Freeh Resolution

[lubrano]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

 

[RTRMR]

Too little, too late!

 

[Richard the LIONhearted]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Get yourself some sleep Tone and please tell us you didn't return to the Board just for this issue. This is a critical time for Penn State and we need effective leadership and goverance.

 

[NittPicker]

I agree with the sentiment but I can’t see the BoT puppeteers even allowing a discussion of the resolution let alone voting on it.

 

[BW Lion]

I’m sorry Anthony, you’ve lost all credibility. We now recognize you as being nothing other than shameless self-promoting weasel.

Just a few years ago, you had the prime opportunity (i.e. combination of access to information + financial means + engaged forum) to do the right thing, but in the end, you weaseled.

You’re nothing other than the other sheeple on the PSU BOT... full of Baaaaaaaaaaa-shyt

 

[WDLion]

I’m sorry Anthony, you’ve lost all credibility. We now recognize you as being nothing other than shameless self-promoting weasel.

Just a few years ago, you had the prime opportunity (i.e. combination of access to information + financial means + engaged forum) to do the right thing, but in the end, you weaseled.

You’re nothing other than the other sheeple on the PSU BOT... full of Baaaaaaaaaaa-shyt

Who is we?

 

[cjrugger]

My old boss had a great line- he’d say ‘you know that saying ‘it’s better late than never,’ it’s not true.’

I feel that applies here

 

[interrobang]

Good luck, but we all know this won't go anywhere.

 

[creamery freak]

Thanks Anthony for bringing this to the Board for our input. I appreciate your diligence in seeking the truth and exposing the sham report that Freeh concocted and that The Pennsylvania State University way over paid for. Aside from the raw deal that the NCAA gave PSU, the Big 10 was just as guilty piling on. This is especially annoying with what has happened at the OSU, Michigan State, and Michigan where the Big 10 has been pretty much silent and done nothing to punish the said institutions. I think we should demand our share of our bowl money back.

 

[francofan]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Nice job Anthony!

Good luck in getting the BOT to consider the resolution, but my guess is that the BOT dynamics have not changed and that if it comes to a vote, you wouldn't be able to get many non-alumni BOT members to support it. I wouldn't be surprised if the powers to be in the BOT do everything they can to kill the resolution before it can be considered.

I don't know if it is appropriate or wise to bring in information that demonstrates the magnitude of the catastrophe that occurred at Penn State; but if it is, I would like you to consider the following:

-Tom Corbett is the root of the problem. His political vendetta against Graham Spanier and Penn State resulted in some very questionable decisions being made by the BOT including Graham Spanier being fired, risk management execution making things worse, Louis Freeh being hired (at Corbett's recommendation) to put the blame on Spanier and others as well as Penn State's culture.

-The McChesney diary provides clear evidence of collusion between the Freeh investigation and the OAG and that the Freeh Report was not independent and the OAG committed serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct including grand jury leaks, Brady violations, conspiracy and other transgressions

-Cynthia Baldwin and Frank Fina have been disciplined by the state of Pennsylvania for their roles in the prosecution of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz

-The only independent federal investigation that has been done was the one done by veteran NCIS special agent John Snedden in his investigation of whether or not Graham Spanier should have his top level federal security clearances renewed. The 110 page redacted report is publicly available and concluded that Spanier was not a risk to national security and that Mike McQueary was not a credible witness and that there was no evidence that anyone at Penn State was involved in a conspiracy or cover-up regarding child sexual abuse.

-Mike McQueary sent an email to OAG prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach right after the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentation stating that Eshbach had twisted his words regarding witnessing a sexual assault in the Lasch locker room shower.

 

[PhilaNit]

Anthony,

Looks good. As we discussed when we met down in Ocean City, keep going after the rats on the Board. They are thieves and pompous idiots who think they are more important than the University itself. They have wasted so much of the Universities money it is disgusting.

Also to BW Lion, I think Ken Frazier, Surma, and a few other losers on the Board need their coffee cups refreshed, so could you take care of that before you comment again please. Thanks.

 

[Bob78]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

How do you anticipate the recent agreement between the BOT and the Paterno family will play into this effort?

Also, seems this could be a simple 23-9 vote to dismiss this before anyone has read it all the way through.

