This letter has been printed and sent certified mail, on 8/21/2026, to Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR)

Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR)
Institutional Governance & Public Accountability Complaint

Respondent: Northern Arizona University (NAU) Administration & Institutional Leadership
Complainant: Malene Comes, Founder of Between Trust and Trauma
Date of Filing: Friday, August 21, 2026

I. Introduction & Statement of Governance Concern

This complaint is formally filed against the administration of Northern Arizona University (NAU) for a profound failure of public transparency, institutional accountability, and ethical oversight.

Through the James Wurgler Endowment Fund, NAU has entered into a partnership with The Guidance Center (TGC) and Flagstaff Shelter Services involving an outreach and data-tracking program targeting unhoused individuals at the Huntington Drive wet shelter.

On August 10, 2026, a formal public accountability inquiry was submitted to NAU leadership requesting basic verification of safeguards surrounding this program, including the nature and purpose of its data collection, research or program-evaluation status, human-subject protections, informed-consent mechanisms, and institutional oversight.

NAU administration has refused to provide substantive answers or verification of these safeguards.

As an Arizona public university governed by ABOR, NAU’s participation in a program involving an exceptionally vulnerable population raises legitimate questions of institutional governance, research integrity, public accountability, and appropriate use of university resources and reputation.

I am requesting that ABOR conduct an independent administrative review of NAU’s participation in this project, its response to the August 10 stakeholder inquiry, and the institutional safeguards governing NAU’s relationship with TGC and Flagstaff Shelter Services.

II. Public Accountability & Institutional Transparency

NAU is not simply an outside observer to this project. Its institutional name, personnel, resources, funding relationships, and/or data expertise are being associated with a behavioral-health outreach program operating inside an emergency shelter.

That creates legitimate public-accountability questions.

I recognize that public-records laws and university policies may protect specific categories of information from disclosure. I am not demanding disclosure of confidential research information, protected health information, personnel records, or other information legitimately protected by law.

I am asking ABOR to determine whether NAU’s refusal to provide even basic information regarding its role, oversight, safeguards, and data practices is consistent with its responsibilities as a public institution.

At minimum, the public should be able to determine the nature of NAU’s institutional role, the purpose for which university resources are being used, what oversight structure governs the project, and what safeguards protect the vulnerable population from whom information is being collected.

III. Research Integrity & Human-Subject Safeguards

The Huntington Drive program has been publicly described as possessing a significant data-collection component. NAU’s refusal to clarify the nature, purpose, and governance of that data collection creates serious concerns regarding research integrity and human-subject protections.

NAU’s own Human Research Protection Program recognizes a formal process for determining whether an activity constitutes human-subjects research requiring Institutional Review Board oversight.

The population involved here presents unusually significant ethical concerns. Individuals experiencing homelessness may simultaneously be experiencing psychiatric crisis, substance intoxication, severe trauma, medical illness, sleep deprivation, cognitive impairment, or immediate survival needs.

I am therefore asking ABOR to determine:

1. Whether NAU has formally classified this activity as human-subjects research, program evaluation, quality improvement, or another category;
2. Who made that determination and through what institutional process;
3. Whether a formal Human Research Determination was obtained through NAU’s Human Research Protection Program;
4. If the project constitutes human-subjects research, whether appropriate IRB review occurred before data collection began;
5. What informed-consent procedures govern participation;
6. How capacity to consent is addressed when an individual may be intoxicated, psychiatrically distressed, cognitively impaired, or otherwise compromised;
7. Whether individuals can refuse participation in NAU-related data collection without affecting their access to shelter services, behavioral-health services, or other assistance;
8. What identifiable, coded, de-identified, or aggregate information NAU receives; and
9. Whether collected information may subsequently be retained, analyzed, published, shared, or used for purposes beyond the immediate program.

The absence of public answers does not itself establish that these safeguards are absent. It does, however, make independent institutional review appropriate.

IV. Institutional Reputation, Conflicts of Interest & Third-Party Partnership Oversight

NAU’s participation lends substantial institutional credibility to this project.

The Guidance Center can publicly associate this program with a major public university and its academic resources. That association can reasonably communicate to members of the public, policymakers, funders, shelter residents, and other stakeholders that the program has received meaningful institutional scrutiny.

