A lawmaker asked Michigan to look. The House sent her resolution to the committee where resolutions go to die, then took her seats. Ten weeks later, the school’s own investigators found seventy firsthand accounts and forty-seven names.
On April 16, 2026, Representative Penelope Tsernoglou introduced House Resolution 284, which would have created a six-member bipartisan select committee with subpoena power to investigate Interlochen Center for the Arts and its documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Forty-five members signed on, three of them Republicans. The resolution was referred to Government Operations and never moved again.
On May 19 she held a press conference asking the Speaker for a floor vote. Within about a day she was off the Oversight Committee and off two subcommittees.
On July 28, Interlochen released the 97-page report it had commissioned from an outside law firm. Roughly seventy firsthand accounts. Forty-seven adults. Seven decades. Two accounts involving Epstein directly.
She was not grandstanding. She was early.
The Story as It Was Told
The version that circulated in the spring of 2026 was simple enough to repeat without checking. A minority-party legislator from East Lansing had attached herself to the Epstein story, the one national obsession guaranteed to generate coverage, and was demanding that the Michigan House convene a special committee over a summer arts camp. It was theater. It was an election-year reflex. The adults in the room would handle the serious business of the state.
That framing had two load-bearing assumptions. The first was that there was no there there. The second was that Interlochen, a nonprofit with a national reputation and a third of a billion dollars in net assets, could be trusted to sort out its own history.
Both assumptions were available for testing at the time. Neither was tested. The resolution was referred to Government Operations on the day it was introduced and never received a hearing.
Ten weeks after the resolution’s sponsor lost her committee assignments, the second assumption produced its answer in the form of a 97-page report. The first assumption did not survive it.
The story was never that a legislator overreached. The story is that the overreach framing was applied before anyone looked, and that it worked precisely because nobody had to look.
What the Legislature Was Actually Asked to Do
The request arrived in three stages, each more formal than the last, and each documented.
On March 12, 2026, seven Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to committee chair Jay DeBoyer asking that the committee use its existing powers to examine Interlochen and its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The letter cited federal document releases and the reporting, first surfaced in Julie K. Brown’s book and later developed by NPR in February 2026, that Epstein met one of his first known underage victims at the camp. Speaker Matt Hall said at the time that he was unaware of the letter. Asked whether a relationship between a convicted sex offender and a school would concern him, he said he was “not familiar with what the subject is.”
On April 16, Tsernoglou introduced House Resolution 284. The mechanism was unremarkable. A select committee of six members, three from each party, empowered under MCL 4.541 and MCL 4.101 to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and compel records. The jurisdictional hook was equally unremarkable: Interlochen has received state funds. Forty-five members signed on, including Republicans Jaime Greene, William Bruck, and Brad Paquette. The resolution went to Government Operations, a committee that functions in practice as a terminal referral.
On May 14, DeBoyer wrote back declining. His reasoning had two parts. Allegations of sexual misconduct, he wrote, are more properly a matter for law enforcement. And because Interlochen had already retained outside counsel to investigate, the Legislature should avoid steps that might complicate that process.
On May 19, Tsernoglou held a press conference asking the Speaker to bring the resolution to the floor, noting the process could be finished in a day or two. Within roughly twenty-four hours she was removed from the Oversight Committee, from the Public Health and Food Security Oversight Subcommittee, and from her post as minority vice chair of the State and Local Assistance Programs Oversight Subcommittee.
She called it retaliation for “daring to publicly ask him to investigate Jeffrey Epstein.” Hall pointed to a May 15 subcommittee clash with a Republican colleague during testimony from the state’s unemployment agency director, and told a Lansing station “I don’t care about her press conference.”
The sequence is documented: press conference on May 19, removal announced May 20 to 21. The timing is not in dispute by any party.
The motive is disputed. Tsernoglou says retaliation. Hall and DeBoyer say committee conduct. Clutch Justice does not adjudicate intent. Both accounts are recorded here because both are on the record, and because the reader is capable of weighing a one-day interval without being told what to conclude.
NPR publishes an investigation into how Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell used the arts school, drawing on Justice Department files and interviews with former administrators. A follow-up five days later reports that DOJ withheld related material. The Interlochen connection is no longer obscure, no longer confined to a single book, and no longer deniable as rumor.
