instruction to -- if it's so critical you can't share with congress, you waited two months after you knew in april there were lost e-mails, if it's that important, why didn't you tell your employees, don't talk about this, don't tell the white house counsel, don't tell the treasury counsel. why didn't you give that instruction? >> because i didn't think that if somebody actually told anyone -- i didn't tell them they shouldn't tell this committee. i set forward a program in which i said we need to find all of the facts, pull it together and make a public disclosure, which is what we did. >> that's not what happened, mr. koskinen. the chief counsel of treesry knew about it and talked to the chief counsel at the white house in april, right after you found out about it. that's what we're concerned about. all i'm saying is if it's so important i think pro-active leader, good manager, would say, hey, let's get to the truth first, get all this. let's not communicate this.

let's tell everyone at the same time. let's tell congress -- if it's okay to tell the white house, whew isn't it okay to tell the people's house? >> the white house is not going to do what -- the ways and means committee did with the information with gave them piecemeal, they're not going to make a big issue until the facts are out. >> maybe because the white house is the same party? right? could that have anything to do with it. >> i have no idea but i stress again -- >> the facts are the facts. >> the facts -- >> treasury knew, white house knew in april, we didn't know until late june. >> no one at the irs talked to the white house. >> how did they find out? >> pardon. >> how did they find out? >> i'm told by the people who read the white house letter, the white house found out from treasury. nobody from the irs talked to the white house. >> someone from the irs talked to treasury, then. >> that's what i understand. >> as i said before, we'd like to know who that person is. i hope you'll find out. can you make a commitment you will find out who those

individuals were work who talked to the treasury, chief counsel, who then talked to the white house two months before the people's house got the same information? can you make that commitment? >> i'll do my best. >> well. i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> i appreciate you finding out. it would save us the trouble of going to through all the people you. said, and i'm paraphrasing, maybe the white house wouldn't release it the way ways and means released a document. is that right? >> yes. in other words, my experience has been, in this issue, that any information that comes out piecemeal immediately gets an overreaction to it. >> so -- well, your overreaction is your statement. the i if have is, hasn't the white house selectively leaked documents in the past. >> i'm not involved in those issues. >> probably read "the wall street journal" and "new york times" or the "washington post." isn't it true the white house does put out piecemeal documents

that favor them when they get them, and hold back ones when they don't? >> i'm not familiar with what the white house activities are. >> i guess i'll wait for my own time but i must admit i'm a little insulted to hear the white house is trustworthy and congress isn't in your opinion. the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's kind of interesting how positions change over time because looking back on some of the records, it appears that when the bush white house lost millions of e-mails related to the leak of covert cia agent valerie plame's identity, and the u.s. attorney firing this same committee held a hearing in 2008. at that hearing chairman issa said this, and i quote: i think it is fair that we recognize

that software moves on and that our cifing in -- archiving in the digitat aim is not as easy at as it may seem to the congress. at the same hearing chairman issa talked about how congress needs to provide more funding to agencies can improve their archiving and says the house of representatives needs to make sure you are funded and that is part of what we do in oversight. funded to deal with ever-evolving technologies where archiving isn't just putting them away, it is being able to retrieve it. now it appears that chairman issa's perspective has changed. with respect to the loss of miss lerner's e-mails he believes the loss of her e-mail is evidence of, quote, nefarious conduct. chairman issa has repeatedly stated this assertion, but yet

said something completely different in a previous hearing. commissioner, as far as you can tell, the only difference between the statements chairman issa made in 2008 and the statements he made now, is that there was a republican administration then, and that there's a democratic administration now. the fact is that the irs and many other federal agencies have struggled to improve their electronic record retention for years. gao, the national archivists, and others, have been reporting on these problems repeatedly. so, i have a main question that i'd like to ask, commissioner, and that's, what can you do to explain to this committee the steps that are being taken to restore the public's trust in the irs and the functions that

it provides to the american people in this regard to the data and the protection of that data. >> we are reviewing all of our activities. i've asked for this sometime ago to see if at a minimum we couldn't create an electronic record system that would be more searchable, we have spent close to $18 million and $20 million trying to produce documents as quickly as we can and e-mails as quickly as we can because of the archaic system that requires to us go to 90,000 individual hard drives or in this case 83 custodian individual hard drives. we're going to continue to do that. the archivists last year made a recommendation that as a way to begin to do this we take the top 35, called the capstone proposal. i'm sure you'll testify tomorrow about it. that is a start, recognizing the costs that we delve systems with the top 35 people in the agency, where they're records are automatically electronically put

into a records system as the first step, and we're going to take a look at that, which would obviously be less expensive than trying to archive the entire agency's records. but i do think it's important for us to preserve official records, it's important for history, it's important for people to understand the basis on which we make decisions, and we're going to continue to do that. we are constrained. the issue is, how we spend our money is an important issue, but it is in a situation where we have substantially fewer funds than we had four years ago, 10,000 fewer employees, and substantially increased responsibilities, but it is an important issue for us to consider and we're going to do that. >> thank you, commissioner. again, i want to commend you. i say often on this committee, we are the oversight committee and also the government reform committee. and i would like to hear your recommendations as we move forward on how we put those

recommendations in place, and what this committee can do to support you in those endeavors. it's one thing to have as many hearings as we have had without any substantiated evidence to suggest continuing, but to not have one hearing on how we can implement any of the recommendations to improve the system, i think is a flaw in the way this committee is managed, and, mr. chairman, i know my time is up but under rule nine, sub a., i think that the chairman needs to ensure that there is equal time given to each side and that members should not have their mics cut off and then members in the majority allowed to speak well over their permitted time. >> we now go to mr. massey for five minutes, or such time, subless he may consume. >> thank you. >> not required to use the full five minutes. >> is not required but seldom

yielded back. >> really depends on the answers. i'm going to try and be short, and i really appreciate your patience and your stamina here tonight. so i'll be short with this question. on june 3, 2011, ways and means chairman dave camp, sent the irs a letter demanding to explain the allegations of targeting tea party and other conservative groups. he also requested that the e-mails be provided or preserved. within ten days lois lerner's hard drive crashed. we know her hard drive crashed because we know this for sure because it was a ticket filed with the i.t. department. is that correct? for a repair? >> that's correct. >> could you provide us with all of the tickets filed in the month of june, 2011, at the irs for failed hard drives? >> yes. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i thank the gentleman. we are nearing the end but there will be -- i'll need a few more

minutes to so i want to be brief but i want to be thorough. miss lerner you didn't know, you say you never met her. my understanding from the reports the hard drive that failed was on her laptop. is that correct? >> i'm not familiar. i know nicole flax's travel computer is where the hard drive failed north her office computer. i'm assuming in light of where the archives went it was her office computer where the hard drive failed. >> i want to understand from to a procedural standpoint, employees of the irs download e-mails which may include 6103 information, to their laptops and leave the building with them. that's correct. >> a number of employees, their office commuter is in fact a laptop. >> and as a result, when they leave the office, they take with them e-mails that may include 61 other 3 information. -- 6103 information. >> that's possible, yes. >> to your knowledge are laptops, in the irs, universally

limited so they may not employ usb drives? >> they are now. there was -- as i understand the situation some years ago, in which they were -- well, guess what i should say is years ago usb drives, thumb drives, were usable that were not encrepted and there was an issue that came to my attention where fortunately no information was misused by the public. since that time, which is several years ago, all thumb drives are encrypted, so that if a thumb drive is lost, nobody can access the data. >> i appreciate that, congress has implemented a similar thing. but we also can go by a best buy normal thumb drive. so if lois lerner's laptop was in tact -- or other laptops or office computers -- had the usb on any of them that downloaded information, including 6103

information to their local drives could have in fact moved them to usb based external drives or thumb drives of their own purchase. , that? >> that sounds right. i don't know what the equipment looked like three years ago but i assume that sounds right. >> so, for the american people, it is very possible, and in fact probable, that every day, individuals leave the irs with personally final information covered under 6103 on their hard drives, inside laptops that they take home, on trips to conferences and the like. >> that's correct, to the extend of my knowledge. i may be creeked when i get back -- may be corrected when i get back. >> that means in fact, lois lerner, an attorney, may have made a copy of information on her hard drive that died and she could have it on a usb product or any kind of product, but

