GOOD AFTERNOON. EVERYBODY
WELCOME. WELCOME TO THIS JOINT
OVERSIGHT HEARING OF THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE
ASSEMBLY HIGHER EDUCATION
COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE
EDUCATION COMMITTEE. TODAY WE
WILL DISCUSS THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IDENTIFIED IN
THE STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT
RELEASED IN JULY TITLED
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. IT
DID NOT ADEQUATELY OR
CONSISTENTLY ADDRESS SOME
ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. THIS AUDIT WAS
REQUESTED BY A BIPARTISAN,
BICAMERAL GROUP OF LEGISLATORS
LED BY FORMER ASSEMBLY MEMBER
AND CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE OF
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
MEMBER SALEH'S. AS A SUBSEQUENT
CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE OF THE
GAELIC COMMITTEE I PLAN TO CARRY
ON THE EFFORT. UH FOR THIS THAT
PRIOR CHAIR, UH, LED BY
AUTHORING LEGISLATION COMPELLING
SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES AT THE CSU
TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND
EMPLOYEES FROM SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. AS MANY OF US KNOW.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS A
WIDESPREAD HAS WIDESPREAD
CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL OF THOSE
INVOLVED AND WHO ARE AFFECTED.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CAN CAUSE
STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES EMOTIONAL
AND PHYSICAL HARM THAT
INTERFERES WITH THEIR ABILITY TO
LEARN AND TO BE SUCCESSFUL. LIKE
MANY CALIFORNIANS, I'VE BEEN
DISHEARTENED BY THE MANY CASES
OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE
SYSTEM THAT HAVE EMERGED IN
RECENT YEARS. UNDERSTANDABLY
THESE INCIDENTS MAY CAUSE MANY
CAL STATE STUDENTS AND STAFF TO
LOSE TRUST IN THE UNIVERSITY'S
ABILITY TO KEEP THEM SAFE. THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE HAS TAKEN
SOME ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO
THESE INCIDENTS, INCLUDING
HIRING AN EXTERNAL FIRM TO
CONDUCT A SYSTEM WIDE ASSESSMENT
OF CSU'S TITLE NINE PRACTICES.
THE FINDINGS FROM THE EXTERNAL
ASSESSMENT ALONG WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE, WHICH WE WILL HEAR OF
BOTH OF THEM HERE TODAY. THE
INDEPENDENT REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
THE MUCH MORE THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE. ALLEGATIONS NEED TO BE
ADEQUATELY AND TIMELY
INVESTIGATED FIRST AND FOREMOST.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION NEEDS TO BE
CONSISTENTLY TAKEN AND
MEANINGFUL SYSTEM. WIDE CHANGES
NEED TO TAKE PLACE AT THE CSU.
SPECIFICALLY THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE MUST TAKE A MORE ACTIVE
APPROACH TO OVERSEE CAMPUS
ACTIVITY. THE LACK OF COMPLETE
AND ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES OF
ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS
EGREGIOUS. THE LACK OF
SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE HAS LED TO
INCONSISTENCIES AND DEFICIENCIES
AND HOW CAMPUSES HANDLE,
INVESTIGATE AND ISSUE
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS ON SEXUAL
HARASSMENT CASES. SUFFICE IT TO
SAY THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE HAS
FAILED IN ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO
KEEP STUDENTS AND STAFF SAFE
WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE.
TODAY WE WILL DISCUSS THE
FINDINGS OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S
REPORT THAT IDENTIFY THESE
SHORTCOMINGS AND THE ROLE OF THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND THE CSU
CAMPUSES IN HANDLING REPORTS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON A GOING
FORWARD BASIS. WE WILL ALSO HEAR
FROM COSIGN O'CONNOR ON THE
SYSTEM WAS SYSTEM WIDE
ASSESSMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES AT THE CSU SYSTEM.
ADDITIONALLY WE DISCUSS CSU'S
PLANS FOR CHANGES AND THE
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO BE
IMPLEMENTED. AND THE COUNTLESS
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT
STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM
SEXUAL HARASSMENT. FINALLY WE
WILL HEAR PERSPECTIVES FROM
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
CALIFORNIA STATE STUDENT
ASSOCIATION. CALIFORNIA STATE
EMPLOYEES UNION AND THE
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION.
MY GOAL WITH THIS HEARING IS
OVERSIGHT HEARING IS TO SHED
LIGHT ON THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
PROCESSING PROCEDURES AT
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM. TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND EACH OF
THE CAMPUSES CAN BETTER PROTECT
STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON A GOING
FORWARD BASIS BEFORE PROCEEDING
FURTHER. THERE'S A FEW
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. I'LL ASK THE
PANELS TO KEEP THEIR
PRESENTATIONS TO THE TIME THAT
WE'VE ALLOCATED. THIS IS
APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES TO THE
STATE AUDITORS. PRESENTATION 10
MINUTES TO THE CSU CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE TO RESPOND TO THE
AUDITOR. OTTERS AUDITORS ARE
PRESENTATION. REPRESENTATIVES
FROM KANSEN O'CONNOR WILL
SIMILARLY HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR
THEIR PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE
WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO HEAR
FROM EACH OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN
THE FINAL PANEL. FOLLOWING EACH
PANEL PRESENTATION. I'LL ASK
MEMBERS TO PLEASE PROVIDE, UH,
QUESTION ANSWER QUESTIONS AND
PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS IF THEY
LIKE TO AND WE WILL RESERVE THE
TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER
THE LAST PANELS, QUESTION AND
ANSWER PERIOD. BEFORE WE BEGIN.
I'D LIKE TO SEE IF ANY MEMBERS
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON TODAY'S
HEARING. OKAY? THEN WITH THAT I
WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE AND
CHAIR OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSEMBLY HIGHER EDUCATION
COMMITTEE AS A MEMBER, FONG, WHO
WILL SAY A FEW REMARKS THANK
YOU. CHAIRMAN BE HERE. CHAIR
ALVAREZ. BURKE CONVENING US ALL
HERE TODAY AND FOR THIS JOINT
HEARING IS VERY IMPORTANT
HEARING TODAY AND I LIKE TO
THANK OUR CURRENT AND PAST
LEGISLATORS WHO HAVE REQUESTED
THIS VERY IMPORTANT AUDIT.
IMPETUS WAS TO FULLY UNDERSTAND
THE SCOPE OF MISALIGNMENT
BETWEEN WRITTEN POLICY AND OUR
DAY TO DAY IMPLEMENTATION. AS WE
HAVE SEEN IN THE LAST 19 MONTHS.
HAVE YOU DID IT? A MYRIAD OF
HEADLINES DETAILING HOW ALL 23
CAMPUSES HAVE STRUGGLED TO
IMPLEMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
PREVENTION, LEADING TO THE
OPINION THAT ADDITIONAL
INTERVENTION AND OVERSIGHT MAY
BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT OUR
CAMPUSES ARE FREE OF SEX
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT.
WE'RE GATHERED HERE TODAY AS
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE NOT
ONLY HEAR FROM OUR STATE AUDITOR
ON THEIR FINANCE, BUT ALSO TO
GET ANSWERS FROM THE CSU AS TO
HOW WE FOUND OURSELVES IN THIS
PREDICAMENT. AT ITS CORE. SEXUAL
HARASSMENT PREVENTION IS MEANT
TO PROVIDE RESTORATIVE MEASURES
TO PUT VICTIMS AND CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS TO PERPETRATORS.
CREATING A CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT
WHERE STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES CAN
LEARN AND WORK IN AN ENVIRONMENT
FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION,
REGARDLESS OF SEX. SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND GENERAL
IDENTITY. SHOULD BE A CORE VALUE
OF EVERY POST SECONDARY
EDUCATION IN OUR STATE. THANK
YOU TO THE CSU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY AND FOR PROVIDING
TRANSPARENCY AS TO HOW WE PLAN
TO FIX THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFY IN
THE STATE AUDIT AND THE CODES IN
O CONNOR REPORTS. AS THE CHAIR
OF THE ASSEMBLY HIGHER EDUCATION
COMMITTEE, TASKED WITH OVERSIGHT
OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS. I REALIZED THAT
THE ISSUE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IS NOT UNIQUE TO THE CSU THAT
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE STAFF
, ALONG WITH THE STAFF OF THE
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, HAS
BEEN MEETING WITH PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE, HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS TO EXAMINE AREAS
WHERE THE STATE CAN IMPROVE
COMPLIANCE. THIS HEARING TODAY
IS ONLY THE FIRST STEP OF THE
MANY STEPS WERE TAKEN TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL LAYERS. PROTECTION
FOR OUR STUDENTS AND STAFF. AND
SO TODAY, WE'LL HAVE A REALLY
ROBUST HEARING AND THANK YOU SO
MUCH CANCER CHAIR ALVAREZ. THANK
YOU. CHAIRMAN PHªN APPRECIATE
THAT. OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE HAVE ANY COMMENTS
OPENING REMARKS THEY'D LIKE TO
MAKE BEFORE WE START WITH OUR
FIRST PANEL. OKAY SEE NONE. THEN
I'LL INVITE THE STATE AUDITOR TO
PLEASE COME FORWARD. AH! FROM
REMIND MEMBERS THAT WE WILL HAVE
QUESTIONS AFTER THE STATE
AUDITOR COMPLETES HIS
PRESENTATION. AND I WANT TO
THANK MR GRANT PARK'S OUR
AUDITOR FOR BEING HERE AND YOUR
STAFF AS WELL. PLEASE UH, GO
AHEAD WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
SORRY ABOUT THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON
, CHAIRMAN ALVAREZ, CHAIRMAN
PHªN LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS GRANT PARK'S THE STATE
AUDITOR WITH ME HERE TODAY IS
NICHOLAS CALYPSO'S. HE WAS THE
AUDIT PRINCIPAL WHO MANAGED THE
DAY TO DAY OF OUR AUDIT OF C SUS
COMPLIANCE WITH SEXUAL
HARASSMENT INVESTIGATIONS IN
PRACTICES. SEXUAL HARASSMENT CAN
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT EMOTIONAL AND
PHYSICAL HARM TO BOTH STUDENTS
AND EMPLOYEES OF ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS. CONGRESS ENACTED
TITLE NINE OF THE FEDERAL
EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 TO
ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION ON THE
BASIS OF SEX, WHICH INCLUDES
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EDUCATIONAL
SETTINGS. THE U. S DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION REQUIRES THAT
UNIVERSITIES TO COMPLY WITH
TITLE NINE ESTABLISHED THEIR OWN
PROCEDURES AND EQUITABLY RESOLVE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS. AS
THE CHAIR NOTED THE FORMER CHAIR
OF J LACK, ALONG WITH 46. OTHER
MEMBERS REQUESTED THIS AUDIT
FOLLOWING PUBLIC REPORTS RAISING
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW CSU HANDLE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS.
PARTICULARLY WHEN SENIOR CAMPUS
ADMINISTRATORS AND OTHER
PROMINENT OFFICIALS ARE
INVOLVED. IN NOVEMBER, 2021 NEWS
OUTLETS REPORTED THAT SAN JOSE
STATE HAD REACHED A MULTIMILLION
DOLLAR SETTLEMENT WITH STUDENT
ATHLETES WHO WERE SEXUALLY
HARASSED BY A LONGTIME SPORTS
TRAINER. AND IN FEBRUARY, 2022,
THE FORMER CSU CHANCELLOR,
RESIGNED AMID CRITICISMS THAT HE
MISHANDLED SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMPLAINTS DIRECTED AGAINST
ANOTHER HIGH LEVEL OFFICIAL
DURING HIS TIME AS PRESIDENT OF
FRESNO STATE. THIS AUDIT
REQUESTS WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
THE LEGISLATURE WITH AN OVERVIEW
OF HOW THE CSU SYSTEM HANDLES
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS AND
WHETHER THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS
THAT CAN BE MADE TO BETTER
PROTECT STUDENTS, FACULTY AND
STAFF. AMONG THE SEVERAL
OBJECTIVES. THAT JAIL ACT
DIRECTED MY OFFICE TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE MORE PROMINENT ONES
INCLUDED. DETERMINING THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMPLAINTS AGAINST EMPLOYEES OF
THE CSU. AND OF THOSE HOW MANY
WERE INVESTIGATED AND
SUBSTANTIATED OVER A FIVE YEAR
PERIOD. AND FOR SUBSTANTIATED
ALLEGATIONS, DETERMINING THE
CONSISTENCY AND REASONABLENESS
OF ANY DISCIPLINE ADMINISTERED
IN THOSE CASES. J LACK ALSO
DIRECTED US TO REVIEW THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND THREE
OTHER CAMPUSES TO EVALUATE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY
DIFFERENCES IN CSU'S APPROACH TO
INVESTIGATING DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES OF STAFF, WHETHER
THEY BE FACULTY VERSUS NON
FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS OR
EXECUTIVES. AND WE WERE ALSO
ASKED TO EXAMINE SEE SUS
POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO
EXECUTIVES RETREAT RIGHTS TO A
PRIOR JOB CLASSIFICATION AND HOW
OFTEN THESE RETREAT RIGHTS HAVE
BEEN USED FOR THOSE ACCUSED OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND TO
EVALUATE CSU'S PRACTICES FOR
OFFERING LETTERS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES
FOUND TO HAVE PERPETRATED SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. OVERALL THERE WERE
TWO PRIMARY APPROACHES THAT MY
STAFF TOOK DURING THE AUDIT.
FIRST TO QUANTIFY THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE
NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS. MY
STAFF VISITED EACH OF CSU'S 23
CAMPUSES AND THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE TO OBTAIN OR MANUALLY
COMPILE LISTS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT REPORTS FROM 2018 TO
2022. BASED ON CAMPUS
INVESTIGATIVE FILES. THE RESULTS
OF THESE EFFORTS ARE PRESENTED
IN THE END OF OUR REPORT AND
APPENDIX, A AS NOTED IN THE
APPENDIX OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD
WE IDENTIFIED OVER 1200
COMPLAINTS THAT WERE REPORTED TO
CAMPUS OFFICIALS. 251 OF WHICH
WERE INVESTIGATED OR ABOUT 20.
AND 98 OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS
WERE ULTIMATELY SUBSTANTIATED.
OUR REVIEW OF CSU'S FILES ALSO
INDICATE THAT 159 EMPLOYEES WERE
THE SUBJECTS OF MULTIPLE REPORTS
OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, OF WHICH
30 WERE THE SUBJECT OF FOUR OR
MORE COMPLAINTS. GLOBALLY OUR
REVIEW ALSO SHOWED THAT ROUGHLY
25% OF ALL REPORTED COMPLAINTS
WERE RESOLVED LATE BEYOND C. S
U. S POLICY OF 100 DAYS AFTER
RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT, WHILE
139 COMPLAINTS WERE RESOLVED
MORE THAN 200 DAYS AFTER
RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT. AS I
WILL DISCUSS LATER IN MY
TESTIMONY, WE ULTIMATELY
DETERMINED THAT SOME OF THIS
DATA WAS UNRELIABLE DUE TO
INCONSISTENT AND POOR RECORD
KEEPING PRACTICES WITHIN THE
CSU. OUR SECOND PRIMARY APPROACH
TO MORE FULLY EVALUATE CSU'S
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROCESS FROM
INTAKE TO RESOLUTION WAS TO
SELECT A SAMPLE OF 40 COMPLAINTS
AT THREE CAMPUSES AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. THOSE
INCLUDED SAN JOSE STATE, FRESNO
STATE AND SONOMA STATE. WE
SELECTED A JUDGMENTAL SAMPLE OF
40 CASES TO ENSURE THAT WE COULD
EVALUATE DIFFERENT PROCESSES AND
OUTCOMES, SUCH AS EVALUATING
WHICH COMPLAINTS WERE
INVESTIGATED, VERSUS WHICH ONES
WERE NOT. WHICH COMPLAINTS WERE
SUBSTANTIATED FOLLOWING AN
INVESTIGATION AND WHICH ONES
WERE NOT. AS WELL AS ENSURING
THAT WE WERE REVIEWING
COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY STUDENTS
AS WELL AS CSU EMPLOYEES. IN ALL
CASES WE REVIEWED THE CSU
EMPLOYEES WERE THE INDIVIDUALS
ACCUSED OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
WHERE THE FOCUS OF EACH
COMPLAINT OR INVESTIGATION. MOST
OF MY TESTIMONY TODAY WILL FOCUS
ON THE 40 CASE FILES THAT WE
REVIEWED AND SOME OF THE HIGH
LEVEL RESULTS FOUND THAT 15 OF
THOSE 40 CASES WERE CLOSED AT
THE INTAKE PROCESS BEFORE AN
INVESTIGATION EVEN TOOK PLACE IN
11 OF THESE 15 LACKED CLEAR
RATIONALES TO UNDERSTAND OR
ALLOW AN OUTSIDE PARTY SUCH AS
US TO UNDERSTAND THE CAMPUSES
RATIONALE FOR CLOSING THOSE
COMPLAINTS. ANOTHER 21
INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE
CAMPUS OR THIRD PARTY
INVESTIGATORS WERE PERFORMED.
BUT SEVEN OF THESE 21
INVESTIGATIONS, IN OUR VIEW,
REACHED QUESTIONABLE CONCLUSIONS
NOT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE
ALLEGATIONS. AND IN FOUR CASES
WERE RESOLVED THROUGH INFORMAL
RESOLUTION AGREEMENTS. AND IN
TWO OF THOSE FOUR CASES, WE
NOTED THAT THERE WAS MISSING
IMPORTANT DOCUMENTATION SUCH AS
SIGNED AGREEMENTS DEFINING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THOSE
ARRANGEMENTS, ARRANGEMENTS AS
WELL AS MISSING DOCUMENTATION
FROM THE COMPLAINANT
DEMONSTRATING THAT HE OR SHE
EVEN WANTED AN INFORMAL
RESOLUTION. AND WITH RESPECT TO
TIMELINESS OF RESOLVING SEXUAL
COMPLAINTS IN OUR SAMPLE OF 40
13 OF THOSE 40 SELECTED CASES
EXCEEDED THE NUMBER OF WORKING
DAYS CALLED FOR C SUS UH, POLICY
AND THREE OF THOSE 13 WERE
RESOLVED MORE THAN 100 DAYS
BEYOND THE EXPECTED TIME FRAME.
GLOBALLY OUR AUDIT REPORT IS
SEPARATED INTO THREE DIFFERENT
CHAPTERS. CHAPTER ONE DEALS WITH
THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS.
CHAPTER TWO DEALS WITH
DISCIPLINE AND CHAPTER THREE
DEALS WITH OUR IDEAS ON WHERE
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE CAN TAKE
MORE OF A LEADERSHIP ROLE WITH
RESPECT TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT
INVESTIGATIONS. I'LL START OFF
WITH SOME OF THE HIGH POINTS IN
EACH OF THOSE CHAPTERS. WITH
RESPECT TO CHAPTER ONE IN THE
INVESTIGATION PROCESS. A REPORT
REALLY STARTS OFF AT THE
BEGINNING WHERE WE NOTED
DEFICIENCIES AND SEE SUS INTAKE
PROCESS THAT THE PROCESS TO
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT AN
INVESTIGATION IS EVEN WARRANTED.
IN OUR VIEW, DECIDING WHETHER TO
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IS
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST
CRITICAL STEPS UM, CAMPUS CAN
PURSUE WHEN DECIDING HOW TO BEST
HANDLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT
ALLEGATIONS IF CASES ARE CLOSED
PREMATURELY BEFORE AN
INVESTIGATION TAKES PLACE.
COMPLAINANTS CAN LOSE CONFIDENCE
THAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE NOT
BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY, WHILE
THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSED MAY NOT BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE THROUGH
DISCIPLINE. 11 OF THESE 15 CASES
WERE CLOSED AT INTAKE THAT
LACKED CLEAR RATIONALES. UM
PRIMARILY AS A RESULT OF
WEAKNESSES IN OUR VIEW IN C S U
. S POLICY THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE
INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER CAMPUS
OFFICIALS TO DOCUMENT AND
JUSTIFY WHY INVESTIGATORS ARE
DECIDING TO CLOSE CASES AT
INTAKE. SOME OF THE SPECIFIC
ISSUES WE FOUND INCLUDED
INVESTIGATORS PREMATURELY, IN
OUR VIEW, CONCLUDING THAT THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF C S.
U. S POLICY. IN OUR AUDIT REPORT
. WE TALK OF ONE EXAMPLE WHERE
FOUR COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT
A MALE STAFF MEMBER MADE SEVERAL
INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS SUCH AS
IMPLYING WASN'T ONE WASN'T
WEARING UNDERGARMENTS ASKING
ANOTHER IF FOR SEXUAL PARTNERS
PLEASED HER AND TELLING ANOTHER
THAT HER BOYFRIEND WAS LUCKY TO
HAVE A WOMAN LIKE HER. THE
INVESTIGATOR CONCLUDED THAT AN
INVESTIGATION WAS NOT WARRANTED
BECAUSE THESE COMMENTS AND THE
INVESTIGATORS OPINION WERE NOT
OF A SEXUAL NATURE AND DID NOT
FIT THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. ULTIMATELY THE
EMPLOYEE SIMPLY TOOK A TRAINING
COURSE. AND THE COMPLAINANT
LATER REPORTED TO CSU OFFICIALS
THAT SHE FELT AS IF NOTHING HAD
BEEN DONE AND STILL FELT HIGHLY
UNCOMFORTABLE AROUND THE CSU
EMPLOYEE. IN OTHER INSTANCES, WE
FOUND THAT THE UNIVERSITY DID
NOT DOCUMENT EFFORTS TO CONTACT
OTHER POTENTIAL COMPLAINANTS OR
WITNESSES DURING THE INTAKE
STAGE. WE ALSO NOTED THE CAMPUS
OFFICIALS DID NOT ALWAYS EXPLAIN
WHY CLOSING A CASE AT INTAKE WAS
THE APPROPRIATE DECISION. EVEN
IF THE COMPLAINANT DIDN'T WANT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
INVESTIGATION. AT TIMES THOSE
WHO REPORT HARASSMENT MAY NOT
WANT TO CSU TO INVESTIGATE IT
MAY NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE AT
THE OUTSET. BUT C S U. S POLICY
IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT REQUIRES
CAMPUS OFFICIALS TO BALANCE THIS
REQUEST AGAINST THE CAMPUSES
DUTY TO PROVIDE A SAFE, NON
DISCRIMINATORY ENVIRONMENT AND
TO EVALUATE WHETHER AN
INVESTIGATION COULD CONTINUE
WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT'S
INVOLVEMENT. ULTIMATELY WE HAD
EXPECTED TO SEE EXPLANATIONS IN
THE CASE FILES JUSTIFYING WHY
CAMPUS OFFICIALS DECIDED TO
CLOSE THESE 11 CASES PRIOR TO AN
INVESTIGATION. OF NOTE. TO THEIR
CREDIT. SAN JOSE STATE HAS
RECENTLY DEVELOPED ITS OWN
GUIDANCE. ON THE INTAKE PROCESS
THAT INCLUDES DETAILED PROTOCOLS
AND DOCUMENTATION OF THE INITIAL
ASSESSMENT PROCESS. AND WE THINK
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE SHOULD
CONSIDER MODIFYING OR ADOPTING
SAN JOSE STATES PROCESS TO
BETTER ALLOW CAMPUSES TO
DOCUMENT AND JUSTIFY THEIR
DETERMINATIONS THAT INTAKE. WE
ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S
OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF INTERFERENCE AND
INVESTIGATIONS. PARTICULARLY
BECAUSE IN SEVERAL CASES WE
COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAMPUS
OFFICIAL OR OFFICIALS WHO
DECIDED TO CLOSE A CASE THAT
INTAKE PRIOR TO AN
INVESTIGATION. SUCH LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY, IN OUR VIEW CAN
HELP FACILITATE INAPPROPRIATE
INTERFERENCE WHEN EVALUATING
COMPLAINTS. MOVING ON TO
INVESTIGATIONS. 21 OF OUR 40
SAMPLE ITEMS PAST THE INTAKE
PHASE AND MOVE FORWARD AS AN
INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER SEVEN OF
THESE 21 DEMONSTRATED WEAKNESSES
IN OUR VIEW THAT CAUSED US TO
QUESTION THE UNIVERSITY'S
CONCLUSIONS THAT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT HAD NOT OCCURRED.
EXAMPLES OF THE WEAKNESSES THAT
WE IDENTIFIED INCLUDE
INVESTIGATORS USING AN
UNREASONABLY RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION OF CSU'S
DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
. AND AT TIMES, WE NOTED THAT
INVESTIGATORS OMITTED CERTAIN
ALLEGATIONS OR FACTS FROM ITS
FINAL ANALYSIS AND
DETERMINATION. TABLE THREE ON
PAGE 23 OF OUR AUDIT REPORT
LISTED DEFICIENCIES THAT WE
NOTED WITH EACH OF THESE SEVEN
CASES. AND IN FIGURE SIX ON PAGE
26 OF OUR REPORT. WE PROVIDE TWO
EXAMPLES WHERE CAMPUS OFFICIALS
APPEARED TO USE AN UNREASONABLY
RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. I'LL SHARE ONE OF
THOSE EXAMPLES NOW. IN THIS
EXAMPLE AN OFFICIAL NOT
AFFILIATED WITH THE CSU REPORTED
THAT A CSU EMPLOYEE MADE
INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO HER AT
A SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT FOLLOWING A
PROFESSIONAL EVENT AND TOUCHED
HER STOMACH AND HIP AND AN
INTIMATE WAY. STATING THAT HE
ALWAYS KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE SEX.
THE INVESTIGATOR DETERMINED THAT
THE CONDUCT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
OCCURRED AND WAS OF A SEXUAL
NATURE. HOWEVER IN THE CASE
FILES CONCLUDED THAT THE CONDUCT
DID NOT VIOLATE CSU POLICY
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
SEVERE OR PERVASIVE. IN OUR
VIEW, ONE WAY THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE CAN IMPROVE CAMPUS
INVESTIGATIONS IS BY REQUIRING
THAT THEY IMPLEMENT AND DOCUMENT
ADDITIONAL SECONDARY REVIEW
APART FROM THE INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMING THE INVESTIGATION,
SOME OF OUR CONCERNS WERE THE
RESULT OF QUESTIONABLE
INTERPRETATIONS MADE BY CSU
INVEST INVESTIGATORS AND THEIR
INABILITY TO REASONABLY GATHER
ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE DURING AN
INVESTIGATION. WE BELIEVE
CREATING A STRUCTURED
SUPERVISORY REVIEW PROCESS AND
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS BETTER
ENSURE A MORE THOROUGH AND
CONSISTENT EVALUATION. CHAPTER
ONE ALSO GETS INTO TIMELINESS
ISSUES AT THE CSU AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, 13 OF OUR 40 CASES WERE
COMPLETED BEYOND THE TIMEFRAME
ESTABLISHED IN CSU POLICY. WE
ACKNOWLEDGE. THAT INVESTIGATIONS
CAN TAKE SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER
THAN EXPECTED AT TIMES FOR
VARIOUS REASONS, INCLUDING
SCHEDULING CONFLICTS OF
INVESTIGATORS. THE AVAILABILITY
OF INVOLVED PARTIES. AND ALSO
THE REQUEST BY THOSE PARTIES
THAT THE INVESTIGATORS GATHER
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT OUR
PRIMARY CONCERN WITH LATE
INVESTIGATIONS IS THAT IN EACH
OF THOSE 13 CASES THAT WERE
LATE, WE LACKED DOCUMENTATION IN
THE FILES FOR ONE OR MORE
EXTENSIONS GRANTED BY CSU, AND
OUR CONCERN IS THAT THE PARTIES
TO THESE COMPLAINTS CAN EASILY
LOSE TRACK OF AN INVESTIGATION
STATUS OF AS THEY ARE DELAYED
AND PUSHED OUT FURTHER AND
FURTHER. WE BELIEVE THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE SHOULD
IMPLEMENT A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM
FOR TRACKING TIMELINESS ACROSS
ALL CSU CAMPUSES IN SUCH A
SYSTEM MIGHT OFFER UH,
FUNCTIONALITY SUCH AS A
DASHBOARD OR OTHER ELECTRONIC
MEANS FOR COMPLAINANTS TO
PERIODICALLY CHECK ON THE STATUS
OF THEIR CASES. SO THAT WAS
CHAPTER ONE. CHAPTER TWO GOT
INTO DISCIPLINE, RETREAT RIGHTS
AND LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION.
THOSE WERE IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
THAT J LACK ASKED US TO EVALUATE
IN OUR VIEW, CSU DID NOT
CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENT OR
DOCUMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION AND
DISCIPLINARY CASES. SEVEN OF OUR
40 CASES, THE CSU CAMPUSES HAD
DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A NEED
OF SOME SORT OF CORRECTIVE
ACTION AND IN SOME CASES
DISCIPLINE AGAINST EMPLOYEES FOR
THEIR BEHAVIOR. BUT IN THESE
SEVEN CASES, THE CSU COULD NOT
DEMONSTRATE THAT IT FOLLOWED
THROUGH ON THESE ACTIONS. IN ONE
EXAMPLE OF STUDENT REPORTED THAT
A MALE FACULTY MEMBER MADE
INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO OUR
CONSISTENTLY WALKED HER TOWARDS
HER RESIDENTS AFTER CLASS AND
MADE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT HIS
AND HER PERSONAL ROMANTIC LIVES.
ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL HAD REPORTED
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
AGAINST THE SAME EMPLOYEE TWO
MONTHS PRIOR. THE CAMPUS CLOSED
THE CASE AT INTAKE AND REFERRED
IT TO THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT TO
ADDRESS THE BEHAVIOR. BUT THE
CASE FILES DID NOT INCLUDE ANY
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE
ULTIMATE RESOLUTION WAS. AND
WHEN WE ASKED THE ACADEMIC
DEPARTMENT THEY WERE UNAWARE OF
ANY CONVERSATIONS OR COUNSELING
THAT MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE. IN
ANOTHER EXAMPLE IN 2016, A
CAMPUS INVESTIGATED ALLEGATIONS
BY A FEMALE STUDENT AGAINST HER
MALE PROFESSOR RESULTING IN THE
CAMPUS SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS
OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, VIOLENCE,
INCLUDING TOUCHING A SENSITIVE
BODY PART, ALL OF WHICH VIOLATED
CSU POLICY. THE PROFESSOR HAD
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF PRIOR
COMPLAINTS SINCE 2003 INCLUDING
PREVIOUS DISCIPLINE FOR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT IN 2005, BUT THE CSU
CANNOT EXPLAIN TO MY STAFF WHY
THE PROFESSOR WAS NOT
DISCIPLINED IN 2016. ROUGHLY
THREE YEARS LATER, IN 2019, THE
CAMPUS DISCOVERED THAT IT MISSED
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
IMPOSING DISCIPLINE AND WOULD
WAIT YEARS LATER UNTIL MAY 2022
TO ISSUE A LETTER OF REPRIMAND
FOR THAT 2016 BEHAVIOR. IN MANY
CASES, WE REVIEWED THE RESULTING
DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN
AGAINST CSU EMPLOYEES WERE NOT
DOCUMENTED AND INVESTIGATIVE
FILES AND CSU POLICY DOES NOT
REQUIRE CAMPUS OFFICIALS TO DO
SO. NEVERTHELESS WE BELIEVE
DOING SO MAY BETTER ENSURE
CAMPUSES FOLLOW THROUGH WHEN
INITIATING APPROPRIATE
CORRECTIVE ACTION AND
DISCIPLINE. WITH RESPECT TO THE
TREAT RIGHTS. CERTAIN EXECUTIVES
AND MANAGEMENT ARE ALLOWED TO BE
REASSIGNED TO FACULTY POSITIONS
AT THE END OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSIGNMENT KNOWN AS RETREAT
RIGHTS AT THE FOUR CAMPUSES WE
REVIEWED. WE DID NOT IDENTIFY
ANY EXECUTIVES OR MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL WHO WERE SUBJECT TO A
FINDING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
SUBSEQUENTLY RETREATED TO A
FACULTY POSITION THAT BASED ON
CAMPUS DATA. 121 EXECUTIVE AND
MANAGEMENT POSITIONS HELD
RETREAT WRITES FROM 2016 TO 2022
, AND WE FOUND THAT TWO OF THESE
121 WERE ACCUSED OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, ONE OF THOSE WHERE
IT WAS SUSTAINED, BUT THE
INDIVIDUAL DID NOT RETREAT
INSTEAD LEFT THE CAMPUS UNDER
TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, WHILE THE SECOND CASE
WAS NOT INVESTIGATED BECAUSE THE
COMPLAINANT DID NOT WANT TO
PURSUE AN INVESTIGATION. BUT
ULTIMATELY, IN OUR VIEW, CSU'S
POLICY ON RETREAT RIGHTS HAS A
SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION. IT CAN
ALLOW EMPLOYEES WITH BINDINGS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT TO RETREAT THE
FACULTY POSITIONS AS LONG AS THE
FINDINGS DID NOT LEAD TO THE
EMPLOYEE'S TERMINATION OR
SEPARATION. TO ADDRESS THIS GAP.
WE BELIEVE THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE SHOULD CONSIDER REVISING
ITS POLICY TO PREVENT RETREAT
RIGHTS FOR THOSE FOUND TO HAVE
ENGAGED IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT
UNDER CSU'S POLICY. WE FOUND A
SIMILAR CONDITION WITH C S U. S
POLICY OF PERMITTING POSITIVE
LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION AND
EMPLOYEE FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN
SEXUAL HARASSMENT STILL REMAINS
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A POSITIVE
LETTER WHEN SEEKING ANOTHER JOB
AGAIN SO LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE
DID NOT HAVE FINDINGS THAT LED
TO THEIR TERMINATION, NON
RETENTION OR SEPARATION. WE
RECOMMEND ALSO THAT CSU CHANGED
THIS POLICY AND FURTHER CONSIDER
PROHIBITING POSITIVE LETTERS FOR
THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ALSO
SUSPENDED OR DEMOTED, BUT NOT
NECESSARILY TERMINATED. AND
FINALLY, IN CHAPTER THREE. WE
TALKED ABOUT HOW WE BELIEVE THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE CAN TAKE A
MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH TO
MONITORING AND ADMINISTERING CSU
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROGRAM.
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
VARIATION IN THE DATA COLLECTION
AND QUALITY PRACTICES THAT WE
NOTED AMONG THE CAMPUSES. CAMPUS
IS VERY GREATLY AND HOW THEY
TRACK AND REPORT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, WHICH LEADS TO
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DATA THEY
RECORD. AND IT'S ALSO A PRIMARY
REASON WHY, AS WE STATED OUR
APPENDIX, BUT THE DATA WE
PRESENT ARE UNRELIABLE, EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE THE BEST
INFORMATION WE COULD DEVELOP IN
RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT REQUEST.
FOR EXAMPLE, CAMPUSES SOMETIME
COUNT CASES INVOLVING MULTIPLE
COMPLAINTS OR ALLEGATIONS AS A
SINGLE REPORT, WHILE IN OTHER
CASES, CAMPUSES WOULD COUNT EACH
COMPLAINT AS A SINGLE REPORT. BY
SETTING CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR
CAMPUSES FOR HOW THEY SHOULD
COLLECT, DEFINE AND REPORT DATA
. THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE COULD
IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF DATA
REPORTING. THE CAMPUSES WE
REVIEWED EXPLAINED THAT THEY
GENERALLY HAVE TO MANUALLY
COMPILE SOME OF THE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT DATA THEY REPORT TO
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. AND
DURING THE AUDIT. WE NOTED THAT
THE CAMPUSES DEVELOPED LISTS OF
CASES OFTEN MISSED KEY
INFORMATION SUCH AS THE TYPE OF
ALLEGED MISCONDUCT THE NAMES OF
THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE KEY
DATES AND OUTCOMES. IN SOME
CASES, MY STAFF HAD TO MANUALLY
COMPILED THE MISSING INFORMATION
BY REVIEWING INDIVIDUAL CASE
FILES AT THESE CAMPUSES. THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE HAS NOT
ISSUED ANY GUIDANCE IN ITS
SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY FOR THE
SPECIFIC DATA THAT CAMPUSES
SHOULD DOCUMENT IN THEIR CASE,
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND CAMPUSES
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO USE A SINGLE
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LIKELY
FURTHER CONTRIBUTING TO THE
INCONSISTENCY AND COMPLETENESS
ISSUES WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT
DATA. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS
HAVE RECOGNIZED THE ANALYSIS OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT DATA IS THE
BEST PRACTICE FOR IDENTIFYING
PROBLEMATIC TRENDS AND
PREVENTING AND DETECTING SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. AND ALTHOUGH FRESNO
STATE SAN JOSE STATE AND SONOMA
STATE EACH HAD MULTIPLE
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RESPONDENTS TO
MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE DOES NOT COLLECT
INFORMATION ON WHICH EMPLOYEES
HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE
ALLEGATIONS OVER TIME, AND
HAVING THIS INFORMATION IN OUR
VIEW WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THE
CHANCELLOR. TO IDENTIFY
POTENTIALLY HIGH RISK EMPLOYEES
WHO MAY HAVE A HISTORY OF
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR. MR PARKS
, RIGHT? 20 MINUTES. SORRY. I'LL
JUST WRAP BY CLOSING WILL BE
MADE FIVE PAGES OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CSU. I'M
TRYING TO ENHANCE THEIR POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES OVER THEIR
INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES. THEIR
CASE FILE DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTING THE KEY DECISIONS
THEY MAKE DURING THE
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS,
ULTIMATELY SEE SUS INTERIM
CHANCELLOR INDICATED THAT CSU
AGREED WITH OUR FINDINGS AND
AGREED TO IMPLEMENT ALL OF OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I'D BE MORE
THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU APPRECIATE THE
THROAT. REPORT. AS ALWAYS FROM
THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. UH LET ME
JUST ASK A COUPLE OF INITIAL
QUESTIONS THAT HOPEFULLY CAN
GUIDE A LITTLE BIT OF THE
CONVERSATION. UM ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE YOUR.
OPINION ON IS THE DIFFERENT
REPORTED NUMBER OF CASES. OF, UM
OF INCIDENTS. UH YOU IDENTIFIED
IN YOUR REPORT, 1200. SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. UM REPORTS IN THE
FOUR YEAR PERIOD OF 2018 TO
2022. UM, THERE WERE NUMBERS.
FROM THE O'CONNOR REPORT. UM
THAT WERE LOWER 452. UM THE
ARTICLE THAT WAS PUBLISHED BY
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES NOTED THAT
THERE WERE 26 INCIDENTS JUST IN
A ONE YEAR PERIOD. UM I'D LOVE
TO HEAR YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON WHY
THESE NUMBERS ALL DIFFER, AND
YOU HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF WHY
THEY ARE AND I'LL BE ASKING THIS
OF O'CONNOR AS WELL. SO I DON'T
WANT TO SPEAK FOR O'CONNOR AND
THEIR METHODOLOGY. I THINK I'M
SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE
ARTICLE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING
TO. I THINK IT WAS DIFFERENT
METHODOLOGIES THAT OUR OFFICE
USED VERSUS PERHAPS WHAT
O'CONNOR USED AND CAN YOU TELL
ME ABOUT YOUR METHODOLOGY THEN?
SO OUR METHODOLOGY FOCUSED
PRIMARILY ON YOU KNOW, HAVE NICK
JUMP IN TO HELP ME HERE WITH
FURTHER DETAIL, BUT OUR
METHODOLOGY INVOLVED WORKING
WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL CAMPUS
HAVING THEM DEVELOP LISTS. THAT
WE WOULD THEN CORROBORATE BY
GOING THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CASE
FILES AT THOSE CAMPUSES. NICK
YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT OUR APPROACH FOR
DEVELOPING THE DATA IN OUR
APPENDIX. AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS NICK
ALITO'S WITH THE STARS OFFICE
WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS
AUDIT. AND JUST TO WALK YOU
THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF OUR
THOUGHT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY,
WHO IN FIRST STARTED THE AUDIT,
AND WE LOOKED AT THE THREE
CAMPUSES. WE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
WITH THE DATA THAT THEY WERE
COLLECTING. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE
WAS FIELDS MISSING. THERE WAS
KEY DATES THAT WERE MISSING. SO
SO WE HAD TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE
PHYSICAL CASE FILES OR
ELECTRONIC CASE FILES AND THEN
CREATE THAT INFORMATION FOR THE
THREE CAMPUSES WE REVIEWED. WE
ALSO WENT OUT TO EACH OF THE
CAMPUS IS THE REMAINING 20
CAMPUSES. WE OBTAIN THE SAME
INFORMATION. WE FOUND SIMILAR
PROBLEMS WHERE THERE ARE SOME
CASES THEY WOULD HAVE A TRACKING
SPREADSHEET WHERE THEY WOULD
TRACK THIS INFORMATION. UH IN
OTHER CASES, THEY WOULD HAVE NO
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A TRACKING,
SPREADSHEET OR DATABASE
INTERRUPT YOU, JUST FOR
CLARITY'S SAKE. SO WHERE THERE
WAS NO TRACKING, DID YOU
PHYSICALLY COUNT FILES IN THE
CABINET PHYSICALLY COUNTED CALLS
IN THE CABINET. SOMETIMES WE
HAVE TO OBTAIN THEM
ELECTRONICALLY. SOMETIMES THEIR
EMPLOYEES EMAILS, SO WE ACTUALLY
HAD TO DO A LOT OF WORK TO TRY
AND OBTAIN ALL OF THAT
INFORMATION. THANK YOU CLARIFY
THAT. IS VERY DIFFERENT
INFORMATION YOU LIKE OR ON THAT,
AND I THINK I'M CLEAR AND TERMS
OF HOW YOU COMPILED YOUR
NUMBERS. I HAVE TO ASK THAT OF
THE OTHERS. UM ON FIGURE THREE
PAGE 11 OF YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES
THE PROCESS FOR HOW SEXUAL
HARASSMENT REPORTS ARE HANDLED
BY THE CAMPUSES. NOTICE THAT THE
PROCESS DOES NOT INCLUDE AN
INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE TITLE
NINE COORDINATOR AND
INVESTIGATORS DETERMINATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS. WHO AT THE CAMPUSES
SO THAT THE CAMPUS LEVEL NOW
FROM THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE IS
REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE
ANALYSIS OR DETERMINATION
REACHED BY THE COORDINATOR
THAT'S AT THE CAMPUS. IS THERE
ANY NO ONE? SO THE TITLE NINE
COORDINATOR SOMETIMES IS THE
INVESTIGATOR, THE PERSON THAT
EVALUATES THE CASES WHEN THEY
COME INTO INTAKE. SOMETIMES THEY
DO HAVE STAFF THAT PERFORMED THE
INVESTIGATION AND THOSE CASES OR
BE CONTRACTED OUT. AND IN THOSE
CASES, CAROL NINE COORDINATOR
PERFORMS THE REVIEW. HOWEVER IT
IS THERE'S NO CLEAR REQUIREMENT
THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A
SECONDARY REVIEW OR SOMEONE ELSE
REVIEWING THE FILE BEFORE IT'S
RESOLVED. AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S
ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THAT'S CORRECT, OK? YOU POINTED
OUT, UM TO US. THE EXAMPLE. CASE
EXAMPLE. NUMBER FOUR ON PAGE 26.
UM, WHERE PRETTY CLEARLY THE
ALLEGATION IS MY OPINION, UM
QUITE SEVERE. THE WHAT?
PROTECTING OBVIOUSLY, UM,
CONFIDENTIALITY AND ALL THAT.
WHAT? WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY FIND
IN THE FIRE? WAS IT JUST THE IN
THIS CASE? WAS IT JUST THE
ALLEGATION, AND THEN THE ONLY
NOTES WERE THAT IT WAS CLOSED
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO THE CONDUCT
DID NOT VIOLATE C S. U. S
POLICY. IS THAT THE EXTENT OF IT
OR WAS THERE MORE? UH THAT WAS
PROVIDED IN TERMS OF THE REASON
WHY THAT WAS DETERMINED. YEAH
THERE'S IT'S PRETTY GENERAL THAT
INDICATING THAT THE CONCLUSION
THAT WE STAYED HERE ON THE
FIGURE AND THEY DISCLOSED THE
FILE. WHICH IS WHY WE'RE
RECOMMENDING THAT YOU NEED TO
HAVE A CLEAR RATIONALE FOR WHY
YOU'RE CLOSING A CASE OR
RESOLVING THE CASE A CERTAIN WAY
AND THEN HAVING A FRAMEWORK TO
CONSISTENTLY APPLY THAT FOR ALL
INVESTIGATIONS, SO THERE WERE NO
CASE NOTES AT ALL. OH THERE'S
CASE NOTES ABOUT TERMS OF THE
RATIONALE FOR HOW YOU REACHED
THAT CONCLUSION. THAT'S WHERE
THE DETAIL WAS LIMITED. SO THEN
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAD ACCESS TO THE
CASE NOTES AND IN YOUR OPINION.
UM. AND PLEASE SHARE HOW YOU
WOULD REACH THAT CONCLUSION. THE
BEHAVIOR WAS SEVERE AND SHOULD
HAVE WARRANTED. UM ADDITIONAL,
UM EITHER INVESTIGATION,
DISCIPLINE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
AGAIN WITHOUT BEING KIND. ISN'T
THAT WE WANT TO, UH B.
PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY
OF WHAT YOU FOUND. YES THE
QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS WHAT WAS
THE HOW? HOW. SEVERE WAS THAT.
THE FINDINGS IN THE IN THE NOTES
THEMSELVES THAT THE PERSON OR
NOT SEVERE, OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH
THAT THEY WOULD LEAD THEM TO
DETERMINE THAT IT WASN'T UH UM.
HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE POLICY,
RIGHT? UH, CHAIRMAN OLIVAREZ.
YEAH I THINK FROM OUR
STANDPOINT, JUST REVIEWING THE
ALLEGATION ON ITS FACE AND THE
INVESTIGATOR CONCLUDING THAT
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, IT HAD
OCCURRED. RIGHT CAUSES US TO
REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT
CLEARLY THE INVESTIGATOR I
SHOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT
DETERMINATION. AND SO I THINK
WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT CAMPUSES
DIFFERENT INVESTIGATORS OFFER
OPERATING THROUGH PERHAPS
DIFFERENT FRAMES OF HOW YOU
INTERPRET CSU POLICY AND HOW YOU
APPLY IT. IN MY MIND, IT JUST
SPEAKS TO THE NEED FOR THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE TO PLAY A
MUCH LARGER ROLE THAN IT IS NOW
IN TERMS OF SETTING EXPECTATIONS
AND LEVEL SETTING. FOR EVERYBODY
ABOUT HOW DO WE JUDGE THESE
CASES THAT COME THROUGH THESE
INVESTIGATORS TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOU DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF
INCONSISTENCY THAT YOU HAVE
HERE? BECAUSE I WOULD. I WOULD
ARGUE THAT MOST PEOPLE REVIEWING
CASE EXAMPLE NUMBER FOUR AS YOU
SIGHT HERE ON PAGE 26, BUT
CLEARLY THINK THAT THAT WAS A
SEVERE INCIDENT THAT WOULD
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT COURSE OF
ACTION. YEAH WHAT? WHAT WAS
STATED THAT HAPPENED AND WHAT
WAS SAID. CLEARLY TO ME IS
SEVERE. AND THEN, AS YOU NOTED
IN THE IN THE IN THE CASE NOTES
IT IDENTIFIED THAT MORE LIKELY
THAN NOT THIS ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
AND IT WAS A SEXUAL NATURE. THAT
WAS A THAT WAS UM, MADE CLEAR BY
THE YOU KNOW, THE INVESTIGATOR.
THE COORDINATOR DON'T KNOW WHO
IN THIS CASE WAS REVIEWING THIS.
UM BUT IT WASN'T ENOUGH. TO
VIOLATE THE POLICY. UM CLEARLY,
I'LL BE ASKING, UM, CSU ABOUT
ABOUT THIS SPECIFICALLY, I'LL
GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MY
COLLEAGUES AND AS CHAIR FOUND
TWO, PLEASE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
HR ALVAREZ. AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUDITORS FOR THIS. ROBUST REPORT
AND REALLY REPORTING TOO MANY
ISSUES AND ALONG THE BEST
EQUATORIAL PROCESS AND THE
INCONSISTENCIES ACROSS THE
SYSTEM. AND THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK TO BE DONE. UH WE HAD A
COUPLE QUESTIONS AS WELL. AND IN
TERMS OF THE RECENT EXAMPLE BY
SURE OPERAS AND KISS EXAMPLE FOR
WE ALSO WANTED TO SEE THE LETTER
THAT WAS REQUESTED AN AUDIT
ASKED THE STATE AUDITOR TO
REVIEW THE TITLE NINE
INVESTIGATORY PROCESS AND TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM OF RESPONSE TO SEXUAL
HARASSMENT COMPLIANCE WITH
FEDERAL REGULATIONS. AND
SOMETHING LIKE CASE EXAMPLE FOR
COULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBLE
EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT COULD
HAVE GONE TO UM FOR FEDERAL
COMPLIANCE ISSUES. THUS, THE
AUDIT ALSO STATES ON PAGE NINE
THAT THERE WERE NO CASES
INVOLVING THE FEDERALLY MANDATED
HEARING PROCESS. DURING THE
SCOPE OF THIS AUDIT, THE AUDITOR
EXAMINE WHETHER THE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT CASES HAVE RISEN TO
THE STANDARD FEDERAL RELIGIOUS
REGULATIONS THAT THEY'VE BEEN
REVIEWED PROPERLY. SO NONE OF
THE 40 CASES THAT WE REVIEWED
WERE REFERRED, UH, MET WERE
IDENTIFIED AS MEETING THE
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDER THE
FEDERAL LAW, OR THEY'RE UNDER
FEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHAT WE DID
FIND IS THAT CSC'S POLICY IS THE
MAIN DOCUMENT THAT THEY USE TO
APPLY THE CRITERIA WHEN THE
PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION, SO
THAT IS WHAT WE APPLIED. UM
GIVEN THE TIMING OF OUR REPORT
THAT VERY FEW CASES BECAUSE WE
WOULD LOOK AT THE CASES FROM
2016 TO 2022, SO THE MAJORITY OF
CASES YOU KNOW WE'RE DEFINITELY
BEFORE THE 2020 REGULATIONS. SO
WE DIDN'T END UP PICKING UP ANY
OF THOSE AT THE TIME. WITH THE
NEW REGULATIONS WHAT THEY HAVE
RISEN TO THE LEVEL SO FEDERAL
COMPLIANCE ISSUES. YOU KNOW OUR
OUR APPROACH DURING THE AUDIT,
IT WAS WAS TO FOCUS ON CSU
POLICY BECAUSE THEY SET A HIGHER
THRESHOLD OR A MORE STRINGENT
THRESHOLD RELATIVE TO FEDERAL
REGULATIONS. YOU KNOW, ON PAGE
EIGHT. WE HAVE THAT GRAPHIC THAT
SAYS UNDER TITLE, NINE FEDERAL
REGULATIONS THAT HAS TO BE SO
SEVERE, PERVASIVE AND
OBJECTIVELY OFFENSIVE. UNDER CSU
POLICY, IT'S SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE
, PERSISTENT OR PERVASIVE. SO
GIVEN THAT CSU WAS HOLDING
ITSELF TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN
WHAT THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS
WOULD SUGGEST. THAT'S THE
APPROACH THAT WE TOOK DURING THE
AUDIT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT
CSU'S OAN APPLICATION OF ITS
OWN POLICIES WERE BEING COMPLIED
WITH, AND THAT'S WHERE WE FOCUS
MOST OF OUR WORK. OKAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. MEN AND
SOME OF THE CASES THAT WERE
EXAMINED THE COMPLAINANT'S
MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD ADVERSE
REACTIONS TO HOW THE CASE WAS
HANDLED. WE HEARD OF EXTENSIVE
DELAYS AND SOME OF THESE CASES
AND IN SOME OF THE CASES, ONE
PERSON IS STATISTICALLY
INDICATED THAT THEY QUIT THEIR
JOB. THE CASES THAT WERE
REVIEWED WHERE THERE ANY OTHER
INCIDENTS WHERE THE SURVIVOR HAD
REACTIONS. REGARDING THEIR CASE
. OTHER CASE WAS HANDLED, WHICH
LED THEM TO LEAVING THE CAMPUS.
I THINK WE HAVE ANECDOTAL
EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THE REPORT
WHERE WE HAVE COMPLAINANTS
BASICALLY COMING BACK TO THE
INVESTIGATOR COMPLAINING THAT I
FEEL LIKE NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.
I FEEL LIKE I'M STILL UNSAFE. SO
WE HAD. YOU KNOW, WE DID. WE
DIDN'T TAKE EACH ONE OF THOSE
EXAMPLES AND TALK ABOUT THEM IN
OUR REPORT. BUT I THINK
ANECDOTALLY THROUGHOUT AND NICK
. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SPEAK
TO THIS THROUGH YOUR REVIEW OF
THE CASE FILES, BUT WE DID SEE
INDICATIONS THAT, UH, THOSE WHO
ARE COMING FORWARD BEING BRAVE
TO OFFER THEIR THEIR EXPERIENCES
AND TO SUBMIT THEIR COMPLAINTS
LEFT LESS THAN SATISFIED WITH
THE EFFORT THAT CSU TOOK TO TAKE
THEIR COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY INTO
ULTIMATELY ACT ON THEM IN A
EXPEDITIOUS MANNER. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, AND THE EXPEDITIOUS MANNER
INTO REALLY EXAMINING OF THE
CASES WHERE THEY TOOK OVER 100
DAYS OVER 200 DAYS IS A HORRIBLE
AND SO REALLY THE TIMELY UH,
RESOLUTION TO THIS CASE IS SO
CRITICAL AND GOING FORWARD. IN
ADDITION INTO THE CASES THAT
WERE REVIEWED BY THE STATE
AUDITOR, HOW MANY CASES ACTUALLY
RESULTED IN DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
OR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. AND THE
STATE ORDERS AUDITOR NOTICE A
CORRELATION IN THE STATE OF
CHARITY OR LACK OF SEVERITY OF
THE ACTION. THE COMPLAINANT WAS
A STUDENT. SO WE NOTED, UH,
TRYING REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW MANY
WERE ACTUALLY DISCIPLINE, BUT WE
DIDN'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT
WAS A STUDENT TOWARDS THOSE
FACULTY MEMBER OUR MAIN ISSUE
THAT WE FOUND IN THE
DISCIPLINARY PROCESS WAS ONE
GETTING TO DISCIPLINE. AND THEN
AND THEN ALSO MAKING SURE THAT
IT'S APPROPRIATE FOLLOW UP THE
DISCIPLINES FOLLOWED THROUGH SO,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN SOME CASES, THE
INVESTIGATION WOULD DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT IT DID
NOT MEET THE LEVEL OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, BUT THEY REFERRED IT
TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT TO TAKE
FURTHER ACTION AND YOU'D STILL
NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY TOOK
THAT FURTHER ACTION. SO OUR MAIN
ISSUE THAT WE FOUND IS GETTING
TO DISCIPLINE AT THE TIMELINESS
OF THAT DISCIPLINE. OKAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH CHAIR. YES, MR
PATTERSON, PLEASE. THAT ARE NOW.
GREAT. THANK YOU. UM FIRST OF
ALL I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
THE AUDITOR AND FOR THE AUDIT.
I'VE BEEN HERE 10 YEARS AND
FOUND THAT ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT
IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US IS TO
HAVE ACCESS TO THE AUDITOR. AND
I THINK THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU
GO ABOUT THE PROFESSIONALISM AND
HOW YOU DIG INTO THESE. BACK I
WANT TO VISIT VERY QUICKLY TO OF
THESE ISSUES THAT TROUBLED ME
THE MOST WITH THE FRESNO STATE
ISSUE. AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH
LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION. AND
RETREAT RIGHTS. TO AN INDIVIDUAL
ON THAT CAMPUS. WHO WAS WHO'S
WHO'S ALLEGATIONS WERE AGAINST
HIM WERE UPHELD. UM IT MADE A
LOT OF HEADLINES AS A FRESNO
STATE ALUM. IT WAS TERRIBLY
EMBARRASSING. UM AND I JUST FIND
IT. INEXPLICABLE THAT AN
INSTITUTION HAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY. OF TRAINING OUR
NEXT GENERATION. UH, WOULD.
ENGAGE IN THESE KINDS OF
PRACTICES THAT ARE SO AGREE GIS.
TO FAIRNESS AND TO JUSTICE. UM
AND WHEN I SAW WHAT UNFOLDED AT
FRESNO STATE. IT WASN'T JUST THE
RETREAT RIGHTS OR LETTER OF
RECOMMENDATION. IT WAS A COUPLE
$100,000. AND SOME KIND OF A
PAYOUT. AND I JUST CAN'T HELP
BUT SAY THIS. IF THIS WENT ON IN
A PRIVATE COMPANY. I THINK THERE
WERE SOME LAWS BROKEN AND THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME SEVERE
PENALTIES. AND YET LOOK WHAT
WE'VE SEEN. UM SO, UH, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOUR
RECOMMENDATION BASICALLY SAYS
THOSE PRACTICES SHOULD END.
THAT'S CORRECT. WE BELIEVE THE
CSU NEEDS TO CHANGE THEIR
POLICIES OVER WHEN RETREAT
RIGHTS CAN BE EXERCISED AND
NGUYEN LETTERS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE OFFERED,
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYEES
ARE FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED IN
SEXUAL HARASSMENT. CONTRARY TO
CSU'S POLICY, THEY SHOULD NOT
RECEIVE ABSOLUTELY RETREAT
RIGHTS. THE LETTER OF
RECOMMENDATION. SHOULD BE
RESERVED FOR THOSE WHO DO A
REALLY GOOD JOB AND WHOSE RECORD
IS CLEAN. AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR
THE RECOMMENDATION. AND A LITTLE
BIT LATER ON. I'M GOING TO ASK
THE DIRECT QUESTION OF THE
LEADERS OF THE CSU WHETHER OR
NOT THEY WILL END THAT PRACTICE.
THANK YOU, MR PATTERSON. GRATIS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND I THINK
THE CHAIR AND STAFF THE AUDITOR
AND ALL WHO ARE THERE HERE TO
TESTIFY TODAY. UM, I FIND THIS
ISSUE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, NOT
JUST AS A MOM BUT ALSO AS AN
EDUCATOR, K 12 EDUCATOR AND
SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS TO CSU
CAMPUSES, ONE OF WHICH IS THE
RECIPIENT OF THE MOST INFAMOUS
RETREAT RIGHT CASES. UM AND AS
WELL AS MULTIPLE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES AND OTHER PRIVATE
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. AND
FRANKLY, I'M STUNNED BY THE
FINDINGS. I MEAN, I WAS RECENTLY
ELECTED, SO I KNEW ABOUT THIS
SITUATION JUST AS A PERSON AND
THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND WHEN YOU
VIEW IT THROUGH THOSE EYES, YOU
CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT IS HAPPENING
IN OUR STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM,
THEN TO RECEIVE THE AUDITOR
REPORT AND TO, UM REALLY GET. IN
THE DETAILS OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING
ON AT OUR STATE SYSTEM IS, I
THINK A TRAGEDY FOR MANY
STUDENTS AND STAFF FACULTY,
ANOTHER CAMPUS EMPLOYEE, SO I
WANT TO THANK THE AUDITOR. I
JUST DID THAT. BUT SAY THANK YOU
ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE THE WORK
THAT YOU HAVE DONE IS TREMENDOUS
AND IT'S TREMENDOUSLY DETAILED.
I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, THE
FIRST OF WHICH IS WHAT KIND OF
REPERCUSSIONS OR CONSEQUENCES
ARE THERE FOR ANY OF THE
CAMPUSES? UM, WHO DON'T FOLLOW
THE TRUSTEE APPROVED POLICIES
WITH FIDELITY OR WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE IF IT
DOESN'T FOLLOW THESE POLICIES.
