This investigation contains strong language and sexual topics that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Since launching in 2022, Inside Investigator has taken a close look at physical and sexual abuse by faculty, staff, and students in higher education, as well as the accountability processes in each of the state’s public colleges and universities.

On September 23, 2023, our team submitted a FOIA request to each school in the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities (CSCU) system, as well as the University of Connecticut (UConn) and the Coast Guard Academy in New London, seeking “all records pursuant to any investigation into sexual misconduct of any faculty or staff member from January 1, 2018, to present.” We also requested “all disciplinary files for any individuals who were the subject of those investigations from any date, as well as any employment contracts or agreements those individuals may have signed.”

Our goal in making the request was to uncover just how rampant the issue is, how misconduct is handled, and the financial impact of sexual misconduct in higher education.

As of publication, 17 months later, UConn and the Coast Guard Academy have provided no documents, and CSCU Board of Regents officials have provided incomplete files. To ensure each university complies with FOIA and is publicly transparent, Inside Investigator has filed complaints with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).

From the records provided by CSCU officials so far, we know that 18 sexual misconduct investigations have been opened by CSCU since 2018. Seven occurred at Southern Connecticut State University (SCSU), four occurred at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU), two occurred at Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) and Three Rivers Community College, respectively, and one occurred at both Manchester Community and Capital Community Colleges, respectively. 

The allegations underlined in each investigation range greatly in severity; for example, one investigation was made after students reported a joke made in poor taste, while others involved college professors and faculty members accused of stalking, making unwanted sexual advances, disparaging sexual comments, or even having full-blown sexual relationships with their students. 

Some of these investigations have already received media attention, such as in the cases of CCSU theater professors Joshua Perlstein and Thomas Delventhal, who were let go after being accused of sleeping with students, encouraging sexually suggestive performances in their classes, and making inappropriate or derogatory comments to students. Mark Parrott, a former residence director at SCSU, is another such example. Parrott was fired and criminally charged after sexually assaulting a student. 

The files Inside Investigator has received thus far show that there have been several investigations made since these stories broke that have not received media attention. Among the files yet to be provided are letters of reprimand, supporting documentation, and even final punishments issued by the school, having been left out by CSCU officials.

Ultimately, CSCU’s files, incomplete as they may be, have allowed Inside Investigator the most in-depth view so far of how the school system investigates incidents of sexual misconduct, what factors impact administrators’ ability to discipline staff members with substantiated accusations of misconduct, and how much these incidents cost Connecticut taxpayers.

The first thing to note when evaluating the investigation files is the fact that there were very few cases in which staff were fired outright.  Otto Erazo, a former janitor at Three Rivers Community College, was a rare exception to this rule. He was accused of touching a female student’s rear end “like a baseball pat,” and was “separated from employment.” Investigators saw camera footage of the incident, and it was not his first misconduct case, having been reported twice prior in 2015.

“Why wasn’t anything done before with him?,” the student asked investigators upon being interviewed. “Why do I have to be the example for his behavior?” Per Erazo’s report, the student “started crying following these statements.”

In some cases, the punishment doled out by CSCU is unclear, as no disciplinary documents were provided. One such case is Frank Capellan, a former Spanish professor at SCSU.  SCSU’s Office of Diversity and Equity Programs (ODE) opened an investigation into Capellan on Sept. 23, 2019. 

The investigation centered around allegations made by a female student who would frequently visit Capellan to practice Spanish with him during the Spring 2019 semester. The student said that during these visits, Capellan frequently made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature. He would ask about her love life and ask her on dates, stating to her that “he felt a connection between them – a real connection, not just as a friend.”

He allegedly wrote his cell number on the class board before Spring Break and told the student after class “that he wrote the number up there for her.” He asked her to walk with him as he left for the parking lot, and when she asked whether he was taking her to his car, he replied, “You are just figuring it out now?” When Capellan discovered that she had once asked others about his age, he asked her why and “acted as if it was a way of her showing interest in him.”

The student told investigators that “she was growing more and more upset and fearful of rejection during the term.” She acknowledged that “she has a hard time rejecting people,” and said that “she did not want him feeling bad and that it made it very difficult to say, ‘Leave me alone.’”

Growing increasingly anxious and fearful of what may follow if she outright rejected Capellan’s advances, the student went to see Dr. Evans, but “could not bring herself to give any of the details about Mr. Capellan.” She eventually confided in two friends, who were also students at SCSU. They encouraged her to report Capellan, but “she feared what the consequences to her might be and she did not want to see him lose his job.” She “felt very conflicted and under great stress.”