normally a ubs based thumb drive or external hard drive you have no reason to know she couldn't have done that. >> that's correct. >> so, in fact, lois lerner may have made copies of this before the failure of her computer to your knowledge, when the department of justice questioned lois lerner was she asked any of those questions. >> i have no idea. >> to your knowledge, did she have a ubs or any other product that could have taken copies off of her computer? >> i have no knowledge she did. >> to your knowledge, did she also have a laptop or dual purpose computer she took home with her or left the building with. >> i don't know. >> okay. i would now ask unanimous -- let me rephrase that. one more. you have 90,000 computers that basically use their local hard drives to store information, e-mails, instead of on the

server, because after so many days it disappears off of -- after half a year they disappear off the server. is that right. >> no. no. the server will keep your e-mails until you get to 6,000 and then you get a notice saying you have to either archive them or delete them. the backup tapes that preserve information for six months are separate. the server, you may have e-mails on your server for five years if you don't -- >> if you don't let the number. >> don't hit the 6,000. >> obviously lois lerner with tens of thousands did. i now recognize myself for my own time. continuing on, i spend a lot time in the electronics industry so i have a bit of a passion for this. are you aware that if you back up your systems every six months, that the cost that we would be looking at for what it would have cost to have backed them up, essentially once a month, would be cost of the tape

drive that in fact those tapes or cartridges that would be retained and my understanding is that wouldn't be 10 million...

>> i served on this committee and this room in that position. when henry waxman because the bush white house conversion from lotus notes to windows exchange server microsoft exchange server failed to have good backups and they used their image backups at a cost of a great deal of money to restore countless e-mails so that the presidential records act, the federal records act would be fully maintained. do you have any recollection of those those those hearings about activity? >> i do not. >> to this committee's briefings mr. waxman did not care that cost an estimated $24 million to recover every single one of those e-mails. this committee aggressively said they had to do it and they did image backing restorations. had you done image backups and retain them prior to your arrival but had the irs done it would have cost probably tens of thousands of dollars to maintain

six or seven years worth of those and we wouldn't be having this same discussion today would we? >> it costs a lot of money to get the e-mails off of those recovery tapes that that's right. if we had family could then spend the millions of dollars it would take to pull it off the disaster recovery tapes that is not what the disaster cover recovery tapes are meant to do. >> what is interesting is the disaster recovery tapes, the reason they cost so much to the white house is they wanted every e-mail retained a recovery. we only wanted lowest learners. i would like to enter into the record now a document given must do by the national archives and i will show it because it's a little hard to see but there we go. it's a little hard to read from here. >> i will read you just a piece of it. andrew jackson of the state of tennessee, the first day of

december 1799 is still complaining through congress and this is from essentially a congressional record where he petitions united states congress in 1803 to recover and it started in 1801 with an affidavit for his loss of revenues paid in 1799 because the stills burned after they collected a revenue in advance for his hundreds of gallons of liquor. i only put that in the record for one reason. the national archives and archivists will be with us tomorrow, and maintains an amazing amount of documents and recovers documents. now andy jackson, general jackson's still may not be

anything but humorous this late at night but it's part of a wealth of information that the american people have access to just across the street. your agency came here and said on a $1.8 billion budget you do this tonight and that in fact he needed more money if you were going to maintain records. i would certainly hope that we would go back and scrub that $10 million in order to do x and in order to do y that you go back and you really ask within the best practices whether or not for your cio to meet the requirement of the national archives having access to the kind of information, the wealth of information they need, working with the national archives you could do it for a reasonable price. mr. worse for it was correct, i've been a big believer that in fact maintaining for the american people the transparency

not just what's mr. cummings and i are doing here tonight but for the next generation and generations beyond as much information as we possibly can as an obligation. earlier mr. desjarlais -- desjarlais essentially doing arithmetic looked at that printout and later turned over to the national archives paper. i strongly suggest that this committee and hugh, you for your agency in this committee for all of the government really take a look at how much less expensive it is to maintain it digitally too delivered digitally so that it can be machine searchable for the next generation and in fact be of benefit to all of us. lastly i'm going to guess that out of the $111 per employee's computer because that's what $10 million is, you could easily have covered that expense, that

10 million-dollar expense by simply downgrading those local drives because in fact there's very little reason for them to have large local drives. lastly and i'm going to close with this. you are familiar with the interrogatories we sent some 50 questions. >> saturday afternoon. >> 48 hours before the hearing. you are aware for the most part there was no response other than a short oral briefing this afternoon in which presentations were made that were not part of the interrogatories. >> it's a little hard to get everybody together on sunday even though it is counted as the 48 hours. >> we got your request at 4:30. >> understand that but there were eight hours. the question we have for the most part in the questions we should have asked them they should have been answerable

immediately there will be some additional questions that i will send interrogatories to you. they will ask you in the agency if he can figure out whether was the first of april that you learned about the real loss of documents for seven days after you testified or 30 days after two narrow down april and to narrow down who told you about it. there obviously is the question of how the white house came to know why congress was never informed about these losses of documents until your seven page letter. for that purpose we will now recess. if unable to get the interrogatories interrogatories in the follow-up calls done in a timely fashion and will be pleased to adjourn this but for now we are recessing subject to recall. we stand in recess.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] c. it's a little shorter. this is for hours.

friday was born at powers but there was a recess on friday. i think that these kinds of hearings and cross examinations come with the territory so as i said in my prepared statement i have never been subpoenaed to a hearing before. i have testified numerous times when i was at what omb and the y2k czar and in washington. i've had eight other hearings before the congress and no one has had to subpoena me. if you want at the hearing i'm happy to come and we both find it time to do it. >> do find it suspicious that the hard drives crashed? >> we have had 200 hard drive crashes with your loan. it's not suspicious to me that i understand the concerns that gee how did your hard drive crash them? i would simply remind people the evidence showed she tried to restore the e-mail and b we found 24,000 e-mails for that period so it's not as if that

anyone didn't have any idea on what was going on. from 20 lebanon there were no losses that we know of of lois lerner e-mails and we are providing those. when you get done with it and step back the congress will have 67,000 lois lerner e-mails. it's not as if she had a hard drive crash on quit quit e-mailing e-mailing an effective book of the e-mails that have been in fact damaging from ms. lerner put out by this committee of ways & means were produced as a result of this production. they weren't found somewhere else. the e-mails have seen the light of day so all of the evidence demonstrates that if somebody wanted to get rid of e-mails their raise difficult questions a lot of e-mails this committee has published would not have been produced. we produced e-mails whether they were positive or negative or whether they raised information or not. i understand people are concerned about that. the other issue about the timeframe among the 24,000 e-mails is the issue of what she

communicating outside of the i irs? from april 11 on all those e-mails from outside communication without this would be in her box. treasury has provided those e-mails so we are running out of places where she might have communicated that we don't have evidence. as i said we are doing the best we can and i do think there is substantial evidence at this point anyway but that hard drive crash was one of the thousands we experience every year. see can i follow-up on the federal records act and talk about that here again at the hearing. i believe you said i have no idea where -- whether official records were promising or not. can you elaborate on that? >> we don't know what the e-mails that are missing are so it's hard to know if any of them were official records. we do know that ms. lerner complied with agency policy at least in some instances because she did print out hard record copies official records which have been provided to the committee but i don't know how

many e-mails were missing and therefore don't know what they contained or what they are about. as i did say we are reviewing their records act issues. we are reviewing the recommendations on the archivist. last year as a beginning step because of the cost of providing backups and saving e-mails electronically for the senior people in the irs they recognize the top 35 people which would have included most of the people involved in this environment. we are going to take a hard look at that because i would be less expensive than provide more searchable e-mails. >> how does this challenge compared to y2k and freddie mac and some of the other's? >> if you look at my career i've been involved in managing some of the largest bankruptcies in the history. when i was at omb iran the government shutdowns and 95. i could y2k when i was the deputy administrator. i was responsible for the sniper

through anthrax. i took over freddie mac is the chairman is the first weekend in september of 2008. by the spring, by march 2008 i suddenly became the ceo and the cfo when the ceo left in the cfo was unfortunately lost. so i have been through a lot. i must admit this to only time i've ever had anybody argue that we are not doing things exactly the right way. as i said it comes with the territory. i took this job coming out of retirement not to play games with the congress. it's not my style. we have produced documents as quickly as we can. we have accepted the igs recommendations. we will do everything we can to ensure the public that discriminatory actions are not going to take place in this agency to the extent we can prevent it. what are the reasons i have encouraged a culture where every front-line employee feels comfortable about raising issues

