The number of reported sexual assaults at the University of Oregon more than doubled in 2012. Why? No one can say for certain.

From 2008 to 2011, reports hovered between nine and 13. According to the most recent data released Tuesday by the university in accordance with the Jeanne Clery Act, reported sexual assault cases went from 13 in 2011 to 30 in 2012.

Due to the chronic underreporting of sexual assaults — some estimate that more than 50 percent go unreported — Clery data can be difficult to interpret.

UOPD Communications Director Kelly McIver says that campus authorities don’t know for certain why the numbers have increased. Because of the UO community’s significant efforts to promote consent and raise awareness of sexual assault — including a new emphasis on mandatory assault reporting instituted by UOPD in the fall of 2011 — McIver speculates that the number of assaults hasn’t increased, rather the reporting has improved.

Federally funded universities are required to submit and publish an annual log of campus crime data in compliance with the Clery Act. Among the numbers reported is a statistic for forcible sexual offenses, which include fondling, rape, sodomy and assault. Recently, controversies on campuses such as the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Yale have made the handling and reporting of sexual assaults a hotly contested issue.

The Clery report’s implications for UO students is complicated by a number of factors that determine how the numbers are reported — including the fact that crimes reported are geographically isolated to land contained within specific UO boundaries, or sanctioned for university events.

This means that data excludes the majority of student residences and locations of social gatherings — that’s where the majority of sexual assaults occur. Also, the numbers are not restricted to crimes committed against university students — anyone within the boundaries is counted. Additionally, the numbers represent all offenses reported within the designated calendar year, not just those committed within the time span.

Eugene Sexual Assault Support Services Center Director B.B. Beltran believes that the issue is much broader than the data can encompass and that a higher number of reports might not be indicative of more assaults.

“Are there trends? Is it getting worse? I don’t necessarily see that,” Beltran said. “I think looking at statistics is good but it’s only part of the situation.”

Caitlin Corona, coordinator for sexual violence prevention and education at the UO Women’s Center, agrees that the data for sexual assaults can be difficult to interpret.

“With rising statistics you can never know,” Corona said. “You want the rate of rape to go down, but you also want people to feel like they can report.”

All authorities agree that the data offers a limited picture of true sexual assault numbers due to the large number of unreported cases and the Clery Act’s particular specifications.

“With Clery’s focus on geography, I don’t think it’s that meaningful. Students don’t live their lives based on campus boundaries,” McIver said.

Along with the rest of the UO community, McIver said UOPD aims to reduce sexual assaults in their jurisdiction, and build a supportive environment where survivors can report.

Regardless of the reason for the higher numbers, he says, the more accurate the data, the more adept UOPD will be in combating the issue.

“When we know that the number of reported incidents are lower than actually exist, it’s hard to say we want that to go down,” McIver said. “Because frankly, we’d rather know with greater certainty how many assaults are happening … we can be involved in trying to prevent these things.”

As Sam Dotters-Katz stood on the stage of Matthew Knight Arena during convocation on Sunday, he looked onto a sea of expectant faces and smiled. Pre-speech jitters gone, he felt a rush at the possibility of helping shape the college experience of the hundreds of freshmen seated before him. Stepping up to the mic, he delivered his advice:

“College is a search for a purpose.”

Nine years ago during his own convocation, Dotters-Katz was a freshman and a history major. Three years later, he spoke on stage as president and a political science student. This year, after obtaining degrees from the UO in both majors, being a former campaign manager for the 2010 Oregon State Senate race, and returning for law school, Dotters-Katz is certain of his own purpose.

“I am passionate about being a leader,” Dotters-Katz said. “You always hear … that as young people we’re the future leaders of the world — and that’s not just something that happens. It’s something that we have to grow into.”

During his speech, Dotters-Katz stressed that the future depends on the success of this generation in solving inherited global and societal issues – and by establishing the groundwork for an inclusive, diverse and nonpartisan ASUO. He hopes to help the institution give all potential leaders the skills to tackle the issues coming down the pike.

“Be unafraid to take a risk.”

Halfway through his fourth year, Dotters-Katz took a major risk by delving into politics for the first time. In early 2008, without any prior knowledge of the ASUO, he and a friend decided to run for executive positions. A month and a half later, Dotters-Katz had won his first presidential election.

