Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Price Game: What Deal bought Dobranski?

Once the law school became fully accredited, Dean Dobranski was finished with his work, he could retire a well achieved career, with that project as the cherry on top.

Torgo wonders if it's something like this: Dobranski Foundation (note to anyone with full LEXIS access, look up the filings on these corps). As far as Torgo can tell, that foundation is connected to an Anthony Dobranski.

A foundation is the right idea, though, after all, Chris Dobranski needs a job somewhere.

What was the price? Five years on founder's row in Ave Maria town?

Torgo wants you to come up with the pacage you think was offered and accepted in order to make the purchase. Also include the value of unvested portions in the Ann Arbor school you think will be converted as part of the follow-through.

16 Comments:

At 10:24 PM, October 19, 2005, Blogger Thomas said...

what?! MONEY be a motivating factor behind Ave Maria decisions, even used as a motivating factor to effect changes desired by those in control? I can't beleive your hubris, sir, this is a Catholic institution, or don't I need to remind you?!

 
At 10:46 PM, October 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We know it wasn't lifetime pizza for Bernie, but maybe it was lifetime pizza for his son.

On the other hand, maybe Bernie thought it was payback for the low enrollment of his son's classes.

 
At 11:25 AM, October 20, 2005, Anonymous Down South said...

I would suggest you remove this post. As I have indicated elsewhere, I do not support the move to Naples and have good reason to be frustrated with how we, in the class of 2003, were treated at various points. Nevertheless, I think your post is defamatory or, at the very least, you have no basis for making such allegations against Dean Dobranski.

It is one thing to accuse him of having "sold out" because he realizes that the funding for the law school is moving to Florida, it is quite another to accuse him of having been bribed.

As an AMSOL alum, I request that you quickly remove this low class and unwarranted allegation.

 
At 11:42 AM, October 20, 2005, Blogger Torgo said...

Defamatory is a strong word.

Bribe is a strong word, too.

Your choice of characterizing the post in such a way says much about your character as a bully.

A bribe suggests the he was asked to do something illegal. The post does not suggest as much, unless the reader is imputing it through bias.

Salary and remuneration is a price paid in consideration for services rendered. In order to agree to move the law school, an inarguable change of duties, any reasonable person would demand a change in compensation.

So, the question is: what package sealed the deal to accept the new duties? moving expenses? new house? furtherance of other goals?

Name it.

 
At 11:50 AM, October 20, 2005, Anonymous Down South said...

As little as I like the move to Florida and as much as I have other reasons to be angry with him, I have no doubt that Dean Dobranski (and the rest of the Board that will likely vote for the move) made the decision in a simple manner: (1) They asked themselves, can AMSOL survive without the Foundation? The answer is no. (2) They asked themselves, if we don't move AMSOL to Florida, will the Foundation withdraw its support? The answer is yes.

What more to you need?

 
At 1:46 PM, October 20, 2005, Blogger Torgo said...

Your initial premise regarding the Board is questionable -- the Rice event and other rumors suggest that the Board is not unanimous on the matter. Plus, some of the Board members would be contradicting their earlier assertions about the school to support the move. It's not clear cut.

Your first premise is strongly questionable.

Your second premise is likely, but not entirely true.

There was still a price to get total buy-in.

 
At 3:00 PM, October 20, 2005, Anonymous Down South said...

My first premise is "strongly questionable"? As I understand it, at least 1/3 of the AMSOL budget comes from the Foundation. Do you know of some donor willing to make up the slack? If so, I highly suspect the school administration is still interested.

As to whether the Board is (or was) unanimous, that is irrelevant unless the bylaws or charter require unanimity for such an action. I suspect all that matters is that a majority agrees that the school can't survive without the Foundation.

Look, other than the possibility that a move to Florida might strengthen the Catholic identity of the student body, I think a move to Florida will be detrimental to the law school. And I don't have to believe in sordid conspiracy theories to understand why the Board members are voting in favor of the move.

 
At 9:11 PM, October 20, 2005, Anonymous Cloudhead said...

Down South is correct. While many of us do not support the move to Florida, it is unseemly and unprofessional to impute bad motives on Dean Dombranski and others. There is a way to express a lack of enthusiasm about the move to Florida without resorting to slurs for which the evidence is scanty.

 
At 10:04 PM, October 20, 2005, Anonymous redwings said...

I think the two of you are reading something different from this than I do or what Torgo must have meant.