of concern as well as suggestions is that it's important for information to flow to the top. i need to know and people at the top of the organization need to know if there's an issue if there's a problem. it's a culture we are going to create and i hope people understand that no system itself executes that we have all sorts of checks and controls. we had them in the past. what does self executed if everybody understands as i put it bear all risk managers in each individual needs to feel comfortable. as i tell them bad news is good news. we don't shoot messengers. we thank them and that we are going to discover problems as quickly as we can and fix them as quickly as we can. >> is there some grandstanding going on today on the republican side? they seem to get their hooks in you at different points. >> there's an element in any congressional hearing of people playing with the crowd and oftentimes the situation but i think you would have to ask the members of both sides and both

hearings and make euro judgments as to whether these are pursuing factual inquiries are playing to the crowd and playing to the media. that is a decision they make. i'm perfectly happy to testify at any hearing anyone wants to run and provide the facts and information as i know them. >> you made a point during one exchange, what about attacking the credibility of the witness mr. chairman? you seem to think some of that was unfair. >> between friday night and tonight is noticed as i said earlier i have been involved in a lot of high-profile very difficult very challenging circumstances and taken turnarounds in a lot of areas and nobody has in any of those situations and some of them have been very contentious suggested that we are not doing everything exactly the way we ought to and trying to be as responsive as we can. so i think the implications that we are doing it some other way as i say i didn't come out of retirement to take on this challenge to play games that i came out of retirement to

restore the credibility of the irs, support the employers. we have 9000 great employees dedicated to the mission of the agency and i'm honored to have the opportunity to work with them. >> was there a question tonight? >> i don't think we have done anything that merited some of the comments may be there friday night or tonight but i understand it's a free country and people can make comments as they see fit. >> the questions about your integrity? >> it comes with the territory. there is a suggestion on friday that six to 12 months from now i made a poor choice of taking this job and six to 12 months from now on not going to be here and i wanted to stress that and i stress again i have prenab years to go in my term and i will be here for the full three and a half years. you can rumble and say whatever you would like to be hearing about me but i'm not going away. thanks very much. >> thank you.

see the house oversight committee hearing from john koskinen. the evening they have scheduled another hearing on iras commanding. tomorrow morning we'll have it for you on the c-span networks and later at c-span.org.

>> now missouri senator claire mccaskill hosts several roundtable discussions combating rape and sexual assaults on college campuses. this meeting focuses on the differences between the criminal justice system and a university-based process. it's two hours, 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon everyone. since we have a lot of ground to cover and a lot of smart people around the table i'm going to go ahead and get started and i know senator blumenthal will be joining us and when he does i might interrupt whoever is talking at that point and give them a chance to make a few opening remarks when he arrives. first i want to welcome all of you that are here today. i am very excited about this particular roundtable because of my background as a sects crimes prosecutor for many years. this is the last in our series of three roundtables which are discussions about sexual violence on college campuses and university campuses. this has been a terrific process and also a very helpful one. on may 19 we have a very good discussion on the clari act and

the campus act. on june 2 they have a thought-provoking and intense discussion about the role of title ix. i wanted to hold these roundtables so we could bring people together rather than having all of the university officials at once and all of the police at one and all of the victim survivors and advocacy groups that one. i wanted to mix each one so we could get the discussion back and forth which i think has been really helpful in us finding where really there are points that we can move on in terms of making improvements and changes and holding out best practices to other campuses. we can't make good policy choices that we don't know what's happening on the ground. these discussions have been very helpful in informing my senate colleagues and i as we work on legislation and i know today's roundtable will contribute to that effort. this topic is near and dear to me. today's roundtable as a former

prosecutor has been on the frontlines of the fight against sexual assault. i'm going to do everything possible to make sure these crimes are prosecuted. i think the perpetrators of these crimes are held responsible to the fullest extent of the law. but as a former prosecutor and a former lawmaker at the state level i know our criminal justice system and the loss of supported are not always perfect. they haven't been willing are able to handle many sexual assault case is particularly cases involving consent as a defense. and especially when there may have been intoxication and the fact pattern that we see most frequently on college campuses. even law enforcement and prosecutors have been known to fall into stereotypes about what quote unquote rape is supposed to look like. education is addition several to play here too. if a commitment to their students in their community and when incidents of sexual violence happen they happen

obligation to investigate what happened to support the survivor ensures safe campus for all students and at the facts bear it out punish the offender for violating the school's code of conduct. the problem is colleges and universities haven't always done that. they may have ignored the problem, swept it under the rug and hope the survivor would get up and go away. these schools are working to improve their misery procedures and be more responsive but we know there's room to do better. in my many conversations with survivors i have heard again and again how both systems have failed. to the point where many survivors have little or no confidence in either the criminal justice system or the administrative process in their own colleges and universities. i hope we can talk today about how to ensure that both processes work better, support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. there's also a need for these two systems. administrative system in the criminal justice system to work together. i think there might be the

perception that they can't work together because they have different responsibilities and obligations. which is true in some sense that these two systems also share a common goal which is support and justice for the survivor. in fact the white house task force is recommending universities and local local law enforcement and turn to memorandums of understanding so they can build stronger and better relationships and working together. i know we have organizations here today that are working together and i look forward to learning more from you. now if you would go around the table and introduce yourself and tell us briefly where you are from and what role you played in this discussion and then we will begin a series of areas that we will talk about. i will caution we have a lot of people on the roundtable today and a lot of you know a lot. and there is going to want to be -- i'm going to do my best to be not like a senator and try to

talk less frequently. i will try to be on senatorial. here is senator blumenthal. before we begin introducing senator would you like to make any opening comments? >> i caught the tail end of what you are saying about saying less rather than more, which i think is exactly the right approach. we are here to listen and i first of all want to thank you senator mccaskill for bringing yet another really stellar highly qualified group of people to enlighten us and i want to thank all of you for coming particularly darcy folsom from the university of connecticut and you will hear her story from herself. it's very impressive than i know each of you have an impressive contribution to make so thank you for being here. i know it's not easy to get here just having gotten off of the flight myself but thank you for making the trip and the effort and most important for all of your great work and work you are

doing on your campuses and your states and localities and law enforcement for both of us is our first career i would say. so we particularly welcome you. thanks so much. >> thank you senator blumenthal and i want to also say that my job is to move the discussion along and make sure that everybody has a chance to share but i also want us to be very informal. we have found the previous roundtables work so well because it wasn't just a typical hearing where senators are asking prepared questions and witnesses are trying to give answers but usually not complete once. we want this to be freefall and i want you to feel he can jump in if there's a point you want to augment that we also want to hear from everyone so to some extent i will be corralling everyone and not that i would ever want to cut anybody off but we want to make sure all voices are heard from.

see i just want to correct the record. did i say university of connecticut? i meant connecticut college. that would be a cardinal sin map. >> that would be like me saying -- he is a bear. he is not a tiger. let's go around the table and introduce everybody. >> good afternoon/pleasure to be here. my name is up on and i'm a chief trial deputy with the boulder county district attorney's office. that's boulder colorado. in that capacity i work as both a supervisor at the unit which handles are felony domestic violence and sexual assault crimes committed within the 20th judicial district. i am also a hands-on prosecutor. i'm still in the fight with a heavy and active caseload of our felony sexual assault and i service the supervisor acting on many of the committees working with their university partners so from our multidisciplinary

committees, are agencies i approach them and try to make a collaborative outreach to her university so we can work together on prosecuting crimes of sexual assault. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is becca o'connor. rain for 20 years has worked to inform the conversation about sexual violence. we do so through public education. pointedly we work with college campuses across the country and empower students for empower students to earn annual day of action to bring awareness to this issue and we also have worked heavily in the space of public policy. we have broadened the national sexual assault hotline which today has helped more than 2 million people. >> good afternoon. my name is jennifer gaffney. and the deputy chief of the sex crimes office. thank you so much for having me in all of the attention you pay to this issue. in our office the sex crimes unit handles the prosecutions

for victims aged 14 and over as well as sex trafficking prosecutions and our sex offender registry. in my capacity as supervisor or systems on those cases. i too y. that my own and i participate in our multidisciplinary task force and do outside training to different groups including abacus e-groups college groups safe examiners etc.. >> good afternoon. thank you for having me. i'm detective kerry hull. i'm an active detective in the agency. my primary caseload is adult sexual assault crimes in the sexual assault crimes crimes though where are all general crime detectives. i sat on the policy committee for the oregon assault task task force and a law enforcement instructor for the training institute as well as a frantic interfere. >> thank you for joining me to

this conversation today. i'm a student at yale law school and one of the founding codirectors. a grassroots team driven national campaign to end sexual campus violence. toward that end -- are aware of their civil right advocate for better enforcement. >> i want to thank you senator for all your support around issues of sexual assault. i am jessica ladd-webert the director of victim assistance at the university of colorado boulder. we are free and confidential advocacy center. we are therapists and advocate to help people who have been impacted by a variety of crimes with sexual assault being one of our topic areas we focus on the most and we are here to make sure our clients are informed when something like this happens. >> good afternoon. thank you very much for an invitation to participate today.