SO I THINK ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE TO HOLD
CAMPUSES ACCOUNTABLE, BUT ALSO
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE NEEDS TO
STEP UP AND SET EXPECTATIONS AND
CLARIFY THEIR GUIDANCE AND
EXPECTATIONS. IT'S DIFFICULT TO
HOLD CAMPUSES ACCOUNTABLE IF
THERE'S NOT A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING, AS I THINK, IS
THE CASE HERE, WHERE ALL
CAMPUSES ARE OPERATING UNDER THE
SAME SET OF RULES, SO I THINK
THE FIRST STEP IS THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE NEEDS TO DO
A MUCH BETTER JOB OF SETTING
EXPECTATIONS, ENSURING
CONSISTENCY MONITORING
TIMELINESS, ADDRESSING THE
RETREAT, WRITES IN THE LETTER OF
RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUE THAT WE
JUST TALKED ABOUT EARLIER AND
ONCE THOSE POLICIES ARE WELL
UNDERSTOOD, THEN I THINK THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE IS IN A
POSITION TO START THINKING ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS. ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT WE NOTED IN
OUR REPORT, AS UM, THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE USED TO HAVE
A PRACTICE OF GOING OUT AND
MONITORING CAMPUS COMPLIANCE
WITH TITLE NINE, AND IT WAS
SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY
RECOMMENDED THAT THEY DO. I
BELIEVE IT WAS IN 2014, BUT THEY
STOPPED IN 2018 OR THEREABOUTS.
AND DURING THE AUDIT, WE
OBTAINED SOME INTERNAL MEMOS
FROM THEIR TITLE, NINE SYSTEM
WIDE COMPLIANCE MANAGER. TO THE
GENERAL COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE
VICE CHANCELLOR SAYING, HEY, WE
GOT PROBLEMS HERE AND A LOT OF
THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THAT
INTERNAL MEMO. I BELIEVE FROM
2018 ECHOED THE SAME KINDS OF
ISSUES THAT WE MENTIONED IN OUR
REPORT TODAY IN TERMS OF
INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATIONS
REACHING QUESTIONABLE
CONCLUSIONS, SO. I THINK THERE
IS AN ABILITY, OBVIOUSLY, FOR
CSU TO EXERCISE MORE OVERSIGHT,
BUT I THINK FIRST THINGS FIRST.
CSU NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE NEEDS TO
MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE CAMPUSES
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EXPECTATION
IS. SO I BELIEVE IT WAS THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE THAT SAID,
IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF US TO
FIX THIS. YOU TALKED TO A LOT OF
PEOPLE. AND I'M WONDERING IF IN
THOSE CONVERSATIONS YOU FELT
LIKE THERE IS AN INTEREST AND
WILLINGNESS TO SHIP CULTURE, OR
IF YOU GOT THE SENSE THAT A
LEGISLATIVE FIXES NEEDED WHEN IT
COMES TO ENSURING THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND THE
SYSTEM OR FOLLOWING THE
POLICIES. WE'VE MADE OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND THE CSU
AS A WHOLE, I THINK IS IT IN
TERMS OF CAPABILITY? THEY'RE
MORE THAN CAPABLE OF DOING IT IF
THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE
WILL. TO DO IT AND IT TO THE
EXTENT THAT OVER TIME, THEY
CAN'T DEMONSTRATE THE WILL AND
WE'LL BE FOLLOWING UP ON OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS AT SIX MONTHS IN
A YEAR, WE'LL CONTINUE TO REPORT
TO THE LEGISLATURE ON PROGRESS,
AND, OF COURSE, AT ANY TIME THE
LEGISLATURE CAN IMPOSE ITS OWN
REQUIREMENTS AND IMPOSE ITS OWN
LEGISLATIVE MANDATES ON THE CSU
IN TERMS OF HOW THEY OPERATE
THEIR SYSTEM. I JUST HAVE A TWO
MORE QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE NEXT
ONE IS REALLY AROUND THE
ANONYMOUS PORTAL AND THE CSU
OFFERS ANONYMOUS REPORTING YET
THERE'S BEEN TROUBLE AROUND
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS
WHERE THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT
WANTING TO COOPERATE OR HAS
REQUESTED CONFIDENTIALITY. AND
SO JUST WONDERING HOW THOSE
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS ARE
PROCESSED. WE DISCUSSED IN THE
REPORT THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES
AND SEE SUS POLICY DESCRIBES
THIS WHERE COMPLAINANTS MAY NOT
WANT TO BE SO FORTHCOMING. THEY
WANT TO DO IT ANONYMOUSLY AND
THEY THEN THEY WENT TO BACK
AWAY. UM AND CSU POLICY IS VERY
CLEAR THAT INVESTIGATORS CAN'T
JUST BACK AWAY. UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES. IT'S A BALANCING
ACT BETWEEN RESPECTING THE
WISHES OF THE COMPLAINANT BUT
ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT THEY HAVE
A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BROADER
CSU COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE OFFERING EDUCATION AND
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT ARE
FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT AND ONE OF THE
JUDGMENTS THAT INVESTIGATORS
NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT IS HOW
FAR CAN I GO WITH THIS
INVESTIGATION WITHOUT THE
COMPLAINANT'S PARTICIPATION? DO
I HAVE ENOUGH THERE TO PROCEED,
AND I THINK ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES WE HAD WHEN WE WERE
ENCOUNTERING THESE CASES IN OUR
SAMPLE IS THAT THERE WERE
INSTANCES WHERE WE ASK QUESTIONS
. WHY DIDN'T YOU GO FURTHER AND
THERE WASN'T CLEAR RATIONALE IN
THE CASE FILES ABOUT? WHY DIDN'T
YOU GO? THAT EXTRA STEP? YES
THEY WERE ANONYMOUS YESTERDAY,
PROVIDED YOU INFORMATION, BUT
JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE ANONYMOUS,
DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T WANT TO
PARTICIPATE DOESN'T MEAN YOU
JUST AUTOMATICALLY. STOP UM I
THINK INVESTIGATORS HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK OUT FOR
THE CSU AS A WHOLE AND USE EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE FINDING AND
INVESTIGATING INSTANCES OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT. THANK YOU FOR
THAT. MY LAST QUESTION IS BACK
TO RETREAT RIGHTS, AND I KNOW
YOU FEEL THE POLICY SHOULD END.
UM, BUT IF YOU COULD DETAIL KIND
OF WHAT GOES INTO THAT A LITTLE
BIT DECIDING WHEN SOMEBODY
SHOULD HAVE RETREAT RIGHTS. SO
OUR MAIN CONCERN WITH THE
RETREAT RIGHT POLICY IS THAT
IT'S OVERLY PERMISSIVE. AND THAT
THE ONLY WAY YOU ARE INELIGIBLE
TO RETREAT IS IF YOU ARE
ULTIMATELY TERMINATED OR
SUSPENDED, OR YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED
YOU SEPARATE FROM THE CSU FOR
SOME REASON, BUT HYPOTHETICALLY
, LET'S SAY THAT YOU'RE FOUND
GUILTY OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, BUT
YOU DIDN'T TERMINATE MAYBE YOU
WERE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED TO
YOU. YOU'RE STILL ABLE TO
EXERCISE THAT RETREAT, RIGHT? UM
WE THINK THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY
WRONG. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY WE MADE OUR
RECOMMENDATION THAT FOR ANY CSU
EMPLOYEE WHO WAS FOUND GUILTY OF
VIOLATING CSU POLICY ON SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO
RETREAT SHOULD BE OFF THE TABLE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I DON'T SEE
ANYBODY ELSE THINKING, MISS
HARRISON. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY
ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK JUST TO
FINALIZE QUESTIONING FOR YOU ON
THE RETREAT ISSUE. UM IS THAT
SOMETHING? UH CHANGE THAT YOU'VE
RECOMMENDED IS THAT A POLICY
CHANGE FROM THE CSU SYSTEM IS
THAT REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
WHAT WOULD IT UM WHAT WOULD IT
TAKE? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CS
. YOU CAN DO IT IF IT SO
CHOOSES, UM I DON'T HAVE MY
LAWYERS WITH ME AT THE TABLE,
BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THE
LEGISLATURE HAS A GREAT DEAL OF
POWER AS WELL. IN TERMS OF THE
STATUTES THAT YOU CAN CRAFT AND
THE LAWS THAT YOU PASS, SO I
THINK BOTH OPTIONS ARE PROBABLY
ON THE TABLE. THANK YOU, SPARKS.
THANK YOU. SURE APPRECIATE BOTH
OF YOUR WORK. WE WILL GO ON TO
OUR SECOND PANEL. UH AND I KNOW
THAT WE HAVE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
INTERIM CHANCELLOR. COASTER WHO
IS JOINING US? VIRTUALLY I
APPRECIATE YOU MAKING YOURSELF
AVAILABLE. AND THEN WE HAVE
LEORA FRIEDMAN, VICE CHANCELLOR
FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, WHO WILL BE
JOINING THE TABLE HERE WITH OUR
AUDITOR. AND ALSO GINA MAESTRO
SMITH WITH THE CODES IN O
CONNOR. AH AND LESLIE GÓMEZ. AS
WELL. YOU CAN ALL COME FORWARD.
WE'VE ALLOCATED ABOUT 55 MINUTES
FOR EACH OF YOU 20 MINUTES TOTAL
. UM I WILL JUST GIVE REMINDERS
OF THE INTERIM FIVE MINUTE
PERIODS, BUT I BELIEVE INTERIM
CHANCELLOR COASTER WOULD LIKE TO
BEGIN. CAN YOU HEAR? YES SURE.
ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES.
PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD. THANK
YOU. ALVAREZ CHAIR FONG AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I DO
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM TODAY AND I AM
APPRECIATIVE THAT YOU HAVE
ALLOWED ME TO PARTICIPATE.
VIRTUALLY I DO HAVE SOME
IMPORTANT FAMILY MATTERS THAT I
NEED TO ATTEND TO. AND THAT
PERMISSION TO BE WITH YOU
VIRTUALLY HAS ALLOWED ME TO DO
THAT FAMILY ATTENTION HAS BEEN
OF SHORT SHRIFT OVER THE LAST
YEAR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE. I AM
JULIEN. KESTER AND I HAVE HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS THE
INTERIM CHANCELLOR OF THE CSU.
LAST YEAR, SHORTLY BEFORE I
BECAME THE INTERIM CHANCELLOR,
IT BECAME VERY EVIDENT THAT OUR
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM HAD FALLEN
SHORT. IN ITS EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTS IN SYSTEM
WIDE DIRECTION TO ENSURE THAT
EACH OF THE 23 UNIVERSITIES WERE
SAFE. AND WELCOMING TO OUR
DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF STUDENTS,
FACULTY AND STAFF. IN MARCH OF
2022 IN RESPONSE TO THE
SHORTCOMINGS. THE CSU BOARD OF
TRUSTEES DID TAKE IMMEDIATE
ACTION. AND AT THAT TIME THE
BOARD RETAINED CHOSEN O'CONNOR'S
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE GROUP. TO
CONDUCT A SYSTEM WIDE ASSESSMENT
OF THE UNIVERSITY'S
IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE NINE AND
OTHER NONDISCRIMINATION PROGRAMS
AT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND
ACROSS OUR 23 UNIVERSITIES. THAT
ASSESSMENT EVOLVED INTO WHAT CAN
BE PRETTY ACCURATELY DESCRIBED
AS THE LARGEST REVIEW OF ITS
KIND EVER CONDUCTED IN THIS
COUNTRY. WE UNDERTOOK THE
ASSESSMENT. NOT BECAUSE IT WAS
GOING TO BE QUICK. FOR EASY OR
COMFORTABLE. IT WAS NONE OF
THOSE. BUT WE DID IT BECAUSE IT
WAS THE RIGHT THING FOR US TO
DO. THE CHOSEN REVIEW WAS
COMPREHENSIVE. METHODICAL.
IMPORTANTLY IT RECOGNIZED THAT
MEANINGFUL CHANGE NEEDED TO BE
HOLISTIC. AND THAT WE HAD TO
STRENGTHEN THE SEA SUS INTER
RELATED CULTURES AND CULTURES.
IT IS OF BOTH COMPLIANCE AND
CARE. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
THAT WE IN THE CSU HAVE ALSO
BENEFITED. FROM THE AUDIT THAT
YOU HEARD SUMMARIES OF PRIOR TO
MY COMMENTS. YES SECOND
INDEPENDENT REVIEW DONE BY THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR. ALSO
HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE PATHWAY.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO MOVING
FORWARD WITH. WE ARE
APPRECIATIVE. AND RESPECTFUL OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITORS
TEAM AND THEIR THOROUGHNESS. AND
THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AND THEY
IN DOING THE AUDIT. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CAUSE AND
ASSESSMENT. TOGETHER WITH THOSE
OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT.
HAVE GIVEN US A VERY CLEAR
PATHWAY FORWARD. TO A ADDRESS
ARE CRITICAL AREAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT. AS THE INTERIM
CHANCELLOR. I HAVE OFFICIALLY
FORMALLY INFORMALLY, LOUDLY AND
CONSISTENTLY. COMMITTED THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY TO
ADHERE. TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THESE TWO OUTSIDE GROUPS
WHO HAVE WORKED WITH US TO
CREATE A PATH FORWARD. THE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DO
CREATE AN INFLECTION POINT FOR
US. YES IN SOME WAYS A UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY. BUT IT WILL REQUIRE
US TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE
WAY WE SERVE AND CARE FOR. THE
DIVERSE AND TALENTED STUDENTS
ARE WORLD CLASS FACULTY STAFF.
OUR PARTNERS AND OUR FRIENDS. I
AM HERE TO SAY TO YOU. WE ARE
NOT GOING TO SQUANDER THIS
MOMENT IN TIME. THIS OPPORTUNITY
WE HAVE THE COMMITMENT AND, YES,
WE HAVE THE WILL AND THE
FORTITUDE. TO MOVE FORWARD. IT
IS GONNA TAKE US SOME TIME.
CHANGE LIKE THIS OF CULTURE. THE
CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE AND THE
CULTURE OF CARE. DOES TAKE TIME.
AND I GUESS GOING TO TAKE
RESOURCES. AND IT'S GOING TO
REQUIRE THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
TO RECONSIDER THE ROLE THAT IT'S
HAD. IN TERMS OF OVERSIGHT AND
SUPPORT OF THE 23 UNIVERSITIES.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO UNDERTAKE
THIS IMPORTANT PROCESS. AND WE
WILL GET IT RIGHT. OUR STUDENTS
, OUR FACULTY OUR STAFF TO STATE
THAT WE SERVE DEMANDED, AND OUR
MISSION IN CORE VALUES REQUIRE
IT. AS YOU WILL HEAR,
MOMENTARILY FROM OUR VICE
CHANCELLOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
LEORA FRIEDMAN. WE HAVE ALREADY
TAKEN CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL
STEPS. FORWARD. BOTH IN THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND ACROSS
THE SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS. AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO HOLD OURSELVES
ACCOUNTABLE. FOR MEETING THE
REQUIRED DEADLINES AND FOR
COMMUNICATING REGULARLY AND
PUBLICLY ON OUR PROGRESS. I
MIGHT ALSO ADD. THE CHANCELLOR'S
SELECT MILDRED GARCIA. IS FULLY
BRIEFED, FULLY INFORMED AND LIKE
ME. FULLY COMMITTED. WITH THE
WILL. THE FORTITUDE AND THE
RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE CSU AS
WE MOVE FORWARD. I THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU
TODAY, AND I WILL LOOK FORWARD
TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT
HAVE THANK YOU, CHANCELLOR VERY
WELL TIME THAT FIVE MINUTES.
APPRECIATE THAT. AH, NEXT, WE'LL
HEAR FROM LEORA FRIEDMAN.
WELCOME AND PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. CHAIRS AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU
TODAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.
GREAT. MY NAME IS LEORA FRIEDMAN
AND I'M, THE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR
HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
WHERE I OVERSEE SYSTEM WIDE
HUMAN RESOURCES, COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS,
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES AND EQUITY SERVICES,
WHICH INCLUDE TITLE NINE AND
OTHER NON DISCRIMINATION,
PROGRAMMING AND SERVICES. AS
YOU'VE JUST HEARD FROM INTERIM
CHANCELLOR KESTER, BOTH THE
STATE AUDIT AND THE COSINE
O'CONNOR ASSESSMENT HAVE GIVEN
THE CSU A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR
CLEAR EYED SELF REFLECTION
REGARDING HOW WE MANAGE TITLE
NINE AND RELATED ISSUES.
TOGETHER THESE REPORTS HAVE
PROVIDED A THOROUGH ASSESSMENT
OF OUR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
AS WELL AS A PATH FORWARD. WE'RE
GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY,
AND WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH
CARE. DETERMINATION AND
COMMITMENT. WITH THAT SAID, LET
ME GIVE YOU A BRIEF OUTLINE OF
WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE
ARE HEADED. RECENT EVENTS HAVE
MADE CLEAR THAT THE CSU NEEDS TO
DO MORE TO PROVIDE SAFE AND
WELCOMING, WORKING AND LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS FOR ALL STUDENTS,
FACULTY AND STAFF. TO THAT END
AND ITS INTERIM CHANCELLOR,
KESTER DESCRIBED OUR BOARD OF
TRUSTEES CALLED UPON THE FIRM OF
KAZAN O'CONNOR TO ASSESS HOW WE
IMPLEMENT TITLE NINE AND OTHER
NON DISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND
PRACTICES THAT ARE UNIVERSITIES
AND AT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE.
THE GOAL OF THE ASSESSMENT IS TO
IMPROVE OUR RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT AND ALSO TO
STRENGTHEN CAMPUS CULTURE. ALL
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WHETHER IN
CLASSROOMS, RESIDENTS, HALLS,
ATHLETIC FIELDS, WORKPLACES OR
ELSEWHERE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LAW AND UNIVERSITY POLICY ARE
IMPORTANT, BUT COMPLIANCE IS
JUST A PART OF WHAT IT TAKES TO
IMPROVE AN INSTITUTION'S CULTURE
AND CLIMATE. CHOSEN O'CONNOR'S
ASSESSMENT INCLUDED SITE VISITS
TO ALL 23 UNIVERSITIES AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND FEEDBACK
FROM NEARLY 18,000 STUDENTS,
FACULTY AND STAFF CHOSEN TEAM
ALSO REVIEWED EACH UNIVERSITY'S
WRITTEN POLICIES, PROCEDURES,
WRITTEN RESOURCES AND A SAMPLE
OF CASE FILES. THE KHAZEN REPORT
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CSU
STRENGTHEN THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE OVERSIGHT AND
SUPERVISION. ADDRESS
INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES,
IMPROVED PREVENTION, EDUCATION,
TRAINING AND AWARENESS. PROVIDE
FOR ENHANCED ACCOUNTABILITY.
DEVELOP A FORMAL PROCESS FOR
RESPONDING TO OTHER CONDUCT OF
CONCERN WHICH WE CAN TALK ABOUT
LATER AND BUILD TRUST IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS
ASSESSMENT PROVIDED THE CSU WITH
AN IMPORTANT ROAD MAP FOR THE
FUTURE. WE'RE COMMITTED TO
CARRYING OUT THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND BECOMING A
LEADER IN RESPONDING TO TITLE
NINE AND OTHER PROTECTED STATUS
COMPLAINTS AND IN PROVIDING
EFFECTIVE PREVENTION AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMMING. DURING
THE SAME TIME PERIOD, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
REVIEWED A TOTAL OF 40 CASES AS
YOU'VE HEARD. UM THE C S A. THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR MADE
IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
FOLLOWING AREAS. MOST OF THE
WORK WILL BE COMPLETED BY JULY.
2024 SOME WILL BE COMPLETED NO
LATER THAN JULY. 2025 AND 2026.
I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW. IN
THE INITIAL AREA IN THE AREA OF
INITIAL ASSESSMENTS AND
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES. WE
WILL CREATE CLEARER AND MORE
COMPREHENSIVE EXPECTATIONS FOR
HOW UNIVERSITIES SHOULD PERFORM
AND DOCUMENT THEIR INITIAL
ASSESSMENTS OF ALLEGATIONS. IT'S
VERY DISAPPOINTING TO A
COMPLAINANT WHEN A CASE IS NOT
ACCEPTED FOR INVESTIGATION. AND
IT'S IMPORTANT TO DOCUMENT AND
EXPLAIN TO THEM AS CLEARLY AS
POSSIBLE THE REASONS WHY THE
CASE WAS NOT INVESTIGATED. IN
THE AREA OF TIMELINESS OF
INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINE
PROCESSES. WE WILL REQUIRE ALL
UNIVERSITIES TO TRACK KEY DATES
AND TIMELINE EXTENSIONS RELATED
TO REPORTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN A CONSISTENT MANNER.
INVESTIGATIONS OFTEN TAKE MUCH
LONGER THAN HIS EX THAN EXPECTED
AND SOMETIMES THAT'S
UNAVOIDABLE. HOWEVER IF WE
CAREFULLY TRACKED DATES WILL BE
ABLE TO MONITOR PROGRESS ENSURE
THAT THE MATTER IS PROCEEDING
REASONABLY UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WE WILL KEEP
THE PARTIES INFORMED OF ANY
DELAYS AND THE REASONS FOR THOSE
DELAYS. IN THE AREA OF CASE FILE
DOCUMENTATION, WE WILL PROCURE
AN ENTERPRISE LEVEL CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BUT THAT'S
GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. AND IN
THE MEANTIME, WE ARE DEVELOPING
GUIDELINES AND WILL EMPLOY THEM
THAT YOU INCLUDE A SPECIFIC LIST
OF DOCUMENTS THAT A UNIVERSITY'S
TITLE COURT TIME COORDINATOR
MUST MAINTAIN IN A SEXUAL
HARASSMENT CASE FILE BEFORE
CLOSING THE CASE. IN THE AREA OF
SYSTEM WIDE DATA AND OVERSIGHT.
WE WILL ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR
REGULARLY COLLECTING AND
ANALYZING SEXUAL HARASSMENT DATA
FROM ALL UNIVERSITIES. THIS
SERVES SEVERAL PURPOSES. IT'S AN
EFFECTIVE WAY TO SHARE
INFORMATION WITH OUR COMMUNITY
AND THE PUBLIC. IT HELPS US TO
IDENTIFY PATTERNS AND TRENDS
THAT WARRANT ACTION BY THE
UNIVERSITY. AND IT'S ALSO A VERY
USEFUL METHOD FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY. UM WITH RESPECT
TO LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION, WE
WILL AMEND OUR POLICY. CURRENTLY
THE POLICY DOES PROHIBIT GIVING
A POSITIVE REFERENCE FOR AN
EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE WHO
IS SEPARATED FROM EMPLOYMENT AS
A RESULT OF A FINDING THAT THE
CSU EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN
MISCONDUCT. SO WE'VE ALREADY
REVISED THE POLICY TO REFLECT
THAT. WE ARE NOW AT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE AUDITOR. WE ARE NOW GOING
TO FURTHER REVISED THAT POLICY
TO PROHIBIT OR QUALIFY POSITIVE
REFERENCES FOR EMPLOYEES WHO
WERE FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED IN
SEXUAL HARASSMENT BUT WHO
RECEIVED LESSER DISCIPLINE SUCH
AS SUSPENSION OR DEMOTION. SO
NOW THE POLICY WILL BE REVISED
TO REFLECT THAT, UM ANY
REFERENCES HAVE TO EITHER CAN'T
EITHER CAN'T BE GIVEN OR WOULD
HAVE TO QUALIFY? A NOTE THAT
THERE WAS A FINDING UM, I THINK
WE SHOULD TALK LATER ABOUT THE
RETREAT POLICY. IT HAS ALREADY
BEEN REVISED. SO I THINK THERE'S
A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT
WHAT THE RETREAT POLICY PROVIDES
BECAUSE IT ALREADY DOES PROHIBIT
RETREAT IF THERE WAS A FINDING
OF A TITLE NINE VIOLATIONS I'M
SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT YOU'RE
AT FIVE MINUTES. JUST LETTING
YOU KNOW I'M ALMOST DONE. THANK
YOU. THE CSU HAS ESTABLISHED A
WORK GROUP THAT'S DEDICATED TO
ENSURING THAT WE FOLLOW THROUGH
ON EACH OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
, AND WE'VE ALREADY MADE
IMPORTANT PROGRESS IN ADVANCE OF
OUR 60 DAY RESPONSE, WHICH WILL
BE ON SEPTEMBER 15TH. TO
CONCLUDE WE RESPECT AND ACCEPT
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
FINDINGS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE
THE WORK THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
BEGUN TO IMPLEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE C S
A AS WELL AS COSINE O'CONNOR.
GIRL ONGOING EFFORTS. WE WILL
CONTINUE TO IMPROVE EDUCATION
AND AWARENESS. REDUCE BARRIERS
TO REPORTING ENSURE THAT
APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS
ARE IN PLACE AND STRENGTHEN OUR
CULTURES OF CARE AND COMPLIANCE
. WE WILL REGULARLY COMMUNICATE
OUR PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENSURING
ACCOUNTABILITY. THANK YOU AGAIN
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON. I LOOK
FORWARD TO ANSWERING ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK
YOU, VICE CHANCELLOR. MOVE ON
TO, UM THE CHOSEN O'CONNOR
REPRESENTATIVES. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR ALVAREZ CHAIRS OF OTHER
COMMITTEES. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEES HERE TODAY AND
EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE AND
LISTENERS. MY NAME IS GINA
MAISTO SMITH. I'M THE CHAIR OF
THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE GROUP
AT COSIGN O'CONNOR. THE
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE GROUP WAS
STARTED IN 2006, AND WE
DEVELOPED THIS PRACTICE
EXPRESSLY AS A RESULT OF BEING
SEX CRIMES. CHILD ABUSE AND
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, PROSECUTORS
FOR 15 AND 20 YEARS
RESPECTIVELY. OUR COLLECTIVE 47
AND 39 YEARS IN THIS SPACE IS
INFORMED BY WALKING WITH
THOUSANDS WHO'VE EXPERIENCED SEX
AND GENDER BASED HARASSMENT AND
VIOLENCE, AND WE RECOGNIZED VERY
EARLY ON THAT THE LAW ALONE IS
NOT SUFFICIENT. TO SOLVE THESE
PROBLEMS. IT IS A SYSTEM OF CARE
. IT IS A CULTURE OF CARE, AND
IT IS THE CONFLUENCE OF THE LAW
AND UNDERSTANDING THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES AS WELL AS
THE CULTURE WITHIN WHICH THESE
THINGS OCCUR. TO SHARE THAT WITH
YOU BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO HAVE
OUR ORIENTATION AS WE SHARE WITH
YOU OUR APPROACH IN THIS
PARTICULAR REVIEW. WE ARE
PRIVILEGED TO BE PART OF SUCH AN
INCREDIBLE STATE EFFORT. MANY
COMMITTEES, THE STATE AUDITOR,
AND WE ARE BUOYED BY THE OUTCOME
OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT AS
IT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH MOST OF
WHAT WE OBSERVED IN OUR REPORT.
IN OUR PROCESS, WE DO NOT ENGAGE
DELIBERATELY, AND THIS IS
IMPORTANT FOR ALL TO KNOW IN
CIVIL LITIGATION. ENSUING OR
DEFENDING INSTITUTIONS. WE ARE
ASKED FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY. WE REPRESENT SEVERAL
HUNDREDS, ACTUALLY HIGHER
EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS MORE THAN
50 PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, AND I
SHARE WITH YOU THAT WE FOCUS ON
SYSTEMS DESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE
POLICY PROCEDURE, PRACTICE
PREVENTION IN ALL AREAS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION. AND WE ARE
CALLED UPON FREQUENTLY TO GIVE A
CANDID AND UNFLINCHING ACCOUNT
AND WE BROUGHT THAT HERE. I WILL
SAY PROMOTE PRELIMINARILY. THE C
S U SYSTEM IS A TRANSFORMATIVE
PLACE OUR TEAM OF 15 THAT WORKED
ON THIS PROJECT OVER THE COURSE
OF A YEAR, INTERVIEWING
THOUSANDS ALMOST 2000.
COLLECTING 1800 SURVEY RESPONSES
, REVIEWING DOCUMENTS AND
SITTING ON EACH CAMPUS AND
GETTING TO KNOW EACH CAMPUS WAS
TRANSFORMATIVE FOR OUR TEAM AS
WELL. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
REPORT. I'M GOING TO TURN IT
OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE LESLIE
GÓMEZ TO SHARE THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AT A HIGH LEVEL.
I WILL SAY THAT 10 MINUTES IS
NOT ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU A 250
SOME PAGE REPORT FOR SURE. I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ IT, AND IN
PARTICULAR, I DRAW YOUR
ATTENTION TO PAGES 6 TO 9
BECAUSE THAT GROUNDS US IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE SEISMIC SHIFTS
THAT HAVE OCCURRED FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION. THE CONSISTENT
PENDULUM SWINGS OF FEDERAL AND
STATE LAW. THAT SCHOOLS AND
PARTICULARLY THE CSU SYSTEM HAS
TO NAVIGATE AND THE IMPORTANT
EFFORTS THAT YOU AS A
LEGISLATURE CAN TAKE. THANK YOU,
GINA. GOOD AFTERNOON, GERMAN
ALVAREZ, CHAIRMAN FONG AND
MEMBERS OF ALL OF THE
COMMITTEE'S PRESENT. I'M
DELIGHTED TO SEE SO MANY
COMMITTEES COMING TOGETHER TO
LOOK AT THESE SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES. MY NAME IS LESLIE MARIE
GOMEZ. I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF
THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE GROUP
AT KAZAN, O'CONNOR AND I'VE HAD
THE GREAT PRIVILEGE AND HUMBLING
HONOR OF WORKING WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY STAFF AND STUDENTS OVER
THE COURSE OF THE PAST YEAR.
WHAT I WANT TO SHARE FOR YOU AS
A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW, BUT
I'D LIKE TO HARKEN BACK.
