Joe Paterno and Alfred Dreyfus - THE PENN STATE CULTURE

THE DREYFUS AFFAIR REDUX by Joseph A Cattano Ph.D Penn State  

First a reminder:  The Dreyfus Affair, a political scandal that divided France 1894 until its resolution in 1906, is one of the most striking examples of a miscarriage of justice with a major role by media and public opinion. 

THE DREYFUS AFFAIR REDUX   

note: Written a year ago edits made to bring current. 

           Before sharing my thoughts regarding the tragedy that occurred at Penn State University, I will preface my discussion with the necessary statement that children were the tragic victims of harm and a reckless insensitivity by a sexual predator that will stay with them for years.  As a mental health professional who has worked with the victims of sexual abuse, I fully appreciate the scope of emotional issues and he horrid “soul murder” of a child who has experienced sexual abuse.There is no question that those responsible for this tragedy should face both criminal and civil prosecution and be held accountable for their actions.

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/

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

More Lies and Contradictions

Watch as the key Freeh report commentators Ken Frazier, Louis Freeh, Karen Peetz, Rodney Erickson, Mark Dambly, and Mark Emmert statements are compared over time and contrasted with those of the authors of the Paterno report: Dick Thornburg, Jim Clemente, Wick Sollers, and Fred Berlin.

By
Linda Berkland

A Baker's Dozen

By SMSS FREEHdom Fighters

As we begin a new year, the FREEHdom Fighters thought it would be fun to present a bakery

box brimming with some of the most memorable quotes of 2012 surrounding the Sandusky

scandal.  

This “Bakers Dozen” of Ring Dings, Ho Hos, Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Moon Pies, Yodels and 

Krimpets are fun to look at and attractively wrapped, but in essence….stale, spongy, crème-

filled snacks with no substance or nutritional value. 

Pairs nicely with a glass of Kool-Aid.

NCAA President Mark Emmert

The NCAA issued "unprecedented sanctions" against Penn State in July 2012, slamming the way the school gave precedence to football success and lost focus on the first priority of any institution of higher learning: education.

"We want everyone to pay attention," NCAA President Mark Emmert said. "This is indeed a cautionary tale, that the athletic tail can't wag the academic dog."

However when  Mark Emmert was the Chancellor of Louisiana State University he certainly espoused a different philosophy of the importance of football when he fired football coach Gerry DiNardo in November 1999 ...

"The critical role of our football program is clear: it is of vital importance to the entire community: Our students, our fans and alumni worldwide and the state of Louisiana. Simply put, success in LSU football is essential for the success of Louisiana State University."

  

What is Emmert's true view of the first priority of institutions of higher learning?
 

Randy Feathers, Former Investigator for the PA AG

Until January 2011, only one state police trooper, his supervisor, plus an PA state attorney's agent working under Randy Feathers were assigned to the Jerry Sandusky case. In addition to supervising a unit out of Altoona, Randy Feathers also worked on the case himself.

“I was asked weekly if I had enough personnel,” Feathers said. “I never asked for help until 2011 when we had many more subpoenas and more evidence. Then I got eight more troopers and four more agents. If anyone wants to criticize, I’m the one to criticize because I made that decision weekly." 

“I didn’t want a whole lot of investigators on this case,” he continued. “You don’t want 20 different investigators going after a bunch of kids. You want to keep it as small as possible.”

However, psychologist Mike Gillum, who counseled Aaron Fisher (Victim 1), immediately after he and his mother walked through the door of Clinton County's Children and Youth Services office in November 2009, provides a much different account than Feathers'.

Gillum co-authored a book, "Silent No More: Victim 1's Fight for Justice Against Jerry Sandusky," with Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) and his mother, Dawn Daniels. In it Gillum gives a detailed chronology of what went on behind the scenes. Gillum states that he became frustrated as the investigation slowed and prosecutors told him many times that an arrest was imminent. He also blamed Governor Tom Corbett for delaying the investigation when he was the attorney general and at the same time running for governor.

Randy Feathers is still employed by Tom Corbett. Corbett named Feathers to the Board of Probation and Parole in September, 2012. 

  

Why didn’t you ask for more help Randy?

