TAKE BACK PENN STATE NOW. An Opportunity to Reclaim Penn State for the Open TRUTH -

Take back Penn State from those who caused the damage and now want to hide the TRUTH. 

PENN STATE OPPOSES PATERNO FAMILY REQUEST TO SEE FREEH DOCUMENTS.

WE ARE PENN STATE - SAYS THE SLOGAN 

WHAT PENN STATE OPPOSES THAT REQUEST?  

Penn State via its legal counsel, speaking for the administration and Board of Trustees, is opposing open display of the TRUTH by opposing the release of documents related to the Freeh Report. It is believed that such materials are not only being withheld from public view but are also being withheld from some members of the Board of Trustees themselves. Yet Penn State has repeatedly argued for transparency and open disclosure, as represented by the alumni who voted for new Trustees who advocate such transparency and responsibility. The motion filed by Penn State's counsel makes it seem like Penn State wants to hide the TRUTH.  

Make no mistake – Stephen Dunham, the University General Counsel and Vice President for the last two years, is opposing the revelation of the TRUTH in your name. He acts at the behest of the Board of Trustees.

Do Penn State's Alumni Elected Trustees oppose the release of these documents? No.

Do Penn State Alumni oppose the release? No.  Does the student body? No. 

Why would Penn State want to hide the TRUTH about the Freeh Report?

Is Dunham afraid the actual documents will show that the Freeh Report was fatally flawed? Would the documents show that Freeh manufactured his damning evidence that Penn State administrators were involved in some cover up of Sandusky's activities?

Help me out here. Who would be harmed if the documentation supports the Freeh findings? Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier are already under indictment and evidently headed to trial. Joe Paterno's reputation is already in tatters. So what is the potential harm to Penn State if the documents confirm the Freeh Findings? 

Let's keep this very simple:

What SMSS wants is the TRUTH - and the release of this documentation is relevant to that search for Truth.  Isn't that something we can all agree is a good thing?

The Paterno family is obviously searching for the TRUTH in order to prove that Joe was innocent of any wrong doing. If they are correct and these documents prove their point it's a good thing for Penn State. Joe Paterno's legacy was great for Penn State and if it can be shown that Freeh was wrong and Joe did not do anything that could be construed as covering up for Sandusky his reputation could be restored and his legacy could once again become a positive aspect of Penn State's reputation of SUCCESS WITH HONOR.

The only people who stand to lose if Joe is fully exonerated seem to be the Freeh team and those people at Penn State who hired him and then chose to ratify his findings without bothering to read the report. Those people are Tom Corbett, John Surma and the BoT members who were unduly influenced to fire Joe, hire Freeh, and accept the NCAA sanctions. 

So we have a very interesting situation that should be addressed by all trustees, but undoubtedly led by the Alumni Trustees. It seems that Stephen Dunham has either taken it upon himself or has been instructed by the faction in control of the Board to oppose the release of these documents.  So as members of the Board of Trustees is it not your duty to make your opinion known to the General Counsel and any elements on the Board that support his objection to this release of documents? If you are not in favor of that move on behalf of PENN STATE you should now make that known. 

PENN STATE should want the TRUTH revealed. Is PENN STATE the Trustees who were openly elected by the Alumni? OR is PSU the cronies and appointees of Tom Corbett – the man who convened the grand jury that accused Penn State via its administrators and then became the Governor with power over so many trustees with the fiduciary duty to protect Penn State from his attack on Penn State launched as Attorney General?  

PS4RS and the other anti-"move-on" groups who helped defeat the "move-on" candidates should  encourage the trustee's they helped to elect openly oppose this move by Stephen Dunham. 

A vote on this would clearly show PENN STATE alumni and students who has the university's best interests at heart. The TRUTH is in Penn State's best interest and this is a chance to call for a vote by the Board of Trustees. A vote to instruct the General Counsel to withdraw his objections and to file a brief in favor of the release of these documents is a vote for revealing the TRUTH. Any board member who opposes it is in favor of hiding the TRUTH.

It really is that simple. You either want the TRUTH or you want to hide the TRUTH

Call for a vote and don't let those who oppose the Truth hide. 

WE ARE PENN STATE - says the slogan. 
Don't allow Dunham and Corbett to be Penn State. Neither one of them even attended PSU. They should not have the right to speak for the real PENN STATE anymore than I do. .  

CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN - UNCOMMONLY CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PART 1 A

Eight days after the Nov 9, 2011 firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, Corbett, Frazier, Surma, Garban, and Balwin had Louis Freeh in place as the "INDEPENDENT" executioner for Penn State demanding complete collusion with Attorney General of Pennsylvania Linda Kelly.  

"The hiring of Louis Freeh is synonymous with an institution paying $8.2 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." 

In Part I CORBETT & SURMA - UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
the roots of the damaging decisions of the Board of Trustees were exposed, showing why Corbett, Surma and Corbett's appointees should have recused themselves from the Nov 9th meeting that resulted in the termination of President Spanier and Joe Paterno.

Although I have followed these events very closely since Linda Kelly's Presentment drew my interest on Nov 5, 2011; I was very surprised to find the enclosed documents among the 300 made available by Ryan Bagwell. They verify the 8 day timeline and actually confirm the effort to restrict the special investigation group to a tightly controlled Cobett conflicted few. 

If you want further confirmation that the events of Nov 9, 2011 were a well-planned and executed strategy on the part of the Attorney General turned Governor Tom Corbett and his willing Joe hating partner John Surma, then take a quick look at this timeline. Have you ever seen any sizable governing body move this quickly?

