PS4RS Statement on NCAA Sanction Reductions

PS4RS MEDIA STATEMENT ON NCAA SANCTION REDUCTIONS:

"We are very happy that some of the sanctions have been rescinded. This is great news for the football team, and the entire unfairly punished Penn State community. However, there are still wrongs to be righted. The Freeh conclusions are not supported by evidence, and they never should have been used as a pretext for sanctioning Penn State. We are disheartened by false rationalizations that Penn State has somehow changed or atoned to deserve this “reward.” Penn State athletics programs have ALWAYS demonstrated the highest level of integrity. Three years after their indictment, the three Penn State administrators have yet to have their day in court due to mysterious appeals by Penn State and clandestine document sealing by the PA court system. Prosecutor Frank Fina has publicly stated that there was no evidence to support the Freeh Report’s conclusion that Joe Paterno was aware of or participated in a cover up. Further, the NCAA’s new sexual assault reporting handbook instructs coaches around the country to do exactly what Paterno did in 2001. There is no basis for ANY of the sanctions and they must be entirely rescinded.”

Primer #2 for Wednesday's BOT Meeting: An Opportunity for President Barron

After years of the PSU BOT stonewalling the public from learning the truth, President Barron has an opportunity to make his mark on PSU.  Finding the truth and ensuring the protection of children should guide his decisions.

By
Ray Blehar

Congressman Charlie Dent's column (Penalties at Penn State are not justice)  not only took on the NCAA for its overreach in sanctioning PSU, but the editorial writers who have piled on PSU without due process.  As I've noted in several blogs, newspapers and the media in general too often take the allegations made by law enforcement officials at face value and assume guilt immediately.   As we saw in the Duke Lacrosse and Richard Jewell cases, the media got it wrong -- badly.

They got it wrong about PSU too.  However, the stakes regarding the media's rush to judgment in the PSU case are much higher than at Duke or in the case of Richard Jewell because the well-being of Pennsylvania's children hangs in the balance.

Media and Victim's Advocates Miss the Mark

While there appears to be little argument among the media that keeping the $60 million in Pennsylvania to assist with child welfare programs is worthwhile -- that is only because the media has refused to actually report on the failures of the Commonwealth's child welfare system.  These failures were abundantly clear in the Sandusky case, but government officials from the DPW were given a pass based on a blatant falsehood reported by the Patriot News.

PCAR: Wrong focus in aftermath of Sandusky case

In addition, it is particularly troubling that many of the so-called victim's advocate groups have also given the child protection system a pass and instead chose to lay blame for Sandusky's abuse on PSU.  Some of these groups, like the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR), already have received grant money from PSU to provide training and other programs in response to the Sandusky scandal.   PCAR's programs will do little to solve the problem because the key issue in Pennsylvania is not the failure to recognize or report abuse by the citizens, but by the trained professionals who staff the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW).

It was the DPW staff who determined Sandusky was not abusing the two children he naked bear hugged in 1998.  And 15 years later, in December 2013, DPW officials didn't see any signs of abuse in the Tutko home.  Jarrod Tutko, Jr. paid the ultimate price just eight months later.

Does anyone seriously believe that a call to DPW about Sandusky in 2001 would have stopped his abuse?  When the call was made in 2008, it didn't stop then.  At least two more children were abused, according to Attorney General Kathleen Kane.  As I noted yesterday, the DPW fails to protect children  when called in to investigate abuse cases around 40% of the time.

Task Force Duped by the Media

A review of DPW investigative
practices is sorely needed.

Despite the evidence of continuous failures by DPW, the Pennsylvania Task Force on Child Protection also fell into the trap (likely based on its perceptions of the Sandusky scandal as reported by the media) of aiming most of the solutions to the child abuse issue on improved reporting and stiffening the laws.  Again, the law of unintended consequences will rule here, as an already overburdened system will receive an increased number of reports and stress the resources dedicated to investigating abuse cases.  It is clear that additional resources are needed on the front lines, not manning phone lines - and that a full review of DPW's investigative practices is required.   



If PSU pays the fine money, the first dollar should be used to conduct this sorely needed review.  

The 11/9/11 BOT Actions

As Pennsylvania's flagship University, it must demand that the Commonwealth fix its child protection system.  The promises made by President Erickson and the PSU BOT that PSU would become a leader in child abuse prevention were hollow at best, given that the Board (and its hired gun, Louis Freeh) would not speak out about the failures of DPW related to the Sandusky case.  As I noted yesterday, BOT member Kenneth Frazier gave DPW a complete pass when pressed about its 1998 failure by Al Clemons, but in the next breath stated that PSU officials should have recognized the abuse.

The irony in that statement was simply overwhelming as was his earlier statement "that all responsible and caring adults have a fundamental responsibility to safeguard the children in their communities."  As if calling for improvements to the Commonwealth's and local child protective services would not be the most fundamental step we could take to make children safer?

The Freeh Report simply took what was in the grand jury presentment, the evidence collected by law enforcement, and repackaged it into a report that would have received a failing grade if turned in as a college term paper.  The PSU BOT, led by Ken Frazier and Karen Peetz, then embarrassed the University by accepting Freeh's dubious report without providing a single comment or requesting any corrections to the record.  The failure to provide oversight and to take seriously its duty of fiduciary responsibility was clearly lost on the BOT and those deficiencies remain among the 11/9/11 holdouts.

It is also quite amusing that the NCAA President, Mark Emmert stated he read the report three times and he too did not find anything deficient (e.g., Appendices 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9 were missing from the report).  While Emmert proved his mettle for academics as President of LSU and Washington, how does one care to explain that the report was accepted by the  NCAA Executive Board?  A group of 20 college presidents and chancellors and three athletic directors apparently didn't read past the Executive Summary.

So much for the state of higher education in the United States.

The bottom line about the Freeh investigation was that is was clearly a case of it being far from independent and too much aligned with the Attorney General's prosecution (and perhaps too much influenced by Governor Tom Corbett).

The Board also quickly lined up behind the Attorney General's prosecution, rather than support President Graham Spanier, who rightly defended Curley and Schultz against unsupported allegations of failure to report child abuse and perjury.  The significance of that decision cannot be understated given Frazier's role at Merck in fighing the Vioxx lawsuits.  PSU pushing back against the baseless charges of the AG should have been a "no brainer."

Surma had no valid explanations for the Board's decisions

To be clear, this was not a panicked response by the inner circle of the Board - but more likely a purposeful one.  The news broke on Friday night and continued into Saturday morning.  Several meetings were held between Saturday and Wednesday, November 11, 2011.  There was ample time for a thorough review of the laws, to weigh the information contained in the grand jury presentment, and to interview witnesses in the case. The board, according to then co-chair John Surma, did none of those things and Surma had no valid explanations for its decisions of 11/9/11.   Its decisions - driven by a media deadline - brought immense harm to the University and sealed the
perception of PSU's guilt in the minds of the public.

