Wensilver Responds To Heim Coin Toss Flap

The recent “coin toss” controversy this month regarding the Co-Founder and long-time Board Member of Sandusky’s Second Mile children’s charitable non-profit, Mr. Bruce Heim, opened the door slightly for the media and the public to re-focus their questions on the role of the Second Mile leadership in their failures to protect children.  

Penn State President Barron rescinded the honorary Army/PSU game opening coin toss invitation to Mr. Heim after a flood of complaints from well-informed alumni.  Alumni that have been questioning the leadership decisions at Second Mile since the scandal broke in late 2011.  More specifically, alumni have questioned the actions of charity CEO and licensed child psychologist, Dr. Jack Raykovitz, on addressing Sandusky's conduct, which was reported to him in 2001, and PSU's subsequent banning of Second Mile clients from the campus. 

We've heard nothing on the Second Mile until this coin toss controversy and Mr. Heim's compulsion to reply to complaints via an Op-Ed on October 7th in a local State College publication.  
 In it, Mr. Heim voices his displeasure on the revoking of this coin toss honorarium, complains of being dishonored, and laments that with benefit of hindsight, he wished he had done more. Yet he also admits to both his and charity Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz’s roles in concealing PSU’s 2001 complaint from the Second Mile Board at large, the Second Mile staffers and charity volunteers. 

Mr. Heim admits to the agreed upon concealment of facts from others in charity leadership positions. Facts, that had they been escalated by a concerned parent about their charity figurehead's conduct with minors, would very likely have led to bad publicity for the Second Mile.  That is an issue any full Board of a children's charity needs to know about.

Mr. Heim’s statement that the Second Mile didn’t have “some culpability” in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based on “conjecture” is a demonstration of his own ignorance of the charity’s legal requirements and the facts in evidence. 

One has to ask that as an involved, decades-long board member and Co-Founder with Sandusky of a Pennsylvania children’s charitable non-profit, why Mr. Heim was not educated on the standards of safe conduct for adults working with children, and more specifically, reporting requirements in Pennsylvania?  

Mr. Heim states this “It never occurred as a possibility until the release of the 2011 Grand Jury presentment that shocked a nation, destroyed a great charity, devastated a town, impugned a university, and by implication its wide alumni base, and maligned a personal friend, partner, and icon who did everything he was supposed to do with the information he had: Joe Paterno.” 

However, Mr. Heim confesses in his Op-Ed that the break in the reporting chain was among the leadership at Second Mile.  Therefore there was never a “cover up” among the administrators at Penn State, least of all with Mr. Paterno. The Second Mile was legally mandated to follow up on institutional complaints on its employee’s conduct with minors, investigate it, possibly report it to outside agencies and implement a written safety plan as per state mandate.

That never happened.

Bruce Heim's Letter Provides Learning Opportunities

The breakdowns in PA's child protection system were lost in the sensational reporting about Penn State's role in the Sandusky scandal.  Bruce Heim's letter provides another opportunity to highlight them.

By
Ray Blehar

Bruce Heim's October 7th guest op-ed (Bruce Heim: Shedding Light on The Second Mile's Decision Making) provides us with a number of opportunities to learn about how the system broke down and enabled Sandusky to perpetrate crimes for over a decade.

The mistakes by the county agencies and  The Second Mile have garnered little attention, but had the correct steps been taken, children may have been spared from abuse. 

Heim:  "At the time [2001], The Second Mile had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, which was not reported to us."

By law, Centre County Office of Children and Youth Services (CYS) was required to notify The Second Mile within 24 hours of receiving the 1998 abuse allegations against Sandusky.  The purpose of the notification was to ensure that the charity put a plan of supervision in place to protect program participants while Sandusky was under investigation.  

That didn't happen.

According to the 1998 University Park police report, Sandusky continued to contact the two children who were subjects of the investigation.  Both children were participants in the charity's activities. In addition, according to court documents, Sandusky was accessing Victim 4 - another participant - during this period.

The law also states that in instances where the county agency has passed the responsibility for investigating to the regional office or the Department, as it did in 1998, it still maintains responsibility for the plan of supervision and other notifications.

