The foundation of the CNS concern over the Golisano gift is that Mr. Golisano is a "publicly pro-choice individual." What is the evidence for this? The principal evidence cited is an article in the N.Y. Times from 1994 that purports to quote Mr. Golisano as saying, "I am pro-choice." As we have told the CNS, Mr. Golisano disputes this and says he was misquoted. We accept him at his word.

It is interesting that subsequent N.Y. Times articles note that Mr. Golisano is not pro-choice after all . . . . . Significantly, when Mr. Golisano ran for governor of New York on his own Independence Party the platform did not contain a pro-choice plank. So Mr. Golisano has never run as a pro-choice politician.

As we told the CNS, Mr. Golisano has personally assured both Chancellor Monaghan and President Healy that he is pro-life, and authorized us to publicize this. Just last week the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Michael Timmis, had lunch with Mr. Golisano. In the course of their discussion Mr. Golisano stated:

"I am pro-life. I have never been pro-choice, although the NY media has misrepresented me as pro-choice."

He has authorized us to publish these comments verbatim.

In view of the foregoing we believe that Mr. Golisano cannot fairly be said to be "publicly pro-choice." He is publicly pro-life, and maintains that he has always been pro-life.

Mr. Golisano has also shared with us that he has a mentally impaired son. He is a passionate advocate and philanthropist for those with mental disabilities, who are among the main victims of abortion. For this alone he deserves our honor and respect.

Nevertheless, Ave Maria University's decision to honor Mr. Golisano does at least give the appearance of violating the bishops' 2004 policy -- which for a committed Catholic university should be a concern -- and perhaps also in fact.
......

As long as there remains the perception and possibly the fact that Ave Maria University's athletic center is named for a publicly "pro-choice" individual, we fear a negative impact on a university that largely serves and employs faithful Catholics.

The Cardinal Newman Society and Ave Maria University have a shared, demonstrated commitment to faithful Catholic higher education. We continue to have a strong relationship. The Cardinal Newman Society trusts that the University will address this concern with a sincere reflection on its mission and will develop policies to appropriately address such situations in the future.

I am disappointed that the Congressman would make public my pastoral and confidential request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being.

I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy's spiritual life in public. At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry.

• Does this man truly have a clue as to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or is the Church merely a hobby to effectuate a secular business/political plan?
• In the Roney philosophy, if "transparency is the watchword" why does mystery surround the Ave Maria entities and what of these strange business structurings complete with executive committees etc.?

Most importantly, why do prominent Catholics lend their names and reputations to this cause without the slightest interest in the morality, legality, and prudence of its inner-workings? Perhaps all is "on the up and up," but given the proclivity of all things Ave Maria to ape the worst aspects of secular business-political-elite culture, I'm not sure that it is.

Dear Students,

As I am sure you know because you have unfettered internet access at home and we didn't block FOX 4 from the campus cable television yet, the situation involving a very disturbing and nasty mouthed town blogger resident reporting for The Wanderer denied by our well armed Collier County Sheriffs permission to be in my house and Tom's domain on our campus has generated publicity about our ability to ignore people we don't like and shun them forciblysupposed curbs on freedom of speech. But nobody was bothered by other town residents doing the same thing. We didn't curb their speech.

Let me make it clear. Speech is far more dangerous than failing to maintain one's lane late night while texting on a cell phone. We do not make any effort to restrict speech by students just by bloggers and town residents. Vigorous and open debate is an essential aspect of university life, but not at Ave Maria University if you are supporting a position we deem to be critical of me, Tom, or the Ave Maria brand. Students are free to say whatever they want in the privacy of their dorm room, out of my hearing, and not on the internet or to the media.

Having said that, let me note two caveats:

News media are expected to follow established protocols if they wish to enter the campus. We do need to avoid disruption of student activities and dorm life even if students invited them at their own discretion.

Interviews given to the media can wind up on You Tube or other outlets and surface again years later. Things said that might be hurtful or embarrassing to me or other administrators other students or to the faculty cannot be withdrawn once they are given to the media and we can't have an objective record hanging around out there if we want to say something different at that time.

My hope is that you will let charity reign because if you don't, you might have problems. Besides, in charity, you should forget that Marielena was invited to the press conference as a member of the press prior to being disinvited as a disruptive resident. See, if the media were to get the prior statement, I couldn't downplay it later as easily if there was a public record on U Tube.

Nicholas Healy
President

The suppression of those who think differently in the Soviet Union is not an ‘internal affair’ of the Soviet Union, and it is not simply a far-away manifestation of cruelty against which noble sensitive souls protest in the West. The unhindered suppression of those who think differently in Eastern Europe creates a deadly, real threat to peace everywhere, prepares the possibility of a new world war much more surely than trade pushes this possibility away… Today they are crunching our bones – this is a sure pledge that tomorrow they will be crunching yours.