TIMELINE  NOV 5, 2011 Penn State stands accused at the moment Linda Kelly decides to put equal sized posters of AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz on her Presentment stage along side of a poster of Jerry Sandusky,  There was simply no equivalence involved in the crimes of which they are accused thus the display was part of a strategy to anchor a narrative of PSU enabling Sandusky's abuse.

The verifiable LIE in that presentment; that Mike McQueary saw a boy being "subjected to anal rape" on the Penn State campus was tied to Curley and Schultz in another LIE - that McQueary told this to Joe Paterno and then to the two PSU administrators.  Those lies created the media tsunami that made Penn State the equal villain in the public eye.

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.

VICTOR B SURMA DIES IN NEW YORK JAN 26, 2014 ------- THE SURMA VENDETTA REVISITED

By Barry Bozeman

Back in September of 2012 we posted two stories that have been two of the most read in the history of this website. Tragic news came to our attention over a week ago that led us to revisit this information and it's effect on the defamation suffered by Penn State. As you read this information we ask two very important questions: Was it proper for John Surma to lead the Board of Trustees to fire Joe Paterno? Was John Surma's action during that meeting influenced by what had happened to his nephew Victor B. Surma? 

For a week we have had multiple independent sources telling us in confidence that Victor Benjamin Surma dIed of a heroin overdose and the Surma family had gone to considerable lengths to keep his death quiet. There was no public notice or obituary - only word of a closed small private memorial service for family and the closest of friends. We have hesitated to publish this information out of sympathy for the family. Finally tonight an obituary for Victor B. Surma appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune.

Obituary for Victor Benjamin Surma

Victor B. Surma, of Upper St. Clair and New York City, N.Y., passed away earlier this year in Manhattan, N.Y. Born July 20, 1983, he was a son of Dr. Victor J. and Kathy (Keim) Surma;

We found a Facebook statement that Vic died on Jan 26, 2014 written by his mother Kathy Surma on March 28th and we suspect that is why an obituary has finally been published.

Victor Surma, Sr. went on a PSU football message board and posted disparaging remarks about Coach Joe Paterno after his son left the football team.   According to reliable sources, John Surma had been pushing for the ouster of Paterno ever since joining the PSU BOT in 2007 and led the way to orchestrate the firing of Coach Paterno on Nov. 9, 2011. That action caused terrible damage to Penn State and the Paterno legacy and family. We believe there is strong evidence of a direct connection between these events and at the very least John Surma had a conflict of interest that should have excluded him from any part in that decision.

Joe Paterno preached personal responsibility to all of his players and staff. It is not the place of a football coach to control the personal lives of players. Vic Surma the father says Paterno 'destroyed the self-esteem and confidence of young players'. But it was Vic, the father, that decided his son should walk on at Penn State instead of taking a full scholarship at Kent State. Vic the son simply was not equipped to win playing time at a top Division 1 program. Did Vic's failure to succeed given the pressure from his father destroy his self esteem and confidence?  Or was that the fault of Joe Paterno?

John Surma, Vice-chairman of the Trustees took over for Chairman Steve Garban that fateful night in November following Linda Kelly's Presentment press conference. Garban excused himself because he was once a player for Paterno.  It appeared that Surma and Gov Corbett had planned the firing of Joe Paterno well in advance of that emergency meeting. Corbett as the past AG knew what was coming and of Surma's strong dislike for Joe. Railroading the Trustees was easy - Corbett appointees along with the inner circle controlled Board decisions. Those who had any concern over the firing were quickly silenced and told that Corbett as former Attorney General had inside information concerning the extent of involvement by Paterno and PSU administrators. After all, Corbett convened the Grand Jury that wrote the indictments, so his conflict of interest is impossible to overstate. Here, the former Attorney General responsible for building the case against PSU, had become the most powerful member of the Board responsible for protecting the interests of PSU.

WRSC Recap of Ray Blehar March 13, Interview

Until we can find/post an audio, here is a recap for those who may not have had a chance to listen (based on my memory of the interview).

WRSC:  Thoughts of the Dottie Sandusky interview?

Ray:  Much like last week's ESPN article on Mike McQueary, the Dottie Sandusky interview didn't "move the needle" of public opinion at all.  The public believes that Dottie is either in denial or delusional.  Her interview did little to change that perception.

WRSC:  Do you believe Sandusky is guilty of everything he was charged with?

Ray:  I have written at least 50 pages on the problems with the Sandusky investigation and the issue here is not Sandusky's guilt as much as it is that the investigation was conducted by narcotics agent who had investigated less than 10 CSA cases.  As a result, the took the victim's statements at face value and didn't evaluate them like an experienced CSA investigator would have done.  The prosecutors charged according to the evidence brought to them by the investigator.  I've pointed out that the janitor incident is a complete hoax and other victims exaggerated the crimes, but at the end of the day Sandusky was guilty of at least 25 crimes.  Sandusky was evaluated by two psychologists who both concluded he had a psycho-sexual disorder.  He's where he belongs.

WRSC:  What is the status of the Federal investigation of The Second Mile?

Ray:  The investigation is being led by Gordon Zubrod, who was the prosecuting attorney in the Kids for Cash scandal in Luzerne County.  He is notoriously slow.  He is being assisted by Michael Consiglio.  The investigation is looking at the financials of the charity.  Last December or January I wrote a series called Second Mile's Financial Statements Don't Add Up, where I found that they had understated revenues and padded expenses.  The federal investigation will take time because they are not getting any help from an insider and have to trace money through banks and other places.  It's a complex investigation.  Just watch an episode of American Greed to get an idea of the techniques used, such as wiretaps and traces.

WRSC: Lexicon communications wrote a piece on the screw ups by the Board in responding to the Sandusky scandal.  What did you think?

