Monday, May 31, 2004

Dickinson School of Law Q&A, Part II


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2004, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, May 31, 2004


Dickinson School of Law Q&A, Part II: 'Best interest of our future law students'

The following is the second half of a question-and-answer report generated by a meeting of the Centre Daily Times editorial board and reporters and two key players in the effort to move the Dickinson School of Law from Carlisle to State College. Present were Penn State President Graham Spanier and Philip McConnaughay, Dean of Dickinson School of Law. Part I was published on Sunday.

CDT: Could you discuss the advantages and opportunities you envision for cooperation between the law school and other departments, should the school move from Carlisle to State College?

McConnaughay: I think that there are multiple advantages. They can range from at one end collaborative research with someone in a different department. And we see much of innovative thinking today at the intersection of different disciplines.

And law is no different. It could be exposed in a meaningful way by a colleague in another department to a pressing issue there, whether it's engineers or biochemists exposing lawyers to intellectual property issues or people in the athletic department exposing lawyers to sports law issues, or people in literature exposing lawyers to emerging copyright issues.

The nexus between law and these other disciplines is where innovation resides and new thinking resides and new legislative initiatives reside. And that's equally important. There are just cooperative, interesting endeavors such as co-sponsoring a symposium. When I was at the University of Illinois, I co-sponsored one symposium with a professor of African history or law and development in Africa. I co-sponsored another with a leading neuro-scientist on the values that should govern research at major research universities and the legal implications of whether a research agenda was being skewed by corporate relationships. I mean these are just fun sorts of professional academic inquiries and actual inquiries in the ordinary course of life that are just more available to plumb, so to speak, if you are with a college.

For faculty, if you can draw on a faculty member in a different department to deliver one lecture a year in your class, it's a great thing. If the engineering schools at Penn State could have law professors teaching an intellectual property class about how you can use the intellectual property of others in developing your new inventions, or how you can protect your new inventions, that's a wonderful thing, too. And it just highlights the close relationships that are possible with co-location.

CDT: Penn State has the technology in place to share intellectual materials, and has billed itself frequently as a top distance-learning institution. Couldn't the cooperative relationships be accomplished without physically moving the law school?

Spanier: There is no university in the country that is better at distance education and using information technology to facilitate instruction than Penn State is. But we know in the end that there is no substitute for being in the same room and interacting directly with fellow students and faculty members.
So for a residential program like you see in most of our Penn State programs or you see at the law school, you can look at the use of technology and distance education as an answer, but it can't really be seen as a principal method of doing business. I don't think that's going to pass muster with law school accrediting bodies, and I don't think students are going to want to flock to a law school where all of the special lectures that the dean just talked about and some part of the more interesting aspects of the instructional programs that you will see emerge in the future are done electronically.

CDT: A couple of questions regarding University Park here. You have capped the enrollment levels given the concern with community matters. How will you address this issue with all of these students being added onto the university. How far would it go?

Spanier: We are talking about something in excess of 500 students. We are now within a few hundred students of our ceiling. This would bring us closer to the ceiling but we would expect to make adjustments elsewhere in our enrollment profile so that we stay within the overall ceiling that we have projected for this campus.

We have set 42,000 as the limit here and it would be our expectation that we would remain within that. We think we can accommodate the law students here and they would have access to the same on campus and off campus housing. But it would not be purely an add-on to the current student base. We would make some adjustments elsewhere.

CDT: Do you think there would be any effect at all to the general student population -- specifically what they pay in tuition -- considering the law school coming here and the investment in making it happen?

Spanier: I don't think there would be anything very significant or noticeable. The law school right now operates on a fairly self-sufficient basis. When Penn State merged with the law school, no additional legislative appropriation was given to us so the budget at the law school is pretty independent and is primarily tuition driven. And that would continue to be the case going forward.

The only thing that would be different would be that the building for the law school would have to be integrated into our overall capital construction priorities and we have said to the Board of Governors and publicly that we would, of course, raise the level of priority for that building to a high level compared to some other projects that are in the queue now. At University Park, as you know, we project our building plans out pretty specifically over a five-year period and then somewhat more generally over a 10-year period. So all of our deans are aware that some projects that they may have hoped to get to sooner might be delayed a year or two because of the law school's higher priority in that construction queue.

CDT: Along those lines, if in fact this is approved, what will the timetable be for making the transition to State College?

Spanier: Assuming everything went smoothly and moved ahead on an accelerated schedule, we would expect a new building to open up and a new class of law students to start here in the fall of 2008.

Generally speaking, you have a year of program planning for a new building. That discussing involves faculty, architects in the physical plant, space planners and so on. Then you appoint an architect and you work for about a year in architectural design and put the project out to bid. And a building of this scope is generally on a two-year construction schedule.

CDT: So you wait until the building was built to actually make the move?

Spanier: One of the advantages of this approach -- it's not a principal advantage, but it is an auxiliary advantage -- is that when the new building is built, everybody can move into it. And there is no disruption.

If we stay in Carlisle, which of course is a very real possibility that the Board of Governors will end up (keeping the school) there, we have pledged to put some money into that solution as well. The Governor has pledged to put some money into a matching program and the community leaders in Carlisle have pledged to be supportive of that solution, although it's unclear to us yet that they have anything very specific to contribute in terms of cash. But under any scenario there will be a renovation of that facility there.

