Eileen Morgan: To Tell The Truth. Would the Real Mark Emmert Please Stand Up?

by Eileen Morgan

NCAA vs. PSU

In his letter¹ on November 17, 2011 to the Penn State Board of Trustees, NCAA President Mark Emmert wrote, “I am writing to notify you that the NCAA will examine Penn State’s exercise of institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics program, as well as the actions, and inactions, of relevant responsible personnel.  I also have notified the NCAA Division I Board of Directors of the NCAA approach.  We recognize that there are ongoing federal and state investigations and the NCAA does not intend to interfere with those probes.  Moreover, we respect that under our criminal justice system there is a defined process to ascertain the facts, as well as determine criminal guilt or innocence.  We will utilize any information gained from the criminal justice process in our review….”

Although Penn State did not violate any NCAA rules, it is clear that in November 2011, the NCAA planned to ‘examine’ for itself if Penn State (and relevant personnel) lacked ‘institutional control.’  It is also very clear that Emmert was initially going to allow due process to run its course and defer NCAA action until the criminal justice system (via the Tim Curley and Gary Schultz trials) determined criminal guilt or innocence.  So what happened to the NCAA’s probe and waiting for due process?  The very next day on November 18, 2011, the Penn State Board of Trustees signed Freeh’s engagement letter², authorizing Freeh and his team to investigate the matter.  Apparently, within one day, Emmert changed his mind and decided to hold off on an NCAA investigation until after Freeh disclosed his findings.    

Shortly after the release of the Freeh report, the NCAA Board gave Emmert the power to take corrective and punitive action relative to Penn State, forgoing the NCAA's normal investigative protocol.  On July 22, 2012, the NCAA announced that it would impose "corrective and punitive" sanctions against both the Penn State football program and the institution as a whole the next morning.  Additionally, the NCAA said that since Penn State had commissioned the Freeh report and accepted its findings, further proceedings would be redundant.  Emmert himself said that Freeh's investigation was far more exhaustive than any that would have been mounted by the NCAA.³  But, Emmert could not have known back in November 2011 that Freeh’s investigation would turn out to be ‘exhaustive.’  So why did the NCAA forgo their own probe in 2011?  Was there a deal between PSU and Emmert to use Freeh’s findings from the beginning?  And more importantly, why did Emmert renege on his promise ‘to utilize any information gained from the criminal justice process’ in his review before handing down unprecedented sanctions?  Certainly, the criminal justice system’s examination in the Curley and Schultz trials will be far more exhaustive and its determination of criminality or innocence will be legally binding.
¹ http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf
² http://www.scribd.com/doc/129799160/Freeh-Engagement-Letter
³ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2012-07-23/ncaa-penn-state-punishment-sanctions/56427630/1

It is interesting to note that questions 2-4 on page 3 of Emmert’s letter deal with the Grand Jury Presentment.  The Presentment listed allegations against Sandusky, as well as Curley and Schultz.  The statements in the Presentment were only allegations waiting to be proven through the justice system.  Therefore, how can Emmert expect PSU to answer questions regarding issues identified in the Presentment when those issues are only allegations and have yet to be verified in a court of law?

In addition, Emmert’s stretch of the bylaws’ context to encompass the Sandusky issues is unimpressive.  His particular attempt of equating ‘young people’ within the NCAA framework to that of children is overreaching to say the least.  The context of ‘young people’ cited in Bylaw 19.01.2 clearly means collegiate student-athletes.  However, on page 3, he discussed re-examining “behaviors that lift up ‘young people’ rather than making them victims.”   Clearly, no student-athlete at Penn State was a victim and this comparison was a feeble attempt to validate the NCAA’s jurisdiction in this matter.

Sanctions: Mark Emmert vs. Rodney Erickson

What is the truth regarding the Penn State sanctions and the threat of the death penalty?  Emmert maintains there was no such threat.  This 7/24/12 ESPN video⁴ (at the 3:00 mark), affirms that Mark Emmert denied that PSU was threatened with the death penalty, “No, it wasn’t that at all.”  In addition, the Sun Sentinel article ⁵ reveals that Ameen Najjar, former NCAA enforcement director (who worked under Emmert up until May 2012), addressed the Penn State sanctions in an Aug. 7, 2012 email to Nevin Shapiro:  "The Penn State deal is a travesty," he wrote. "The NCAA did not impose anything. Penn State agreed to and self-imposed the penalties, waved all due process and waived any right to appeal.  The NCAA had/has NO authority to impose any penalties in that situation and PSU's president sold the school down the river!"

However, according to a story written⁶ by Don Van Natta Jr., Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years and that Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty.
Gene Marsh, a former chairman of the NCAA’s infractions committee who defended former Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, had been hired by Penn State to help negotiate sanctions in the wake of the scandal. According to Van Natta, Marsh received a call in July from Donald Remy, the NCAA’s general counsel. Remy told Marsh that Penn State was facing a death penalty for multiple seasons.
Erickson said, “if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the University could have faced a multiyear death penalty, as well as ‘other sanctions,’ including a financial penalty far greater than $60 million.”

⁴ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWIOqcvQZI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
⁵ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/um-hurricanes/fl-nevin-shaprio-miami-ncaa-0403-20130403,0,3454721.story
⁶ http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

At the 3:30 mark of the ESPN video, Emmert admits the death penalty was ‘unequivocally on the table’ and an ‘active option.’  He also states that the Board’s behavior and actions (signing the Consent Decree) were ‘clearly considerations in not applying the death penalty’ and he says had Penn State not been as ‘forthright, open and decisive’ he does not ‘know what the outcome would have been’ but suspects ‘it would have been significantly worse.’  This would at least suggest there was an unspoken threat of a four year death penalty from Emmert.

I find it interesting to note that Erickson said, “if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the University could have faced a multiyear death penalty….” Perhaps we have been focusing on the wrong threat.  The threat has always been centered on the death penalty.  Maybe the threat of a ‘formal investigation’ gave Erickson pause.  Imagine if a formal NCAA investigation would have begun, taking into consideration the outcome of the criminal justice process as Emmert promised in November 2011.  This would have exposed the Freeh report for its fraudulent and baseless conclusions and the Board of Trustees would no longer be able to justify their rush to judgment in terminating Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.  In all likelihood, Penn State would have been absolved of Sandusky’s crimes and able to avoid sanctions altogether.  Why didn’t Erickson buy time for the football program and allow the NCAA to formally investigate?  Did Erickson sign the Consent Decree to avoid an authentic investigation that would make the Freeh report vulnerable to review which would then confirm that the Board’s November 2011 actions were unjust?  Whether the death penalty was real or fabricated, is Erickson hiding behind it to justify the acceptance of the Consent Decree?

At about the 4:00 mark of the video, Emmert confirms the NCAA had two options: to investigate or hand down the Consent Decree.  He says a traditional investigation would ‘consume’ much time and energy with an ‘UNKNOWN OUTCOME’ so they opted for the Consent Decree.  Don’t all investigations begin with unknown outcomes?  Isn’t that the very purpose of a probe: to determine the facts?

Oh wait, I stand corrected.  If you are the Penn State Board of Trustees you can apparently pay for an investigation and determine your OWN outcome⁷.  Emmert did not want to launch his own investigation to determine the truth; he wanted to act immediately, saving precious time and money, and appease the masses, so he took the ‘known’ outcome authored by Louis Freeh and the PSU Task Force.  Again I ask, what happened to Emmert’s initial stance to wait for the “criminal justice system to ascertain the facts, as well as determine criminal guilt or innocence?”

At a closer look, the Consent Decree seems to satisfy both parties.  Emmert got to flex his NCAA muscles to a world-wide audience and Erickson avoided a formal investigation that would have exposed the Freeh report.  By the way, if Erickson was threatened, why hasn’t he and the Board fought the sanctions since they were negotiated under duress?  It appears he wants to keep the sanctions status quo to avoid an investigation yet at the same time cry foul at Emmert’s threat. 

