What will people do "to avoid the consequences of bad publicity?" Let's find out.
Google "Kenneth Frazier"
CURRENTLY....
First entry: Wikipedia containing update of racial remark.
2nd entry: SMSS Kenneth Frazier: Anti-Child and Anti-PSU
11th entry: SMSS Kenneth Frazier: Audio of racist remark.
What you can do to help :
1. Go to google and type: "Kenneth Frazier"
2. Click on the SMSS Kenneth Frazier: Anti-Child link
3. Hit the back button.
4. Click on the SMSS Audio of Racist Remark.
Sign the PSU Student Petition To Remove Frazier
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON...
Mr. Frazier refuses to face the fact that PA's Child Protection system failed Sandusky's victims and is in need of reform. He remains an obstacle to PA's flagship University in being a leader in protecting children.
Thank you for your support.
Friday, March 22
Thursday, March 21
PSU Officials Had Concerns About DPW in 1998
Ken Frazier did what Freeh did - selectively used evidence to state PSU was culpable for 1998. Other evidence indicates PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role - but Freeh left that documentary evidence out of his report.
By
Ray Blehar
At the March 15, 2013 BOT meeting Ken Frazier pointed to a few notes made by Gary Schultz as evidence PSU officials knew about child abuse in 1998. In most cases, he misinterpreted the evidence. Frazier was adamant: “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.”
However, a fuller view of evidence shows that PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role in the 1998 investigation.
The reference for this statement is "Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12)." This note is not included in the Freeh Report Appendix, thus, it is another piece of evidence that Freeh chose not to include for the public to view. As I noted in my WHVL interview, the 1998 police report, the psychology report of Chambers, the Seascock evaluation, and other key evidence was excluded from the report's Appendix.
The second piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2B, where Harmon writes on 5/13/1998: "The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly."
I found it unusual that a child protection agency would want to resolve an investigation quickly. Under the law, DPW and CYS have sixty days to conduct an investigation and at just 10 days into this investigation - with Schultz's note indicating other children could be victims of Sandusky - DPW intends to resolve it quickly.
The 1998 police report shows that DPW then waited 18 days to interview Sandusky and agreed to close the case right after the June 1st interview. Notably, the record does not show that then-Centre County DA was part of the decision to end the investigation. The DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, stated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that he didn't have enough evidence to indicate a finding of abuse.
"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."
As Schultz continues catching up on his e-mail, the finds Harmon's e-mail of June 1, 1998, stating the case was closed. At 2:04 AM, Schultz writes: "Tom, you can ignore my earlier email, unless you feel we should talk more about this." (Freeh Report, Exhibit 2D)
At this point in time, Harmon had already been notified by Ray Gricar that there would be no charges filed in the case and a discussion of concerns would have been moot. However, this goes back to the point of the AG's request to Freeh not to interview Harmon who could have shared valuable insights about his concerns of the 1998 case.
Regardless, this evidence indicates that PSU officials had concerns about DPW's role in the 1998 case and subsequent reporting by this blog and others are in agreement that the 1998 case was poorly investigated. Former FBI-profiler and child sexual abuse investigator, James Clemente, stated (in an e-mail to Wendy Silverwood) that the entire 1998 case should be reviewed. In Clemente's interview on Media Mayhem, he specifically called out the evaluation by John Seasock as a major breakdown in the case.
And that is Frazier's and the majority of the BOT's biggest blind spot.
Given the state of Pennsylvania's child protection system, there's no guarantee that reporting abuse incidents the authorities, in 2001 or now, would stop incidents of child abuse.
The evidence on the record, from a 2008 Health and Human Services review of DPW, shows that in 43% of the cases, children continue to be abused after DPW and/or CYS is contacted.
Frazier and the BOT's willingness to ignore the record and not call for improvements in Pennsylvania's child protection system continues to keep children in harm's way.
By
Ray Blehar
At the March 15, 2013 BOT meeting Ken Frazier pointed to a few notes made by Gary Schultz as evidence PSU officials knew about child abuse in 1998. In most cases, he misinterpreted the evidence. Frazier was adamant: “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.”
