EMU-AAUP president Howard Bunsis sent around an email about a variety of different union issues the other day, and one of the things it addressed were the ongoing concerns about security on campus (the other issues have to do with domestic partner health care benefits and paying for health insurance, which will start in the fall term).
Here’s the part about security:
In regards to safety, the Vice President of Business and Finance, Janice Stroh, sent an email to the campus community yesterday regarding safety on campus. There were several claims made in this email with respect to faculty that are disturbing, and the facts, as we know them, will be presented below.
If you go to: http://www.emuprofessors.org/security there is a general discussion of security issues, as created by Paul Leighton. Please check it out.
What we know is that in August of 2005, the master keys to several buildings around campus were lost. From that time until at least June 2006, very little, if anything, was done to re-key any campus dorms, offices, or buildings.
What is very troubling is that we, the faculty, were certainly not informed of the loss of the keys at that time. In the last year, actions were taken to secure the outside entrances to buildings, and in the last few months, most of the dorms have been re-keyed.
However, faculty offices have still not been re-keyed. When faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences asked Dean Hoft to have offices re-keyed, they were told that it was not going to happen, as it was an “unfunded mandate.� We are investigating what was communicated by EMU administrators over this time, and we are also investigating what funds were spent.
What is most disturbing is the following statement in VP Stroh’s email: “While a small number of them appear to be the result of someone using a key to enter an office, most of the larcenies have occurred because the person left a door unlocked or left their computer sitting unattended on campus.�
As you know, we have solicited from the faculty instances of equipment being stolen.
Here is what we have found:• Over the last two-plus years, there have been 27 instances where faculty have had items stolen from their offices
• Of these 27 incidents, 19 were of computers (mostly laptops, though a few were desktops, with cables cut).
• Of the 19 computers stolen, 15 were from LOCKED faculty offices. The faculty involved has been unequivocal on this issue. Therefore, 15 out of 19, or 79% of the computers stolen from faculty offices occurred while these offices were locked. This solid evidence is in total contrast to the conclusions made by VP Stroh.
• Also troubling is that 16 of the 27 incidents occurred in the 2006-07 academic year. Of these 16, 13 were computers stolen from faculty offices. Of these 13, 11 were from LOCKED faculty offices.Lastly, several faculty members who have had items stolen have let me know that they believe VP Stroh’s email had a “blame the victim� undertone. I agree with this conclusion, and I believe that the administration should try to be more supportive and work with faculty on this issue.
So what actions is the AAUP going to take? We are about to file a grievance on this issue, as we do not believe the administration has taken the appropriate steps to ensure a safe working environment. In addition, we are considering other legal options that the AAUP can take to make sure faculty feel safe.
Actually, I think the grievance is long over-due, though I do realize that the EMU-AAUP has had, er, “other things” on its plate over the last year or so.
“Why a grievance,” non-faculty-type readers here might ask? Two basic reasons, in my opinion. First, one of the basic things I think an employer ought to be able to provide to its workers is a safe workplace, and that would include the idea that you should feel reasonably sure that if you leave something in your locked office, it will be there when you return.
Second, the way faculty get complaints addressed at EMU, especially if the issues have been more or less ignored by the administration, is you file a grievance.
As an aside here: for a variety of reasons (including security), I moved most of my stuff to my home last winter. So, like many academic-types, my office at school isn’t really where I do most of my work– scholarship, teaching, etc. It’s where I meet with students and colleagues and store a variety of books and documents, and that’s about it. Still, I do have things in there that could be attractive for thieves– computers, for example. And of course, a lot of faculty do much of their scholarship and teaching in their offices.
Howard’s email made one serious mistake — it accepts, without qualification, the claim of VP Janice Stroh that the stolen ring of master keys were to “several” EMU buildings. In fact, they contained the master keys to ALL EMU buildings and all offices — according to the private statements of phys plant officials in charge of keys and such.
If these offices were in fact locked, has the administration done anything to investigate those who have access to those offices through keys, such as custodial staff, grad. students, secretaries, etc.? Rather than assume that this is due to keys stolen 2 years ago, why not first investigate those currently with access to the rooms.
