HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031436.jpg

counter-offer by Case. Because I was already in Arizona at the later time I was asked not to have any further interaction with the student I agreed to that request, both to respect her sensitivities and also because it was basically moot because I was not on campus. Following this episode, as indicated in the letter to the student, I did assess what might have led to misinterpretations by this student, and became more careful in offering advice when talking to students. I was also told by human resources that because it was decided to handle this informally and not formally, that (a) it should remain confidential, which I, at least abided by, and (b) if no further complaints were lodged in that case, that the University would preserve its confidentiality and remove the complaint from my record after 5 years, which makes me surprised and concerned that someone violated that written agreement with you.

Re item 6: You report on ASU’s response to item #6 , without including the fact that the University specifically stated there were never any allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment by me at the University, and moreover that the 'outside complaints' were in fact related specifically to your item #6. Further you neglect to mention that this complaint was by an anonymous third party, not the individual who was allegedly harassed, who never lodged a complaint, and that no specific evidence was provided of the alleged transgression. I was surprised and dismayed that both ASU and ANU launched investigations on the basis of this but was told by both Universities that because of my high profile even such unsubstantiated third party complaints at private events unrelated to the University would be investigated. The complaint was investigated by both ASU and ANU and both came to the conclusion that it was not credible and no university policies had been violated. In addition ANU’s investigation, which took a full month, found various inconsistencies in the allegation, which suggest distortion and fabrication, I will quote from the ANU report. The initial complaint, which in fact resulted in a temporary suspension of my position at ANU until it was dismissed, outlined the claim you made in the words you quoted in your note to me, but it also stated

"It is the University’s understanding that a complaint was lodged directly to the conference organisers at the time of the incident."

After the month-long investigation, during which I was told I was not to interact with anyone on campus (again moot because I was a hemisphere removed) the final report, from which I quote below absolved me of any wrongdoing, reinstating my position, and indicated information inconsistent with the original claim and apparent later claims:

"The allegations were made by an observer to the incident.
- The complaint did not identify, nor disclose the identity of the conference attendee who was allegedly touched in
an unwelcome manner.
- The conference attendee who took the ‘selfie’ photo did not lodge a formal complaint to the conference organisers
at the time of the incident (November 2016).
- The conference attendee who witnessed the incident, did not lodge a formal complaint to the conference organisers
at the time of the incident (November 2016).
-The photo submitted as part of the complaint does not provide evidence of any physical contact.
- The complainant alleged that a photo exists, showing your hand on the breast of the conference attendee who took
the ‘selfie’ photo. This photo was not made available to the Australian National University, although it was requested
in the course of the investigation."

(And for the record I often put my hand up in front of a camera if there is a flash, as I specifically request selfies not to include flashes, so that I don’t end up with a series bright spots in front of my eyes for the next half hour. Moreover, I have no idea if the other eyewitnesses you quote, who were not involved in any

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031436