About ten years later, similar failures occurred.

Charity did not put
approved plan in place
after the 2009 finding

Heim:  "Upon receipt of the 2008 report, it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities."

In 2008, Clinton County CYS was the investigating agency and it also failed its oversight duties.  Clinton County CYS Director, Gerald Rosamilia, erred by assuming that because Sandusky was no longer accessing the subject (Aaron Fisher) that no plan of supervision was needed.  

As noted above, The Second Mile was required to develop a plan of supervision to ensure Sandusky did not have access to children.  However, the law also required the plan be approved by the county agency and kept on file until the closure of the investigation.

By the charity's own admission, it kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  It did not inform program participants or the public.  It is doubtful that such a plan would have been approved by Clinton County CYS or DPW.

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009.   Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

Similar failures, ten years apart by two different county agencies, reveals that child protection employees were not well versed in their responsibilities to keep children safe during investigations.  

The evidence also shows that The Second Mile did not comply with the law by failing to get its plan of supervision approved and that its plan was insufficient for protecting children.

Mr. Heim's statement that The Second Mile didn't have "some culpability" in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based "on conjecture," is based on ignorance.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

CDT: Full letter to the editor regarding Heim

My recent letter to the editor was cut-off at the half way point.  I contacted the CDT about the error and hopefully it will be corrected soon.  

Until then, here is the full letter, plus the relevant laws.

Recent letter writers to the CDT believe it was wrong for Penn State to rescind its invitation to Bruce Heim to participate in the coin-toss prior to the Penn State - Army football game.  Both writers believe that it was a simple case of guilt by association (to The Second Mile) that drove Penn State's decision. 

Both writers also appear to share the opinion of Bruce Heim, who in response to the coin-toss flap, stated The Second Mile had no culpability in the Sandusky scandal and that opinions otherwise were based on “conjecture.”

The evidence and the law proves those opinions are wrong. 

Bruce Heim was among the charity's decision makers about handling the Sandusky matter. Heim stated: “Upon receipt of the 2008 report [when Sandusky informed the board he was under investigation], it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities.”

What Heim didn’t say was that the charity kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  The charity also did not inform program participants or the public. 

The law required The Second Mile to have their plan of supervision (i.e., ban from “kid related activities”) approved by the county agency. The law also required the plan kept on file by the county until the closure of the investigation.

Those things didn’t happen. 

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009. Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010. 

In short, the Second Mile's plan of supervision was ineffective.

Statements that The Second Mile - or that anyone besides Sandusky - didn't have "some culpability" are simply not supported by the law or the evidence.

RAYMOND BLEHAR

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

The legal requirement for The Second Mile to put an approved plan of supervision in place follows:

§ 6303.  Definitions.

"Child-care services."  Includes any of the following:

(1)  Child day-care centers.

(2)  Group day-care homes.

(3)  Family child-care homes.

(4)  Foster homes.

(5)  Adoptive parents.

(6)  Boarding homes for children.

(7)  Juvenile detention center services or programs for delinquent or dependent children.

(8)  Mental health services for children.

(9)  Services for children with intellectual disabilities.

(10)  Early intervention services for children.

(11)  Drug and alcohol services for children.

(12)  Day-care services or programs that are offered by a school.

(13)  Other child-care services that are provided by or subject to approval, licensure, registration or certification by the department or a county social services agency or that are provided pursuant to a contract with the department or a county social services agency.

§ 6368.  Investigation of reports.

(i)  Investigation concerning a school or child-care service employee.--

(1)  Upon notification that an investigation involves suspected child abuse by a school or child-care service employee, including, but not limited to, a service provider, independent contractor or administrator, the school or child-care service shall immediately implement a plan of supervision or alternative arrangement for the individual under investigation to ensure the safety of the child and other children who are in the care of the school or child-care service.

(2)  The plan of supervision or alternative arrangement shall be approved by the county agency and kept on file with the agency until the investigation is completed.

