Just got the latest memo from Hoffman and her new towel-boy. Please note their references to “sweeping changes.” And, just for fun, see if you slog your way deep enough through the muck to uncover any actual substance here. Good luck.

I’ve worked in corporate PR and am well able to distinguish between communication and a carefully crafted attempt not to communicate. This is what happens when the lawyers and PR weasels find themselves on the same side of a task (good PR people are routinely at odds with legal, whose natural instinct is to say nothing – here they decided to say nothing in as many words as possible).

There’s “sweeping” going on, all right – they’re doing all they can to sweep this mess under the rug.

I wish them the best. For now, my vow to never give CU a damned penny remains very much in effect. If I ever do get talked into changing my mind and opening the checkbook, you can bet the farm it won’t be until after Hoffman and Co. have been “swept” off into the Mississippi community college system where they belong.

TO: Boulder Campus Teaching & Research Faculty, Staff, Deans, Directors, Dept Chairs, System Administration

FROM: Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano

SENDER: Jima Wendzel

DATE: March 2, 2005

SUBJECT: President’s Statement on Grand Jury Issues

Dear Colleagues:

I know that many of you have been following the recent media coverage of leaked information about an unsigned copy of the grand jury report regarding the football program. President Hoffman has asked me to forward her response to these issues, which I am providing below. Please know that the Boulder campus is continuing to implement the sweeping reforms in athletics announced last May – and we continue to foster a new environment of oversight and accountability.

Thank you for your support of these efforts.
Sincerely,

Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano

RESPONSE BY CU PRESIDENT ELIZABETH HOFFMAN

Dear Faculty and Staff:

I am sending you my response to specific allegations recently reported in the press that are derived from an unsigned copy of the grand jury report concerning the University of Colorado football program. Yesterday, the judge authorized the University to respond to specific allegations reported in the press. With that said, I felt it was extremely important to reach out to our community regarding the steps we have already taken to address the allegations.

I understand how difficult this constant media coverage of issues has been for everyone who cares about CU, and I regret the negative attention that has been cast on higher education and the State of Colorado as a result. Please be assured that the CU Board of Regents, university administrators and I have been managing these issues, with the best interests of our students, faculty and staff, as well as our constituents in and outside of Colorado, in mind. There are many wonderful things taking place on the University of Colorado campuses every day, where we continue to focus on providing excellence in education, teaching and research to benefit our students and communities. I am very grateful for your support of CU, and thank you for your continued interest in the University’s well being.

Statement of University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman March 1, 2005

GENERAL STATEMENTS We understand the issues that confront us and we have made sweeping changes that should serve as a model for how universities manage their athletic departments across the country.

Grand Jury reports are inherently one-sided, unchallenged and sometimes unfair.

The vast majority of our students are law-abiding citizens who take their studies seriously and come to the university each day to learn.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY’S RESPONSE Contrary to the appearance given by recent media reports, we have been creating change at the University.

We understand that change must happen if we are to succeed at our highest priority, which is creating a safe environment in which our students can learn. No one in the University system, from the Board of Regents to our newest employee, takes our situation lightly. We have repeatedly taken responsibility for the events of the past and, far from avoiding them, initiated profound and sweeping change.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GRAND JURY Reports in the press that claim to be based on an illegally leaked copy of the Grand Jury report cast doubt on the whole process.

The release completely undermines the grand jury process in that the University’s response is not also released, and we are limited by Judge Bayless in our ability to respond to specific allegations. Moreover, the court found that the Attorney General failed to follow the statute in submitting both an indictment and a grand jury report.

Grand Jury reports put the target of the investigation at an inherent disadvantage because there is no opportunity to respond.

The danger of any grand jury report is that it both accuses and condemns its targets with one-sided, unchallenged and misleading allegations based on secret evidence and testimony. The party investigated has no opportunity to respond to allegations, provide evidence or even to know the evidence against it.

QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLIANCE The University complied fully with all requests from investigators and was assured by the special prosecutor that we had so complied.

