Monday, July 24, 2006

Uncle Tom's Promise and the ABA Standards for Law School Resources

Torgo has been ruminating a great many things for the past month, and while Torgo is not ready to post a grand post, this mini-post should be an adequate glimpse of what Torgo has been looking into.

Torgo would like to remind everyone that the ABA welcomes alumni contact on many matters (but see related post on this below).

As everyone familiar with the scandal of nonperformance on promises relied upon will know, there was a process through which the law school underwent to become accredited. Many of Torgo's friends and readers will recall various preparation routines, such as the mock interviews and crews of people that would walk through the school. Others may recall the elements discussed in town hall meetings. These elements were things such as the library, facilities, faculty, finances, etc.

Torgo can recall many representations made to groups of interested parties druing these town hall meetings, and to prepare people for the interviews and actual ABA visits. If you think back, you too can remember what was said about the facilities and the financing. Anybody else remember representations about a top-tier school?

Has the money been spent to make a top tier school?

Torgo would now turn your attention to the ABA standards, Chapter 2 on Program resources. Two things are important: 1) the school needs adequate finances for the future (Monaghan promised those for a top tier school in Ann Arbor (see, e.g. Ann Arbor News and Detroit Free Press columns circa 1999, 2000)); and 2) that finances do not interfere with the operation of the school. Look for those requirements here:

Standard 201. RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM.

(a) The present and anticipated financial resources of a law school shall be adequate to sustain a sound program of legal education and accomplish its mission.

(b) A law school shall be so organized and administered that its resources are used to provide a sound program of legal education and to accomplish its mission.

Interpretation 201-1:
A law school does not comply with the Standards if its financial resources are so inadequate as to have a negative and material effect on the education students receive. (August 1996)

Interpretation 201-2:
A law school may not base the compensation paid any person for service to the law school (other than compensation paid a student or associate for reading and correcting papers or similar activity) on the number of persons enrolled in the law school or in any class or on the number of persons applying for admission to or registering in the law school. (August 1996)

ABA Legal Education Standards online


It is well settled and publically known that Mr. Monaghan promised to fund Ave Maria into top tier performance. Torgo is sure this promise formed the basis of reliable anticipated funding for Standard 201a above. Great. AMSOL is accredited. However, now that Monaghan is putting the funds on strings, such as making the move a necessity, are the other standards now implicated? Is this breach of promise for anticipated funds materially significant for 201a?

Torgo believes the reader should look again at Interpretation 201-1, above. It seems to be protecting against somebody like Mr. Monaghan bullying the school through threats of withdrawn funding. In other words, because it is well understood that Monaghan is now (at this time) making money contingent on a move, is that not already jeopardizing the law school mission?

Torgo wonders if the mere threat Monaghan made in 2003 (by showing pictures of the Florida based law school in the library around mid-May or so -- Torgo remembers seeing the set-up being made) of moving the law school, coupled with the history of Monaghan's destruction of his own endeavors, was enough to prevent accreditation in the first place. But now, with the threat and the pretenses being built as we speak (does anybody in their right mind believe that Deans Reed and White took any notes at the DC alumni meeting?), has the standard of resources been breached?

Torgo awaits comment.

See Related Posts:
* Similar analysis of Board of Governor indifference to faculty No Confidence vote, see Board of Governors should read ABA Standards.

* Torgo explains why he thinks Alumni Board should be prepared to counteract how they will be presented in the future, see How to Route Over Stalinist Information-Handling

* Torgo responds to the name calling, see "Ingrates," "Against the Mission" and Other disparaging Names

* BREAKING NEWS! New Document Explains "Against the Secret Mission"

Historical Posts that foresaw this moment:
AUGUST 2004: Timeline: Whatever Happened to Making Ann Arbor Famous for Conservative Catholicism?

12 Comments:

At 5:23 PM, July 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like the ABA has specific Complaint requirements and procedures:

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/rulesofprocedure/complaints.html

 
At 12:48 AM, July 25, 2006, Blogger Torgo said...

Torgo has now treated this subject in a separate post advising the alumni who were in feasibility study meetings to document what they saw and whether they were actually heard in a post here.

Torgo also believes this documentation will be beneficial to explode the likely later load of crap that will be shoveled on the ABA by the move proponents of a "fair process".

 
At 6:36 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like nothing but emanations and penumbras - but there's no "there" there. Go back to the drawing board. "Boo-hoo" might be a more useful approach.

 
At 10:23 AM, July 25, 2006, Blogger Torgo said...

Fascinating vagueness, Anonymous.

Come back when you can substantively relevant.

 
At 11:01 AM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:49 AM, July 25, 2006, Blogger Torgo said...

*yawn*

We are not amused by platitudes.

 
At 1:56 PM, July 25, 2006, Anonymous Miss Universe said...

I love you Torgo, give me a call!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7167/1854/1600/MissUniverse2006.6.jpg

 
At 2:24 AM, July 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your interpretation of Standard 201 strains credulity almost as much as interpreting the federal RICO law to include abortion protesters does. And Interpretation 201-2 seems to preclude firing Bernie for floundering enrollment (contrary to the desire of some holwers).

 
At 9:00 AM, July 26, 2006, Blogger Torgo said...

Anonymous,

(funny how you don't even have the wherewhithal to put a creative name in the box)

Given the "logic" you've shown in all three comments you've made, you will make an excellent public defender someday.

It's at least obvious to Torgo, that the last three anonymous comments (one deleted) are made by the only person slinging dung around here (thereby making it kind of funny that you'd call others howlers). That's why Torgo is leaving this comment intact -- as a testament to your fine analytical skills.

 
At 2:05 PM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes. I remember reading that Plato, Aristolte and Aquinas all thought that the lack of a screen name makes an argument so much less compelling.

 
At 2:13 PM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Standard 201. RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM.

(a) The present and anticipated financial resources of a law school shall be adequate to sustain a sound program of legal education and accomplish its mission.

(b) A law school shall be so organized and administered that its resources are used to provide a sound program of legal education and to accomplish its mission.

=================================

Lets look at facts:

The mission statement of the school is silent as to geography. Therefore mission accomplishment is not affected by tying future funding to an evential FL move, unless it can be proven that a sound program of legal education will not be possible if the school if in FL.

===========================

The ABA is not where the solution lies.

 
At 2:24 PM, July 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and being in Florida is an obstacle to a "sound program of legal education" in the mind of Safranek and his disciples - but in no one else's.

Again, the wisdom of moving to FL can legitimately be called into question; but trying to claim non-compliance with ABA standards based on financial support being tied to the move is simply a non-starter.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home