2014 is here and the Sandusky scandal is not a "distant memory"

Then PSU BOT Chair Karen Peetz was wrong about Sandusky scandal being a "distant memory" by the time 2014 got here.  

By
Ray Blehar

In November 2012, then-PSU BOT Chair Karen Peetz, in response to a question about the impact of the Sandusky scandal on finding a new president to replace Rodney Erickson, said ""By the time someone gets here in 2014, it will be just a distant memory."

It's New Year's Day 2014 and it's clear that Peetz got it wrong.

Not only is the scandal not a distant memory, but with the departure of football coach Bill O'Brien, it is quite certain that talk of the scandal, the unwarranted NCAA sanctions, and the fall out at PSU will permeate the airwaves during the period up to and after the selection of PSU's next head coach.

But Peetz's statement was clearly wrong before the recent news about O'Brien broke.

As we have learned, the wheels of justice in Pennsylvania have turned very slowly for former PSU administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and former President Graham Spanier and interest remains high in the outcome of their criminal trials.  

The latest turn in the saga came last week, with the release of former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin's grand jury testimony and the revelations that she told the judge "she represented the University solely" then sat silently as she heard Graham Spanier state she represented him.  

Most legal experts who have weighed in believe that Baldwin's conflict of interest and breach of attorney-client privilege will doom most of the case going forward against the PSU three.  

However, the Sandusky scandal was the proverbial bad penny that PSU could never get rid of, mostly because of the ham-handed management of the scandal's aftermath by the BOT and continuing ineptness from it's PR mouthpiece, David LaTorre.

Had the BOT's intention truly been to move forward and put the scandal behind the University as quickly as possible, it would not have hired Louis Freeh to perform a sham investigation then hold a grandstanding press conference to announce the findings.  It wasn't until the PSU BOT had used Freeh to wrongly blame Paterno and the football program for enabling Sandusky's crimes and then were complicit with the NCAA to levy near death-penalty sanctions on the football program, that they decided it was time to move forward (and put the scandal behind the University).

As e-mails from the Pennsylvania Department of Education revealed, the PSU BOT Special Investigations Task Force, who hired Freeh, disbanded just days after he issued his factually challenged report.   Apparently, the task force never reviewed the report, nor did the BOT.  Their desired result was achieved:  the truly criminal elements at PSU were not exposed and Freeh reasonably concluded that Paterno and the administrators were enablers of Sandusky's abuse, with their reputations smeared.

In retrospect, the BOT's moving forward might have actually worked had they not decided to lump Paterno in with the administrators.  The evidence of Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 incident was practically non-existent and anyone who can read English knew that there was no change to any plans in 2001 based on anything Paterno said.  

The railroading of Joe Paterno so obvious (to everyone except the media) that there was no way the PSU alumni were going to move forward until the truth was exposed. 

In September 2013, when prosecutor Frank Fina was asked about Paterno's role in covering up Sandusky's crimes, he responded, "I did not find that evidence."  Fina's statement confirmed the railroading of Paterno.

Fina's statement also validated the $64,000 question that the alumni continue to ask: "what is so important to keep hidden that the PSU BOT would trash Joe Paterno and his legacy, the University, and the football program, as well as pay nearly $100 million,  in order to keep it from being discovered?"

The good news on this first day of 2014 is that PSU alumni, friends, and fans are not the only people who are looking for the answer to that question. 

Over the last few weeks of 2013, there was an uptick in interest about the "back stories" of the Sandusky scandal by a handful of journalists.  The Federal investigation and the PA Attorney General investigations continue to press forward.  And reliable sources indicate that the Spanier defamation case against Louis Freeh may soon go on the offensive.

The Sandusky scandal is far from a "distant memory" and the people who have been part of the  offensive against PSU for two years are finally going to be put on the defensive. 

NCAA Half Measure on Sanctions Falls Short

The NCAA's decision to roll back some of the sanctions as a result of "progress" with the Freeh Report's recommendations on Athletics is yet another smokescreen by Emmert and the BOT.

By
Ray Blehar

While I welcome the decision by the NCAA to restore some of the scholarship to the football program, it's reasoning for doing so is nothing less than farcical.

As most Penn Staters - and college football fans in general - know, Penn State had a sterling reputation for its ability to perform at high levels on the field and in the classroom.  All this done with not a single NCAA violation.   

In  the years prior to the Sandusky Scandal, Penn State's 89 percent graduation rate and 85 percent Graduation Success Rate were tops among all teams in the Associated Press' final 2009 Top 25 poll, according to NCAA data. The Nittany Lions' GSR and four-year federal graduation rate were second only to Northwestern among Big Ten Conference teams, according to the NCAA's 2010 graduation report.

