and unreasonable, or insulting for that matter.
An insult would be to attack Uhaul's character, or to speak a thing worthy of scorn. Granted, my examples had absurd end points, but that helps to illustrate the point.
We agree on the application of faith and reason, so I am confused as to why you would find it necessary to attack me as you have accused me of doing.
As I understand it, the Foundation takes care of 1/3 of the operating costs of the law school. I am optimistic that the law school could fill that void if TM did pull the money. There is a great sentiment out there that "AMSOL doesn't need any money, they have TM." If TM were to pull his funding, I think you would see the funding come from areas that it had not previously.
lawonthe beach,
"Out-door Mass throughout the school year
A whole city with the awesome faith environment currently found at AMSOL."
Rock on Catholic dude! What the hell is with this "Bubble-Gum Catholicism?" It's this type of goofy commentary that shows how out of touch you really are. The orthodoxy of the institution is guarded and promoted most effectively by the faculty at this moment. Furthermore, whatever happened to the Principle of Subsidiarity? The Dean has his finger in every pot and no one can decide anything without BoG approval. Wake up and smell the coffee. Quick drinking the "Being Catholic Rocks!" Kool-Aid and come down to earth.
Real Reasons for keeping it in MI:
1. Established realtionships with the local legal community
2. Educational oppportunities and good relations with UM's Law School and Faculty--use of their wonderful facilities being a great resource
3. Striking distance between major legal "hubs"--Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, DC just to name a few.
4. Plenty of spiritual support
5. IT AIN'T BROKE--DON'T FIX IT!!
Not to mention the social justice dimention of having a good numbre of faculty transplant their families from other parts of the country to A2, only to be told a couple years later that they will have to pick up and move again. Anyone with kids realizes that this is not an easy thing.
Sorry, your pie in the sky thoughts of a goofy Catholic Commune complete with Mass outdoors and a really groovy law school on the beach is what needs to be explained. The burden of proof is on those who want to move.
But again the real issue is not the move to Fla, but rather the mode of governance of the institution.
LOTB,
To reply:
6. First of all, the distinction between the faculty uprooting and the students is qualitatively different. The students (and their families--though, as I understand it, there aren't as many married folks with kids as the first 2-3 classes) know that they are making a 3 year committment to A2. Law school is only 3 years and is not one's livelihood. Professors--on the other hand--make their living in A2 and that is much more significant than a student's desire and knowledge of a 3 year commitment.
5. This belies your problem of seeing things in purely economic terms. When I say that the law school is not broke, I am referring to the relationships made, the legal community's enrichment and the spiritual and intellectual success that AMSOL has been enjoying. There is no contradiction. Money is important to be sure--but there are more important things that may be jeopardized.
4. Welcome to the real world. Unfortunately, the world is not a hand-holding, birkenstock-wearing, guitar-playing Glory and Praise type of place. First of all, I wrote about spiritual support. I know for damn sure that the reason that I passed the bar was because of the prayers of my wife and the Sisters of Mary Mater Eucharistiae. The resources and Catholic groups in the greater Detroit area are quite significant. All the more significant is AMSL's presence along with the Sisters of Mary, et alii. in the Peoples' Republic of Ann Arbor. I recall a picture from a few years ago where Lex Vitae was at the local Planned Parenthood and a local priest--Fr. Eric Weber--brought the Blessed Sacrament to the abortuary. I very powerful sign that we aren't going to let the Evil One prevail. This is what its all about--ON THE FRONT LINES, not in a bunker like Ave Maria Town.
3. Legal relationships take time to cultivate. We have been successful covering a major part of the country. This is a risk that I think need not be taken.
2. While some of your points may be valid here, we still have access to their libraries, legal fora, and we share faculty. Professor Douglas Kahn, noted tax expert--the guy wrote the damn tax code--is a visiting professor at AMSOL. Our own Professor Bromberg has taught at UM and Professor Pucillo has engaged in lively leagl debates over at UM. I don't give a rat's ass if they call us "wacky Catholics." Slay them in the arena of ideas. That is where we conquer.
1. This dovetails with 3. Your assertion that we will keep the already established relationships doesn't fly. Most of these are created by and through the faculty. You lose the faculty--you likely lose the relationships.
Work on your Latin.
P.S. The issue is still not Florida, but rather, the mode of governance.
Post a Comment
<< Home