Who is an “Appropriate Disciplinary Authority” at UVa? Excellent Question, as it Turns Out

UVa President James Ryan. Courtesy of the University of Virginia

by James C. Sherlock

The University of Virginia, as required by state law, has a policy on Preventing and Addressing Threats of Acts of Violence.

It defines “unsanctioned possession of firearms, weapons, or other dangerous items.” as Violent or Threatening Behavior.

The policy currently states:

The (Threat Assessment Team) TAT does not serve as a disciplinary body; however, referrals will be made to the appropriate disciplinary authority regarding violent or threatening behavior per University policy.

We will find out who added that language and when, but it doesn’t matter to the outcome.  From the policy:

All University faculty, staff, students, and Medical Center employees are expected to cooperate fully with the TAT.

The shooter did not.

Some members of the TAT are appropriate disciplinary authorities.  They could have walked out of the meeting room and taken action immediately as it was their duty as security officials to do.

They did not.

They kicked it over to a student organization.

Three men died.

For the federal requirement under Clery laws for Campus Security Authorities (CSAs) we go to 34 CFR 668.46(a) –

Federal regulations provide that CSAs include: campus police or security department personnel; individuals or organizations identified in institutional security policies; and individuals with security-related responsibilities. The definition at § 668.46(a)(iv) states that a CSA also includes an official “who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities.”

The university’s policy defining Campus Security Authorities is SEC-035: Clery Act Compliance.  That policy defines them as “individuals”

It then quotes the federal regulation in the definition.  Except the UVa definition includes:

Officials having significant responsibility for student and campus activities, including but not limited to, student housing, student discipline, and campus judicial proceedings. [Emphasis added.]

But the Clery policy then goes on.

Common examples of CSAs include (but are not limited to):

  • Police and Security personnel
  • Athletic Directors
  • Athletic Coaches
  • Faculty advisors to student organizations
  • Housing & Residence Life Staff
  • Director of Emergency Management
  • Medical Center Risk Management
  • Directors of Women’s Center
  • Coordinators of Fraternity & Sorority Life
  • Title IX Coordinators
  • Medical Center Employee Relations

I will add, I think without controversy, to that list of “officials having significant responsibility for campus activities” the President of the University and his entire operations and legal staffs.  It would be useful to find out who in the legal department signed off on the clueless policy document in June.

No person in even vague touch with reality would consider the student members of the Judiciary Committee to be “security officials” or the Committee to be a security organization.  But the investigation will have to go back and determine when that provision was added, by whom and what was the intent.

So we look now at the list of the members of the Threat Assessment Team.  Let’s see who could, in their official capacity, have walked out of the October TAT meeting and taken action immediately to get the man who turned out to be the shooter off the Grounds and keep him away.

They include the following.  I highlight the ones who qualify as security officials under the UVa definition that I estimate had official responsibilities in this case.

  • Associate Vice President of Safety and Security – Tim Longo, Chief of Police
  • Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS)
  • Director of Threat Assessment – Ed Markowski – leads the TAT
  • Faculty and Employee Assistance Program  (FEAP)
  • Faculty Representative
  • Medical Center Security
  • Student Affairs – as designated by Robyn S. Hadley, Vice President of Student Affairs
  • Office for Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights – as designated by Kevin McDonald, Vice President for DEI
  • Office of University Counsel – as designated by Clifton M. Iler, University Counsel
  • Patient Safety/Risk Management
  • University & Medical Center Employee Relations
  • University Police Department  – as designated by Chief Longo

The Associate Vice President of Safety and Security, Chief Longo, is responsible for the implementation of the policy for the University and the University Medical Center.

Kevin McDonald, Robyn Hadley and Cliff Iler are direct reports to President Ryan.

Chief Longo reports to Jennifer Wagner Davis, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

Sad.

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

13 responses to “Who is an “Appropriate Disciplinary Authority” at UVa? Excellent Question, as it Turns Out”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I am confused. What “threatening or violent” behavior had the student committed for which the TAT could have referred him to a disciplinary authority? Someone said that he had said that he had a gun. (That’s hearsay.) His roommate told police that he had never seen a gun. Possession of a firearm is not itself a crime. There have been no reports that he threatened anyone. No students have said that he exhibited erratic or violent behavior. Surely, if he had demonstrated erratic, violent, or angry behavior, the professor arranging the trip, who had him in another class, would not have allowed him to accompany the English class on the trip.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      In front of all of this is what the state and courts did prior to this crime:

      ” COLONIAL HEIGHTS, Va. — When Christopher Darnell Jones Jr. attempted to purchase a gun from Dance’s Sporting Goods in Colonial Heights in July 2021, the licensed dealer ran a background check.

      As it turns out, the Virginia State Police Firearms Transaction Center (FTC) denied Jones’s request because of a pending felony charge out of Petersburg, according to Virginia State Police.

      Jones had also recently been convicted of a gun crime in Chesterfield.

      On February 22, 2021, Jones was pulled over near Boisseau Street and Third Avenue in Ettrick.

      During the traffic stop, officers saw that he was carrying a gun but had no permit.

      When they ran his name, they learned Jones was also wanted for fleeing the scene of an August 2020 crash in Petersburg.