However, a fuller view of evidence shows that PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role in the 1998 investigation.
The Evidence
The first piece of evidence is on page 49 of the Freeh Report: "Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role in the investigation and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile."The reference for this statement is "Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12)." This note is not included in the Freeh Report Appendix, thus, it is another piece of evidence that Freeh chose not to include for the public to view. As I noted in my WHVL interview, the 1998 police report, the psychology report of Chambers, the Seascock evaluation, and other key evidence was excluded from the report's Appendix.
The second piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2B, where Harmon writes on 5/13/1998: "The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly."
I found it unusual that a child protection agency would want to resolve an investigation quickly. Under the law, DPW and CYS have sixty days to conduct an investigation and at just 10 days into this investigation - with Schultz's note indicating other children could be victims of Sandusky - DPW intends to resolve it quickly.
The 1998 police report shows that DPW then waited 18 days to interview Sandusky and agreed to close the case right after the June 1st interview. Notably, the record does not show that then-Centre County DA was part of the decision to end the investigation. The DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, stated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that he didn't have enough evidence to indicate a finding of abuse.
"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."
The next piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2C, where Schultz, after returning from vacation, he writes to Harmon on 6/8/1998 at 2:03AM: "Tom, I've been holding some "catch-up time" on my calendar on Monday and I suggest we use a piece of it to meet and discuss the status (I also recall the last time we talked you indicated that there were some aspects of the this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk). Please get ahold (sic) of Joan and see what time will work. thanks."
As Schultz continues catching up on his e-mail, the finds Harmon's e-mail of June 1, 1998, stating the case was closed. At 2:04 AM, Schultz writes: "Tom, you can ignore my earlier email, unless you feel we should talk more about this." (Freeh Report, Exhibit 2D)
At this point in time, Harmon had already been notified by Ray Gricar that there would be no charges filed in the case and a discussion of concerns would have been moot. However, this goes back to the point of the AG's request to Freeh not to interview Harmon who could have shared valuable insights about his concerns of the 1998 case.
Regardless, this evidence indicates that PSU officials had concerns about DPW's role in the 1998 case and subsequent reporting by this blog and others are in agreement that the 1998 case was poorly investigated. Former FBI-profiler and child sexual abuse investigator, James Clemente, stated (in an e-mail to Wendy Silverwood) that the entire 1998 case should be reviewed. In Clemente's interview on Media Mayhem, he specifically called out the evaluation by John Seasock as a major breakdown in the case.
Calling for Reforms
At the same Board meeting, Frazier continued his defense of the Freeh Report, stating that it wasn't chartered to look at the performance of CYS and DPW and that it was an internal investigation. He went on to say that the reforms made by PSU will ensure that incidents like the 2001 occurrence will now be reported to the proper authorities.And that is Frazier's and the majority of the BOT's biggest blind spot.
Given the state of Pennsylvania's child protection system, there's no guarantee that reporting abuse incidents the authorities, in 2001 or now, would stop incidents of child abuse.
The evidence on the record, from a 2008 Health and Human Services review of DPW, shows that in 43% of the cases, children continue to be abused after DPW and/or CYS is contacted.
Frazier and the BOT's willingness to ignore the record and not call for improvements in Pennsylvania's child protection system continues to keep children in harm's way.
Wednesday, March 20
Blehar: LTE CDT, "We can all do more"
As a child protection advocate, I find Penn State trustee Ken Frazier’s words to be hollow (“Frazier issues apology,” CDT, Monday).
Frazier defends the Freeh report, which attempted to whitewash the failures of Pennsylvania’s child protection system to identify Jerry Sandusky as a child molester back in 1998. Frazier said the report was not chartered to find problems outside Penn State and that it was an internal review.
Nevertheless, the state’s and county’s failures in 1998 still showed through, even with the attempted whitewash by the Freeh group. The alumni and some Penn State trustees understand that Penn State officials were not alone when it came to those who could have done more to stop Sandusky.
As Fred Berlin said, “We can all do more.”
That would especially include Frazier, who barks the loudest about protecting children but hasn’t said a single word about the system that will let 40 children get murdered and another 25,000 get abused this year.
