CORBETT & SURMA - UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

WHO REPRESENTED PENN STATE'S BEST INTERESTS IN NOV. 2011?

PART ONE - THE MAJOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

“In general, the most conventional form of a conflict of interest involves money—typically, an institutional decision maker has some kind of financial stake in the outcome of the decision.  A conflict can also arise when the decision maker has a non-monetary stake in the outcome of a decision—for example, a personal relationship, prestige, or career advancement.” 

by Barry Bozeman

Tom Corbett Embarrassed Trustee

Tom Corbett served as Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 2004 until he assumed office as Governor on January 18, 2011.

The Governor is automatically placed on the Penn State Board of Trustees. He also appoints six (6) members, in addition to his choices for PA Secretaries of Education, Conservation, and Agriculture, who sit on the Board along with a non-voting personal representative. This block of Trustees depends on the Governor for their positions, effectively making him the single most powerful presence in both voting power and influence.


Six (6) members of the Board are known as Business and Industry Trustees. These members are "self -selected" by an arcane procedure far from being transparent or apparent to those outside the process. Another six (6) members of the Board are known as Agriculture Trustees, who are selected through a county-by-county vote of the Commonwealth's agricultural societies (i.e., the PA Grange and the PA Farm Bureau).  We will discuss the business relationships of most of these members and the influence the Governor holds over them in our next installment.

Nine (9) members are elected by Alumni, the most independent and democratically selected group. That's only 9 members to attempt to balance 11 of the Governor's directly controlled members plus 6 each from Business & Industry and from Agriculture.

The elected Trustees include Joel Myers, CEO of Accuweather, and Jesse Arnelle, an attorney, who both serve now as they did in 2011 -- when they supported the disastrous decisions on November 9th. In addition, Cynthia Baldwin -- the Penn State attorney who sat in on the Grand Jury testimonies of Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier and who "claims" she was representing Penn State even though she gave them the impression she was representing them -- is an emeritus member of the Board of Trustees. There are 19 non-voting Emeritus Trustees. 

President Graham Spanier was the 33rd member of the Board on Nov 9, 2011, and the only board member who spoke out in defense of Penn State when he urged fellow members to stand behind Coach Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz. Thus, Graham Spanier was the only member who stood publicly for what was right; and they fired him for it, in large part due to Tom Corbett's personal animosity for this political opponent.



Graham Spanier with Joe Paterno

A statement from Spanier called the allegations against Sandusky "troubling" and added that Curley and Schultz had his unconditional support.  He predicted they will be exonerated. "I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years," Spanier said. "I have complete confidence in how they handled the allegations......" 

As of today, the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier seem to be on indefinite hold, as the Commonwealth's case appears to be falling apart.  

An argument can be made that, in addition to the 11 of 33 members of the Board of Trustees who are directly controlled by the Governor, an additional 11 or 12 Trustees have business interests that are significantly impacted by the actions of Commonwealth government.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST described:

Conflicts of interest occur when an officeholder puts his or her personal or financial interest ahead of the public interest. In the simplest terms, the official reaps a monetary or other reward from a decision made in his or her public capacity.

PENN STATE University Bylaws specifically state the rules concerning Conflicts of Interest:

READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE UNDER (a) AGAIN:  

Are you a reasonable observer?   Yes, of course.

Do you have sufficient knowledge of relevant facts and circumstances?  All I need is in this weblog.

Do you not see an actual or apparent conflict of interest?  I would have to be blind to miss it.

There is no question that John Surma had a specifically addressed "conflict of interest" when it came to Coach Joe Paterno. The Bylaws specifically state that conflicts of interest extend to family, friends, and associates. John's brother, Victor J. Surma, made this statement on a message board for PSU football players: 

 Victor Surma <vsurma8215@> wrote: “The Rat has hurt so many young men; destroyed their self esteem, ruined their confidence, etc.  I feel it is my obligation to expose his fraud to the national media before he checks out. I'm starting with the Pittsburgh Reporter and hope to take his fraud national!! I hope you understand. I was a 3 year letterman–have no axe to grind–just want to set the record straight on the RATS legacy.

There is no question that John Surma's brother, Victor J. Surma, wanted to expose Joe Paterno as a fraud. So John Surma did not have to share his brother's antipathy for Joe Paterno in order to violate the bylaw concerning a conflict of interest. Since Victor Surma had an interest in seeing Joe Paterno exposed as a fraud, his brother John Surma had no choice but to step aside. He was obligated by the Bylaws to recuse himself -- to leave the meeting while the matter was discussed. We know from previous entries on this website -- including THE SURMA VENDETTA, Part II, and The Surma Vendetta Revisited -- that John Surma indeed shared his brother's antipathy toward Joe Paterno, making him ineligible to attend, much less chair, any meeting concerning Joe Paterno.

