(Regarding OIE’s priorities in 
investigations,) that’s a little bit 
of a difficult question because I 
would say our priority of course 
is always to address all of the 
matters, right. And as quickly 
as possible, which is difficult to 
do, especially as we’ve had really 
significant increases over the last 
couple of years and the number 
of reports that we’ve received, 
and to do them again in that 
fair and appropriate way, make 
sure that people are supported. 
We are not advocates; we’re 
neutral, so we’re not advocates 
for anyone, but making sure that 
people do have the information 
and the ability to connect with 
resources that they might need 
for support. And then at the same 
time, of course, when things 
come in, we have to assess things 
like, is there an immediate safety 
threat? What is the impact on 
our community? Is there a risk of 
ongoing and continuing harm to 
members of the community?
And so we have to look at 
that and assess those things. 
So of course, that doesn’t mean 
that sometimes things come 
in that need a more immediate 
response. We’re never wanting 
to drop anything or let anything 
fall through the cracks or drop 
off the plate in order to do that. 
But that does necessarily mean 
that if something comes in and 
it’s an urgent, recent (allegation), 
there might be an immediate 
safety issue. We need to drop 
everything we’re doing to call 
the police. We might need to 
reach out to someone and make 
sure that there are appropriately 
connected with officers at other 
places pretty quickly. There’s 
sometimes 
some 
actions 
or 
investigations that we need to 
move forward because we need 
to address potential ongoing 
issues.
Jeffery Frumkin: I think we 
spend… an appropriate amount 
of time in the initial assessment 
of the complaint that comes in. 
Oftentimes, there’s a third-party 
person who’s reporting it. And so 
we try to get in touch with the 
person that it’s about. They may 
or may not want to talk to us. 
We still have to go through the 
same kind of assessment that is, 
is there something that needs to 
be looked at further either from 
a safety standpoint or from a 
policy violation standpoint? So 
it’s not as “clean” as, “I feel that 
I have somebody has violated 
the policy against me and I’m 
filing a complaint.” Oftentimes 
a complaint comes much farther 
down in the process. But yet 
there is still work being done 
trying to get to that point.
TMD: On campus, you’re 
mainly associated with sexual 
misconduct 
investigation 
— that’s where most of the 
conversation is. What else does 
OIE do?
ES: So the only student 
cases 
that 
we 
address 
are 
the sexual and gender-based 
misconduct. But we also do 
all of the discrimination and 
discriminatory 
harassment 
complaints related to faculty 
and staff. So that would mean 
any protected class identified 
under 
the 
University’s 
nondiscrimination policy: age, 
race, color, religion, national 
origin, disability, veteran status, 
height, weight, marital status, 
all of those protected classes 
that are identified if someone 
has … all of those things … then 
those would be things that we 
would look into. And just like 
with the student sexual and 
gender-based misconduct, that 
might mean an investigation. 
Sometimes 
we 
do 
climate 
assessments 
of 
particular 
areas … if a staff member files 
a grievance through the staff 
grievance process, they could do 
that instead of filing a complaint 
with OIE, particularly if they 
have 
other 
concerns 
that 
might not relate to one of those 
protected classes. 
TMD: Can you describe the 
process once a claimant or 
complainant files a complaint 
or claim, specifically noting 
this increased use of adaptable 
resolutions?
The Daily created a flow 
chart 
summarizing 
Seney’s 
explanation of OIE’s process.
[insert flow chart]
JF: And how many of these 
have we actually been able to do?
ES: One of them has been 
completed so far.
JF: So it’s that longer process 
as well at the court order last 
October.

