Breaking News: Mass Resignations from Alumni Council

Submitted By Eagleionline Staff II Clock Dec 13, 2007 0 Comments

By Jesse Stellato

Nine members the Boston College Law School Alumni Association’s Alumni Council resigned on Monday, citing deep dissatisfaction with BC Law’s “Administration.” Though declining to mention John Garvey, Dean of BC Law, by name, some of the resigning members implied that the current dean’s “opportunistic, antagonistic and uncompromising” administration led them to resign.

In addition to these resignations, which were addressed to Brian Falvey, President of the Boston College Law School Alumni Association, alumni leaders from California wrote separately to BC Law alumni in Southern and Northern California to explain their decision. The leaders’ letter was first posted anonymously this afternoon on Eagleionline.

David Bartholomew contributed to the reporting of this article. More information will be published as it becomes available. Please send information to us via the “Contact” tab above.

[Editor's Note: The following comments were made anonymously on Eagleionline's previous site. They are included here for historical purposes only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Mr. Stellato, Mr. Bartholomew or Eagleionline.]

25 Responses to “Breaking News: Mass Resignations from Alumni Council”

on 12 Dec 2007 at 6:23 pm edit this Cite sources for quotes?

I read the letter that was posted anonymously, but didn’t see the phrase “opportunistic, antagonistic and uncompromising” anywhere in it. Was the anonymously posted letter incomplete? Did the phrase come from a different letter? Or did that phrase come from an interview or a separate e-mail exchange with one of the letter signers?

on 12 Dec 2007 at 6:43 pm edit this N

Why does this administration seem obsessed with religion?

All the talk about a new journal focusing on religion, possibly in place of the UCC, now this talk of being the “best Catholic law school”.

I’m sure that the administration likely has a rebuttal to the published letter, but it seems like they have lots of good points.

Obviously alumni from the west coast should have a voice, so to require them to vote in person seems like a needless burden.

I wish the administration would directly address these concerns, and I would like to hear the reasons for the implementation of a new structure.

on 12 Dec 2007 at 6:44 pm edit this re: Cite

The quotation in question comes from the official joint letter of resignation which was signed and sent to the BCLS administration. the full sentence reads as follows:

“We have perceived with increasing distress over the past few years the Administration’s move away from these core values and from the spirit of collaboration to an opportunistic, antagonistic and uncompromising model.”

Hopefully EagleI will post the official letter in addition to the emails sent directly to the alumni.

on 12 Dec 2007 at 6:56 pm edit this re: Cite

For the sake of convenience and info consolidation, I’ll repost the first letter in this thread:

To: Our friends and fellow BCLS alumni in Southern and Northern California

From:
Andrew Apfelberg, Chapter Representative – S. California

Brian Cardoza, Vice President – Chapters

Thomas Gaynor, Region VII (West) Regional Member

Christopher Jaap, Chapter Representative – N. California
Lawrence Ma, Chapter Representative – N. California

Date: December 10, 2007

Re: Resignation from Alumni Council

We are sad to say that we have decided to resign today from the Alumni Council of the Boston College Law School Alumni Association and our respective leadership positions in California. We have thoroughly enjoyed developing active alumni chapters here in Southern and Northern California over the last several years, but it is time for us to pass the torch to other motivated alumni.

We base our decision on three factors primarily. First, we continue to question the merits of the proposed restructuring of the Alumni Association, as recently adopted by a very narrow 25 to 23 vote of the Alumni Council. Second, we think the documentation outlining the new structure is less than optimal and an early draft at best. Third, we do not feel any particular affinity for the law school administration’s goal of becoming the best Catholic law school as opposed to the best law school it could be. Cumulatively, these concerns have exhausted our motivation to continue working with the Alumni Association.

We understand a great amount of time, money and energy was spent developing a proposed new structure over the past six months, and for several months we asked why the administration wishes to restructure the Alumni Association. The consistent answer we received was that the new structure would provide for committees of alumni who would assume responsibility for planning events, nurturing the law school community, etc. However, given that the long standing structure of the Alumni Association also provides for such committees, we fail to see any need to restructure the Alumni Association. After personally studying the proposed structure, the only substantive difference we could identify was that the Dean would select the Alumni Association’s new leadership, who would in turn identify qualifying organizations to constitute a new body to [re-]elect the leaders. Oddly, none of the proponents of the restructuring was willing and able when asked during meetings to explain how any substantive changes would improve alumni relations or better motivate alumni to volunteer.

