Office of University Compliance and Integrity

1534 North High Street

Columbus, OH 43201-2190

compliance.osu.edu

MEMORANDUM
To:

Christopher M. Culley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel

From:

Jessica Tobias, Compliance Investigator

Christine Frankart, Moritz Fellow

Date:

May 9, 2014

Re:

Investigation of complaint regarding OSU vendor IQ

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employees with the Ohio Technology Consortium (OH-TECH), a collaboration between Ohio
State and the Ohio Board of Regents, reported that a project to implement a statewide K-12
learning management system is failing because a key vendor, IQ Innovations (IQ), repeatedly did
not meet the requirements of its agreement with OSU. OH-TECH employees also indicated that
Board of Regents staff caused them to be removed from parts of the project and other
responsibilities because they reported these issues.
The Office of University Compliance and Integrity (OUCI) received and investigated these
complaints made by OSU employees. We limited our review to whether the concerns raised are
protected under OSU Whistleblower Policy 1.40 in particular and whether the allegations
implicate the policys retaliation protections. After reviewing documentation and interviewing
OSU employees, we offer the following findings and recommendation:

Three OSU employees conveyed credible information that they faced significant retaliation
after questioning the performance of IQ. Yet we cannot draw conclusions about their
allegations without investigating Board of Regents employees, which is beyond the scope of
our mandate.

The existing OH-TECH governance structure (in which OSU employees report to Board of
Regents staff) poses challenges for OSU personnel who raise legitimate concerns and seek
protection under the OSU Whistleblower Policy.

University leaders should engage Board of Regents leadership about these issues and work to
address the concerns raised about IQ, possible retaliation, and the governance structure of
OH-TECH.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents is required by law to establish and maintain a
Distance Learning Clearinghouse through which K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and
other nonprofit and for-profit course providers may offer on-line courses for the fee set by
statute. In 2011, Amended Substitute House Bill 153 passed, including an uncodified statute,
Sec. 371.60.70, which provided for the relocation of the Distance Learning Clearinghouse to the
OSU College of Education and Human Ecology. While this change moved the physical operation
and administration of Ohios Distance Learning Clearinghouse to OSU, the Chancellor is still
responsible for adopting technical specifications for the common statewide platform used to
deliver the digital texts and courses.
According to a March 26, 2012 letter from Chancellor Jim Petro to Dean Cheryl Achterberg,
College of Education and Human Ecology, a Request for Proposal was issued for a common
statewide platform. After the Board of Regents determined that the vendor originally chosen
proved unable to deliver on its agreement, the Chancellor designated IQ, which had been the
other finalist under the RFP. In October 2012, OSU entered into a Master Service Agreement
with IQ, stating that the Chancellor has directed The Ohio State University to enter into a
negotiated agreement with IQ for the development and deployment of the common statewide
platform.
IQ is a Columbus-based corporation that works with states, districts and schools to implement
distance learning technology. Documentation suggests that IQ shares its Chief Information
Officer with the Electronic Classroom for Tomorrow (ECOT) and Altair Learning Management.
In addition, multiple OSU employees who were interviewed indicated that John Conley,
Assistant Deputy Chancellor of Educational Technology at the Ohio Board of Regents is a
former employee of IQ.
The Ohio Resource Center, an organization housed in the College of Education and Human
Ecology, serves as the host and operator of the statewide platform, which is now called
ilearnOhio. Employees from OSUs eStudent Servicesan organization housed in OH-TECH
also support ilearnOhio.
On February 19, 2014 OUCI received an anonymous EthicsPoint complaint regarding alleged
non-performance of IQ. This complainant is referred to as Complainant 1 in this report. The
following day OUCI received an email complaint from another complainant, referred to in this
report as Complainant 2, regarding the performance of IQ and attempts by the Board of Regents
to cover up IQs failures. Complainant 2 also reported these issues to Christopher Culley, Senior
Vice President and General Counsel, who forwarded it to OUCI. Both complaints to OUCI
specifically referenced John Conley.
Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and an additional witness interviewed as part of this
investigation subsequently complained of retaliation for participating in this investigation. The
additional witness is referred to as Complainant 3.