We emphatically reject any assertions that the University failed to cooperate with its investigation. Assertions that we willfully failed to provide documents are simply untrue and they unjustifiably damage the University’s reputation. And we urge the lead prosecutor to set the record straight immediately on this matter.

We received two subpoenas requesting documents. In both cases, we responded completely to the requests. In fact, on more than one occasion, our lawyers worked directly with the Grand Jury’s lead prosecutor to help determine which documents the Grand Jury was seeking when its request wasn’t clear.

Before the Grand Jury completed its work, University attorneys repeatedly asked the Special Prosecutors if they had any concerns about the University’s compliance. We wanted to make sure that we had provided all the documents the Grand Jury needed to conduct its investigation. On every occasion, we were assured we had complied with their requests fully. Approximately one week before the grand jury concluded the special prosecutor gave us explicit assurances that he had ‘no concerns’ with the university’s document production.

QUESTIONS ABOUT FOOTBALL CAMP FINANCES Last fall 2004, we announced that Coach Barnett had agreed to a full audit.

Concerns have been raised about money spent by the head coach’s football camp and other issues related to the management of the football technique school. Even though these are independent businesses, not under the University’s control, we secured an agreement from Coach Barnett to a full audit of them and are currently working with the State Auditor.

QUESTIONS ABOUT UNIVERSITY AND FOUNDATION FUNDS Last fall 2004, we announced that the audits the university is undertaking and that the Foundation agreed to have been turned over to the state auditor.

I believe we have very strong internal financial systems and controls already in place, systems and controls in which we have great faith. But if the audit uncovers any improprieties, or the appearance of improprieties, those problems will be immediately corrected. We believe that the report of the State Auditor should and will be made public.

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT AND ATHLETIC TRAINERS In May 2004, the Boulder campus announced sweeping reforms in the way the University manages its athletic department and the units inside the department.

Many of the concerns raised related to a culture of separateness from the academic side of the university and lapses in accountability in the Athletics Department and in the football program echo what we found in our own internal investigation, as well as the Independent Investigative Commission report. That is why we undertook the full scale restructuring of the Boulder campus in relation to its athletics program. In fact, seventeen major action items were announced creating a new organizational structure and set of procedures unprecedented among other major public universities. Each month the regents receive an update on the implementation of the plan.

We understand that cultural change, by nature, happens slowly, but we are creating a new environment of oversight and accountability as quickly as possible.

Last March 2004, we announced unprecedented changes to football recruiting. Regarding concerns about recruiting and the behavior of recruits and a few of our players, I would again point out that we have fundamentally changed the way recruits visit our campus and have eliminated their unsupervised contact with players.

I want to be clear that while there may have been problems with the behavior of certain individuals associated with the football program, the Grand Jury found that there was no evidence of University or Football staff encouragement or sanction of the use of sex, drugs or alcohol as recruiting enticements.

Last May 2004, we fundamentally changed the reporting structure of the athletic trainers program. We have already moved aggressively to deal with issues through structural change. That change includes the fact that the department head now reports directly to the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs.

QUESTIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICIES Changes to the sexual assault policies at the University are under way. The University’s sexual harassment policy was revised in 2003.

In March 2004, the Chancellor’s Office at CU-Boulder announced a campus-wide review of the university’s policies, practices, and protocols related to responding to sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. In November 2004, the review group–comprised of representatives from University Counsel, University of Colorado Police Department, Housing, Victim Assistance, Judicial Affairs, Athletics, Office of Sexual Harassment Policy, Department of Equal Opportunity, Administration, and Student Affairs–released a report detailing its findings. The group believes that this review and the implementation of the recommended changes confirms our full compliance with applicable law and enhances our prevention and education efforts, as well as our response to sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. As a part of the process, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will convene the group once a semester to review the effectiveness of the campus’s policies, practices, and protocols in place for responding to incidents of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct that involve students as alleged victims or perpetrators.