For the late Coach Paterno's career, the Nittany Lions have counted 16 National Football Foundation Scholar-Athletes, 37 first-team Capital One/CoSIDA All-Americans® (47 overall) and 18 NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship winners. 

And in 2010, NCAA President Mark Emmert, called Joe Paterno “the definitive role model of what it means to be a college coach.” 

PSU needed the Athletic Integrity Agreement like a fish needed a bicycle.

However, less than one year later, Mark Emmert would levy unprecedented sanctions on PSU, based on some obscure rules buried in the NCAA By-Laws which were buttressed by slim evidence provided  in the now discredited Freeh Report.

Today's decision to reduce the NCAA Sanctions is little more than a Hail Mary pass by Emmert and the BOT with the hopes of appeasing their opponents who they incorrectly accused of being part of a non-existent "football culture" at PSU.   

The opposition is not going away.  Not until all the wrongs are righted -- more on that later.

But what of this fallacious reasoning for the reduction of the NCAA Sanctions?

NCAA and Penn State's Revised Consent Decree

The revised Consent Decree, below, states that the NCAA has reduced the sanctions because of the compliance and efforts toward implementation of the....Athletics Integrity Agreement.




























What is truly amazing about the "progress" that PSU made since last August is that it's ability to meet the Freeh Report recommendations for Athletics, on which the AIA is based, required them to do very little.

While the AIA is about a dozen pages long and filled with a lot of language, the bottom line is that addresses a dozen (12) recommendations in the Freeh Report that were mostly unnecessary and unsupported by evidence.  And when you read how PSU addressed the recommendations on the PSU Progress Web-site, released in July 2013,  you will see what an "outlaw" program PSU must have been to take such drastic changes (sarcasm).

A brief summary of the  recommendations and commentary follows.

5. Athletics
5.1  Recommendation:  Intercollegiate Athletics Organization Structure:  Revise structure to define lines of authority and responsibility.   Action:  Changes made to number of senior members responsible for football operations, compliance and human resources.  

Comment:  As usual, in the aftermath of a crisis or scandal, recommend redrawing the organization chart.  Consulting 101.

5.2  Recommendation:  Athletic Facilities Access:  Evaluate security protocols for athletic, recreational, and camp facilities.  Action:  PSU originated Policy AD 72 regarding facilities access and improved video surveillance/card access procedures.

Comment:  Sandusky committed no crimes on PSU's campus after 2001 and the majority of his crimes occurred off campus.  No crimes were ever reported as occurring at a PSU sports camp.  There was little need for this recommendation.

5.3  Recommendation:  Intercollegiate Athletics National Searches:  Conduct national searches for key positions including head coaches and Associate Athletic Directors and above.  Action:  PSU crafted policy HR-101 to require national searches and national searches are underway for the baseball, softball, and swimming/diving programs.

Comment:  Recommendation should be implemented retro-actively back to 11-9-11 and a national search for a qualified Athletic Director should commence immediately.  Oh, and we need to find a new fencing coach.

5.4 Recommendation:  Academic Support for Athletes.  Action: Already fully implemented in June 2012 (in other words, no action taken because none was needed).

Comment:  Recommendation was unnecessary as evidenced by PSU's already outstanding academic record for its athletes.


5.5 Recommendation:  Athletic Compliance:  Hire additional compliance staff.  Action:  Two positions added and an upgrade of an existing positon.

Comment:  Not needed.

5.5.1 Recommendation: Benchmark Athletics Compliance:  Benchmark peer institutions.  Action: PSU completed benchmarking with Big Ten schools and is considering hiring an additional compliance staff member.

Comment:  PSU's only peer in the Big Ten is Northwestern.  Most other conference schools have had NCAA violations, including Michigan (NCAA Final Four banners removed from Crisler Arena) and  Ohio State (on probation, 2010 wins vacated). Prior to 2011, eight Big Ten schools had been hit with major violations since 2000.  This recommendation was/is ludicrous.

5.5.2 Recommendation:  Compliance Reporting Relationship.  Establish and effective reporting relationship with the University Compliance Officer.   Action:  Associate AD for Compliance and Athletic Integrity Officer will report to the Director of University Ethics and Compliance.

Comment:  Sounds good in theory, however, a legitimate conflict of interest policy is the key to an effective Ethics program.  PSU doesn't have the former, thus it cannot accomplish the latter.

5.5.3 Recommendation:  Intercollegiate Athletics Compliance Registration.  Realign to ensure the AD staff members is overseen by the Athletics Compliance Officer.  Action:  Some new duties assigned to compliance staff.

Comment:  Nothing to see here.

