(11/03/09 5:00am)
Provost Marty Krauss said in an interview with the Justice that she is currently working on a plan to increase staffing at the Rose in an effort to implement the recommendations in the Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum's final report. "I'm going to have some discussions with various professionals in the art field to get their recommendations about what kinds of people would be the kind of people we would want to recruit," she said.The CFRAM was formed March 3 by Provost Marty Krauss with the intention of providing recommendations to the administration on the integration of the Rose Art Museum into the educational and cultural mission of the University. The committee released its final report Sept. 22, in which it recommended that the museum remain open as a public art museum while simultaneously increasing its integration into the University.Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL), the chair of the committee, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that he viewed an increase in the museum staff as the committee's primary recommendation to the administration. "Many of our recommendations in the report cannot be implemented or managed with the current depleted staff," he explained. The Rose staff currently consists of Roy Dawes, director of museum operations; Valerie Wright, the collection manager; and Karina Sheerin, director of financial control, budgeting and analysis. Michael Rush, the former director of the Rose; Emily Mello, the former director of education; and Jay Knox, the former administrator, are no longer working at the museum.Dawes said in an interview with the Justice that he viewed an increased number of staff as imperative. He particularly stressed the need for a director of education. Krauss also said the Board of Trustees discussed the CFRAM's final report at their Academic Affairs meeting. Samet wrote in his e-mail to the Justice that he summarized the report during the meeting and stressed the need for the museum's integration into the University on a larger scale.The Board of Trustees did not pass any resolutions about how to implement the recommendations in the report, said Krauss, but the trustees were extremely optimistic about the report and receptive to the idea of integration. She added that she had also received a message from the Fine Arts department supporting the recommendations in the final report.Stephen Reiner '61, a trustee and a committee member, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the trustees will convene again in the spring but that he does not know yet if the report will be discussed then. "I would say that the overall reaction has been extremely positive," said Krauss. The meeting in which Samet presented the report occurred in conjunction with the opening of the new exhibition of select works from the Rose's permanent collection last Wednesday. Krauss said the amount of people at the exhibit's opening signified the University's support of the museum. -Miranda Neubauer and Hannah Kirsch contributed reporting.
(10/27/09 4:00am)
The hot water in the Castle was intermittently turned off for several days because of issues with the heating system, Jeremy Leiferman, the director of Community Living, told the Justice. There was an unexpected problem with the heating system in the Castle, and the heating was unable to be turned on as quickly as expected, Leiferman said. As the hot water and the heating system are interconnected, when Facilities Services ran into an unexpected problem with the heat, the hot water was subsequently affected, Leiferman explained. The hot water in the Castle was turned off Oct. 13 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and Oct. 14 from 9:30 a.m. until the afternoon, said Michael Perloff '12, a resident and community advisor in the Castle. Perloff added that there was also no hot water from 10 a.m. until the afternoon on Oct. 15. Hot water has been working since Oct.15, Perloff said. Leiferman stressed, however, that he did not know specifics about the heating issue in the Castle and that he was merely notified by Facilities about the problem. Although Leiferman said he was only told of this issue in the Castle, there were complaints of similar problems in Scheffres Hall Oct. 18, where no hot water was available for the day. CA Jordan Hinahara '12 advised residents in an Oct. 18 e-mail to contact Facilties.Peter Baker, the director of Facilities, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the department has been working with the DCL to ensure proper heating in the dormitories. He wrote that he met with facility supervisors and was informed the conversion is now complete. He did not respond to further e-mails by press time."We will continue to respond to any local concerns through the work order system and any systemic issues will be communicated to the office of the Department of Community Living," Baker wrote.Baker explained that this time of year is known as the "shoulder period" because the transition between seasons and the ambiguous weather makes it difficult to discern an appropriate time to turn on the heat. "We can experience cool nights and warm days so it can sometimes be a challenge for the building systems to 'keep-up' with the changes," he wrote. Leiferman said he was unaware of any correlation between the lack of heating and Brandeis' budgetary problems. "The University has an obligation to provide heat to their students. The administration is not looking at that as a money-saving measure," he said. Some students expressed their frustration at the abrupt lack of hot water."It was really ridiculous that for a whole weekend there was no hot water in the showers on any of the three floors," said Scheffres resident Rachita Mehrotra '13. "It was mostly frustrating because my room has tile floors, so it was really cold and I didn't want to go back to my room. It was really frustrating. I am glad it was fixed," Castle resident Erica Lubitz '12 said."The lack of hot water for the day really wasn't that big of a deal since it got fixed pretty quickly," said another Scheffres resident, Zoe Li '13.- Liz Posner contributed reporting
(10/27/09 4:00am)
The University is drafting a stipulation for the Rose Art Museum lawsuit, an agreement between attorneys that simplifies or shortens the lawsuit, according to Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the lawsuit.Reilly said that the stipulation reflects what occurred at that hearing, explaining that as a result of the judge's decision to impose a limited preliminary injunction, the case is now limited to the plaintiffs' ability to control their own donations or those of their ancestors to the Rose. "The court ruled that the plaintiffs have no right and standing to represent any donors other than themselves or their ancestors, and that is all that's left now for the plaintiffs," he said.Reilly said he is currently drafting the stipulation, which ultimately will be reviewed by the council, but would not comment further. He could not be reached for further clarification by press time. The lawsuit, which seeks to preserve the Rose collection intact, was filed by Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster on July 27. The first hearing for the lawsuit took place Oct. 13 at the Suffolk Probate Court, during which Judge Stahlin ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to continue the case and imposed a limited injunction prohibiting Brandeis from selling any artwork provided by the plaintiffs. Edward T. Dangel, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, was unwilling to be interviewed for the article, saying that he did not have a comment at this time. Lee said he was currently unaware of the stipulation and consequently could not comment."Brandeis never had any intention of selling any artwork donated by any of the plaintiffs or the estates that they represent, specifically the paintings donated by Mildred Lee or any artwork donated by the Fosters. Brandeis never had any intention of selling any of that: There is no point in arguing about that," said Reilly. Judith Sizer, the University's legal council, wrote in an Oct. 19 e-mail to the Justice that Rose and Lee have donated $45,000 and $43,880, respectively, to the museum. Lois Foster and her late husband, Henry, made numerous gifts, including pieces of art to the museum and to the University, Sizer wrote in the e-mail. Lee and Rose have not donated artwork, she wrote.
