How much do Healy Hall’s clock hands really cost, anyway?
A new pair of clock hands may be on the face of the Healy clock tower, but questions remain unanswered. Certain figures were thrown around in the past week about the actual cost of the clock hands, and Vox attempted to delve deeper into this issue.
On Tuesday, the University replaced the clock hands with a set in storage, according to Pugh. She also sent an email to Vox today saying that this year, the damage amounted to $9,000.
In 2005, the Healy clock thieves supposedly incurred $25,000 of damage. According to Director of Media Relations Rachel Pugh, both clock bodies were damaged when the students removed the hands from both sides, and that “additional expenses included replacing the hands and the security system.”
Healy clock thief from 2005, Drew Hamblen (SFS ’07) , alleges that this number, along with the $9,000 number, are misleading. During the time of his meeting with Code of Conduct office, the two students were not suspended. Their actions resulted in less than $500 worth of damage, which was not enough grounds for suspension and classified as a Category B violation of the Student Code of Conduct. Their sentence involved disciplinary probation, work sanction hours, and a reflection paper.
Pugh cites the damage costs to “the clock and the surrounding area,” but in 2005 this wasn’t enough to prosecute the thieves as responsible for all the damage.
Hamblen sent a document to Vox earlier today with the exact details of his Administrative Action Letter from the Director of Student Conduct, Judy D. Johnson. In the letter, the full explanation of the sentence is explained as well as the exact details of how the students supposedly damaged the inside of Healy tower.
When asked to describe how you entered the Healy clock tower and removed the clock hands you stated that you climbed up the scaffolding, in a “stair-like” fashion, to the attic section of the Healy Hall on the outside of the building. You entered Healy Hall via a broken window. You denied breaking the window. You stated the window was already broken; and had a piece of tape on the pane. You simply “removed the tape, pulled the glass out, unlatched the frame, and climbed in.” Once inside the attic area, you climbed up to the back of the clock face. One of you leaned out and reached below to remove the clock hands. You likened your actions to climbing stairs/a ladder and leaning out of a window. It was both of your strong contentions that throughout the climbing, leaning, and reaching out to remove the clock hands, neither of you was in any appreciable degree of danger.
As of yet, this year’s thieves have not indicated whether or not they intended to return the clock hands, and details from the University on where and how the damage amounts to $9,000 are difficult to obtain.
Correction: Johnson is still the Director of Student Conduct