It is clear that Frazier and the rest of his November 2011 cohorts aren’t interested in learning about child abuse problems that occur off university property, nor do they appear to care.
The leadership of the state’s flagship university has decided not to address real reforms to make children across the state safer. That is turning a blind eye to the problem.
I call on Penn State’s leadership to call for the much-needed reforms to Pennsylvania’s child protection system.
To quote Phil LaPorta, “If we can’t do that, we shouldn’t be a university.”
RAY BLEHAR
ANNAPOLIS, MD.
Tuesday, March 19
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.
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.
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
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
Monday, March 18
Alice Pope: Highlights of Today's Smucker Hearings
Some reflections on today’s Senate hearings (with thanks to others who have posted, and apologies that this is so long):
• We packed the hearing room, just as Anthony requested. Several mentions were made of this – Senators said they had never seen a full hearing room before! And this was the largest room they have.
• The Senators were well-informed and well-prepared. Their questions were fair and insightful. Sometimes detailed, sometimes big picture. One question was repeated several times: “Do you think that the failures with Penn State’s BOT were a result of structural problems, or personality problems?” They are trying to figure out how to address what went wrong. It was taken for granted that the BOT most definitely HAS failed.
• The Auditor General spoke fervently in support of many aspects of reform. And he said, “It would be a big mistake to leave the reforms up to the Penn State Board to do themselves.”
• Masser, Broadhurst, and Lubert testified for BOT. They did not respond intelligently to questions. They did not have good answers to why the Legal Committee did not think change in the size and composition of the Board was a priority. They had to acknowledge that the committee’s proposed changes may not be approved by the full Board.
• Senator Folmer asked BOT: “The alumni seem very angry. Why is that? What are you doing about it?” There was a very long pause. Then Broadhurst said, “That’s a good question,” clearly unprepared to answer. Said they wanted to move forward, had done their best but were criticized for it, decisions they had to make were difficult, they are trying to be responsive. It was a weak response and everyone in the room saw that. Lubert added info about public comment session at Board meeting, visitors invited to attend and comment at committee meetings, new website with info on progress.
• Dinniman was quite assertive in telling BOT that legislation would be required to change the Enabling Statute to accomplish some of the reforms. This apparently was news to the BOT.
• Senator Yudichak challenged BOT on process of engaging Freeh and the BOT’s failure to accept report. Challenged them on whether engagement of Freeh and use of Task Force were consistent with the Standing Orders. Said investigation was NOT independent because it was managed by Task Force.
• The BOT folks left after their turn, before Anthony Lubrano and Bob Horst spoke. Stephanie Deviney remained throughout. I thought it was a very insulting thing for them to leave Senate hearings before they were complete. It did not reflect well on them.
• Bob Horst’s testimony about how the BOT functioned in the 1990s was chilling. He describes a power-hungry cabal of insiders. Described Hintz as “the face of the power block.” Talked about Trusteeship as a reward for big donors.
• Anthony was articulate and persuasive. Senators were clearly sympathetic to his positions. Anthony spoke repeatedly about importance of engagement for all Trustees, suggested that reducing size of BOT would support better engagement. Criticized selection process for B&I Trustees as too insular, suggested instead that deans of all the colleges each put forward two candidates to be voted on by full BOT, a more open and inclusive process that would broaden the types of people who would serve. Spoke of his concerns about the new language where BOT could vote out a Trustee who spoke openly in disagreement of BOT decisions; Senators were openly critical of this new provision.
• Senator Folmer asked Anthony why alumni are unhappy. Anthony said most important thing was lack of fairness, no willingness to deal with that in an honest way. He said it may be too late to regain confidence of the alumni in the old BOT. Failure of leadership, political correctness motivated their actions. Anthony said we can separate fairness and due process versus protecting children – both can happen. He spoke movingly about the mission of our land grant university, where sons and daughters of farmers and coal miners have received excellent educations. We became an elite university without becoming elitist, because of Joe’s leadership.
• I spoke with Senator Corman after the hearings and he said they prefer for BOT to make changes internally but they are prepared to respond with legislation if needed. He noted that the problem with legislation is that they lose control of all the things that might get attached to a bill. We agreed that threat of legislation seems to be motivating BOT to make at least some reforms.