(10/20/09 4:00am)
The first hearing for the lawsuit concerning the Rose Art Museum took place last Tuesday, during which Judge Jeremy A. Stahlin ruled that the plaintiffs had legal standing to proceed with their case and begin the discovery process. The attorney general has also obtained a civil investigative demand to investigate all University documents pertaining to the Rose, Edward T. Dangel, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview with the Justice. Emily LaGrassa, the communications director for Attorney General Martha Coakley, wrote in an Oct. 13 e-mail to the Justice that Stahlin has allowed the plaintiffs to remain a part of the lawsuit in order to show that "their gifts to the Rose should be returned to them under theories known as equitable reversion and fraud."The lawsuit, filed on July 27 by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster, seeks to maintain the Rose collection by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell its paintings would violate museum ethical codes. The lawsuit also states that the University's decision violates its commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum. Two trial dates were set at the hearing for June 29 and July 1, 2010, LaGrassa wrote in her Oct. 13 e-mail.LaGrassa confirmed in an e-mail to the Justice that the attorney general's office requested and received a civil investigative demand at the hearing on Tuesday, which opened the office's official investigation into the University's possible sale of art. LaGrassa wrote that Brandeis is cooperating with this investigation and that she could not comment further. Lee explained last week after the hearing that such an investigation enabled the attorney general's office to obtain all documents pertaining to the Rose and that the University would have to contact the office to give them a minimum of 30 days' notice before selling art.Dangel said that he considers this investigation a significant event in the case."This indicates that the attorney general is becoming significantly involved in determining whether or not there have been any breaches of trust or whether any breaches of trust are planned," he said.Dangel had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the University from selling art on Sept. 22. Lee said that Stahlin had imposed a limited preliminary injunction prohibiting the University only from selling art provided by the plaintiffs. Dangel declined to comment on the limited injunction, emphasizing that he did not want to put too much stock in anything decided at the hearing. "I won't get involved with whether I am pleased or displeased. It is now a question of the case proceeding at an appropriate rate," he said. Judith Sizer, the University's legal counsel, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the Judge's decision regarding the plaintiffs' donations to the museum was not an injunction on the University.The probate judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' entire case except as to their own gifts. The court ruled that the plaintiffs may not "seek redress as to funds and/or works of art donated to the Rose Art Museum and/or Brandeis University by others," Sizer wrote. Sizer explained that Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, is drafting a stipulation, an agreement between attorneys that simplifies or shortens the litigation, that reflects the University's willingness to comply with Stahlin's ruling regarding the plaintiffs' assets in the museum.The stipulation also provides the attorney general with ample notice before selling artwork, Sizer wrote in her e-mail.Dangel explained that the case will now enter the "discovery process," in which each side requests documents and information they deem relevant from the other side. He said he is currently working on the necessary paperwork for this procedure. The process is scheduled to close on March 15, 2010, and there will be a hearing on Dec. 2 to discuss the scope of the process."I anticipate my requests will be broader than what the University wants," said Dangel.Fred Hopengarten, an attorney and relative of the Rose family, told the Justice in a phone interview that Reilly sought to restrict the plaintiffs' access to documents at the hearing.Hopengarten said that the University requested that the plaintiffs only obtain documents pertaining to the particular gifts they provided to the museum. Hopengarten said that Stahlin denied that request, explaining that the rules of civil procedure permit a broader discovery. "The University apparently fears the thread of knowledge," said Hopengarten.Of the three plaintiffs, Meryl Rose and Lee donated $45,000 and $43,880, respectively Sizer wrote. "Neither Meryl Rose nor Jonathan Lee have donated any works of art to Brandeis," she wrote. Plaintiff Lois Foster's late husband donated several pieces of artwork to the museum, Sizer wrote. Sizer wrote in an Aug. 24 e-mail to the Justice that the University has been reviewing all museum-related documents since last December and has consequently restricted access to them until that review is completed. She subsequently wrote that the plaintiffs' discovery requests should not impede this review.Reilly said after the hearing that the University's role in the discovery process was dependent upon the plaintiffs' requests."We have to see what comes," he said.Sizer wrote that the plaintiffs "will be provided with documents consistent with the rules governing discovery as to their remaining claims."Hopengarten had previously attempted to access the archives in an effort to obtain a copy of the 1969 trust agreement between Abraham Sachar and Edward Rose. A letter from Abraham Sachar to Edward Rose that accompanied and referred to the trust agreement was incorporated into the lawsuit. In that letter, Sachar writes that Edward Rose and his wife, Bertha, have "made a magnificent art facility available and . are providing permanent maintenance and support." According to Hopengarten, the University stated at the hearing that they had been unable to find the trust. Dangel said he was surprised by the University's inability to find the trust, but he did not hold Brandeis accountable. Sizer explained that Edward and Bertha Rose established a number of trusts in addition to their wills, and the University was not provided with copies of every trust. She wrote that the University provided the plaintiffs with the 1974 trust, which Dangel confirmed he had received. -Nashrah Rahman contributed reporting
(10/13/09 4:00am)
The University's motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to preserve the Rose Art Museum's collection was not approved at a hearing that took place today, wrote Emily La Grassa, the communications director for Attorney General Martha Coakley, in an e-mail to the Justice. La Grassa wrote that Judge Stahlin had allowed the plaintiffs to remain a part of the lawsuit in order to show that " their gifts to the Rose should be returned to them under theories known as equitable reversion and fraud."Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, declined to comment on the fact that the case would continue because the judge had not yet ruled on arguments in the case.The lawsuit, filed on July 27 by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster, seeks to maintain the Rose collection by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell its paintings would violate museum ethical codes. The lawsuit also states that the University's decision violates its commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum. A trial date was also set at the hearing for June 29 and July 1, 2010, La Grassa wrote in her e-mail.Jonathan Lee, one of the plaintiffs in the case and the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in a phone interview with the Justice that the attorney general's office asked to investigate the University for violating donor intent, a request to which all parties agreed.Lee also said that such an investigation entailed the attorney general's office to obtain all documents pertaining to the Rose and that the University would have to contact the office to give them a minimum of 30 days' notice before selling art."I feel that the collection [of art] seems to be protected in the interim," said Lee.La Grassa could not be reached for further comment about the investigation by press time.Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, said that the Attorney General's investigation had been underway since last spring and that it was merely formalized at today's hearing. "We welcome the Attorney General reviewing the matter in its entirety. We welcome it and we agree to it," said Reilly, adding that it was "absolutely nothing new."Reilly added that he was pleased with the events of the hearing and that Judge Stahlin gave both sides ample opportunity to argue their cases.Edward Dangel, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the University from selling art on Sept. 22. Lee said that Judge Stahlin had imposed a limited preliminary injunction, prohibiting the University from selling art provided by the plaintiffs. Dangel could not be reached for comment by press time.Lee explained that the case will now enter the "discovery process," in which each side requests document and information they deem relevant from the other side. He added that he expects this process to be contentious. " There will be big fights about what we get to discover," he said.Judith Sizer, the University's legal counsel, wrote in an Aug. 24 e-mail to the Justice that the University has been reviewing all museum-related documents since last December and has consequently restricted access to them until that review is completed.Reilly said that the University's role in the discovery process was dependent upon the plaintiffs' requests."We have to see what comes," he said.