Furthermore, we are disappointed that the administration and proponents of the restructuring relied principally, from what we can surmise, on a form of constitution and bylaws sold by paid educational consultants as opposed to documents prepared by the law school’s own alumni with expertise in drafting corporate governance documents. As a result, we believe, the quality of the new structure–from a drafting perspective–is minimal, and the governing documents will either (i) largely be ignored ultimately, suggesting the restructuring was futile, or (ii) require much more attention and revisions over the years as the new leadership attempts to work within the limitations of the final proposed product.

Notably, one significant impact of this restructuring, in our view, is to strip voting power from the California delegation and to put more time and financial responsibility on lay leaders such as chapter presidents. Under the new structure, California (which is one of the top sources of recruits and alumni activity) loses a majority of its current voting members. More sign
ificantly, in order to be able to vote, one
must be in-person in Boston. No phone, video, email or proxy representation is allowed, thereby making it incredibly burdensome for alumni on the West Coast to participate in the process. Additionally, this restructuring places more responsibility on the local chapters to create, organize, administer and manage their own activities and provide almost all of their own funds without the guaranty of reimbursement. Contrary to the repeated requests of chapter presidents nationwide (and the norm among most top tier law schools), the administration has not yet committed to hire additional staff who could, and properly should, be running activities for our chapter(s) and others. Unfortunately, there is a limit to the amount of time that any lay leader can put into growing a chapter; we all have jobs, families and other obligations. Instead of providing us relief, we believe the new structure increases the burden.

Finally, the administration’s stated goal of becoming the best Catholic law school disappoints us. We believe the law school is capable of achieving a greater status among law schools, due in no small part to its Jesuit tradition, and should strive for comparison against more than other Catholic institutions. Notwithstanding our having selected BCLS in part for its Jesuit tradition (including several years under the stewardship of a Jewish dean), we fear that the limited scope of the administration’s current goal may deter a broad pool of student applicants and disenfranchise existing alumni across the country. We remain unconvinced that the stated goal will raise the law school’s statute in third-party rankings such as the ubiquitous U.S. News and World Report surveys; for better or worse, such rankings do impact the quantity and quality of student applications and career prospects for new and old alumni alike, particularly outside of New England.

While stepping aside today, we remain committed to Boston College Law School and look forward to better days.

on 12 Dec 2007 at 7:30 pm edit this N

It’s about time someone does something about the direction this school is heading…

on 12 Dec 2007 at 7:38 pm edit this N1

This is the problem with eagleionline not having a username login in function.

Two posts by two different people both as “N”

on 12 Dec 2007 at 8:37 pm edit this Jesse Stellato

“N1″ (at 7:38 p.m.) — We encourage users to adopt an easily identifiable handle to facilitate discussion. Please stay tuned for more advanced features. In the meantime, kindly adopt a more unique handle to prevent confusion.
Jesse

on 12 Dec 2007 at 9:28 pm edit this Joint Letter of Resignation from Alumni Association’s Alumni Council

Below is the text of the letter of resignation submitted by 9 now-former members of the Alumni COuncil. This letter has been widely circulated and, with the hope of effecting positive change, shared with the university administration and others as indicated in the cc: line.

In the words of one concerned alumnus, “This is an email that I had hoped to not have to write but the current course of affairs left me, and as you can see, many of my colleagues with no choice but to follow their conscience. I hope you will try to understand our point of view and use your positions of power to effect real change in the law school. BCLS is a great institution that is not living up to its potential. Please help us to rectify that painful situation.”

**************
BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL
ALUMNI COUNCIL

December 10, 2007

VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL

Mr. Brian Falvey
President
Boston College Law School Alumni Association
c/o Boston College Law School
885 Center Street
Newton, MA 02459

RE: Joint Letter of Resignation from Alumni Association’s Alumni Council

Mr. Falvey:

In accordance with Article V, Section 5 and Article VI, Section 4 of the By-laws of the Boston College Law School Alumni Association, we, the undersigned officers and members of the Alumni Council of said Association, with profound sadness, but collective resolve, hereby submit our resignations.

We came to the Law School as students, thrived during our time there, and have devoted enormous resources to working on its behalf since our graduations. In essence, we owe much to the Law School and have remained committed to its success. We also remained committed because we deeply agree with the Law School’s traditional core values and mission—pursuing intellectual rigor in the service of social justice, in the Jesuit tradition, through active and respectful intellectual engagement with divergent points of view. As Deans Drinan, Huber, Coquillette, and Soifer reminded us all, to be national in its scope and ambitions, the Law School should strive always to be open to all faiths, religions and moral philosophies.

