Everybody Gets an Office

Everybody Gets an Office, Even the Losers

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, July 7, p. D2

Democrats have 13 categories of challenges Nov. 3, 2020. ("Why Trump May Win,” May 29, 2019). One of the 13 was on display at The Gazette/Iowa Public Radio’s June 20 Pints & Politics: Why 23 outstanding, qualified candidates are as much curse as blessing. Ben Kieffer asked the 150 politically savvy attendees to applaud if they’d picked their candidate. Only one did. Everyone else clapped for “haven’t picked one.” Two debate nights later many remain undecided. [Photo credit: Nicholas Johnson, Pints & Politics audience, Big Grove Brewery, Iowa City, June 20, 2019.]

Followers of the 22 “losers” may lack enthusiasm for the ultimate winner. What to do? How about this: Have all 23 individually pledge that if they win, they will offer an appropriate, important position in their administration to each of the 22 former candidates who want one (e.g., White House, cabinet, major agency, ambassadorship). They can all have offices, though only one is oval. In other words, we kind of elect all of them. Would that make you more enthusiastic for the winner if your choice loses? What do you think?

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City
# # #

Everybody Gets an Office

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 26, 2019, p. A7
Democrats have 13 categories of challenges Nov. 3, 2020. See “Why Trump May Win.” One of the 13 was on display at a recent local gathering of 150 politically savvy folks: Having 23 outstanding, qualified candidates is as much curse as blessing. The host asked the group to applaud if they had picked their candidate. Only one person responded. Everyone else clapped when asked if they “hadn’t yet picked one.”

Followers of the 22 “losers” may lack enthusiasm for the ultimate winner. What to do? How about this: Have all 23 individually pledge that if they win they will offer to each of the other 22 an important administration position (for which they are qualified) to every former candidate who wants one (e.g., White House, cabinet, major agency, ambassadorship). They all get offices, though only one is oval. In other words, we kind of elect all of them. Would that make you more enthusiastic for the winner if your choice loses? What do you think?

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City

# # #

Not All Criticism is 'Defamation'

Note: To put this piece in context, it is a response to an article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen: Holly Hines, "School Officials' Emails Raise Free Speech Concerns; First Amendment Experts Say Legal Threats May Amount to Intimidation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 24, 2017, p. A1. The story reported and discussed, among other things, that citizens were concerned that they might be sued if they criticized the Iowa City Community School District superintendent. (And see also, Holly Hines, "External Reviewer Sought for School District; Culture Concerning Whistleblowers is Under Investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 1, 2016, p. A1.)

Without expressing a view regarding the justification for the criticism, I thought a brief statement of the law of defamation might be useful -- as set forth below. Following Holly Hines story, and my explanation of defamation, the Press-Citizen editorial board published the following editorial: "Alter Culture of Fear in School District," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 1, 2017, p. 7A (the Press-Citizen only publishes an opinion page on Wednesdays and Saturdays.) Here is my brief explanation on June 28th:

Is Superintendent Criticism 'Defamation'?
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 28, 2017, p. 7A
There’s a local issue regarding limits on citizens’ criticism of school superintendents. Can the critics be sued for defamation?

I won’t take sides on whether the criticism is warranted. Moreover, social norms may be more relevant than “the law.” In either case, one’s reputation is a thing of value. [Citizen Julie VanDyke speaking to ICCSD School Board members; photo credit: Sandhya Dirks/Iowa Public Radio]

Not all criticism is defamatory. There must be an unambiguous, clearly false, factual statement (not just opinion), that causes measurable harm to one’s reputation among a relevant group (such as potential employers or customers).

The false assertion that a superintendent stole $97,000 from the schools’ playground fund could be defamation. Saying, “I think he’s doing a lousy job” would not be.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that while citizens need only show falsity, public officials must prove “that the statement was made ... with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Why? Because protection of political speech lies at the heart of First Amendment guarantees.

As Justice Brenan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan, “[we have] a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

This is for newspaper readers only, not legal advice. If you’re involved in a defamation case, get a lawyer.

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City
# # #

First Thoughts on 911 -- 15 Years Later

From 1998 through 2001 I added to my law school teaching and research obligations the tasks of a local school board member -- plus an every-two-week column on K-12 issues in the local paper. As it happened, the final column was written following September 11, 2001, and published September 25. Rereading it recently, I was struck with how little the truths have changed during the course of our multi-trillion-dollar 15 year "war on terror."

For this September 11th, the fifteenth anniversary of that awful day, it seems worthwhile to share the thoughts that came to mind so soon after those events. Here they are. -- N.J.

Teach Our Children Tolerant Ways

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, "Opinion," September 25, 2001, p. 9A
Oct. 4 [2001] will mark the 44th anniversary of a shock to our nation. Not a deafening explosion. A faint beep from a 183-pound, basketball-sized orbiting satellite. Sputnik meant the Soviet Union was ahead of us in the space race.

Our response? Something called “The National Defense Education Act” – emphasis on “defense.” More money for math, science and foreign language instruction. This time let’s include social studies.

This is the 79th and last column in a series begun Oct. 12, 1998. It was originally planned to be thanks for those who elected me to the School Board, my fellow board members, administrators and staff. A review of the board’s accomplishments. Its remaining agenda. My continuing Web page. And an announcement of the John Haefner Social Studies Award I’ve created through our district’s foundation.

Two weeks of shock, grief and anger from terrorists’ barbaric attacks on our nation changed that.

President Bush urged us to get back to what we were doing before Sept. 11. What was he doing that morning? Campaigning for his education bill.

It’s time for the president and Congress to get back to it.

Some call for a U.S. revenge of violence. Others plead for greater understanding. Either way, education is a major part of the answer.

We have the world’s finest intelligence gathering technology. What we don’t have are enough folks who can translate those millions of conversations and e-mails into English.

How can you spy, let alone infiltrate if you don’t know the language? If you can’t find the country on an outline map? If you know nothing of its people – their history, culture, economic conditions and religion?

We have more military power than many nations combined. And yet we’re still vulnerable. Not to the wars of the last century. Those we could still fight and win. Vulnerable to the wars of this century. Wars without nations, front lines and tanks. Wars fought with cardboard box openers and commercial airliners.

A terrorist used to be “someone who has a bomb but doesn’t have a plane.” Now terrorists use planes as bombs.

It’s good to tighten airline security. But terrorists have many alternatives to bombing buildings with hijacked planes.

Terrorism is not about “winning wars.” It’s not even about death and desgtruction, as such. Terrorism is about fomenting terror.

Terror comes from the innovative and unexpected attack. A bridge, nuclear power plant or natural gas pipeline here. An electric power grid or Internet there. Atom bombs in backpacks. Poisoned air in a subway one day. A water supply another.

Such attacks are easy for perpetrators willing to die. Especially in countries where individual liberties are highly desired and valued.

We don’t want to turn America into an armed camp. But even if we imposed martial law we could not eliminate our vulnerability.

Retaliation may make us feel better. But it will likely increase terrorism.

So what can we do?

Something our school district’s already doing. Encourage children to celebrate – rather than hate – the community’s and world’s diversity.

Prejudice against all Muslims is abhorrent. Attacking Sikhs, thinking them Muslims, reflects basic ignorance as well. We must provide more understanding than do our corporate media about others’ living conditions. Whom do they blame for their misery? Their oppressive regimes? What attracts them to a bin Laden?

America is a generous nation. But it’s also capable of overt and covert government and corporate practices that oppress and exploit others for convenience and profit.

Practices often seen as arrogant. Policies reflecting ignorance of others’ cultures.

Such ignorance contributed to our misjudgments in Vietnam, the hostage taking in Iran and this terrorist attack. Not to mention failecd global marketing efforts.

Our students will be better able than we to deal with the globalism and terrorism we leave them. Is education the only answer? Of course not. But it’s an imperative beginning. And it’s something we can do.

Goodbye, and thanks for the opportunity to serve.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member. More information is available on his Web site: www.nicholasjohnson.org.

# # #

Newspapers' Zucchini

April 18, 2011, 10:50 a.m.

Gannett Modifies Half-Page Newsprint Ads
But Outraged Readers' Protest Continues
When I was a boy everyone had gardens. What we called "Victory Gardens" were a part of our war effort during World War II.

When we had excess produce we shared it with our neighbors.

And the greatest of these excesses seemed to involve zucchini squash. ["The zucchini . . . is a popularly cultivated summer squash which often grows to nearly a meter in length, but which are usually harvested at half that size or less." "Zucchini," wikipedia.org.]

The proliferation of zucchini gave rise to a story my mother used to tell -- whether true or apocryphal I neither know nor care. (As Mason Williams ended the lyrics to one of his songs, "This is not a true tale, but who needs truth if it's dull." "The Tomato Vendetta.")

An especially generous neighbor, who had grossly overestimated her need for zucchini, regularly delivered a supply to the woman who was her next door neighbor. One day the gardener was met at her neighbor's door by the neighbor's nine-year-old daughter. Offering to take the gift, the young girl said, "Gee, I hope they are the small ones." "Why? Do you like the small ones better?" the gardener asked. "Oh, yes," said the girl, "they go down the disposal ever so much easier."

The newspapers' advertising supplements are the zucchini of the industry.

But unlike the zucchini, the larger the supplements are, and the more well assembled in a single pack, the easier they are to "put down the disposal" -- or, as we'd say today, "transfer to the recycling bin."

It is the "little zucchini," those half-pages of newsprint pretending to be a newspaper, that create the problems for those few remaining, loyal, hard-copy newspaper subscribers and readers.

I won't repeat here what has been said about this problem in the past, but here are a couple of links: "A Half-Page Newspaper Not Better Than None; Disintegrating Paper Contributing to Disintegrating Industry," September 20, 2010; and "Abusive Advertising; It's Time to Strike Back," April 6, 2011.

As explained in the latter blog entry, it's now "no more mr. nice guy." The refusal of Gannett to take readers' legitimate complaints seriously has caused a shift in strategy. Outraged readers, no longer content to just "protect innocent civilians" by attacking the newspapers, are focusing on "regime change," removing the problem by searching out the Muammar Gaddafis of newspaper advertising: the advertisers themselves.

The latter blog entry lists the advertisers who were found on the half-piece of newsprint on the front of that issue of the Press-Citizen, enabling blog readers to take such action as they might think most appropriate.

In fairness to Gannett, it's latest offense reduces a little the harm of half-page pieces of newsprint. "A little" meaning that it's kind of like a $38 billion reduction (which turned out to be $350 million) in a $3.83 trillion budget, $1.56 trillion of which is deficit spending (and an addition to a $14 trillion debt).

Last Sunday's Des Moines Register had a half-page piece of newsprint on the front and back of both its main section and another section in the back of the paper. Unlike the Press-Citizen's disaster, however, because the Register's continued as a half-page ad on the back of those sections -- rather than, as with the Press-Citizen, as a full page of regular newspaper -- when the half-pages fell to the floor they at least did not take a full page of the newspaper with them.

So here's the continuing, updated list of Gannett's "Abusive Advertisers":

The Abusive Advertisers of the Press-Citizen and Des Moines Register
April 6 and 17, 2011
www.budgetblinds.com

Stanley Steemer

Lenoch & Cilek/Ace

www.lebeda.com

Emma Goldman Clinic

(and, given even advertisers lack of interest in this abuse,)

Press-Citizen Media

(which was left no option but to buy most of the space from itself)

Des Moines Register

HyVee (front section)

Vision 4 Less (back section)

Let us continue to hope this list will shrink, rather than expand, over time; that our garden zucchini will be the small ones; that our newspapers' zucchini will be easily disposed of; and the news easy to hold and read without disintegration.
# # #

Abusive Advertising

April 6, 2011, 7:45 a.m.

It's Time to Strike Back
The newspaper industry depends on advertising as well as subscriptions to cover the costs of operation. Whether you consider newspaper advertising a necessary evil or just necessary, any newspaper's revenue has to come from somewhere. But there's an important distinction between advertising's manipulative abuses and its physical abuses.

It's the latter that bother me. I've written about the problem before, "A Half-Page Newspaper Not Better Than None; Disintegrating Paper Contributing to Disintegrating Industry," September 20, 2010.

So what's the problem? That blog entry began:

It used to be a "half-page ad" in a newspaper meant a full page of newsprint, half of which (usually the bottom half) contained advertising matter.

Today it has become, more literally, a half of a page of newsprint all of which is advertising.

A newspaper that falls apart in your hands is but one more bit of evidence of an industry that is disintegrating as well.

The Press-Citizen's physical abuse of its newspaper and its customers seemed to taper off a bit after that.

But this morning the problem has resumed.

Last September's analysis of the problem and its solutions won't be repeated here this morning. Nor will appeals to the Press-Citizen. That time (and opportunity for the paper) has passed. It's time to focus on those who pay for this journalistic carnage: the advertisers who use these "half-page" ads.

So this morning's blog is the first of a new effort to finger the offensive and abusive advertisers who are buying, and thereby sustaining, this offensive form of advertising. Given that no one has indicated to me anything other than hostility toward the paper and the advertisers who use these half-page, newspaper destructive techniques -- not even neutrality, let alone acceptance -- I can safely leave it to blog readers to decide what they want to do about these advertisers.

The Press-Citizen's Abusive Advertisers
April 6, 2011
www.budgetblinds.com

Stanley Steemer

Lenoch & Cilek/Ace

www.lebeda.com

Emma Goldman Clinic

(and, given even advertisers lack of interest in this abuse,)

Press-Citizen Media

(which was left no option but to buy most of the space from itself)
Let us hope this list will shrink, rather than expand, over time.

'Buy Locally'? Good Luck

November 24, 2010, 9:00 a.m.

"Buy Locally": Rousing Slogan, Largely Meaningless
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Many local businesses become profitable, "go into the black," the day after Thanksgiving ("black Friday"). If it weren't for our purchases from Thanksgiving through the end of the year many wouldn't be around in 2011.

So the Press-Citizen is urging us to "shop locally." Editorial, "Remember to Buy Locally This Holiday Season," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 24, 2010, p. A11 ("The benefits of buying local have been touted -- by local businesses and by this editorial board -- repeatedly. By now everyone should know at least one simple fact of economics very well: Local dollars spent in locally owned stores stay in the community; local dollars spent in non-locally-owned stores leave the community for other regions, states or even nations.").

The holiday season does provide some seasonal, part-time, minimum wage (or slightly above) jobs in retail and related businesses. Even if such workers are only employed for a few weeks, and they're looking for work again come next January or February, better the jobs should be at the Coral Ridge Mall, going to our community's otherwise unemployed, rather than to Minneapolis' workers in the modestly named "Mall of America."

Unless, of course, one cares about all American workers, and businesses, and the mounting national and personal debt as we borrow money from China to buy goods from China.

So what does "buy local" mean?

To really analyze in detail what happens to the dollars we spend in Johnson County establishments would require more data and degrees in economics than most of us would ever have -- or want.

Raw materials. For the most part we cannot control where the raw materials come from; e.g., iron or aluminum ore. (China also controls over 90% of the rare earth minerals essential in the production of cell phones and other electronic products.) An exception would be locally produced foods at our Farmers' Market. (Although even they may also import seeds or fertilizer.)

Manufacturing. At the bottom of this blog entry I provide a shocking and depressing list of products, once America's pride, that are now imported. Few of the products you "buy local" were even made in the U.S. or Canada, let alone Iowa City. Again, an exception would be local artists and artisans. (Although even they may use paints and brushes, silver and gold, from elsewhere.)

Packaging, transportation and warehousing. I recall learning years ago that the worker who makes the box for your cold cereal in a matter of seconds (if that) earns a larger share of what you pay for that box than the farmer earns for the grain it contains. It's true for many of the packaged products we buy. Nor are transportation and warehousing a trivial portion of what we pay. We cannot "buy local" any of those costs; or, otherwise put, none of what we pay, as those costs are passed along to us, stays in our community.

