Sunday, August 20, 2006
More about Ave Maria
The WSJ post on Fumare had this interesting comment:
"And the stuff about forcing a professor to recant statements in order to have his contract renewed is just despicable. "
Thanks for the words of support, Joel.
I can at last say openly that I am the professor in question. And not just a professor: a departmant chairman and dean, as well.
The reality of the situation was much worse than Ms. Riley summarized in her article.
The fact is that I (and most of the other faculty) _had_ a contract, signed by AMC president Ron Muller in 2004, good until 2007. I should, in fact, still be employed there. But for reasons I do not understand, the AMC Board denied the validity of these contracts, even though every lawyer to whom I have shown these contracts has prounounced them valid. Instead, the AMC administration pursued a curious fiction of issuing faculty one year "contract renewal" letters, acting like we were only on year-to-year contracts. Each letter had a line in it noting that our Faculty Handbooks contained restrictions that we were not to "embarrass" the institution. I must admit to having found this language particularly galling: as one of the founding facutly of AMC, I had a hand in the creation of the Handbook in the first place, and that language was put in to the Handbook to deal with professors who fell into public heterodoxy, not to muzzle faculty who had legitimate complaints about how the institution was governed or mis-governed. If Original Intent matters, I can tell you what it was, since I was there, and was one of the framers.
And yes, I will admit that I am one of the people responsible for complaining to the IG wing of the Department of Education about the mismanagement of financial aid monies, and other matters, by the Ave Maria administration. And when it came down to "buy-out" deals for the final year of AMC (as though our 2004 Muller contracts weren't valid!), I can confirm that my and my wife's "contract" insisted that we surrender all legal claims against the institution, in return for the institution surrendering NO claims against us.
When we pressed for a mutual release of claims instead, we were told by AMC president Dan Guernsey that AMU president Nick Healy did not want to allow the institution to give a mutual release of claims, as he believed that it doing so might interfere with his ability to sue us for libel _personally_. His point of contention was over the 2004 complaint that we and others made to the IG wing of the Department of Education: we were told that he said that he had felt "hurt" by it, and that it might be damaging to him and his future earnings. Finally, I can confirm that as of last month, my wife and I were told that we could get some elements of a mutual release if we agreed to retract the statements we had made to the Department of Education, and indicate that we had no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of President Healy.
The sad thing, for us, anyway, is that most of the other AMC faculty we spoke to afterwards said that when they had asked for mutual releases of claims, they received them. As nearly as we can tell, only my wife and I were denied them, and we wonder if it is because we were whistleblowers. In any event, we were personally and professionally insulted by the retraction request. I am a historian, and it is my job to preserve the past, not bury it. My wife is a librarian, and it is her job to provide information, not supress it.
We may as well have been asked to deny who we were.
In the end we found ourselves in an untenable situation. We knew that we had the law on our side, and that we could win if we stuck it out. But we also knew that if we tried, the Ave Maria leadership would make our lives miserable in many petty ways. So, like many other people, we left Ave Maria, and, indeed, the state of Michigan, suddenly and without warning. We did this in part for our own and our family's protection. But we left with our souls intact, and with our freedoms--to speak, to litigate, or just to walk away--unimpaired. We are poorer, but we are free. And that is a reward above price.
And for anyone who is new to this controversy, some advice. From a guy who knows. I was the first faculty member hired by Ave Maria Institute, back in 1998. I was there before just about anyone else was. And I'm an ex-Department Chair and an ex-Dean.
The people you want to listen to? That would be folks like Charlie Rice, Andy Messaros, Jay McNally, Kate Ernsting, and anyone else on their side.
Christopher Beiting
"And the stuff about forcing a professor to recant statements in order to have his contract renewed is just despicable. "
Thanks for the words of support, Joel.
I can at last say openly that I am the professor in question. And not just a professor: a departmant chairman and dean, as well.
The reality of the situation was much worse than Ms. Riley summarized in her article.
The fact is that I (and most of the other faculty) _had_ a contract, signed by AMC president Ron Muller in 2004, good until 2007. I should, in fact, still be employed there. But for reasons I do not understand, the AMC Board denied the validity of these contracts, even though every lawyer to whom I have shown these contracts has prounounced them valid. Instead, the AMC administration pursued a curious fiction of issuing faculty one year "contract renewal" letters, acting like we were only on year-to-year contracts. Each letter had a line in it noting that our Faculty Handbooks contained restrictions that we were not to "embarrass" the institution. I must admit to having found this language particularly galling: as one of the founding facutly of AMC, I had a hand in the creation of the Handbook in the first place, and that language was put in to the Handbook to deal with professors who fell into public heterodoxy, not to muzzle faculty who had legitimate complaints about how the institution was governed or mis-governed. If Original Intent matters, I can tell you what it was, since I was there, and was one of the framers.