Kudravetz: Case Against PSU Even Weaker After Heim's Letter

Published October 8, 2015 

PennLive.com

In light of recent comments by former Second Mile Vice Chairman Bruce Heim, I'd like to submit the following:

Heim made comments recently after being disinvited from the Penn State football game coin toss. He indicated that he did not think Jerry Sandusky had done anything wrong; Sandusky showering with kids was not considered unusual; and he did not think at the time that Sandusky was a pedophile. 

These comments raise important questions with respect to the entire Sandusky matter.

Penn State reported the 2001 shower incident to The Second Mile, Sandusky's employer. The 2001 statute was followed, even exceeded, by Penn State. Thus, there was no cover-up or "conspiracy of silence" by Penn State.

Conversely, The Second Mile violated the law when it chose not to report the 2001 shower incident to child protective services. The Second Mile leadership also consciously withheld Penn State's report from its board of directors.

Why, then, were the Penn State administrators charged with failure to report and a cover-up? And why, as mandated reporters, were the leaders of The Second Mile not charged at all?

The Office of Attorney General should drop the charges against the Penn State administrators immediately. It has no case, and it never did.

JANET PARKHILL KUDRAVETZ, Arlington, Virginia

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.

The Bruce Heim Bru-ha-ha

Heim admitted he stopped The Second Mile from taking action against Sandusky in 2001.  The decision to select him to represent Army at the coin-toss on Saturday is another bad decision by PSU.

By
Ray Blehar

In what can only be called a jaw-dropping move, Penn State has selected former Director of The Second Mile (TSM), Bruce Heim, to represent Army in the coin-toss on Military Appreciation Day.  Heim was nominated for the position by alumni-elected Trustee Ryan McCombie, who formerly sat on the Board of AGSM with Heim until 2013.

McCombie, in a statement today, stood by his decision to nominate Heim, citing his military record.  Unfortunately, McCombie is ignoring Heim's role in failing to protect children from Jerry Sandusky.

The 2001 "Failure To Report" Decision

In 2001, former Penn State Athletic Director, Timothy Curley, reported what Mike McQueary had reported to him about Sandusky showering with a child to the Executive Director of TSM, Dr. Jack Raykovitz.  Curley also informed Raykovitz that Penn State was banning Sandusky from using the facilities with TSM participants because his behavior was inappropriate.

According to an August 12, 2012, Harrisburg Patriot News report, Heim admitted that he stopped Raykovitz from reporting Sandusky's behavior to the full TSM Board.

“It goes right to the heart of what Tim Curley said to the grand jury, and that is that Tim Curley told him that he didn’t want Jerry Sandusky on campus anymore in the showers, because we were in a day and age where that was inappropriate,” Heim said.

Raykovitz then asked Heim — a local real estate investor and someone who isn’t shy about his loyalty to Penn State, the Paterno family and many of the key players in this scandal — if he should relay this to the full board.

“And I said no,” Heim said.

Heim went on to state that he convinced the TSM executive board to conceal the incident from the full board, therefore stifling any action to stop Sandusky.

“The executive staff knew in 2001, staff and executive board.  I stood up in that meeting and said that happened and I told them I advised Jack not to go to the board with it.”

Heim (right) mentored
children in one-on-one
 fitness programs

Mandated Reporters

While Dr. Raykovitz had no legal responsibility to report the incident to the full board, both he and Heim had a legal responsibility to report the incident to child protective services. 

§ 6311.  Persons required to report suspected child abuse.

(a)  Mandated reporters.--The following adults shall make a report of suspected child abuse, subject to subsection (b), if the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse:

(1)  A person licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field under the jurisdiction of the Department of State.

(7)  An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual's role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, is a person responsible for the child's welfare or has direct contact with children.

Dr. Raykovitz was a licensed psychologist thus covered under (1).  Heim was an unpaid volunteer who provided mentoring to children in TSM's Friend Fitness Program (7). In that role, he had direct contact with children and was responsible for their welfare. Heim also volunteered to mentor a similar program at the Upper Main Line YMCA.

As a psychologist who worked in a child development practice, Raykovitz had absolutely no excuse for not reporting the 2001 incident as suspected child abuse.  Moreover, he should have not been reliant upon the advice of Heim, whose expertise is real estate, to make a decision about informing the TSM Board.  

