MEMORANDUM

TO:FROM:

Board of Governors of Ave Maria School of LawFaculty of Ave Maria School of LawThe Current CrisisApril 10,2006

RE:DATE:

It is with great sorrow that we write this memorandum to the Board of Governors of AveMaria School of Law. We all have a great love for Ave Maria School of Law, and have soughtto pursue the mission of the Law School to the best of our abilities. We want what is in the bestinterests of Ave Maria. With regret, we have come to the conclusion that a change in thepresidential and decanal leadership is necessary for the Law School to pursue effectively themission with which we have been entrusted.

Many things and individuals have helped to bring about the successes that the LawSchool has achieved. First, we have all seen the loving guidance of divine providence. Second,the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary has helped us along our journey. Third, we havebenefited greatly from the prayer and support of many individuals throughout the country.Fourth, our students and graduates have taken great risks and made enormous sacrifices inbuilding the school and its traditions. Fifth, the generosity of Mr. Monaghan has beeninstrumental in our success. Sixth, we have benefited from the leadership of Dean Dobranski inshepherding us through the accreditation process. Seventh, we have been blessed with a devotedfaculty who have helped to form and build the Law School.

The heart of the academic community is the faculty. Ex Corde Ecc/esiae notes in its firstpoint concerning "the nature of a Catholic university" that "[a] Catholic university, like everyuniversity, is a community of scholars." We feel compelled, therefore, to express our viewsabout an issue that is critical to the Law School's viability and long-term success.

By every measure, Ave Maria School of Law made a great beginning. We think thateveryone is in agreement that the first three to four years of the Law School were tremendouslysuccessful. Unfortunately, that great progress has not continued. On many fronts, most notablystudent recruitment, faculty and staff recruitment and retention, and alumni relations, we haveexperienced significant problems.

Currently, in our view, Ave Maria School of Law is in a state of crisis. We believe thatthis view is shared by a significant percentage of our current students and graduates. We believethat much of this crisis is attributable to the flawed leadership of Dean Dobranski, and that theLaw School will not be able to deal effectively with this crisis with him at the helm.

We think that it is important at the outset to call to mind the following statement from ExCorde:

A Catholic University pursues its objectives through its formation of an authentichuman community animated by the spirit of Christ. The source of its unitysprings from a common dedication to the truth, a common vision of the dignity of

the human person and, ultimately, the person and message of Christ which givesthe Institution its distinctive character. As a result of this inspiration, thecommunity is animated by a spirit of freedom and charity; it is characterized bymutual respect, sincere dialogue, and protection of the rights of individuals. Itassists each of its members to achieve wholeness as human persons; in turn,everyone in the community helps in promoting unity, and each one, according tohis or her role and capacity, contributes towards decisions which affect thecommunity, and also towards maintaining and strengthening the distinctiveCatholic character of the Institution.

The Mission Statement of Ave Maria School of Law proclaims as one of its principal objectivesof "building a community" and explains that "[t]he Ave Maria community of faculty,administrators, mentors, students, alumni, and staff is based on the inherent dignity of everyhuman being stemming from our creation in the image and likeness of God and raised to a newlevel by our redemption by Jesus Christ." Tragically, these aspirations are not being pursuedeffectively under the Law School's current leadership.

We believe that there are two main reasons for this state of affairs. First, Dean Dobranskihas lost the trust and confidence of the faculty, and we believe significant numbers of studentsand graduates. He no longer has the credibility necessary to lead this institution. Second, DeanDobranski has undermined the essential role of the faculty and threatened their academicfreedom.

Under his vision, the faculty have been marginalized in a manner that we believe isinconsistent with the community of Catholic scholars envisioned by Ex Corde and by the missionstatement of the Law School.

First, we believe that the Dean has lost the trust and confidence of key constituencies,most notably the faculty. We do not think that it would be productive to list the statements andcommunications from the Dean that have led us to this judgment (we would be happy to provideexamples). It is important to note that students, graduates, and faculty now frequently hear theDean offer such explanations as "That's not what I said." While we appreciate the importance ofprecise language in communicating the truth, it is our judgment that the Dean's practice in thisregard has led to a loss of trust.