What can you tell us about the agreement with the Paternos? Is something underneath it that will allow the school to re-introduce and acknowledge JVP within the football Marketing approach? We are seeing Paterno-era gameday programs being highlighted in their social media. A minor, almost invisible step, but a step of sorts. Are they going to no longer be afraid to acknowledge his contributions? Was that part of the agreement?

Thanks.

 

[DingerzForDaze]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Whereas, no reasonable person gives a poop about this;

Whereas, this has no bearing on the continuing education of current and prospective students;

Whereas, people who continue to harp on this in lieu of focusing on the future of Penn State are completely missing the point;

Whereas, if you composed this yourself, you most likely flunked your requisite English class, but a corrupt professor was willing to let you slide for a few Benjamins;

Therefore, it be Resolved that
You, and others thinking like you, should be left in the past while others try to make this a university that my sons would be proud to attend.


Stop living in the past. Be an agent for positive change in the education of young minds or not-so-kindly STFU.

I'm a proud PSU alum, a University Scholars member (now, Schreyer Honors College) with a Varsity Letter, who wouldn't allow either of my boys to consider PSU until/if folks like you drift off into the expanse of virtual space ... because what I care about, is the best educational experience for my sons, and whether or not you acknowledge the Freeh report doesn't do dick toward picking PSU up by the bootstraps and making it what it once was.

Change yourself. And then run for "office."

 

[BringBackStoneys]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

I hope you put an equal amount of time and energy into strategies to safely reopen the campus in the fall.

 

[francofan]

Get yourself some sleep Tone and please tell us you didn't return to the Board just for this issue. This is a critical time for Penn State and we need effective leadership and goverance.

How can you have effective leadership and governance by ignoring this issue? Imho, this is the defining issue of Penn State leadership and governance of this day and it is not going away anytime soon.

 

[DingerzForDaze]

How can you have effective leadership and governance by ignoring this issue?

By embracing sanity. Let it go, Elsa. Let it go.

 

[francofan]

By embracing sanity. Let it go, Elsa. Let it go.

It is insane to let the Freeh Report farce go unchallenged.

 

[BobPSU92]

Too little, too late!

So f*ck us now and forever?

 

[DrJC]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Anthony, I support your effort. Some horrible things happened at my alma mater, and I, like you, have simply not been able to put it quietly to rest. I do not care how long it takes to right a wrong - we have the moral responsibility to do what we can to get the record straight and to redress grievances. Bravo, regardless of some of the rather harsh comments. thanks for the effort.

 

[DingerzForDaze]

It is insane to let the Freeh Report farce go unchallenged.

My kids aren't going to decide to attend PSU based on Franco Harris, Joe Paterno or the Freeh Report. It's time you step aside and let time, rationality and progress work their "magic."

 

[NittPicker]

My kids aren't going to decide to attend PSU based on Franco Harris, Joe Paterno or the Freeh Report. It's time you step aside and let time, rationality and progress work their "magic."

Or maybe your kids wouldn’t be accepted at Penn State since the university is accepting more out of state students to generate more tuition revenue. Gotta pay those settlements off somehow.

If you live outside of PA, dear old state would love to have your cash.

 

[MacNit07]

I’m sorry Anthony, you’ve lost all credibility. We now recognize you as being nothing other than shameless self-promoting weasel.

Just a few years ago, you had the prime opportunity (i.e. combination of access to information + financial means + engaged forum) to do the right thing, but in the end, you weaseled.

You’re nothing other than the other sheeple on the PSU BOT... full of Baaaaaaaaaaa-shyt

What “right thing” did Anthony not do? Seems to me, he is the only one that really tried!

 

[DingerzForDaze]

Or maybe your kids wouldn’t be accepted at Penn State since the university is accepting more out of state students to generate more tuition revenue. Gotta pay those settlements off somehow.

My kids are out of state (MA). I can afford to pay whatever insane tuition they throw at me. Despite my fond memories of my time there, the university has lost its luster, thanks, in large part, to those who want to keep rehashing JoePa/Freeh Fight Club, and stymieing progress.

Both of my boys are high achievers at ages 12 and 10, respectively, and although there's a long way to go between now and their college decision date, I foresee their educational choices to be amongst the Harvards, MITs and Browns of the world, rather than the PSUs ... but they also have some athletic prowess, so, if that results in a balancing of interests, we'd be looking at Stanford, Vandy or like-kind institutions before considering PSU.

Regardless, grasping onto this topic, years later, is just a few steps beyond some of the saddest things I've seen.

