Which Would be Worse?

September 25, 2008, 6:40 a.m., 9:50 a.m. (Regents' videotaped session), 11:25 a.m. (Athletic Department's lying basketball ads), 11:45 a.m (Mason's pay raise)

Related:
"Scapegoat Bites Back," September 24, 2008
"Got Questions?" September 23, 2008
"Rational Responses to Stolar and Global Finance" (includes "The Case for Mills and Jones"), September 20, 2008
"Extra: Stolar Report," September 18, 19, 2008
And, of course, the monster collection of material in Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present

Which Would be Worse?
[9:50 a.m.. Brief, early report on Regents' meeting consideration of Stolar Report, just concluded (as the Board went into closed session, as predicted, for the final session evaluating the performance of President Sally Mason with regard to those events): As predicted, Mason began with an apology, following which no criticism was leveled at Mason. The Board approved a resolution essentially adopting the proposals of the Stolar firm. Discussion of whether the crime of rape should always be reported to the police by UI officials (as distinguished from the alleged victim being required to press charges) was postponed. The athletic department was proclaimed to be exemplary. The Gazette's running blog/textual notes of meeting are posted. Here's the Register's early report of the session: Lee Rood, "U of I president to regents: We'll do better," Des Moines Register, September 25, 2008; and "Mason Apologizes to Alleged Victim, Family," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2008.

11:45 a.m. Mason's Pay Raise: The Regents, as predicted, held UI President Mason's base pay steady, while giving her more money, thereby assuring headlines like the Press-Citizen's: "Mason Gets No Raise in Base Pay," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2008. How does that work? Well, the base pay is a mere $450,000 a year. Given the high cost of living in Iowa City, where a football coach needs at least $2-4 million a year to survive, the University president requires both an additional "deferred compensation" package of $60,000 a year (more that a good many university employees get for their "entire compensation" package), plus an "incentive package." Although an incentive to what has never been defined by the Board, she was awarded the $50,000 for the first year automatically -- so we have to presume the way she handled the sexual assault was a part of what the Regents were trying to provide an incentive for her to do. Moreover, although the Board has still left undefined what it will be paid for, the incentive has nonetheless been increased from $50,000 to $80,000 a year -- on top of the $60,000, on top of the $450,000. Never mentioned, as is the usual practice with public disclosure of the pay packages of CEOs in the top 1% of the nation's wage earners, are such things as the value of the free housing in one of Iowa City's grandest homes, car and other travel allowances, additional expense accounts, retirement, health and other benefit packages, and so forth.]

So, what happened yesterday? Oh, not much, just . . .

o UI Vice President Phil Jones -- a 40-year employee who was planning on retiring next spring anyway, and was peremptorily fired Tuesday -- is appealing that decision to the Board of Regents as "wrongful termination," and released through his lawyers a statement of the reasons why, e.g., "It is indeed ironic that Phillip E. Jones is being terminated and criticized for failing to act when the university's athletic department was doing everything in its power to keep this matter 'informal' and prevent the dean from acting on a formal complaint based on an EOD investigation."

o The letters from President Mason to Jones, his lawyers' letter to the Board of Regents, along with a number of attachments, are now available online.

o "Sheldon Steinbach, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and former general counsel for the American Council on Education, said he had read the Stolar report and believes Jones and Mills were scapegoats, fired to protect Mason's job and to move on from the controversial story. . . . Steinbach said he believes the university has exposed itself to wrongful-termination lawsuits."

o UI General Counsel Marc Mills -- a 20-year employee who was also fired Tuesday, and who sent a 10-page letter of protest to the UI president and Regents -- has now hired his own lawyer.

o James Bryant, the Stolar lead investigator, has been thrown into defensive mode as he endeavors to respond to Marc Mills' criticisms of the firm's Stolar Report.

o The University, and the Board of Regents, are both refusing to release a copy of the Mills' letter to the media notwithstanding the media lawyers' assertion it is a "public record" under Iowa law that cannot legally be withheld and that "Mills said Wednesday that when he sent the memo he gave permission for it to be made public."

o Mark Schantz, a former UI General Counsel (1992-2005), says Mills was "thrown under the bus."