(10/06/09 4:00am)
The operating budget for the Rose Art Museum was increased by $200,000 for fiscal 2010 over the summer in an effort to implement the recommendations from the Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum's final report, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French wrote in an e-mail to the Justice."The administration increased the budget to assure the Committee there would be some additional resources to support their recommendations," French wrote. He added that President Reinharz supported the increase and that it was not met with any opposition. The Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum was formed on March 3 by Provost Marty Krauss with the intention of providing recommendations to the administration on the integration of the Rose Art Museum into the educational and cultural mission of the University. Chaired by Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL), the committee also includes a representative from the Board of Trustees, the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers, Fine Arts faculty and two members of the student body. The committee's final report, released on Sept. 22, recommended that the museum remain open as a public art museum while simultaneously increasing its integration into the University. Samet wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the administration made this commitment to increase the budget when the financial situation for fiscal 2010 became clear. "By the time we asked the finance people to make a presentation about the Rose's past and future budgets, the commitment was already in place," he explained. Samet wrote that the committee would have recommended an increase in the budget even if the administration had not stated its intention to do so to ensure proper implementation of its recommendations.When asked what the committee planned to recommend as a use for the extra money, Samet wrote that the committee had finished its work with the release of its final report but that it had recommended in the final report that the Rose prioritize rebuilding its staff."We [the committee] believe that this hiring will be possible with the funds available (including the $200K commitment of the administration)," he wrote. French wrote that the administration has not decided upon specific use of the Rose budget but that the recommendations will be discussed at the Board of Trustees meeting on Oct. 28. The trustees seemed pleased with the recommendations proposed in the final report at a meeting of the Executive Board of Trustees Sept. 24, according to Krauss. Krauss added, however, that the report was not discussed at great length. "They thought it was extremely well written, thoughtful and visionary. It was very complimentary to the work of the committee," said Krauss. Stephen Reiner, trustee and committee member, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the report would be discussed in much greater length at the Oct. 29 trustee meeting. At Thursday's faculty meeting, Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration Jeffrey Apfel explained that while the University was expecting a balanced budget this year, the budget was slightly worse than had been anticipated. One of the potential options for improving the deficit is selling or monetizing assets, he said. "To some extent, that's a reference to the Rose," Apfel said at the meeting. Reinharz also referred to the Rose Art Museum lawsuit, explaining that the first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 3, at which point there would be a better idea of how the University will proceed.The lawsuit was filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster on July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court. The lawsuit seeks to maintain the Rose collection intact by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes. The University's commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum will also be violated, according to the lawsuit."Everybody talks about the sale. There are other solutions, and we had to stop exploring them, but it doesn't mean we can't restart," Reinharz said. In addition to the hearing on Oct. 13, the deadline to file a memorandum in opposition to dismissing the case regarding the lawsuit is Oct. 6. The University has already filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the opposing counsel has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
(09/22/09 4:00am)
The Future of the Rose Committee will recommend in its report today that the Rose Art Museum should remain open to the public, according to a Boston Globe article published today. The Globe wrote that the committee's report, of which the newspaper received an advanced copy, does not comment on the University's potential sale of art. The Globe article was published too late for the Justice to contact the necessary parties involved in the Rose Art Museum museum controversy.The committee was formed by Provost Marty Krauss to issue reccomendations to the University administration and Board of Trustees in light of the current circumstances surrounding the museum. Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL) is the chair of the committee. The Rose Board of Overseers, Fine Arts faculty and students are represented in the committee. The deadline for the opposing counsel in the lawsuit to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, an injunction that takes place before the verdict is determined, is today, according to the deadlines set at the case management conference Sept. 1."The court ordered the injunction to be filed on the 22nd. You can expect me to meet any court deadlines," Edward Dangel III, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said yesterday. He would not make any further comments until the injunction had been filed."The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to require someone to do something or to stop them from doing something. Until it has been filed in court, it is not appropriate for me to comment," Dangel said.The lawsuit was filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster on July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and was subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court. The lawsuit seeks to maintain the Rose collection intact by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes. The University's commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum will also be violated, according to the lawsuit.This deadline is the second one for the case; a motion to dismiss was last Tuesday filed by Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case. The deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss the case is Oct. 6. The first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13. Reilly explained that the plaintiffs in the case are seeking to gain control over the museum, a claim that Reilly says has no legal basis. Reiily explained that all three plaintiffs are members of the museum's Board of Overseers, a committee that Reilly said plays a strictly advisory role and has no fiduciary responsibilityReilly said that the plaintiffs' objective in the case "is contrary to 200 years of law in Massachusetts.""The impact of this decision, if granted, would be felt throughout Massachusetts, where advisers, committees, and volunteers could seek to take control over what they have pledged to serve," he said. "What will become clear as the case progresses is that what the trustees have done and what the administration is doing [is] acting in accordance in the law of the state of Massachusetts," he added.
(09/15/09 4:00am)
The Brandeis Climate Action Plan, a comprehensive set of suggestions to gradually reduce Brandeis' energy consumption, will be released today, according to Janna Cohen-Rosenthal '03, the University's sustainability coordinator and chair of the plan. Cohen-Rosenthal has been working with the Brandeis Environmental Sustainability Team on the climate action plan since last winter and said that the plan is essentially a timeline for the University to achieve carbon neutrality. "The plan mainly consists of milestones [for the University to achieve] until 2050," she said. Cohen-Rosenthal explained that in 2007, Brandeis became part of the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment, a group of over 600 universities determined to combat climate change. Part of this commitment is an agreement to develop a comprehensive plan for each university to ultimately become climate-neutral, which she said means reducing virtually all energy consumption. Although Cohen-Rosenthal was unable to provide specific details of the plan because it has not yet been officially approved, she explained that it is divided into different categories such as energy conservation and efficiency, clean and renewable energy, green buildings, transportation, waste disposal, food and education. She said some of the potential ideas to promote energy reduction include working with the eco-reps, students in each quad who encourage their peers to conserve resources. With the assistance of the eco-reps, the plan aims to promote combating climate change, provide incentives for graduate students to carpool and continue to improve the energy efficiency in the buildings on campus.Cohen-Rosenthal acknowledged that this plan is a work in progress and that the committee is open to suggestions. Prof. Laura Goldin (AMST), the founder of BEST, said that the measures in the current plan are realistic, although some of the ideas, such as substituting fossil fuels with alternative energy, will be harder to implement because of financial constraints. Goldin said she plans on contributing to the plan through her classes, as she teaches classes in which students work on environmental projects that contribute to energy reduction. She cited her class "Greening the Ivory Tower: Improving Environmental Sustainability of Brandeis and Community," as an example. Matt Schmidt '11, the president of Students for Environmental Action, who played an active role in formulating the transportation aspect of the plan, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that he plans to work with the administration to implement the behavioral change section. "While carbon neutrality by 2050 may seem like a stretch, [more than 40] years is plenty of time to arrive at this goal if we commit to taking the action necessary. As a leading academic institution, and a bastion of progressive leadership, it would be a shame if we cannot make the hard decisions and achieve this goal," Schmidt wrote.Goldin added that achieving carbon neutrality would inevitably impose sacrifices upon students and faculty."I do think that we will all have to make sacrifices; we couldn't make it happen without those. I think they will have to be in the way we use and expect to use energy, and much of that will be in the way of conservation," Goldin said.Both Goldin and Cohen-Rosenthal were optimistic about the ultimate outcome of the upcoming plan."I would hope, and really do expect, that at a place like Brandeis, which holds as such an essential value social responsibility and contribution to the public good, that this would be something that people would embrace," said Goldin.
