Your Signatures Needed for Letter to President Barron

PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARRON (below)

Dear President Barron,

On September 5, 2014, you issued an email and video statement calling for civility and respect among the Penn State community.  We truly appreciate your effort to reach out and open this line of communication with the Penn State family.  And, we absolutely embrace the chance for the PSU community and PSU leadership to come together and demonstrate civility toward one another. 

Hopefully you agree that civility and respect are to be mutual and reciprocal actions.  Many of the alumni have felt the Administration and Board's decisions and attitude toward us have been very disrespectful -- in other words, not civil.  But, President Barron, you can change that today.  You are in a unique position with a perfect opportunity to reinstate civility within our Penn State family.

In your video statement, it appears that you and the PSU leadership are ready to sit down and talk with us:

                “Here at a university, our primary function is to be able to sit there and talk about issues and delve into them and learn other people’s opinions and learn the information that it takes for us to formulate our thoughts. And the only way we can do that is if we can have a discourse that allows people to talk and to discuss and not have it end up in something which is really a whole set of unkind comments. You will never ever be able to reach a conclusion if we stand apart that far. 

                If you think about it, respect and that sense of community at Penn State is really one of our core values.  And so, I hope you’ll join me and the entire leadership at Penn State University and help us continue to maintain that very core value of respect for each another.”

Yes!  Dr. Barron we will join you and the entire leadership at PSU to sit down, delve into, and discuss the issues that ail our community– and one issue in particular – the Freeh Report.

Therefore, we, the undersigned Penn State alumni and friends, request that the University Administration and its Board of Trustees hold Louis Freeh to his pledge of coming to Penn State to discuss his report.  On July 12, 2012, Freeh stated:  

We will make ourselves available to the Task Force and Board to answer any questions they may have, but we will not have an ongoing role with the University. We will also make ourselves available to the students, faculty and staff of the University at the appropriate time at State College. 

We also ask that the alumni, who are indeed part of the Penn State Community, be invited to join in the discussion.  

We believe the appropriate time to have a civil and frank discussion about the Freeh Report is long overdue.

Will you, President Barron, maintain that core value of respect and grant our request?

For the Glory,

Penn State Friends of march4truth.com

YOUR SIGNATURES GO HERE!  PLEASE VISIT http://www.march4truth.com/events.html to make your voice heard!

Barron Lied About "Civility" E-mail and PSU Hasn't Learned Anything Since 11/9/11

President Barron's statement that there was nothing behind his "civility" message was proven a lie on Monday.  It appears PSU hasn't learned anything about communicating since 11/9/11.

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State's response in the aftermath of the Sandusky scandal earned them the dubious distinction of being labeled at the worst public relations disasters of 2011 and 2012.   In those analyses, PSU was not only criticized for mangling the PR related to the scandal but for operating in secrecy.

Based on the message and video released by President Barron and then his follow up message, it appears that PSU still has not learned its lessons about either subject.  

Lesson 1 appears to be that any communication and decision from Old Main will be put under a microscope and weighed for its meaning, possible hidden meaning, and/or motivation. And if something negative can be gleaned from the message, it will be.

Lesson 2 appears to be the old adage, "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." 

Lesson 3 goes back to the original blunder made in the Sandusky scandal of being not being open and not controlling the narrative.

Lesson 4 is that Penn State alumni are not stupid and won't be taken in by the Administration's lies.

Barron's messages are just more examples of the PSU Administration not learning any of the lessons from the Sandusky scandal fallout. 

Lessons 1 (scrutiny):   Barron's first e-mail was subject to many interpretations. First, it was addressed "Dear Friends," it spoke in generalities, and, quite frankly, left many people scratching their heads over what it was he was trying to say.  

PSU spokesperson Lisa Powers stated there was no specific incident that triggered the message but there is a growing amount of incivility in communications nationwide and the begging of the semester seemed like the right time to address the issue.  However, part of Powers prepared statement said:

"Within our own University, we have seen disagreements that have been uncivil, and comments that are downright rude on some of the issues we have faced."

As a result, numerous media outlets took this not as a discussion of a "national issue" but focused on the disagreements within the University.  And of course, it was tied to the Sandusky scandal and the media immediately jumped on the alumni as the one's guilty of being uncivil.   Ironically, some of those criticizing the alumni, like Joel Mathis and Tom Ley  also were uncivil by calling us "crazy truthers."

Lesson hopefully learned?  Speak when you have something really important say and make sure the message is clear, otherwise it will be picked apart.  

Ironically, a January 2013 article in the Chicago Tribune cited PSU's PR firm Edelman's founder, Dan Edelman, when reporting on how trivial stories get elevated into something everyone is supposed to care about.