Now it's a facility that is already undersized and tight for space, how you go through the sequencing for that is very challenging and could actually take longer than this time frame. Even if it were on the same time frame, it would be difficult to logistically go through the process. And, of course, we've had to do that before and we will manage to make that happen in any event.

CDT: There is a chance that you get the governor to spend $25 million in Carlisle. Now, there is a chance that you could still get the money for Carlisle and have the money that you want here for the campus. Or is that out of the question?

Spanier: We have offered the possibility, which was not met with enthusiasm in Carlisle, if what's important in Carlisle is keeping a significant operation there and continuing to promote economic development in the area, that we would still pledge the $10 million in addition to the cost of a facility here, to renovate the facility there and to keep some significant programmatic initiatives there.

So, we think there are ways to minimize any negative impact on the Carlisle community, and we see that as something that's appropriate for a school like Penn State, which is very community-minded, to try to do. It has not been met with a lot of enthusiasm in Carlisle, I think principally because they are saying, "No, we don't want a secondary location here. We want the primary location. If you want a secondary location, great. Put it in State College. We are happy to have you do that."

CDT: Could you elaborate on what "significant programmatic initiatives" would be involved, and also elaborate on Penn State's responsibility to the Carlisle community and its economy, and how that may play out.

McConnaughay: I think that Penn State's sense of responsibility has been incredibly responsive and significant when it comes to the Carlisle community. President Spanier asked me, within weeks of this initiative becoming public, to take a very close look at what would ensure a sustained and significant economically beneficial presence in Carlisle, in the aftermath of the law school's relocation, should the Board of Governors consent to the relocation. And I did that, and I think the possibilities are quite significant. We're looking at programs that would both benefit Carlisle significantly and stay significantly, and not detract at all from law school operations, but in fact benefit law school operations.

I think we would focus on our current facilities there and renovate them, so that they were suitable as a home for continual education programs which were somewhat more modest than a full-fledged law school, but that also would serve as a basis for executive education. That is one of the biggest growth areas in the United States today. I think Penn State's entry would be very significant. I think that we would fashion the Carlisle operation as a government center of sorts, harnessing as fully as we can the advantages of Harrisburg and the presence of state government and Washington, D.C. (We would) have faculty there, we might run a part time J.D. program which we've never run before for professionals who are interested in becoming a lawyer in the course of four or five years' education rather than three. A class size there could be from 25 to 45 people. Very quickly in a five-year program you are up to 150 students.
We would have executive education which would be different in nature from what we provide now because it would not be residential. But it would put on programs in the same way that the Kennedy School of Government puts on programs at Harvard, designed to provide continuing education to public sector employees or to business executives or to politicians, about important issues of the day. And we could both have resident faculty and people we would bring in for purposes of these shorter-term classes.

It would change the nature of the economic benefit to Carlisle, but I suspect in the long run it might enhance the nature of the economic benefit because you have many more people for shorter stays using community services and investing in the community in different ways than law students invest. And I think we could probably make the government programs we would offer there available to upper classmen law students at the State College campus if they chose to reside in Carlisle for a semester or year to take advantage of what is uniquely available there and depth we could not perhaps replicate in State College.

So, I think the presence could be very significant. I think it would be economically a program which would quickly become self-sustaining. And I think that's right now just not capturing public attention because there is so much emotional investment in keeping the law school in Carlisle. But I think that is the only thing that stands between the program we are proposing and the public acknowledgement that it actually is of a very serious beneficial nature.

CDT: How many students do you see at Carlisle as a result of that new program?

McConnaughay: Well, the residential population would be lower than it is today and suitable for the facility. And the residential population might be people who are living in their own homes, executives, newspaper editors who want to be come lawyers, going to law school in a part-time program, for four or five years. And we would provide a J.D. degree for those students. They wouldn't be resident in Carlisle but they would be using Carlisle services. There might be up to 60 law students from our campus in State College who would every semester be in residence in Carlisle, whether for the classes that are uniquely offered there, or externships in Harrisburg which they might then perform on a sustained-long basis rather than for a few hours a week.

And then when it comes to the executive education, I don't see a real limit, other than your capacity to run very attractive programs. And that could be whatever number of people you can accommodate for a particular program, whether it's 50 people over a weekend, or a hundred people for a week. And throughout the year, the identities of people would change; it wouldn't be residential, although I think it would be highly attractive for the restaurants and hotels in town.

CDT: Would the facilities in Carlisle accommodate this plan?

McConnaughay: I think our existing facilities, renovated, would be highly suitable for this type of program. And President Spanier has said that he is more than happy to invest in renovation and provide operating funds for the period of time it takes for this program get up and running.

CDT: Do you see an impact, one way or another, whether the Board goes in your favor or not, with the eventual state appropriation process? It is down to ... essentially, it is 12 percent of your total budget now. Do you see an impact one way or another, or maybe not at all?

Spanier: I don't see any impact within Legislature. I think the Legislature is trying to do the best they can for Penn State and the other state-related universities. In the midst of our difficult discussions about this, the House passed our appropriation at the governor's recommended level a couple of weeks ago. And I think the Senate is prepared to take up the budget as well.

There are a few members of the Legislature, mostly concentrated around the Carlisle area, who are very strong advocates for keeping the law school there, of course. We have very open lines of communication with them. We understand each other's points of view. So we are not insensitive to the political implications of this, but I think in the end people really need to understand that it is incumbent upon us as educators to look at this from an educational standpoint first.

