University of Michigan to seek external review of policies but not 6-month lapse in reporting child porn
The University of Michigan has begun searching for an outside party who will review internal problems that contributed to a six-month reporting lapse of child pornography found on a University Hospital physician computer last year.
Stephen Jenson
That person, Fitzgerald said, would not be tasked with reviewing the six-month reporting lapse in further detail.
The university on Friday released an internal review of missteps and miscommunications that led to a delay in reporting the discovery of child porn in an employee area of University Hospital.
That review found that at least eight individuals knew about the porn but did not report it to the U-M Department of Public Safety when it was first discovered in May. Instead, the case went unreported until November, when a physician brought it to the attention of the hospital's risk management office.
Since then, U-M pediatrician Stephen Jenson has been charged with four counts of possessing child pornography.
Fitzgerald said that due to the completed internal review and concurrent reviews underway by the U.S. Department of Education and hospital accrediting agency the Joint Commission, the university has no plans to seek an external review of the incident.
The review, instead, will focus on how to improve communication among university departments and security forces.
"It’s a direct outgrowth of the last section of the (university audit) report that says the culture needs to change here," Fitzgerald said. "At this point that’s all that’s anticipated."
Comprehensive AnnArbor.com coverage
- U-M President Mary Sue Coleman calls 6-month delay in reporting child porn 'serious failure'
- Security or police? Unclear role at University of Michigan hospital contributed to child porn reporting delay
- U-M faculty members say child porn discovery 'fell through the cracks,' stop short of calling for external review
- U.S. Department of Education 'looking into' six-month lapse in reporting child porn at University of Michigan
- Hospital accreditation agency investigating complaint about U-M Health System's 6-month delay in reporting child porn
- University of Michigan faculty to discuss lapse in reporting child porn
- Timeline in University of Michigan child porn case
- University of Michigan regent calls six-month lapse in reporting child porn 'extraordinarily disappointing'
- Counsel who reviewed initial report of resident possessing child porn no longer employed by U-M
- University of Michigan officials weren't required by law to report child porn to state
- Internal review into U-M Hospital's handling of child porn case to be done in weeks
- U-M Health System CEO calls delay in reporting child porn 'painful moment in our history'
- University of Michigan officials didn't report child porn to police for 6 months
Fitzgerald said he did not know if the U-M Board of Regents would discuss the reporting lapse and university audit at an upcoming Feb. 16 meeting.
The university-generated report places primary blame for the reporting lapse on the lead investigating attorney who originally handled the case in May. That attorney left the university for unrelated reasons in June.
"Findings indicate that an attorney in the Health System Legal Office acted improperly when the incident was reported to her," a university statement released in conjunction with the report states. "But, as outlined in the Management Response, there were missed opportunities to appropriately report by others in the institution who were aware of the allegations in May."
On Friday the university declined to release the attorney's name or the names of any employees who knew about the porn but did not report it.
In an interview Friday, Ann Arbor Safe House Executive Director Barbara Niess-May praised the school for further reviewing its policies.
"It's our perspective that a broader review of policies and procedures can only benefit anyone who is affected by these issues," she said.
Niess-May called the six-month lapse "disheartening," adding: "It's tough when you have so many people in one place doing so many different things."
The Faculty Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs will discuss whether to urge the university to conduct a comprehensive external review of the six-month lapse at a meeting on Monday.
Earlier this week, SACUA stopped short of calling for an external review of the incident. Biology professor John Lehman criticized the university's "apparent discomfort with evaluations and investigations."
U-M mathematics professor Dan Burns, interim president of the American Association of University Professors' U-M Chapter, called for disciplinary action in an interview Friday. The report states university officials who knew about the suspected child porn and did not report it to police or act appropriately will have demerits placed in their personnel files.
"The thing seems to be honest," Burns said of the report. "Although it was a little suspicious that the primary blame was put up on someone who left long before the (situation) came to light."
University regents Andrew C. Richner, Denise Ilitch, Laurence B. Deitch and Katherine White did not respond to requests for comment.
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
annarbor28
Sun, Feb 12, 2012 : 2:31 a.m.
