The University website, as of sometime this afternoon, contains a press release from Ward Mullins of the university public information office with the news that Eastern has been fined $357,500 by the US Dept of Education for violating the Clery Act. The press release does not specify which violations produced fines, or how much per violation; Eastern had already been found in violation of the law on multiple counts. What remained to be determined was the size of the fine. Each violation could carry a maximum fine of $27,500. The press release does not contain full details about this penultimate stage of the worst scandal in EMU history. The statement also says that EMU will request a hearing, as part of the process, and that any appeal must be filed by January 4. But why Eastern should appeal this is unclear, as is any possible basis for the appeal. When guilty, one should not draw out the process of justice by appealing technicalities. Better to send the check, today.
Donate!
Recent Comments
- ang on EMU Memes is pretty awesome
- Mark Higbee on “Duncan, Biden talk affordability”
- Kevin S. Devine on “Duncan, Biden talk affordability”
- Geoff Larcom on EMU Memes is pretty awesome
- sitedad on EMU Memes is pretty awesome
- cmadler on EMU Memes is pretty awesome
- cmadler on EMU Memes is pretty awesome
- Jamin on “Faculty Labor Divorce”
- Mark Higbee on Budget cut woes in Pennsylvania and Kentucky
- Mark Higbee on “Duncan, Biden talk affordability”
- Sherry on “Julea Ward, Christian Counseling Student Expelled For Gay And Lesbian Views, To Argue Discrimination Case In Court”
- Rimshot on “Julea Ward, Christian Counseling Student Expelled For Gay And Lesbian Views, To Argue Discrimination Case In Court”
- dypo on “Duncan, Biden talk affordability”
- salty dog on “Duncan, Biden talk affordability”
- Carl on “Faculty Labor Divorce”
- grady on “Faculty Labor Divorce”
- licorice on “Faculty Labor Divorce”
- sitedad on “Duncan, Biden talk affordability”
- sitedad on “Faculty Labor Divorce”
- licorice on “Faculty Labor Divorce”
EMU Bloggers
EMU Links
Higher Education News
In the Local Media
Ypsi-Arbor Bloggers
That is almost twice the amount that I expected it to be, the last articles stating that there were seven violations.
Seven times the maximim of $27,500 is only $192, 500, not $357,500. I bet that there were multiple violations within some of these seven violations that had been reported, and that those seven were just the discrete categories of violations.
I wonder where this money goes once EMU writes that check: like student fees does it dissapear into the “general funds” of the federal budget to be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes, or is it dedicated to scholarships and grants that the Department of Education so often provides to students?
There’s 2 years worth of Margaret Spellings’s paychecks (she makes around $180,000 base a year)
Here’s the letter from the DOE.
Abby,
There were certain violations which spanned 3 years. Each year counts as a different violation, so that’s why it’s more than 7*27,500.
In addition, according to the ann arbor news the fine will be paid from “investment proceeds”.
Thanks, Mike, for the link to the DOE letter.
One of the things that’s notably absent in the EMU press release on this fine is that it is the largest fine ever under the Clery
Act. See the Security on Campus, Inc.’s press statement, released this evening, which I’ve copied below. Some months ago,
university officials who i will not here name were saying that EMU’s fines would be minor and that Eastern’s violations were no worsre than the norm in higher education. That was falsifying then, and it is demonstrably false now.
Fines are one means of enforcing the law. EMU officials broke the law, badly, and to a worse degree than any other institution has ever been proven to have violated it.
Remember all the EMU officials who in March claimed that good law enforcement required that the public be lied to in order to maximize catching the criminal? Lied to about even the existence of an investigation? Remember hearing of EMU officials who told students in the residence halls that the death of Laura Dickinson was either a drug o.d. or a suicide or medical mystery? Remember the threats and rumor mongering directed against those who favored full disclosure of the truth? Remember the university counsel being reprimanded for his neglect of his duty? Such extremes in behavior are what set the context for today’s fines.