From this date forward, no Michigan official can claim the subject was unknown. The information was in national circulation before any legislative request was made.
A letter goes to Oversight chair Jay DeBoyer asking the committee to use its existing powers rather than create anything new. This is the lowest-cost, lowest-friction version of the request. It requires no floor vote, no new committee, and no additional appropriation. DeBoyer acknowledges receipt. The Speaker says he is unaware of it.
An existing standing committee declined to use authority it already possessed. Every later procedural obstacle was downstream of this refusal.
Forty-five sponsors, three of them Republicans. A six-member evenly split select committee with subpoena power under MCL 4.541 and MCL 4.101. Referred the same day to Government Operations, a committee widely understood as a terminal destination. No hearing is scheduled. No vote is taken. The resolution does not move again.
Referral is a leadership decision, not a vote. Nothing in the record indicates any member ever had to go on record opposing an Interlochen investigation. That is the function of the referral.
Two stated reasons. First, that sexual misconduct allegations belong to law enforcement. Second, that Interlochen had retained outside counsel and the Legislature should avoid interfering with that review. The second reason deferred a question of public oversight to a private party that was simultaneously the subject of the inquiry.
The law enforcement rationale would have been testable by referral to the Attorney General. No public record was found of any such referral being made or declined. That absence is the single largest hole in this record.
Tsernoglou publicly asks the Speaker for a floor vote on May 19. On May 20 and 21 she is removed from the Oversight Committee and two subcommittees. She calls it retaliation. Hall cites a May 15 committee clash and says the press conference was not a factor. The interval between the public demand and the removal is approximately one day.
Intent. The sequence is documented, the explanation is contested, and no document has surfaced that resolves it. A records request to the Speaker’s office and the House Business Office is the next step.
The campus building constructed with Epstein’s money, renamed Green Lake Lodge after his 2008 conviction, is torn down. Interlochen offered local law enforcement the opportunity to photograph the structure beforehand. One of the two firsthand accounts later tied to Epstein in the report describes conduct at that lodge.
The demolition occurred after the Legislature declined to convene a body with subpoena power and before the report naming the lodge was published. Documenting the order of events is not the same as alleging spoliation, and this piece does not allege it.
Sanghavi Law Office delivers a 97-page report dated July 27, released publicly the evening of July 28 alongside a community letter from the president and board chair. About 180 interviews. Roughly 70 firsthand accounts of sexual misconduct. Forty-seven adults affiliated with the institution. Conduct spanning the 1950s through the 2010s, most of it before 2000. Two accounts involve Epstein.
Seventeen of the forty-seven are deceased. Of those still living, investigators sought interviews with all and only four agreed. A voluntary investigation cannot compel a hostile witness. A select committee with subpoena power can. That was the entire point of HR 284.
What the Report Found, and What Made It Possible
Interlochen retained Sanghavi Law Office in September 2024, after an alumna reported misconduct by a longtime faculty member that April. The resulting report is dated July 27, 2026. Its numbers are the reason this article exists.
Roughly 180 interviews with about 150 former students and camp attendees produced approximately 70 firsthand accounts of physical sexual misconduct involving 47 adults affiliated with the school. The conduct runs from the 1950s into the 2010s, concentrated before 2000. Seventeen of the 47 are dead. Of the rest, investigators sought interviews with all and obtained cooperation from four.
The institutional finding matters more than the arithmetic. The report identifies a permissive sign-out system as an enabling mechanism: faculty were able to sign students out of campus after curfew and overnight. The report’s own characterization of the control is the most useful sentence in the document. It “records a child’s location” without ever asking why an adult was alone with that child overnight.
That is not a supervision failure. That is a documentation system performing exactly as designed while producing no protective function whatsoever. The paperwork was complete. The paperwork was the problem. An institution that logs a child’s departure and never interrogates the destination has built a record of its own compliance, not a safeguard.
A 1970s-era alum quoted in the report described faculty relationships with students as widely known and tolerated, and specifically obvious to the staff whose job was approving those overnight sign-outs. Knowledge was not the missing ingredient. Consequence was.