5.5.4 Recommendation:  Compliance Education.  Ensure personnel have knowledge of NCAA, Big Ten, and University rules.  Action:  Compliance staff conducted training and will emphasize following rules in employee performance evaluations.

Comment:  Quite a novel recommendation.  Employees should follow rules.  Remember, PSU paid $8M dollars for this nonsense.


5.6: Recommendation: Compliance Training. 

E

nsure that Athletic Department employees
comply with University-wide training mandates.

Comment:  The Freeh Report did not cite any specific instances in which athletic department employees alone were not complying with training mandates.  Freeh's report cited University wide lack of compliance.


5.6.1: Recommendation: Track Compliance: Training 

Provide and track initial and on-going training for 

athletic staff in matters of leadership, ethics, the 

Penn State Principles and standards of conduct, 

abuse awareness, and reporting misconduct 

pursuant to the Clery Act and University policy.

Comment:  Same as above. This recommendation/correction applies to PSU as a whole, based on the evidence presented in the Freeh Report.


5.6.2: Recommendation: Management Training 

Opportunities 

Include Athletic Department employees in 

management training programs provided to other 

University managers.

Comment:  There was no evidence in the Freeh Report that indicated Athletic Department employees weren't already participating in management training offered by the University.

Conclusion

It's evident that most of the recommendations regarding improvements to PSU's Academic Integrity were not needed and the only one that most people agree was needed is a national search for a new Athletic Director, which of course, PSU is not considering.  Also, rumor has it that PSU is looking to extend Director of Athletic "Affairs," Dave Joyner's tenure by seven years.  The bottom line is that PSU did next to nothing to "fix" the non-existent integrity issues in the athletic department and the BOT and Emmert are patting themselves on the back for this nonsense.

Recommendations

This half measure by the NCAA (and the BOT) is, as BOT member Anthony Lubrano put it, a "baby step" in righting the wrongs that were an outgrowth of the BOT's mishandling of the Sandusky Scandal.

PSU alumni, students, fans, and supporters should not be satisfied until the NCAA:
1)  Rescinds all of the sanctions (scholarships and wins fully restored).
2)  Refunds the money PSU paid in fines.
3)  Refunds the money wasted by PSU to hire and pay George Mitchell/DLA Piper.

In addition the remaining 11/9/11 PSU BOT members, including Erickson, must:
1)  Issue apologies to the Paterno family, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz.
2)  Resign

The Pennsylvania Legislature must:
1)  Reorganize the BOT and install interim trustees and a new President.
2)  Continue to press reforms in Pennsylvania's Child Protection system.

We are not moving forward until the full truth is known, the NCAA sanctions are removed, PSU is properly governed, and Pennsylvania's children get the protection they deserve.

Frank Bodani YDR: One man's quest for answers in the Sandusky/Penn State saga

Ray Blehar earned a mid-life master's degree from Penn State. That gave him a reason to pay closer attention to the fallout of the Jerry Sandusky saga. He also has 28 years of experience as a government analyst. He's written business reviews, evaluated reports and became used to "telling (people) stuff they don't want to hear" as an inspector general. All of that helped drive him on a quest the past two years. Blehar has devoted much of his free time to researching and analyzing documents and reports related to Sandusky and Penn State, including the grand jury presentment, the trial transcript, media reports and government press releases. It's been a learning process on child-abuse laws, the state's child-protective agencies and how the system is supposed to work Read more.

A Closer Look At Freeh's Engagement Letter

 PSU Got What They Wanted, But Not What They Paid For

-By Eileen Morgan

An engagement letter defines the legal relationship (or engagement) between a professional firm, a law firm in this case, and its client.  The PSU/Freeh Engagement Letter¹ details the hiring of Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan, LLP (FSS) to perform legal services and act as legal counsel for the Penn State Board of Trustees’ Task Force (Task Force).

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The contract reveals that Freeh had been engaged to ‘represent the Task Force.’  The engagement letter clearly specifies throughout the document that ‘legal services’ were to be rendered by Freeh (FSS), including: page 1, ‘Re: Engagement to Perform Legal Services’; part 1. Scope of Engagement, Freeh’s law firm will ‘serve as independent, external legal counsel to the Task Force to perform an independent, full and complete investigation’ and will provide a report that ‘will contain FSS’s findings concerning: i) failures that occurred in the reporting process; ii) the cause for the failures; iii) who had knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and iv) how those allegations were handled.  FSS’s report also will provide recommendations to the Task Force to ensure that those failures do not occur again.’ ; page 5, part 5., ‘For purposes of providing legal services….’; page 5, part 7., ‘FSS will provide the above-described legal services for the Task Force’s benefits’; page 7, part 10., ‘FSS may terminate its legal services’; and at the bottom of page 7, ‘FSS is delighted to be asked to provide legal services to the Task Force’ and the Task Force was invited to call Freeh to ‘discuss any matter relating to (their) legal representation.’  

