Updated 3:10 p.m. Friday
An investigation into anonymous emails sent to the University of Illinois Senates Conference concludes there was no evidence of "hacking" and that they came from former Chief of Staff Lisa Troyer.
But in a statement issued Friday afternoon, Troyer maintained she "did not write or send" the emails. She said she initiated the investigation into the emails. She also noted she made no public statements while the investigation was under way and cooperated fully as it proceeded.
The UI inquiry found no evidence that President Michael Hogan or anyone else knew that she had sent the emails, the report by outside investigators said.
A pdf of the 29-page report is available at the UI's website [4].
"This appears to be an incident where someone acted alone. (President Hogan) was not aware of the writing or sending of these emails," said UI spokesman Tom Hardy.
The inquiry centered on a pair of anonymous emails sent to members of the University's academic senates conference on Dec. 12, in connection with an enrollment management initiative.
Conducted by Jones Day and Duff & Phelps, the investigation concluded there was no evidence of "hacking" or vulnerabilities in the network and concluded that the emails were drafted on and sent from Troyer's laptop, and the laptop was in her possession at the time.
"I had nothing to do with these emails and, although the source and motivation have not yet been uncovered, I believe that in the fullness of time, the truth behind this matter will be revealed," Troyer said in a statement.
Troyer resigned her administrative post as chief of staff to Hogan effective immediately on Jan. 4. She said in her statement on Friday that she resigned because she knew she couldn't be effective in her job while the investigation was under way.
In a final report released today, which was based on a forensic examination of emails and computers and interviews with relevant personnel, the investigative team found:
— The emails were composed and sent from Troyer's laptop, and an examination of browser activity, firewall logs, email headers and email fragments found on the laptop all support this conclusion.
— Troyer's laptop computer was not improperly accessed and was in her possession at the time the anonymous emails were sent. "There is no evidence of hacking or vulnerabilities in the University network," the report said.
— "The investigative record does not support a conclusion that any other person, including Hogan, knew that Troyer intended to send or had sent the anonymous emails," the report said.
The inquiry was launched on Dec. 12 to ascertain the source and whether the university's information technology security was compromised, UI officials said.
That inquiry was led by the university's IT department. The incident was later reported to the UI's Ethics Office, which consulted with the IT department and assumed control of the investigation, assisted by the university's chief legal counsel.
On Dec. 22, the president approved the use of outside experts to assist in the investigation, legal counsel Jones Day and forensic data analyst Duff & Phelps.
Hogan thanked the investigative team for working quickly over the holidays and also expressed his disappointment about the events.
"The investigative team has made a thorough examination of the facts on which to base its conclusions. This was a disappointing event, and we have taken the necessary steps to address it," Hogan said in a release.
UI Board of Trustees Chair Christopher Kennedy said the "misguided attempt by one individual to sway opinion" must not distract the university community from work on managing enrollment.
"This is an unfortunate incident and a personal, ethical lapse which the president moved swiftly to investigate," Kennedy said in the release. "There is no relationship between this incident and good work being done on key initiatives, like the enrollment management plan, which is the result of months of research, hard work and consultation with faculty groups and others. The Board and the administration have made great progress toward improving this essential function, addressing concerns as they have been expressed. This important work will continue, unhindered."
The two anonymous emails were sent to 20 members of the Senates Conference, and both were identified in the text as having been written by an unnamed senator. The address from which the emails were sent, aboutintegrity@yahoo.com [5], did not identify a specific individual as the sender.
A Senates Conference member, UI Prof. Roy Campbell, noticed embedded data in the email indicated that it was created on a computer with the user account of "troyer," investigators said.
Investigators reviewed more than 3,500 emails from Troyer's university email account from the month of December, and additional emails from the fall, which contained key search words. Troyer voluntarily supplied access to her personal gmail account and records of calls to and from her cell phone, they said.