2|Page

SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
While the vendors level of performance under a contract is of concern to OH-TECH and the
Office of Legal Affairs, we limited our review to whether the concerns raised are protected under
OSU Whistleblower Policy 1.40 and whether the allegations implicate the policys retaliation
protections. On this basis, OUCI initiated an independent investigation of these issues while
consulting with the Office of Legal Affairs.
We reviewed extensive documentation gathered from multiple staff and conducted interviews
with the following OSU employees:

Complainant 1

Complainant 2

Complainant 3

Nicole Luthy Ohio Resource Center Director (OH-TECH)

Dwayne Sattler Associate Vice President for Policy (OH-TECH)

Christopher Drew Andrew White Human Resources Administrator (OH-TECH), The

Ohio State University; and Human Resources Director, Ohio Board of Regents

Kevin Wohlever Director of Supercomputing Operations (OH-TECH)

Although Ohio Board of Regents employees have material information about the issues raised by
OSU employees, we did not seek documentation from or attempt to interview any Board of
Regents staff, as doing so would exceed the scope and mandate of the Office of University
Compliance and Integrity. At a minimum, to properly resolve these issues, we would need to
review information from and speak with John Conley, Assistant Deputy Chancellor and Greg
Davidson, Interim Director of eStudent Services.
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
I. Three OSU employees conveyed credible information that they faced significant
retaliation after questioning the performance of IQ and participating in this
investigation. Yet we cannot draw conclusions about their allegations without
investigating Board of Regents employees, which is beyond the scope of our mandate.
a) Complainant 2 reported IQ underperformance and other concerns about the Board of
Regents.
At our request, Complainant 2 provided hundreds of documents related to ilearnOhio and IQ.
According to Complainant 2, s/he provided a critical analysis of the ilearnOhio program and IQ
to his supervisor, Dwayne Sattler and John Conley in May 2013. This analysis was done at the
3|Page

request of Sattler and addressed IQs lack of a marketing plan and its communication issues with
the Ohio Resource Center. Complainant 2 continued to report IQs reluctance to address system
bugs, failure to communicate with potential publishers and other stakeholders, and plans to
charge extra fees without OSU input to her/his supervisor, Conley and others. On October 20,
2013, Complainant 2 reported to Sattler that failure to deliver on the ilearnOhio program would
cause great reputational damage to the state and the university.
According to Complainant 2, in October 2013, s/he was permanently removed from ilearnOhio
steering committee meetings, which were attended by representatives from OSU, Board of
Regents and IQ. Complainant 1 stated that s/he was directed by Conley to remove Complainant 2
from the meeting invitations. Nicole Luthy, Ohio Resource Center Director, confirmed that
Complainant 2 was no longer working directly with IQ, but she could not say why this change
was made. Complainant 2 indicated that during one steering committee meeting in early October
2013, IQ employees accused her/him of withholding information and John McKenna of IQ made
hostile comments and got out of his chair and approached Complainant 2 with an aggressive
stance. Complainant 2 could not recall McKennas specific comments.
Additionally, Luthy stated that steering committee meetings were often tense, so much so that
these meetings were eventually suspended altogether. Luthy indicated that the meetings were
reinstated with a much smaller group. Information provided by Complainant 1 and Complainant
2 indicate that several regular steering committee meeting attendees, including representatives
from OSU and IQ, were removed between October and November 2013. According to Luthy,
meetings were again suspended in February 2014 after a big blow out caused by IQs
suspicion that Complainant 2 was the author of critical comments despite the fact that her/his
name was scrubbed from the document.
Complainant 2 also stated that on December 3, 2013, Greg Davidson, eStudent Services Interim
Director, Board of Regents, sent an email detailing the problems with ilearnOhio and IQ.
According to Complainant 2, Davidson was reprimanded by Conley for putting this information
in writing.
Sattler, to whom Complainant 2 formerly reported, indicated that Complainant 2 complained to
him about intimidation in meetings with IQ and the Board of Regents. Sattler stated that he
shared with Dr. Whitacre and Mike Mitchell from Legal Affairs that if something is not done
about ilearnOhio, Complainant 2 and another eStudent Services employee would likely lose their
jobs. Sattler explained that the Board of Regents controls a large portion of the funds allocated to
eStudent Services and John Conley insinuated that funding for eStudent Services could be easily
cut off eliminating those. Sattler also shared that he generally approved of Complainant 2s
performance and has never reprimanded her/him.
b) Complainant 1 reported IQ underperformance and other concerns about the Board of
Regents.
On January 2, 2013, Complainant 1 sent an email to John Conley, Dwayne Sattler, and Nicole
Luthy reporting that IQ was going to miss its critical January 3, 2013 deadline to complete
development and that the release of the program was in jeopardy. Complainant 1 stated that
4|Page