We have perceived with increasing distress over the past few years the Administration’s move away from these core values and from the spirit of collaboration to an opportunistic, antagonistic and uncompromising model. This attitude recently culminated in the Administration’s apparent conclusion—in stark contrast to prior Administrations’ effective and cordial relations with the Council—that it no longer wished to attempt to work cooperatively with the Council to improve alumni relations (a goal with which we all agree), but rather, embarked upon a path towards abolition of the current Council with the goal of replacing it with a new body appointed by the Dean. This marks an enormous, missed opportunity to positively effectuate change while harnessing multiple constituencies to work collaboratively in the Law School’s best interest and for the benefit of the broader Law School community.

In light of these recent developments—and to be clear, not simply as a result of the recent narrow vote to dissolve the Council—we are no longer comfortable personally, collectively, or financially supporting the current Administration. As leaders of the alumni community, we regret that we will now also need to explain these developments to our fellow alumni.

We look forward to re-engaging with our beloved Law School at a future point when it returns to the core values that have been its hallmark and which, for so many years, truly distinguished it from all other law schools.

Sincerely,

/s/ Andrew Apfelberg
Andrew Apfelberg ‘96
Chapter Representative – S. Calif.
Los Angeles, CA

/s/ Maureen Curran
Maureen Curran ‘91
Immediate Past President
Boston, MA

/s/ Thomas Gaynor
Thomas Gaynor ‘01
Region VII (West) Regional Member
Los Angeles, CA

/s/ Ruth-Arlene Howe
Prof. Ruth-Arlene Howe ‘74
Honorary Life Member
Newton, MA

/s/ Christopher Jaap
Christopher Jaa
p ‘98
Chapter Representative – N. Calif.
San Francisco, California

/s/ Darrell Mook
Darrell Mook ‘85
Vice President – Regional Delegates
Boston, MA

/s/ Lawrence Ma
Lawrence Ma ’01
Chapter Representative – N. Calif.
San Francisco, CA

/s/ Eedy Nicholson
Eedy Nicholson ’84
Member
Boston, MA

/s/ Fiona Trevelyan
Fiona Trevelyan ‘96
Vice President – Communications
Boston, MA

cc: Alumni Council, Boston College Law School
William P. Leahy, S.J., President, Boston College
Cutberto Garza, Provost, Boston College
Board of Trustees, Boston College
Board of Overseers, Boston College Law School
John Garvey, Dean of Boston College Law School
Marianne Lord, Dean of Institutional Advancement
Jean French, Interim Director of Alumni Relations

on 12 Dec 2007 at 9:58 pm edit this Past President’s Resignation from Alumni Council

Below is a copy of a message sent by Maureen Curran, the past President of the Alumni Council, to all members of the Alumni Council and other members of the law school community. In her letter, Maureen graciously explains her own personal perspective on relations with the administration during the past few years.

*************
From: Maureen Curran [mailto:maureen@maureencurran.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 7:17 AM
To: [Alumni Council Members]
Subject: RE: Resignation from Alumni Council

Dear Council Members:

As you know, I have with profound sadness joined other officers and members of the Alumni Council in submitting my resignation. I have known many of you for several years as we worked together to support the Law School that we all love and our fellow alumni. I consider many of you my good friends, so I feel I owe you an explanation of what brought me to the point where I could no longer support the current administration.

At the outset, let me state clearly that I did not resign due to the vote that took place on Saturday. As most of you that know me well are aware, I am a firm believer that there have never been any “troublemakers” on our council. Rather, there were people who shared a common devotion to their law school who at times had differences of opinion as to what was in the best interest of the Law School. I believe, therefore, that however one may have voted on Saturday, each person did so because he or she believed the vote was in the best interest of the Law School and its alumni. I, therefore, respect the majority vote of the council to recommend to the full Association that our Alumni Council be dissolved and a new structure be adopted in accordance with the Constitution and By-laws we approved by a narrow vote on Saturday, December 1, 2007.

Frankly, my decision to resign has been brewing over the past year, and I only continued my involvement in an attempt to give voice to some of our fellow alumni (not members of the council) who have been telling me for some time that they believe the culture of the Law School under the current Administration has changed so dramatically that they can no longer support the Law School. Based on what I thought was a mutually respectful relationship with the Dean, I believed, perhaps naively, that I could work with the Administration to bridge the gap between it and the alumni who held those views. I took Dean Garvey at his word when he told me that the issues relating to diversity that were of concern to some alumni were ones of perception versus reality and that he was anxious to work with me and others concerned with the issues.

Instead, the partnership between the Law School and the alumni that I tried to foster was met with stark rebuke. It soon became clear, and later confirmed by Eustace Theodore, that the Administration felt that the Diversity Committee was formed as “a way to criticize or possibly embarrass the Law School by focusing on admission practices.” While that might have been a fear of the Administration, as the President who formed the Committee, I can assure you that nothing could have been further from the truth. As stated at a meeting in June of 2006, the goal was to identify the concerns of the alumni (not the students) related to diversity issues and develop a plan to work in conjunction with the administration to ensure that BCLS continues to attract a diverse community and continues to maintain its relationship with all members of the alumni. One of the ways in which BCLS attracts students is through the effort of its alumni. The purpose of meeting with the students was to determine what alumni could do to assist students of diverse backgrounds thrive in our community.