ES: Well, right. It wouldn’t 
generally take that one, but of 
course, because we had cases 
that were open at the time that 
we’ve had to revise the policy 
and the court had ordered us to 
change the policy including for 
those cases.
JF: We had to ramp up for 
the new policy. Fortunately or 
unfortunately, cases that were in 
queue just had to be put on hold 
until the new policy was up and 
running.
TMD: 
How 
are 
OIE 
investigators trained? What is 
that process like?
ES: … One of the first things 
is to spend some time looking 
at case files and reading reports 
and going through how an 
investigation happens, reading 
what the analysis is and why, 
going to talk to the investigator 
to talk about any questions, or 
what about this piece of it, or 
they might agree or disagree 
or whatever it might be. At 
the same time that they’re 
doing 
that 
to 
familiarize 
themselves with that in a real 
case kind of way. They also will 
shadow 
other 
investigators. 
So if parties or witnesses are 
comfortable, they would sit in 
on interviews, they might help 
in preparing those statements 
and have someone else, the more 
experienced investigator look 
over the statement. They would 
work closely with investigators 
that are already in the office 
and the assistant and associate 
directors and senior director to 
walk through cases.
… Then amidst all of this 
we have materials that are 
a combination of University 
policies, some documents that 
we’ve put together outlining 
what 
the 
standards 
and 
principles 
are 
behind 
these 
investigations 
and 
these 
processes, 
and 
things 
like 
government guidance and all 
of that. So people are getting 
a well-rounded expertise in 
the legal framework, in the 
things that have come from 
our particular policies and also 
our 
institutional 
values. 
So 
this might not be written into a 
policy, but an institutional value, 
obviously, is we want to treat 
people with respect. We want 
people to feel comfortable when 
they’re coming in to meet with 
us and to feel like they’re being 
heard and to be heard. So we 
want to do those things.
… And then there’s lots of 
external sources that we use 
for training too when someone 
starts out, but also on an ongoing 
basis. So things like webinars, 
attending 
conferences, 
attending 
trainings. 
We 
might have someone come in 
sometimes 
to 
provide 
some 
education and some training 
or continuing education on an 
area of particular expertise. For 
example, we had someone come 
in related to intimate partner 
violence when that became part 
of the scope of the policy. So 
that’s a lot of what it looks like 
at the beginning, but then that 
continues as well.
TMD: Throughout this, is 
there any kind of sensitivity 
training?
ES: There is — I would say 
that’s 
woven 
throughout 
it. 
So that’s definitely part of 
the written materials. That’s 
definitely a strong part of the 
conversation that when you’re 
sitting in, when an investigator 
is sitting in and when they are 
taking the lead that the other 
staff would be talking about the 
more experienced investigators, 
the assistant director, associate 
director would be talking about 
those things … So there’s not a 
point where we sit down and say, 
okay, now for 90 minutes we’re 
going to talk about things to say 
and things not to say.
… And typically, I mean, 
when we’re hiring someone, 
they generally — we hope and, 
and this has been the case, 
thankfully — want to do this 
work because they already know 
why it’s important and they 
think it’s important for it to be 
done well. But that’s still not 
something that we would just 
assume that everyone knows 
or is experienced with. This is 
a different, again, people have 
come from different educational 
and 
different 
professional 
experience backgrounds. … But 
that’s definitely something that 
we talk about at the very outset.
… This is not my original 
thought, so I’ll, I’ll credit it to 
our last, our most recent senior 
director of Pam Heatlie. She’s 
said this more articulately than 
I probably will. But this really, I 