And yes, I will admit that I am one of the people responsible for complaining to the IG wing of the Department of Education about the mismanagement of financial aid monies, and other matters, by the Ave Maria administration. And when it came down to "buy-out" deals for the final year of AMC (as though our 2004 Muller contracts weren't valid!), I can confirm that my and my wife's "contract" insisted that we surrender all legal claims against the institution, in return for the institution surrendering NO claims against us.
When we pressed for a mutual release of claims instead, we were told by AMC president Dan Guernsey that AMU president Nick Healy did not want to allow the institution to give a mutual release of claims, as he believed that it doing so might interfere with his ability to sue us for libel _personally_. His point of contention was over the 2004 complaint that we and others made to the IG wing of the Department of Education: we were told that he said that he had felt "hurt" by it, and that it might be damaging to him and his future earnings. Finally, I can confirm that as of last month, my wife and I were told that we could get some elements of a mutual release if we agreed to retract the statements we had made to the Department of Education, and indicate that we had no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of President Healy.
The sad thing, for us, anyway, is that most of the other AMC faculty we spoke to afterwards said that when they had asked for mutual releases of claims, they received them. As nearly as we can tell, only my wife and I were denied them, and we wonder if it is because we were whistleblowers. In any event, we were personally and professionally insulted by the retraction request. I am a historian, and it is my job to preserve the past, not bury it. My wife is a librarian, and it is her job to provide information, not supress it.
We may as well have been asked to deny who we were.
In the end we found ourselves in an untenable situation. We knew that we had the law on our side, and that we could win if we stuck it out. But we also knew that if we tried, the Ave Maria leadership would make our lives miserable in many petty ways. So, like many other people, we left Ave Maria, and, indeed, the state of Michigan, suddenly and without warning. We did this in part for our own and our family's protection. But we left with our souls intact, and with our freedoms--to speak, to litigate, or just to walk away--unimpaired. We are poorer, but we are free. And that is a reward above price.
And for anyone who is new to this controversy, some advice. From a guy who knows. I was the first faculty member hired by Ave Maria Institute, back in 1998. I was there before just about anyone else was. And I'm an ex-Department Chair and an ex-Dean.
The people you want to listen to? That would be folks like Charlie Rice, Andy Messaros, Jay McNally, Kate Ernsting, and anyone else on their side.
Christopher Beiting
Labels: AMSOL
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Anatomy of a Murder
A Wall Street Journal piece on Tom Monaghan confirms what Fumare and other blogs by Ave Maria School of Law alumni have been saying all along. There is no reason to move the school, the only reason the move is being considered is because it would be good for the fledgling town and university in Florida, the tactics being used by the administration of the school to deal with anyone who voices dissent about the move are less than Catholic, etc.
Monaghan is quoted as saying: "I'm in favor of the law school moving to Florida, and I think it would be a good thing for the university to have a law school on its campus." Hmmm. Best interest of the law school or of the university?
Attempts to unionize at the school were vigorously blocked:
When I ask if he sees a contradiction in trying to block such a move, even though unionization is supported by the Catholic Church, he says, "I think that [the church] hierarchy doesn't know as much about those things as they do about their theology."
And thus he disparages over 100 years of Catholic Social Teaching on the right of employees to unionize. This is the kind of thinking that leads women to stage fake ordinations and senators to claim that they are "good Catholics" while championing abortion and homosexual marriage. The "I know better than the Church, why don't they just stick to talking about God" approach.
Responding to a question about the protests by professors, students, and alumni the article states:
Mr. Monaghan takes all this in stride. In Ann Arbor, he played racquetball with some academics and determined they liked to "complain about the most meaningless things." And board members of his schools have rushed to agree with him, suggesting, as theologian Michael Novak did recently, that "if it weren't Monaghan, it would be dissatisfaction with whomever."
Apparently, the concerns about fiduciary duty, attaching the law school to a speculative deal in Florida, lack of faculty input (as required by the ABA) are all just "meaningless things".
The article ends: Still, Mr. Monaghan does not see much difference between this venture and his previous ones: Higher education is "90% like business." To deal with the 10% that is unique to higher education, he has enlisted the help of administrators and board members. "I've always believed in hiring people smarter than I am. I should be the dumbest one in the room." He's not.
Draw your own conclusions.
If you haven't been following this story, a timeline might be helpful(adapted from comments from thelawdog on Fumare):
In 2002-2003 word begins to circulate about a possible move to Florida to join Ave Maria University. Charles Rice expresses concerns that the Florida move is not in the best interests of the school.
December, 2004, An article is published in Naples that says the law school is moving Florida.
January 2005. Charles Rice writes a letters to the paper saying rumors the school is moving is not true.
Mid -2005, the Board Committee that renominates Board of Governors quickly votes "yes" on a number of governors, but refuses to act on Charles Rice's nomination.