CHAIRMAN PHªN DOES SOMETHING
THAT YOU SAID IN ONE OF YOUR
EARLIER REMARKS AND QUESTIONS,
WHICH IS THAT THE CSU IS NOT
UNIQUE. WE COULD FIND ISSUES OF
THIS CALIBER AND THIS DEGREE AT
MOST INSTITUTIONS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, INCLUDING OTHER
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTIONS. WHAT IS
UNIQUE ABOUT THE CSU AND WHAT
EXACERBATES THE ISSUES. ARE THE
EXTREME EXTENT OF THE RESOURCE
CONSTRAINTS THAT EACH OF THE 23
UNIVERSITIES AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE OPERATE
WITHIN AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
FACTOR NOT TO BE OFFERED AS AN
EXCUSE, BUT TO OFFER CONTEXT TO
EXPLAIN SOME OF THE CHALLENGES
THAT WE OBSERVED IN OUR WORK
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE KNOW THAT
NO INSTITUTION IS IMMUNE OR
INVINCIBLE. WE MORE OFTEN SEE
ISSUES THAT ARE RELATED TO
INCOMPETENCE, NOT MALFEASANCE.
AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE WORK
THAT WE DO, WE STEP IN TO LOOK
AT AND ASSESS HOW POLICIES
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES ARE
IMPLEMENTED. SO HOW DO WE THINK
ABOUT THE FLIPPING THE LENS AND
THE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE SERVING?
WHETHER IT BE A COMPLAINANT OR
RESPONDENT, A STUDENT OF FACULTY
OR STAFF MEMBER? HOW DO WE BUILD
A PROCESS THAT REMOVES BARRIERS
TO REPORTING ENCOURAGES
PARTICIPATION ALLOWS FOR THE
SENSITIVE AND INFORMED GATHERING
OF INFORMATION THAT THEN INFORMS
GOOD DECISIONS ABOUT OUTCOMES AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT PARTICULAR
CONDUCT VIOLATES POLICY OR
SEPARATE AND APART FROM
INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT. IF THERE ARE
CULTURAL CLIMATE CONCERNS THAT
WE NEED TO ADDRESS MORE BROADLY
THAT'S THE ORIENTATION THE LENS
THROUGH WHICH WE APPROACH OUR
WORK. GINA REFERENCED THE
TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION. WE SAW THAT FIRSTHAND
IN A PALPABLE WAY, AND WE TRULY
VIEW THAT NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS
TITLE NINE TITLE SIX TITLE SEVEN
AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
TO BE ABOUT REMOVING BARRIERS TO
EDUCATION THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE
WHEN WE HAVE DISCRIMINATION OR
HARASSMENT. LARGELY TODAY'S
QUESTIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON TITLE
NINE, BUT I WANT TO REMIND ALL
OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
THAT WE LOOKED AT TITLE NINE. WE
ALSO LOOKED AT DISCRIMINATION
AND HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF
ALL OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES. THE
FEDERAL FRAMEWORK IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT, BUT WE APPLIED THE
SAME STANDARDS. TURNING TO OUR
FINDINGS, THEY FELL INTO SIX
CORE AREAS. THOSE SIX COURT
AREAS ARE OUTLINED BOTH IN OUR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AS WELL AS IN
GREAT DETAIL IN THE SYSTEM WIDE
REPORT. WE CHOSE TO DO A SYSTEM
WIDE REPORT BECAUSE WE KEPT
SEEING THE SAME ISSUES ARISE ON
EACH OF THE 23 UNIVERSITIES. THE
CORE FINDING NUMBER ONE WAS
REALLY TO SYSTEM WIDE
COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT. AND
IN THIS WAY IT OVERLAPS
SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THE FINDINGS
THAT WERE SET FORTH BY YOUR
STATE AUDITOR THAT WE ASKED, HOW
DO WE BEST UTILIZED CENTRALIZED
OVERSIGHT TO DRIVE CONSISTENCY
ACROSS THE 23 INDIVIDUAL, UNIQUE
UNIVERSITIES WHERE THE
EFFICIENCIES IN THOSE SYSTEMS
THAT SUPPORT EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION? AND WE MADE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE SET
FORWARD THAT INCLUDE CREATING AN
ASSOCIATE OR ASSISTANT VICE
CHANCELLOR FOR TITLE NINE AND
CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE LEVEL. RESTRUCTURING HOW
WE DO OVERSIGHT OF THE CAMPUSES
, UM, IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE 2014
AUDITOR'S REPORT. CENTRALIZING
THOSE OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES,
ESTABLISHING A CENTER FOR
INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION
DEVELOPING PROCURING AN
ENTERPRISE LEVEL CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM. SOME OF THESE THINGS YOU
WILL HAVE HEARD ECHOED IN THE
AUDITOR'S REPORT AS WELL AND
THEN ULTIMATELY DEVELOPING A
ROBUST WEB PRESENCE AND,
IMPORTANTLY, EXPERIENCE STAFFING
IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL. UNDER OUR SECOND
FINDING. WE DISCUSSED THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND I CANNOT
EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH. THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IS INSUFFICIENT
AS DESIGNED TO COVER THE CORE
LEGAL COMPLIANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. THE
GAPS PERMEATE EVERY ASPECT OF
EFFECTIVE RESPONSES FROM
CONFIDENTIAL ADVOCACY TO THE
DELIVERY OF ROBUST PREVENTION
AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMING TO
TIMELY AND COMPREHENSIVE
INVESTIGATIONS, AS THIS
COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED
IN THE AUDITOR IDENTIFIED AS
WELL, WE OFFER RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT SPEAK TO ADDRESS THE
INFRASTRUCTURE GAP THAT EXISTS.
THOSE GAPS DIRECTLY IMPACT THE
PERSONNEL THAT DO THIS WORK ON A
DAILY BASIS. WE HAVE A HIGH RATE
OF TURNOVER CONSISTENT OF
HEADING OF RESET ON CAMPUS
RELATIONSHIPS AND CAMPUS
PROCESSES, DIFFICULTY RECRUITING
AND RETAINING STAFF, BOTH
BECAUSE OF THE RESOURCE
CONSTRAINTS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF
A DEARTH OF TERRIFIED, TERRIFIED
AND MAKE UP NEW WORDS TALENTED
AND QUALIFIED. PROFESSIONALS
FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE ALSO
SAW AS A RESULT OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS AND
INABILITY TO ENGAGE IN PROACTIVE
STRATEGIC WORK TO ADDRESS
CULTURE AND CLIMATE. THOSE
CHALLENGES IN DOCUMENTATION AND
DATA. I WON'T GO THROUGH AGAIN
BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HEARD
ABOUT THOSE FROM THE AUDIT AND
THEIR ECHOED IN OUR REPORT.
THIRD FINDING WE SAW GAPS IN
PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
PROGRAMMING, NOT JUST
TRADITIONAL PROGRAMMING MIGHT
THINK OF FOR STUDENTS, BUT ALSO
TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FOR FACULTY AND
STAFF. AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE
LEADERS, MANAGERS OR
SUPERVISORS. OTHER KIND OF
CONCERN IS A TERM THAT WE COINED
. IT'S ESSENTIALLY THAT CONDUCT
THAT WOULD NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL
OF A PROTECTED CLASS
DISCRIMINATION HARASSMENT, BUT
IT'S NONETHELESS EXTREMELY
DISRUPTIVE TO THE LIVING
LEARNING AND WORKING
ENVIRONMENTS. WE OFFERED
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING A
FRAMEWORK AGAIN ALIGNED WITH THE
FINDINGS FROM THE AUDITOR, WHICH
SPEAKS ABOUT HOW WE DISCIPLINE
OR RESPOND TO UNPROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT. THE OTHER TWO AREAS OF
FINDINGS INCLUDED THE TRUST, GAP
AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND ONE OF
THE CORE ACCOUNTABILITY THINGS
THAT WE NOTED WERE THE WAY IN
WHICH THE STATE CONTRACTUAL
PERSONNEL PROCESSES AND THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
, PARTICULARLY IN SOME AREAS,
CAUSED A TREMENDOUS DELAY AND AN
INABILITY TO SEEK
ACCOUNTABILITY. FOLLOWING OUR
ORIGINAL TITLE NINE PROCESS AND
WE CAN SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT IN
QUESTIONS. I WANT TO WRAP BY
SAYING THAT, ALTHOUGH WE RELIED
ON DIFFERENT EVIDENCE BASIS THAN
THE AUDITOR ARE OUR FINDINGS
ENDED UP BEING ALIGNED IN SOME
WAYS, AND I'M GOING TO TURN TO
GINA TO TALK A LITTLE BIT. JUST
AS WE WRAP. I THINK WE'VE GOT
ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT OR SO YES,
PLEASE. CONTEXT MATTERS AND THE
CONTEXT OF YOUR SUPPORT AND THE
COORDINATED SUPPORT OF ALL OF
THESE COMMITTEES MATTERS. AND SO
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU CAN DO TO
GIVE LEVERAGE TO THIS EFFORT I
SHARE WITH YOU A COUPLE OF
THINGS. RESOURCES ARE CRITICAL.
IT IS TRAGICALLY AND UNDER
RESOURCED OPERATION. TO COMPLY
WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE'S NO
OTHER WAY TO SAY THAT THERE ARE
ALSO LEGISLATIVE RECONCILIATIONS
BETWEEN STATE LAW AND FEDERAL
LAW. YOU HAVE TO WRANGLE WITH
THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY
CONFLICTS BETWEEN SOME STATE LAW
AND FEDERAL LAW ISSUES. AND THEN
FINALLY THROUGH LEGISLATION. YOU
CAN DRIVE SOME SIGNIFICANT
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS. AN
ENTERPRISE LEVEL DATA SYSTEM
THAT GIVES YOU THE DATA THAT YOU
NEED TO LEAD THE NATION AND
UNDERSTANDING PREDICTIVE
ANALYTICS IN UNDERSTANDING,
PREVALENCE AND INFORMING
PREVENTION. YOU CAN DO THAT
LEGISLATIVELY AND THEN A
REGIONAL CENTER, A REGIONAL
CENTER WOULD ENSURE THE QUALITY
CONTROL OF INVESTIGATIONS AND
ADJUDICATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ALL APPRECIATE YOUR
PRESENTATION AGAIN START BY
ASKING A FEW QUESTIONS THAT CAN
HELP DRIVE THE CONVERSATION, AND
IN A WAY THAT, UH, CAN BE USEFUL
FOR EVERYBODY. LET ME START WITH
THE QUESTION ON THE CASES. YOU
HEARD MY QUESTION TO THE AUDITOR
, I'D ASK THE SAME, UM TO THE
CSU IF YOU'D LIKE TO ANSWER OR
DEFINITELY Tð. UM. TO THE
O'CONNOR, UM UM, REPORT IN TERMS
OF THE NUMBER OF CASES. CAN YOU
GIVE ME YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON HOW
YOU IDENTIFIED A NUMBER THAT YOU
CAME UP WITH? WE ACCEPTED. THE
REPORT OUT THE ANNUAL REPORTS
OUT EACH YEAR. AS A FOUNDATION,
AND WE REVIEWED WHAT WAS
REPORTED OUT IN LIGHT OF OUR
INTERVIEWS OF THE IMPLEMENTER IS
ACROSS THE CAMPUS, SO WE DID NOT
DO ANY FILE REVIEW THE IN THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE
AUDITOR'S REPORT, UH, SHOWED WE
INDEPENDENTLY ACCEPTED THE
NUMBERS THAT THEY COLLECTED AND
THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE
FINDINGS WE WERE MAKING WHICH
WAS CLARIFY YOU TOOK THEN, UM
NUMBERS PROVIDED TO YOU FROM
THOSE REPORTS. BUT AS WE HEARD
EARLIER, THERE WERE NO. THERE
WERE CASES THAT WEREN'T EVEN
REPORTED ANYWHERE THAT'S CORRECT
. AND WE FOUND THAT AS WELL IN
OUR INTERVIEWS, AND SO OUR
INTERVIEW SUPPORTED WHAT THE
STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT FOUND,
CHAIRPERSON ALVAREZ 11
ADDITIONAL, VERY IMPORTANT
FACTOR. THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
COLLECTED DATA FROM CAMPUSES IN
AN ANNUAL REPORT. THAT DATA FROM
MANY YEARS FOCUSED ON WHAT WE
CALL THE VAWA. OFFENSES OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT, DATING VIOLENCE,
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL 20 THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2021 2022 THAT THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE GATHERED
DATA ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION. SO THE DATA
THAT'S PRESENTED IN THE
UNIVERSITY REPORTS FROM COSINE
O'CONNOR IS BASED SOLELY ON THAT
ONE YEAR OF REPORTING OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, WHICH IS
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE
FIVE YEAR WINDOW. I BELIEVE THAT
THE AUDITOR LOOKED AT APPRECIATE
THAT. UH QUESTION TO THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. UM YOU KNOW
, WE DO AUDITS FOR A REASON WE
AND WE RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR A REASON YOU WILL BE
PROVIDING A SIX DAY 60 DAY
RESPONSE. AS YOU NOTED TO THE
AUDIT. ARE WE GOING TO SEE
SPECIFIC DATES ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF EVERY
RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED BY THE
AUDITOR? SO WITH THE AUDITOR, WE
HAVE AGREED ON DATES. THEY ARE
IN 24, 25 AND 26. THE COSINE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MORE
GRANULAR. SURE AND EVEN THE
AUDITOR'S REPORT RECOGNIZES THAT
THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN IN STEPS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WE'VE AGREED
WITH THE AUDITOR THAT WE WILL
HAVE AN ENTERPRISE SYSTEM BY
2026. I AM VERY HOPEFUL THAT
WE'LL HAVE IT BEFORE THEN, BUT
EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE
, THEN WE WILL BE TRACKING DATA
IN A LESS EFFICIENT WAY. BUT WE
WILL STILL TRACK THE DATA AND BE
ABLE TO DO HOPEFULLY GET THE
SAME INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD
GET FROM A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. OKAY I LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING THE DATES IN
THE IN THE RESPONSE TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN
WRITING BECAUSE IN THAT LEADS TO
MY SECOND QUESTION IN 2014, THE
STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
RECOMMENDED THAT THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE CONDUCT
ROUTINE REVIEWS TO ENSURE THAT
ITS CAMPUSES WERE COMPLYING WITH
TITLE NINE REQUIREMENTS. UM AND
THAT WAS DONE FOR SOME TIME,
BUT, UH THE RECENT AUDIT FOUND
THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE NO
LONGER PERFORMS THOSE REVIEWS,
EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS A FINDING A
RECOMMENDATION AND A
RECOMMENDATION ACCEPTED BY THE
CSU CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. UH THAT
WAS NOT ACTUALLY, UH,
IMPLEMENTED. EVEN THOUGH AGAIN
THERE WAS AN AUDIT IN A
COMMITMENT TO DO SO. SO GOING
FORWARD. I LIKE TO GET UH UM, A
DIRECT ANSWER AS TO WHO EXACTLY
WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING
THIS ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS. I
KNOW THAT THE REPORT TALKS ABOUT
MAYBE CREATING A NEW POSITION.
BUT IF THE POSITION DOESN'T GET
CREATED, WHETHER IT DOES, OR IT
DOESN'T WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE?
FOR THESE SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS. WELL FIRST OF
ALL, THE POSITION WILL BE FUNDED
AND WE ARE ALSO EXPECTING ABOUT
FIVE OTHER POSITIONS IN THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. IT'S UM I
HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
CAMPUSES AND THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE IS EVOLVING OVER TIME,
AND THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
HAS ALWAYS RESPECTED THE
INDIVIDUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF THE CAMPUSES. EACH CAMPUS
PRESIDENT RUNS THEIR
INSTITUTION. UM OVER TIME AS AS
DIFFERENT AREAS HAVE BECOME MORE
AND MORE REGULATED, WE CAN RELY
LESS ON THAT KIND OF
INDEPENDENCE. WE'VE LEARNED THAT
IN CERTAIN AREAS I KNOW THERE
WAS A HEARING EARLIER THIS WEEK.
UM AND ALSO IN THE TITLE, NINE
AREA AND OTHER AREAS AS WELL
THAT ARE SO COMPLEX AND HIGHLY
REGULATED THAT WE REALIZED THAT
WE CAN NO LONGER LEAVE IT UP TO
THE CAMPUSES TO INDEPENDENTLY
ENFORCE THE LAW AND THE POLICY
AS THEY WISH. SO WE ARE GOING TO
BE, UM WE NEED MORE STAFF TO DO
THAT. BUT EVEN BEFORE WE HAVE
THE POSITIONS THE CHANCELLOR HAS
ALREADY WRITTEN TO ALL OF THE
PRESIDENTS AND INFORMED THEM
THAT THEY MUST INFORM ME AND ONE
MEMBER OF, UM, CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE LIAISON. I'LL DESCRIBE
WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE AND
WHENEVER THERE IS A CASE THAT
TITLE NINE CASE INVOLVING HIGH
LEVEL ADMINISTRATION OR WHENEVER
THERE'S A CASE INVOLVING SEXUAL
VIOLENCE OR VIOLATION OF OUR
POLICY, AND WE'RE CREATING A
FORM FOR EVERYONE TO FILL OUT.
SO THAT WE GET REAL TIME
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT SO THAT
WE CAN OVERSEAS SO WE'RE
DEFINITELY CHANGING OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE AND WILL BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE MORE OVERSIGHT. AND
WE'VE ALSO CHANGED THE
PHILOSOPHY. I MEAN, A LOT OF THE
THERE WAS SOME AMBIGUITY ABOUT
WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
WAS PROVIDING GUIDANCE AND
SUPPORT AND MENTORING OR
OVERSIGHT AND THAT, UM, THERE'S
MUCH MORE CLARITY TO THE WORKING
RELATIONSHIP. NOW I APPRECIATE
THAT. I'LL HAND OVER TO, UH,
PARIS. I SEE EVERYBODY'S HANDS,
SO WE'RE KEEPING TRACK. THANK
YOU. HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
. I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK, BUT
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY VERY ENLIGHTENING. UM
MY FIRST QUESTION IS PRETTY
BROAD. BUT I HOPE YOU DO HAVE AN
ANSWER. BY WHEN DO YOU EXPECT TO
GET TO ZERO FINDINGS? IF THE
AUDIT WERE REPEATED WILL NEVER
BE ZERO. FIND FINDINGS OF
VIOLATION OF POLICY. CORRECT. WE
REPEAT THIS AUDIT. BYE. SO IN
WHAT YEAR? COULD WE REPEAT THIS
AUDIT AND THERE'LL BE ZERO
FINDING ZERO NEGATIVE FINDINGS.
OKAY I THOUGHT YOU MEANT
VIOLATIONS OF POLICY BECAUSE
HUMAN BEINGS WILL CONTINUE TO BE
HUMAN BEINGS FOREVER. AND WE
WILL ALWAYS HAVE COMPLAINTS. AND
IN FACT, I MEAN, AUDIT FIGHTS
SAY WE DID THIS EXACT SAME
AUDIT. AND FIVE YEARS WOULD WE
EXPECT ZERO FINDINGS? I WOULD
CERTAINLY HOPE SO. IS THERE AN
EXPECTATION? IN THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE OF GETTING TO THAT POINT,
AND BY WHEN. I WISH I COULD
ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITH
CLAIRE. I THINK THE CHANCELLOR
WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. YEAH LET
LET ME JUMP IN. CLEARLY OUR
EXPECTATION IS THAT WE SEEK TO
CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH WE DO
ALL OF THESE STEPS PERFECTLY.
INCLUDING ALL OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE COSIGN
O'CONNOR REPORT FOR US AND
INCLUDING THOSE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR. I WILL
SAY IN FIVE YEARS WE SHOULD BE
FOLLOWING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
PRECISELY. I HAVEN'T ATE TO SAY
WE WILL DO BE DOING EVERYTHING
PERFECTLY. WERE A LARGE SYSTEM.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING THESE
THINGS, RIGHT? BUT I ALSO WANT
TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE PROBABLY
WON'T BE 100% PERFECT, BUT THE
GOAL IS TO BE 100% PERFECT. THAT
IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND
WE'RE GOING TO SEEK TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT. IN A RESOURCE
STARVED ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE WE
DO CARE AND WE DO SHARE THE
VALUES UNDERGIRDING THIS ENTIRE
CONVERSATION. SO. RECOGNIZING
THAT HUMAN FRAILTY IS PART OF IT
. AUDITORS VERY RARELY FIND
PERFECTION WHEN THEY GO IN TO
LOOK AT SOMETHING. WHAT IS
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT
THAT IS OUR COMMITMENT. WE'RE
GOING TO SEEK TO ACHIEVE
PERFECTION. I ASKED. GO AHEAD.
JUST ADD THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY
TO SEEK THAT PERFECTION LONG
BEFORE FIVE YEARS. I MEAN, THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE VERY
COMMITTED TO, AND FEELS VERY
STRONGLY ABOUT DOING BUT WE ARE
IN AN UNDER RESOURCED
ENVIRONMENT. I ASKED THE
QUESTION BECAUSE THEY THINK
WE'RE GOING BACK TO 2014
ALREADY. AND SO YOU KNOW, IT'S
BEEN A LONG TIME ALREADY OF
DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE. SO
ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT FOR
THAT ANSWER. IS THERE ANYTHING I
KNOW? YOU MENTIONED THE TANA ME
OF THE CAMPUS PRESIDENTS? ARE
THEY EVALUATED ANNUALLY IN TERMS
OF PROGRESS TOWARDS MAKING
CHANGES IS IN THIS AREA. YES CAN
I JUST GO BACK TO 11 POINT THAT
YOU WERE MAKING ABOUT 2014 AFTER
2014 THE REGULATIONS, THE
FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
CALIFORNIA LAW CHANGED MANY
TIMES AND AS KHAZEN DESCRIBES
IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE A
WRECKING BALL WHERE WE HAD TO
REVISE OUR POLICY SO MANY TIMES.
AND ALTHOUGH I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT
THE FACT THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO
CONTINUE THE AUDITS WHEN YOU
HAVE A LIMITED STAFF, WHAT WE
HAD TO DO IS WE HAD TO CHANGE
THE POLICIES AND SO A LOT OF
FOCUS WAS REDIRECTED. BUT WE ARE
GOING TO GET MORE STAFF. THAT'S
A COMMITMENT THAT'S BEEN MADE.
YEAH I APPRECIATE I DON'T MEAN
TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. I'LL JUST
SAY SEXUAL HARASSMENT. I DON'T
THINK IT'S EVER BEEN OKAY. NO,
IT ISN'T BRAIN SO PRESIDENTS ARE
EVALUATED ANNUALLY. PRESIDENT UM
ARE EVALUATED ON A REGULAR BASIS
, AND THEY ARE EVALUATED
ANNUALLY AND TRI ANNUALLY. THERE
ARE DIFFERENT PROCESSES. UM, BUT
THEY WE. WE CERTAINLY WILL BE
EXPECTING THEM HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE AND WE WILL BE
REPORTING ON THAT WE ALREADY
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPORT.
IT'S JUST THAT WE WILL HAVE MORE
CRITERIA NOW. THANK YOU. I JUST
WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE MRS HARRIS
QUESTION ONCE AGAIN, THOUGH, ON
2014 AND NOT BE ARGUMENTATIVE
ABOUT IT, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION
IS PRETTY CLEAR, AND THAT WAS
THAT TO ENSURE THAT THE
UNIVERSITIES ARE COMPLYING WITH
TITLE NINE. UM AND YES, CHANGES
OCCURRED, BUT THAT COMPLIANCE IS
STOPPED. AND SO I WANT TO BE
CLEAR. UH, WHEN WE'RE
REFERENCING 2014. THAT'S THAT,
IN FACT, WAS NOT FOLLOWED. SO UM
, I JUST HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION
OF MAGNITUDE OF RESOURCES. I
MEAN, I PREFERRED TO THINK
COZZENS RESOURCES ARE NEEDED.
YOU'RE SAYING RESOURCES ARE
NEEDED. WHAT DO YOU THINKING IN
TERMS OF THE MAGNITUDE OF
RESOURCES NEEDED. IN WHAT
DIMENSION? I MEAN, BOTH OF YOU
MENTIONED LACK OF RESOURCES. I'M
WONDERING WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING
TO HIM. WHAT'S THE MAGNITUDE
THAT YOU'RE ASKING? WELL WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IT AS A EFFICIENTLY
AS POSSIBLE, AND WHAT WE ARE
HOPING TO DO IS DEVELOP A
STRUCTURE WHEREBY THERE ARE FIVE
REGIONAL MANAGERS AT THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE WHO HAVE A
MUCH CLOSER RELATIONSHIP WITH
EACH HAVE FOUR OR FIVE CAMPUSES
TO WORK WITH CLOSELY. UM WE ALSO
BELIEVE THAT WE MUST HAVE MORE
PREVENTION EDUCATION. UM
PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE DEVOTED TO
PREVENTION EDUCATION EXCLUSIVELY
AT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND
ONE ON EACH CAMPUS. UM WE ALSO,
UM WOULD NEED TO HAVE A PERSON
AT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE WHO
IS OVERSEEING THE INVESTIGATION
, PROCESS AND TRAINING AND WHO
CAN GIVE MORE OVERSIGHT. UM AND
I ALSO BELIEVE AND I THINK
CHOSEN AGREES THAT, UM ALTHOUGH
EVERYONE EVERY CAMPUS HAS A
TITLE NINE COORDINATOR UM THAT'S
NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE THE INTAKE
WORK THE SUPPORTIVE MEASURES
THAT YOU GIVE ARE EXTREMELY
LABOR INTENSIVE, TIME CONSUMING
AND REQUIRE SOCIAL WORK SKILLS.
THERE IS A LOT TO THIS WORK.
IT'S VERY COMPLEX, AND SO WE
NEED TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE BOOTS
ON THE GROUND WHO CAN DO INTAKE
AND PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE MEASURES.
THANK YOU, MISS HARRIS. EACH OF
OUR EACH OF OUR CAMPUS REPORTS
OUTLINES MANY OF THE RESOURCES
THAT ARE MISSING AND THE OTHER
CONSIDERATION IS THE
INFRASTRUCTURE PIECES, THE DATA
SYSTEM, THE EDUCATION AND
TRAINING THE COMMITMENT TO
PREVENTION. ALL OF THAT
PROGRAMMING. IN SOME CASES,
ACTUALLY, MANY CASES IS NOT
EXISTENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
UH, CARE. FONG HAS A FEW
QUESTIONS AND I'LL GO TO MR
PATTERSON AFTER THAT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH CHAIR ALVAREZ AND THANK
YOU TO THE CSU SYSTEM BECAUSE
UNDER CONNOR FOR THE REPORTS AS
WE HEARD FROM THE
RECOMMENDATIONS BETWEEN THE
STATE AUDIT AND THE CODES IN
ECONOMY REPORT. THERE ARE A
PLETHORA OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE CSU SYSTEM TO IMPLEMENT WHAT
DIRECTION IS CURRENTLY BEING
GIVEN TO THE CAMPUSES AS TO WHAT
TO IMPLEMENT. FIRST THERE'S A
PRIORITY IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL
BE IMPLEMENTED TO BEST RECTIFY
THE ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH THE
STATE AUDIT AND THE COUSIN,
CONNOR REPORT. SO THE VERY FIRST
THING THAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE
CHANCELLOR WROTE TO ALL THE
PRESIDENTS AND SAID, WE NEED TO
KNOW ABOUT EVERY EVERY
SIGNIFICANT CASE THAT'S BEING
REPORTED. UM, THE OTHER THING
THAT THAT THE CHANCELLOR
DIRECTED. THE CAMPUS OF THE
PRESIDENT'S TO DO WAS TO FORM
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM SO EVERY
CAMPUS HAS AN IMPLEMENTATION
TEAM THAT INCLUDES, UM BUT YOU
KNOW, THE TITLE NINE COORDINATOR
GENERALLY CHAIRS THE TEAM, THE D
H R ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IS A
TERM THAT APPLIES TO EFFECTIVELY
THE COORDINATOR WHO HANDLES ALL
OTHER DISCRIMINATE, OTHER
PROTECTED CLASS, UM, COMPLAINTS
AGE RACE DISABILITY. UM, SO
THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM AS WELL AS
FACULTY STAFF. AND A MEMBER OF
THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET. UM WE
AT THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE HAVE
DEVELOPED A GROUP OF CEO
LIAISONS CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
LIAISONS WHO ARE WORK IN MY
OFFICE AND IN THE GENERAL
COUNSEL'S OFFICE, A COMBINATION
THERE ARE FIVE OF THEM. THEY
WILL BE SERVING AS LIAISONS FOR
THESE IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TRAINING THE
CHAIRS. IN SEPTEMBER ON HOW TO
RUN AN IMPLEMENTATION A TEAM
THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM A
FORM OF PROJECT PLAN TO TRY TO
SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE SO THAT
WE, YOU KNOW, EACH CAMPUS
DOESN'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE
WHEEL AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE
WORKING WITH THE CAMPUSES TO THE
CAMPUSES ARE ALREADY IDENTIFYING
ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THEIR CAMPUS. TRIAGING
PRIORITIZING, WHICH ARE THE ONES
THAT THEY CAN DO FIRST, EITHER
BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE LESS
RESOURCES AND SO THEY CAN DO
THEM RIGHT AWAY OR BECAUSE THEY
ARE THE MOST URGENT AND WE WILL
BE MEETING WITH THEM TIME. YOU
KNOW, ON A REGULAR BASIS AND
COMING UP WITH A PLAN AND A
SCHEDULE, WHICH WILL BE PUBLIC
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. CHANCELLOR. YOU WANT TO
ADD ANYTHING ELSE THERE? YOU'VE
HEARD A VERY CLEAR, CLEAR
COMMITMENT OF STEPS THAT WE'VE
ALREADY UNDERTAKEN. AND LET ME
JUST SAY IN TERMS OF THE PRIOR
QUESTION AROUND RESOURCES. THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT THE
SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING WILL
CONSIDER A OPERATING BUDGET
REQUEST TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE
LEGISLATURE FOR CONSIDERATION
FOR NEXT YEAR. SO THIS SPECIFIC
DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR NEXT YEAR. IS
STILL, UH, IN THE HANDS OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES. IT'S LIKELY
TO BE FOR THE FIRST YEAR AT
LEAST 16 MILLION. AND THEN
ADDITIONAL MILLIONS FOR YEARS
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH CHANCELLOR AND THANK YOU,
VICE CHANCELLOR FOR THOSE
COMMENTS, AND FOR THAT REQUEST
ON PAGE 13 OF THE AUDIT QUOTE IN
THERE. AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUDIT FOR STATE AUDITORS FOR
THIS REPORT ON PAGE 13. THIS IS,
OFFICIALS IN THE CSU
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE EXPRESSED
SOME HESITANCY TO CREATE MORE
PRESCRIPTIVE AND POTENTIALLY
BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS FOR
CAMPUSES. THE REASON WHY THE SEA
SUS MORE HESITANT, HESITANT TO
PROVIDE MORE PRESCRIPTIVE
REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THAT OUR
CAMPUSES HANDLE COMPLAINTS AND
CONSISTENT AND TIMELY MANNER.