According to his roommate, Kenneth Safley, spontaneity is commonplace in the life of Dotters-Katz. When they met, Dotters-Katz introduced himself out of the blue. The next day they were golfing. A week later, Dotters-Katz had invited people over to his house for dinner, starting a group that Safley now refers to as their “law school family.”

“Greatness is expected of you.”

There is perhaps no one to whom Dotters-Katz’s advice pertains to better than himself. As a public figurehead, he accepts appraisal for a job well done, but he also shoulders the criticism when things go wrong.

To maintain his sanity, he hits the gym daily. He plays with his dog, Sawyer. Hangs out with friends. Watches “Breaking Bad.” Really, he swears, he’s just a normal guy.

“The most important thing about Sam is his genuine passion for making this world a better place,” ASUO External Affairs Director Christina Hardesty said. “He has good intentions behind everything he does … but at the same time, he’s such a normal guy.”

Greatness is something she thinks Dotters-Katz can accomplish.

Sunday’s convocation was far from Dotters-Katz’s first, but he hopes it won’t be his last. Someday, he might like to stand on the stage once more as university president. For now, it’s a dream, but there’s just something about the university environment that he can’t seem to shake.

“When you’re in the position of the student body president … you realize how special a place any college campus is. It’s a marketplace of ideas,” he said. “There’s no better place to work than a college campus. I really believe that.”

Tomorrow morning, Oregon football will learn its fate at the hands of the NCAA.

Just over two months after an NCAA hearing to discuss sanctions pertaining to the allegation of Oregon football recruiting violations, the University will be formally delivered its official punishment. Allegations against Ducks wrongdoing began in March 2011 upon the discovery that Willie Lyles, a recruiting agent working for the UO, had committed infractions of NCAA recruiting policy dating back to 2008.

In response to the scandal, the UO submitted a Summary Disposition Proposal to the NCAA Committee on Infractions late in October of last year, admitting to a series of infractions of NCAA recruiting law and suggesting a number of self-imposed sanctions with the hope of avoiding a full-fledged NCAA investigation. The proposal, which suggested that the UO face a penalty of a two year probation and the three year loss of a scholarship, was promptly rejected.

Documents released in May indicate that the University received a response to the summary disposition in the form of an official notice of allegations from the NCAA on December 5, 2012 — about a month after the initial summary disposition report was submitted.

The report from the NCAA found the University guilty of seven “major” recruiting infractions, including the authorization of Lyle’s impermissible contact with student athletes, 730 forbidden phone calls, exceeding the limit on the number of coaches involved in recruiting practices, the expenditure of around $35,000 on illegitimate recruiting services and the inadequate supervision of recruiting practices.

Although the “failure to monitor” recruiting practices is cited as one of the infractions, KATU reports that NCAA officials maintain that “the violations were not intentional in nature” and that there was “no finding of lack of institutional control and no finding of unethical conduct.”

The majority of the NCAA notice mirrored infractions that the UO had previously admitted to in it’s summary disposition statement, with the exception of one significant difference: each of the violations was labeled a “major infraction” by the NCAA, negating the University’s suggestion that wrongdoings regarding the use of scouting services should be considered only as a minor infraction.

In the next step of the process, UO officials, including former coach Chip Kelly, met with the Committee on Infractions in mid-April for a hearing to discuss potential penalties regarding the Ducks’ alleged violations. According to a Sports Illustrated source at the meeting, Kelly maintained the UO’s claim of institutional integrity, declaring that the football program had only used recruiting services “the same way other schools do.”  Upon conclusion of the hearing it was decreed that the NCAA would release notice of official sanctions within 60-90 days.

A pressing question to be answered tomorrow is whether or not the UO faces additional penalties for breaching the NCAA’s repeat offender rules. Prior to Lyle’s misconduct beginning in 2008, the UO faced NCAA retribution for misconduct involving a false letter of intent signed by Duck recruit J.J. Arrington in 2004. The UO could possibly face retribution harsher than their Summary Disposition Proposal originally suggested for committing multiple infractions within a five year period,

A media conference with infractions committee member Gregory Sankey has been scheduled for 8 a.m. tomorrow. Media will receive documentation by 7:30 a.m.

