P. 1
Trustees' report on SU's handling of Bernie Fine case

Trustees' report on SU's handling of Bernie Fine case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28,098 |Likes:
Published by John Lammers
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison report on university's handling of Bernie Fine allegations.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison report on university's handling of Bernie Fine allegations.

More info:

Published by: John Lammers on Jul 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITYREGARDING THE UNIVERSITY’S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS MADE IN2005 BY ROBERT DAVIS AGAINST BERNIE FINE
BY: A SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEESDeryck A. Palmer, Esq. (Chair)Richard L. Thompson, Esq.Hon. Joanne F. Alper Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP(Counsel to the Special Committee)Theodore V. Wells, Jr.Mark F. PomerantzMichele HirshmanRoberto FinziKira A. Davis
 
 i
Table of Contents
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
 
I.
 
The Establishment and Mandate of the Special Committee ................................... 8
 
A.
 
Events Leading to the Appointment of the Special Committee .................. 8
 
B.
 
The Special Committee’s Composition and Mandate ................................ 9
 
C.
 
The Engagement of Paul, Weiss as Counsel ............................................. 10
 
II.
 
The Special Committee’s Review ......................................................................... 11
 
A.
 
Procedures To Ensure Independence ........................................................ 11
 
B.
 
Interviews Conducted ............................................................................... 11
 
C.
 
Material Reviewed .................................................................................... 13
 
D.
 
Expert Consultation .................................................................................. 14
 
III.
 
Factual Findings of the Special Committee .......................................................... 15
 
A.
 
2002 & 2003: The Media Investigates Davis’s Allegations AgainstBernie Fine ................................................................................................ 15
 
B.
 
Davis’s 2005 Complaint to the University................................................ 20
 
1.
 
The Anonymous Complaint ...........................................................20
 
2.
 
The Initial Response to Davis’s Allegations ..................................20
 
C.
 
BSK’s Investigation .................................................................................. 22
 
1.
 
BSK’s Prior Representation of the University ...............................22
 
2.
 
Witness Interviews .........................................................................23
 
3.
 
BSK and the University Do Not Contact Law Enforcement .........29
 
4.
 
The Decision Not To Include in the Report Allegations thatLaurie Fine Had Engaged in a Sexual Relationship withBoth Davis and Basketball Players ................................................30
 
D.
 
The Conclusion of the Investigation and BSK’s Written Report ............. 32
 
 
 
iiIV.
 
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 33
 
A.
 
The University Responded in Good Faith to Bobby Davis’sAllegations ................................................................................................ 33
 
B.
 
The Shortcomings in the University/BSK Response ................................ 35
 
1.
 
The Decision To Treat Davis’s Allegations as anEmployment/Human Resources Problem ......................................35
 
2.
 
The Decision Not To Contact Law Enforcement ..........................39
 
3.
 
Weaknesses in the Investigation and the WrittenInvestigation Report .......................................................................41
 
4.
 
The Chancellor Did Not Notify Any Trustees of Davis’sAllegations or the Results of BSK’s Investigation ........................46
 
V.
 
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 47
 
A.
 
Policies Concerning the Involvement of Minors in Any University-Sanctioned Activities ................................................................................ 48
 
B.
 
Policies Concerning Reporting of Alleged Serious CriminalConduct ..................................................................................................... 49
 
C.
 
Record-Keeping Practices with Respect to Allegations of Wrongdoing by Students, Staff, and Faculty ............................................ 50
 
D.
 
Training for Faculty/Employees on New and Existing Policies ............... 50
 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 51
 

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->