Kenneth Frazier: Anti-Child and Anti-PSU

Kenneth Frazier believes that his slick talk about the Freeh Report can fool us.  It can't.  Kenneth Frazier is a phony. He doesn't care about children and he doesn't represent PSU's interests.

By

Ray Blehar

Kenneth Frazier’s remarks in the Philadelphia Inquirer and elsewhere, did a disservice to Pennsylvania’s children, continued to inflict harm on Penn State University, and lacked common sense in terms of understanding the evidence in the Sandusky case.  Frazier commited errors of bias in his use and interpretation of the evidence in this case, and, like Linda Kelly and Louis Freeh, refused to acknowledge (i.e., throws away) any evidence that doesn’t fit his anti-PSU agenda.

That's right.  Anti-PSU.  Any person who would defend the Freeh Report, which resulted in PSU being labeled Pedophile State University, certainly can't be labeled anything but Anti-PSU.  At least that's how I see it.

I find it astonishing that one of our Board members, who is a well accomplished attorney and who gained notoriety for fighting the Vioxx lawsuits on a case-by-case basis (rather than in a class action), would refuse to defend PSU officials who were erroneously charged with failure to report child abuse. 

Frazier contends – as do Freeh and Kelly - that the decision made not to report the 2001 incident to DPW provides a reasonable basis to conclude a report was not made to authorities.  Yet, two former PSU employees (Courtney and Schultz) both stated that they believed the University contacted Centre County CYS about the incident -- fulfilling their legal mandate to report. 

Why wouldn’t Frazier, as an attorney, and as someone representing PSU, come to the defense of Schultz and Curley in light of these statements?  Why wouldn't Frazier, as I have done, challenge the AG to prove a report was not made to CYS?  Proving a negative is nearly impossible. And Frazier knows it.

Why wouldn’t Frazier review the law and take the position that Curley’s report to The Second Mile should have fulfilled the legal requirement of causing a report to be made to authorities and put the onus of the failure on The Second Mile?

The simple answer is that Kenneth Frazier does not care about the reputation of PSU.  What Ken Frazier cares about is PSU's bank account and the bank accounts of he and his cohorts on the BOT.

PSU Finances

It has become rather obvious that Frazier and the November 2011 BOT cut a budget deal with Tom Corbett (with a few other "sweeteners" thrown in).  The deal makes a lot of sense from a financial perspective, because the $60M in fines and other costs of the scandal pale in comparison to what Corbett could do to PSU in a single year with his budget axe.  How was it that in Spanier’s last year, Corbett proposed $160M in budget cuts, but after Spanier’s departure, PSU got (and will continue to get) a level budget?   

However, there is yet another financial reason that is likely behind the BOT’s push to “move forward” and not fight the sanctions.  PSU is loaning the Athletic Department the money to pay the fines.  The first loan was for $12M at 4% to be paid back to the University over 30 years.  As a result, the University stands to make $8.8M on its loan if the loan goes full term.  If similar arrangements are made for the other loans to the Athletic Department, PSU stands to gain $44M over the next 35 years.  The Athletic Deparment pays the loans from its revenues, the University doesn't pay a dime.  But who ends up paying?  The student athletes who don't get scholarships to PSU, the same athletes who will have to make due with less than the best facilities (as maintenance and other support are cut), and the athletic boosters who support PSU athletics will likely face increasing costs for tickets, parking, and concessions. 

What does the BOT have to pay for their negligence in the scandal?  Nothing. 

They're indemnified --  unless it can be proven they committed crimes. 

Just thought I'd throw that in.     

For those of you who are hand-wringing over the potential payments to Sandusky’s victims,  you need not be concerned.   These are settlements to avoid the potential heavy costs of litigation. In comparison to the other money involved in the scandal, the settlement money to the victims is "chump change."

BOT Not Protecting Children

In the article, Frazier sets up a false choice between the BOT’s alleged purpose of preventing harm to children and the BOT’s critics as people whose only concern is vindicating Paterno. 

It’s a convenient set of labels, but neither is true.

Frazier and the BOT have steered clear of making any mention of the failures of The Second Mile, DPW, and CYS in protecting children.    All of these entities had far more qualified people to identify Sandusky as a child molester back in 1998 and 2001, yet failed to do so.  Yet, Kenneth Frazier wants us all to believe that it was Curley, Schultz, Paterno, and Spanier that “at the moment of truth..did not put the welfare of children first.” 

Frazier hides behind the excuse that Freeh was chartered to do an internal investigation and not look at DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.   That's a convenient out for Kenneth Frazier and the BOT, but it's not convenient for the 25,000 children who will be harmed and the 40 children that will lose their lives this year in child abuse incidents. 

Frazier needs only to find a mirror if he wants to see who is failing Pennsylvania’s children. 

His silence – as well as the rest of the BOT members who refuse to acknowledge failures outside of PSU – continues to put children at risk.  Anyone who has fallen for the story that PSU is the world’s leader in child abuse prevention (as some are claiming) needs to understand that funding a child abuse research center at Hershey Medical Center and throwing money at child protection charities doesn’t put the resources where they are needed most – on the front-lines at CYS and DPW to recruit, train, and retain qualified and caring child protection caseworkers.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last reviewed DPW in 2008 and published its findings in March 2009.  The report revealed substandard performance in all sixteen of the items related to child safety.  Pennsylvania's record for child protection is abysmal and it was the last state in the U.S. to meet the standards for funding under the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act.  It didn't obtain CAPTA compliance until 2006.

