STEGER LEAVING

STEGER TO STEP DOWN

BY KARIN KAPSIDELIS
Richmond Times-Dispatch

Charles W. Steger, who oversaw Virginia Tech at a time of major growth but also its greatest tragedy, today announced his retirement.

After 14 years he described as “a nanosecond,” Steger told students, faculty and staff in an email that he will step down after his replacement is found. The university said the board of visitors will assemble a search committee immediately.

Steger, scheduled to deliver Tech’s commencement speech Friday, said he has been “doubly blessed” to spend virtually his entire career at the university.

“As a three-time graduate of this institution, Virginia Tech has afforded me the tools for leadership and personal fulfillment,” he said in a statement.

His announcement came weeks after the state Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision and said it will hear arguments that Steger should be put on trial for his actions during the 2007 campus massacre.

Attorneys for the families of two students who were among the 32 killed by  student Seung-Hui Cho want the court to hold Steger accountable for the delay in alerting the campus after the first two shootings. Cho killed himself after the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

The university cited Steger’s accomplishments during his tenure: Tech’s research portfolio increased by more than 300 percent; enrollment grew from 27,869 to 31,087; more than $1 billion was raised in private funding; and more than 2.5 million square feet of buildings were added.

“We sadly accept President Steger’s desire to step down as president,” said Tech’s rector, Mike Quillen, said in a statement.

Quillen said Steger has had a long and successful tenure "but we understand his desire to ratchet back the extraordinary commitment of a major university president.”

In the legal legacy of the mass shootings, the state Supreme Court in June is expected to hear a consolidated appeal of a negligence verdict reached in March 2012 in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

The parents of Erin Nicole Peterson and Julian K. Pryde were awarded $4 million each,  which was later reduced to the cap on damages against the state to $100,000 each. The state was the lone defendant in the trial.

The Supreme Court, which already had agreed to hear the state's appeal of the negligence verdict, did not explain its decision to hear the parents' arguments to include Steger in the case, which the justices had rejected in late February.

Steger initially had been named in the parents' lawsuit but was exempted before trial on a legal technicality.

With total compensation of $857,749, Steger is the best-paid of Virginia’s public university presidents and ranks seventh nationally on a Chronicle of Higher Education report  on salaries of top executives at public institutions.

 Blogger’s Comment: Steger is “suddenly” stepping down because Virginia Tech does not want the bad publicity associated with its president being tried for his role in the April 16, 2007 massacre.

DID TECH POLICE CHIEF COMMIT PERJURY?

The failure to warn the Virginia Tech campus on April 16, 2007 following the double homicide at West Ambler Johnston Hall hangs like a cloud of shame over Virginia Tech and haunts the victims’ families.

Now, details have come to light indicating that Virginia Tech Police Wendell Flinchum may have committed perjury.

The chief testified on March12, 2012, in the lawsuit brought against the school by the Pryde and Peterson families, that he did not recall having any discussion with the school president about warning the campus.

When asked, ”You had no discussion with him about whether or not the campus should be warned?” Flinchum replied, “Not that I recall.”

When asked, “He didn’t ask you for your advice or if the campus should be warned?” The chief responded, “If he did, I don’t remember.”

Two different note takers at the meeting tell a different story. Lisa Wilkes wrote, “… (a) lockdown is not necessary.”  Kim O’Rourke wrote, “…(the) police don’t believe a lockdown is necessary at this time.”

An expert witnesses for the defense identified Chief Flinchum as “the on-the-scene commander” and the person giving the group the “on-going communications” about the crime. Flinchum was, then, the one who said a lockdown was not necessary.

Under oath, Flinchum admitted there was no “person of interest” at 7:30 am, one of the reasons the school gave for not warning. The chief confirmed there was “no person of interest” until sometime around 8:30 am. Therefore, an hour into the crime and only a select few knew that a killer was on the loose and could be on the campus.

At a press conference some 12 hours after the shootings, Tech President Steger gave the 7:30 am time as part of the excuse for not warning. Chief Flinchum was there and said nothing. 

Doing Nothing is Not an Option

The Connecticut massacre defies description; it takes your breath away; it is a nightmare. Actions to prevent the slaughter of innocent children and adults cannot wait—the time is now for calm, non-partisan thinking and action.

There are things we can do here on the Northern Neck. First, we cannot allow our elected officials to run and hide from the needed, candid conversation. Second, we must make increased mental health a basic part of the solution.