(09/15/09 4:00am)
University counsel filed a motion today to dismiss the lawsuit seeking to preserve the Rose Art Museum's collection, Thomas Reilly, the University's outside counsel, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice Friday. The motion will be heard Oct. 13, Reilly wrote. When asked about the implications of filing this motion, Reilly repeated his previous assertions that this case would validate Brandeis' claim of commitment to academic excellence."Given the financial challenges facing not only Brandeis but colleges and universities throughout this country, something has to give. The trustees and administration of Brandeis have decided its students, faculty and educational mission come first at the expense of selling art," he wrote in an e-mail to the Justice.The lawsuit, filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster July 27, seeks to maintain the Rose collection by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell its paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes. The lawsuit also states that the University's decision violates its commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum.The lawsuit was originally filed in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court in August.The filing of the motion to dismiss the lawsuit is in compliance with the deadlines set at the case management conference Sept.1. According to those deadlines, a motion to dismiss the case must be filed by Sept. 15, and a motion to impose a preliminary injunction must be filed by Sept. 22. The first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13. Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in an interview with the Justice that he had expected the University to file this motion. "I have long heard of their intent to file it," he said.Lee said he did not believe the University would succeed in having the case dismissed, saying, "This is a question of whether the plaintiffs have the standing to bring this issue to the judicial system, and I believe that we do.
(09/08/09 4:00am)
The Department of Community Living has discontinued the policy of wet suite contracts in quads with a majority of residents over 21 in an effort to make it easier for students to register their parties, according to Director of Community Living for Juniors and Seniors Erika Lamarre.Lamarre explained that in previous years, wet suite contracts enabled students over age 21 to register parties where alcohol would be available. Since wet suite contracts no longer exist, party registration is available to all residences in which there is a host over 21. "You had to be a wet suite to register a party, and we didn't want to suppress anyone's ability to register a party so we feel like we opened a door by setting that aside and focusing more on party, registration," said Lamarre.Katherine Keyes, the community development coordinator for the Ziv and Ridgewood Quads, explained in an e-mail that last year, three people in a suite had to be of drinking age in order to register a party, whereas this year, in which there is no wet suite policy, students can register parties regardless of how old their suitemates are.Lamarre, who headed the Alcohol Task Force last year, said the Department of Community Living made this decision in consultation with the Student Union and the Alcohol Task Force. Jeremy Leiferman, the senior director of community living, said that this decision, in addition to extending the option of party registration to more people, also stemmed from the fact that wet suite contracts were essentially redundant in relation to party registration because the aspects of registering for a wet suite were similar to registering a party."The elements of the wet suite agreement are covered through party registration, elements about what it means to be responsible in terms of drinking, so we essentially combined the efforts," Leiferman explained. However, Lamarre also said that this decision does not necessarily reflect a change in alcohol policy, since only students who are of drinking age can do so; it merely reflects the DCL's desire to make it easier for students to register their parties. "The wet suite was just a way of tracking who was 21 and making it not a big deal to have alcohol in the suite. If you're 21 and over, you can still have alcohol in the suite. There isn't really a change in policy," she said. "We are not trying to crack down on alcohol policy but open a door," she added. Jenna Brofsky '10, a resident of Ziv quad and a member of the Student Union, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that she feels this change is positive because it allows students to be more responsible while simultaneously making the party registration process easier. Keyes said that she believed this policy was universally beneficial, as well. "Already during this academic school year I have had a handful of party registration forms, the parties that were registered were a success," she wrote.
(09/08/09 4:00am)
The date of the first hearing regarding the lawsuit filed against the University by three members of the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers and the deadlines for filing motions of dismissal and preliminary injunctions were set at the case management conference that took place Tuesday, Sept. 1, according to University outside legal counsel Thomas Reilly.The motion to dismiss a case or to file a preliminary injunction, an injunction that takes place before the verdict is determined, must be filed on or before Sept. 15, according to a schedule provided by Jill Butterworth, deputy press secretary for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. The first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13, and the deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss the case is Oct. 6. The lawsuit was filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and was subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court. The lawsuit seeks to maintain the Rose's collection by stating that the University's decision to close the museum and sell its paintings would violate both the museum's ethical codes and Brandeis' commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum.Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said that he and the other plaintiffs were filing a preliminary injunction and that they were confident it would succeed."I feel very good about the way the court system is handling our case," said Lee. "We are getting huge attention and very rapid treatment and are having a lot of success. . We are being dealt with in an extremely positive way by the attorney general's office."Reilly said that the case management conference went as expected in the sense that it set a schedule for the case and that the University would file a motion to dismiss the case on or before Sept. 15. He added that he was confident that Brandeis' version of the story would emerge as the case continues to unfold.Reilly said that while the opposing counsel had the right to file a preliminary injunction, the injunction would be superfluous: it would be implemented to prevent Brandeis from selling art, but the University has no plans to do so. "There are exhibitions planned throughout the fall. As we speak, there are no transactions to sell art that are in place right now," said Reilly. Butterworth wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the attorney general's office could not comment on an ongoing litigation. Reilly said, "I am confident that we will get to the truth in this case. The truth is that the trustees and the administration are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, which is preserve their commitment to academic excellence." However, Lee condemned the University's claims of prioritizing scholarship, saying that the Rose is part of Brandeis' academic excellence, and the lawsuit is seeking to display the core values of Brandeis."The University is using the line of attack that we don't care about the University, just the esoteric art collection. We are trying to save this piece of Brandeis because it's a crown jewel," he said."It's unfortunate that Brandeis can find itself in a situation that it may have to sell art, but it is doing so for the right reasons. That is the essential truth of this case," Reilly added.
(09/01/09 4:00am)
The Department of Community Living has discontinued the policy of wet suite contracts in quads with a majority of residents over 21 in an effort to make it easier for students to register their parties, according to Director of Community Living for Juniors and Seniors Erika Lamarre.Lamarre explained that in previous years, wet suite contracts enabled students over age 21 to register parties where alcohol would be available. Since wet suite contracts no longer exist, party registration is available to all residences in which there is a host over 21. "You had to be a wet suite to register a party, and we didn't want to suppress anyone's ability to register a party so we feel like we opened a door by setting that aside and focusing more on party, registration," said Lamarre.Katherine Keyes, the community development coordinator for the Ziv and Ridgewood Quads, explained in an e-mail that last year, three people in a suite had to be of drinking age in order to register a party, whereas this year, in which there is no wet suite policy, students can register parties regardless of how old their suitemates are.Lamarre, who headed the Alcohol Task Force last year, said the Department of Community Living made this decision in consultation with the Student Union and the Alcohol Task Force. Jeremy Leiferman, the senior director of community living, said that this decision, in addition to extending the option of party registration to more people, also stemmed from the fact that wet suite contracts were essentially redundant in relation to party registration because the aspects of registering for a wet suite were similar to registering a party."The elements of the wet suite agreement are covered through party registration, elements about what it means to be responsible in terms of drinking, so we essentially combined the efforts," Leiferman explained. However, Lamarre also said that this decision does not necessarily reflect a change in alcohol policy, since only students who are of drinking age can do so; it merely reflects the DCL's desire to make it easier for students to register their parties. "The wet suite was just a way of tracking who was 21 and making it not a big deal to have alcohol in the suite. If you're 21 and over, you can still have alcohol in the suite. There isn't really a change in policy," she said. "We are not trying to crack down on alcohol policy but open a door," she added. Jenna Brofsky '10, a resident of Ziv quad and a member of the Student Union, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that she feels this change is positive because it allows students to be more responsible while simultaneously making the party registration process easier. Keyes said that she believed this policy was universally beneficial, as well. "Already during this academic school year I have had a handful of party registration forms, the parties that were registered were a success," she wrote.