my name is paul denton the chief of police for the university university police division at ohio state university's flagship languor and entire institution. i've held this position for eight years now and 28 years prior to that is served in the columbus division. i've experienced municipal law enforcement and campus police. recently i served with some of my colleagues on the rulemaking committee as an alternate and had a full force in the process and recent rules that were released. i am an appointed commissioner for the ohio police officers training commission. >> thank you g.. >> aye my colleague sentiments being invited to the roundtable and we look forward to working together to inform legislative writing and policy changes in these areas. i am cathy zoner the chief of police at cornell university. my office holds a clery statistical gathering. we work with title ix with title

ix hoard majors whenever possible and as aligned with to help with your investigations. i can be in our public safety advisory committee which keeps us in compliance with new york state educational law article cxxix a which is a prime example of well-intended over legislated directives. we think it better speaks to the intent of article cxxix a across genders and sexuality and in the efforts of education and prevention. i served on the campus judicial committee which was charged with aligning our code with ocr recommendations and guidance as as well as its mandate. i also chaired the human resources and safety services diversity committee charged with

creating a more welcoming environment for all aspects for life on campus. i else i might iteration i started 23 years ago with cornell university as a dispatcher and through that timeframe was elected to the board of directors in rape crisis and served for 12 years. nine of those years were as the board president so i think in order to emphasize my passion for the subject matter i can't emphasize it enough so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you babbin me. i am darcy folsom the director of advocacy. we are a campus grant success story. we had that grant from 2010 to 2013 and campus demonstrations about the success of programs and the work we are doing on campus and saw the value and continue to fund the program.

we have instituted a program that is a national program which has seen a lot of success at connecticut college and with widespread student buy-in. we have a solid program to talk about. >> thank you senators. i add my thanks to everyone. my name is nancy cantalupo and i have been working on this issue are nearly 20 years from various perspectives. i started out as a student activist and then became a women's center director at the same institutions and later became after spent time in practice as a lawyer went back to georgetown law as an assistant dean and began volunteering to act as faculty council to students who were accusing other students of sexual violence through the student disciplinary system.

so i have litigated administrative proceedings under title ix at -- and the cleary act. those experiences led me to start researching and writing in this area so i now have authored seven articles on title ix and the cleary act and the case law that applies to accuse students rights in civil court so they are administrative due process rights. i have continued in this work including being a row making participant. now finishing up with continuing as a researcher at georgetown law but also having a position as a research fellow with the victim rights law center.

>> senators senators my name is mike jungers and i'm -- is my pleasure to be her. my role at the university is dean of students. i'm responsible for behavioral intervention team and another group that i bring together campus safety group. i am tasked with not only the prevention and education program around sexual violence but i'm also responsible for student conduct on my campus so our processes under my guidance. i have been in higher education quite a long time so i have seen from when i was in school and there was no student conduct process the many different deliberations to where we are today and i'm frankly excited about where we are moving. >> is terrific. i will start with one area and

turn it over to senator blumenthal and hopefully we will get through this within the next couple of hours. we have learned most schools don't have protocols between campus lawn for sent and local law enforcement. and maybe chief d'antan you are the best one to start off with as you have been in both worlds. i don't need to tell you it's not always a bed of roses between local law enforcement and campus law enforcement. i have seen those groups work together and frankly i've seen them behave badly where one is dismissive of the other, where there is territorial inappropriate behavior and i would like your take on what we should do, how we can do a better job and you can start than anybody else can jump and

chief zoner and any others detected. one of my fears here is where having way too many interviews of sexual assault victims that are not being conducted by someone who knows how to do a frantic interview and i think the detective will tell you that and the prosecutors will tell you that in a lot of cases the difference between holding someone accountable sometimes has more to do with how the victim has interviewed than the underlying facts in the case. so in a perfect world i would have someone on every college campus who was the first person to talk talk to a victim when a victim is willing to talk make sure that every single one of those people have been trained in a frantic interview technique as it relates to a sexual assault crime. tell me your sense of how well you all are working with on first and then you may be an anomaly because you have come from their department. many times you don't have that

so you don't have that -- you have relationships there that i'm sure 61 and a working relationship. why don't you speak to back? >> to speak to the professionalism of campus law enforcement agencies on a very big advocate of accreditation efforts going to the kaliya accreditation. we recently achieve that in our agency and is defined in specific process or agencies have to create policies and procedures to adjust everything from clery compliance to response to an investigation of the case. fundamentally does how we build that relationship by increasing professionalism. central ohio was fortunate it and people i've come up through the ranks with and worked with professionally for 25 or 30 years that are now heads of agencies that we do have very good working relationships.

i am fortunate for that but in terms of response to crimes i think the basic and fundamental police service. we get a will call or request service from us i expect the very basics on every crime as much as possible whether that's locating a crime scene collecting evidence conducting and identifying interviews and identifying witnesses so we don't have to reinterview victims of survivors multiple times. it's fundamental police work in many cases and you can proceed with that case in the courts issue would any case. >> what you think is preventing strong working relationships between police departments and for those of you that have seen the side of this that is not as good what is preventing good strong were likings -- working relationships between campus and local police?

>> we have a really great relationship with oregon university within our jurisdiction. our department is a little unique and may be different from some here where they don't have sworn law enforcement so our invisible one person could take the case if it was a sexual assault anyway however you still have to have that working relationship because oftentimes a victim may present a public safety officers are you still need all that same training. we have found it needs to be an open line be an open-minded medication for training. training is incredibly important with a clear understanding and again our department is a little bit different. we have an options program developed to increase sexual assault reporting within our city and the other side of that program was by increasing reporting or increasing intelligence on serial sexual offenders to law enforcement. that foundation of the program is confidentiality so that is a title ix would then have to be cautious about information we

share with the university in a title ix investigation. you see a flip from what you have heard in previous roundtables and our municipal law enforcement law enforcement agency has to be cautious of what we provide to a university. the antenna still bear bear to share information to collaborate because it's much better for the survivor alternately if you want to go forward with anything to have that collaboration that what i would like to enter in for everybody as a starting point is it's always out of her quests and with the victim's permission and we have found that happening. i also have an alternative to train nationally with law enforcement agencies and speak with them openly about their problems. there is not typically that collaboration in many that i've spoken with the university law enforcement municipal law enforcement and again it goes ... mental understanding of what the caseload requires to be successful in the fact that there is a general luck of

education education for law enforcement campus or municipal and general. >> i think there's another gulf besides the one between campus police and the area police and as between student affairs professionals on campus in and the students office student conduct of their offices and campus safety. sometimes that can be -- when i go to my national comfort to hear that repeatedly. we don't get along and we don't talk. i'm blessed to work at an institution where we do talk, we do collaborate and safety matters group they are active participants from campus safety as well as our springfield police department. i would also note and i don't think everyone can do this but we have got a very unique situation that the springfield police department has a substation on our campus and

they are responsible for the entire -- [inaudible] what our needs are as an entity and expressing an appreciation for the important work that they do because i think often safety officers feel unappreciated. really sitting down and talking about policies and helping students and helping citizens to be safe. >> i recognize another obstacle that we have and i think i come from or for traditional model where we are university police. we have our city police and

