When the special panel charged with investigating allegations against a former University of Wisconsin athletics official released their report last week, there were a number of high-profile absences. Head football coach Bret Bielema and former Senior Associate Athletic Director John Chadima himself were among the parties that declined an interview with the four-person review panel.

Chadima, who is accused of putting his hands down the pants of a student employee and then threatening to fire him if he did anything about it, has been mum on his reasoning for saying no to the panel, but his hiring of a lawyer raises a few ideas. Bielema, on the other hand, was excused because “he had a job to do,” according to a WKOW quote from Associate Athletics Director Justin Doherty.

“He was simply not able to find a time that worked for all of us,” panel leader Patrick Fielder said.

Bielema’s apparent conviction that running an off-season football team makes him too busy to weigh in on allegations of sexual assault concerning two of his employees is disturbing, even if he was not in attendance at the party. The special panel’s acceptance of his justification is even more so.

Without the power to compel people to testify, there was little the board could do but be happy with whatever information came their way. And through the 23 people they were able to interview, the board certainly gathered enough information to build a narrative that lent credence to the male student employee’s allegations. It was a good starting point, but did little to settle the matter in anyone’s mind.

The university has said they will use the information to review existing policies and inform future actions. If UW takes the safety of their employees and integrity of their departments seriously, they will stay true to their words and perform an overhaul in policy. This includes giving panels charged with important goals, like investigating sexual assault, the power to talk to whomever they need to and increasing emphasis on the need for cooperation from each and every employee. One person’s stubbornness or misplaced sense of importance is enough to ruin the earnest transparency UW seems to be working toward.

The term “isolated incident” has been bandied about quite a bit since Chadima’s departure. Athletic department officials and Chadima himself seem bent on convincing the public that this was a one-time thing. But there has been little emphasis on the texts Chadima sent before the party to another student employee, who also declined an interview with the panel, or the possibility that abuses of power or breaches of morality and law might have occurred in the past.

As the unnamed student is not currently pursuing legal action, the university may be the only remaining party with a shot at uncovering what really happened, and what was never reported. For that reason, the university should conduct a further investigation that delves deeper into the facts that have been uncovered and explores the past relationship between Chadima and his coworkers.

The stakes are too great to not raise that possibility.

Signe Brewster is a senior majoring in life sciences communication. Email her at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter at @signejb.