Erickson's 5- Point Promise Provided Template for Freeh Report, NCAA Consent Decree

Then (puppet) interim-President Rod Erickson's five point promise firmly set the narrative condemning the Penn State "culture," Spanier's leadership, and the PSU Athletic Department as a rogue element.

By
Ray Blehar

Erickson:  Five Point Promise was template
For Freeh Report & NCAA Consent Decree

I think I am correct to say that the one single thing about the Freeh Report and the NCAA Consent Decree that is most troubling to Penn State alumni, fans, and friends, was the indictment of our "culture" as putting football ahead of everything else.  

While the Freeh Report concluded that the "culture" permeated the University from the top (Spanier) to the bottom (the janitors), the fact of the matter is that Freeh was only repeating the indictment of the "culture" that was put forth by President Rod Erickson (very likely with guidance from the PSU BOT inner circle) on Nov. 11th,  2011.  

Erickson's first point of the five point promise is below:


1. I will reinforce to the entire Penn State community the moral imperative of doing the right thing - the first time, every time. 

-- We will revisit all standards, policies and programs to ensure they meet not only the law, but Penn State's standard. To oversee this effort, I will appoint an Ethics Officer that will report directly to me. 

-- 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.

This point is disturbing on a number of levels, the first of which is that Erickson is basing the statement on the unproven allegations from the Sandusky grand jury presentment.  Next, he repeats the "moral" argument made by Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan.  Last but not least, Erickson indicts the culture based on the dubious, self-serving explanation provided by the janitors, that they feared they'd lose their jobs for reporting a retired football coach (Sandusky) in 2000.   

While there are many evidentiary issues with the janitor Ronald Petrosky's account of the crime, the fact that McQueary reported Sandusky just three months after that incident certainly rebuts the argument that "anyone at Penn State" felt "scared to do the right thing."  This fact also underscores the importance of the timeline of the Sandusky crimes and indicates the PA Office of Attorney General deceived the public by putting the crimes out of order in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.

This statement, as well, as many others by Erickson and the PSU BOT in the aftermath of the scandal, would have never seen the light of day if it had to pass review by a legal counsel that was putting the interests of the University first.  Unfortunately, neither Cynthia Baldwin (then) nor Steven Dunham (from July 2012 forward) have done their jobs in keeping PSU from making statements that assume guilt and liability for enabling Sandusky's crimes.

Spanier's Leadership & Athletics As A Rogue Element

In points two and three of Erickson's five point promise, he takes a shot at the leadership of PSU under Spanier and then singles out the Athletic Department as if it is not under any control of the University.  These also were prominent themes in the Freeh Report.

2. As I lead by example, I will expect no less of others. I will ensure proper governance and oversight exists across the entire University, including Intercollegiate Athletics.

3. Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible given the ongoing investigations. I commit to providing meaningful and timely updates as frequently as needed. I encourage dialogue with students, faculty, staff, alumni, and other members of the Penn State Community.

The Freeh Report, based mostly on interviews of the Board, condemned Spanier's leadership style as not inclusive.  Some Board members complained that the meetings felt scripted and that they were rubber stamping pre-determined decisions.  The board also stated that Spanier didn't operate with transparency regarding the Sandusky investigation (the BOT would later be caught in lies about what they knew and when they knew it).   While Freeh put the onus on Spanier, former trustees have commented that the "inner circle" of the Board actually made most of the decisions and the other members typically went along.

Freeh:  No evidence to support PSU Athletics
was not complying with active PSU policies

As I pointed out in Report 2, Freeh's findings related to the football program not complying with University policies were not supported by any evidence in his report.  Chapters 8 and 9 of the Freeh Report discussed compliance with the federal and state laws (Ch. 8) and Child Protection in PSU Facilities (Ch. 9).  In both cases, the evidence substantiated weaknesses in University governance as the overriding issue.  

It was unfair of Freeh to condemn Paterno, McQueary, and Curley for not reporting the 2001 incident under the Clery Act, considering the police department, who administered the program, didn't have a mechanism in place for reporting until 2007. Moreover, compliance with policies related to child protection, such as conducting criminal background checks at sports camps, was under the purview of the Outreach and Cooperative Extension Office, not Athletics.  See pages 58-69 of Report 2 for a complete analysis of the findings.