Why did the Board of Trustees’ Task Force need additional legal counsel and representation?   The Board of Trustees had already brought in the firm of Reed Smith to handle the Board’s legal affairs in relation to the Sandusky matter and its aftermath.  Why would PSU spend millions of additional dollars on a second law firm in November 2011 to investigate possible criminal matters (i-iv above) when the state of Pennsylvania had already charged Tim Curley and Gary Schultz with criminal wrongdoing and the investigation was underway and in the hands of the judicial system?  After all, Freeh had NO subpoena power, and Task Force’s Ken Frazier, who oversaw Freeh’s work, acknowledged that Freeh knew he would be unable to interview ANY of the key witnesses and had no legal authority in the pending criminal matters.

In other words, the Pennsylvania courts will lawfully establish the very findings (i-iv above), if any, that the Penn State Board of Trustees paid Freeh to determine, the difference being that the Freeh Report could ultimately cost the University $10 million and is NOT a legally binding document based on indisputable evidence.  The Freeh Report, regarding the PSU officials’

involvement, has been substantially refuted and would be thrown out of a court of law based on the very fact that Freeh’s findings and conclusions are unproven opinions that relied upon flimsy evidence. 

In essence, Freeh could not officially and did not actually render legal counsel or a legally binding report regarding the alleged failures at Penn State, and thus, failed to fully deliver the services paid for as itemized in the engagement letter.  If Freeh had truly been serving in the capacity outlined in the letter of engagement, the University would never have allowed him to pontificate as he did in a nationally-televised and sensational press conference without the benefit of the Board having even read his report.

A PLAN FOR VINDICATION

So why did Penn State agree to pay for a multi-million dollar report instead of waiting for the courts to LEGALLY determine if there was knowledge of sexual abuse and if there were failures of reporting that abuse, in accordance with the law?  Since Freeh’s report would have no legal standing and the courts would have the final say, it appears the Board essentially hired Freeh to produce an unofficial report that would vindicate their highly controversial terminations of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier on November 9, 2011. 

First, Freeh was clearly representing the Board of Trustees, as indicated twice on page 1.  On page 2, Freeh’s team was ‘under the sole direction of the (Board’s) Task Force,’ meaning the Task Force ‘supervised, guided, and/or managed’ the actions of the investigation and possibly ‘gave explicit instruction(s)’ to Freeh.  On page 5, part 7., Freeh provided his legal services for the ‘Task Force’s benefit.’  In addition, the two parties would ‘consult one another’ during the investigation, as necessary, as indicated on page 6, line 1.   And finally, Freeh’s team was ‘looking forward to working with the Task Force.’  Based on this description of a mutual working relationship and Freeh’s legal representation of the Task Force, it begs the question: How could Freeh possibly ‘perform an independent investigation’ as promised?  Independent means ‘not influenced or controlled by others; not subject to another’s authority or jurisdiction.’  Freeh obviously did not perform an independent investigation, but rather, was under the authority of the Task Force who could control the content of the report.  Therefore, Freeh failed again to deliver the services paid for as itemized in the engagement letter.  

CALCULATED RESULTS

The results from the investigation were to be provided in a written report per the Scope of Engagement.  Remarkably, this report seemed to have predetermined results before the investigation even began.  Notice that Freeh is certain of what the report will contain.  FFS discloses that ‘the report will contain FSS’s findings concerning: i) failures that occurred in the reporting process; ii) the cause for the failures; iii) who had knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and iv) how those allegations were handled.  FSS’s report also will provide recommendations to the Task Force and Trustees for actions to be taken to attempt to ensure that those and similar failures do not occur again.’  Freeh was careful to address the ‘sexual abuse’ as alleged since those charges were pending at the time, even though all of the other aspects of his planned “investigation” were more definitive, making no use of the word “alleged.”   And on page 2, Freeh states that ‘any discovered evidence of criminality’ and ‘if any victims of sexual crimes’ are identified, they ‘will be reported to appropriate authorities.’  Here, Freeh discusses his course of action ‘if’ he finds certain data.  However, as previously mentioned regarding the Scope of Engagement, he did not say his report ‘will contain any findings determined’ or ‘if findings are determined.’  Clearly, Freeh differentiates between what he might find and what he will find. 

