So, yesterday was the professional responsibility lecture. The lecturer was over by 11, when most of them go 'till closer than 12:30. (Reader: Insert your own punchline.)

Before I headed back to school, I needed to do one or two things in the computer lab. So, I wandered up there and got into a conversation with another guy who just graduated from law school. He's taking BarBri for Michigan students, which is also offered at the law school. We chatted a bit about our study methods, which was a good conversation because I clarified that others are using the Conviser outline much more as a study outline, and also that being a day or so behind the study schedule is actually ahead, relative to others. :-) (It's still behind, and I don't like that, hence my happiness at having the weekend.)

Well, we were chatting, and a girl from our class walked in. Now, this person is good-natured, well-liked and levelheaded, so when it became apparent she was fuming, it was something to sit up and take note about.

Well, I found out why she was fuming, and by the end of her description, so was I. Not to mention, embarrassed.

I was embarrassed because the tale I'm about to tell you has not only been going on for the past two weeks, and has basically passed its prime now, but also because it was in the newspaper and I didn't realize it. It was in the damn newspaper!!!!

Our Dean at the law school is a guy named Phil Closius. I had Closius for Con Law I and II, and he was awesome. (See some of his quotes in a student publication here.) Many people also think he's got to be related to Ben Stein.

Closius has been Dean since 1999. It's clear to me the faculty is behind him and is appreciative of the work he's done to enhance the school. He takes a personal interest in students and has gone out of his way to ensure their success, understanding that their success is also the law school's success.

Beyond that, I think one of the most tangible things he's done has been bringing well-known speakers to the law school. In three years there, I saw two Supreme Court justices and a former attorney general (to name three folks off the top of my head; there were more.) The law school moved into the second tier of law schools last year from the third tier (although it moved back down into the third tier this year...a statistical fluctuation, basically.)

OK, so, why I'm fuming. Closius' contract is up June 30. Last year, around this time, he started pointing this out to The Powers That Be In Charge of Closius' Contract, suggesting maybe it was time to start talking about what the next one would look like. They kept saying (in essence), "Yeah, Phil, we'll get back to you."

Then, someone pointed out that the University is taking Deans to four year contracts and Closius had three. (OK, so, negotiate a four-year contract, for goodness sake!) "OK, Phil, we'll get back to you."

This continued for the better part of the year, until finally in May, Closius himself drafted a contract and sent it over to the provost's office. Actually, he drafted two: A four-year contract and a one-year contract, in case they wanted him to be interim dean and bring someone else in. Closius has been making $191,011 a year and wanted (for the four-year contract) to go to $210k, plus a one-time payment of $10,000.

Now, that's admittedly a jump (in fact, here's a post by someone who thinks Closius got exactly what he deserved), and the provost (who, as we shall see in a moment), ultimately decides such matters only makes $232 more than Closius' requested salary. But does anyone ever make their first request for a raise what they want it to be? No, you increase it so you have room to negotiate.

Apparently, no one told this to provost Alan Goodridge. On May 31, he had dinner with Closius and some other folks, and was apparently very pleasant and gave no indication anything was wrong. On June 1, Closius headed out of town, and around the time his plane was wheels-up, his secretary was handed a letter for him from Goodridge saying they weren't going to renegotiate his contract and he could return to teaching.

Now, here's where it gets slightly embarrassing, in that this was reported in the Toledo Blade on June 3, which I completely missed. I think it's fascinating to read Goodridge's comment that "I don't think performance was an issue as far as this decision. This really resulted with some demands that didn't provide us with much wiggle room."

OK, setting aside the fact it resulted from demands, not with (and you would think a provost of a university could keep that straight), let's think about this. How do contracts get accomplished? They are (say it with me) ne-go-ti-a-ted. One side says, "This is what I think the contract should look like." The other side says, "Your price is too high./I can't pay in six installments, can it be twelve?/I can't deliver your widgets by Friday, could it be next Wednesday?" You (hopefully) come to some agreement.

So, no negotiation on this. The law school is up in arms, petitions are passed, and so Goodridge agrees to have a meeting on Tuesday. (I was still, regrettably, blissfully unaware and buried in BarBri, or I would have been up in arms and signing petitions as well, as well as attending the meeting.)

Now, someone had told the Blade, which had a fairly blase report on the meeting. Here's a post by someone who went and thought the students didn't handle themselves that well.

The person I talked to who went to the meeting told me that Goodridge basically said he didn't like Closius' "confrontational style" (with regard to his contract), and that's why he didn't renew the contract. He did say something to the effect that this was only his second contract he'd dealt with. (I'm not surprised, if this is how he handles 'em. If the university continues to trust him to negotiate contracts, they'll soon have no one left!)

And then he made a critical mistake. On the list of things you Just Don't Wanna Do, this has got to be right up at the top.

Now, picture this. 100-150 irate law students. Him. He's outnumbered. And he says to these 100-150 law students...

"Well, let me tell you something about contracts."

My understanding is that first there was a mass snarl, and then laughter. Derisive, pervasive laughter. So much laughter it made even Goodridge realize how bad it sounded, and he backed down on the trying-to-tell-people-who-by-definition-took-two-classes-on-contracts-their-first-year idea.

So, Closius appealed Goodridge's decision. Here's another fun thing: When you don't like the provost's decision, you appeal it to........

the provost.

Yeah, guess how that came out. It was denied yesterday.

Here's what bothers me the most. It's not a Closius thing, although I think he was a great Dean. It's the fact that I had (and still have) great feelings of warmth for the University of Toledo College of Law. In fact, after graduation on May 7, I stopped Closius in the hallway to let him know I looked forward to contributing as an alumni, which is more than I can say for my undergrad institution. Going there was truly a great experience.

But, why am I going to give my money to what I think is a great institution to make strides to improve, when the administration over it has shown a willingness to swoop in after five years and cut them off at the knees?

At the end of Closius' email to faculty and students yesterday, he wrote, "I still do not believe that this decision is in the best interests of the College of Law." I couldn't agree more. First of all, this whole charade has ticked off our associate dean, Beth Eisler, so much that she won't continue as associate dean. (Both she and Closius are going back to teaching, which is one bright spot, because Closius is a great teacher and I've heard very good reviews on Eisler as well.) So, the two people who have led as our standing increased and our bar pass rates scores increased (and let's all pray they continue to this term!!!!) are going.

This makes no sense. And I'm embarrassed I wasn't aware this was happening before final decisions were made. But make no mistake, I will still be writing a letter to express my displeasure.

And I'm not sure I can say the same about a check. Which really saddens me, because I was looking forward to supporting the College of Law. But, if the University of Toledo can't, why should I?

PS: I can't wait to hear what the new dean (who I hope has everyone's support, this isn't his fault) makes.