• Today went better than I ever could have imagined. These Senators see very clearly where the problems lie in the BOT and are committed to addressing it. Old BOT looks weak and cannot defend their actions. PSU alumni showed up in force. WE ARE on a roll!
• Thanks to everyone who helped get us all to the hearings, those who showed up, and those who sent good thoughts from afar. There is much work remaining to be done, but we have great momentum now.
More coverage from StateCollege.com
• We packed the hearing room, just as Anthony requested. Several mentions were made of this – Senators said they had never seen a full hearing room before! And this was the largest room they have.
• The Senators were well-informed and well-prepared. Their questions were fair and insightful. Sometimes detailed, sometimes big picture. One question was repeated several times: “Do you think that the failures with Penn State’s BOT were a result of structural problems, or personality problems?” They are trying to figure out how to address what went wrong. It was taken for granted that the BOT most definitely HAS failed.
• The Auditor General spoke fervently in support of many aspects of reform. And he said, “It would be a big mistake to leave the reforms up to the Penn State Board to do themselves.”
• Masser, Broadhurst, and Lubert testified for BOT. They did not respond intelligently to questions. They did not have good answers to why the Legal Committee did not think change in the size and composition of the Board was a priority. They had to acknowledge that the committee’s proposed changes may not be approved by the full Board.
• Senator Folmer asked BOT: “The alumni seem very angry. Why is that? What are you doing about it?” There was a very long pause. Then Broadhurst said, “That’s a good question,” clearly unprepared to answer. Said they wanted to move forward, had done their best but were criticized for it, decisions they had to make were difficult, they are trying to be responsive. It was a weak response and everyone in the room saw that. Lubert added info about public comment session at Board meeting, visitors invited to attend and comment at committee meetings, new website with info on progress.
• Dinniman was quite assertive in telling BOT that legislation would be required to change the Enabling Statute to accomplish some of the reforms. This apparently was news to the BOT.
• Senator Yudichak challenged BOT on process of engaging Freeh and the BOT’s failure to accept report. Challenged them on whether engagement of Freeh and use of Task Force were consistent with the Standing Orders. Said investigation was NOT independent because it was managed by Task Force.
• The BOT folks left after their turn, before Anthony Lubrano and Bob Horst spoke. Stephanie Deviney remained throughout. I thought it was a very insulting thing for them to leave Senate hearings before they were complete. It did not reflect well on them.
• Bob Horst’s testimony about how the BOT functioned in the 1990s was chilling. He describes a power-hungry cabal of insiders. Described Hintz as “the face of the power block.” Talked about Trusteeship as a reward for big donors.
• Anthony was articulate and persuasive. Senators were clearly sympathetic to his positions. Anthony spoke repeatedly about importance of engagement for all Trustees, suggested that reducing size of BOT would support better engagement. Criticized selection process for B&I Trustees as too insular, suggested instead that deans of all the colleges each put forward two candidates to be voted on by full BOT, a more open and inclusive process that would broaden the types of people who would serve. Spoke of his concerns about the new language where BOT could vote out a Trustee who spoke openly in disagreement of BOT decisions; Senators were openly critical of this new provision.
• Senator Folmer asked Anthony why alumni are unhappy. Anthony said most important thing was lack of fairness, no willingness to deal with that in an honest way. He said it may be too late to regain confidence of the alumni in the old BOT. Failure of leadership, political correctness motivated their actions. Anthony said we can separate fairness and due process versus protecting children – both can happen. He spoke movingly about the mission of our land grant university, where sons and daughters of farmers and coal miners have received excellent educations. We became an elite university without becoming elitist, because of Joe’s leadership.
• I spoke with Senator Corman after the hearings and he said they prefer for BOT to make changes internally but they are prepared to respond with legislation if needed. He noted that the problem with legislation is that they lose control of all the things that might get attached to a bill. We agreed that threat of legislation seems to be motivating BOT to make at least some reforms.
• Today went better than I ever could have imagined. These Senators see very clearly where the problems lie in the BOT and are committed to addressing it. Old BOT looks weak and cannot defend their actions. PSU alumni showed up in force. WE ARE on a roll!
