By Steven Fink
I was asked
to write a brief review of milestone events in 2014, as I saw them, in the
still going strong Penn State/Jerry Sandusky crisis. But first, let’s define
our terms: A 17-person majority of the board of trustees would have you believe
the crisis is over and it’s time to “move on.” Those individuals are naive and they
are wrong. Worse, they are wrong at the top of their lungs. Moreover, they are the ones perpetuating the
ongoing crisis, rather than doing anything proactively to resolve it.
Let me be
clear: in the mid-80s – nearly three decades ago – I wrote Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable, the first book ever
written on crisis management. It remains to this day the most widely read book
on the subject. In it, I outlined the four separate and distinct phases of what
I termed the Anatomy of a Crisis. Uninformed folks might have you believe that
the school’s “crisis” began in November 2011, with the grand jury presentment,
and ended soon thereafter. Far from it. That was merely the Acute Phase of the crisis
– the phase when chaos and turmoil reign supreme. When that second phase ended, the University
entered the third phase: the Chronic Phase. In this – generally the longest of
the four stages – we encounter court actions (e.g., the Sandusky trial) newspaper
exposes, investigations (e.g., the Freeh Report, the Thornburgh Report), mea
culpas (e.g., board member Al Clemens public apology for his role in the rush
to judgment), firings, promotions, course corrections, etc. This is where we
remain mired today. Why? Generally because of the 17 recalcitrant BOT members
who refuse to open the door and let the truth come out.
Looking
back through 2014, I was surprised to see that I had written ten blog posts on
this crisis and the NCAA’s overreaching power plays. (You can read them all at
TheCrisisBlog.tumblr.com). The one that generated the biggest response was
titled “17 Feathers for Penn State Board.” It was a reference to an old book by
British author A.E.W. Mason, having to do with publicly naming a person a coward
by presenting that individual with a white feather of shame. When the nine
alumni-elected members of the board introduced a resolution to reopen the Freeh
Report and who-knows-how-many-“sealed-documents” to finally get to the truth –
the real truth – the 17 nay-sayers
defeated the motion unanimously. For that I publicly labeled them all as
cowards, and suggested they each receive white feathers.
Then, more
recently, at what was supposed to be a specially called BOT meeting to discuss
reopening the Freeh Report and getting a much-needed look at Freeh’s so-called
“secret documents,” the 17 head-in-the-sand members, acting in unison as a
group, boycotted the meeting entirely. What are they, children? What are they
afraid of? The truth? Lemme break it down for you: when one person boycotts an event, you could make a reasonable argument that it was done
because of a strong philosophical difference of opinion. But when the entire
group of 17 intransigent trustees fails to appear, it is clear they are
lemmings that have lost their ability for independent thought and reason.
Someone is calling the shots and these 17 white feather candidates are
mindlessly jerking along on puppet strings.
In my
career, I have served on a number of boards, advised boards immersed in various
crises, and currently chair the board of a private,non-profit charitable
foundation. When a subject is presented with which I disagree, the last place I
want to be is absent. No, I want to be there to express my opinions and maybe
persuade some on the other side of the issue over to my side. To intentionally
boycott a meeting because you’re afraid of the outcome of a vote is petulant
and juvenile.
Consider:
during this year, Judge Freeh tried to throw up as many legal road blocks as he
could to keep his work secret, even in the face of evidence that he was in
regular communication with the NCAA all during his investigation. How does this
qualify as an “independent” report? Do I hear a growing chorus of “collusion”?
But the board remained mute and did not support the actions to reopen the
report and objectively examine its findings. If you’re trying to get to the
bottom of a report that has been widely labeled as “fact-challenged” and
“error-filled,” wouldn’t you want to see all the evidence to learn the truth?
Consider:
during this year, the NCAA tried to throw up as many legal road blocks as it
could to keep their documents private, even after it was revealed in a series
of leaked emails that the NCAA bluffed a woefully naïve Penn State board into
accepting the most draconian sanctions ever handed down by the sports authority,
while suspecting all along that it did not have the jurisdiction to do so. In
my most recent book, Crisis Communications,
I argued that the events at Penn State were a criminal matter, not an NCAA
infraction. If you’re trying to get to the bottom of the matter, wouldn’t you
want to see all the evidence and
maybe have those sanctions officially repealed and the millions of dollars in
monetary fines returned? When the board took steps to block such actions, it
put itself in the unimaginable position of opposing legal action that, if
successful, would stand to benefit the university in a myriad of ways.
Feel free
to disagree with me, but my experience tells me that the only reason most of the sanctions have been lifted early is because
the NCAA wants this court case to vanish. In their presentation to the court, they
actually argued that the suit was now moot because most of the sanctions have
been lifted. That obvious ploy was spotted and quickly shot down by
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Ann Covey. Judge Covey now wants to see
if the sanctions were even legal in the first place. (Good for her!) And this challenge to the NCAA’s once
impregnable authority is the very last thing the NCAA wants.
In court,
the board (on behalf of the university) joined the NCAA. This mind-numbing
action defies credulity, and there are only a limited number of plausible
explanations why: Either the 17 board members are cowards (as I labeled them
previously), they are in cahoots with the NCAA because they are afraid to rock
the boat for fear of future actions, or they are just plain obtuse. You can
cast your own vote.
But,
thankfully, Judge Covey seems hell bent on getting to the truth and she is
standing rock solid on this mission.
The NCAA
said it was lifting many – but not all – of the sanctions against Penn State because
former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, our “monitor,” gave us a gold star on his
last report on the university’s compliance. But such moves will still leave the
stigma of wrong doing intact. If things go well for the truth seekers, the
court case could force the NCAA to acknowledge it was wrong, it had no
jurisdiction to impose the sanctions in the first place, and for that reason
the sanctions must be removed.
In the
midst of this turmoil, the board adopted a new and completely meaningless
“brand” for the university: “Penn State Lives Here.” When asked about it at the
time, I replied “Penn State doesn’t need a new Brand, it needs a new Board.”
New Year’s
Prediction: When the dust settles, as it most likely will this year, it will be
time for accounts to be settled, starting with the removal of the most
obstreperous board members.
New Year’s
Wish: That the board wakes up before it’s too late and gets on the right side
of history.
New Year’s
Question: Which side will President Eric Barron come down on? He’s in a tough
spot, to be sure: He is obedient to the board (who hired and pays him), but he
can’t remain blind and mute forever. He asked to review the Freeh Report, which
was a good step, but what is he planning to do with it…and when? In trying to
answer that pivotal question, it would behoove us to recall that before coming
to Penn State he was president of Florida State University – a school that essentially
swept under the carpet damning reports and credible evidence that star
quarterback, and eventual Heisman Trophy winner Jameis Winston, sexually
assaulted a coed at the school. So Barron has familiarity with schools taking
paths of expediency rather than paths of righteousness. Which path will he
walk?
To those
who holler into the wind that the crisis is past and let’s move on, I say this:
If the crisis had ended in 2012, why are so many people still talking about it
and litigating it now? When this phase of the crisis is finally over, the
school will enter the fourth and final phase of the crisis: the Resolution
Phase.
But, alas,
we are a long way from that right now.
Steven Fink
President and CEO
Lexicon Communications Corp.
theCrisisBlog.tumblr.com
twitter.com/LexiconCorp
