Welcome to the campus security section of our webpage. This front page will reflect our most current information on campus security issues affecting educational institutions.
The 2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and Considerations for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Eric A. Fischer et al March 1, 2013
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2004 (VAWA) (SB 47) Codified at 42 USC 14045b. Signed by President on March 7, 2013.
Section 303 of the VAWA provides grant money of $12,000,000 (not more than $300,000 per IHE or $1M for consortia, on a competitive basis for a period of three years) for each of fiscal years 2014-2018 for use by institutions or consortia consisting of campus personnel, student organizations, campus administrators, security personnel, and regional crisis centers affiliated with the institution to develop and strengthen prevention education and awareness programs as well as security and investigation strategies to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual violence and stalking, and strengthen victim services in cases involving such crimes against women on campuses, which may include partnerships with local criminal justice authorities and community-based victim services agencies.
Section 304 of the VAWA makes changes to the Clery Act. It is effective one year after the date of the enactment of the bill. The legislation contains new definitions for dating violence, domestic violence and stalking for purposes of the law. Hate Crimes are redefined for reporting purposes
• Reportable hate crimes now include domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.
• Categories of prejudice under hate crimes now include national origin and gender identity.
Annual Security Report
Must include a statement of institution’s programs to prevent domestic violence, dating violence and stalking (along with sexual assault) and
Procedures institution will follow once an institution will follow once an incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking has been reported, including a statement of the standard of evidence that will be used by any institutional conduct proceeding. (nb: DCL of April 4, 2011 suggested preponderance of evidence)
Policy statement must address:
Education programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, which shall include—
I) primary prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students and new employees, which shall include—(aa) a statement that the institution of higher education prohibits the offenses of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; (bb) the definition of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the applicable jurisdiction; (cc) the definition of consent, in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction; (dd) safe and positive options for bystander intervention that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against a person other than such individual; (ee) information on risk reduction to recognize warning signs of abusive behavior and how to avoid potential attacks; and (ff) the information described in clauses (ii) through (vii); and
(II) ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and faculty.
(ii) Possible sanctions or protective measures that such institution may impose following a final determination of an institutional disciplinary procedure regarding rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(iii) Procedures victims should follow if a sex offense, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred, including information in writing about—
(I) the importance of preserving evidence as may be necessary to the proof of criminal domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or in obtaining a protection order;
(II) to whom the alleged offense should be reported;
(III) options regarding law enforcement and campus authorities, including notification of the victim’s option to (aa) notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police; (bb) be assisted by campus authorities in notifying law enforcement authorities if the victim so chooses; and (cc) decline to notify such authorities; and
(IV) where applicable, the rights of victims and the institution’s responsibilities regarding orders of protection, no contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful orders issued by a criminal, civil, or tribal court.
(iv) Procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, which shall include a clear statement that—
(I) such proceedings shall—(aa) provide a prompt, fair, and impartial investigation and resolution; and (bb) be conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability;
(II) the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during an institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by an advisor of their choice; and
(III) both the accuser and the accused shall be simultaneously informed, in writing, of-(aa) of the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding that arises from an allegation of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
(bb) The institution’s procedures for the accused and the victim to appeal the results of the institutional disciplinary proceeding; (cc) of any change to the results that occurs prior to the time that such results become final; and (dd) when such results become final.
(v) Information about how the institution will protect the confidentiality of victims, including how publicly-available recordkeeping will be accomplished without the inclusion of identifying information about the victim, to the extent permissible by law. (vi) Written notification of students and employees about existing counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, legal assistance, and other services available for victims, both on- campus and in the community.
(vii) Written notification of victims about options for, and available assistance in, changing academic, living, transportation, and working situations, if so requested by the victim and if such accommodations are reasonably available, regardless of whether the victim chooses to report the crime to campus police or local law enforcement.
Notification of student or employee rights/options must be given to anyone who reports being a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, whether the offense occurred on or off campus.
Timely warnings must withhold name of victim. The Government is to provide guidance/ best practices on how to implement this new law.
