Mr. Jim Fennell:

Thank you Chairman. The background to the plagiarism investigation is that an incident of suspected plagiarism by a student on a masters degree programme in the school of business was detected by a lecturer in November 2009. The incident was determined by the school management to be one of minor plagiarism and, accordingly, the incident was considered by a school plagiarism committee in February 2010, which found the student guilty of plagiarism and imposed a penalty relating to the work submitted. The student subsequently went on to graduate later that year. In November and December 2010, reports relating to the incident appeared in the media alleging that a lecturer had assisted the student in the act of plagiarism and implying that the matter had been improperly handled and that the institute was engaging in a cover-up.

Following two internal reviews by the registrar and HR manager and following receipt of legal advice, I, as acting president and in consultation with the chairman, decided that an external investigation was required to safeguard the reputation of the institute and on 31 March 2011 informed the governing body accordingly. On the advice of the institute’s solicitors, Professor Bairbre Redmond, deputy registrar of UCD, was appointed to undertake the investigation. Professor Redmond requested a second investigator be appointed and on the recommendation of Professor Redmond, Mr. Ed Madden, barrister-at-law, was appointed as co-investigator. The terms of reference for the investigation were drawn up by the institute’s legal advisers, agreed with the investigators and issued by the president on 13 June 2011. A fixed fee of €1,500 per day was agreed with each of the two investigators. However, it was not envisaged that the investigation would require the level of input it did, resulting in costs of €436,061 being incurred. As the investigation progressed, concern was mounting at the increasing cost. The president tried on a number of occasions to bring closure to the matter. However, as the matters under investigation related to an alleged cover-up by the institute, it was important to protect the independence of the investigation and it was not appropriate for GMIT to influence the conduct of the investigation or to terminate it.

At a very late stage in the process, a significant disagreement occurred between the investigators regarding the compilation of the report, resulting in Professor Redmond stepping down as investigator. Mr. Madden submitted a document which the president deemed as not satisfying the terms of reference. Acting on legal advice, the president subsequently re-appointed Professor Redmond to provide the final report. Additional legal and investigator costs were incurred in dealing with this aspect.

The Redmond report, which issued in October 2013, concludes that the plagiarism detection, investigation and penalty procedures in place at the time of the incident were, in the main, fit for purpose. The investigation also concludes that the issues associated with the management of the alleged incident of plagiarism under investigation were far less connected to a poorly constructed policy than to how these policies were interpreted and implemented. A key conclusion arising from the investigation is that there was a failure on the part of a senior member of staff to provide relevant and significant information to the president and registrar of GMIT in February 2010 and in the period thereafter up to March 2011, regarding the involvement of a lecturer in procuring restricted material for a student.

A number of important lessons can be learnt from GMIT’s experience of this process. It appears such an investigation will inevitably become more complex and hence more costly than originally envisaged as new witnesses and material emerge during the course of the investigation. Accordingly, particular consideration must be given in the terms of reference to allow provision for review of costs where the original plan cannot be achieved. If appointing more than one investigator, one should be designated as the lead investigator. Investigators should retain a direct reporting line to the president or nominee and be required to consult with the president in advance of taking any significant decisions impacting on the investigation.

I wish to apologise to all our stakeholders and, in particular, to our staff and students that such expenditure was incurred at a time when these costs can only be borne by reducing expenditure in areas which directly impact our staff and students. I wish to assure this committee that the unethical behaviour which was the subject matter of this investigation is not representative of our staff whose commitment to high academic standards and professional integrity has enabled GMIT to contribute so much to the social and economic development of the region over the last five decades.