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

Good-bye John Surma - Good luck surviving until June

The Man Who Wanted Joe Paterno Fired Got His Wish, But When Asked Why The Board Did It, He Struggled To Provide A Reason.  It was VIC-tory for the Surmas....That's All He Knew.

By 
Ray Blehar

Transcript of CNN Press Conference After the Firing of Joe Paterno (my emphasis added).

STATE COLLEGE, PA:  November 9, 2011:  The university's Board of Trustees just announced the president of the university is stepping down. There's a press conference going on right now. 

Let's go live to that press conference. 

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JOHN SURMA, VICE CHAIRMAN, PENN STATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: 

Thank you, Steve  Everyone hear me?



I'm going to make some comments and then take your questions.  The last several days have been absolutely terrible for the entire Penn State community.  But the outrage that we feel is nothing compared to the physical and psychological suffering (garbled).

My comment:  What lawyer would ever allow a statement like this when Sandusky had yet to be convicted of any of the allegations?

The Penn State Board of Trustees tonight decided that it was in the best interest of the university to have a change in leadership to deal with the difficult issues we are facing the BOT and Graham Spanier have decided that Dr Spanier is no longer president of the University.  In addition, Joe Paterno is no longer the head football coach, effective immediately.

These decisions were made after careful deliberations and the best interests of the University as a whole.

Penn State has always strived for honesty, integrity, and the highest moral standards in all our activities.  We promise you we are committed to restoring the public trust in our University.

Before we take your questions, let me remind you that we do not yet know all the facts.  Steve and I will be available to answer as many questions as we can.

QUESTION:  Who will coach the team?

SURMA:  With respect to coaching matters, I can tell you that Acting President Rod Erickson and Acting Athletic Director Mark Sherburne have appointed Tom Bradley as the interim head coach.

QUESTION:  What about Mike Mcqueary's status?

SURMA:  There's really nothing we can say about that. At that point, there's been no change in his status. 

My comment: How could there be thoughtful consideration without making a decision on the person who was the eyewitness in the case and later would receive death threats if he coached on the sidelines.

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: Sir, what was the driving reason of removing coach Paterno? 

SURMA: 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.


QUESTION: When did you tell him? 

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: When did you tell Joe Paterno?

SURMA: I can only answer one at a time. 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 

SURMA: The board deliberative process is, as it implies, a process that requires some time. There was information that we sought, although we don't know anything more about the actual details than the grand jury report and whatever you all write. 

We were working through the not entirely consistent processes of wanting to act swiftly and decisively, but also to be thorough and fair. And that resulted in these actions tonight. 

QUESTION: Sir, given the popularity of coach Paterno on this campus, how difficult a decision was this for you and your colleagues to make? 

SURMA: Well, these decisions are never easy in any walk of life. And this one for many reasons, including those that you described, was difficult, but again, in the unanimous view of the trustees, was necessary in the long-term interests of the university and the difficult problems we find... 

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Can you confirm or deny those?

SURMA: I have no basis to comment on that report, which I guess we found imaginative, but not anything that is anything we can comment on.

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: I can only go one at a time. 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: As I mentioned, Rod Erickson, our distinguished provost, has agreed to act as interim president of the university effective immediately. 

QUESTION: In the board's mind, should coach Paterno have alerted to the police when he first learned of the sexual abuse allegations in 2002?

SURMA: I don't know that I can characterize the board's view on specific determinations like that. Our view is a more -- larger view of what was necessary to move the university in the right direction.
The specific aspects of these terrible activities that occurred and terrible damage that was done really remain to be established by whatever law enforcement investigations are yet under way, as well as the investigation by our own Board of Trustees' special committee that we announced recently and we will provided more details on, on Friday.
(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: It's really premature for us to comment on, because we don't know what the actual facts and circumstances were. As I said, we have read the grand jury report, as I'm sure you all have. And beyond that, there's very little information that's available beyond that and we have to await the completion of multiple investigations. 

QUESTION: When did you tell Paterno? 

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: At what point did you notify Mr. Paterno of this decision? 

SURMA: One at a time.

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: At what point did you notify Mr. Paterno? 