WAS THAT DIRECTED TO THE STATE
AUDITOR'S OFFICE. CHANCELLOR,
PLEASE. SORRY. THANK YOU. YEAH,
LET ME LET ME ANSWER. I WOULD I
WOULD SUGGESTS THAT IT'S
PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN
UNDER RESOURCED AND
UNDERSTAFFED. SO ADDITIONAL
PRESCRIPTIONS. ARE MET WITH
RECOGNITION THAT THEY ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL WORK.
BUT THE ELEMENT OF THIS THAT HAS
CHANGED IS THAT WE HAVE FIRMLY
COMMITTED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
STAFF AND RESOURCES AND WE HAVE
MADE QUITE EXPLICIT. A NEW KIND
OF DEFINITION OF RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE,
MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU,
CHANCELLOR AND LESLIE. IN THE
TWO REPORTS ON THE STATE
AUDITOR'S REPORT AND COUSIN
ECONOMY REPORT WHETHER UNIQUE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE FOUND
IN THE STATE ORDERS REPORT THAT
ARE NOT IN THE GOES ON ACCOUNT
OF REPORT. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A
CROSS REFERENCING OF BOTH
RECOMMENDATIONS. I WOULD SAY
GENERALLY, THEY ARE BOTH RELYING
, BUT WE ARE BOTH ALIGNED, BUT
WE CAME OUT THE ISSUES FROM
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND
ACTUALLY CAME TO THE SAME
CONCLUSIONS OVERALL. I WOULD SAY
CHAIRMAN FONG ON THAT LAST
QUESTION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF
WORK WITH THE CEO TEAM. THAT
THERE THERE IS A FIRM BELIEF
THAT TO BRING INDIVIDUALS ALONG
ON CAMPUSES THAT A COLLABORATIVE
RELATIONSHIP AND NOT A MORE OF A
POLICING RELATIONSHIP MAY BE
ABLE TO DRIVE CHANGE MORE
EFFICIENTLY WE'VE SEEN THROUGH
THE AUDITOR'S REPORT AND THROUGH
OUR REPORT THAT THIS NEEDS MORE
TEETH THAN THAT. THIS ISN'T A
HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION COME
ALONG. THE AUDITOR SAID.
STRUCTURED SUPERVISORY REVIEW.
WE SAID WE NEED TIERED
ACCOUNTABILITY WITH METRICS AND
WITH OVERSIGHT, AND SO THAT'S
JUST A SHIFT. AND I THINK THAT
SHIFT GOES BACK TO LEO OURS.
VICE CHANCELLOR FRIEDMAN'S
COMMENTARY ABOUT THE HISTORY OF
HOW THE CEO'S OFFICE INTERACTED
WITH CAMPUSES HISTORICALLY
CHAIRPERSON FUND. I WOULD ALSO
ADD TO THAT THE ORDER IS
RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK I WOULD
REALLY DESCRIBE AS A SUBSET OF
THE COSINE O'CONNOR
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY
FOCUSED ON ADDING WRITTEN
GUIDELINES, DOCUMENTATION,
PRACTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE PARTIES. TO FOCUS ON
THE TIGHTENING OF WHAT WE'RE
DOING AS IT RELATES TO TIMELINES
OR WRITINGS OR COMMUNICATIONS.
CLOSING O'CONNOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FAR BROADER
. THEY ADDRESS PREVENTION AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMMING. THEY
ADDRESS VERY SPECIFICALLY THE
NEED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SEPARATE
INTAKE SUPPORT CASE MANAGEMENT,
SUPPORTIVE MEASURES FROM OUR
NEUTRAL AND IMPRESSION,
INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS. WE
SPEAK A LOT ABOUT THE
COORDINATION OF INFORMATION AND
PERSONNEL HOW WE WORK TOGETHER
ACROSS AN INSTITUTION. SO UM, I
THINK OURS ARE HOLISTICALLY
BROADER BECAUSE WE LOOKED AT A
FAR BROADER SET OF DATA THAN THE
CASE FILES AND I THINK TOGETHER
THEY PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SET
OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE TO WORK WITH
EACH CAMPUS. AND IMPORTANTLY TO
NOTE ON EACH OF THE 23
UNIVERSITIES. THE PRIORITIES
WILL BE DIFFERENT. THERE WAS A
WIDE RANGE OF SCHOOLS, SOME VERY
HIGH FUNCTIONING, SOME REALLY
NEEDING TO REBUILD PROGRAMS FROM
THE GROUND UP. AND MANY SORT OF
MUDDLING THROUGH IN THE MIDDLE.
THE LAST PIECE, I WOULD NOTE
ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR
OBSERVATION THAT YOU RAISED ON
PAGE 13 IS A TERM THAT GINA AND
I HAVE CALLED OVERLOAD
ACCOMMODATION, WHICH IS THAT THE
FOLKS WHO ARE DOING THESE JOBS
RIGHT NOW, AND THE LONG REPORT
COVERS THIS OR HAVING SUCH
EXTENSIVE AMOUNTS OF BURN OUT,
LEAVING THE CSU TO GO DO CAREERS
AND OTHER AREAS BECAUSE IT'S
SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO ALL OF
THE TESTS THAT ARE ON THEIR
PLATE TO DO THEM WELL AND TO DO
THEM WITH FIDELITY. AND SO YOU
PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU
PRIORITIZE, WHICH IS OFTEN
DIRECT RESPONSE TO REPORTS AND
THE DOCUMENTATION PIECES DON'T
GET THE SAME LIGHT OF DAY,
NECESSARILY THAN SITTING FACE TO
FACE WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN
IMPACTED OR HARMED, AND THAT'S A
SPACE WHERE WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY THAT WE CAN DRIVE AND
LEVERAGE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT TO CLOSE SOME OF THOSE
GAPS TO MAKE THE WORK. MORE
PALATABLE AND SUSTAINABLE FOR
THE INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU'RE
ASKING TO DO THE MOST DIFFICULT
FRONTLINE WORK IMAGINABLE AND
NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION WITH
COMPLAINANTS AND RESPONDENTS AND
WORKING THROUGH DRIVING CULTURE
AND CLIMATE CHANGE ACROSS 23
INSTITUTIONS. GREAT THANK YOU.
SO MUCH FOR BOTH THE STATE
AUDITOR AND THAT GOES ON ECONOMY
REPORT INTO THE CSU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN PHªN. IN
PATERSON. YEAH, THIS IS, UH A
FOLLOW UP. TO THE VICE CHAIR. I
AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THE, UH
. YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE HAVE
ALREADY IMPLEMENTED. REMOVAL OF
THE RETREAT RIGHTS. AND THAT
ALSO LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE WERE WE PROVIDE THOSE
POLICIES. YES. REVISED THEM.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL UM,
WITH RESPECT TO THE RETREAT
POLICY. UM WE HAVE STATED THAT
AN ADMINISTRATOR WILL BE
INELIGIBLE TO EXERCISE THEIR
OPTION TO RETREAT UNDER THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WE
DEFINE THAT IF A FINDING WAS
MADE, AND THE FINDING, UM I'LL
JUST EXPLAIN THAT THE FINDING
HAS TO BE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR
ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT OR A
POLICY VIOLATION THAT RENDERS
THE ADMINISTRATOR UNSUITABLE TO
HAVE CONTINUED DIRECT
INTERACTIONS WITH CSU STUDENTS
OR EMPLOYEES. SO IF THERE'S A
FINDING MADE TO THAT EFFECT AND
THE ADMINISTRATOR IS ASKED TO
LEAVE THEIR POSITION. THEY MAY
NOT RETREAT. I BELIEVE THAT THAT
WAS THE CASE IN FRESNO. AND IF
THIS POLICY WERE IN EFFECT NOW,
THIS POLICY WOULD APPLY TO THAT
SITUATION. YEAH, AND YET THERE
IS SOME CONTROVERSY ABOUT THAT.
RETREAT RIGHTS TO ANOTHER
UNIVERSITY, BUT THAT THAT'S
NEITHER HERE. I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE LETTER OF
RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. OKAY I
THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, A
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION WOULD
BE WOULD BE PROVIDED. BUT THEN
THERE WOULD BE A NOTE. TO THE
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION ABOUT
THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT ISSUE,
KNOW WHAT THE POLICY CURRENTLY
WAS REVISED, AND IT CURRENTLY
SAYS THAT IF A PERSON WAS FOUND
TO HAVE ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT
THAT RESULTED IN THERE BEING NON
RETAINED OR TERMINATED, UM, THAT
THEY CANNOT HAVE A POSITIVE
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION. THE
QUESTIONS THAT THE AUDITORS
RAISED WAS WHAT IF THERE WAS A
FINDING THAT THEY ENGAGED IN
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. BUT IT WASN'T
THE KIND OF MISCONDUCT THAT
WARRANTED TERMINATION. AND THEY
DECIDED TO LEAVE. WOULD YOU GIVE
THEM A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION
THEN? AND THE POLICY WAS NOT
COMPLETELY CLEAR IN THAT RESPECT
. SO WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO DO IS
MODIFY THE POLICY AND SAY, EVEN
IF YOU WEREN'T FIRED EVEN IF THE
EMPLOYEE WASN'T FIRED IF THERE
WAS A FINDING IF THEY ASKED FOR
A REFERENCE, WE COULD GIVE A
REFERENCE. BUT WE'RE GOING TO
SAY, BUT THERE WAS A FINDING
THAT THEY THEY VIOLATED THE
UNIVERSITY POLICY. I MEAN, WE
HAVEN'T ACTUALLY WORKED THAT OUT
WHAT THEY SAID WAS EITHER CHANGE
THE POLICY COMPLETELY. EXCUSE
ME, BUT THAT'S A RIDICULOUS
ROUNDABOUT WAY OF DOING THIS.
CAN I PLEASE? I MEAN YOU'RE
GONNA YOU'RE GOING TO ADD GIVEN
A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION, AND
THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SAY OH, BY
THE WAY. NO, IT WOULD BE IN THE
LETTER. LET ME GIVE YOU A LETTER
OF RECOMMENDATION AND THEN ALSO
HAVE A WHAT A PARAGRAPH IN THERE
ABOUT A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM.
WELL SEXUAL HARASSMENT TAKES
MANY DIFFERENT SHAPES. SOMETIMES
PEOPLE ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
WHO HAVE VIOLATED POLICY BECAUSE
, UM, THEY MADE INAPPROPRIATE
COMMENTS. THEY MADE BAD JOKES
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY WERE
TONE DEAF TO THEIR AUDIENCE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE
CAUSE FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, FINDING
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T
WORK IN A LABORATORY OR DO SOME
OTHER JOB WHERE THEY REALLY
DON'T HAVE MUCH CONTACT WITH? I
MEAN, I THINK THAT IT MEANS THAT
I DON'T HAVE THE POOR, BUT. WHAT
WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, MR
COURT? EASY OPPORTUNITY. THIS
DIALOGUE IS. GOING NOWHERE FAST
IN TWO HOURS, AND I HAVE TO BE
SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT OBVIOUSLY
THAT LEGISLATION IS NEEDED TO
MOVE THIS ALONG A HELL OF A LOT
FASTER THAN FIVE YEARS. BY THE
WAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT.
MR PATTERSON NEEDS YOUR
OPPORTUNITY HERE. SO I RAISED
EARLIER THE THREE ISSUES WITH
RESPECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT
FRESNO STATE. REPEAT WRITES THIS
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION AND A
VERY LARGE SIX FIGURE PAYOUT.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THAT TAKE
PLACE? BUT UNLESS. THE SYSTEM
ITSELF AND THOSE WHO ARE LEADING
IT. ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. FOSTER
IT AND APPROVE IT. BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT TOOK PLACE HERE. SO
AND SO AGAIN. THIS INDIVIDUAL. I
MEAN, IN FACT, SOME OF THE
DIFFICULTY WAS SO EGREGIOUS THAT
THE UNIVERSITY PUT A WINDOW. IN
THAT OFFICE. SO THAT OTHERS
OUTSIDE THAT OFFICE COULD SEE
WHAT WAS GOING ON INSIDE BEHIND
THE CLOSED DOORS. NOW THAT'S A
PRETTY SERIOUS SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I'M JUST
TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
WHITE. WHY UNDER THOSE KINDS OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THERE BE
RETREAT, WRITES A LETTER OF
RECOMMENDATION AND A PAYOUT. I
MEAN, WHEN IS THE BEHAVIOR SO
EGREGIOUS? THAT THERE HAS TO BE
A CONSEQUENCE THAT DOESN'T
INCLUDE A PAT ON THE BACK
ANOTHER JOB OFFER OR A LETTER OF
REC. OH, AND A BIG CHECK. THAT
SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN INSULT. TO
THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE
SEXUALLY HARASSED. SURE WOULD
YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND WITHOUT
GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF PAST
CASES? I CAN TELL YOU ONE THING
IF YOU REVISE THE RETREAT POLICY
THE WAY WE DID AND THIS PERSON
WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE TO
RETREAT. THEN THERE, THERE WOULD
BE A LOT LESS LIKELIHOOD THAT
THEY WOULD BE PAID ANY MONEY
UPON THEIR DEPARTURE. THE REASON
THAT OFTENTIMES IF SOMEBODY HAS
A RETREAT, RIGHT, WHICH IS A
VERY VALUABLE RIGHT TO THEM, YOU
MIGHT PAY YOUR SALARY. IF THAT
MEANS THEY'RE OFF THE CAMPUS AND
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
HARASSING ANYBODY AGAIN. I
AGREE. IT'S A PAINFUL PRICE TO
PAY. BUT TO US, IT'S MORE
IMPORTANT TO KEEP OUR CAMPUS
SAFE. TO THE AUDITOR. YOU'VE
HEARD THIS EXCHANGE. DO YOU
THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE HEARING?
THEY WILL BE DOING.
SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSES YOUR
CONCERN OVER THE REPEAT WRITES
IN THE LETTER OF RICO'S NÓ. OH
SPECIFICALLY AS WE NOTE ON PAGE
43 AND TOP OF PAGE 44. YOU KNOW,
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CSU
CHANGED ITS POLICY AND I BELIEVE
2022. I THINK THAT THE PART THAT
WE'RE DISAGREEING ABOUT TALKS
ABOUT YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
RETREAT IF YOU'RE TERMINATED OR
SEPARATED. AND WHAT WE'RE
RECOMMENDING IS REMOVE THAT
QUALIFICATION INSTEAD, YOU'RE
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RETREAT RIGHTS
IF YOU ARE FOUND TO HAVE
VIOLATED AND YOU WERE ASSESSED
GUILTY OF A SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMPLAINT, AND THEN IF SOME OF
THESE FINDINGS AND ALL OF THAT
IMPACT THE RETREAT RIGHT. IT'S
GOING TO IMPACT THE LETTER OF
RECORD RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD
THINK, BUT WOULDN'T THAT ALSO
IMPACT THESE THIS LARGE
SETTLEMENT. WHY ARE WE PAYING A
LARGE SETTLEMENT FOR SOMEBODY
WHO DOES THIS KIND OF THING?
OKAY? I CAN'T SPEAK TO CSU
MANAGEMENT FOR WHY THEY PEACE
SETTLEMENTS ARE NOT PAY
SETTLEMENTS. THAT'S WE HAVE.
SOME LAWYERS HERE. YOU WANT TO
TRY TO ADDRESS THIS? WELL, I
JUST WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR
SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT WHY AN
INSTITUTION MIGHT PAY A
SETTLEMENT TO SEPARATE FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL AND IT'S ACTUALLY ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT WE ADDRESS IN
OUR REPORT SPECIFICALLY. WHICH
IS GIVEN SOME OF THE CONTRACTUAL
AND OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT PROCESSES THAT OCCUR
AFTER THE TITLE. NINE FINDING
HAS BEEN MADE. SO WE'VE GONE
THROUGH OUR CAMPUS INVESTIGATION
MADE A FINDING SOMEBODY HAS
COMMITTED SEXUAL HARASSMENT. TO
GET TO THE STAGE OF SANCTIONING
IT NOW GOES OFF TO A STATE
PERSONNEL BOARD. IT GOES TO A
FACULTY COMMITTEE OR IT GOES TO
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND IN
EACH OF THOSE PROCESSES, THERE
ARE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES AND
HOW THOSE PROCESSES ARE LAID OUT
. THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL LAW. THEY'RE NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE TITLE NINE
FRAMEWORK AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED
IN A NUMBER OF CASES. IS THAT
THE EMPLOYEE WHO THE CSU SOUGHT
TO TERMINATE IS THEN ORDERED
RETURNED BACK ONTO THE CAMPUS
AND TO HAVE BACK PAY PRESENTED
TO THEM AND SO SOMETIMES WHAT
YOU SEE, AND IT'S SET FORTH MUCH
MORE ARTICULATELY IN THE WRITING
, AND THE REPORT IS IN ORDER TO
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE
UNDERLYING FINDING IN ORDER TO
TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT THE
SAFETY OF STUDENTS BECAUSE WE
HAVE A BROKEN DISCIPLINARY
PROCESS ON THE BACK END THAT WE
HAVE NO ABILITY TO CONTROL. WE
DON'T RUN IT. IT'S DRIVEN BY
STATE LAW AND OR THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THAT THE
SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO
ENSURE THAT PERSON DOES NOT
RETURN TO OUR CAMPUS, EVEN IF
THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S SOME
SETTLEMENT PAYMENT. IT'S A
JUDGMENT CALL IS A DIFFICULT
JUDGMENT CALL. BUT UNDERLYING
ALL OF IT IS THE INTEGRITY OF
THE UNDERLYING FINDING AND THE
PROTECTION OF CAMPUS. I
APPRECIATE THAT, AND WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT INTEGRITY HERE. I
WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING. THE
INTEGRITY OF FRESNO STATE WAS
SEVERELY DAMAGED BY THIS EPISODE
. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. TO
EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE IN CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA HOW THIS INDIVIDUAL
CAN DO WHAT HE DID. WAS BOUND TO
BE, UH, CHARGED AND DID WHAT HE
WAS CHARGED WITH. AND THEN TO
HAVE USA TODAY COME OUT AND
REPORT RETREAT, WRITE A LETTER
OF RECOMMENDATION AND A BIG
PAYOUT LIKE YOU. YOU CAN, I
GUESS EXPLAIN ALL THE REASONS
WHY WE HAVE TO. YOU HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BECAUSE
SOMETHING ELSE YOU CAN'T DO OR
WHATEVER. BUT. THAT'S A VERY
THAT'S A VERY HARD THING TO
UNDERSTAND WHEN YOUR PEOPLE OUT
IN FRESNO, FRESNO STATE IS OUR
INSTITUTION. IT'S OUR
UNIVERSITY. WE ARE AS PROUD AS
CAN BE OF IT. AND YET WE HAVE
THIS JUST SPOT ON ITS ON ITS
INTEGRITY. AND SO WHAT I HEAR IS
THAT KIND OF INTEGRITY. WILL
MAKE A SETTLEMENT. THAT
ESSENTIALLY. IT'S THE OPPOSITE
OF DEMONSTRATING INTEGRITY. YOU
KNOW, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY
RESPECTFULLY FOR THIS
LEGISLATURE TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THOSE CONTRACTUAL PROCESSES TO
LOOK AT THE STATE PERSONNEL
BOARD TO LOOK AT THE TRAINING
THAT'S PROVIDED THOSE
INDIVIDUALS TO LOOK AT, UM THE
FRAMEWORK UNDER THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND THAT
WE IMPLEMENT HOST INVESTIGATION
DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES THAT
TRACK AND FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW.
AND THAT RESPECT THE UNDERLYING
FINDING. OF A VIOLATION THAT IS
FOUND BY TALENTED NEUTRAL,
IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATORS WHO
GATHER THE FACTS. I THINK GINA
AND I KNOW AS WELL AS OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE VERY CLEARLY HEARD THE
PAIN, THE ANGER AND THE GRIEF ON
THE FRESNO STATE CAMPUS, NOT
JUST BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS, BUT
BY FACULTY STAFF AND
ADMINISTRATORS AS WELL. AND I
THINK THERE'S A SMALL CONFLATION
OF TWO ISSUES. ONE BEING CONDUCT
BY AN ADMINISTRATOR WHO ENGAGED
IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CONDUCT
BY AN ADMINISTRATOR WHO DID NOT
RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO THE
REPORT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. AND
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I'M
SPEAKING ABOUT THE FIRST TIME
SPEAKING ABOUT HOW WE GIVE
INTEGRITY TO AN UNDERLYING
FINDING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT TO
SUPPORT OUR POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES AND TO MAKE GOOD
ETHICAL JUDGMENT DECISIONS BASED
ON THE FACTS THAT ARE GATHERED.
THAT'S I STILL FIND THIS IN IN
CONGRESS OUTCOME WHEN YOU HAVE
SOMEBODY THAT DID SOMETHING. AND
BY THE WAY WITHOUT BUT. I WAS
THE MAYOR FRESNO FOR EIGHT
YEARS. I'VE SERVED UP HERE NOW
FOR 10 YEARS. UM AND I'M VERY
CLOSE TO FRESNO STATE AND AT AND
THIS HAS BEEN VERY TROUBLING FOR
ME. UM VERY TROUBLING AND UM
IT'S JUST VERY IT'S JUST VERY
DIFFICULT. UH, TO SEE AN OUTCOME
LIKE THIS. AND BY THE WAY, THERE
WERE UNDERCURRENTS OF THIS KIND
OF BEHAVIOR LONG BEFORE UH HUH.
IT BECAME SO EVIDENT WITH THIS
ONE INDIVIDUAL. RIGHT? I MEAN, I
HEARD FROM PEOPLE AND SOME OF
THEM ARE HERE. TODAY. YEARS AGO
ABOUT THE KIND OF MISTREATMENT
THAT WAS COMING OUT OF THIS
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS. CONDUCT
SO HASN'T BEEN JUST SINCE THE
NEWSPAPER GOT AHOLD OF IT. UM SO
WE'VE GOT IT. WE REALLY HAVE AN
ISSUE HERE THAT I JUST THINK
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INTEGRITY,
THE OUTCOME HAS TO BE COMPLETE
AND TRANSPARENT INTEGRITY. NO
EXCUSE MAKING AND PLEASE LISTEN,
THAT LAWYER THE THING. THEN YOU
HAVE TO CHANGE THEN YOU HAVE TO
CHANGE THE LAW. YEAH THAT WE'VE
HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR HERE.
THANK YOU, MR PATTERSON. THANK
YOU. MR WE HAVE EVERYBODY LISTED
. JUST YOU KNOW, BUT I'VE TAKEN
FOLKS IN THE ORDER THAT I SAW
HAND. SO MR WOOD IS OUR NEXT.
THANK YOU TO BOTH OF THE CHAIRS
AND APPRECIATE THAT, UM IS THE
SECOND DAY IN A ROW. WE'VE HEARD
AUDITS ARE RELATED. AND THERE
THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES
HERE. THERE. THERE ARE THERE ARE
PRETTY DISTURBING AND IT MAKES
ME WONDER HOW MANY OTHER ISSUES
OR LINGERING OUT THERE THAT MAY
COME OUT IN FUTURE AUDITS. BUT
GOING BACK TO THE YOU KNOW THE
AUDIT 2013. THAT'S 1 24. WOW,
THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT
STUDENTS. THERE WERE
RECOMMENDATIONS THERE AND SO I
THAT IT. SO I'M CURIOUS FROM THE
AUDITORS PERSPECTIVE AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE AT
THE VERY BEGINNING. I WAS AT
ANOTHER HEARING. UM WAS THERE
ANY PROGRESS MADE BETWEEN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT. TO
WHERE WE WENT, UM YOU KNOW WHERE
WE ARE WITH THIS AUDIT. AND ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT'S REALLY
TROUBLING IS THERE WAS A CALL
FOR DATA TO BE COLLECTED. UM AND
IT APPEARS FROM YOUR AUDIT THE
MOST RECENT AUDIT THAT THAT CSU
DIDN'T BEGIN COLLECTING SOME OF
THAT SEXUAL HARASSMENT DATA
UNTIL 2021 22, EVEN THOUGH THE
REPORT IN 2014. IT WAS MADE AND
HOW SERIOUSLY FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE WAS UNIVERSITY
TAKING THAT RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THAT AUDIT? I THINK WITH ALL OF
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, OBVIOUSLY,
THE CSU SYSTEM HAS TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN
IMPLEMENT WHEN THEY CAN
IMPLEMENT THEM, AND I'D ALSO
CAUTION THAT ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES WITH FOLLOWING UP
WITH AGENCIES POST AN AUDIT IS
YOU NEVER REALLY KNOW FOR SURE
IF THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED YOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS ALMOST UNTIL YOU
GO BACK, AND YOU DO ANOTHER
AUDIT. YOU KNOW, WE FOLLOW UP
WITH THESE AGENCIES. ONCE AN
AUDIT IS RELEASED, AND WE ASKED
FOR EVIDENCE LIKE POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES, MAYBE SOME EXAMPLES
OF COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, BUT
UNTIL YOU'RE ACTUALLY ON THE
GROUND, AND YOU SEE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY'VE DONE WHAT YOU'VE
ASKED HIM TO DO THROUGH A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT, DO YOU
REALLY UNDERSTAND IF THEY'VE
MADE PROGRESS OR NOT? UM MY KEY
TAKEAWAY FROM THIS EXPERIENCE
HAS BEEN. I BELIEVE IT WAS NOT
AUDIT WHERE YOU KNOW WE WERE
RECOMMENDING PRETTY STRONGLY
THAT THEY DO CAMPUS OVERSIGHT
REVIEWS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
TITLE NINE, AND I THINK THE
VALUE OF THAT RECOMMENDATION IS
EVIDENT BY THE FACT THAT WHEN WE
DID THIS AUDIT, AND WE WERE
LOOKING AT CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN THE CHANCELLOR'S TITLE
NINE COORDINATOR, THE GENERAL
COUNSEL IN THE EXECUTIVE VICE
CHANCELLOR, I BELIEVE THEY WERE
NOTING THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS
THAT WOULD LATER BE UNCOVERED IN
THIS AUDIT, WHICH SPEAKS TO HAD
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND HAD
TO SEE US YOU SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.
BEEN IMPLEMENTING THAT
RECOMMENDATION. PERHAPS THEY
WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER PLACED TO
KNOW THAT THEY HAD A PROBLEM AND
BE BE BETTER POSITIONED TO TRY
AND ADDRESS IT. UM SO. I THINK
THE DIRECT ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION, AND I THINK IT'S THE
CASE WITH SEVERAL AUDITS THAT
TEND TO HAPPEN IS THE AUDIT IS
ISSUED. WE ISSUED THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE'S A LOT
OF ATTENTION ON IT FOR A WHILE.
AND THEN OVER TIME, OTHER
PRIORITIES COME UP. WE CAN'T
AUDIT EVERYBODY ALL THE TIME.
UNFORTUNATELY AND THEN SOMETHING
HAPPENS AND WE GO BACK AND WE DO
ANOTHER AUDIT AND WE FIND THAT,
OKAY. THEY MAY HAVE IMPLEMENTED
STUFF FOR A WHILE. BUT NOW WE'RE
DOING IT OVER AGAIN AND IT TURNS
. THEY'VE MOVED ON TO SOMETHING
ELSE. AND NOW WE STILL HAVE A
PROBLEM, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE
WHAT WE HAVE HERE. YEAH THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT IT SEEMS TO HAVE
HAPPENED HERE. SO UM, YOU KNOW,
AND I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, UM,
MISS MISS GÓMEZ SPOKE ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE WIDE VARIATIONS IN
CAMPUSES AND DIFFERENT
LEADERSHIP STYLES AND DIFFERENT
CULTURES AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION FUNCTION,
HIGH FUNCTIONING AND THOSE THAT
ARE STRUGGLING SO MUCH. BUT AND
I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT AND I
UNDERSTAND. THE NEED FOR
AUTONOMY AND IN THESE IN THESE
CAMPUSES BUT. IN THIS INSTANCE
HERE, UH, WITH WITH THESE
POLICIES, UM. THIS JUST IN MY
MIND EMPHASIZES THE NEED. FOR
BASIC CENTRALIZED GUIDELINES,
WHICH ARE CLEARLY LACKING.