Her friends suggested she try to tell Capellan that she was asexual, or experienced very little sexual attraction to others, to ward off his attempts at pursuing her. She took this advice, but it did not dissuade Capellan.

Instead, Capellan proceeded to ask her, “whether she had kissed a boy, whether she had given anyone a blowjob, whether she masturbated, whether she was interested in being naked in front of each other.” Capellan went as far to tell her that he “liked her ‘kitty clean,’” and gave her his cell number.

Capellan reportedly later texted the student that he had “done some research and needed to meet her in person.” The student decided she would meet him in a public place, a Panera in Hamden, to tell him that she didn’t want to speak to him again. When they met, he allegedly asked her to join him on a trip to the Dominican Republic, took a sip of her drink, and took a lollipop out of her mouth and put it in his own. He then asked her to take it back, to which she responded that “she did not give a fuck what he wanted.”

Capellan allegedly continued to text the student after the incident, and that upon her return to campus next semester, her anxiety reached a climax. 

“She became more and more uncomfortable and anxious about what had happened,” read the report. “Just walking down the hall made her upset. She finally went back to Dr. Evans.”

Capellan was notified by Paula Rice, SCSU’s ODE Director, of the investigation that was opened into him on Oct. 1. Capellan declined union representation and was himself interviewed by investigators. He apparently tried to attack the student’s character to discredit her allegations, claiming he thought she might be “unstable.”

“His response to the allegations was an absolute denial,” reads the report. “He acted surprised at the allegations as they were related [relayed], as if he had never heard them before. When asked about whether he asked Complainant for dates, he responded that such requests would be improper and denied having made them. He did state that she told him that she was asexual and at that point, he asked if she had a boyfriend. He explained that he asked to see how she knew that she was asexual.”

When asked about the Hamden meeting, Capellan tried to tell investigators that “he did not know where Hamden is,” and that he had never met with her outside of school. He denied ever asking her to accompany him on his trip to the Dominican Republic and ever texting her and said that since he often left his phone with his parents, that “maybe something happened,” despite later saying that he didn’t even have her phone number.

The investigators conducted additional interviews with the two friends the student confided in, who both confirmed many of the allegations she made, as well as the impact that Capellan’s advances had on her emotional state. Investigators also interviewed a coworker of Capellan’s at his suggestion, Dr. Sandra Torres, an adjunct professor who had worked at SCSU for 15 years by that time. She recalled seeing the student in Capellan’s office twice that semester and recalled Capellan calling her once to tell her that the student told him “she hears voices in her apartment.”

Even though there were no direct witnesses to Capellan’s alleged behavior, and the student told investigators that she had deleted the messages Capellan sent to her, the investigators found the student’s version of events to be “more credible” than Capellan’s. 

Many of Capellan’s own claims were refuted by Torres, who he himself called as a witness. He told investigators that he had asked Torres to sit in with him for his office hours with the student after the third week of the semester, which Torres denied. 

“Dr. Capellan’s response to the complaint and its allegations were not believable,” read the report. “It appeared at times that Dr. Capellan would just spout out an answer that he thought could remove the issue from consideration, without really thinking the answer through. His attitude of surprise and shock at the allegations appeared almost a show for our benefit than a genuine reaction.” 

Furthermore, investigators pointed out the irregularity in his story regarding his claim that his parents could have possibly texted the student, while also denying having ever had her number, and found it doubtful that he could not have known where Hamden is located, given the fact that he grew up in Hartford and himself attended SCSU.

While Capellan’s file did not include any documents outlining the disciplinary actions taken against him by SCSU, the report did say that “the credible evidence” indicates that Capellan violated the school’s sexual harassment policies. A quick scan of SCSU’s Department of World Languages and Literature’s faculty page implies that he is no longer employed by the school, but CSCU officials have yet to provide the requested documentation.

While letting Capellan go after such an investigation may seem to be a no-brainer, investigation files into Prof. Richard Thayer, an associate professor at Gateway Community College, revealed that the punishments doled out by CSCU for substantiated claims of sexual misconduct can vary wildly.

Thayer, an Associate Professor in Gateway’s Radiation Tech program, was reported by “multiple former students” in Sept. 2021 for engaging in “flirtatious behaviors to students enrolled in his course, sending images of the male genitalia to at least two students, engaging in a romantic/sexual relationship with students while they were enrolled in his class, fraternizing and drinking socially with students while they were enrolled in his class, using his personal phone as a primary source of communication with students.” 

While these claims were substantiated by witnesses, both the letter of reprimand issued to Thayer by Gateway, as well as the fact that he still has a faculty page on Gateway’s website, indicate that he is still employed by the school.