As a UM alum, I find this incredibly shameful that child porn was not reported to the FBI. Those poor children who are exploited have no one protecting them. I think there are laws that dictate mandatory reporting of child porn, federal and state. I think that all 8 of these individuals need to be brought to a grand jury individually to see if they violated state or federal laws. Their names all need to be published, and anyone else's name higher up in the UM administration. What a horrible crime to comply with, which is exactly what they did. In addition, since there was a child involved, protective services should have become involved. What if the adult pictured with the child was the doctor who was arrested, or otherwise identifiable? Maybe the child could have been found by a national search. What if he was an abducted child on a missing child's list? What if the child has had 8 additional months of torture? The University needs to do something. This child pictured in the porn has parents. Did anyone consider that? Unbelievable.
Sciomanone1
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.
Also keep in mind the computer IT department is not even at the Hospital, they all locked in a secure building at dominos farms they can not do a good job watching people and the computers being 10 miles away, like the medical records are in a building on Hubbard and as they are needed they are drove in a outsource company car or van while the patients wait in the hospital ER or Dr office, 6 months is not a long time when th patients in the ER wait so long they could die waiting for their medical records, there is always a cover up at u of m hospital then you see the president on the news. Keep in mind if the concern was for the patients the important departments would be there not 10 miles away. They do not tell you the whole story about the workers not even at the hospital making a few hundred thousand $$$. A real cover up.
walker101
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.
This becoming a fiasco within the confines of UM, we are being subjected to the ineptness and failure of a system that is obvisouly way in over its head. Any leader that fails to perform their duty regardless of position needs to be replaced or take on the responsibility of firing those who knew and failed to perform their job with moral and integrity or at least with a conscious that they failed to perform their duties. The buck stops at the top, no wavering or seeking answers or excuses, why is this so difficult.
Sallyxyz
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 2:05 a.m.
The university on Friday released an internal review of missteps and miscommunications that led to a delay in reporting the discovery of child porn in an employee area of University Hospital. That review found that at least eight individuals knew about the porn but did not report it to the U-M Department of Public Safety when it was first discovered in May. Instead, the case went unreported until November, when a physician brought it to the attention of the hospital's risk management office. Is this report available and can AA dot com FOIA to get it? I think the public needs to know the details.
ranger007
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 1:48 a.m.
Every last one of them that knew and didn't do anything are all guilty in my eyes ..this is disturbing and yet another reason to not go to the u of m hospital.
Sciomanone1
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 1:37 a.m.
It is so interesting that the director of the hospital Security is never wrote about, never see the U of M police at the Medical Center or the President of U of M, the news shares a different picture than the way the hospital is tally run and it is very interesting about why nothing is shared about the head of the IT Computer department, it is like a big cover up and someone is protecting the Hospital administration that makes the big $$$, why the cover up and who are they protecting?? The IT Computer Department can turn off a person that is sign on to s Medical Centers computer, they can check who has used a computer and when per day, hour, week and month. They are in so much control at the Medical Center and not a word about any of the Administration of the Computer Department, something is so wrong the whole picture here, so much more than a Medical Doctor looking ay pictures of children, he has seen children with and clothes on, they are protecting some one and it is not the Doctor.
The Black Stallion3
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.
I have lost all faith and respect for the U of M now that they are trying to cover this up rather than admit what happened and penalizing the people who were wrong. This is how a University handles their problems? Shame on them all, especially the one at the top.
Arborcomment
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.
If you insist on keeping hospital security and UMPD in separate divisions and provide justification why: 1. Establish clear guidelines when hospital security writes an "incident report" or when they call UMPD for a criminal investigation. The guidelines can be divided by class of crime or incident (example: by felony or felony class). Those below felony stay with hospital security, those above to UMPD. 2. Entirely remove hospital administration from any overview of a felony investigation. 3. Place at least one full time UMPD officer INSIDE the hospital complex. If you choose to examine what was proposed some 15 years ago... 1. Bring all or a subset of hospital security officers into DPS with full training, investigation, and arrest powers as UMPD. 2. Again, remove hospital administration from any overview of criminal investigations. 3. Deputy Director of Hospital Security is from UMPD as part of a career development program (2 year rotational minimum) If you choose to dress up the status quo: 1. Keep current reporting chain and authority. 2. Mandate kumbaya training between UMPD/DPS, make them smile and like each other. 3. Devise and pay for an expensive communications and record keeping system that only one division can fully access and use. ok, I'm done that will be $600,000 please.
Arborcomment
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:56 p.m.