Rent and utilities. When we "buy local" a part of what's passed along to us, and what we pay for, are things like rent and utilities. Last I knew MidAmerican Energy was owned in significant part by Warren Buffet. I have no idea who owns Qwest or ATT this week, but I know it's no neighbor of mine. Mediacom is owned by some guy in New York who's about to buy up the public shares so he'll own all of it again. When the rent comes due for our Coral Ridge Mall stores, where does it end up -- New York, London, who knows?

Franchises; national chains. The Press-Citizen says we should not buy from Internet Web sites. But how much of the price of anything you purchase at Best Buy stays in Coralville, rather than going to corporate headquarters or for other of the costs mentioned above? If it's a choice between (a) going out to the Mall to get something at the Best Buy store, or (b) ordering online from the Best Buy Web page, for delivery to the Coral Ridge Mall Best Buy store for you to pick up, or (c) delivery to your home, what, precisely, is the marginal benefit to our local economy of (a) over (b) and (c)? What are the economics for Johnson County of the other "local businesses" that send a share of their profits to the remote corporate headquarters of national chain restaurants, retail outlets, and motels?

"Local" owners. Whether a stand-alone business, or a franchised chain store, how "local" is the owner or manager? Are they actually living in Iowa City? Or is the largest share of the ownership held by someone who has long since retired to Arizona or Florida and spends the profits there, with only rare (if any) trips to Johnson County?

Workers' pay and benefits. Finally, how much of what you're spending when you "buy local" is actually ending up in the pockets of the workers in that establishment (individuals who will spend most to all of their wages locally)? Does the owner/manager pay a "livable wage," health and other benefits -- or as close to the minimum wage as s/he can get by with and still find employees? If you want money to stay at home and circulate throughout the economy as fast as possible, giving more of it to local workers is the way to do it.

So, what can we do? What can the Press-Citizen editorial board do if it's really serious about its "buy local" campaign?

Press-Citizen, give us the information we need to fall in step, intelligently, behind your drum major. Have your reporters dig. Do the research. What's the difference, in terms of how much stays in the local economy, between buying a hamburger at Hamburg Inn No. 2 and at McDonalds -- in terms of all the factors listed above? Who are the landlords who are getting the rent from our "local businesses"? How much of that money is going out of town? How much of the purchase price of various products actually stays in Iowa City and how much goes elsewhere? Give us a couple of dozen examples, broken down with some precise numbers and details. Don't just tell us the overall benefit to the owner if the store is here, or if it goes out of business. Tell us: What is the incremental benefit locally from the sale of one more item?

Give us the tools, the precision tools, we need and I, and I believe a lot of other local citizens, are willing to do the job. Without the tools, "buy local" is just a rousing slogan, and, as Tom Joad says of the filling station attendant in Grapes of Wrath, "you're jus' singin' a kinda song." [John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath, p. 128.]

# # #

Now for "Buy American." (Which is the best "buy American" strategy when purchasing automobiles: to buy a Toyota made in Indiana, or a Ford made in Malaysia?)

Here's Arthur Frederick Ide's take (drawing on Anika Anand and Gus Lubin, "18 Iconic Products That America Doesn't Make Anymore," in "Investing, Products and Trends, Recession," Yahoo!.com, November 4, 2010, who in turn drew on Business Insider):

From shopping at WalMart to buying at Dollar Stores where more than 80% of all goods sold are foreign imports, to driving oriental made cars, the average American are buying these products that began in the USA and now made overseas:

Beer (Miller, Coors, and Budweiser are now owned by foreign companies; Anheuser-Busch, the St. Louis MO based company that has nearly 50% of all market shares int he USA was sold to Intel, a Belgium-based conglomerate run by Brasil). Corona and others are now totally owned by other nations.

Cellular phones (none made in the USA since 2007) all are made overseas: India, Finland, Sweden, etc.

Converse shoes (since 2001) are now made in Indonesia.

Dell computers (last made in North Carolina, closed in January 2010; its Round Rock TX “headquarters” is a front organization to hide the outsourcing of USA jobs). Today the computers are made in Asia.

Etch-a-Sketch (since 2000) made in Shenzhen, China.

Forks, spoons, and knives (last manufactured by Sherrill Manufacturing that had purchased Oneida Ltd in 2005, closed down all operations in June 2010).

Hathaway Dress shirts (since 2002) made in India, Philippines, etc.

Incandescent light bulbs (last made in September 2010 by a major industry, although Osram/Slavania Plant in St. Mary’s PA is still producing the light bulbs to fill old and international contracts; they will soon announce their closure), closed down operations after the GOP Congress of 2007 passed a measure banning incandescents by 2014, prompting GE to close its domestic operations.

Levi jeans (last made in Dec. 2003) now all made in Latin America and Asia.

Mattel toys (since 2002) the largest toy maker and seller, is made in China (costing 65% of all jobs in its plant in California)

Minivans including General Motors and Chrysler chassis used on Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana, Buick Terraza, Saturn Relay, Chrysler Town & Country, and Dodge Grand Caravan (since 2003) are all made abroad.

Pontiac cars. Stopped all production in May 2010–yet over 60% of its employees drove Asian made vehicles, and few Pontiac cars were in the main plant in Michigan.

Radio Flyer’s Red Wagon (stopped production in March 2004) at its Chicago plant and now has all products made in China.

Railroad parts (castings, guard bars, braces, etc), none made in the USA since 2008.

Sardines (canned; the last produced in April 2010 by Stinson Seafood in Maine) now are made in Peru and other Latin American nations, and in Japan.

Rawlings baseballs (since 1969, made first in Puerto Rico, later in Haiti, now made in Costa Rica).

Strawberries and fresh fruits and vegetables are imported from Mexico.

Televisions (the last made in October 2004, was Five Rivers Electronic Innovations, a Tennessee company). Today none are made in the USA.

Vending machines (last produced in 2003 in the USA)

Wine: most are imported from Chile, Italy, France, and other foreign nations.

Job outsourcing will increase.

In short, it's even harder to "buy American" than to "buy local."
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Lombardo Firing Mystery

April 21, 2009, 6:30 a.m.

Reason for Lombardo Departure Looking More and More Like Governance Issues
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
[Today's blog entry is a follow-up to Nicholas Johnson, "River City's Problem: Council-Manager Governance; The Necessity of Governance Theory and Practice," April 18, 2009, which see for text and links.]

For reasons as unknown as the Council's reasons for firing Michael Lombardo, the two page-one stories under the Press-Citizen's bold, banner, top-of-the-fold headline this morning -- "What Does Firing Mean For City?" -- are nowhere to be found on its online site.

The page-three story -- "Council OKs Opening Sidewalks" -- is there. Indeed, it is the top-listed story for the day in the online edition. So it's not like the Tuesday paper's stories haven't been posted yet.

[It's a relatively insignificant sidebar compared with Lombardo's termination, but what's this sidewalk deal about? If I want to rent an apartment or office up over a downtown merchant's store I'll have to pay. Why? It's "her property." Well, the sidewalk is "my property," as a taxpayer. Either the City holds title to the property, and taxpayers paid to pave it, or if the merchant paid to pave it the use of sidewalks is controlled by the City. Last time I talked to a City worker, cleaning up vomit and blood from in front of the bars on Sunday early morning, the City was footing that bill. Since I have to clean the snow from the walks in front of my home, I assume if the taxpayers are paying to clean up the walks in front of the merchant's business the walks must belong to the City. Moreover, if I were paying to use the merchant's apartment it would not be a business for me. When the merchant uses my sidewalk he is profiting from using my property. What are the merchants paying back to the City for their profitable use of this very valuable real estate? Or is it just a gift from grateful taxpayers? "Inquiring minds would like to know." This is not about the merits of the use itself -- "ugly clutter" to some is a "charming addition to quality of life" for others -- so you can take your pick. I'm just conceerned about basic financial fairness.]

But the stories suggest the reason for his departure is looking more and more like the result of the Council's poor handling of fundamental governance issues. Brian Morelli, "Area Officials Have Differing Views on Decision's Impact," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 21, 2009, p. A1, and Chris Rhatigan, "Lombardo Says No Reason Given," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 21, 2009, p. A1.

Morelli's story reveals, to no one's surprise, that there appear to be no advocates for the view that the City is actually better off as a result of the City Council's mysterious and peremtory firing of its City Manager, Michael Lombardo. Some point out how the City is worse off, trying to manage without a City Manager "major business such as the upcoming sales tax vote, flood recovery or . . . budget cuts." The best that Council members can come up with is Mayor Regenia Bailey's comment that "We have an excellent staff in place. I don't have any concern about the city's operations."

In short, the Council's actions have in fact harmed the City's welfare -- and when its timing couldn't have been worse.

Given the terms of his contract, that provide for a forfeiture of any severance pay in the event of violations of law, financial or moral terpitude, and the fact that the $80,000 severance has been paid, we need to look for other possible reasons for the termination.

Is it, perhaps, that Lombardo "doesn't play well with others"? No, that can't be the reason either; not if local leaders are to be believed.

Given the City Council's pro-business positions (see above), one would assume the Chamber of Commerce would tend to back the Council's decision -- indeed, that it might even have dictated it. But no. Chamber President Nancy Quellhorst is quoted in Rhatigan's story as saying, "I enjoyed working with him very much, and I'm disappointed to no longer have than opportunity."

Lombardo's counterpart in neighboring Coralville, City Administrator Kelly Hayworth, is quoted as saying, "I thought he was an excellent leader. We worked a lot together . . .."

Johnson County Board of Supervisors Chairman Terrence Neuzil said Lombardo was a "strong leader" and that he was "surprised he was fired." Neuzil said of his trip to Washington with Lombardo, "Where he will be missed is his ability to bring in dollars into the community. He certainly knew the D.C. game very well."

So even by a process of elimination that's why I think the problems may relate back to the Council's failure to do what should be every board, commission, committee or council's "job one" -- understanding, addressing, and articulating its basic governance principles.

What is the role of the council as a body? How does it intend to respond to the temptations to either micro-manage or rubber stamp staff decisions and actions? What does it view as acceptable, and unacceptable, relationships and behavior between and among council members? What self-imposed limits is it prepared to abide by in terms of actions by individual council members, as distinguished from actions taken by the council as a body? What does it believe to be the highest priority measurable goals for the city government, and what are their metrics?

How does the council propose to interact with the city manager? What, and how much, is it expressly delegating to the manager's discretion (and is this a negative grant -- "stop until we say 'go'" (come to us with everything first) -- or an affirmative grant -- "go unless we've said 'stop'" (i.e., articulated prohibitions))? Will it only communicate with the staff through the manager? What does it believe to be the manager's "job description"; what are his or her goals and how are they to be measured (if they are different from the council's institutional goals)?

There's a significant body of literature about board governance. I happen to prefer the John Carver model -- primarily because I've worked with it and know it best. There will always be some who don't like it. Fortunately for them there are many more to choose from. And, as I've itemized above, and "John Barleykorn" put in a comment this morning on last Saturday's blog entry [Nicholas Johnson, "River City's Problem: Council-Manager Governance; The Necessity of Governance Theory and Practice," April 18, 2009], "You don't need to have a specific model, you just need clearly defined roles and expectations."

Governance models, or "expectations," are of necessity the personal responsibility of individual board members (in this case city council members) not the CEO (in this case city manager). Their drafting cannot be delegated to a "consultant" or staff member.

My guess is that the Iowa City City Council -- with this responsibility for Council-City Manager governance models, or defined roles -- provided neither.

There are hundreds of adverse consequences from that failure by any council or board; unfortunate, costly, petulant dismissals of competent CEOs (or city managers) are only among the most serious.

And why does Lombardo think he was terminated? He hasn't a clue -- at least none provided by the Council:

Former city manager Michael Lombardo said the Iowa City Council didn't tell him why they chose to terminate his contract at a closed-door meeting Friday [April 17] afternoon.

"There wasn't any discussion. They have their reasons, and they chose not to share those reasons with me," he said.

The only reason they provided him with was that he was "not a good fit," he said.

And that for someone who came out on top in a rigorous nationwide search, was described by Council members at the time as "a very good fit," and who received, we are told, very positive performance reviews three months, and six months, into his nine-month's of service.

I don't think this story is going to evaporate -- even if it's not on the Press-Citizen's Web site.

8:11 a.m. Full texts of the stories are now available on the Press-Citizen's Web site, Rhatigan's and Morelli's.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

More Awards, Understanding and Survival Skills

September 16, 2008, 10:15 a.m.

FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Rumors, Reporting and Reputations," September 13, 2008.
"Trials, Business and 'Student Athletes,'" September 11, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Hawkeyes' Criminal Record Lengthens," February 25, 2008.
"Teaching One Foreign Language," September 14, 2008.
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"A Strategy For PUMAs," September 9, 2008.

And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries

Unprecedented: Two Consecutive "Hats Off" Awards to Press-Citizen

Yesterday's Press-Citizen editorial earned it a "Hats Off" journalism award -- in this case "civic journalism" in the best tradition of putting the interests of readers/taxpayers ahead of the interests of government subsidized businesses. Editorial, "Center to Open Without Public Assistance," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 15, 2008, p. A9. See Nicholas Johnson, "Taxpayer Rescue," September 15, 2008.

Today they've done it again: Editorial, "Lock up at night, but don't narrow Sheraton walkway," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 16, 2008, p. A9.

I don't know if anyone's put lipstick on the Sheraton, but it's sure had its snout in the trough more than once. It (and its predecessors) squatted down over Dubuque Street, promising to at least keep a walkway open. Now it wants to seize more of that City property for its own -- without paying taxpayers a dime -- while asking us to pick up at least half the cost of the remodeling necessary to complete this land grab.

Since neither the City nor the University is prepared to do anything meaningful to cut back on the downtown drunkenness, with all of the attendant consequences that predictably flow from our surfeit of bars and illegal sales to underage patrons, the hotel has also reasonably requested that it be permitted to close off the walkway after 11:00 p.m.

The common sense resolution? Permit the post-11:00 p.m. closure. Deny the narrowing of the walkway and the movement of taxpayers' money to the hotel's bottom line. That's what the Press-Citizen is proposing. Will the City Council have the courage to take this course? Watch this space and see.

Financial Crisis: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

There are lots of analyses. One I found especially useful is Louise Story and Edmund L. Andrews, "A Sense That Wall St.’s Boom Times Are Over," New York Times, September 15, 2008.

And there are significant lessons here for this year's presidential election, and regulation generally.

As I've often conceded, when it comes to servicing their major campaign contributors (big corporations and the wealthiest 1/2 of 1%) George Wallace was right: "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

Having said that, the Republicans are both more comfortable, and skilled, at doing so. Democrats never have been very good at "Republican light."

President Reagan summed up the ideology: "government is not the solution; government is the problem." An unregulated market is the consumer's best friend. "Deregulation" and "re-regulation" are heralded as the rising tide that will lift all boats. "Get the government off our backs" -- unless it's about to put money in our pockets -- they say.

Well, in my view the consequences of unrestrained and unregulated greed and selfishness have left in their wake in our economy and society what Hurricane Ike left in its wake in Galveston.

This financial collapse is just one example. The collapse of coal mines on miners is another. The growing disparity between the wages of workers and those of CEOs is another. The examples are endless. Just look around.

I don't think either McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden are inclined or able to return our country to sanity with regard to business' excesses. I just think the Democrats will be marginally better, and that the margin is well worth our voting for.

As Story and Andrews report:

"During the Depression, Congress separated commercial banks, which take deposits and make loans, from investment banks, which underwrite and trade securities. The investment banks were allowed to do business with less oversight, while commercial banks operated with tighter supervision.