It is clear that Frazier and PSU BOT have done about as very little research on child abuse and child abuse prevention and are completely unaware of the basics. 

As I pointed out in Tuesday’s blog, the Policy AD73, created in response to the Sandusky scandal, actually puts minor children in one-on-one situations with adults, which goes against well established two person rules in programs for youth. 

Policy AD39, regarding minors involved in university program, is also a lawsuit waiting to happen because it contains no provisions protecting the identities of child abuse victims nor the alleged perpetrator.  It also contains no provisions regarding the destruction of records pertaining  to child abuse reports.

The PSU BOT and the PSU General Counsel are “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight” when it comes to child protection.

World leader?  Hardly.

Freeh's Critics Are the Real Protection Advocates

Conversely, this blogger and many of the blog’s followers are staunch advocates for child protection and reforming Pennsylvania’s abysmal system.  We actually know the facts about the system, whereas Frazier and most of the BOT only know what Louis Freeh put in the text of his report.

It is abundantly clear that Frazier did not read the extremely well-written report by Jim Clemente that undoubtedly is invaluable in helping parents and anyone else identify offenders like Sandusky.  Frazier lumped the Clemente report in with those of Thornburg and Berlin and called it self-serving.  Conversely, responsible and caring BOT members, like Ryan McCombie, have praised Clemente's report for the lessons it provided.

Additonally, it is clear Kenneth Frazier has not visited this blog or the new web-site at SanduskyReports.com  and viewed all of the information about child welfare and child protection.  And it is highly unlikely that Frazier read my  first report which primarily focused on child protection and reforming the child protection system. 

Finally, my quest to improve child protection in Pennsylvania continues.  I will be writing a series of blog posts regarding the service levels provided by Centre County CYS so that the public will be better informed about how the system operates.  I can honestly say that most will find the system appalling on several levels.

Biased Use of Evidence

Frazier’s interpretation of the evidence in this case is exactly the same as Louis Freeh’s and Linda Kelly’s – and it’s wrong.  Of course, as accomplished attorneys all, they are doing as they are trained to do – focus on the evidence that supports their case and diminish the evidence that fails to support it. 

Under scrutiny, Frazier’s arguments based on the evidence he chose, falls apart.

Frazier: "The most important service that Judge Freeh did was to produce that documentary  record for us. We didn't have that," Frazier said. "But for his competence, I don't believe we would have it."

Rebuttal: Court documents show that Gary Schultz provided notification to PSU about the existence of his files on Sandusky on or about January 5, 2011.   Perhaps if Frazier amended the statement above to say, “But had it not been for Cynthia Baldwin’s incompetence, I believe we would have had it a over a year sooner” the statement would have some merit.  The biggest question I have is did Cynthia Baldwin tell Kenneth Frazier about this file prior to it being "discovered" by Louis Freeh?

Frazier:  In response to the e-mail evidence that indicated Paterno knew few details about

Sandusky, Frazier said he found that "at odds with the plain language of those documents."

Rebuttal: There are only 13 e-mails that reference the 1998 and 2001 incidents.  No one knows how many e-mails Freeh excluded that contained exculpatory information.  That is very likely one of the reasons why Frazier is so adamant that the Freeh investigation is not re-investigated.  Not only would evidence be found to exonerate PSU officials, but I firmly believe a re-investigation would result in criminal charges against the BOT and Freeh.  And it would likely reveal the NCAA broke its own rules by using information obtained via a criminal investigation. 

But I digress. 

As for Frazier's contention of the "plain language" of the documents proving Paterno knew the details, the best rebuttal is by the use of a fictional example of an e-mail that Mr. Frazier should equally characterize as having "plain language" that shows he knew many details of a (fictional) fraud committed at Merck.

Here's the email:

From:  Joe Smith, Merck Corporate Security

Sent:   Wenesday, May 6, 2007

To:       John Adams, Merck VP Finance

Subject:  Re: Kenneth Frazier

Will do. Since we talked tonight I’ve learned that the FBI people will interview the individual on Thursday.

At 5:24PM 5/5/2007, John Adams wrote:

I have touched base with the Attorney.  Keep us posted.  Thanks.

According to Frazier - and people like Sally Jenkins - the attorney referenced in this e-mail cannot be anyone other than Kenneth Frazier.  His name is on the subject line and he is an attorney, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Attorney has to be Frazier. Additionally, since Smith made the notation that the FBI was interviewing someone, it obviously had to do with the fraud case that was going on in 2007.  And because Adams is a protege (errand boy) of Frazier, Adams undoubtedly told Frazier the complete details of the fraud case.  So, the evidence in the e-mail above, according to Kenneth Frazier, would cause one to reasonably conclude that he knew the all of the details of the 2007 Merck fraud investigation.

Really?