feel like resonates with probably 
everyone in the office, is that 
you can do this work. And as I 
said, it’s compliancy … and you 
can do this work in a way that’s 
compliant but not done well. 
And it’s really important to us 
to not just check the compliance 
boxes, but to actually do it well. 
So I think that’s actually one of 
the very initial conversations 
about how all of the interactions 
need to go.
JF: The interview process 
itself involves a small public 
presentation. So we get an 
opportunity to see how the 
individual is interacting outside 
of the search committee setting. 
In some cases, it has been very 
determinative one way or the 
other as to whether or not we 
think the person can do more 
than just what are the facts. 
Because you are dealing with 
human beings, and at various 
levels 
in 
the 
continuum. 
Students or faculty and staff 
depending on what the case is, 
who have a problem, and they 
want somebody to help them 
with the problem. And we’re 
also dealing with people who 
are maybe scratching their head 
as to why they’re being called 
in there. Plus the witnesses in 
between. So yeah, it’s important.
TMD: How do you handle 
situations 
of 
investigators 
mishandling cases?
ES: So mishandling cases 
could mean any number of 
things. So, if a concern is 
brought to our attention, and 
certainly it’s the case that these 
are not pleasant things. So no 
one is going to be like, “Oh, that 
was a great time. I’m super glad 
that I got the opportunity to go 
through that process.” No one 
on any side of it feels that way, 
no matter what. It can be done 
the best it possibly can and it’s 
still not going to be pleasant. 
Having said that, of course we 
want to do the best we can to 
mitigate the extent to which it is 
additionally unpleasant, beyond 
it’s 
an 
inherently 
stressful 
situation. So all of that is to say 
that it is not uncommon that 
someone might have a concern 
or feel sort of unhappy and that 
might be general or it might 
be about one specific aspect. 
For example, if they felt like 
someone said something to them 
that was offensive or they didn’t 
feel respected in an interaction. 
That is definitely feedback that 
we welcome and want.
I think it’s really important 
for us to have the opportunity 
to make something right if we 
have made a mistake, and to 
learn from, if it’s something 
that’s applicable. I think people 
have different preferences about 
different things and there will 
be some things that might feel 
bad or someone might think 
is inappropriate and someone 
else might actually find that to 
be supportive and helpful and 
vice versa. And having said 
that, I appreciate if we can get 
that feedback so that we can 
know about it and address it. 
So when those concerns are 
brought to our attention, we 
look pretty carefully at what 
has happened… If we find that 
we have made a mistake in some 
way, I think it’s hard to answer 
to that sort of globally what 
we would do, because I think 
it depends on the mistake. So 
if we’ve made a mistake that’s 
impacted a case, that would 
certainly be something that we 
would need to remedy in a pretty 
tangible way. If it’s more about 
something that has happened 
where an interaction wasn’t as 
comfortable for someone as it 
could have been, then I think we 
would want to address that, but it 
would also depend on what they 
would want. Would they like 
to have a chance to talk to the 
investigator about it and express 
how they felt about it? Would 
they like to just have a different 
investigator? Where are we in 
the process? So it really depends 
on the specific circumstances, 
but I would say I think it’s really 
important.
JF: I think I’ve had, since 
I 
started 
back 
in 
October, 
probably four, maybe five, either 
complainants or respondents, 
a request to come talk to me 
about some aspect of the of the 
process. Each one has its own 
circumstances, but they kind of 
fall into two categories. One is 
procedurally, the investigator 
made a mistake. And then the 
other one is they don’t like 
the 
outcome. 
Procedurally, 
if an investigator has made a 
mistake, the investigator and I 
will talk about that before the 