The inner circle repeated its ill-fated decision making again on July 12, 2012 when Frazier and Peetz accepted the Freeh Report and then again on July 23, 2012 when it permitted Erickson to sign the NCAA Consent Decree.

It seems highly unlikely that a group of accomplished corporate executives could make that many bad decisions without some other driving motivation, such as their own self-interest (or preservation).

Ongoing Investigations and Litigation May Fill in the Blanks

Frazier'sand Peetz's remarks were irresponsible.

While we don't yet know the full truth of what happened, we know that the 11/9/11 Board has not been upfront and forthright about anything related to this case.  Its hiring of Louis Freeh was nothing more than theater and the investigation conducted by his team was anything but full, fair, and independent.  The public acceptance of the report by Kenneth Frazier and Karen Peetz should have been grounds for their immediate removal from the Board.  The kudos given to Freeh by Frazier, without a full review of the report, was the height of irresponsibility as were Peetz's comments of PSU assuming full responsibility (again, without review of the report).

Al Lord's motion at the last meeting was right on the mark.

The Freeh investigation needs to be completed and the the sunlight needs to shine brightly inside Old Main.  However, Lord's motion for the completion of the investigation is not really up to the Board (and the Old Guard will likely shoot down his motion anyway).  I also don't think Al intended for Louis Freeh to return to PSU to finish what he started.

The fact of the matter is that we will eventually learn what was behind the decisions of the 11/9/11 trustees and part of that will be learned from the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.  In addition, the defamation lawsuit filed by Spanier against Louis Freeh will also provide an opportunity to finally hold the former FBI-director accountable for his reckless behavior in this case.  Between the two cases, the Board, the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and the Attorney General's roles will be revealed.

The pending Federal investigation may also shed light on what was behind the decisions of the Board as it pertains to the financial and other relationships with The Second Mile charity.  The Patriot News already reported (with little fanfare) that the charity chose to cover-up Sandusky's 2008 abuse finding and keep the public, its board, and its donors in the dark.  In 2001, when PSU made a report of Sandusky's behavior to the charity in 2001, the charity did not act.  These are indisputable facts that will eventually result in criminal charges against Second Mile officials.

Finally, the pending trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier may provide the final piece of the puzzle, but it is more likely that the Federal investigation will obviate the need for their trial.  The cover-up was not the work of Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno, but there are many other people who had their hands in the Sandusky mess.

There is indeed a "conspiracy of silence" surrounding the Sandusky scandal, but it never involved Joe Paterno or the three PSU officials who are currently facing charges.

Wednesday's Meeting is a Chance for President Barron

President Barron could make his mark.

I expect the that the Nittany Nine will represent the alumni and Penn State well in demanding openness, transparency, and the truth from the other trustees.

While I am not optimistic that the Old Guard is willing to change, this public meeting is the first real opportunity for President Barron to show the PSU community what kind of leader he is going to be.

I will be tuned in tomorrow morning at 8:30 AM listening to every word.

My LTE of The Collegian....we'll see if they print it....

Subject: March4Truth Co-Organizer Responds To Another False Narrative

I read the Collegian editorial, "Vocal Alumni Minority Are Impeding Progress," with great interest, considering that I co-organized the March4Truth and have spent over a year investigating the facts of the Sandusky case.  As an analyst and investigator with 28 years experience, who has investigated international incidents of considerable importance, I can assure the Penn State student body that finding the "truth" of the Sandusky matter is in all of our best interests.

I was a bit taken aback by the statements made by UPUA President Katelyn Mullen and the author who believe that the "alumni antics reflect negatively on current students" and that the "actions of a vocal minority are defining us as a school."  Ironically, this is clearly a case of misplaced blame on the "vocal" alumni and it is quite similar to the scenario of the blame for Sandusky's crimes being placed on Penn State. 

In other words, another false narrative.

The reason that Penn State has been defined as a school that enabled child sexual abuse is because the PSU Board of Trustees failed to defend our University against false allegations of failing to report Sandusky's crimes.  Morevoer, the Board's failure to refute the Freeh Report caused the NCAA to levy sanctions and penalties that, to the public at large, defined Penn State as a school of child abuse enablers.

The "vocal" alumni had nothing to do with either of those ill-fated decisions.  In fact, we opposed them.

Most students are too young to remember when the NCAA gave Southern Methodist University the death penalty in 1987, however, it was a black mark that has hung on SMU ever since.  A few years ago, ESPN made a movie about the scandal called "Pony Excess."  As I write this, another movie starring Al Pacino as Joe Paterno will document the Sandusky scandal's false narrative and be shown to millions of people.

The NCAA sanctions on PSU will result in a similar black mark that will hang on this University for the next 30 to 50 years, if not the rest of our lives.

Unless, the truth is revealed.

The PSU BOT wants us all to "move forward" in the best interests of the University.  They say look to the future -- but only because they don't want to be held accountable for the damage they have inflicted on Penn State.  

When you are asked about the Sandusky case in a job interview, it is because the BOT accepted guilt for the scandal - not because the alumni are expressing dismay in the school's leadership.  Almost none of the publicity about the scandal to date has anything to do with the "vocal" alumni and everything to do with the failure of the Board to defend PSU and its administrators. The fact of the matter is that future media coverage of the Sandusky scandal is inevitable because of the pending court cases of PSU officials - again, not a result of the "vocal" alumni, but of the BOT, who threw these men "under the bus."  

So, the concept of "moving forward" to avoid publicity about the scandal is not only flawed logically, but practically.

Next, if you believe you were the only people affected by the scandal because you were on PSU's campus, you are quite wrong about that.  Talk to alumni who were denied promotions or not hired because of it.  Talk to alumni whose cars and homes were vandalized because they displayed PSU's "colors."  Talk to alumni who have had to answer the similar questions, as you have during job interviews, about the scandal.  I would submit that our experiences were possibly worse than yours, considering we are surrounded by graduates of other schools while the population you exist in is rather homogenous.  Your community was supportive and had empathy, while the majority of our communities were not.

Another area where we may differ is in how we reacted to the scandal and the allegations levied on PSU that resulted in such destruction.  And perhaps that is a matter of life experience.

The most important thing I can ask of you, to perhaps understand why the alumni protested to demand the truth and "due process," is that you "walk a mile in another man's shoes."

Imagine if you returned to your dormitory or apartment to find a phone message or e-mail waiting for you.   The message simply tells you to call an individual at a certain phone number.  You dial the number and, after confirming your identity, the person on the other end of the line says: "You are no longer a student at Penn State University."   You are told you were expelled because of allegations of academic fraud that have not yet been proven.  The professor who made the allegations is highly respected by the Administration, thus no examination of the evidence is performed.  Your guilt is simply based on the professor's allegations.  You are not given an opportunity to speak in your own defense nor is there any process for redress.