Although any official word on what’s next for the Oregon football program won’t be handed down until tomorrow, here’s the buzz on Twitter:

Just speculation: Oregon's NCAA saga ends Wed. – no appeal – unless bowl ban or severe scholly loss. Don't think bowl ban – but who knows?

— George Schroeder (@GeorgeSchroeder) June 25, 2013

do people really think Lache left because of the NCAA violations? he left because he couldn't get any playing time.

— Matt Phillips (@MattBRC) June 25, 2013

Wondering who will be more outraged tomorrow: Ducks fans or rivals? Either way my timeline will be a hot mess #goducks
— David Kaufer (@DavidKaufer) June 25, 2013

So the Willie Lyles Episode (as it’s known around our house) concludes tomorrow via @NCAA. (shrugs) #goducks http://t.co/ErSOIR7FR4
— Corey duBrowa (@coreydu) June 25, 2013

So basically DOMA & Prop 8 at 7am and ducks sanctions at 8am… I don’t know how I’m going to sleep tomorrow
— Kevin Wade (@UO_Kwade) June 25, 2013

@BrandonSprague Puddles will be required to do all touchdown push-ups with one arm for the 2013-2014 season.
— ChrisK (@ckbeav) June 25, 2013

Last week, University of Oregon Economics professor Bill Harbaugh filed a legal complaint with the Oregon State Bar association, accusing Eugene lawyers Bill Gary and Sharon Rudnick of misleading a judge. Gary and Rudnick are partners at Harrang Long Gary Rudnick law firm, which has been representing the UO administration in the recent union negotiations.

The lawsuit (PDF) also accuses UO General Counsel Randy Geller of participating in the deceit by “use(ing) his public office” to withhold — and circumvent attempts to claim — public records regarding the event.

The accusations pertain to a circumstance in which the law firm was rewarded recompense in legal fees they were unable to accrue after suing the Oregon Department of Justice and then Attorney General John Kroger for the mishandling of public records during a contract investigation that involved the son of Stan Long, who is one of HLGR’s founders.

HLGR claims because of Kroger and the DOJ’s mishandling of documents, they missed out on thousands of dollars worth of work from the UO. After reviewing their case, a county judge mandated a $550,000 fraction of that bill be repaid by the DOJ.

According to Harbaugh. the issue lies in the numbers. In the lawsuit stemming from the investigation, Dave Frohnmayer — former UO president and current law professor  — was compensated for his work regarding the investigation at $550 an hour. Based on UO records, his legal fees in UO-related work range from $260-$270 per hour.

Harbaugh claims the increased rate described to the judge led to an exorbitantly high pay-out for missed opportunities.

In an email to Willamette Week, Portland’s alt-weekly paper, Gary claimed the fee difference instead stems from a discount agreement between HLGR and the UO — not an attempt to circumvent the Department of Justice.

“The Firm sometimes considers alternative fee arrangements based upon the nature or volume of work involved,” he said. “The Firm has agreed to perform work for the University at discounted rates. We are not aware of anyone other than Dr. Harbaugh who has expressed concern about our willingness to provide a discount to the University.”

Where the UO General Counsel is concerned, Harbaugh claims the affidavit Geller presented in support of HLGR’s claim for legal fees was inaccurate and a conflict of interest.

In the affidavit, Geller argues for the compensation of HLGR due to the opportunity they lost when he was unable to hire them to represent the UO in legal matters because of their participation in the original investigation.

The affidavit was signed in July of 2012. HLGR had been participating in UO union negotiations for the UO since February 2013.

Geller justified his statements in an email to Willamette Week, claiming that although HLGR was contracted to work on union matters in February — an issue that does not require state approval for choice of legal firm — he was unable to hire them to work on other state-regulated issues further along in the year because of the investigation case.

Harbaugh filed the complaint in an attempt to generate a critical review of the General Counsel’s affairs.

“UO’s General Counsel and the HLGR attorneys worked together to try and get $860,000 for HLGR, from state taxpayers,” he said. “I thought that it was wrong for Randy Geller to go along with Bill Gary’s attempt to get that money, by not telling the judge about the substantial legal work he’d given HLGR on the faculty union. That seems pretty far below ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’…I wanted the bar to decide if these actions were ethical.”

Willamette Week says that the the Bar is considering the complaint.

After years of debate, the University of Oregon has decided to move forward with the decision to arm its campus police officers. As per an announcement released this morning, the UO has submitted a docket item to the Oregon University System, requesting permission from the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.