Conley insisted that the ilearnOhio program be announced in some form at the February 2013 eTech Conference. On January 15, 2013 Complainant 1 sent a project assessment to Conley.
According to Complainant 1, this assessment was a salvage position and was completed at the
direction of Conley.
Complainant 1 indicated that her/his role started changing in June 2013 when her/his interaction
with Conley went from daily emails, phone calls and meetings to meeting once every two weeks
in IT Steering Committee meetings. Complainant 1 shared that the tipping point occurred
when Conley recommended that Complainant 1 hire a former colleague for an open Project
Coordinator position. S/He stated that Conley gave Complainant 1s email address, phone
number, and home address to the potential candidate. The candidate proceeded to visit
Complainant 1s home. Complainant 1 stated that s/he informed Drew White that s/he felt
uncomfortable and pressured to add an additional candidate and bypass the interviews and
selections that s/he already made. Complainant 1 stated that s/he also informed Kevin Wohlever,
her/his former supervisor, of her/his discomfort with Conleys influence over the hiring process
and that Wohlever indicated s/he should do as Complainant 1 saw fit. Wohlever does not recall
discussing this matter with Complainant 1. Another candidate was selected for the position.
According to Complainant 1, Wohlever and Davidson informed her/him on January 30, 2014
that s/he would no longer be the manager of the Project Management Office, would be
reassigned to eStudent Services, and would report to Greg Davidson. Complainant 1 stated that,
effective immediately, s/he no longer managed his direct reports. Complainant 1 shared that
Wohlever told her/him that this move was in no way reflective of his performance. Complainant
1 also stated that in a subsequent meeting on February 11, 2014, Wohlever confirmed that
Conley was the requestor of the changes and that Complainant 1 was a victim of politics.
Wohlever indicated to us that he did not make these statements.
Wohlever confirmed that he dissolved the Project Management Office in February 2014 and
Complainant 1 was reassigned to eStudent Services under Greg Davidson. Wohlever also
confirmed that he gave Complainant 1 an overall positive performance review in June 2013.
Wohlever stated that, more recently, the Project Management Office was not fulfilling its goals
and that work was being done to justify its existence and not to further OH-TECHs work. He
added that several OH-TECH employees avoided the Project Management Office because of
difficult personalities. Wohlever stated that he suggested to Conley that the office be dissolved
and had conversations about the situation with Drew White, Christine Hansen, Consortia Fiscal
Services Director, OH-TECH and Pankaj Shah, Ohio Supercomputer Center and OARnet
Executive Director. Wohlever stated that Conley did not make the decision to dissolve the
Project Management Office; however, Wohlever also stated that Conley did suggest
Complainant 1 be reassigned to eStudent Services under Greg Davidson.
After Wohlevers interview, he informed us that OH-TECH retained Duane Baker as a
consultant in the summer of 2013 to assist in developing agreements between OH-TECH and its
customers and analyzing its budget. Baker formally served as the interim Director of Shared
Infrastructure for OH-TECH from October 2012 to December 2012. Baker reported that the
Project Management Office appeared to be ineffective and a waste of resources and
recommended that OH-TECH consider eliminating it. The report containing this
5|Page

recommendation is dated September 30, 2013, almost nine months after Complainant 1 disclosed
issues with IQ and three months after s/he reported Conleys involvement in Project Coordinator
hiring process.
c) Complainant 1, Complainant 2 and Complainant 3 reported that Board of Regents
employees took actions that constitute retaliation against them for participating in this
investigation.
In early April 2014, Complainant 1, Complainant 2 and Complainant 3 developed a proposal for
a Straight A Fund grant, which is awarded by the Ohio Department of Education for new
approaches that meet learning needs; reduce the cost of operating a school or school district; or
drive more dollars to the classroom. The proposal seeks to use PEATT, a technology that is
designed to improve student literacy by strengthening reading comprehension skills and
developing critical cognitive and writing skills required by the new Common Core State
Standards and PARCC assessments at a specific Ohio high school. Under the proposal funds
would go to OSU, the University of Memphis and the Ohio high school. The funds allocated to
OSU would contribute to the salaries for Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and Complainant 3,
who would all have a 60% appointment under this grant.
Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and Complainant 3 all reported that Greg Davidson indicated
that the Board of Regents did not approve of their pursuit of the Straight A Fund grant.
Complainant 1 and Complainant 2 provided copies of emails from Davidson saying:
The BOR advises the eSS not pursue this grant at this time until all issues
are settled that face eSS. I know you have done a lot of work on this, but I
agree the timing will be better at a later time. (April 15, 2014 at 8:04 a.m.)
*