Gateway’s investigators interviewed 26 witnesses, 20 of them current students and six of them former at the time of Thayer’s investigation. Two of them said that around May 2018, Thayer began hanging out with students at a bar after classes.

Another two witnesses reported going to a bar and having drinks with him in April 2019. Thayer was reported to be the only faculty present, and it is also alleged that he bought the class alcohol. Another witness said that Thayer invited her and four or five other students to a high school baseball game and said that they drank with Thayer at the game and at a bar afterwards.

Thayer was accused by one student of “trying to pretend to hide consuming alcohol while tutoring during a WebEx study session.” Another student said that Thayer sent them a text of the study group drinking wine during a study session. Thayer allegedly advised the student who sent the text that “he would change the start time of the class the next day because they would ‘probably be hung over.’” The next day, the class allegedly began two hours later than usual.

Four other students reported Thayer for attempting sexual contact with them. One student said they received a text containing “a sexual joke,” and two others allegedly received photos of his genitals. Of the two who were sent photos, one ceased contact with him, while the other “reported engaging in a sexual and romantic relationship” with him. In Spring 2018, Thayer allegedly ran into a male and female student out at a bar and invited them back to his home.

“While in Thayer’s home, the male classmate pulled this witness’s pants down and Thayer began spanking her bare buttocks,” read the report.

Another student reported that they overheard stories that Thayer attended a strip club with two students, one male and one female. This witness said they saw postings of this outing on Snapchat, but that she was not sure whether the students were current or former at that time.

All 26 witnesses reported that Thayer told his students to “use his personal cell phone and the use of text messages” to communicate with him. This behavior not only violated the school’s communication policies but also gave Thayer the ability to make inappropriate contact with students in a manner that couldn’t be monitored by the school.

The investigative report also noted the numerous ways in which he violated university policy to stonewall the investigators’ inquiries. Per the report, Thayer attempted to reach out to two students via Facebook Messenger on Sept. 11, 2021, after being notified of the investigation by school officials on Sept. 9 and being placed on administrative leave on Sept. 10. 

One of these students provided investigators with a screenshot of the message Thayer sent them and told investigators Thayer had also attempted to call them earlier that day. This attempt at contacting students who were witnesses in the investigation is a direct violation of the school’s investigation policy.

“While Thayer denied engaging in this conduct, the investigators find Thayer to be less than truthful in answering this statement based on witness accounts and material evidence,” read the report. “The investigators further find that more likely than not these actions may have had a chilling effect on people’s reporting.”

In addition to Thayer’s ostensible attempts at witness tampering during the investigation, investigators also found Thayer to have likely attempted to dodge their questioning by ducking an interview with them at a pre-agreed date and time and then falsifying his timesheet afterward. Thayer said he was unable to make the interview or reschedule for another time that week “because he was helping a friend with an online bartending class and was planning to use accrued time for the entire week.”

The report said that while Thayer was on paid administrative leave, he was “expected to be available.” Thayer claimed he couldn’t make the interview during that week because he “did not receive the notice.” After HR reviewed Thayer’s timesheet for that week, they found that he originally reported using two sick days without preapproval and used regular time on the date he told investigators he was unavailable to meet with them. 

“Once notified of this, Thayer resubmitted his timesheet to reflect the time off,” read the report.

Although investigators substantiated all the claims alleged against him, Thayer appears to have only received a Letter of Reprimand.

The letter, sent to him on Feb. 23, 2022, first thanked Thayer for his “patience and cooperation” throughout the investigation process before proceeding to hammer him for his violation of the school’s investigation policies and the falsification of his timesheet.

“This behavior is unacceptable, and it is expected that you will immediately address this situation and that further discussions or investigations into such conduct will not be required,” read the letter. “You should also be aware that this letter shall serve as notice that any further misconduct will be viewed as unwillingness, rather than inability, to comply with reasonable expectations.”

Thayer was warned that “any additional incidents of this kind or other misconduct, if substantiated,” would be cause for “more severe disciplinary action, up to and including, suspension and dismissal.” Ultimately, Thayer’s reprimand stipulated that his paid administrative leave would end on Feb. 28, and he reported back to work on March 1, 2022.

Below you may find all responsive documents received via FOIA from CSCU officials. Inside Investigator has redacted several names that appear to identify complainants or witnesses in several investigations. In order to protect personally identifiable information and the identity of witnesses who may have spoken confidentially, we have added these additional redactions. These documenents contain additional strong language and sexual topics that may not be appropriate for all readers.