On the date of this contract, November 18, 2011, Freeh seemingly guarantees to the Task Force that his future report will contain findings concerning the failures of the Penn State Officials in reporting sexual abuse, the cause for those failures, who had knowledge and how did they handle that knowledge.  He also guarantees his report will provide recommendations to ensure those failures do not occur again.  This is amazing foresight by Freeh since he did not actually know at the time if there even was a confirmed report of sexual abuse, let alone if there were indeed failures in reporting it. 

Although Freeh states at the top of page 6 that his team ‘does not promise any result’ he claims they ‘will make every reasonable effort to provide specific results.’  It is apparent, from the Scope of Engagement, that many of the findings of the Freeh Report, which was publicly released on July 12, 2012, had been premeditated from day one.  The results the Board wanted, regarding the top PSU officials, were apparently the results they were going to get.  Since the criminality of any wrongdoing by individuals was being handled by the judicial system, there seems to be only one motivational factor to pay millions of dollars for an unsubstantiated report: To justify the Board’s reckless and impetuous decisions to terminate Paterno and Spanier.  

Trustee Kenneth Frazier’s recent statement² appears to confirm the Board’s need for a predetermined outcome: “I believe that we are entitled to look at the words and contemporaneous emails and other documents that draw the conclusions that we need to draw as a university.”  What conclusions did the Board need to draw as a university?  The courtroom will determine the factual findings once and for all.  All the Board needed to do was to be responsible stewards of the University, exercise patience, and allow the legal system to establish the ruling regarding the Penn State officials. 

But Frazier actually answers that question by further saying, “We can take employment actions, we can take corrective actions without any need to resort to the so-called due process, reasonable doubt standard, and I don’t care if they are acquitted.”  Clearly, Frazier and the rest of the Board needed to draw certain conclusions to justify the Board’s ‘employment actions’ taken against Paterno and Spanier.

INSURANCE

What’s even more fascinating is that the Penn State Board of Trustees indemnified Freeh and his team for ALL costs, expenses, and judgments, including any amounts paid in settlement of ANY claims.  It was actually a brilliant plan.  The Trustees ostensibly paid Freeh millions to publish a report with (unsubstantiated) findings that legitimized their rash decisions of November 9, 2011, and by indemnifying him, provided Freeh with unbridled freedom to publicly spew fallacious and slanderous statements about Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz.  Essentially, Freeh had carte blanche to produce findings and conclusions, regardless of truth, that would substantiate the Board’s previous actions without the liability of being sued.  By protecting Freeh from the fallout of lawsuits, the Task Force could contrive the results they desired while relieving Freeh of any accountability.  Should there be any legal action taken against Freeh and his firm, should there be any judgments against Freeh, and should Freeh have to spend any time defending himself to the University or the public, the tab for all of his bills will generously be picked up by Penn State. 

FREEH’S FAILURES ARE THE BOARD’S VICTORIES

Freeh’s failure to perform an independent investigation allowed the Task Force, overseen by Frazier and Corbett’s Secretary of Education Ron Tomalis, to supervise the probe.  And, Freeh’s failure to deliver a report that was legally binding allowed the Task Force to acquire what seemed to be its ultimate goal: exoneration for the Board.  This truly was a match made in heaven.

¹http://www.scribd.com/doc/129799160/Freeh-Engagement-Letter
²Ken Frazier’s statement at the Penn State Board of Trustees Legal & Compliance Committee Meeting, Hershey, PA-March 14, 2013

Kenneth Frazier: Anti-Child and Anti-PSU

Kenneth Frazier believes that his slick talk about the Freeh Report can fool us.  It can't.  Kenneth Frazier is a phony. He doesn't care about children and he doesn't represent PSU's interests.

By

Ray Blehar

Kenneth Frazier’s remarks in the Philadelphia Inquirer and elsewhere, did a disservice to Pennsylvania’s children, continued to inflict harm on Penn State University, and lacked common sense in terms of understanding the evidence in the Sandusky case.  Frazier commited errors of bias in his use and interpretation of the evidence in this case, and, like Linda Kelly and Louis Freeh, refused to acknowledge (i.e., throws away) any evidence that doesn’t fit his anti-PSU agenda.

That's right.  Anti-PSU.  Any person who would defend the Freeh Report, which resulted in PSU being labeled Pedophile State University, certainly can't be labeled anything but Anti-PSU.  At least that's how I see it.

I find it astonishing that one of our Board members, who is a well accomplished attorney and who gained notoriety for fighting the Vioxx lawsuits on a case-by-case basis (rather than in a class action), would refuse to defend PSU officials who were erroneously charged with failure to report child abuse. 

Frazier contends – as do Freeh and Kelly - that the decision made not to report the 2001 incident to DPW provides a reasonable basis to conclude a report was not made to authorities.  Yet, two former PSU employees (Courtney and Schultz) both stated that they believed the University contacted Centre County CYS about the incident -- fulfilling their legal mandate to report. 