Schantz said he is upset about how Mills was treated and called the Stolar report "quite wrong" in some places and that some omissions with regards to Mills testimony were made consciously. Schantz particularly had issue with the rapid terminations. . . .

"This is not the way the university usually proceeds. I haven't heard of anyone being summarily dismissed short of a felony without at least telling their side of the story."

o Former law school dean Bill Hines is quoted as saying that for President Mason to peremptorily fire two long-term employees three business days after the Stolar Report appeared, for "an episode that began last year . . . seems like an almost indecent speed to find someone to blame things on."

o Meanwhile, before resolving any of the above, the Regents are going ahead with their special meeting today to review the University's response to the Stolar Report, and to conclude this portion of their review of President Sally Mason's first year on the job. (It should be available in streaming video from the Des Moines Register and The Gazette sites -- unless, of course, the Regents insist on closing the meeting to the media and taxpayers, as is a possibility.)

o A blockbuster buried in Brian Morelli's story is "I believe the decision was made by the regents, at least in the case of some, before they even saw the report," he [Mark Schantz] said." Of course, I cannot know (a) if Schantz said that (he's certainly never said it in my presence), or (b) if his assertion is true. How could I know? But neither do I have any reason for believing that it's not true. And it is confirmed in some ways by former UI interim President Gary Fethke, who supports President Mason's firing of Jones and Mills:

"I don't know there was any other alternative at this point," Fethke said. "I think she made the choice she had to make at this point. . . .

I think she had to go to the meeting with something, a credible and forceful response," he said. "Either she makes the decisions or they will be made by someone else."

"I believe the decision was made by the regents." "Either she makes the decisions or they will be made by someone else."

Source for quotes: Brian Morelli, "Jones appeals to Board of Regents; Says AD officials tried to keep assault allegations informal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2008, p. A1.

And see, Editorial, "More Questions to Answer, More Policies to Fix," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2008, p. A9 ("Suddenly, rather that having faith in the Stolar report's conclusions, we're experiencing a new round of he said/she said.");

Lee Rood and Erin Jordan, "New lawsuit, firings face Mason amid work review," Des Moines Register, September 25, 2008 ("Sheldon Steinbach, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and former general counsel for the American Council on Education, said he had read the Stolar report and believes Jones and Mills were scapegoats, fired to protect Mason's job and to move on from the controversial story. 'In the heat of passion, with the spotlights of the media and public on you, the easiest thing to do is fire somebody,' Steinbach said. 'It's a desire to smooth the water and get off the front page of the newspaper. That's all fine except for the people summarily executed.' Steinbach said he believes the university has exposed itself to wrongful-termination lawsuits.").

Commentary: Which Would be Worse?

Why do I say those quotes from Schantz and Fethke constitute a blockbuster?

One of the biggest, and so far largely unaddressed, issues in all of this is yet another "which would be worse?" dilemma.

Earlier, in Nicholas Johson, "Rational Responses to Stolar and Global Finance," September 20, 2008, I wrote "Would it be worse that neither the University president, nor anyone else in administrative positions, has thought to review its organizational structure and procedures for handling football players' sexual assaults over the past six years? Or would it be worse that a review was conducted during President Mason's first year in office but no one thought of any of the obvious remedies proposed by Stolar?"

Now we have another.


Was President Sally Mason, in effect, ordered by one or more members of the Board of Regents to fire Marc Mills and Phil Jones? If so, that would of course raise all kinds of governance questions about the propriety of the Board intervening in that way, questions I've written about so often and at such length that I'm not even going to provide the links to those discussions once again. [Credit: Bob Patton, "Regents Adjust UI Half-Staff Policy" (with "Administration Credibility" flag at half-staff), posted September 26, 2008, and Iowa City Press Citizen.]

But put those serious concerns aside for a moment and focus on President Mason.