According to Phil Weiler, vice president of strategic communications, when the UO was granted the authority to switch from an on campus public safety department to a full-fledged police force in 2011, it was agreed the decision to arm UOPD would be deliberated if and when it became necessary for the security of the UO. According to officials, that time has come.

“(UO President Michael Gottfredson) has made the decision that he does want to go to the State Board of Higher Education and seek that authority,” he said.”The decision’s been made. That’s the direction we’re moving in.”

The general sentiment of University officials in requesting an armed police force, Weiler says, is to improve the ability of UOPD to respond quickly and effectively to on-campus disturbances. Currently, when a potentially dangerous situation presents itself, a car stop or domestic disturbance for example, UOPD must wait for backup from the armed Eugene Police Department before they can respond. In addition, upon apprehension of a potentially dangerous suspect UOPD must call upon EPD to transport the criminal to the Lane County jail — unable to do it themselves for lack of proper equipment.

With an ever-increasing workload demanded of EPD, the UO has decided to move down the path of self-sufficiency in an effort to increase campus safety.

“There are lots of situations that occur routinely where we cannot get involved and resolve the situation,” Weiler said. “We want to be able to provide a full range of services to the UO community.”

Although the idea of having armed officers on campus may seem controversial, Weiler reminds students that they are nothing new. Two years ago, under the protection of the UO Department of Public Safety armed officers were contracted from EPD for campus patrol.

“I would remind people that we have always had armed officers on campus except for this last two year period,” he said. “It’s not an unusual situation.”

Sam Dotters-Katz, ASUO president for the upcoming school year, personally supports the UO’s decision.

“While student opinion on the issue remains divided, I support the arming of UOPD,” Dotters-Katz said. “I believe they remain very committed to developing extensive on-going cultural competency trainings and incorporating student feedback and participation in the process moving forward.”

The proposal to arm UOPD will be discussed at the June 21 board meeting in Portland, Ore. Should it be approved, the UO will begin further deliberations as to the best way to implement the projected changes.

In his two and a half years working at REI, the craziest things Steve Smith ever saw returned were food wrappers.

“They would basically eat a Clif Bar and bring the wrapper back to us and say, ‘This wasn’t good, I wasn’t satisfied,’” he said. “As an employee, it ultimately came down to the customer service and just providing a great customer experience. If it boiled down to returning a Clif Bar, that’s the length that we went to.”

Now a Junior at the UO, Smith spent two years in high school as an REI employee in Boise, and the first half of his Freshman year working for the branch in Eugene. Regardless of location, one thing he could always count on was the length of the Customer Service line.

Expect to see that return line get just a little bit shorter. As of June 4, REI will no longer uphold the lifetime warranty previously offered to its eligible members — to get a refund or exchange, items must now be presented within one year of their initial purchase.

Upon hearing the news, sophomore journalism major Matt Leslie was shocked.

“I mean, the reason you go to REI is because you can return it forever,” Leslie said. “I probably won’t shop there as much anymore.”

As a photojournalist, and a connoisseur of outdoor pursuits, Leslie finds himself in REI three to four times a month, outfitting for his latest trek into the Oregon outdoors. Previously, his justification for spending a bit more money on the REI brand was that he could return any equipment that malfunctioned or didn’t meet his standards. Now that the policy has changed, he says he’ll likely abandon REI for a different sporting goods store where he receives more of a discount.

What’s more, Leslie fears that the used gear sales that constituted one of the greatest benefits of shopping at REI will cease to uphold its celebrated reputation.

“They have amazing used gear sales and you can return just about everything they re-sell,” Leslie said. “I don’t know if their used gear sales will be as awesome as they used to be — it’s a bummer.”

Although changing the warranty policy might alienate customers like Leslie, business administration major Smith says that fiscally, the equation evens out.

“The REI return policy is definitely something that’s very well-known about, and it’s something that people notice,” Smith said. “It is now a one-year policy, and I think that people will be weary of that … But I wouldn’t expect to see a sales decrease, and at the same time I’d probably expect to see an increase in profits because the company is no longer offering that return policy.”