⁷ http://emf.intherough.net/pennstate5.htm

Emmert vs. Emmert

In this 4/3/13 article in USA Today ⁸, Emmert is accused of evading a variety of scandals that took place on his watch, including LSU having systemic academic fraud in its football program.

Emmert disputes that.

"The facts speak for themselves," Emmert said. "We went from an athletic program that was underperforming dramatically in the classroom to one that was performing well."

NOW HERE ARE THE FACTS (shared with me by an anonymous source):

The academic fraud was uncovered in 2001-02—and LSU submitted a report in 2004--2 years later. Penn State submitted the Freeh Report just months after the story broke.

These are the graduation rates for the Football Student-Athletes at LSU under Chancellor Mark Emmert, and corresponding rates for PSU. (Source: The Federal Graduation Rates from the NCAA)

Recruiting Class Year              LSU                                     Penn State

1999                                        37%                                         76%

2000                                        38%                                         72%

2001                                        37%                                         75%
Cheating exposed at LSU

"The facts speak for themselves," Emmert said. "We went from an athletic program that was underperforming dramatically in the classroom to one that was performing well."

2002                                        42%                                         80%

2003                                        42%                                         77%

2004                                        48%                                         80%

Apparently Mark Emmert, the head of the NCAA, believes graduating less than HALF of his football student-athletes can be defined as “performing well.”

Well, here is a fact that definitely speaks for itself.  Emmert’s comment reveals nothing but hypocrisy.  The NCAA President wants us to believe that under his supervision, a 48% graduation rate exemplifies a football program that is “performing well”, however, the Penn State football program that has consistently graduated 75-80% of its student-athletes constitutes a “Football Culture Problem.”

Mark Emmert speaks out of both sides of his mouth.  He says he will utilize information gained from the criminal justice process in his review, and then denies PSU due process.  He says he did not threaten PSU with the death penalty, but admits a four year death penalty was on the table as a viable option.  He says PSU has a ‘Football Culture Problem’ yet says LSU’s graduation rate of about 50% LESS than PSU is defined as ‘performing well.’  

Would the real Mark Emmert, please stand up?

⁸http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/04/02/ncaa-president-emmert-previous-cases-uconn-lsu/2047607/

Multi-Media: Ray Blehar breaks down Nov 2011 grand jury presentment

Ray Blehar breaks down the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment at Franco's Town Hall held in Pittsburgh on Saturday, November 10, 2012. 

This event was covered by local media, including the Centre Daily Times and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 

Matt Morgan, of the CDT, wrote that my presentation focused on Victim 8, which was the first presentation I made that day.  Bill Schnacke, of the PPG, more correctly stated that my presentation focused on the state and local agencies failures in 1998.  Neither paper mentioned the chronology of the crimes or the fact that the OAG masked the associations of the victims. 

Special thanks to Linda Berkland for creating this video:

Franco's Town Hall, Eileen Morgan, Ray Blehar, and Panel Discussion video (1 hr. 56 mins).

Dr. Joseph A. Cattano: The Tragedy of Premature Conclusions

 A NEW NARRATIVE: THE TRAGEDY 
OF PREMATURE CONCLUSIONS

Sometimes it is painfully difficult to hold onto something that in your soul you believe 
is true, particularly when that very belief has faced an onslaught by those 
parties and individuals who control the dialogue:  Maybe that is what faith is all about.  Penn State students, alumni, and fans who have followed the tragic situation at their university have had to sit tight and endure the anger, incrimination, and vitriol that were the manifestation of the Louis Freeh Report, a presentment that went without
 challenge or vetting: The fact is, that it was literally accepted in its 
entirety at face value.  However, in recent months we have had the opportunity to experience new
 and revealing reports commissioned by the Paterno family.   These presentments offered cogent,
 well constructed, comprehensive counterpoints and challenging findings by
 individuals with truly impressive credentials.  Finally, we have the opportunity to experience the long overdue 
vetting and rebuttal to what some considered the questionable findings of the Louis
 Freeh Report.  Yet for the most part, these new presentations have been ignored by the media or discredited for
 a host of what seem ill-considered reasons. It feels as if there is a dedicated
 unwillingness to countenance the possibility that the Freeh Report was flawed 
and overstated in its conclusions.

Let us not forget the response to the findings and pronouncements contained in the Louis
Freeh Report.  The popular hosts of television and radio talk shows, sports commentators, columnists, private 
citizens, fans, the Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT), and of course the NCAA 
all reacted almost instantly, ruthlessly castigating in particular the 
legendary coach Joe Paterno for allegedly being an accomplice in a disgraceful
 cabal to hide what happened at Penn State.  In my opinion, Mr. Freeh presented his findings in a manner
filled with hyperbole and overstatement, a theatrical, dramatic style clearly
 designed to "raise the ire" of the audience.  Of course, the media picked up the "drum beat" and opined in
 a similar style, the airwaves and editorial pages filled with commentaries couched 
in indignation and outrage. To be incensed with Jerry Sandusky after the trial revealed
 his guilt is totally understandable and maybe even welcome.  But regarding the "Penn State Four"
(Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno), it quickly became apparent that for far 
too many there was neither the time nor the desire to be patient until a more
 complete picture could emerge - a picture wherein other sources of factual
 evidence could be put on the table and considered before reaching conclusions 
regarding any alleged cover-up.  And, regardless of the Paterno presentments, I fear that the particularly loathsome 
nature of sexual predation and victimization has permitted and justified in the 
minds of many a sweeping attack upon and sterilization of everything Penn
State-related.  A predator hurt young children; hysteria and the lack of due process damaged a great university and
 an iconic figure.

I believe it is incumbent upon us to at least wonder why so
 many individuals were willing to almost blindly accept one presentment and not
at least wonder if there should not have been a public vetting of a document 
that was filled with such damning conclusions, particularly since the 
conclusions were based upon a suspect methodology of investigation.  To me, that was unconscionable! It 
should not have been permitted to happen. Were those who based their opinions strictly on the Freeh Report not 
aware of his investigative record? It is both important and revealing to note 
the fact that Louis Freeh completed a report for FIFA, the governing body of
 the International Soccer Association, pertaining to corruption charges against 
Bin Hamman, a candidate for president. Upon review by the Court of Arbitration of Sport, many of the charges 
were dismissed as they found the investigative report by Freeh to be incomplete 
and lacking in the necessary comprehensiveness.  Should that not at least be a flag that suggests proceeding
 with caution before taking his findings at Penn State as irrefutable, rock-solid 
truths? I would think so.

Apparently in what has been termed a "rush to injustice," there was neither tolerance nor time for another 
narrative to develop.  Due process and in particular one of the most honored pillars of American jurisprudence, the
 notion of prosecution and defense, were cast to the wind.  It seemed everyone knew who the guilty 
parties were - so let's not waste time: Might as well just throw the rope over 
the limb and have a good old-fashioned media lynching!  It would have been helpful if someone 
had reminded those individuals who were so quick to convict and punish of that famous 
novel that so dramatically depicted the consequences of callous injustice ? The Ox-Bow Incident.

Unfortunately, like many media-generated stories, the Penn State saga has a "media life" wherein other more recent 
narratives and information no longer pique the interest of the media and general public; the once irresistible sensationalism of Paterno and Penn State has quickly lost consumer interest.  In essence, the damage has been done and the thinking of many has been set almost irretrievably in concrete.