Dear Alumni,

On October 29, 2009, David Wagner, Director of Post-Graduate Affairs for the Ave Maria School of Law, sent you a message concerning the upcoming Alumni Association election. Unfortunately, Mr. Wagner's email omitted a number of facts, such that the communication gave a false impression concerning the Alumni Association Board of Directors' position on electronic voting, as well as the sequence of events leading up to the Board voting against the one electronic option proposed by Mr. Wagner. We write to explain this background.

In a typical year, Mr. Wagner's predecessor, Ermin Gornik, would initiate setting an annual meeting date and preceding election schedule based on the availability of school facilities, exam schedules and local events. Past annual meetings would often occur in November with election mailings beginning in August. This year, in light of the school's move and Mr. Wagner's new position, the Alumni Board raised the election scheduling need with Mr. Wagner at its meetings in the beginning of July and August and offered assistance, recognizing that Mr. Wagner's office still needed to spearhead the election since it possessed the financial and mailing resources used in the past to do so.

However, through mid-September, Mr. Wagner had not presented a proposed schedule to the Alumni Board, and the Board's Elections committee had been unsuccessful in getting clear feedback from him regarding the process. As a result, election organization was at least 30 days behind schedule. On September 25, 2009, a majority of the Board called for an emergency meeting concerning elections, which was held on September 28, 2009.

During the emergency meeting, a tentative election schedule, somewhat truncated from normal years, and based on the latest possible annual meeting date, was created. It was at this emergency meeting on September 28 that Mr. Wagner first raised the idea of an electronic voting system. Board members were supportive of the idea of electronic voting but the process, electronic or not, needed to start right away, and any electronic voting system needed to demonstrate that it definitely could count votes according to our rules. The Board therefore agreed that, during the regularly scheduled Board meeting set for the next week on October 6, the Board needed to: 1. confirm the date for the Alumni Annual Meeting; 2. finalize the tentative timeline; and 3. decide, in detail, any information about electronic voting option suggested by Mr. Wagner.

During the October 6 Board meeting, Mr. Wagner presented some additional, non-specific information about his proposal of selecting an electronic voting system. He did not offer evidence that an electronic vendor could count votes according to our rules. Nevertheless, the Board and Mr. Wagner voted to empower the Election committee to approve on its own an electronic voting system if the committee unanimously agreed that a detailed proposal would follow our election rules and meet our tight schedule in time for the annual meeting. But the Board and Mr. Wagner also approved a timeline for an election conducted by paper balloting as in past years which was set to begin promptly, so that debate over electronic balloting would not delay the election or annual meeting.

On October 27, 2009, a majority of the Elections committee, comprised of Justin Berger ('03), John Drake ('07), Maggie Smith ('07), and Mr. Wagner, recommended 3-1 against electronic voting for this election cycle. Among the reasons expressed by the members of the committee were:
* Inadequate certainty that the suggested electronic voting vendor could actually conduct the vote using our preferential method (beyond mere assurances by sales representatives and Mr. Wagner);
* Insufficient time from first proposal of an electronic method to the election date to properly test and get comfortable with vendor and new software;
* Mr. Wagner's continued unresponsiveness and unwillingness to dialogue and share information about the election process in general and the voting method and vendor in particular;
* Lack of resolution on how the electronic method would allow "in person" voting as required by the Alumni Association by-laws;
* Inadequate assurances that members of the Board, besides Mr. Wagner, would have access to election information, including ballots.

Because the default position was to continue the election using paper balloting unless the Elections committee felt confident the electronic method was adequate, the issue was put to rest. Mr. Wagner did not comment in the subsequent email discussion concerning the Elections committee's findings. But without consultation with the other members of the Elections committee, or the Board in general, he then sent the email to all alumni that you received. The
Board believes that his omission of the above facts mischaracterized the well-considered recommendation of the Alumni Association Board, as well as the sense that the Board was in general support of electronic balloting, but against electronic voting for this election cycle because the plan was proposed too late with too little substantiated detail.

In the interest of accuracy, we deemed it appropriate to send this clarification of Mr. Wagner's October 29 email. Electronic balloting is something that the Alumni Board continues to support for future elections if it can be done according to the Board's election regulations, and in a manner that will ensure the integrity of the process.

Thank you,

The Ave Maria Alumni Association Board of Directors

From: Office of Graduate and Alumni Affairs
Sent: Tue 11/10/2009 6:00 PM
To: All Alumni
Subject: State of Michigan Bar Examination Results

Here is an email message that Dean Milhizer sent to the law school community today and we wanted you to see it as well.