"But after Congress repealed those Depression-era laws in 1999, commercial banks began muscling in on Wall Street’s turf. As the new competition whittled down profit margins, investment banks used more of their capital to trade securities and also began developing financial derivatives to fuel profits."

On a lighter note . . .

. . . if you haven't yet seen the September 13 NBC "Saturday Night Live" routine that's all over the Internet, take five minutes to watch:



[Credit: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, NBC "Saturday Night Live" Source: http://entertainment.msn.com] With a whole lot of common sense, courage and a sense of humor we'll get through all this.

Taxpayer Rescue

September 15, 2008, 5:15 a.m.

FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Trials, Business and 'Student Athletes,'" September 11, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"A Strategy For PUMAs," September 9, 2008.
"Hawkeyes' Criminal Record Lengthens," February 25, 2008.
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Rumors, Reporting and Reputations," September 13, 2008.

And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries

The Way Free Private Enterprise is Supposed to Work:
Thinking and Acting Globally and Locally
Looks like the taxpayers aren't going to be picking up the losses for the 158-year-old Lehman Brothers, now on its way to bankruptcy. It's not like the Bush Administration (and many Democratic senators and members of Congress) wouldn't like to send us the bill. After all, they had no qualms about having us pay for the JP Morgan Chase takeover of Bear Stearns in March, thanks to the Federal Reserve, and the $200 million or more they asked our grandchildren pay off in order to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac struggling along, since all they otherwise would have had was ownership of half the homes in America, worth over $5 trillion.

Much was made this past week of the government's refusal to have us taxpayers pick up the cost of the U.S. auto industry management's persistent errors of economic and market judgment. The companies wanted some $25 billion from us. But then I read somewhere that the Administration had already given them $25 billion; this was just an additional request for the same amount. (Also in the financial news: the Bank of America has purchased Merrill Lynch (also in trouble and worth $100 billion last year) for $50 billion; and AIG is looking around for someone with $40 billion in spare pocket change to help them out.)

Corporate operations have become a "heads we win, tails you lose" proposition of "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor" in this country. When a company makes a profit it gets to keep it -- indeed, more and more of it, as tax rates for corporations and the rich have been slashed from what they once were. On the other hand, if it has losses that are big enough, the shareholders can just ask the taxpayers to cover those losses. It's a sweet deal.

So now there seems to be at least one example the Bush Administration can point to when this standard practice was not followed: Lehman Brothers, after reporting a half-billion of income has conceded a $2.8 billion loss one quarter followed by a $3.9 billion loss the next, and without a taxpayer bailout is headed for bankruptcy.

Why the switch? Who knows? Maybe someone in Washington has looked at the books and discovered we're $53 trillion in the hole (debt, plus unfunded future obligations) and decided we just couldn't afford it. Maybe there's a Republican fear of the remote possibility that the electorate will be treated to some discussion of issues other than lipstick on animals before they go to vote -- say, the economy -- in which case it would be handy for the Republican team to be able to cite at least one example of a time when the free private enterprisers didn't send the taxpayers the bill for their losses.

Anyhow, it's lucky Hong Kong's Hang Seng and Tokyo's Nikkei are closed today for national holidays. London's FTSE and Frankfurt's DAX are going to end their trading days down at least 2-3% and it would have been worse if the Asian markets were open. (India's SENSEX index was down over 5%.) Based on the Dow Jones and S&P 500 futures this morning, it looks like the U.S. markets will be down about 3% today.

Meanwhile, a comparable if short-lived burst of sanity has occurred right here in River City, and been memorialized in a Press-Citizen editorial. Editorial, "Center to Open Without Public Assistance," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 15, 2008, p. A9.

Of course, in a way it's kind of sad. It's like the headline, "Man Bites Dog." The extent to which our public officials let for-profit businesses stiff the taxpayers for start-up costs on the front end and their losses on the back end is so endemic to government these days that "Taxpayers Spared Cost of Starting New For-Profit Business" is news.

But the fact that it's rare doesn't mean it shouldn't be celebrated, and editorialized about.

I have often written of "why business subsidies don’t make sense for any city [and are] especially inappropriate for Iowa City." In one Press-Citizen op ed column I itemized some 11 categories of reasons why this was so. Nicholas Johnson, "Courage, Councilors," October 3, 2007.

Of course there are examples of for-profit companies that, with the generous assistance of taxpayers, have not later gone belly up, or left town, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. But such examples do not come close to constituting a persuasive case why taxpayers should move their money to the bottom line of for-profit companies. To the best of my knowledge, no one has to this day ever taken on that column's itemization of categories and documented why all of them are wrong.

One of those categories was:

“Need” is impossible to know. Many projects will go ahead without subsidy. If tax breaks are available, of course entrepreneurs will say they won’t act without them. But how can we know when that’s just blackmail?

Today's Press-Citizen editorial involves a case study illustrating this very category:

We're glad that Mercy Hospital and a group of local surgeons have managed to find enough funding to build a new ambulatory surgical center in Iowa City's Northgate Plaza . . ..

But we're even more happy that the Iowa City Council didn't offer any tax incremental financing to help the development of the project. After all, the first question of determining whether a project deserves a TIF should be, "Can it succeed without public financing?" Since the answer in this case was clearly, "Yes," the city was right to deny the request eventually -- although it could have done so much earlier in the process.

Last year, investors for the surgeons' group and Mercy came to the city requesting a $600,000 TIF to help build their proposed 24,000-square-foot facility.

The point is not that we couldn't have known whether the doctors really needed the $600,000 or not. The point is, as I wrote last year, "If tax breaks are available, of course entrepreneurs will say they won’t act without them."

The point is that while I would contend that we can always know that taxpayer funding of for-profit businesses is inappropriate for all the reasons I've itemized, one of those reasons is that we can virtually never know whether more appropriate funding sources could and would be found if taxpayer money was not available.

The paper's editorial doesn't go that far. The editorial board expressly says, "As an editorial board, we've never viewed TIFs as the automatic four-letter word of economic development."

But it's entitled to this blog's "Hat's Off" journalism award anyway for the rest of its conclusion:

[T]the decision on whether to grant a TIF needs to be based on much more than a bottomline explanation on how it offers a win-win arrangement for both the city and the business. Otherwise the city risks granting businesses massive tax breaks for doing simply what their corporate officers and the current market would have them do anyway. . . .

We don't want the city to be hostile to new businesses or expansions . . .. But neither do we want the city to fork over cash every time someone shows there's a little profit to be made.

On behalf of my grandchildren and great grandchildren, I thank you Press-Citizen editorial board -- and, oh yes, you too Federal Reserve Board.

# # #

UI Sexual Assault Update

NOTE: Although this blog entry, with its content from July 19-August 8, 2008, will remain here, any additions beyond August 8, as these stories continue, will only be available at the UI Sexual Assault Web site where the entire contents of this blog entry have been reproduced.

As you may have already discovered (and even complained) a "blog" is not really designed to accommodate within a single entry an ongoing story, over many days, with large quantities of text -- and links to more (believed to be the most complete collection of material relevant to these stories available anywhere on the Internet). And yet, based on the hundreds of hits it receives each day, clearly it is serving a purpose. Thus, the transfer of the site from a "blog entry" to a "Web page."

Besides, there are too many more subjects that cry out for comment to hold this blog static, focused on the UI sexual assault stories.

-- N.J., August 9, 2008

# # #

So here is this blog entry as it stood on August 8, 2008:


July 19, 2008, 11:00 a.m., 12:55, 3:55 p.m. (addition of text of mother's letter), 5:50 p.m. (first crime by Hawkeye football player in the new fall season); July 21, 2008, 1:30 p.m., 7:30 p.m. (Regents to meet soon over letter/s), 8:20 p.m. (Press-Citizen's 26 questions); July 22, 2008, 7:00 a.m. (Tim Dwight's comments, Regents' President Miles "two questions," other updates), 9:00 a.m. (link to full text of Tom Evans report to Regents last month), 12:15 p.m. (Regents' agenda item), 1:40 p.m. ("My Take" on all this), 4:25 p.m. (Mason apologizes), 9:25 p.m. (Barta's statement);

July 23, 2008, 8:15 a.m. (papers' wrap up stories; my conclusions); July 24, 2008, 12:35 p.m. (Ferentz breaks silence, answers nothing; mother's second letter revealed; advisory committee's process unclear; trial date -- coincidence?; events bring State29 briefly out of retirement), 2:15, 6:45 p.m. (additions to "July 24" section, below); July 25, 2008, 7:45 a.m. (President Mason's involvement in Purdue controversy; P-C has more questions), 8:45 a.m. (more from Ferentz), 9:30 a.m., 12:20 p.m., (President Mason and Coach Ferentz veer from "That's my story and I'm sticking to it" and begin revelation of details), 4:10 p.m. (Mason didn't read UI's reports; Parrish says UI denied his client a lawyer);

July 26, 2008, 7:30 a.m. (how to prevent a train wreck); July 27, 2008, 8:25, 9:15, 10:00 a.m. (Pierre Pierce revisited, Tom Evans' Report, Regents' search, Gazette continues praise of football players & UI President); July 29, 2008, 7:30, 8:50 a.m. (Regents pick Stolar firm as investigators; inherent conflict for Regents; mother says first investigator never contacted them; accused's lawyer going after alleged victim; UI's lax alcohol control produces another top party school ranking);

July 30, 6:00 a.m., 5:30 p.m. (Skolar reviewing Regents' investigation; legislature may get involved; Ohio State 24, Iowa 1; pay for Skolar firm; scope of investigation; judge says UI can give Regents subpoenaed documents); July 31, 5:30 a.m., 3:30 p.m. (UI to pay Skolar; UI's alcohol tolerance increases crimes; Parrish wants room photos; players ask "why is this happening?")

August 1, 2008, 5:20 a.m. (Iowa Legislature enters case; Gazette questions need for outside counsel); August 2, 2008, 7:20 a.m. (hearing on UI documents; who pays Skolar?); August 3, 2008, 8:45 a.m. (the high price of over-emphasis on sports goes well beyond the criminal court system); August 4, 2008, 7:25 a.m. (Iowa as "Party State," constructive suggestions), 6:00 p.m. (Parrish wants bill of particulars; Ferentz wants to change subject)

August 5, 2008, 7:30, 8:20 a.m., 3:00 p.m. (Ferentz didn't consider dorm room "crime scene," three Iowa coaches say Satterfield "not guilty"); August 7, 2008, 7:10 a.m. (what's Regents' "governance model"?; put President Mason evaluation on hold awaiting second investigation; how military handles rape issues); August 8, 2008, 9:20 a.m. (judge orders documents index; UI president review on hold; former Johnson County Attorney's view)


August 8, 2008

Most significant development: Judge orders UI and JC Attorney prepare indexes of withheld documents for Press-Citizen. Lee Hermiston, "Judge says to deliver indexes; County office, UI have month to furnish assault-related lists," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 8, 2008, p. A3.

Former City Council member Bob Elliott discusses differences between his perspective, and that of former Johnson County District Attorney Pat White, regarding "Story Two" (UI administrators' reactions to events of October 14, 2007). Bob Elliott, "Another View of Response," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 8, 2008, p. A13.

As reported here yesterday, the Regents approved raises for the Iowa State and UNI presidents but are holding back their review of UI President Sally Mason's performance until they receive the report of the second investigation (due September 18). Erin Jordan, "ISU, UNI presidents get bonuses from regents," Des Moines Register, August 8, 2008; Diane Heldt, "Pay raised 6 percent for UNI, ISU presidents," The Gazette, August 8, 2008, p. A1, for earlier online version see, Diane Heldt, "Iowa State, Northern Iowa presidents to get raises," The Gazette Online, August 7, 2008, updated 7:55 p.m.


August 7, 2008

I'm not prepared to make a judgmental declaration as to what the Regents and UI administration "should" have done. But I am willing to suggest that much if not all of what's involved in "Story One" (events of last October 14), "Story Two" (what UI administrators did thereafter) and "Story Three" (the Regents' response and first, and now second, investigation of Stories One and Two) could have been prevented, and would have been avoided -- up to and including the current, postponed evaluation of UI President Sally Mason -- had more attention been given to the formulation (and application) of a workable "governance model."

I have written about the subject of board governance (board-CEO relationship) in general, Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," and with regard to the Iowa Board of Regents in particular, Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" April 17, 2007 (with links to additional material of relevance to Regents' governance).

What occurred last academic year, from October 14 until today, is an almost textbook classic case study of what happens when these principles are not followed. As sad as Stories One, Two and Three may be, the saddest realization is that they all could have been prevented.

Erin Jordan, "Regents put job review for U of I president on hold," Des Moines Register, August 7, 2008 ("The Iowa Board of Regents will delay its job review of University of Iowa President Sally Mason until the completion of an investigation of how the U of I handled an alleged sexual assault involving athletes.").

Brian Morelli, "Regents waiting to decide Mason's raise; Want alleged assault inquiry finished first," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 7, 2008, p. A1 ("The Iowa state Board of Regents plans to get to the bottom of the University of Iowa's handling of an alleged sexual assault on campus last year before deciding on this year's raise for UI President Sally Mason. . . .Mason earned $560,000 -- $450,000 in base pay and $110,000 in incentives -- last year, her first at UI. Regents said at the time of her hire that her incentive package would kick in automatically the first year but that it would be determined by her ability to meet expectations in future years.").

While it should offer us no comfort, a couple of the Register's recent editorials deal with the difficulties that institutions beyond collegiate football programs have in responding to sexual assaults -- in this case, the military. Editorial, "Military not taking sex assaults seriously," Des Moines Register, August 6, 2008 ("'Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.' That troubling statement was included in the testimony of Rep. Jane Harman of California during a congressional hearing last week on sexual assault in the military."), and Editorial, "Hearing No-Show is Telling," Des Moines Register, August 6, 2008.


August 5, 2008

I've repeatedly drawn a distinction between "story one" (what happened the early morning of October 14 -- now a criminal prosecution) and "story two" (what UI administrators did thereafter). The issues, and fact finding, overlap with regard to the preservation of a potential crime scene.

Clearly, the consequence of Coach Ferentz ordering a football player to move back into the player's "vacated" dorm room (and scene of the alleged crime) was the destruction of evidence. But it's an enormous leap from that consequence to a conclusion that it was the Coach's intention and motive to destroy evidence. One can argue -- and I'm sure many will -- that every collegiate coach should be provided training in the preservation of crime scenes, that they should have a checklist (or university policy) for dealing with potential crime scenes, or that common sense (or at least the lessons learned from watching crime shows on TV) should alert anyone to the need to preserve evidence.

On the other hand, he had other things on his mind at the time, conducted his own investigation, immediately took the action he was authorized to take by dropping two players from the team, and could fairly say with regard to criminal investigations "that's not my department."

"Should" he have done more anyway? Do we have a right to expect that of him? I'll leave those judgments to others.

Whatever the reasons, and whoever may bear primary responsibility, clearly the alleged victim's legal rights have been very seriously set back by what was -- and was not -- done by UI administrators.

Here's today's addition to the story:

"According to search warrant documents, [Derrell] Johnson-Koulianos told police he later moved into the previously vacated dorm room [where the alleged sexual assault reportedly took place] and threw out a used condom he found behind a bed and a mattress cover with an 'orangish-reddish color' substance on it. UI police later said preserving the evidence in the room was an issue in the investigation. . . .

"Ferentz has said he was notified of the alleged sexual assault the morning of Oct. 15 [and] . . . launched his own investigation. While gathering information, Ferentz learned Hillcrest N207 was vacated earlier by Iowa defensive back Lance Tillison and ordered the freshman to move back into the room because he did not have permission to move out of the dorm. Ferentz said he did not consider the consequences that could have on an investigation of any alleged crime scene."

Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz Didn't Ask About Hawk's Actions," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 5, 2008.

Scott Dochterman, "New coach stands behind ex-Hawkeye football player," The Gazette Online, August 5, 2008, 9:37 a.m. (Indiana (Pa.) Coach Lou Tepper told the Erie (Pa.) Times-News on Monday he has no reservations about keeping former Iowa cornerback Abe Satterfield on his roster. . . .. Tepper told the newspaper, . . . 'I spoke to three coaches at Iowa. What they told me was the case was going to be dropped. That they did not feel as if he was guilty.' . . . [Cedric] Everson is a member of the Alcorn State (Miss.) football team. In a May interview with The Gazette, Alcorn State Athletics Director Darren Hamilton stood behind Everson . . .."); available in hard copy edition as Scott Dochterman, "Tepper: No issues with Satterfield," The Gazette, August 6, 2008, p. C1. Scott Dochterman, "Hawk living arrangements discussed," The Gazette Online, August 4, 2008, 11:32 p.m.

And see, Ben Fornell, "Football player's lawyer wants details on charge," Des Moines Register, August 5, 2008 ("[D]efense attorney Alfredo Parrish asked prosecutors to specify details of the second-degree sexual abuse charge against Abe Satterfield"), and Sean Keeler, "Weight of expectations falls squarely on shoulders of O-line," Des Moines Register, August 5, 2008 ("About the only thing the Hawkeyes have done consistently over the last 18-20 months is run afoul of the law. That's not going in the media guide. . . .

With a bowl-less winter, a two-year record of 12-13, a sexual assault investigation involving two former Hawkeyes in the headlines, and the bitter aftertaste of watching Western Michigan dominate at Kinnick Stadium still on the tongue of many fans, Ferentz opens his 10th season under more scrutiny than he's ever faced before. . . .

[W]hen folks think Iowa football, they might start thinking of something else: A change at the top.").

Lee Hermiston, "Investigator: Regents probe going smoothly," Iowa City Press-Citizen online, August 5, 2008, 12:15 p.m.


August 4, 2008

UI as Top Rated "Party School"? Hell, we're a party state!

[F]or the 12 months ending June 30, Iowans . . . Liquor sales grew by 6.4 percent, . . . Beer sales . . . rose by 1.8 percent, while wine sales increased by 3 percent. . . .

The average adult Iowan consumed 37.23 gallons of beer, 1.98 gallons of liquor, and 1.69 gallons of wine over the 12-month period.

William Petroski, "Iowans' tippling boosts state coffers," Des Moines Register, August 4, 2008.

I've never quite understood how and when alcohol became a synonym for "party." It is, after all, the nation's number one hard drug by any measure -- seriousness of medical consequences, the proportion of all crimes with which it is associated (give or take 50%), the multi-billion-dollar economic losses, the millions of addicts ("alcoholics") and the multiples of that number they impact (e.g., family members and co-workers), the sexual assaults, drunk driving, vomiting and falling down drunk, college students' lower grades and increase in drop-outs, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents, and so forth. Doesn't sound like a "party" to me.

But there it is. It shouldn't be a surprise that a "party state" has "party schools" -- and the predictable consequences one would expect. And now we have one more arrest involving a UI athlete. Dan McCool, "Iowa Wrestling: Hawkeye arrested after confrontation," Des Moines Register, August 4, 2008.

And Lee Hermiston reports, "Parrish wants sex abuse charge specified," Iowa City Press-Citizen online, August 4, 2008, 4:19 p.m. ("In a motion filed Monday, Des Moines defense attorney Alfredo Parrish, who is representing Abeberell Satterfield, requested that a bill of particulars be produced related to his client’s charge of second-degree sexual abuse aiding and abetting."). And what does Coach Ferentz want? He just wants to change the subject, "Ferentz Optimistic About 2008," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 4, 2008.

For a well balanced bit of constructive questioning, criticism, and suggestions for improvement see Constance Berman, "Need for improvement all around," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 2, 2008 ("[A] mishandling on many fronts. . . . In the 20 years I've been at Iowa, I've had colleagues who felt pressured by the athletic department because an athlete earning failing grades was indeed failing. . . . I'm appalled to be teaching at an institution that cannot have Friday classes because 'happy hour' starts on Thursday. I'm deeply ashamed of a city run by barkeepers who condone underage entry to bars (effectively underage drinking). And I am deeply ashamed to be teaching at an institution that is right up there at the top as a 'Party School' . . ..").


August 3, 2008

This ever-expanding blog entry is focused on one example of the pressures, challenges and conflicts confronting the administrators (and overseers) of America's institutions of higher education when confronted with the abuses created by (or at least accompanying) multi-million-dollar athletic programs.

But the consequences of that emphasis go well beyond the sometimes criminal behavior that can grow out of adults' years-long contributing to young athletes' sense of entitlement (from the time they are in junior high school) -- with the accompanying exploitation of those athletes, who often leave college with neither a good education nor prospects of a professional sports career.

The over-emphasis on the major college sports (primarily football and basketball) infects the entire educational establishment, which along with educators' seeming unwillingness to do anything meaningful about the accompanying alcohol and drug abuse, is having an impact on America's ability to compete in the global economy, as David Brooks recently pointed out in such clear and dramatic detail. David Brooks, "The Biggest Issue," New York Times, July 29, 2008 ("Between 1975 and 1990, educational attainments stagnated completely. . . . America’s lead over its economic rivals has been entirely forfeited, with many nations surging ahead in school attainment. . . . America rose because it got more out of its own people than other nations. That stopped in 1970. Now, other issues grab headlines and campaign attention. But this tectonic plate is still relentlessly and menacingly shifting beneath our feet.").

It's just one more case of "we have found the enemy and it is us." It is we, the adults, who shout insults at the umpires of Little League games, encourage our children in high school sports in hopes of saving a little on college costs with sports scholarships, provide the fan base for college teams, elect the representatives who tolerate and encourage making a football coach the highest paid public employee in the state, protect our athletes from the consequences of their behavior and find high-priced defense lawyers for them when our cover-ups fail, and give a wink and a nod to wide-spread binge drinking.

And that's why this observation of a local business person caught my eye. She's pretty much summed it up.

"Every school system, whether it's in Des Moines or whether it's in Mumbai ... is a reflection of the values of the communities that it serves .... It's very clear that we've gone with sports, and an enormous amount of energy is put into that, although your average employer isn't looking for someone highly skilled in football."

-- Rowena Crosbie of Tero International, speaking at Des Moines Register panel of business leaders on our educational institutions preparation of Iowans for a global economy

Editorial, "Better Prepare Students for World Economy," Des Moines Register, August 3, 2008. And see, "World-Class Schools: Transcript of Discussion," Des Moines Register, August 3, 2008, and especially the confirming, Linda Lantor Fandel, "Core Issue: Do We Value Education?" Des Moines Register, August 3, 2008 (interview with Bob Compton, executive producer of documentary, "Two Million Minutes: A Global Examination;" sample: "What the film shows is that we have a cultural issue . . . larger than . . . the schools. India and China revere, recognize and reward academic achievement. U.S. culture reveres, recognizes and rewards athletic achievement. . . . Until . . . the adults in this country decide intellectual achievement is as important as athletic achievement, when parents turn out for football games but not math competitions, . . . schools will not change. The core issue is our value system . . .. The solution has to happen in each community [as we] raise awareness and appreciation of our academic and intellectual stars the way we do with our athletic stars. Twenty percent of our population is going to do OK. But 80 percent is not. It's such a waste of human potential.").

And if that "waste of human potential" is not enough to move us to change for humanitarian reasons, hopefully our greed and selfishness will provide the incentive as we begin to see the link between the teams we cheer for Saturday afternoon and the job we don't have on Monday, the mortgage we can't pay, the overseas trip we can't take with dollars worth a fraction of what they once were, and the $40 trillion in unfunded government obligations we're leaving our grandchildren instead of a modest inheritance.


August 2, 2008

"You can't tell the players without a program" used to be the shout-out of those selling programs at baseball games. So it is with this "case." First off, it's useful to recognize the distinctions between what I call "story one" (what happened October 14, 2007), "story two" (what UI administrators did about it), and now "story three" (what the Regents did about what the UI's administrators did). But then each of those stories has its sub-stories. Story one is now being played out in the beginning motions of a criminal trial currently set for November 3. Yesterday there was a hearing involving what documents will, and will not, be available to public and media.

"The hour-long hearing came after a several-month-long tug-of-war between the University of Iowa, the Johnson County Attorney's Office and the Iowa City Press-Citizen over documents related to the alleged Oct. 14, 2007, sexual assault at Hillcrest Residence Hall involving UI football players.

"Turner heard arguments from attorneys representing the three parties concerning two cases. First, the Press-Citizen's open records lawsuit against the UI; and second, the newspaper's request that subpoenas and documents related to the investigation be unsealed."

Lee Hermiston, "All sides heard for UI documents; Judge says he will come to decision as soon as possible," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 2, 2008.

Writing a week ago, "Now What? -- July 23, 2008," below, I noted, "So, the Regents' investigator didn't have access to the letter. So shame on the UI administrators for not turning it over. But how, if even half of what it contained is true, would none of that come out in a thorough investigation -- even without access to the letter? Were penetrating questions not asked? Were they asked, but not fully and truthfully responded to? Whatever the reasons, the Regents aren't looking all that good this morning either."

The Press-Citizen editorializes this morning about the significance of that observation to the question of who should pay for the Skolar investigation. The answer involves the distinction between "story two" and "story three." Any identifiable, incremental costs associated with the Regents' first investigation could rationally be said to have been occasioned as a result of actions attributable to UI administrators. But the $250,000 cost of the Skolar investigation -- as to which Regents' "advisory committee" chair Bonnie Campbell says "The taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for this -- period" -- are costs occasioned not by UI administrators' failures but by failures of the Regents' first investigation.

Read the editorial: Editorial, "Regents passing the ($250,000) buck to UI," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 2, 2008.

And for a quick overview of the whole mess: Olivia Moran, Chris Patton, and Lauren Skiba, "Semester in review: River, questions about UI assault case rise/After a hectic summer, regents reopen probe into UI's role in sex assault," The Daily Iowan, August 1, 2008 (brief summary of May-July 2008 events in case).

August 1, 2008

"[Iowa] Sen. Thomas Courtney, D-Burlington, and Rep. Vicki Lensing, D-Iowa City [respective chairs of the Iowa Senate and House Government Oversight Committees], urged [Iowa Board of Regents President David] Miles to contact them 'if at any time you believe you are not receiving the full cooperation of the University of Iowa employees and others' so the committee could use its power to subpoena witnesses to testify before the committee. . . .

Courtney and Lensing also asked Miles to appear before the panel Sept. 19, the day after the regents receive a report from a St. Louis law firm handling the U of I probe." Erin Jordan, "Subpoenas offered for probe at U of I," Des Moines Register, August 1, 2008; Rob Daniel, "Legislators offer help on investigation; Committee says it will use its subpoena power," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 1, 2008; Diane Heldt, "Legislators Join in on UI Sex Assault Case," The Gazette, August 1, 2008, p. B3, earlier online version available as Diane Heldt, "Legislators want regents meeting on UI sexual assault investigation," The Gazette Online, July 31, 2008, updated 6:04 p.m. (includes text of letters exchanged between Government Oversight Committees and Regents); Rachel Goodell and Olivia Moran, "State lawmakers offer support to regents' investigation," The Daily Iowan, August 1, 2008.


The Gazette editorializes, "[W]e wonder if outside counsel is necessary. Wouldn’t the Attorney General’s Office, as the legal representative of state government, be the appropriate public agency for this important task?" Editorial, "No Other Option?" The Gazette, August 1, 2008, p. A4.

Lee Hermiston, "Lawyer wants to see room; Parrish files motion to photograph alleged site of sexual assault," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 1, 2008 (the hard copy version of the online story linked from this blog yesterday, below).


July 31, 2008

Lead stories this morning follow up on yesterday's reports in this blog about terms of Skolar contract and hourly rates. Chair Campbell says UI, not taxpayers or tuition, to cover costs.

Erin Jordan, "U of I to Bear All Cost of Probe," Des Moines Register, July 31, 2008.

Diane Heldt, "Tax dollars won’t fund UI inquiry; Lawyers hired by board to investigate handling of rape allegations to be paid $150 to $375 an hour," The Gazette, July 31, 2008, p. A1 ("Regent Bonnie Campbell, of Des Moines, asked Regents Executive Director Robert Donley on Wednesday to inform UI officials that the university will be expected to reimburse the regents’ office for the cost of the investigation without using taxpayer or tuition dollars."); available as Diane Heldt, "Should taxpayers have to fund UI investigation?" The Gazette Online, July 30, 2008, updated 10:04 p.m.

Rob Daniel, "Firm to be paid $375 an hour; Office releases contract between regents, Stolar," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 31, 2008.

Meanwhile, the Register's Marc Hansen has just spotted a drunken elephant in the living room. Do UI administrators mean business or not, he asks. If so, he and the Harvard study have lots of suggestions as to proactive steps that would make a difference.

Absent in the conversation about the University of Iowa and the football players gone wild is any serious discussion of alcohol's role in campus crime.

By any measure, it's considerable.

The university police department filed 535 charges against students in 2007. Four hundred sixty-seven -- 87 percent -- were alcohol- or drug-related. . . .

When you're talking about alcohol-related "incidents" on campus, the number topped 1,000 for the fifth year in a row in 2007. . . .

If you look at the 18 football players arrested since April 2007, nine of the 23 charges were directly related to alcohol. How many others were indirectly related? . . .

[T]here is such a thing as the culture of alcohol getting out of hand, harming lives and damaging the reputation of the university. . . .

[I]t's time for a serious discussion. Let's look at some findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, which says . . . that campus environment can affect student behavior. . . .

If . . . conditions are ripe for heavy drinking [and] "If colleges can change those conditions, they can reduce binge drinking among their students." . . .

Do this [the Harvard and Hansen list of proactive steps] to show the students you mean business. Unless, of course, you don't.

Marc Hansen, "Alcohol plays a big role in campus crime," Des Moines Register, July 29, 2008.

Meanwhile, on the trial front, the headline tells the story. Lee Hermiston, "Satterfield lawyer wants to photograph room," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 31, 2008, 2:28 p.m. ("The attorney [Alfredo Parrish] for one of the former Hawkeye football players [Abeberell Satterfield] accused of sexual assault wants to photograph the room where the attack allegedly occurred.").

For some serious, and for the most part constructive and respectful discussion by what appears to be former Iowa football players, take a look at, "Why is this happening guys??? Tell me!!!" Forums:Hawkeye Sports:Football, Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

For the economics and scope of the Skolar Partnership investigation see Erin Jordan, "Lawyers Handling U of I Probe to be Paid $375 an Hour," Des Moines Register, July 30, 2008:

The scope of the investigation, as outlined in the contract, includes:
1. Reviewing specific allegations in the Nov. 19 and May 16 letters from the alleged victim’s mother.
2. Interviewing the alleged victim and her family, if they are willing.
3. Interviewing U of I employees including, but not limited to, those involved in the past investigation.
4. Interviewing, as necessary, people with expertise in sexual assault victims’ advocacy and rights.
5. Determining why the letters and other documents were not provided to the board.
6. Reviewing U of I policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, sexual assault and harassment.
7. Reviewing policies and procedures relating to state and federal laws, such as the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act, which protects student records, and the Jeanne Clery Act, which requires universities to report campus crime.
8. Discussing the impact of laws and court orders upon the U of I’s response to the alleged assault.
9. Revieiwng all past investigations and recommendations evolving out of the 2002 Pierre Pierce case.
10. Writing a report for regents assessing whether U of I procedures were followed, identifying problems in the system and making preliminary recommendations of changes.

