TTU SACS Certification of Compliance

The School of Law participates in the ongoing, integrated TTU-wide research-based planning and evaluation process, also known as the TTU strategic plan. The strategic plan for the School of Law may be found at:

http://www.law.ttu.edu/about/strategic.asp

ii.

These and other data are reviewed systematically and result in continuing improvement. The School of Law is accomplishing its mission and goals as demonstrated in its 2004 Self-Study Report (pp. 1-105) prepared for the Sabbatical Reinspection of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools (Feb.-Mar 2004). A copy of the 2004 Self-Study is available in the Office of the Dean of the Law School, and another copy is available in the Office of the Provost of the University.

2.6

The institution is in operation and has students enrolled in degree programs. (Continuous Operation)

Not applicable to unit level.

2.7

The institution

2.7.1

offers one or more degree programs based on at least 60 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the associate level; at least 120 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the baccalaureate level; or at least 30 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the post-baccalaureate, graduate, or professional level. The institution provides a written justification and rationale for program equivalency. (Program Length)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

The School of Law has:

A Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.) degree that requires 90 semester credit hours of law courses.

In cooperation with other colleges within the University, joint degrees are available in the following areas:
J.D./Master of Business Administration
J.D./Master of Public Administration
J.D./Master of Science in Agricultural and Applied Economics
J.D./Master of Science in Accounting (Taxation)
J.D./Master of Science in Environmental Toxicology
J.D./Master of Science (Personal Financial Planning)
J.D./Master of Science in Biotechnology

For these joint degree programs, to satisfy the 90 hours of law studies for the J.D. degree and the 36 (or more) hours of graduate courses for the Master’s degree, 12 hours of approved law courses are transferred as elective credit toward the graduate degree and 12 hours of approved graduate courses are transferred as elective credit toward the J.D. degree.

For a more detailed description, see the 2005-05 Law School Catalog from pp. 13-17 at http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/pdfs/CurrentLawCatalog.pdf

2.7.2

offers degree programs that embody a coherent course of study that is compatible with its stated purpose and is based upon fields of study appropriate to higher education. (Program Content)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

The School of Law’s Program of Legal Education satisfies the American Bar Association standards for curricula, which include a coherent set of requirements for the course of study. http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/chapter3.html

The School of Law’s Program of Legal Education was reviewed during Spring 2004 as part of the Sabbatical Reinspection of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools; the final reports of those bodies will be available in the office of the Dean of the School of Law.

2.7.3

requires in each undergraduate degree program the successful completion of a general education component at the collegiate level that is (1) a substantial component of each undergraduate degree, (2) ensures breadth of knowledge, and (3) is based on a coherent rationale. For degree completion in associate programs, the component constitutes a minimum of 15 semester hours or the equivalent; for baccalaureate programs, a minimum of 30 semester hours or the equivalent. These credit hours are to be drawn from and include at least one course from each of the following areas: humanities/fine arts; social/behavioral sciences; and natural science/mathematics. The courses do not narrowly focus on those skills, techniques, and procedures specific to a particular occupation or profession. The institution provides a written justification and rationale for course equivalency. (General Education)

Not applicable to unit level.

2.7.4

provides instruction for all course work required for at least one degree program at each level at which if awards degree. If the institution makes arrangements for some instruction to be provided by other accredited institutions or entities through contracts or consortia, or uses some other alternative approach to meeting this requirement, the alternative approach must be approved by the Commission on Colleges. In all cases, the institution demonstrates that it controls all aspects of its educational program. (Contractual Agreements for Instruction)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

The School of Law controls all aspects of its degree programs, except for the graduate school aspects of the joint degree programs offered in conjunction with other colleges on campus. The School of Law also participates in a cooperative Summer Law Institute in Guanajuato, Mexico, with two other U.S. law schools and the host university. See http://www.law.ttu.edu/academics/international/guan.asp. The Institute has been approved by the Accreditation Committee of the ABA Section on Legal Education. The Institute was reviewed by the ABA during Summer 2003, and a copy of the final report will be available in the office of the Dean of the School of Law. Subsequent to that review, the Summer Law Institute was approved for continuation by the ABA’s Accreditation Committee in January 2004, and will be re-evaluated by site visit in 2010.