(09/01/09 4:00am)
Correction appended; see bottom.The University has restricted access to all Rose Art Museum-related materials in the Robert D. Farber University Archives and Special Collections until the completion of a review pertaining to a lawsuit filed by three members of the museum's Board of Overseers, according to the University's legal counsel, Judith Sizer. In an e-mail to the Justice, Sizer wrote, "Full access to Rose-related documents housed in the archives will be reinstated when the review has been concluded, subject to any exigencies that may stem from the litigation recently filed against the University." When asked about such exigencies, she responded in an interview with the Justice that the defense counsel in a litigation process will generally gather all documents potentially pertaining to the trial in one place to ensure a proper defense of the case. The lawsuit was filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster on July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts. The case was subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court. The lawsuit states that the University's decision to close the museum and sell its paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes and Brandeis' commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum.Sizer explained in an interview with the Justice that there are three types of restricted information: museum records, library archives and internal University records, which relate to donor information and can be traced back to years before the founding of the University. Sizer said that all three types of the records are crucial to determining donor intent. "The records from the early years of the University can be spotty. If you're trying to determine donor intent you need to look at every document you can get hold of," she said.The review, which is being conducted by University counsel, began last December. The museum records were previously stored inside the museum, and Michael Rush, the previous director of the Rose, began photocopying these records last February and delivering the photocopies to the administration. The museum records were transferred to Sizer's office after Rush left on June 30. The Rose archive materials were also transferred to Sizer's office in early May. Sizer was unable to provide a date for completion of the review, however, saying that she has not yet determined "the extent of the documents." When asked about the review, she responded that it has been proceeding well. Sizer noted, however, that she would consider providing access to graduate students who want to use the materials in the archives for academic reasons."Once we have finished reviewing the documents, we will discuss setting up a process for undergraduates, graduate students and other members of the Brandeis community who may have legitimate needs to review materials," wrote Sizer in an e-mail to the Justice. Sizer further explained in the e-mail that the Justice would be able to access documents, but that access would not be exclusive to the Justice. University Provost Marty Krauss referred all questions about this matter to Sizer. Sizer added that the review is necessary because the University needs to obtain all information possible before making any decisions regarding artwork from the Rose. Jonathan Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the administration's decision to restrict access to the archives served as an indication that they had something to hide."I think it is all part of the duplicitous conduct they have been engaging in since their decision to sell off the art. They made a poor decision and have behaved poorly to protect that decision," said Lee.Lee said that he personally had never attempted to access anything from the archives. Although Lee said his status as a plaintiff prohibited him from saying which specific documents he would choose to access from the archives, he was careful to note that the decision to restrict access would not hamper the litigation process, explaining that the process involved a methodology called the discovery process, which can enforce disclosure of documents. Fred Hopengarten, a lawyer related to the Rose family, said in an interview with the Justice that he first attempted to access information from the archives last April and that he tried again in May, June and July. He said he was particularly interested in obtaining a copy of the 1969 trust created by Edward Rose for the art museum. A letter from Abraham Sachar to Edward Rose that accompanied and referred to the trust agreement has been incorporated into the lawsuit. In that letter, Sachar writes that Edward Rose and his wife, Bertha, have "made a magnificent art facility available and . are providing permanent maintenance and support." However, Hopengarten said that he has been unable to access a copy of the trust itself.Hopengarten said that in June, he received a response from Sizer saying that she was optimistic that she would be able to reply during the summer, but during July she notified him again to say that she doubted there would be answers for him in July. "Tomorrow is Sept. 1, and I still have no substantive response," said Hopengarten, adding that Karen Abramson, the chief of the archives, told him that she no longer had responsibility for these archives and directed him to Sizer.Prof. Mark Auslander (ANTH) wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that he was previously unfamiliar with the restriction regarding the archives. Although he stressed that he did not know enough about the situation to provide a substantial comment, he wrote that he believes the archives are invaluable educational resources because many of his students have benefited from them, and he hopes they will become available again soon. - Hannah Kirsch and Nashrah Rahman contributed reporting.Correction: The seventh paragraph of the article implies that both the original Rose Art Museum archives and Robert D. Farber Special Collections and Archives pertaining to the Rose were removed from their original locations. In fact, only the Robert D. Farber archives were removed; the Rose Art Museum archives still reside in the museum.
(08/25/09 4:00am)
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts transferred a lawsuit filed by three members of the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers asking that the University halt the closing of the Rose to the Suffolk Probate court Aug. 6, according to Emily LaGrassa, communications director for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.LaGrassa explained in an e-mail to the Justice that the probate court is the appropriate venue for the lawsuit because it is a fact-finding court, whereas the Supreme Court hears appeals after the trial has already occurred. LaGrassa also wrote that a case management conference, a discussion of internal deadlines pertinent to the case, has been scheduled for Sept. 1. When asked about a trial date, LaGrassa responded that one would not be set for many months. Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster filed the lawsuit July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts. The lawsuit states that the University's decision to close the museum and sell its paintings would violate the museum's ethical codes and Brandeis' commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum.Thomas Reilly, the University's outside legal counsel on the lawsuit, said in an interview with the Justice that the decision to move the case to the probate court implies a lack of urgency in the lawsuit."The Rose Art Museum is open. The plaintiffs were claiming that it's closed; that's simply not true. They were claiming that [there] was a sale of paintings that was imminent; that's simply not true. So there are serious misrepresentations in the complaint, but the bottom line is the Court wouldn't take their case and didn't take their case, " said Reilly. Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in an interview that he was not displeased with the court's decision to transfer the case. The lawsuit additionally claims that Brandeis has accelerated the process of selling works of art but does not provide any evidence of such actions. Lee would not comment on this particular aspect of the lawsuit but said that the complainants were gathering "lots of documentation." Reilly initially called this allegation premature in a comment to the press after the lawsuit was initially filed July 27 and has maintained that it is not an accurate assertion. "The plaintiffs have represented that [the University has accelerated the process of selling the art], but that is simply not the case," he said. Provost Marty Krauss said in an interview with the Justice that although she is not familiar with all of the legacies of the suit,"They didn't give any evidence. I don't know what they're referring to," she said. According to Lee, the lawsuit's assertion that Brandeis has a commitment to the Rose family and the complainants to keep the Rose fully functional as a public art museum stems from the founding documents that were written when Edward and Bertha Rose first prepared to donate money to create the museum. Included in the lawsuit is a letter written in 1968 by Edward Rose stipulating that funds from the museum could only be used to purchase other artwork; the letter was signed by Abraham Sachar, Brandeis' president at that time. "It's clear that the president, Abraham Sachar at the time, and Ed and Bertha Rose made a compact to have a public art museum in the documents," said Lee.When asked about that particular letter, Reilly said that he could not comment on specific documents but that "everything would unfold" during the litigation process and that Brandeis would have a chance to tell its story. He added that both he and other lawyers involved in the case have been in contact with the court.