No one should ever accuse Penn State of being insensitive to the needs of communities. That kind of criticism would be laughable if anyone would take a moment to realize that we have 24 campuses in 24 communities of this state. We operate at a hundred different locations around Pennsylvania. There is no university in the United States that cares more about communities in which we exist, and the fact that we would commit to putting millions of dollars in construction funds and ongoing operating money to have a significant law school presence in Carlisle should demonstrate to people our concerns about the economic interests of the community.

In the end, though, we have to look at what's in the long-term best interests of our students -- attracting faculty, giving (students) the kind of education that in the next two, three, four decades is going to be necessary for them to enter the profession at the appropriate levels, and having the kinds of options that any good law school graduate should have.

CDT: If, for some reason, the Board votes to keep a law school in Carlisle, are you going to accept that as that's the final say, or will you reexamine this at a later time?

Spanier: Well, of course we would accept it. It doesn't necessarily close the door at some time down the road to a reconsideration. That would depend on the changing viewpoints of the board over time.

This is the moment for an important decision and we really hope that we can look forward 20, 40, 60 or 100 years and think about the legacy they will leave and what is the right thing to do for the thousands and thousands of graduates who will move through that law school in the future. From Penn State's standpoint, it is our law school under any scenario, and we want to do the best we can regardless of the location.

CDT: Are you confident a decision will be made on June 11-12?

Spanier: I think so and I hope so because it's consuming a lot of energy and there's a lot of angst over it. And I don't think additional time will allow for shedding of additional light. We're in a mode now where all of the light's out there, there is only growing heat. Also, from our perspective, in the end this is really about the students more than anything else -- what is in the best interest of our future law students. And we don't want another incoming class in the fall to have this unresolved.

Sunday, May 30, 2004

Dickinson law school Q&A, Part I


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2004, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, May 30, 2004


Dickinson law school Q&A, Part I: 'Co-location' key to success

The following question-and-answer report was generated by a meeting of the Centre Daily Times editorial board and reporters and two key players in the effort to move the Dickinson School of Law from Carlisle to State College. Present were Penn State President Graham Spanier and Philip McConnaughay, Dean of Dickinson School of Law. Part II will be published on Monday.

CDT: Could you bring us to speed on the most recent developments in the discussion surrounding the plan to move the Dickinson School of Law from Carlisle to State College.

Spanier: The Board of Governors of the law school has a meeting scheduled on June 11 and 12, and at that meeting they anticipate taking up the question of the location of the law school. They have all of the materials that they've requested from us to make that decision.

For questions on the educational merits and specifically what would be involved with finances, we have made those documents publicly available because so many people would have them, we assumed they would be made public anyway and there's considerable public interest in this question. So, I think they'll have all of the information they need and then they'll have to decide what's in their hearts and minds and make what we hope will be a decision in the best interests of the law school.

CDT: Could we discuss the ultimate goal, looking at law school rankings as part of it? What is your vision for the law school?

McConnaughay: Well, I think that the goal is one of providing our students with the programs and the faculty that will enable them to be the best lawyers possible and to provide to them as well the widest, the most meaningful range of professional opportunities upon graduation. Increasingly I think in the last 25, 30 years you will see, if you look at the legal education in the United States, that most schools that are co-located with a research-oriented university campus are law schools that are best able to provide both the best programs and faculty the students deserve and the range of professional opportunities students deserve.

And it's a host of factors that contribute to that. It's harnessing the wonderfully rich resources of a research university campus, the many, many departments, literally thousands of distinguished professors who reside there, and bringing that resource and that body of knowledge to bear on the legal curriculum. Whether professors show up for a day for a lecture or whether law students take classes in departments, or whether faculty cooperate in offering symposia that are of benefit to the entire community, relationships are, in fact, more reflective of what lawyers will encounter in the real world as practitioners, than are the opportunities and experiences we could provide as a stand-alone institution.

Lawyers who practice law today feel, or really who practiced law always, law is only half of the equation to deal with people who have problems, whether they are family problems, marital problems, businesses with issues or objectives. And you bring the expertise of law to bear on these very independent objectives and issues that people in businesses confront. Inherently that is a multi-disciplinary effort. It is typical for lawyers to align themselves with experts in multiple areas in solving legal problems that are presented to them, and a university setting really allows us to replicate as closely as possible in the context of an educational experience -- what lawyers experience and do in their daily lives.

CDT: Is there a particular school that you are modeling your vision after?

McConnaughay: I think realistically that the single greatest compared advantage enjoyed by the Dickinson School of Law today is its relationship in working with the Penn State University, specifically with Penn State as a major research university.

If you look at all 180 law schools in the nation, and look at the ones that consistently attract the most renowned faculty, the best faculty, most highly qualified students, and produce some of the most prominent lawyers in today's society, they are those schools that are strongly affiliated with a research run university. There's only about 30 or 40 of them. The other 150 don't have that attribute. And it's reflected in certain objective criteria like the academic credentials of the students they are able to recruit? Like the faculty that they are able to recruit.

And the regularity with which their graduates contribute very significantly in addressing the problems of society. So, I do think we are uniquely situated among all law schools to acquire the multiple attributes of that group of law schools, that 40 or so that are deeply integrated with the nation's best universities. And co-location is a large part of being able to do that.

CDT: Will you be able to quantify if such a move is successful, if it happens?

McConnaughay: I think that there are objective measures of how we are performing as a law school. Part of it has to do with the academic credentials of the students we attract. And I believe we will see a significant uptake in the undergraduate records, LSAT scores, and perhaps, most importantly, life experiences of the students who select the Dickinson School of Law.

