External probe of University of Michigan child porn reporting delay underway
An external review of a six-month lapse in the reporting of child pornography found in an employee area of a University of Michigan hospital is underway.
University of Michigan Health System photo
The school has selected the international law firm Latham & Watkins to lead the external review, it announced Friday morning. U-M and the firm have agreed that the review will not exceed $395,000.
"(The cost) actually will depend on how much time it will take them to do the work and develop the report," said head of U-M public affairs Kelly Cunningham. "It just depends in how fast it goes."
The head attorney on the case, Chicago-based trial lawyer Zachary T. Fardon, has prior experience with internal investigations, government reviews, business litigation and white collar defense.
U-M has charged Latham & Watkins with investigating circumstances leading to the reporting lapse that allowed 37-year-old Stephen Jenson to work with children for an additional six months after a medical resident discovered a thumb drive with documents containing his name and child pornography.
"The review will consist of an independent investigation of the facts; advice to the university on its internal controls and procedures; and assisting the university with any corrective actions," the Friday announcement states.
Added Cunningham: "There's not a firm deadline for their completion but they are going to be working as fast as possible."
Although the resident reported the incident to her supervisor and hospital security in May 2011 and at least eight people knew of the discovery by early June, the U-M Department of Public Safety wasn't informed of the discovery until mid-November.
Jenson has since been charged federally with multiple counts of possessing child pornography.
After the reporting lapse came to light, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman ordered an internal review of the lapse. The review, released in February, found that the head lawyer involved in the case acted incorrectly and that there were no clear reporting lines between hospital security and university police, who are often confused as one in the same by patients and staff.
The U-M Board of Regents on Feb. 16 unanimously ordered an external review of the case.
“It’s a terrible situation. It's one that is unacceptable to the regents," Regent S. Martin Taylor said of the lapse in February. "We must do everything in our power to make sure it's not repeated."
The U.S. Department of Education is also conducting a review of the reporting lapse.
As a part of its internal review, U-M committed to hiring a firm to assess the unclear roles of hospital security and university police and the communication difficulties between the two entities.
On Friday U-M also announced that they've chosen Margolis Healy & Associates, a consulting firm specializing in higher education and hospital security, to conduct that assessment. The firm will also perform a study comparing U-M’s campus security operations to those of peer institutions.
Margolis Healy & Associates has proposed a $105,000 price tag for its assessment, which will begin next week, said Cunningham. That review is expected to take roughly six weeks.
Retired university auditor Fred White Jr. will serve as a liaison for U-M and the outside firms.
U-M last conducted an external review of similar magnitude in 1997, when the university sought an external review of bribery and improper conduct between booster Ed Martin and Wolverine basketball players. That scandal stretched on for six years and eventually led to severe NCAA sanctions and a federal indictment.
In that case, the university hired law firm Bond, Schoeneck and King to investigate the slew of accusations against the basketball program. It took the firm seven months to issue a 250-page report detailing the scandal, the circumstances leading to it and personnel that abetted the breach. Less than a week after the report was issued, U-M fired then-basketball coach Steve Fisher.
U-M said it is asking Latham & Watkins to suggest corrective measures as a part of its review; however the lead attorney on the case, Susan Kay Balkema, no longer works for the university.
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
Sparty
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 7 p.m.
If the FBI were involved it would be a matter of public record. Does a link exist to prove their investigation as some have claimed is underway, or is it part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" ? LoL.
citizenwhocares
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 12:04 p.m.
How has the FBI not been involved. If it's not a cover up, then at least there is plenty of oppurtunity for it. I heard somewhere that Michigan govt is ranked among the worst in corruption. U of M may not be govt but they are supplied govt dollars and of course have many friends in govt...
A2comments
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.
The Regents need to declare that the full report will be released and waive attorney/client privilege NOW, before investigation begins.
Joe Kidd
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 3:24 a.m.
Nearly $400k to get the answers to two questions: Who contacted the hospital attorney's office and why? That is the main problem here, and is very unusual that a case like this would go to the attorney's office. The only law office that should review a case like this is the prosecutor's office.
trespass
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.