2.8

The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution. The institution has adequate faculty resources to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. In addition, upon application for candidacy, an applicant institution demonstrates that it meets the comprehensive standard for faculty qualifications. (Faculty)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

The current student-faculty ratio is 19.88:1, as compared to 18.93:1 in 1996-97. In recent years, through a combination of unanticipated student-body growth and stagnant faculty staffing levels, the School’s once excellent student-faculty ratio has climbed to as high as 20.65:1. Moreover, the Legal Practice student-professor ratio is at the upper limit suggested by the ABA Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs, which is further exacerbated by the fact the program has more hours than the typical law school research and writing program.

ABA report Year	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
Total Faculty FTE	33.8	33.8	33.8	33.8	33.8	33.8	33.8	33.8
Total FTE Students	640	637	616	595	650	663	698	672
Ratio	18.93	18.85	18.22	17.6	19.23	19.62	20.65	19.88

Efforts to reduce the student population to more manageable levels and the hiring of two additional tenure-track professors in support of the School’s clinical programs will help return the School to a more acceptable ratio. Because, however, even the reduced student population represents a significant increase over prior levels, and the danger exists that further reductions could jeopardize efforts to enhance student diversity, the only reasonable way to return to an optimal student-teacher ratio – a historic strength of the School – is by obtaining authority for new faculty lines from the University.

2.9.

The institution, through ownership or formal arrangements or agreements, provides and supports student and faculty access and user privileges to adequate library collections as well as to other learning/information resources consistent with the degrees offered. These collections and resources are sufficient to support all its educational, research, and public service programs. (Learning Resources and Services)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

The School of Law operates its own law library, as is required by the American Bar Association. Although the University’s resource commitment to supporting the law library was brought into question following the 1996 Sabbatical Reinspection of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools, substantial efforts have been undertaken to address prior concerns. For example, as part of a tuition increase adopted by the Board of Regents in November 2001, the Regents directed that $800,000 per year generated by the increase be allocated to the law library. These issues and the University and School of Law’s response are fully discussed on pp.95-102 of the 2004 Self-Study Report. A copy of the 2004 Self-Study is available in the Office of the Dean of the Law School, and another copy is available in the Office of the Provost of the University.

2.10

The institution provides student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission that promote student learning and enhance the development of its students. (Student Support Services)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

The School of Law has the following:

Over 300 computer stations in carrels in the Law Library and nearly 400 computers to support our student body (approximately 670 students in Fall 2003)

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/pdfs/CurrentLawCatalog.pdf

A separate computer lab in the law library

The opportunity to include a laptop purchase as part of the student’s financial aid

A tutoring program for all first year law courses

A Career Services Center

For further discussion of various student services, see pp. 5-11 of the 2004-05 Law School Catalog: http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/pdfs/CurrentLawCatalog.pdf
A faculty committee dedicated to helping students in academic jeopardy

Numerous Student Organizations as listed in the Law School Catalog: http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/pdfs/CurrentLawCatalog.pdf
Also, the School of Law developed for Summer 2004 a new Summer Entry Program and academic support program to target students to help assure academic success.

2.11

The institution has a sound financial base and demonstrated financial stability, and adequate physical resources to support the mission of the institution and the scope of its programs and services.

The member institution provides the following financial statements: (a) an institutional audit (or Standard Review Report issued in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the AICPA for those institutions audited as part of a systemwide or statewide audit) and written institutional management letter for the most recent fiscal year prepared by an independent certified public accountant and/or an appropriate governmental auditing agency employing the appropriate audit (or Standard Review Report) guide; (b) a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year; and, (c) an annual budget that is preceded by sound planning, is subject to sound fiscal procedures, and is approved by the governing board.

Audit requirements for applicant institutions may be found in the Commission policy entitled "Accreditation Procedures for Applicant Institutions. (Resources)

The School of Law is in compliance with this requirement.

Routes of compliance:

Support for faculty and college expenses from the university

Contributions from alumni

Institutional Audit: The School of Law was last audited during 1996 by the Internal Audit staff of the University. The Law School Foundation was last audited during Summer 2003 by J.W. Anderson & Company.