Why wouldn’t Frazier, as an attorney, and as someone representing PSU, come to the defense of Schultz and Curley in light of these statements?  Why wouldn't Frazier, as I have done, challenge the AG to prove a report was not made to CYS?  Proving a negative is nearly impossible. And Frazier knows it.

Why wouldn’t Frazier review the law and take the position that Curley’s report to The Second Mile should have fulfilled the legal requirement of causing a report to be made to authorities and put the onus of the failure on The Second Mile?

The simple answer is that Kenneth Frazier does not care about the reputation of PSU.  What Ken Frazier cares about is PSU's bank account and the bank accounts of he and his cohorts on the BOT.

PSU Finances

It has become rather obvious that Frazier and the November 2011 BOT cut a budget deal with Tom Corbett (with a few other "sweeteners" thrown in).  The deal makes a lot of sense from a financial perspective, because the $60M in fines and other costs of the scandal pale in comparison to what Corbett could do to PSU in a single year with his budget axe.  How was it that in Spanier’s last year, Corbett proposed $160M in budget cuts, but after Spanier’s departure, PSU got (and will continue to get) a level budget?   

However, there is yet another financial reason that is likely behind the BOT’s push to “move forward” and not fight the sanctions.  PSU is loaning the Athletic Department the money to pay the fines.  The first loan was for $12M at 4% to be paid back to the University over 30 years.  As a result, the University stands to make $8.8M on its loan if the loan goes full term.  If similar arrangements are made for the other loans to the Athletic Department, PSU stands to gain $44M over the next 35 years.  The Athletic Deparment pays the loans from its revenues, the University doesn't pay a dime.  But who ends up paying?  The student athletes who don't get scholarships to PSU, the same athletes who will have to make due with less than the best facilities (as maintenance and other support are cut), and the athletic boosters who support PSU athletics will likely face increasing costs for tickets, parking, and concessions. 

What does the BOT have to pay for their negligence in the scandal?  Nothing. 

They're indemnified --  unless it can be proven they committed crimes. 

Just thought I'd throw that in.     

For those of you who are hand-wringing over the potential payments to Sandusky’s victims,  you need not be concerned.   These are settlements to avoid the potential heavy costs of litigation. In comparison to the other money involved in the scandal, the settlement money to the victims is "chump change."

BOT Not Protecting Children

In the article, Frazier sets up a false choice between the BOT’s alleged purpose of preventing harm to children and the BOT’s critics as people whose only concern is vindicating Paterno. 

It’s a convenient set of labels, but neither is true.

Frazier and the BOT have steered clear of making any mention of the failures of The Second Mile, DPW, and CYS in protecting children.    All of these entities had far more qualified people to identify Sandusky as a child molester back in 1998 and 2001, yet failed to do so.  Yet, Kenneth Frazier wants us all to believe that it was Curley, Schultz, Paterno, and Spanier that “at the moment of truth..did not put the welfare of children first.” 

Frazier hides behind the excuse that Freeh was chartered to do an internal investigation and not look at DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.   That's a convenient out for Kenneth Frazier and the BOT, but it's not convenient for the 25,000 children who will be harmed and the 40 children that will lose their lives this year in child abuse incidents. 

Frazier needs only to find a mirror if he wants to see who is failing Pennsylvania’s children. 

His silence – as well as the rest of the BOT members who refuse to acknowledge failures outside of PSU – continues to put children at risk.  Anyone who has fallen for the story that PSU is the world’s leader in child abuse prevention (as some are claiming) needs to understand that funding a child abuse research center at Hershey Medical Center and throwing money at child protection charities doesn’t put the resources where they are needed most – on the front-lines at CYS and DPW to recruit, train, and retain qualified and caring child protection caseworkers.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last reviewed DPW in 2008 and published its findings in March 2009.  The report revealed substandard performance in all sixteen of the items related to child safety.  Pennsylvania's record for child protection is abysmal and it was the last state in the U.S. to meet the standards for funding under the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act.  It didn't obtain CAPTA compliance until 2006.

It is clear that Frazier and PSU BOT have done about as very little research on child abuse and child abuse prevention and are completely unaware of the basics. 

As I pointed out in Tuesday’s blog, the Policy AD73, created in response to the Sandusky scandal, actually puts minor children in one-on-one situations with adults, which goes against well established two person rules in programs for youth. 

Policy AD39, regarding minors involved in university program, is also a lawsuit waiting to happen because it contains no provisions protecting the identities of child abuse victims nor the alleged perpetrator.  It also contains no provisions regarding the destruction of records pertaining  to child abuse reports.

The PSU BOT and the PSU General Counsel are “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight” when it comes to child protection.

