Eckel Now Defending Honor of Louis A. DeNaples

In a previous post, I noted Keith Eckel's dubious ties to suspected mobster Louis A. DeNaples.  Now Eckel goes on the record, stating his three decade relationship with the North East PA businessman.

DeNaples wronged

Editor: I am appalled at the character assassination of Louis DeNaples by Times-Tribune columnist Chris Kelly.

However, I am not surprised that the newspaper’s editorial staff and publishers would not understand that increased operating costs to any business must ultimately be passed on to consumers if that business is to be financially sustainable.

After all, the newspaper has endorsed polticial candidates for decades who have no concept of fiscal responsibility. Please look at the financial condition of Scranton, if you need verification.

My family and I have known the DeNaples family for three generations, even when Patrick DeNaples, Louis’ father, struggled to feed his family.

Louis and his family have and continue to work long, hard hours to achieve and maintain success. Most importantly, they have shared that success with our community. You need only to look at their commitment to Scranton Prep, the University of Scranton, Allied Services, the Scranton School for Deaf & Hard-of-Hearing Children and the Diocese of Scranton, to name a few.

Perhaps even more telling is the generosity of Louis and his wife, Betty, to countless thousands who remain nameless.

My family has been one of those beneficiaries. When my mother became ill in her 90s, Betty brought soup, a warm visit and delicious pasta to our home many times. When our barn burned in 1982, Louis was there the next day with equipment and encouragement to rebuild the barn and continue our dairy operation.

Recently, when our Methodist church embarked on building a new church, Louis and his family became key supporters without desire for recognition.

Fiendish is a preposterous description of Mr. DeNaples. Caring, hardworking, entrepreneurial and philanthropic describes my friend, Louis DeNaples.

KEITH ECKEL

NEWTON TWP.

Eckel's Protest Backfires: Reveals He May Be Compromised

Trustee Keith Eckel's protest about "being compromised" caused a second look at his background -- and the results were very unsettling.

By
Ray Blehar


It came as no surprise that Trustee Keith Eckel, who publicizes himself to the proprietor of a farm, but made a fortune in the natural gas (fracking) industry, would use dishonest arguments in an attempt to give the Board of Trustees credit for the "recovery" of Penn State.  

While I intend to eventually debunk those arguments, the one thing that really struck me as odd was Eckel's protest to Al Lord's challenge to the trustees to remove resign if the feel compromised in any way.

Here is the statement from Lord:

"My own view, if you feel compromised, if you feel at all compromised, by the various things going on in the legal world and you're on this board and concerned that you can't do the right thing, or that your decisions are effected by that and I'm not suggesting necessarily that they are, but it is certainly an element, I would suggest to you that you resign. 

Eckel's statement follows:

"Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me indicate to Trustee Lord that I'm not compromised in any way, that I stand behind of and am proud of each decision I have made on this board. I hope that you examine your position as you have urged everybody other trustee to make certain that your views do not compromise your fiduciary responsibilities to the board. 

This caused me to take a second look at Eckel's background -- and the findings revealed his association with an individual with possible ties to organized crime.

As I wrote in this op-ed, Keith Eckel is not just "some simple farmer."  When Keith last ran for the Board of Trustees in 2013, he offered this biography, noting his experience on the Board of Nationwide Insurance, for his agricultural constituents' consumption.  Apparently, he wanted his agricultural friends to understand he wasn't just a "simple farmer."

Eckel:  Dishonest about his
background and being
compromised?

However, after being elected, his official Board of Trustees biography did not mention his experience at Nationwide nor his directorships its subsidiaries, Allied Group and the Gartmore Global Asset Management Trust.  Apparently, he didn't want the PSU constituency to be aware of his corporate background - let alone his vested interest in natural gas.  

However, just this past October, Eckel was also named to the Board of First National  Community Bancorp,  whose Chairman is Dominick DeNaples.  

DeNaples is the brother of former Mt. Airy casino owner Louis DeNaples, who also serves as a director and sits on the loan committee with Eckel.  

Louis DeNaples was forced to give up his casino to avoid perjury charges in 2009.  DeNaples, who also owns the Keystone Landfill, was charged with perjury for denying any connection to former Northeast PA crime boss, Russell Bufalino.   

It is highly unlikely that Eckel was unaware of the background of Louis DeNaples, as his alleged connections to organized crime have been well publicized over the last five to ten years.  

Why would Eckel associate with DeNaples?  

The Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District may have the answer.

Sex Trafficking

Typically, organized crime is involved loan sharking, racketeering, gambling, construction, garbage hauling/waste management, drugs, prostitution, and human (sex) trafficking.  The latter is particularly troubling given the many unanswered questions in the Sandusky scandal.