Two weeks after that, you receive a letter informing you to return your student ID card and other property that PSU determines you owe the Unversity.  This letter formalizes your expulsion and it is made public that you were expelled for academic fraud.  The public now knows you were expelled for academic fraud, thus you must be a "flawed" individual.  Some in the public refer to your "flaw" as "tragic."

What would you do?  Move on?  Put Penn State behind you, even though the record will show that you're a cheater and have a flawed character?

Apparently, you would.  That's what you're telling the alumni to do.

But here's the rub.  This is not about one person.  It's about 600,000 people who get called "pedophile enablers" and will continue to bear that label until the record is corrected.

This is where we "vocal" alumni are coming from.  We understand that a school that we love was unjustly maligned, just as good men's reputations were damaged or ruined without due process.

The "vocal" alumni know that revealing the truth about the Sandusky Scandal is the ONLY thing that will remove the black mark put on our school and on all of us.  Moving forward is not the answer.

I would welcome the opportunity to engage the students in dialogue about the facts of the scandal in the near future.

For the glory,

Ray Blehar, Honors Graduate,

Penn State Smeal MBA, Class of 2008

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html

Eileen Morgan: To Tell The Truth. Would the Real Mark Emmert Please Stand Up?

by Eileen Morgan

NCAA vs. PSU

In his letter¹ on November 17, 2011 to the Penn State Board of Trustees, NCAA President Mark Emmert wrote, “I am writing to notify you that the NCAA will examine Penn State’s exercise of institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics program, as well as the actions, and inactions, of relevant responsible personnel.  I also have notified the NCAA Division I Board of Directors of the NCAA approach.  We recognize that there are ongoing federal and state investigations and the NCAA does not intend to interfere with those probes.  Moreover, we respect that under our criminal justice system there is a defined process to ascertain the facts, as well as determine criminal guilt or innocence.  We will utilize any information gained from the criminal justice process in our review….”

Although Penn State did not violate any NCAA rules, it is clear that in November 2011, the NCAA planned to ‘examine’ for itself if Penn State (and relevant personnel) lacked ‘institutional control.’  It is also very clear that Emmert was initially going to allow due process to run its course and defer NCAA action until the criminal justice system (via the Tim Curley and Gary Schultz trials) determined criminal guilt or innocence.  So what happened to the NCAA’s probe and waiting for due process?  The very next day on November 18, 2011, the Penn State Board of Trustees signed Freeh’s engagement letter², authorizing Freeh and his team to investigate the matter.  Apparently, within one day, Emmert changed his mind and decided to hold off on an NCAA investigation until after Freeh disclosed his findings.    

Shortly after the release of the Freeh report, the NCAA Board gave Emmert the power to take corrective and punitive action relative to Penn State, forgoing the NCAA's normal investigative protocol.  On July 22, 2012, the NCAA announced that it would impose "corrective and punitive" sanctions against both the Penn State football program and the institution as a whole the next morning.  Additionally, the NCAA said that since Penn State had commissioned the Freeh report and accepted its findings, further proceedings would be redundant.  Emmert himself said that Freeh's investigation was far more exhaustive than any that would have been mounted by the NCAA.³  But, Emmert could not have known back in November 2011 that Freeh’s investigation would turn out to be ‘exhaustive.’  So why did the NCAA forgo their own probe in 2011?  Was there a deal between PSU and Emmert to use Freeh’s findings from the beginning?  And more importantly, why did Emmert renege on his promise ‘to utilize any information gained from the criminal justice process’ in his review before handing down unprecedented sanctions?  Certainly, the criminal justice system’s examination in the Curley and Schultz trials will be far more exhaustive and its determination of criminality or innocence will be legally binding.
¹ http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf
² http://www.scribd.com/doc/129799160/Freeh-Engagement-Letter
³ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2012-07-23/ncaa-penn-state-punishment-sanctions/56427630/1

It is interesting to note that questions 2-4 on page 3 of Emmert’s letter deal with the Grand Jury Presentment.  The Presentment listed allegations against Sandusky, as well as Curley and Schultz.  The statements in the Presentment were only allegations waiting to be proven through the justice system.  Therefore, how can Emmert expect PSU to answer questions regarding issues identified in the Presentment when those issues are only allegations and have yet to be verified in a court of law?

In addition, Emmert’s stretch of the bylaws’ context to encompass the Sandusky issues is unimpressive.  His particular attempt of equating ‘young people’ within the NCAA framework to that of children is overreaching to say the least.  The context of ‘young people’ cited in Bylaw 19.01.2 clearly means collegiate student-athletes.  However, on page 3, he discussed re-examining “behaviors that lift up ‘young people’ rather than making them victims.”   Clearly, no student-athlete at Penn State was a victim and this comparison was a feeble attempt to validate the NCAA’s jurisdiction in this matter.

Sanctions: Mark Emmert vs. Rodney Erickson

What is the truth regarding the Penn State sanctions and the threat of the death penalty?  Emmert maintains there was no such threat.  This 7/24/12 ESPN video⁴ (at the 3:00 mark), affirms that Mark Emmert denied that PSU was threatened with the death penalty, “No, it wasn’t that at all.”  In addition, the Sun Sentinel article ⁵ reveals that Ameen Najjar, former NCAA enforcement director (who worked under Emmert up until May 2012), addressed the Penn State sanctions in an Aug. 7, 2012 email to Nevin Shapiro:  "The Penn State deal is a travesty," he wrote. "The NCAA did not impose anything. Penn State agreed to and self-imposed the penalties, waved all due process and waived any right to appeal.  The NCAA had/has NO authority to impose any penalties in that situation and PSU's president sold the school down the river!"

However, according to a story written⁶ by Don Van Natta Jr., Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years and that Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty.
Gene Marsh, a former chairman of the NCAA’s infractions committee who defended former Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, had been hired by Penn State to help negotiate sanctions in the wake of the scandal. According to Van Natta, Marsh received a call in July from Donald Remy, the NCAA’s general counsel. Remy told Marsh that Penn State was facing a death penalty for multiple seasons.
Erickson said, “if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the University could have faced a multiyear death penalty, as well as ‘other sanctions,’ including a financial penalty far greater than $60 million.”

⁴ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWIOqcvQZI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
⁵ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/um-hurricanes/fl-nevin-shaprio-miami-ncaa-0403-20130403,0,3454721.story
⁶ http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

At the 3:30 mark of the ESPN video, Emmert admits the death penalty was ‘unequivocally on the table’ and an ‘active option.’  He also states that the Board’s behavior and actions (signing the Consent Decree) were ‘clearly considerations in not applying the death penalty’ and he says had Penn State not been as ‘forthright, open and decisive’ he does not ‘know what the outcome would have been’ but suspects ‘it would have been significantly worse.’  This would at least suggest there was an unspoken threat of a four year death penalty from Emmert.