Ray:  First, the presentment was leaked on November 4 and the Board fired Paterno on November 9th.  They had five days to do a legal review.  This was not a panic situation.  There were three lawyers on the Board as regular members and at least four who were emeritus trustees.  Kenneth Frazier, was the General Counsel of Merck who decided to litigate the Vioxx cases individually saving Merck millions of dollars.  Are you telling me he didn't review the law before they made the decisons that they made.   I don't buy it.  This was a purposeful act and the Board knew in advance they were gonna can Joe and Graham. However, the piece by Steven Fink was on the money in several respects in terms of not managing the crisis and the hamhanded attempt at rebranding PSU.  As Fink said, "We don't need  a new brand.  We need a new Board."

WRSC:  The entire board or just a small group?

Ray:  Just a small cabal of trustees.  The power group.  Ben Novak has written about Board structure and there is the power group and the rest are just along for the ride.  There was no vote to fire Joe as much as it was a suggestion by Surma.  Al Clemens was calling in by phone from the airport and hardly knew what was happening.  Surma made the motion and no one objected.  A few days later the Executive  Committee voted to make it official.  But this was all planned in advance.

WRSC:  What do you think about Board reform?

Ray:  Reform is needed.  The power group needs to be broken up.  The Business and Industry group needs to be changed so that it just can't appoint members.

WRSC:  What are your thoughts on the Kane investigation?

Ray:  I have a lot of confidence in the Kane investigation or more properly, the investigation led by Geoffrey Moulton.  My Report 3 gave a preview of some of the things the investigation should find, such as the failure to follow up on leads and sitting on evidence.  I believe it will find misconduct by prosecutor Frank Fina.  If you read the filing by Spanier attorney, Tim Lewis, it states that there was misconduct by Fina and the grand jury judge in letting Spanier believe he was being represented by Cynthia Baldwin.

WRSC:  The grand jury judge?

Ray:  Yes, Judge Feudale, who was already removed as a grand jury judge by Kane.  He made very poor decisons in the case.  The presentment should have been sealed because it was so inflammatory it contaminated the jury pool.

WRSC:  What do you believe will happen with the trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?

Ray:  I hope it goes to trial because the evidence is so weak.  Essentially, the prosecution has the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin and a couple e-mails.  That's it.  Of course, it is up to Judge Hoover to decide what will got to trial.  If he rules Baldwin was not representing the PSU Three then their grand jury testimony will be tossed and there goes the perjury charges.  Hoover could also rule that the failure to report charges should be dismissed and if so, then the Endangerment charges are out the window too.  That would leave conspiracy and obstruction, which is all predicated on Baldwin's testimony.  And Baldwin has been contradicted by almost everyone else who testified for the prosecution.

THE PENN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRAITORS

By Barry Bozeman

Who are these exceptional men and women granted the honor of serving as Trustees of the great institution of higher learning known as The Pennsylvania State University? Who are these successful businessmen and women who rose to positions of power and prominence and were chosen to safeguard the reputation and financial resources of one of the finest institutions in the land? 

What manner of leader would fail to stand up for the integrity and honor signified by the Nittany Lion and the motto: Making Life Better? What Trustee would capitulate to a Presentment before trial and accept blame prior to judgment or liability for the actions of a former employee 11 years in the past?  If anyone attacks an institution you are entrusted to defend and protect, what will you expect if you lie down and surrender before the legal process indicates any fault or blame? Where is there any "SUCCESS WITH HONOR" in that cowardly rush to injustice? 

In the face of a media tsunami of bad publicity, these cowards and turncoats chose to surrender any claim to right action and accepted blame on behalf of the University based on a Presentment containing the lie that one of their assistant coaches had witnessed a child being "subjected to anal intercourse" by a former employee in the football locker room. They chose to accept the claim that two administrators and their football coach conspired to cover up this alleged incident based on various flimsy accounts by a possibly damaged and compromised assistant coach.  What do we call such people?  

trai·tor   noun

1.  a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, alma mater, etc.

"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"

synonyms:       betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade, fifth columnist; turncoat, defector, deserter; collaborator, informer, mole, snitch, double agent; Judas, Benedict Arnold, quisling;

informal:  snake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab, fink

usage:  "convicted traitors will be executed"

Isn’t TRAITOR the proper word for the members of The PSU Board of Trustees in their handling of the all out attack on the university they are "trusted" to manage on behalf of its students, employees, and alumni?

This particular Board of Trustees – particularly the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, John Surma, Karen Peetz, Ira Lubert, and Kenneth Frazier, to name only a few – has “served” Penn State University by abandoning the President they hired, Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley, and condemning them as guilty along with the world famous icon and Coach Joe Paterno on the basis of a Presentment, a document that makes the best case for an indictment by a grand jury without any cross examination of witnesses, exculpatory evidence, or questioning by defense counsel. 

They fired Coach Joe Paterno – a man who had brought nothing but honor to the job for which he was hired and praise for the manner in which he conducted himself and the successful football program that brought honor and positive recognition to the university he served. No single individual was more the well regarded  face of Penn State or such an asset in terms of positive recognition.  Joe Paterno is worth 100 John Surmas, Karen Peetzes, or Ken Fraziers.   

Their capitulation to the media and fear of “bad publicity” led them to make disastrous decisions concerning the financial well being of the University by paying out millions of dollars to victims of Jerry Sandusky that had nothing to do with anything involving Penn State

On the advice of the Governor, they hired his feckless hitman, Louis Freeh, and accepted a report blaming their administrators and football coach for a conspiracy to cover up for Jerry Sandusky on “evidence” that anyone with minimal cognitive ability would reject out of hand. The Freeh investigators never even questioned Mike McQueary, Coach Paterno, Gary Schultz, or Tim Curley. The Board accepted this report in total without any review or question within hours of its release. They did not even read it.

