06-05-2009, 06:08 AM
Where is CHEA director George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) when his employer UIUC is in chaos with scandal after scandal being reported? Finally something happens that really is George Gollin's business, so why isn't he sticking his big hook nose into it like he does with everybody else's business?
Quote:U. of Illinois Lobbyists Had Access to Student Recordshttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/04/qt
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has cut off the access its lobbying branch had to the student information database, The News-Gazette reported. A university spokesman said that there was no reason for those who lobby for the university to have immediate access to student records. Some university officials have worried that the access allowed lobbyists to see and share information about students -- possibly in violation of privacy protection laws. The university has been facing a scandal over the last week, following reports in the Chicago Tribune about the way the university admitted students based on their political connections, sometimes over the objections of admissions officials.
Quote:UI disables lobbying branch's access to student infohttp://www.news-gazette.com/news/educati...udent_info
By Christine Des Garennes
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:30 AM CDT
URBANA – The University of Illinois has restricted access to its student-information system following a News-Gazette report that found legislators attempted to influence the admissions process on campus.
The office of government relations, or the university's lobbying branch, was suspended from having access to the UI's Banner system, which includes student information.
The latest action is one of a few taken by the university after the recent disclosure of the "Category I" list, which the UI used to track applicants on whose behalf admissions inquiries were made by trustees, legislators, alumni and others.
On Monday, the university announced it was suspending use of the Category I list. And a task force of university and nonuniversity personnel will be conducting a review of the practice this summer.
Restricting some employee access to the student data, or the Banner system, is "consistent with not having any kind of Category I tracking going on. There's not a reason for them to have that access," said UI spokesman Tom Hardy.
"The need for Banner access can be reassessed once the admissions task force has completed its work," he added.
"Anyone who inquires about applicants will be directed to the appropriate admissions office, where they can access the same assistance and resources available to all," Hardy said.
In February of this year, a UI administrator sent an e-mail to Chancellor Richard Herman outlining concerns about possible violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, the federal law that protects the privacy of student records. It applies to all schools that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education.
Although FERPA provides certain rights to the students, including limiting the release of personally identifiable information, there are exceptions, said Carol Malmgren, registrar for the Urbana campus.
"One (exception) is school officials with a legitimate educational need can access without a students' expressed written consent," Malmgren said.
UI Associate Provost Keith Marshall, who oversees the admissions office, wrote that he was concerned Terry McLennand, the UI's assistant director of state relations, was sharing too much information with legislators and the families of students the UI was tracking, according to documents obtained by The News-Gazette under the Freedom of Information Act.
"And this is not the first case this year," Marshall wrote. "Terry should not share this information with anyone because 1) it is counterproductive to our efforts and gives people ammunition to use against us, 2) it's a violation of FERPA to share that information, and 3) estimated ranks are often inflated and require expertise he does not possess to interpret them. If I had my druthers, we would take Banner access away from Terry and his staff."
McLennand told The News-Gazette on Friday that he hadn't seen Marshall's e-mail or talked to him about the complaint, but added that "it's possible I have made a mistake along that front."
On Tuesday, Hardy said the "situation was brought to attention of people in government relations, and they apologized for it."
When asked if the UI is conducting an investigation into possible FERPA violations, Hardy said the university does not comment "on what, if any, legal advice has been sought or provided. The campus works with FERPA issues on a daily basis and maintains compliance."
Malmgren, the UI's registrar, said she has found that when student information is released without approval, in most cases the information is released inadvertently.
Malmgren's office conducts several different kinds of training on FERPA and conducts annual reviews of who has access and what kind of access is allowed to certain units and personnel.
Two of the five staff members in the government relations office had student system access, and that access only pertained to recruiting and admissions data, according to Malmgren.
The Office of Executive Inspector General, an agency of the Illinois governor, would investigate any complaint about violations of the confidentiality of student records, said Gilbert Jimenez, the agency's deputy inspector general of investigations.
Created in 2003, the agency is charged with investigating fraud and abuse in state government, including the state's public universities. It must receive an official complaint to launch an investigation, but a law recently approved by the state Legislature may allow it to initiate investigations on its own, he said.
Jimenez said Tuesday that he could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation or whether a complaint had been filed.
If the inspector general's office received a complaint and an initial review indicated FERPA may have been violated, the agency would refer the case to federal authorities, he said.
A complaint of that nature might also involve a violation of university procedures or the state Privacy Act, even if FERPA were not compromised, he said.
In that case, the inspector general's office might complete the investigation itself, and if the complaint was founded, the agency would issue a final report to the "ultimate jurisdictional authority" – in this case the UI Board of Trustees, he said.