One of the conundrums revealed by CSCU’s files, perhaps best exemplified by Thayer’s case, is the question of when schools find it fit to let staff members go. While Thayer makes the notable distinction of being the only staff member of those provided via FOIA still employed by CSCU, other investigations reveal the several ‘second chances’ given to staff members, such as in the cases of Khoon Koh, Donna Nicholson, Daniel Tauber, Byron Lembo-Frey, and Mihai Bailesteanu.

Koh, a professor of marketing at CCSU, was alleged to have “made numerous comments of a sexual nature including discussing the sexual position of ‘69’ and ‘golden showers’” in class. He was also alleged to have “referenced a statistic regarding males and hemorrhoids,” on “numerous occasions” and “proceeded to ask male students to remove their pants to see if they had hemorrhoids.” In addition, he was alleged to have made racially disparaging remarks, would discuss student grades in front of his class, would compare the performance of one of his marketing classes to others, and would refuse to adapt his teaching style to accommodate student needs.

“At the beginning of the course, Koh allegedly told students if they didn’t like his teaching style, they could switch classes as he was not going to adjust,” read Koh’s report. “Koh said he has only known of four faculty who have been fired. [The student] took these accounts as a “message” that Koh could behave in this way as he was protected from any adverse administrative action.”

Nicholson, a former criminal justice professor at Manchester Community College (MCC), was investigated for similar allegations; she was accused of denying students their American with Disabilities Act accommodations, of making sexually harassing and racially disparaging remarks, and telling students they could not use the bathroom unless they were menstruating. Nicholson would frequently appear late to her own classes and left one week for a cruise without giving notice to, or receiving preapproval from, MCC officials.

Both Nicholson and Koh were given similar punishments. Nicholson received five days of unpaid suspension, Koh received ten.  Nicholson was to be placed on paid administrative leave for the rest of the semester. Upon her return, Nicholson would be made to meet with various administrative officials to “discuss college policies and identify ways to improve your [her] communication efforts” and, both her and Koh were required to perform a ‘Fit for Duty’ assessment. 

Both were ultimately fired after being given their second chances. Nicholson was fired after she continued to show up late for classes and proved insufficient at communicating with her students and staff, as well as for calling out a student she thought filed the initial complaints against her.  Koh for “offensive and discriminatory behavior in the classroom and continued creation of a hostile learning environment,” and violating a last chance agreement, which is absent from the files CSCU sent.

Lembo-Frey, a janitor at SCSU, was accused of repeatedly stalking a female student over the course of three semesters, going out of his way to hang around places she frequented even if they were out of the course of his assigned cleaning duties that day. He allegedly attempted to engage her in conversations at her place of work on campus, her dormitory common room, and other unspecified on-campus buildings, despite her lack of shown interest. 

According to Lembo-Frey’s termination letter, he was made to sign a “last chance Stipulated Agreement,” and was let go after he “failed to comply with the terms,” resulting in “three instances of serious misconduct.” That agreement was not provided by CSCU officials via FOIA. 

Bailesteanu, an associate professor of mathematical sciences at CCSU, was alleged to have subjected a student to “unwelcome romantic advances and inappropriate physical contact including, but not limited to, kissing her on the cheek and forehead and hugging her on numerous occasions.” He frequently engaged the student in conversations of a sexual nature, asking “whether she was a virgin or used birth control.”

The disciplinary response to Bailesteanu’s investigation is especially confusing and not readily explained by CSCU’s files. Bailesteanu was first notified that CCSU would not be renewing his associate professor placement on May 31, 2018, before the completion of his investigation on June 8. This letter stipulated that his final appointment would end on May 31, 2019. 

He received a letter of reprimand because of the investigation on June 21, 2018, yet was then notified on Oct. 10, 2018, that he would, in fact, have his employment renewed for the 2018-2019 academic year. Finally, on May 31, 2019, Bailesteanu was told his contract would not be renewed for the following year, and that his employment would terminate on May 31, 2020. It is unclear what, if any, factors played into the decision by university officials.

Daniel Tauber, an EMS instructor at Capital Community College, was found to have sexually harassed students, misused his school email, released student data, made a sexual comment to one student, and engaged in a sexual relationship with a student. Tauber was originally fired after the conclusion of his investigation but was able to win his job back after filing a grievance through his union (The Federation of Technical College Teachers). Upon his reinstatement, he immediately retired, preserving his taxpayer-funded retirement benefits in the process.

Tauber’s ability to regain employment and retire with benefits highlights perhaps the largest obstacle facing college administrators’ attempts to dole out discipline: the grievance process afforded to faculty members via their collective bargaining agreements.