The Epstein thread specifically
Epstein attended the camp as a 14-year-old bassoonist in 1967 and became a donor between 1990 and 2003. Reported figures vary. One outlet put his giving above $400,000 including $200,000 toward construction of the lodge; an Interlochen vice president characterized his lifetime giving as under $500,000. Investigators identified eight alums they believed may have been victimized by him. Six agreed to be interviewed. Two described physical conduct of a sexual nature, one of them at his lodge on campus.
Interlochen has forwarded the names of all accused individuals to the Grand Traverse County Prosecuting Attorney and Sheriff. No charging decisions have been announced. Given the date range, most of the conduct falls outside any viable criminal window.
Proximity, Access, and the Theory That Did Not Survive
The obvious question, and the one worth asking out loud, is whether money moved. Whether Interlochen’s board, donors, or retained counsel touched the Michigan House and made a resolution disappear.
I looked. The answer, on the available record, is no.
A cross-reference of Interlochen’s trustee roster against Michigan campaign finance data returned nothing for either of the two members who controlled the resolution’s fate. Speaker Hall’s committee reported roughly $801,542 in contributions through March 31, 2026, dominated by a $350,000 transfer from a national Republican leadership committee and an assortment of corporate and trade association PACs. DeBoyer’s committee reported roughly $53,601, weighted toward transportation and realtor interests. No identified Interlochen trustee or major donor appears in either.
This is a null finding against top-donor disclosures and the trustee roster as published in the school’s own filings. It is not an exhaustive contributor-by-contributor audit, and it cannot capture dark money, bundled giving, or contributions through intermediaries. It is reported here as what it is: no evidence found, using the tools available.
If a specific contribution later surfaces, that changes the analysis. Nothing in this section should be read as a guarantee that none exists.
What the record does show is proximity, which is a different thing and worth documenting on its own terms.
Appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court by Governor Rick Snyder in May 2017, having earlier been elevated to lower courts under Governor John Engler. Of counsel at Butzel Long, a Federalist Society member, and a former chair of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce board. He chaired Interlochen’s board at the moment the school commissioned its outside investigation in 2024. There is no evidence he intervened in the legislative process, and none is alleged here. What is documented is that the institution under scrutiny was chaired, until weeks after the investigation began, by a former justice of the state’s highest court.
Named in the report as a respondent, accused by two people. A memorial scholarship in his name remained among the school’s official funds in its fiscal year 2025 giving report. Three named respondents were still attached to four endowed funds at the time of the report’s release, including two funds bearing the name of the faculty member whose case prompted the investigation in the first place.
An institution that publishes a report naming forty-seven adults while continuing to solicit and administer scholarship funds named for three of them has not completed an accounting. It has published one. Those are different acts, and the second is easier.
On state money, the record is thinner than it should be. HR 284’s jurisdictional claim rested on Interlochen having received state funds, and the clearest documented instance is a 2025 grant through the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity supporting a national orchestral tour. The exact figure, the public act, and the sponsoring legislator could not be verified from public sources. A separate $150,000 announced through the Governor’s office in January 2022 appears, by the school president’s own description, to have been federal arts relief passed through the state rather than a state earmark.
You do not need a bribe to explain this. You need a referral, a calendar, and a majority. The most ordinary tools in the building are sufficient to stop a bipartisan resolution without a single member ever casting a recorded vote against investigating child sexual abuse.
Structural Fault Lines
The Legislature deferred to the subject of the inquiry
DeBoyer’s stated concern about interfering with Interlochen’s outside review inverted the relationship between a regulated institution and the state. A privately commissioned investigation is scoped by the institution, funded by the institution, conducted by counsel the institution selected, and released on the institution’s timeline. It cannot subpoena. It cannot compel testimony. It obtained cooperation from four of the living accused. Those constraints are not defects in Sanghavi’s work. They are the definitional limits of voluntary review, and they are precisely what a select committee exists to overcome.
The comparison Michigan has already run
Michigan does not have to theorize about what a real investigation of an institution’s handling of abuse looks like. It ran one. In January 2018 the Attorney General opened an investigation into Michigan State University over Larry Nassar, appointing special counsel with state police support and the power to seize documents. That investigation happened because a constitutional officer with independent authority decided it would.