 

 

Frank Noonan - former head of AG criminal

 investigations and current Commissioner

 of the Pennsylvania State Police

Following his retirement from the FBI in 1998, Frank Noonan was appointed Northeast Regional Director for the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics investigation. After 11 years as Regional Director, Noonan was promoted to Chief of Criminal investigation for the PA Office of the Attorney General in July 2009 under Tom Corbett’s watch.  After Tom Corbett became governor, Frank Noonan was nominated on January 18, 2011, to be Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and was confirmed by the State Senate on April 12, 2011.

 

Paterno may have fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, state police Commissioner Frank Noonan said, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child." Noonan added: "I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us."

However, in December 2012 the Associated Press released a story titled, Pa. troopers’ Asian sex Trips surface in lawsuit.

Records in a case pending in federal court in Pennsylvania say the three PA state police lieutenants, Martin Kruse and Lawver, all admitted that they hired prostitutes in Thailand and Vietnam on trips between 2002 and 2008, according to a February 2009 general investigative report filed with the state police's Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards.

Child prostitution is a particular problem in Thailand and some other Asian countries.  State police leadership and internal affairs assigned to investigate the sex trips questioned the ages of the prostitutes repeatedly. The three state policemen have insisted that none was underage, records show.

"There was no indication, wherever they went, that there was [sic] any children involved, which is what our concern was".

"The age of the prostitutes they were with was not a concern to Lt. Martin (because according to him, they all looked old enough)."

Internal PA state police records examined by the Associated Press shows the three supervisors evaded significant punishment. Additionally, the U.S. attorney's office in Harrisburg said a federal investigation regarding the Asian sex tourism trips was closed without charges being filed, and prosecutors declined further comment.

Why aren’t your colleagues held to the same “moral standards” Frank? 

 

Tom Corbett, Governor of PA and former 

PA State Attorney General

 

In May of 2010, while running for Governor, State Attorney General Tom Corbett subpoenaed Twitter to appear as a Grand Jury witness to “testify and give evidence regarding alleged violations of the laws of Pennsylvania”.

The subpoena ordered Twitter to provide “any and all subscriber information” of the person(s) behind two accounts – @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA – which at the time of the subpoena had  only 68 and 123 followers, respectively— and had been criticizing Corbett in 140 characters or less on the popular social media site.

It’s interesting that Governor Corbett was so quick to issue the subpoenas of critics’ Twitter accounts but the Second Mile didn’t receive subpoenas until January 2011 in the Jerry Sandusky case which the PA AG’s office opened in early 2009. Sandusky’s home wasn’t searched until the summer of 2011 and a second subpoena for The Second Mile financial records wasn’t delivered until after Sandusky was charged November 4, 201l. PA Senate Democratic Leader Jay Costa of Allegheny County said, in hindsight, the matter could have been handled differently.

Tom, why did you subpoena Social Media and not a Social Menace?

 

Rodney Erickson – Penn State University President

Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on July 25, 2012 that if Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced on July 23, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years.

However, in an interview with Adam Rittenburg of ESPN the same week, Ed Ray, Oregon State president chair the NCAA's executive committee which sanctioned Penn State and represented the presidents and chancellors at the NCAA news conference, categorically denied that the suspension of play was threatened if Penn State did not agree to the consent decree.

When questioned during an open Q&A during the September Board of Trustees meeting, Erickson stood steadfastly behind the account he offered trustees in an August 12, 2012 teleconference, in which he said he was told that an overwhelming majority of NCAA officials "wanted blood" and the consent decree was "a take-it-or-leave-it proposition."
"Those are the facts ... I still believe that was the best course of action given what we were faced with," Erickson said. "It's a decision that no university president should ever have to make." 

Rodney, will we ever learn the truth?

 

11.9.11 Penn State Board of Trustees

In the November 9, 2011 press conference where John Surma announced that … “Joseph Paterno is no longer the football coach -- Effective immediately.”  During the Q&A portion of the presser, Surma was asked  by a reporter,  “Sir, what was the driving reason of removing coach Paterno? “ he answered, “In consideration of all the facts and the difficulties that we are encountering during this time, it was the trustees' view that it was in the best interest, long-term interests of our university to make that change.”

