Monaghan Files Lawsuit Docs
Tue, Dec11, 2007 - Category: School of
Law
UPDATE,
12/12/2007 - coverage by: fumare
Lawyers for Tom Monaghan and Bernard Dobranski recently filed responses to the lawsuits of former AMSL professors Steven Safranek, Phil Pucillo, and Edward Lyons (background; series; see also "Dean runs amok" series)
Answers from Butzel Long, filed Nov. 26, 2007 - PDF (3.3 MB)
More Definite Statement Request from Pear, filed Nov. 26, 2007 - PDF (1.6 MB)
Protective Order from Pear, filed Nov. 29, 2007 - PDF (644 KB)
Analysis of the responses will follow in the coming days. A key issue seems to exist over the timing of AMSL's decision to uproot the school to Chairman Monaghan's for-profit Florida real estate development:
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 43:
"In September, 2003, in part due to a feasibility study which had been conducted, the Board decided that it was premature at that time to make a decision to relocate. From September, 2003 until late 2005, the issue of relocation was dormant as far as the Board of Governors was concerned."
But this notion that "the issue of relocation was dormant" for the Board between 2003-2005 contradicts the institution's own press release announcing the move:
+ AMSL PR release (Feb. 20, 2007):
"After almost five years of discussions and research about the feasibility of relocating, the Board of Governors determined that moving to Ave Maria, Fla., will give the Law School its best opportunity to thrive..."
+ Chronicle of Higher Education (Feb. 20, 2007):
"Bernard Dobranski, the law school’s president and dean, said in an interview that its Board of Governors had decided on the move after five years of discussing its options."
The timing is important to establish the influence of Monaghan's real estate development decisions on the AMSL Board, and whether the American Bar Association was given an accurate picture of the school's financial health and the events leading to the decision to relocate to Monaghan's Florida development.
+ Butzel Answer, paragraph 44:
"... defendants AMSL and Dobranski deny as untrue plaintiffs' allegations that Thomas Monaghan acted through Dobranski to manipulate faculty, staff or the Board of Governors..."
+ Problem - Judge James Ryan, a Board member of Ave Maria School of Law and Ave Maria College; statement to faculty, Winter 2003:
"We [the Board] are just here to help Tom spend his money... We all need to remember that this is Tom's enterprise."
"We just do what Tom asks..."
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 47:
"In the application to the ABA [submitted Sept. 10, 2004] for full accreditation, AMSL presented five year budgets which relied upon Ave Maria Foundation subsidies, but the application did not include specific and firm commitments by Thomas Monaghan or the Ave Maria Foundation to fund AMSL at least through the 2009-2010 academic year."
+ Problem - Sept. 10, 2004 + 5 years = September 10, 2009, which is within the 2009-2010 academic year. Are we to believe that the ABA would have granted AMSL full accreditation if it knew that Monaghan was not giving AMSL a "specific and firm commitment"?
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 45:
"Dobranski does not recall whether he told the ABA that there were no plans to move the Law School at the time AMSL was seeking full accreditation. If he did, it would have been a true statement at the time, since there were no such plans."
+ Problem - This is typical Dobranski lawyer-speak. Dobranski appears to think that his and the Board's "discussing its options" with "almost five years of discussions and research about the feasibility of relocating" does not constitute "plans" to move. This would be akin to me saying that I have no "plan" to move to Ann Arbor even though I've interviewed twice for a job at the University of Michigan, met with a real estate agent, applied for preliminary approval with a local mortgage provider, had house plans drawn by an architect, and completed (but had yet to submit) the forms to enroll my kids in Ann Arbor schools. If, in Dobranski's world, "plans" only means the period after a decision is made, one must revisit the same question that AveWatch asked immediately after the February 2007 announcement of AMSL's move to Monaghan's Florida development - How is it that Ave Maria was able to organize a media blitz in two states, a 48-hour home sale in Monaghan's development, and secure congratulations from the Governor of Florida without any business days after the vote? Within days after the announcement there were snazzy videos, beautiful brochures, and statements released from the likes of Robert Bork promoting Monaghan's real estate development and AMSL's move. No "plans"? Yeah, right.
The same brand of Clinton-esque speak was used in the "Answers" document to address the BoysCherries child pornography incident that AMSL invited upon itself. AveWatch thoroughly dissected Dobranski's weak response to that incident here (background; series).
The most disgusting part of "Answers" deals with the firing of tenure-track professors Lyons and Pucillo:
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 78:
".. Dobranski recalls advising plaintiffs Lyons and Pucillo, at the time they were told of their promotion to Associate Professor, that they were making satisfactory progress toward tenure."