As a psychoanalyst, I believe that what we are currently experiencing (as evidenced by the recent Piers Morgan and 
Matt Lauer interviews) is technically what we call resistance. Particularly, individuals are often rigidly resistant to facing the 
reality of their actions and misperceptions.  Simply - they would rather not know and remain attached to 
their false notions, delusions, and dysfunctional behavior.  When these individuals are confronted, 
they often become agitated and highly defensive.  A perfect example of this was the manner in which Piers 
Morgan attacked Ziegler and tried to dismiss his information as bogus and ridiculous.  

Unfortunately, Ziegler's 
natural manner is not conducive to having a reasonable conversation with someone as defended as Morgan. 
Resistance must be tactfully addressed and removed before an individual can engage in a conversation that might raise their anxiety and promote a degree of self-examination. Few have the capacity of a Bob Costas to entertain 
the notion that he was premature in his opinions and consequently found the capacity and strength to revise his conclusions.   For most of those who publicly denounced Paterno, they must either flee from or discredit the new revelations in order to save face and to sidestep the damage to a great university, its alumni, and a legendary 
iconic man, which in part they are responsible for.  Sadly, it seems to be a characteristic of our still immature
 and often tabloid-minded society.

I am particularly confused by the actions of the NCAA regarding the draconic sanctions imposed upon Penn State. To me, they seem a little "psychotic;"  that is, not in touch with the reality of what transpired at Penn State. 
And, it is important to understand that what happened at Penn State has likely happened at other universities and institutions across our country.  This is a national problem, not just a Penn State problem.

In my opinion, the NCAA wandered far out of bounds from their designated role; that is, to monitor and assure the fairness of competition and safety of college athletics.  And, it is important to keep in mind that the true scope of these sanctions or more to the point - punishments, intentionally or unintentionally, has caused substantial distress to the entirety of the Penn State: the reputation of a great university; the alumni of Penn State; the current 
student body; present and past football teams (wins vacated from 1998 through 2011); and of course the residents and businesses of central Pennsylvania that are reliant upon the revenues generated by football at Beaver Stadium.  Of course, it is particularly frustrating, as the justifications for these sanctions have now been challenged with some well-considered opinions that are rather convincing in their dismissal of the assumptions and poorly substantiated conclusions contained in
 the Freeh Report.

Again, I believe that the NCAA is in the same situation regarding resistance.  It would be rather anxiety provoking for them to change their position, as it might suggest that they were at least extreme in their actions regarding PSU, if not downright wrong.  Attacking or confronting them simply will strengthen their resistance and resolve to keep the sanctions in effect.  However, an empathic, non-confrontational strategy that helps reduce their resistance to considering the Paterno presentment might at least provide a stepping-stone to reducing or eliminating the sanctions.

When considering what happened at Penn State, we need to promote a rational perspective.  Jim Clemente, a highly recognized expert on child sexual abuse and a former FBI profiler, clearly points out in his report that the failure on the part of individuals and institutions to  quickly recognize the identity of sexual predators and the scope of their actions is both 
well documented and unfortunately all too common. Psychologists and sociologists have long elaborated upon how incredibly masterful predators are in covering up or obscuring the reality of their behavior with children - the so-called "grooming" process: familiarity with family members, a high level of regard within the community, and a revered image all work in the service of cleverly concealing that which is actually happening and can cause hesitation within the minds of those who might entertain suspicions.   In his report, Jim Clemente uses the expression "nice guy acquaintance" victimizer in referring to the pattern and style of predation that Jerry had mastered. Under an elaborately constructed disguise as a pillar of the community, legendary defensive coach, and the force behind the Second Mile program, he was able to satisfy his sexual needs with children with no suspicios by anyone.  In essence, he was a masterful and cunning "groomer;" but it was not strictly the children who were groomed for his needs.  Over a long period of time, the entire Penn State
 University - State College community was successfully groomed to cover up his deeds and provide for his special needs. 
It is well within reason to at least consider that the situation at Penn State was one in which anyone who may have had some questions regarding Jerry Sandusky's behavior with children may unfortunately have cavalierly dismissed 
them as just "Jerry being Jerry." And of course, his development of and commitment to the Second Mile
 Program put him high in the regard of the entire State College community.

I believe that we need to communicate to our detractors and doubters how incredibly difficult it was to even contemplate, let alone believe, that someone who maintained such high esteem within the community - an individual who had been the source of accolades and admiration- could be guilty of abusing those very children he purported to assist and protect.  And, in Jim Clemente's opinion, that is what happened at Penn State and that is why in fact there was no cabal - no sinister intent to cover-up of Sandusky's actions.  It is just those thoughts - those very misperceptions regarding "acquaintance victimizers" that enable masterful predators like Jerry Sandusky in particular, to go without revelation until the tragedy that has befallen the victims is finally recognized and confronted.  Finally, there now is a reasonable, plausible narrative presented by an acknowledged expert in the field of child sexual abuse and victimization that makes sense out of how things went down at Penn State in the late 1990's and early 2000's.  I suggest that it is relatively impossible to use 2011 eyes to see and understand actions in 1998 or 2001.  And that was Freeh's critical fault and the failing of his report; that is, the inability to grasp the true nature of what was happening at Penn State circa 1998-2001.

In my opinion, the Penn State Board of Trustees should have defended, not defiled Joe Paterno's reputation until
 due process, or at least further sworn testimony, showed that he was a knowing participant in any alleged cover-up.  The
 dedication of his life's energy as well as much of his personal wealth to Penn State should at least have warranted that consideration. You do not permit a great university, its alumni, and an iconic figure to be trashed on a singular,
 unchallenged, and suspect piece of so-called evidence.  Had the media and the board of trustees
 waited until the truth came forward, hysteria would have succumbed to the quieting light of due process and honest revelation  and that is the way it should be!

For reasons that are rather apparent, the assault on the legacy of Joe Paterno reminded me of the infamous
"Dreyfus Affair."  In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a French army artillery officer, was tried and found guilty of treason by a court martial on the basis of false and misleading evidence - evidence that was contrived and corrupted in order to reach a predetermined desired outcome.  It was later revealed that testimony on the treasonous actions of Dreyfus was perjured -filled with outrageous insinuations and assumptions. However, thanks in part to the relentless efforts of the fiery writer Emile
Zola (J'accuse) and a few dedicated individuals, the truth was finally revealed and the conspiracy against Dreyfus was shown for what it really was - anti-Semitism and the corruption of due process by entrenched powers.  After spending years banished to the infamous Devil's Island in French Guyana, he was found innocent and his rank restored.  But the similarities are disturbing: When initially found guilty, Dreyfus was paraded in front of a jeering public, stripped of his rank and insignia medals, and his sword broken in half.  In his disgraced and torn uniform, he was paraded through the crowd and spat upon. Think about it!  Joe's statue being removed, his placards torn down, his record from 1998 through 2011 erased, and his legacy being dragged through the media to be spat upon and his name a source of disgrace.  Again, are the parallels not compelling at least and frightening at worst?  All this predicated on assumptions and "must have knowns."  J'accuse the American media of a mass hysteria.  J'accuse the media of creating a man of mythical proportions, only then to revel in destroying him.

It is rather ironic to note that the NCAA chastised Penn State for permitting the culture of football to dominate 
and corrupt the affairs of the university.  What? Did I hear that correctly?  Are they joking?  Is the NCAA suffering from delusions? For decades, Penn State has been the absolute model for the student-athlete, with the annual graduation rates 
for football players consistently among the highest in the country - and often the highest.  Particularly,
the graduation rate for African-American athletes surpasses almost all other institutions.  Penn State is noted 
for producing academic all-Americans at an unprecedented rate; yet; the NCAA warns them about the culture of football - a
 culture largely created by the NCAA itself, as it has negotiated massive financial contracts with the media for
bowl games, play-offs, etc.  J'accuse the NCAA of blatant hypocrisy - of pointing an accusatory finger at Penn State when that very finger should be pointed at themselves.  And, J'accuse the Board of Trustees for cowering to bullies by not demanding due process to provide a more reasonable and factual understanding of what really transpired and illuminating any role that Paterno and others might have had in this tragedy.  J'accuse  the Board of Trustees of derogation of the responsibility of debunking the attacks regarding the "culture of football" at Penn State and demonstrating with facts what we have accomplished in the last forty years. J'accuse the Board of Trustees for not properly and openly vetting the Freeh report, before accepting it as fact and justification for their actions.  In fact, I now must wonder if the Board of Trustees had an agenda regarding Joe - maybe even the rare opportunity for a few to act-out some bizarre vendetta regarding Joe Paterno.  It surely begs the question: Was the Sandusky situation an ideal time to get some payback and destroy the legacy of Joe Paterno?  Maybe not to others, but to me that is the only way I can understand the impulsivity of the board in firing Joe and their refusal to stand behind a man who had done so much for Penn State.  There seems to be a play within a play within a play.