That's unbelievable and unforgivable. 

A CRACK IN THE WALL

by  Barry Bozeman


Read this ASAP:
STEPHEN FINKS A CRACK IN THE WALL FINALLY 

Stephen Fink is a professional crisis manager who operates Lexicon Communications. Here he gives his professional assessment of the massive mistakes made by the Penn State Board of Trustees in the wake of the Attorney Generals Presentment of Nov 4, 2011.

Fink writes:

As for Joe Paterno, even if his reputation and his record are restored, his lasting image will forever be tarnished by the cowardly actions of a weak and frightened board of trustees.
This is the same board that spent $800,000 recently to come up with a new “brand” – “Penn State Lives Here” – overlooking the fact that (a) the so-called brand is vacuous and meaningless, (b) was already in wide use by others, including ESPN’s “College Football Lives Here” media campaign, (c) does nothing to address the underlying crisis, and (d) there was absolutely wrong with the existing brand in the first place.
Penn State does not need a new brand; it needs a new board.

In a hastily called emergency meeting John Surma and Gov. Corbett orchestrated the firing of Coach Joe Paterno and President Graham Spanier based on the Presentment.  NO trial, NO jury, NO statements by the two PSU leaders - just a railroaded vote and a phone call to Paterno.

Penn State University has paid dearly for this tragic mistake and it's time to make the perpetrators pay.

John P. Surma led the charge to fire Joe Paterno 

Near the back of a conference room littered with coffee cups and plates of half-eaten fudge brownies and chocolate-chip cookies, a 79-year-old trustee and philanthropist named Mimi Coppersmith stood up and beseeched her colleagues to reconsider what they were poised to do. "Coach Paterno is revered here in State College," she said. (Image Mimi Coppersmith) 

"We're not going to drink the Kool-Aid," snapped John P. Surma, then the board's vice chairman and the chief executive officer of United States Steel Corp. "This is what we need to do."  

Surma then asked whether any trustee objected to the firing of coach Joe Paterno.             The question was met with silence.

The SURMA VENDETTA Part 2  

Al Clemens Resignation from The Penn State Board of Trustees

March 7, 2014

I have resigned from the Penn State Board of Trustees.

For most of the 18 years I served as a Trustee, I was proud to help Penn State grow and achieve its deserved stature, in both academics and athletics, as one of America’s top-rated public Universities.

On November 9th, 2011, I and my fellow Trustees, voted to fire Joe Paterno in a hastily called meeting. We had little advance notice or opportunity to discuss and consider the complex issues we faced. After 61 years of exemplary service, Coach Paterno was given no chance to respond. 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. In joining the Paterno family and others in their suit against the NCAA, I have distanced myself from the Board on this issue. I am determined to reverse all of the misguided sanctions which were designed to punish a football program without blemish, and were aimed at student-athletes innocent of any wrong-doing.

Over the past two years, concerned Alumni have spoken clearly and forcefully. They have replaced six incumbents with reform-minded Trustees determined to acknowledge and redress errors of judgment with positive actions. Those who believe we can move on without due process for all who have been damaged by unsupported accusations are not acting in Penn State’s best interest.

While I will continue to advocate for Penn State, I step down from the Board in keeping within the spirit of our vote for 12-year term limits. It is time for new leadership to step forward.

Penn State’s future is bright. Our President, Dr. Barron, brings him a fresh perspective, grounded in first-hand experience of the true culture of Success with Honor. We have the opportunity to move forward united in our commitment to truth.

I urge all who love Penn State’s name to fight on. WE ARE Penn State

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Alvin Clemons

Frazier and Tomalis High-jacked The Special Investigations Task Force

Review of press reports and RTK e-mail lists indicate Frazier andTomalis (with guidance from Corbett) high-jacked the Special Investigations Task Force.

 By

Ray Blehar

 Acknowledgment:  The Pennsylvania Department of Education provided e-mails and lists of exempted e-mails in response to their requests for information under the Right To Know requests filed by Ryan Bagwell and Bill Cluck.   It is only through Ryan's and Bill's diligent efforts and their willingness to share this information that I can provide the following analysis. 

 An on-going analysis of the Right To Know (RTK) e-mails that were released, information about e-mails that were exempt from RTK, and press releases/reports indicate that PSU Board of Trustee members Kenneth Frazier (Business and Industry) and Ronald Tomalis (Education Secretary), with likely influence from Governor Tom Corbett (Ex-Officio) narrowed the scope of Louis Freeh's inquiry about the Sandusky Scandal.

What began as an investigation of broad scope about the incidents that gave rise to the Grand Jury report became limited scope investigation targeting only a few PSU employees who were part of a larger group of employees that received a contemporaneous report of the 2001 incident.  The upcoming trials or the investigation of Kathleen Kane undoubtedly will reveal some of the others who knew and when they knew it.   However, this report focuses specifically on the changes in the scope of Louis Freeh's inquiry and the likely reasons for the change.

 Original Special Investigations Task Force Plan - November 7, 2011

Shortly after midnight on November 7th, then-President Graham Spanier and then Board Co-Chair Steve Garban made a joint statement following up on the original November 6th release about the Sandusky allegations and impending scandal.  The statement was crafted during an hours long meeting of the Board (reference Lisa Powers Preliminary Hearing Testimony) in which various members of the BOT had provided drafts of their ideas on the scope of the statement.  Spanier, Garban, Powers, and others exchanged e-mails to craft the statement from the drafts into a single message for release to the press.   The release would address the status of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, as well as the plans of the BOT to address the scandal.

 The key points of the message were attributed to Steve Garban, as follows:

 The appointment of a task force that will seek external legal counsel and an independent review of policies and procedures for the protection of children.The public announcement of findings generated by the independent review. A review, with administrators, of police reporting protocols. An enhancement of "educational programming around such topics. 