Faculty members included in the investigation belonged to a variety of unions, but the two most common, and seemingly powerful in their capability to represent accused staff members, are the Connecticut Congress of Community Colleges (4Cs) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). While 4Cs pertains only to community college employees within the state of Connecticut and has over 4,000 members, AAUP is a nationwide union, and as of 2022, represents tens of thousands of professors at over 500 colleges.

Per the 4Cs’ agreement, grievances can be filed by employees within 30 days of any such act perpetrated by the college that they believe violates their rights as outlined in their bargaining agreement. A level one grievance is submitted to the President of the college to review. The president will meet with the aggrieved staff member to settle the grievance within 14 days of its filing. If the staff member is still dissatisfied, they have another ten days to file a level two grievance, which is then to be reviewed by CSCU’s President, who will meet with the aggrieved within 21 days of their receipt of the grievance.

If the grievance is not adequately put to bed by CSCU’s President, the issue will then be put before a mediation panel staffed by four mediators, two of which are selected by the school and two by the union. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement before the mediation panel, the panel will then write a recommendations report to be submitted to CSCU’s President, who will be given an additional 14 days to make a decision.

If the staff member is still dissatisfied at this point, they then have the right to bring the decision before an arbitrator. They have an additional 30 days to submit their request for arbitration after the level two or mediation panel decision, or, if a decision isn’t made by the deadline outlined within the agreement, within 30 days of when the answer was supposed to be given, “whichever is later.” The arbitrator will have an additional 30 days to rule after the close of arbitration meeting or submission of briefs by both sides, again, “whichever is later.”

If that process seems lengthy, AAUP’s agreement with CSCU is even longer. Not only does it follow a similar two-level grievance system, but it also stipulates that grievances must be brought before two mediation panels, not just one, before grievances are brought before an arbitrator. Furthermore, AAUP’s bargaining agreement outlines specific agreed upon punishments for certain offenses, as well as an entirely separate, also lengthy process for cases in which the school seeks to fire a professor outright.

Some of the concessions afforded to professors in the disciplinary process are lopsided; for example, if CSCU wishes to fire a professor for abandoning their duties without notice, the absentee professor has up to three months before they’re able to be fired outright by CSCU. If they return within three months, their firing will have to be referred through the full discipline process.

If a professor is determined by investigators to be a “danger to persons or property,” the school can “immediately suspend the member with pay.” Only if the professor is arrested or incarcerated can they be suspended without pay for the duration of their incarceration, and even then, the professors are “immediately placed back on the payroll” upon release. Furthermore, even after incarceration, if the school wishes to suspend the professor, it will be paid suspension. If the school doesn’t decide to pursue disciplinary action against the formerly incarcerated professor within 30 days of their release, the professor is then automatically owed “all of his/her salary that had been withheld and he/she made whole.”

If CSCU decides to fire a professor represented by AAUP, the matter must first be brought before a mediation committee who have two weeks to come to a resolution. The professor can then request a meeting before a Termination Committee, which must schedule a meeting 6-8 weeks after the professor makes a request.

Once the termination committee decides upon a date, it must provide it to both parties at least two weeks in advance. The termination committee consists of three AAUP union officials, three Board of Regents (BOR) appointees, and three independent arbitrators. The two sides appoint a hearing officer via a bipartisan selection process to lead the proceedings. After they conclude, the committee has seven days to issue a recommendation to the BOR President. 

If the president agrees with the rulings or imposes a lesser punishment, the professor has no further recourse. If the president decides to impose a harsher punishment, the professor again has 10 days to appeal, throwing both parties back to step three or step four of the grievance process, which puts the appeal either before the grievance arbitration committee or before independent arbitrators. Essentially, if the termination council makes a ruling short of firing, the president is faced with an even longer process if they insist on doing so.

Upon evaluation of these lengthy grievance processes, it’s easier to understand why so many disciplinary processes end in stipulated agreements. Very few of the investigations made it every step of the way through the disciplinary or grievance processes laid out by their respective unions. In fact, the only case which appears to have made it all the way to arbitration was Delventhal’s, who was represented by AAUP. CCSU officials attempted to fire both Delventhal and Perlstein for months after the conclusion of their investigations but with no success. Perlstein was brought before the termination committee, while Delventhal was shortly reinstated by arbitrators, and both proceeded to “resign” per the terms of their stipulated agreements.

“It has been a long process, especially for the sexual assault survivors and the Theatre Department students and faculty,” said CCSU President Zulma R. Toro at the time, per CT Mirror. “The investigation and termination proceedings have been frustrating and challenging, but we are moving forward.” 