I read Down South is attacking Torgo by putting words in his mouth, and cloudhead needs to get some feet on the ground because I didn't see the post as saying there were bad motives.

Are you sure you two aren't just overly sensitive to public discussion?

 
At 1:25 PM, October 21, 2005, Anonymous Down South said...

Unless I completely misunderstood Torgo's comments, I took him to be claiming that something like the "Dobranski Foundation" was "given" to Dean Dobranski in order to convince him to vote for a move to Florida. That would seem to be the obvious implication of the title, "What bought Dobranski?"

In addition, since such an allegation would imply that Dean Dobranski (as Dean and member of the Board) allowed his vote to be swayed by personal gain over and presumably against the good of the law school, it appears to me that Torgo accused him of a criminal act (cf. legal obligations of board members).

If I am incorrect, I apologize for my mistake and respectfully request that Torgo alter his posting so that it does not imply he is accusing Dean Dobranski of criminal misconduct.

 
At 3:23 PM, October 21, 2005, Blogger NO man said...

I agree with Down South here. for several reasons. First, though, let's be clear that while many of us might feel that the BoG is ready to vote to move to Florida, this vote has not been officially made yet. Furthermore, we don't know how the Dean would vote, as he said during the anniversary events that he would wait to see what the ABA would say about accreditation for the school following such a move.

But my real issue with your post Torgo, is that it is completely unprofessional,misguided, and uncomprehensible. The Dobranski Foundation you link to was created in 1999, yet you seem to imply that this is somehow involved in some package to buy out Dobranski to vote for Florida (which again, hasn't even happened yet). Also, you fail to understand the distinction between the BD acting as dean, and BD acting as a member of the board of governors.

When BD acts as a member of the BoG, he can only be remunerated for services rendered. What kind of package that the school might hypothetically offer DB as a DEAN in the event it moves to Florida is a completely separate issue. But, as you imply again, if the BD accepted some sort of buy-out package to vote to move to Florida, this would certainly be a criminal act.
You should follow Down South's advice, and remove this post before you get yourself in some real trouble.

 
At 3:36 PM, October 21, 2005, Blogger Torgo said...

*yawn*

Life is good on the whipping post today.

You are focused on the Board aspect. Torgo is focused on the Dean staying Dean if the school moves aspect. No criminal motives, no criminal acts. For a Dean not to say something like, "I'm not moving, I'd retire" but instead to be coddling an image of Thom Monaghan's vision at least inplies he acquiesced to the move.

Stop trying to beat me up and read it for what it is:
you ignored the premise: he could retire a fine career at this point: what's the motive *AS A DEAN* to continue?

While I appreciate your efforts to hen me in and protect me from the big bad wolves, I think your speculation is far away from what my post really says, and so it appears that you are trying to get me in trouble or planting something into the post that isn't there.

Why would a well rounded, well careered Dean of a law school speak favorably of this move/"vision"? There's a motive, let's figure it out.

In the future comments, I'd prefer it if you didn't impute illegality to something I didn't state.

 
At 3:42 PM, October 21, 2005, Blogger NO man said...

Torgo,
How can the Dean accept a position down in Florida before a final vote is made by the BoG to move the school down there?
Your casual disregard for the process involved here is a little disturbing.

 
At 3:46 PM, October 21, 2005, Blogger NO man said...

Torgo,
Just so we're on the same page here, refer to your previous comment where you stated:

"Salary and remuneration is a price paid in consideration for services rendered. In order to agree to move the law school, an inarguable change of duties, any reasonable person would demand a change in compensation."

When you state that BD would "agree to move the law school", I can only assume that means with his vote as a BoG. His agreement as Dean has no bearing on a Board vote to move to Florida.

 
At 4:27 PM, October 21, 2005, Blogger Torgo said...

I started by saying DB could retire happily at the point, without moving along and staying with the school.

The Dean is the Dean of the law school in Michigan. Moving would make him Dean of a law school in Florida. Before he would arrive at the point of speaking favorably, he would need to have secured that he would move with the school.

Don't you think?

So, if this is boiling down to semantics, I will grant you that saying "...agree to move with the law school.." is clearer.

 
At 4:55 PM, October 21, 2005, Blogger The_Peach said...

I'm confused re. the reference to the Dobranski Foundation: as I understand it, the Foundation can only transfer monies to other nonprofit organizations. Transfer of monies to individuals is specifically excluded.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home