Changes in Net Assets: N/A.

Annual Budget: The annual budget for the School of Law has in the past been prepared by the Dean and his staff. During Summer 2003, the School of Law created and filled a new position: Associate Dean for Administration and External Affairs. That Associate Dean will prepare budgets in the future. The annual budget is reviewed and approved by the Office of the Provost. In early 2004, the Dean appointed a Law School Budget Committee to provide recommendations on budget issues and to assist in making the budget process more transparent to college stakeholders.

2.12

The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan and demonstrate that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process. (Quality Enhancement Plan).

(Not applicable for the Compliance Certification submitted by institution).

Section 3: COMPREHENSIVE STANDARDS

Institutional Mission, Governance, And Effectiveness

3.1 Institutional Mission

3.1.1

The institution has a clear and comprehensive mission statement that guides it; is approved
by the governing board; is periodically reviewed by the board; and is communicated to the
institution’s constituencies.

The School of Law is in compliance with this standard.

The School of Law revised its Mission Statement following the 1996 Sabbatical Reinspection of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools in response to concerns that were raised following that visit. That Mission Statement may be found at http://www.law.ttu.edu/about/mission.asp, and it was given approval by the School of Law’s accrediting bodies after its promulgation.

Then, as part of the School of Law’s participation in the University’s Strategic Planning process, the Mission Statement was refined as shown in the School of Law’s Strategic Plan: http://www.law.ttu.edu/about/strategic.asp.

The mission of the college was reviewed and approved as part of the University strategic plan by the TTU Board of Regents at their regular meeting of December 2001.

3.2 Governance and Administration

3.2.1

The governing board of the institution is responsible for the selection and the evaluation of
the chief executive officer.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.2

The legal authority and operating control of the institution are clearly defined for the following
areas within the institution’s governance structure:

3.2.2.1

the institution’s mission;

3.2.2.2

the fiscal stability of the institution;

3.2.2.3

institutional policy, including policies concerning related and affiliated corporate
entities and all auxiliary services;

3.2.2.4

related foundations (athletic, research, etc.) and other corporate entities whose
primary purpose is to support the institution and/or its programs.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.3

The board has a policy addressing conflict of interest for its members.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.4

The governing board is free from undue influence from political, religious, or other external
bodies, and protects the institution from such influence.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.5

Members of the governing board can be dismissed only for cause and by due process.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.6

There is a clear and appropriate distinction, in writing and practice, between the policy-making
functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.7

The institution has a clearly defined and published organizational structure that delineates
responsibility for the administration of policies.

The School of Law is in compliance with this standard.

Dean Huffman, who joined the School of Law in August 2002, has developed a new organizational structure that is being implemented effective in August 2003. Copies of the new organizational structure were distributed to the Law Faculty in August 2003. The revised organizational chart is available in the Office of the Dean of the School of Law. A copy is also available as Attachment #38 to the 2004 Self Study Report prepared for the Sabbatical Reinspection of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools (Feb.-March 2004). A copy of the 2004 Self-Study is available in the Office of the Dean of the Law School, and another copy is available in the Office of the Provost of the University.

3.2.8

The institution has qualified administrative and academic officers with the experience,
competence, and capacity to lead the institution.

The School of Law is in compliance with this standard and has experienced and qualified administrators.

Walter B. Huffman serves as Dean of the Law School. In August 2002, Dean Huffman replaced W. Frank Newton, who had served as Dean since 1985. Dean Huffman is also a tenured member of the faculty. Dean Huffman joined the Texas Tech School of Law after a distinguished 25-year career in public service. As Judge Advocate General and the top military lawyer for the U.S. Army, Dean Huffman stepped down in 2001 after managing and leading a diverse legal workforce of more than 4,000 full-time uniformed and civilian attorneys and paralegal and support personnel in the United States and 17 foreign countries. During that time he was the first uniformed lawyer since World War II selected to serve on the Texas State Bar Board of Directors.