University of Oregon defensive lineman Stetzon Bair chose to study general social sciences in his ongoing desire to become a better businessman. For wide receiver Blake Stanton, the major provided the opportunity to get practical experience in the field of law. Fifteen other members of the 2013 Oregon football team studying social sciences have their own, varied reasons for enrolling in the program.

General Social Science Program Director Reuben Zahler believes the flexibility and variability of the major has lead to its popularity boom over the last two years, especially among student-athletes.

“The idea behind (the program) is that it’s designed to serve a few different purposes that won’t be served through more traditional departments,” he said. “It turns out that there really has been a need that this program is meeting for the student body. Among other things, it really has turned out to be very popular for a lot of students that just feel constrained by the other schools.”

Members of Oregon’s football elite are among those who view social sciences as a release from conventional restraints. With roughly one fifth of the team enrolled, according to the UO’s student database, social sciences has become the most popular declared major among the Ducks football team.

Students choose a focus in one of four departments — applied economics and business; crime, law and society; globalization, environment and policy; or social studies teaching — then take a variety of courses across many departments and disciplines that apply to their particular track of study.

Zahler says without the constraints of a specific department, students are allowed a greater capacity for vocational training that will allow them to learn the practical, hands-on skills that will apply to individual career goals. In addition, the increased variety in classes means more abundant course offerings in subject matter and scheduling.

For an athlete whose typical day spans from 8 a.m. practice to evening meetings and tutoring sessions with only a five-hour window to fit in academics, this increased variety can be key to a balanced schedule.

Stanton first heard about the social sciences major when his academic counselor recommended it as an option that would reduce a scheduling pressure. Since he was considering a future in law school, the major seemed like a good fit.

“My adviser told me that (the major) would be manageable with football going year round,” he said. “This (major) would give me time for school and sport, so that’s why I chose it.”

Coming into the UO, Bair already had a game plan to continue expanding his business knowledge. Instead of pursuing a traditional business degree, however, he chose to pursue the business track of the social sciences major to increase the variety of knowledge he would amass. For him, the increased flexibility in class schedule to accompany his full-time football lifestyle was simply an added boon.

“I was looking for a field of study, and this one had an emphasis on business and economics,” he said. “It was something that made sense for what I wanted to do.”

In the face of wins and losses, injuries and draft picks, the future of a student-athlete can be even less set in stone than that of the average, indecisive student. By studying social sciences, however, students and athletes alike hope to solidify one thing for certain: a degree with applicable job prospects.

“Nobody really knows what they want to do,” Bair said. “After people graduate, how many people actually use their degrees? At least this makes it so that you’re more well-rounded, so that you actually do get a job.”

For Jennifer Borrero, paying 5.8 percent more in tuition next year means doing with less.

“It means having to pick up another job probably or already trying to find a less expensive place to live,” Borrero said. “It means cutting back on things that you can’t really cut back on — but trying to cut costs anyway.”

The freshman already works a job in campus dining in order to help offset her education and living costs. Next year, she envisions having to increase her workweek to 20 hours, the limit for University of Oregon employed student workers, in addition to taking on another part-time job.

With increased tuition on the horizon, every penny counts.

At a meeting on Friday, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education’s Finance and Administration Committee approved UO proposals for higher tuition for review by the board in general. The 4.8 percent average cost increase across the state includes a 4.5 percent tuition increase for the UO, which will manifest itself as a 5.8 percent total increase when elevated mandatory fees are taken into account.

According to a statement made by Brad Shelton, UO vice provost for Budget and Planning, the proposed 4.5 percent proposal was the outcome of serious deliberation and compromise on the part of the UO Tuition and Fee Advisory Board. Between September and March, the panel of 12 UO members, including three students, met on a monthly basis between September and March to deliberate the most efficient and equitable tuition proposal for the upcoming year in order to submit a recommendation to the offices of the president and provost.

In the end, he said, the board came to an “absolute consensus” that a 4.5 percent increase was in the best interest of all parties involved.

“We really felt that that was the right balance between cost for the institution and cost for the students,” Shelton said while addressing the committee.

Some students feel as if any tuition increase, regardless of the compromise behind it, can have detrimental effects on the student body.

“Financially, (increased tuition) is obviously a bigger stress,” Borrero said. “But I also think that it makes students re-think college … Instead of going to college and pursuing a career, it makes people think, ‘Is it worth it?’”