As the Executive Director of a youth service organization, Raykovitz had responsibility for the protection of the children in his care.  By not taking action against Sandusky in 2001, an untold number of children were subjected to child sexual abuse.

The 2009 Decision

In the wake of the 2011 grand jury presentment, numerous stories surfaced regarding how the charity's board was kept in the dark about Sandusky.   However, the Harrisburg Patriot News reported, on August 12, 2012, that the charity's board made a decision to stay silent about Sandusky's 2009 abuse finding.

Essentially, the decision came down to money.  The charity needed Sandusky as their top fundraiser and face of the charity for as long as possible.  

“I know the people who run the golf outing said, ‘He’s a big reason why people come — to see him.’ That makes sense, in my opinion. That’s not involved in programming,” said Louie Sheetz, executive vice president of marketing for his family’s chain of Pennsylvania gas stations and convenience stores.

Sheetz was wrong about Sandusky's involvement in programming.  

While the charity made a number of public statements to the effect that they prohibited Sandusky from all programs involving children, the public record shows he took part in children's programs in March 2009 and in the Summer of 2010.  

Tragically, the record also shows that at least two children, D.F. and Victim 9 were abused in 2009 after the charity's Board (and Heim) learned of Sandusky's abuse finding.

Bad Decision, Courtesy of Louis Freeh

The University has publicly condemned and made pariahs of individuals who were charged with failing to report Sandusky.   Nothing about their cases is proven.  They haven't gotten their day in court.

On Saturday, the University will celebrate a man who admitted he stopped a report of Sandusky's conduct from going forward in 2001 and who was part of a charity that actively concealed Sandusky's 2009 abuse finding from the public at large. Both decisions resulted in children being abused.

Ironically, this unfathomable decision, like many others that have caused embarrassment to the University, can be traced back to the Freeh Report.

Had Louis Freeh conducted a complete and thorough investigation, as he was hired and paid $8.5 million to perform, this decision would have never been made.

A real investigation and report would have informed the public about the role of Heim and The Second Mile, among others, in enabling Sandusky's abuse.

Patriot News Acceptance of TSM's Excuses for Not Reporting 2001 Incident Doesn't Pass The Test

The Second Mile admitted they knowingly kept a child molester in their organization from November 2008 through 2011 because of his value as a fundraiser.  Why did the Patriot News pass on the idea that TSM did the same thing in 2001?"

By
Ray Blehar

The series so far:  The Patriot News and Sara Ganim erroneously reported that TSM kept Sandusky out of children's programs immediately after his investigation began in 2008.  They also truncated the time frame of the abuse of Victim 9 to make it appear as if TSM had a protection plan that kept Sandusky away from children.  In the third part of the series, we'll examine how the Patriot News' and Ganim blindly accepted the charity's excuses for its failure to report the 2001 incident.

When the Sandusky scandal broke, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General's (PA OAG) press conference prominently featured two PSU administrators on a placard next to one of Jerry Sandusky.  Their alleged crimes were failing to report child abuse and perjury regarding what they were told by Mike McQueary.  


From the outset, the Patriot News reported how the report from McQueary was watered down by the PSU administrators which led to their alleged failure to report.  This report was based on the mostly discredited 23-page grand jury presentment and the alleged "watering down" of the incident was patently false and failure to report remains unproven.

While the grand jury presentment mentioned that PSU reported 2001 incident to The Second Mile (TSM), the Patriot News half-heartedly pursued the rather obvious alternative that TSM had failed to report the incident because of financial reasons.  

Early reports by the Patriot News' Donald Gilliland, Sara Ganim,  and Jeff Frantz included discussions of the charity's finances and the escalating salaries of Executive Director Dr. Jack Raykovitz and his wife, Katherine Genovese.  The reporting showed that the charity raised over $17 million from 2002 through late 2008, when Sandusky's consulting fee was stopped.  

Even though the Patriot News laid off the charity's finances in its future reporting, the fact that the victims all were from the charity and the horrific nature of the crimes reported in the presentment (though the worst two incidents have been debunked), the charity was unable to survive financially.