Investigation files revealed additional instances where administrators’ original punishments were similarly reduced via stipulated agreements.  Nicholson, for example, was originally given notice of her termination on Dec. 5, 2019. In the letter, she was also notified that her last day of “active coverage for healthcare benefits” would be Dec. 31. 

Fast forward to Jan. 8, 2020, Nicholson, who was represented by 4Cs, entered into an agreement with CCSU that gave her an additional 8 months of paid administrative leave, with her termination being postponed to Aug. 1, 2020, and reclassified as a retirement. Furthermore, she was able to retain her state retirement and healthcare benefits. 

The agreement also stipulated that MCC “remove from Ms. Nicholson’s official personnel and professional documents referencing termination of her employment,” and provided that if a future employer contacted the school regarding Nicholson’s experience, MCC would only provide them with “Nicholson’s name, dates of employment, job title, and job duties.”

Robert Kirsch, a former business professor at SCSU, was given a similarly subtle sendoff via stipulated agreement. In 2023, Kirsch was accused of sexually harassing a fellow business professor, repeatedly making unwanted romantic advances, and sharing details regarding his own sexual health, much to the professor’s discomfort. Kirsch’s own stipulated agreement plainly lays out its intent to avoid AAUP’s lengthy disciplinary and grievance process.

“The purpose of this Agreement is to avoid expending unnecessary additional time and resources investigating concerns that have been brought to the University’s attention, and to help ensure an orderly transition in anticipation of Dr. Kirsch’s planned retirement,” read the agreement.

Per Kirsch’s agreement, signed by both parties on Feb. 20, 2024, he was allowed to retire by April 1 in return for the dropping of all further investigations into him. The agreement also stipulated that it would “not effect Dr. Kirsch’s eligibility for a retirement incentive, in the event that AAUP and the BOR agree to such an incentive and Dr. Kirsch meets the eligibility requirements.”

While there are several exemptions to FOIA, other laws also limit information that can be obtained. One of these is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a federal law passed in 1974, which has been incorporated into FOIA. 

Generally, the law requires that all educational institutions that receive federal funds—meaning the law applies to many private institutions as well as public ones—have a policy limiting the disclosure of education records without the prior approval of a student or guardian if the student is under 18.

But FERPA doesn’t prevent the disclosure of all records produced by schools —or at least it’s not intended to. Education records must satisfy several criteria: they must directly relate to a student and must be maintained by either an educational institution or someone acting on behalf of that institution. 

It’s the ‘directly relate’ element of FERPA that educational institutional agencies often get hung up on. And, either due to a misunderstanding of the law or as a cover to thwart transparency, in many cases, FERPA is used as a carte blanche to deny access to records. 

In other cases, even if access to records is granted, poor understanding of the law, whether intentional or not, leads to improper redactions that stymie accountability.

This is the case Inside Investigator finds itself in with CSCU’s FOIA response. In one document, the name of an author of an article published in CCSU’s student run newspaper, The Recorder, was redacted. Not only is this unnecessary since, as it was published, it’s easy to discover the information via the Internet, but it has no direct relationship to student records and isn’t maintained by the school.

References to what appear to be building names and references were also redacted, even though they don’t fit the definition of education records.

In records provided into WCSU’s investigation into Xavier Potter, a former coach at WCSU accused of sexually harassing one student athlete and engaging in sex acts with another, part of his title is redacted. A redaction log cited the portion of FOIA that incorporates FERPA. As Potter is staff, not a student, FERPA does not apply to him. Following an investigation into his conduct, Potter was notified that his employment contract would not be renewed, and he is no longer employed by WCSU.

The same document contains redactions, also citing FERPA, exempting the name of the sports team involved in the alleged incident. Again, this is not a record directly related to a student, and FERPA does not apply.

In other documents, things like students’ years of attendance are redacted, again citing FERPA.

But this fits into the category of directory information, which is not expressly exempt from disclosure under FERPA. This is information like a student’s name, date and place of birth, address, telephone number, attendance information, and membership in clubs and activities. Students or guardians can notify schools they do not want this information disclosed, but this information is disclosable as long as schools have informed them it will be.

Connecticut’s Board of Regents for Higher Education has designated the following categories of information as directory information:

Inside Investigator provided CSCU officials with a list of exemptions it believes improperly cite FERPA, but has not received a response.

FERPA also explicitly does not exempt the final results of disciplinary procedures or investigations into sexual assault or harassment, whether they are committed by students or students are the victims, from disclosure.