individual comes in. I have an 
operational 
standard, 
which 
is the truth is as bad as it gets. 
If we made a mistake, we’re 
going to own up to it and we’re 
going to admit it. If it’s had, 
as Elizabeth said, a material 
impact on the case, we’ll go back 
and try and correct that and its 
implications as much as possible. 
And I apologize. Sometimes that 
is all that is necessary. Other 
times people decide they want 
to complain to others in the 
University, that’s fine. We have 
those conversations face to face. 
And usually the investigator is 
in the conference with me. The 
other one, the other category 
is when they say, well, you just 
got it wrong. There’s not much 
we can do about that other 
than to listen. We’re not going 
to re-litigate, to use that term, 
unless there’s some new material 
piece of evidence or information. 
And of course we will take that 
and look at it. If somebody has 
come in to complain that they 
have been sexually harassed 
or discriminated in some way 
and they’re told that whatever 
happened, it didn’t rise to the 
level of violating our policy, they 
don’t like to hear that.
But that’s a responsibility that 
we have is that, is to be clear that 
if everything the individual has 
said to us is absolutely true, and 
yet in our judgment, and there’s 
… two or three different levels 
of review on this. If everything 
the person said is true and yet 
it still doesn’t rise to the level 
of whatever the standard is in 
the policy, then we’re not going 
to say that the policy’s been 
violated. That doesn’t mean that 
what happened to the individual 
didn’t happen. Those are tough 
conversations to have and we 
recognize that.
TMD: In general, so not 
counting when you had to leave 
cases open while you revised the 
policy, what is the ideal timeline 
of an investigation?
ES: So we have timeframes 
laid out in the policy right now 
on a student sexual misconduct 
policy for whole, start to finish an 
investigation, any sanctions, any 
appeals, et cetera. I think that 
whole process is 120 days. What 
we used to have in the policy has 
been 60. At one point it was 45, 
which was based on guidance 
from the federal government 
that they felt that schools should 
be able to investigate cases, 
sanction if there’s a finding of a 
violation and hear any appeals in 
60 days.
In most cases, 60 days is not 
realistic. And so we have had 
that in our policy. We would be 
transparent with people up front 
that that is absolutely what we’re 
striving for. It very well may 
not be the case. So now we’ve, 
we’ve changed those timelines 
to reflect that we haven’t taken 
anything out of the process and 
we have given people longer 
to review (the) preliminary 
report and evidence file and we 
have this whole extra step of a 
hearing. And so it’s necessarily, 
it’s going to take longer. And this 
is one of the things about the 
hearing model. That is what it 
is. We try not to have to go to a 
hearing model as an institution, 
and have a ruling that we have to. 
So it is longer than that typically. 
And I would say we still have 
that conversation at the outset 
of speaking to people. It’s really 
hard and this is, it’s frustrating 
for us. I’m 100 percent sure that 
it’s much more frustrating for 
the people who are participating 
in this not as their job like it is 
for us, but because it’s stressful 
for them, they’re in it, they’re 
in the middle of it, it’s their life 
and they’re trying to balance all 
of the other things going on in 
their life at the same time with 
this hanging over their head, 
whatever their role in it is.
… But we’re still working on 
getting caught up in terms of 
staffing resources to make sure 
that we can handle the case load 
that we have. And you know, 
certainly with #MeToo, with 
Larry Nassar, I think it’s probably 
safe to say that’s contributed 
to an increase in case load. So 
that’s great. We don’t want to 
ever say we have too many cases 
right now, so we’ll call you back 
in three months and then maybe 
you can report then. We’ll take 
all of the cases. But then that 
does mean that they might all 
take a little bit longer. And then 
in any given case, there might 
be 
requests 
for 
extensions 
or law enforcement holds or 
unavailability of a witness who 
has super critical information or 
whatever it might be.

So that’s a long answer to a 
short question. The short answer 
is we’re always driving for 120 
days. It’s often going to be longer 
than that. We just try to do our 
best to stay within it and be 
transparent with people about it.
TMD: How frequently do 
you keep the complainants and 
respondents updated?
ES: So this is part of, I think 
something that’s great about 
having the OSCR case manager, 
is I think that we will able be able 
to really improve and make that 
better. So we’ve always tried to 
do that sort of regular intervals. 
If we said we’re striving for 60 
days and it’s getting to be 60 
days, then we are going to want 
to check in.
There’s 
regular 
check-ins 
throughout the process anyway. 
At a minimum because of the 
process. So I’m sending you your 
statement, I’m sending you the 
preliminary report, whatever 
it might be. We also check in 
at points like, “Spring Break is 
coming up, if I have something 
for you, are you going to be 
available? Just want to let you 
know where the case is going,” 
all of those things. So we try 
to do that pretty regularly and 
we also encourage people, they 
should feel free to reach out to us, 
too, even though we’re trying to 
proactively keep them involved. 

And having said that, there are 
times when you’re investigating 
a case where there might be 
a long period of time where 
you’re talking to witnesses and 
you’re working on it every day … 
I know I’m working on it every 
day cause here I am doing it. I’m 
thinking about this case all day, 
every day and the parties might 
be thinking, why haven’t heard 
from her in two weeks, what’s 
going on? So we try to stay on top 
of that… We do try to encourage 
people if they want updates to 
check in, but we also, the OSCR 
case manager will be doing quite 
a bit of that now, which I think 
might be helpful. 
For 
parties’ 
comfort, 
in 
reaching out to the case manager 
that’s a little bit more removed 
from the actual investigation 
process, and that also might 
create a little more space for 
some more regular check ins.
Anyone who’s moving right 
through 
an 
investigative 
resolution 
or 
an 
adaptable 
resolution, 
they 
have 
this 
primary point of contact where 
they can say, “I need an interim 
measure, I need an academic 
accommodation. Where is my 
investigation? I have questions 
about this process.” 

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, April 23, 2019 — 3

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

LANE KIZZIAH/Daily

OIE
From Page 1