In addition to the Dean, the School has four associate and two assistant deans.

a. Associate Dean for Law Library and Computing

Arturo Torres is the School’s first Associate Dean for Law Library and Computing, replacing the position of Law Library Director. He is also a tenured Professor of Law, having been hired with tenure from his former position at Gonzaga University School of Law. Dean Torres is responsible for the law library and its 18-person staff and for the School’s Information Technology Support Program and its six-person staff.

b. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Brian Shannon has been the School’s Associate Dean for Academic Affairs since January 2002. He also served as Associate Dean for Student Affairs during Fall 2001, and he is the Charles “Tex” Thornton Professor of Law. Dean Shannon has responsibility for all academic and faculty matters, including curriculum and scholarship; grade appeals proceedings; supervision of the Registrar; and oversight of the Legal Practice, Clinical, and International Programs. Dean Shannon also serves, in effect, as the School’s Vice Dean, filling in for the Dean in his absence.

c. Associate Dean for Student Affairs

Susan Fortney became the Associate Dean for Student Affairs in August 2003; she is also the George Mahon Professor of Law. In her capacity as Associate Dean, she supervises the School’s two Assistant Deans: the Assistant Dean for Recruitment and Admissions and the Assistant Dean for Career Services. Dean Fortney also oversees the Academic Support Program, student organizations, and Honor Council matters.

d. Assistant Deans

As noted, the School’s two assistant deans both report to Associate Dean Fortney. Assistant Dean for Recruitment and Admissions Terence Cook oversees new-student recruitment and the overall admissions process. Dean Cook is the first person to hold this position, which the School created in January 2002. Assistant Dean for Career Services Kay Fletcher deals with all matters relating to student placement and continuing legal education. She also is responsible for the graduation and honors programs.

e. Associate Dean for Administration and External Affairs

In July 2003, Richard Rosen became the School’s first Associate Dean for Administration and External Affairs. Dean Rosen assists the Dean with the day-to-day, non-academic operations of the School. This assistance includes supervision over the School’s budget and financial affairs, staff (except the library staff), alumni relations and development, and facilities and space management. He is also responsible for overseeing the operations of the Law School Foundation. Dean Rosen joined the faculty after completing a distinguished career as an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army. Prior to retiring from the military, Dean Rosen was Commandant of the Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army in Charlottesville, VA, where he commanded the Army’s ABA-recognized law school.

3.2.9

The institution defines and publishes policies regarding appointment and employment of
faculty and staff.

The School of Law hires members of its tenure-track Faculty consistent with the Law Faculty’s Rules for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure of Faculty as approved in March 1977, as amended in 1990, 1994, & 2003. A copy of these rules is included in the July 2003 Law School Faculty Handbook, a copy of which is available in the Office of the Dean of the Law School. Hiring searches for open slots are conducted only after obtaining authorization from the Office of the Provost.

Staff are hired consistent with University policies and procedures.

3.2.10

The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its administrators, including the chief executive
officer, on a periodic basis.

The School of Law is in compliance with this standard.

The Dean reports to the Provost and is evaluated annually. For the relevant O.P., see http://www.depts.ttu.edu/opmanual/OP30.15.pdf and http://www.depts.ttu.edu/opmanual/OP30.15A.pdf.
All associate and assistant deans are reviewed annually by the Dean of the School of Law.

3.2.11

The institution’s chief executive officer has ultimate responsibility for, and exercises
appropriate administrative and fiscal control over, the institution’s intercollegiate athletics
program.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.12

The institution’s chief executive officer has ultimate control of the institution’s fund-raising
activities.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.2.13

Any institution-related foundation not controlled by the institution has a contractual or other
formal agreement that (a) accurately describes the relationship between the institution and
the foundation, and (b) describes any liability associated with that relationship. In all cases,
the institution ensures that the relationship is consistent with its mission.

The School of Law is in compliance with this standard.

There is a separate Texas Tech Law School Foundation that is controlled by a Board of Directors that is different from the University’s Board of Trustees. The Law School Foundation raises donor funding for the School of Law and is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation. There is a formal agreement dated September 28, 1984, between the Law School Foundation and the University that accurately describes the relationship between the two entities. A copy of the agreement is available in the Office of the Dean of the School of Law.