In closing, if due process should reveal culpability on the part of Joe Paterno and other members of the
 administration for the tragedy that occurred at Penn State, I will accept it and slowly, painfully work through it - always remembering that children were hurt.  But until that is established, although cantankerous in nature and imperfect as a man, I will continue to embrace the notion of Joe Paterno as a brilliant and dedicated coach, teacher, and philanthropist at a great university. He was steadfastly committed to an idealized notion of what college athletics should be and never veered far from that vision.  Unlike the falsified, aggrandized media image that made Joe Paterno a man for all seasons - the reality is that he was but a man made for the football season.

Joseph A. Cattano, Ph.D.,

PSU 1971

Paying for the Freeh Report

There was a rumor circulating that individuals from outside the University paid for the Freeh Report.  Well, all monies are fungible -- meaning that money flows in and out and it can't be traced to any one particular source, person, or persons.

The Notes to the Penn State University 2012 Financial Statements reveal that the monies paid to Freeh and others in the aftermath of the Grand Jury presentment were paid from institutional support funds.  Institutional support funds comprised 6.9% of the budget at a cost of $314.3M.  See chart at bottom.

Page 35
Litigation and Contingencies

In November 2011, the University was made aware of certain allegations in a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Grand Jury presentment. Various legal proceedings and investigations have arisen as a result of such allegations, including criminal proceedings against a former officer, an administrator and a former employee of the University. Certain civil litigation has been filed against the University with anticipation that other complaints will be filed. The outcome of such litigation and potential for future litigation is unknown at June 30, 2012 and, therefore, no accruals for future costs have been recorded in the 2012 financial statements. Through June 30, 2012, the University has incurred costs, net of insurance reimbursements totaling $16.1 million for internal investigation, legal, communications and other related costs. These costs are included in institutional support within the 2012 consolidated statement of activities. Insurance reimbursements through June 30, 2012 totaled $779,000.

The University has included $2.0 million in accruals for costs that were incurred but not paid at the balance sheet date. Such accruals are part of the costs, net of insurance reimbursements, noted above and are included in current liabilities. Potential for future insurance reimbursement is unknown as of June 30, 2012 and as a result no revenue accruals have been recorded in the 2012 financial statements.

A Must Read: Bringing Down A Legend

Excerpts from Brian Gallini's paper 

This Article argues that the Pennsylvania grand jury system and its use of a presentment needlessly and unfairly included Paterno, practically accusing him of a crime. An important job of the grand jury is to investigate crimes, but by naming Paterno in the Sandusky presentment it implicitly said that Paterno committed a crime without having gone through the appropriate steps to establish probable cause that he did commit a crime. Doing so abuses the grand jury system and would not happen in the federal system or in most other states.

Paterno’s downfall began with the investigative grand jury naming Paterno in the presentment targeted toward Sandusky. But Paterno was denied the opportunity to legally respond—there existed no venue for him to file any kind of response or seek to strike portions of the Sandusky presentment. In federal court and many state courts, strict secrecy rules governing grand jury activity would likely have ensured that Paterno would never have had to respond —publically or legally—to a presentment issued by an investigating grand jury that investigated someone else.

Paterno’s downfall illustrates the importance of grand jury secrecy—both during and after its investigation. That secrecy, present in all federal grand jury proceedings, prevents collateral damage—like job loss—to unindicted criminally innocent third parties. The absence of that secrecy in Pennsylvania’s investigative grand jury proceedings took Paterno’s job, tarnished his legacy, and perhaps even shortened his life.
But why would the presentment name Paterno? Let’s be honest: who outside of Pennsylvania had heard of Sandusky before Paterno’s name was mentioned? Perhaps the inclusion of Paterno’s name in the Sandusky investigation explains why an army surrounded Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly at the news conference announcing the charges against Sandusky. Moreover, it’s not simply naming Paterno in the presentment (drafted by the Commonwealth by the way); it’s also releasing that document to the public—something the Attorney General’s office was not required to do. At a minimum, that office could have redacted Paterno’s name, which it likewise elected not to do.

...at least Sandusky had his day in court. Paterno will not. Paterno is a private third party who was not under investigation and is thus historically not properly included in either the presentment of someone else, or the subject of a separate grand jury report. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s decision to make the Sandusky presentment public ignores that history and, in doing so, denies to Paterno the opportunity to defend his name, his reputation, or what he did—or did not do. Even assuming that Paterno had not died from lung cancer, there exists no meaningful legal proceeding in Pennsylvania that would allow him to distance himself from the grand jury’s investigation into Sandusky. Even if such a proceeding existed, it’s unlikely the public would forget about his inclusion in Sandusky’s investigation.

Part of the collective problem, of course, stems from the manner in which the Sandusky presentment was written. Emblazoned with Findings of Fact at the top of the page, the media at large took it as precisely as that—some members of the media even went so far as to assume the document constituted an indictment against Sandusky. Thus, the average reader of the media’s subsequent stories about Sandusky, let alone the average lawyer, likely had no idea about the difference between a “presentment” and an “indictment.” And why would they—the Sandusky presentment was not even labeled as such; the document omitted a title page and announced itself immediately with its “findings of fact” label. The public likely has no idea that those findings were not the product of an adversary proceeding.

...the point of this Article remains the same: all of this started with the Sandusky investigative grand jury presentment’s unnecessary naming of Paterno. Doing so was gratuitous, superfluous, and denied to Paterno the opportunity to explain what he did, or did not do, about Sandusky’s criminal behavior. Importantly, we might never have known about Paterno’s involvement, or lack thereof, had Sandusky been the subject of a federal investigation. But, Pennsylvania allows the investigative grand jury to issue a presentment, a document long ago described by a New York appellate court as follows:

"A presentment is a foul blow. It wins the importance of a judicial document, yet it lacks its principal attributes—the right to answer and to appeal. It accuses but furnishes no forum for a denial. No one knows upon what evidence the findings are based. An indictment may be challenged—even defeated. The presentment is immune. It is like the “hit and run” motorist. Before application can be made to suppress it, it is the subject of public gossip. The damage is done. The injury it may unjustly inflict may never be healed."

Go to full article

Hat tips to Carole Vail for the excerpts and Scott Paterno who alerted us to this article.

11/9 is the BOT's 9/11

On 9/11/2001 two jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center and changed our view of the world.  On 11/9/2011, the PSU BOT crashed our University and changed our view on what it takes to be a trustee.

By
Ray Blehar

There has been much wrangling about the topic of "negative" campaigning regarding the upcoming BOT elections.

Some believe that those who point out the records of the incumbent trustees are engaging in negative campaigning and feel that it is unbecoming.  Never in PSU's history have candidates engaged in such practices.  In the past, candidates each wrote a summary of their accomplishments and/or qualifications and it was put on brochures, videos, or whatever media to encourage people to vote.  If you were popular or famous -- perhaps a former, well known football player - you were a shoo in.  

No one really cared.