SURMA: I think that's more or less the same question. We made that notification earlier this evening. 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: That's a (AUDIO GAP) We made the notification and that's really all we can say and all we should say. 

QUESTION: Did you see him in person or over the phone? 

SURMA: I would rather not characterize that either. We made a notification that we thought was appropriate and necessary. 

QUESTION: You have let a man go that has been here for 46 years and you won't tell us whether you told him over the phone or in person?

SURMA: We did have a phone conversation. We were unable to find a way to get to do that in person without causing, we thought, greater distraction, and that was a conclusion that we made. 

QUESTION: You didn't think you owed him the courtesy to go to his house or talk to him in person? 

SURMA: There's really nothing we can comment on, on that. We did what we thought was best.

QUESTION: What's your reasoning for dismissing coach Paterno now and leaving Tim Curley in administrative leave? 

SURMA: There's a number of matters that the board has to address during the course of the week. I'm not saying those were them, but there's a matters that over time will get resolved and dealt with. 

QUESTION: Will Joe's son Jay still be on staff?

SURMA: There's no change there at the moment. What happens in the long-term is a different question. 

QUESTION: What about Mike McQueary? 

SURMA: As I said, we're not aware of any change in his status. And there's really no more comment we could make on that personnel matter. 

My comment: The Board waited until McQueary received death threats to make a decision.  I guess that what Surma means by "thoughtful and deliberate."

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 

SURMA: Well, I don't really want to get into what individuals should think or not think. 

I would hope that our students and we would hope that everyone who cares about Penn State, our 95,000 students, our hundreds of thousands of alumni, the thousands of degrees which get awarded each year, our outreach for agriculture in every county of the commonwealth, I would hope that everyone would agree that what we are doing is what we believe is in our best judgment is in the best long- term interests of the university, which is much larger than athletic programs. 

QUESTION: What do you say to the people who think you're making him the fall guy for this?

SURMA: Well, I think people can believe what they wish, but I think when the facts come out in a longer term, and we don't have them all here in front of us, and no doubt there will be additional facts which shed light on things. I have no idea what they are tonight.
(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: When you said there's going to be a full investigation, at the same time, what would you say to those who argue that this is a rush to judgment? There has not been a full investigation, so how could you reach this conclusion at this time?

SURMA: As I said, these are judgments and decisions and balances that boards have to make with thoughtful deliberation. In our view, things had reached a point where a change was necessary and we thought in the best long-term interest of the university. 

QUESTION: Is the board aware that (OFF-MIKE) under a Department of Education investigation? And what's the larger message about how Penn State responds to allegations of sexual abuse on campus? 

SURMA: I am just briefly aware of the matter that you just described and have no information on it, no real knowledge of it. 

If there is another investigation by a federal authority, of course, we will -- the university will cooperate in every means possible. And beyond that, I really have no knowledge of it. And I think as we indicated in our statement yesterday, we intend to be as responsible as we can and make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that we have the highest standards of conduct. 

QUESTION: Has coach Paterno been told he can go to the game on Saturday or to stay away? 

SURMA: We did not discuss that matter. 

QUESTION: We have talked to a lot of students over the past few days. What do you want to say to those who think that the university, the Board of Trustees has handled this matter poorly?

SURMA: Well, we handled it the best way we could with the information we had and with the time that was available to us, again, wanting to be decisive, but also wanting to be thorough and appropriately deliberate. Others are welcome to their own opinion. We believe we did the best job we could. 

QUESTION: What would be the harm in letting the coach continue until the end of the season? 

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Can you define the term best interests of the university regarding coach Paterno? 

SURMA: Not really, not for an individual. I think I will leave it all to you to describe -- to decide what the best interests -- I would say, though, that the current situation we're in, which, by all accounts, has its roots in a certain organization of the university, the situation we are in today is not in the university's best interests. 

QUESTION: What would be the harm in letting the coach continue until the end of the season? What's to be gained? Tell me specifically. 

SURMA: Well, I'm not sure I can tell you specifically. 

In our view, we thought a change now was necessary. To enable or to allow this process to continue, we thought it was going to be damaging the university, and therefore we took the action we did. (CROSSTALK)

SURMA: One at a time. 