Let me preface this discussion by noting that my former beloved University of Texas Law School Dean, Page Keeton, made quite a reputation for himself standing up to a very tough Board of Regents, threatening to resign over matters of principle when he thought they'd stepped over the line. He never had to resign.

Now let us consider which would be worse: (1) That President Mason, after one year on the job, personally and unilaterally chose to peremptorily fire two University vice presidents with more than 60 years service to the university between them -- over a matter that has far more to do with the University's organizational structure and procedures (and football culture) than the behavior of any given individual (as even the Stolar Report concedes) -- or that, (2) being inappropriately told to do so by the Regents, she simply "followed orders" and took actions she knew to be wrong and did not personally support, rather than standing up to the Regents and threatening to resign if they persisted?

As Senator Joe Biden said in Iowa City during the primary season, "There are some things worth losing elections over." Well, there are some things worth losing one's job over. This may very well be one.

Permit me to note that I have not joined the chorus of those suggesting that firings are the answer to this -- firing some regents, the UI president, the football coach. I haven't suggested anyone be fired.

But I would note that a common response of those who defend the firing of Mills and Jones in the face of the assertions of others that this is not the way we handle such things (e.g., Mark Schantz, above: "I haven't heard of anyone being summarily dismissed short of a felony") is to cite cases of firings at other universities.

For example, The Gazette concludes its story this morning,

The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported in recent years on such situations at other universities. The University of Colorado at Boulder eventually lost its athletics director, football coach and President Elizabeth Hoffman — now the provost at Iowa State University — after two women claimed they were gang raped by football players and recruits at a 2001 party.

And Eastern Michigan University lost three leaders, including the president, over the handling of a rape and murder of a student in 2006.

Diane Heldt and Erika Binegar, "Former Dean Says He Was Wrongfully Fired," The Gazette, September 25, 2008, p. A1, available as earlier online version, "UI Official Says He Was Wrongfully Fired," September 24, 2008, updated 11:46 p.m.

I would simply note that at least in each of these two cited cases the university president was also fired. (And see the comments of Sheldon Steinbach quoted in the Register's story by Rood and Jordan, above.)

Iowa Athletic Department's Lying Basketball Ads

. . . And there's more to this blog entry, because the Athletic Department has been ruled out of bounds once again in a major way with regard to a series of decisions totally unrelated to this mess. Having been found by Stolar and the Regents to have behaved in an exemplary fashion when handling football players charged with sexual assault, it's now time to move on to the next allegation.

The UI Athletic Department, has long since decided to give the NCAA a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and continue the football program's ties to organized gambling by advertising to students and fans a local gambling casino on its enormous scoreboard at the Kinnick football stadium. Meanwhile the casino's customers are offered a shuttle service to and from the stadium from the casino, and its high rollers' package deal also includes game seats in a luxury Kinnick skybox where alcohol is served in an otherwise-dry stadium. (The Athletic Department's see-through justification for the ad promoting gambling is that because they do not use the word "casino" the ad isn't really promoting gambling -- as if any Iowan seeing that ad would fail to recognize that it was an ad for the well-known Riverside gambling casino. The actual corporate name, and Web site, is the "Riverside Casino & Golf Resort." )

Now this academic department that represents it's engaged in "character building" has decided that, as an alternative to actually winning basketball games, an easier alternative is simply to lie in its advertising in order to sell tickets.

Iowa's first full-page ad showed Hawkeye forward Jarryd Cole dunking the ball, claiming Cole's dunk brought the Ohio State Buckeyes to their knees and brought a sellout crowd to its feet. The problem is that Cole did not play against OSU last year.

Iowa's second full-page ad featured a picture of Hawkeye guard Jeff Peterson, claiming his steal against Illinois sparked a 14-0 run. There's a problem with that one, too. Peterson played against Illinois but was not credited with a steal, and Iowa never had a 14-0 run.

Rick Klatt, the director of Iowa's marketing department and an associate athletic director, told The Gazette that neither ad was a mistake. He said the ads are fictional examples of how "slam dunk" and "steal" can be used in a sentence. . . .