OVERSIGHT. AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY
THE INDIVIDUAL CAMPUSES. AND
THAT CLEARLY HASN'T HAPPENED AND
WE SAW THAT YESTERDAY WITH THE
ISSUES REGARDING NATIVE
AMERICANS AND REMAINS AND
ARTIFACTS ONCE AGAIN. CAMPUS IS
KIND OF DOING THEIR OWN THING,
NOT REPORTING THE DATA. AND NOT
AND. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, I
DON'T KNOW. IT'S LIKE A NURSERY
SCHOOL, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, IT'S
LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ALL THE
STUDENTS ARE THERE, BUT HELL,
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT ANYBODY'S
DOING, AND THERE'S NO
ACCOUNTABILITY BECAUSE
EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR OWN THING
GOING ON. UM SO WHAT IS SURE
WHAT ASSURANCE DO WE HAVE? THAT
THERE WILL BE CENTRALIZED. AT
THE CHANCELLOR'S LEVEL
GUIDELINES FOR THESE THINGS THAT
THERE WILL BE ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND HOW THEY DO IT ON CAMPUSES
IS STILL UP TO THE PRESIDENT AND
THE LEADERSHIP THERE. BUT HOW DO
WE KNOW THAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO
SEE IMPROVEMENT HERE BECAUSE YOU
HAD 10 YEARS? BASED ON THE
STUDENT PART OF IT. AND FROM
WE'RE HEARING FROM THE FROM THE
AUDITOR ONCE THE ONCE THE FEWER
OF THAT THAT AUDIT DIED DOWN,
NOT MUCH CHANGE BECAUSE IT TOOK
ALMOST NINE YEARS TO START
COLLECTING THE DATA THAT WAS
RECOMMENDED. SO WHAT ASSURANCES
DO WE GET? THAT WE'RE NOT GOING
TO BE HERE. LOOK, NONE OF THE
PEOPLE SITTING ON THIS DIET
WE'RE HERE. WHEN THAT AUDIT WAS
DONE. AND THEN WENT IN 10 YEARS
FROM NOW, NONE OF THE PEOPLE
SITTING ON THIS DIET ARE YOU
GONNA BE HERE? BUT AYE. YOU
KNOW? AND THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S A
HUGE PROBLEM AS WELL. WE COULD
GET INTO THAT ALL DAY LONG. WHAT
KIND OF ASSURANCES WE GET THAT
THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE? AT WHAT
POINT DO YOU REALLY TAKE THIS
SERIOUSLY? TWO AUDITS IN TWO
DAYS. SAME BASIC PROBLEM. A LACK
OF LEADERSHIP AT THE TOP. LACK
OF ACCOUNTABILITY. LACK OF
OVERSIGHT. MAY I JUMP IN,
PLEASE? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED. FIRST
. WE'VE COMMITTED RESOURCES TO
CREATING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF
STAFF. AROUND BOTH COMPLIANCE
AND CARE. WITHIN THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE STAFF. SO
THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE AND
PROCESSES THAT WILL BE IN PLACE
THAT WILL CARRY OUT THIS WORK.
Tð. I THINK THE OVERALL TIMES
HAVE CHANGED. NOT JUST IN THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM, BUT IN THE WORLD THAT WE
ARE IN. AND THE SHAPE AND THE
FORCE OF THAT IS ALSO GOING TO
BE VERY STRONG. THREE. I'VE MADE
SOME PERSONAL COMMITMENTS. I'M
NOT GOING TO BE CHANCELLOR FOR
MUCH LONGER. BUT I DO FAIRLY AND
HONESTLY, AUTHENTICALLY SAY TO
YOU. THAT CHANCELLORS SELECT
GARCIA. HAS A CAREER IN WHICH
SHE IS COMMITTED. TO THE VALUES
THAT UNDERLIE WHAT IT IS. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY, AND
SHE HAS ALREADY INDICATED
PUBLICLY AND LOTS OF NEWS
ARTICLES AND MEDIA INTERVIEWS
AND SHE WILL CONTINUE TO CARRY
THIS EFFORT FORWARD. THE CSU IS
NOT GOING TO BACK AWAY FROM
THIS. THE CSU IS GOING TO GO
FORWARD WITH ALL OF THIS. THANK
YOU. I JUST WANT ONE FINAL
COMMENT. I WOULD JUST KIND OF
WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
HUMAN PIECE OF THIS. THAT THESE
ARE POLICIES AND WE'RE LOOKING
AT WAYS OF SETTING UP THINGS.
BUT REAL HARM HAS BEEN DONE TO
REAL PEOPLE AND MANY LIVES HAVE
BEEN GRAVELY DAMAGED BECAUSE. OF
THE INABILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY
TO ACT IN A TIMELY MANNER AND
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM SEXUAL
HARASSERS. AND THAT'S ON YOU
ALL. AND SO WE DO EXPECT AND YOU
WILL LIKELY SEE LEGISLATION
BECAUSE IT AT THIS POINT IS
CLEAR. AUDITS DON'T SEEM TO HAVE
THAT MUCH OF AN INPUT. ON OR OR
A. AN IMPACT ON GETTING THINGS
DONE. REAL PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED.
AND THAT'S THE THING YOU NEED TO
THINK ABOUT EVERY DAY WHEN
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE POLICIES
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE
PEOPLE TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF THIS
I DO. THINK ABOUT THIS EVERY
DAY. AND SO DO I. THANK YOU,
DOCTOR. WOULD DR WEBBER. THANK
YOU, UM SHARE. ALVAREZ. I WANNA
START BY. UM FIRST OF ALL,
THINKING, EVERYONE WHO'S HERE,
EVERYONE WHO'S ON THE PANEL. UM
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
SUBJECT. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, R C
SUS DO GREAT THINGS, RIGHT? BUT
UM, WHEN A PARENT AND I'M A
PARENT MYSELF SEND THEIR CHILD
TO A UNIVERSITY. UM OR SOMEONE
CHOOSES TO WORK AT A UNIVERSITY.
UM THEY DO IT NOT JUST FOR THE
GREAT EDUCATION THAT THEY MAY
RECEIVE. UM, THE PARENTS ARE
ACTUALLY ENTRUSTING. THE
UNIVERSITY AND THE STATE. TO
KEEP THEIR CHILDREN SAFE. AND,
UM. A LOT OF THESE THINGS IN THE
REPORT ARE VERY CONCERNING. I
WANT TO THANK THE AUDITOR FOR
ONCE AGAIN, PROVIDING AN AMAZING
REPORT. UM AS WAS STATED, YOU
KNOW, NONE OF US WERE HERE IN
2014, BUT LUCKILY I DID GET THAT
REPORT. SO I READ THAT ONE ALONG
WITH THIS ONE. AND I HAVE SOME
VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT I
HAVE FOR YOU ALL. UM. WHAT
PROMPTED THE POLICY CHANGE IN
2022 FOR INVESTIGATIONS TO BE
COMPLETED? NOT IN 70 DAYS, BUT
IN 100 DAYS. ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT THE NONDISCRIMINATION
POLICY. SO NO, YOU HAD INITIALLY
70 DAYS TO COMPLETE YOUR
INVESTIGATIONS. IT'S ON PAGE 32
OF THE REPORT. AND THEN IT WAS
PUSHED BACK TO 100 DAYS AND I'M
JUST WONDERING WHAT WAS THE
THOUGHT AND THE RATIONALE BEHIND
THAT. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GET
BACK TO YOU ON THAT, OKAY? UM, I
ALSO READ THAT EXTERNAL
INVESTIGATORS ARE USED. WHY AND
WHAT KIND OF TRAINING. DO YOU
REQUIRE EXTERNAL INVESTIGATORS
TO HAVE BEFORE YOU HIRE THEM?
WELL, WE REQUIRE EXTERNAL
INVESTIGATORS TO HAVE TITLE NINE
TRAINING. THERE ARE CERTAIN
STATE REQUIREMENTS TO BE AN
INVESTIGATOR. IN ADDITION TO
THOSE WE REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE
TITLE NINE TRAINING AND WE VET
THEM TO, UM ENSURE THAT THEY
HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA.
MOST OF THEM ARE LAWYERS WHO
HAVE DONE WHO ARE HAVE DONE THIS
WORK BEFORE. UM WHAT IS THE
POLICY THAT YOU ALL HAVE FOR
REPEAT OFFENDERS? BECAUSE WE'VE
HEARD ABOUT THIS A LOT THAT
OFTENTIMES THESE INDIVIDUALS
WON'T JUST, UM, DO IT TO ONE
PERSON. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK INTO
IT, THEY'VE THEY'VE HAD MULTIPLE
COMPLAINTS OVER THE YEARS. SO
WHAT? WHAT IS THE POLICY AND HOW
YOU DEAL WITH THOSE WHEN YOU'RE
STARTING UP IN NEW
INVESTIGATION? WELL IT'S
COMPLICATED. THERE ARE DIFFERENT
KINDS OF REPEAT OFFENDERS. SO IF
THERE IS AN OFFENDER WHO AND
COMPLAINT WAS MADE, AND THERE
WAS A FINDING THEN YOU
DEFINITELY CONSIDER IN THE
DISCIPLINE PART. IF THEY WEREN'T
TERMINATED THE FIRST TIME YOU
WOULD CONSIDER THE HISTORY OF
THIS PERSON'S BEHAVIOR AND THE
SANCTION WOULD REFLECT THAT.
WHAT'S TRICKIER IS WHEN YOU HAVE
REPEAT OFFENDERS WHO KNOW JUST
HOW TO OFFEND SO THAT A
COMPLAINT MAYBE THE COMPLAINANT
DOESN'T WANT TO ACTUALLY REPORT
DOESN'T WANT TO INVESTIGATION
THEY WANT TO REPORT BUT THEY
DON'T WANT TO INVESTIGATION AND
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE FALLEN
SHORT. BECAUSE WHEN WE LEARN
ABOUT CONDUCT THAT IS
UNACCEPTABLE, BUT PERHAPS
DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A
POLICY VIOLATION. THIS IS WHAT
WE CALL OTHER CONDUCT OF
CONCERN. WE HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD
JOB OF TRACKING THAT DEALING
WITH IT AS A UM AS A
DISCIPLINARY MATTER THAT MAYBE
ISN'T A POLICY VIOLATION AND
THEN AT LOOKING AT THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL OF
THESE INCIDENTS, AND WE ARE
COMMITTED TO DOING THAT
DIFFERENTLY NOW, BUT WE DO HAVE
TO HAVE A DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
THAT WILL ALLOW US AND WE ALSO
WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE THAT OTHER
DIVISIONS FACULTY AFFAIRS, HUMAN
RESOURCES STUDENT CONDUCT,
EVERYBODY IS REALLY GOING TO
HAVE TO SHARE INFORMATION IN
THAT SAME DATABASE SO THAT YOU
CAN PICK UP THOSE OTHER
INCIDENTS THAT MAYBE DIDN'T
RESULT IN AN INVESTIGATION.
OKAY, WELL, UM. I LOOK FORWARD
TO HEARING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THAT BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT YOU
ALL CAN STILL INVESTIGATE. EVEN
IF THE PERSON WHO REPORTED IT
STATES THAT THEY DON'T WANT AN
INVESTIGATION. CSU DOES HAVE
THAT DISCRETION. UM, NO. I JUST
WANT TO GO BACK TO THE, UM TO
YOUR RETREAT POLICY AND JUST BE
VERY CLEAR. SO WITH THE REVISION
THAT YOU REFERRED TO, UM OR THE
UPDATE IF SOMEONE. WAS FOUND TO
HAVE, UM, POSITIVE FINDING OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL
TODAY. QUALIFY FOR RETREAT. SO
ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THE POLICY
APPLIES RETROACTIVELY? I'M
SAYING WITH THE CHANGING AND
WHATEVER LANGUAGE YOU HAVE WOULD
SOMEONE. WHO HAS THE FINDING OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT, QUALIFIED FOR
RETREAT. I THINK THAT IF WE
DENIED RETREAT TO THAT WE PUT IN
THE POLICY THAT IT WAS
PROSPECTIVE BECAUSE THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE GIVEN THIS
RETREAT RIGHT? RELIED ON A
POLICY THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED AND
THEY WOULD SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T
CHANGE THE POLICY ON US, BUT WE
DID SAY THAT IN THAT WE COULD
REVISIT CASES RETROSPECTIVELY IN
CASES OF EGREGIOUS CONDUCT. SO
WHAT'S SEXUAL A FINDING OF
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT OR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT QUALIFY AS EGREGIOUS
MISCONDUCT? I THINK THAT IT
WOULD DEPEND ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
, YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS ON HOW
YOU DEFINE THOSE TERMS. I MEAN,
WE HAD A PRESIDENT. OKAY WE HAD
A PRESIDENT WHO, UM, WAS SEEN TO
HAVE KISSED PEOPLE ON THE
FOREHEAD OR SMELLED THEIR HAIR.
I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU AN
EXAMPLE. THAT IS SEXUAL HARASSER
THAT COULD BE DETERMINED TO BE
SEXUAL HARASSMENT. THAT'S NOT
THE SAME KIND OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AS, UM, YOU KNOW,
OTHER KINDS OF TOUCHING. AS
OTHER KINDS OF BEHAVIOR, AND I'M
NOT JUDGING WHAT SHOULD BE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF EACH OF THESE
THINGS. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS
THAT IT IS A VERY, VERY BROAD,
UM, GROUP OF BEHAVIORS. YEAH I
I'M I'M VERY TROUBLED BY THAT
ANSWER, UM, JUST BEING VERY
HONEST WITH YOU. YOU KNOW, THE
2014 REPORT CLEARLY DISCUSSED
THE NEED TO EDUCATE STUDENTS,
FACULTY STAFF. ABOUT THE
DEFINITION OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
. WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD OR SHOULD
NOT BE DOING, UM THEY SHOULD BE
DOING THIS TRAINING ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS. AND SO THERE SHOULD NOT
BE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT KISSING SOMEONE ON THE
FOREHEAD. UM IT'S SEXUAL
HARASSMENT OR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
UM I'M I'M VERY TROUBLED. SO I
THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
REALLY LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE
YOU'RE TELLING PEOPLE WHAT IS
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. BUT THEN, AT
THE SAME TIME YOU'RE SAYING
WELL, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW
THERE'S DIFFERENT VARIATIONS.
UM, BUT IT HAS TO BE UNWELCOME.
WELL, I THINK SOMEONE KISSING
AND TOUCHING IS BOTH UNWELCOME.
NECESSARILY, UM WHY WOULD YOU
SAY THAT? BECAUSE PEOPLE
SOMETIMES EMBRACE EACH OTHER
WHEN THEY GREED, AND IT IS
WELCOME CONDUCT WELL, BUT IF
IT'S WELCOME WHAT I FILE A
COMPLAINT NO, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE
MIGHT HAVE SEEN IT. OKAY BUT
WHEN YOU DO LIKE THE
INVESTIGATION, IT WOULD END UP
BEING CLOSED BECAUSE THE
INDIVIDUAL SPECIFICALLY STATES
THAT. THAT WASN'T BOTHERSOME TO
ME. I WELCOME THAT AND I
RECIPROCATED IT CORRECT. OKAY
THEN, THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY
APPLY IN WHAT I'M SAYING. UM, I
DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS
THIS FURTHER LEGISLATIVELY
BECAUSE. YOU. ALLOWING THIS KIND
OF GRAY SPACE I THINK IS
ALLOWING FOR PEOPLE TO SLIP
THROUGH, AND UNFORTUNATELY
YOU'RE ALLOWING FOR AN
INTENTIONALLY, UM MORE VICTIMS
TO OCCUR ON OUR CAMPUSES. UM. I
WANT TO GO SPECIFICALLY TO THE
2014 AUDIT VERSUS NOW. SO THE
2014 AUDIT NOTED THAT CSU NEEDED
TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE COMPLAINT
, AND THIS AUDIT NOTED THAT AS
WELL, SO WHY WAS THIS NOT FIXED
OVER THE NINE YEARS? I'M SORRY.
COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? THE 2014
AUDIT NOTED THAT CSU NEEDED TO
IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE COMPLAINT
, MEANING CONTACT THEM. LET THEM
KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WHERE IT'S
WHERE IT IS, IS A CLOSED, YOU
KNOW? ARE WE STILL
INVESTIGATING? AND THIS AUDIT
MENTIONED THAT NEED AS WELL? SO
CLEARLY IT WASN'T FIXED. WHY?
WELL, I WASN'T IN THIS POSITION
IN 2014. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT
IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED BACK THEN
, AND WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO FIX IT. AND YOU
KNOW, I CAN'T EXPLAIN. WHY OKAY?
UM THE 2014. THIS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES IN
2014 AUDIT MENTIONED THAT THERE
NEEDED TO BE ROUTINE TITLE NINE
REVIEW OF CAMPUSES TO DETERMINE
COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS A HUGE
THING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH TITLE
NINE. UM YOU STARTED IT. YOU
STOPPED IT IN 2018. I THINK YOU
SAID BECAUSE OF STAFFING. WHY
WAS THAT PARTICULAR DECISION
MADE TO STOP ENSURING COMPLIANCE
WITH TITLE NINE? WELL, I CAN'T
SPEAK TO THE LEADERS WHO WERE
THERE AT THE TIME. BUT I CAN
TELL YOU THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE
BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE CAMPUS AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE THAT I
DISCUSSED EARLIER I THINK THAT
KIND OF DECISION WAS MORE EASILY
MADE THAN IT WOULD BE NOW. I
MEAN, IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT OKAY,
I'M NOT. I'M NOT. I'M I DON'T.
UM CONDONE WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT I
AM TRYING TO DO IS MOVE FORWARD
AND MAKE SURE IT GETS DONE RIGHT
NOW. YOU KNOW, I HAVE A LIST OF
OTHER THINGS THAT WERE STATED IN
2014 AUDIT. UM THAT WERE
RESTATED IN THE 2023 AUDIT. I
WON'T GO THROUGH THOSE, UM I
THINK. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
THINGS THAT ARE CONCERNING ONE,
YOU KNOW. YOU'VE. IN 2014. THERE
WERE AGREEMENTS MADE. THERE WERE
THERE WAS PROBABLY PEOPLE
SITTING WHERE YOU ARE NOW, UM,
SAYING WE'RE GOING TO FIX THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO FIX THIS. IT'S
EGREGIOUS. UM, HOWEVER, YOU
KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, WE'VE
HAD FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT OR TO
CONTINUE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
THE 2014 AUDIT. FAILURE TO KEEP
UP WITH SOME OF THE FEDERAL
GUIDELINES OUT THERE. UM THE
FAILURE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
, BE INNOVATIVE LOOK AT BEST
PRACTICES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND
TRY TO ADOPT THOSE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA FAILURE TO COLLECT
DATA AND ANALYZE IT FOR THE
SAFETY OF THE STUDENTS AND
FACULTY AND OTHER WORKERS. YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
YOU ARE HERE, VICE CHANCELLOR. I
HEAR WHAT YOU WERE SAYING
INITIALLY ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE
CHANGING. I APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT THE INTERIM CHANCELLOR WAS
HERE. I'M NOT 100% SURE WHY THE
NEW CHANCELLOR IS NOT HERE. UM
AS WELL TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS.
SINCE SHE WILL BE TAKING OVER IN
OCTOBER. BUT I'M I'M AND I AND I
AND I THINK DOCTOR WOULD ASK
THIS AND I DIDN'T REALLY GET A
GOOD CLEAR. UM EXPLANATION, BUT
WHY EXACTLY SHOULD WE BELIEVE
THAT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE
GOING TO IMPLEMENT THESE THINGS
WHEN THERE WAS CLEARLY A PROBLEM
IN 2014. THAT'S PROBABLY BEFORE
THAT. THAT'S A VERY FAIR
QUESTION. AND UM, THAT'S WHAT
OUR COMMUNITY SAYS TO US. ALSO
WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT
YOU'RE COMMITTED TO CHANGING AND
WE HAVE TO REBUILD TRUST WITH
OUR COMMUNITY AND WITH YOU? AND
SO I HAVE TO JUST TELL YOU THAT
I'M COMMITTED TO DOING THIS. THE
INSTITUTION IS BUT I UNDERSTAND
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT YET,
SO LET ME ASK YOU GIVEN THE FACT
THAT, UM WE ARE HERE. AND WE DID
NOT DO WHAT WE SAID. WE WERE
GOING TO DO COMPLETELY IN 2014.
UM HOW OFTEN DO YOU THINK WE
NEED TO COME BACK AND REVISIT
THIS? HOW MUCH OVERSIGHT. AND DO
YOU THINK THAT THE STATE NEEDS
TO GIVE TO THE SEA ISSUES TO
ENSURE THAT WHAT YOU SAY NOW IS
ACTUALLY DONE. UM, APPROPRIATELY
AND EXPEDITIOUSLY. WELL, I'VE
THOUGHT ABOUT MARGARET. LET ME
LET ME ANSWER THAT BECAUSE
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS LET
ME JUST JUMP IN, AND, UH
INTERRUPTING LIOR UP. BUT FIRST
I WANT TO SAY THAT CHANCELLOR
SELECT GARCIA I WAS ASKED TO
PARTICIPATE WITH GOVERNOR NEWSOM
TODAY IN A SET OF ACTIVITIES SO
SHE IS EVEN THOUGH SHE DOESN'T
OFFICIALLY BEGIN WORK. UH UNTIL
OCTOBER 1ST. SHE IS WITH THE
GOVERNOR AT HIS SPECIFIC
REQUEST. SECONDLY LET ME SAY
THAT. WE HAVE COMMITTED VERY
SPECIFICALLY TO THE TIMELINES IN
THE STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT. AND
THERE ARE SPECIFIC DATES. THAT
WE HAVE TO AND THAT WE HAVE
COMMITTED TO REPORTING. ON THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE WILL DO
SO. SO YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE ELECTED LEGISLATIVE
COMMUNITIES SERVING THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE MEMBERS OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY WILL HAVE VERY VISIBLE
METHODS BY WHICH TO HOLD US
ACCOUNTABLE. AND I APPRECIATE
THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. I WOULD
ALSO ADD THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
REPORTING FREQUENTLY TO THE
BOARD IN PUBLIC SESSION ON OUR
WORK, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO
REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE
LEGISLATURE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NOT EVERY WE DON'T ALWAYS
GET AN ANNUAL AND OFFER FOR
ANNUAL REPORT. BUT I THINK WE
WOULD ALL LOVE THAT APPEAR AND
UM AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH
CHANCELLOR FOR INFORMING US
WHERE CHANCELLOR GARCIA IS. I
HOPE THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS AND EVEN
THOUGH SHE'S NOT HERE TODAY,
WILL WATCH THE ENTIRE HEARING.
BECAUSE UM, YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE
HOLDING HER ACCOUNTABLE TO
EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE
DISCUSSING TODAY AS WELL. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DR WEBBER.
REMEMBER ORTEGA. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR. UM THANK
YOU. THANK YOU TO THE AUDITORS.
UM I HAVE A CSU IN MY DISTRICT,
AND THEY ARE VERY PROUD OF AND I
HAVE A DAUGHTER WHO IS GOING TO
BE LIKE HE WAS LOOKING AT
COLLEGES AND IS LOOKING AT THE
SUS UM, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT
I'M ALSO VERY EXCITED ABOUT. BUT
I'M VERY CONCERNED. I'M VERY
CONCERNED. AND COMING INTO THIS
HEARING, I ACTUALLY HAD A LIST
OF QUESTIONS. BUT UNFORTUNATELY
I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE WHO
WALKED OUT A LITTLE WHILE AGO
WHO SAID, THIS CONVERSATION IS
GOING NOWHERE FAST. AND JUST
LIKE I TELL MY KIDS, I DON'T
WANT EXCUSES. I WANT TO SEE
CHANGE, AND I. UM YOU KNOW,
LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT AND
ACTUALLY TAKING ON THAT
CHALLENGE EARLIER, I HEARD, UH,
ONE OF YOU MENTIONED YEAH. THE
LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO DO
SOMETHING. WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO
DO SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR
THAT YOU KNOW, EXECUTIVES AT THE
CS, YOU CANNOT DO IT THEMSELVES
, ESPECIALLY WHEN SOME OF THE
FOLKS WHO HAVE COMMITTED THE
MOST HORRENDOUS SEXUAL
HARASSMENT HAVE BEEN HIGH LEVEL
ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE LEFT
WITH HUGE PAYOUTS AND LETTERS OF
RECOMMENDATION. I ALSO WANT TO
BE ON RECORD. UH OF SAYING THAT
I FIND IT VERY SHAMEFUL. THAT I
CONTINUE TO HEAR UNION, BLAMING
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS AS BEING THE PROBLEM.
WHEN AGAIN THE PEOPLE WHO
COMMITTED SOME OF THE MOST
HORRENDOUS HER SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AT THE CAMPUSES WHERE HIGH LEVEL
EXECUTIVES WHO DO NOT HAVE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF
AGREEMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH BEING IN A UNION. SO I WILL
ABSOLUTELY BE WORKING WITH MY
COLLEAGUES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
TAKE A LOOK AT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS. UH AND ENSURE
THAT YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE
CONTINUE DISCUSSING INCREASING
TUITION. THAT WE CONSIDER
TRANSPARENCY THAT WE CONSIDER
MORE REPORTS AND THEN WE DO
SOMETHING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PERPETRATORS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT DON'T CONTINUE ON THE
SAME TRACK. THANK YOU, MR
ORTEGA. SENATOR SMALLWOOD
QUIVERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, AND I WANT TO ECHO. UH THE
GOOD ASSEMBLY MEMBER FROM FROM
OAKLAND ON THAT, AS WELL AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, WHO SPOKE
BEFORE ME AND MY COLLEAGUE THAT
THIS WAS GOING NOWHERE. FAST. I
AM CONCERNED. WHEN UM WE TALK A
LOT ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT WE
DON'T HAVE ANY METHODOLOGY
DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF
ENFORCEMENT. UM HOW. WILL THESE
PLANS MOVE FORWARD IF THERE
ISN'T NOT AT THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE, BUT A SYSTEM WIDE MODEL
OF ENFORCEMENT? UM THAT
PRIORITIZES STUDENTS STAFF AND I
WILL SAY YOUR LABOR PARTNERS.
UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MODELS
WHERE UNIONS WHO REPRESENT
THOUSANDS OF WORKERS ACROSS
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS. UM,
HAVE. PRIORITIZED HIGHLIGHTED,
TRAINED AND HELP REDUCE. ISSUES
OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. I THINK
ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIPS WITH SOME
OF THE UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING
OWNERS AND JANITORS, FOR
EXAMPLE, AND A BILL. UH THAT WE
HELPED TO MOVE IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE SOME YEARS AGO.
STOPPING RAPE ON THE NIGHT
SHIFT. EVEN IT WAS ABOUT NOT
SCAPEGOATING WORKERS AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BUT
FIGURING OUT HOW TO TURN THOSE
THOUSANDS OF WORKERS INTO
REPORTERS. TRAINING THEM ON HOW
TO DOCUMENT. HELPING THEM
UNDERSTAND HOW TO SUPPORT EACH
OTHER. AND THEN HAVING SOME REAL
SYSTEMS OF ENFORCEMENTS THAT
BRING IN OUR CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS,
UM, WHO KNOW HOW TO ENSURE WAYS
TO BUILD REAL CASES AND HOW TO
ENSURE THAT THERE IS CONTINUED
OVERSIGHT. AS THE COLLEAGUES
TALKED ABOUT 2014. AND NOW HERE
WE ARE 10. YEARS LATER, THERE
HAVE BEEN NONE OF THESE
INNOVATIONS. TALKED ABOUT THERE
HAS BEEN NO OPPORTUNITY TO BRING
THE WORKERS, THE STUDENTS AND
THE ADMINISTRATORS TOGETHER TO
TACKLE THIS ISSUE, BUT WHAT I
HEAR IS A LOT OF BLAME. AND
FINGER POINTING. AND I AGREE
WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
MONITOR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FROM
THE MONTEREY AREA ABOUT HAVING
COMING BACK AND LOOKING FOR ZERO
FINDINGS. ONE OF THE THINGS
BEING ON EDUCATION AND ON
EDUCATION, BUDGET SUB IS THAT WE
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEAL WITH
ENROLLMENT BY TYING ENROLLMENT.
TO THE STATE'S INVESTMENT. AND
WHERE WE DON'T SEE AN INCREASE.
WE MAY NOT SEE AN INCREASE IN
HOW THE FUNDING MOVES FORWARD. I
THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT
CREATIVE WAYS IN THE LEGISLATURE
TO HELP WITH THIS OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THIS
PARTICULAR AREA ONE BECAUSE WE
KNOW PARTICULARLY WHEN WE THINK
ABOUT WOMEN AND WOMEN OF COLOR.
UM THE AUDIT WAS CLEAR. IN THE
FINDINGS WERE CLEAR WHO'S THE
MOST IMPACTED BY THESE
VIOLATIONS? TYPICALLY WOMEN OF
COLOR. WE KNOW WHO IS MISSING
FROM A NUMBER OF INDUSTRIES
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PATHWAY
FOR WOMEN OF COLOR INTO THEM.
WHY? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T EVEN GET
THE BASIC EDUCATION AND SKILLS
AND TOOLS. THEY'VE ALREADY HAD
SEXUAL HARASSMENT. THEY'VE
ALREADY EXPERIENCED
DISCRIMINATION, AND THEY'VE
ALREADY STEPPED OUT ABOUT OUT OF
THE PROCESS. SO THESE WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT CREATING A SAFE
ENVIRONMENT FOR WORKERS AND
PARTICULARLY THE MOST
VULNERABLE. THIS HAS A VERY
CHILLING EFFECT ACROSS ALL OF
THE CRISIS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
STRUGGLE WITH HERE. THE STATE
LEGISLATURE. HOW DO WE ENSURE
EQUITY IN KEY INDUSTRIES? HOW DO
WE ENSURE THAT WE ARE ELEVATING
MARGINALIZED GROUPS. THERE HAVE
BEEN DISENFRANCHISED FROM
SYSTEMS. HOW DO WE INCREASE
ENROLLMENT OF WOMEN AND
PARTICULARLY WOMEN OF COLOR AND
BLACK WOMEN IN PARTICULAR? WELL,
WE CAN'T DO THAT IF THESE
INSTITUTIONS BECOME BASTIONS.
FOR PREDATORS. AND VIOLATORS.
