To: University of Utah Board of TrusteesFrom: Mike GlazierJohn T. NielsonAlan L. SullivanDate: June 21, 2013Scope of the Investigation and MethodologyCharge from the Board of Trustees
– In March 2013, the Board of Trustees appointed us to investigate allegations relating to the University’s men’s and women’s swimming and diving team and to report our findings and recommendations to the Board. Our charge from theBoard was to obtain, research, and review all evidence associated with alleged misconduct byformer swim coach Greg Winslow and the University’s response to those allegations.
– The Board directed that our investigation be completely independent.In other words, we were directed to avoid any influence from the University’s administration,Athletics Department personnel, the University’s Office of General Counsel, advocates for complaining team members, the team members themselves, their parents, or anyone else.Although we interviewed dozens of people with knowledge of the facts, we formed our conclusions independently. The University’s Office of General Counsel and AthleticsDepartment staff assisted us, pursuant to specific requests, in finding documents and schedulinginterviews, and of course we interviewed University officials in the course of the investigation.But the University’s administration did not otherwise participate in the investigation or the preparation of this report.
Documents and interviews
– We gathered documents from the University and from persons with relevant knowledge. The documents we reviewed consisted, for the most part, of correspondence, emails, and calendars maintained by persons with information. We conducted interviews of more than 50 people with knowledge of the facts. Some of these people wereinterviewed on multiple occasions. The interviews were conducted by one, two, or all three of us, depending on availability and the significance of the interview. In some of the interviews,Kyle Skillman (an associate working with Mike Glazier) and Amber Mettler (an associateworking with Alan Sullivan) also participated. Most interviews were conducted in person, butsome were telephonic.
Witnesses who declined to be interviewed
– Some people with relevant informationdeclined to be interviewed. A list of those people appears in Exhibit 3 to this report. Some of these people, including some former students who complained about Greg Winslow’s coachingmethods and their parents, told us through their lawyers that they would not meet with us unlesswe agreed to a list of preconditions that the lawyers presented to us. These preconditionsincluded the following: (1) limitations on the questions that we could ask; (2) a waiver of theUniversity’s privileges and other legal rights; (3) a requirement that a detailed statement of thesubjects and documents about which questions might be asked be provided to counsel “not less