I am concerned that NAU’s name and academic credibility may be lending legitimacy to a behavioral-health referral program whose staffing qualifications, data practices, consent safeguards, referral practices, and potential financial incentives remain opaque.

TGC operates behavioral-health services into which individuals encountered through the shelter program may subsequently be referred, including higher-acuity services. This creates an obvious need for independent safeguards ensuring that clinical referrals are based upon the needs and autonomous choices of the individual rather than institutional or financial incentives.

I therefore request that ABOR determine what due diligence NAU conducted before entering this partnership and what continuing oversight exists regarding:

• Patient and participant rights;
• Data privacy and security;
• Research ethics;
• Informed consent;
• Potential conflicts of interest;
• Clinical referral practices;
• Financial relationships;
• Institutional and reputational risk; and
• Protection of vulnerable individuals.

NAU should not allow its institutional reputation to function as a shield against scrutiny of an outside healthcare organization. If NAU is placing its name, resources, personnel, funding relationships, or academic expertise behind this program, it also assumes a responsibility to ensure that its participation meets appropriate ethical and institutional standards.

V. Data Access, Sharing & Secondary Use

I am particularly concerned about the boundary between clinical information collected by TGC or Flagstaff Shelter Services and information subsequently obtained or analyzed by NAU.

I request that ABOR determine:

1. Exactly what information NAU personnel receive through this project;
2. Whether that information is identifiable, coded, de-identified, or aggregate;
3. Who within NAU is authorized to access it;
4. Whether NAU personnel have direct or indirect access to TGC clinical or patient records;
5. What agreements govern data transfer between TGC, Flagstaff Shelter Services, NAU, and any other participating entities;
6. What authorization or consent permits those transfers;
7. What security and confidentiality requirements apply;
8. How long the information is retained;
9. Whether it may be used for subsequent research, publication, grant applications, presentations, program development, or other secondary purposes; and
10. What mechanism exists for individuals to refuse participation or withdraw consent where applicable.

These questions are particularly important because individuals encountering outreach workers inside an emergency shelter may not reasonably understand that information obtained during what appears to be a clinical, social-service, or crisis interaction could subsequently become part of an academic dataset.

VI. Formal Request for ABOR Administrative Action

NAU’s continued silence regarding these fundamental questions is unacceptable for a public institution participating in a project involving vulnerable members of the Arizona public.

I formally request that the Arizona Board of Regents initiate an independent oversight review and:

1. Review NAU’s response to the August 10, 2026 stakeholder inquiry and determine whether its non-response is consistent with applicable university and ABOR governance, public-accountability, public-records, and research-integrity requirements.
2. Identify and review the operational, financial, research, data-sharing, and other agreements governing participation by NAU, the James Wurgler Endowment Fund, The Guidance Center, Flagstaff Shelter Services, and any other participating entities, subject to legitimate confidentiality requirements.
3. Determine the project’s formal research status, including whether a Human Research Determination exists, whether IRB review was required, and, if so, whether appropriate review and approval occurred before applicable activities began.
4. Determine what institutional due diligence occurred before NAU entered this partnership, including consideration of patient rights, privacy, informed consent, research and data risks, conflicts of interest, and institutional reputation.
5. Determine exactly what information NAU receives and uses, including whether information is identifiable, coded, de-identified, or aggregate; who has access; for what purpose; under what authorization; and what restrictions govern secondary use, retention, publication, and disclosure.
6. Review protections for informed and voluntary participation, particularly for individuals experiencing intoxication, psychiatric crisis, cognitive impairment, severe trauma, or other circumstances potentially affecting meaningful consent.
7. Determine whether individuals may refuse participation in NAU-related data collection without jeopardizing access to shelter, clinical treatment, crisis assistance, or other services.
8. Determine whether NAU’s continuing association with this project is consistent with its obligations as an Arizona public university and with the standards of institutional governance expected by the Arizona Board of Regents.

The people affected by this program are not merely data points. They are members of the Arizona public interacting with powerful institutions while potentially experiencing some of the most vulnerable circumstances of their lives.

NAU’s participation should increase the ethical safeguards surrounding those individuals—not make the underlying practices harder to scrutinize.

I respectfully request that the Arizona Board of Regents investigate.