I still have to wonder how many claims of offices actually being locked are actually true. In my elementary school buildings we are supposed to lock our rooms when we leave, but I will admit that there is the occasion where I am in a hurry, get to my car, I’m not sure if I locked my door, but I don’t have time to go back and check. I really don’t worry much about it because I know the custodian locks it when they are done cleaning.
All I’m saying is that nobody wants to admit that they did something stupid like leave an office or car unlocked if it happens to be broken into or stolen. When I had a car stolen a few years back I was asked if my car was locked…of course I said yes it was locked, insurance wouldn’t cover it if it wasn’t…am I 100% without any doubt sure that I locked it? Not really, but because I generally lock it I said yes it was locked.
Should the entire campus have immediately been re-keyed? Probably, but I have to ask, what departments should have their budget’s reduced in order to pay the cost of the re-keying which we have seen from earlier statements would have probably been in excess of a million dollars. Perhaps they should sell the president’s house to pay for it. I think the university should probably have asked that the company with the employee who was careless with the keys pay the entire ammount, I’d really like to hear why they settled for less than half the amount necessary to re-key the campus.
I really just think that a lot of energy is being expended on events that are long past and nothing can be done about them now. Hopefully steps will be taken to prevent further thefts. Please don’t be so quick to say without question, though, that all of those people are 100%, without a doubt, sure they locked their offices. Sometimes people forget.
Mom2one:
If faculty were absent minded and forgetful, they would be locked OUT of the office rather than having left it open. These offices are LOCKEd by default, which is why professors walk around all day with their keys jangling about.
First off, as Abby points out, it is important to note that (at least in Pray-Harrold) the default position for office doors is “locked.” So to leave the door unlocked takes a conscious effort to do so. In other words, the door on my office is not like the door on my house or the door on my car, which I do forget to lock sometimes.
Second, and I’ve said this before, my office door is NEVER EVER NEVER unlocked. Never. I’ve locked my keys in there before and I’ve had to go and borrow the secretary’s pass key to let myself back in, but I NEVER EVER NEVER leave my door purposefully unlocked.
Now, are there faculty who do leave their offices purposefully unlocked? Probably, but I’ll bet you there aren’t as many as there used to be.
Before accusing Stroh of lying, I would like to point out that she did not cite the statistics that were gathered. It seems plausible that she obtained the statistics of all thefts during the time period and of the all the thefts, only a small number were from locked faculty offices based on the overall thefts reported on campus. If the thefts in the dorms were part of those statistics, then her statement is most likely true. She may have been looking at the big picture, not just the world of the faculty. There are a lot more computers stolen form unlocked dorm rooms then faculty offices.
I am surprised that there were only 27 thefts (19 computers) in 2 years. I thought the number would have been much higher (especially if it was someone with a master key that walk into any building/office at anytime). In the dorms, there probably were hundreds of thefts during that time frame.
The way I read the email was not so much “blame the victim� as reporting the facts that there were several office “believed� to be locked and that “several people had keys to the office.� While I can see it either way, I took it as there were extenuating circumstances in some of the thefts. I also think it may have been her way of alerting people to double check their doors before leaving.
I also wonder why the focus is more on Pray Harrold and Mark Jefferson. It seems that as far as other academic buildings are concerned, the numbers are little to none. How many thefts were reported in the other buildings? Is it significantly less? If so, then maybe there needs to be a focus on who has access to keys to those particular buildings.
Regarding the default position of locked. If those locks are like the ones I remember on campus, all you have to do is push in the button or latch on the on the faceplate of the door and it and the default position is now unlocked. I am not arguing the locked/unlocked status of offices at the time of the thefts, but saying it would be relatively easy for someone to push that button, wait until the person leaves the office, open the door, take what they want, push the button back the other way and be gone in a minute or less. My point is to double check your door before you leave to make sure it is shut all the way and locked (twist the knob).
Mom2one, while I agree a lot of energy is being expended on this topic, the reason for that is because nothing has been done to correct the problem. I’m sure your frustration would be equally great if, for example, you asked for more textbooks for your students and administration repeatedly ignored the problem and told you to fend for yourself.
When things are out of your control and those who have that control refuse to deal with the problem, it’s a continual annoyance. In this case, though, it’s more than an annoyance; there is the potential for harm. Imagine the outcome should a faculty member walk into his or her office in mid-theft. A cornered criminal is a dangerous criminal.