organizations on campus that would be handling the investigation found title ix clery and therein lies the problem. become at it from different perspectives and different goals and sometimes we are crossing over and stepping on each other's others feet depending on timing of when the complaint might come forward further the end of the semester versus where it exactly happened. you can start off campus and come onto campus and so forth. we do try to collaborate and communicate. we do not have a written policy. think it's more you need to have a written policy between the agencies. we have a meeting next month for a joint working session towards that goal but we certainly have different charges in mind as we come forward and sometimes those are at odds. it is on the university legal counsel and worried about timely warnings that can be inconsistent with my police investigations in the investigative efforts they do

first before legal acts for campus containment. >> either one of the prosecutors or police officers, if the victim reports to a campus police officer at cornell or ohio and if that police officer then takes a statement in your jurisdiction does the detective thank him after that and start over again or is the statement first taken from the victim and are you making an effort to have that statement be done by someone understands a particular requirements of a frantic interview of a sexual assault victim? >> we have multijurisdictional issues so we have cross jurisdiction with not only local law enforcement that federal and state agencies as well. our goal is always to first determine location because that affects whether or not we have

authorization to investigate from a sworn one force meant perspective. we don't start start an interview until we know we are taken into the right place place and i may advocate as a law enforcement officer, not as a sexual assault survivor advocate but a law enforcement to bring them to the right place and guide them to the right people to take the frantic statement he would want to have taken in those circumstances. >> sierra vertus to get them to the right place. >> yeah and then again it's at their wishes so if their wishes to let us know simultaneously we are letting our title ix offices now that this incident happened. doesn't matter where cap entitlement will take that on that work their investigative process so we simultaneously launch communications but we advocate for the processes that can be confusing when you're working with a lot of different agencies. >> a would be where first survivor to contact us

immediately as the first contact. often time either apologize or were someone in a wellness center, someone in student conduct or student life. we assure that all of those support services are in place, are available and that survivor as chief zoner citizen the right place before if we really start to flesh out an interview scheduled and touch base in terms of the kinds of interviews are asking for suggests. >> he said these are all done without an mou in place and what we have found on a number of occasions is that our local law enforcement agencies enter into any agreement so if i approach them something they will have to sign it will run it through their legal counsel and they can sign or refuse to sign the handshake to work with us. they mou does not derive whether or not we work with people.

it's never a bad idea to try to come up with something forces agencies that have difficulty working together but i'm not sure an mou is the right thing for that. >> excuse me. go ahead. we do a franklin county sexual assault response protocol developed among all law enforcement agencies led by our county prosecutor that serves as their roadmap or guide or guiding document and that is reviewed and analyzed. >> university is part of that? >> absolutely. >> i wanted to underline what mike was saying about ordination being a bigger issue than just law enforcement and the university. it's an internal university issue and there is also other key relationships outside of the university and that is with whoever the community sexual violence advocates are, anti-sexual advocates are.

sexual assault response team has been a key best practice that has been -- that has been shown to work over and over again because you can pull in both the people internally that need to be coordinated and the people externally that they to be involved and they'll have to talk to each other. my colleague from the victim rights law center who does a lot of training with institutions, she was on the title ix panel. she often says you should start a sexual response team but understand that for the first six months at least they are just going to fight with each other. and that is sort of a necessary process because as i was saying there are -- sometimes they're a

lot of dysfunctional relationships that need to be gotten through but oftentimes want to get through those you have a level of coordination and cooperation and sort of like mindedness that you would never have been able to achieve without that process having gone through that process. and i think it's important to understand that part of the reason you want as many people at the table is because of the different goals. from a title ix and clery act perspective the most important thing is getting this survivor getting her title ix and her clery act rights bat or his writes matt and those rights are based on a quality in the title bind context in particular and therefore are much broader than

anything that the criminal justice system can provide. the criminal justice system is really not -- it's about justice but it's not about equality. and so it's important to set up a process and that includes coordination that can fulfill all of the goals that institutions need to fulfill not just the goals of the criminal justice system. >> i would like to follow-up on that point that you just made which i think is very very important. in the course of the roundtables are indicted seven roundtables and we did a report and we tried to address the issue of underreporting. why are women, mostly women victims not coming forth more frequently when this crime is

hugely underreported baby outside of the campus as well. senator mccaskill and i have had some experience with the military system as well as the civilian and underreporting seems to be a chronic and repeated problem and that is one reason abortion is so important because enforcement gives credibility. you can't have punishment unless you have reporting and the effectiveness of punishment and prosecution in turn enhances the credibility of the system and leads to more reporting because it bolsters the trust that survivors have. so maybe you and i have heard darcy and alexandra and i spent some time on the yale campus and others can comment on the issues of the different goals and to what extent more reporting can

be encouraged by pursuing all of the goals whether some of them have to be chosen before others. >> i think it's important and streamlining that we do maintain these different goals precisely because the survivors have such a range of needs both in the aftermath of violence and in the years that follow. so we have heard many different stories from survivors across the country. some people really want communication through the courts. some people just want -- some people don't want to see their rapist and an order to i buy think really have a survivor centered approach we should really be embracing the fact that we have this wonderful opportunity to pursue different goals through different processes depending on what the survivor wants. >> i would add to that and i

agree completely it's not just also offering as many options and available ways that may be sure people know what those aren't having clarity around it. and going back to what we are talking about what they mou's. one thing that will promote survivors coming forward is having having that were dated committee response of the sea the systems are working together and that there is collaboration. they are not going to have to tell their story again. we have seen this model work in the children's epoch six center models such as being sensitive to the fact that like alexander said it's not one-size-fits-all in terms of what justice means and i think for many survivors just knowing that their there are different outlets available that can make all the difference when they are ready to come forward. >> i think it's just tricky. one of the intentions of making sure different approaches or coordinate without being merged into one so most of the survivors we have spoken to have said they would be less likely to report to their school if

they felt that would necessitate police involvement. i think we have to be very clear that everyone is working together if they want them to work together. in fact that decision is ultimately up to them. >> with m my prosecutor hat on i have to say while i'm all for giving lots of different options oftentimes you might negate my option of the criminal prosecution depending on how the initial investigation is led and how that is performed and sometimes that binds our hands and we have an inability to prosecute it when that may be promised upfront. you can think about criminal later but then it has run its course and interfered with their ability to be a criminal leader. >> at such an issue and i'm really struggling with this. my staff is nervous right now. we go-round and round. these cases are hard cases. they are makeable and i know i have witnesses here, if the

victim has the right kind of interview, the right kind of evidence and the right kind of investigation is done as close in time as possible to the event. the more time that passes the less likely there is there will be a successful prosecution because a lot of this is about corroborating the victim. you have a he said she said and it's very difficult to get a jury to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't have corroboration. corroboration is sometimes very easy to obtain and so part of this is my sons and i don't know how we deal with this and maybe darcy you can dive in here, is how do we have a system that is multijurisdictional in terms of people's roles and obligations but at its center is making sure that victim gets as much information as possible as

quickly as possible and fully understands that waiting to think about whether or not her brutal rapist will ever have a difficult interview with someone in uniform or whether her brutal rapists will ever have a fear of actually going to prison has everything to do with her willingness to not only come forward but come forward quick quickly. i don't think that dad and my sense after all these roundtables is there is almost a bias in the system away from the criminal justice system. and i understand why. the criminal justice system does not have -- we have had and i'm speaking writ large not made and the professionals i worked with when i was doing these cases cases but their horrible stories about how victims have been treated in the way they have been talked to in the way their cases have been handled. that is being used i think almost as a cudgel to in some

ways keep victims from believing that there are people like the people on this panel that will listen and investigate and handle their cases in a professional and supportive manner. obviously with an eye towards towards the facts and not towards a certain result but how do we do this? help me hear prosecutors and detectives and help meet advocates that are worried about victims not having control. maybe carry this is where you can talk about your options. >> if i may i am going to answer. anybody who knows me here knows. all a lot of what i think you have been hearing and i am notoriously hard on my own profession so i'm going to acknowledge that first but it's because we do not have the great history of doing this caseload

sexual assault well and i'm not saying that as everybody. let's just address the fact. if we thought we were doing they still wouldn't be sitting at the table okay? i eyes have a problem with legislating or putting rules forward with the assumption they are going to screw it up because i don't think outside the problem. there's a really wonderful trend now thankfully among law enforcement where they are starting to knowledge that this has to be done differently and the traditional model of policing that works for these cases doesn't work and sexual assault because the dynamics are radically different. for instance when we built this program back in 2009 we never intended to be sitting here today. all we want to do is make things better in the city vastly but what we did was we went to every victim willing to come forward and report to us and asked them if you could change things what would you do?