World leader?  Hardly.

Freeh's Critics Are the Real Protection Advocates

Conversely, this blogger and many of the blog’s followers are staunch advocates for child protection and reforming Pennsylvania’s abysmal system.  We actually know the facts about the system, whereas Frazier and most of the BOT only know what Louis Freeh put in the text of his report.

It is abundantly clear that Frazier did not read the extremely well-written report by Jim Clemente that undoubtedly is invaluable in helping parents and anyone else identify offenders like Sandusky.  Frazier lumped the Clemente report in with those of Thornburg and Berlin and called it self-serving.  Conversely, responsible and caring BOT members, like Ryan McCombie, have praised Clemente's report for the lessons it provided.

Additonally, it is clear Kenneth Frazier has not visited this blog or the new web-site at SanduskyReports.com  and viewed all of the information about child welfare and child protection.  And it is highly unlikely that Frazier read my  first report which primarily focused on child protection and reforming the child protection system. 

Finally, my quest to improve child protection in Pennsylvania continues.  I will be writing a series of blog posts regarding the service levels provided by Centre County CYS so that the public will be better informed about how the system operates.  I can honestly say that most will find the system appalling on several levels.

Biased Use of Evidence

Frazier’s interpretation of the evidence in this case is exactly the same as Louis Freeh’s and Linda Kelly’s – and it’s wrong.  Of course, as accomplished attorneys all, they are doing as they are trained to do – focus on the evidence that supports their case and diminish the evidence that fails to support it. 

Under scrutiny, Frazier’s arguments based on the evidence he chose, falls apart.

Frazier: "The most important service that Judge Freeh did was to produce that documentary  record for us. We didn't have that," Frazier said. "But for his competence, I don't believe we would have it."

Rebuttal: Court documents show that Gary Schultz provided notification to PSU about the existence of his files on Sandusky on or about January 5, 2011.   Perhaps if Frazier amended the statement above to say, “But had it not been for Cynthia Baldwin’s incompetence, I believe we would have had it a over a year sooner” the statement would have some merit.  The biggest question I have is did Cynthia Baldwin tell Kenneth Frazier about this file prior to it being "discovered" by Louis Freeh?

Frazier:  In response to the e-mail evidence that indicated Paterno knew few details about

Sandusky, Frazier said he found that "at odds with the plain language of those documents."

Rebuttal: There are only 13 e-mails that reference the 1998 and 2001 incidents.  No one knows how many e-mails Freeh excluded that contained exculpatory information.  That is very likely one of the reasons why Frazier is so adamant that the Freeh investigation is not re-investigated.  Not only would evidence be found to exonerate PSU officials, but I firmly believe a re-investigation would result in criminal charges against the BOT and Freeh.  And it would likely reveal the NCAA broke its own rules by using information obtained via a criminal investigation. 

But I digress. 

As for Frazier's contention of the "plain language" of the documents proving Paterno knew the details, the best rebuttal is by the use of a fictional example of an e-mail that Mr. Frazier should equally characterize as having "plain language" that shows he knew many details of a (fictional) fraud committed at Merck.

Here's the email:

From:  Joe Smith, Merck Corporate Security

Sent:   Wenesday, May 6, 2007

To:       John Adams, Merck VP Finance

Subject:  Re: Kenneth Frazier

Will do. Since we talked tonight I’ve learned that the FBI people will interview the individual on Thursday.

At 5:24PM 5/5/2007, John Adams wrote:

I have touched base with the Attorney.  Keep us posted.  Thanks.

According to Frazier - and people like Sally Jenkins - the attorney referenced in this e-mail cannot be anyone other than Kenneth Frazier.  His name is on the subject line and he is an attorney, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Attorney has to be Frazier. Additionally, since Smith made the notation that the FBI was interviewing someone, it obviously had to do with the fraud case that was going on in 2007.  And because Adams is a protege (errand boy) of Frazier, Adams undoubtedly told Frazier the complete details of the fraud case.  So, the evidence in the e-mail above, according to Kenneth Frazier, would cause one to reasonably conclude that he knew the all of the details of the 2007 Merck fraud investigation.

Really?

I cannot imagine Frazier being confronted with this piece of evidence and Frazier rolling over and saying it is evidence that he had complete knowledge of the 2007 investigation.   If someone accused Frazier, based on this evidence, he would laugh them out of the room.  So would any other person with half a brain (rule out Sally Jenkins -- she considers these e-mails to be not just smoking guns, but guns with flames shooting out the barrels).