• Thanks to everyone who helped get us all to the hearings, those who showed up, and those who sent good thoughts from afar. There is much work remaining to be done, but we have great momentum now.
More coverage from StateCollege.com
Sunday, March 17
Mark Battaglia: Full Transcript of Remarks to the PSU BOT
On March 15, 2013, Mark addressed the Penn State Board of Trustees at the meeting in Hershey. Here are his words:
"Thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to address the Board today.
My name is Mark Battaglia and I was fortunate enough to be on the 1982 National Championship Team.
Sadly, to date, there’s only one man who has admitted that with the benefit of hindsight that he wished he would have done more. You see Joe Paterno held us to a higher standard as players. In the classroom, in our lives, on the football field.
And we’re here today to hold you, the Board, to a higher standard.
More specifically, those who have already been held to a higher standard because they played for Joe Paterno or they had brothers or nephews who played for Joe Paterno.
They knew Joe Paterno like we knew Joe Paterno.
They were in the huddle with him when the game was on the line, they looked in his eyes, they saw the man, they knew the man.
And yet, they wouldn’t take his call. They wouldn’t make a call.
They sat around silently.
Worse yet, maybe they led the effort to fire Joe.
Why?
Was it personal? A personal disappointment?
Did they let a personal issue lead to a potentially $100 million debacle?
You know, Joe always said ‘you’re never as good as you think you are when you win and you’re never as bad as you think you are when you lose.’
The good news here is that we are losing, we didn’t lose, we are losing badly.
We need to change the strategy.
We need the leadership from those very people who played for Joe to lead us out of this thing by changing.
You painted yourself in the corner with this Freeh report. I’m sorry Mr. Frazier…
And this ‘move on’ thing...it's not happening. The alumnus, the alumni are not buying it.
So Joe said, always said, ‘you have to believe deeply in your heart that you are destined to do great things.’
You guys can do that. There’s still time.
There are 500,000 alumni out there hoping and praying that you accept the challenge.
Thank you."
Saturday, March 16
ONE TEAM: Freeh and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
E-mails obtained through the diligence of Ryan Bagwell reveal that Freeh's investigation was not done in parallel, but in cooperation with, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG)
From David S. Woodrow
In the late summer of 2012, after the Freeh Report,
the NCAA sanctions, and the condemnation of sports talking heads, the Penn
State Nittany Lion Football Team took on the motto “One Team."
The motto was meant to signify unity,
cooperation, teamwork, doing your job and watching your teammate’s back. Surely they felt the outside world was
against them so they bonded together to achieve their goal: to go out and play football with all their
hearts. It was an inspiring season, but
where did they get the “One Team” idea?
Maybe they were inspired by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney
General and the Freeh Group. Kudos to RyanBagwell for obtaining e-mails that show Freeh’s investigators and the AG
investigators congratulating each other on the “scores” of the Sandusky
conviction and the Freeh press release and conference.
Let’s briefly introduce the players in order
of appearance and their position at the time.
THE
TEAM PLAYERS
Randy
Feathers – Office of the Attorney General, Regional Director
of the Bureau of Narcotics in State College.
He was the head of the Sandusky scandal investigation.
Frank
Fina
– Chief Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.
Anthony
Sassano – Office of Attorney General Narcotics Agent, Lead investigator
of the Sandusky scandal, and vintage TV Guide collector. He has grand jury and wiretapping experience.
Thomas
A. Cloud – Owner, Vice-President, and Secretary of CFR
Professional Investigations and Senior Consultant with Freeh Group
International Solutions LCC. He is also
the interpreter of Joe Paterno’s notes for his meeting with Sandusky and Curley
about Jerry not being the next head coach at Penn State (Freeh Exhibit 3D).
Gregory
A. Paw (PAW) –
Partner, Pepper Hamilton LLP and head of the FSS investigation. According to his profile on the PH website he
“led the investigation at a major public university concerning the handling of
a sex abuse allegations by senior university officials and the board of
trustees, resulting in a “groundbreaking” report described as “required reading
for boards of directors.”
