Is that all "independent" means? Lack of overt pressure, collusion or engagement? Can't there be subtle pressures coming from whoever's paying the bill that might compromise independence?
I freely admit the answer to that is "not always." The fact that the subject hires and pays for his own audit doesn't automatically mean the audit is suspect. Critics have denounced any of these Reports that UNC hired as being truly independent on the basis that each contracted by the University itself, creating a conflict of interest. In UNC's case, given the strong resistance to challenging the athletic department's role in the scandal, I don't think it's an unreasonable suspicion.
Then-Chancellor Holden Thorp enlisted former NC Governor, James Martin and the consulting firm Baker-Tilly to conduct what would be known as the Martin Report. The Martin Report confirmed discrepancies found in the AFAM Department, but declared it was not an athletic scandal but an academic scandal. Cynics called it a whitewash. (I did not, but I recognized the inherent weaknesses of the review and how it could not be the final word or discovery.)
UNC Vice-Chancellor and Provost James W. Dean directed the selection and contracting of the three outside experts to review the Willingham data set. These three outside reviewers wound up, to some degree or another, verifying UNC's own internal review, concluding as UNC had, that her findings were flawed. Cynics (which, in this case, included me) charged that UNC intentionally limited the scope of the tasking and didn't provide the depth of data Willingham claimed to have used.
UNC President Tom Ross and UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt conducted the selection and hiring of Kenneth Wainstein. His report acknowledged the limitations that had handicapped the Martin and Baker-Tilly effort, but found sufficient evidence to conclude that the scandal was more than academic-only and actually an institutional issue. Though opinions differ, it is difficult to deny that Waintein's report was not the whitewash many anticipated. Skeptics, however, still feel that because the contracting agency had a vested interest, the scope narrowed, the investigation was tainted and the findings, though damaging to the institution, only scratched the surface. (I agree with this, not because I'm skeptical of Wainstein's independence, but he didn't, truthfully, have "full autonomy and authority to ask the tough questions and follow the facts wherever they lead." He did, however, provide the germ for further and wider inspection by releasing the supplemental information.)
Is skepticism over an institution hiring an outside agency to review itself warranted? I can say that I've worked on several government programs in which the program manager hired a 3rd party to conduct an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) review, with payment coming out of program funds. In government acquisition programs, true independence is derived by the selection of the reviewer being approved by the sponsor or oversight agency. The program manager can't independently audit his own development team (except for internal purposes). There must be a wall of separation between the auditor and the developer if a report of review is to be presented as evidence of a successful IV&V.
It's a tricky situation and not always clear where or how self-interests might influence a review. Many standards of conduct codes or ethics policies recommend eliminating even the appearance of possible conflicts of interest, where selecting, reporting and contracting are all done through a proxy or by a higher authority than the entity being reviewed.
This seems to be lost on those who don't see any problem with a university investigating itself.
Andy Bechtel @andybechtel Criticism that it was paid for by UNC is silly too. Who else is going to pay the bill?
Doc Kennedy@DocHeelfire
It's a straw man argument about "independence" of investigation. If it got result some desired who paid is irrelevant.
Such are the opinions of those who are predisposed to trusting the institution that is auditing itself to do the right thing. It shouldn't be hard to understand how that appears from an external perspective where that trust isn't inherent.
I'm reminded of this clip from the movie Erin Brockovich. If the sponsorship of a review is irrelevant to concerns over true independence, then this dialogue would not be tragically funny:
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay by Susannah Grant
DONNA JENSEN: An on-site monitoring well? That means that it's...
ERIN: It was right up on the PG&E property over there.
DONNA: And you say that this stuff, this hexavalent chromium, it's poisonous?
ERIN: Yeah.
DONNA: Well, Erin, it's -- it's just gotta be different than -- than what's in our water, 'cause ours is okay. The guys from PG&E told me. They sat right in the kitchen and--and--and told me it was -- it was fine.
ERIN: I know. I know, but the toxicologist that I been talking to? He gave me a list of problems that can come from hexavalent chromium exposure. Everything you all have is on that list.
DONNA: No. No. -- No, that's--that's not what -- that's not what our doctor said. He said that -- well -- that one's got absolutely nothing to do with the other.
ERIN: But PG&E paid for that doctor.
[Pregnant pause as sounds of laughing and splashing from pool come from backyard. Donna jumps up, rushing out]
DONNA: ASHLEY! SHANNA! GET OUT OF THE POOL!
GIRLS: How come?
DONNA: BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!