Rather than working with the devoted alumni who were members of the Diversity Committee to achieve its goals, the Administration (as expressed to me by Mr. Theodore) labeled many of them as “troublemakers”. Once so labeled, voices were silenced. Where mutual respect once reigned, a lack of trust prevailed.

I truly believe that if the Administration had come to the council with its concerns about restructuring the council, the council would have worked cooperatively with the Administration to achieve that end. Instead, a task force was made up of persons hand picked by the Administration (“troublemakers” need not apply). In this way, the Administration could close its eyes to concerns of some alumni that the school is moving away from the a focus on the Jesuit traditions of social justice to a more parochial ideology resulting in many non-Catholic alumni feeling they are no longer welcome participants in the community, that some African American alumni no longer feel that they can encourage prospective students to attend BCLS, that some gay and lesbian alumni have been hurt by the printed words of their Dean in the newspaper, and that many alumni have grave concerns about the significant drop in the school’s U.S. News and World Report rankings in the past several years. I fully realize that that there are many alumni who are completely supportive and enthusiastic about the current direction of the law school. Their voices must be heard and respected, but not to the exclusion of others.

I no longer believe it is possible to have discourse in this community in the Jesuit tradition, as Fr. Hermann so beautifully explained in March, arriving at a circle of love. Rather, I believe one has to accept the new direction of the law school without question if one wants to be “on the train.” While a year and a half ago I disagreed with my alumni friends and colleagues who felt that the Law School “had lost its soul”, I now sadly must agree. Contrary to the view of the Dean in his recent letter to me (and others) that “we all have benefited from the process that culminated in the Council vote on Saturday”, I do not think any one benefited. From my conversations with many you after the meeting, I firmly believe that no member of the Council, whatever his or her vote may have been, walked away from the Council meeting on December 1 feeling that anything positive had taken place for the good of the Law School, its students, its faculty, its administration or its alumni. This process and the overall experience are a tragic missed opportunity for one and all.

If, in fact, the Alumni Association approves the recommendation of the council to replace the council with a new structure, I hope the new board will recognize, honor, and give voice to all alumni, no matter what their view. I sincerely hope that some day in the future I will be able to return and support my law school with my time, goodwill and finances, but that will only occur when the core values of coll
egia
lity, respect, justice, social conscience, analytical rigor , insightfulness, inclusivity, and the Jesuit tradition of intellectual freedom of inquiry return in full force. Until then, I must sadly be off the train. I will miss you all enormously.

on 12 Dec 2007 at 11:40 pm edit this N75

These letters are nice… is anyone going to offer any commentary on them, for those of us who don’t have the time to read them right now.

By the way, I believe I was the original “N” until someone stole it several days ago.

on 13 Dec 2007 at 4:41 am edit this And I for one would like to

see a specific document that references Dean Garvey’s article about how unsupportive he has been to the gay and lesbian community…where exactly can we find this article?

Look, I might not agree with Garvey completely in terms of some of his decisions, but I have to say, I have yet to see in my brief tenure (2 years) in BC law school that this man has made this place an intolerable environment for racial, ethnic, or sexual minority groups.

I had him for a professor, and I never found any evidence that he was trying to push a reactionary, Catholic apologetic influence on his students, nor was he anything but tolerant to all political, religious, ethnic, and gender perspectives.

Last year, a large group of our faculty staunchly came out in a signed letter to the community with their opposition to the ruling in the Supreme Court case interpreting the Solomon Amendment…I haven’t heard about one of these faculty members being criticized by the administration for supporting the gay and lesbian community in signing this.

Can anyone give concrete examples where the Dean has demonstrated intolerance for minority communities at BC law?

on 13 Dec 2007 at 9:59 am edit this To answer your question

Dean Garvey’s op-ed about how the state is forcing Catholic charities out of the adoption business because it dares to enforce its anti-discrimination laws equally rather than provide an exception to allow discrimination against the GLBT community(like BC’s non-discrimination policy does) is available at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/14/state_putting_church_out_of_adoption_business/?p1=email_to_a_friend. For me, the problematic aspect of this op-ed was not that he believes this (like everyone else, he’s entitled to his own opinion), but that he signed it as Dean of BCLS, suggesting to the public that this was a BCLS stand.