 Members of the Board of Trustees reinforced that Penn State is committed to honesty, integrity and upholding the highest ideals."

 Some members of the board, including Garban, expressed disappointment with the statement and said it did not reflect the "sense of the Board."  Specifically, the Board was upset that the statement reflected that Curley requested and was granted administrative leave and that Gary Schultz had re-retired.  According the the Freeh Report (page 93), the Board recalled it was their decision to place Curley and Schultz on administrative leave (Note the inaccuracy of the Schultz decision reflected in the Freeh Report, as Schultz re-retired and was not place in administrative leave status by the BOT).

  PSU Board of Trustees Expansion of Scope - November 8, 2011

On November 8th, Garban announced he was turning over the "leadership" of the Board to John Surma.  According to a factually challenged statement in the Freeh Report, Surma then told the Board that he intended to form a special committee to deliberate on Spanier and Paterno's leadership.   As the facts (not the Freeh Report) show, this task force had a much more extensive mission than deliberating on the status of Paterno and Spanier and the November 8 press release proves that the announcement was an expansion on the themes reflected in the November 7 press release by Spanier and Garban.  I have added emphasis on the passage reflecting the BOT's proposed scope of the investigation.  The press release of November 8, 2011 follows:

 "The Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University is outraged by the horrifying details contained in the Grand Jury Report. As parents, alumni and members of the Penn State Community, our hearts go out to all of those impacted by these terrible events, especially the tragedies involving children and their families. We cannot begin to express the combination of sorrow and anger that we feel about the allegations surrounding Jerry Sandusky. We hear those of you who feel betrayed and we want to assure all of you that the Board will take swift, decisive action.  At its regular meeting on Friday, November 11, 2011, the Board will appoint a Special Committee, members of which are currently being identified, to undertake a full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report. This Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable. The Special Committee will have whatever resources are necessary to thoroughly fulfill its charge, including independent counsel and investigative teams, and there will be no restrictions placed on its scope or activities. Upon the completion of this investigation, a complete report will be presented at a future public session of the Board of Trustees.  Penn State has always strived for honesty, integrity and the highest moral standards in all of its programs. We will not tolerate any violation of these principles. We educate over 95,000 students every year and we take this responsibility very seriously. We are dedicated to protecting those who are placed in our care. We promise you that we are committed to restoring public trust in the University."

 PSU Board of Trustees Meeting (same scope as 11/8) - November 11, 2011

There is no mention of this meeting in the Freeh Report, likely because it provides significant understanding of why the Freeh Report only focused on the acts of PSU officials and did not consider the failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children and Youth Services (Centre County) and The Second Mile.   According to the minutes of the meeting, Paula Ammerman repeated the statement of November 8, 2011, as follows:

 "A statement was released on Tuesday, November 8, noting that the task force will undertake a full and complete investigation of the circumstances that gave rise to the Grand Jury Report. It will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible, and what  measures are necessary to insure that this never happens again.  There will be full accountability to those found responsible. All resources will be made available for the committee to fulfill its chargeThere will be full accountability for and there will be no restrictions placed on its scope or activities. Upon the completion of this  investigation, a complete report will be presented at a future public session of the Board of Trustees."

 At that point, Ammerman turned the floor over to Kenneth Frazier for his remarks and that's when the high-jacking took place.

 The Frazier/Tomalis High-Jacking 

"Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just start by saying that the special committee will take very seriously its charge of conducting a complete and independent and separate investigation which will be viewed as rigorous, objective, and impartial into the matters that you just discussed. I would also say that the Board has made it clear that sexual abuse, and in particular, child sexual abuse is completely unacceptable in any setting, but it has absolutely no place at Penn State University, and because of that, the special task force will bring all of its resources, including independent counsel to determining whether or not officers and employees of the University acted responsibly in connection with these allegations and whether, going forward, we need any changes to the University's policies or procedures to ensure the protection of children in the future. So, I will only say that, along with Secretary Tomalis, we will do everything in our power to ensure that we give the community, our students, their parents, and our alums the best indication that we've looked at everything, talked to everyone, looked at all the documents that we can, with the help of outside counsel, and that we are going to get to the bottom of all of these matters. I appreciate your support and I look forward to reporting back in the future."

 First, it should be noted that at the time Frazier made this announcement, PSU had yet to name the members of the task force and, as e-mails show, deliberated on who its members would be until November 17th.  Therefore, the narrowing of the scope from a full investigation to just on PSU officials was decided not by the full task force, but by Frazier and Tomalis.  It is also notable that a public announcement of the report's result also appeared to be taken off the table. 

It is also important to note that at the time that Frazier and Tomalis made this decision, they would have had access to the 1998 University Park Police Report, which then PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin obtained in January 2011.  As most readers of this blog know, the 1998 police report indicates the lackadaisical nature of the DPW investigation on one hand, and the diligence of the University Park police, particularly Detective Ronald Schreffler, on the other.  Also, as most readers of this blog know, the 1998 police report was also noticeably absent from the Appendices of the Freeh Report. 

Clearly, the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment diminished DPW's and CYS's roles in the 1998 investigation, essentially laying the blame for not bringing Sandusky to justice on the University Park Police and then-District Attorney, Ray Gricar.   It seems quite obvious that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by Tomalis, as well as the Governor, pursued a similar strategy in ensuring that the PSU inquiry focused just on PSU and not the Commonwealth's agencies (or The Second Mile). 

The question to many is why would Frazier go along with this and not pursue a full investigation, as originally planned?  And how did we end up with Louis Freeh, the disgraced former FBI Director, headlining the investigation?