Barron: Disingenuous about intent of
the now infamous civility e-mail

However, given what transpired on Monday, President Barron (and Powers) were both disingenuous regarding the true intent of the letter. I suspect that the Board and the Administration knew that some, but not all, the sanctions would be reduced.  They also likely knew that Paterno's wins wouldn't be restored and apparently feared a backlash -- thus the admonitions about "incivility."

President Barron, I think your honeymoon may have just ended.




Lesson 2 (history):  Perhaps when President Barron was hired in February 2014, he, like most others outside PSU, didn't follow the scandal that closely and relied on initial reports to form the basis for his beliefs.  However, after his arrival PSU was criticized  for its siding with the NCAA in having the pre-trial documents sealed from the public in the Paterno, Et Al, vs. Paterno lawsuit.  In their argument to keep the documents sealed, the University stated that the Paterno family would try to use the documents "to influence public opinion."  

In his letter, Barron stated:

"We are likely never to have the full story. We are equally likely never to reach consensus."

Those two statements tell the world two things.  PSU will continue to resist "openness and transparency" about the scandal and that PSU is entrenched in its position.  It is clear that the Board, Administration, and PSU legal counsel, Steven Dunham have decided that whatever happened leading up to the Freeh Report and NCAA Consent Decree needs to be protected from public scrutiny. 

Alas, Barron, the Board, and the Administration are truly living in the past in sticking with their position to back the NCAA.  In July 2012 and for some time after that, they were in synch with the media in blaming the football program and athletics for the Sandusky debacle.  That has now changed to a chorus of NCAA detractors who now admit the ruling body of collegiate athletics overstepped its authority in punishing Penn State and in how it operates in general.

NCAA at breaking point?

Monday's roll back of the sanctions brought more heat down on the NCAA for overstepping its authority.  But it was just one more round in a long line of beatings that the NCAA has taken of late.   

The NCAA was criticized for its handling of the Miami (FL) and its North Carolina investigations.  In addition, it lost the O'Bannon case and in so doing lost its long-held, but false, admonition that it was focused on promoting the ideal of the student-athlete  precluded paying them.  Of course, the student-athlete argument fell apart in its punishment of PSU, who was, and still is, one of the role models for combining athletic and academic success.  

The bottom line is that Barron, et al, by continuing to on the path of siding with the NCAA, is doomed for failure.  

The writing is on the wall after Monday.

Lesson 3 (openness/narrative):  After getting the distinction of the worst PR disaster in 2011, in the spring of 2012, PSU hired David "No Comment" LaTorre to assist the PR team.  If there has been one thing singled out as the biggest failure among the PR staff it was the failure to take control of the narrative from the outset of the scandal.  In 2011, it was the PR shut down by John Surma at the outset of the scandal, then the Board's decisions to fire Paterno and Spanier that caused the PR disaster.

However, when other news breaks, those become opportunities to take control -- and that is something that LaTorre rarely if ever has done.  

As a result, 2012's PR was just as bad as 2011.  For example, when bits and pieces of emails were leaked in the press, PSU was not open or frank in discussing the emails and rightfully condemning the leaks.  PR spokesman David LaTorre didn't comment and instead stated the University would wait for the Freeh Report.  From PennLive:

La Torre only said that the administration and board are reserving comment until the report from an internal investigation — led by former FBI Director Louis Freeh — is released this summer.

Freeh Press Conference: An epic media
debacle brought to you by the PSU BOT

Of course, the Freeh Press conference ranked right up there with the grand jury presentment, in terms of generating negative publicity.  While the Board agreed to Freeh releasing his report without review, there was no requirement for Freeh to do so in front of a world-wide media audience.  Similarly, the Board's statements after release of the Freeh Report - before they had fully reviewed it -- obviously contributed to the disaster.  Had the board rebutted the report, as many, myself included, urged them to do, things may have turned out very differently.  Instead, no control of the narrative resulted in Business Insider citing the (unchallenged) Freeh Report in as the reason why PSU took the #1 position in 2012.  

The bad decisions, seemingly without thought of the message, continued into 2013 and 2014. Among the worst of the decisions was to consolidate the Sandusky crimes that were accumulated for a decade and a half and report them under a single year in its 2012 Clery Act Report.  This propelled PSU into the #1 spot for the number of sexual battery incidents on college campuses.   Again, PSU spokesperson Lisa Powers commented that the University didn't mind the extra scrutiny if others could learn from our example.   Quite frankly, there are a lot of other things Penn State does very well, such as academic support for athletes, that would have been a far better choice to promote than the University's inept decisions in filling out a Clery Act report.