Virginia has suffered two school shootings. Yet, in many respects our schools are no safer than before April 17, 2007. We need to talk calmly; we need to reject violence in every form. But here in the Northern Neck we elect an official arrested for domestic abuse, some have bumper stickers—“locked and loaded,” others scream and yell breaking up political discussions.

Elected officials often won’t communicate with the family of a school-shooting victim; specifically, Congressman Robert Wittman and state Delegate Margaret Ransone. Since the murder of our daughter-in-law, I have spent considerable money and time to help make our schools safer, I have written two books addressing the subject and I am co-writing another with the Virginia Tech families.

I have written both Wittman and Ransone with questions and comments on school safety. Both have at least two families with members who have been killed or wounded on college campuses—but that apparently counts for nothing. Ransone simply never answers. Wittman either never answers or his office obfuscates. Defending the Second Amendment and keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill are not mutually exclusive.

If the politicians won’t even talk about what needs to be done to prevent mass murders--nothing will be done. Nothing is not an option; the slaughter of 20 beautiful little children and six wonderful adults is proof of that. 

VIRGINIA TECH FOIA REQUEST

December 10, 2012

Mr. Larry Hincker

Vice President University Relations

315-F Burruss Hall (0229)

Blacksburg, Va. 22482

Re: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr. Hincker:

At the suggestion of Lynda Turrieta-McLeod, FOIA Administrator, Attorney General’s Office, I am submitting the following requests to you.

1. Would you send me all documents pertaining to the amount of money spent by Virginia Tech in appealing the Department of Education’s ruling that Virginia Tech violated the Clery Act?

2. Would you also send me any documents in possession showing payments or contributions to payments by any individuals, organizations, or foundations on behalf of Virginia Tech in the appeals process?

Thanking you in advance,

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                    David Cariens, Jr.

                                                                                    

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INADEQUATE RESPONSE

           

            The Attorney General’s Office response to my Freedom of Information request pertaining to the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech is--not to release any documents. This lack of transparency regarding school shootings in Virginia is the norm and raises troubling questions. Consistently, pertinent information to these crimes has not been shared with investigators or the public.

            The failure of the State Police and the ATF to give documents concerning Seung-Hui Cho’s gun purchases to the Governor’s Review Panel Report means a critical part of the puzzle is missing for both investigators and the public.

            This pattern of not sharing vital information to people investigating school shootings is all too frequent in Virginia. At the time of the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law, the police and Attorney General’s office refused to make information public pertaining to a threat that one of the victims received.

            Now, the Attorney General’s office refuses to make public any documents pertaining to its hiring of Dr. Dennis Mileti as an expert consultant for the state in the Pryde and Peterson trial. So, the question remains, why was Mileti paid over $27,000.00 in consultation fees? He appears to posses few if any qualifications to give expert testimony on mass shootings. Was this some sort of ‘ole boy’ network at work? I am really at a loss to see what Mileti could supply that is worth $27,000.00.

            If you look at Mileti’s biography he specializes in natural disasters, earthquakes, and volcanoes. The Attorney General did not call him to testify. Here is Mileti’s biography:

            Dr. Mileti is Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he served as Chair of the Department of Sociology and as Director of the Natural Hazards Center—the U.S.’s national clearinghouse for social and behavioral science research on hazards and disasters.

            Dr. Mileti is the author of more than 100 publications, most of which are on the societal aspects of hazards and disasters. His book Disasters by Design summarized and assessed knowledge in all disciplines and U.S. national policy for hazards and disasters. He was the founder and coeditor-in-chief of the all-hazards and all-disciplines journal Natural Hazards Review.

            He has served on a variety of advisory boards, including the Committee on Natural Disasters in the National Research Council; the Board of Visitors to FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute; the Board of Directors of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; the Advisory Board to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Research Program on Earthquakes and Volcanoes; the Expert Advisory Panel for the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s study of evacuation of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11; the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Expert Panel for the Army Corps of Engineers’ assessment of the New Orleans levee failures, for which he was given the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal by the Department of the Army; and as a member of the California Seismic Safety Commission. Dr. Mileti is currently a member of the START Center at the University of Maryland, which is a Department of Homeland Security National Center of Excellence for research on terrorism. He also serves on the NRC’s Committee to Evaluate the U.S.’s National Tsunami Warning Program and on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Here is the response from the Attorney General’s office:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Office of the Attorney General

December 6, 2012

David Cariens

Kilmarnock, Virginia 22482

            Re:  Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr. Cariens;

            This office is in receipt of your request for records made in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, 2.2-3700 et seq.