I think it will more closely in the future resemble the history of the law school with respect to its attractiveness. This is a law school that historically enjoyed the advantage, the particular advantage, of being the top-choice law school, really, of regional students. We have recruited from our back yard without a great deal of effort. Regional students come to us in abundance and our graduates are very prominent people: (U.S. Homeland Security Director) Tom Ridge, much of the federal bench in Pennsylvania, a sitting U.S. Senator, leading practitioners throughout Pennsylvania, et cetera.

Beginning in the late '80s or '90s, it was more of a struggle for stand alone law schools to compete for that type of student. And what we saw was the top Pennsylvanians going elsewhere. And you will see actually Dickinson School of Law having a more geographically diverse student body today than it did traditionally, but a less well credentialed student body than traditional. My belief is that if we co-locate, if we become more attractive to today's students through deep integration with a university that co-location makes possible, then we actually will restore our traditional function of returning to Pennsylvania top practitioners and government leaders in a way we are not doing quite as well today.
There are other measures, too. Diversity is a big measure. I think that we will be able to sustain improvements in the diversity of our student body and faculty as a co-located unit of a major research university more easily than if we are stand-alone.

CDT: Concerning faculty, are you interested in bringing in maybe some higher-level thinking? Have you given consideration to who is out there that you want, or what type of expertise maybe that's not in Carlisle that you definitely would bring to the school?

McConnaughay: Well, I wouldn't use the phrase "higher level thinking." We have a very fine faculty today. We are very fortunate in the ability to attract and keep very good faculty. I think in a sustained way, looking out for decades, you will find that top law faculty, whatever issue you may happen to be addressing at the time, will be attracted more strongly by the professional college that is joining a university campus than it will standing on its own.

There are some geographic advantages for co-location. For example, (Carlisle is) X number of miles closer to Washington, D.C. But there are 18 other law schools closer to Washington, D.C., than we are. It's a matter of comparative image. The universities are a comparative advantage (for law schools). I think that is what is most singularly attractive to top law faculty candidates.

CDT: Are there some different board members with specific questions at this time? Are either of you getting a lot of pressure?

Spanier: Phil meets with the board regularly and I've had two very extended discussions with them, perhaps totaling eight hours in length. I think the board has had most of their questions answered in terms of our thinking, in terms of the different resource issues involved and they are pretty well informed.

I think there are some board members who clearly see the wisdom of the move and understand that it will be an advantageous thing to do. There are some board members that are very strongly attached to Carlisle, to the law school being in Carlisle. And there are others who are still perhaps thinking through this. I think they now have most of the information they now need to make that decision and they know that we stand prepared to answer any of the remaining questions that they have. At this point we are not being asked much more because I think it's pretty well out there. So we just have to let the process play out.

CDT: Could you discuss the problems with relation to rankings and ratings for the Dickinson Law School and how that plays into this? What shortcomings are geographical and what are programmatic?

Spanier: Rankings and ratings is a sensitive and sometimes controversial topic. Schools that tend to rank real well often like being ranked highly, and they tout those rankings. Penn State does it because we do tend to be very highly ranked by almost any measure.

But at the same time when you're not ranked very well, you can have two reactions. One is to criticize the rankings, the other is to realize that it might be an indicator that some improvement or some changes are needed. My point of view is that love them or hate them, we have to live with them.

And there is no question that rankings of law schools are taken as meaningful by prospective law students and their families and the public. I don't think we can escape that. There are some rankings that are more prominent than others. But it seems clear that by any measure our rankings have slipped in recent years, and we have to be sensitive to that.

Now that has occurred despite the fact that Phil has done a marvelous job in increasing the number of applications, in hiring some outstanding faculty, in broadening the visibility of the school, and in working with his faculty to help students pass the bar exam and seek employment.

But Penn State is not accustomed to saying that we are happy being in the lower half. There's no program at Penn State where we are proud to be anywhere other than at or near the top. Or if we aren't, that we aren't striving for it. So we don't play to the rankings, but we focus on the educational issues underlying that ultimately, in good ranking systems, is reflected.
CDT: To that end, could you talk a bit about specific problems relating to the issues cited by Rodney Erickson in his report on the merits of relocating the law school. Is there a cause and effect?

McConnaughay: I would say that it's not related to Carlisle as much as it is related to being a stand-alone law school. If the University Park campus were to relocate to Carlisle and join us there, it would probably suit the law school's purposes equally well.

But it is true that what we are after is the programmatic integration. This isn't really a geographic issue. Carlisle is a very fine place, as is State College. I think that there are any number of issues when we compete for faculty. It's been a struggle in recent years to successfully recruit the top faculty we would like to recruit. We've done a great job in the last couple of years and a large part of that has been pre-existing personal acquaintances. I think that these people especially appreciate what it would mean to the law school as an institution to relocate.

Diversity has been a challenge for the law school for many, many years. I just had a graduating class that I presided over a commencement ceremony where there was in a graduating class of 166, no African-Americans and one African. The last few years we have recruited classes that are -- last year was 22 percent minority. This year could be 20 to 25 percent as an incoming class. In order to sustain that, we need to provide the opportunities and programs these students expect when they know they are signing up for Penn State.

And that's a large part of the challenge where we are. Because they do appreciate increasingly that we are a major university and they expect the programs typically provided by law schools of major universities. And we are missing many of those programs, whether it?s experience based clinics and externships that the university provides to their students.