Which brings us back to the Barron communications and that there could have been little thought given to what narrative would be written as a result of them.  And, as a result, the narrative that emanated was that PSU has a "civility" problem.

Lesson 4 (underestimating the audience).  It is hard to fathom why the Board and the Administration believe that they can make ridiculous statements to the alumni and PSU community in general and think that the well-educated group of people are simply going to believe whatever they say.   For goodness sakes, most of us were educated at PSU.  

Peetz and Frazier: Emails obtained via RTK reveal
disdain for alumni and Paterno's accomplishments

Does the Administration and Board really have that much disrespect for the academic prowess of the University?   I don't think so.

The communications emanating from Old Main are controlled by a small group of people, who had great disdain for the football program and athletics in general. Those people happily drove the "culture" message and continue to push the idea that those who want to fight  for the reputation of the University -- and the full truth being exposed -- are somehow living in the past.

On Monday, University's self-congratulatory statement on sanctions reductions was a bitter pill for many alumni to swallow, as it reinforced the narrative that there were improvements needed to improve the "integrity" of athletics at PSU.  

"The NCAA Executive Committee has modified the Penn State football bowl and scholarship limitations previously imposed by the consent decree between the University and the NCAA. The action comes following today's release of another positive annual report and recommendations by Sen. George Mitchell, the independent, third-party athletics integrity monitor for Penn State."

As I noted in yesterday's blog, Mitchell reported that the recommendations for the AIA were completed in November 2013.  And in a previous blog, I demonstrated that most of the so-called improvements were not needed based on PSU's outstanding track record for compliance and academic success.  The alumni and PSU community know the athletic integrity issue was and is a farce.

Similarly, BOT chair Keith Masser's self-congratulatory statement also was rooted in the false narrative that the University was in dire need of reform.

"This report is a welcome acknowledgement of the University's efforts," said Board of Trustees Chair Keith Masser. "Such a massive undertaking has made Penn State a national model in an array of university functions - including compliance, safety and security. I commend President Barron and his predecessor, Rodney Erickson, for their tremendous leadership throughout this process. The Board of Trustees is committed to the continued monitoring and improvement of university policies, procedures and actions."

The fact of the matter was and is that it was (and still is) the Board of Trustees that was in need of reform and that the majority of the "improvements" made in the past two years were akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.   

Additionally, the report by Mitchell that all recommendations were completed is false.  To wit:

Freeh Report Recommendation 3.3 Board of Trustee Restructuring was reported complete as of June 2012.  Mitchell reports about this ongoing effort on pages 52, 54, and 55 of his latest report.

Freeh Report Recommendation 1.6 is Openess and Transparency and was reported as "ongoing and continuous."  If Mitchell was doing his job as an honest monitor, he would have  stated that this is one of the greatest areas for improvement and is far, far from complete.

These are just two examples, however, they are emblematic of the Administration's and Board's failure to understand that its alumni are intelligent and resourceful individuals who will hold them to account when they are being untruthful about the issues related to the Sandusky scandal and its aftermath.

Conclusion
The history of the bad decisions resulting from the Sandusky scandal and the bad publicity from those decisions, lead many people to believe that there is something far worse being hidden by the University.   

Barron's own words also appear to indicate that the truth will never be known.  However, the fact of the matter is beyond the control of the University.  It is in the of the courts and the criminal justice system. 

When the truth is revealed, it is very likely that PSU will be ensnared in another scandal -- if it continues on its current PR path.

Analysis: AIA completed in 2012, Mitchell given add'l job to "look busy"

Many Penn Staters believed the NCAA's "corrective" action requiring PSU to enter into Athletic Integrity Agreement with the NCAA and Big Ten was a farce -- and were proven correct by George Mitchell.

By
Ray Blehar

Yesterday, George Mitchell's statements about "fostering an ethical culture" and "improvements it has instituted" as justification for lifting some of the NCAA sanctions are more of the continuing charade about PSU's out of control football program and culture.   As many Penn State alumni, friends, and fans know, there was never a culture or integrity issue with Penn State Athletics.  And Mitchell's reports have proven it.

PSU alumni, friends, and fans also were/are at a loss to understand why the NCAA hasn't required the AIA for all of the major athletic programs.  Given that PSU has yet to be cited for a major infraction, would it not be prudent to hold the other schools to an even higher standard than PSU?  Eight Big Ten schools have had major violations since 2000 as have 44 other programs outside the conference. Where are the AIAs for them?

Mitchell:  Little to nothing to do to monitor AIA.

As for George Mitchell -- he has the easiest job on the planet.   I have referred to him as the Maytag Man because he had little to nothing to do over the past year to monitor the Athletic Integrity Agreement (AIA).  Mitchell's first annual report, published September 6, 2013, revealed that ALL of the AIA recommendations were "substantially completed."