Steven Helle, a journalism professor at Illinois and an Iowa grad himself, sent an e-mail to Iowa President Sally Mason to complain about the ads. . . .

"To defend a slam-dunk that never happened not only as not a mistake but merely as 'an example of how the word 'slam-dunk' could be used in a sentence' turned my stomach. He added disingenuousness to prevarication." . . .

Bourne Morris, a journalism professor at Nevada, had similar thoughts. He teaches advertising and media ethics and spent 25 years in advertising in New York and Los Angeles.

"Writing a false story in an ad injures the credibility of the Iowa sports program and may make folks wonder what other bits of 'information' they made up, or might make up, just to sell tickets," he wrote in his e-mail to The Gazette. . . .

Sam Becker . . . served as chairman of the department of communications studies, wrote six textbooks and is the Samuel L. Becker whose name appears on the Communications Studies Building at Iowa. "I think it's a mistake to mislead people," he told The Gazette, referring specifically to the ads. He does not agree with Klatt's explanation. "I think he's wrong. I think especially at a university they should be truthful," Becker said.

Jim Ecker, "College professors slam Iowa's basketball ad," Gazette Online, September 24, 2008, 9:53 p.m.; hardcopy version as "College Professors Slam Iowa's Basketball Ad," The Gazette, September 25, 2008, p. C3.

# # #

Rational Responses to Stolar and Global Finance

September 20, 2008, 9:00, 11:30 a.m.

FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"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).
"Extra: Stolar Report," September 18 and 19, 2008.
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Growing Iowa's Economy the Right Way," April 27, 2008.
"Alcohol Update," September 6, 2008.
"Violence at City and West High," December 15, 2007.
"Governor Sarah Palin," September 4, 2008.
"Greenbelts for Grandchildren," February 15 and 20, 2008.
"More Awards, Understanding and Survival Skills," September 16, 2008.

And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries

Stolar Follow-Up and the Case for Mills and Jones
As always, the best single source for current and background materials, documents, and links to newspaper coverage and more is to be found at "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) -- to no one's surprise the most popular site here yesterday. Some eight new newspaper articles and editorials have been added there this morning. (And see that source for summaries of, and links to, the editorials and stories referred to below.)

"'The Case for Mills and Jones'?!" you exclaim.

Well, yes and no.

No, I'm not defending the behavior of either as presented, and criticized, in the Stolar Report. But I did get your attention, didn't I? And I don't think peremptory firings are appropriate -- for the reasons set forth below.

Normally I find myself in agreement with much that appears on the Register's editorial page from its editorial board and columnists. But this morning they went to bat twice and struck out both times in my opinion when they suggest that Mills and Jones should be fired and that it is the Regents who should be drafting new procedures.

A desire for self-preservation is only human. But it often interferes with our ability to understand systemic institutional failures when the most popular response is to scapegoat someone -- other than oneself, of course.

o FEMA's Michael Brown was not the sole reason for the institutional disaster that followed the Katrina disaster.

o Ralph Nader was not the sole (or even primary) reason for the failure of the Democratic Party's presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004.

o And Marc Mills and Phil Jones were not the sole reason for the University of Iowa's disorganized and chaotic response to the alleged sexual assault of last October 14.


The Gazette's morning editorial acknowledged "[the] university’s mistakes, miscommunication and inconsistent actions [and the] lack of understanding and leadership [that] made a terrible situation worse [as] too many university leaders did too little to make sure the [situation] was handled humanely and efficiently." Editorial, "Inquiry Must Lead to Swift Changes," The Gazette, September 20, 2008, p. A4.

And, as he so often does, the Press-Citizen's classy editorial cartoonist, Bob Patton, captures it with a stroke of his pen this morning under his heading of, "The Heat is On." [Credit: Bob Patton and the Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 20, 2008, p. A21.]

The drawing shows the "Stolar Partnership" "Investigation into U.I. Handling of Sex Assault Case" as a magnifying glass focusing the heat -- like a small boy using a magnifying glass to cremate ants on a summer's day -- on Mills and Jones, while UI President "Mason" and "Rest of UI Administration" stand on the shady sidelines.