The only other e-mail referencing Paterno was Exhibit 5G, which indicates Curley had a discussion with Paterno before coming to a decision on the Sandusky matter. There is nothing in the e-mail about the content or the length of the discussion with Curley that would provide evidence  for Frazier to make a conclusion that Paterno knew details based on the “plain language" of that document.  There is no evidentiary basis for Frazier's statement.

Frazier stated that Exhibit 5A, the McQuaide-Blasko timesheet of Wendell Courtney indicates that Schultz considered the incident to be a case of child sexual abuse.

Rebuttal:  This is an attribution error.  The author of the document is Wendell Courtney, not Gary Schultz.  Schultz reported the 9 February incident, as told to him by Paterno, to Courtney.  No one knows, without talking to Schultz, what he believed he was reporting to Courtney.  Courtney performed legal research that dealt with child abuse.  It is Courtney's interpretation of the incident, not Schultz's.

-Frazier stated never in writing did anybody say “horsing around” or “can’t tell how bad this is.”

Rebuttal:  Spanier’s statement at Exhibit 2J states:  “I recall asking two questions: “Are you sure that is how it was described to you, as horsing around?  Both replied, “yes.”

Clearly, Frazier was omitting evidence that does not fit his narrative.  If Frazier were to argue that he was exclusively addressing what was said in the e-mail discussions, then he is correct that the term "horsing around" was not used in e-mail.  However, using the same argument, the words child sex abuse, sexual, or even showering were not mentioned in formal e-mails in 1998 and 2001.  In both cases, there is nothing specifically mentioned in e-mail about the nature of the incidents.  His argument would be ripped to shreds in court by anyone who has watched an episode of Law and Order.

Frazier noted that  Schultz’s handwritten note (Exhibit 2H)  that Schultz and others knew Sandusky had gone over the line because of the notation “had to be genital contact because of the size difference.”

Rebuttal:  There are at least three errors in Frazier’s logic. The first is his conclusion that the description of the act was over the line.  The 1998 investigation resulted in no finding of abuse and that Sandusky’s genitals didn’t contact the child.  Frazier’s conclusion is not only at odds with the results of the official investigation but the trial verdicts regarding Victim 6 -- which found Sandusky not guilty of indecent assault.

The second error is that Frazier considered this a statement of fact.  It wasn’t.  It was an assumption made by the mother.

The third error is another attribution error.  The source of that information was the mother of Victim 6 and the statement is not a conclusion, but an assumption.  The full statement is: “Mother asked how did he give hug – had to be genital contact because of the size difference.”  However, the full context of the note shows that the flow of information is attributed to the Mother, not Schultz.  See below:

The italicized “but when asked of boy” indicates that the first statement, which Frazier referred to, was provided by the mother.  Also, note that the mother asked Brendan, then neighbor, questions.  The questioning of Brendan took place between 9PM on May 3 and 1100AM on May 4. Schreffler called CYS spoke with caseworker John Miller about the incident.  Miller phoned back later to state he would accompany Schreffler on the interview of the second child (Brendan).

Frazier Is Covering for the state, Corbett, and the BOT

Kenneth Frazier’s concern for children is insincere and his behavior in this case has been despicable.  It is clear that Frazier has gone over Schultz's notes, and like Freeh and Linda Kelly, refuses to acknowledge the most important notation on those four pages:

Mother concerned something more

– kid took another shower last night & this a.m.

Repeated washing or feeling dirty is one of the strongest signs of possible child sexual abuse.

Yet, this remark doesn’t appear in the text of the Freeh Report.

Nor is it ever mentioned in the text of the November 2011 and 2012 grand jury presentments.

 According to the 1998 police report, Detective Schreffler explained the information he had obtained from the mother and Victim 6 to CYS’s Miller.   Miller shared his files with DPW official, Jerry Lauro.  The police and the caseworkers were aware of not only this potential sign of child abuse, but of many others, based on Schultz’s notes. 

They knew it - and they blew it.

Clearly, Governor Corbett did not want the responsibility for Sandusky’s 14 years of abuse to roll up on his state agency – DPW.   While the state can’t be sued, arrangements such as the 9/11 victims fund, typically get set up when there is a case of the government failing to provide adequate protection resulting in massive harm to citizens.  This would have been the case for PA DPW, had it not been for the PSU BOT’s willingness to cut a deal with Corbett to take the fall for Sandusky.

Moreover, as an additional favor to Corbett, the PSU BOT has not said one harsh word about the failings of DPW or about The Second Mile (who provided funds and held fundraisers for Corbett).

Many of us have come to the realization that Frazier and the Board sold out Pennsylvania's children to preserve the PSU budget. 

And most of us know the BOT's call for "moving forward" was because they are likely hiding something far worse than a budget deal and don't want the alumni digging around.

We're digging until the truth is uncovered.