Letter from Dean Dobranski in response to Faculty resolution

Dean Dobranski wrote this in response to the faculty email and resolution concerning the newest Florida feasibility study.

Whose Amsol will respond in the next few days to the Dean's email.

---
Dear Ave Maria School of Law Community,

I write in response to the November 30 e-mail memorandum signed by Professors Myers, Safranek, Falvey and Murphy regarding a resolution of 11 faculty members opposing the Board of Governors' consideration of a possible relocation to Florida , which was distributed to the law school community yesterday by Professor Falvey.

Although there is much in the memorandum with which I and other Board members would disagree, I only wish to comment on two aspects of it. First, the memorandum, in relevant part, states, “Regrettably, the study prepared by Deans Read and White makes no mention either of the faculty’s submission of the attached resolution or of the specific concerns addressed therein.” There is a simple reason for its non-inclusion. The resolution was submitted to the Board the day before its September 27 Board meeting, and was never submitted to Deans Read and White as part of the Feasibility Study process. If it had been, it would have been included. Because it was not and because the information contained in the resolution was already before the Board at its September 27 meeting, there was no need for it to be included in the final Feasibility Study.

Second, the resolution attached to the memorandum is misleading in that it suggests that it was passed by “the Faculty of Ave Maria School of Law” on September 25. To the extent that this implies that it was a formally passed resolution of the faculty collectively, it is not correct. It represents the views of 11 faculty members and not the entire faculty, of which there are 21, including a professor on approved leave and myself, but not including the visiting professor. It was also not passed at a regularly constituted faculty meeting.

It is regrettable that students have again been drawn into a debate among faculty members, especially as final exams approach. I think it is important, however, that some misleading statements be corrected. My hope is that it will not become necessary to respond to any future communications of this nature by faculty members or others.

Dean Bernard Dobranski