July 29, 2011
To the School of Law Community:
At a meeting at 4 o'clock on July 28, University President Robert Bogomolny asked for my resignation as Dean of the School of Law. As of today's date, I have resigned my position as Dean. I truly appreciate the support I have received from the faculty, staff, students and alumni of the School of Law. I write this decanal farewell in order to provide a brief explanation of why I am no longer Dean and to express my gratitude to all of you who welcomed me so warmly to Baltimore.
In the last two years, tensions have been increasing between the University administration and me regarding the financial relationship between the University and the School of Law. When I was a candidate for the Deanship, I was aware that, historically, the University retained a high percentage of the revenue generated by the law school. I was assured by the President at that time that he was aware of the problem and would work with me to remedy it over time. As I began my deanship, I realized that the law school did not possess accurate data in many areas, including its financial situation. Obtaining accurate financial data regarding the School of Law has not been an easy task. After much research and discussion, the University Finance Office and the School of Law agreed this past year on the amount of law school revenue generated by tuition, fees and state subsidy. I obviously always knew our School of Law budget. I have not yet received the critical data regarding the amount of direct and indirect University costs properly attributable to the School of Law. My insistence on having accurate data has exacerbated the difficulties between the University and me.
Every seven years, the ABA inspects law schools for renewal of their accreditation. The law faculty drafted a self study in the spring of 2010 as part of our ABA reinspection process. The percentage of law revenue retained by the University was emphasized as a significant concern of the faculty in that document. I believe a law school dean has a continuing responsibility to share accurate data regarding the law school and its operations. In the past year, I distributed the financial data I had to the faculty and the Dean's Advisory Board in order to inform them about the increasing scope of the problem. Both bodies were concerned about the continued ability of the law school to reach its potential without sufficient funding and the inequity of charging law students increasingly high tuition and fees if a significant percentage of those funds were not directly benefitting the law school. Both the faculty and the alumni insisted that I continue in my efforts to obtain more financial data and a University agreement to decrease its retention percentage over time. I was criticized by the central administration for sharing the financial data with the faculty and my advisory board. University officials also stated that providing funding for the continued improvement of the School of Law was not a high priority for the University.
The financial data demonstrates that the amount and percentage of the law school revenue retained by the University has increased, particularly over the last two years. For the most recent academic year (AY 10-11), our tuition increase generated $1,455,650 in additional revenue. Of that amount, the School of Law budget increased by only $80,774. I do not know of any law school in the country receiving such a small percentage of its generated tuition revenue. A recent article in The New York Times noted that a 25-30% revenue retention by a university was considered high by national standards. As of academic year 2010-11, the University retained approximately 45% of the revenue generated by law tuition, fees and state subsidy. Using any reasonable calculation of the direct and indirect University costs, the University was still diverting millions of dollars in law school revenue to non-law University functions.