Security on Campus Inc. is the group that monitors compliance with the Clery Act, filed the official complaint against EMU for violating it, and in August 2007 ran a training session at EMU for EMU officials and staff (and two faculty — me and Prof. Abby C.) on what the Clery Act requires and how to comply with its requirements. “Outright lying” was never listed by the Security on Campus staff as a viable option for Clery Act compliance, but because EMU officials did lie, Eastern is now fined. EMU is only the 4th school to ever be fined under the Clery Act.
Here is today’s Security on Campus statement:
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FACES LARGEST EVER JEANNE CLERY ACT
> FINE OF $375,500
>
> Ypsilanti, Michigan-Eastern Michigan University (EMU) is facing
> $375,500 in fines for “very serious, numerous and repeated”
> violations of the federal Jeanne Clery Act campus crime reporting
> law. “This is the largest fine that the U.S. Department of
> Education (ED) has ever sought to impose for a Clery Act
> violation,” said S. Daniel Carter, Senior Vice President of
> Security On Campus, Inc. (SOC). “It sends a strong signal that
> Clery compliance is being taken very seriously. Covering up campus
> crimes will not be tolerated.”
>
> EMU’s violations came to light after they failed to warn their
> campus community that a student, Laura Dickinson, had been raped
> and murdered in her residence hall room last December instead
> issuing a statement that no-foul play was suspected in her death.
> When a suspect, a fellow student unknown to Dickinson, was arrested
> in February the school was widely criticized for failing to warn
> the campus in a timely manner as required by the Clery Act. SOC
> asked for an Education Department investigation which revealed
> numerous other violations, including the failure to have a timely
> warning policy in place which was a major factor in the failure to
> actually issue a warning when it was needed.
>
> The Education Department’s Administrative Actions and Appeals
> Division (AAAD) notified EMU this week of their intention to impose
> the fine and has given them until January 4, 2008 to appeal in
> writing or to request a hearing. EMU has previously accepted ED’s
> findings but has announced that they plan to request a hearing
> before an Administrative Law Judge.
>
> EMU is facing 13 individual $27,500 fines in total. The first is
> for failing to issue a warning about Laura Dickinson’s murder which
> Mary Gust, Director of the AAAD, called “reprehensible.” EMU is
> also facing fines for a lack of “administrative capability” in
> complying with Clery, failure to have a timely warning policy,
> failing to properly disclose crime statistics including forcible
> sex offenses for each of three years (2003-2005), failing to
> properly disclose all required security policies for each of three
> years (2003-2005), failing to properly report crime statistics from
> outside law enforcement agencies for each of three years (2003-
> 2005), and for failing to properly maintain a public crime log (the
> murder was logged as a “medical assist” instead of a crime).
>
> This fine will bring the estimated cost to EMU for their handling
> of this campus tragedy to $3.8 million “in severance packages,
> legal fees and penalties” according to the Detroit News. Last week
> EMU announced a $2.5 million settlement with Dickinson’s family.
> EMU was already obligated to pay one year of salary to three former
> campus officials, including the former President who was fired, and
> for an extensive review of their Clery compliance by a private law
> firm Butzel Long. Additionally the former President has filed suit
> over his termination.
>
> Three schools have previously been fined for Jeanne Clery Act
> violations, with the largest fine being $200,000 imposed against
> West Virginia’s Salem International University in 2005. Mt. St.
> Clare College, now Ashford University, in Iowa paid the first fine,
> $15,000, in 2000. Miami University of Ohio paid $27,500 in 2005.
>
> ***********************
The plans by Welch Hall officials, as noted by acting president Don Loppnow, to appeal this fine, are seriously misplaced.
Even if the appeal reduced the fines somewhat — which is unlikely — the appeal stupidly will draw out public attention to this
scandal. EMU should not appeal, should not draw the process out. EMU should pay the fine. EMU should cease relying on the officials who created this problem in the first place to solve it (and here I mean of course university counsel Ken McKanders).
Mark,
It’s my understanding that EMU is going to ask for a hearing to further clarify some of the points, but not to reduce the fines.. guess we’ll see.
The article in the AA News that is linked to above makes it clear that the appeal is entirely routine with this sort of thing, that EMU was expecting to pay this, that they had set aside funds, etc. So I don’t see this as being something that EMU is doing to drag things out; they’re just following the process.