AND SO I AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO
TAKE ACTION SO THAT WE AREN'T
HERE. 10 YEARS LATER. AND I
THINK THAT STARTS WITH, UM. AN
INTENTIONAL EFFORT BY THE
ADMINISTRATION TO COME TO SOME
REAL TERMS. ABOUT WHO IS TO
BLAME FOR THIS AND IT'S I THINK
THIS FOCUS ON THE WORKERS IS
DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. BUT IT'S THE
FAILURE OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
IT'S THE FAILURE OF THE
LEADERSHIP. TO GIVE SAFE HAVEN
TO THESE KINDS OF VIOLATIONS AND
TO COME BACK 10 YEARS LATER AND
TO SAY IT'S OKAY SO I AM I HAVE
A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT I
HAVE LAID OUT THAT I WANT TO
RAISE AS WELL RELATED TO THE
REPORT. BUT I WANT TO SAY AS
LONG AS I AM A PART OF THE
EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON THE
EDUCATION BUDGET SUB I WANT TO
MAKE SURE. THAT THESE PLACES ARE
SAFE, PARTICULARLY FOR OUR MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. IF CSU
ISN'T A SAFE PLACE FOR BLACK
BROWN ÁP. AYE. WOMEN. THEN WE
MIGHT AS WELL THROW OUR HANDS
UP. BECAUSE WHERE ARE WE? IN
REAL WAYS AND OTHER SYSTEMS. YOU
ALL HAVE TO GET THIS TOGETHER
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T THIS VITAL
PATHWAY WILL NOT EXIST AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO SEE MORE AND
MORE ABSENCE. OF THE STUDENTS.
MANY OF THEM COMING FROM WORKING
POOR COMMUNITIES, MANY OF THEM
YOUNG PARENTS, MANY OF THEM
JUGGLING SO MANY OF THE OTHER
CHALLENGES. THAT EXISTS IN OUR
SOCIETY AND TRYING TO GET TO
THIS CAMPUS TO HAVE AN
EDUCATION. OR TRYING TO GET
THEIR FIRST FACULTY APPOINTMENT.
BUT THEN STOPPED IN THEIR TRACKS
BY THE ISSUE OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION,
AND I KNOW THIS IN MY PREVIOUS
WORK BECAUSE ONE OF THE LEADING
CAUSES OF ABSENTEEISM FOR WOMEN
AS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION. AND THAT
ULTIMATELY LEADS TO THEM.
STEPPING OUT OF THE INDUSTRY. SO
YOU KNOW WE DON'T NEED CSU TO BE
PART. OF THIS DEEPER PROBLEM
WHEN THEY NEED TO FOCUS. AND
BUILD A SOLUTION FOR PROTECTING
WOMEN. IN OUR COMMUNITY AND
WORKING WITH ALL OF. THE CENTERS
OF POWER WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY,
PARTICULARLY YOUR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING UNITS. WHERE THERE'S
RELATIONSHIP TRUST AND DEEP
REACH. INTO EVERY CLASSIFICATION
ON CAMPUSES, SO I WANT TO JUST
ADD THAT TO THE RECORD MY
QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH PAIGE.
29 WHERE IT SAID THAT IN SOME OF
THESE INSTANCES. DOCUMENTATION
THAT WAS MISSING FROM THE CASE
FILES WAS AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF
THOSE FILES, SUCH AS IN CAMPUS
OFFICIALS, OWN RECORDS OR IN
EMPLOYEES. PERSONAL FILES. AND
IN OTHER INSTANCES, CAMPUSES
WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH
KEY DOCUMENTATION. IS THERE A
REASON WHY AND THE THESE INITIAL
INTAKE CASE FILES? WHY WERE THEY
MISSING? UM AND HOW IS IT THAT
THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
CAMPUSES OFFICIAL RECORD AS A
RELATED, UH OR IN AN EMPLOYEE'S
PERSONAL FILE DIRECTLY. HOW IS
IT THAT THESE CRITICAL PIECES OF
DOCUMENTATION BECAUSE WE CAN
TRAIN ALL DAY LONG. BUT IF THERE
ISN'T A SYSTEM OF BEING ABLE TO
RECORD. AND MAINTAIN
DOCUMENTATION. THEN EVERY SINGLE
WORKER IS AT RISK. ABSOLUTELY
SO. WE UM WE READ THE FILES. WE
LOOK TO SEE WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM
DO THEY HAVE? WHAT KIND OF
EXPECTATIONS THAT YOU HAVE WHEN
THEY PERFORM INTAKE? WHAT
EVIDENCE? THEY REVIEW WHO THEY
TALK TO, AND WE FOUND IT WAS
INCONSISTENT AMONG THE THREE
CAMPUSES THAT WE LOOKED AT. AND
WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT CSU LACKED
SOME KIND OF EXPECTATION.
WHETHER IT'S A CHECKLIST OR SOME
KIND OF GUIDANCE. THEY INDICATES
THAT WHEN YOU PERFORMING INTAKE
EVALUATION YOU NEED TO LOOK AT
THESE TYPES OF EVIDENCE YOU TO
DOCUMENT THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE.
AND THEN AND THEN YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO DOCUMENT THE
RATIONALE AND THAT HAS SEVERAL
IMPORTANT COMPONENTS BECAUSE NOT
ONLY DOES IT LET MAKE SURE THAT
THEY EVALUATE THE CASE
APPROPRIATELY, BUT WHEN THEY
PERFORMED THESE CAMPUS REVIEWS
OR WHEN SOMEONE ELSE COMES IN TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY HANDLED
APPROPRIATELY DOCUMENTATIONS
THERE TO EVALUATE AND WHY WERE
THEY MISSING? SOMEONE FROM CSU
LIKE TO ANSWER THAT. WELL I DID
NOT SEE THE FILES THAT THE
AUDITORS LOOKED AT. SO I CAN'T
EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE MISSING IN
ANY GIVEN CASE, BUT I AGREE THAT
THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE THERE
AND THAT IF WE HAVE A WE NEED TO
HAVE MORE, UM, RIGOROUS
EXPECTATIONS ABOUT HOW THAT'S
DONE. THE POLICY EXPECTS IT BUT
DOESN'T GIVE ENOUGH SPECIFICITY
. AND SO WE WILL BE REVISING THE
POLICY AND ALSO WITH A CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WE WILL HAVE
A LIST AND WE'VE ALREADY AGREED
. THERE'S A LIST OF DOCUMENTS
THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT SAN
JOSE, AND WE AGREED THAT THOSE
ARE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY
PARTS OF THE FILE. AND THAT IS
THE KIND OF THING THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE MORE
EXPLICIT. AND I THINK THAT
SPEAKS TO THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
COMMENTS FROM SAN DIEGO IN TERMS
OF FINDINGS IF YOU DON'T HAVE
THE DOCUMENTATION, YOU CAN'T
HAVE A FINDING. AND SO IT IS
CRITICAL. I MEAN, THE
DOCUMENTATION IS WHAT TELLS THE
STORY. IT'S THE EVIDENCE RIGHT?
SO I WANT TO SAY, UM I CANNOT
UNDERSTAND HOW AN INSTITUTION IS
OLD AS CSU DOES NOT HAVE
ADEQUATE SYSTEMS. FOR KEEPING
TRACK OF SUCH, UM UH, CRITICAL,
UM INFORMATION. UM. CERTAINLY
WHEN I'VE BEEN REPRESENTING
WORKERS WHO ARE BEING BROUGHT UP
ON. UM UH, ON SOME TECHNICAL
SORT OF, UM, A PERSONNEL ISSUE,
PARTICULARLY SOME OF THE LOWER
WAGE WORKERS, NOT THE
CHANCELLOR'S NOT THE FACULTY.
UM, THERE IS. OVERWHELMING
DOCUMENTATION OVER DOCUMENTATION
OF THOSE WORKERS. UM, BUT I
THINK IT SEEMS THAT AT THE
HIGHER LEVEL OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANCELLOR LEVELS
WHERE SOME OF THESE INCIDENCES
ARE HAPPENING, CERTAINLY THAT
THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IT SEEMS
UM, MY ANOTHER. ANOTHER QUESTION
THAT I HAD IS, UM ON PAGE 48.
IT. TALKS ABOUT. THE CSU DOES
NOT HAVE A SYSTEM WIDE POLICY
THAT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. I WAS
SURPRISED BY THAT. AND I. MY
QUESTION IS, SINCE THE CSU DOES
NOT HAVE A SYSTEM WIDE POLICY
PERTAINING TO UNPROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT. UM, DO ANY INDIVIDUAL
CAMPUSES HAVE THIS POLICY? ARE
YOU STARTING TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE
BEST PRACTICES? HOW HOW DO YOU
BEGIN TO BUILD? UM UH, A REGIME
OF, UM, POLICIES AND PRACTICES
THAT CAN HELP BETTER PROTECT.
UH, THE EMPLOYEES, STAFF AND
STUDENTS. THERE IS A POLICY THAT
PROHIBITS UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
ITS COAT 89535. UM, IT'S PRETTY
BARE BONES. WHAT IT SAYS. IS
THAT AS A BASIS FOR, UH, TAKING
DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THERE'S A
LIST OF THINGS. UM WHAT WE DON'T
HAVE AND WHAT WE ARE GOING TO
WHAT WE ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE.
STARTED TO DEVELOP IS A PROCESS
FOR ENFORCING THAT. SO UM, IF
AND THIS IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THE OTHER CONDUCT OF CONCERN IF
THE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
CONSTITUTES A POLICY VIOLATION
OF TITLE NINE OR OTHER POLICY
VIOLATION, THEN THE PROCESS FOR
ENFORCING THAT WOULD BE THAT
POLICY. BUT IF IT DOESN'T THEN
WE DON'T HAVE A PROCESS. BECAUSE
TRADITIONALLY THAT WAS JUST SORT
OF HR. 101 IF SOMEBODY IS
BEHAVING UNPROFESSIONALLY, YOU
INVITE YOU LOOK INTO IT. YOU
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, AND YOU
DOCUMENTED AND WE HAVE, UM, THAT
WORK HAS ATROPHIED SOMETHING
THAT HR WORK HAS ATROPHIED IN
THE FACE OF OTHER APPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS, AND WE HAVE TO
REVIVE THAT, AND WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE THAT A MORE EXPLICIT
PROCESS. WHAT WE JUST YOU HAVE
TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT DEFINING
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BECAUSE
THERE ARE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AND
ACADEMIC FREEDOM RIGHTS THAT
SOMETIMES MAKE THE
INTERPRETATION COMPLICATED. BUT
THAT DOESN'T STOP US FROM
PROHIBITING UNPROFESSIONAL
CONDUCT AND TAKING ACTION. IN
RESPONSE. AND WHAT IS THE
TIMELINE? BECAUSE IN MY
EXPERIENCE WITH DISCRIMINATION
THERE, THERE'S ESCALATION, AND
IT OFTEN STARTS WITH THE
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. Tð. UM
THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE
ABOUT THE CAMPUS ON FRESNO, THE
ISSUES ON FRESNO STATE'S CAMPUS
. UM SO WHEN AND WHAT IS THE
TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPING THIS AND
I PARTICULARLY THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT BECAUSE A LOT OF
THESE, UM. LAWLESS ACTIONS OR
INTERSECTIONAL. SO THERE'S YOU
KNOW, UH, ANTI, UH, WE NEED MORE
ANTI RACISM POLICIES. THINGS
LIKE MICROAGGRESSION, RIGHT?
MICRO ASSAULT. UM IN ADDITION TO
SORT OF THE MORE EGREGIOUS AND
DIRECT SEXUAL HARASSMENT, SO
WHAT IS THE TIMELINE? AND HOW
ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND. AND
WHAT IS OUR GUARANTEE THAT LIKE
EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT
, UM, THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE
PRIORITIZED BECAUSE THIS IS
WHERE WE CATCH THE BEHAVIOR
BEFORE IT TURNS INTO SUCH A
LIABILITY AS WHAT TOOK PLACE ON
THE FRESH SNOW, UH, CAMPUS. I
AGREE. I THINK THAT IT IS THAT
THAT A LOT OF THE FRUSTRATION
AND DISAPPOINTMENT FROM THE
COMMUNITY HAS TO DO WITH THAT
UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR. ALSO
IT'S NOT JUST THE TITLE NINE
CONDUCT, AND IT'S ESPECIALLY
FRUSTRATING WHEN YOU ACTUALLY
HAVE THE COURAGE TO REPORT
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN
YOU'RE TOLD OH, IT DOESN'T RISE
TO THE LEVEL OF A POLICY
VIOLATION. SO WE NEED TO ADDRESS
THAT AND THAT IS A PRIORITY. WE
HAVE A PROCEDURE PROCESS IN
DRAFT FORM. AND UM, YOU KNOW, WE
WILL BE PRIORITIZING THAT WE'RE
ALSO RIGHT NOW TRYING TO HELP
THE CAMPUSES MOVE FORWARD ON
THEIR IMPLEMENTATION WORK. WE
NEED MORE STAFF. WE HAVE
AUTHORIZATION TO, UM, TO RECRUIT
AND TO HIRE. AND WE ARE MAKING,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO
IDENTIFY THE PRIORITIES THAT
HAVE TO HAPPEN FIRST, AND I
AGREE. THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT
ONE. AND I HAVE ONE FINAL
QUESTION. AND UM AND I HOPE MR
CHAIR WE WILL BE COLLECTING
THESE, UM RESPONSES SO THAT WE
CAN HELP SUPPORT THE TIMELINES
AND DEADLINES FOR THESE THINGS
AND SEE THE PROGRESS MADE. AND
MY FINAL REPORT HAS TO DO WITH,
UM, A STATEMENT ON PAGE 52 ABOUT
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. UM IT
SAYS THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE HAS
NOT ISSUED ANY GUIDANCE AND IT'S
SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY FOR THE
SPECIFIC DATA THAT CAMPUSES
SHOULD DOCUMENT IN THEIR CASE.
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. UM I WANT TO
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT GUIDANCE
BECAUSE I'VE SPENT SOME TIME IN
A LARGE SYSTEM AND, UM WHAT
STRUCK ME ABOUT YOUR RESPONSE TO
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER FROM FROM
SAN DIEGO? UM, WAS HOW COME PLEX
AND A LITTLE CONVOLUTED. YOUR
RESPONSE WAS TO HER ANSWER. AND
THEN HOW DO YOU THEN PUT THAT IN
THE SYSTEM AND YOU COMMUNICATE
DOWN THE GUIDANCE? SO WHAT IS
THE GUIDANCE VEHICLE THAT HELPS
TO PUSH DOWN THESE DIRECTIVES,
WHETHER IT BE THE DOCUMENT
COLLECTION PROCESS, WHETHER IT
BE THE UNPROFESSIONAL. UM AH.
CONDUCT POLICY. WHAT IS GOING TO
BE THE COMMUNICATION VEHICLE
THAT PUSHES DOWNWARDS SO THAT IT
IS NOT, UM DECONSTRUCTED, BUT IT
IS CONSOLIDATED IN TERMS OF THE
CAMPUS AND CAMPUS WIDE. WHAT IS
THAT COMMUNICATION SYSTEM THAT
YOU'RE BUILDING. PARTICULARLY TO
BE ABLE TO MOVE THESE COMPLEX
SORT OF ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORKS
AROUND DATA COLLECTION AND
AROUND OVERALL GUIDANCE. SO IT
DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR
GUIDANCE IN THE CASE OF WHAT
DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED
IN A FILE. THAT'S EASY. YOU MAKE
A LIST OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND
YOU SHARE THAT LIST AND SAY THIS
IS WHAT WE EXPECT YOU TO PUT IN
A FILE. IN TERMS OF WHAT IS
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT THAT
REQUIRES JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS.
AND SO WE CAN GIVE MORE GUIDANCE
AND WE TALKED WITH THE AUDITOR
IS ABOUT THE KIND OF GUIDANCE WE
COULD GIVE. AND SPECIFICALLY, WE
TALKED ABOUT EXAMPLES GIVING
EXAMPLES OF WHAT DOES CONSTITUTE
AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. SO
THAT, UM, YOU YOU GET THE PEOPLE
START YOU GET THE PROFESSIONALS
WHO ARE APPLYING THE FACTS TO
THE POLICY THINKING ABOUT IT AND
THEN MORE OVERSIGHT FROM THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. SO IF YOU
HAVE SOMEBODY AT THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE WHO'S
OVERSEEING THE WORK, AND WE'RE
HOPING TO HAVE FIVE PEOPLE WHO
WILL BE DOING THAT SO THEY CAN
CONSULT DAILY FREQUENTLY WITH
THE CAMPUSES ABOUT PARTICULAR
CASES. THAT'S A WAY TO ENSURE
THAT WE'RE HELPING PEOPLE
DEVELOP THE ANALYTICAL SKILLS
AND THE JUDGMENT THAT'S
CONSISTENT. AND THAT'S
REASONABLE. WELL, I APPRECIATE
THAT. AND UM I THINK WHEN YOU
HAVE SUCH A BROAD SYSTEM, IT'S
ALSO THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO USE
NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT HELPS TO
COMMUNICATE DOWNWARD ACROSS THE
SYSTEM. BE IT APPS. BE IT ALERTS
. BE IT ONLINE TRAINING MODULES.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, UM CSU. NEEDS
TO INVEST IN THOSE SORTS OF
SYSTEMS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
THAT REALLY PRESSED DOWN AND CAN
GO WIDE. UM OTHERWISE, UM, WE
ARE NOT GOING TO REACH THE
NUMBER OF THE SCALE OF EMPLOYEES
AND STUDENTS THAT NEED TO BE
REACHED AND CERTAINLY, UM, BE
ABLE TO CHANGE THIS CULTURE. SO
WE'RE NOT HERE. UH, 10 10 YEARS
LATER. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I
JUST SAY ONE THING IN RESPONSE
TO THAT AN ENTERPRISE LEVEL
SYSTEM, AS YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS
EXACTLY WHAT'S NEEDED. IT NEEDS
TO BE DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT
ALLOWS INDIVIDUALS ON THE GROUND
TO FOLLOW THE PROTOCOLS TO
FOLLOW THE DOCUMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW THE
COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS ON
THE GROUND IN THE INDIVIDUAL
CASE. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE
DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT THE
MANAGERS CAN ASSURE THE QUALITY
THAT THAT'S HAPPENING SO WEEKLY
. THEY'RE LOOKING AT CASES AND
THEY'RE SEEING DR WEBBER THE
TIMEFRAME QUESTION THEY'RE
SEEING. ARE WE ON TRACK IN THIS
CASE WITH THE APPROPRIATE TIME
FRAME, AND I'LL SPEAK TO THAT IN
A MINUTE, AND THEN FINALLY, WE
NEED A HIGHER LEVEL QUALITY
ASSURANCE. OF THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE, SO WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
SHOW OUR WORK. WE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO DOCUMENT IT. WE NEED TO
BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE QUALITY
OF IT AND THEN REPORT OUT THE
ASSURANCE THAT THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BAKED INTO
THE ENTERPRISE LEVEL SYSTEM. I
AGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY
THAT TECHNOLOGY IS A LEVERAGE
POINT. TO THE EARLIER QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THE
TIME FRAMES THAT HAS HAPPENED
ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WITH THE
IMPOSITION OF THE NEW
REGULATIONS, THE TRUMP ERA
REGULATIONS THAT WITHDREW ALL OF
THE OBAMA ERA GUIDANCE, UM, HAD
MANY MORE REQUIREMENTS THAT
INCLUDED A NEW CATEGORY OF
EVIDENCE CALLED DIRECTLY RELATED
EVIDENCE THAT ENSURE THAT
EVERYTHING GOT TURNED OVER TO
BOTH PARTIES AND ENSURED THAT
LAWYERS WERE ALLOWED IN THE
PROCESS. THERE WERE THINGS THAT
SLOWED DOWN. INCREDIBLY, THE
PROCESS THAT. CAMPUSES ACROSS
THE NATION, NOT JUST THE CSU
EXPANDED THEIR TIME FRAMES AND
WE SAW THIS IN POLICY
DEVELOPMENT AFTER THOSE REGS AND
THEN AFTER AFTER TRYING TO STAY
WITH THE TIMEFRAMES, THEY
ORIGINALLY HAD JUST SEEING THAT
THE STEP BY STEP BY STEP PROCESS
IN THE NEW REGULATIONS JUST YOU
COULD NEVER MEET IT. AND IN FACT
, CAMPUSES ACROSS THE NATION
STRUGGLE WITH THAT IT IS A
PROBLEM. IT IS SLOW, MANY CASES
GO WAY BEYOND WHERE THEY SHOULD
. AND IN OUR REVIEW. WE SAW THAT
AS WELL. UM, BUT IT WAS NOT
UNUSUAL FOR CAMPUSES IN THEIR
POLICY TO EXPAND THE DAYS TO
CREATE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS
FOR BOTH PARTIES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR THE
COMMENTS ALSO ON THE ENTERPRISE
LEVEL SYSTEM. I BELIEVE THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS
THAT TYPE OF SYSTEM AS WELL TO
CAPTURE THE DATA, SO WE
DEFINITELY WANT TO GET A REPORT
BACK ON THIS. SO THANK YOU.
SIMILAR ALICE. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR GRACE AND LETTING ME ASK
ONE MORE QUESTION AND THANK YOU,
CHAIR. I'M ACTUALLY I'M EVEN
MORE STUNNED THAN WHEN I WALKED
IN HERE. I THINK OVER THE PAST
2.5 HOURS. WHAT I'VE HEARD IS UM
, WE JUST DIDN'T PRIORITIZE THIS
SINCE 2014 WHEN THE FIRST
FINDINGS WERE MADE, I THINK I'VE
HEARD WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE
GOING TO FIX THIS, BECAUSE IT'S
REALLY HARD. I THINK I'VE HEARD,
UH. THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE SAYS
THEY'RE GOING TO FIX THINGS BUT
REALLY HAS FAILED US. AND I WANT
TO TALK ABOUT A VERY SPECIFIC
SITUATION IN WHICH THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE HAS FAILED
US. THERE WAS A PRESIDENT OF
FRESNO STATE UNIVERSITY WHO WAS
UPLIFTED TO CHANCELLOR AFTER
MISS MISMANAGEMENT OF DEALING
WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT ISSUES
WAS THEN GIVEN RETREAT RIGHTS,
NOT JUST ANY RETREAT RIGHTS,
THOUGH. RETREAT RIGHTS TO BE A
PROFESSOR OF LEADERSHIP AND
PUBLIC POLICY. AND SO I FIND
THAT. ASTOUNDING THAT THAT COULD
HAPPEN IN THIS SYSTEM. I FIND IT
ASTOUNDING THAT OUR COLLEAGUES
HAVE MENTIONED AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES
FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA, MENTIONING THIS
ISSUE OF RETREAT RIGHTS, BUT
ALSO THIS ISSUE OF IT'S NOT
ABOUT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP,
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THIS IS A
FAILURE FROM THE TOP. DOWN THAT
HAS HAPPENED OVER DECADES. UM
AND SO, BUT MY REAL QUESTION IS
YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE MAKING
CHANGES TO THE RETREAT RIGHT
POLICY. WILL THE AND YOU ALSO
MENTIONED THAT THIS HAS TO BE A
CULTURE OF CHANGE. IT'S NOT JUST
GONNA BE ONE PERSON WHO'S GONNA
CREATE CHANGE. SO IN THE
POLICIES THAT YOU'VE CHANGED
AROUND RETREAT RIGHTS WITH
SOMEONE LIKE THIS WHO MISHANDLED
SEXUAL HARASSMENT FROM THE TOP.
AND THEN WAS GIVEN A POSITION TO
TEACH. LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC
POLICY WITH THAT PERSON STILL
MAINTAIN RETREAT RIGHTS UNDER
YOUR NEW POLICY. WELL, THEY
SHOULDN'T RIGHT. BUT I HAVE TO
HAVE TO LOOK AT THE POLICY AND
YOU KNOW, I GET YOUR POINT. I
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS VERY
TROUBLING. WHAT'S NOT JUST A
POINT. I MEAN, IT'S THAT WE HAVE
SPENT TWO HOURS ON ALMOST THREE
HOURS TALKING ABOUT CULTURE OF
CHANGE WHY THINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN
. WE'RE ALL GOING TO WORK
TOGETHER. IT'S SOMEWHAT
KUMBAYAH. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
ACCOUNTABILITY. UH YET I DON'T
SEE ANYTHING IN PLACE. LIKE MANY
OF MY COLLEAGUES. THAT REALLY
SPEAKS TO ACCOUNTABILITY. I
DON'T SEE HOW PEOPLE AT THE TOP
ARE GOING TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. I DON'T SEE
TIMELINES AND I DON'T SEE A
COMMITMENT TO GETTING THIS DONE.
AND SO IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE
POINT. IT'S ABOUT WHAT IS IT
THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY MAKE
THE CHANGE? WELL, I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SOMEBODY WHO ENGAGES IN
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND SOMEONE
WHO DOESN'T DO THEIR JOB
PROPERLY BY OVERSEEING A MATTER
THERE ISN'T ONE NOT TO, UH,
ANYWAY, NOT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE
, BUT ONE ENABLES THE OTHER
AGREEMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT A
CULTURE OF CHANGE. WE HAVE TO
TALK ABOUT BOTH. AND SO I'LL
JUST REITERATE THAT IF THE
POLICY ON RETREAT RIGHTS DOESN'T
ADDRESS BOTH, IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT
GETTING US. I MEAN, INTERVIEW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
SOMEWHERE AT US SOMEWHERE, WEBER
I WASN'T PLANNING ON ASKING
ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT, UM I AM A
LITTLE CONFUSED. BECAUSE WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RETREAT
RIGHTS, AND IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE THOSE AT THE VERY,
VERY TOP. UM SO NOT THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE PART OF UNIONS AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THEN. WHY
ARE WE HAVING SUCH A
CONVERSATION? INTENSE
CONVERSATION ABOUT NOT ALLOWING
THEM TO GET IT. EVEN IF THEY
WERE INITIALLY I'M TOLD, BUT
THEY WERE THEN FOUND TO HAVE
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT OR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. LIKE WHAT IS THE
ISSUE THERE? WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE IN
UNIONS EXCLUSIVELY. SO THESE ARE
THESE ARE FACULTY. IT ONLY
APPLIES TO FACULTY. THEY WERE IN
A UNION. THEY GAVE UP THEIR
UNION MEMBERSHIP AND THEIR
TENURE. THEY GAVE UP PERMANENCY
TO TAKE A JOB AS AN
ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE DATA
SHOWS THAT ADMINISTRATORS DON'T
STAY VERY LONG, SOMETIMES IN THE
POSITION. AND SO MOST TENURED
FACULTY WILL SAY, I'M NOT GONNA
TAKE THAT JOB UNLESS I CAN
RETREAT AND GO BACK TO MY
TENURED POSITION. SO WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES. BUT AT THE TIME WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT THEY CAN RETREAT, THERE ARE
NO LONGER A PART OF THE UNION.
CORRECT TIME THEY ACCEPT THE
JOB. THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE GIVEN
THE RETREAT. RIGHT? SO IT'S. IF
YOU IF YOU SAY TO A PROFESSOR,
IF YOU TAKE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE
JOB, WE WILL LET YOU RETREAT TO
THE FACULTY. AND THEN WE LATER
CHANGED THE RULE. THEY HAVE A
RIGHT. THEY WOULD CHALLENGE THAT
IN COURT, AND THEY WOULD SAY YOU
BREACHED YOUR PROMISE TO ME TO
LET ME RETREAT. YOU NEVER TOLD
ME THAT THERE WERE ANY
QUALIFICATIONS. WE'VE NOW PUT
THOSE QUALIFICATIONS IN PLACE.
SO GOING FORWARD, WE CAN ENFORCE
THAT. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT
RETROACTIVELY PEOPLE WHO GOT
RETREAT. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT AN
ISSUE OF WITH THE UNIONS COME
AFTER YOU. IT'S MORE OF AN ISSUE
OF THE INDIVIDUALS TAKING IT TO
COURT. CORRECT. OKAY AND SO I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT,
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE
COMFORTING IS IF THERE WAS SOME
ASSURANCE THAT POLICIES GOING
FORWARD WOULD INCLUDE IF YOU
HAVE RETREAT RIGHTS THAT THEY
CAN BE REVOKED IF YOU ARE FOUND,
UH YOU KNOW IF THE FINDINGS WERE
POSITIVE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
OR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, AND I
DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD THAT, AND
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS
HEARD THAT, BUT I YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF
RETROACTIVE BUT GOING FORWARD SO
THAT THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR
FUTURE ADMINISTRATORS. THAT
WOULD BE NICE IF WE CAN HAVE
THAT ISSUE. THE PROBLEM JUST
WITH THAT IS THAT ONCE YOU
RETREAT, YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT. SO
IF WE THEN TRY TO WRITE YOUR A
FACULTY MEMBER AGAIN, AND SO IF
SOMEONE WERE TO SAY YOU CAN'T
YOU CAN'T. WE'RE GOING TO FIRE
YOU FROM THAT POSITION, THEN
THEY WOULD HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
, AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY
PREVAIL BECAUSE THEY WOULD SAY
THE MISCONDUCT. DIDN'T HAPPEN
WHILE I WAS REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE
. IT GETS VERY COMPLICATED. I
THINK I HEARD A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT QUESTION, THOUGH, AND
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD
THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. AND I
ACTUALLY WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS
WITH THE AUDITOR AS WELL BECAUSE
I WASN'T HEARING THE CONCERN
THAT THE AUDITOR EXPRESSED IF I
LOOK AT THE RETREAT, RIGHT
POLICY IT SAYS ADMINISTRATORS
ARE INELIGIBLE TO EXERCISE THEIR
OPTION TO RETREAT TO FACULTY
POSITIONS. UNDER THE FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE OF FINDING
HAS BEEN MADE THAT RESULTED IN
THE ADMINISTRATOR BEING NON
RETAINED, TERMINATED OR
SEPARATED THROUGH MUCH OF THE
AGREED UPON SEPARATE SO ANYWAY
THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER AN
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ONLY PLACE
THAT RETREAT WHATEVER COME UP OR
BE RELEVANT IS IF THE PERSON WAS
NO LONGER GOING TO HOLD THEIR
POSITION AS ADMINISTRATOR. SO
WE'VE MADE THE DECISION JOINTLY
FIRED WHATEVER WORD WE WANT TO
USE THAT YOU'RE NO LONGER
ADMINISTRATOR. YOU WOULD THEN
HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE
RETREAT RIGHTS. EXCEPT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS, YOU'RE
INELIGIBLE IF THE FINDING A
FINDING IS A DETERMINATION THAN
ADMINISTRATOR ENGAGED IN
MISCONDUCT OR A POLICY VIOLATION
THAT RENDERS THE ADMINISTRATOR
UNSUITABLE TO HAVE CONTINUED
DIRECT INTERACTIONS WITH CSU
STUDENTS OR EMPLOYEES. THAT'S
THE LANGUAGE RIGHT QUESTION WHEN
I STARTED IS WHETHER OR NOT
SOMEONE WITH A FINDING OF SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
WOULD QUALIFY UNDER THAT. AND
THE ANSWER THAT I GOT WAS. WELL
IT DEPENDS MAY OR MAY NOT SO,
YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND MY
INITIAL QUESTION WAS THESE
INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE REFERRING
TO OR THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
RIGHT NOW IN THIS AUDIT REPORT,
WOULD THEY QUALIFY UNDER THAT
DEFINITION AND WE DID NOT GET AN
ANSWER OF YES. SO YEAH. IF THEY
YES IF THEY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT, AND THERE WAS A
FINDING THEY COULD NOT RETREAT.