Amazingly, the financial failure - and the importance of Jerry Sandusky  to the charity as its key fund raiser- never "grew legs" as the reason why TSM didn't report Sandusky for the 2001 incident.

Excuses for Failure To Report Don't Hold Water

The Patriot News and the rest of the media led the public to believe that Penn State covered up for a retired coach (that Joe Paterno didn't even like) to preserve the school's reputation.  Absent alternative scenarios  (of which there are several), the public bought this nonsense, much like it did the Duke lacrosse/rape case.

But to sell this nonsense to the public, the Patriot News  promoted the narrative that a licensed, PhD psychologist, would not suspect that an incident of a man showering with a child was possible child abuse because an athletic director may have told him otherwise.  

That is simply preposterous.   

Dr. Raykovitz worked for Mid-Step Child Development Center, which specialized in children and adolescent development/counseling, as well as serving as the Executive Director of the charity.  Obviously, he would not have been been swayed by the report of a layman about a possible child abuse situation. 

Curley's testimony at the grand jury was that Sandusky's actions had made a PSU employee (McQueary) "uncomfortable."  If it was enough for Curley to meet in person with charity's Executive Director, then if anyone is downplaying what was reported, it was Raykovitz.  

Ironically, he's not the only "psychologist" in this saga to downplay Sandusky's actions.

But it gets better.

In Sara Ganim's five-part series, published in August 2012, one of the charity's directors, Bruce Heim, went on the record to state that he told Raykovitz that the 2001 shower incident was a "non-starter" and that it need not be reported to TSM's board.


So now we have Dr. Jack Raykovitz, licensed psychologist, not suspecting or reporting child abuse because he was advised so by a real estate developer.  

Interesting.

Heim's statement on his advice to Dr. Raykovitz was also quite remarkable:

“For five years, I worked out at the football facility, several times a week, and saw Jerry showering with children,” he said. “I said I don’t think it’s relevant. It happens every day at the YMCA. I remember the conversation specifically because it seemed like a nonstarter because of what Penn State said went on.”

And of course, the most preposterous statement of all came from Raykovitz, who  advised Sandusky to wear swim trunks if he showered with children after workouts. 

The Patriot News gave TSM a pass for not reporting the 2001 incident, citing these incredibly weak statements as justification.  And it didn't bother to raise the issue of the competency of Dr. Raykovitz to be running a children's charity -- or him being permitted to work with children.

Maybe that was because the Patriot News understood this was not about competency -- it was about money.  And their job was to follow (and not deviate from) the story line offered by the PA OAG.

Charity Kept Molester Around To Raise Money, Keep Charity Afloat
  
The Patriot News reported when Raykovitz was informed about the Sandusky investigation in November 2008, they decided to not tell the public anything about it unless they were directly asked.  The TSM Board was split on Sandusky's future involvement with the charity.   However, the split decision was to let Sandusky continue to fund raise while he was under criminal investigation.  

Ganim reported: 
Myra Toomey, who was hired to work in the development office in 2011, said she wasn’t told about the accusations against Sandusky until after she accepted the job.


Although Sandusky had formally announced his retirement from the charity in September 2010, he remained involved with the charity for special events and fundraisers even after his investigation was announced in March 2011.   In January 2011, Dr. Raykovitz mentioned Sandusky's continued involvement with the charity when it appealed to the Centre County commissioners for funding for the construction of its Center of Excellence.  Sandusky would later play in TSM's golf tournament/fund-raiser that spring.

The evidence that TSM kept an indicated child abuser involved with a children's charity after he had lost his clearance to work with children is bad enough.  But to admit they did it because of his ability to raise money truly shows their true motivation.  

Yet, the Patriot News never made this the story.  

That same motive existed in 2001, yet the Patriot News promoted the lame excuses offered by Heim and Raykovitz for keeping Sandusky's abuse a secret then.

The truth is that TSM's failure to report Sandusky in 2001 wasn't because of the advice Dr. Raykovitz received from an athletic director and a real estate developer.

Sandusky was not reported by TSM in 2001 because it would have been the end of the charity.

History has proven that.