RTK E-mails and Exempted Lists Provide Insights
The earliest e-mails involving Tomalis are on November 5, 2011, when he was informed the BOT would meet in Executive Session that day.  Since Tomalis was not a member of the Executive Committee, it is unknown why Paula Ammerman informed him of the meeting.  However, on November 8, shortly after the BOT announced the formation of the Special Investigations Task Force (SITF), Tomalis sent an e-mail to Steven Aichele, Pennsylvania's General Counsel,  and J. Schultz, subject RE: Attorney Recommendations.   Apparently, this was for the special counsel attorney position because PSU had already gotten its legal representation for the Sandusky scandal in place by November 6th.

 
One of the attorneys considered for the job was Philadelphia suburbs Congressman Pat Meehan.  Tomalis and Frazier exchanged e-mails about Meehan on the afternoon of November 11th.  Later that evening, four more e-mails were exchanged with the subject "Re: Gov." between Frazier and Tomalis.   While we know that Louis Freeh eventually got the position - with Corbett's effusive praise - the story of why Meehan was not selected is easily answered by an internet search or two.   


While Meehan was the U.S. Attorney operating from Philadelphia, he utilized the FBI to assist in wiretapping of a city official suspected of dealing drugs.  However, the wiretap evidence revealed widespread municiple corruption, as well as tax evasion, embezzlement, and extortion, which were then prosecuted by Meehan.  Apparently, Frazier, Tomalis, and Corbett didn't want anything to do with a lawyer who might end up following the evidence that could have/would have led to arrests for similar crimes. 

 
It is highly probable that Meehan's history disqualified him for the investigation at PSU.  Corbett likely preferred a hired gun like Freeh, who had more than a little history with manipulating evidence.

 
On November 14th, Frazier's administrator notified him that Governor Corbett wanted a conference with him the following day (the 15th) at 2:45PM.  Frazier forwarded an e-mail of the meeting notice to Garban, Surma, and Tomalis.  Later that evening, Frazier and Tomalis exchanged e-mail, very likely regarding participation of "Distinguished Alumni" on the SITF.

 
November 15th brought more deliberation on Alumni Representation on the SITF between Ammerman, Garban, Surma, Frazier, and Tomalis.  These deliberations would continue for most of the day on the 17th, until they arrived at a decision to invite former astronaut Guion "Guy" Bluford to represent alumni on the panel.  Also on the 17th, Frazier and Tomalis discussed bringing in a "PR Pro" and the firm Kekst was considered.   It is not clear if Kekst was hired or that if Ketchum supported the PR effort that would ensue on November 21.


On November 18, Frazier and Tomalis exchanged two e-mails titled "Re: Monday Press Briefing Memo," and forwarded "FW: Monday Press Briefing Memo" to Garban and Surma. This memo was apparently for the announcement of the selection of Louis Freeh.  The Freeh engagement letter is dated November 18, confirming the purpose of the e-mails.


The next afternoon (19th), Paula Ammerman sent an e-mail to all trustees announcing a briefing call for Sunday, November 20th.  

The hiring of Louis Freeh was announced with much fanfare on November 21st. 

Corbett Responds to SITF and Freeh Hire

Governor Corbett's responses to a November 22, 2011, Question and Answer session on the investigation appear to be quite transparent in light on the RTK information:

 Q: If it is necessary, will your administration support extra money for Penn State's internal investigation, and do you worry that the investigation will obstruct or get in the way of the attorney general's investigation?

Corbett:   Ah, let me talk about the Penn State investigation first.
 I'm very pleased with Ken Frazier leading that.  Ken – I've only known him a short time – but I'm very impressed with his leadership. I'm very impressed that he has put together some people, including Ron Tomalis, on behalf of the administration and also as [state] secretary of education, on that team, and the selection of Louis Freeh is I think a very good one. I'm sure most of you by now know the former director of the FBI and former federal judge Louis Freeh was appointed.

 And I think one of the reasons that someone like Mr. Freeh was appointed is because he understands the role of a grand jury investigation, the role of the prosecutors and will work well with the attorney general's office and Attorney General Linda Kelly so that [obstruction of the attorney general's investigation] does not happen.When it comes to the financial side of it, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. 

Q: Can any investigation of Penn State be truly credible if it is not truly independent? Why should the board of trustees be allowed to investigate itself?

 Corbett: "Well I think the board of trustees has to investigate on their own what was done and what wasn't done, and this is an investigation done according to them.

 I'm not sure who would have the authority to do an independent investigation.


I'm sure that the General Assembly will ask the questions. I'm sure the attorney general's investigation continues to look into what happened.


But I think it's the responsibility of the board of trustees, from their perspective, to determine what they were told, when they were told, why they were told, who told them, who knew what – you all can ask the questions – but it's their responsibility, the fiduciary responsibility to, as the board of directors for want of a better description, deal with Penn State. They're the ones who have to authorize the investigation. 

Next question."


And there you have it. 

 Penn State decided to investigate Penn State because they're the only ones who can authorize it -- so said Governor Corbett - whose fingerprints are all over it.

Preliminary Hearing: Lisa Powers Confirmed Surma's Role in Public Relations Disaster

Powers' testimony confirms that Surma directed the "shut down" that led to the PSU PR disaster

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State's response to the Sandusky scandal was rated one of the top public relations disasters for not only 2011 but also 2012.   Now, based on Lisa Powers' preliminary hearing testimony, we know that John Surma directed the disaster that ensued after the release of the grand jury presentment.


A PR blog in Denver summed it up this way...