I find it interesting to note that Erickson said, “if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the University could have faced a multiyear death penalty….” Perhaps we have been focusing on the wrong threat.  The threat has always been centered on the death penalty.  Maybe the threat of a ‘formal investigation’ gave Erickson pause.  Imagine if a formal NCAA investigation would have begun, taking into consideration the outcome of the criminal justice process as Emmert promised in November 2011.  This would have exposed the Freeh report for its fraudulent and baseless conclusions and the Board of Trustees would no longer be able to justify their rush to judgment in terminating Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.  In all likelihood, Penn State would have been absolved of Sandusky’s crimes and able to avoid sanctions altogether.  Why didn’t Erickson buy time for the football program and allow the NCAA to formally investigate?  Did Erickson sign the Consent Decree to avoid an authentic investigation that would make the Freeh report vulnerable to review which would then confirm that the Board’s November 2011 actions were unjust?  Whether the death penalty was real or fabricated, is Erickson hiding behind it to justify the acceptance of the Consent Decree?

At about the 4:00 mark of the video, Emmert confirms the NCAA had two options: to investigate or hand down the Consent Decree.  He says a traditional investigation would ‘consume’ much time and energy with an ‘UNKNOWN OUTCOME’ so they opted for the Consent Decree.  Don’t all investigations begin with unknown outcomes?  Isn’t that the very purpose of a probe: to determine the facts?

Oh wait, I stand corrected.  If you are the Penn State Board of Trustees you can apparently pay for an investigation and determine your OWN outcome⁷.  Emmert did not want to launch his own investigation to determine the truth; he wanted to act immediately, saving precious time and money, and appease the masses, so he took the ‘known’ outcome authored by Louis Freeh and the PSU Task Force.  Again I ask, what happened to Emmert’s initial stance to wait for the “criminal justice system to ascertain the facts, as well as determine criminal guilt or innocence?”

At a closer look, the Consent Decree seems to satisfy both parties.  Emmert got to flex his NCAA muscles to a world-wide audience and Erickson avoided a formal investigation that would have exposed the Freeh report.  By the way, if Erickson was threatened, why hasn’t he and the Board fought the sanctions since they were negotiated under duress?  It appears he wants to keep the sanctions status quo to avoid an investigation yet at the same time cry foul at Emmert’s threat. 

⁷ http://emf.intherough.net/pennstate5.htm

Emmert vs. Emmert

In this 4/3/13 article in USA Today ⁸, Emmert is accused of evading a variety of scandals that took place on his watch, including LSU having systemic academic fraud in its football program.

Emmert disputes that.

"The facts speak for themselves," Emmert said. "We went from an athletic program that was underperforming dramatically in the classroom to one that was performing well."

NOW HERE ARE THE FACTS (shared with me by an anonymous source):

The academic fraud was uncovered in 2001-02—and LSU submitted a report in 2004--2 years later. Penn State submitted the Freeh Report just months after the story broke.

These are the graduation rates for the Football Student-Athletes at LSU under Chancellor Mark Emmert, and corresponding rates for PSU. (Source: The Federal Graduation Rates from the NCAA)

Recruiting Class Year              LSU                                     Penn State

1999                                        37%                                         76%

2000                                        38%                                         72%

2001                                        37%                                         75%
Cheating exposed at LSU

"The facts speak for themselves," Emmert said. "We went from an athletic program that was underperforming dramatically in the classroom to one that was performing well."

2002                                        42%                                         80%

2003                                        42%                                         77%

2004                                        48%                                         80%

Apparently Mark Emmert, the head of the NCAA, believes graduating less than HALF of his football student-athletes can be defined as “performing well.”

Well, here is a fact that definitely speaks for itself.  Emmert’s comment reveals nothing but hypocrisy.  The NCAA President wants us to believe that under his supervision, a 48% graduation rate exemplifies a football program that is “performing well”, however, the Penn State football program that has consistently graduated 75-80% of its student-athletes constitutes a “Football Culture Problem.”

Mark Emmert speaks out of both sides of his mouth.  He says he will utilize information gained from the criminal justice process in his review, and then denies PSU due process.  He says he did not threaten PSU with the death penalty, but admits a four year death penalty was on the table as a viable option.  He says PSU has a ‘Football Culture Problem’ yet says LSU’s graduation rate of about 50% LESS than PSU is defined as ‘performing well.’  

Would the real Mark Emmert, please stand up?

⁸http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/04/02/ncaa-president-emmert-previous-cases-uconn-lsu/2047607/

ONE TEAM: Freeh and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

E-mails obtained through the diligence of Ryan Bagwell reveal that Freeh's investigation was not done in parallel, but in cooperation with, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG)

From David S. Woodrow

In the late summer of 2012, after the Freeh Report, the NCAA sanctions, and the condemnation of sports talking heads, the Penn State Nittany Lion Football Team took on the motto “One Team."  

The motto was meant to signify unity, cooperation, teamwork, doing your job and watching your teammate’s back.  Surely they felt the outside world was against them so they bonded together to achieve their goal:  to go out and play football with all their hearts.  It was an inspiring season, but where did they get the “One Team” idea?  

Maybe they were inspired by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the Freeh Group.  Kudos to RyanBagwell for obtaining e-mails that show Freeh’s investigators and the AG investigators congratulating each other on the “scores” of the Sandusky conviction and the Freeh press release and conference.  

Let’s briefly introduce the players in order of appearance and their position at the time.

THE TEAM PLAYERS

Randy Feathers – Office of the Attorney General, Regional Director of the Bureau of Narcotics in State College.  He was the head of the Sandusky scandal investigation. 

Frank Fina – Chief Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

Anthony Sassano – Office of Attorney General Narcotics Agent, Lead investigator of the Sandusky scandal, and vintage TV Guide collector.  He has grand jury and wiretapping experience.

Thomas A. Cloud – Owner, Vice-President, and Secretary of CFR Professional Investigations and Senior Consultant with Freeh Group International Solutions LCC.  He is also the interpreter of Joe Paterno’s notes for his meeting with Sandusky and Curley about Jerry not being the next head coach at Penn State (Freeh Exhibit 3D).

Gregory A. Paw (PAW) – Partner, Pepper Hamilton LLP and head of the FSS investigation.  According to his profile on the PH website he “led the investigation at a major public university concerning the handling of a sex abuse allegations by senior university officials and the board of trustees, resulting in a “groundbreaking” report described as “required reading for boards of directors.”

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen – Communications Director for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Linda Kelly – Pennsylvania Attorney General (appointed by current Governor and former Attorney General Tom Corbett).