I cannot imagine Frazier being confronted with this piece of evidence and Frazier rolling over and saying it is evidence that he had complete knowledge of the 2007 investigation.   If someone accused Frazier, based on this evidence, he would laugh them out of the room.  So would any other person with half a brain (rule out Sally Jenkins -- she considers these e-mails to be not just smoking guns, but guns with flames shooting out the barrels).

The only other e-mail referencing Paterno was Exhibit 5G, which indicates Curley had a discussion with Paterno before coming to a decision on the Sandusky matter. There is nothing in the e-mail about the content or the length of the discussion with Curley that would provide evidence  for Frazier to make a conclusion that Paterno knew details based on the “plain language" of that document.  There is no evidentiary basis for Frazier's statement.

Frazier stated that Exhibit 5A, the McQuaide-Blasko timesheet of Wendell Courtney indicates that Schultz considered the incident to be a case of child sexual abuse.

Rebuttal:  This is an attribution error.  The author of the document is Wendell Courtney, not Gary Schultz.  Schultz reported the 9 February incident, as told to him by Paterno, to Courtney.  No one knows, without talking to Schultz, what he believed he was reporting to Courtney.  Courtney performed legal research that dealt with child abuse.  It is Courtney's interpretation of the incident, not Schultz's.

-Frazier stated never in writing did anybody say “horsing around” or “can’t tell how bad this is.”

Rebuttal:  Spanier’s statement at Exhibit 2J states:  “I recall asking two questions: “Are you sure that is how it was described to you, as horsing around?  Both replied, “yes.”

Clearly, Frazier was omitting evidence that does not fit his narrative.  If Frazier were to argue that he was exclusively addressing what was said in the e-mail discussions, then he is correct that the term "horsing around" was not used in e-mail.  However, using the same argument, the words child sex abuse, sexual, or even showering were not mentioned in formal e-mails in 1998 and 2001.  In both cases, there is nothing specifically mentioned in e-mail about the nature of the incidents.  His argument would be ripped to shreds in court by anyone who has watched an episode of Law and Order.

Frazier noted that  Schultz’s handwritten note (Exhibit 2H)  that Schultz and others knew Sandusky had gone over the line because of the notation “had to be genital contact because of the size difference.”

Rebuttal:  There are at least three errors in Frazier’s logic. The first is his conclusion that the description of the act was over the line.  The 1998 investigation resulted in no finding of abuse and that Sandusky’s genitals didn’t contact the child.  Frazier’s conclusion is not only at odds with the results of the official investigation but the trial verdicts regarding Victim 6 -- which found Sandusky not guilty of indecent assault.

The second error is that Frazier considered this a statement of fact.  It wasn’t.  It was an assumption made by the mother.

The third error is another attribution error.  The source of that information was the mother of Victim 6 and the statement is not a conclusion, but an assumption.  The full statement is: “Mother asked how did he give hug – had to be genital contact because of the size difference.”  However, the full context of the note shows that the flow of information is attributed to the Mother, not Schultz.  See below:

The italicized “but when asked of boy” indicates that the first statement, which Frazier referred to, was provided by the mother.  Also, note that the mother asked Brendan, then neighbor, questions.  The questioning of Brendan took place between 9PM on May 3 and 1100AM on May 4. Schreffler called CYS spoke with caseworker John Miller about the incident.  Miller phoned back later to state he would accompany Schreffler on the interview of the second child (Brendan).

Frazier Is Covering for the state, Corbett, and the BOT

Kenneth Frazier’s concern for children is insincere and his behavior in this case has been despicable.  It is clear that Frazier has gone over Schultz's notes, and like Freeh and Linda Kelly, refuses to acknowledge the most important notation on those four pages:

Mother concerned something more

– kid took another shower last night & this a.m.

Repeated washing or feeling dirty is one of the strongest signs of possible child sexual abuse.

Yet, this remark doesn’t appear in the text of the Freeh Report.

Nor is it ever mentioned in the text of the November 2011 and 2012 grand jury presentments.

 According to the 1998 police report, Detective Schreffler explained the information he had obtained from the mother and Victim 6 to CYS’s Miller.   Miller shared his files with DPW official, Jerry Lauro.  The police and the caseworkers were aware of not only this potential sign of child abuse, but of many others, based on Schultz’s notes. 

They knew it - and they blew it.

Clearly, Governor Corbett did not want the responsibility for Sandusky’s 14 years of abuse to roll up on his state agency – DPW.   While the state can’t be sued, arrangements such as the 9/11 victims fund, typically get set up when there is a case of the government failing to provide adequate protection resulting in massive harm to citizens.  This would have been the case for PA DPW, had it not been for the PSU BOT’s willingness to cut a deal with Corbett to take the fall for Sandusky.

Moreover, as an additional favor to Corbett, the PSU BOT has not said one harsh word about the failings of DPW or about The Second Mile (who provided funds and held fundraisers for Corbett).

Many of us have come to the realization that Frazier and the Board sold out Pennsylvania's children to preserve the PSU budget. 

And most of us know the BOT's call for "moving forward" was because they are likely hiding something far worse than a budget deal and don't want the alumni digging around.

We're digging until the truth is uncovered.