Troyer, Hogan and others were interviewed, and Duff & Phelps performed a rigorous forensic analysis of the hard drive of Troyer's laptop, examining Internet activity, browser history records and deleted material, the release said. They were able to verify that "the system's firewall was functioning normally" and the "activity found on the network security systems was consistent with activity found on the Troyer laptop."
Troyer was hired as Hogan's chief of staff in July 2010. She also holds an appointment as a tenured professor of psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences on the Urbana campus. She plans to transition to back to teaching and research, though campus officials have said they want to review that plan.
It's possible university policies, including the code of conduct and appropiate use policy, were violated, according to the UI's ethics officer, Donna McNeely.
"The dog ate my homework assignment." She said that she did not do it. The laptop was in her possession at the time. Must have been a building service worker who did it while she was not watching. Glad the matter is resolved. Trustee Kennedy is satisfied. Now, the U of I can get back to business. The matter is resolved.
To quote a famous man "de-nile is not just a river in Africa"
Just because it was her computer, there is no call to diss Troyer.
The problem is the e-mails were sent from her laptop and the laptop was in her possession when they were sent.
So, I was wondering what explanation could there possibly be for the sender not to be Troyer and luckily the report expains it for me on page 28 of the 29 page report....
In order for an outside party to obtain unauthorized access to the Troyer Laptop
in such a way as to have been responsible for the anonymous emails, the following
would have needed to occur:
The third-party would have needed information about Troyer’s work
habits and whereabouts, and the ability to insert unauthorized activity in
between Troyer’s documented activity without Troyer’s awareness.
The third-party would have needed to be able to pass through the
University’s AITS firewall as well as over the campus network without
leaving any trace in any of the multiple campus network and security
devices.
The third-party would have needed to be able to pass through the
Troyer Laptop’s firewall without leaving any trace.
The third-party would have needed to be able to send “test” emails
from the Troyer Laptop to Troyer’s University email account, and after
having done so, would have needed to be able to access her email account
Page 27 of 29
in order to delete those same “test” messages and then empty the Outlook
trash folder before Troyer saw them.
The third-party would have needed to be able to leave behind
selected artifacts on the Troyer Laptop implicating its user in the creation of
the emails.
The third-party would have needed to secretly conduct a search for
the term “permanent delete,” and then initiate and abort the running of
“secure erase.” These would have needed to be carefully prepared in order
to leave deliberate forensic traces but not any onscreen indication to the
user. The third-party would have needed to run the wiping utility just long
enough to leave the implicating indication that it had been run but not long
enough to undo any of the false trails that had been planted on the Troyer
Laptop beforehand.
The third-party would have needed extensive, detailed and current
information about the various discussions and issues surrounding the
enrollment management issue.
Whew, glad to have that cleared up. I thought Troyer's denials were totally implausible until now, when I see how simple it is to hack into a university account. Probably just some middle schooler playing around in computer lab. Kids these days...
"I had nothing to do with these emails and, although the source and motivation have not yet been uncovered, I believe that in the fullness of time, the truth behind this matter will be revealed," Troyer said in a statement.
Can't wait for the "fullness of time" to elapse when we will hear the "truth." Will it sound something like: "Now that I'm hired elsewhere with another big fat salary, pension, and health benefits; I am ready to admit I might have made a mistake. But hey, I'm human and can't we just move on and not dwell on the negative?" U of Conn warned us what we would be getting with King Hogan, and now we are beginning to see what this elitist, six-figure buffoon and his cronies are all about: incompetent liars at best.
"aboutinetgrity@yahoo.com [22]"
I would have hoped a tenured professor of psychology would know how to spell "integrity."
Freudian slip, perhaps?
State employed academics seem to fall in a different category of state employees. A university civil service employee, or a state employee would have been subject to disciplinary action including termination. The higher ups may have been given the opinion of resigning employment, or termination. The annual Ethics Test seems not to apply to legislators, and academics. Would you want her "teaching" your kid? The faculty will groan; but remain silent. The students will not care since these things seem standard at their university. So much for "intellectual honesty", and ethics. The archaic concept of tenure rules again. Perhaps she will be shunned at the Faculty Center, and university catered luncheons. Maybe she will be able to "work from home".