Until the OSU investigation into eSS projects has completed, new projects
are on hold. (April 15, 2014 at 9:43 a.m.)
Complainant 3 indicated that Davidson spoke with her/him about the Straight A Fund grant
during a meeting on April 15, 2014. According to Complainant 3, Davidson advised her/him that
the grant proposal should not be submitted until the OSU investigation was completed. Davidson
added that part of the reason this was decided was because the Board of Regents was unsure of
Dwayne Sattlers involvement.
Complainant 1 indicated that s/he then received a different explanation from Davidson on April
17, 2014. According to Complainant 1, Davidson stated that the grant could not be submitted
because the proposal involves $300,000 of Ohio Department of Education funds going to the
University of Memphis and because the Board of Regents did not know about it.
Complainant 2 shared that Davidsons new explanation did not make sense to her/him because
Davidson had not yet reviewed the final draft of the proposal, which detailed the overall

6|Page

expenditures and how the payment allocated to the University of Memphis fits into the overall
structure.
Complainant 2 also stated that s/he believes the decision to not allow her/him and others to
pursue the Straight A Fund grant may have impacted her/his research and violated her/his
academic freedom rights as a graduate student.
Additionally, Complainant 3 reported that Nicole Luthy requested her/his part-time assistance in
the Ohio Resource Center. According to Complainant 3, Davidson informed her/him that the
Board of Regents advised that Complainant 3 not be allowed to assist the Ohio Resource Center
because of the ongoing OSU investigation.
RELEVANT OSU POLICY
OSU Whistleblower Policy 1.40:
University faculty, staff, students, or volunteers may not retaliate against an
individual who has made a protected disclosure or who has refused to obey
an illegal order. University faculty, staff, students, or volunteers may not
directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority or influence
of their positions or offices for the purpose of interfering with the right of
an individual to make a protected disclosure to the individuals immediate
supervisor or other appropriate administrator or supervisor within the
operating unit, or other appropriate university official about matters within
the scope of this policy.
In the policy wrongful conduct is defined as:
A serious violation of university policy; a violation of applicable state and
federal laws; or the use of university property, resources, or authority for
personal gain or other non university-related purpose except as provided
under university policy.
In the policy protected disclosure is defined as:
Communication about actual or suspected wrongful conduct engaged in by
a university employee, student, volunteer, agent, or contractor (who is not
also the disclosing individual) based on a good faith and reasonable belief
that the conduct has both occurred and is wrongful under applicable law
and/or university policy.
In the policy retaliation is defined as:
Adverse action against an individual because she or he has made a protected
disclosure or has participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing
involving a protected disclosure.
7|Page

Analysis
Information reported by Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and Complainant 3 likely constitutes
protected disclosures under the OSU Whistleblower Policy 1.40; however, we are not able to
make a conclusion as to whether the adverse employment actions taken against these employees
were based on the protected disclosures because we are unable to interview Board of Regents
employees and review documentation that they may have. Notably, a vendor or partner is not
covered by the Policy.
Protected Disclosures
Complainant 2 initially reported wrongful conduct by a university vendor when s/he reported the
use of university resources for a contract with IQ, and the possible reputational risk for OSU
when IQ does not perform on the contract. Likewise, Complainant 1 initially reported wrongful
conduct when s/he reported IQs missed deadline and the potential consequences for the
ilearnOhio program. Complainant 1 also reported wrongful conduct when s/he raised concerns
about John Conleys use of his authority in the OSU hiring process. No evidence suggests these
reports were made in bad faith or without reasonable belief. Therefore, it is likely that
Complainant 1 and Complainant 2s initial reports are protected disclosures.
Similarly, the information provided by Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and Complainant 3
during this investigation is protected because the information was provided during an
investigation regarding a protected disclosure.
Nexus Between Protected Disclosures and Adverse Employment Actions
Adverse action was taken against Complainant 2 when s/he was removed from steering
committee meetings and other responsibilities relating to IQ. However, we are unable to
conclude that this action constitutes retaliation under OSU Whistleblower Policy 1.40 because
we were not able to question Board of Regents employees who may have influenced or made the
decision leading to the adverse action. Notably, it appears that other OSU and IQ employees
were removed from the steering committee meetings as well.
Adverse action was taken against Complainant 1 when the Project Management Office was
dissolved and s/he was reassigned to eStudent Services with no direct reports. However, we are
unable to conclude that this action constitutes retaliation under OSU Whistleblower Policy 1.40
because we were not able to question Ohio Board of Regents employees who may have decided
the adverse action.
Adverse action was taken against Complainant 1, Complainant 2, and Complainant 3 when they
were prohibited from submitting a grant proposal that would create additional job duties and
provide significant funding for their positions. Furthermore, adverse action was taken against
Complainant 3 when the Ohio Board of Regents advised that Complainant 3 should not be
allowed to assist the Ohio Resource Center. While documentation strongly suggests the initial
reasoning for prohibiting the grant submission was the fact that Complainant 1, Complainant 2,
and Complainant 3 were participating in an OSU investigation, we are not able to make a
8|Page