We already know the answer to that question because it is in the internal investigation. The Pediatrics faculty member contacted the chair of the compliance committee who then contacted the chief compliance officer who then contacted the hospital attorney's office. Thus, they treated this as a compliance or liability issue rather than a crime.
Terri
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 12:50 a.m.
Who's responsible for the ill-advised headline?
LisaJ
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 10:37 p.m.
Under way is two words.
sultanofswing
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.
How many lawyers will be involved in this situation which by the way could have been resolved promptly and appropriately by someone with common sense, patient centered approach and NO law degree ? Remember to count the regents too ...my guess at least 25.
justcurious
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.
Perhaps Ms. Balkema should be sent the bill. Seems she bailed with a pretty nice package.
Basic Bob
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 3:02 a.m.
Goodness knows she didn't work at the U long enough to make this kind of decision on her own.
Stephen Haas
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 8:20 p.m.
As someone involved with a legal firm (that does specialty investigations) the previous posters are totally right. The client (U/M) will get a report labeled 'client/counsel' that is theirs and theirs alone and non-FOIA'able. You will never know the complete truth unless they chose to release it. As a former U/M employee I know they will release enough information to pacify the press while appearing to be reactive to the situation. The release of information and parties punished will be done to fit the narrative that U/M wants to portray. I don't like or dislike U/M. However, they behave no differently then any other fortune company would and that is sad
trespass
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.
The reason they act no differently than a fortune 500 company is that over the last 20 years the role of the faculty in governance has systematically been eroded. Empower the faculty to speak their minds freeley and have some authority within shared governance and a lot of these problems will improve.
julieswhimsies
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.
So the University of Michigan is above the law. That's the way the article makes makes this sound. This is astonishing to me. Where is actual law enforcement in all of this? Has the resident who allegedly possessed the brutal child pornography in police custody, or is he free to wander the streets? Was his medical License revoked? If I were a parent and found that my child had been seen by this doc during the six month time period in which he was allowed to see children with the U of M's blessing, I would long ago have hired the best possible lawyer to sue the U of M, and all individuals connected to this case. Parents: You can request your child's U of M Medical records, and find out whether this doc's name appears on your child's records. Whether or not this doc is found to be guilty or not, you can still pursue a civil suit. This situation was SO poorly handled by the U of M...I don't know what to say. They certainly ARE making an outstanding attempt to cover their tracks. Where should the buck stop?...At Mary Sue Coleman's office. Does anyone know if the alleged perp will stand trial. Has he even been questioned by law enforcement? Has the branch of law enforcement that is involved in this case been interviewed, A2.com? If not, why not? This story smells.
Thaddeus
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.
Do a search in www.aanarbor.com at the top of this page for Stephen Jenson and you will see that several articles have been done showing that charges have been brought forward. Here is one of the links: www.annarbor.com/.../federal-child-porn-charges-filed-against-former-u-m- resident-physician-stephen-jenson/
xmo
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
U of M is suppose to be one of the top ranked universities, go to: http://annarbor.com/news/ranking-world-wide-web-is-abuzz-over-the-university-of-michigan/?cmpid=mlive-@mlive-news-a2 yet they cannot hire competent people to write policy and manage departments and now they need an external source to investigate? Solution: Fired those involved and hire new people who will do the job! Result: Save $395,000 and have a better managed Hospital!
trespass
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.
That would be a very sound suggestion if President Coleman could be trusted to do the right thing but I am afraid that this culture of cover up comes from the very top. When the Regents called for an external investigation and said that any disciplinary action would be taken by the Board and not by President Coleman that was a pretty solid indicator that even the Board did not trust her to do the right thing. What is unfathomable is that the Board of Regents would not fire her if they don't trust her.
trespass
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.
I don't see any information in the story about whether people who have information can contact the investigating law firm and whether their identity will be protected. It will take some very brave people to take the risk of telling truth to the power of the University.
trespass
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.