From the Introduction and Summary (page 1, unnumbered), of the report:

"As of this first anniversary of my appointment as Monitor, Penn State has substantially
completed the initial implementation of all of the Freeh Report recommendations and of its
annual obligations under the AIA."

A review of the twelve AIA recommendations reveals there is perhaps a handful regarding compliance training and certifications that would be considered "annual" obligations. The remainder of the recommendations are ad hoc in nature and require a specific action to complete.  As of October 10, 2012, PSU reported that ten (10) of the recommendations were completed or substantially complete.  One of the substantially completes, the hiring of Julie Del Giorno as Athletic Integrity Officer, completed in January 2013.

However, of the two that were marked "in progress," the one regarding nationwide searches for coaches and new hired had already been going on in the Athletic Department since 2004  (as Lou Prato wrote in Blue-White Illustrated).   As I noted in this blogpost which criticized Mitchell's first report, the other recommendation regarding AD employees taking management training was not supported by evidence in the Freeh Report.

In summary, PSU was finished working on the AIA after 3 months and that left Mitchell with little to do.

Erickson: Part of the ruse.

When Mitchell's first annual report was published in September 2013, PSU and the NCAA would have had egg all over their faces if it was learned the everything demanded of the PSU to improve the "integrity" of the athletic department was accomplished.  I suspect that Mitchell's first report included the phony statement on "annual obligations" to make it appear there was more work to do. The phony statement also justified the partial reduction to the NCAA sanctions.  Erickson then added to the deception when he remarked:


“There is still more to be done, but we are very pleased that our efforts have been recognized by Sen. Mitchell in his latest report that validates the substantial reforms that have been implemented over the past 18 months." 

18 months? Perhaps for University reforms, but certainly not for Athletics, who didn't need to be reformed in the first place.  To this day it has yet to have a major NCAA infraction.

PSU "Alters" Freeh Report to Give Mitchell A Job

The PSU Administration added to the  language in the Freeh Report recommendations to give Mitchell "additional work" to do in monitoring the implementation of all the Freeh Report recommendations.   Mitchell then cited this bogus requirement in both his first and second annual reports (footnote 1).

First Annual Report
One of the recommendations in the Freeh Report was for the University to appoint an
external monitor to evaluate the implementation of the other recommendations made in that
report. See Freeh Report, ch. 10, Recommendation 8.2. The University requested that I perform
this additional role rather than retaining a separate monitor, and the NCAA consented to that
arrangement.


Second Annual Report
One of the recommendations in the Freeh Report was for the University to appoint an
external monitor to evaluate the implementation of the other recommendations made in that
report. See Freeh Report, ch. 10, recommendation 8.2. The University requested that I perform
this additional role rather than retaining a separate monitor, and the NCAA consented to that
arrangement. This second annual review in my capacity as external monitor fulfills Freeh Report
recommendation 8.4.

Here is the actual language of the Section 8 recommendations -- which do not mention an "External Monitor" and, in fact, recommend an internal monitor.

As the "plain language" of Recommendation 8.1 reveals, the monitor was to be an internal person.  The notation in 8.1.2 "See Recommendation 1" does not refer to an external monitor.  Mitchell's reference to 8.2 doesn't make any sense, unless you examine PSU's original internal matrix on Freeh Report progress.  It is there that the "requirement" for an external monitor was added to the Freeh Report recommendations.

The truth is that it was the NCAA which called for an external monitor specifically for the recommendations in the AIA.  So why didn't Mitchell's report state he was hired as a result of the NCAA Consent Decree instead of playing along with the ruse that it was a requirement of the Freeh Report?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question.

History shows that George Mitchell was named on August 1, 2012 as the AI Monitor, however, by the time Mitchell arrived on campus much of the "work" to improve the integrity of athletics was "done."  Actually, it had been done for 61 years, but I digress.

So, here was Mitchell, apparently locked into a five-year gig by the NCAA with practically nothing to do.  PSU's solution was to give him a job monitoring the Freeh Report.  As you saw above, the Administration did a little sleight of hand to make that requirement "appear" then referenced it when providing justification for hiring him to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

PSU's response to Middle States, dated 24 October 2013 further elaborated on Mitchell's new role and it wasn't exactly honest about his first three reports either.

"With the consent of the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, the University engaged Senator Mitchell’s firm, DLA Piper, LLP, to provide the external review referred to in Freeh Recommendation 8.3 of the University’s efforts to implement the recommendations. Senator Mitchell’s interim quarterly reports to the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, issued in  November 2012, March 2013 and May 2013 pursuant to, and in accordance with, the Consent Decree and the AIA, reported on the University’s progress toward implementation of the recommendations.