The dean from Michigan State University, for example, he went down to speak to the Board of Governors a few weeks ago. And he laid out several different clinics that his law school has established since relocating from Detroit to East Lansing, to Michigan State's campus, where they have been cooperatively established law clinics for law students with other departments of the university -- an environmental law clinic, operated in conjunction with the environmental-related departments at Michigan State; a family law clinic, operated in conjunction with the department of social work; a small-business entrepreneurship clinic operated in conjunction with the business school. And those sorts of synergies are just not available to us meaningfully because of the distance between the law school and the rest of the university campus.

CDT: You said you are having difficulties getting high-level recruits at the university. Are you successfully retaining students?

McConnaughay: We do a pretty good job of retaining. I think traditionally the law school has not successfully recruited.

Throughout its history, it typically was under 10 percent diverse classes. I think we are effectively portraying to the public right now the opportunities and advantages of a relationship with Penn State, and that's the cause of our success in the last couple of years. But I do think we've got to deliver what that image conveys to students actually, and that requires programmatic content.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Dickinson may vote on move in June


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2004, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004


Dickinson may vote on move in June

By Lara Brenckle
lbrenckl@centredaily.com

STATE COLLEGE A decision on whether to relocate The Dickinson School of Law to Penn State's University Park campus could come during next month's meeting of the law school's board of governors.

If the decision is to move the school from the community in which it was founded 170 years ago, Penn State

President Graham Spanier said, law school students could begin attending classes in a new, $60 million facility on the University Park campus in 2008.

Spanier and Philip McConnaughay, the law school's dean, met with the Centre Daily Times editorial board Monday morning to discuss the proposed move of the law school and what it might mean for law students, the local campus and Carlisle.

Spanier and McConnaughay both favor moving the law school to University Park, saying a closer association with a major research university such as Penn State would allow the school to offer a broader range of programs and to attract the best students and faculty.

Adding more than 500 law school students at the local campus would push the campus to its enrollment cap of 42,000, imposed because of concerns about the effect of more students on the State College community. Spanier said that limit would be kept in place, which may mean adjusting the enrollment profile of other departments.

University Park students would see few or no increased costs from adding the law school, Spanier said, but in order to fund a $60 million facility for the school, other capital construction projects now being considered could be delayed.

The relocation of the law school is being contemplated in part because its ranking compared with other law schools has slipped in recent years. Spanier and McConnaughay said many top-ranked law schools are now affiliated with major research universities.

Moving the school to University Park would strengthen that affiliation, they said, and allow for collaboration with other university departments and colleges.

"A university setting really allows us to replicate, as closely as possible, in the context of an educational experience, what lawyers experience and do in their daily lives," McConnaughay said.

He referred to the experience of the Detroit College of Law, which became affiliated with Michigan State University in 1995 and moved to the Michigan State campus in 1997. Since then, the school has established law clinics in conjunction with other university departments.

"An environmental law clinic operated in conjunction with environmental-related departments at Michigan State, a family law clinic operated in conjunction with the department of social work, a small business entrepreneurship clinic operated in conjunction with the business schools -- and those sorts of synergies are just unavailable to us meaningfully because of the distance between the law school and the rest of the university campus," McConnaughay said.

Faculty would benefit from that close association as well, he said. Law-school faculty could have professors from other departments lecture to their classes, or they could conduct symposiums together examining problems that span several disciplines, McConnaughay said.

There are strong feelings among some members of the law school's board of governors to keep the school in Carlisle, Spanier acknowledged. Penn State has agreed to provide $10 million to renovate or expand the Carlisle campus, regardless of whether Dickinson stays there or relocates.
If the law school moves, the $10 million would be spent to renovate the Carlisle facilities to house law school programs that Spanier termed "significant."

That proposal, he said, has not been met with great enthusiasm in Carlisle, where officials and residents strongly want the borough to remain home to the law school's primary campus.

Carlisle Borough Manager Fred Bean said the community, as well as local officials, said Spanier should keep the money and use it to start a continuing-education center in State College.

"If they move this law school, it's going to tear the fabric of this community apart," Bean said. "Spanier doesn't truly understand how important this law school is to the community."

McConnaughay said renovations at the Carlisle campus could turn it into a center for continuing and executive education, where professionals could pursue law-related enrichment classes or earn a law degree through an extended program. It could be a government center of sorts, McConnaughay said, harnessing opportunities available in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C.

McConnaughay also said that it was possible that perhaps up to 60 students may be in residence, either for a year or a semester, as they take advantage of extended programming and "externship" programs available there.

Both Spanier and McConnaughay said they do not know how the board of governors will vote when it meets June 11-12. It is a divided board, they said, with strong feelings about the move on both sides.

Should the board vote to keep the law school's primary location in Carlisle, Spanier said the university will accept that decision.

Still, he said, it does not eliminate the possibility of the subject resurfacing in the future.

"That would depend on the changing viewpoints of the board over time," Spanier said. "But this is the moment for an informed decision. We really hope they can look forward 20, 40, 60, 100 years and think about the legacy they leave and what is the right thing to do for the thousands and thousands of graduates who will move through that law school in the future."

law students could attend new facility in 2008


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2004, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

If Dickinson moves to Univeristy Park, law students could attend new facility in 2008

By Lara Brenckle
lbrenckl@centredaily.com

STATE COLLEGE A decision on whether to relocate The Dickinson School of Law to Penn State's University Park campus could come during next month's meeting of the law school's board of governors.