When were they promoted? - Lyons in 2005 and Pucillo in 2006. Then, in 2007, AMSL dumped the professors in August, just prior to the semester's start, claiming (paragraph 81) that it was "based on their failure to meet their burden of establishing that they had met the requirements for tenure".
How in the world do faculty members promoted to Associate Professor by the Dean, who are told by the Dean himself that tenure progress is good less than one or two years earlier - and who are endorsed for tenure after review by the institution's Committee on Appointments and Tenure - how do such professors then get denied single-handedly by the Dean in the end?! It should also be remembered that Lyons and Pucillo were not scheduled for an internal appeal-hearing about these matters until after the lawsuit was filed.
In law schools, standard practice is to tell professors of a denied tenure application in February, not August as Dobranski did. A hearing is then typically scheduled within days so that the professors can know with certainty, before the end of the Spring semester, whether the coming year will be their last. In any other reputable institution, it would be the Dean who was terminated in a case like this for not providing adequate warning to professors in a timely fashion such that deficiencies could be corrected. It shows Dobranski as an amateurish Dean who is not beneath the destruction and manipulation of people to send a warning to others who might oppose him. The law school community and Catholic scholars should consider a sanction against Dobranski for such deplorable administration.
On Oct. 23, Deborah Gordon, the attorney for Safranek, Lyons, and Pucillo, filed a Notice of Taking Depositions from Tom Monaghan and Bernard Dobranski on Dec. 17 and 18, respectively. But, to avoid such action, lawyers from Monaghan make an astounding claim:
+ from Motion for Protective Order, Karl Fink, attorney for Monaghan, Nov. 27, 2007:
"... the factual basis for including AMF and Monaghan in this employment case is not readily apparent from the face of the Complaint, other than the obvious publicity bonus that Plaintiffs would like to achieve by sweeping them into the controversy."
So, are we to believe that Tom Monaghan's involvement in AMSL's governance (i.e. employment decisions) and finances - as the AMSL Chairman and principle financier who pulled the school to his for-profit south Florida real estate development - that his involvement in the lawsuit is just a publicity stunt? This is laughable to the point of pathetic. We eagerly look forward to Monaghan answering questions, under oath, about his management of all things Ave Maria, both non-profit and for-profit (including his dealings with the Baron Collier Company).
Lawyers for Tom Monaghan and Bernard Dobranski recently filed responses to the lawsuits of former AMSL professors Steven Safranek, Phil Pucillo, and Edward Lyons (background; series; see also "Dean runs amok" series)
Answers from Butzel Long, filed Nov. 26, 2007 - PDF (3.3 MB)
More Definite Statement Request from Pear, filed Nov. 26, 2007 - PDF (1.6 MB)
Protective Order from Pear, filed Nov. 29, 2007 - PDF (644 KB)
Analysis of the responses will follow in the coming days. A key issue seems to exist over the timing of AMSL's decision to uproot the school to Chairman Monaghan's for-profit Florida real estate development:
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 43:
"In September, 2003, in part due to a feasibility study which had been conducted, the Board decided that it was premature at that time to make a decision to relocate. From September, 2003 until late 2005, the issue of relocation was dormant as far as the Board of Governors was concerned."
But this notion that "the issue of relocation was dormant" for the Board between 2003-2005 contradicts the institution's own press release announcing the move:
+ AMSL PR release (Feb. 20, 2007):
"After almost five years of discussions and research about the feasibility of relocating, the Board of Governors determined that moving to Ave Maria, Fla., will give the Law School its best opportunity to thrive..."
+ Chronicle of Higher Education (Feb. 20, 2007):
"Bernard Dobranski, the law school’s president and dean, said in an interview that its Board of Governors had decided on the move after five years of discussing its options."
The timing is important to establish the influence of Monaghan's real estate development decisions on the AMSL Board, and whether the American Bar Association was given an accurate picture of the school's financial health and the events leading to the decision to relocate to Monaghan's Florida development.
+ Butzel Answer, paragraph 44:
"... defendants AMSL and Dobranski deny as untrue plaintiffs' allegations that Thomas Monaghan acted through Dobranski to manipulate faculty, staff or the Board of Governors..."
+ Problem - Judge James Ryan, a Board member of Ave Maria School of Law and Ave Maria College; statement to faculty, Winter 2003:
"We [the Board] are just here to help Tom spend his money... We all need to remember that this is Tom's enterprise."
"We just do what Tom asks..."