3.2.14

The institution’s policies are clear concerning ownership of materials, compensation,
copyright issues, and the use of revenue derived from the creation and production of all
intellectual property. This applies to students, faculty and staff.

Not applicable to unit level.

3.3 Institutional Effectiveness

3.3.1

The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its
administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these
outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.

The School of Law is in compliance with this standard.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES:

As part of the School of Law’s Strategic Plan and legislative mandates, the School assesses and reviews annually outcomes such as graduation rates, bar passage rates, and job placement. The School also assesses and reviews annually benchmarks such as (1) average GPA for entering students, (2) average LSAT scores for entering students, and (3) diversity of the entering class. Many of these are set forth in the Law School’s strategic plan. See http://www.law.ttu.edu/about/strategic.asp. These matters are somewhat interconnected. The Texas Legislature has set a target bar passage rate of 90% passage by first-time takers. Over the last 12 years, the Law School has averaged a 90% pass rate. However, there has been some slippage in the past few years. For example, on the July 2002 bar exam, the pass rate was 84%. Efforts were then undertaken, successfully, to reduce the entering class size for the Fall 2003 class. In addition, the average LSAT and GPA for entering students reflected an increase, as did the percentage of minority students. These efforts, which were also responsive to Law School strategic plan objectives (such as reducing the student-faculty ratio), are also intended to provide for stronger bar passage rates. (As an aside, the results of the July 2003 Texas bar exam reflected a pass rate for first-time takers of 90%.)

The Law School went through a lengthy process to prepare its Strategic Plan. The faculty participated in all aspects of the plan’s development, from initial brainstorming sessions through final word-by-word approval. In essence, the strategic-planning process was run by a “committee of the whole.” Students provided input through their own strategic planning committee, created in Fall 2000. The student committee met on several occasions and provided substantial input into the final document. The School particularly sought student input on the issue of expanding the clinical education program. The School also gathered information from sister law schools, with a focus on “Big 12” schools and law schools similar in size and age. The data received included information on faculty make-up; student population; student-faculty ratio; student access to clinical, externships, and skills courses; bar passage and placement rates; library volumes and staffing; and student scholarships. During the following six months, the faculty held four roundtables dedicated solely to the Strategic Plan. In addition, the faculty discussed draft sections during its regular meetings. On October 9, 2001, the faculty approved the final strategic plan, including the benchmarks, and submitted it through the Dean to the President of the University.

Much of the data review for quality improvement is undertaken by the Associate and Assistant Deans, with additional assistance from committee chairs such as the Chair of the Admissions Committee. (For example, see http://www.irs.ttu.edu/SACS/AssessmentReports/8_0_2003.pdf for a report on trend data and assessment.)

However, another substantial review was undertaken through our internal self-study process that culminated in the 2004 Self Study Report prepared for the Sabbatical Reinspection of the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools (Feb.-March 2004). (A copy of the 2004 Self-Study is available in the Office of the Dean of the Law School, and another copy is available in the Office of the Provost of the University.)

The self-study process took place between August 2002 and January 2004. Dean Huffman appointed the Self-Study Committee in August 2002. Its changing membership has included Professors Daniel Benson, Wes Cochran, Bruce M. Kramer (Chair), Marilyn Phelan, Nancy Soonpaa, Larry Spain, and Jorge Ramirez, and Associate Dean Arturo Torres. Associate Deans Brian Shannon and Richard Rosen were ex officio members. Professor Kramer attended the ABA Site Evaluation Orientation Workshop in February 2003. The committee held several meetings in Spring 2003, assigning to its members responsibility for preparing drafts of the various parts of the Self Study.

Much like the Strategic Plan, the Self Study was the product of faculty discussion, deliberation, and input. In Fall 2003, the Committee met to review the work of its members. Professor Kramer discussed the Self Study with the faculty at many of its regularly scheduled meetings and disseminated various drafts to the faculty for review and comment. The faculty met in special session to discuss the Self Study on January 16, 2004. It approved the Report on January 21, 2004, in a 23 to 2 vote with one abstention. No dissenting views or minority report were offered.

One area for future improvement that was identified during the self-study process is to develop a more formal process within the Scho