University of Virginia Library

Deceptive Appearance

Yesterday in these columns we suggested
that an investigation or hearing of some sort
was in order for the clarification of all the
issues currently surrounding the Department
of Security. We further urged that the
arrangement of the structure of authority and
responsibility for that Department be
explicated so as to "clear the air" both for the
benefit of the University and the officers in
the Department. We were informed that
Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney
Charles Haugh had asked for an investigation
(with University officials testifying under
oath), only to have his plan undermined by
the University's quick removal of the
Department of Security from County
jurisdiction.

While we still firmly believe that the
University community is entitled to such an
investigation resulting in a formal statement
as to the role, function, and limitations of the
Department, new evidence brought to our
attention has convinced us that the type of
investigation which Mr. Haugh tried to
instigate would not have answered the
questions that need to be considered first and
foremost. While it may appear that the Board
of Visitors and administration acted as hastily
as they did because they were afraid of what
might be uncovered in Mr. Haugh's
investigation, we tend to think that this is a
case of appearance being deceptive. We are of
the opinion that their primary motive in
removing the Department from County
jurisdiction was indeed that of maintaining
the integrity of the department as a
University organization which, with city
cooperation, could most effectively serve the
University.

However, one point must not be lost in the
confusion of the controversy. The
University's Security force, as presently
constituted, is an organization with dual
responsibility. It is, first of all, a branch of the
University intended to serve members of the
University community. But it is
simultaneously an arm of the court, now
solely under the Charlottesville
Commonwealth's Attorney who has final
jurisdiction over cases involving criminal
prosecution. There is, therefore, a very
delicate balance of authority which must, as
long as the Security Officers are city deputies,
be carefully maintained.

As long as Mssrs. Bromwell, Shutts, Shea,
and Shannon make serious efforts to resolve
intrauniversity disputes, the problems of
jurisdiction should be minimized. In the few
cases that necessitate arrests and prosecutions,
the Commonwealth's Attorney will be
involved and the University community must
understand that the administration can only
suggest solutions, but can not overrule the
courts.

All this leads us to query: Is it really
necessary to have Security personnel
deputized at all? Is this jurisdictional problem
really necessary? Do officers really
understand the chain of command to which
they answer?

These are questions which a review of the
Department might answer. The entire
University, including officers in the
Department of Security, would like to know
what the duties, responsibilities, and
authority of an officer actually are.

We reiterate that we believe the primary
motive of the University administration in
transferring the department solely to city
jurisdiction was not to avoid an investigation
per se. The new arrangement should have the
benefit of reducing the overlapping power
struggle from three to two parties, thus
insuring better cooperation and
communication between the University and
outside law enforcement agencies. This, at
least, may be one small bright spot in the
whole affair. Enough said.