No equivalent was ever opened here. No public record was found of any formal referral to the Attorney General regarding Interlochen, nor of any decision to decline. That gap is the most consequential unanswered question in this entire record, and it is answerable by a single well-drafted FOIA request.
The statute of limitations does the real gatekeeping
Michigan’s 2018 reform package, passed in the immediate aftermath of Nassar, extended the civil deadline for childhood sexual abuse claims to a survivor’s twenty-eighth birthday or three years after discovery, but confined the retroactive revival window in a way that functionally limited it to Nassar’s victims. In July 2024 the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed the extension is not retroactive. The practical result is that the overwhelming majority of the seventy accounts documented in the Interlochen report are time-barred before anyone reads them.
Counsel representing several Interlochen survivors has said plainly that “current Michigan law denies them access to justice” and is pressing the Legislature for a lookback window.
Interlochen is not primarily protected by its board, its donors, or its lawyers. It is protected by a statute the Legislature wrote, narrowed deliberately in 2018, and has declined to widen since. The same body that would not convene a committee to look also holds the only instrument that would let survivors act on what was found.
The Cost of the Frame
Dismissing the resolution as Epstein theater cost something specific and measurable.
It cost the ten weeks between May 21 and July 28, during which the only entity investigating was the entity being investigated. It cost the opportunity to compel testimony from the forty-three living accused, forty of whom declined to speak voluntarily. It cost a documentary record of what administrators knew and when, which a subpoena produces and a request for cooperation does not. It cost the chance to examine institutional records under oath while a building central to one account was still standing.
And it cost the state its own comparative record. Michigan has demonstrated it knows how to investigate an institution that failed children. It chose not to, and the reason on the public record is that the institution had said it would handle it.
The only institution that investigated Interlochen was Interlochen. It earned a passing grade for doing voluntarily what the state would not do at all, and that is not a compliment to Interlochen. It is an indictment of everyone else on this list.
What Would Close the Remaining Gaps
Three records requests would resolve most of what this piece cannot yet establish. The first goes to the Michigan Attorney General for any complaint, referral, or investigation request concerning Interlochen, and any response generated. That single request would settle whether the law enforcement rationale offered in May was a genuine channel or a closed door described as one.
The second goes to the Speaker’s office and the House Business Office for records regarding the referral of HR 284 and the May 2026 committee removals. The third goes to the Grand Traverse County Prosecutor and Sheriff for correspondence with Interlochen and any charging review of the names forwarded in July.
Separately, the exact figure and sponsoring legislator behind the 2025 state grant remains unverified, as does any government grants line in the school’s most recent federal filing. Those are document problems, not mystery problems. They will be pursued.
I want to be precise about what I am and am not saying, because this is the kind of story that invites people to reach past the record.
I did not find a payoff. I looked for one. I checked the trustee roster against the campaign finance filings of the two men who controlled whether this resolution lived, and I came back with nothing. If you came here for a money trail, I do not have one for you, and I am not going to manufacture one.
Here is what I do have. A resolution with forty-five sponsors from both parties. A referral to the committee where things go to die, which requires no vote and creates no record of opposition. A refusal letter that told a legislative body to stand down because the institution under examination had hired its own lawyers. A press conference on a Tuesday and a stripped committee assignment by Wednesday. And ten weeks later, seventy firsthand accounts and forty-seven names, produced by an investigation that could not compel a single unwilling witness and did not get one.
Nobody had to be bought. That is the part I want to sit on. The machinery that stopped this is the ordinary machinery of a legislative chamber, operated normally, by people with the authority to operate it. A referral is not corruption. A committee calendar is not a conspiracy. They just happen to be sufficient.
Penelope Tsernoglou asked the state of Michigan to look at an institution that turned out to have seventy firsthand accounts of child sexual abuse in its history. She was told it was a matter for law enforcement, which was never contacted. She was told the school was handling it, and the school handled it by producing a document that named the dead and could not question the living. She lost her committee seats for asking twice.
She was right. She was right in March, she was right in April, and she was right on the day they took her seats. The record now says so in ninety-seven pages that the state of Michigan had no hand in producing.
Someone owes that woman an apology. Not a private one.
Continue Your Investigation
If this reporting raised more questions, use the Clutch Justice ecosystem to keep going.