THE RECORD

Communication among team members is crucial to successful execution, whether it is a game plan, rescue mission, military operation, or sting operation.  While we do not have the exact information they shared amongst themselves, these e-mail communications are incriminating in that they specifically mention working together.  And the slobbering praise and adoration they heap upon each other indicates more than just mailing a document or evidence. 

I have created the timeline, quoting verbatim the e-mails, along with the specific events that occurred during their communications (italics are my thoughts / interpretations).

6/11/12 Monday

·         Sandusky trial starts.

·         At 6:34 p.m. Randy Feathers sends an e-mail to Frank Fina and cc’s Anthony Sassano with a link to an NBC video on from The Today Show that morning.  In the video Michael Isikoff announces that “law enforcement sources” have told NBC News that they uncovered evidence that showed PSU officials concealed information on Sandusky’s behavior.  NBC's interpretation of the e-mail evidence was in the same context that would be used by Louis Freeh in his report. Isikoff continues saying state investigators obtained new evidence that PSU even did legal research on abuse (Freeh Exhibit 5A).  The video also mentions Alycia Chambers report and her conclusions of a grooming pattern, even a brief comment from her, but then mentions “a second psychologist reached a different conclusion.”  NBC did not name or show the second psychologist (John Seasock).  As mentioned is previous posts Seasock was not a licensed psychologist at the time of his evaluation, only a counselor. 

6/13/12 Wednesday

·         8:49 a.m. Randy Feathers forwards the same video link to Tom Cloud of The Freeh Group.

6/21/12 Thursday

·         1:15 p.m. Trial is sent to the jury for deliberation.

6/22/12 Friday

·         Jury announces verdict just before 10 p.m. EST, convicts JS on 45 of 48 counts.

·         10:29 p.m. PAW e-mails Fina “I am proud of you and the entire prosecution team.  Very well done.”

·         11:16 p.m. Tom Cloud e-mails Randy Feathers “As I told Tony – congrats on a great job in tough conditions.  Our team is happy.”

·         11:58 p.m. Randy Feathers responds to Tom Cloud “Thanks were (sic) happy too.  It was great working with you guys.  You are all real pros.”

6/23/12 Saturday

·         6:25 a.m. Fina replies to PAW’s congratulations the day before “Thank you for all the help and support."

6/30/12 Saturday

·         CNN breaks the news about the leaked e-mails.  CNN does not possess the e-mails, only has the contents read to them by their source.  The main e-mail is the long string between Curley, Spanier, and Shultz where Curley proposes confronting Sandusky directly and Spanier says that the gesture was “humane” (Freeh Exhibits 2F and 5G).

7/8/12 Sunday

·         2:47 p.m. Fina e-mails PAW “Did Freeh call the AG?”

·         3:23 p.m. PAW replies to Fina “No.  Your word was all we needed.”

7/12/12 Thursday

·         Freeh report was to be made available online at 9 a.m. EST.

·         Freeh scheduled to hold press conference to discuss report and its findings at 10 a.m. EST.

·         9:48 a.m. Nils Hagen-Frederiksen e-mails the text of Freeh’s press release to Linda Kelly.

·         14:39:07 Fina e-mails PAW “Greg – Truly great work.  Pease extend my congratulations to your team.  FGF”

·         12:19 p.m. PAW responds back to Fina “Frank – this note really means a lot to me.  I have a tremendous respect for you and your work, and it was my pleasure to have the opportunity to work with you on this matter,  Greg”

11/13/12

·         Sara Ganim, the lead reporter for the Patriot News, joins CNN (I am sure this has nothing to do with the CNN source for the e-mail leaks).

So the e-mails provide evidence that, despite two supposedly independent investigations, it appears Freeh and to OAG worked together to help build each other’s cases. 

THE RULES

Did any of this collaboration violate the rules that the Freeh group had with the Special Investigative Committee?  Let’s look at the Letter of Engagement (signed by Kenneth Frazier and Steve Garban) also released this week (emphasis mine):

Freeh Engagement to Perform Legal Services (11/18/11)

1.      “FSS has been engaged to serve as independent, external legal counsel to the “Task Force” to perform an independent, full and complete investigation…”  “The results of FSS’s investigation will be provided in a written report to the Task Force and other parties as so directed by the Task Force.”  “It is understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that FSS will act under the sole direction of the Task Force…”.  It also is understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that FSS’s investigation will be completed in parallel to, but independent of, any other investigation that is conducted by any policy agencies, governmental authorities or agencies, or other organizations within or outside of (e.g., The Second Mile) PSU, and will not interfere with any such other investigation.”

It also is understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that during the course of FSS’s independent investigation performed hereunder, FSS will immediately report any discovered evidence of criminality to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, and provide notice of such reporting to the Task Force.”

FSS also will communicate regarding its (sic) independent investigation performed hereunder with media, police agencies, governmental authorities and agencies, and any other parties, as directed by the Task Force

5.      “For the purpose of providing legal services to the Task Force, FSS will retain Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC (“FGIS”) to assist in this engagement.”

As noted in my emphasis above, the FSS investigation is supposed to be independent.  They are supposed to act under the direction of the client.  Should FSS find any evidence of criminal acts, they are to notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities AND the client.  Did Freeh ever tell any of the Special Investigative Committee of the “evidence” he found and turned over to the AG?  Someone apparently told NBC News and CNN about the evidence (see LOE terms above regarding communications with the media).  Freeh and SIC members have some explaining to do.

Despite Freeh’s claim in his Letter of Engagement, his press conferences, his press releases, and his report, it is evident that his team’s investigation was anything but independent.  

And now WE have the e-mails to prove it.

PSU BOT: Not Upholding Their Duties And Responsibilities

The students, faculty, staff and alumni have the right to know where the trustees stand regarding the Freeh Report.

By Eileen Morgan

THE FIRING

As most are well aware, the Penn State Board of Trustees fired Joe Paterno on November 9, 2011.  And by refusing to allow then President Graham Spanier to respond to the Sandusky crisis and let him lead the University as he had for the previous 16 years, the Board of Trustees forced Spanier into the position of stepping down, which he did graciously and with dignity.  Even after Paterno announced his retirement earlier that day, the trustees decided to fire him, not allowing him to retire with dignity.  And, even after Spanier presented the trustees that same day with a magnanimous resignation statement, the trustees downplayed it and later made a point in the media to talk about his "firing." 

Believe it or not, their terminations were based on the grand jury presentment used to indict Jerry Sandusky for alleged child sexual abuse and they came just two days after the Attorney General's press conference announcing the indictments.  It is important to clarify that a presentment is a report by a grand jury, without a request for or presentation of evidence by the prosecutor.  The inflammatory content of the presentment turned out to be insufficient to prove in a court of law that Sandusky committed the most serious of the alleged crimes, the supposed anal rape of a child in a Penn State locker room, let alone be used to take career-altering and reputation-damaging actions such as the ousting of Paterno and Spanier.