Jordan also reports "Johnson County judge [Douglas Russell] has ruled the U of I is free to give the regents internal university reports about the alleged sexual assault Oct. 14 . . . clarifying a Nov. 14 order in which he sealed all documents related to the case . . .."

Yesterday I noted the inherent conflict of interest the Board of Regents has when investigating (or contracting for an investigation of) possible UI administrators' misbehavior, below. Brian Morelli's story this morning reports Skolar's James Bryant indicates he may be looking at that very issue.

Brian Morelli, "Firm will review regents' investigation; Board's initial investigation found no UI wrongdoing," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 30, 2008 ("The Iowa state Board of Regents will go under the microscope as part of an independent investigation . . .. [that]will examine an initial investigation conducted by the regents that found no wrongdoing in how the University of Iowa responded to the alleged sexual assault. 'We will look at what they did in their investigations, too,' said James Bryant . . .. 'We will look at all the data available. I suspect our finding, by necessity, will look at that. We will state whether it was complete, if it was true or false.' . . . The Legislature might conduct its own review of the case. Some representatives are flirting with possible oversight hearings.")

And see, Editorial, "Make sure rape-case inquiry is thorough - and acted on," Des Moines Register, July 30, 2008; and "Hearing to be Monday in UI case," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 30, 2008 ("A hearing on a motion filed Monday seeking prescription drug and telephone records of the alleged victim of an alleged sexual assault by two former Iowa football players . . . has been scheduled for Aug. 13.").

Oh, and "Ohio State 24, Iowa 1." Andy Hamilton, "Hawks trail pack in 2009 recruiting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 30, 2008.

I have formerly referred to what should be a distinction in the media's reporting of "Story One" (what happened October 14?) and "Story Two" (how did UI administrators respond?). We now have a "Story Three" (how thoroughly and appropriately did the Regents respond?) -- to be followed in September with similar issues surrounding the James Bryant report.

There is actually a fourth set of issues that goes beyond what the UI administrators did, whether policies and procedures were or were not followed, whether they inappropriately withheld the mothers' letters from the Regents, and whether the Regents' investigators should have done a better job with or without the letters.

And that is the treatment of the alleged victim -- not from a legal point of view, whether laws, regulations, policies and procedures were followed or broken -- but just from a common sense, human and humane, caring, courteous and sensitive perspective. President Mason and Coach Ferentz say that her welfare and sensitive treatment were always foremost. The mother's letters allege otherwise. It would be a shame if those issues were to go unaddressed in our focus on legalisms.


July 29, 2008

The Regents' "advisory committee" has selected the "Stolar Partnership" as the law firm, specifically James Sears Bryant, to conduct the Regents' second investigation of UI administrators' handling of the alleged sexual assault case. Brian Morelli, "Regents hire law firm to look at UI; Stolar Partnership to conduct investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 29, 2008. And see Erin Jordan, "U of I probe could cost $250,000, last 6 weeks," Des Moines Register, July 29, 2008 ("Besides Bryant, who heads the firm's higher education practice, the team will include Peter Goplerud III, dean of the Florida Coastal School of Law and former dean of the Drake University Law School. Doreen Dodson, who specializes in employment and sexual harassment law, and Charla Scott round out the team, [administrative partner for Stolar, Dick] Mersman said."). The Gazette and Daily Iowan also reported the story. Diane Heldt, "New UI rape inquiry to cost about $250,000; Missouri law firm hired to handle reinvestigation for state regents," The Gazette, July 29, 2008, p. A1 [and online version updated at 10:11 a.m., 3:45 p.m.); Olivia Moran, "Law firm takes over investigation of UI; defense requests drug files," Daily Iowan, July 29, 2008. And Regents' President David Miles offered his own reassurance about all of this in an op ed this morning. David W. Miles, "Regents Will Do What is Necessary," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 29, 2008.

My limited contribution to this aspect of the story is primarily merely to provide links to, and quotes from, the firm's main Web page, the page for the relevant 13-lawyer "Areas of Practice/Higher Education" group Bryant heads, and the personal page of Mr. Bryant.

Both the "Higher Education" page and Mr. Bryant's page note that he "works closely with all types of institutions to prevent and defend claims arising out of institutional misrepresentations and other complex allegations [and] has special expertise in intercollegiate athletics, including NCAA matters, coaches’ contracts, intellectual property as well as the overall strategic management of institutional sports marketing."

His record of accomplishment includes, among many other things, his current positions as a member of the Board of Trustees of both Eureka College and Southwestern College, and authorship of the article, "Representing the Oklahoma Athlete in NCAA Investigations.”

Former Iowa Attorney General, and chair of the Regents' "advisory committee," Bonnie Campbell says of the selection, "I am hoping the complete independence of this team we are hiring, and coming in without a perspective, and not being invested in the result at all ... will allow us to reach our singular objective." And see, Editorial, "'New set of eyes' needed to look into UI's actions," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 29, 2008 ("We don't believe that [an out-of-state firm] is a panacea for all of the issues and questions the regents and UI face in this situation. . . . UI President Sally Mason says UI didn't provide those letters to the regents because it incorrectly interpreted federal student privacy laws. Is that true? And is that a good reason? Who specifically misinterpreted those laws? Also, did UI disclose that it knew of any concerns raised by the family? Did UI tell the regents it had documents it couldn't provide them because of federal privacy laws? And what questions did the regents' investigators ask, what UI officials did they interview and what documents did they see?)

I will not comment at length about this event, except to note that the Regents, as well as UI administrators, have an inherent conflict of interest in all of this -- not really of their own making, not a conflict that grows out of failures of their personal integrity, but one inherent in their position and job description. On the one hand, they are obliged to represent the people of Iowa in insuring the effective, ethical and efficient administration of their universities, and to investigate as thoroughly, independently and honestly as possible such controversies and possible malfeasance of their administrators as may arise. On the other hand, they are obliged to function as cheerleaders for those institutions, to put the best public face on them as can pass "the laugh test," to minimize their failings and publicize their achievements, and to lobby state and federal legislatures and agencies on their behalf. Thus, the better they do their first obligation the more destructive it may be of their goals with regard to the second.

Did the Regents' investigators contact the alleged victim's family or didn't they? Were they actually informed of the November 19 letter and failed to ask for it? Morelli reports:

[Regents' General Counsel Tom] Evans said that investigators asked to speak to the family for the first investigation but they declined.

The mother of the alleged victim told the Press-Citizen that neither the victim, herself nor her husband were contacted as part of the first investigation. . . .

The victim's mother said between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2007, she called the board office and requested to speak with the regent president. She said she could not recall the name of the person she spoke with but said she told the person about the letter she sent and her frustrations with the case.

Looks to me like another major issue surrounding the Regents' first investigation -- at best (from the Regents/UI perspective), yet another "she-said-he-said."

UI Maintains Ranking as One of Nation's Top "Party Schools." The Princeton Review rankings are out again. The University of Iowa may be only 88 out of 99 in "quality of life" and 92 out of 99 in "financial aid support,"
but by golly we're up there in the composite "party school" ranking (12th) and actually number 3 in "lots of hard liquor." (Photo credit: Press-Citizen.) I guess that's the good news; we'll continue to get those students (and their tuition) looking for a good time. The bad news, of course, is that athletes aren't the only ones engaged in alleged sexual assaults and innovative public demonstrations of the offensive behavior fueled by binge drinking. Of course, you can't create and maintain that kind of party school ranking without the support of the Iowa City City Council's creation of 50 or so bars within walking distance of the campus, and the UI administrators. Brian Morelli, "UI Named One of Top Party Schools," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 29, 2008.

The "Second Rape." As I've so often written, there are two media stories here: (1) the events surrounding the morning of October 14, 2007, and (2) UI administrators' response to those events. This blog entry has focused, and will continue to focus, on "story two." Nonetheless, there is a "story one," and the criminal proceedings resulting from that story, and it has now begun. A rape trial is often characterized as the "second rape" of the alleged victim. A reason why is illustrated by this story: Lee Hermiston, "Satterfield seeks alleged victim's phone, prescription records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 29, 2008. It's one of the law's many dilemmas: every accused is entitled to a vigorous and effective defense; on the other hand, it seems fundamentally unfair to place such heavy burdens as that does upon the accused's victim -- or to require as a prerequsite of legal proceedings that those burdens be assumed.


July 27

Lee Rood (with contributions from Erin Jordan and Randy Peterson) has two useful, lengthy stories in this morning's Register that combine a wrap up of last week's news, a history of the Pierre Pierce case and its aftermath: the supposed "reforms" at that time that appear not to have been followed now, five years later. Lee Rood, "Latest case at U of I reveals old problems," Des Moines Register, July 27, 2008 ("I am furious," Roxanne Conlin, the Des Moines attorney who acted as a mediator between the victim and the university in the 2002 Pierce case, said last week. "It appears officials did everything in their power to keep this thing quiet, and they did it in a way that was reprehensible."); Lee Rood, "Current dispute recalls 2002 case," Des Moines Register, July 27, 2008.

See, in this connection, Thomas Evans, "Report on the University of Iowa's Compliance with Policy and Procedures While Investigating a Sexual Assault Complaint," Iowa Board of Regents, Agenda Item 17, June 11-12, 2008, complete with 7 recommendations and the 23 attachments in a 162-page, 7MB pdf file. (The Report is primarily a summary of the UI policies and procedures, plus federal and state laws and regulations, that are provided in full text in the 23 attachments. A timeline of UI administrators' actions has been removed from the public document on grounds it qualifies as a confidential student record. And the ultimate conclusion, as widely reported, is that "it is clear that University officials fully complied with internal procedural requirements [and] offered the victim appropriate accommodation . . .." Report, p. 8.)

The Press-Citizen has its own review, along with some new information about what the Regents' "advisory committee" says it's looking for when hiring an investigative firm to conduct its inquiry. Rachel Gallegos, "Regents look at firms to probe UI actions; Downer: Board will hire firm focused on higher education," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 27, 2008.

And The Gazette? Having headlined yesterday that there are "Plenty of Good Guys on Hawkeye Roster," it puts on page one of its Sunday edition a glowing story -- complete with flattering quotes and really charming photos -- about what a spectacular job UI President Sally Mason does handling floods. Diane Heldt, "Water Logged; Record Flood Defines Mason's First Year," The Gazette, July 27, 2008, p. A1, available as Diane Heldt, "Record flood defines Mason's first year as UI president," The Gazette Online, July 26, 2008, updated 10:39 p.m. (with a carry-over headline in the hard copy version, at p. A10, "Mason/Earning High Marks from Faculty, Regents" -- against which one might wish to compare Regents' President Miles' comment about "trust" upon learning the letters were kept from them). In fairness, the paper does editorialize about this past week's events; e.g., "It would be wrong to assume that any UI official has not acted in what he or she believed was the best interest of all the students involved." Editorial, "Get the Facts, Improve the Process," The Gazette, July 27, 2008, p. A7.


July 26:

Most of the stories in this morning's newspapers are simply the hard copy versions of what was posted on this blog yesterday from their online editions. However, the Press-Citizen makes some new editorial suggestions about how this public relations disaster might well have been prevented had the University handled it differently. "Regents should look at whether UI could have prevented mess," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 26, 2008:

Soon after the allegations of the sexual assault in a UI dormitory became public, then-Regent President Michael Gartner made this statement in an e-mail to UI President Sally Mason: "The alleged crime itself is outrageous, if true, and is damaging to the reputation of the University and its athletic department. But if the policies are inadequate or the processes weren't followed, the damage is multiplied."

We pointed out in a Nov. 20, 2007, editorial that "Gartner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, seems to have an idea of the massive public relations train wreck that is unfolding in Iowa City."

Unfortunately, it seems no one else did . . .. Our view always has been that UI's best strategy was to release more information and to answer as many questions as possible . . ..

What happened, though, was UI did not disclose the existence of the mother's letters to the Board of Regents, even though UI's policies -- and common sense -- make it clear that the Regents should have access. . . .

To quote Regent Gartner, "the damage is multiplied."

Actually, I was writing about the same things at about that same time, and providing the similar questions and warnings to the administrators of my beloved University -- over, and over, and over -- with precisely the same results:

[T]here are really two stories here, not one. . . .

"Story Two" has almost literally nothing to do with "Story One" [the alleged sexual assault]. Story Two is the story of what University of Iowa officials were involved, and when, and what they did. Not the names of students. Not students' reports of events. Not which students, by name, spoke with officials. But which officials talked to which other officials and when . . ..

If it turns out that the University has had something to hide regarding its administrators' actions in this case, it will pay a very, very high price indeed for its secrecy and willingness to sweep under the rug of "being sensitive to the victim" what those administrators did, or failed to do. . . . [I]t also puts a very heavy tarnish on whatever statements may be offered in the future when the University may have very legitimate reasons for secrecy and the public is left with no more trust in the truth of what it is being told than the trust it has in the statements of a White House press officer.

Despite the hundreds of lessons history offers as to the folly of attempting stonewalling and cover-ups of that which will, ultimately, become public, it may be only human to think that, "for me, on this occasion, I'll be better off to duck and cover than to come clean."

See, e.g.: Nicholas Johnson, "Culling the Flock; How About Them Hawks?" November 15, 2007;

Nicholas Johnson, "Trouble in River City; Locker Room Update: What Can We Know, and When Can We Know It?," November 16, 2007 ("What I don't fully grasp are the reasons for refusing to respond to questions regarding the behavior, not of the athletes or their accuser, but of the University's and athletic program's administrators. What did they know and when did they know it? What did they do about it? Did they comply with the procedures they themselves created for dealing with a situation like this?");

Nicholas Johnson, "Football Story Has Muscular Legs; If UI Won't Talk, Regents Will," November 18, 2007 ("The UI's spokesperson is quoted in this morning's Register as saying, 'We know the time will come when we need to have the public understand what happened, but now is not the time.' . . . Obviously, I disagree. I think now is the time; indeed, it is past time.");

Nicholas Johnson, "Stonewall's Mortar Crumbles; Now the Governor; UI, This is Not Good," November 20, 2007 ("Regardless of what the reasons may be [for the UI's administrators' taking an oath of silence], until the questions regarding their behavior are answered, or explanations are offered for their silence, the hole they have dug for themselves just gets deeper by the hour.");

Nicholas Johnson, "The Greatest 'Story Two' Never Told" in "Not Getting Answers," November 21, 2007 ("So long as officials are asked general questions, for which the answers need not, but could, compromise the integrity of the investigation and possible trial as well as the privacy interests of the accuser and the accused, they can properly refuse to answer. It is only when it is made abundantly and unambiguously clear from the questions that they only deal with the 'second story' that their refusal to respond does, indeed, constitute stonewalling."); and

Nicholas Johnson, "To Err is Human, To Keep it Secret Even More So," December 14, 2008 (the source of the excerpt above).

The other noteworthy addition to this story is Erin Jordan's report that Regents' "advisory committee" chair has announced that a totally independent outside firm will be conducting the Regents' second investigation of UI administrators' handling of these events. This strikes me as at most a very wise and commendable step (one of the first in this months-long disaster), and at a minimum at least a response to all the "Now what?" questions regarding precisely how the three advisory committee members intend to proceed with their investigation. Erin Jordan, "Outside Firm to do U of I Probe," Des Moines Register, July 26, 2008.

And The Gazette? Nothing on page one. What? Surely the story of the additional box of documents withheld from the Regents would be reported somewhere in the paper. Oh, here it is, back on page B3. I wonder what they have in the sports section. Looks like Coach Ferentz is listening to his publicist. The lead headline, top of the fold in the sports section: Marc Morehouse, "Plenty of good guys on Hawkeye roster; Olsen, Kroul, King take pride in being Iowa football players," The Gazette, July 26, 2008, p. C1 (here's a link to the story in yesterday's Gazette Online).