Speaking of BCLS stands, ask a faculty member about the way the Dean handled the Solomon amendment in 2002. He presented amending the law school non-discrimination policy to allow for discrimination against GLBTs as the only way to avoid losing funding under Solomon. He was aware of the need to take a faculty vote for months, yet failed to present it to the faculty until just before a decision was due, at which time he pushed it through without time for discussion or exploration of options. The faculty cooperated and voted with him, but later passed a resolution — I don’t remember all of the details, but am pretty sure that the resolution was critical of the process and the school’s failure to explore options less harmful to GLBT students and First Amendment rights.

And if any doubt remains, take a look at the chapter he authored in the book he co-edited and assigns for Con Law I. Hardly welcoming to buy your 1L books and realize that the one chapter written by your Con Law I prof and law school Dean criticizes the hell out your life and relationships…

Someone else want to take a stab at explaining what’s happened with the Diversity Committee on the Alumni Council? Or his statements at on-campus diversity events?

on 13 Dec 2007 at 10:28 am edit this mo’

To: “And I for one”
I was also in Garvey’s Con Law class last year and was pleasantly surprised to see that he focussed on the subject matter. (I wonder how he’d be teaching Con Law II?)

I believe this is the article to which Maureen Curran referred:

on 13 Dec 2007 at 10:29 am edit this mo’

Yikes, my link disappeared!
Here it is again:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/14/state_putting_church_out_of_adoption_business/

on 13 Dec 2007 at 10:58 am edit this Background

this is a follow up letter sent by the cali ex-council reps:

Dear Council Members:

Frankly, my decision to resign has been brewing over the past year, and I only continued my involvement in an attempt to give voice to some of our fellow alumni (not members of the council) who have been telling me for some time that they believe the culture of the Law School under the current Administr
ation has changed so dra
matically that they can no longer support the Law School. Based on what I thought was a mutually respectful relationship with the Dean, I believed, perhaps naively, that I could work with the Administration to bridge the gap between it and the alumni who held those views. I took Dean Garvey at his word when he told me that the issues relating to diversity that were of concern to some alumni were ones of perception versus reality and that he was anxious to work with me and others concerned with the issues.

I no longer believe it is possible to have discourse in this community in the Jesuit tradition, as Fr. Hermann so beautifully explained in March, arriving at a circle of love. Rather, I believe one has to accept the new direction of the law school without question if one wants to be “on the train.” While a year and a half ago I disagreed with my alumni friends and colleagues who felt that the Law School “had lost its soul”. I now sadly must agree. Contrary to the view of the Dean in his recent letter to me (and others) that “we all have benefited from the process that culminated in the Council vote on Saturday”, I do not think any one benefited. From my conversations with many you after the meeting, I firmly believe that no member of the Council, whatever his or her vote may have been, walked away from the Council meeting on December 1 feeling that anything positive had taken place for the good of the Law School, its students, its faculty, its administration or its alumni. This process and the overall experience are a tragic missed opportunity for one and all.

If, in fact, the Alumni Association approves the recommendation of the council to replace the council with a new structure, I hope the new board will recognize, honor, and give voice to all alumni, no matter what their view. I sincerely hope that some day in the future I will be able to return and support my law school with my time, goodwill and finances, but that will only occur when the core values of collegiality, respect, justice, social conscience, analytical rigor , insightfulness, inclusivity, and the Jesuit tradition of intellectual freedom of inquiry return in full force. Until then, I must sadly be off the train. I will miss you all enormously.

on 13 Dec 2007 at 12:42 pm edit this Background

Many of you, particularly those of you who are new here, do not have much experience or knowledge of the Garvey administration. On the one hand, “what you don’t know can’t hurt you.” On the other hand, BCLS will ask for your money one day…and your trust.

This letter and resignation of these officers comes against the backdrop of some terrible events.

For one, many faculty members have personal animosity toward the Dean. One female professor (a group among whom Garvey has a particularly poor reputation) has not so much as said hello to Garvey in, gasp, 2 years. Other professors are cordial to him while slamming him behind his back, albeit deservedly.

A few years ago, a female GLBT student on law review came to Garvey seeking a recommendation for a clerkship with a federal judge. Garvey interviewed the student and concluded at the end of the interview that he could not recommend the student because she was a lesbian and because of what the judge, a friend of Garvey, would think of the Dean were he to recommend a homosexual woman to his chambers. That student, frustrated and offended (to say the least), reported this interaction to the appropriate BCLS faculty committee. Garvey caught wind of this “taddle-tale” and called her once again into his office, this time threatening to “ruin her career” if she ever embarrassed him (with his own words??) again. Alas, she is a successful woman now, and did ultimately get a federal clerkship. Tolerance 1, Garvey 0.

A well-respected and well-loved former dean of BCLS, who was superb at raising money from Federalists and the ACLU alike, detests the direction in which the Garvey regime is taking this school.