So, what's wrong with focusing on Mills and Jones?

"Let me count the ways."

1. It's unfair. As The Gazette acknowledges, and Patton portrays, there's plenty of blame to go around to all of those "too many university leaders."

2. Orderly and balanced personnel review. The Regents set the example: President Mason's performance review was bifurcated, as the Regents first considered (on September 17) her accomplishments and failings separate and apart from her handling of this sexual assault case, and will subsequently consider the latter.

Every employee's performance can be reviewed periodically. And when Mills and Jones next come up for review they should be entitled to no less consideration than President Mason: how they performed with regard to this case (however seriously deficient it may, ultimately, be found to be) should be considered within the context of their overall performance.

Peremptory dismissals -- the petulant, retaliatory, scapegoating firing of employees -- are as counterproductive as they are inappropriate and unfair.

3. The back story. Neither Marc Mills nor Phil Jones have had an opportunity to fully and candidly tell their side of the story.

Is it possible that Mills was not on a "frolic and detour" of his own, but was in fact doing either what President Mason directly told him to do, or what he assumed, based on prior experience, she would want him to do? Is it possible that Jones had a prior experience with the football culture that permeates the University, and experienced what happens to those who dare to challenge it, and knew it would be counterproductive as well as personally risky to challenge the Athletic Department's "informal procedure" in this case?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that either -- or other possible scenarios -- are true. How could I know? All I'm suggesting is that there may be some explanations for their behavior other than the knee-jerk conclusion that "both are ignorant, incompetent, unfeeling SOBs who must be blamed for all that happened and peremptorily fired."

And note that both are "damned if they do, and damned if they don't" reveal their back story.

Based on the refusal of virtually all administrators to speak to the media about this case and the UI's procedure for handling it since last October, one possibility is that they've been instructed by President Mason not to. If that's the case, for them to tell their side of the story either to the Stolar investigators or the media -- especially if their story involves putting more of the responsibility on her -- would not bode well for their continued employment by the University. And even if they were to wait to speak out until after being fired, that would scarcely endear them to any potential future employer.

4. "Take me to your leader." For The Gazette to talk about the University's "lack of leadership" suggests that the University has a leader. Indeed it does. It is the President of the University of Iowa. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"?

Patton is right. President Mason has been given "a base on balls" by Stolar, the media, many of the public, and the Regents (so far).

I'm not suggesting "this is all her fault" -- any more than it is all anyone's fault -- or that she should be severely punished in some way.

What I am suggesting is that both (a) in terms of what happened and why, and especially (b) what now to do about it, the Regents and their universities would have much to gain by understanding what was, and was not, done by the UI President's office to review, redesign and refine the University's procedures for handling sexual assaults by football players both prior to October 14 and since that day.

Especially is this so given what must have been known by all regarding the University's handling of the Pierre Pierce case. As the Press-Citizen editorialized this morning, "more than six years after the first sexual assault allegations against former Hawkeye basketball star Pierre Pierce, the University of Iowa still hasn't figured our how to handle such situations correctly."

Following October 14, what "management information reporting systems" did she have in place to track the Unviersity's handling of the case? What procedures does she have in place for monitoring not only crises, but the operation of the University generally?

After all, most of the Stolar Report's recommendations are kind of no-brainers: crimes should be reported to the police; alleged victims should have assigned advocates throughout the process; there ought to be a single office/clearing house; it should not be the University's general counsel; the function should not be merged in EOD with its responsiblity for sexual harrassment generally.

That's not to say we're not in the firm's debt for pointing them out. It's only to say that, once they do so, one's response tends to be, "Why, yes, of course. And why weren't we already doing that?"

It's one of those "which would be worse" choices. Would it be worse that neither the University president, nor anyone else in admnistrative positions, has thought to review its organizational structure and procedures for handling football players' sexual assaults over the past six years? Or would it be worse that a review was conducted during President Mason's first year in office but no one thought of any of the obvious remedies proposed by Stolar?

