not a record-keeping problem

(from a WVU faculty member) Yesterday's DA article about the Bresch scandal reports that Jonathan Cummings has been appointed by Garrison to oversee improving record-keeping practices (this isn't news). It also says that Cummings says there's not much to do since there's no problem with record keeping. Isn't this (focusing on record keeping) a misinterpretation of the report's and BOG's charge that Garrison ensure such an event as the Bresch scandal does not recur? Since the report says the problem came in treating a high-profile case uniquely and in rushing to judgment and in gathering high-level officials who did not necessarily have records but who falsified documents--rather than in routine record-keeping practices--then shouldn't the implementation plan focus on processes of handling student queries about transcripts, ensuring all queries and students are treated equally, and setting up a uniform process that lays out who should be involved, etc.? (By the way, in his testimony to the investigative panel, printed in today's DP, Garrison mentions the case of another student who was short a course and told he didn't graduate. His parents called Garrison's office, but the kid still didn't get to graduate and someone from the Parent's Club broke the news to the kid's mom. He suggests this is a parallel case, but it's certainly not in terms of outcome and levels of administrators involved). It seems to me that this tack of implementation is yet another way that Garrison is misreading the report and/or misleading the university--intentionally or not. In any case, this appointment of Cummings seems to be the wrong direction for implementing the report's recommendations. I might not be aware of other steps Garrison has taken, but this certainly seems like another failure by Garrison to heed the report.