However, the Penn State trustees apparently read this document and believed the 2001 eyewitness account without question or proof.  The eyewitness was later revealed to be Mike McQueary, not by the presentment, but by a news story.  It appears the trustees concluded, without evidence, that Paterno and Spanier did not properly handle the 2001 incident, which constituted a failure of leadership.

But, at Sandusky’s trial the presentment’s most shocking revelation, McQueary’s eyewitness account in which he allegedly saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, was completely refuted.  In fact, the witnessing of “anal rape” or any sexual assault was denied by McQueary himself.  Neither Paterno nor Spanier at the time of their terminations had been charged with any crimes.  Moreover, they willingly testified before the grand jury about what little they knew of the 2001 incident involving Sandusky.  Yet, based on the testimonies given by these men almost 10 years after the incident, the trustees, under perceived media pressure and without thoughtful debate, fact finding, or due process, terminated the men’s employment immediately.  Even Sandusky, alleged to have committed horrific crimes, was afforded fairer treatment and due process.

This Board decision incited anger throughout much of the Penn State community including students, faculty, staff and alumni.  The rush to judgment to get rid of these men, without even the courtesy of discussing the matter, was and still is to this day unacceptable to many.

THE HIRING

That same month, the Board hired Louis Freeh to investigate the matter, an investigation in which Freeh had no subpoena power, interviewed none of the key witnesses, and those he did interviewed were not under oath.  Dozens of people who were interviewed gave substantial positive testimony of the honesty and integrity of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier, including many trustees.  Likewise, many individuals spoke positively about the culture of Penn State athletics and the Penn State Football program.  But it is clear that Freeh and his team ignored exculpatory testimony and evidence.  Freeh’s weak and unsubstantiated conclusions regarding these men could never
be used in a court of law or be used to convict them of any crimes.  In reality, the findings and conclusions regarding their alleged wrongdoing are simply one opinion based on a few emails taken out of context and given the most unfavorable interpretation.

This 267 page report came out July 12, 2012, and based on the Board’s statement¹, was released simultaneously to the Board and public.  Yet, amazingly, within hours the Board had a prepared statement and made themselves available to the media.  The statement (addressed below) most likely was in response to Freeh’s forty-five minute press conference and not in response to reading the lengthy report, digesting and analyzing the evidence, and determining if the facts and evidence clearly supported the findings and conclusions drawn by Freeh.  It seems clear that the trustees boxed themselves in by proclaiming that they would see the report at the same time as the public and by suggesting all along that they would accept whatever was in the report.  Unfortunately, to this day, there has never been a Board of Trustees meeting in which the Freeh Report has been discussed, dissected, analyzed and verified.  One would think that most, if not all, of the trustees have read the Freeh Report, the King and Spalding study sponsored by the Paterno family, the report of Spanier's attorneys, and other independent analyses, but only a few of the trustees have publicly stated their position.  Do these actions represent responsible stewardship of Penn State University? 

Remember, the Freeh Report, which alone has reportedly cost the university up to $10 million, was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees.  Should it not be required of each trustee to thoroughly read, verify the content, and comment on the product they paid for?  Should they not be required to collectively discuss the evidence to determine, as the governing body, if they agree or disagree, with Freeh’s findings?  After all, they apparently read and discussed the presentment to reach their decisions regarding the terminations of Paterno and Spanier.  It is an undeniable breach of fiduciary responsibility that the leaders of Penn State, who paid millions for an investigation, have not publicly stated where they stand regarding the findings of the final product. 

THE FALLOUT

Not discussing and verifying the findings of the Freeh report, is merely the tip of the iceberg.  This report was the single source used by the NCAA to levy unjustifiable sanctions that included a $60 million fine.  The consent decree², which PSU President Rodney Erickson agreed to without confirming Freeh’s findings, included a clause that the ‘University willingly accepted the Freeh Report.’  How is it possible that the governing body of Penn State agreed to the sanctions without question or fight?  How is it possible that at the time the sanctions were coming down, the Board didn’t take a step back, get together as a group, and consider the merits of the very source (Freeh Report) for the sanctions?  In addition, this report is apparently the primary reason why Penn State has decided to enter into settlement talks with possible victims because of Penn State’s alleged liability for Sandusky’s crimes.  Indescribably, the Board actually invited plaintiff lawyers to settle quickly, in fact announcing that they wanted to compensate all victims before the end of 2012, even before anyone's guilt other than Sandusky’s could be determined.  Although it looks increasingly unlikely that there is any evidence that university officials had any role in enabling Sandusky's crimes, the University continues to apologize and open the doors of liability for itself.  

The Freeh Report and Penn State's implied acceptance of it could easily cost Penn State well over $100 million, and the Board of Trustees has not been brave enough to stand up and acknowledge the report's substantial limitations.  Do these actions represent responsible stewardship of Penn State University? 

The following section contains the mission statement, standing orders, and public statements of the Board.  In light of the hasty terminations of Paterno and Spanier, the silent acceptance of the Freeh Report, the acceptance of the NCAA
sanctions and the pending settlement talks with possible victims, determine for yourself if the Board of Trustees has responsibly governed the University. [My comments are in blue and in brackets.]
______________________________________
[1] Legal Matters http://progress.psu.edu/legal-matters²http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

THE BOARD’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following is the Penn State Board of Trustees’ mission statement: The Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University is the corporate body established by the charter with complete responsibility for the government and welfare of the University and all the interests pertaining thereto including students, faculty, staff and alumni.³

[The welfare of the University and interests of the students, faculty, staff, and alumni has been neglected by the Board for the past 16 months as evidenced by their rush to terminate Joe Paterno, 61 year employee, and Graham Spanier, a 27 year employee, 16 as president, with no evidence of wrongdoing.  The fact that the trustees have not collectively acted on the findings of their multi- million dollar Freeh Report and have not publicly stated where they stand is additional proof of their negligence.  Furthermore, their surrender to the NCAA and their apparent surrender to the possible victims, without challenge or confirmation of Penn State’s culpability at this point in time, is a complete disregard for the welfare of the University.  The hasty acceptance of the sanctions and settlements could cost the state-funded school $100 million or more, quite possibly forcing tuition increases and risking loss of enrollment.]

One of the ‘Guiding Policies’ states that ‘the Board shall receive and consider thorough and forthright reports on the affairs of the University by the President or those designated by the President.  It has a continuing obligation to require information or answers on any University matter with which it is concerned.’⁴

[The Freeh Report pertains to the affairs of the University.  However, the consideration the report has gotten from the trustees has not been publicly stated.  The trustees who are not on the Executive committee are obligated to require information and answers regarding the Freeh Report and the details of the agreement between Erickson and the NCAA regarding the sanctions.]
The ‘Expectations of Membership’ state⁵: In exercising the responsibilities of trusteeship, the Board of Trustees is guided by the expectations of membership, each of which is equally important (not all listed):

1. Understand and support the University's mission, vision, and values
[Based on the above, the trustees do not understand or support, by their actions, the University’s mission.]