And July 25 . . .

This afternoon [July 25] we learn that there's a bit of a difference of opinion regarding what the University was able to do with its internal reports under a court order.

Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness said a subpoena protecting documents related to the University of Iowa’s investigation of an alleged sexual assault was not intended to keep those documents from reaching UI officials.

In a copyright story published Friday by The Des Moines Register, UI President Sally Mason said she did not read two of the UI’s reports about its handling of the case. Mason cited UI’s interpretation of a seal by a Johnson County judge.

“Ultimately, I have not seen any of the reports that were written,” Mason told the Register.

Lyness said that wasn’t the purpose of the seal.

Lee Hermiston, "Lyness: Sharing of documents was UI’s call," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2008, 3:24 p.m.

Yesterday, below, I noted the Daily Iowan had made reference inside one of its stories about UI administrators' handling of the sexual assault case to a controversy at Purdue, and that State29 had gone into more detail about it. Today we have more from Lafayette on that conflict. Brian Wallheimer, "Sides square off on Purdue researcher's misconduct case," Journal & Courier, July 25, 2008, reprinted in this morning's Press-Citizen as Brian Wallheimer, "Purdue Research Controversy Continues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2008.

And the Press-Citizen has now added some more questions to its prior list of 26 (itemized below), in Editorial, "UI, regents must answer growing list of questions," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2008.

President Mason has started to fill in some details and respond to some of the mother's assertions. Erin Jordan, "U of I Admits More Was Withheld," Des Moines Register, July 25, 2008 (later available from the Press-Citizenonline as well at 9:38 a.m.).

My comment: The individuals involved in the UI's news and public relations operations are, in my opinion, professional, ethical and competent. But they are, by virtue of the nature of their jobs, obliged to do and say what they are told -- or make their best effort to guess -- their superiors want.

So I can only assume the decision to have UI's administrators persist in their positions that, to quote Coach Ferentz from yesterday, "everything was handled extremely well," must have come from those administrators rather than their public relations advisers.

As I have written throughout this blog entry, and as Pat Harty writes today [July 25], below, "[W]hat makes this case so maddening and hard to comprehend [is that in] order to believe the mother's version of what happened you almost have to believe that some UI officials are corrupt and dishonest." He's right; and for the administrators to persist in professing that "everything was handled extremely well" is to shoot themselves in the foot every time they repeat that public statement.

They have been ignoring the advice that, "When you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging." They've just been digging themselves in deeper and deeper.

It's all a little too reminiscent of the story told in a country song. As the husband comes into the house early one morning the wife asks where he has been all night. He replies, "I fell asleep in that hammock in the yard." When she points out that she put the hammock in the attic a week or so ago he replies, simply, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." (From "That's My Story.")

For UI administrators, once the mother's letter became public, to continue to say they behaved in an excellent manner was simply not credible -- it made them look worse rather than better -- not unlike the errant husband in the song they appeared to be insisting "that's our story and we're sticking to it."

So President Sally Mason's tentative diversion from that path in this morning's story by Erin Jordan is, in my judgment, a good one from her perspective. Ditto for at least some of what Coach Ferentz revealed yesterday. Unfortunately, it's now nowhere nearly as helpful to the University in general, and them in particular, as it would have been if they'd done it a week ago.

Meanwhile, Coach Ferentz simultaneously insists "everything was handled extremely well" and "It may not be fair, but anybody who violates our team rules this coming year, the consequences are going to be a little more severe than they've been in the past." Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz draws line in the sand; Focuses on 2008 roster, new standards of discipline," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2008. (And see Andy Hamilton, "Hawks Looking to Future," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 26, 2008.)

Hamilton's story continues, with regard to the opening game in the "Iowa Hawkeyes Football Criminal Season" (a great run across downtown Iowa City that took 8 police to catch one of our football players, a story that bodes well for the on-field season if not the off-field arrest record):

Riley Reiff might be the first to face the consequences of a more stringent program. The incoming freshman was arrested last weekend for public intoxication and interference with official acts after allegedly leading eight police officers on a 20-minute chase in downtown Iowa City.

Ferentz said Reiff won't be dismissed from the team, "but it'll be a painful road back."

"I think it's fair to say his incident will be treated a lot differently than it would've a year ago," Ferentz said. "I'd like to think we're educators, and I'd like to think we'll be fair to him, yet at the same time, he's been in Iowa City long enough to know, I would hope, that what he did was not only bad in itself but directly worked against the cause that I think everybody on our team is committed to taking the right path on."

And see, Pat Harty, "Coach Defends His Actions in Inquiry," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2008 ("[W]hat makes this case so maddening and hard to comprehend [is that in] order to believe the mother's version of what happened you almost have to believe that some UI officials are corrupt and dishonest. . . . [T]he stench from this case will continue to linger, along with the two different versions of what happened."), and Scott Dochterman, "UI Rape Case: Ferentz met with alleged rape victim; Insinuation of cover-up draws angry response from UI football coach," The Gazette, July 25, 2008, p. A1, a somewhat shorter version from the day before, Scott Docterman, "Ferentz speaks about meeting alleged victim, family," The Gazette Online, July 24, 2008, 5:07 p.m.

And Abeberell Satterfield's counsel, Alfredo Parrish, weighs in: Lee Hermiston, "Alfredo Parrish: 'Take a deep breath,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2008, 10:26 a.m. (While Parrish said that he would probably take the same action as the mother of the alleged victim . . . the mother only represents one perspective of how the investigation was handled. “She’s only hearing second- and third-hand about what happened,” he said. . . . However, Parrish said he does take issue with part of the university’s investigation. Parrish said his client should have had a lawyer with him when he spoke with his coaches and university officials about the alleged assault.).


Wrong Again; Story DOES Continue: July 24

Yesterday I predicted that day's news would be the last we'd see of media attention to it -- at least until the Regents' report of September 18. Well, I was wrong. Read on.

"Ferentz talks about assault investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2008, 11:13 a.m. (Coach Ferentz tells ESPN (in a statement similar to that of President Mason yesterday), "everything was handled extremely well" -- without responding to a single specific allegation from the alleged victim's mother regarding his involvement or that of other UI administrators). Here's a link to ESPN's full report of the interview -- as well as readers' comments about it. Adam Rittenberg, "Kirk Ferentz speaks," ESPN.com, July 24, 2008, 9:42 a.m. And see, Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz 'takes exception' to notion of cover up," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2008, 3:14 p.m. (Kirk Ferentz's similar remarks today when opening the Big Ten Kickoff Luncheon in Chicago), in the July 25 Press Citizen as Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz defends UI's actions Supports how his program dealt with the matter," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 25, 2008.

Lee Hermiston and Brian Morelli, "Mom to UI: 'Shame on you'; Says alleged victim was harassed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2008 (the mother's second letter of May 16 is largely a repetition of her earlier (November 19) allegations regarding University administrators' abandonment of the alleged victim, leaving her to deal with harassment and related problems on her own). Here is the Press-Citizen's pdf version of the mother's May 16 letter ("Shame on all of you . . .. You all had an opportunity through her to make a difference and be different at your institution. From where I sit you all wasted that chance . . .."). A draft of the mother's November 19 letter, in txt format, is contained within this blog entry, below.

Lee Hermiston, "Direction of Inquiry Unclear," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 24, 2008 (Regents' advisory committee chair, and former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, says, "How we do this cannot be determined yet"). The report is due September 18, 9 days before the University of Iowa's Homecoming Day (and home game with Northwestern). (And see additional details in, Erin Jordan, "Interviews Will Be Redone in U of I Assault Inquiry," Des Moines Register, July 24, 2008, and the Register's thoughtful editorial, Editorial, "Board right to open U of I athletic probe," Des Moines Register, July 24, 2008.)

There is an additional bit of information in the last line of Hermiston's story that is perhaps worthy of comment.

Yesterday I wrote (below) about a potential issue of media manipulation in this story: the shift of focus (whether inadvertent or intentional) away from the allegations in the mother's November 19 letter, and onto the existence of the letter -- and the University's refusal to make it available to the Regents' investigator.

Well, here is another possible example.

It's a common tactic of government agencies and other institutions to save major announcements that might reflect adversely upon them for the evening before major holidays, or forthcoming major news events, when they know there will be few journalists around to cover the story they'd like to kill. I first wrote about this in the Saturday Review , March 11, 1972, in Nicholas Johnson, "Why Ma Bell Still Believes in Santa." (I'd noticed that whenever the FCC was about to stick it to AT&T's customers with a very large rate hike they'd save the release of their decision to the evening before a holiday -- on this particular occasion, Christmas eve.)

So what's in the last line of Hermiston's story? After noting that "Abeberell Satterfield and Cedric Everson . . . have been charged with second-degree sexual abuse. Satterfield faces an additional charge of second-degree sexual abuse. Both men have pleaded not guilty," Hermiston concludes, "Their trials are set for Nov. 3."

Can anybody tell me what is significant about the following day (when the news would appear)?

That's right. It's Presidential Election Day. So if you want to know what happens during those trials I suggest you do what folks did 75 to 100 years ago: get a seat in the Johnson County Courthouse court room that day, because there's not going to be a lot of empty space to fill with that news in the next days' papers.

The Presidential Election, and all that follows our choice, will be to the news in early November what the floods have been to the news in June and July.

Coincidence? Perhaps.

Yesterday's Daily Iowan story about the Regents' meeting contained the following paragraphs part way into the story:

During Mason's term as provost at Purdue University, that school was criticized for its handling of an academic misconduct case.

The initial inquiry found a Purdue researcher innocent. The case was reopened, and the subsequent investigation, which closed on July 18, found that the researcher had, in fact, fabricated research results.

The Purdue misconduct case reportedly gave members of the UI presidential-search committee pause, but those issues aren't playing a part in this controversy.

"We're focused on the current situation," Miles told a DI reporter after the meeting.

Alyssa Cushman, "Regents reopen rape probe: Top UI officials withheld documents," The Daily Iowan, July 23, 2008.

I have no personal knowledge of the details referred to, or why they were inserted where they were in the story, and thus have only curiosity rather than comment. However, State29, who retired from blogging earlier this month, has no such reluctance and briefly came out of retirement to post, State29, "Sally Mason, Miss Coverup 2008," July 22, 2008 -- but before going there: "Caution: Rough Blog Ahead; Enter At Your Own Risk; Must Be 18 Or Over."


Now What? -- July 23, 2008

Thank goodness this is all behind us now, right? Well, not quite.

Each of the major news organizations and reporters covering the story have wrap up pieces this morning. Erin Jordan, "Regents reopen assault inquiry," Des Moines Register, July 23, 2008; Lee Hermiston, "Regents to re-examine UI's handling of assault case," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 23, 2008, p. A1; Gregg Hennigan, Regents to reopen UI rape inquiry; UI withheld letter to protect woman’s privacy; president apologizes to regents for omission," The Gazette, July 23, 2008, p. A1.

Have you noticed how virtually everyone -- Regents, UI administrators, and even the media -- have switched our focus?

When the mother's November 19 letter was revealed, the issues involved the contents of the letter -- how the alleged victim and her family members had been treated (or ignored) by UI administrators.

And what's the issue now? The existence of the letter! Why was the letter not made available to the Regents -- either last fall, when it was received, or during the course of the Regents first investigation? Were the administrators' reasonable and truthful in arguing that they were legally prohibited from turning it over?

Those are certainly interesting issues, worthy of being pursued. But they scarcely go to the heart of what this part of the case (i.e., the behavior of the administrators, as distinguished from the alleged behavior of the accused) is all about.

Whether intentionally or not, the result of yesterday's meeting is that the allegations in the mother's letter -- indeed, anything having to do with UI administrators' behavior -- will by tomorrow be nowhere to be found on the front pages of Iowa newspapers, and soon thereafter will have passed from the public's mind and memory.

The Regents won't be willing to talk about them because, well, that's now the responsibility of their "advisory committee." The UI administrators never have been willing to go into detail publicly. (And of course no one can talk about the other matter, the criminal proceeding against the accused.) That pretty well pulls the rug out from under the media, as well, once all the sources, and access to records, have disappeared.

One is also left to ponder how on earth the Regents' first investigation could have come up with the conclusion -- a position that President Mason continued to express even yesterday -- that (in her words, from The Gazette) "I have no reason, at this point, to suspect or expect that anyone did anything that was against policy or procedure."

Doesn't one's acceptance of her assertion necessarily require an accompanying conclusion that virtually all of the events, meetings, and conversations recounted in the mother's November 19 letter are lies? Re-read her letter; it's included in this blog entry. Is it conceivable that any institution would have "policy or procedure" with which the behavior alleged would be consistent?

So, the Regents' investigator didn't have access to the letter. So shame on the UI administrators for not turning it over. But how, if even half of what it contained is true, would none of that come out in a thorough investigation -- even without access to the letter? Were penetrating questions not asked? Were they asked, but not fully and truthfully responded to?

Whatever the reasons, the Regents aren't looking all that good this morning either.

It's all a little too reminiscent of Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's reaction to the photographs from Abu Ghraib.

As Secretary Rumsfeld characterized the problem in his testimony before the U.S. Senate, "It is the photographs, the people running around with digital cameras."

The problem, in short, was the public relations impact on American citizens (and possibly the president's re-election), and on Iraqis' "hearts and minds." The problem was not our pre-interrogation techniques, the problem was the pictures of those techniques. No cameras, no problem.

So it is with the University's response to this alleged sexual assault. The problem is not the behavior of UI administrators -- so long as there are no pictures or contemporaneous records of what they did. The problem is that a contemporaneous record has surfaced. No letter from the mother, no problem.

I hasten to note that I stand by everything I wrote yesterday as a part of "My Take," below, and that I have great confidence in the integrity and ability of those appointed by the Regents to their "advisory committee." So I wait, patiently and hopefully, for what I assume will be a report of their findings regarding, step by step, each of the mother's allegations regarding the experiences of the alleged victim and her family members with UI administrators. It will be, presumably, a public document. It is due September 18.

NOTE: Regents' Meeting Today [Tuesday, July 22] . . .

. . . [Tuesday, 4:25 p.m.] Mason apologizes:

"Let me begin by expressing my profound and sincere regret for the failure to notify you of the letters that came to the University of Iowa from the mother of the UI student who reported being sexually assaulted last fall in Hillcrest Residence Hall. I apologize for this error and for not making certain that the board had access to all information relevant to this case."

"The original thinking that federal law known as FERPA, designed to protect student privacy, prevented the letter from being shared with our Board of Regents leadership is just not tenable. There is no excuse for the failure to turn over those letter as part of the investigation that you directed the Board of Regents office to conduct in the wake of the report of the assault."

"Regents reopen investigation; Mason apologizes," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2008; her full statement to the Board of Regents is contained in "UI President Mason responds to Regents’ request," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2008, 3:49 p.m.

Barta issues statement. "Barta 'Welcomes' Second Investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2008.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa -- not to mention what will soon be hundreds of readers submitting comments on today's stories -- is not impressed with an "advisory committee," another Board of Regents investigation, and President Mason's promise of a review. Scott Dochterman and Gregg Hennigan, "Regents will reopen investigation of UI sexual assault," The Gazette Online, July 22, 2008, updated 4:24 p.m. (look for sub-head "ICLU calls for independent investigation").

And note, Lee Hermiston, "UI releases victim's mother's letter," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2008, 12:17 p.m., and Erin Jordan, "Prosecutor: No U of I obstruction in sex abuse case," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2008, 11:36 a.m. ("Accusations that University of Iowa athletics officials tried to keep sex abuse allegations in-house don't amount to obstruction of justice charges, Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness said today.").

