Thursday, April 06, 2006

For your consideration

Three items for your discernment:

1) Dean's new message for potential incoming students

2) ABA Rules for Major Program Changes

3) AMSOL Alumni Board Letter detailing all of the problems involved with a move to Florida

UPDATE: List of Student Grievances against Dean

3 Comments:

At 1:22 PM, Blogger eric cartman said...

How 'bout this?

I think a case could be made that AMSoL has already undergone a major change that necessitates a revisiting of her accreditation by the ABA.

We take, from the ABA, the following:

Rule 20. Major Change in the Organizational Structure of a Provisionally or Fully Approved Law School.

(a) This Rule governs consideration of applications for acquiescence in a major change in the organizational structure of an approved law school, including, without limitation:
***
(8) A change in the control of the school resulting from a change in the ownership of the school or a contractual arrangement
***
(b) For purposes of this Rule:
***
(2) Factors that shall be considered in making the determination of whether the events listed in subsection (1) above constitute the closure of an approved law school and the opening of a different law school include, without limitation, whether such events are likely to result in

(a) significant reduction in the financial resources available to the law school;
(b) significant change, present or planned, in the governance of the law school,
(c) significant change, present or planned, in the overall composition of the faculty and staff at the law school,
(d) significant change, present or planned, in the educational program offered by the law school; or
(e) significant change, present or planned, in the location or physical facilities of the law school.
[End giant annoying quote]

Then we argue that Rule 20(a)(8) has been implicated, that there has been a change in the ownership of AMSoL, inasmuch as it is de facto being run, not by its BoG, but as a sole proprietorship. This has resulted in, or is likely to result in, all of the changes considered significant in 20(b)(2)(a-e).

I think the ABA should be seen as an ally in the battle to have AMSoL governed in accord with her best interests. I think the ABA blew it by accrediting AMSoL when she was not financially stable. I'd like to know what promises of financing the ABA relied upon when it accredited AMSoL. Did a member of the BoG (Oh, I'm looking right at you, TM!) fraudulently misrepresent AMSoL's financial resources?

Now is the time for discovery. We need to be archiving documentary evidence re: AMSoL's founding just as fast as they're shredding it (metaphorically or otherwise).

 
At 12:34 AM, Blogger L. von Shtupp said...

My second-hand understanding from AMC is that TM would make written Ave Maria Foundation commitments for agencies reviewing the College (ie. accreditors). But, in actual practice, funds to meet AMC obligations were trickled-out to College coffers only on an as-needed basis. This kept Tom firmly in control over day-to-day operations (that's in addition to the weekly meetings that all AMC Presidents were contractually obliged to have with TM. Name another school in the country where the President must meet with the primary benefactor for weekly reports & orders... or ask him for milk money each week to pay the light bill).

It should be known whether AMSOL is run similarly. I can't imagine that the ABA would smile on an operation where, in real-life practice, the whims of one benefactor have the capacity to shutdown a school's entire operation.

 
At 11:50 PM, Blogger Kate said...

Not just weekly meetings...the President of AMC was, last I knew, required to send daily status reports. Bullet-point, page long daily status reports. Now, if we could get our hands on those files, what interesting reading it would make!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home