August 30, 2012 Decision by Secretary of Education by Arne Duncan reversing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and finding that Virginia Tech University failed to issue a timely warning to its campus community on the morning of April 16, 2007, when a gunman shot and killed 32 individuals on campus. The decision reinstates the $27,500 fine and remands for a finding on what the fine should be having inconsistent policies on timely warnings.
267 page report of the Special Investigative Counsel retained by Penn State University to perform an independent investigation and provide recommendations concerning the alleged failure by University personnel to respond to and report the sexual abuse of children by a former university football coach and the circumstances under which such abuse could occur in University facilities.See also the remarks accompanying rhe report by Louis Freeeh.
Summary by GC Larry Morris
The Freeh report has lessons for all schools, even NCAA Division III schools. The overall thrust of the Report is less one of process than of culture. There are some instances in which the Report recommends changes in reporting requirements and lines of authority, but the greater point is that University leaders considered the prospects of scandal to be so damaging that they compromised the lines of authority and procedures in place – and that their judgment was compromised because of reputational impact, “consequence management” and squeamishness. Had they properly used the procedures that were in place, the scandal would not have been as extensive or consequential. The greatest outrage was that the victims could have been helped sooner, and that the inaction created opportunities to create future victims. It set in motion (and determined inaction) the process that delayed addressing the conduct for 13 years.
Informal Authority Certain individuals held more real authority than their position descriptions reflected. In such cases, their effective authority and perceived stature intimidated others to yield to them based on their real or perceived ability to affect decisions and policies; tacit complicity. All schools should ask whether they have similar vulnerabilities, based on positions or personalities, structures, informal communication channels, or leadership decisions that might foster such an environment.
Board of Trustees. Issues concerned not just the timeliness of the notice but the quality of the notice (how much information) and the follow-up both by the notifying parties at the University and by the Board itself. The Report found that information was cursory and palliative. The Report in several instances faults a willful lack of curiosity that kept all parties from asking the right questions and demanding comprehensive answers. The initial brief to the Board was vague and conclusory and the Board’s questions before future meetings were of the tell-us-it’s-all-OK variety. As late as spring 2011 the President briefed the BOT that “we are only on the periphery of this,” and the Board asked no questions at its fall 2011 meeting, where the leadership, offered no update. BOT members “did not independently assess the information or demand detailed reporting from [leaders],” yet they also complained later “that their meetings felt ‘scripted’ or that they were “rubber stamping’ major decisions already made by” the President and a subset of their 21-person board.
Other general recommendations. Many concerned concentration or diffusion of authority (too much in certain persons or not clear who had final and definitive authority):
• Upgrade HR to VP that reports directly to President, on the grounds that the Finance VP had too much authority (and was central to the collusion/cover-up).
• Determine whether span of control and authority for Finance VP is realistic and serves the President and institution.
• Endorsed the very recent decision to have a full-time GC, but found that even that GC was unhelpful in reporting to the Board as recently as May 2011 that the Grand Jury inquiry “did not involve” PSU. The prior outside counsel had an obvious and ongoing conflict of interest in representing both PSU and Sandusky’s foundation. The Report recommended regular and specific reports by the President or GC to the BOT. President told the outside GC in 2011 that he had not told the new in-house GC about their conversations concerning this issue 10 years earlier. Also recommends a mission statement for GC that clearly defines responsibilities and reporting obligations to University and BOT.
• President, GC, other senior staff should brief BOT “at each meeting on significant issues,” including “government inquiries, important litigation and whistleblower complaints.”
• Ensure BOT briefed on extraordinary exit packages (Sandusky engineered an extremely soft landing more than 2 years after initial abuse reports).
• Make it easier to contact BOT, e.g., their emails on website.
• Ensure entire University leadership (including athletic dept) understands Clery reporting requirements.
• Background checks for “any individual who is engaged by the University in any work capacity including employees, volunteers, adjunct faculty, students, consultants, contractors or other similar positions.” (Will mean more than 23,000 annual checks for PSU). 5-year updates.
• Ethics officer and council to monitor compliance and instill or reinforce a culture of ethical decision making and operations.
• Evaluate size, composition, and procedures of President’s Council.
• Regularly update, prioritize list of institutional risks, determine implementation and audit schedule and present results to BOT.