            You have asked for several different categories of documents pertaining to Dr. Dennis Mileti, an expert witness retained to testify in the Pryde and Petersen trial. You requested the “document review” itemized by Dr. Mileti as well as Dr. Mileti’s review of “documents from their expert,” “Laughery deposition and attachments,” and Dr. MIleti’s review of “Morva documents.”

            Counsel’s communications with Dr. Mileti including counsel’s requests that Dr. Mileti review certain documents were done in anticipation of litigation, and were made for use during litigation. They reflect counsel’s legal theories and constitute the work product of defense counsel. These materials are work product prepared for use in litigation and will be withheld pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3705 (3) which creates an exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act for such work product.

            Dr. Mileti’s “write up of draft opinions,” notes of telephone conversations with Ed.  Spencer, Kim O’Rourke, Lisa Wilkes and attorneys, and the unobtrusive indicators study are not in the possession of this Office. Furthermore, and such documents created by Dr. Mileti for use in litigation constitute work product which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3705.1 (3).

            “Deposition guidance for our attorneys,” “bibliography preparation for deposition” and any notes, records or documents related to “position plan development,” were created by Dr. Mileti for use in the litigation and they constitute work product which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3075.1 (3).

            None of the documents you refer to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of your letter of November 26, 2012 are in the possession of this office.

            All of the documents that you have requested relate to an expert witness retained to testify in a lawsuit. As such, these materials, which approximate 500 pages, constitute “work product complied specifically for use in litigation” pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3705.1 (3). For this reason, these documents will not be released.

                                                                      Sincerely,

                                                                           signed

                                                                      Peter R. Messitt

                                                                      Senior Assistant Attorney General

Rebutting Bowes

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Letter-to-the-Editor

Editor:

The recent article by Mark Bowes on gun sales and reduced crimes may be a classic example of manipulation of the facts. First, the Times-Dispatch asked VCU Professor Thomas Baker to do their research. Baker studied under pro-gun Professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz at Florida State. The paper apparently wanted the end result to be pro-gun rights. There are scholars whose research is not tainted by past associations. Second, the spike in Virginia gun sales is probably an anomaly directly attributable to the hysteria (fed by manufacturers and gun shop owners to increase sales) that President Obama is going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Therefore the results (and conclusions) are skewed.

The Times-Dispatch has retreated from the outstanding investigative journalism done in connection with the shooting at Virginia Tech. The paper now outsources its work. With the departure of reporter David Ress, the Times-Dispatch apparently has not found anyone to carry on his hard-hitting research and writing.

David Cariens

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING THE PRYDE/PETERSON LAWSUIT

In reviewing the expenses incurred by the Virginia Attorney General’s office incurred in connection with the Pryde/Peterson trial, I came across a puzzling bill for over $27,000.00 for an “expert” in earthquake and natural disasters. I have therefore filed a Freedom of Information request to determine how and why the state used Dr. Mileti.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli

Office of the Attorney General

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Va. 23219

REF: Freedom of Information Request

Attorney General Cuccinelli:

Dr. Dennis Mileti was paid $27,097.64 for his expertise in connection with Pryde and Peterson trial, according to Mileti’s itemized expenses provided to me by your office on July 12, 2012. Please provide me all written documents, notes, and materials referred to in Dr. Mileti’s invoices dated July 30, 2011, August 29, 2011, September 29, 2011, February 22, 2012, and March 15, 2012. I would specifically like the package to include, but not be limited to, the following:

1.     All written documents and notes pertaining to his teleconferences with all attorneys, as well as with Kim O’Rourke, and Lisa Wilkes. The Write-up of draft opinions referred to in Dr. Mileti’s invoice for the period of July 13, 2011-July 28, 2011.

2.     All written material pertaining to Dr. Mileti’s “document review and opinion formulation.”

3.     The deposition “guidance preparation for our attorneys” referred to in the August 29, 2011 invoice.

4.     All notes, records, and documents related to the “position plan development” referred to in the invoice dated September 29, 2011.

5.     The “scope unobtrusive indicators study” referred to in the February 22, 2012 invoice, as well as all notes and documents from the “unobtrusive indicator teleconference w/Ed Spence” referred to in the same invoice.

6.     All documents and notes referred to by “case preparation” in the March 15, 2012 invoice.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

                                                                                    Yours sincerely,

                                                                                   

                                                                                    David Cariens