Nils
Hagen-Frederiksen – Communications Director for the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
Linda
Kelly – Pennsylvania Attorney General (appointed by
current Governor and former Attorney General Tom Corbett).
THE
RECORD
Communication among team members is crucial to
successful execution, whether it is a game plan, rescue mission, military
operation, or sting operation. While we
do not have the exact information they shared amongst themselves, these e-mail
communications are incriminating in that they specifically mention working
together. And the slobbering praise and
adoration they heap upon each other indicates more than just mailing a document
or evidence.
I have created the timeline, quoting verbatim the
e-mails, along with the specific events that occurred during their
communications (italics are my thoughts /
interpretations).
6/11/12
Monday
·
Sandusky trial starts.
·
At 6:34 p.m. Randy Feathers sends an
e-mail to Frank Fina and cc’s Anthony Sassano with a link to an NBC video on
from The Today Show that morning. In the
video Michael Isikoff announces that “law enforcement sources” have told NBC News
that they uncovered evidence that showed PSU officials concealed information on
Sandusky’s behavior. NBC's interpretation of the e-mail evidence was in the same context that would be used by Louis Freeh in his report. Isikoff continues
saying state investigators obtained new evidence that PSU even did legal
research on abuse (Freeh Exhibit 5A). The video also mentions Alycia Chambers
report and her conclusions of a grooming pattern, even a brief comment from
her, but then mentions “a second psychologist reached a different
conclusion.” NBC did not name or show the second psychologist (John Seasock). As mentioned is previous posts Seasock was
not a licensed psychologist at the time of his evaluation, only a counselor.
6/13/12
Wednesday
·
8:49 a.m. Randy Feathers forwards the
same video link to Tom Cloud of The Freeh Group.
6/21/12
Thursday
·
1:15 p.m. Trial is sent to the jury for
deliberation.
6/22/12
Friday
·
Jury announces verdict just before 10
p.m. EST, convicts JS on 45 of 48 counts.
·
10:29 p.m. PAW e-mails Fina “I am proud
of you and the entire prosecution team.
Very well done.”
·
11:16 p.m. Tom Cloud e-mails Randy
Feathers “As I told Tony – congrats on a great job in tough conditions. Our team is happy.”
·
11:58 p.m. Randy Feathers responds to
Tom Cloud “Thanks were (sic) happy
too. It was great working with you
guys. You are all real pros.”
6/23/12
Saturday
·
6:25 a.m. Fina replies to PAW’s
congratulations the day before “Thank you for all the help and support."
6/30/12
Saturday
·
CNN breaks the news about the leaked
e-mails. CNN does not possess the
e-mails, only has the contents read to them by their source. The main e-mail is the long string between
Curley, Spanier, and Shultz where Curley proposes confronting Sandusky directly
and Spanier says that the gesture was “humane” (Freeh Exhibits 2F and 5G).
7/8/12
Sunday
·
2:47 p.m. Fina e-mails PAW “Did Freeh
call the AG?”
·
3:23 p.m. PAW replies to Fina “No. Your word was all we needed.”
7/12/12
Thursday
·
Freeh report was to be made available
online at 9 a.m. EST.
·
Freeh scheduled to hold press conference
to discuss report and its findings at 10 a.m. EST.
·
9:48 a.m. Nils Hagen-Frederiksen e-mails
the text of Freeh’s press release to Linda Kelly.
·
14:39:07 Fina e-mails PAW “Greg – Truly
great work. Pease extend my
congratulations to your team. FGF”
·
12:19 p.m. PAW responds back to Fina
“Frank – this note really means a lot to me.
I have a tremendous respect for you and your work, and it was my
pleasure to have the opportunity to work with you on this matter, Greg”
11/13/12
·
Sara Ganim, the lead reporter for the
Patriot News, joins CNN (I am sure this
has nothing to do with the CNN source for the e-mail leaks).
So the e-mails provide evidence that, despite two
supposedly independent investigations, it appears Freeh and to OAG worked
together to help build each other’s cases.