QUESTION: Beyond personnel changes, are their cultural changes that need to happen at the university and what is the board going to do about (OFF-MIKE) 

SURMA: I don't know that I could -- we don't know that we could put out hands on cultural changes, per se. I think our culture on the whole at Penn State is exemplary and very good.

In this instance, obviously it was not. I think we have a good culture. To the extent we need to improve it in certain areas, we will put our full energy into doing that. And that should be, I hope, the result of the investigation that would be conducted. 

QUESTION: But does the board believe there was any wrong done here, and if so...

SURMA: The board doesn't know that and no one else does either. This is very early in the process. The facts are not established. The board doesn't really know that any more than anyone else does. And we will of course respect the law enforcement process that is still under way. 

QUESTION: But you know the processes that were taken. You know the steps that the people involved took, whom they told. Do you think that was enough? Do you think more -- the authorities should have been alerted? 

SURMA: I don't know that we know all of the steps that were taken. I don't think we know all of the activities that took place. I'm sure that we don't know that. 

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: You know who coach Paterno told. You know who Curley told. 

SURMA: There is an investigation that will be undertaken by our committee and our special committee, with all the investigative resources they need. There are law enforcement activities still under way. So we are certainly not rushing to a judgment that suggests that we know all the facts. We don't.

QUESTION: So you don't rush to judgment when it comes to facts, but you rush to judgment when it comes to dismissing coach Paterno? 

SURMA: Is that a question or a statement? 

QUESTION: I'm asking you. Did you rush to judgment by dismissing coach Paterno? 

SURMA: No. I think we had enough information to make the decision we did. 

QUESTION: Was there more information than the public knows about coach Paterno's involvement in this case to justify the board's actions? 

SURMA: Not necessarily, no. 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: This was a collective judgment that we weighed all the factors and what we thought we needed to do to move the university in the right direction. There's really nothing more that I can say about that, so...

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: When was coach Bradley informed that he would be the new coach?

SURMA: Coach Bradley was informed by our acting athletic director and the provost.

QUESTION: By phone?

SURMA: I don't know how that happened. I think it may have been.

(CROSSTALK)

SURMA: One at a time. 

QUESTION: John, with respect to the previous answers that you have given, why now? 

SURMA: Well, today was the day that our board felt we had sufficient deliberation and a sufficient view that was consistent among the directors and trustees that -- and we reached that judgment today. 

I can't say why it's today vs. tomorrow vs yesterday. It's the way the board deliberation process works. 

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: Are you guys concerned about the backlash that you're going to get from the university and from the students?

SURMA: We hope that in the long run and maybe hopefully also in the short run, that our students will agree that what the trustees have undertaken is in their interests, as well as all the other students and alumni and children that are in Hershey and everything else that depend on this university to move in the right direction. And it hasn't been in the last week. 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: I'm sorry. One at a time. (CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: ... severance package?

SURMA: The president serves pursuant to a contract that was entered and it has a variety of contractual provisions that deal with certain circumstances. This is probably one of those. And it will be adhered to, whatever that may be. And I think there is probably some financial settlement in that case. 

QUESTION: Was the board caught off guard by Paterno's retirement announcement, and was that part of the decision, sir? 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: I'm sorry. A better answer? 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 

QUESTION: Are you concerned about the students, about their reaction to this matter at all? 

SURMA: Of course. The students are important to us, but I think this is something that our job was to make this determination. And we did the best we could. And, certainly, people that may have a different view, they're welcome to it. That's the American way and that's the Penn State way. But I think in the long term, we have done the right thing. 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: I'm sorry. 

QUESTION: Did coach Paterno know (OFF-MIKE) 

SURMA: No idea.

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: Sir, are you aware about the number of students that were marching back and forth on campus when they thought there was a possibility of this happening? And, therefore, what are you concerned about happening tonight? 

SURMA: I think we have to do what we think was the right thing to do in the circumstances. There may be actions and reactions that flow from that. We can't make our decisions based on what may happen. We have to do what we think is right. I'm confident that the university and our students will behave in a proper manner.

QUESTION: Have you made any contingency plans for (OFF-MIKE) 

SURMA: Not that I'm aware of, although our administration is very adept at handling these sorts of affairs. And I'm sure they're prepared for whatever eventualities there may be.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Can you give us an idea of the vote? Was it unanimous? 