OKAY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DR
WEBBER. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL
PANEL PERSPECTIVES ON THE AUDIT.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME THE THIRD
AND FINAL PANEL TO THE TABLE. UM
REPRESENTS FROM CAL STATE
STUDENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES UNION
AND CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION. GALILEO PUMPER.
THANK YOU, MACLEOD AND ANNA
LUNA. GRADIN GRADIN EAR WELCOME.
TERRENCE WILSON AS WELL WELCOME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE EACH
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE FIVE
MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU.
PROCEED. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR
ME? TESTING. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
GENESIS. GALILEO TAMPA AND I AM
THE CAL STATE STUDENT
ASSOCIATION VICE PRESIDENT OF
SYSTEM WIDE AFFAIRS,
REPRESENTING THE NEARLY HALF OF
MILLION STUDENTS IN THE CSU
SYSTEM. I AM ALSO A STUDENT AT
CAL POLY POMONA. I AM HUMBLED TO
BE HERE TO PROVIDE THE STUDENTS
PERSPECTIVE ON THE CURRENT STATE
OF TITLE NINE ACROSS AUSSIE AS
YOU CAMPUSES AS A CHELSEA, IT'S
STUDENT ASSOCIATION. WE HAD AN
IN DEPTH DISCUSSION ON THE
FINDINGS OF THE CASINO CONNOR
REPORT IN RELATION TO TITLE NINE
AT LAST MONTH'S PLENARY MEETING.
ALL 23 CAMPUSES WERE REPRESENTED
AT THAT DISCUSSION, AND THE
MAJORITY CONSENSUS WAS THAT THE
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES ON CAMPUSES
DO NOT PROVIDE A FAIR AND
REASONABLE PROCESS WITH
EQUITABLE OUTCOMES FOR SURVIVORS
OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE. THIS VARIES
ON CASE BY CASE SCENARIO,
HOWEVER, MANY STUDENTS SPOKE TO
THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF
GRIEVANCES BEING DISMISSED DUE
TO REASONS SUCH AS THE
PERPETRATOR BEING TOO CLOSE TO
GRADUATION. THE CASE NOT BEING
DEEMED HIGH PRIORITY OR THE CASE
SIMPLY NOT BEING INVESTIGATED
PROPERLY. IN SOME CASES, THERE
IS ALSO A LACK OF DISCIPLINE FOR
PERPETRATORS AND SURVIVORS HAVE
TO ENDURE CONTINUOUSLY SEEN THE
PERSON THAT CAUSED HIM HARM
AROUND CAMPUS. MANY OF THESE
REASONS CREATIVE LACK OF TRUST
IN TITLE NINE AND THEIR
GRIEVANCE PROCESS OFTEN TIMES
LEADING TO SURVIVORS, STAYING
QUIET AND NOT FILING A FORMER
GRIEVANCE. WE ALSO DO RECOGNIZE
THAT SOMETIMES GRIEVANCES THAT
ARE REPORTED DO NOT FALL UNDER
TITLE NINE, HENCE THEIR
DISMISSAL, BUT THIS IS NOT AN
ADEQUATE PROCESS. HARMFUL
BEHAVIOR STILL NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED EVEN AFTER AT THE
MOMENT AT THE MOMENT. EXCUSE ME.
IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE
NINE VIOLATION BECAUSE HARMFUL
BEHAVIOR CAN EVENTUALLY LEAD TO
SUCH A VIOLATION. THIS IS A
PRACTICE THAT MAY REQUIRE A NEW
POLICY TO ADDRESS SUCH HARMFUL
BEHAVIOR AND SHOULD BE SEEN AS A
PREVENTATIVE MEASURE FOR FUTURE
TITLE NINE VIOLATIONS. SUCH AN
ADEQUACY IN THE GRIEVANCE
PROCESSES THAT ARE NOT HANDLED
THROUGH A LENS OF EQUITY AND
EMPATHY ADDS TO THE TRAUMA THAT
SURVIVORS ARE ALREADY
EXPERIENCING. WE DO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS CAN BE DUE TO NUMEROUS
RECENT, SUCH AS CAMPUSES, NOT
HAVING THE NECESSARY STAFF AND
RESOURCES TO BE MORE RESPONSIVE.
TWO GRIEVANCES. HOWEVER THIS
JUST SPEAKS TO THE NEED FOR THE
CSU SYSTEM TO INTERVENE AND
ENSURE THE EFFICIENCY OF ALL
TITLE NINE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. STUDENTS ARE
GENERALLY AWARE OF THE GRIEVANCE
PROCEDURES DO THE DUE TO THE
TITLE NINE MANDATORY TRAINING.
NEVERTHELESS RELIANCE ON THE
TRAINING AS WELL AS EDUCATING ON
THE TITLE NINE GRIEVANCE PROCESS
IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. SEVERAL
CAMPUSES AT OUR LAST PLENARY
MEETINGS, SPOKE TO THE NEED TO
PROMOTE AND ADVERTISE TITLE NINE
SERVICES IN A MORE EASILY
ACCESSIBLE MANNER. WE CANNOT
EXPECT STUDENTS WHO HAVE ALREADY
GONE THROUGH A TRAUMATIC
EXPERIENCE TO HAVE TO GO OUT OF
THE WAY TO FIND THEMSELVES.
SUPPORT AND RESOURCES THROUGH
THE PROCESS. WE ALSO CANNOT BASE
THE ACCESSIBILITY OF SUCH
INFORMATION OFF OF THE USUAL
OVERLY PARTICIPATED STUDENT.
WHILE THE MAJORITY OF THE
STUDENT BODY STILL DOES NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO TITLE, NINE
INFORMATION AND SERVICES. THIS
EDUCATION AND PROMOTION OF TITLE
NINE PROCESSES CAN BE DONE VIA
FLIERS AROUND CAMPUS HAVING IT'S
OWN APP OR CHOCOLATE ON STUDENTS
CAMPUS PORTAL, INCLUDING AN ALL
COSTS ALIBIED, AND THESE ARE
JUST NAMING A FEW OPTIONS. AS A
CALCIUM STUDENT ASSOCIATION. WE
BELIEVE TITLE NINE SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED A TOP BUDGET
PRIORITY. YOU TO THE SYSTEMATIC
FAILURE OF THESE DEPARTMENTS
ACROSS MANY CAMPUSES. THE FUNNY
ONE SURE THAT EACH TITLE NINE
CAMPUS DEPARTMENT HAS SUFFICIENT
STAFF. AND RESOURCES TO RESPOND
TO GRIEVANCES IN A TIMELY AND,
MOST IMPORTANTLY, EMPATHETIC
MANNER. IN ADDITION, THERE NEEDS
TO BE A COMPLETE SYSTEM WIDE
PLAN ON HOW EACH TITLE NINE
DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE STRUCTURED
AND THEY SHOULD AND HOW THEY
SHOULD OPERATE. THIS KIND OF
OVERSIGHT WILL ENSURE THAT ALL
CSU STUDENTS ARE RECEIVING THE
ADEQUATE. QUIT. EXCUSE ME
ADEQUATE CARE. THAT THEY DESERVE
EACH OF THE CAMPUSES. MOST OF
ALL, WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPERATIVE
THAT STUDENTS ARE CONSIDERED AS
EQUAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
CREATION OF THIS NEW PLAN. WHEN
COSINE O'CONNOR CONDUCTED FOCUS
GROUPS AT EACH OF THE CAMPUS IS
TO GATHER INFORMATION ON TITLE
NINE SERVICES. IT WAS BROUGHT TO
OUR ATTENTION THAT NOT ALL OF
THESE GROUPS HAD A STUDENT AT
THE TABLE. NOW THAT THE ISSUES
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT, AND
NOW THAT YOU ARE AS A STATE WANT
TO INTERVENE. WE HOPE THAT YOU
ENSURE THAT STUDENTS ARE
INVOLVED IN THIS IMPLEMENTATION.
OR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY AND ALL
RECOMMENDATIONS TO TITLE NINE
SERVICES ACROSS THE CSU SYSTEM.
AS A CHELSEA IT SOON IN
ASSOCIATION. WE APPRECIATE THEM
AT STATION TO SPEAK ON SUCH AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE AFFECTING SO
MANY OF OUR STUDENTS, AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO FUTURE
COLLABORATIONS ON HOW TO BEST
IMPROVED TITLE NINE SERVICES.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THE DAY THAT CSU
STUDENTS CAN SAY THAT TITLE,
NINE SERVICES AND GRIEVANCE AND
THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS ARE
EQUITABLE AND RESULT IN FAIR AND
REASONABLE OUTCOMES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR WILSON.
WELCOME. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIRS AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS TERRY
WILSON, AND I'M, THE VICE
PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYEES UNION, REPRESENTING
NEARLY 16,000 NON STAFF OR NON
FACULTY STAFF AT THE CSU. THANK
YOU FOR GIVING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY ON
THIS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE
. CSU BIÂU MEMBERS AREN'T UNIQUE
POSITION ON CSU CAMPUSES. NOT
ONLY ARE WE TARGETS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT OURSELVES BUT OUR
MEMBERS ALSO PERFORMED THE
INTAKE ON REPORTS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. SO OUR MEMBERS BOTH
WITNESS AND PERSONALLY
EXPERIENCED ISSUES WITH THE
TITLE NINE SYSTEM. THE STATE
AUDIT OF THE SEA SUS TITLE NINE
PROCEDURES CONFIRMED PROBLEMS
THAT ARE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
OBSERVING AND EXPERIENCING FOR
YEARS. INCLUDING OUTRAGEOUS CASE
DELAYS, LACK OF DISCIPLINE FOR
THOSE WHO VIOLATE TITLE NINE
POLICIES AND REFUSAL TO
INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT
PROVIDING A RATIONALE. THE AUDIT
ALSO NOTED LACK OF STANDARDIZED
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.
ACROSS CAMPUSES, PREVENTING THE
CSU FROM IDENTIFYING AND
ADDRESSING PROBLEMATIC TRENDS.
AN ISSUE WE AND TO HAVE BEEN
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE
LEGISLATURE ON TO RECTIFY. THE
RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED IN THE
AUDIT, SUCH AS PROVIDING CLEAR
GUIDELINES TO ENSURE CONSISTENT
INTERPRETATION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND ESTABLISHING
CONSISTENT METHODS FOR
ADDRESSING SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
ARE STEPS WE MUST TAKE IF WE
HOPE TO FOSTER A SAFE
ENVIRONMENT ON OUR CAMPUSES.
IMPLEMENTING THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS, AMONG OTHERS
PROVIDED IN THE REPORT. WILL
BEGIN TO CHANGE THE CULTURE OF
THE CSU. THAT HAS ALLOWED
SYSTEMIC ABUSES AND HARASSMENT
TO PERSIST UNCHECKED. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
PLANS TO REFORM AND STANDARDIZED
TITLE NINE PROCEDURES ACROSS ALL
THREE HIGHER EDUCATION SEGMENTS,
WHICH WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER
TO ADDRESS THESE SYSTEMIC ISSUES
TO BUILD A BETTER SAFER CSU FOR
STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES ALIKE.
THANK YOU. AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THE END.
THANK YOU SO MUCH WELCOME MISS
LUNA IN INDIA. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIRS AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS CRITICAL ISSUE THAT DEEPLY
IMPACTS SO MANY PEOPLE EVERY
DAY. MY NAME IS AN LUNA GORDON
AIR AND I'M HONORED TO BE ABLE
TO SPEAK HERE TODAY. I'M AN
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT
SACRAMENTO STATE. ONE OF THE TRI
CHAIRS OF THE WOMEN'S CAUCUS FOR
THE CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION, AND I'M A SURVIVOR
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. CF REPRESENTS
29,000, PROFESSORS, LECTURER,
FACULTY COUNSELORS, COACHES. AND
LIBRARIANS WHO'VE BEEN ON THE
FRONT LINES OF THE TITLE NINE
PROCESS FOR MANY YEARS. THE
CONFLUENCE OF THE COSINE
O'CONNOR REPORT THIS AUDIT AND
LEGISLATIVE INCREASE INTO THE
MASSIVE FAILURES AT SEVERAL CSU
CAMPUSES HAVE CREATED A RUPTURE
IN CSU MANAGEMENT'S BUSINESS AS
USUAL APPROACH TO TITLE NINE
COMPLIANCE. WE'RE AT A
CROSSROADS WHERE WE CAN AFFECT
CHANGE AT A MORE PROFOUND LEVEL.
THERE ARE MANY CONSTRUCTIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS AUDIT,
IN WHICH WE HOPE TO CONTINUE TO
ENGAGE. WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON
ALL OF US TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO REIMAGINE THE
INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES THAT LED
TO THE SYSTEMIC FAILURES AND TO
CREATE REAL CULTURAL CHANGE
CENTERED ON OUR STUDENTS,
FACULTY AND STAFF PAST AND
PRESENT. THERE ARE THREE ISSUES
I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT FOR
THIS PURPOSE TODAY. FIRST IT IS
CRITICAL THAT INVESTIGATIONS ARE
CONSISTENT AND INDEPENDENT, AS
WELL AS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN
ANTI RACISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
LENS. WE SEEK TO BUILD ON SOME
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE
AUDIT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT
VOICE. INHERENTLY THE UNIVERSITY
ADMINISTRATION FROM LEGAL
COUNSEL DEVICE PRESIDENTS HAVE
AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE
INSTITUTION. THE REALITY IS THAT
THERE ARE TOO MANY CROSS
INTERESTS AND POWER DYNAMICS
THAT PLAY ON EACH CAMPUS THAT
LEAD TO INEQUITABLE SOLUTIONS
AND SITUATIONS. THE FOX CANNOT
CONTINUE TO GUARD THE CHICKEN
COOP. THE CODES AND O'CONNOR
REPORT HELPFULLY IDENTIFIED AS
THE NEED TO IMPROVE TRUST AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. FOCUSING ON THE
NEED FOR NON CAMPUS BASED
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT IS
ESSENTIAL. WE APPRECIATE THAT
THE LACK OF RESOURCES FOR TITLE
NINE OFFICES WAS IDENTIFIED AS A
PROBLEM. HOWEVER, WE ARE ALSO
CONCERNED WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR
MORE RESOURCES TO FLOW INTO AND
PERPETUATE A FLAWED SYSTEM.
SECOND. WE APPRECIATE THE CALL
FOR MORE STREAMLINED DATA. WE
NEED TO NOT ONLY UNDERSTAND
WHICH CASES ARE FALLING THROUGH
THE CRACKS BUT ALSO BE COGNIZANT
OF THE PATTERNS. THE DATA CAN
REVEAL WHY THEY CAME TO BE AND
HOW BEST RESOLVE THE CHALLENGES
IDENTIFIED. THE AUDIT IDENTIFIES
THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH WHICH
CASES ARE HANDLED. IT IS
CRITICAL. WE TAKE AN
INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH AND
RECOGNIZE RACIAL, GENDER,
DISABILITY BIAS AND POWER
DYNAMICS. WE NEED TO CAPTURE
PATTERNS OF DISCRIMINATION AND
ENSURE THIS PROCESS IS NOT USED
TO FURTHER BIAS AND REINFORCE
PARADIGM NAM IX THAT PERPETUATE
VIOLENCE AGAINST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. FINALLY LET'S
GROUND OURSELVES AND WHY WE ARE
HERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IT
IS TO PREVENT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
HARASSMENT. TO DO THIS. WE NEED
TO ADDRESS THE TWIN ISSUES OF
FUNDING AND CONSISTENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACROSS ALL
CAMPUSES. THE LACK OF THESE
THINGS HAS LED TO A RELIANCE ON
PUNITIVE APPROACHES. ESTABLISHED
FOR DECADES OF PUBLIC POLICY,
WHICH IS NOT PROVEN TO PREVENT
HARM. INSTEAD OF WASTING TIME ON
BAND AID SOLUTIONS. WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON BUILDING NEW NORMS AND
SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY. WE'RE
CALLING FOR WORKING GROUP OF
DIVERSE INTERSECTIONAL
STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE FACULTY,
STUDENTS AND STAFF. AS WELL AS
MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY WHO HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY
HARMED. THE STAKEHOLDERS WOULD
RECEIVE ONGOING SKILL BUILDING
COACHING AND BIAS INTERVENTION
AND CULTURAL COMPETENCY. THEIR
CHARGE WOULD BE TO LOOK INTO
WAYS TO MAKE LONG TERM CULTURAL
IMPACT. SOME WAYS OF DOING THIS
CAN INCLUDE PEER EDUCATOR
WORKSHOPS, ANALYZING HIRING AND
ORIENTATION PRACTICES AND
FURTHER SUPPORTING, UH, SURVIVOR
ADVOCATES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO A
CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE
CSU SYSTEM. THE THOUGHTFUL
REFORMS WERE BEGINNING TO EMBARK
ON TODAY CAN BE A MODEL FOR A
STATE AND COUNTRY. THANK YOU,
AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO ALL OF OUR
PRESENTERS AND THANK YOU FOR
BRAVELY REPRESENTED
ORGANIZATION. AND WHAT IS A
DIFFICULT DAY. IN TERMS OF. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STATE
AUDIT AND THE COSINE O'CONNOR
REPORT. DO YOU FEEL THAT THOSE
ARE ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE NATURE
OF HOW SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMPLAINTS ARE HANDLED AT THE
CSU SYSTEM? AND SECONDLY, WHAT
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS BUT
YOU HAVE BEYOND WHAT IS STATED.
IN THESE REPORTS. HELP REALLY
CREATE THAT SAFE CAMPUS
ENVIRONMENT WHERE ALL REPORTS
ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND HANDLED
WITH CONFIDENTIALITY AND COMPANY
COMPETENCE. THANK YOU. I THINK
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND I
THINK THAT YOU KNOW TO ANSWER
THAT DIRECTLY. NO I DON'T THINK
IT'S ENOUGH AND I THINK WHAT I
WAS TOUCHING ON IN TERMS OF A
WORKING GROUP WHERE WE ACTUALLY
ENGAGE THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
ALREADY BEEN HARMED. THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE PART OF THAT COMMUNITY
WOULD BE VERY PRODUCTIVE IN
TERMS OF REALLY ADVANCING THIS
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ANY OF THE
OTHER PRESENTERS LIKE TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION. I THINK FROM A
STUDENT'S PERSPECTIVE, I CAN
ALSO AGREE IT'S NOT ENOUGH. AND
THE IMPLEMENTATION GROUPS THAT
THEY HAVE ON CAMPUS. OUR
STUDENTS ARE NOT AWARE OF THOSE
ARE STUDENTS DON'T KNOW
INFORMATION DON'T KNOW RESOURCES
, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE
ROOT OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR
STUDENTS ARE CONFUSED AND WHERE
TO GO OR DON'T HAVE THAT
UNDERSTANDING OF, UM, THAT THERE
IS HELP AND THERE IS SUPPORT, SO
I THINK THAT'S THE ROOT OF THE
ISSUE. AT LEAST FROM MY FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE AS A STUDENT. THANK
YOU, MRS POMPA. SIR YES, I WOULD
ADD ON BEHALF OF C S U EW THAT
WE'RE CONCERNED. I THINK CF
RAISED IT THAT THERE'S NO
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS THERE
IN THIS PROCESS, SO TO SIMPLIFY
THINGS. MOST EMPLOYEES DON'T
INVESTIGATE SOMEBODY ABOVE THEM
IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. SO IF
YOU'RE HAVING INVESTIGATIONS AND
TRYING TO IMPROVE TRACKING
DEVICES AND HAVE A SYSTEM WIDE
DATABASE, BUT YOU'RE MISSING THE
FUNDAMENTAL POWER DYNAMIC. THEN
THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM. I THINK
THE REP BROUGHT THAT UP
EFFECTIVELY. AND THEN SECONDLY,
I WAS I WAS SHOCKED TO HEAR THE
QASSAM O'CONNOR CONSULTANTS TALK
ABOUT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS. AND THE DUE PROCESS
AND STATE PERSONNEL BOARD. THEY
HAD ZERO INTERACTION WITH THE
LEADERSHIP OF C S U EW. IT'S
ALMOST MALPRACTICE TO TALK ABOUT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITHOUT TALKING TO THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT. BUT
I THINK THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES
BROUGHT THAT UP EFFECTIVELY. SO
I APPRECIATE THAT. SO I WOULD
SAY NUMBER ONE IS THERE HAS TO
BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
PROCESS. AND NUMBER TWO. I THINK
THE STAKEHOLDER IDEA THAT'S LAID
OUT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD
WORK WITH. BUT THERE HAS TO BE
SOME SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATES THE
SYSTEMATIC ENGAGEMENT WITH THE
UNIONS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S
JUST CAMPUS BY CAMPUS. SOME
CASES IT'S YOU KNOW, ALMOST A
VIOLATION OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS. OTHER CASES
WE HAVE TO FIND OUT THAT THE
GRAPEVINE WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING. I
REALLY APPRECIATE THIS
RESPONSES, AND THERE'S A LOT
MORE WORK TO BE DONE. SOMEWHERE
AT THIS. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THAT UP ABOUT THE POWER
DYNAMIC. UM ESPECIALLY WHEN SO
MUCH OF THESE ISSUES ARE COMING
FROM VERY, VERY HIGH UP. AND I
HEAR YOU ASKING FOR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATOR. OUR INVESTIGATION
, ARE YOU, UM ARE YOU SUGGESTING
COMPLETELY TAKE IT OUT OF THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND OFFER
THIS YEAR'S U CAMPUSES TO AN
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION? OR IN
ADDITION TO THE CHANCELLOR, AND
IF YOU'RE NOT SURE YET, THAT'S
OKAY TOO. I'M JUST KIND OF
THINKING OUT LOUD AS I ASKED THE
QUESTION. WE JUST THINK THAT CSU
EITHER HAS TO BE SOME MECHANISM
TO RECOGNIZE THE POWER DYNAMIC
AND TAKE SOME OF THESE
INVESTIGATIONS OUTSIDE THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE IS PART OF
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WITH THE
CAMPUS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A
LOT OF AUTONOMY. IF YOU'RE AN
EMPLOYEE ON THE CAMPUS, YOU
DON'T REALLY SEE THAT AS AN
INDEPENDENT FORCE, AND SO FAR
THE TRACK RECORD HAS NOT
ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS AN
INDEPENDENT FORCE. I THINK THERE
DOES NEED TO BE MUCH MORE
THOUGHT PUT INTO AN INDEPENDENT
PROCESS. UM AND THE COSINE
O'CONNOR'S REPORT DID ACTUALLY
LISTED AS ONE OF THE OPTIONS WAS
HAVING INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT DONE
WITHIN THIS. YES, YOU SO I THINK
THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I MEAN, I
ACTUALLY HAD THAT THOUGHT. MY
I'M GLAD TO HEAR IT FROM FROM
THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE EXPERTS
AND HAVE EXPERIENCED AND LIVED,
THUS BECAUSE THAT WAS MY INITIAL
REACTION TO ALL OF THIS ANYWAY,
AS CAN EXECUTIVES. AND FOLKS AT
THE TOP AND PEOPLE ALL
THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATING
THEMSELVES THAT MAKE THAT THAT
PIECE OF THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO
ME AT ALL. AND I HAVEN'T REALLY
HEARD ANYTHING IN THIS HEARING
THAT MAKES THAT SENSICAL TO ME.
SO UM, I APPRECIATE HEARING IT
FROM THOSE THAT ARE LIVING IN.
YEAH, IN REGARDS TO. THAT
RELATE. THAT WAS MY BIGGEST
OBSTACLE AT FRESNO STATE. WAS
THE CENTRALIZED OF THE REPORTING
MECHANISMS THAT THAT WAS THE
BIGGEST OBSTACLE THERE. AND YOU,
CAN YOU FLUSH THAT OUT A TINY
BIT. UM JUST HOW THE THIS THIS
STRUCTURE SET UP MEANING?
SOMETIMES IT DEPENDS ON WHAT
CAMPUS YOU'RE AT. WHERE THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S FOR HUMAN RESOURCES.
THEY SIT ON THE PRESIDENT'S
CABINET. AND. LIKE JIM WAS
SAYING. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IF
YOU HAVE, UH, TO REPORT AGAINST
THE HIGH LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR
THAT SITS ON THAT CABINET. AND
THEN YOU'RE REPORTING TO THE
VICE PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN
RESOURCES THAT SITS ON THE
CABINET. THAT THEY THEN GET
THERE. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FROM THE PRESIDENT AT THIS THE
DYNAMICS IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
WORK WITH, AND THAT WAS ONE OF
THE THINGS I I'VE BROUGHT UP AS
TO WHERE HOW CAN YOU PUT SPACE?
BETWEEN THAT. UM SO YOU CAN GET
A FAIR, UM, INVESTIGATION OR
JUST EVEN AFFAIR INTAKE. THANK
YOU. PLEASE AND I WOULD JUST
ADD, UM, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO A AND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESOURCES.
WE DON'T WANT IT TO JUST GO TO
BUSINESS AS USUAL. THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO STOP AND THINK
ABOUT HOW WE REALLY MAKE CHANGE
AND TO JUST WE'RE JUST WANT TO
BE CAUTIOUS AND THINK REALLY
CAREFUL, JUST GIVING MONEY TO
THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. UM
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT OUR
RESOURCES ARE GOING TO THE RIGHT
PLACE TO ACTUALLY HELP OUR STAFF
MEMBERS AND STUDENTS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
FROM COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH TO ALL OF YOU FOR BRAVELY
SHARING YOUR PRESENTATIONS HERE
TODAY. AND FOR ALL THE LINEMEN
HERE TODAY HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL
AND SHARING OUR INFORMATION
GOING FORWARD. THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK TO BE DONE. AT THIS TIME,
WE'RE GONNA GO INTO PUBLIC
COMMENTS. IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE
A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE COME TO
THE MIC AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO
MINUTES. TAKE IT TO OUR
PRESENTERS.
ALRIGHT, SAYING NO PUBLIC
COMMENT TODAY. I REALLY WANT TO
THANK ALL THE PRESENTERS WHO
HAVE COME HERE TODAY. IT'S ALL
MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE STAYED
FRIEND TERRY HEARING TO ALL MY
COLLEAGUES WHO PARTICIPATED HERE
TODAY IN THE CHAIR ALVAREZ. AND
TWO THE JOURNAL LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE ASSEMBLY
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE, THE
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE,
RATHER ROBUST CONVERSATIONS HERE
TODAY. AND AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM
MY COLLEAGUES, WE ARE DEEPLY
COMMITTED ADDRESSING SYSTEMIC
ISSUES ON SYSTEM. THIS WAS ON
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND POST
SECONDARY ON PUTTING THEIR
EDUCATION CAMPUSES A LOT OF WORK
TO BE DONE HERE, AS YOU'VE HEARD
FROM A NUMBER OF THE
PRESENTATIONS. AS CHAIR OF THE
ASSEMBLY. HIGHER EDUCATION
COMMITTEE, ALONG WITH MY
COLLEAGUES ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED
TO ADDRESSING THESE VERY ISSUES.
AND THE STAFF OF THE ASSEMBLY
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND
COLLABORATION WITH THE SENATE
EDUCATION COMMITTEE. OUR MEETING
WITH THE VARIOUS PARTIES. HELP
ASCERTAIN. HELP THE STATE
ASCERTAIN HOW WE CAN BEST
ADDRESS. AND HELP ENSURE THAT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ISSUES ARE
BEING ADDRESSED. WHETHER ITS
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
THIS, YOU KNOW RESOURCES.
LOOKING AT MANY DIFFERENT
ISSUES. RETREAT WRITES GREAT IN
THAT CULTURAL CHANGE, BECAUSE A
LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE GOING
FORWARD. AND SHOULD ANYONE
WHETHER THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE UH, COLLEAGUES WISH
TO OFFER COUNSEL OR PERSPECTIVE
AS TO HOW WE CAN BEST ADDRESS
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ISSUES. WE'RE
GOING TO TRUST AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANY OTHERS
PLEASE CONTACT ASSEMBLY HIGHER
EDUCATION COMMITTEE STAFF. WE'RE
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO RESOLVING A
TACKLING THESE COMPLEX ISSUES IN
A COLLABORATIVE THOUGHTFUL AND
THOROUGH MANNER. OUR COMMITTEE
IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON
LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS IS THE
ISSUES AND WELCOME INPUT AND
COLLABORATION FROM OTHER MEMBERS
AS WE CONTINUE TO PROCEED ON
THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUES GOING
FORWARD AND LOOK FOR THE FUTURE
CONVERSATIONS IN COLLABORATION
WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU
AS WE CONTINUE TO HOLD AND TO
KEEP OUR STUDENTS, FACULTY AND
STAFF SAFE. YOU KNOW HOW
EDUCATION CAMPUSES THAT THE CSU
CAMPUSES? THERE'S A LOT OF WORK
TO BE DONE. SO WITH THAT, THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THIS MEETING IS
ADJOURNED.