If the decision is to move the school from the community in which it was founded 170 years ago, Penn State

President Graham Spanier said, law school students could begin attending classes in a new, $60 million facility on the University Park campus in 2008.

Spanier and Philip McConnaughay, the law school's dean, met with the Centre Daily Times editorial board Monday morning to discuss the proposed move of the law school and what it might mean for law students, the local campus and Carlisle.

Spanier and McConnaughay both favor moving the law school to University Park, saying a closer association with a major research university such as Penn State would allow the school to offer a broader range of programs and to attract the best students and faculty.

Adding more than 500 law school students at the local campus would push the campus to its enrollment cap of 42,000, imposed because of concerns about the effect of more students on the State College community. Spanier said that limit would be kept in place, which may mean adjusting the enrollment profile of other departments.

University Park students would see few or no increased costs from adding the law school, Spanier said, but in order to fund a $60 million facility for the school, other capital construction projects now being considered could be delayed.

The relocation of the law school is being contemplated in part because its ranking compared with other law schools has slipped in recent years. Spanier and McConnaughay said many top-ranked law schools are now affiliated with major research universities.

Moving the school to University Park would strengthen that affiliation, they said, and allow for collaboration with other university departments and colleges.

"A university setting really allows us to replicate, as closely as possible, in the context of an educational experience, what lawyers experience and do in their daily lives," McConnaughay said.

He referred to the experience of the Detroit College of Law, which became affiliated with Michigan State University in 1995 and moved to the Michigan State campus in 1997. Since then, the school has established law clinics in conjunction with other university departments.

"An environmental law clinic operated in conjunction with environmental-related departments at Michigan State, a family law clinic operated in conjunction with the department of social work, a small business entrepreneurship clinic operated in conjunction with the business schools -- and those sorts of synergies are just unavailable to us meaningfully because of the distance between the law school and the rest of the university campus," McConnaughay said.

Faculty would benefit from that close association as well, he said. Law-school faculty could have professors from other departments lecture to their classes, or they could conduct symposiums together examining problems that span several disciplines, McConnaughay said.

There are strong feelings among some members of the law school's board of governors to keep the school in Carlisle, Spanier acknowledged. Penn State has agreed to provide $10 million to renovate or expand the Carlisle campus, regardless of whether Dickinson stays there or relocates.
If the law school moves, the $10 million would be spent to renovate the Carlisle facilities to house law school programs that Spanier termed "significant."

That proposal, he said, has not been met with great enthusiasm in Carlisle, where officials and residents strongly want the borough to remain home to the law school's primary campus.

Carlisle Borough Manager Fred Bean said the community, as well as local officials, said Spanier should keep the money and use it to start a continuing-education center in State College.

"If they move this law school, it's going to tear the fabric of this community apart," Bean said. "Spanier doesn't truly understand how important this law school is to the community."

McConnaughay said renovations at the Carlisle campus could turn it into a center for continuing and executive education, where professionals could pursue law-related enrichment classes or earn a law degree through an extended program. It could be a government center of sorts, McConnaughay said, harnessing opportunities available in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C.

McConnaughay also said that it was possible that perhaps up to 60 students may be in residence, either for a year or a semester, as they take advantage of extended programming and "externship" programs available there.

Both Spanier and McConnaughay said they do not know how the board of governors will vote when it meets June 11-12. It is a divided board, they said, with strong feelings about the move on both sides.

Should the board vote to keep the law school's primary location in Carlisle, Spanier said the university will accept that decision.

Still, he said, it does not eliminate the possibility of the subject resurfacing in the future.

"That would depend on the changing viewpoints of the board over time," Spanier said. "But this is the moment for an informed decision. We really hope they can look forward 20, 40, 60, 100 years and think about the legacy they leave and what is the right thing to do for the thousands and thousands of graduates who will move through that law school in the future."

Monday, May 24, 2004

Summary of Commonwelth Court Decision


Pennsylvania Law Weekly
Volume XXVII, Number 21
Copyright 2004 by American Lawyer Media, ALM LLC

May 24, 2004

Digests of Recent Opinions
Commonwealth Court
Government

LEE PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV.
ASS'N, PICS CASE NO. 04-0645 (PA. COMMW. EN BANC APRIL 23, 2004) COHN, J.;
SMITH-RIBNER, J., AND COLINS, P.J., DISSENTING (27 PAGES)

Open Meetings • Merger with State University • Private Entity • State Agency • Sunshine Act 

Following a merger between a private law school and a state university, the law school's board of governors did not qualify as a "committee" of the university for Sunshine Act purposes. Reversed. 

The Dickinson School of Law was a private nonprofit corporation before its merger with The Pennsylvania State University (PSU). The merger took place through a multistep process. First, Dickinson and PSU entered into an affiliation agreement and an agreement and plan of merger. Dickinson's board of trustees agreed to form a separate corporation, the Pennsylvania State University School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University Association (association), that would continue to exist after the merger. 

The association's board of governors scheduled a private meeting for November 2003 to discuss the possibility of relocating the law school's main campus from Carlisle to University Park in State College.
Plaintiff newspapers filed a complaint in equity and a motion for a preliminary injunction addressed in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction. The complaint, which was brought pursuant to the Sunshine Act, sought to either stop the meeting from occurring or to open the meeting to the public.