NCAA Fines to Support Child Abuse Programs

Point 4 of Erickson's promise was:

4. We will be respectful and sensitive to the victims and their families. We will seek appropriate ways to foster healing and raise broader awareness of the issue of sexual abuse.

The NCAA sanctions included a $60 million dollar fine earmarked for child abuse prevention programs and/or the assistance of victims of child abuse.

Acceptance of Freeh Report A Foregone Conclusion

In point 5 of the "promise," Erickson pledged to take immediate actions on the findings.  This again is an inappropriate statement, given that any responsible board would first review the report and its findings to determine their validity before acting.  Crisis management expert, Steven Fink, makes that point very clear in his critique (Blunder #2) of the Board's actions.

5. My administration will provide whatever resources, access and information is needed to support the Special Committee's investigation. I pledge to take immediate action based on their findings.

On July 13, 2012, the triumvirate of Erickson, Karen Peetz, and Kenneth Frazier made a number of inappropriate statements at the PSU BOT's initial press conference regarding the Freeh Report.   

Frazier:  As SITF co-lead had a conflict
 of interest in praising the Freeh Report.

Frazier praised the report as "comprehensive and thorough report," even though the report itself stated it did not interview many of those directly involved in the 1998 and 2001 incidents. It seems obvious that Frazier, who headed the Special Investigations Task Force that was the client of Freeh, had a conflict of interest in his assessment of the Freeh Report.  After spending $6.5 million (at the time), who would want to publicly state the report was a piece of crap.  

In addition, Frazier acknowledged the BOT's failures in not providing oversight, however, it is quite notable that neither he nor the Board have faced any real consequences for their failures (unlike Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and others).

Peetz: Added to narrative regarding
Spanier's control of University

Peetz's remarks were equally inappropriate when she, on behalf of the Board, "accepted full responsibility for the failures that occurred."  Peetz went on to state that the Board would be "closely studying the Freeh Report."  Apparently, whatever study was done by the Board has remained a "state secret" (see Promise #3 on transparency).  Finally, Peetz reinforced the Freeh Report's assertion of Spanier's lone control when she stated that the Board is now working more closely with the President and the University Administration.

Erickson: Didn't acknowledge PSU's reputation
for the academic success of its student athletes

Last but not least, Erickson's first remarks were he had to reassess the University's "leadership culture" and that he and his administration was working "more collaboratively than any other administration in recent history."  Given that Erickson was #2 in command at PSU, wasn't he part of that alleged lack of "collaboration" with the Board?  Erickson went on to state that academic excellence and academic achievement are wholly consistent and complimentary goals, however he gave no acknowledgement or credit that PSU had an outstanding reputation in that area.  To do so would have undermined Freeh's assertion that PSU had a "culture of reverence for the football that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."  

This unsupported "culture" allegation made its way into the Freeh Report recommendations (5.4), the NCAA Consent Decree (Part III), and in  of the Athletics Integrity Agreement (Section III. A.) under the auspices that PSU needed to provide "academic support for its athletes."  However, the "culture" finding sealed PSU's "new" identity in the minds of the public as the worst of the worst football factories in college football.  Many in the media and the public called for the "death penalty" for Penn State based on this erroneous finding.

Conclusion

While Erickson stated he was put in a difficult position of either accepting the NCAA sanctions or face the "death penalty," the evidence above clearly shows that the Freeh Report's key themes came from Erickson's own five-point promise.  It is not a stretch to believe that Erickson  and others also had a hand in crafting the sanctions with the NCAA.

In addition, other evidence uncovered by my investigation and through the Right-to-Know procedures by Ryan Bagwell and Bill Cluck revealed that Freeh's investigation was anything but independent.  

Emails between the Freeh team and PA OAG investigators, emails showing constant communication between the SITF "core team" (i.e., Frazier and Tomalis) and Freeh, as well as the testimony of Kimberly Belcher, provided evidence of collaboration between the the OAG, the SITF, and Freeh.  It is already well established that Freeh was providing updates to the NCAA and Big Ten Conference.

While there has yet to be evidence found to date that confirms Freeh provided a draft report to the BOT for review, it appears that activity wasn't necessary.  Erickson and the SITF had already provided Freeh with the template for his report.

Give to the Penn State Sunshine Fund

https://www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/donate/