SURMA: Unanimous. 

QUESTION: John, to what extent was the board caught off guard by coach Paterno's retirement announcement, and did that influence at all the step you took tonight?

SURMA: I don't know what off guard means. It was a piece of information that arose at the point. It didn't really have, I don't think, any effect on what we did tonight. So there's really not much I can say about that. 

QUESTION: Was this in the works yesterday, as "The New York Times" reported? Was there a plan being formulated yesterday? 

SURMA: Well, we had been discussing the matters at issue and our response to them on a very regular basis en banc, on the phone, in person, since this occurred. 

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: So -- well, I think the entire sweep of activities has been under discussion. And, certainly, that was among those. And tonight is where we ended up. 

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 

SURMA: I think I already answered that once, but... 

QUESTION: No, you didn't. 

SURMA: I thought I did. If I didn't, I apologize.

There are a number things that we have to attend to that sort of flow from all the things that have happened. And we will deal with things point by point.

QUESTION: Such as?

QUESTION: What should Joe Paterno have done originally...

(CROSSTALK) 

SURMA: Oh, I'm not -- I have no idea how to answer that question and don't intend to. 

QUESTION: The Department of Education has launched an investigation into this investigation because of their failure to comply with federal laws that (OFF-MIKE) the reporting of abuse. Did that factor into your decision at all? 

SURMA: No. I think -- no, to be honest, that report came in during our discussions. And I have not even read it. All I saw was a brief headline. I'm sure other of the administration are focused on it. As I said, any investigation, of course we comply with fully. 

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: What was coach Paterno's reaction? 

SURMA: I'm sorry. 

QUESTION: What was coach Paterno's reaction? 

SURMA: I don't want to characterize that. That's not really fair for me to do. I think it's really up to him for speak for himself. I'd rather not characterize that.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Who made the call?

(CROSSTALK) 

QUESTION: ... staff remain intact for this next -- rest of the games? 

SURMA: I don't know any reason not, but I don't really know how to comment on that. That's a matter that we're going to leave to the administration, the acting president, the acting athletic director. So if there's anything to say about that, you'll hear it from them. The chairman and Mr. Berman (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): No, I can't characterize individual behavior. That would be unfair for me and suggests that we know more than we did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you justify the firing of these two people? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): We thought that, because of the difficulties that have engulfed our university, and they are grave, as is documented, that it was necessary for us to make a change in the leadership, to set a course for a new direction. And I'm not about to try to attach that to specific reasons, issues. That's the board's collective judgment. And that's what we did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe there should be a new board. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are aware that (UNINTELLIGIBLE). 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): Considering I'm here, probably not. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you considered changing the board? Have you considered changing the board? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): There is a process for trusteeship. You can read about it on the trustee Web site. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People are asking you for justification for tonight firing Coach Paterno instead of letting him finish out his career with... 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): I've told you all I can tell you about that. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is that all you can tell us about that? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is he subject to compensation? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): Is he what? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Subject to compensation? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will he be paid? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): Again, there are -- there are some contractual arrangements that -- that will be respected. Those details have not been addressed, and I'm really reluctant to speak to them, because I don't have the details at hand. And as a matter of courtesy, we ought to let the parties and their representatives work those things out. But there will be some... 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you considering any other personnel decisions? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): On our immediate agenda tonight, no. These were the matters that we were focused on. We're sort of answering the same questions again. So... 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): I think you can all make your own determination. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want you to make them. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): I'm not prepared to. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): He's made a great contribution to the university. We all agree to that. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): We have, I think, a number of work schedule -- work discussion times scheduled, whether we use them or not. We just don't have that all figured out yet. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is the university going to pay the legal fees of Curley and Schultz. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): I think we tried to consider everything we had at our disposal. We all know that.

I'm advised by my colleague that there are two more questions allowed. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you still pay the legal fees of Curley and Schultz? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): I don't know the answer to that right now. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (Surma): I don't know the answer to that either.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any pressure from outside, like the governor's office or anyone else... 



The Surma Vendetta

The Surma Vendetta Part 2