September '05 the Board votes 12-2 in favor of term limits on Board Members. Rice is one of 4 to go in this. Note: Monaghan, who should also be affected by the term limits, remains a chair of the Board.
Dec. '05 - Rice states desire to become life governor as provided for in the bylaws.
Early '06,- Dobranksi claims that life governor position, as Rice is requesting it, is not how it was envisioned. Was only intended to be used as a way to get governors who were over the age limit to still serve rather than retire. Now with term limits, makes sense to do away with the position. Rice does not become Life Governor.
April '06 - votes of no confidence in Dobranski as Dean of the Law School are submitted to the Board by the Faculty and Alumni Association. The students submit a petition signed by more than 50% of the student body.
May '06 - Charles Rice sends a letter to Dobranski and Monaghan remarking on the no confidence votes and suggesting a solution to the turmoil which is damaging the school.
August 11, 2006 - Dobranski sends Rice a letter declining to continue his status as visting professor.
August 17, 2006 - Dobranski has Rice's office packed up and sent UPS Next Day Mail to Rice's home in Indiana.
Monaghan is quoted as saying: "I'm in favor of the law school moving to Florida, and I think it would be a good thing for the university to have a law school on its campus." Hmmm. Best interest of the law school or of the university?
Attempts to unionize at the school were vigorously blocked:
When I ask if he sees a contradiction in trying to block such a move, even though unionization is supported by the Catholic Church, he says, "I think that [the church] hierarchy doesn't know as much about those things as they do about their theology."
And thus he disparages over 100 years of Catholic Social Teaching on the right of employees to unionize. This is the kind of thinking that leads women to stage fake ordinations and senators to claim that they are "good Catholics" while championing abortion and homosexual marriage. The "I know better than the Church, why don't they just stick to talking about God" approach.
Responding to a question about the protests by professors, students, and alumni the article states:
Mr. Monaghan takes all this in stride. In Ann Arbor, he played racquetball with some academics and determined they liked to "complain about the most meaningless things." And board members of his schools have rushed to agree with him, suggesting, as theologian Michael Novak did recently, that "if it weren't Monaghan, it would be dissatisfaction with whomever."
Apparently, the concerns about fiduciary duty, attaching the law school to a speculative deal in Florida, lack of faculty input (as required by the ABA) are all just "meaningless things".
The article ends: Still, Mr. Monaghan does not see much difference between this venture and his previous ones: Higher education is "90% like business." To deal with the 10% that is unique to higher education, he has enlisted the help of administrators and board members. "I've always believed in hiring people smarter than I am. I should be the dumbest one in the room." He's not.
Draw your own conclusions.
If you haven't been following this story, a timeline might be helpful(adapted from comments from thelawdog on Fumare):
In 2002-2003 word begins to circulate about a possible move to Florida to join Ave Maria University. Charles Rice expresses concerns that the Florida move is not in the best interests of the school.
December, 2004, An article is published in Naples that says the law school is moving Florida.
January 2005. Charles Rice writes a letters to the paper saying rumors the school is moving is not true.
Mid -2005, the Board Committee that renominates Board of Governors quickly votes "yes" on a number of governors, but refuses to act on Charles Rice's nomination.
September '05 the Board votes 12-2 in favor of term limits on Board Members. Rice is one of 4 to go in this. Note: Monaghan, who should also be affected by the term limits, remains a chair of the Board.
Dec. '05 - Rice states desire to become life governor as provided for in the bylaws.
Early '06,- Dobranksi claims that life governor position, as Rice is requesting it, is not how it was envisioned. Was only intended to be used as a way to get governors who were over the age limit to still serve rather than retire. Now with term limits, makes sense to do away with the position. Rice does not become Life Governor.
April '06 - votes of no confidence in Dobranski as Dean of the Law School are submitted to the Board by the Faculty and Alumni Association. The students submit a petition signed by more than 50% of the student body.
May '06 - Charles Rice sends a letter to Dobranski and Monaghan remarking on the no confidence votes and suggesting a solution to the turmoil which is damaging the school.
August 11, 2006 - Dobranski sends Rice a letter declining to continue his status as visting professor.
August 17, 2006 - Dobranski has Rice's office packed up and sent UPS Next Day Mail to Rice's home in Indiana.
Labels: AMSOL
Monday, August 14, 2006
Prof. Rice Fired from AMSoL
Fumare is reporting that Dr. Charles Rice has been fired as visiting professor at Ave Maria School of Law, because of a May 5, 2006 letter he wrote to Tom Monaghan and Dean Bernard Dobranski after the submission of no convidence votes to the Board of Govenors by the Alumni board and the faculty, and a petition by the student body. In the letter, Rice argued against the current actions of the Board which are creating division and unrest in the school community and presented, as a solution to the upheaval, the creation of 2 schools. It is interesting that the letter was not sent to the Board of Govenors. Rice includes this interesting line:
I am confident that the Board will agree with whatever Tom decides.