. . . [Monday, 7:30 p.m.] "The board will meet [Tuesday, July 22] at 3 p.m. in Room W401 of the Pappajohn Business Administration Building." "Regents to Meet at UI to Discuss Assault Investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 21, 2008. Here is a link to Regents' General Counsel Tom Evans' earlier report, characterized by Lee Hermiston, below, as a "13-page report released by the regents in their June 11-12 meeting agenda."

Lee Hermiston, "Regents to Reopen Sex Assault Investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen online, July 22, 2008, 11:32 a.m. ("The Iowa state Board of Regents plans to reopen the investigation of the University of Iowa’s compliance with its policies and procedures while responding to the alleged Oct. 14, 2007 assault involving UI football players. According to the agenda for today’s 3 p.m. regents’ meeting at the university, the regents will discuss the establishment of an advisory committee to the Board of Regents.")

For comments about all of this from a former Hawkeye, and subsequently professional, football player with some class -- along with how Coach Hayden Fry dealt with the challenges -- see Pat Harty, "Dwight troubled by UI legal woes; Former Hawk says some players' misconduct embarrasses program," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2008.

And see, Lee Hermiston, "Regents investigator not aware of letters from victim's mother," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 21, 2008 -- in next day's hard copy edition as Lee Hermiston, "Letter Not Included in Investigation; Regents' Attorney Never Given Mom's Criticism of Response to Alleged Assault," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2008, p. A1:

“I wasn’t made aware of the existence of either letter,” Evans said, adding UI General Counsel Marcus Mills told him of the letters Friday morning. . . .

According to Evans’ [13-page report released by the regents in their June 11-12, 2008, meeting agenda], after a “comprehensive review of the facts … it is clear the University officials fully complied with internal procedural requirements.”

However, Evans’ comprehensive review seemingly did not include any input from the victim or her family.

“We asked to speak to the family, and they declined,” Evans said.

And, below, the 26 questions to which the Press-Citizen thinks the Regents should obtain answers from University of Iowa administrators.

Erin Jordan reports this morning [July 22] that Regents' President David Miles has boiled them down to two:

• Why did U of I officials not tell regents about letters the university received from the alleged victim's mother?

• Do the mother's letters, which include allegations the U of I mishandled the case and tried to keep it in the athletic department, warrant reopening an investigation of how the incident was handled?

Erin Jordan, "Regents to Evaluate U of I Action in Rape Case," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2008.

And I have another "media question." Given that the information was known on Friday, July 18, all over the Press-Citizen's front page on Saturday, July 19, and the Sunday Register's front page July 20 (not to mention the Chicago Tribune's Web site and those of numerous other newspapers and television stations Saturday [July 19] evening -- even USA Today had it on the 21st) why did the Gazette wait until this evening [July 21], in a story first posted around 5:00 p.m., and updated at 8:08 p.m., to touch it? Gregg Hennigan, "Regents Demand answers From UI About Assault Letters," The Gazette, July 21, 2008, updated 8:08PM -- headlined in the next morning's hard copy edition as Gregg Hennigan, "Board Demands Answers From UI; Letter in Which Mom of Alleged Assault Victim Claims Daughter Was Pressured Comes to Light After Inquiry," The Gazette, July 22, 2008, p. A1.

(a) If there was an initial concern that story was copyright, that was resolved when it became an AP story at 6:00 p.m. and others began going with it.

(b) If there was reluctance to make reference to a story that a competitor broke, that's worrisome. Readers ought to be able to rely on each individual paper for local news without having to read them all to see the scoops of its competitors.

(c) If there was reluctance to go with "allegations" (in the mother's letter) without confirmation of the alleged facts, once the letter was spread across the pages of the Press-Citizen no one's privacy could be preserved by The Gazette's reluctance to print. Besides it could always, as it ultimately did, report as its "news" not the letter, or the allegations it contained, but the mere fact that the Press-Citizen had published the letter and accompanying story.

(d) If a story is not a story until some official government body (the Regents) announces it is going to have a meeting about it, that's another illustration of this troublesome tendency of mainstream media.

Having now played my role as The Gazette's media ombudsperson let me go on to balance it a bit by referring you to its editorial this morning, as yet one more example of the outstanding local leadership the paper provides Eastern Iowa on a range of public policy issues -- this time having to do with future planning regarding local floodplains. Editorial, "Explore Where We Haven't Gone Before," The Gazette, July 22, 2008, p. A4.

[Monday, 1:30 p.m.] Monday's Register reports there's a second letter; Regents to meet:

Iowa Board of Regents President David Miles said he is shocked University of Iowa officials did not tell regents about letters they received from the mother of a U of I student who alleges she was sexually assaulted by U of I athletes last fall.

The board will meet Tuesday afternoon in Iowa City to discuss in an open meeting the U of I's response to the reported assault and the reasons why the mother's letters were not disclosed to the regents during an earlier investigation of how the incident was handled. . . . The university did not do itself any favors by not providing this document," Miles said. [See below for story about, and full text of, the first letter.] . . . The mother sent a second letter to U of I President Sally Mason on May 16, regents confirmed. . . .

"It [the letter/s] raises a lot of concerns as to the level of support given to a student who was alleged to have been a victim to a criminal act, a felony," [Regent Bob] Downer said. . . .

[T]he board investigated the handling of the incident earlier this year. The investigation was ordered because of concerns about a three-week delay between the date of the alleged assault and the start of a police investigation. The board office staff released a report in June saying the U of I did nothing wrong.

Erin Jordan, "Regents official 'shocked' by letters sent to U of I," Des Moines Register, July 21, 2008.

The July 19 blog entry, as modified July 20:

For the benefit of those out of town readers of this blog who check it for University of Iowa news, there's more on the UI sexual assault case this morning. Here are some links. This blog entry will be expanded today, and kept up to date as anything more is revealed.

And speaking of "more revealed," today marks the first day of this fall's "Hawkeye football criminal season." It's small potatoes compared with the primary story in today's blog entry, but this morning a Iowa freshman football player got the season off to a dramatic start:

Incoming University of Iowa freshman football player Riley Reiff pleaded guilty to public intoxication and interference with official acts early Saturday morning . . . [and] was fined $562 . . . following a drunken chase in downtown Iowa City [where he] was observed as disoriented and taking off his clothes in an alley . . . ran into the Pita Pit's kitchen and knocked several trays on the floor, according to police.

Police say it took nearly 20 minutes and eight officers to apprehend Reiff. He . . . refused to take a Breathalyzer test.

Since April 2007, 18 Iowa football players have been arrested, including five on felony charges.

Iowa officials were unavailable for comment.

Scott Dochterman, "Iowa football player pleads guilty after downtown chase," The Gazette Online, July 19, 2008, 2:01 p.m.

I have written at great length about the much more serious events throughout the past 9 months involving football players alleged to have engaged in a sexual assault, and will not add to that today, with the exception of some summaries, and the provision of links. (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "UI, Sexual Assaults and Secrecy," January 5-9, 2008, and its links to additional blog entries; and Nicholas Johnson, "Not Getting Answers," November 21, 2007, with links to four prior blog entries, including Nicholas Johnson, "Trouble in River City," November 16, 2007.)

For clarity, I'll provide one of those summaries right here. As I've written for months, there are really two stories here that tend to get conflated in the media and the public mind.

(1) One involves who was involved, and what happened involving the alleged victim, the early morning of October 14. Those allegations and facts, and the legal process they have triggered, are for the most part not involved in today's story. (One of the latest set of revelations of those details are reported in Lee Hermiston and Brian Morelli, "Documents detail sexual assault case; Judge orders release of court records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2008, p. A1.)

(2) Today's news only (or primarily) concerns the second story. That is the story of University of Iowa officials. What did they know and when did they know it (to borrow Senator Howard Baker's famous repeated question during the Watergate hearings) -- and what did they do about it? Who talked to whom, when, about what, and what action followed (redacting as appropriate names of and details regarding the alleged victim and accused)? What are the University's procedures governing its administrators in such situations? Were they followed? Were administrators totally candid with the Board of Regents during its investigation (e.g., did they or did they not provide the mother's letter to the investigator)? Were professions of "sensitivity" for the alleged victim -- offered as a reason for a refusal to disclose their own communications and meetings with each other -- perhaps motivated, even in some small part, by a desire to cover up their own behavior?

In its online edition, July 21, the Press-Citizen came up with the following expansion on those questions:

• Who at UI met with the alleged victim between Oct. 14 and Nov. 5? How many times did each UI official meet with the alleged victim and what was the purpose of the meetings? What was said by the officials, the alleged victim, her family and others the meetings? Are there written records or audio or video recordings that document the meetings?

• Did UI officials encourage the victim to keep the matter in-house? If so, why? If not, can UI provide documentation?

• Did UI follow its policies in this case? Were any of the policies in conflict with each other? Were the policies bad policies? Did anyone at UI raise concerns about the policies or the handling of the matter in general?

• Did UI provide, or offer to provide, copies of the letter from the alleged victim’s mother to the Iowa state Board of Regents when it asked questions about this matter? If not, why not? What questions did the Board of Regents ask UI when it was investigating these issues in late 2007? Who did Regents representatives talk to when they investigated? Do the Regents now feel that investigation was adequate?

• Has there been a review of the security situation at Hillcrest Hall? If so, who conducted the review? Did UI football players have a key to the vacated room in the dormitory where the assault allegedly took place? If so, who gave them the key? Whose room was it? Did UI officials know the room was empty at the time of the alleged assault? Did UI violate its residence hall policies? Did UI officials allow or direct Hawkeye football players to move back into the room after the alleged assault? If so, when, and why? Did football players throw away things found in the room that might have been evidence in the criminal case? Did UI officials know that potential evidence might have been removed?

• Has anyone at UI been disciplined or reprimanded as a result of their handling of this matter?

Editorial, "Sex Assault Questions That Must be Answered," Iowa City Press-Citizen online, July 21, 2008.

Like Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the papers." I have no inside information regarding the answers to those questions -- nor do I have any way to evaluate the truth of what's alleged in the letter said to be from the alleged victim's mother, nor in the University's conflicting "statement." So I'll just refer you to "the papers" and let you draw your own conclusions. (By Saturday evening some 64 Press-Citizen readers had not only done so, they were sufficiently motivated to share them by way of the paper's "comments" feature.)

Here's the most significant single story with which to begin:

Brian Morelli and Lee Hermiston, "Alleged victim's mom criticizes UI; Says university officials were unresponsive," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 19, 2008, p. A1. The Press-Citizen (which includes the letter in today's hard copy edition) has provided only a pdf version on its Web site. So I have reproduced below what I believe may be the only online text version of the letter available on the Internet. Although no University official was willing to respond to the letter, or otherwise provide a statement for the press, a statement from "the University" -- an account totally at odds with that of the mother -- is contained in the Morelli and Hermiston story.

Media coverage. The Gazette made no mention of the story in its updated, online edition -- understandably, perhaps, in its "New Database: Relive Some of the Greatest Moments in Iowa Hawkeye Football History" section, but not even in its special "Iowa City Assaults Against Women" section -- nor did the Des Moines Register. However, the Quad City Times did, and by 6:00 p.m. the Chicago Tribune had done so as well, Associated Press, "Iowa allegedly pressed to keep rape probe in house," Chicago Tribune, July 19, 2008, 6:00 p.m. CDT -- along with Minneapolis station WCCO-TV, and other national and regional newspapers and stations. In the Register's Sunday, July 20, hard copy edition it ran the Morelli and Hermiston story on p. 1 (though there was still no whisper of it in The Gazette that morning).

Having read the mother's letter, you might want to compare it with President Sally Mason's comments to the Press-Citizen on November 20, 2007 -- almost precisely the same time as the mother's letter. Here is the relevant 5-minute video excerpt from that conference:



Other relevant, and current, stories and information would include:

Lee Hermiston, "Gov. Culver Wants Answers," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 19, 2008, p. A1 (which includes reactions from Board of Regents President David Miles, and member Bob Downer in addition to those of the Governor).

"Alleged UI Sexual Assault Timeline," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 19, 2008, p. A8.

Editorial, "UI Shouldn't Block Release of Records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 19, 2008, p. A17.


Here is the text of what is represented to be a November 19, 2007, letter from the mother of the alleged victim to University of Iowa administrators (a subsequent letter of May 16, 2008, from the mother has just [July 18-21] been provided the Regents by UI officials, but has not been made public):

November 19,2007

I am. writing this letter in response to my visit last week to Iowa City.

As I reflect on the many hours of meetings that the victim and I had with the officers from DCI, University of Iowa Police, the County Attomey's office and the various offices of officials at the University of Iowa I would like to communicate what I learned and experienced.

Firstly, I want to thank Chuck Green for his willingness to go to DCI on behalf of the victim. I recognize that that action took a great sense of what was best for her, the school and his position. I commend him for his professionalism and character. In the same vein I want to commend Officer Brian from the University of Iowa Police and Diane Funk from the Rape Crisis Organization for their compassion, commitment and genuine help toward and on behalf of the victim. I would like, also, to thank Mr. Wade Kisner, Special Agent in Charge, and Mr. Jaggat Sandu, Special Agent, both with DCI. They were and continue to be, extremely capable, profession and above reproach.

Secondly, it is my purpose to convey to those involved my perspective of the situation at hand and what has happened from our point of view up to this point, Monday November 19,2007.

I do not want to be complicated, therefore I will communicate what I hope to be a very straight forward assessment.

On Sunday, October 14th the victim went directly to the hospital and the University of Iowa Hospital ER. Her Dad. anived in Iowa City around 1 am that night. Beginning Monday morning at 8am the victim told her story to University Administrators in the Athletic Department. She met with her counselor XXXX at 8 am, and from that time on met witlt Gary Barta, Fred Mims, Asst. Athletic Director, the Head Football Coach Kirk Ferentz and Betsy Altmaier along with her XXXX Coach XXXX. There were no other officials brought in, nor was it ever suggested by those present that there was any intention or need to do so. The victims father was there from Monday until the next Saturday. There was adequate time for someone to call in the higher officials to address the problem. They were told that if the victim chose to go with an Informal action the Athletic Department would act swiftly and effectively. If she chose to go Formally, which was explained as an in-house process by going outside the Athletic Department, she would be looking at a long, arduous process. She elected to go Informally as it seemed it would be taken care of immediately rather than over a long period of time. She was really encouraged to try the Informal route first. Her dad asked that the Football Coach attend the meetings as it was communicated to him that it would be through the Football program that this would be dealt with and handled. During one of these meetings with the above mentioned people it was brought out that this would be the 8th or there had been 8 infractions involving the Football Team. In hindsight what did that have to do with anything except that maybe it put the program and the school in some kind of jeopardy if this went Formal. It was also discussed that there were three options for the victim. Informal, Formal or Criminal. There was never any information given during that entire week regarding the process of investigation which would involve the EOD [the University of Iowa's Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity]. No one ever gave any direct picture of what even an informal action would entail, just that it would be swift and that the Athletic Department would take care of everything. Never was the EOD mentioned. Not one time. Nor was the victim ever advised that she could, or should in fact have an advocate at any or all meetings.