Senator Mitchell’s fourth quarterly report, issued in September 2013, reported more fully on the University’s efforts to implement these Recommendations and, with the consent of the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, constituted the 12-month progress review required by this Recommendation."

Athletic Monitoring Provided Little Work For Mitchell

Two of his first three reports, issued in November 2012, March 2013, and July 2013 were not specific to the AIA (as Erickson lied about above).

While a computer glitch appears to prevent viewing the November 2012 report on the DLA Piper web-site, the other two reports were available for review.

The 30-page March 2013 report consisted of 5 pages specific to the AIA, 14 pages focused on Freeh Report recommendations outside the AIA, while six pages were dedicated to issues not specific to the AIA or Freeh Report.

The May 2013 report contained approximately 1.5 pages that addressed the AIA, while pages 5-22 (17 pages) focused on the Freeh recommendations.  Another six pages were dedicated to issues not specific to the AIA or the Freeh Report.  Note that part of every AIA report is essentially a one to two page status report the Athletic Integrity Officer, Julie Del Giorno, thus the AIA portion of the May 2013 report focused only on Ms. Del Giorno's activities.

The September 2013 report (the 4th, which resulted in the initial reduction of sanctions, contained 7 pages addressing the AIA, 22 pages on Freeh Report recommendations, and 8 pages on issues not specific to the AIA or the Freeh Report.

The latest report contains 9 pages addressing AIA issues, 30 pages related to the Freeh Report recommendations, and the remaining ten pages are related to issues outside the scope of the AIA and the Freeh Report.

Conclusion - Mitchell's work should be reduced to an annual audit

Each report contains a section on the Monitor's activities.  In the latest report, Mitchell's team attended a variety of meetings, went to York Campus to monitor compliance with background checks for a youth soccer camp, monitored facilities security upgrades, and collected progress reports on implementation from PSU, noting that it has received over 47,000 pages of information.

From reading the reports, it appears that PSU officials are providing the majority of the text for the reports and Mitchell's team is simply repackaging the information (much like Freeh appeared to do with the OAG grand jury presentment and supporting data).

Also, the reports reveal that the whole AIA appears to be little more than a "make work" activity.  The AIA Official and others hired for that purpose spend most of their time engaged in working on and monitoring the new requirements.  Moreover, the new requirements have undoubtedly heightened awareness of reporting of NCAA rules violations, which led to more reports of minor and secondary violations (e.g., a scholarship athlete accepted a bagel with cream cheese), which again requires more work by the AIA staff  to make formal reports to the Big Ten and NCAA.

Emmert: Consent Decree's over the top
sanctions required over the top monitoring

The reports also revealed there is very little need for an external auditor/monitor to be engaged continuously and provide quarterly reports on progress.  The Freeh Report recommendations were for the monitor to provide annual reports.  That recommendation was sufficient, but apparently trumped by the NCAA Consent Decree, which required the overkill of quarterly reports.

The bottom line is that PSU was "forced" by the NCAA to waste money on the monitoring of the AIA and then the Administration added to the "waste" by expanding Mitchell's role to include quarterly monitoring of the Freeh Report recommendations.  The Administration also wasted money in permitting Mitchell to report information outside the scope of the AIA and the Freeh Report.  However, I have little doubt that PSU didn't mind paying for the additional pats on the back from Mitchell.  It was/is all part of the ruse.

It appears President Barron has decided to maintain the status quo of wasteful spending, which includes untold amounts of monies that are spent to keep the truth hidden.

Recommendations

Responsible stewardship of PSU's funds demand that Mitchell's excessive reporting be curtailed and his role be reduced to that of performing a single, annual audit of compliance with the AIA and the Freeh Report recommendations.

Moreover, the University should be reimbursed for Mitchell's work outside the scope of his engagements.

The Board has shown that it has no regard for this wasteful spending, as a third party, the Legislature should file suit against Mitchell (as provided for in the Consent Decree) to recover taxpayer funds regarding the alleged work outside the scope of his engagement.

PS4RS Statement on NCAA Sanction Reductions

PS4RS MEDIA STATEMENT ON NCAA SANCTION REDUCTIONS:

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

Franco Harris: "We Are"

Sept. 4, 2014

“We Are”                                                                                                               

“When someone stirs the ashes, be sure they know what they are doing, otherwise, the fire will burn them.”

Unfortunately there were, and still are, those who try to make us lose heart, try to weaken our resolve and try to numb our emotions; they try to make us forget who “We Are” and what we stand for.