The Commonwealth Court denied the injunction. The board of governors held the meeting and appointed members to four committees created to investigate different alternatives for relocating the law school. 

The newspapers filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the injunction on the ground that the board of governors qualified as a committee of PSU. Therefore, the board constituted an agency under Sunshine Act provisions, the court reasoned. The court directed the board to comply with act provisions. 

A majority of an en banc Commonwealth Court panel reversed. Section 703 of the act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 703, defines "agency" as the body, and all committees thereof, authorized to take official action for boards of trustees of all state-related universities. That statutory provision applies in this case if the board of governors is a committee of the board of trustees of PSU, the majority explained. 

The majority utilized the definition of "committee" set forth in the Nonprofit Corporation Law in determining that the board of governors did not qualify as a committee of the board of trustees of PSU. The board of governors did not possess the qualities of a "committee of PSU," the majority determined, relying on the fact that the board of governors was not composed of members of PSU's board of trustees and that board members could not be appointed or removed by the board of trustees of PSU, its chairman or the university president. 

The majority also cited evidence that the association is a separate and autonomous corporation, with authority to sue PSU. Thus, the majority held that the board of governors did not qualify as a "committee" of PSU within the meaning of the Sunshine Act. 

Because the newspapers could demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, they were not entitled to injunctive relieve, the majority concluded. 

Judge Smith-Ribner, joined by President Judge Colins, dissented. Smith-Ribner observed that the merger agreement provided the board of governors with express authority to provide advice to Penn State and to make binding recommendations concerning the law school curriculum. She also observed that the board could preclude Penn State, in perpetuity, from changing the name and the location of the law school. 

Smith-Ribner argued that meetings at which the board of governors takes official action or renders advice on agency business should be open to the public, subject to any limitations under the Sunshine Act. When performing such functions, the board is acting as an agency, as that term is defined in Section 703, the judge contended. The trial court correctly issued a preliminary injunction upon deciding that meetings of Dickinson's board of governors are subject to the open meeting provisions of the act, she concluded.

Penn State's law school plan isn't nearly daring enough


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2004 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Monday, May 24, 2004


TAKE A CHANCE ; Penn State's law school plan isn't nearly daring enough

Of the Patriot-News

It is sorely disappointing to us that the leaders at Penn State, for whom we have the greatest admiration, are not daring to be different, not daring to create a different model of what a university law school should be. Their plan for the Dickinson School of Law seems not to recognize the many attributes of Carlisle's close proximity to the seat of state government and to a full range of state and federal courts, with highly regarded judges and lawyers practicing before them.

We had hoped that Penn State President Graham Spanier and Dean Philip McConnaughay would demonstrate more imagination over the possibilities for the school rather than what looks like a single- minded mission to move Dickinson from Carlisle to the main campus at State College.

They have informed the law school's board of governors that the university will spend $63 million to create a Big 10-style law campus at University Park, but will provide only $10 million for renovations should the governors vote to keep the school in Carlisle.

And should they reject Penn State's generous offer, the governors were put on notice that the law school would be expected to become economically self-sufficient in 10 years.

Penn State's effort to move the school it acquired in 1997 hinges on the proposition that ?indisputably?? superior educational benefits would accrue from being located on the main campus. One benefit, according to the recommendation of Penn State Provost Rodney A. Erickson, would be rubbing shoulders with ?many of the world's best scientists, engineers, artists and other leaders of their disciplines.??

And the move to University Park appears driven in no small part by the arbiters of law-school excellence who apparently believe there is but one way to provide a legal education and it is on the main campus of a large university. Their annual law school rankings in U.S. News & World Report are awaited by law school deans everywhere with palpitating hearts for fear that they may have been dropped a notch or two.

Penn State insists that the law school can achieve its full potential only by being physically present at State College. Thus, you have to wonder why the university bothered to seek a merger with Dickinson instead of simply creating a whole new law school so that it could be exactly the way it wants it to be.

This entire episode has been handled badly from the start, and it isn't getting better. Clearly, law school officials sought to make the move to the main campus on the quiet, as a fait accompli, leaving the public out of the picture. Now it seeks to make the decision to remain in Carlisle as unpalatable as possible for the board of governors.

Yet, the institution that the university wants to dispense with ranked first in students passing the bar examination, better even than graduates of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, which is ranked seventh in the country. Dickinson Law drew a record number of applications for the 2004-5 school year. These are real measures of success that are to Dickinson's credit under Penn State tutelage, yet are given virtually no weight.

The law school governors had every right to expect a much more creative alternative plan for Carlisle, not an offer that says, in effect, move the facility to the main campus or prepare to be treated as second rate, with survival-level funding for the rest of your existence.

Penn State needs to reconsider and revise its offer. First, it needs to step back from the perceived wisdom that excellence is possible only at a law school situated on a main campus. It needs to consider, more broadly than it has done before, the vast untapped opportunities for legal education and experience available near Carlisle, including both the full range of state government and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. It needs to pursue the kind of international connections that the Ford Foundation indicated to McConnaughay it was interested in funding.

It needs also to consider the potential of having a satellite campus at University Park, rather than vice versa. One of the ironies is that Penn State is one of this nation's leaders when it comes to distance education. Yet you would not know it from this discussion.

There could be no greater mission for a law school than to extend the law's inherent promise of fair treatment to all to those who historically have been underserved, even ill-served, by our legal system. Pennsylvania needs a law school prepared to get its hands dirty, not one that exists only in the rarefied air of academia. We already have plenty of those kinds of law schools.

