Sunday, April 22, 2007

Payroll problems continue

159 new instances turned up
Florida A&M University President Castell Bryant told FAMU trustees Saturday the financially troubled university has two more big payroll problems.

Bryant - who plowed through more than 600 payment demands for graduate assistants, adjunct instructors and some professors in February and March - said she found out Friday night about 159 new late-paycheck requests. The trustees approved a letter advising employees how they can resolve such problems.

continue reading: Payroll problems won't go away

Castell point fingers over pay

Castell clueless about pay

Unpaid workers face eviction and loss of electricity

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

More lies, lies, lies, What in ___ is Bryant doing? Ammons is now our presidents. All of these decisions will need to be revisited in July when he finally takes the reigns.

Anonymous said...

Didn't she tell the BOG in Gainesville, FL that this problem has been laid to rest.

She is a pathological liar.

Anonymous said...

My question is why people not looking at the peoplesoft software more than they are? The payroll module was made live at the tail end of last year and beginning of 2007 and that when all this mess started. Prior to is the problem was no where near this crazy. Most of us at FAMU knew when that thing was made live it was going to be trouble so really this no surprise to me.

Anonymous said...

Culture of accountability? Give me a break. If she wanted that she would return the $85k in raise and bonuses that were predicated on bad numbers. This is a woman who allowed faculty to go without pay for months! Her stewardship of the law school is another failure. We have been trying to get a permanent dean for over two years and none of them want the job in part because they don't want to work with this current administration.
She thought that had the support of republicans but now even they see she has failed.
She once gave a speech to the law faculty and talked about how we should all have a VISA card. Where is her VISA card?
It's time for AC!

Anonymous said...

FAMU law school in serious trouble -- with a 50R% bar passage rate we will never be accredited. Note also that NCCU would have failed this new ABA accredidation standard!!!!!!


PLEASE SEND COMMENTS TO STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSED ABA INTERPRETATION: see contact information below


*********************************************************************************************************************************************
The ABA has propose Interpretation 301-6 which addresses bar passage data and how it will be handled by the Accreditation Committee. Specifically, it will set the minimum benchmark first time bar passage rate at 70%. This rate is almost 10 points higher than the 61% first time bar passage rate of African Americans. One research predicts that every one of the top five ABA-approved law schools in the country in terms of African-American enrollment (Howard, Southern, Texas Southern, North Carolina Central, and District of Columbia) will fail to meet this propose interpretation.

Please take the time to contact the Standards Review Committee of the Council on Legal Education either in writing or preferrably at the public hearing to be held in San Francisco at May 16 meeting in San Francisco.

It is imperative that this change is not adopted. It will be the death blow to increasing African American enrollment in law schools. The failure to have equitable number of African American lawyers will impact not only individual access to lawyers but the available of legal knowledge in the community. Insufficient attorneys of color will impact your social justice work whether it is improving health care access, k-12 education, access to housing, wealth or decreasing all forms of structural inequality. Black lawyers important to the work of every social justice movement. Please write the Standards Review Committee and urge them not adopt any standard that may have the effect of decreasing black attorneys.

Background

At the Council's February 10, 2007 open session at the mid-winter meeting in Miami, the Standards Review Committee began consideration of a new interpretation on bar passage that would "codify the long-standing practices of the Accreditation Committee" and "respond to findings in the DOE Draft Staff Analysis regarding the transparency of the Committee's practices regarding bar passage." The Council decided to raise the cut-score trigger to a flat rate of 70% in the proposed interpretation. That is about a 15% increase in the cut-score that school's will be required to meet or else be put on report-back status for failure to satisfy Standards 301(a) and 501(b). And under other changes that the Dept of Ed is requiring the Council to make, schools will only have two years to demonstrate compliance, unless the Council finds good cause for an extension.

Professor William Wesley Patton of Whittier Law School has done a detailed study of the impact of these changes. It conservatively estimates based on the available data that 36 schools would have failed to meet the 70% cut-score over the ten-year period of 1996-2005, including every one of the top five ABA-approved law schools in the country in terms of African-American enrollment (Howard, Southern, Texas Southern, North Carolina Central, and District of Columbia).