And if you look at the board of auditor report story, which one of these three scenarios is the most close to their recommendations? Can I get a bonus?
average joe
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
"That review found that at least eight individuals knew about the porn but did not report it to the U-M Department of Public Safety when it was first discovered in May. " At least eight people knew. Pretty sad.
Basic Bob
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 10:38 a.m.
All eight should be arrested, fired, and have their pensions taken away.
UtrespassM
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.
Cover up, cover up for each other, this is the culture here. The DPS works very hard for administrators, help them to reiterate students, staffs using trespass warning, charge as criminal. The cops increase the risk of un-coversome times, which the administrators don't like have DPS involved before they have their internal review.
Rick Fitzgerald
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.
A clarification: Two outside agencies, the U.S. Department of Education and the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation, are reviewing this situation. The university is committed to engaging a third outside party to assess its safety and security culture and help achieve the needed change. And, as President Coleman said in a statement today, "We will pursue all information that is revealed as a result of this situation to determine additional work that may be necessary."
kms
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.
Rick: putting the primary blame on someone who is conveniently no longer working at the U? You have to realize how badly that comes across to the general public.
justcurious
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:26 p.m.
I know who Rick is. But what needs to be done is disciplinary action against those who knew about this back in May and June, not just pats on the hand. The people have a right to know who it was that considered the Resident's information not important enough to report, possibly covering their own behinds.
Kellie Woodhouse
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 10:50 p.m.
To be clear: Rick is a University of Michigan spokesperson. It's my understanding that he's trying to convey that while there are no U-M-backed external review plans at this time, the school is committed to cooperating with the current DOE and Joint Commission reviews.
julieswhimsies
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.
Did you not read this article? They will not have an external investigation of the 6 month lapse in the reporting of this incident to the police. This is a major crime that the U of M covered up at the advice of their attorneys.
Roadman
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 9:39 p.m.
This was clearly a problem of a bad-faith cover-up. There does not need any review of internal policies. Common sense dictates that any University official learning of possession of child porn runs to the nearest phone and calls the police to investigate. An "external review of policies" is not needed. Disciplinary action is what is necessary. Making public examples of legal and security officials who care more about the University's image and risk management rather than the interests of those victimized by child pornography. How do parents feel whose children may have been exposed to this pediatrician as a treater during that six-month period?
UtrespassM
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 10:13 p.m.
The disciplinary action is never case to the people in Dr. old boy network.
a2citizen
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.
"...Disciplinary action is what is necessary..." I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Had this happened on the Athletic Campus people would have already been fired. Amazing what (does not) happen when those occupying the ivory towers have to punish themselves.
Ron Granger
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.
Ignore the giant maize and blue elephant in the room! When did Coleman and the hospital CEO know?
Sarcastic1
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
What does the Director of Hospital Security have to say about this incident?
UtrespassM
Sat, Feb 11, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.
on sick leave
Sciomanone1
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 8:51 p.m.
This is usual for the u of M Medical Center they are doing a cover up for their friends, the Administration there will help out each other so their friend will not be fired. The IT computer department are just doing a cover up for their friens and the head of security is doing the same thing. this is usual for them
justcurious
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
Not to mention the Dr. old boy network.
julieswhimsies
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
Does this situation not reek?
julieswhimsies
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 8:34 p.m.
What can one say but WTH! This makes the University look even MORE guilty of cover-up by refusing to having an external investigation of the six month reporting lapse. It appears to me that some pretty well-paid, and "important" Administrative" officials are afraid....of their own culpability. Mary Sue? The Regents? Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible for the protection of the children, whether they are U of M patients, or unknown victims? The answer to that question is, that we all are. Bring on the National Press. We need to air our dirty laundry.
a2citizen
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:31 p.m.
"...What can one say but WTH!..." I'd be a little harsher and say WT-! These taxpayer paid U-M employees need to be publicly identified for a dose of public shaming. Let their families, neighbors and friends know what pieces of work they are. It's not about enquiring minds wanting to know. This was a very serious incident. I'm not going to tell A2.com what their mission is but I would like some day for them to do some investigative report and give the names and salaries of the eight employees who knew of this (minus the resident, unless she agrees to be named).
justcurious
Fri, Feb 10, 2012 : 11:22 p.m.
Who might be outed? Perhaps a well thought of attending Doctor or Department Head? Someone with real clout and prestige? I have no doubts that someone like this is being protected.