Thursday, May 20, 2004

Newspapers' appeal denied


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2004 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Thursday, May 20, 2004

Community

Newspapers' appeal denied

From staff reports

Commonwealth Court has denied a request by The Patriot-News and The Sentinel of Carlisle to reinstate a Cumberland County ruling that opened to the public meetings held by The Dickinson School of Law's board of governors. Commonwealth Court recently ruled that the board does not have to open its meetings. The newspapers are asking the state Supreme Court to permit an appeal of that decision. The newspapers will also ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the county court ruling.

Interest in the board's discussions is high in light of a proposal to move the school from Carlisle to University Park, the main campus of parent institution Penn State.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Is a law school in Happy Valley's future?


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2004, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Midday Report: Is a law school in Happy Valley's future?

Is a law school in Happy Valley's future? Penn State's pitch for locating the Dickinson School of Law in University Park is back in the news, with memos from Penn State officials on why the move should happen. See reporter Gwenn Miller's story today. The university officials continue to make a case that law school students would have their best chance if their classes were here, with the rest of the university community.

Meanwhile, in Carlisle, home of the law school, local officials have been told they'll get $25 million from the state's capital budget, courtesy of Gov. Ed Rendell, if they raise a matching amount for law school renovations.

Stay tuned as this story plays out. It's all up to the Dickinson board of governors, and the next meeting is in June.

Officials outline benefits of relocating


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2004, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Officials outline benefits of relocating Dickinson School to University Park

Penn State administrators sent memos this week to The Dickinson School of Law's board of governors outlining the benefits of moving the school from its Carlisle location to University Park, and the millions of dollars the university would provide to facilitate the move. The board has been considering the issue since November, when a confidential memo to board members from law school Dean Philip McConnaughay was leaked to the media. In his memo, McConnaughay set forth possible solutions for improving the law school's reputation and physical plant, including a move to University Park.

"My own ongoing review of this issue has only reinforced my opinion that the proud heritage of The Dickinson School of Law and the best interests of DSL students will be best served through the Law School's co-location with Penn State's University Park Campus," Penn State President Graham Spanier said in his memo.

Rodney Erickson, executive vice president and provost at Penn State, said in his memo that he supports McConnaughay's recommendation to relocate to University Park. The probability is high that relocating would improve in the law school's ability to attract and retain top faculty, enhance its educational programs, and restore and sustain its strong reputation and national stature, Erickson wrote.

"The current and future students of the Dickinson School of Law deserve the best possible chance to thrive as the next generations of attorneys," Erickson wrote. "I firmly believe there is a high probability that can be accomplished by co-location of the University Park Campus."

Erickson said in a telephone interview Tuesday that another compelling reason for moving the law school is the data showing that standalone law schools are not as successful as those located on university campuses. There are very few standalone laws schools in the top 100, he said.

"Standalone law schools have suffered disproportionately during the past fifteen years in the highly competitive market for top law students and faculty," Erickson wrote.

His conviction in relocation is so strong, Erickson said, that he intends to allocate $1 million in recurring annual funds to the law school's operating budget for the appointment of five or more new faculty members, should the board opt to move.

Erickson's memo also addressed a concern raised by opponents of the move -- a lack of professional opportunities in the State College area. There are quality externships on or near the University Park campus, Erickson wrote, including Innovation Park and the Penn State athletic department.

Although the number of school-year externships might diminish somewhat, Erickson said, "it is likely that the best Harrisburg area externships will survive a campus relocation with students adjusting to the travel-time difference with class schedule changes."

Gary Schultz, senior vice president of finance and business at Penn State, said in his memo to the board that should its members approve a move to University Park, Penn State will commit $60 million to cover the full cost of a new building for the law school.

"Penn State will undertake this commitment without any contribution from current or future operating funds of the Law School and without contribution from The Dickinson School of Law's existing endowment," Schultz wrote.

Penn State also would pay for all ongoing facility operating costs of the new law school building and landscape maintenance, which would result in an annual savings of at least $1.3 million, Schultz said. Law school students would enjoy the same access to parking and housing privileges as other University Park graduate students.

Schultz said in a telephone interview Tuesday that construction of a new building wouldn't necessarily mean tuition would increase more than if the building is not constructed. The university prioritizes its construction needs, Schultz said, and building a law school would likely mean rearranging capital funds and pushing back other capital improvements.

Penn State would commit $10 million to renovation and expansion of the law school if the board decides to keep the school in Carlisle. The size and scope of the expansion would depend on the amount of money available from other sources, such as the state and alumni.

State Sen. Hal Mowery, R-Lemoyne, announced at the May 14 board of governors meeting that Gov. Ed Rendell will release $25 million of matching funds for building and expanding at Carlisle, pending the passage of the state's Capital Budget. Mowery also announced that he placed a $30 million line-item appropriation on the Capital Budget for renovation and expansion of the law school.

The board of governors next meets June 11 and 12 and could take up the issue of a move at that time.

McConnaughay said Tuesday that the strongest argument for relocation is the benefits it would provide students. The challenges that lay ahead and the law school's ability to meet them resides in University Park, he said.

The administrators' memos were positive appraisals of the law school, McConnaughay said.

"I think the board should take away from the memo the incredible compliment the university is paying to the Dickinson School of Law and its heritage," McConnaughay said. "(The law school) has a remarkable heritage and the university's gesture is the single best way to preserve that heritage and strengthen it."