no restrictions. whatever it was and i completely agree with you because every person answer that differently as to what their individual carrier was. anything that goes forward that is coming from someone assuming what a survivor wants is grossly mistaken. you cannot do that because what is right for her one survivor is not right for another and for anybody in a profession to assume that they know what the answer to that is egotistical and damaging to the caseload. what we have to do is get out of our way. we had to say tell us how to do this better. obviously we are not doing it well. my chief who is extremely forward-thinking says it best. he says listen was just take the highest statistic of 34%. and i don't think there are 34% reporting but let's just say there was even if we were 100% successful in all of those cases are still in abject failure so we have to do something different. what we said was let's try everything i asked us to do and

do the one thing they asked every single time was for confidentiality. >> that is such an important point and at the end of these roundtables that i held i came up with a bill of rights for survivors and one of the rights was confidentiality. >> yes. >> this discussion is extremely valuable but the other thing we did on on the roundtable as we heard from survivors about how the system looks from their perspective and what impressed me at connecticut college in so many other places and maybe we can hear from jessica's well on this issue is how they provided advice to the survivors because that makes all the difference as to whether number one somebody comes forward and number two whether they stay with it because it's not only the initial report, it's also where

do i go from here? a much is going to retrieve? the mic like to take a semester off because i don't want to run into this guy? maybe we can hear a little bit more about how you have options, you have choices, confidentiality from the standpoint of the survivor. >> there's actually research that says if you have an advocate from the beginning a confidence of advocates you will be more likely to continue through whatever it ministry of or criminal process so that they have that advocate they will be more likely to cooperate. i think what has to happen is there has to be trust because advocates some of us really to promise that. we don't have an agenda and we are not telling them to not report which i fear is sometimes a problem. they are thinking the confidential advocates are turning them away from these options so i can promise i will get them all of their options and let them choose trade they

come from a victim empowerment model and support them with what other option they want but i think there has to be that trust that we are not turning them away from one of those options but fairly telling them what they are. >> like jessica we are giving many options but that big piece is i want to be open and honest that is not going to be over in 45 minutes and with our population it may have been their senior year and they're off to a job right away. students might not necessarily come forward in the criminal justice system because the process could take years to go through. they want to move on with their life and do something different. they are there with the title line bottle on 60-day something has to be handled into your point senator mccaskill about how someone has to come in quick but it may take several months for someone to decide to see an advocate at that point even if they turn around and say the next day they want to file criminal justice report that

time has passed. at least at connecticut college who don't have a statute of limitations so a student can come back in their senior and year and filed a report to obviously the case is harder to prove that option is there for this to them that's important to remember the length of the process. >> osha's going to add not only the length with the different types of evidence. in the criminal justice system has found a reasonable doubt and eviscerated process which is a preponderance of evidence more likely than not you'll are victims to go with what they might see as the easier or less burdensome. >> the people on college judicial panels have been trained as a federal mandate for an average jurors make in your decision so the prosecution your police officers can be doing an amazing job with the investigation but. >> they haven't all been train trained. the adjudication panels haven't

all been trained. they probably have at connecticut college that i can assure you they haven't been across this country. we have a variety of people asking wildly inappropriate questions at these adjudications. >> we offer that on our campus but frequently we see public records laws and restrictions require us to create -- leave our police records open to a large extent and survivors or victims names. while that may be a best practice that may be a challenge for some states to do. >> how do you all handle records stuff in terms of your model and whether the victim gets to decide because it's similar to the military system restrictive and nonrestrictive reports so what happens on public record request to your police agency on a report where a victim where

report has been made but pushed you wanted to keep it confidential. >> the difference between us and the military model as we will give information to those that are doing the investigation. it's not going to somebody who is restricted and not doing an investigation. that is why believe the investigation needs to go to law enforcement that with the victim's permission. specifically when the reports are released and again this is a huge break from traditional policing that we can do this legally and it may differ states tuesday. in oregon with public records laws won a case has been closed and is no longer being investigated so we have lengthy statutes of limitations. what we do is we inactivated. they don't want to use it right now on to right now and it solves problems because how in the world can you expect a survivor to make a determination

about education when something is just have been? frankly they wouldn't have the information necessary to say whether they want to prosecute because we don't have time core operating. we don't even know they have tried the case of that is never a conversation we have. the document everything they will let us and it does help of some of those delays. what i would also say though is we can overcome most of ways. that's a traditional policing response to say if they delayed report and therefore it's unlikely to go forward. we have shown for years now that is not the case. we get much better cases because we are working with the victim the whole time. it's not adversarial and it's not i need you to do this and you don't have a choice in that. what i would say is when the cases activated we don't have to release it. off course could there be a time? >> guest: as again you have to have someone who made a report to request the report. it's not impossible but when we

get to public records technically we have come to a decision with the victim that they want to go forward with what they call a complete investigation investigation. it goes to the das office and the options are not available at the das office because we are not going to tell them i'd do their work but the victim understand that before and make a decision. >> that goes to the das office and the das office decides to knowledge do not take it then they comes up and that the decision by the victim as to whether or not they wanted to be complete investigation with a possibility of a referral? >> we want to keep it active for long as possible because we have found time and time again the way they feel at six months and may be again the other half of the program as we identify it changes the entire conversation. we could still get someone coming in two years later. because we did a good job documenting it and we did good

frantic interview summary audio recorded our prosecutors have the chance. i'm not saying it's easier but it's better than it is. >> going back to the students and knowing their options the sense we get is that they are given an option. it's with the negatives and there are negatives to law enforcement obviously. the burden of proof is higher than it takes more than six months of your professors -- they are told positives of law enforcement which are that law enforcement officers will be able to collect more evidence more quickly especially in cases that happened off campus. they have more power there and if you ultimately have a result of the criminal justice system is a permanent result. the personal have a record and you'll have an order protection that will last many years. we had a young woman who was sexually assaulted on campus and

the campus came to new york for a job in the offender was coming to her workplace not doing anything criminal but violating the order protection. it was completely an enforceable so i think they need to be told their options but in a written form that says yes this is your law enforcement option and it will take this amount of time and this is the standard of proof that these are also the benefits of it to encourage more reporting. >> alexander do you think it is fair to say that now victims are being discouraged from reporting to law enforcement overall or nancy or darcy or jessica? do you believe victims are being told all of the negatives of going to law enforcement and not being talked to about the positives that could come from

going through that system? >> yes. i can say when i report violence to my school five or six years ago i was specifically told not to go to the police that it would not be worth it and would be emotionally draining. with that being said i never would have come forward if i had been forced into that option. we have also seen another version of this where most schools offer an informal or formal complaint so you can go to disciplinary proceedings. the rapist might be expelled if the school is doing its job. we do see schools doing a similar thing where they say you have two options. you can go formal or informal. if you go formal is going to be really hard and you will get behind in her schoolwork just letting you know. some of that comes from the position of these administrators who might only talk about a student while they are actively engaged with the board so they see a student who is -- what

they don't see is the student forced to spend time frame after summit campus because he or she went to the aviation route. this is a chance to talk about what is the kind of language the school should be using to present options that can draw on experiences of people who have gone through this process and have implemented this process many different ways. >> sorry, think that comes back to the importance of mou santa even if it's not a formal document just to relationship building. i was on a first name basis with our detective and could call him on my cell phone. having that assurance worry i can say you can call this person i know them personally and to give them those aspects and how important is to have an advocate for the whole process. yes it may be hard but i will

help you along the way. if you need help with your academics at the top of your dean so being broke with the students but also helping them through that is so important. ..