Dear Law School Community,

The State of Michigan July 2009 bar examination results have been released and published. Nineteen graduates of Ave Maria School of Law sat for the July 2009 bar exam for the first time. Fourteen of these graduates passed, resulting in a 74% bar passage rate. Included among the graduates who did not pass are those appealing the test results. The average pass rate for all first-time test takers in Michigan was 88%. Two of three additional graduates, who were not first-time test takers, also passed. The average pass rate for all re-applicants in Michigan was 43%.

We are disappointed that bar passage results in Michigan were not better and believe that they are not reflective of our students' abilities. We understand that this time of transition from Michigan to Florida may have been unsettling to some graduates, especially those who remained in Michigan and took the bar examination there, and that this could have been reflected in the results. This also helps explain why such a relatively small number of our graduates took the Michigan bar examination.

We are undertaking and considering a wide array of specifically-targeted approaches to improve the passage rate of our students. This includes re-examining our bar preparation program under the leadership of a new academic support coordinator, and perhaps offering a for-credit bar preparation course and even more forcefully encouraging students to take commercial bar preparation courses to supplement their law school education. We are also looking for innovative ways to encourage alumni participation in development and admission's efforts to assist in attracting outstanding students to our law school.

I conclude by congratulating the students of the Michigan State Law School for achieving the highest passage rate in the state of Michigan. I cannot help but observe that the MSU law school, having gone through a relocation in the not too distant past that was contentious to some, ultimately became institutionally stronger than ever before. For all the reasons mentioned above, I am confident that as we emerge from our period of transition and become better settled in Florida, the performance of our students on the bar exam will again reach the high levels to which we have grown accustomed. Our faculty and staff have re-affirmed their commitment to create the conditions necessary for every graduate to succeed on the bar examination, and we will devote the effort and resources that are necessary to make good on this commitment.

Sincerely,

Eugene R. Milhizer
Acting Dean

...... Your rejection of the Church's teaching on abortion falls into a different category - it's a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you've re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can't chalk it up to an "imperfect humanity." Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That's ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance......

I travel a lot and in preparation for each trip, my staff prints out a detailed itinerary for me. It usually encompasses 2-3 days, and it is always printed on orange paper so that I can distinguish it from all of the other papers I carry in my pocket. I use the back of these orange itineraries as my note pad. I always have one in my pocket because I keep the last itinerary there until I get one for my next trip. When I get an idea that I want to remember (oftentimes it is while I am in church), out comes the orange sheet and my pen, and I make a note of it.

Sitting in a pew before the service, Marielena Stuart waved her camcorder excitedly. She sat next to her husband, Thomas, and in the row in front of two neighbors, Karen Apang and Kathy Delaney, who also had camcorders. They all live on Kentucky Way in town and can see the back of the church from their homes. They prayed for this moment every day.

“You can imagine that this church is supposed to be the center and the heart of the town,” Stuart said. “Without this church, it was like we didn’t have a heart. Now it’s like we’re alive.”

Now, Stuart said, her 7-year-old son, John Paul, could have his first Holy Communion inside.

The road to Monday’s dedication didn’t go as smoothly as its founders hoped. Monaghan said he wanted the ceremony to take place in December, then in January and then the university didn’t plan any more. Prolonged negotiations with the diocese over the building’s status were taking place. Neither side would address substantive issues involved, but church experts speculated matters of spiritual and financial authority were at play.

After Monday’s service, both sides made oblique references to disagreements — university President Nick Healy called them “the complexities of the whole situation here” — but declined to elaborate.

“We respect the bishop, we’re always obedient to the bishop and we’ve always intended to be,” Monaghan said. “If we don’t do that, we’re hypocrites as far as being a Catholic university. That’s the way the church is structured and that’s the way I believe it should be.”

Dewane said his concern above all else was and remains appropriate care for the town’s Catholic population.

“Always when there are people gathered in an area, I look and the other bishops of the country do look at how do we set up a church there, how do we realize the spiritual life of the people,” Dewane said. “That’s what this does today for the town. It renders very present the fostering of the spiritual life.”

An oratory is different from a Church because the faithful who do not belong to the religious community or Juridical person of the Oratory may be EXCLUDED from worshiping there.

I am tempted to believe that Monaghan intended to create a way to exclude people from his oratory by having read Canon law with a lay understanding of defined terms. He would see himself as the competent Superior of the town, thereby giving him the right to exclude if indeed the terms had lay person's definitions. Mere private associations of people cannot be a Juridical Person, however. Can 310. Thus, Monaghan is foiled again by the exclusive jurisdiction of bishops and the Pope.

It's kind of sad to realize under the Canonical definition that the Town, by choosing the name Oratory over Church intended to make a place that is not open to all faithful.