2. Act in good faith at all times and in the best interests of the University in a non-partisan manner
[The actions of the trustees over the past 16 months have not been in the best interest of the University, in fact, their actions have been detrimental to Penn State.  How is it that the lawyers on the BOT did not consult the relevant laws on child abuse reporting before accepting the allegations against PSU officials (in the grand jury presentment) as fact?  That is not acting in good faith. ]

4. Prepare diligently, attend faithfully, and participate constructively in all Board meetings and related activities by reading the agenda and supporting materials

[The trustees are directed to read the agenda and supporting materials for all Board meetings but have not been required to act on their own $10 million Freeh Report?]

6. Make decisions and instruct the administration as a Board, not as individuals

[The Board, as a whole, did not make the decision to silently accept the Freeh Report nor to accept the NCAA sanctions, but individual trustees did.]

8. Disclose promptly and fully any potential or actual conflicts of interest, and personally maintain exemplary ethical standards
[Gov. Tom Corbett did not disclose his conflict of interest regarding his investigation into Sandusky’s crimes that possibly involved the University.  Trustees Corbett and Ken Frasier did not reveal conflicts over their prior relationships with Freeh around an internal investigation at Merck, where Frazier is CEO, which resulted in massive fines.  The silence surrounding the Freeh Report and the questionable actions of the consent decree signing by Erickson, which are costing the University millions of dollars, before culpability has been determined, appear to be less than ethical.]

13. Extend goodwill to one another and to all members of the University community. [The Board’s failure to extend goodwill (due process) to its former employees speaks for itself.]

______________________________________
³Standing Order IX, (1)(a)
⁴Standing Order IX, (1)(b)2
⁵Standing Order IX. (1)(f) Expectations of Membership

President Erickson’s Promise to the Penn State Community (2011)6

With the full support of the Board of Trustees, I have outlined five promises to the Penn State community that will guide my leadership of this great institution in the wake of this tragedy. I wish to share these promises with everyone who is a part of our community. (Not all listed)

1.       I will reinforce to the entire Penn State community the moral imperative of doing the right thing – the first time, every time. [Throwing caution to the wind that will cost the University $100 million is NOT the right thing.]

·         I ask for the support of the entire Penn State community to work together to reorient our culture. Never again should anyone at Penn State feel scared to do the right thing. My door will always be open. [The Penn State culture has never needed to be reoriented, until now, due to the Board’s negligent and irresponsible leadership.  Penn State cannot be responsible for anyone’s feelings.  Adults are responsible for their own behavior.  The story of the scared janitor has been disproven by the evidence.  Mr. Erickson, the right thing, as our President, is for you to fight for our school and defend the University.  But, out of fear, you accepted the NCAA sanctions and signed the consent decree.  Practice what you preach.]

2.       As I lead by [poor] example, I will expect no less of others [trustees].

·         I will ensure proper governance and oversight exists across the entire University, including Intercollegiate Athletics. [As detailed above, the governance and oversight of the University has been improper, irresponsible, and disgraceful.]

3.  Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible, given the

     ongoing investigations.

·         I encourage dialogue with students, faculty, alumni, and other members of the Penn State community. [The Penn State Community demands to know which trustees read the 267 page Freeh Report before lending their support for it, and when will the Board discuss the report, collectively, as a body.]

5.   My administration will provide whatever resources, access, and information are needed to support  
       the Special Committee’s investigation. I pledge to take immediate action based on its findings.
       [These promises were made in Nov. 2011.  Erickson pledges 8 months before the findings of Freeh are to be released that he will ‘take immediate action on its findings.’  It appears Erickson gave up all rights of Penn State to Freeh in 2011.  Whatever Freeh determined to be true would be true and Penn State would blindly do whatever Freeh dictated, as well as, blindly accept whatever the NCAA would hand down. This is the epitome of poor leadership.  Responsible stewardship would be to immediately take the findings under advisement, analyze the report as a body, determine if the evidence supports the findings, and THEN decide, as a corporate body, what actions Penn State would take.]

THE BOARD’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS

On July 12, 2012, the Board released this statement⁷ in response to the Freeh Report  (not in total): Today’s comprehensive report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first. The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred. [A responsible governing body would not have blindly accepted full responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes without first reading and analyzing the basis of the accusations.
______________________________________
⁶http://president.psu.edu/goals ⁷http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/penn-state-issues-statement-on-freeh-report

If they indeed accept full responsibility for the failures that occurred then why haven’t each of them resigned from the Board?  After all, they terminated Paterno and Spanier for ‘failure of leadership,’ without any evidence of wrongdoing, so why haven’t they taken the same punishment they allocated to those men for the same infraction?]
Judge Freeh's report concludes that certain people at the University who were in a position to protect children or confront the predator failed to do so. There can be no ambiguity about that. [Freeh’s conclusions were never verified by the Board so how can they make a claim regarding ambiguity.]

Furthermore, the Board is committed to greater transparency and communications with the entire University community. [The Board must be open and publicly state where they stand regarding Freeh’s conclusions.]

In the weeks ahead, the University will carefully review and consider each of the report’s recommendations. Tomorrow at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Board of Trustees will consider a series of immediate next steps. President Rodney Erickson has appointed three members of his senior leadership team to coordinate and implement operational changes suggested by the Freeh Report. [How can the governing body of a world class institution implement operational changes that they don’t know in fact need changing?  If Freeh recommended they shut down all athletics for two years would they do it without question and without analyzing his report?  That’s exactly what the Board is doing with these recommendations.  The Board of Trustees is being run by substandard leaders.]
With the release of the Freeh Report we are beginning to correct our failures…. [Again, how can the Board correct failures they don’t know actually exist?]

On July 23, 2012, the Board released this statement⁸ regarding the sanctions (not in total): The NCAA announced their penalties against Penn State, which included a four-year prohibition against post-season play for the football team, the loss of scholarships, the vacating of past wins, and a $60 million fine. Penn State President Rodney Erickson, with input from legal counsel and members of the executive committee of the Board of Trustees, accepted the NCAA-imposed penalties. [The Board had 11 days to come together to discuss and verify the findings of the report.  Had the trustees done so, as one would expect of a world class University, then they would have quickly realized that Freeh’s findings and conclusions were not supported by the evidence.  They then would have been in a position to challenge Mark Emmert and the NCAA, defend the University against the unjust sanctions, and display effective leadership that had been lacking for 8 months.] 