conclusion as to whether the adverse employment actions taken against these employees were
based on the protected disclosures because we are unable to interview Board of Regents
employees.
The OH-TECH staffing structure, in which Board of Regents participate in and make decisions
regarding employment actions affecting OSU employees, prohibits OSU investigators from
thoroughly reviewing these allegations of retaliation, as obtaining documentation from and
interviewing staff of the Board of Regents is beyond our reach.
II. The existing OH-TECH governance structure (in which OSU employees report to
Board of Regents staff) poses challenges for OSU personnel who raise legitimate
concerns and seek protection under the OSU Whistleblower Policy.
According to its website, OH-TECH functions as an umbrella organization for Ohios statewide
technology infrastructure, the Ohio Academic Resources Network, the Ohio Supercomputer
Center, OhioLINK, eStudent Services and the Research and Innovation Center. Funded by the
Ohio General Assembly through the Board of Regents, OH-TECH reports to the Chancellor of
the Board of Regents. However, all business and legal services are provided by OSU with
direction from the Vice President of Research, Dr. Caroline Whitacre. 1 The website also states
that John Conley, Assistant Deputy Chancellor, Ohio Board of Regents, oversees OH-TECH. 2
Currently, approximately 155 OSU employees are tasked to OH-TECH. See OH-TECH
Organizational Chart attached as Exhibit A.
The OH-TECH organization chart indicates that OSU eStudent Services employees directly
report to Board of Regents employee Greg Davidson, Interim Director of eStudent Services.
Drew White explained that an unsuccessful search was conducted in 2013 for the Director of
eStudent Services, who would normally be an OSU employee. Consequently, the Board of
Regents asked Dr. Whitacre to approve the current eStudent Services reporting situation for a
temporary period of time.
While it does not appear that any OSU employees directly report to John Conley, interviews and
documentation suggest that he is often involved in personnel decisions related to OSU
employees. Kevin Wohlever stated that he consulted Conley, Drew White and Pankaj Shah,
Executive Director, Ohio Supercomputer Center and OARnet, when he decided to dissolve the
Project Management Office, a decision that removed several responsibilities from OSU
employee, Complainant 1. However, Wohlever did not discuss his decision with Dr. Whitacre,
despite stating that he directly reports to her. Similarly, Complainant 1 stated that Conley
directed her/him to stop inviting Complainant 2 to ilearnOhio steering committee meetings after
Complainant 2 criticized the vendor IQ. Additionally, the aforementioned consulting report by
Duane Baker also addresses OH-TECHs governance structure and acknowledges that only the
designee of the Chancellor of Board of Regents has any true say in the management and
workings of that organization. And an OSU employees written reprimand letter referenced
Conleys recommendation for corrective action.

1
2

https://oh-tech.org/content/about_ohio_technology_consortium.
http://oh-tech.org/leadership.