And now, these resignations.

Father Leahy, we realize you anointed Garvey to be dean, and we realize further that you cannot “kick him out” unless and until you find a comparable position for him somewhere else in the nation (i.e. you cannot, politically, force him to take a demotion to regular professorhood now that he has become dean)…but please, please, consider the circumstances.

Until then, and to my abundant chagrin, no money from me. And if you think I’m alone….

I post anonymously. I encourage Eagle I to investigate…so long as they have job offers already

on 13 Dec 2007 at 1:59 pm edit this re: Cite

1:00 PM, 12/13/2007:

Dear fellow BCLS NorCal alumni:
Over the past couple of days, Chris and I have received numerous emails from you in support of our
decisio
n to resign from the Alumni Council. We want to thank you all for the kinds words – it has been our pleasure and honor to serve this community, and we’re grateful for the opportunity.
Many of you have also emailed seeking more information and context leading to our resignation. I will attempt to do so briefly here, and provide the documents at issue for your own review and analysis.
The Alumni Council is the governing body of the BCLS Alumni Association. Fifty or so of us serve on the Council, representing each region of the country as well as the major cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. I have provided a copy of the current Alumni Council bylaws. We have no official role as to the governance of the law school, but each administration has worked cooperatively the Alumni Council to foster alumni relations, including Dean John Garvey, who arrived at BCLS in 2000.
Over the past few years, however, the alumni have been increasingly concerned with both the direction of the school as well as the Dean’s public statements. First, our law school, ranked No. 22 by the influential US News and World Report when I entered in 1998, has fallen out of the top 25 and as low as No. 29. (http://www.prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__2000_present ) The law school’s national ranking affects both alumni and the current students, as well as recruitment of quality entering classes each year.
Second, many alumni in our community were deeply and personally hurt by Garvey’s Boston Globe op-ed piece supporting the Boston Catholic Charities’ decision not to facilitate adoption of children in need of a home with gay and lesbian families in March of 2006. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/14/state_putting_church_out_of_adoption_business?mode=PF ) Many Council members took up discussions on the Dean’s op-ed piece during the Fall of 2006 and sought explanations from the Dean on behalf of the alumni we represent. Under the leadership of Maureen Curran, whom many of you met last year at Olympic, the Alumni Council formed a committee on diversity, and in March of 2007, we took our concerns directly to the Dean and examined the state of diversity at the law school at our national Alumni Council meeting in Newton.
Despite these concerns raised by Council members, the Dean announced at the same March 2007 meeting his strategic goal for BCLS — to make it the “Best Catholic Law School” in the country. Many Council members including myself expressed disappointment with such a narrow and explicitly Catholic goal that departs from the direction under Deans Drinan, Huber, Coquillette and Soifer, not to mention the irrelevance to the academic advancement and professional excellence of the law school critical to our standing in the country. In April of 2007, the new law school rankings were released and found BCLS mired in the 28th spot. A heated discussion on the rankings and the direction of the school ensued on email among Alumni Council members, and members including myself called for the inclusion of a discussion on this concern on the agenda of our next national Alumni Council meeting in Boston, which was to take place in October.
In April of 2007, Brian Falvey of Boston took over as President of the Alumni Council. After shutting down all operations and committees during the summer of 2007 and canceling the October Alumni Council meeting, Falvey revealed on September 28, 2007 that Garvey appointed a “task force” of select alumni and staff members to restructure our association. None in the California delegation were asked to serve or made aware of its existence until September 28. The task force, chaired by Falvey and Dean of Institutional Advancement Marianne Lord, called for the complete dissolution of the Alumni Council and the implementation of a new structure with a downsized board to be appointed solely by the Dean. Council members were given only four days to review the material ahead of an October 2, 2007 conference call to approve the restructuring, as-is.
The restructuring proposed by the administration and its task force relied much on the work of eAdvancement, a consulting firm engaged by Garvey unilaterally in January 2007 to study the Alumni Association and its governance. The central thesis for eAdvancement seemed to be that an alumni association should have no voice in the direction of a school and ought not attempt to hold an administration accountable. Their study painted a distorted and incomplete picture of the Alumni Council, specifically pointing to the March 2007 meetings and quoting one individual as saying that the diversity committee was set up “as a way to criticize or possibly embarrass the Law School” by focusing on admission practices. For what was supposedly a comprehensive study, it curiously did not thoroughly study the law school’s own Office of Institutional Advancement, staffing, or funding of alumni relations. It must be noted here that no law school alumni association, with national ambitions, is so poorly staffed or funded administratively as BCLS – visit, for example, Boalt Hall’s alumni relations staff directory (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/alumni/contact.html ) and one sees 25 full time higher education and alumni relations professionals assisting their alumni leaders, who are, like us, busy practicing attorneys and judges.
A review of the proposed new structure also revealed serious structural flaws and dramatic concentration of power in a small board to be appointed solely by the Dean while diluting the voice of the alumni by including faculty and staff members on the law school payroll and vesting them with full voting rights in an “assembly” with little power or voice. I have attached my redline of the original proposal here for your review. As a business lawyer who has advised both corporations and non-profits, I was astonished by the unconventional constitution/bylaw structure and the poor drafting, setting aside for the moment the questionable motives involved.
Despite strong opposition by many members of the Alumni Council, including the entire California delegation, the administration continued to press for the adoption of the new structure in October without further comment or debate. In the middle of October, the Dean and Falvey announced the structure to a town hall of alumni assembled on campus for their reunion without the consent of the Alumni Council. Garvey further revealed through Falvey and Lord that he intended to unilaterally send a ballot to the entire Alumni Association seeking adoption of the new structure, in clear contravention of the Alumni Council bylaws, which requires the direction and approval of the Council before any ballot to amend our bylaws may be sent. The Dean had no right to initiate or propose such a ballot in the first place under our bylaws. On October 23, Falvey and Lord forced an up or down vote on a statement from the Alumni Council “supporting” the adoption of the new structure to accompany Garvey’s unilateral and illegal ballot. It was defeated by a 2-to-1 margin by the Alumni Council. I have attached my vote and statement here for your review. Concerned members of the Alumni Council also utilized the powers of the membership to call a special meeting in Boston on December 1, 2007, to discuss this proposal.
A small subcommittee of the Alumni Council’s officers was formed to review the submitted comments on the proposed structure before the December 1 special meeting. Although minor concessions were made by the Dean and Falvey (see attached revised EC Proposed Constitution & Bylaws 11-20-07), serious structural and policy problems remain. It was never explained that the proposed drastic changes are necessary, much less justifiable given the poor quality of the work product. Comparing the current structure to the new one, nearly everything that the task force and the administration were pushing for under the new structure already exists under the curr