Later we find out that Joe was slipped a note by Fran Ganter which had John Surma's name and cellphone number scribbled on it. Paterno called Surma from his kitchen phone where Surma informed him that the board of trustees had "terminated" him as head coach, "effective immediately."  He hung up the phone and broke the news to his wife of 49 years, Sue.

A moment later a second call was made to Surma where Sue Paterno said, "After 61 years, he deserved better." Then she hung up.

In January 2012 the Penn State trustees, in an attempt to change the public’s perception of how they handled the firing of Joe Paterno, spoke to the New York Times resulting in an article titled, Penn State’s Trustee Recount Painful Decision to Fire Paterno . In it they outline their rationale for firing Joe Paterno: “The trustees also laid out what they said were three key reasons for firing Paterno: his failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002; what they regarded as his questioning of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest; and what they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program.”

However, the Penn State community was persistent and not ready to “Move on”. They continued to raise questions as to why Joe Paterno was fired. Therefore, on March 12, 2012 the Penn State Board of Trustees board felt obligated to issue another statement to “state clearly” the reasons for his dismissal: a “failure of leadership" for his actions following a reported sex assault involving former assistant Jerry Sandusky. The board found that while Paterno fulfilled a legal obligation to tell his superiors that an employee claimed Sandusky abused a young boy in a shower, it said Paterno should have done more. "We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno," the trustees wrote. 

Letter firing Joe Paterno from Cynthia Baldwin 
Penn State Vice President and General Counsel

 

However, the Board of Trustees neglects to mention that they had a second chance to speak to Joe on that fateful night when Sue Paterno called them back. Additionally, none of those plans was mentioned in the certified letter written by Penn State general counsel, Cynthia Baldwin and sent to Paterno one week after he was fired. It begins, "Pursuant to your termination … we are asking you to make the following arrangements.”

By April 4, 2012 Don Van Natta Jr. writes, “Joe Paterno was not fired. That’s what the board of trustees now says. He was simply relieved of his coaching duties but was allowed to continue on as an emeritus professor and would be paid his full salary under his contract, the trustee said in the weeks and months since then.  In a statement released on March 12, the trustees said that if Paterno had not hung up the phone so quickly, Surma had intended to tell him that the board was sorry for firing him by phone and that it was the board’s intention to fulfill his employment contract. They also said that it was always their intention to name Paterno “head coach emeritus,” a title that bestows honor and privileges.”

11.9.11 Penn State Board of Trustees, was Joe fired or not? 

 

Mark Schwarz – ESPN Reporter

In 2003, Mark Schwartz and his producer, Arty Berko interviewed repeatedly Bobby Davis, the former Syracuse ball boy after Davis had contacted ESPN's Outside the Lines with information alleging that longtime Syracuse associate head basketball coach Bernie Fine had molested him as a child. At Davis’ request in 2003, Schwarz and Berko also interviewed Davis’ step-brother, Mike Lang. According to Schwarz, Lang told the ESPN reporters that "Bernie grabbed my leg a few times but he didn't really do too much to me and I don't have anything to say to you." 
 

The network ultimately opted not to run the story because, according to ESPN officials, there were no other victims who would talk, and no independent evidence to corroborate Bobby Davis’ story.

However, as the Jerry Sandusky scandal unfolded and was so eerily similar to what Bernie Fine did to Davis, Davis texted his stepbrother, Mike Lang that he could not deal with it. Lang felt obligated to help his brother and called Mark Schwarz.

As irony would have it, the call to Schartz came in on November 11, 2011 just as he was about to leave the ESPN satellite truck to attend the candlelight vigil and moment of silence held in support of the alleged victims that evening on the Penn State campus. After reporting from the vigil, Schwarz called Lang back. The two men spoke for some time and Schwarz recalls Lang as "frantic, tearful and emotional."

ESPN aired its first story breaking the Bernie Fine scandal on Nov. 17 in which Davis, now 39, and Lang, now 45, accused Fine of molesting them, starting in the late 1970s and continuing into the 1990s. Ten days later, the network ran a second story with an audio tape, that ESPN had in its possession since 2003, which recorded a 2002 phone call that Davis recorded with Fine's wife, Laurie. ESPN stated that it added the audiotape after it hired a voice recognition expert to confirm that it was Laurie Fine’s voice on the tape.