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan referred to The Second Mile (TSM) as a "victim factory."  Are we to believe Sandusky was the only child molester who abused the TSM participants or were there others?  Were some of the others rich TSM donors who also happened to be PSU alumni?  If the latter is true, and the board knew about it or were actually involved in some way, it would provide a not so far-fetched explanation why Eckel and his cohorts voted against completing the Freeh investigation -- and why they hired Freeh in the first place.  

As the evidence shows, Freeh was hired to provide the appearance of a thorough investigation.  As Frazier and Corbett touted the 267-page report, it was strictly a matter of quantity over quality.  Freeh's investigation omitted key evidence and steered clear of taking a hard look at TSM.  

As I pointed out in this blogpost, several members of the TSM Board were distinguished alumni and big fundraisers for Penn State -- a fact not in the Freeh Report's chapter on TSM.   If it was found that TSM was a front for a child prostitution ring, the embarrassment to Penn State would have been far worse than the negative publicity generated by the Sandusky scandal.    

The child prostitution/sex abuse angle also might explain why the former PA Office of Attorney General had "inexcusable delays" investigating Sandusky (and The Second Mile).  It appears the hesitancy on pursuing the Sandusky's case wasn't unprecedented. Then AG Corbett also refused to investigate 2005 allegations of a pedophile sex ring in York County.

Note that this is just one scenario, among many, that has yet to be ruled out in terms of explaining the actions of the Board. 

Untouchables?

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District, Gordon Zubrod, "the connection between organized crime and public corruption...is very real in this district" and that there are pockets of "people who think they can't be touched."

Are Keith Eckel, select members of the BOT, Tom Corbett, Ron Tomalis, and others part of this group who thinks they can't be touched?

According to a source close the the PA Department of Agriculture, Eckel nominated the top four picks for the Secretary of Agriculture to Governor Corbett.  Eckel also kicked off Corbett's 2014 gubernatorial campaign in Wilkes-Barre.  

Relationships between the PSU trustees and government officials can be quite useful.  At the same time, they can also be quite damaging when loyalties are not prioritized.  

Clearly, the BOT followed Tom Corbett's lead in the firing of Paterno and Spanier -- and just look at the reputation and financial damage that has caused PSU.

Misplaced Loyalty and Fiduciary Responsibility
At the October 28th meeting, Trustee Anthony Lubrano fired this "warning shot" across the bow of the 17 trustees who would eventually vote against Lord's resolution:

Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record this handbook for charitable non-profit organizations, Tom, I'll get you an electronic copy of it. There are several points in that handbook that are very relevant. As a board member we have a duty of loyalty. As board member we have a responsibility to verify the veracity of information provided to us. As a board member we have the right to receive all information that's necessary and relevant to assist us in performing our duties. 

By and large, Mr. Chair, because I believe that there's no more damning document than the Freeh Report with respect to the institution that I have a duty of loyalty and for who's resources I have the responsibility to steward l chair, we have yet as board to actually evaluate the Freeh Report ever, from my very first meeting July 12th we were quick to accept recommendations but we really had no interest in exploring the basis for those conclusions. I have an obligation I believe, Mr. Chair, to verify the veracity of the information that was reached to -- made to reach those conclusions. 

Mr. Chair, as pointed out by several of my colleagues already, Judge Pellegrini, the judge wrote the dissenting opinion in the case, he wrote something in his opinion that should make us all pause. 

He wrote the majority appears to arrive at this outcome, referring to the six colleagues, because it is bewildered, as am I, by how the board of trustees of PSU could approve or allow to be executed a "consent decree" involving the expenditure of 60 million of PSU funds when the consent decree states that the matter "ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA." If as the majority suggests the NCAA did not have jurisdiction over conduct because it did not involve the regulation of athletics, then the expenditure of the funds is problematic given that PSU is a non-profit corporation and being tax exempt as a charitable organization and the boards of directors of non-profit charitable corporations has a -- that's important -- a fiduciary duty to ensure that funds are only used for matters related to the charitable purpose, in this case, the students of PSU. 

Mr. Chair, if ever there was a time for us to undertake this it would be now.
Going back to Eckel's October 28th statement, he had a very different view on his decisions that were in stark contrast to Judge Pelligrini's and Lubrano's:

At the end of the day my responsibility, my fiduciary responsibility is to our students and our constituents. My votes have been since that fateful day in November, they'll continue to be to this day, I urge the defeat of this resolution and the moving forward with this University. 

Who is right?

As is the case with all the outstanding questions in the scandal, current and future court cases, and pending investigations will decide a number of outcomes -- possibly including a case about fiduciary responsibility at Penn State. 

Yesterday's revelations on the NCAA emails caught the PSU administration flat-footed, judging by their official response.

Part of the truth was revealed and things are moving in the right direction.

Eckel and his cohorts days are numbered, though I believe they will continue to believe they are untouchable -- up until the day they are forced out.