Asked if any university employees violated any university code or the state privacy act, Hardy said he was not aware of any. Hardy also said he was not aware of anyone filing a complaint with the inspector general's office.
Documents obtained by The News-Gazette under the Freedom of Information Act showed that legislators and trustees used their influence with UI administrators to win admission for favored prospective students.
The 2008-09 Category I list contained 163 names, and more than 100 of those students were admitted.
UI officials contend that only about a dozen students were admitted because they were on the list, and there's no evidence that any unqualified student was accepted.
Jimenez said he could not "prejudge" the reports about the UI's shadow admissions process.
"We don't know what went into this whole package of conduct that allegedly involved special treatment," he said. "It could encompass an awful lot of behaviors."
Quote:Blago-Style Admissionshttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/01/illinois
June 1, 2009
It's not selling a Senate seat, but the reputation of Illinois as a state where the politically influential get benefits to which they aren't entitled may be extended to college admissions. A series of articles starting Friday in the Chicago Tribune exposed the extent to which less qualified but politically connected applicants have been admitted to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -- sometimes over the objections of admissions officials.
The president of the University of Illinois spent Friday rushing to explain that, while he would attend to any problems in the admissions process, the preferential treatment some of his university’s well-connected applicants receive is common to “every highly selective institution.” But to the scale it happens at Illinois? Some college admissions experts say no.
According to a report the Tribune published Friday, the University of Illinois maintains an exclusive list of well-connected applicants who, apart from their backing by powerful players in the university community and Illinois politics, might otherwise prove lacking in qualifying credentials. Members of this list – dubbed “Category 1” on internal correspondence – on average have lower ACT scores and were ranked lower in their high school classes than other admitted applicants. Yet 77 percent of Category 1 students are given the green light to the university while the admission rate for average applicants is just 69 percent.
“This is an eye-opener to say the least,” said David Hawkins, director of public policy at the National Association for College Admission Counseling. “I think handing the admissions office an offer they can’t refuse is an all too common practice. Whether they are written or just understood, most schools have something like this. It’s not a new issue, but the scale and detail of [what the Tribune uncovered] seem to be perhaps without precedent.”
Of course other universities are not without admissions controversies. The University of Florida's College of Medicine is one example, where last spring an applicant was admitted by the dean without the backing of the Medical Selection Committee, which is widely out of line with standard practice. The advantaged applicant is the son of a major Republican fundraiser. But the case at the University of Illinois, admissions experts say, tops them all.
The Tribune combed through 1,800 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, and discovered e-mails between admissions officials and university leadership who candidly discuss the admission of students – a relative of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s convicted fund raiser, Tony Rezko, was one – who, though under-qualified, were being “tracked” by university trustees, state lawmakers or other people the college seemed eager to please.
The Tribune found several cases of university leaders forcing the admission of these Category 1 students, sometimes even over the protests of admissions officials. Most of the more than 500 applicants who landed on the priority list in the past five years received backing from state lawmakers -- the Tribune's Sunday article revealed veiled threats from politicians who sought admission for favored applicants -- or university trustees. Children, neighbors, friends, vacation buddies – tickets to the circle of influence were pretty liberally granted by some of the power players the Tribune identified. Rep. Angelo Saviano even advertises help with college applications in his constituent newsletter.
Rezko’s relative was slated to be rejected, but a message from Illinois President B. Joseph White compelled admissions officials to change the verdict. In an e-mail sequence about another applicant, Keith Marshall, associate provost for enrollment management, wrote to Chancellor Richard Herman: “[h]ope we don’t take too big of a hit for putting him in ahead of more qualified students.”
Other correspondence indicates under-qualified students flagged as Category 1 are sometimes admitted late in the cycle to stave off raised eyebrows at the applicants’ high-caliber high schools. After a trustee expressed interest in a student who had already been denied admission, an admissions official wrote: “Please make sure that Dr. Herman knows that we will move this student in May or June. She has terrible credentials at a good school so we need to move her in as late as possible.”
Of course, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director in external relations for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, it is no secret universities sometimes argue that admission of academically subpar students benefits the institution in other ways – athletes and children of big potential donors fit that mold. Without conceding justification for that practice, Nassirian said bending the rules for no utilitarian purpose is worse. At that point, he said, “you wonder what the institution gains.”
Still, Nassirian said what is happening at Illinois is nothing new; it’s the university’s handling of inevitable outside pressure that is “just so over the top.”