      “Jones was taken into custody for the two outstanding warrants and charged with misdemeanor carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, first offense,” Liz Caroon, a spokesperson for the Chesterfield County Police Department, said.

      The Chesterfield case would be adjudicated four months later when Jones was found guilty of the concealed carry charge, and given a 12-month suspended sentence.

      While a misdemeanor does not prevent citizens in Virginia from purchasing a firearm, felonies do.

      One of Jones’s Petersburg charges, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, was a felony.

      That would change on October 28, 2021, when the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor in Petersburg Circuit Court. Again, Jones was sentenced to 12 months in jail, but all 12 were suspended.

      As a result, Jones was legally able to buy guns, which he did two different times in 2022.

      Once the Virginia FTC blocks a gun purchase, it conducts an investigation into the denial to confirm the adjudication of the pending charge and to update the record if necessary.

      However, VSP spokeswoman Corinne Geller said the agency still has an active investigation into Jones’s attempted purchase in July 2021.

      She said existing vacancies at Virginia State Police contributed to why the FTC never completed its investigation into Jones’s pending charge.

      The CBS 6 Problem Solvers asked VSP why the red flag on Jones’s background check was apparently removed even though the FTC has not finished its investigation. VSP has not yet responded.”

      https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/christopher-darnell-jones-jr-failed-background-check-gun-purchase-november-16-2022

      So the VSP knew of this guy and his gun purchase but somehow that information did not get into the hands of the UVA police?

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        A walking time bomb went off Sunday night. The State Police have taken over the crime investigation.

        The AG will appoint a special counsel to find out exactly what the TAT did and did not do.

        And, more importantly, what the members or the TAT did not do when they walked out of that room.

        Thus the article.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          ” However, VSP spokeswoman Corinne Geller said the agency still has an active investigation into Jones’s attempted purchase in July 2021.

          She said existing vacancies at Virginia State Police contributed to why the FTC never completed its investigation into Jones’s pending charge.”

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            If the Petersburg CA had not kicked the felony down to a misdemeanor, he would not have been able to buy the guns.

            But honestly, she appears to trying in an extraordinarily difficult circumstances. She is not part of the Progressive Prosecutors of Virginia cabal.

            She has so much to deal with in Petersburg I can understand this deal.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Oh, so some prosecutors can reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and it is OK, but it is not OK for those prosecutors whom you disapprove of to do so.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Do you know if Colleges do background checks on students? How about the football teams?

            If the VSP had felony and gun issues with this guy, how would UVA know it?

            Is there a process for people with criminal records to be identified by the colleges?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            It’s never okay for any prosecutor to deal down any felony involving a firearm. You’ve asked before when firearm laws weren’t followed, this is the result of that. So instead of stomping around asking for new laws, enforce what is on the books.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Hearsay is excluded in trials, Dick, not in investigations.

      1. Hearsay is more than enough to expel a student from any college campus…. evidence is not needed.. having helped a student through a Title IX investigation I know this for a fact.

    3. DJRippert Avatar

      Hearsay may not be admissible in court but it certainly can be used in investigations.

      As I understand it, the shooter had multiple run-ins with the police concerning gun laws. He had recently tried to purchase a gun and was denied the purchase. According to LarryG in a prior blog post’s comment … “As it turns out, the Virginia State Police Firearms Transaction Center (FTC) denied Jones’s request because of a pending felony charge out of Petersburg, according to Virginia State Police.”

      The shooter complained of being bullied and was rumored to have a gun.

      Nobody really knows what the TAT knew and when they knew it (at least, we don’t know it yet).

      Much will depend on what the TAT knew or should have known.

      However, a plan to refer anything to the Judiciary Committee is a sign that there was no serious threat seen.

      This will be a sad post-mortem but it has to be done.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        You are right, D.J. As I signed off this article, it is sad.

        I am doing this research to expose what went on at the University before the shootings. So far, it looks like a complete dumpster fire.

        There is nothing on earth as motivated as a bureaucracy trying to avoid responsibility for failure.

        What they admit to knowing before they walked out of the TAT meeting is plenty for me to hold them accountable. Hell, the very structure of the TAT is enough to hold them accountable.

        The very university policy on the TAT is preposterous.

        I have reported that the University offered testimony to the 3rd Circuit that the TAT, as recently as four years ago, banned a student from the grounds for four years for being a threat – evidence was arguing politics with a professor – before he was even expelled from the med school for the same offense.

        That was their defense speaking, offering evidence of due process in that suit. Which the University won.

        Now they have a policy that the TAT is not an action organization?

        I am trying to peel back that onion. It stinks more with every layer.

    4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      See the second paragraph above for the answer to your question. I am not going to go over the extensive evidence the TAT had again. I revealed it in my first two articles. Read them or read any the MSM reports that post date my own.

      Some of that:

      He had a history of violence going back to high school. And that had been reported in a RTD article in 2018. He was reported by a student to the university hotline as having claimed to have a weapon on the grounds. He was arrested and convicted in Petersburg for unlawful possession of a concealed weapon. He owned two weapons that were discoverable in the State Police data base, refused to cooperate with investigation as he was required to do. Etc, etc.

      Your last sentence is irrelevant. She wasn’t 0n the TAT.

Leave a Reply