Many have questioned why ESPN did not share the tape with police or administrators at Syracuse, even if the network believed the unauthenticated tape created a journalistic obstacle to airing the story.  In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Schwarz said that "journalists are not necessarily required or expected to hand over evidence that they did not obtain or create themselves to the police."

The Huffington Post reported, Bob Rucker, interim director of San Jose State University's department of journalism and mass communications, had this to say about the responsibilities of a journalist in such a situation when he was interviewed by FOX Sports.

"Since we are covered by the First Amendment, we don't have to turn over anything," Rucker told FOX. "Still, it's not always that obvious, especially when it comes to protecting the interests of children. I know I'd be hard-pressed not to go to my bosses and tell them I need to talk to the police."

Why did you hold on to the “Bernie Fine” tape so long Mark?

 

Kenneth Frazier - Penn State Trustee 

Elected by Business and Industry

Ken Frazier, Penn State alum, Harvard-trained lawyer and current chairman and CEO of the Merck pharmaceutical company, also headed the Board of Trustees “full and complete” investigation into the Sandusky matter.  In late November 2011, Frazier, announced that it had hired Freeh to look specifically at how the culture, policies, and practices of the university and its administration could have allowed the alleged sexual abuse to happen on campus and go unreported for so long. It will also seek to make recommendations to the board as to how to prevent similar events from ever occurring again, Frazier said. "No one is above scrutiny," Frazier said.

Frazier is a man with a track record of protecting powerful institutions from the consequences of their inaction and is best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck’s recent past—its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx proving that he is skilled at preparing a no-hold barred defense that minimizes liabilities to potential plaintiffs. Not only did his hard-nosed tactics pay off for Merck in 2007 but they paid off personally for Frazier who became chairman and CEO of Merck in 2011. 

This is the same man who had this to say about Joe Paterno four days before Paterno died on January 22, 2012, “To me, it wasn’t about guilt or innocence in a legal sense,” Frazier said of Paterno’s decision not to go to police. “It was about these norms of society that I’m talking about: that every adult has a responsibility for every other child in our community. And that we have a responsibility not to do the minimum, the legal requirement. We have a responsibility for ensuring that we can take every effort that’s within our power not only to prevent further harm to that child, but to every other child.” 
 

Mr. Frazier, how do you reconcile that statement with your actions in defending the Vioxx suit at Merck?

However, once the Freeh report was released and implicated Pennsylvania State University's board of trustees alongside its top school officials, Frazier had this to say, "We failed to ask the right questions, the tough questions, or to take definitive action, Put simply, we did not force the issue."

So “in hindsight”, Ken, you wish you” had done more”?

When pressed about why the Board of Trustees did not force the issue with Dr. Graham Spanier, Penn State University President at the time, Frazier had this to say, “We were also being told there were restrictions based on grand-jury secrecy about what could be said at a particular point in time," he said

So how does the same legal-eagle, who defended Merck so successfully against the Vioxx class-action lawsuit, not know enough to push the issue of grand jury secrecy?

Will the real Kenneth Frazier please stand up?

 

Mark Dambly – Penn State Trustee

Critics of the Board of Trustees handling of the Freeh report have said that Penn State has “accepted” the findings, but Mark Dambly said that wasn’t the case.

The board said in a statement after the findings were released July 12 that it accepted full responsibility for the failures which occurred.

"There have been lots of suggestions that we accepted all 267 pages (of the report). That's not accurate at all," Dambly said. "We did not take any action on the Freeh report. It's open to anybody's interpretation."

Freeh challenged the trustees to look at the culture of the university. But, Dambly said, "We don't suggest that the entire culture of the university is flawed. None of us have ever said that. Unfortunately, it's been construed that way." 
 

What ARE you trying to say, Mark?

 

Carl Shaffer – Penn State Trustee

 elected by Agriculture Societies

In late July 2012, following the release Freeh report, PA auditor general, Jack Wagner sent a letter to the PA State Legislature that his office is working on a comprehensive report on Penn State, which was separate from the university-sanctioned Freeh report, outlining preliminary recommendations that Wagner said were necessary to improve the university's governance in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. 

As auditor general, Wagner is the state’s top government watchdog and has responsibility for ensuring all state money is spent legally. Because Penn State is a state-financed university, any change would have to be made by the General Assembly. After the Wagner letter was received by the State legislature, PA State Representative Scott Conklin introduced legislation based on Auditor General's recommendations to alter the structure and governance of the Penn State Board of Trustees. 