PENN STATE

Penn State represents one of the greatest PR disasters of all time, certainly of the last decade. In fact, it has been such a debacle that the university managed to make the list both last year and this year. Last year, the university went from one of the nation’s most revered institutions to one of the most reviled in a matter of weeks due to its lack of a response to a horrible child sex abuse scandal that saw two administrators indicted, a former assistant coach arrested and football coaching legend Joe Paterno fired. This year, additional details emerged about an institutional culture that valued football success over protecting innocent children that were disturbing enough that the NCAA nearly gave the school’s football program the so-called “Death Penalty.” The result was another year of brutal headlines that will have almost everyone older than 10 associating Penn State with child rape for the rest of their lives.

Here's the summary from Business Insider, who rated it as 2012's top disaster:
1. Penn State covers up the Sandusky scandal.

Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was charged and later convicted of repeated counts of child molestation while at Penn State.

Although the scandal was unveiled in 2011, the university felt the full fallout in 2012 when the Freeh report stated that Joe Paterno and the administration covered up Sandusky's abuses, Major companies pulled sponsorships of the program.

Part of the PR disaster was due to Penn State's initial difficulty addressing the problem. Pulitzer-winning stories in The Patriot-News of Harrisburg initially uncovered the scandal in March 2011. But Penn State remained tightlipped. PR firm Ketchum was hired in November of 2011, and the school hired Edelman and La Torre for crisis management in April 2012. The school pledged to spend $208,000 a month for 12 months on PR support, but the damage was done.

March 2011 Grand Jury Article

According to Powers' testimony (page 20), she had reached out to then-PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin for advice on how to respond the 31 March 2011 Patriot News article regarding PSU officials who had testified at the Sandusky grand jury.

Baldwin told Powers it was the third or fourth grand jury (actually, it was the second due to the first grand jury's term expiring) that had looked into the Sandusky allegations and there was nothing there.  It was a fishing expedition.  Baldwin said that PSU had nothing to say and Powers followed the advice of counsel.

This appeared to be a major tactical error and poor PR decision on PSU's part, however, Caroline Roberto, the attorney representing former Athletic Director, Timothy Curley, revealed that Judge Fuedale issued a non-disclosure order to PSU (page 58) in February 2011.

PSU was forbidden from being transparent about its role in the Sandusky probe.

However, the March article, in reality, didn't have much of an impact with the public or the PSU BOT.  

Many people, myself included, believed that the investigation may have resulted from a Second Mile participant who had an ax to grind with Sandusky.   The situation was similarly characterized by Spanier and Baldwin when they briefed the PSU BOT in May of 2011.

November 2011:  Right Move

Looking back at how the Penn State PR disaster unfolded, Graham Spanier did exactly the right thing when he issued the statement making it clear that there were allegations  (not crimes) against Sandusky and defending the actions of  Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.  Spanier's November 5th statement follows (my emphasis added):

"The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.

With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.

Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately."

According to Powers' testimony at the preliminary hearing, on October 28th, Spanier had gathered together a small group of PSU leaders, including Garban, Baldwin, and PR chief Bill Mahon to discuss the pending charges against Curley and Schultz.   Spanier expressed that he was sure that the men had handled the situation appropriately and was giving them his full support.  When Powers asked Spanier why he would choose to support Curley and Schultz, Spanier responded essentially by asking Powers to put herself in the position of the accused men and if she would expect the support of her supervisor.

In short, Spanier was doing what a good leader would do - defend the actions of Curley and Schultz, and more importantly, Penn State University.   A poor leader would have thrown the men and PSU under the bus (to protect himself) -- and that was the option exercised by the PSU BOT about one week later.

November 2011 - Wrong Moves

After Spanier issued his statement, Powers got word the next day that the PSU BOT was angry that Spanier had "changed" the statement.  Spanier responded that he did not make substantive changes to the statement and Powers testified that the only changes made were to add the line about protecting children and Spanier's unconditional support of Curley and Schultz.

The BOT was never specific about what changes to the statement were the "crimes of the century," however, I suspect that it really didn't matter what Spanier wrote -- the BOT was going to find fault with it and use it as a reason to relieve him of his duties as President.

This is where it gets interesting.

While the BOT was allegedly upset with Spanier's statement, they did not issue a new statement to replace it.  Instead, all anyone heard from November 5th to November 9th was silence -- and a few leaked rumors of the intended removal of Joe Paterno as head coach.

On Monday, November 7th, Linda Kelly held the press conference to announce the Sandusky charges.  Many who viewed the press conference found it unusual that Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan took the the microphone and made the fateful statement that Paterno failed in his moral obligation to protect children.  However, this should not have come as any surprise, as Noonan was also prominently mentioned and quoted in the OAG's press release about the Sandusky charges.  In other words, Noonan was involved in the crafting of the message, likely because the presentment and press conference had to provide cover for his disastrous three year investigation (where police and investigators failed to surface a victim).

Surma Takes Over
John Surma and Steve Garban met for breakfast on Tuesday, November 8th and, in a pre-planned move, Garban stepped aside and Surma took over.

According to the New York Times, Corbett (who earlier vowed to fire Spanier) had been working the phones with Surma and other BOT members once the indictment became public.   Garban told Spanier that the BOT had lost confidence in his ability to lead.

PSU's only chance to right the sinking ship in this disaster would have been Paterno's Tuesday morning press conference, however, Surma (who was now in control of PSU) cancelled it.

According to Powers, all communications emanating from PSU after the original statement from Spanier had to be approved by Surma.  And Surma, whose family had a major ax to grind with Paterno,  was more than happy to let the media dictate the false narrative of that Sandusky's crimes were covered up by Paterno and others to protect the football program.

PSU remained silent until the night of November 9th, 2011 - when Surma himself declared Spanier and Paterno should be removed in the "best interests, long term interests" of Penn State University.