Freeh's Press Conference Undone

Had the Freeh Report been subject to review prior to release, the errors and omissions in it would have left the former-FBI director practically speechless.  He would have been left with one set of facts to report -- the PSU BOT failed in their oversight of the University.

By
Ray Blehar

In the aftermath of the Freeh Report, a few people weighed in on the report to support its findings.  Here's a sample:

“We thank Judge Freeh for his diligence in uncovering the facts over the past eight months and issuing such a comprehensive and thorough report,”

-- Penn State Trustee, Kenneth Frazier, July 13, 2012

“Over the past several weeks, high-profile criticisms of the Freeh Report, which examined the Penn State administration's failed response to a report of inappropriate sexual behavior by former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, generated more heat than light. Nearly identical missives from a handful of renegade PSU trustees, the family of ex-coach Joe Paterno, and a handful of former Penn State football players all slammed the Freeh Report as biased and filled with factual errors--but were unable to identify even one specific way in which the report was biased, or point out even one factual error that made the critics' case.”

-- KC Johnson, Minding the Campus, September 5, 2012

“The Freeh group was given carte blanche to look anywhere and everywhere inside the university….. I could have sent my entire team in there for five years and couldn't have gotten anywhere near that level of detailed understanding of what went on there…. So, to suggest that we could somehow conduct, and by the way, spend another two years debating and discussing what happened at Penn State didn't make sense to anybody involved, when the probability of finding anything in addition to the Freeh Report was zero.”

          -- NCAA President, Mark Emmert, December 12, 2012

I took these comments as a challenge and easily identified 20 errors and omissions in the report. It was hard to keep the list to twenty, understanding that the media has a short attention span, so I picked the ones that had the most impact on Freeh's press conference statements.

The Freeh Report:

1.      Omitted Federal and state laws regarding the confidentiality of child abuse reports.

2.      Incorrectly found that Paterno, Curley, and Spanier knew the details of the 1998 investigation (none of the e-mails used as evidence contain any details about the investigation).

3.      Incorrectly found that Spanier failed in his duties by not informing the Board of Trustees about 1998 (based on the Standing Orders of the BOT, the e-mail evidence, Spanier’s travel schedule, and his statement – Exhibit 2J - he did not know of the investigation).

4.      Incorrectly found that Paterno, Curley, Spanier, and Schultz were kept informed of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky (e-mail evidence shows they were not kept informed).

5.      Incorrectly found that Paterno and Curley provided Sandusky with access to facilities for conducting programs for youth (access was granted by PSU’s Outreach Office).

6.      Constructed an incomplete timeline of Sandusky’s crimes.

7.      Did not investigate the claims by Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney regarding contacting Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) about the 2001 incident.

8.      Did not address the changing testimony and non-specific information reported by Mike McQueary regarding the 2001 shower incident.

9.      Omitted the testimony of Dr. Jonathon Dranov regarding the 2001 incident.

10.  Incorrectly characterized e-mails as “cryptic” and “unique” to the 2001 shower incident.

11.  Incorrectly concluded that Schultz, Spanier, and Curley had agreed to report the incident to DPW, but Paterno changed the plan.

12.  Incorrectly concluded that PSU failed to report Sandusky in 2001 to avoid the consequences of bad publicity.

13.  Did not investigate the potential conflict of interest issue between DPW and The Second Mile that was mentioned by police chief Thomas Harmon during the 1998 investigation.

14.  Incorrectly stated Paterno, Curley, and McQueary should have reported the 2001 incident to comply with the Clery Act.

15.  Incorrectly found that Paterno did not report the 2001 incident immediately because he didn’t want to interrupt anyone’s weekend (Paterno informed PSU officials on the weekend. In addition, Paterno’s schedule reveals that his out of town travel delayed his report by a day).

16.  Incorrectly recounted the trial testimony regarding the Fall 2000/Victim 8 incident.

17.  Did not critically analyze testimony in the Fall 2000/Victim 8 incident.

18.  Incorrectly stated that Victim 6 was assaulted (Sandusky was acquitted of that charge).

19.  Incorrectly stated that Victim 7 was assaulted (Sandusky was not charged with assault).

20.  Incorrectly stated that Victim 5 was assaulted (Sandusky was acquitted of that charge).

Unfortunately, the press and the public took Freeh's press conference findings as the definitive facts about the Sandusky Scandal and the fault for this was squarely on the Penn State Board of Trustees for failing to carry out their fiduciary responsibility -- which was to look out for the best interests of the University.

Giving Freeh permission to publish this report and to make public statements about the report's contents, prior to a review, were egregious errors and the members of the Special Investigations Task Force of the BOT should be forced to immediately resign for the damage inflicted by their poor decisions.

The members of the Special Investigations Task Force are:  Kenneth C.Frazier, Ronald J. Tomalis, H. Jesse Arnelle, Mark H. Dambly, Keith W. Eckel, and Karen B. Peetz.

"Your time is up."