THE
RULES
Did any of this collaboration violate the rules that
the Freeh group had with the Special Investigative Committee? Let’s look at the Letter of Engagement (signed by Kenneth Frazier and Steve Garban) also
released this week (emphasis mine):
Freeh
Engagement to Perform Legal Services (11/18/11)
1. “FSS
has been engaged to serve as independent, external legal counsel to the
“Task Force” to perform an independent, full and complete investigation…” “The results of FSS’s investigation will be
provided in a written report to the Task Force and other parties as so directed
by the Task Force.” “It is understood by
FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that FSS will act under the sole direction of the
Task Force…”. It also is
understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that FSS’s investigation will be
completed in parallel to, but independent of, any other investigation that is
conducted by any policy agencies, governmental authorities or agencies, or
other organizations within or outside of (e.g., The Second Mile) PSU, and will
not interfere with any such other investigation.”
It also is understood by FSS, the
Trustees, and the Task Force that during the course of FSS’s independent
investigation performed hereunder, FSS will immediately report any discovered
evidence of criminality to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, and
provide notice of such reporting to the Task Force.”
FSS also will communicate regarding
its (sic) independent investigation
performed hereunder with media, police agencies, governmental authorities and
agencies, and any other parties, as directed by the Task Force
5. “For
the purpose of providing legal services to the Task Force, FSS will retain
Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC (“FGIS”) to assist in this
engagement.”
As noted in my emphasis above, the FSS investigation
is supposed to be independent. They are
supposed to act under the direction of the client. Should FSS find any evidence of criminal
acts, they are to notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities AND the
client. Did Freeh ever tell any of the
Special Investigative Committee of the “evidence” he found and turned over to
the AG? Someone apparently told NBC News
and CNN about the evidence (see LOE terms above regarding communications with
the media). Freeh and SIC members have
some explaining to do.
Despite Freeh’s claim in his Letter of Engagement,
his press conferences, his press releases, and his report, it is evident that his
team’s investigation was anything but independent.
And now WE have the e-mails to prove it.
Letter Campaign to Oust Frazier Plus On-line Form
LETTER CAMPAIGN TO OUST KEN FRAZIER. I believe one way to get Frazier off the Board is to go after Merck. Also here is Merck's on-line complaint form
By Eileen Morgan
We need to have a letter and email writing campaign and inundate Merck with constant contact regarding Frazier's remarks, esp. 'I don't care if they are acquitted.' They need to know:
#1 Frazier apparently doesn't care about the truth which means he doesn't actually care about the children. He doesn't care about the truth regarding the PA agencies that failed the children and are still operating status quo today.
...
#2 Frazier does NOT care about due process. But, based on one-sided information, he deems himself the judge and jury and takes matter into his own hands and determines the verdict based on his opinion. This means every employee of Merck has no say or defense if an issue comes up re: their employment. They should feel very insecure working for a company with a man having this mindset at the helm.
#3. Let them know that we want Frazier OFF the Board at PSU and that until that happens we will be initiating a social media campaign via, facebook and twitter, that will travel the globe letting the stockholders of Merck know all about the man who runs Merck.
Here is the address and phone for Merck. The second contact info is for their Media Relations. What do you think? Just a one pager, once a week from all of us, should make an impact. And let's add MBNY (Peetz) and US Steel (Surma) writing campaigns too! I'm going to start writing….
One Merck Drive
P.O. Box 100
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
United States
1-908-423-1000
Steven Cragle
Head of Media Relations
+1 908-423-3461
steven.cragle@merck.com
By Eileen Morgan
We need to have a letter and email writing campaign and inundate Merck with constant contact regarding Frazier's remarks, esp. 'I don't care if they are acquitted.' They need to know:
#1 Frazier apparently doesn't care about the truth which means he doesn't actually care about the children. He doesn't care about the truth regarding the PA agencies that failed the children and are still operating status quo today.
...
#2 Frazier does NOT care about due process. But, based on one-sided information, he deems himself the judge and jury and takes matter into his own hands and determines the verdict based on his opinion. This means every employee of Merck has no say or defense if an issue comes up re: their employment. They should feel very insecure working for a company with a man having this mindset at the helm.
#3. Let them know that we want Frazier OFF the Board at PSU and that until that happens we will be initiating a social media campaign via, facebook and twitter, that will travel the globe letting the stockholders of Merck know all about the man who runs Merck.
