Heim Wrong: 2001 Incident Was a Big Deal

Bruce Heim states no one at The Second Mile thought "Jerry was a pedophile."  The "red flags" in the charity's financial records tell another story.

By

Ray Blehar

Heim: Men shower with kids at the YMCA.

In August 2012, Bruce Heim called the 2001 incident a "nonstarter" because he saw kids showering with Sandusky over a five year period.

More recently, Heim doubled down on his conclusion that the incident was not inappropriate when he repeated to the  Pittsburgh Post Gazette, "at the YMCA men shower with kids every day."

Heim also claimed that Penn State's AD TIm Curley told his charity that nothing inappropriate happened.  

Of course, if that were true, then why did Curley bother to meet with the charity to inform them that Sandusky was banned from using the facilities with Second Mile kids? 

Heim's story doesn't hold (shower) water.

Furthermore, Heim contends that the charity didn't do anything wrong and that they didn't think Jerry was a pedophile.  As I wrote here, the charity did plenty wrong.  Some of their actions should have resulted in criminal charges.

But the remaining question is: what did they know (about Sandusky) and when did they know it?

Remember that was the task of Lynne Abraham to find out -- until someone decided that finding out wasn't necessary because the charity was closing its doors. 

Well, guess what?  

Contrary to popular rumor, The Second Mile (TSM) didn't close its doors in 2012, 2013, or 2014.   As of August 31, 2013 the charity still had $4.1 million in assets.  That filing was provided to the IRS on January 12, 2015.

If you want to separate facts from Heim's and everyone else's fiction in this scandal, follow the money.  

Financial Disclosures = No Knowledge of the 1998 Incident

According to the Commonwealth's Public Welfare Code (PWC) and Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), Centre County CYS was required to notify TSM of Sandusky's 1998 investigation and ensure that a protection plan was put in place.  The 1998 police report confirms no such plan was put in place because Sandusky continued to access - stalk - children while under investigation.

The "county agency" was also required (by the PWC) to notify TSM at the conclusion of the investigation.  In a Patriot News interview, former TSM fund raiser, Bonnie Marshall, stated that former TSM Executive Director, told her the charity was only aware of the 2001 incident prior to learning about Aaron Fisher's allegation in 2009.

The financial records (disclosures) appear to confirm TSM was unaware of Sandusky's close call in 1998, but the records show the 2001 incident was very much a serious concern for the charity.

Note: While financial records do not support the charity learning of the 1998 incident, other evidence indicates that at least one member of TSM learned of the incident.

Salary Changes = Concern Over 2001 Incident

In 1999 and 2000, Raykovitz's salary rose 10% and Genovese rose at 7% year over year. For 2001, their salary increases abruptly leveled off.  Raykovitz's salary rose just 2% while Genovese's rose 4%.  

From 2001 to 2008, Dr. Raykovitz's salary increased by 33% -- rising from $99,699 in $138,279 (or a total increase of $38,630).  Over that same time frame, Katherine Genovese's salary rose 48% -- from $68,058 in 2001 to $106,013 in 2008 (or a total increase of $37,965).   Both of their salaries dropped in again 2009 -- following Sandusky being under investigation for child sexual abuse.  

The precipitous drop in the average staff salary was driven by increasing the number of employees from 28 to 99.  The magnitude of the change raises eyebrows. 

Did TSM hire 71 people or was this accounting sleight of hand to lower the average salary cost of the charity?

If the 2001 incident was a "nonstarter" or not a cause for concern - as Heim contended, why did the raises decrease that year?  And why again a similar decrease in 2009 after the abuse finding?

Changes in reporting in the charity's financial reports tend to occur around Sandusky related events.  In other words, these are "red flags."

Changes in Grants = Concern Over 2001 Incident

The 2001 incident appears to have driven changes in how the charity reported the "education grants" it provided to former TSM participants who were enrolling in college.

On their 1998 to 2000 IRS 990 forms, TSM reported the amount of grants to students on line 22 and attached a schedule including all names of the grantees to the report.  

The 2001 report continued to report the amount of grants on line 22, the schedule was not itemized, by individual grantee, as required by the reporting rules.  Instead, it just reported the lump some and the purpose of the grants. 

After 2002, TSM quit reporting these funds as grants and started recording them as Miscellaneous expenses on line 43c (2004-2008). In 2003, they were reported on line 43e. None of these lines required the filing of a schedule.

In 2009, TSM began reporting Grants again -- now on Lines 1 and 2 of their Functional Expense report.  However, TSM only provided an itemized schedule for Line 1 and continued to not itemize by individual grantee for educational grants. 

Therefore, a similar pattern of reporting existed in which reporting changed in 2001, after a close call, and then changed again in 2009 after Sandusky's abuse finding. 

It seems rather obvious, with the benefit of shredder truck hindsight, why the charity quickly stopped providing itemized listings of grantees right after the 2001 incident.

The changes in TSM's financial disclosures in 2001, particularly the elimination of names attached to grants, indicate that the charity understood that Sandusky's behaviors with children might bring about an investigation in which the names of children would provide leads.

2001 was very a big deal to TSM.