puts the university in a very anomalous and conflicting position -- the guarantee of an advocate provides those rights. >> i'd like to speak towards the confidential speaks as well. in that you can have the best forensic interview, the best prosecutor, the best case going forward, you can maintain confidentiality throughout all of this and social media just ends around and gets you. enough information is generally present because we're not usually the first people reported to, even as an administrator, a friend, or a friend tells another friend. so, the battle we have or the blame, i think, that our system takes on for lack of confidentiality is just a leakage of what we have to deal with right now. and there's very little we can do to manage that. it's unfortunate. it's also very impactful on the victims, very impactful on the investigations. that people are presuming things that have happened, they tell

stories, once a comment is out there, it's unretractable, and these are battles we all face. >> another challenge -- >> 99% of which would not be admissible in court. >> but, but it does impact the ability to move forward and it impacts -- impacts the victim. >> tremendously. tremendously. >> even fundamentally on posting the report on the daily log that we're required to keep, unlike municipal agencies, every incident report goes on a daily log as reporting the classification of the offense that we classified it, rape, sexual assault, whatever it might be. another challenge that will have to be resolved in this issue as you wrestle with the issue of confidentiality. >> that log is under query. >> we have used social media and technology to assist building cases, and i think that the prosecutor might be able too speak to this more, but

everything from video evidence, if we enhance our camera systems on campus to observe and confirm that people are coming or going, we do subpoena phone records, e-mails, test messages to build the case so the point the case is ready for court and the survivor says now a. ready, we have that case built and a lot of confirmation and information that is built up to really graces if evidence collection -- aggressive evidence collection process. >> only if law enforcement is allowed to be involved in the process to begin with. if we're not a given that option we lose text messages and lose content. so if there's not truly a real option to go law enforcement after you -- it's that basic needs discussion, which is, i just need the person away from me on campus right now. i have to make the decision about criminal late irbut we lose. >> how common that this report comes to an ra or comes to

someone who is not part of campus police, and stays within the administrative part of the university, coming to your point earlier, nancy -- never gets to even campus law enforcement or the kind of subpoenaing of phone records or text messages or things of that nature. if that's the victim. >> if that's the victim's choice, the survivor's choice, there's nothing wrong with that. right? if it stays within the institution. if, for instance, she has no interest or she has no interest at that moment in pursuing a criminal investigation, but the dilemma for the on-campus person who is advising a survivor, you know, in the moment, in the aftermath, the immediate

aftermath, is -- with regard to the criminal process is that you have to -- there's -- you have to balance between giving full informed consent or giving -- giving enough information about the options so that she can make an informed choice about the options, and you're restricted in terms of what information you can give her by what the options actually are. right? so we're not all living in ashland, oregon, unfortunately, and not everyone has a criminal justice system that is structured to give multiple options and to hold on to evidence for years so that there can be a prosecution later if the survivor is ready for it. all of those things are relatively uncommon, and if you

are going to be a good advocate and support for the survivor who has come to you as the campus person, you need to give them an honest idea of what they can expect from various processes. whether it be internal or external. and some of those are just going to be fact-based. and i am going to be very clear with anyone who i talk to that, if you have this goal, if your goal is to not have to see him in the cafeteria, then you're going to be better off going through the university's title nine system. i if your goal is to have him incarcerated, then we need to talk to the police. >> or what about a goal of him not doing this to another woman?

is that ever presented to the victim? >> we want to empower them because i wouldn't say that to a victim. because i don't want this person to do it again. because i'm focused on them and their needs as a survivor, and i want them to feel empowered to choose what is best for them, and while i want this person not to rape anyone else that shouldn't be this victim's burden. they've already lost power and control. why is it their burden to have to do something they don't don't want to do, so i struggle with that. i want the bad people off the streets but also want to empower somebody to do something after already losing power. >> there's a practical concern. i don't think this is, do we have people report to schools or hold perpetrators accountable. schools can hold perpetrators accountantable because often the criminal justice system does not, and because ultimately if we don't push survivors into the criminal justice system early we might miss out on text messages,

but with do push them in we'll miss out on survivors. >> let me -- i'm going to say this from a law enforcement perspective and not one you would hear from many law enforcement officers, unfortunately, but what we have learned -- it took us a while to get there. years of flushing this out and it still makes us uncomfortable. we're not happy because we want tote toe get to place where we can arrest serial sexual offenders. what we lad to realize was in order to get there we needed to understand and fully acknowledge that it is never the victim's responsibility for that arrest. they are never responsible for the offenders doing that next offense. the offender is responsible for that next offense, not the victim. >> correct. >> and we cannot lose site of that because i hear this in all different groups, all different professions, i hear it in

advocacy, too, we'll get to a place where it makes us uncomfortable, to acknowledge that somebody could know that this happened and we're not doing anything about it. but i think we have to realize we are doing something about it by allowing a survivor enter the clinal justice system in the way that's right for them. so the focus should not be she didn't come forward and give us everything. the focus should be, we're grateful she came forward and gave us anything. that's a very different perspective that changes the entire case load. >> you will be successful if you come from that perspective. >> so is your reporting up. >> yes, 106%. >> over what period of time? >> from 2009 was our zero year where we did nothing of this, 2002 to 2013 was 106% increase. >> to what extent can any of you comment do any of you have numbers like that either up or down based on changes in practices? >> i can't cite the exact numbers.

i know we have been in discussion in the groups we have seen an increase in reporting. we have been under fire for increased reporting. this is what we're trying to see from a year zero forward -- >> who is giving you trouble about increased reporting. >> other students. >> the campuses that say that they don't have a problem because there's none that are reported are lying. >> they're lying and denying. >> lying or denying or incompetent. >> or setting up their processes so that it chills reporting. >> right. >> which -- >> not always -- to be fair, it's not always a sort of -- it's not like there's some evil mastermind who is back in a back room setting things up to chill reporting with the goal of chilling reporting. i think that it happens in a much more subtle fashion, and one of the ways in which it happens is by importing

unnecessarily criminal justice-y like processes into in the traditional policing model, the traditional model, importing those processes into administrative processes that don't have the power even to do the kind of coercive thing that the traditional model sort of relies upon. so, schools don't even have the power to subpoena witnesses, for instance. and so they don't have the power to collect forensic evidence. there's all kinds of things that they simply cannot do. but yet they are importing things like, you know, right to counsel, or they're having evidence collected that would be forensic evidence but some police officers -- campus police

officer is just keeping all this evidence in their office. and all of these things just mean that it leads us to believe that the campus system is the same as the criminal system, and the criminal system doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to sexual violence. so that ends up chilling reporting just by operation of a bunch of, as i said, pretty much unintentional things, but it ends up being quite effective. you -- the lack of reporting can be seen as a veto on the system. if you have fewer reports that means your system is not doing -- >> right. the point i was trying to make if you have a lot fewer reports at any given campus, no parent should take that as a signal that there's a lot less sexual

assault. >> right. right. which is why the mandatory survey idea is the way to kind of level the playing field between the various -- all of the schools because they'll all be collecting data on the same basis, and separating data collection from getting victims services which, as jessica said, is what that's -- what reporting should be about, is helping them to access what they need rather than depending on them to solve our crime problems for us. >> i think this is a very cyclical problem and it's what we keep talking about, is what their goal on day one could be very different day ten and six months down the road, and it shouldn't be just an us versus them, u.s. being criminal versus administrative process, because what i find is that after --

there is a discouragement. you asked the question, irpeople discouraged from going to the criminal justice system. you can see there's already a built-in perception you're not going to get justice or be treated properly through the criminal justice system unless you're dying it right and i think we're doing it right where i am. but the point where i find our difficulties if they're not a truly vetted they come to us after it was a five-pain paper. that ways the sanction. and then now they want us to do something about it, and at that point we're so hampered that then they say, see, you never take cases anyway and it's just a perpetuation of the reputation we're not helping them. and that we're not there for them from the beginning. so if there's an ashland approach where we can collect -- i can sit all day long, wait a year, two years, whatever, until the survivor is ready to move forward and move through the system, to help me get some of that evidence at the get-go from the beginning. >> you're saying they're coming to you after they're dissatisfied with the result of the administrative process.

