Fresno State Title IX coordinator Jamie Pontius-Hogan is no longer in the department following a restructuring of an understaffed unit that was found to be lacking in its intake, investigations and record keeping by multiple independent investigations into how the university responded to sexual harassment and discrimination claims.
Pontius-Hogan, however, remains employed at the university, transitioning to a role as director of administrative operations. Erin Boele, the campus director of student housing and deputy Title IX coordinator, also has been removed from her Title IX position. She remains in the campus housing department.
The university declined to comment on the changes to the administration of its Title IX office, which is charged with coordinating the university’s compliance with the 1972 federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding. At Fresno State, the department oversaw all complaints of sexual discrimination, harassment and misconduct involving students and employees.
Title IX operations at the university, as well as the Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (DHR) department, are now part of the Office of Compliance and Civil Rights and under the direction of newly-hired Anne Githae, assistant vice president for compliance and civil rights. Githae comes to Fresno State from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., where she was assistant vice president for institutional equity and the deputy Title IX coordinator.
The Office of Compliance and Civil Rights remains part of the university’s division of administration and finance led by vice president of administration Debbie Adishian-Astone, who also oversees human resources, the university police and a number of other campus departments.
Fresno State was the flash point for recent sexual harassment and discrimination scandals in the 23-campus California State University system, ultimately leading to the resignation of former chancellor Joseph I. Castro.
The university was criticized for a failure to properly address complaints of sexual harassment, bullying and retaliation by Frank Lamas, the former former vice president of student affairs. Lamas had a close personal relationship with Castro, who was the president at Fresno State at the time. A report commissioned by the CSU by Los Angeles-based attorney Mary Lee Wegner found Castro exhibited a blind spot to allegations against Lamas, who left the university with a $260,000 settlement and promise of letters of recommendation.
The report also found the university received nine complaints of inappropriate conduct by Lamas and while it took action to address those reports, only some of its responses complied with CSU’s policy against sexual harassment and discrimination. The audit also found poor record keeping and other deficiencies in the university’s response to those allegations.
The law firm Cozen O’Connor , which conducted an assessment of Title IX and DHR programs in the wider California State University system, recommended Fresno State combine its Title IX and DHR departments to streamline the university’s response to sexual harassment and discrimination cases.
The department remains understaffed, but it has an open posting for an intake coordinator, whose duties will include assessing initial reports of violations of CSU’s nondiscrimination policies and providing resolution options. It also has plans to recruit a prevention/education coordinator.
The California State Auditor, which investigated harassment complaints made against CSU employees at Fresno State, San Jose State and Sonoma State and the chancellor’s office from 2016-22, found a number of deficiencies in how cases were handled.
The cases of alleged sexual harassment in the report were not identified by campus, but it said there were 40 reviewed by the auditor — 12 on one campus, 11 on another, 10 on a third and seven on the fourth. The auditor found issues at all four campuses. In 11 of the 15 cases that were closed at intake, the auditor found further investigation might have been warranted and that the campuses did not document a clear rationale for its decisions not to proceed.
There were also other issues related to documentation and whether complainants, who are potential victims, were contacted by investigators.
The auditor also found significant issues with seven of the cases that were investigated, raising questions about campus rulings that sexual harassment had not occurred. There was at least one such case on each of the four campuses investigated. There also were instances when a campus was found to not have made reasonable attempts to gather all relevant evidence, and failed to appropriately weigh the evidence to determine whether the alleged conduct had occurred.
The auditor found that nearly two-thirds of the investigations it reviewed exceeded the time frames for completion that were established by the CSU and that the campuses did not consistently take any disciplinary action to address the employee’s behavior.
Most Popular
Comments / 0