“The fundamental pressures are not really unique to this one institution. We recognize that at public and private universities there are various quarters from which pressure for preferential treatment can come,” Nassirian said. “In general, the way you handle these kinds of pressures is with symbolic action without actually bending the rules. It’s mostly for appearances.”
Nassirian gave an example: As a matter of courtesy, he explained, a high-level university official might meet with the well-connected applicant and give him a private tour of the campus. “And then deny admission because he’s not qualified.”
“I can’t really think of other cases where children of the mighty and powerful actually gain admission to the top institutions [based on status],” he said. “I wouldn’t be nearly as offended if it was just the case that they were stroking someone’s ego.”
There is also the obvious consequence of more qualified applicants losing their spots at the university, and the university compromising its integrity by going back on stated policies, Nassirian said.
“It is unethical. It is unethical even in the case of private institutions, where a private donor is involved. It violates stated policies,” Nassirian said. “In a public institution, it’s even more egregious. The expenditure of public funds should not be predicated on influence of public officials.”
What’s more, Hawkins said, a university that breaks its ethical code and admits under-qualified students is likely “shooting itself in the foot.” The university sets high admission standards for a reason, and disregarding them not only jeopardizes integrity, it can hurt the college’s academic standing.
The potential impact on reputation is not lost on Illinois faculty members, according to the e-mails the Tribune dug up. Nor is it confined to the undergraduate college. Paul Pless, assistant dean of law school admission, wrote in one of the uncovered e-mails that he was concerned a student being forcibly admitted with a GPA and LSAT score well below the 25th percentile mark of the incoming class would hurt the law school’s status.
The law school would have to “admit at least 2 additional students to ensure there is no negative impact on the profile, and I can’t say for certain that even that will be enough,” Pless wrote. “Since we are so late in the process it will be unlikely that I will be able to find any single candidate that would have both the LSAT and the GPA to counteract [name redacted] numbers. By admitting [name redacted] we are putting in jeopardy the goal of increasing our median GPA to a 3.5.”
Despite concerns like this, the Tribune report shows university officials offering preferential treatment of well-connected applicants as if it were simply business as usual, possibly oblivious to any breach of ethics. But for Paul Schmitt, student trustee for the Urbana-Champaign campus, the secrecy surrounding influence-peddling by fellow trustees suggests they knew what they were doing was wrong.
“If there is any reason for fumigation of university leadership, this story is it,” he said.
Schmitt said the institution has to “do something to remove the Blagojevich taint that’s associated with our system of governance here.” The first step to that end, he continued, is thoroughly vetting all university appointments made by the former governor and installing new university officials who will reverse the culture of corruption being perpetuated in Illinois.
That, Nassirian said, might be difficult: “It might not be entirely within the power of the university leadership to completely alter the culture there. If significant players at the state level view themselves as entitled to special treatment,” he said, that is tough to change. “But they have the power to at least try to resist it, and they should.”
Hawkins advises they start immediately, as this story is likely “going to have legs for the long haul.”
“Illinois has been in the news quite a bit for corruption, and this story continues because of that,” Hawkins said. “Plus this is an absolutely dreadful time to have this story break, primarily because so many Americans are struggling to realize the dream of higher education. We’re talking about how much work needs to be done in terms of improving access, and this kind of story sets us back a great bit. It suggests that money talks and power talks.”
President White said in a statement Friday he would stress to admissions officials they should not succumb to outside pressure when granting entry into the university. Where there are problems in the admissions process, he said, it is something the university “can and will correct.”
— Kate Maternowski
Quote:DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICEShttp://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffic...062471.htm
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
550 W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60661
(312)353-5863
DATE(S) OF INSPECTION
01/29, 30 & 31/2003
NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM REPORT IS ISSUED
TO: Melanie J. Loots, Associate Vice Chancelor
STREET ADDRESS
601 E. St. John Street, 400 Swanland MC-304
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
Champaign, Illinois 61820
DURING AN INSPECTION OF YOUR FIRM, WE OBSERVED:
Failure to adequately monitor INADs submitted to FDA/CVM as follows:
1.In the role of sponsor submitting INAD [redacted] to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the university has not reviewed the protocol used by their Investigator in this study.
2.In the role of sponsor submitting INAD [redacted] to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the university has repeatedly failed to adequately monitor related research to assure the investigator complied with government regulations and the study protocol. This deficiency has resulted in the following:
a.Sale of 386 investigational hogs for slaughter for food since April 2001 without prior authorization from FDA.
b.Unauthorized rendering of a pig subject to INAD [redacted] on or about 9/27/2002.