Second, we believe that the Dean has undermined the essential role of the faculty. Itseems to us that the Dean does not view the faculty-as a community of scholars-as having arole in the governance of the Law School that is consistent with the vision expressed in Ex Cordeand by the Mission Statement of Ave Maria School of Law.

There are a variety of incidents that have led us to this conclusion. We will set forth theprincipal incidents below. First, when the Board took action that resulted in the removal ofCharles Rice from the Board and a position as a Life Governor, the Dean took the view that itwas beyond the competence of the faculty to make its views known to the Board. His view wasnot simply that it was imprudent for the faculty to express their views to the Board, but that wehad no business doing so. Our efforts to make our wishes known were met with a vigorous

2

campaign of threats and intimidation. At the meeting when the Life Governor issue was beforethe Board, we have reason to believe that the Dean conveyed the views of the faculty only afterthe Board had voted on the issue.

Second, the Dean has acted in a manner inconsistent with a governance structure thatreflects the shared participation of faculty and the Dean. Examples of this include recent actionsrelating to admissions, faculty hiring, and the academic calendar.

Third, the Dean recently reported to the faculty that the Board had asked him to chair acommittee to review our existing procedures for post-tenure review. While we have not polledevery member of the faculty on this point, we believe that everyone or nearly everyone on thefaculty took that as a threat to the tenured faculty and/or to the non-tenured faculty.

Fourth, faculty (and staff as well) have been informed that the Dean has initiated awidespread system of electronic discovery to monitor our e-mails and other methods of researchand communication. The Dean has denied this, although he has claimed that he has the authorityto do so. The fact that faculty and staff were warned that this was in fact being done indicatesjust how serious the situation is.

Fifth, the Dean has subjected individual faculty to other threats and intimidating tactics(apparently, many of our students and graduates have the same view that the Dean is operating inthis manner. Graduates who have spoken out about Law School matters have reported that theDean has called their employers in a threatening manner).

Sixth, thus far, the faculty have been marginalized concerning the possible relocation toFlorida. For example, the faculty (as a group) were not consulted at all about their view ofwhether to pursue a feasibility study. That decision by the Board, which has had profoundlynegative effects in many regards, was made without any faculty consultation.

We want to emphasize that, although the way in which the Florida issue has been handledhas provided a portion of the basis for our two principal conclusions, our judgment (that we havelost confidence in the Dean to properly lead this community of scholars) is independent of ourindividual views about the "Florida issue."

We have not written this memorandum as a legal "brief' with citations to, for example,relevant ABA standards. Our main concern at this point has been to link our concerns to thevision expressed by Ex Corde and embraced by our Mission Statement. We have not contactedthe ABA, although we might be prepared to do so in the future.

In closing, we believe that it is important that the Board meet with the faculty at theearliest possible time. We look forward to your response. We will continue to pray for everyonein the Ave Maria School of Law community and in particular to seek the intercession of Mary,Seat of Wisdom, on behalf of Ave Maria School of Law.

3

Resolution of No Confidence

Bernard DobranskiPresident and Dean

passed bythe Faculty

of Ave Maria School of Law

April 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Dean Bernard Dobranski, in his capacity as Dean, President, and a member of theBoard of Governors of Ave Maria School of Law ("the Law School"), is obligated by a fiduciaryduty to seek the best interests of the Law School without regard to the interests of any otherinstitution or individual;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski is obligated under Standard 204(b) of the Standards for Approvalof Law Schools of the American Bar Association ("the ABA") to share governance with thefaculty on all matters concerning the educational program of the Law School;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski is obligated under Standard 405(b) of the Standards for Approvalof Law Schools of the ABA to promote an atmosphere of academic freedom at the Law School;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski is obligated under Standard 201(b) of the Standards for Approvalof Law Schools of the ABA to organize and administer the Law School's financial resources in amanner that provides for and sustains a sound program of legal education, and accomplishes itsmIssIon;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski is obligated under Standard 501(a) of the Standards for Approvalof Law Schools of the ABA to develop admissions policies that are consistent with the objectivesof the Law School's educational program and the resources available for implementing thoseobjectives;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski is obligated under Standard 405(a) of the Standards for Approvalof Law Schools of the ABA to establish and maintain conditions adequate to attract and retain acompetent faculty;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski is obligated under Standard 509 of the Standards for Approval ofLaw Schools of the ABA to publish all relevant basic consumer information;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski has prevented the faculty from engaging in meaningfulparticipation in the governance of the Law School concerning matters falling squarely within itseducational program, including admissions criteria, faculty appointments, the academic calendar,and other matters discussed below pertaining to and significantly affecting the academicprogram;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski has refused to afford the faculty an opportunity for meaningfulconsultation in regard to fundamental operational matters of the Law School regarding strategicdecisions, the hiring of senior staff, comprehensive planning, physical and fiscal resources,budgeting and distribution of funds, decisions to create programs or affiliations, or decisionsrelating to the extracurricular expectations;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski has employed threats and intimidation to suppress and discouragethe expression of concerns by the faculty regarding his own actions or those taken by the Boardof Governors of the Law School;