For fifty years, the BOT members essentially showed up four times a year for meetings, got a nice meal or two, got some complimentary tickets to sporting events, and rubber stamped whatever the president put in front of them.

Then came 11/9/2011.  The moment of truth.

When the PSU BOT was faced with a critical decision that required thoughtfulness and thoroughness, they failed.  And failed badly.

And the alumni took notice.

Many of us asked, how could our BOT, that has lawyers within its ranks, make one of the most important decisions it would ever make based on a 23 page grand jury presentment.  

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that a grand jury presentment is a one-sided prosecutorial document.  All you need to know that is "google."

Typically, a grand jury investigation will extend through several months. When the prosecutor has no further evidence to put before the grand jury, the jurors are asked to consider a presentment recommending that specific persons be charged with specific crimes. After considering this request in closed deliberations, the grand jury may ask to hear more evidence or may question the addition or exclusion of certain persons from the list of persons against whom charges are to be recommended. If the grand jury agrees to consider a presentment, prosecutors prepare a draft document which summarizes the evidence the grand jury has heard and sets out specific, recommended charges. The grand jury considers this document in secret proceedings. If twelve or more of the 23 permanent grand jurors agree, the presentment is "returned" and submitted to the supervising judge for his approval. After the judge's review, the presentment is typically sealed until the prosecutor is ready to bring the recommended charges. At that point, the grand jury's work on this investigation is finished; however, the potential defendant's days in the legal system are just beginning.

When BOT Co-chair John Surma was asked what the board used in its deliberations on the firing of  Joe Paterno and  Graham Spanier, he responded: 

The board deliberative process is, as it implies, a process that requires some time. There was information that we sought, although we don't know anything more about the actual details than the grand jury report and whatever you all write. 

So, there you have it.  The BOT members from 11/9/11 read the grand jury presentment and press reports and that was good enough for them to make a decision.

No review of the child abuse reporting law.

No interviews of Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, or McQueary.

No advice from the PSU legal counsel, Cynthia Baldwin.

No request to bring in experienced criminal counsel for advice.

Surma's reasoning, if you could call it that, was that the BOT had decided to remove Paterno and Spanier because it was in the best "long-term interest" of the University.  Beyond that, he didn't have many answers.

John Surma is not incompetent.  He is the CEO of US Steel.

I could not imagine John Surma, after receiving a report from the EPA, stating that US Steel was polluting at an unacceptable level, just rolling over for the EPA.  I could not imagine John Surma, turning to the corporate board of US Steel, and saying "This EPA report is really damaging and will cost us millions in fines and millions to retrofit our factories, but, gee, this report made it into the newspapers, so I guess we'll just have to go along with it."

Had Surma done that he would have been fired as CEO of US Steel on the spot.  Perhaps, the US Steel board members would have recommended he be committed for psychiatric care.  Because any C-level administrator who would make such a rash decision on an initial report of anything would lose all credibility.

And that's were we are today at Penn State.  

The actions of our BOT members on 11/9/11 defied common sense and logic.  Those who sat on the BOT that night have lost all credibility with the (sane) alumni.

And those who sat on the BOT on 11/9/11 and are running for re-election are disconnected from reality.

They do not understand that 11/9 was the BOT's 9/11.

Penn State's world has changed.

Out of Our Minds- Part 1: Psychological obstacles to changing the narrative in the Sandusky scandal

by  Douglas Hoskins & Jessi Lillo

In this series of articles, we discuss cognitive and social factors that have shaped and perpetuated the general belief that a massive cover-up by Penn State University personnel intent on protecting a football-first culture enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest young boys for fourteen years.  Each of the topics presented are common cognitive errors made in order to deal with the demands of processing information in a complex world.  We approach each topic from the theoretical, explaining how they may have influenced the Sandusky scandal, but we do not offer them as definitive explanations, or excuses for the behavior of any individual or group.

 Anchoring

Cognitive psychologists define anchoring as initially fixating on one specific aspect of a situation or event and basing all decision-making on that aspect regardless of any additional information.  This anchor- a number, phrase, idea, or image- derives its name from the fact that it carries so much weight that an individual is unable to change perspective or consider contradictory information or incentive.  Anchoring has most often been studied in economic decision-making, but is prevalent when forming value judgments of any sort.  An anchor, simply put, is a first impression that just won't go away..  

Visual anchors, have received less attention in the literature than numeric anchors, but they have been shown to have powerful effects on behavior and attitude.  Because visual stimuli activate a variety of brain structures involved in memory formation and retrieval, emotional response and physiological arousal, they can immediately and unconsciously influence human thinking. 

What is anchoring the Sandusky narrative?

The predominant anchor in the Sandusky case is that of the little boy "being subjected to anal intercourse" in the shower at Penn State, as reported in the November, 2011 Grand Jury Presentment.  This mental image is one that is impossible to erase, even for those who have followed the case enough to know a) this was not what McQueary said he witnessed, b)the victim has refuted this account, and c) the attorney general retracted this information when she issued a new GJP a year later.    Unfortunately for Penn State, reports of the boy in the shower that flooded the visual media in November of 2011 were invariably accompanied by photos and videos of Joe Paterno, so that the image of that boy became superimposed mentally with the image of Joe Paterno and Penn State football.  Many people in the general public might not be able to remember the name Sandusky, but they can easily conjure that boy in the shower being raped while Paterno turns his back.  As of November 5, 2011, the Sandusky story was firmly anchored in the Lasch building at Penn State.  Four days later, that anchor was more firmly affixed when the PSU Board of Trustees announced that it had fired Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, though the Spanier news was a minor detail in every story.  

Did anchoring affect the Board's decision?

For most who have followed the story, the firing of Paterno is viewed as a colossal blunder that represents the point at which there was no chance of changing the narrative.  Some attribute this blunder to personal vendettas, internal power struggles, protecting self-interests, incompetence, or disengagement: and it is quite possible that one or more of these motives was present for any given individual board member and that they knew what effect their actions would have on the story, but that is an idea to be explored in a later issue.  The question here is whether the initial anchor of child rape in a PSU football locker room influenced their decision to fire Paterno.  Studies by German and American psychologists have shown that anchors significantly influence judicial decisions even when the judges and jurors were informed of their purpose and instructed to disregard the anchor.  Similar results have been shown in the fields of stock analysis, real estate, financial negotiations, probability estimates, social judgments, and general knowledge.  Multiple studies have also shown that the effects of an anchor on decision-making are more pronounced under stress, begging the question of whether the Board would have acted differently had they waited.

Could anchoring have affected the SIC investigation?

Richards J. Heuer spent 45 years in the CIA studying the psychology of evidence analysis and has written extensively about cognitive biases in the investigative process.  In his book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, he states: 
  

The impact of information on the human mind is only imperfectly related to its true value as evidence. Specifically, information that is vivid, concrete, and personal has a greater impact on our thinking than pallid, abstract information that may actually have substantially greater value as evidence...  Impressions tend to persist even after the evidence that created those impressions has been fully discredited (Chapter 10).  

.

It has been widely publicized that Louis Freeh had a particular dislike of pedophiles and that he personally directed Kenneth Lanning, Jim Clemente's mentor, to establish the Crimes Against Children unit, and tasked Lanning with ensuring that at least two agents in every field office were properly trained in the area .  Freeh's personal predisposition, coupled with the fact that his client, the Board of Trustees, had abruptly fired Paterno could have led Freeh to develop tunnel vision during the investigation.  Even absent any personal, financial, or political motives, it is possible that Freeh was seeking evidence to fit a conclusion that he was not even aware he had already reached.  Heuer's suggestion for avoiding tunnel vision due to anchoring is to have investigators with varying areas of expertise analyze the same evidence and compare their conclusions. This practice is called Alternative Competing Hypotheses and it is a time-tested technique for eliminating bias from a conclusion.