The events surrounding allegations of serious misconduct on our campus have led to multiple investigations and lawsuits. Many of these are ongoing or are still in early stages. The process of establishing what happened, determining personal and institutional accountability and ensuring that these events do not happen again is essential to our community's recovery and eventual healing. [The trustees talk out of both sides of their mouths.  Their initial statement above on 7-12-12, just hours after the Freeh report came out, never uses the word ‘alleged.’  Their statement was total acceptance of Freeh’s conclusions and that Penn State was to blame.  Here, they actually admit Freeh’s findings are merely ‘allegations’ and that the law, due process, has yet to determine exactly what happened and if anyone or the University is culpable.  Yet, knowing all this, they irresponsibly neglected to wait for the law to determine culpability, and accepted Freeh’s alleged findings, allowing Penn State to take full responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes which led to unprecedented sanctions that could cost the University over $100 million.]______________________________________⁸Legal Matters http://progress.psu.edu/legal-matters

The University has been and is cooperating fully with all appropriate government authorities and all criminal and administrative investigations, including those described below. Out of respect for the legal process and the privacy of the individuals involved it would not be appropriate to comment on specific charges, evidence or individuals until the legal process and such investigations are completed. [Why didn’t the Board take a STAND for Penn State and make this statement on November 9, 2011?  Why didn’t the Board take a stand and make this statement on July 12, 2012?  And why didn’t the Board take a stand against the NCAA, using this statement, and refuse to sign the consent decree?]

§  Attorney General: The Grand Jury investigation is ongoing, which means further questioning and charges may yet occur. [The Board acknowledges the legal process have not concluded, yet never defends or fights for the University, which eventually may be found not responsible for any of Sandusky’s crimes.]

§  Penn State Board of Trustees' Special Investigations Task Force: The Freeh Report was released online at thefreehreportonpsu.com simultaneously to the University community, Board of Trustees, the media and the general public on July 12, 2012. [The trustees never saw the report until a couple hours before their statement.  They could have never read or verified the report within that time frame.  Their statement on July 12, 2012, allowing Penn State to fully accept responsibility for Sandusky’s crime was reckless and a colossal dereliction of duty.] 

On Oct. 26, 2012, the Board released this statement⁹ regarding the Legal Committee (not in total): Penn State's Board of Trustees voted unanimously to authorize a subcommittee of the Board to approve possible settlements of claims made against the University related to the crimes of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

This measure provides the Subcommittee on Legal -- an arm of the board’s Committee on Legal and Compliance -- the authority to approve settlements that may be reached related to claims against the University by individuals alleging that Penn State is liable for injuries suffered in connection with sexual abuse by Sandusky. [Again, the Board acknowledges that the courts have yet to determine if the University is responsible for Sandusky’s crimes.  Why would the University even consider approving settlements before the legal processes have concluded?  I wonder if the insurance companies who will be footing the bill of this negligent Board have any recourse.]

On Feb. 10, 2013, the Board released this statement¹⁰ regarding its progress (not in total): The goal of this investigation was to uncover facts and identify where failures occurred in the University's governance and compliance structure and to make recommendations to help ensure that such failures never happen again. [Do you notice with each new statement, the Board adjusts its tone and position?  The initial statement following Freeh’s press conference was total acceptance of blame.  A week and a half later, the Board is careful to correctly say “Penn State’s ‘alleged’ misconduct” and “the process… to determine personal and institutional accountability….”  With this recent statement, “the goal was to uncover facts,” now suggests the Board might not necessarily agree that the goal was accomplished.]

The University intends to implement substantially all of the (119) Freeh recommendations by the end of 2013. [Many of the recommendations are derived from alleged failures that have yet to be confirmed.]

It is understandable and appreciated that people will draw their own conclusions and opinions from the facts uncovered in the Freeh report. [WOW!  The Board acquiesces that the conclusions drawn by Freeh are not necessarily 100% truth and they now understand and appreciate that other conclusions, different from Freeh’s, are possible from the same facts he based his findings on.  So what are THEIR conclusions?]______________________________________
⁹http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/trustees-approve-resolution-to-grant-authority-for-legal-settlements
¹⁰http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/freeh-investigation-findings-used-to-improve-penn-state-operations

THE DEMAND FOR REAL LEADERSHIP

Has each trustee read the entire Freeh Report?  If so, where do they stand regarding Freeh’s conclusion that the senior leaders of Penn State knowingly allowed Sandusky to sexually molest boys for 14 years?  I believe the trustees have been silent on this matter because they have backed themselves into a corner.  Either way they answer that question, their backs are up against a wall.  If they continue down their current path of silence, and do not reveal that they have indeed read it, then they are displaying a complete dereliction of duty, as addressed above.  Their disregard of the responsibility for the government and welfare of this University is blinding.  I’m not sure which is more astonishing, the fact that the trustees have not collectively reviewed and vetted their $10 million report, or the fact that they have gotten away with it for so long.  However, if the trustees do in fact publicly reveal they each have read the report, then they will have to answer for the unsupported findings and conclusions surmised by Freeh.  They will have to explain why they allowed a faulty, unsubstantiated report to be used by the NCAA, without objection, to impose hefty sanctions, including a $60 million fine.  In addition, they will have to explain why they are even considering making settlements with possible victims before the courts have determined Penn State’s culpability.  And finally, they will have to admit their rush to judgment and the ousting of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier were egregious mistakes, not made in the best interest of the University.  Clearly, the corner they have painted themselves into shrinks day by day.

A remarkable fact about the Penn State trustees is that many of them own and/or run well-known, successful corporations throughout America.  I wonder if these trustees run their businesses in the same irresponsible and unethical manner they have run Penn State over the past sixteen months.  I certainly hope they do not throw caution to the wind, like they have at Penn State, when making decisions that could cost their companies over $100 million.  I wonder if the trustees run their households this way, with the same cavalier attitude and disregard for family members.

According to Standing Order IX (1)(c)1¹¹,the Board of Trustees has a certain responsibility to evaluate the President of the University.

1. This responsibility includes a commitment to grant the President broad delegated authority, to support the President in his/her exercise of such authority, to judge the performance of the President, and if necessary, to remove the President. In the selection of a President, the Board shall consult with representatives of the faculty and the student body.

Perhaps President Erickson’s performance in governing Penn State needs to be evaluated.
Penn State’s situation today reminds me of the relevancy of a famous quote: “A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the equality of his actions and the integrity of his intent.”
Of all the great leaders this brings to mind, Rosa Parks comes front and center.  Her undeniable courage and confidence to sit alone in the face of adversity helped change American history forever.  The Penn State Board of trustees needs a Rosa Parks.  Penn State needs a true leader.  Who will finally stand up for this University and refuse to sit in the back of the bus?  Until then, this bus is not moving forward.

______________________________________

¹¹ http://www.psu.edu/trustees/charter.html