This line seems to back up assertions made at Fumare that the Board is merely "helping Tom spend his money."
Prof. Rice, a founding member of the Board of Governors, was removed from the Board last fall after a change in the rules was voted to create limit terms for BOG members.
It is hard to imagine what the Dean hopes to accomplish by firing Charles Rice. He is extremely well respected for his legal expertise and his defense of the Catholic faith. As such, he was a huge draw to the school. It doesn't say good things about the school if it does not want a professor of Rice's caliber and reputation connected to it.
I am confident that the Board will agree with whatever Tom decides.
This line seems to back up assertions made at Fumare that the Board is merely "helping Tom spend his money."
Prof. Rice, a founding member of the Board of Governors, was removed from the Board last fall after a change in the rules was voted to create limit terms for BOG members.
It is hard to imagine what the Dean hopes to accomplish by firing Charles Rice. He is extremely well respected for his legal expertise and his defense of the Catholic faith. As such, he was a huge draw to the school. It doesn't say good things about the school if it does not want a professor of Rice's caliber and reputation connected to it.
Labels: AMSOL
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Runaway Train
Tempers and tensions continue to rise at Ave Maria School of Law over Tom Monaghan's desire to relocate the school to Ave Maria Town in Florida. The Law School is the latest in a series of projects in Michigan that Monaghan has sought to either relocate to or pull funding to use for the town. Rumor has it the only ones to stand up to Monaghan and win were the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist who threatened a lawsuit and settled out of court.
In independent moves this past week, the Faculty Board and the Alumni Board both submitted votes of no confidence in Bernard Dobranski, Dean and President of Ave Maria School of Law, to the Board of Governors. Likewise, a student petition was submitted to the BOG showing a vote of no confidence in the administration of the school. (There is some debate about the petition, but it does seem that it was signed by at least half the student body.) The Alumni Board letter to the BOG has recently been made public. The BOG's answer to these letters? A vote of confidence for the Dean.
Many of the first students at the law school made enormous sacrifices to attend the school, including passing on already accredited schools with reputations in the law community. There was no guarantee that the school would have accreditation in time for the first classes to be able to sit for the bar. Now these same students are watching and seeking answers as it appears their degrees may soon not be worth the paper they were printed on. Already the ranking of the school in the 4th tier of the current US News & World Report is causing concerns about employment and questions about whether the ranking will be used as a tool to enhance the feasibility of moving the school.
And, they are not watching quietly. Maybe the Board of Governors forgot that the first graduating classes of this law school were recruited from the very best (GPA/LSAT), received a very good legal education, and are currently practicing lawyers.
Watch for upcoming articles in The Wall Street Journal and The Wanderer concerning this issue.
In independent moves this past week, the Faculty Board and the Alumni Board both submitted votes of no confidence in Bernard Dobranski, Dean and President of Ave Maria School of Law, to the Board of Governors. Likewise, a student petition was submitted to the BOG showing a vote of no confidence in the administration of the school. (There is some debate about the petition, but it does seem that it was signed by at least half the student body.) The Alumni Board letter to the BOG has recently been made public. The BOG's answer to these letters? A vote of confidence for the Dean.
Many of the first students at the law school made enormous sacrifices to attend the school, including passing on already accredited schools with reputations in the law community. There was no guarantee that the school would have accreditation in time for the first classes to be able to sit for the bar. Now these same students are watching and seeking answers as it appears their degrees may soon not be worth the paper they were printed on. Already the ranking of the school in the 4th tier of the current US News & World Report is causing concerns about employment and questions about whether the ranking will be used as a tool to enhance the feasibility of moving the school.
And, they are not watching quietly. Maybe the Board of Governors forgot that the first graduating classes of this law school were recruited from the very best (GPA/LSAT), received a very good legal education, and are currently practicing lawyers.
Watch for upcoming articles in The Wall Street Journal and The Wanderer concerning this issue.
Labels: AMSOL
Friday, April 21, 2006
Something's rotten...
Thursday at Fumare lists several reasons why there is so much unrest at Ave Maria School of Law. Judging from the number of comments, I'd say he struck a nerve.
For those who haven't been following, Tom Monaghan is proposing to move the law school to Ave Maria Town in Florida, in the same way that he moved (or rather closed) Ave Maria College in Michigan amid many questionable practices (see this letter by Dr. Edward Peters, for example).
For those who haven't been following, Tom Monaghan is proposing to move the law school to Ave Maria Town in Florida, in the same way that he moved (or rather closed) Ave Maria College in Michigan amid many questionable practices (see this letter by Dr. Edward Peters, for example).
Labels: AMSOL