However, we discovered who “We Are” way before Louis Freeh, the NCAA and the Penn State BOT of 2011 (with Tom Corbett, John Surma, Karen Peetz, Ken Frazier, Jim Broadhurst and Rodney Erickson) started telling us who “We Are”. As our BOT took charge, they were confident we would all go away; all they did was stir the ashes.

“We Are” is the spirit that becomes part of us. It is a common thread, simple but powerful, that runs through us and binds us together. “We Are” is our call for unity, goodwill and fellowship. It can mean hello or good-bye or can be used to inspire our sports teams to victory. “We Are” is about being honest and doing what is right. Joe Paterno told us “being successful and staying successful is about doing the little
things right.”

“We Are” is our culture. This is our way of life. This is the culture that we have thrived in. And, yes, we will maintain our culture in spite of our own BOT, the NCAA and Louis Freeh. We will not let anyone take our Penn State away from us. To ensure this doesn’t happen, the alumni need a bigger voice on the board.

Finally, people from all over the world are beginning to see and learn about the real culture of Penn State. They are beginning to understand who “We Are” and what we stand for. This is happening because of the spirit of Penn Staters who are willing to fight for the truth, who will not give up until the truth is revealed.  I am proud to call myself a Penn Stater…more than ever before.

“We see Truth as a Knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.”


Franco Harris ‘72

Response to President Barron's Message on Civility

President Barron released an email and video today regarding civility that recognized it is our core values that are behind the words, "We Are Penn State."  My response to his email highlights the actions of those who do not share our core values and what he needs to do about them.

Dear President Barron,

Civility and respect go hand in hand.  Many of the alumni have felt the Board's attitude toward us has been very disrespectful -- in other words, not civil.

After the Board's decision to accept the NCAA sanctions, the alumni were told to "move forward" and the Board attempted to use new football coach Bill O'Brien and the football program as a means of divisiveness, with their ONE TEAM - MOVING FORWARD sloganeering.  In other words, those who didn't go along were labeled as being unsupportive of the football team and new coach.  It was a false argument, as many of the alumni, myself included, continued to support the football team while we tried to understand the reasons behind the Board's decisions.

The Board and the University  has been less than forthcoming in releasing information about the decisions made in response to the Sandusky scandal.  As a result, alumni like Ryan Bagwell and William Cluck have taken the step of making legal filings using the Right-To-Know laws with various agencies who interacted with PSU during the scandal to learn what happened.  And WE ARE learning.

In response to questions about the firing of Joe Paterno, the Board co-chairs issued a statement (in an email sent on January 12, 2012) that falsely stated legendary Coach Joe Paterno was not fired from Penn State and remained a tenured faculty member.  In April, ESPN printed a story that included a copy of Paterno's termination letter which was dated November 16, 2011.

On April 6, 2012, then Board Chair Karen Peetz sent out an email referring to grassroots groups of alumni who formed to find out more about the decisions as "dissident groups."  The email also stated that the "ESPN article not helpful."

These are just two examples (that I could readily find at 3:59 AM) of many that show the PSU Administration and the Board reneged on their promise of "openness and transparency" -- which has proven to be the biggest lie of all.

Like you, I too wish that those with differing opinions would treat each other with respect and have civil discourse.  Unfortunately, history (and emails) show that some of the leaders on the Board do not have the same values that caused our great University to rally around the words, "We Are Penn State."

When value systems are not in alignment, a leader has no choice but to remove those individuals who do not share the values of the University.  I learned that not only through my 25 years in management, but when I went back to PSU for an MBA from 2006 to 2008.

As Jim Collins wrote in Good to Great, the most important decision a leader can make is who is on his leadership team.  To wit:

"Get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats."

It's time for you to get "the wrong people off the bus."

Sincerely,

Raymond M. Blehar

Smeal MBA Class of 2008

Life Member, Penn State Alumni Association

Patriot News and PSU settlement atty Rozen trash victim D.F. to protect Corbett

While the Patriot News concludes that Victim D.F. wasn't found credible by PSU's settlement attorneys or Frank Fina, it is more likely the date of his abuse drove the decisions about his "credibility."

By
Ray Blehar

On Wednesday, I wrote about the new D.F. lawsuit and PSU's best chances for fighting it.  Today (September 4th, 2014), the Patriot News reported that D.F. was interviewed "years ago" by police and concluded he was not found credible by the prosecution and by PSU settlement attorney Michael Rozen.  This shameless trashing of the victim demonstrates that the P-N will stop at nothing to quash any information that shows the foot-dragging by Tom Corbett's AG office put children in danger.

In a familiar maneuver, P-N reporter Charles Thompson cherry picked the statements in the lawsuit to make it appear D.F.s abuse didn't occur during the Sandusky investigation.  To wit:

The civil case hinges on two specific incidents, both allegedly occurring when the boy was about 12 years old.