The University refuses to confirm that there is an FBI investigation of the delay and just as others have said, they hired a law firm so that interviews and other evidence can be hidden by attorney client privilege. I have requested all DPS reports about the delay in reporting and they have said that they are exempt because releasing them would interfere with ongoing law enforcement proceedings. They have not admitted to any ongoing legal proceeding with regard to the delay so how can they have it both ways. They won't admit to a law enforcement investigation but they won't release the reports because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation. It is time to lift the veil of secrecy!
trespass
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 11:26 a.m.
@Joe- The FBI has jurisdiction to investigate whether or not the delay was the result of an attempt to obstruct justice. The hospital attorney, along with anyone who conspired with her, prevented a crime from being reported to the police in a timely manner by invoking attorney client privilege in an improper way.
Joe Kidd
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 3:30 a.m.
Why would the FBI be investigating the delay? Is there a federal law violation? I see no jurisdiction for the feds to get involved. "They have not admitted to any ongoing legal proceeding with regard to the delay so how can they have it both ways" Why would there be a legal proceeding? Is someone suing someone? Your "veil of secrecy" conspiracy theory makes no sense.
Dog Guy
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:03 p.m.
A law firm knows that delivering desired results generates clientele.
Michigander74
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
I'm confident that the investigation will find that UM did nothing wrong. That's how the investigations always go, whether they're internal or external. Based on my experience there, the bar is set so low that even they manage to just squeak by without legal consequences. But y'all go, hold your heads up high, oh Michigan Difference! Keep believing your own commericals!
Lakeaccess
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.
University of Michigan Nittany Lions OR Penn State Wolverines Disgusting
Pickforddick
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.
U of M is at it again...."U-M and the firm have agreed that the review will not exceed $395,000." spending hard earned tax payer money on something that should have been investigated and settled as soon as it happened. Mary Sue Coleman needs to be investigated for derelict of duty in my opinion.
observer
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
Sounds as if they are just going through the motions......Does any one really believe that the Mighty U of M will admit they made a mistake......
Joe Kidd
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
The incompetence here is laughable. First you do not hire a law firm to investigate an issue. It reeks of cover up. Second, the price tag is obscene. Third they will get no better results than a real investigator for a price tag of one tenth of that. Finally this should have been done weeks ago. It's been too long. People have had plenty of time to consider their responses and there is a possibility that memories will get fuzzy. And success may depend on whether or not people will talk freely without fear of retaliation, which has become a big issue at the UM. UM has gone to "external" investigations two times before and fell flat on its face both times. The assault charge against John Matlock by MSP, and the "investigation" of improper activities of the basketball team also conducted by a law firm that found nothing. That investigation was conducted prior to the one mentioned here, which really was a waste of money too, since all the information came out with the federal prosecution of Ed Martin.
trespass
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.
@Sparty- what child are you talking about? We know there were children in the 94 pictures and 2 videos that were found on Dr. Jensen''s computer. If you are talking about Dr. Jensen's patients you should note that the detective who testified at Dr. Jensen's arraignment said that the UM hospital was in the process of notifying Dr. Jensen's patient's families but in fact that never happened. UM never sought out any information about his patients. They just said that no one had come forward with any complaints.
Sparty
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.
NO matter what UM does, people will complain. No matter who they select, people will complain. No matter what they pay, what the result, people will complain. Conspiracy theory armchair experts abound. CSI-Ann Arbor should result. It would be funny, if the possibility of a child being put in danger wasn't real -- but we don't know that yet, do we? No proof of that is there? But still, a very real and scary possibility.
nickcarraweigh
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
Darryl Rogers, wherever he is, is vindicated once again
Ron Granger
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
And by hiring lawyers, they can claim attorney-client privacy protections to keep any portion secret. A more appropriate open process would have hired a former prosecutor or judge with no ties to the University (not a "Michigan man"), and no attorney-client privilege. But we all know this isn't about openness.
julieswhimsies
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 7:33 p.m.
Exactly.
Linda Peck
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.
Was it public pressure that led to this external audit?
trespass
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:22 p.m.
Well they announced the external investigation at the Regents meeting after 4 people signed up to make public comments and numerous FOIA requests had been submitted.