WHEREAS, the faculty has been informed that Dean Dobranski has sought to monitor the e-mail, internet, and other computer-related activity of the faculty without suspicion of wrongdoingor other good cause;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski has represented to us that decisions of the Board of Governors ofthe Law School are predominantly influenced by the wishes of its Chairman, Mr. Thomas S.Monaghan, a businessman unfamiliar either with the practice of law or the demands of legaleducation or its educational administration;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski, who serves as a Trustee of Ave Maria University, has sought tofurther the independent interests of Mr. Monaghan, the Ave Maria Foundation, and/or Ave MariaUniversity by actively accommodating the furtherance of Mr. Monaghan's desire to relocate theLaw School from its current location in Ann Arbor, Michigan to a site near Immokalee, Florida;

WHEREAS, the mere consideration of a relocation to Florida by the Board of Governors hascaused and continues to cause serious deterioration of morale among the Law School's students,faculty, and alumni, along with student recruitment, admissions profile, financial resources intuition revenue and contributions, faculty retention and recruitment, and senior staff retentionand recruitment;

WHEREAS, a relocation of the Law School to Florida might potentially constitute a closure ofthe Law School under Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schoolsof the ABA;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski, despite the obvious risk to the Law School's educational programresulting from consideration of a relocation to Florida, has excluded the faculty from anymeaningful role in deciding the propriety of a relocation and/or the implementation of afeasibility study on the matter;

2

WHEREAS, DeanDobranski's statements led the faculty, alumni, current students, andprospective students to believe that the Law School was committed to achieving a first-tierranking among law schools fully approved by the ABA;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski, despite purporting to have intimate familiarity with themethodology employed by u.s. News and World Report in ranking, acknowledges that he wastaken by surprise when the Law School was ranked for the first time in March 2006;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski acknowledges that he failed to undertake all the foreseeable andreasonable best efforts that could have been made in seeking to attain a higher ranking than thefourth tier;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski, despite the Law School's bottom-tier ranking, and althoughacknowledging that the looming question of a relocation to Florida threatens a significantdetrimental impact upon the Law School's current educational program, supports the Board'sdecision to proceed with the pending feasibility study and refuses to encourage the Board ofGovernors to take immediate available measures to effectively eliminate this instability;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski, despite the financial support of Mr. Monaghan approaching orexceeding $50 million, has failed to manage the fiscal operation of the Law School and developadmissions and scholarship criteria that provide for the Law School's sustainable existence andgrowth;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski supported measures that resulted in the effective removal ofProfessor Charles Rice from the Board of Governors notwithstanding the overwhelming supportfor Professor Rice's continued presence on the Board as expressed by the Law School's faculty,students, and alumni;

WHEREAS, Dean Dobranski's actions, and failure to take action, pose a serious threat to thecontinued viability of the Law School; and

WHEREAS, the faculty have acted in good faith and made every effort to raise their concerns toDean Dobranski, and have been ignored, treated with contempt, or threatened in response;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the faculty of the Law School has no confidence in theability of Dean Dobranski to serve and further the mission of the Law School as its Dean,President, or member of its Board of Governors.

3