Here is the address and phone for Merck. The second contact info is for their Media Relations. What do you think? Just a one pager, once a week from all of us, should make an impact. And let's add MBNY (Peetz) and US Steel (Surma) writing campaigns too! I'm going to start writing….
One Merck Drive
P.O. Box 100
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
United States
1-908-423-1000
Steven Cragle
Head of Media Relations
+1 908-423-3461
steven.cragle@merck.com
Friday, March 15
Recap of Today's BOT Meeting (UPDATED w/Video)
by Bill Bender
Reflections on the March 2013 Penn State Board of Trustees meeting
Lettermen speak starting at 32:30
Video streaming by Ustream
That the Penn State Board of Trustees considers itself a
model of anything is bewildering, and embarrassing.
I watched my first Board proceedings today
via live-stream feed, and I was
crestfallen. When I was a Penn State
freshman volunteering with a local fire company, our small foundation adhered
more strictly to Robert’s Rules than this esteemed institution did today, and
at a time when it should be paying particular attention to doing everything
right. For an institution still
teetering on the edge, the lack of direction, purpose, and situational
awareness is beyond remarkable.
The Board succumbed to a dreadful briefing on the status and
progress of it’s medical center, and as a result had to push its own business
into a hurry-up conclusion that was undertaken as members were leaving out of
pure exhaustion.
When the Board finally
did focus on the business of survival, the far from concluded Sandusky scandal,
it heard from the only Trustee we can apparently place our trust in for the
future of Penn State. Anthony Lubrano
shined a bright light on the issue every Penn Stater is concerned about. The
room would have remained dark but for his boldness. An attempt to weigh in on
Lubrano’s position, without really weighing in, was feebly offered by another
alumni Board member, whose “Trustee” credentials are far from assured. The rebuttal he received provided nothing new.
Kick the can...then the cutoff.
What is notable about this meeting was the manner in which
the various Chairs managed to “kick the can down the road” at each point where
issues began to come to a head, and real discussions and decisions were
required. On matters of Board structure,
Board membership, governance, and of course on the Freeh report. To those watching it is obvious what was
occurring.
Ken Frazier managed an ersatz apology for his previous day’s remarks
while continuing to cling to the twisted logic he insists defends his Freeh
Report. Yes, HIS Freeh report; he owns
it now as he never did before. And then a motion was raised to cut off
discussion on the topic, so as to move on to other important things. What could be more important than THIS
discussion, particularly after ‘investing’ hours learning of the miracles of
modern medicine?
The same cut-off happened earlier, when Trustee Lubrano
raised the issue of background checks for trustees. Trustee Broadhurst ruined
both his shoes kicking that can down the road before abruptly adjourning this
segment of the meeting.
Novices Playing House With A World Class University
Administratively, it is clear there are no standards by
which information is compiled or presented to this Board. Individual committees
follow no structured information management model to convey the essential work
of their committees to the Board.
Whoever stands up and gives a pitch is given whatever time they need to
do so. We saw not one instance of a
chair presenting projects or issues based on metrics-based requirements, costs-benefit
analysis, and the like. There is
apparently no decision brief format to frame the issues in a logical sequence
the Trustees can expect, assimilate, and process in an efficient manner.
For
all the talent available on the Board, this is a group of novices playing house
with a world class university.
Members of this Board have made broad statements, trumpeting
their impressive accomplishments in the wake of the Sandusky scandal, as they
rush to implement the recommendations of a man who most of us wouldn’t ask for street directions.
The Board spoke of progress on recommendations
stemming from a report they will not accept, yet will not question or review, even
as that report stands as the sole document upon which rests the soul and
treasure of this university.
Our Day, and Your Day, Is Coming
Lest we
fail to say it out of timidity in the face of our accusers: this is a
cover-up.
It’s time to stop pretending it
is anything but, and set motive aside for the moment.
The gaze that Letterman Mark Battaglia cast
upon trustee Suhey as he delivered his impassioned remarks should stand as both
a symbol to Penn Staters, and a warning to this Board....
Our day, and your day, is
coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