In addition to these apparent discrepancies, CSCU’s response to Inside Investigator’s FOIA is simply incomplete. Responsive documents—in many cases attachments to the final investigations that are referenced in the report—are missing. In other cases, previous disciplinary actions are referenced in the investigative files but were not turned over despite Inside Investigator’s request clearly seeking all related records.

Emails referenced as attachments in the investigation into Lembo-Frey were not included in the records Inside Investigator was provided. Other seemingly responsive documentation, including the last-chance stipulation agreement that led to Lembo-Frey’s dismissal, was also not provided.

The investigative files provided for Chevan also reference a letter of reprimand, a previous grievance, and an investigation letter. None of these documents were provided.

Exhibits attached to the investigative report into Daniel Pope, a lecturer in WCSU’s Writing, Linguistics and Creative Processes department accused of sexually harassing a student were also not turned over. Per the report, the exhibits were emails allegedly confirming Pope’s sexual relations with students. There are also no documents that show what disciplinary action, if any, was taken by WCSU in response to the investigation.

A stipulated agreement referenced in the investigation into Tauber was not part of the documents Inside Investigator received. 

In James Tait’s case, a former professor of Marine Sciences at SCSU, Inside Investigator was provided a letter of reprimand, which referenced an investigation into alleged violations of the school’s policies on sexual harassment and pluralism, but received no investigation report. The letter also referenced a meeting with union representatives to discuss the report’s findings. Documentation related to this was also not turned over. Per SCSU’s website, Tait passed away on April 6, 2021. 

In Nedejlko Mikac’s case, a former maintenance worker at SCSU who was accused of sexual harassment and stalking, Inside Investigator received a letter of discipline and a summary of the findings of an investigation into his conduct but not an actual investigative report or any other documentation related to complaints into his behavior. Mikac was given one day’s suspension without pay and agreed to retire on April 1, 2020.

CSCU indicated in documents it provided in Thayer’s case that it notified him it was investigating a complaint against him. However, it did not provide a copy of that letter to Inside Investigator.

In Kirsch’s case, emails referenced in the investigative report into his conduct were not turned over.

Disciplinary records are missing in a number of cases, likely because the identified staff resigned prior to discipline occurring. 

According to publicly available payroll data, all but one of the individuals investigated by CSCU are no longer employed by the community college system. But CSCU also did not provide any documentation of resignations or other ways in which employment was not renewed in a number of cases.

Inside Investigator has attempted to communicate with CSCU several times about this FOIA request. While CSCU released supplemental responsive documents in December 2024, it has not addressed any of Inside Investigator’s questions about redactions or missing documents responsive to the request. Inside Investigator has filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission due to CSCU’s failure to respond.

“We handle FOIA requests for 17 different campuses which requires a review of each document to determine if redactions need to be made or exemptions are applicable, whether the individual who is the subject of the record needs to be notified, and the particular request is likely not the only request being made and we attempt to handle them in the order in which they are received and processed in accordance with other workload and priorities,” said Norton when asked why CSCU takes so long to process records requests.

This would not be the first time a CSCU campus has failed to adequately respond to requests for information about sexual misconduct. In 2023, a deposition in a lawsuit against CCSU revealed that two cases of misconduct—including an alleged rape—were not included in a FOIA request for sexual misconduct by employees because they were handled by the Office of Student Conduct rather than by Human Resources.

CSCU also appears to have not included disciplinary investigation transparency for cases that involve non-student victims.

“Off campus matters of this type (domestic violence) that involve non-students are matters for the local police,” said Norton.

To date, five of the CSCU staff identified for sexual impropriety have received pension payments totaling $528,688.08. Pension payments totaled approximately $120,000 per year in 2023 and 2024.

That number is likely to grow, not only as those five individuals continue to collect payments, but as more former CSCU staff become eligible to collect pensions.

All but one of the individuals identified by the records CSCU provided Inside Investigator are no longer working for the community college system. Richard Thayer continues to draw a paycheck and is expected to be paid roughly $72,500 in 2025.

Many of the remaining individuals who are no longer employed by CSCU are eligible to collect a pension but are not yet at retirement age.

Under the State Employment Retirement System (SERS), state employees are generally eligible to receive pension payments when they reach a certain age so long as they completed a certain number of years of service.

Under SERS’ Tier II Plan, for example, employees who complete at least five years of service earn a nonforfeitable right to a retirement benefit, which they are able to receive at age 65 if they leave state service before attaining retirement age. If they completed ten years, they are eligible to receive pension payouts at age 55. 