How were Penn Stater's so resistant to the anchor?

As stated previously, anchor biases are a natural human tendency that are resistant even to conscious attempts to avoid them.  The only technique that has been clinically shown to significantly mitigate an anchor is to have equally strong contrasting anchors and to actively focus on the differences at the outset of the problem.  For Penn State alumni and fans, the image of Joe Paterno had for years signified The Penn State Way; it evoked the athletes, classmates, professors, administrators, activities and experiences that largely defined ourselves and shaped how we thought about the world.  This anchor was so well entrenched in Penn Staters that it served to counteract the merging of Penn State football's image with that of the boy in the shower.  We felt, and still feel, the same visceral reaction to that boy's image; we grieve for the victims as much as everyone else does.  We are neither blindly loyal to an icon (as critics have claimed) nor smarter and more open-minded than others (as some of us would prefer to believe).  We simply started our evaluation from a very different position and were therefore more readily receptive to new evidence as it became known.  

What can be done to remove this obstacle?

The toughest thing about anchors are that they are virtually impossible to remove once they are established.   As events of the last 15 months have shown, the Sandusky story is so well anchored in the sodomy/Penn State football juxtaposition  vast amounts of definitive, compelling contradictory information will be needed to change public opinion.  And even that may not be enough.  In most cases, the anchor can only be broken when incontrovertible evidence is found that proves the original narrative false, as happened in the Duke Lacrosse case, the case of Richard Jewell, and the Dan Rather National Guard document.

In summary, anchoring provides a very plausible explanation for how readily the current narrative of Penn State football culpability was accepted and of how difficult it would be to change that narrative from the outset.  However, anchoring cannot adequately account for the fact that this narrative has remained virtually unchanged for 15 months even as considerable contradictory facts have come to light.  Other cognitive and social factors sustaining the narrative will be discussed in later issues.

Next issue:  Fundamental Attribution Error

.

PSU BOT: Not Upholding Their Duties And Responsibilities

The students, faculty, staff and alumni have the right to know where the trustees stand regarding the Freeh Report.

By Eileen Morgan

THE FIRING

As most are well aware, the Penn State Board of Trustees fired Joe Paterno on November 9, 2011.  And by refusing to allow then President Graham Spanier to respond to the Sandusky crisis and let him lead the University as he had for the previous 16 years, the Board of Trustees forced Spanier into the position of stepping down, which he did graciously and with dignity.  Even after Paterno announced his retirement earlier that day, the trustees decided to fire him, not allowing him to retire with dignity.  And, even after Spanier presented the trustees that same day with a magnanimous resignation statement, the trustees downplayed it and later made a point in the media to talk about his "firing." 

Believe it or not, their terminations were based on the grand jury presentment used to indict Jerry Sandusky for alleged child sexual abuse and they came just two days after the Attorney General's press conference announcing the indictments.  It is important to clarify that a presentment is a report by a grand jury, without a request for or presentation of evidence by the prosecutor.  The inflammatory content of the presentment turned out to be insufficient to prove in a court of law that Sandusky committed the most serious of the alleged crimes, the supposed anal rape of a child in a Penn State locker room, let alone be used to take career-altering and reputation-damaging actions such as the ousting of Paterno and Spanier.

However, the Penn State trustees apparently read this document and believed the 2001 eyewitness account without question or proof.  The eyewitness was later revealed to be Mike McQueary, not by the presentment, but by a news story.  It appears the trustees concluded, without evidence, that Paterno and Spanier did not properly handle the 2001 incident, which constituted a failure of leadership.

But, at Sandusky’s trial the presentment’s most shocking revelation, McQueary’s eyewitness account in which he allegedly saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, was completely refuted.  In fact, the witnessing of “anal rape” or any sexual assault was denied by McQueary himself.  Neither Paterno nor Spanier at the time of their terminations had been charged with any crimes.  Moreover, they willingly testified before the grand jury about what little they knew of the 2001 incident involving Sandusky.  Yet, based on the testimonies given by these men almost 10 years after the incident, the trustees, under perceived media pressure and without thoughtful debate, fact finding, or due process, terminated the men’s employment immediately.  Even Sandusky, alleged to have committed horrific crimes, was afforded fairer treatment and due process.

This Board decision incited anger throughout much of the Penn State community including students, faculty, staff and alumni.  The rush to judgment to get rid of these men, without even the courtesy of discussing the matter, was and still is to this day unacceptable to many.

THE HIRING

That same month, the Board hired Louis Freeh to investigate the matter, an investigation in which Freeh had no subpoena power, interviewed none of the key witnesses, and those he did interviewed were not under oath.  Dozens of people who were interviewed gave substantial positive testimony of the honesty and integrity of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier, including many trustees.  Likewise, many individuals spoke positively about the culture of Penn State athletics and the Penn State Football program.  But it is clear that Freeh and his team ignored exculpatory testimony and evidence.  Freeh’s weak and unsubstantiated conclusions regarding these men could never
be used in a court of law or be used to convict them of any crimes.  In reality, the findings and conclusions regarding their alleged wrongdoing are simply one opinion based on a few emails taken out of context and given the most unfavorable interpretation.

This 267 page report came out July 12, 2012, and based on the Board’s statement¹, was released simultaneously to the Board and public.  Yet, amazingly, within hours the Board had a prepared statement and made themselves available to the media.  The statement (addressed below) most likely was in response to Freeh’s forty-five minute press conference and not in response to reading the lengthy report, digesting and analyzing the evidence, and determining if the facts and evidence clearly supported the findings and conclusions drawn by Freeh.  It seems clear that the trustees boxed themselves in by proclaiming that they would see the report at the same time as the public and by suggesting all along that they would accept whatever was in the report.  Unfortunately, to this day, there has never been a Board of Trustees meeting in which the Freeh Report has been discussed, dissected, analyzed and verified.  One would think that most, if not all, of the trustees have read the Freeh Report, the King and Spalding study sponsored by the Paterno family, the report of Spanier's attorneys, and other independent analyses, but only a few of the trustees have publicly stated their position.  Do these actions represent responsible stewardship of Penn State University? 

Remember, the Freeh Report, which alone has reportedly cost the university up to $10 million, was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees.  Should it not be required of each trustee to thoroughly read, verify the content, and comment on the product they paid for?  Should they not be required to collectively discuss the evidence to determine, as the governing body, if they agree or disagree, with Freeh’s findings?  After all, they apparently read and discussed the presentment to reach their decisions regarding the terminations of Paterno and Spanier.  It is an undeniable breach of fiduciary responsibility that the leaders of Penn State, who paid millions for an investigation, have not publicly stated where they stand regarding the findings of the final product. 

THE FALLOUT

Not discussing and verifying the findings of the Freeh report, is merely the tip of the iceberg.  This report was the single source used by the NCAA to levy unjustifiable sanctions that included a $60 million fine.  The consent decree², which PSU President Rodney Erickson agreed to without confirming Freeh’s findings, included a clause that the ‘University willingly accepted the Freeh Report.’  How is it possible that the governing body of Penn State agreed to the sanctions without question or fight?  How is it possible that at the time the sanctions were coming down, the Board didn’t take a step back, get together as a group, and consider the merits of the very source (Freeh Report) for the sanctions?  In addition, this report is apparently the primary reason why Penn State has decided to enter into settlement talks with possible victims because of Penn State’s alleged liability for Sandusky’s crimes.  Indescribably, the Board actually invited plaintiff lawyers to settle quickly, in fact announcing that they wanted to compensate all victims before the end of 2012, even before anyone's guilt other than Sandusky’s could be determined.  Although it looks increasingly unlikely that there is any evidence that university officials had any role in enabling Sandusky's crimes, the University continues to apologize and open the doors of liability for itself.  