Incoming ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz attended Friday’s meeting as well. As the representative of the UO student body, he lobbied in favor of the proposed increase.

Although he recognizes that increasing tuition deals a financial blow to all students, Dotters-Katz believes that a proposed $542 annual increase for in-state students is what it takes to maintain the caliber of the UO. Among the reasons he cited at the meeting for the necessity of the increase in expenses were the need to hire more faculty and expand the curriculum to keep up with the increased student body, as well as the implementation of student-supported renovations, including that of the Student Recreation Center.

“To be clear, these are hard decisions to make. I certainly would not tell you today that any increase in costs make it easier to afford higher education, however, these decisions are not made in isolation of other considerations,” Dotters-Katz said to committee members.  ”It is the official view of both the current and incoming representatives of the student body, that the tuition and fee increases in the proposal before you today are thoughtful, fair and necessary.”

Other students, including ASUO Sen. Lamar Wise, believe that instead of increasing the student burden, Oregon should be pursuing alternative funding routes for higher education. As a representative of the Oregon Student Association, one of the policies that he would prefer is a tuition freeze while the state invests more money into the higher education system.

“We want the state to re-invest in higher education, and we don’t think that increasing tuition is making school more accessible to students,” Wise said. “If we want Oregon to be a leader in higher education, (the state) needs to invest in it. What we’re asking them to do is to take responsibility.”

 Although the proposed tuition increases don’t face final review by the State Board of Higher Education until June 21, Borrero is pretty sure that they’re a done deal. As a student and a worker, she doesn’t feel like there’s much she can do but hope for tuition stability in years to come.

“I feel like it’s just something that I have to deal with,” Borrero said. “In the future I hope to see at the very least a much smaller cost increase.”

At a meeting in Portland today, members of the Higher Education Board’s Finance and Administration committee agreed to submit a budget proposal to the Oregon University System that includes 4.8 percent tuition increases across the state system and a 4.5 percent tuition increase for the University of Oregon.

The proposed increase for 2013-2014 comes after 6 percent increases over the 2012-2013 school year, and 7.5 percent over 2011-2012 according to a press release from the Oregon University System. Should the increases be imposed by the OUS, total UO student fees will increase an additional 1.3 percent over tuition, causing the total student cost to rise to take on a 5.8 percent increase from the current academic year.

Incoming ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz, who attended the meeting in Portland in order to testify in favor of the proposed tuition increase, views the proposal as the best possible situation for UO students. In a leadership position, he says, it’s never easy to support recommendations that have the potential to negatively impact the his constituents, however in light of the possible outcomes, raising tuition seemed like the lesser of two evils.

“To be clear, these are hard decisions to make. I certainly would not tell you today that any increase in costs make it easier to afford higher education, however, these decisions are not made in isolation of other considerations,” Katz said while addressing the Finance and Administration committee earlier today. “It is the official view of both the current and incoming representatives of the student body, that the tuition and fee increases in the proposal before you today are thoughtful, fair, and necessary.”

Final OUS consideration for the increases will take place on June 21.

The latest development in a recent game of administrative musical chairs was announced Wednesday, when W. Andrew Marcus, associate dean of social sciences, was announced as the replacement to act as Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

This temporary promotion follows the appointment of former Dean Scott Coltrane to the Interim Provost position by UO President Michael Gottfredson, as a stand in until a permanent replacement for outgoing Provost Jim Bean is selected. Bean announced his intent to resign from the Provost post and return to a faculty teaching position in late February.

Bean is scheduled to step down from his current position on July 1, at which point each of the interim’s duties will officially set in.

Appointing eligible replacements, Assistant Vice President for Strategic Communications Phil Weiler says is a necessary and important part of the process considering the power and responsibility, albeit temporary, of the standing positions.

“Whenever you’ve got a key position to be filled, you need to have a good interim to make decisions in their absence,” Weiler said.

Although the interim’s do not face as strict of a screening process in their appointments as permanent appointees, Weiler believes that peer interactions and democratic processes ensure the accountability of the stand-in administrators.

“I wouldn’t expect that people would make unilateral decisions,” he said.

The UO Selection Advisory Committee hopes to have found a suitable replacement for Bean by the beginning of the next academic year. The most immediate step in the process, however, will be to find another interim dean – to temporarily replace the man now serving as interim dean.