There are all kinds of things that are sad and regrettable about all this, but I guess besides the obvious sadness and tragedy of Laura Dickinson’s death, it depresses me that this has cost EMU so much money, so much time, so much energy. And a lot of money relative to so many things. This is a $4 million or so debacle, and depending on what happens to Fallon’s nuisance lawsuit, that number is growing.
What I guess I’d like to know at this point in time is why Ken McKanders still works for the university? Practically everyone else directly responsible in this fiasco has been shown the door and yet he remains, with a simple reprimand. Seems to me he should have been let go. Why should the university trust his legal counsel now, given his track record in this case?
It is not the article that states that an appeal is “routine,” but Loppnow’s spin alone, spin that I am actually glad he is giving for this AP article was published around the nation and internationally as well. Loppnow is no expert on the Clery Act, however. He did the Clery Act training like everyone else, but as the party appealing the DOE decision, he cannot act as judge and jury of the virtues or regularity of the case.
The statement from Security on Campus, more expert in the Clery Act by far than Loppnow, suggests that an appeal would be unusual given that we have confessed to each of the violations already. But what is done is done, and we cannot go back and unappeal our silly appeal now.
Unfortunately, the Detroit News’ figure of 3.8 million “in severance packages, legal fees and penalties” does not include all of the costs. Most important are the non-material costs, of course, such as the lost trust, credibility, and reputation. But also a part of the overall costs must be the lost revenue from students enrolling at other universities, the cost of the three searches—president, vice president for student affairs, and police chief (no money could be better spent, though, if these hires help to restore integrity and dignity to our university), along with the costs of the attorneys who negotiated the settlement with the Dickinsons and may even be a part of the appeal now underway.
I heard from a little bird that the union-busting lawyer Jim Green (or rather the wannabe union-busting lawyer and all-around hired minion for evildoers) was involved in the Dickinson settlement. I hope that Green doesn’t protract the contention and pad his paycheck in the DOE appeal just like he did with the contract negotiations this summer.
If only the people responsible would show some remorse for the great harm that they have caused our university. Instead we have Fallon suing for childish reasons inflated to “whistle blowing” grandeur (as if that empty suit ever had the nerve to speak truth to power anyway!), and we have Vick, in retirement yet still enjoying university facilities like any other good ole boy on the fix, blaming everyone else but himself for the multiple crimes that unfolded under his watch in almost every division for which he was responsible.
Nor has the person who illegally recorded the DPS response to the crime scene as a “medical assist” offered any apology for that or any other of the lies–and that single lie cost the university $27,000 plus. Nor has anyone apologized for jeopardizing safety in not informing us that the dorms, apartments, and offices went essentially unlocked for two years without our knowing of the danger. All we have, in fact, is more stalling in getting those same spaces re-secured.
S. Daniel Carter of Security On Campus, Inc. contacted me on the regularity, or lack thereof, of an appeal, and my comments were slightly misleading so I offer his clarification below for all to see:
I thank you, Professor C. for relaying the information from Mr. Carter. His views are quite well informed.
It does seem clear that there is no necessity whatsoever to appealing the fine: An appeal is permitted, but not required by any stretch of the imagination. Appealing it is foolish, as it will merely drag out the story of EMU being found guilty by the federal government.
It also looks cheap – we’re busted for violating the law, and now we’re trying to minimize the fines to be paid.
The story of the fines is nationwide – reported in the Boston Globe and the San Francisco papers, and all over Ohio and Michigan. It is
stupid and anti-strategic to appeal this fine, as the appeal itself and its eventual resolution will potentially be another newsworthy moment for the media to report on how badly EMU handled the horrible act of violence against Laura Dickinson.
But then again, if EMU had professional and competent managers of our public relations/legal affairs operations, EMU would never have gotten into this nightmare of Clery Act violations and systematic outright lies about the death of a student. Families entrust their students to universities, and EMU violated that trust horribly. Put it to rest — cease the narrow legalistic opposition to paying the costs for that horrible violation of trust. EMU’s institutional interests would suggest that the appeal is of no advantage for the university, or to the cause of justice. It may however be to the financial interests of the lawyers handling the appeal for EMU.
What Carter’s response suggests to me is that there isn’t a lot of precedence regarding these things, which may be why EMU is trying to appeal and why they are seeking clarification– and again, that is essentially what Loppnow said.