The Freeh Report and Penn State's implied acceptance of it could easily cost Penn State well over $100 million, and the Board of Trustees has not been brave enough to stand up and acknowledge the report's substantial limitations.  Do these actions represent responsible stewardship of Penn State University? 

The following section contains the mission statement, standing orders, and public statements of the Board.  In light of the hasty terminations of Paterno and Spanier, the silent acceptance of the Freeh Report, the acceptance of the NCAA
sanctions and the pending settlement talks with possible victims, determine for yourself if the Board of Trustees has responsibly governed the University. [My comments are in blue and in brackets.]
______________________________________
[1] Legal Matters http://progress.psu.edu/legal-matters²http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

THE BOARD’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following is the Penn State Board of Trustees’ mission statement: The Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University is the corporate body established by the charter with complete responsibility for the government and welfare of the University and all the interests pertaining thereto including students, faculty, staff and alumni.³

[The welfare of the University and interests of the students, faculty, staff, and alumni has been neglected by the Board for the past 16 months as evidenced by their rush to terminate Joe Paterno, 61 year employee, and Graham Spanier, a 27 year employee, 16 as president, with no evidence of wrongdoing.  The fact that the trustees have not collectively acted on the findings of their multi- million dollar Freeh Report and have not publicly stated where they stand is additional proof of their negligence.  Furthermore, their surrender to the NCAA and their apparent surrender to the possible victims, without challenge or confirmation of Penn State’s culpability at this point in time, is a complete disregard for the welfare of the University.  The hasty acceptance of the sanctions and settlements could cost the state-funded school $100 million or more, quite possibly forcing tuition increases and risking loss of enrollment.]

One of the ‘Guiding Policies’ states that ‘the Board shall receive and consider thorough and forthright reports on the affairs of the University by the President or those designated by the President.  It has a continuing obligation to require information or answers on any University matter with which it is concerned.’⁴

[The Freeh Report pertains to the affairs of the University.  However, the consideration the report has gotten from the trustees has not been publicly stated.  The trustees who are not on the Executive committee are obligated to require information and answers regarding the Freeh Report and the details of the agreement between Erickson and the NCAA regarding the sanctions.]
The ‘Expectations of Membership’ state⁵: In exercising the responsibilities of trusteeship, the Board of Trustees is guided by the expectations of membership, each of which is equally important (not all listed):

1. Understand and support the University's mission, vision, and values
[Based on the above, the trustees do not understand or support, by their actions, the University’s mission.]

2. Act in good faith at all times and in the best interests of the University in a non-partisan manner
[The actions of the trustees over the past 16 months have not been in the best interest of the University, in fact, their actions have been detrimental to Penn State.  How is it that the lawyers on the BOT did not consult the relevant laws on child abuse reporting before accepting the allegations against PSU officials (in the grand jury presentment) as fact?  That is not acting in good faith. ]

4. Prepare diligently, attend faithfully, and participate constructively in all Board meetings and related activities by reading the agenda and supporting materials

[The trustees are directed to read the agenda and supporting materials for all Board meetings but have not been required to act on their own $10 million Freeh Report?]

6. Make decisions and instruct the administration as a Board, not as individuals

[The Board, as a whole, did not make the decision to silently accept the Freeh Report nor to accept the NCAA sanctions, but individual trustees did.]

8. Disclose promptly and fully any potential or actual conflicts of interest, and personally maintain exemplary ethical standards
[Gov. Tom Corbett did not disclose his conflict of interest regarding his investigation into Sandusky’s crimes that possibly involved the University.  Trustees Corbett and Ken Frasier did not reveal conflicts over their prior relationships with Freeh around an internal investigation at Merck, where Frazier is CEO, which resulted in massive fines.  The silence surrounding the Freeh Report and the questionable actions of the consent decree signing by Erickson, which are costing the University millions of dollars, before culpability has been determined, appear to be less than ethical.]

13. Extend goodwill to one another and to all members of the University community. [The Board’s failure to extend goodwill (due process) to its former employees speaks for itself.]

______________________________________
³Standing Order IX, (1)(a)
⁴Standing Order IX, (1)(b)2
⁵Standing Order IX. (1)(f) Expectations of Membership

President Erickson’s Promise to the Penn State Community (2011)6

With the full support of the Board of Trustees, I have outlined five promises to the Penn State community that will guide my leadership of this great institution in the wake of this tragedy. I wish to share these promises with everyone who is a part of our community. (Not all listed)

1.       I will reinforce to the entire Penn State community the moral imperative of doing the right thing – the first time, every time. [Throwing caution to the wind that will cost the University $100 million is NOT the right thing.]

·         I ask for the support of the entire Penn State community to work together to reorient our culture. Never again should anyone at Penn State feel scared to do the right thing. My door will always be open. [The Penn State culture has never needed to be reoriented, until now, due to the Board’s negligent and irresponsible leadership.  Penn State cannot be responsible for anyone’s feelings.  Adults are responsible for their own behavior.  The story of the scared janitor has been disproven by the evidence.  Mr. Erickson, the right thing, as our President, is for you to fight for our school and defend the University.  But, out of fear, you accepted the NCAA sanctions and signed the consent decree.  Practice what you preach.]

2.       As I lead by [poor] example, I will expect no less of others [trustees].

·         I will ensure proper governance and oversight exists across the entire University, including Intercollegiate Athletics. [As detailed above, the governance and oversight of the University has been improper, irresponsible, and disgraceful.]

3.  Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible, given the

     ongoing investigations.

·         I encourage dialogue with students, faculty, alumni, and other members of the Penn State community. [The Penn State Community demands to know which trustees read the 267 page Freeh Report before lending their support for it, and when will the Board discuss the report, collectively, as a body.]

5.   My administration will provide whatever resources, access, and information are needed to support  
       the Special Committee’s investigation. I pledge to take immediate action based on its findings.
       [These promises were made in Nov. 2011.  Erickson pledges 8 months before the findings of Freeh are to be released that he will ‘take immediate action on its findings.’  It appears Erickson gave up all rights of Penn State to Freeh in 2011.  Whatever Freeh determined to be true would be true and Penn State would blindly do whatever Freeh dictated, as well as, blindly accept whatever the NCAA would hand down. This is the epitome of poor leadership.  Responsible stewardship would be to immediately take the findings under advisement, analyze the report as a body, determine if the evidence supports the findings, and THEN decide, as a corporate body, what actions Penn State would take.]

THE BOARD’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS

On July 12, 2012, the Board released this statement⁷ in response to the Freeh Report  (not in total): Today’s comprehensive report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first. The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred. [A responsible governing body would not have blindly accepted full responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes without first reading and analyzing the basis of the accusations.
______________________________________
⁶http://president.psu.edu/goals ⁷http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/penn-state-issues-statement-on-freeh-report

If they indeed accept full responsibility for the failures that occurred then why haven’t each of them resigned from the Board?  After all, they terminated Paterno and Spanier for ‘failure of leadership,’ without any evidence of wrongdoing, so why haven’t they taken the same punishment they allocated to those men for the same infraction?]
Judge Freeh's report concludes that certain people at the University who were in a position to protect children or confront the predator failed to do so. There can be no ambiguity about that. [Freeh’s conclusions were never verified by the Board so how can they make a claim regarding ambiguity.]

Furthermore, the Board is committed to greater transparency and communications with the entire University community. [The Board must be open and publicly state where they stand regarding Freeh’s conclusions.]

In the weeks ahead, the University will carefully review and consider each of the report’s recommendations. Tomorrow at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Board of Trustees will consider a series of immediate next steps. President Rodney Erickson has appointed three members of his senior leadership team to coordinate and implement operational changes suggested by the Freeh Report. [How can the governing body of a world class institution implement operational changes that they don’t know in fact need changing?  If Freeh recommended they shut down all athletics for two years would they do it without question and without analyzing his report?  That’s exactly what the Board is doing with these recommendations.  The Board of Trustees is being run by substandard leaders.]
With the release of the Freeh Report we are beginning to correct our failures…. [Again, how can the Board correct failures they don’t know actually exist?]