The father of the victim left that Saturday October 20th. From that day forward my communication regarding this situation was initiated by the father. He was directed to speak with Mark Mills. Betsy Altmaier called in Mark Mills. We were never given any clear reason why he was now involved. We asked over and over and over and over -- what is the process? What can we expect? Who is protecting the victim after she told her story to so many people that first week? Where are these boys in all of this? NO ANSWERS. Only, due process, due process. Our question was also, Who is in charge? Even on Monday, November 5th the father called the office of the President of the University of Iowa. The woman he spoke to asked what it was regarding and he told her it was of an urgent nature regarding an assult on campus and to please have the President return his call as soon as was possible. He left his name and number. It looks from this vantage point as if the President was not familiar with his name, which would also suggest she was not familiar with what had happened up to that point. He never received a call back. We had asked during that first week that someone speak with the victims professors as she missed an entire week of school due to an enormous amount of meetings and emotional crisis. Father and daughter were told that that would be handled. it wasn't. Not until she was given Diane Funk as her advocate were the teachers notified. After 3 and a half weeks. The victim spoke personally to her XXXX teacher. Something that was very difficult. The father called Frank Mims and told him 2 weeks later that someone needed to address her

[Page 2]

academic situation. He called the victim in and arranged for her to drop her Class. The week after the Saturday that the father left and after the father had called Frank Mims for updates, Frank called the victim to his office. He told her there were some folks that needed to talk to her and could she come over to their office. He did not tell her she was going to an interview with EOD. She had no idea what she was heading into. In a sentence it was a most traumatic experience for her. They were aggressive and forceful in their interviewing tactics and accusatory in their stance. She told me afterwards, while crying, that they basically accused her of bringjng this upon herself. She was interviewed with the intention of making her feel that she caused this. I would like to interject here that from this vantage point I am very gravely concerned about the outcome of an investigation that was had without the knowledge of Dean Jones, as that is protocol in the code of student conduct for the University of Iowa which I learned from Dean Jones himself. Her friends were called in as well, not having any idea what they were being called in for, and without the mention, again, of the right to an advocate, and they also left crying feeling as if they had committed some kind of crime by being associated with the victim and this situation. It was handlcd very poorly and less than professionally. And all without going before Dean Jones.

On Monday November 5th the victim, after having been confronted by the perpetrators and their friends on a daily basis and having found no sense of protection or involvement by the University of Iowa, went to the University of Iowa Police. She met with Officer Brian. She told him everything. From that day forward things have taken a new turn. Brian met with her several times during that week and on Friday November 9th he called her in to meet with Diane Funk and himself. He proceeded to reveal to her that there were not 2 boys involved, but 3. The third boy had raped her while she was unconscious and that the University of Iowa Athletic Department knew that. They knew that all the way back during the first week after the assault. And they had kept that from her and her Dad as far back as the first week after the incident.

Needless to say the victim was struck down. It was that next Monday that the father decided that he would call Chuck Green and find out who is objective here? Everyone is connected to the U of I. With a great sense of character I believe that that is when the OCI was called in. And rightly so. On Tuesday November 13th the victim called home and said that she had just discovered that 3rd boy that was considered the attacker was living in his girlfriends room in Hillcrest 3 doors down from her room. For THREE WEEKS.

I arrived in Iowa Wednesday morning November 14th. I was met at the airport by the Univenity of Iowa police and taken directly to the police offices. I spent the afternoon with the DCI officers and Chuck Green. On Thursday morning the victim and I met with Ann Lahey with the County Attorney's office. That afternoon the victim was again interviewed by the police.

At this point I want to communicate a most amazing experience that, I think, says everything about how the school had handled this until this point.

On Tuesday November 13th the father had made a call into Mark Mills to ask, again, what was happening.

Mark called him back and told him that since I would be there the next day he would like for me to get in touch with Dean Jones and a Mr. Baker as, according to Mr. Mark Mills, the investigation should be complete by that time., While the victim was being interviewed I asked Officer Jaggat Sandhu if I should call Dean Jones and he told me to go ahead. I called and got through to him. I introduced myself, gave my name and asked if I could meet with with him regarding the outcome of the investigation. He, Dean Jones, proceeded to tell me that he did not know who I was, did not know my name, my daughters name, nor anything regarding this investigation. He told me he "had nothing". I learned later that that point was in fact very true as the report had been subpoenaed and he had not seen it. However, he said to me he could not help me. Mark Mills also communicated with the County Attorneys office that day that, in fact, this was not done with Dean Jones knowledge. He had not been involved. My question to him, then, was how can you possibly help the victim when you have no idea what has been happening, and, more importantly, why don't you know anything? How is that remotely possible?

On Friday morning I received a call from Diane Funk telling me that there would be a clause in the release of housing contract that would forbid the victim from going into Hillcrest forevermore. I called Jaggat Sandhu and explained that that absolutely seemed like a punishment rather than a protective and supportive action for the victim. I met that morning with Betsy Altmaier. Up until that meeting I was under the impression that she has something to do with representing the Presidents Office. Meaning, the victim and the father were under the impression that Betsy represented the Presidents Office which gave them the false feeling that things were left with the authorities that could and would handle this "swiftly and efficiently". They thought that because she had attended all of the meetings from Wednesday on the week the father was there, that the University formally knew exactly what had happened to the victim. We were very wrong. I

[Page 3]

learned in that meeting that although Betsy is a most wonderful advocate for the Athletic Department as is related to the victim, it was not through her that the school would necessarily be informed of this situation. Again, my question was, who is telling who what?

We then went to the Office of Dean Jones. Mr. Chuck Green and Diane Funk were also in attendance. The meeting began with Dean Jones asking what exactly we needed. I began talking. The victim interrupted me and told Dean Jones that she needed out of the Dorm as she had been experiencing unending harassment from the friends of the boys involved in this as well as the boys themselves. She had found out that one boy had actually been living 3 doors down from her for 3 weeks. The very boy that the Athletic Department knew had been involved while she was TOTALLY unconscious. They mocked her, called her names, laughed at her and had been left free to do whatever they chose after she had told her story for a week to various University Officials with absolutely no help fonhcoming. Dean Jones asked the victim point blank "How can I know you will be safe if I allow you to go in and out of Hillcrest!". Her reply was simply that she had been doing it all alone for almost 5 weeks, with no help or intervention from anyone, and had trusted that someone would come to her at some point with a solution, help, hope, a sense that what she had reported was taken seriously. Never happened. She also told Dean Jones that the Athletic Department had lied to her directly the week of October 15th knowing there was a third boy that had raped her while she was unconscious and she had never known that until the police had become involved and her trust of the University was depleted. We left that meeting knowing that in the case of someone claiming sexual assault the University protocol and Code of Student conduct an Informal action is NEVER taken. Why didn't someone tell the victim and her father that the week of October 15th? Why didn't one or ALL of the Administrators in those meetings that week, or the next week, or the next week, (while the victim and her family are waiting for any forthcoming answers) bring in Dean Jones???????? Where were the troops? Why did no one at the University level know the protocol and follow it? Why didn't Fred Mims call Dean Jones? Why didn't Betsy Altmaier call Dean Jones? Did Betsy Altmaier tell the President? If not. why not.

How can you hear this story and not look into some book of Protocol and find the page that says when a sexual assault is reported there IS NO INFORMAL ANYTHING. It must go to Dean Jones. Why didn't Mark Mills call Dean Jones? Why didn't the football coach call Dean Jones? Why didn't the EOD call Dean Jones? Why didn't someone direct the victim or her father in any given phone call day after day after day, to call Dean Jones? Did someone call him and not go through the correct channels? Who was in control of this information? The victim and her father were lead to believe that the meetings called and attended were right where this information belonged and that it would all be handled in an efficient, swift, effective and just way. Just give us time to practice due process. And if that were not the case why didn't one or all of those people direct the victim and her father in the way they should procede to get this taken care of!?

That is why the victim went to the police. No one from the University ever contacted her and gave her any sense of direction, protection or involvement. She was on her own. We were on our own. The victim was left with NO CHOICE but to seek help outside of the school. She was being harassed by athletes in the group in which the attackers belonged. I understand that 2 of the players were suspended for lying. No one told us what, if anything was happening.

Finally, in conclusion, as look back on the past 5 weeks this is what I see. I believe that the University did not handle this situation in a professional way that followed University protocol and compliance to its OWN roles set out in the code of student conduct. I believe that interim action against these boys is absolutely very late in coming. If only for the protection of the victim. I am horrified, as is anyone who even hears of this is, to learn that the boy that raped the victim while she was unconscious was living 3 doors down from her for 3 weeks.

In my understanding we are waiting at this point for the DCI investigation to be completed. Because the school never gave the victim or her family any sense of something being done that we could hold on to, this seems to be reaching epic proportions. I understand that the media is hounding and waiting for any morsel. I am so sorry that this is the case. This ABSOLUTELY could have been avoided if the University of Iowa had stepped in and done the right thing by all involved. When the investigation is completed and is presented to the County Attorneys office it is up to the victim to decide where to go with this. I also understand that the boys have engaged very high powered attorneys.

We are distressed over the events that have occurred but I feel as though the people that are now involved will get to the bottom of this and the right thing will be accomplished. I actually made a call today to the President of the University, Sally Mason. She shared her concern but told me in no uncertain terms that she

[Page 4]

very rarely gets involved with things of this nature. Isn't that the truth. Me neither. The victim either. Who is at the helm? I believe that she is involved whether she wants to be or not as she is giving statements to the press. I told her she might like to take a minute with me and she simply told me she would direct me to someone who handles these things. My question today is WHO IS THAT PERSON AND WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN FOR THE PAST FIVE WEEKS? The victim went first to the hospital then DIRECTLY to the Administratosrs of the Department of which she believed she would be protected and the situation would be handled and if they couldn't do that, that they would surely direct her or take the information themselves to the authorities that could. The school has brought this to this place. NO ONE ELSE. Again, my purpose in writing this letter is to communicate to all of those people that are involved my assessment of the past few weeks. I hope this says to all that the victim is very determined, responsible, courageous and honest. She does not want to leave Iowa, is very committed to doing what she set out to do there. On the other hand, we cannot let the press or opposing side crucify her in the process, which very, very often happens. More often than not, actually, in sexual assault cases.

I appeal to those that can make a difference in this tragic situation to do what is true, what is right and what will reflect the moral courage and foundations of the University and those that represent it.

I very much appreciate your time and your genuine concern regarding the outcome of this.

Sincerely,

The victim and her family

My Take

For the most part "I don't have a dog in this fight."

I'm neither attacking nor defending any of the parties who are in any way involved with either the events of October, or the response of University officials thereafter.

I have no clue as to the identity of the alleged victim or any members of her family, but assume I have never met any of them. So far as I know I have never met any of the football players who have been charged.

There are many top officials at the University I have never met, and few if any I would say that I "know well."

And so far as I am aware I do not know any of the lawyers at the Stolar Partnership.

As someone who was born in the University Hospital (of parents who were UI graduates), attended its research/educational programs from age 2 through high school, and returned home from Washington to teach at the University over 25 years ago, where I still am, I obviously have affection for the institution and share pride in its accomplishments -- and grief over its failings.

I want to believe that the Regents are providing the University rational and independent oversight and governance. (See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on Governance," April 17, 2008.) I want to believe that our University administrators are "putting people before profits -- and public relations."

On the other hand, I think both of the stories here ((1) the events of October, and (2) University administrators' behavior thereafter) are of importance to Iowans in general and those who care about the University in particular. I believe that those who care to know are entitled to know what is going on at their public institutions -- and that it should be relatively easy for them to get access to that information. (I also think they are entitled to know more than they can now find out about the other large-as-government (and more powerful) institutions that impact their lives -- such as the oil, pharmaceutical and mortgage industries).

However, even if Iowans were not entitled to know, my own sense is that the University's best interests have been since last October, and are now, served by confronting the facts openly and candidly and doing something about them, if they prove to be true. Stonewalling and secrecy and defensiveness seldom prove to be in the long range interests of any institution.

Those are the reasons why I have provided here, in one place, such material as I can find that would be of relevance to any Iowan who shares my judgment that these stories are important -- a collection, with links, that is so far as I know the best single collection available on the Web.

As a lawyer, and hopefully a person of judicial/scientific mind as well as compassion, I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about anything or anybody until as many facts are available as possible, and I realize that an assertion, or allegation, is not a "fact."

Having said all of that, I find the November 19 letter at least disturbing. Yes, it's true, we haven't seen proof of who wrote it or how or when; how much of it is first hand knowledge, and how much second and third-hand -- or, indeed, whether any of it is even true. On the other hand, if it was in fact written and sent by the alleged victim's mother -- and there's certainly nothing of which I am aware to challenge the Press-Citizen's assertion in that regard -- and was written on or about November 19, it has the credibility of at least being near-contemporaneous with the events it describes. It has the added credibility of being factually (if facts they be) detailed to a degree that is beyond the ability of all but the very best Iowa Writers' Workshop creators of fiction -- as well as the lack of literary polish that might have been provided by a lawyer or other hired representative. And the author would know that assertions regarding individuals, meetings, and conversations would most certainly be open to easy challenge by those named and easily refuted by them if not true.

The UI administrators' responses have not been reassuring -- for starters because there have been few if any detailed responses. For months, for the most part administrators have refused to make any comment whatsoever. The recent statement from "the University" (and first statements from President Mason and Coach Ferentz) -- in addition to being diametrically opposite to the details and general assertions in the alleged mother's letter -- have been essentially devoid of facts of any sort, let alone refutations of the specific assertions in the November 19 letter. (They have taken tentative baby steps in the direction of more specifics during the last couple days [July 25].)

For my blog entries from last fall urging administrators to recognize not only their obligation to transparency and full disclosure, but why it was in the interests of their own selfish best strategy as well, see within this blog entry excerpts from, and links to, what I was then writing.

And see my "That's My Story and I'm Sticking To It" comment

And discussion of the inherent conflict for Regents when investigating and reporting on possible malfeasance by UI administrators.

The UI administrators' behavior, as described, is consistent with a common response of all large institutions and their CEOs when under siege -- silence, stonewalling, denial, cover-up, putting the wagons in a circle, endeavoring to do what is thought to be in the best interests of the institution and its top executives (though that seldom turns out to be the case, as ultimately happened here), while stiff-arming the public and media like some sort of pestilence. That is, until it all "hits the fan" and finds its way into the mainstream media -- at which point the CEO expresses total confidence in all underlings and institutional process, and then stunned surprise that any such thing could ever have occurred, following which reforms are promised, and an "advisory committee" or "task force" is appointed [this sentence was written before the Regents appointed their "advisory committee"] that meets regularly until the media finds another story to chase, at which point the thin, whitewash report is filed and shelved and things go back to "normal."

We are all familiar with examples from government at all levels, the military, police, corporations, trade unions, hospitals -- and yes, sadly, universities, NGOs and other non-profits. That it's human, and common, doesn't make it right, but it does make it considerably less worthy of comment as "exceptional."

So is it possible our UI administrators behaved as described in the November 19 letter? Sure, it's possible. But it's not factual until they either acknowledge that it is, or never do break their code of silence, or prepare a response to the letter that goes through the assertions one at a time, acknowledging some and demonstrating why others are untrue.

Remember, when we are talking about group behavior this






widely distributed poster from www.despair.com with the caption, "None of us is as dumb as all of us." We do things as members of institutions, or groups, that we would never do as individuals. Almost all of us do. I'll leave it to others to study, research, and report why this is and what might be done to improve such group behavior. But it does seem to be true.

So even university administrators deserve a presumption of innocence, independent fact finding (promised by former Iowa Attorney General and Chair of the "advisory committee" as of July 26), and a "fair trial" before judgment is meted out.

But they also require some effective, meaningful oversight and governance by the Board of Regents. We will find out later this afternoon [July 22] whether that is anymore likely to come this July than it did last June, when the Regents' report concluded: after a “comprehensive review of the facts … it is clear the University officials fully complied with internal procedural requirements.”

So what happened this afternoon?

The Regents are appointing an "advisory committee." And UI President Mason promised to look to "outside expertise to examine our overall handling of all sexual assault cases."

Progress? I'll leave that question to you. To quote Fox News, "We report. You decide."

# # #