Statement from UNM Interim President Abdallah regarding cultural accountability

A 30-day calendar unpaid suspension for Coach Bob Davie, as well as requiring specific in-person training and acknowledgement of his obligation to comply with University policies.

Mandatory in-person Title IX training for the Athletics Department.

Mandatory in-person cultural sensitivity training for the Athletics Department.

One-on-one training within the Athletics Department, by a national firm to educate student athletes and staff members about proper reporting lines. The firm will also do an assessment, review policies and procedures and analyze any gaps they might find.

Last May, UNM adopted the updated UAP Policy 2200: Reporting Suspected Misconduct and Whistleblower Protection from Retaliation. On March 7, the Main Campus Compliance Office will be hosting a training workshop “Whistleblower and Anti-Retaliation Training”.  The training workshop will be presented by local Albuquerque attorney Quentin Smith, and will be customized for relevancy to UNM policies and procedures. This training will be mandatory for senior leaders on the UNM campus.

The Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) will immediately start offering a one-hour practical advice and training seminar for employees on issues regarding reporting and responding to reports of discrimination including sexual harassment, sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and stalking. OEO will offer these seminars beginning the week of Feb. 26 for small participant groups. Larger training sessions can be requested.

Adoption of all of the following recommendations resulting from both investigations which apply to the Athletics Department and to the campus as a whole.

Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) Recommendations:

• The Athletics Department should ensure that all staff, including senior leadership and athletes, understands civil rights reporting procedures pursuant to UAP 2720, 2740, Title IX and OEO Discrimination Claims Procedure. The training should include clear instructions that the Student Athlete Grievance Process and Faculty Athletic Council are not appropriate reporting protocols for civil rights concerns.  The training should include instructions that any reports of civil rights concerns, including sexual harassment/misconduct will be immediately reported to the OEO/Title IX Coordinator and will not be “vetted” or assessed internally beforehand.
• Athletics Department leadership should encourage students and staff to report civil rights concerns to the OEO, and acknowledge and follow reporting obligations set forth in policy.
• The Athletics Department should acknowledge and follow all retaliation policies contained in UAP 2720, 2740, and 2200, and ensure students or staff reporting civil rights concerns will be free from retaliation. 
• Athletics Department leadership should address cultural climate issues and provide training to all Athletics Department staff on implicit bias and cultural competency in order to address perceptions by witnesses of race or other cultural problems within Athletics. 

Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, LTD Recommendations:

• The University’s senior officials should provide greater leadership and set a stronger tone of commitment to compliance with Title IX and with its own standards of conduct for all students or by its students.  Leadership must take stronger action to ensure that the University does not and will not – in any aspect of the University’s program, including athletics – tolerate sexual harassment, sexual assault, physical abuse or other prohibited misconduct against its students.  Leadership must ensure that all students, including football players and other athletes, are subjected to the same expectations and standards as to their conduct.  Actions taken must be sufficient to ensure that students have confidence that they can report allegations of misconduct with assurance that the reports will be appropriately handled and without fear of retaliation from any part of the University community.
• The University should provide stronger and more explicit protections for “whistleblowers,” including student and employees who may be complainants or witnesses in investigations.
• In conjunction with University Counsel, the Athletic Department should conduct a review of its policies, procedures and practices relating to student injuries and take steps as necessary to ensure that the University is in compliance with applicable requirements.
• The University should provide greater oversight of the Athletic Department and other University units with respect to their handling of incidents of alleged misconduct by student athletes. This oversight should include, at a minimum:
  • Annual review of the University’s handling of student athlete misconduct cased through some external oversight, such as by the Board’s audit committee, including a targeted assessment of the climate in and relating to each of the Athletic Department’s programs.  This assessment may be part of the University’s required annual assessment of the effectiveness of its anti-harassment efforts, under its ongoing Agreement with DOJ, but needs to be specifically targeted to the Athletic Department. 
  • Demonstrated leadership by the University’s Department of Athletics, through specific actions and directives designed to set a stronger tone and commitment to compliance – that student athletes will be treated like and held to the same expectations and standards of conduct as other University students.
  • Specific steps to encourage misconduct to be reported to the University and/or the police.
  • Discipline for failure of employees to report misconduct.
  • Greater transparency in the operation of the athletic programs, including insuring that all practices are open to University officials.
• The University should establish policies and written protocols directed at employees in the Department of Athletics for the handling of situations of student athlete misconduct in order to ensure that student athletes are treated the same as other University students. The policies and procedures should address:
  • Documentation requirements.
  • Reporting protocols (that misconduct must be reported to the head coach and to the Athletic Director; that certain misconduct must be reported to the Title IX Coordinator and/or Office of Student Conduct, as appropriate).
  • Protocols for who should be present at any discussion with players about misconduct (including whether the Athletic Director should be present).
  • Protocols relating to communications between UNMPD and members of the Athletics Department staff that set forth: (1) who is responsible for communications in each department (limiting this to a few individuals at the highest level) and (2) the appropriate substance of any communications (i.e., communication will be limited to information about the criminal process and will not address the substance of particular cases involving student athletes).
  • Disciplinary consequences for failure to follow reporting, communications, and documentation protocols.

** Updated Feb. 14, 2018: UNM made the final Hogan report available on Feb. 13, 2018. The Hogan IPRA version posted on Feb. 8, 2018 had been prepared in anticipation of an eventual IPRA production. All reports, including the Final IPRA Hogan report dated Jan. 30, are available as a PDF download on the top right-hand side of this page.

These two reports and the redacted information in both reports are almost identical. The Hogan firm made some minor changes and clarifications between Jan. 16 and Jan. 30. None of these changes had any effect on the basis for the action taken.

Certain information has been redacted under Section 14-2-1 (A)(3), matters of opinion in a personnel file and Section 14-2-1(A)(8) "as otherwise provided by law, " of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), specifically, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).