Students allege administrator misused work-study funds

Residential Living Director Gigi Simeone has concluded an investigation into allegations that Community House Assistant Dean-in- Residence Judith Hillard misused work-study money, Deputy Vice Provost George Koval said yesterday. Simeone's investigation began last month after two Community House residents alleged that Hillard used work-study staff to run personal errands for her while they were on-duty, sources said. These alleged personal errands included moving Hillard's car, buying her groceries, returning and picking up her video rentals and going to the MAC machine for her. Both Simeone and Koval said they do not know whether the findings of the investigation would be made public. Pending a report from Simeone, Community House's work-study money was recaptured by the University two weeks ago, Student Employment Manager John Rudolph said yesterday. This means the University is now paying house office workers from a strictly University fund. While Rudolph refused to reveal the amount of money involved, sources put the figure recaptured between $10,000 and $20,000. Hillard said last night that if work-study students did personal jobs for her, they were compensated by her, and not the University. She denied that work-study students were ever used to move her car, but she did not confirm or deny asking students to do the other jobs. Nursing freshman Anne O'Leary, who works in the Community House office, said last week she was often asked to perform personal tasks for Hillard. Another office worker who did not wish to be identified said she was sent to return videos for Hillard on at least three occasions. And six other office workers, many of whom would not comment extensively or allow their names to be used out of fear of losing their jobs, said they too had been asked to run errands for Hillard. None of these students said Hillard compensated them separately for jobs they did for her. Hillard refused to comment yesterday on the specific means of compensation used to reimburse students for personal jobs. Rudolph said if the allegations against Hillard are true, they constitute a violation of federal work-study guidelines. "The way the federal work study program runs is that it is meant for doing work that is in the interest of the University community," he said. "It is not to be used for anything that deals with a special interest group. It has to be for the benefit of the community." Rudolph added that Hillard "has been removed as a federal work-study supervisor." And he said that because the students are no longer being paid out of a work-study fund, they are not considered work-study students anymore. Koval confirmed that the students involved were "not work-study students," but said he could neither confirm nor deny if they were previously. Work-study students are required to list the hours they work in a logbook. One student said Hillard removed this log every month, and a source close to Community House alleged that portions of the log were tampered with or destroyed. Hillard said yesterday that removing the log monthly and forwarding it to the University's Payroll Department is a standard procedure. She also said that the log accurately reflects the time work-study students spent working in the office for the house. But Hillard said that there may have been some errors in how work was assigned to work-study office staff. "There was some confusion regarding which specific tasks could be performed by which classification of work-study student," Hillard said, reading from a prepared statement. "I received a supervisors manual for the first time two weeks ago and have already reclassified the office positions according to that manual to more accurately portray the responsibilities of the job." Rudolph said all supervisors should have been issued work-study supervisor manuals when they took their jobs in the fall. He added he did not know whether Hillard had been issued that manual. Hillard said she blames any errors she may have made on confusing University procedures concerning administration of work-study personnel. "I believe the confusion stems from a lack of a job description and training -- both mine and the students -- and nothing malicious on anyone's part," she said. "I believe Dr. Simeone's investigation will bear this truth out." Hillard also said she should have been less ambiguous in telling office workers why they were doing certain tasks. "I tend to move at a frantic pace all the time," she said. "I have probably been remiss in explaining why work-study students did certain things." While Simeone's investigation began a month ago, one student alleges that Simeone knew about possible problems with Hillard's use of work-study students five months ago and failed to take action to prevent continued abuse of program. Wharton senior David Schlosser, a resident advisor in Community House, said this week he brought up an incident in which Hillard asked work-study students to do personal services for her during a meeting with both Hillard and Simeone in late December. "[Simeone] definitely knew about it," Schlosser said. "When I mentioned it, you could just see the look on Judith Hillard's face -- she was panicked." He said Hillard denied the allegations at the meeting held just before winter break to discuss an unrelated complaint against Schlosser. Simeone said earlier this week she investigated the incident at the time and concluded that Hillard gave her a legitimate explanation of events. "There was some vague and indirect information given that I looked into at the time," she said. "The information I received back was satisfactory, and it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I became aware of new allegations." Koval said he believes Simeone thoroughly investigated Schlosser's claim at the time and found it to be meritless. Administrators said they are taking the new allegations very seriously, but said they represent an isolated set of incidents. Rudolph said this is the first case of alleged work-study abuse ever brought to his office. Koval, Rudolph and Simeone all refused to comment on the University's future actions, citing University policies barring them from publicly discussing personnel matters.