ent bylaws. A favorite talking point for the administration is that the new structure will provide a single alumni to handle each particular aspect of alumni relations — that already exist; the current Alumni Council has four vice presidents each in charge of a different aspect of alumni relations, such as regional chapters, communications, etc. Indeed, per our joint resignation statement, we fail to see any purpose that these proposed changes serve other than to allow the Dean to replace the leadership of the alumni association with his own appointments. Christopher Jaap and myself attended the meeting in Boston on December 1, 2007, where the proponents failed repeatedly to offer substantive answers on these questions. Most alarmingly, the administration implicitly threatened to withhold funding to the Alumni Council and the association for expanded alumni relations support in the future if it does not approve the proposed new structure. The Council, by a 25-23 vote, approved the adoption of the new structure, subject to the approval of the Association.
Those of you with a business transactional background should be able to readily see the inherent flaws in the so-called “binary structure” of the proposed “constitution/bylaw” attached, which was crafted by non-lawyer policy wonks from eAdvancement for the Rutgers undergraduate alumni association and sold to the BC undergraduate alumni association. It should be noted that the Dean’s task force did not include a single corporate transactional attorney – in my view, this is a terrible mistake, if not poor judgment, to fail to include business lawyers in the most important corporate re-organization of our alumni association in its history. The subcommittee of the Alumni Council charged to synthesize comments by Council members again included no corporate attorneys. As compared to our existing bylaws, you can see the deficiencies in terms of voting procedures, definition of corporate officers and other provisions not in keeping with best practices. No law school alumni association in the country has a governance structure like this – most, such as Notre Dame’s, in fact functions like ours, with explicit charge to the Notre Dame alumni to advise their dean on all aspects of their law school. (See Attached Bylaws of the NDLA). The additional layer of the downsized board, appointed by the Dean, effectively insulates the administration from comment, praise, or criticism by the alumni at large.
Of more direct concern to us in California is our future representation in the Alumni Association. California has the third largest population of BCLS alumni in the country, behind only Massachusetts and New York, and California is the third largest feeder of students to BCLS. Under the existing bylaws, we are guaranteed to have voting Alumni Council members in the form of the chapter representatives and regional representatives, as well as elected officers. The proposed bylaws make no such guarantees. Further, the proposed bylaws have reduced the governing body from the current 50 or so voting Council members to just 11 to a maximum of 21 board members, and those board members must be present IN PERSON to cast a vote. This effectively rules out participation by Californians as future board members, while concentrating the power in the hands of a few in New England. Lastly, I was profoundly disturbed by the failure to grant the Honorary Life Members of our Alumni Council, Judge Mary Muse and Prof. Ruth-Arlene Howe, the same status on the new proposed board, and the refusal to amend the proposal to that effect. This is not the BCLS way, to disrespect in this manner these two treasured graduates of our law school and strong voices for the alumni on the Alumni Council.
The proposed new bylaws are subject to the alumni association’s approval, with a 2/3 majority required for final adoption. But we have not heard from Falvey or Garvey indicating that they will send the proposed bylaws out to you, the members of the alumni association, for approval, pursuant to the current bylaws they are working to abolish. However, based on the talks given on Tuesday night in San Francisco by the administration’s representatives, it appears that they intend to stay the course.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Lawrence Ma ‘01

