Step One: Label the offending employee a “rogue”
During Dean Garris’ review of this matter, a senior administrator in the Office of Admission disclosed that he had been solely responsible for falsely reporting SAT statistics since 2005.
Step Two: Ignore any institutional benefits from said “rogue” behavior/minimize any institutional incentives or performance pressures that might contribute to employees' natural tendencies to engage in misconduct that provides them with no direct benefits
First, the individual has taken full responsibility and has resigned his position from the College effective immediately.
Step Three: Retain high-profile legal counsel
Second, we have engaged outside legal counsel from O’Melveny & Myers to complete an independent review of our admission-related data processes.
Step Four: Launch an internal investigation/commit to strengthen the faulty internal controls such investigation will inevitably identify
Finally, we are reviewing our internal data gathering and reporting processes and will strengthen them to ensure that this type of conduct will not occur in the future.
And in related news, alleged UBS rogue trader Kweku Adoboli pled not guilty in court this week, generating fears that UBS may face fines for its conduct in the affair.
Full Claremont-McKenna letter from the president here. NPR story below. Prior related posts linked here.
I love the use of the term "rogue" for employees who do things like this, as though everyone knew he was dishonest but he was just so damn likable.
"Oh, we really should have checked up on his numbers; they sounded too good to be true. But he'd always tell us not to worry with that mysterious foreign accent. We always thought it was like the way he seemed to know all the local drug dealers and arms merchants: just part of his charm."
Hilarious, James — better than the OP.
And how much was the rogue employee paid in severance and was there a confidentiality clause?
Good questions, Bill