(05/19/09 4:00am)
The interim report released by the Committee on the Future of the Rose April 30 was met with criticism by Michael Rush, the current director of the Rose Art Museum, who questioned the accuracy of the financial figures presented in the report.The interim report is a compilation of the research the committee has gathered about the Rose, particularly regarding the museum's budget as well as the legal concerns of selling art and operating as a public museum. Committee chair Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL) wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the report was released with the intention of informing the Brandeis community about the committee's process. "We wanted to let the Brandeis Community know what we were up to. More specifically, we were able to share some general information about the legal situation, make clear the the Rose itself was not in any sort of budget crisis, and outline the sorts of outreach and consultation," he wrote. The committee, formed in March by the Faculty Senate Council and the provost, is composed of professors, students, alumnae and members of the Rose Board of Overseers. It is charged with devising options for the future of the Rose.The monetary figures about the Rose's endowment and revenue from fiscal 2008 were included in the section of the report concerning budget information. One of the figures in the report states that the Rose's indirect expenses-money allocated from the University's budget for the museum-in fiscal 2008 were between $500,000 and $600,000. In a phone interview with the Justice, however, Rush said that those figures were inaccurate. Rush explained that when he assumed the position of director of the museum in 2005, the indirect costs were approximately $200,000. "There is no way that indirect costs have risen $400,000 in three years. The money quoted in the report is not concordant with the records we have been operating with at the museum," Rush said.Samet went on to explain, however, that the main idea behind releasing the figures was to show that the decisions regarding the Rose were a result of the University's fiscal challenges, not the museum's. When asked if the committee stands by the figures reported, he responded that the figures presented in the report did not misrepresent the information the committee had received about the Rose budget. "We received the figures in a presentation from one of the staff members in the budget office. That staff member reviewed the budget section of the interim report before it was released, and confirmed that it did not misrepresent the information we were given in the presentation," he wrote. The interim report stated that Vice President for Budget and Planning Fran Drolette provided the committee with an overview of the budget.However, Samet acknowledged that the figures in the report were incomplete, explaining in an e-mail, "We provided a summary-an accountant would provide a much more detailed report." Rush said that he offered several times to appear before the committee and provide the correct figures but did not receive a response from the committee until May 14. When asked if Rush had previously offered to appear before the committee, Samet responded May 13 was the first the committee had learned of his offer but that Rush had previously mentioned to Samet that he would be able to clarify some of the budget inaccuracies."If there is an error, we need to know that, because understanding the budget is critical for thinking about the future of the Rose," Samet wrote. "I've invited Michael to communicate with us about this. If there are significant errors or inaccuracies we will correct them," he added.The committee acknowledged in the report that while the Rose's budget has suffered because of the recession and the current controversy surrounding the museum, its budgetary figures confirm that the University's decision January 26 to sell the collection was the result of Brandeis' financial difficulties. The report states that the Rose budget itself did not impose a fiscal strain on the University.According to the report, the Rose can continue to operate legally as a public museum if the University sells its artwork but does not use the proceeds to purchase other art. The committee will release its final report early in the fall after continuing to work into the summer, according to an e-mail Samet sent to the Brandeis community April 30. The report explains that the committee did not want to begin deliberating about future options for the Rose until they had obtained sufficient background information about the Rose.University Provost Marty Krauss wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that she was pleased with the committee's research."This is a serious committee that is working diligently to gather information from many sources. I have confidence that it will provide thoughtful and well considered options for the future of the Rose," she wrote. Jonathan Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in a phone interview with the Justice that the report did not contain any significant information in terms of mitigating the controversy surrounding the museum.Lee said, "the committee is incapable of coming up with anything new because it has nothing to do with whether art is sold or not; that authorization is reserved strictly for the Board of Trustees, and you have to assume art will be sold."Students and faculty collaborated with the Rose Board of Overseers to hold a symposium May 11 to honor Rush's term as director and the rest of the museum staff, according to Prof. Andreas Teuber (PHIL), who spoke at the event. Others who spoke at the symposium included Meryl Rose, spokesperson for the Rose family and member of the Rose Board, and Jane Farver, Director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology List Visual Arts Center. "Although Michael Rush reached out to me as a teacher, I tried to say a few words [at the symposium] about what he and his curating had taught me," Teuber wrote in an email to the Justice.Rush's employment will end June 30. Jay Knox, the current administrator of the Rose, and Emily Mello, the current director of education at the Rose, will also not return after that time."We appreciated that under the circumstances, it was unlikely there would be an official reception for Michael Rush. A group of concerned faculty and students therefore decided to work with the Rose Museum Board of Overseers to put on a suitable event, to express our gratitude to Dr. Rush and the entire Rose Museum team," Prof. Mark Auslander (ANTH), who also spoke at the event, said in an interview with the Justice. Auslander added that Krauss stopped by for several minutes."I think it was appropriate for the faculty and students who have been involved with the Rose to coordinate this event," wrote Krauss in an email to the Justice.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
The reactions from students and faculty to the Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering committee's recommendation to convert American Studies from a department to one of three interdepartmental programs have been overwhelmingly negative.Students and faculty in the American Studies department have expressed dissatisfaction with the recommendation involving the American Studies department that was released last Monday in the CARS committee's report. The CARS recommendation specifically proposes transforming American Studies from a department to an interdepartmental program while maintaining the major and minor, reassigning American Studies faculty to different departments, reducing the faculty by four over time and recruiting new faculty to teach courses in the interdepartmental program.American Studies Undergraduate Department Representative Lauren Schloss '11 wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that she and the fellow UDRs Robin Lichtenstein '11 and Hannah Vickers '10 have circulated a petition demonstrating student support for American Studies and opposition to the CARS recommendation. The petition has garnered 300 signatures. Schloss and Vickers have also created a Facebook group titled Save the American Studies Department to protest the recommendation.Prof. Stephen Whitfield, chair of the American Studies department, said that his reaction was one of "pain, hurt and consternation." "While we are more than willing to bear the burden the financial