on 13 Dec 2007 at 2:42 pm edit this Background

To confirm, this is all by way of hearsay. If you email threads, please indicate that they are not the product of journalistic enterprise but simply the writings of anonymous bloggers who are reporting what they heard, not what is confirmed. Many people here at BCLS have heard and/or believe this information. Please notify the Norcal list of the same.

on 13 Dec 2007 at 2:44 pm edit this bcls07

the fact that many faculty members have personal animosity towards garvey is proof that garvey must be doing something right! there’s a large contingent of unprofessional losers on the BCLS faculty. I wouldnt put much stock in what direction they direct their hatred

on 13 Dec 2007 at 3:15 pm edit this N75

Personally, I could care less about Garvey’s personal views.. what I care about, and what all of us should care about, is this school’s US News ranking. Since Garvey has been here, the rankings have dropped, significantly. If his personal views are a factor in that, then let’s discuss. Otherwise, let’s focus on the real issue, what Garvey’s done to cause the drop in rankings and what he’s doing to fix it.

on 13 Dec 2007 at 3:53 pm edit this bcls07

well i doubt there’s much that garvey has done to cause a drop….its more what hasnt been done to cause a rise.

Among other things, Garvey should press Fr Leahy (and Leahy should recognize) that the law school’s location is a major obstacle to attracting the top students. With all the land that BC just acquired, its very disappointing to not see a relocation of BCLS to main campus/brighton campus, right on the B Line. We’ve lost too many students over the years to BU and the like simply b/c BCLS is in the burbs and requires a car…

And not to lay blame solely on Garvey..one thing the faculty did which may have hurt the usnews ranking was to veto the appointment of what would have been BCLS’s most prominent professor, Professor Steven Calabresi. (the peer reputation score makes up 25% of the usnewsranking…)

on 13 Dec 2007 at 5:22 pm edit this eagles eat doves

honestly, I am not Catholic but BC is a Catholic school, so I think it is appropriate for Garvey to pub
licly defend the Cat
holic Church and Catholic Charities in the media. Don’t you expect the president of Brandeis to stick up for Jewish viewpoints?
And I agree with the last person’s point about the faculty hurting the rankings by rejecting Calabresi. That would have been huge for BC and I think the rest of the academic community laughed at us. He is at U Chicago now or someplace ranked way higher. Nice work faculty.

on 13 Dec 2007 at 6:41 pm edit this N75

So whose responsible for BC’s drop in the rankings? Garvey/administration or the faculty. I’m not too knowledgeable on how these things work. The faculty has the final say on hirings? There was no one who realized we were making a huge mistake by not hiring this guy?

on 13 Dec 2007 at 7:04 pm edit this Sleepy

What a shame. Really. For the value of our degrees, for the extent to which we can be proud of our school, for the bright students and faculty that lose interest in joining us and perhaps disdain is, as well.

Why do new students have to wait until there is some huge blowout to learn about these things?

This place has a huge problem with the flow of information. The LSA and Eaglei cheerfully duplicate each other’s efforts… students fill out recommendations that they never see and obviously didn’t have much of an impact when one looks at the quality of instruction here… very, very sad.

Also:

“Forbidding the Church to perform them [corporal works of mercy] is a serious blow to its religious liberty. Why would the government do that?”

Not even an creative fallacy. Had I read that before I accepted (or applied) I would have been less apt to come here.

on 17 Dec 2007 at 9:16 am edit this LOL

To N75-

Rest assured that in 1999, after interviewing all five Dean candidates, the LSA drafted it’s recommendations to Fr. Leahy and the Faculty which included a line summarizing “After meeting with all five candidates for the post of Dean, the only one patently unfit to lead a law school the caliber of BCLS is Prof. John Garvey.” Well, as you can see, the only one whom the students pegged from the outset is the one who got the job. I don’t hold it against Garvey. BCLS understood who they were getting almost 10 years ago and most people were willing to at least give him a shot after he landed the job hoping he’d grow. It’s mind blowing that after demonstrating so little progress in that time, he’s still there.