>> yes. >> that's the whole reason, right? this is just the right thing to do the human element of this program, but we're still criminal justice, and we say this gives options to survivors and also gives information to law enforcement. it had to be beneficial for both. that's what we discovered. so traditional law enforcement is only beneficial for law enforcement. be go forward in the way that's best for us and i'm obviously overgeneralizing here. it -- i hear the try here to get something, from the administrative process that can be helpful for the criminal justice problem and if i could say, the one thing i have seen throughout the years that would make the biggest difference is to have some mandate that anybody who is interviewing a survivor of sexual assault be trained to do so and for that option to be recorded so the

victim has the option to demand that is recordes because i can't tell you how many reports i have been given where somebody did a synopsis of what a survivor said and it what nothing of what the survivor intended. so, if those two things happen, i can take that case and i can corroborate it five years later but i have to have that audio recording of what was actually said by the survivor, and who interviewed them. >> and the interplay with the 60 day in title ix baas it depends on who the lead investigator and is how hair trained and where their pushes and time frames are and where the stuff goes to the criminal justice system for our ability to wait and paws. >> dot that work better with a single investigator model? >> i would thick so. >> i'd be curious with the advocates and the survivors think about the recording. i've been in conversations that say that is chilling in itself, that by recording it does put an

extra burden, their testimony will be impeached or if they -- particularly if their recollection changes or they come out of trauma and have a whole different perspective. >> but if the interview is right they recollections will not change because they're not asked to remember things they don't remember but a will ask them to say what i can remember as opposed to a typical -- as you well know, chief, there's two different kinds of investigative interviews and this kind of investigative interview is acknowledging they may not remember everything. we don't want you to remember things you don't really remember because what happens so often is the victim will try to bootstrap their credibility by making up things they don't really remember, because they're so worried whether or not they're going to be believed and that's the exact opposite of what you want the victim to do. >> if i can address that. we had all these same in the beginning. all these same ideas but what we did is talk to researchers,

consulted with victims with victim advocates heavily. so what we learned was, you had victims who traditionally didn't want the recording if it wasn't an option for them but when you sit down and tell someone i'm not going to mike you do this bus here's why i want to i want to accurately reflect your statements. i don't want to sit down two hours later, if i'm lucky -- maybe two days later i report my report and guess as to what you said, and i want to, if you disagree with what my report said to be able to go back to this and make sure that i'm right, and i also never want someone later to say you said something you didn't. and i have never, ever, in four years, had someone tell me no, ever. >> when you gave them the option. >> that it's never been pushed on them. i explain why i want to. so we have to have people say i'm not ready to do that yet. i need time before that happens. and i'm a forensic interviewer. we do thirds for kids all the time. this has been a model that has

been replicated well for children and i'm not trying to say that adult survivors of sexual assault should be treated like children but should be given the opportunity to talk about what they're able to. in an environment that is accepting and understanding of trauma and we do not do a good job of that with law enforcement. >> i think that gets too the bottom line of, i wish we all lived in ashland, oregon. i'm moving. but i think that it gets back to training and interviews and forensic interviews. >> that's a very important point. it gets us back to what we can do. what we, meaning the congress, the legislature,ed a much as i mess my prosecuting days, we're not going to be be doing that, and i think supporting training is so critical, but also other models for how the administrative school deals with

it. it would be useful. because -- i want to sort of address a point that you made, nancy, i think there are due process requirements for the schools as well. because they have the power to have an impact on individual lives that can be transformative. that can change those lives forever. so they have a responsibility -- it's a due process responsibility. a fairness, justice responsibility, that i think is as important as the criminal justice system. the standard, the procedures may be different, the obligations may be different, but they need to be concerned about those those obligations as well and it

goes back to maybe the victim needs an advocate there, too, with the administrative process. it may not be a -- we don't want lawyers sort of dealing with this as a minitrial necessarily but are there ways that we, the federal government, can help with that administrative process? number one, training, as senator mccaskill has said. we heard about training, and the lack of it. and the diversity in how universities approach these issues, but are there sort of models we can encourage? >> well, one thing that i think sort of gets lost is that in fact, universities can very easily meet their due process requirements, their administrative due process requirements, at the same time that they meet their title

ix requirements because actually both of those legal regimes require equality of procedural rights. so, if you just give equality to both sides of the proceeding, then you're going to be meeting both of those obligations. the administrative due process obligations as set out by the supreme court and enforced by many, many courts, is -- many, many lower courts -- is notice and a right to be heard. and that is just for state institutions. private institutions proceed under contract law, and all they have to do is follow their own procedures. now, everyone has to follow their own procedures as -- the state schools have to follow their open procedures as well but they have these

constitutional requirements as well because they're state actors. about even in the case of the state institution, the requirements are really quite minimal in comparison to the criminal justice system. and that is critical because it -- because it makes it possible for schools to put the complaining student and the responding student on an even playing field. the criminal justice system doesn't do that and there are reasons. there are good ropes for why that is, because the criminal justice system can throw someone into jail or put them to death, and that -- those kinds of issues are not relevant in the campus context. so, for the campus context, what they need to be doing is

protecting the living and learning environment of all of their students, which means equality. and is also what title ix requires. so all of these things actually -- you can have a very robust administrative process, while meeting the legal requirements on all sides. and there's a tendency to assume that the criminal justice due process requirements are the same due process requirements for all proceedings, but that just isn't true, and that is not true based on supreme court precedent as well as many, many lower court judgments in these cases. >> i totally agree, nancy. at our university, and depressant think we're unique but we have following office of

civil rights and what they've provided as guidelines a number of us, not only title ix coordinator's office but also student conduct, we've gone through title ix investigator training and have made the shift in our conduct process when we're dealing with issues of sexual violence. so we're not using the traditional model. which is mores a very sayreal, not -- we try to be fair but now that i've been introduced to the investigator training, i see a huge difference, and we -- this is just the student conduct officer reporting that a document title ix model in following through very well with it, we are getting more education and more cooperation

from the respondent, you know. they used to lawyer up immediately. first thing, you don't -- you're cut off from talking to your student, which drives me crazy, by an attorney saying, this is my client and you'll talk -- you don't talk to him or her directly. you talk to me. the title ix investigation kind of melts all of that away so that you proceed on a very objective, fact-finding manner, and everyone seems to get more on board with it because they know you don't have a particular outcome that you're searching for. the outcome will rise. from the facts. >> do you think it would -- dofully of the schools you work with -- do any of the schools you work with, any of them using students on their decisionmaking

board? >> yale is and i think it's a bad idea. i think that students are discouraged with the idea not now only might they have to see they're assailant in the cafeteria but might also have to see the person they told their story to. >> do we have any idea -- probably no one here that would know that -- how many student -- schools are using students to make these decisions. >> i don't know that. >> that's something we need to find out and maybe we need to even think about -- >> i would say that just because it's sort of tangentially related to this, that one of the things -- one of the problems in this area -- i say this as a researcher -- just there is too little research on what is actually going on, and that is connected to the transparency issue, in a couple of different ways.

one is that if schools have an incentive to pretend that this is not a problem, and they're successful in pretending this is not a problem, then the last thing they're going to want to do is empower their faculty or anyone else to be conducting research as too the extent of the problem and, therefore, how to fix it. right? you need research on the extent of the problem before you can determine whether or not you can fix it and how to fix it and whether the ways you're seeking to fix it are actually effective. so, i don't know the answer to that question in part because there is a enormous research gap, and part of the reason why there's an eenormous research gap is because of the transparency issues. >> while i don't know who is using students or not but my

school did away with hearing boards a long time ago and just used the investigator model, and being a victim advocate i can say we have a lot more victims wanting to go through the administrative protest when they're told they're just talking to a trained investigator, the only person they have to talk to they don't have to face their faculty, their student, their suspect, and so i think that is a more victim-friendly model, and so i do think we need training, though, on not only the investigative and administrative process that the police, anyone who is talking to a survivor, could be something we could have more of. >> that may well include the dormitory -- i don't know quite what the terminology is on all of your campuses but the person who is charge of the entryway, the student adviseer, who ouch may be the line of first reporting. in other words, at midnight,

when a distraught student wants to talk to someone, if it isn't the roommate, it may be the person who -- >> the ra. >> that's where other train could go be. the first person someone tells after a sexual assault theirs friend or this resident hall adviser and how that person responds will felonies whether that person tells anyone again. so if the person first person they tell believes them that person will be more likely to go through the process so we need to train our community. >> they're going to be more likely to go to that first responder if they understand that what happened to them is a crime. so we need to get baseline knowledge out there and that's has been talk about but just so that people -- all this conversation is assuming people get to a certain stage in the process, and i know that so many survivors say wasn't happened to me wasn't rape. >> it's interesting because it is so fas