In addition, provisionally approved Florida A & M, which also has a high percentage of African-American students, will likely fail to meet this mark when its grads begin taking the bar. The reason is because the best data available on bar passage rates by racial and ethnic groups, the 1998 LSAC National Longitudinal Bar Passage Study, shows that the average first-time bar passage rate of African-American graduates is 61%.

What this all means is that if the 70% cut-score in Proposed Interpretation 301-6 is approved, law schools with access-oriented missions will face additional pressure to restrict the number of African-American applicants they admit, so as to avoid being put on report and facing the threat of sanctions within two years; because on average, each African-American applicant a school admits will push it further out of compliance with the standards.

Another issue that has not gotten much discussion is that Standard 301 is about the quality of a school's educational program, not bar results, which supposedly are indicative of a problem with the school's program. But , the facts are that the high-LSAT graduates score at higher passing rates, indicating that the issue is with admissions, not the quality of the educational program. The 70% cut-score inherently favors elite schools and does not account for access-based programs that serve the African-American community.

Another issue is that while this proposed interpretation raises the performance bar, the Council continues to preclude schools from identifying at-risk students who would benefit from academic support programs that improve first-time passing rates and requiring them to participate in those programs. No standard or interpretation requiring a minimum performance level should be adopted while schools are prohibited from doing what needs to be done to raise the performance level of these students.
____________________________________________________________________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION:

The Standards Review Committee will be holding a public hearing May 16, 2007 in conjunction with the ALI meeting in San Francisco. The purpose of the hearing is to obtain comments with respect to proposed Interpretation 301-6 (bar passage) and Standard 801(a), to make the latter consistent with Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law Schools . In addition, comments will be accepted regarding proposed changes to previously discussed Rules 13, 20 and 21 and proposed Interpretation 509-3. Text and commentary for proposed Interpretation 301-6 and proposed Standard 801(a) can be found at:

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/noticeandcomment/801(a)_20070320094054.pdf. Text and commentary for proposed Rules 13, 20 and 21 and proposed Interpretation 509-3 is available at: http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/standardsdocuments/ChangestoRulesandNewInterpretation509 3.doc





The Standards Review hearing will be held:



Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 9:00a.m.

Tower Salon Room

Westin St. Francis Hotel

335 Powell St.

San Francisco, CA

Tele: 415/ 397-7000



In addition to the hearing, interested persons are encouraged to submit written comments to Dan Freehling, Deputy Consultant, at our Chicago office, (321 N. Clark St., Chicago, IL 60610) or by e-mail at freehlid@staff.abanet.org. All written comments must be received by May 10, 2007.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone here state, seriously, whether or not Bryant has committed some type of fraud in terms of how she has handled the fiscal affairs of the university? I don't mean a gossipy, what-folks-in-the-street-say commentary, but a real, legal response in terms of the illegalities(?) of what has transpired over the course of her interim presidency?

Anonymous said...

Enough about the ABA, the law school, SACs, etc. Just focus on the positive. Things will get better at the law school. Our new dean will square things away.

Anonymous said...

Our new dean will square things away.

WHAT new dean? Did they really find someone stupid enough to take that job?????

Anonymous said...

J.S.

Would you please stop cutting and pasting that information about the law school on each dialogue?

We know you all have issues. We know that you are part of - if not the main reason for-- the problems.

Stop posting on the blog and get to writing articles. Better yet, get to doing whatever the ABA says you need to be doing to get accredited and stop trying to stir stuff up.

2L said...

"Insufficient attorneys of color will impact your social justice work whether it is improving health care access, k-12 education, access to housing, wealth or decreasing all forms of structural inequality."

Well if they don't pass the bar, they aren't attorneys of color, now are they? Which brings us back to the original problem- admitting unqualified black applicants is shortsighted because if they don't pass the bar it doesn't change anything, does it?

Of course some of you will argue that we need more affirmative action in the bar exam. Which means you will have more unqualified lawyers practicing and losing cases for their clients. So what comes after that? Affirmative action in the courtroom? Affirmative action at the appellate level? Affirmative action in Rule 11?

The real question is whether you want black lawyers or black hood ornaments for your law firm's diversity programs. Affirmative action isn't producing Johnny Cochrains and Thurgood Marshals, it is producing unemployed black lawyers with 150k in loan debt.

Anonymous said...

Feb 2009 bar results famu 52.3%