crisis imposes, we could find no compelling reason why the price we are asked to pay is so disproportionate," Whitfield said, adding that "the reduction in our status is also bound to give our students the sense that their studies have been depreciated as well."Prof. Richard Gaskins (AMST) said he was mystified by the recommendation. "This recommendation is inconsistent with the overall goals of the CARS report," he said, explaining that if the report was intended to encourage departments to share resources more freely, then it should have recommended that various departments that have similarities, like Politics, History and American Studies, coordinate rather than eliminate an entire department like American Studies by making the major interdepartmental.Although the CARS report states that these recommendations would enable American Studies to "continue to thrive and even to grow as an interdisciplinary program and major," Prof. Thomas Doherty wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that he thinks these recommendations will adversely affect American Studies and result in a "slow, sure academic meltdown.""If approved, it will mean the end of a rigorous American Studies curriculum at Brandeis University," Doherty wrote. Prof. Steven Burg (POL), a member of the CARS committee, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that he believes the interdepartmental programs will be strengthened by the recommendations."The proposal to reorganize these departments makes more sense at this time because of the several other recommendations by CARS that will, if adopted, strengthen the role of inter-departmental programs in determining the curriculum, defining priorities for future faculty appointments, and generally elevating the status of inter-departmental programs in academic policymaking processes," Burg wrote.Burg also wrote that he believes this recommendation would enable more courses to count toward the American Studies major and would increase the amount of faculty teaching courses that would count for the major, which will "make it easier to absorb the impact of any future retirements or other departures of faculty without undermining the major."Schloss wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the CARS recommendation concerning American Studies was made in haste and would reflect poorly on the University. "This change is solely detrimental, not only to the American studies students, faculty and alumni, but to the University itself," she wrote.Alissa Cherry '10, an American Studies major, said that the committee's recommendations raised concerns for her about the value of her degree and said she did not understand the reasoning behind the recommendation."When I first heard about it, my initial reaction was that my degree wasn't going to be worth anything. I am not happy about it all. The American Studies program is probably one of the most successful programs on campus, and you don't try and fix what isn't broken," she said. Jennifer Abidor '11, another American Studies major, said, "It's a shame because it's such a relevant major to our lives and our culture and it incorporates so many different elements of our culture in a unique way that not many other schools offer. The faculty on American Studies has been working on it for so long, and it's a shame to see it fall apart. It is not the type of department I feel can be dispersed into other departments," she said.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
A portion of the will of Edward Rose, a benefactor of the Rose Art Museum, expresses his wish for the Rose to remain open as the only public art museum at Brandeis, a relative of the Rose family told the Justice. The part of the will concerning the Rose Art Museum, which Fred Hopengarten, a lawyer related to Edward Rose, read verbatim over the phone to the Justice, states, "Brandeis; has agreed that the Rose Art Museum will be maintained in perpetuity as the only art museum at Brandeis and that Brandeis' permanent collection of works of art by major artists will be housed and exhibited in the Rose Art Museum."Meryl Rose, a relative of the Rose family and a member of the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers, said in a phone interview with the Justice that she found out about the will in February. She added that the Rose family had publicized the will in its statement against the administrations' actions towards the museum that was read out on March 16. Judith Sizer, the University's general counsel, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that Brandeis was aware of the will and that she believed the University had complied with it. "None of the conditions set forth in Mr. Rose's will, specifically that the art museum be maintained under their name as the sole art museum on the Brandeis campus and that the museum's permanent collection be kept and exhibited there, is in any way a limitation on the ability of Brandeis to manage the daily operations of the Rose Art Museum within those parameters. Subject to these conditions, Mr. and Mrs. Rose left it to the University to make decisions about the nature, mission, and activities of the Museum," she wrote. However, Meryl Rose also said that she does not believe the University's actions, despite its expressed intentions to keep the Rose open as a public museum, have been in accordance with the will. "Up until this latest notice that went out, the University was going to turn it into a student art center. When it became apparent that they couldn't do that, now they are trying to turn it into a museum. But, you know, there are certain things inherent to running a museum that they are not doing, the first of which is getting rid of its director," she said. "The administration has not changed what they are planning on doing since the beginning. This is all about selling art, so they are removing the people protective of this collection," Rose said.Hopengarten explained that the words "Brandeis agrees" imply a contractual relationship rather than a precatory one, meaning that Brandeis is obligated to comply with the will's stipulations. Hopengarten said that it was the understanding of Edward and Bertha Rose that Brandeis had agreed to the terms of the will. Meryl Rose said the family and Board of Overseers were consulting with lawyers which Hopengarten also confirmed. "We're talking to lawyers. Quite a few members of the Board of Overseers and the Rose family are lawyers themselves," said Rose.Hopengarten said that bringing the case to court was complicated. "That is a question that we have to investigate more thoroughly, because the enforcement of trust involves a complex route including the attorney general," he said, adding that "it's not a civil matter that goes right to superior court."Rose said that the family and the Board of Overseers had not discussed the will with the administration. "We would be happy to talk to them, but we weren't consulted in any step of the way. Obviously their esteem for our expertise is not high," she said. Jonathan Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, also said that he is fairly certain the will has legal implications but stressed that he could not make legal points since he wasn't an attorney.Emily La Grassa, the communications director for the Attorney General's office, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that because she was unable to reach the necessary attorneys by press time, it was unlikely that the attorney general's office would be able to comment at this time. Meryl Rose explained that she does not believe the University is intending to do any harm, but it would be beneficial for the University to say they made a mistake. "Their announcement made it worse because it is really false. They say they are putting up an exhibit, but who is curating this exhibit? Who is taking care of the fundraising?," she said.She also said there were other documents concerning Edward and Bertha Rose in addition to Edward Rose's will but that she could not specify further. Provost Marty Krauss did not respond to a request for an interview.Meryl Rose said that although she could not confirm anything because she is not a lawyer, the will's potential legal implications were clear to her. "I wonder why the administration all of a sudden sent this letter," she said, referring to the announcement the Provost sent on April 17th announcing the Rose would reopen July 22nd.