5. Diversion of focus. So a final reason why it's a mistake to focus on Mills and Jones is that it diverts the attention of the public, media journalists and editorial writers, Regents, and Regents' universities' administrators from the systemic, managerial and administrative problems that must be addressed if any meaningful progress is to be made.

Governance and Drafting the New Procedures

At the top I mentioned two Register editorials this morning with which I disagree. The second proposes that it is the Regents that should draft a new set of procedures for how the Regents' universities' handle athletes' sexual assaults.

I have written often and at length 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). And I'm not going to repeat all of that here.

The point, in this limited context, is that under a governance policy in which a board limits itself to setting what John Carver calls "ends policies" (and the rest of us might call "measurable goals") (and leaves it to the CEO to select the means for reaching those ends/goals), creating the specific structures, procedures, hiring practices and training programs -- or whatever else a CEO might choose -- for dealing with sexual assaults is the choice of the CEO, not the Board. The Board focuses on the results produced by the CEO in reaching the Board's ends/goals -- which constitute both the CEO's "job description" and the basis for his/her performance evaluation.

That's not to say, in this instance, that it would be inappropriate for the Board to express its dissatisfaction with what happened at Iowa this past year, only that the expression of that dissatisfaction should take the form of "ends policies" rather than specific procedures.

Moreover, rather than come up with a one-size-fits-all set of organizational structures and procedures, the Regents might at least want to consider starting with both present structures/procedures, and proposals, from each of the three universities. At a minimum, that kind of approach might come up with some creative ideas that would otherwise not be considered; and it might just be that there are very good reasons for having variations between the schools.

[More to come: the $1 trillion bailout.]

# # #

Extra: Stolar Report

September 19, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
September 18, 2008, 3:15 p.m.

Stolar Report
For the most part, this morning's [Sept. 19] newspaper coverage of the Regent's meeting and the Stolar Partnership Report are not significantly different from the online coverage yesterday -- reports about "The Report." That full document is probably the best source for anyone really interested in the details. The Stolar Report [a pdf file uploaded by the Press-Citizen]. (The most complete Web site for all material related to these matters -- reports, basic documents, news coverage, commentary, and links to more -- remains "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.)

Indeed, the Report is so relatively well done, candid and thorough (while attempting to avoid accusatory and mean-spirited language, e.g., "no cover-up"), that there is very little to add to it by way of anyone's commentary, including mine. (Of course, not everyone bought the "no cover-up" conclusion: "'The general counsel [Marc Mills] failed to turn over documents for no justifiable reason,' [Regent Michael] Gartner said, seeking clarification from Stolar. "What is a cover-up if there was a regents investigation by Tom Evans and there were relevant documents not turned over for no justifiable reason?' [Stolar lead investigator James] Bryant replied, 'I don't call it a cover-up, but it was certainly inappropriate.'" Source: Morelli and Hermiston story, below.)

So I'll keep it short.

There's one, last line in the paper this morning that I do not recall seeing in the Report itself: "'What this case reminds me of is a perfect storm. Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong,' [Stolar Report lead attorney James] Bryant said." Brian Morelli and Lee Hermiston, "Report: UI mishandled assault case; Firm rejects idea of a cover-up," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 19, 2008, p. A1.

On the one hand it's a cute and clever line. But if you think about it, it captures a useful analytical approach to understanding UI officials' behavior over the past year.

Like the governments' (plural) response to Katrina, there are often two categories of problems when things go very, very wrong with an institution's response to crisis: (1) the behavior of individuals within the system, and (2) the system itself.

1. Individuals' behavior. In the movie "War Games" a government official, frustrated over the possibility that someone responsible for launching a missile might freeze up and refuse to do it, proposes to "get the human out of the loop."

As long as there are humans in the loop one can make every effort to minimize ineffective and unbecoming human behavior, but never successfully eliminate all of it.