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 47:
"In the application to the ABA [submitted Sept. 10, 2004] for full accreditation, AMSL presented five year budgets which relied upon Ave Maria Foundation subsidies, but the application did not include specific and firm commitments by Thomas Monaghan or the Ave Maria Foundation to fund AMSL at least through the 2009-2010 academic year."
+ Problem - Sept. 10, 2004 + 5 years = September 10, 2009, which is within the 2009-2010 academic year. Are we to believe that the ABA would have granted AMSL full accreditation if it knew that Monaghan was not giving AMSL a "specific and firm commitment"?
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 45:
"Dobranski does not recall whether he told the ABA that there were no plans to move the Law School at the time AMSL was seeking full accreditation. If he did, it would have been a true statement at the time, since there were no such plans."
+ Problem - This is typical Dobranski lawyer-speak. Dobranski appears to think that his and the Board's "discussing its options" with "almost five years of discussions and research about the feasibility of relocating" does not constitute "plans" to move. This would be akin to me saying that I have no "plan" to move to Ann Arbor even though I've interviewed twice for a job at the University of Michigan, met with a real estate agent, applied for preliminary approval with a local mortgage provider, had house plans drawn by an architect, and completed (but had yet to submit) the forms to enroll my kids in Ann Arbor schools. If, in Dobranski's world, "plans" only means the period after a decision is made, one must revisit the same question that AveWatch asked immediately after the February 2007 announcement of AMSL's move to Monaghan's Florida development - How is it that Ave Maria was able to organize a media blitz in two states, a 48-hour home sale in Monaghan's development, and secure congratulations from the Governor of Florida without any business days after the vote? Within days after the announcement there were snazzy videos, beautiful brochures, and statements released from the likes of Robert Bork promoting Monaghan's real estate development and AMSL's move. No "plans"? Yeah, right.
The same brand of Clinton-esque speak was used in the "Answers" document to address the BoysCherries child pornography incident that AMSL invited upon itself. AveWatch thoroughly dissected Dobranski's weak response to that incident here (background; series).
The most disgusting part of "Answers" deals with the firing of tenure-track professors Lyons and Pucillo:
+ Butzel Answer, Paragraph 78:
".. Dobranski recalls advising plaintiffs Lyons and Pucillo, at the time they were told of their promotion to Associate Professor, that they were making satisfactory progress toward tenure."
When were they promoted? - Lyons in 2005 and Pucillo in 2006. Then, in 2007, AMSL dumped the professors in August, just prior to the semester's start, claiming (paragraph 81) that it was "based on their failure to meet their burden of establishing that they had met the requirements for tenure".
How in the world do faculty members promoted to Associate Professor by the Dean, who are told by the Dean himself that tenure progress is good less than one or two years earlier - and who are endorsed for tenure after review by the institution's Committee on Appointments and Tenure - how do such professors then get denied single-handedly by the Dean in the end?! It should also be remembered that Lyons and Pucillo were not scheduled for an internal appeal-hearing about these matters until after the lawsuit was filed.
In law schools, standard practice is to tell professors of a denied tenure application in February, not August as Dobranski did. A hearing is then typically scheduled within days so that the professors can know with certainty, before the end of the Spring semester, whether the coming year will be their last. In any other reputable institution, it would be the Dean who was terminated in a case like this for not providing adequate warning to professors in a timely fashion such that deficiencies could be corrected. It shows Dobranski as an amateurish Dean who is not beneath the destruction and manipulation of people to send a warning to others who might oppose him. The law school community and Catholic scholars should consider a sanction against Dobranski for such deplorable administration.
On Oct. 23, Deborah Gordon, the attorney for Safranek, Lyons, and Pucillo, filed a Notice of Taking Depositions from Tom Monaghan and Bernard Dobranski on Dec. 17 and 18, respectively. But, to avoid such action, lawyers from Monaghan make an astounding claim:
+ from Motion for Protective Order, Karl Fink, attorney for Monaghan, Nov. 27, 2007:
"... the factual basis for including AMF and Monaghan in this employment case is not readily apparent from the face of the Complaint, other than the obvious publicity bonus that Plaintiffs would like to achieve by sweeping them into the controversy."
So, are we to believe that Tom Monaghan's involvement in AMSL's governance (i.e. employment decisions) and finances - as the AMSL Chairman and principle financier who pulled the school to his for-profit south Florida real estate development - that his involvement in the lawsuit is just a publicity stunt? This is laughable to the point of pathetic. We eagerly look forward to Monaghan answering questions, under oath, about his management of all things Ave Maria, both non-profit and for-profit (including his dealings with the Baron Collier Company).