Approximately one hour earlier, Surma had moved that Paterno be removed in his conference call with trustees.  The motion was met by silence - except for the voice of Tom Corbett, who stated, "remember that little old boy in the shower."

When asked to explain the reasoning behind the decisions to remove Paterno and Spanier, Surma was woefully short on answers.

Ketchum, who was hired in November 2011, obviously did nothing to help PSU and the hiring of LaTorre and Edelman to assist PSU's public relations efforts can be summed up in two words:

NO COMMENT.

1998 Revisited and Other Ponderings

by Wendy Silverwood

A compilation of comments and questions from across the “boards”

The “PSU as villain” script had to be started for a specific reason. It was never supported by the facts, especially with respect to the 1998 incident, in which Centre County Children and Youth Services along with an investigator from PaDPW were involved. Curiously we find Nils Frederickson, PA OAG Acting Director of Communications, banging out the error filled script for the 1998 investigation in his Nov. 5, 2011 press release. Once the decision was made by the PA Office of Attorney General to turn this into PSU as the “bad guy”, everything else simply dropped off the radar.

It was no longer about Sandusky and his horrendous crimes, it was now about a grand PSU “conspiracy” that the Attorney General decided must have happened to “cover up” Sandusky’s activities. Let’s cut across the media roar, turn down the volume and really listen to what actually went on.  

Fundamentally this “cover up” didn’t exist 17 months ago and it still doesn’t exist today.

Perhaps someone wanted or needed or even insisted this come out of the gate as a giant Penn State “cover-up”. It could possibly be viewed as being devised by an individual or a group, e.g. the Surmas, with the goal of bringing PSU to its knees as an institution, settling old scores, wresting control and/or seeing petty vendettas through it.

Sandusky’s own loathsome conduct, especially given his status as an agent of the county and an executive director of a state licensed children’s charity became secondary. So instead of trying a case against a preferential child sexual offender to remedy criminal acts, it’s about bringing down PSU for possible political reasons.

We have $42 million and counting for “public relations” and crisis management, a $60 million hammering by the NCAA, an $8 million sham “investigation”, a banner-toting plane flying over campus for 3 days and enough high-priced consultants, PR hacks, compliance experts and second lawyers for the first lawyers that the issue is not Sandusky who culled his victims from a state licensed entity, but PSU and its “culture problems”. 

This all makes zero sense.  Problem is, nothing’s made sense.

The McQueary testimony makes no sense. The Freeh Report makes no sense. The NCAA sanctions make no sense. The “moral responsibility” statement by Noonan makes no sense. Freeh’s grandstanding press conference makes no sense. None of the facts line up for a “Conspiracy of Silence” to “protect the football program”.  

Looking at this more clearly and focusing on everything from the timeline of the investigation to Seasock’s bizarre conclusions argues that somebody was in a big hurry to get the 1998 investigation over with. 

That in and of itself should give us all cause for alarm.

The use of Counselor John Seasock in 1998 to contradict Dr. Chamber’s findings is puzzling. Seasock knows who involved him, and other than possibly of Sandusky, he is the only one who does. So when he doesn’t make an appearance for the Defense despite the Defense have a written, signed contemporaneous “report” known to have been provided to the Centre County DA, it raises a question. Is there a possibility that there is an individual or individuals in Centre County who has/have the most to lose if it would be publicly revealed who set up the Seasock evaluation and has/have managed somehow to keep it quiet?

Only someone at the county level of government would have had the familiarity with Seasock’s brand of “compliance”, familiarity with Ray Gricar, familiarity with Sandusky and familiarity with The Second Mile.

What is troubling is that whoever was responsible for recruiting and hiring John Seasock to evaluate the victim has received ZERO scrutiny. 

Another troubling aspect.

Why did the PA OAG direct Freeh to stay away from University Park Police Chief Tom Harmon? He was the person most directly at the center of the 1998 investigation. Freeh was tasked with looking into exactly what “went wrong” at PSU and he can’t speak to the one person at the center of everything?  A long-term former head of a large police department cannot be interviewed in an “independent” investigation? 

Does not make sense.

The person who put Freeh in place did so knowing that he would reach the “right”
result, and that Freeh would abide by the Attorney General’s rules and not put anyone in an awkward position by attempting to talk to people with actual knowledge of what they were being asked. So why did Freeh operate in tandem with the AG’s office?

Even Sara Ganim’s headlines’ promoted the prevailing narrative yet demanded corrections when new information surfaced. Those corrections, however, never materialized. 

More questions.

Why is Investigator Jerry Lauro of PaDPW getting a free pass? Clearly CYS and PA DPW are at fault for the 1998 situation. Perhaps because they had such a cushy relationship with The Second Mile they cannot or will not ever admit to their responsibility. Why wasn’t The Second Mile immediately turned upside down by the State? The PA OAG has oversight of non-profits in the Commonwealth; visiting The Second Mile offices did not require a subpoena and could have swiftly been dealt with.  Why hasn’t CYS & DPW been a focal point for the indignation about Sandusky? 

Where is the outrage at these agencies and why are no officials taken to task?

Taking on a hugely popular and politically connected entity like The Second Mile or those politicos that create for-profit juvenile prisons and the ensuing “Kids For Cash” scandal has not particularly been PA DPW’s strong suit. 

What does this tell us about the very systems we have in place to protect our kids?

 

We can only hope that Kathleen Kane’s office goes back to 1998 – and interviews the CYS head; the CYS intermediary; the DPW “supervisor”, who supposedly issued the interview order; Jerry Lauro; Victim Number 6's mom; Victim Number 6, to the extent he has any independent memory of the “incident”; retired Detective Schreffler; Officer Ralston; retired PSU Chief Tom Harmon; John Seasock and Dr. Chambers. 

And then begin to carefully and clearly connect the dots…