(04/21/09 4:00am)
The Rose Art Museum will reopen to the public July 22 after a brief de-installation period in an effort to allow the Committee on the Future of the Rose sufficient time for its deliberations, according to an e-mail sent by Provost Marty Krauss to the Brandeis community last Friday.The University also offered four out of the six Rose staff members continued employment, according to Krauss' e-mail. However, Michael Rush, the current director of the Rose, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the University did not offer him employment. "My status remains [the] same as it was on January 26. My position is to be terminated on June 30," he wrote."These plans are intended to ensure continuity until such time as the Committee submits its final report and action is taken on its recommendations," according to the e-mail.In an e-mail to the Rose Museum Board of Overseers that was cited on the "Looking Around" blog on Time magazine's Web site, Jonathan Lee, the board's chairman, wrote that the administration made the announcement after insistence from the office of the Massachussetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a phone interview with the Justice, Lee said, "I spoke with the attorney general; the attorney general has been putting pressure on the administration; the administration put the letter out in response to pressure from the attorney general.""As the result of concerns raised by the Rose Museum Board of Overseers, our office inquired about Brandeis' plans regarding the Rose Museum and the University has reiterated its intent to keep the museum open in the short term. We look forward to working with Brandeis University and the entire Brandeis community to ensure that the wishes of donors are honored as the University considers future plans for the Rose Museum," Emily La Grassa, communications director for the Attorney General, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice.In response to Lee's e-mail to the Rose Museum Board of Overseers, Krauss said, "There has been a lot of misinformation going around, which is unfortunate"According to the announcement, Roy Dawes, currently the assistant director of operations, will serve as director of museum operations; Valerie Wright, who is currently the museum registrar, will serve as collections manager; and Karina Sheerin will remain director of financial control, budgeting and analysis. When asked to name the two out of six Rose staff members who were not offered continued employment by the University, Krauss wrote, "I cannot comment directly about personnel decisions." However, Lee confirmed that Jay Knox, the current administrator of the museum, was also not offered employment and that his position, like Rush's, will terminate June 30. Lee added that Emily Mello, the director of education at the Rose, declined the University's offer of employment.Krauss explained the staffing decisions in an e-mail to the Justice. "We wanted to ensure that the Permanent Collection has professionally trained staff to secure its preservation and treatment. But we didn't want to pre-empt the role that the Committee for the Future of the Rose has in recommending programmatic and artistic goals for the future," she wrote, further explaining that "From [the committee's] recommendations, we will assess the staffing needs necessary to implement adopted recommendations. So, as of today, it is not known what full staffing needs will be required."Rush wrote that he cannot speak for the administration about the decision concerning his employment status, but he wrote, "I am considered an enemy for being so vocally opposed to the decision to close the museum and sell artwork. This is clear." Sheerin wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that as a result of the staffing changes she will be working with Dawes more closely.Mello, Knox, Wright and Dawes could not be reached for comment by press time. Krauss wrote that the July 22 re-opening date and prior timeline were endorsed by the Committee on the Future of the Rose in a meeting she attended with the committee April 7. However, Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL), the chair of the Committee on the Future of the Rose, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that "the committee did not make specific staffing recommendations to the Provost ... [Krauss] took the lead on these matters and then discussed her plan with the committee." Samet wrote that the Committee had been urging Krauss to announce a transition plan for the museum as soon as possible. The Committee is involved in developing a long-range plan for the Rose, and the uncertainties about [the status of the Rose in the short term] was very worrying for the whole Brandeis community. "Knowing that and how the Rose will continue its operations for the short-term gives the committee some breathing room to carefully deliberate about the long-term," Samet wrote. Samet wrote that the Committee has not decided when they will issue a final report because the report would come out either over the summer, when few people will be on campus to discuss it, or in the fall, in which case "the period of uncertainty is extended." The current Hans Hoffman exhibition at the Rose will be extended until May 17, Krauss wrote.Prof. Nancy Scott (FA) wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that while it is a good sign that the museum will be open this summer, "the staffing situation, however, is skeletal at best, and it will be difficult now to arrange for any substantive educational programming for next year." "I was astonished, just as I had been [with the initial announcement to close the Rose Jan. 26]," Rush wrote. "The university has essentially disenfranchised me as director. They have done the same with the Rose board of overseers. It's as if we don't exist." "This decision means the University is responding to some pressure, which is a good thing," he added. "What it means otherwise is not much: There will be no director, no curator, no administrator, no funding stream, no Board (most likely). What kind of museum is that?" -Jillian Wagner contributed reporting.
(04/21/09 4:00am)
Proposed changes to the University residency requirement of seven semesters will be postponed following the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee's withdrawal of Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe's original proposal to increase the current requirement to eight semesters, according to University Registrar Mark Hewitt.Instead, Jaffe is working with Hewitt to concentrate on clarifying the language of the requirement and adjusting it to incorporate the Justice Brandeis Semester, according to Hewitt. Jaffe and Vice President of Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy decided to postpone any major changes to the residency requirement on the recommendation of Hewitt and Dean of Admissions Gil Villanueva, wrote Hewitt in an e-mail to the Justice. Hewitt wrote that he and Villanueva recommended that the administration refrain from making major changes to the requirement this year in order to provide more time for researching ideas for the proposal to solve the problem that degree acceleration poses for the budget. "These requirements are so basic to the degree program that changes can have a broad impact on students, and we felt that we needed more time to be able to adequately assess the effects of any [major] changes and to have more time to come up with different approaches that might mitigate the impact on students," Hewitt wrote. The residency requirement is the number of semesters a student must complete on campus. The administration originally proposed to increase the current requirement from seven to eight semesters in an effort to address the problem of revenue loss that occurs when seniors graduate in December, Jaffe explained to the?Justice in March. However, Jaffe announced at the faculty meeting March 19 that the proposal was withdrawn due to faculty concerns that it would disadvantage students who need to graduate early for financial reasons. At the April 2 faculty meeting, Jaffe had announced that he was working with Eddy on a new proposal that took into account these concerns. He had hoped to be able to present the new proposal implementing major changes to the requirement April 23. Howver, Hewitt wrote that the decision to postpone any major changes occurred was made after Jaffe made the announcement at the faculty meeting.Hewitt wrote that the JBS, which requires students to participate in experiential learning, will be treated similarly to study abroad."Students who wish to study abroad for two semesters, or take two JBS, or one of each are required to complete eight total semesters. Students who want to graduate in seven semesters can only have one semester of either study abroad or Justice Brandeis," Hewitt wrote in an e-mail to the Justice.Hewitt wrote that he and Jaffe are proposing to replace the term "academic residency" in the current requirement with "credits required for graduation" and "semesters required for graduation." Hewitt wrote that they are proposing to change this wording because, judging from listserv discussions, faculty and students find the current wording confusing. "People get hung up on the contradiction of calling [this requirement] residency when some of the semesters/credits that satisfy it are actually spent off-campus (e.g., study abroad)," Hewitt wrote.Hewitt added that he and Jaffe are also proposing to eliminate the chart of options in the current proposal and change the wording of "non-resident numeric credit" to "external credit sources" and change "non-resident credit for purpose" to "external exams/courses for purpose."Jaffe told the Justice that the changes that he and Hewitt are recommending to the current residency requirement are minor. "This is the kind of thing that we do all the time, fiddling with how things are worded in the bulletin," he said. When asked if the administration had come up with any major changes to the current proposal, Hewitt wrote that it would be "premature to mention the ideas that have been proposed at this stage."Jaffe also said that Eddy and he are still working on their proposal to implement major changes to the requirement but declined to provide specifics. "Nothing's going to happen anytime soon," he said. Jaffe and Hewitt will propose the minor changes to the current residency requirement to the UCC April 22, Hewitt wrote.
(04/07/09 4:00am)
Sixty-four signatures have now been collected for an open letter for the faculty to sign proposing a moratorium for all decisions on the Rose Art Museum.The letter, posted by Profs. Ellen Schattschneider (NEJS) and Bernadette Brooten (NEJS) last Wednesday to the faculty was addressed to both University President Jehuda Reinharz and Provost Marty Krauss. The letter urges that the University "keep the Rose Art Museum open as a public art museum, with professional staffing, continuing exhibitions and active educational programs, until at least June 30, 2010."Prof. Mark Auslander (ANTH), wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the letter was supposed to been delivered to both Provost Marty Krauss and President Reinharz yesterday. While Krauss declined to say whether the administration had discussed the letter, she said in an interview with the Justice that "the letter is an expression of feelings and desires, but its recommendation is not one that I think the administration will take in advance of the committees report.
