Colorado University Athletics
President Hoffman Statement
The below statement is from University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman concerning what has been in the news media over the last two days, regarding grand jury report that was illegally leaked to the media.
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 underway. 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 which involve students as alleged victims or perpetrators.