@Saltfork: This report came out just yesterday (Friday). Throughout UIUC officials have been clear they will take a decision on Troyer's status based on the findings of this report. So it's hardly appropriate to critique UIUC for waiting for the facts to come in. Now they are in, we can expect action. I don't think anyone deserves your sarcasm yet, and they may not deserve it (on this issue) ever.
@jwr12.....'we can expect action.' Really? Different 'standards' apply in the world of academia. Why would we expect otherwise when a not uncommon outcome for something like this: http://chicagoist.com/2011/03/02/nu_professor_causes_minor_uproar_wi.php [28] , is contiuned employment.
Ethics case study for Business School. Image management project for Adverstising Department (if it still exists). Keep her employed for the 'creative diversity,' allegedly unique to the UIUC campus, of case study material she could generate year after year. Might require only a $100K salary, vs. a $200K+ one, but, hey, it's a win-win situation, all things considered. @@
@jwr12: My sarcasm is a result of doing business with Illinois institutions of higher learning for 30 plus years. I have seen much worse violations by U of I administration, and faculty during that time. Each time, the university swept it under the rug. The invesitigation should have been conducted by the State Inspector General whose office has the authority to conduct it. Dr. Troyer is a State of Illinois employee. She is subject to the same rules of conduct as is every state employee. With the public howling for financial responsibility, an end to double standards, and transparency; the investigation should not be left in the hands of the university. You "expect action". Well, time will tell; but don't hold your breath. Did you object to my sarcasm based on my being critical of the U of I; or was it the "working from home" line?
I read the report and found it technically sound, policy lacking. The emails certainly show a lapes of ethics, Troyer denies she sent them, that is her right, if she can come up with evidence to the contrary so be it. My concern is over the handeling of the investigation and explainations of higher adminastrators and trustees. This was a breech of ethical standards, "Someone did a juvenile thing, and that's behind us now," Kennedy said. This was more than just a "Juvienile thing" by high ranking cheif of staff to the president of the U of I and he said that before the report was out. Hardy said, "Her decision to resign was a personal decision," no mention of removal from the position or disciplanary action by Hogan.
Trustee Ed McMillan said he didn't know how much the president knew about the emails. "At this point I don't know enough to say. I think it's a legitimate question," McMillan said. "I was a CEO. The buck always stopped with me." How did Kennedy know what act it was and who did it while other trustees didn't. Troyer worked for Hogan before and moved with him to the U of I. Hogan's announcement said Troyer will "resume teaching and research duties" and thanked her for her service as cheif of staff, so I see there will be a certain amout of loyalty that will be in play, That being said, the upholding ethics trumps loyalty to freinds and colleagues. Allthough lower administrators have questioned weather Troyer will stay on, higher adminisrators and certain trustees have implied that this was just nothing, she resigned as Hogans cheif of staff and will continue in a position at the UofI matter closed. If you truly believe someone breeched ethical standards of such a trusted position could you trust again, this was not just a newbee staff member.
This whole incident seems thin, not that Troyer sent the emails, she may very well have. But the response by others seemingly saying no big thing get over it, and we will, as soon as we get over the other few recent lapses still fresh in our minds.
The story will die away. The public will not know what ever happens. Usually, there is an outcry from the faculty one way, or the other; but not this time. Dr. Troyer's tenure will not be recinded by Hogan. Letters of Recommendation will be written. She will be assigned some role on campus until she can find another job in academia. Recinding tenure would set a precident that would upset things in academia. The only person who can recind the tenure is the very person who insisted that it be granted in the first place when he brought her with him. What it does show is that Ethics are only for the peons; the Civil Service, and state employees. It does not exist for the elite. Do they even take their required state ethics test?