The former medical resident, Stephen Jenson, is accused of viewing child pornography on a UM health system computer. The incident was reported in May of 2011 but was not acted on by university officials until November. Jenson was arrested in mid-December, and the case is now being handled by federal investigators.

Nearly a week ago, on Feb. 10, the university issued a report of its internal investigation, which included recommendations for changes to ensure better security and communication. A statement was also issued by UM president Mary Sue Coleman, who called the six-month delay in responding to the allegations “a serious failure on the part of our institution – there is simply no other way to describe it.” [.pdf of UM report] [.pdf of Coleman's statement] The university’s office of the vice president for communications has set up a website with documents related to the incident.

The resolution passed by regents on Feb. 16 calls for the board chair, Denise Ilitch, to work with Coleman and others to make recommendations to the board for outside consultants who could be hired to carry out an investigation. The aim would be to (1) determine individual accountability and whether further action must be taken: and (2) examine the current organizational structure for campus law enforcement and investigations, and to provide options with regard to that structure. The resolution also stated that “911 must be fixed ASAP. When people call, it should be clear who they are talking to, and under what authority.” The resolution does not specify a timeframe for these actions to occur.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, two people addressed the board on this issue, harshly criticizing the university in general and Coleman specifically for failing to deal with the situation in a timely way. The remarks prompted Ilitch to defend Coleman, saying the personal attacks against Coleman were very unfair. The distain and anger that people feel should be directed toward Jenson, she said, not Coleman.

This brief will be followed by a full report on the UM regents Feb. 16, 2012 meeting: [link]

Northbound Packard at Wells. The cyclist was pedaling in the bicycle lane traveling north. The driver turned right onto Wells, crossing the cyclist's path.

Based on the crash report obtained by The Chronicle, the answer to Talley’s query is yes. The report reflects an 03 Hazard Action, which is a “Failure to Yield,” and a Citation Issued for a 257.648, which is “Failed to Signal and/or Observe.” Either of these infractions carries a fine of $130. The portion of the crash report covering the cyclist’s vehicle records a 13 Hazard Action, which is “Other,” but does not record any citation Issued.

In addition to a copy of the State of Michigan Traffic crash report, the Ann Arbor Police Department case report contains a written narrative of officers arriving at the scene:

His body was parallel to Packard. His head was towards downtown. He was on Packard at Wells. He was just northwest of a manhole cover. He had a black messenger bag under his right side. It had a strap accross [sic] his left shoulder. There was a green bike near his feet.

Sketch from crash report: "Vehicle 1 turning right. #2 NB in bike lane, collided with #1. #1 said #2 was 100 ft back when she was turning."

That narrative continues with a description of actions taken to determine the victim’s identity, efforts required to restrain the seizing victim on the backboard when the victim’s thrashing broke through the straps, and details of all evidence collected at the scene and the emergency room – including the brand and color of the pair of underwear cut from the victim at the hospital.

Writing in a separate narrative, an investigating officer describes being advised by the scene supervisor that the driver of the car had originally left the scene, not realizing a bicycle had collided with her car, and had returned to the scene after having been flagged down by witnesses. The investigator’s description of the accident as recollected by the driver and the bicyclist confirmed the scene supervisor’s information:

She advised that she approached the intersection on Packard to turn onto Wells and did notice that the bicycle was about 100ft back. She started her turn, the[n] continued up Wells St. She was flagged down by someone who told her she hit a bicyclist. She did not realize that she collided with a bicyclist …

… he was awake and alert. He advised that he had a cracked pelvis and a concussion. He advised that he was riding up Packard to work and noticed the car turn in front of him. He tried to avoid it but still collided with it. He didn’t remember anything after that. He thought the car braked during the turn, he remembers thinking that if the car accelerated through the turn they would not have collided. He also advised that his bike was originally designed as a street bike in England and there is not true “brake” on it. We noticed that there was no hand brake and no pedal brake.

The original location of the victim, who had been transported, and the bicycle, which had been moved, was reconstructed in part by appeal to the memory of an officer who recalled kneeling on a manhole cover to assist with the victim. Witness statements are recorded from both the driver and front seat passenger of the vehicle directly behind the striking car, the driver of the second car back, and from a man working in an office who saw the accident from his window.

Eastbound Wells. One of the witnesses interviewed by the AAPD saw the accident unfold from this angle, through an office window.

From the final witness’ statement, it is apparent that the cyclist very nearly succeeded in avoiding the collision: “[He] said he saw the bicyclist make an emergency stop to avoid the car and the bicyclist went over the bike handle bars and then fell to the ground. [He] could not say if the bicyclist even contacted the car.” Evidence of actual contact came from inspection of the right rear quarter panel of the car, which the investigating officer described as “consistent with a bicycle tire.” The investigator’s narrative concludes:

Had the driver of the vehicle yielded to the bicycle, the collision would have been avoided, and if the bicycle had a working brake the collision could have been avoided. Both the bicycle and the vehicle operated in violation of the City Code.

For the driver, the violation was of Code 10:20, which states that a driver must see that the turn can be made safely, give a signal and shall yield the right of way to vehicles coming in the opposite direction or approaching from the rear. For the bicyclist, the violation was of Code 10:172, which states that every bicycle shall be equipped with at least one effective brake.