9|Page

Analysis
While there may be nothing that prohibits OSU employees from reporting to the staff of another
state agency, the current governance and reporting structure is unusual. At a minimum, the
arrangement creates confusion about roles and responsibilities. This structure also apparently
allows non-OSU supervisors to make employment decisions that adversely affect OSU
employees. Moreover, the university has no authority over the non-OSU supervisors to require
appropriate managerial training, to monitor compliance with OSU polices and state and federal
laws, and to investigate potential wrongdoing. Therefore, the existing OH-TECH governance
structure poses challenges for OSU personnel who raise concerns that would be protected under
the OSU Whistleblower Policy.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing documentation and interviewing OSU employees, we offer the following
findings and recommendation:

Three OSU employees conveyed credible information that they faced significant retaliation
after questioning the performance of IQ. Yet we cannot draw conclusions about their
allegations without investigating Board of Regents employees, which is beyond the scope of
our mandate.

The existing OH-TECH governance structure (in which OSU employees report to Board of
Regents staff) poses challenges for OSU personnel who raise legitimate concerns and seek
protection under the OSU Whistleblower Policy.

University leaders should engage Board of Regents leadership about these issues and work to
address the concerns raised about IQ, possible retaliation, and the governance structure of
OH-TECH.

10 | P a g e

EXHIBIT A

OH-TECH Ord Chart

Org Chart
As of 3/3/2014

Student
James Fisher

Program
Coord.
Sarah Sed

Program
Coord.
Elizabeth
Stong

Chief Technology
Officer
Paul Schopis

Network Ops
Manager
Anthony Eller

Network Eng
Manager
Mark Fullmer

Optical
Engineer
Gary Goettel

Sr. Routing
Engineer
Aaron Wise

Optical
Engineer
Vincent
Gerardi

Sr. Backbone
Routing
Engineer
Stephen
Sizemore

Network
Engineer
VACANT

Network
Engineer
Aaron Laub

Field Facilities
Manager
Michael
Goodman

Service Desk
Manager
Andrew
Boggs

Tier II NOC
Support Agent
Ian Murphy

NOC Support
Agent
Kip Dixon

NOC Support
Agent
Jordan
McCamey
NOC Support
Agent
Intisar Bashir

NOC Support
Agent
Joel
Jacobsen

NOC Support
Agent
Bob Osborne

NOC Support
Agent
Brian Mooney

NOC Student
David
Wickenheiser

NOC Student
Richard
Hollyfield

NOC Student
Todd
Stonebraker

NOC Student
Ryan Murphy

Network
Engineer
Anand
Sreenivasan

Network
Engineer
Nick Wolff

Design Layout
Technician
Rebecca
Dolan

Prg Mgr,
Identity
Federation
Mark Beadles

Performance
Engineer
Alex
Berryman

GRA
VACANT

Student
Researcher
Vacant

Student
Researcher
Vacant

Student
Researcher
Vacant

Executive Director
OARnet/OSC
Pankaj Shah

Executive
Assistant
Kelly Sitz

Client Services
Manager
Ann
Zimmerman

Partner
Relations Rep
Emmalee
Amundson

Client
Services Rep
Mary Ann
Zbydnowski

Partner
Relations Rep
VACANT

Client
Services Rep
Dana Rogers

Student
Robert
Benedict

Client
Services Rep
Toni
Cappociama

Client & Tech

Support
Manager
Brian Guilfoos
Sr Systems
Developer/
Engineer
VACANT

Chief
Systems
Architect
Doug
Johnson

Scientific
Applications
Group
Manager
Karen Tomko

Sr Systems
Developer/
Engineer
Patricia Carey

Sr Sys
Consult
Haodan Jiang

Sr.
Computational
Science
Researcher
Judith Gardiner

Systems
Engineer
Stelios
Kyriacou

Support
Engineer
Barbara
Woodall

Systems
Engineer
Lin Li

Office
Associate
Nancy
DruganKoehler

Support
Engineer
Yuan Zhang

Sr Systems
Developer/
Engineer
Ed Wahl

Program Asst.
VACANT

Sr Sys
Consult
Summer
Wang

Systems
Specialist
VACANT

Student
Patrick
OBrien

Student
Abigail Hahn

Student
Paul Brueler

Student
Matthew
Duthie

GRA
Mi Young
Park

Student
Victoria
Puthoff

Student
Koh Schooley

Engineering
Student
VACANT

Executive Director
Innovation Center
VACANT

Interim Director of
Supercomputer
Services
Dave Hudak

Chief Relationship
Officer
Denis Walsh

Senior
Business
Relationship
Manager
Letha Butcher

Chief Public
Affairs
Charles See

Student
Angello
Astorga
Student
Chris Miller

Student
Aaron
Maharry

User Support
Scott Brozell
20%

Industrial
Engagement
Lead/
AWESIM
Alan Chalker

Web & Interface

Applications
Group Manager
VACANT
Sr Software
Engineer
Thomas
VACANT
Systems
Developer/
Engineer
Eric Franz
Systems
Developer/
Engineer
(Temp)
Piyush Diwan