Wagner’s final report was released on November 14, 2012. Some of the main highlights from the report included: removing the university president from the board of trustees; removing the governor as a voting member of the board; reducing the board’s size to improve transparency and accountability; and preventing trustees from becoming high-ranking university employees, such as when the trustees made fellow trustee David Joyner the interim athletic director in November 2011.

It didn’t take long to get a reaction on the proposed reforms from current Penn State trustee, Carl Shaffer. “This is our university — this university is unique in a lot of ways from other universities,” said Shaffer during a committee meeting Thursday on governance issues. “I think it’s up to this board to decide how we’re going to take this university forward.”

You’re kidding Carl, aren’t you?

 

Karen Peetz – Chairman of the

Penn State Board of Trustees

Karen Peetz was elected to the Penn State Board of Trustees in 2010 and was elected Chairman of the Board in 2012. In December 2012, she was named President of Bank of New York Mellon. Prior to this appointment she was a Vice Chairman, with responsibility for the Financial Markets & Treasury Services (FMTS) group within BNY Mellon, which is the corporate brand of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. The businesses that make up the FMTS group – treasury services, corporate trust, depositary receipts, clearing services (Pershing), broker-dealer clearing, collateral management and alternative investment services – represent more than 40 percent of the company’s revenue. Each of these businesses commands a leading global market position and ranks among the company’s most visible and best-performing franchises. Karen is a member of BNY Mellon’s Executive Committee, the organization’s most senior management body, which oversees the firm’s day-to-day operations.

As Chairman of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Peetz was more than willing to comment on the Freeh report after it was released in July, 2012 when she spoke to Jeff Brady of NPR News. Brady asked Peetz if the report would change how the university honors Paterno. Peetz’s response, “I think our reaction is that the clarity that's come out of the report would show that 61 years of excellent service that Joe gave to the university is now marred. And we have to step back and say, what does that mean?”

In November 2012,   a BNY Mellon subsidiary, Ivy Asset Management, agreed to a $210 million settlement for advising clients to invest with Bernard L. Madoff, whose multibillion-dollar fraud landed him in federal prison, New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman. “Ivy Asset Management violated its fundamental responsibility as an investment adviser by putting its own pecuniary interests ahead of the interests of its clients,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “Ivy deliberately concealed negative facts it uncovered in its due diligence of Madoff in order to keep earning millions of dollars in fees. As a result, its clients suffered massive and avoidable losses.”

BNY Mellon did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

Why No Comment, BYN Mellon President Peetz?

 

Cynthia Baldwin – former Penn State

 Vice President and General Counsel

Cynthia Baldwin, a former Pennsylvania state Supreme Court justice and past chair of the Penn State Board of Trustees, served as Penn State University's general counsel during the grand jury investigation of Jerry Sandusky before she stepped down in January 2012. Baldwin was repeatedly cited in the Freeh report for possible missteps in her handling of the matter.

"Baldwin told the Special Investigative Counsel that she went to the grand jury appearances as the attorney for Penn State, and that she told both Curley and Schultz that she represented the university and that they could hire their own counsel if they wished."

However, according to the transcript from the grand jury, both men said they believed Ms. Baldwin was representing them.

"You have counsel with you?" the prosecutor asked Mr. Curley.

"Yes, I do," he answered.

"Would you introduce her, please?" the prosecutor continued.

"My counsel is Cynthia Baldwin."

Mr. Schultz said the same when he was questioned.

"You are accompanied today by counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, is that correct?" the prosecutor asked.

"That is correct," Mr. Schultz answered.

Since Penn State was not a party to the criminal investigation, legal experts question Ms. Baldwin's presence in the grand jury room.  If she was a representative of the university, she had no business at the grand jury.

"The most significant matter in terms of ethics is what happened in the grand jury room," Mr. Ledewitz said. "The first thing you learn in legal ethics is to know who the client is."

Even though Baldwin has insisted that she was not representing Spanier, Curley and Shultz, when they testified before a grand jury investigating Sandusky's crimes, prosecutors now say the record shows she was.

Cynthia, who were you representing and where were your legal ethics?