Board Chairman Steve Garban recused himself from the discussion. He considered his history as a former football player under Paterno to be conflict enough.  John Surma not only failed to recuse himself, but this Vice-Chairman  took over as Chair and presided over a meeting he should, per the bylaws, have left.

The most common conflicts of interest concern monetary or other financial rewards but that is not the only type of conflict. Political influence and personal antipathy also result in conflicts of interest. Although the conflicts we are going to reveal here are primarily about political influence and personal antipathy, there is a monetary aspect that will be discussed in the next edition of this series.

Let's try to make this as clear and simple as possible:  Tom Corbett, as Attorney General, initiated the investigation of Jerry Sandusky with the convening of a Grand Jury in 2009. That Grand Jury process, directly managed by Tom Corbett, heard the testimony that resulted in the indictments of Jerry Sandusky, Penn State AD Tim Curley, and VP Gary Schultz. The indictments of Curley and Schultz, along with the inclusion of Coach Joe Paterno and the later indictment of President Graham Spanier, made this case into the PENN STATE CHILD SEX SCANDAL. For two years, Corbett ran the investigation and controlled the flow of testimony to the Grand Jury that eventually resulted in extreme damage to the reputation of Penn State and a massive cost of over $200 million.

In January 2011, Corbett was sworn in as Governor and assumed his role as PSU Board Member, along with the power to appoint 9 voting and 2 non-voting positions on that Board.  That created a situation whereby 11 of 33 members were directly beholden to Corbett for their positions on that Board.

The Board of Trustees is the official voice of Penn State University, which has been given the responsibility of protecting the best interests of Penn State on behalf of the students, alumni, faculty, and staff.  Then came the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania indictments against Athletic Director Tim Curley, Vice President Gary Schultz, and eventually President Graham Spanier -- and by association and involvement, head coach Joe Paterno. These are significant employees of Penn State University, and their guilt or innocence directly affects the liability of Penn State for any actions they may have taken. For all legal intent, they are Penn State, under attack by Tom Corbett's utilization of the grand jury process.

Attorney General Tom Corbett's grand jury crafted the indictments, making him the person most responsible for the Commonwealth's case against Penn State.  Governor Tom Corbett controls the largest block of Trustees, making him the person most responsible for protecting Penn State from his indictments. Has there ever been a clearer conflict? 

How is it possible that this Governor and his appointees, along with every Trustee whose business interests are affected by his decisions as Governor, did not immediately exclude themselves from taking part in deliberations concerning the decisions made in November of 2011 and anything subsequent concerning the Grand Jury Presentment and indictments?

People seem to think this Board of Trustees is too big and too independent to be controlled by one or two members. But, with John Surma taking over for Steve Garban as Chairman and with Tom Corbett's direct control of one-third of the Board and indirect control over another group of members as a result of the impact of Commonwealth decisions on their business interests, it didn't take much to exercise control. All Corbett had to do was to whisper to key members that the Presentment was just the tip of some legal iceberg. Would "WMD" hidden all over the campus be discovered if they failed to preemptively remove Paterno and Spanier? Who wouldn't believe that Corbett, as Attorney General, would know where all the "yellow cake" was buried?

All that a truly independent Board of Trustees needed to do was to make a statement saying that Penn State would cooperate with any investigation and then wait until the legal process was complete. The employees of Penn State are innocent until proven guilty; and that guilt or innocence should decide to a great extent what, if any, liability Penn State has in this matter. Jerry Sandusky had not been an employee of Penn State for 11 years, and the only charges involving dates during his years employed at Penn State had been investigated in 1998 by the Commonwealth's Department of Public Welfare. The preemptive virtual acceptance of guilt by the Board would do nothing to stem the tide of damaging publicity that gave the meeting of November 9, 2011 the aura of a major crisis.

Information we are now seeing revealed in the information provided by Ryan Bagwell, a candidate for Trustee (picture left) - particularly the messages concerning any attempt to honor Coach Paterno's legacy - were nixed by Penn State's CONFLICTED BOARD OF TRAITORS.

Tom Corbett and Ken Frazier engineered the hiring of the FREEH Fiction writer and former FBI director over a more palatable alternative. Emails reveal that Corbett spoke with Attorney General Linda Kelly regarding the investigative task force. This collusion between Corbett and the prosecutors in going after Penn State administrators resulted in the hiring of Louis Freeh, who became a support source for those directly accusing Penn State of being liable for damages.  