This means that more of the former CSCU staff who left after sexual misconduct investigations are likely eligible to begin receiving pension payments in the coming years.  Upon being asked why professors often retain their pensions after being found guilty of sexual misconduct,  Samantha Norton, CSCU’s Communications Director, referred to Sec. 1-110a of the state’s general statutes.

Per the law, state employees can only have their pension revoked or reduced by request of the Attorney General, and after the state employee is found or pleads guilty to a qualifying crime.

But state-funded pensions aren’t the only way taxpayers assume costs associated with sexual misconduct investigations, even beyond the work hours of college administrators who handle these matters.

An investigation found it was “more than likely” Delventhal was guilty of sexual misconduct. Delventhal agreed to resign after disputes resulting from the investigation—documents related to the case which were not provided by CSCU—led to an arbitration case.

As part of the agreement, CCSU issued a $507,625 check to Delventhal and also footed a $17,375 bill for his lawyers. As part of the agreement, CCSU also promised to obtain a “withdrawal with prejudice and release of any and all claims made against Delventhal by Brooke Emigh.”

Emigh, who was a student in CCSU’s theater program, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging the university knew “for decades” about sexual misconduct in the department. Emigh alleged she suffered “severe and pervasive sexual harassment and emotional abuse” at Delventhal’s hands. She sought an unspecified amount in damages for various types of harm resulting from Delventhal’s alleged treatment of her.

The case was dismissed with prejudice in August 2020, days after CCSU entered into the stipulated agreement with Delventhal.

In several of the cases CSCU provided records for, investigators recommend training not just for the faculty member found guilty of sexual impropriety, but for their entire department.

The investigation report on Pope’s behavior, which found direct evidence of sexual harassment in five of the six counts against him, recommended not only professional development and Title IX training of the university policies he’d violated for Pope, but for all staff in the Department of Writing, Linguistics and Creative Processes. It further recommended the department chair and MFA coordinator create public announcements to share Title IX implications for social gatherings with faculty.

In addition to seeking records on sexual misconduct investigations from CSCU, Inside Investigator also submitted FOIA requests to UConn and the United States Coast Guard Academy.

At the time of publishing, Inside Investigator had not received anything beyond an acknowledgment of those requests.

But there are undoubtedly responsive documents to those requests, as other news outlets have documented cases of sexual misconduct at both academic institutions.

In 2023, the head of the UConn Police Department’s sex crimes unit was demoted and disciplined following allegations he inappropriately touched and made lewd comments around female employees.

According to annual data UConn is required to report to the legislature, in 2019, there were thirteen disciplinary investigations related to sexual assault, two related to stalking, and four into intimate partner violence (IPV). Six of those investigations resulted in disciplinary action like expulsion, probation, or suspension.

The number of investigations the university conducts each year has fluctuated. There were four investigations in 2020, one of which resulted in probation. In 2021, there were 14 investigations.

According to 2022 data, there were seven disciplinary investigations related to sexual assault, one related to stalking, and one related to IPV reported that year. Three of the cases involving sexual assault resulted in a suspension. The stalking case resulted in an expulsion or separation. The IPV case resulted in probation or a written warning.

In 2023, there were 10 investigations, with one resulting in expulsion or separation and one resulting in probation or a written warning.

The Coast Guard has also been the subject of recent media scrutiny after a congressional subpanel began investigating Operation Foul Anchor, an internal review of sexual misconduct cases that occurred at the Coast Guard Academy between 1990 and 2006. During that period, investigators reviewed 102 reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

Shannon Norenberg, the head of the academy’s sexual assault prevention initiative, resigned in June 2024. In a public statement, she alleged the Coast Guard directed her to lie to assault victims and to members of Congress.

Bills addressing how institutions of higher education handle investigations into sexual misconduct and intimate partner violence have made a regular appearance in the legislatures since at least 2020.

Many of them are aimed at allowing victims of intimate partner violence who are not students or employees, but whose alleged abusers are, to participate in investigations conducted by institutions of higher education. A bill to this effect has been introduced in the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions, and another was recently introduced in the current legislative session.

These bills signal that there are known imperfections in how universities handle misconduct investigations. CSCU’s FOIA response further highlights this, as a number of faculty found to have violated university policies and committed misconduct were able to retire before potential discipline could be imposed, potentially limiting their ability to collect a publicly funded pension.

CSCU officials’ inability to respond to questions about apparent discrepancies in the records it turned over, as well as UConn and the Coast Guard Academy’s nonresponse, also highlights flaws in how misconduct is handled and also the barriers to increasing transparency around these issues. 

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.