• A shopping outing in 2008 or 2009, during which the former coach allegedly pulled his car over to the side of a road and forced the plaintiff into oral sex.
• A 2008 Penn State home game against Coastal Carolina University. The game was a rout, and the teen said Sandusky left early, took him back to his home, and raped him.

 The lawsuit is very clear that D.F. is alleging abuse occurred during the Sandusky investigation:


11. Plaintiff participated in Several programs provided by Defendant-The Second Mile from the years 2004 through 2012. 

12. Defendant-Sandusky had recruited, groomed and coerced the Plaintiff throughout the years that Plaintiff attended Defendant-The Second Mile.



Thompson also cited former prosecutor Frank Fina's rebuttal of AG Kathleen Kane's statement that two victims were abused during the Sandusky investigation as likely evidence that new victim, D.F.,  is one of those victims and isn't credible.  

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan stated (and Fina concurred) that they interviewed someone who they learned of in 2012 who claimed to be abused in 2009, but didn't find him credible.

The more likely reason this victim was not "credible" was because his abuse happened between 2008 and 2012 -- during the Sandusky investigation.  As I reported earlier, the prosecutors likely manipulated dates on the Bills in Particulars in order to get specific outcomes in this case.  One of those outcomes was to conceal that victims were abused while Sandusky was under investigation.

Once again, the "paper of record" in the Sandusky case is carrying water for former AG Tom Corbett and making an evidentiary leap based on the AG prosecutor's words -- instead of examining the "reality" of the Sandusky case's prosecution.  

Not only were dates and locations of crimes manipulated in the Sandusky case, but Frank Fina went to the extreme to prosecute two cases with unknown victims.  In the case of the janitor incident, he didn't have a victim or an eyewitness or any evidence of crime beyond the hearsay testimony of janitor Ronald Petrosky.  Petrosky's testimony was inconsistent on the date, location, and circumstances of the crime.  And Fina himself had to pull a fast one - changing the crime scene location during a sidebar - to rebut defense attorney Karl Rominger's argument that if Petrosky's testimony was he could only see legs, then too only could the eye-witness (James Calhoun).  


It is hard to imagine any incident could be less credible than the account of the janitor -- but that's what Fina and the PN want you to believe.

BOT's Rejection of Freeh Report is Best Way to Fight the new D.F. Lawsuit

Ryan Bagwell's latest find of a lawsuit filed by D.F that reveals that the PSU BOT has set the University up for more payouts -- unless it rejects the Freeh Report

By
Ray Blehar

Bagwell:  Documents obtained thru
Sunshine Fund are exposing the BOT

Ryan Bagwell's latest cache of documents includes not only verification that a Federal investigation related to the Sandusky case is ongoing, but that another Sandusky victim has filed suit against PSU and The Second Mile.  According to a source close to the PA OAG, the number of Sandusky victims is now over 50. 

Translation -- more lawsuits.  

It now appears likely that the PSU BOT was mistaken in its belief that the settlements with 26 victims for $59.7 million would prevent costly litigation and future bad publicity.  

The latest case also could  mean an onslaught of litigation for the co-defendant, The Second Mile charity.  At last check of the charity's 2012 IRS 990 filing, the charity held nearly $4.9 million in assets just one year ago (on August 31, 2013). 

Latest Victim Is More Proof of Bungled Sandusky Investigation

The legal filing states that the latest victim was found by using The Second Mile lists found in Sandusky's home in June 2011.  As I reported in Report 3 (page 22), the investigators failed to follow up on those asterisked names, which included the name, phone number, and mother's first name for Victim 9.   Victim 9 was reported to police by his school's assistant principal after news of the Sandusky charges broke.

Victim D.F.'s family was contacted by police in April 2012 and he was subsequently interviewed at that time.  However, based on statements from AG Kathleen Kane, many of the children on these lists were not interviewed until the Spring of 2013.  Kane said. "I was concerned after I took office and found out that there may be more victims that no one talked to."

This does not bode well for PSU.

Eckel and BOT wrong about lawsuits

Eckel: Disconnected
from reality on lawsuits

At the August 13th, 2014, PSU BOT Conference Call regarding the Corman vs. NCAA lawsuit, trustee Keith Eckel's faulty arguments (starting at 26:30) against challenging the NCAA Consent Decree were based, in part, on the idea that the end was in sight on the NCAA sanctions (i.e., 2016).  Conversely, he saw no end in sight if PSU legally challenged it:

"..the timetable that the Consent Decree encompasses -- we can see the end of that. I do not see the end of that with legal battles."