Faculty on
Loan
Rajiv
Ramnanth

Senior
Education
Specialist
Steve Gordon

Student
Joshua
Cassidy

Student
Tim Van
Eerten

Interim OSC
Research
Director
Karen Tomko

Director
Interface Lab
Don Stredney
Research
Software
Engineer
Brad Hittle
Research
Scientist
Thomas
Kerwin

GRA
Yinxuan Shi

Student
Lauren Kates

GRA
Renee Chen

Director of
Consortia Fiscal
Services
Christine Hansen

Business
Office
Manager
Justin Costa
Sr.
Accountant
Rosemary
Wade

Accountant
Troy Dillon

Accountant
Hope Harrison

Sr Analyst
Deb Minger

Student
Pete Ragias

GAA
Kimberly
Miranda

Human
Resources
Administrator
Drew White

Facilities
James Rader

Assoc. VP Policy,
OH-Tech
Federal Advocacy
Dwayne Sattler

Director of
Communications
Jamie Abel

Creative
Director
Ian
MacConnell

Communications
Program
Manager
Susan Mantey

Drupal/PHP
Developer
Chris Spiker

Policy & Grants

Manager
Linda Flickinger
Program
Coordinator,
Policy &
Communications
Donovan Godt
Student
Robert
Simeral

Student
Raquib
Ahmed

Student
Vacant

Project
Coordinator
Michael
Hopcraft

Interim
Desktop/Video
Support Team
Lead
Steve Antle
Desktop/
VIdeo Support
Jason Breech

Desktop/
Video Support
Lynn Caminiti
Video
Conferencing
Tech
Ken Fox
Desktop/
Video Support
Jeff Berry

Student
Michael
Krichten

Director Shared
Infrastructure
Kevin Wohlever

Jeff Smith
DBA Admin
Lead

Sys Admin
Manager
Alan
Edmonds

Systems
Admin.,
Jeff Craft

Middleware
DBA
Brian Powell

Sys Admin/
Hardware
Lead
Roman Rudy

Project
Manager
Jodi Santini

Systems
Admin
Debashree
Pati

App
Developer
Arkadiy Khitrik

Sys Admin
Lead
Joseph
Griffiths

Project
Coordinator
Ruedy
Leeman

App
Developer
Jason Lyle

Sys Admin
Robert
Voorhees

Coordinator,
OhioLINK
Catalogs
Anita Cook

Sys Admin
Wilson
Burrows

Sys Admin
Todd Meade

Linux Sys
Admin
Matthew Soter

Continuing
Resources &
Database
Management
Cataloger
Theda
Schwing

LAN Engineer
VACANT

Metadata and
e-Resources
Librarian
Emily Flynn

General DBA
Chris Morway
Student
Vacant

Student
Zach Reid
Student
Ryan Myford

Administrative
Assistant
Stephanie
Wolf

Interim
Manager of
Servicenow
Doug Line

General DBA
Jamie Clark

Systems
Developer
James
Russell

Grants
Manager
Janet Gregory

Systems
Developer
Neha Arcot

Technical
Education
Lead
Marcio
Faerman

Tech
Business
Analyst
Mike Lietz

Interim Director
eSS
Greg Davidson

Executive Director
OhioLINK
Gwen Evans

Jim Jacob
IT Architect

Director,
Learning Tech
Brad Henry

Deputy Director
and E-Content
Licensing
Amy Pawlowski

Manager,
Resources
Sharing and
Pring Policy
VACANT

Serials
Check-in
Jennie
Thomas (p/t)

Manager
Discover,
Integration
and Digital
Services
VACANT
Scholarly
Communicatio
n
VACANT

Manager,
Member and
User Services
Meghan
Frazer

Coordinator,
Customre and
Vendor
Relations
Meg
Spernoga

Manager,
eTutoring
Karen Boyd

Student
Assistant
Vacant
Student
Assistant
Vacant

Director, Higher
Learning
Gateway
Anna Bendo

PMO
Manager
Tony Kutlu

Tech
Coordinator,
eSS
Mitchell Wilson