Eagleionline

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Ma
Sent: Thu 1/31/2008 10:58 AM
To: [Redacted]
Cc: [Redacted]
Subject: BCLS Alumni Association: The Dean's Proposed Restructuring and Why You Should Vote NO

Dear fellow California BCLS Alumni:

As you know, Dean John Garvey has unilaterally proposed to restructure the Alumni Association, and after a narrow vote by the Alumni Council (25-23) consenting to his proposed draft on Dec. 1, the administration has sent out marketing emails and the glossy BC Law Magazine, containing your ballot.

Consistent with the dishonesty with which they have conducted themselves since the onset of this "process," Garvey's magazine proclaims on its cover that "graduates" propose to re-write its own constitution, with the words "We The People." The comparison is shameful, given the complete lack of due process and the horrific work product that you are being asked to approve. Worst yet, the administration claims that the process is "democratic" to the students, while failing to provide you with a printed copy of the proposed constition, the current bylaws for your own comparison, or even a standard, objective Pro-Con statement as you expect to see in your own California voter's guides and ballots.

Further, we have learned that select members of the Board of Overseers, which the dean appoints and controls, have been emailing alumni, citing statistics from the dean's own study of the association (which consisted of only 401 telephone calls), and asking that people merely vote yes, without critically reading any of the proposed language. They claim to have unaminously approved the work product, which I hesitate to believe given the extreme poor quality of the work product. Yesterday, Boston alumni reported receiving telephone calls soliciting for votes by telephone for the proposal, prior to the arrival of the magazine in their mailboxes. The procedure was never discussed nor approved by the Alumni Council for obvious concerns over your privacy and the integrity of the vote.

I have attached again the complete chronology and documents concerning these sweeping changes to this email, and strongly encourage you again to vote NO in this critical vote for the alumni. The fatal flaws are as follows:

1. The Dean's consultants have never worked for a professional school and were unable to provide any documentation that the proposed plan was used at any other law school; The proposed constitution/bylaw is instead written by these non-lawyer consultants, previously sold to Rutgers and the BC undergraduate association.
2. The Dean's own "Task Force" involved none of your California delegates to the Alumni Councl, and did not include a single corproate or commercial lawyer, capable of drafting corporate bylaws to the professional standards we expect and require.
3. The Dean will unilaterally appoint the first board of the Association, period. The so-called committee which will draw a short list for him includes two (2) people HE WILL CHOOSE himself, plus other members from other Dean's own appointed boards, such as the Board of Overseers and the Business Advisory Council, neither which require prior work within the ranks of the alumni association serving the alumni.
4. The Dean and Assoc. Dean of Institutional Advancement Marianne Lord have not been able to adequately answer questions regarding its plans for financial and staff support for the proposed plan. Other law schools such as Boalt Hall commit five times the number of higher education professionals to alumni relations, while this proposal shifts these professional functions onto the shoulders for a small board.
5. There is nothing that the new structure claims to do that the Alumni Council already isn't doing, while balancing your alumni volunteers' own work and family demands. In fact, the new board members' responsibilities, which are full-time professional alumni relations roles, would require so much time and attention that it would limit most alumni's ability to participate. Indeed it would make it impossible for any alumni outside of New England to participate. We in Calfiornia have already noted that alumni not geographically close to Boston will be unable to be on the board as there is no provision for even telephonic participation.
6. The core of the power in the association will be concentrated in the small board -- the so-called assembly members and the alumni at large have virtually no voice. The number of alumni with a substantive vote has been reduced from 50 to just 11. Membership to the assembly is ill-defined and dependent on nominations by the new uber-Board. The administration has stated in Los Angeles that it intends to award some of these Assembly positions to donors -- this is a questionable, if not offensive, practice.
7. The assembly, according to the proposed constitution, is supposed to elect future Boards, but the constitution contains a provision which states that the Board shall nominate and approve a list of assembly members to be invited each year. So who elects who? Such drafting flaws riddle this document, which is already short on the best-practices for modern corproate bylaws, and it is embarassing and unprofessional for the Dean to send a document of this quality to you.
8. You, the alumni at large, will have no provision for calling a meeting by petition as the current by-laws provide; Nor will you be asked to approve future changes to the association, with this very ballot that you are guaranteed under the current bylaws.
9. Prof. Ruth Arlene Howe and Judge Mary Muse, the two Lifetime Members of the Alumni Council, will not be afforded the same honor in the new structure. This is extremely unkind and unbecoming of BCLS graduates.
10. The purported goal of involving more alumni cannot be achieved with the proposed plan that puts power in the hands of a few and silences the voices of many.

Please review the actual language of the proposed constitution to see for yourself, as well as review the attached email for the true context of these changes. Although we have the third largest group of alumni outside of Boston and New York, the great majority of alumni still reside in New England. In light of the tactics that the administration have chosen to gain passage for these changes, I strongly urge you to email fellow classmates and alumni in Boston and the East Coast, urging them to carefully consider these changes and vote against the Dean's unilateral attempt to restructure our association and silence forever the voice of alumni. At a juncture when our law school has sunken to its lowest ranking ever, when beloved faculty members are leaving, when black student enrollment has fallen to historic lows, and when collegiality on campus has been replaced with disrespect and anonymous snipings on student blogs, it is time for the alumni to defend our association and make our voices heard back in Newton.

Sincerely,

Lawrence S. Ma '01