Nobody was looking out for the best interests of Penn State with the hiring of Louis Freeh, and what a complete disaster that turned out to be! This CONFLICTED Board actually voted to pay out $6.5 million Penn State dollars to a man who might as well have led Penn State to the gallows and fixed the rope around its neck. The Freeh Report supports the actions of Tom Corbett, John Surma, and the Board of Trustees and is, on its face, a paid cover up justifying the gross malfeasance of the Board's decision. Freeh was no independent investigator out to find the truth. Freeh was a paid operative of the Board and the Governor, in collusion with the Attorney General, out to condemn Penn State -- a hit job he did with gusto, despite obvious ineptitude. The Board repaid his effort by accepting the "report" without even bothering to read and review its contents. The NCAA then swallowed it whole and spit out sanctions that cost Penn State even more in money and damage to its impeccable reputation.

The hiring of Louis Freeh is synonymous with an institution paying $6.5 million to concoct evidence supporting its own guilt and liability. Why would any institution in its right mind fund such an effort? It's insanity, clearly demonstrating the conflicted interests that are the point of this article. The Freeh insanity depicts Penn State as a schizophrenic trying to convict itself of a crime imagined in the fevered mind of its own alter-ego, the Board of Trustees.

The Board of Trustees clear duty was to hire an investigator charged with finding every shred of exculpatory evidence that would clear Penn State of any liability. That was what would have been in the best interest of Penn State. That was the fiduciary duty of each member of this Board of Trustees.

At this point, the chance of the Commonwealth convicting any Penn State administrator of any wrong-doing is negligible. With Mike McQueary and Cynthia Baldwin as the only possible witnesses for the prosecution, the only mystery is why the Attorney General has not already dismissed the charges. When that ends, Penn State will still be out millions in liability costs and millions more in an insane Freeh "investigation" and the resulting NCAA sanctions. That makes the 2011 Board of Trustees either terminally inferior or criminally culpable. With no convictions of anyone employed by Penn State, any liability on the part of the university for Sandusky's crimes would be minimal. When Graham Spanier wins his defamation suit against Louis Freeh, the insanity of the 2011 Board's decisions will become a national joke.

Al Clemens, a Gubernatorial appointee in 2011 resigned from the Board in early March with some dignity, making a public statement about the firing of Joe Paterno:

"That was a mistake. I will always regret that my name is attached to that rush to injustice.  Hiring Louis Freeh and the tacit acceptance of his questionable conclusions, without review, along with his broad criticism of our Penn State culture was yet another mistake."

At least one member of that board was wise enough to come to his senses and honest enough to state the TRUTH.

When it comes to conflict of interest violations of the Board's own bylaws, the Paterno and Spanier firing decisions that have caused such unprecedented damage were clearly done in violation of those bylaws. Is there no penalty or redress for such obvious violations? What is the remedy for violating those bylaws? If Penn State was liable for damages to Sandusky's victims, who is liable for the damages to Penn State?  Since John Surma was an employee of US Steel,  Karen Peetz was an employee of BNY Mellon, and Ken Frazier was an employee of Merck Pharmaceuticals, perhaps those companies should hire Louis Freeh to investigate their liability?

This article should leave you with a clear obligation. Penn State needs to elect trustees who will not sweep these terrible mistakes by conflicted members of the Board under the rug. Electing the Upward State slate of candidates will only condone the damage done by Surma, Corbett, and the Board of November 2011.  For Penn State to rectify the damage done, the election of candidates like Ryan Bagwell, Robert Jubelirer, Al Lord, and Alice Pope is absolutely essential.

As a PSU Board candidate, Bob Jubelirer said in a recent statement: "Former Trustee Al Clemens showed leadership by acknowledging his terrible mistake in rushing to judgment and voting to fire Coach Paterno on November 9, 2011.  I believe the time will come soon when more trustees will join Clemens in recognizing their rush to judgment and uniting Penn State nation together again." We couldn't agree more, Bob.  Those 2011 Trustees need to be held accountable for their actions. 

PICTURES OF THE TRUSTEES with their affiliations are available at this LINK
So take a look at the current Board of Trustees:

COMING SOON:

PART II -  IT WAS CONFLICT, NOT CRISIS, THAT DROVE BOARD DECISIONS

Did Tom Corbett know Mike McQueary was coerced to support the false assertion that he had witnessed an anal rape?

Did Corbett support a deal to give immunity to Mike for gambling on Penn State football games?

How far was Corbett willing to go to get rid of Graham Spanier?