On July 23, 2012, the Board released this statement⁸ regarding the sanctions (not in total): The NCAA announced their penalties against Penn State, which included a four-year prohibition against post-season play for the football team, the loss of scholarships, the vacating of past wins, and a $60 million fine. Penn State President Rodney Erickson, with input from legal counsel and members of the executive committee of the Board of Trustees, accepted the NCAA-imposed penalties. [The Board had 11 days to come together to discuss and verify the findings of the report.  Had the trustees done so, as one would expect of a world class University, then they would have quickly realized that Freeh’s findings and conclusions were not supported by the evidence.  They then would have been in a position to challenge Mark Emmert and the NCAA, defend the University against the unjust sanctions, and display effective leadership that had been lacking for 8 months.] 

The events surrounding allegations of serious misconduct on our campus have led to multiple investigations and lawsuits. Many of these are ongoing or are still in early stages. The process of establishing what happened, determining personal and institutional accountability and ensuring that these events do not happen again is essential to our community's recovery and eventual healing. [The trustees talk out of both sides of their mouths.  Their initial statement above on 7-12-12, just hours after the Freeh report came out, never uses the word ‘alleged.’  Their statement was total acceptance of Freeh’s conclusions and that Penn State was to blame.  Here, they actually admit Freeh’s findings are merely ‘allegations’ and that the law, due process, has yet to determine exactly what happened and if anyone or the University is culpable.  Yet, knowing all this, they irresponsibly neglected to wait for the law to determine culpability, and accepted Freeh’s alleged findings, allowing Penn State to take full responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes which led to unprecedented sanctions that could cost the University over $100 million.]______________________________________⁸Legal Matters http://progress.psu.edu/legal-matters

The University has been and is cooperating fully with all appropriate government authorities and all criminal and administrative investigations, including those described below. Out of respect for the legal process and the privacy of the individuals involved it would not be appropriate to comment on specific charges, evidence or individuals until the legal process and such investigations are completed. [Why didn’t the Board take a STAND for Penn State and make this statement on November 9, 2011?  Why didn’t the Board take a stand and make this statement on July 12, 2012?  And why didn’t the Board take a stand against the NCAA, using this statement, and refuse to sign the consent decree?]

§  Attorney General: The Grand Jury investigation is ongoing, which means further questioning and charges may yet occur. [The Board acknowledges the legal process have not concluded, yet never defends or fights for the University, which eventually may be found not responsible for any of Sandusky’s crimes.]

§  Penn State Board of Trustees' Special Investigations Task Force: The Freeh Report was released online at thefreehreportonpsu.com simultaneously to the University community, Board of Trustees, the media and the general public on July 12, 2012. [The trustees never saw the report until a couple hours before their statement.  They could have never read or verified the report within that time frame.  Their statement on July 12, 2012, allowing Penn State to fully accept responsibility for Sandusky’s crime was reckless and a colossal dereliction of duty.] 

On Oct. 26, 2012, the Board released this statement⁹ regarding the Legal Committee (not in total): Penn State's Board of Trustees voted unanimously to authorize a subcommittee of the Board to approve possible settlements of claims made against the University related to the crimes of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

This measure provides the Subcommittee on Legal -- an arm of the board’s Committee on Legal and Compliance -- the authority to approve settlements that may be reached related to claims against the University by individuals alleging that Penn State is liable for injuries suffered in connection with sexual abuse by Sandusky. [Again, the Board acknowledges that the courts have yet to determine if the University is responsible for Sandusky’s crimes.  Why would the University even consider approving settlements before the legal processes have concluded?  I wonder if the insurance companies who will be footing the bill of this negligent Board have any recourse.]

On Feb. 10, 2013, the Board released this statement¹⁰ regarding its progress (not in total): The goal of this investigation was to uncover facts and identify where failures occurred in the University's governance and compliance structure and to make recommendations to help ensure that such failures never happen again. [Do you notice with each new statement, the Board adjusts its tone and position?  The initial statement following Freeh’s press conference was total acceptance of blame.  A week and a half later, the Board is careful to correctly say “Penn State’s ‘alleged’ misconduct” and “the process… to determine personal and institutional accountability….”  With this recent statement, “the goal was to uncover facts,” now suggests the Board might not necessarily agree that the goal was accomplished.]

The University intends to implement substantially all of the (119) Freeh recommendations by the end of 2013. [Many of the recommendations are derived from alleged failures that have yet to be confirmed.]

It is understandable and appreciated that people will draw their own conclusions and opinions from the facts uncovered in the Freeh report. [WOW!  The Board acquiesces that the conclusions drawn by Freeh are not necessarily 100% truth and they now understand and appreciate that other conclusions, different from Freeh’s, are possible from the same facts he based his findings on.  So what are THEIR conclusions?]______________________________________
⁹http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/trustees-approve-resolution-to-grant-authority-for-legal-settlements
¹⁰http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/freeh-investigation-findings-used-to-improve-penn-state-operations

THE DEMAND FOR REAL LEADERSHIP

Has each trustee read the entire Freeh Report?  If so, where do they stand regarding Freeh’s conclusion that the senior leaders of Penn State knowingly allowed Sandusky to sexually molest boys for 14 years?  I believe the trustees have been silent on this matter because they have backed themselves into a corner.  Either way they answer that question, their backs are up against a wall.  If they continue down their current path of silence, and do not reveal that they have indeed read it, then they are displaying a complete dereliction of duty, as addressed above.  Their disregard of the responsibility for the government and welfare of this University is blinding.  I’m not sure which is more astonishing, the fact that the trustees have not collectively reviewed and vetted their $10 million report, or the fact that they have gotten away with it for so long.  However, if the trustees do in fact publicly reveal they each have read the report, then they will have to answer for the unsupported findings and conclusions surmised by Freeh.  They will have to explain why they allowed a faulty, unsubstantiated report to be used by the NCAA, without objection, to impose hefty sanctions, including a $60 million fine.  In addition, they will have to explain why they are even considering making settlements with possible victims before the courts have determined Penn State’s culpability.  And finally, they will have to admit their rush to judgment and the ousting of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier were egregious mistakes, not made in the best interest of the University.  Clearly, the corner they have painted themselves into shrinks day by day.

A remarkable fact about the Penn State trustees is that many of them own and/or run well-known, successful corporations throughout America.  I wonder if these trustees run their businesses in the same irresponsible and unethical manner they have run Penn State over the past sixteen months.  I certainly hope they do not throw caution to the wind, like they have at Penn State, when making decisions that could cost their companies over $100 million.  I wonder if the trustees run their households this way, with the same cavalier attitude and disregard for family members.

According to Standing Order IX (1)(c)1¹¹,the Board of Trustees has a certain responsibility to evaluate the President of the University.

1. This responsibility includes a commitment to grant the President broad delegated authority, to support the President in his/her exercise of such authority, to judge the performance of the President, and if necessary, to remove the President. In the selection of a President, the Board shall consult with representatives of the faculty and the student body.

Perhaps President Erickson’s performance in governing Penn State needs to be evaluated.
Penn State’s situation today reminds me of the relevancy of a famous quote: “A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the equality of his actions and the integrity of his intent.”
Of all the great leaders this brings to mind, Rosa Parks comes front and center.  Her undeniable courage and confidence to sit alone in the face of adversity helped change American history forever.  The Penn State Board of trustees needs a Rosa Parks.  Penn State needs a true leader.  Who will finally stand up for this University and refuse to sit in the back of the bus?  Until then, this bus is not moving forward.

______________________________________

¹¹ http://www.psu.edu/trustees/charter.html