Whether picking a president of the United States or others in positions of responsibility in business, universities and other institutions, one can look for qualities: common sense, good judgment and wisdom as well as intelligence, knowledge and information; an ability to learn quickly ("a quick study") enough about new responsibilities and bodies of information to enable one to know what they know, what they don't know, how to frame the questions of experts to find out, and the ability of a "judicial mind" to hold judgment in suspension until all the facts are in; a demonstrated capacity for empathy, respect, compassion and sensitivity for "the least of these" as well as the most powerful; action based on an awareness of the difference between data and diatribe, information and ideology; a basic honesty and sense of ethics, willingness to confess error and change one's mind; an advocate for institutional honesty, democracy, transparency, and candor -- and so forth. You get the idea.

The other thing an institution can do, having hired such people, is to provide them whatever additional training may be useful.

2. "The system" and procedures. One of the major tasks for which administrators get the big bucks is proactively anticipating a variety of possible crises (as well as more mundane day-to-day challenges and operations), designing systems that will enable the institution to deal with them most efficiently, effectively and fairly, and then running drills to make sure they work, and tweaking the procedures so that they will work better.

Upon discovering years ago that a major corporation found it could save 30% on its winter heating bill for an industrial plant by having the employees close a large sliding door, I was prompted to observe that any bright 10 or 12-year-old could probably walk through any manufacturing operation that had not been overseen by a good industrial engineer for the last 5 or 10 years and do equally well in coming up with savings; the opportunities are so obvious.

Lest you assume I'm disparaging the quality of the employees, quite the opposite is my intention. Workers often have much more creative insights when it comes to efficiency than managers. But they also haven't been asked, have full time jobs that require all their attention -- and such suggestions for improvements as they may have offered in the past are as likely to have been rebuffed or ignored as implemented.

Every University administrator has, of course, responsibility for their own behavior -- regardless of the system within which they must function. But it is not the responsibility of the football coach, or the director of EOD, the University's general counsel, or the Vice President for this or that, to address, let alone redesign, the procedures for handling sexual assaults by athletes -- or others. They have full time jobs operating under the system (or rather the lack of a system) that is currently in place. Even if they had the time, they might well have been criticized for undertaking such a redesign, and been charged with having meddled in something that "is none of their business."

Nor is this -- under a proper and effective system of "governance" -- the responsibility of the Board of Regents. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to the Regents on 'Governance,'" April 17, 2007.

Indeed, on August 7 of this year I wrote:

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).

From Nicholas Johnson, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008.

Systems design and procedures are, in the first and last analysis, the responsibility of an institution's CEO. And whether one's primary concern is for the institution's (and one's own) public relations, or a genuine compassion for victims, a university's systems and procedures that deal with sexual assaults by athletes would seem to be one of the first and most predictable of the potential crises that could be dealt with proactively by any major American university with multi-million-dollar semi-pro athletic teams.

So there it is as my guide as to what to look for while reading through the Stolar Report -- because it deals with both: Ask yourself, Is this part of the Report dealing with the (a) behavior of given individuals operating within the current non-system, or is it (b) describing that non-system, or making recommendations as to how an appropriate system might be designed? They are, as I've noted, questions that might equally well be asked with regard to Katrina -- or our current global financial crisis.

Also this morning: Erin Jordan, "U of I probe: Errors, no cover-up," Des Moines Register, September 19, 2008.

And, from yesterday [Sept. 18], here is the Press-Citizen's story from the Stolar firm's presentation of its Report to the Board of Regents meeting this afternoon (Sept. 18) in Coralville: "Report: UI Mishandled Probe, But No Cover-Up," Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, September 18, 2008. And see, John Naughton, "Investigators: Flaws in in how U of I handled case," Des Moines Register Online, September 18, 2008, 2:01 p.m.

Here is a link to the full text of the Report [a pdf file uploaded by the Press-Citizen].

_______________
FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 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).
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Trials, Business and 'Student Athletes,'" September 11, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"More Awards, Understanding and Survival Skills," September 16, 2008.
"Growing Iowa's Economy the Right Way," April 27, 2008.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"Governor Sarah Palin," September 4, 2008.

And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries

# # #