While it is likely true that the Corman v. NCAA lawsuit could extend beyond 2016 if no settlement is reached, Eckel's rationale to not sue the NCAA in order to avoid legal battles certainly seems disconnected from reality. PSU will be fighting legal battles well past 2016, whether or not it decided to legally challenge the NCAA sanctions.

Lawsuits galore

As the D.F. lawsuit shows, there is no end to the legal battles for PSU regardless of the decision to not sue the NCAA.  As it stands today, PSU is engaged in the Victim 6, Victim 9, Paterno, Et Al v. NCAA, Jay Paterno, Graham Spanier, and Mike McQueary lawsuits as a defendant.  It is also paying for the defenses of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier in the criminal trial -- of which there is no "beginning" in sight.  It is also likely they are going to have to pick up the tab for Cynthia Baldwin in the Schultz vs. Baldwin professional liability case.  Finally, PSU is a plaintiff versus the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association (PMA) Insurance Company, who refused to pay for the victim settlements because abuse and molestation has not been covered in PSU's policy after March 2002.

Terry Strambaugh: CDT LTE - Keep Alumni Trustees

3 September 2014 - The Centre Daily Times

Penn State’s trustee leadership continues to follow the strategy that if they play nice with the NCAA, there will be additional reductions in sanctions and everyone will forget about the last three year. Anyone watching media reports these last three weeks should recognize the fallacy.

About two weeks ago, it was reported by media that officials at Croke Park believed sanctions against the Penn State football team were justified. Then came the Wall Street Journal report that Penn State is the most “embarrassing” program in the country.

During Saturday’s broadcast of the Penn State game, commentators mentioned four times Penn State was operating under sanctions that came at the end of the Paterno era.

Once the trustees allowed Penn State be awarded the “scarlet letter,” we were branded for life. Penn State will never be able to get past this label, but we can dim the bright lights by standing up for due process and the rejection of the Freeh report.

I’m pleased to see the newly elected alumni trustees push to do just that but recognize it is a tough slog against the “good old boy” network that failed so miserably in November 2011. I would be extremely disappointed to see them try to limit our only voice by reducing the number of alumni trustees.

How many years will it take to get rid of those trustees who fail to recognize how they continue to miss opportunities to finally right the wrongs they have inflicted on our university?

TERRY STRAMBAUGH

STATE COLLEGE

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/09/03/4333650_letter-to-the-editor-keep-alumni.html?sp=/99/145/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

Erickson's 5- Point Promise Provided Template for Freeh Report, NCAA Consent Decree

Then (puppet) interim-President Rod Erickson's five point promise firmly set the narrative condemning the Penn State "culture," Spanier's leadership, and the PSU Athletic Department as a rogue element.

By
Ray Blehar

Erickson:  Five Point Promise was template
For Freeh Report & NCAA Consent Decree

I think I am correct to say that the one single thing about the Freeh Report and the NCAA Consent Decree that is most troubling to Penn State alumni, fans, and friends, was the indictment of our "culture" as putting football ahead of everything else.  

While the Freeh Report concluded that the "culture" permeated the University from the top (Spanier) to the bottom (the janitors), the fact of the matter is that Freeh was only repeating the indictment of the "culture" that was put forth by President Rod Erickson (very likely with guidance from the PSU BOT inner circle) on Nov. 11th,  2011.  

Erickson's first point of the five point promise is below:


1. I will reinforce to the entire Penn State community the moral imperative of doing the right thing - the first time, every time. 

-- We will revisit all standards, policies and programs to ensure they meet not only the law, but Penn State's standard. To oversee this effort, I will appoint an Ethics Officer that will report directly to me. 

-- 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.

This point is disturbing on a number of levels, the first of which is that Erickson is basing the statement on the unproven allegations from the Sandusky grand jury presentment.  Next, he repeats the "moral" argument made by Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan.  Last but not least, Erickson indicts the culture based on the dubious, self-serving explanation provided by the janitors, that they feared they'd lose their jobs for reporting a retired football coach (Sandusky) in 2000.   

While there are many evidentiary issues with the janitor Ronald Petrosky's account of the crime, the fact that McQueary reported Sandusky just three months after that incident certainly rebuts the argument that "anyone at Penn State" felt "scared to do the right thing."  This fact also underscores the importance of the timeline of the Sandusky crimes and indicates the PA Office of Attorney General deceived the public by putting the crimes out of order in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.

This statement, as well, as many others by Erickson and the PSU BOT in the aftermath of the scandal, would have never seen the light of day if it had to pass review by a legal counsel that was putting the interests of the University first.  Unfortunately, neither Cynthia Baldwin (then) nor Steven Dunham (from July 2012 forward) have done their jobs in keeping PSU from making statements that assume guilt and liability for enabling Sandusky's crimes.