I have a hard time imagining how this situation could get any worse for EMU, so frankly, they might as well get as clear of an explanation as they can before they write a check. My 2 cents, so to speak.
BTW, the top story in the AA News today claims this is the largest Clery Act fine ever. A rather dubious EMU honor….
There are some pretty interesting quotes at the end of the AA News article that Steve links to above, which I will get to in a second, but first I want to thank the reporter from the Detroit News, who answered my admittedly very naive question about where all this money will go, viz: “The fines collected will go to the U.S. Treasury.” Alas, no one can ever claim that EMU has not done its absolute best to support the troops in Iraq, vicariously yet quite literally, since the huge appropriations for that war were approved just the other day.
I also thank Mike G for the very helpful link to the full letter from the DOE, which is very revealing about quite a many things. It’s hard for me to believe that anyone could read that letter in full and still think that this university could successfully appeal the fines that it so evidently deserves.
Actually, now that I click on it, Steve’s link above seems to be to the older article, so emutalk readers may want to check out the following one instead:
Fortunately, both Sidlik and Loppnow have been consistently firm and forthright about the gravity of these Clery violations, but Wilbanks still seems to downplay the extent of the problem considerably. It’s great that EMU has lately made many so many honest efforts to improve security, but that doesn’t change the fact that the people responsible for ensuring our safety for the past three years have endangered us instead by withholding and outright concealing information essential to our security.
I think the idea of the appeal is for further clarification and that is wise on EMU’s part. They would be stupid to think that they could appeal the amount of the fines. I think their looking for some better clarification of some of the violations is their way of trying to make sure they have improved and will do better in the future. I have no problem with it.
Reading the letter from the DOE, I am still perplexed as to how the Assistant Director of DPS was at all the investigative meetings, led the investigation, and knew about every detail of the case, yet got out of the whole thing unscathed. He is still the assistant director. He was and still is the person that oversees how the Police classify, record, and report crimes and statistics. With all the violations that go back three years, he was the one that supervised how those crimes were classified and reported. He is the one that was responsible for the burglaries being classified as larcenies that has gotten some much attention this semester. Yet absolutely no discipline fell on his shoulders. I guess it is something the new Chief will have to deal with when he is hired.
I am with sitedad. Get the clarification that is needed through the appeal process. Try to keep it low key and continue the improvements.
I very much agree with what you say above, Wayne, and thank you for your comment. I hadn’t realized that person was responsible for misidentifying the burglaries as larcenies.
EMU is appealing to reduce the fines, not to have further clarification, according to Ward Mullens in this article from Crain’s:
“EMU fined $357,500 for events surrounding death of student”
“We’re not appealing so much as we’re seeking a hearing on the amount,” he said. “If there are points or aspects of the fines that can be reduced, we’d pay the reduced amount. If not, we’ll accept the fines as they are set now.”
Appeals are always optional, and appeals are always about the substance of the penalties. I have never heard, in any legal context, of appealing for mere “clarification.” EMU appears to be spending money on legal fees in order to file an appeal on the sum of the penalties assessed against EMU. This will probably fail on the merits, and most likely will result in more press attention to EMU’s record as the worst proven violator of the Clery Act. What does EMU gain from this?
As for the lack of consequences within DPS: That’s par for the course, Wayne, isn’t it? You seem baffled by this, but the EMU system is dysfunctional and accountability is lacking. The persons who wrote the “no foul play” statement have not been disciplined either, nor have the SA staffers who lied to students about the cause of death, nor have other persons who mislead the Dickinson family. Three officials lost their jobs – and were paid handsomely for that loss – but only after months and months of struggle beyond the point where their absolute failure to perform was evident for all who have eyes and cared to look at the facts.
Less has been fixed than Welch hall officials presently make out.
The AA NEWS story, banner headline on page one today, has the story about right: EMU has gotten the biggest fines ever for Clery Act violations, nearly twice as much as that for the next highest. And yes, there have only been three other schools fined for violating it. Not a category to be proud of.
May there be Peace on earth, and safety for us all.
The Chronicle article has some further info and will be available with a click for at least a little while.