 

[MacNit07]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Anthony - First, these efforts are appreciated. Only by addressing this farce head on can we try and lay this issue to rest. I suppose it will be an exercise in futility, but you should be applauded for getting it on the record. It’s a little long for my taste. But I suppose the injustices are a lengthy laundry list. Next, can you start to tackle the rising costs and falling academic standing at dear ole’ State? Perhaps look at what Mitch Daniels did at Purdue as a model?? Penn State is losing it’s way and it’s standing among the great universities. Perhaps you can help us restore that as well?!

 

[massimoManca II]

I’m sorry Anthony, you’ve lost all credibility. We now recognize you as being nothing other than shameless self-promoting weasel.

Just a few years ago, you had the prime opportunity (i.e. combination of access to information + financial means + engaged forum) to do the right thing, but in the end, you weaseled.

You’re nothing other than the other sheeple on the PSU BOT... full of Baaaaaaaaaaa-shyt

Credibility is shot

... coming from a Test Board cretin

Please enlighten with all that you’ve done to help in the crusade?

 

[KCLion]

My kids are out of state (MA). I can afford to pay whatever insane tuition they throw at me. Despite my fond memories of my time there, the university has lost its luster, thanks, in large part, to those who want to keep rehashing JoePa/Freeh Fight Club, and stymieing progress.

Both of my boys are high achievers at ages 12 and 10, respectively, and although there's a long way to go between now and their college decision date, I foresee their educational choices to be amongst the Harvards, MITs and Browns of the world, rather than the PSUs ... but they also have some athletic prowess, so, if that results in a balancing of interests, we'd be looking at Stanford, Vandy or like-kind institutions before considering PSU.

Regardless, grasping onto this topic, years later, is just a few steps beyond some of the saddest things I've seen.

Maybe you should have gone to one of those schools. I had those opportunities as well as Annapolis and chose PSU/NROTC for the balanced education hoping I wouldn’t run into pompous assholes.

 

[PSU123281]

How can you have effective leadership and governance by ignoring this issue? Imho, this is the defining issue of Penn State leadership and governance of this day and it is not going away anytime soon.

Then you live in a fantasy world and have no idea of what challenges Penn State, and higher ed in general, are facing.

This is reaching a tipping point where your average PSU fan will start to despise Paterno because of you clowns and we aren’t far from it. Enough already. The window has closed. Life isn’t fair. Move on already.

 

[RGWhirly]

I hope you put an equal amount of time and energy into strategies to safely reopen the campus in the fall.

You don’t want the BOT figuring that out, more qualified folks to help determine the path forward this fall and spring.

What the BOT needs to do and focus on is a very sound financial path forward considering the amount of revenue the University lost in the spring, this summer, and will lose in the fall (even if students return - which they will, though in smaller numbers). Even next spring will have less students and therefore revenue.

BOT needs to stop or delay unnecessary spending like the new museum, etc.

The Freeh report better not be anywhere in your top 5 items for at least over a year.

 

[marshall23]

My kids aren't going to decide to attend PSU based on Franco Harris, Joe Paterno or the Freeh Report. It's time you step aside and let time, rationality and progress work their "magic."

Please, send your kids to Mount Union Mule College.

 

[lj4heisman1]

Everything is black or white, either or. With me or against me nothing in between?it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time is it not ?

 

[Nitt1300]

pissing into the wind

 

[lubrano]

Interesting comments thus far.

To be clear, my top priority is to make Penn State affordable for those persons it was created to support— middle class Pennsylvanians.

Having said that, I delivered this resolution to the Board when we delivered our Report on Freeh on June 29, 2018. My term ended on June 30,2018 so I was unable to further this resolution.

I understand the feelings of some that this is too little too late. But I’m in the camp that believes the truth is very important no matter the time required to find it.

Again, thank you all for your input.

 

[Eric_M]

Definitely support. My concern however is that unless this topic gets any media push, it will never go anywhere. To those that say let it go, it is a shame that you do not care about the unneeded reputation damage, the college experiences spoiled, and the lives ruined by this coverup and grandstanding by our state officials and certain members of our BOT. It’s a shame that you are ok with the Big Ten and NCAA literally stealing tens of million dollars from us.

 

[francofan]

Then you live in a fantasy world and have no idea of what challenges Penn State, and higher ed in general, are facing.

This is reaching a tipping point where your average PSU fan will start to despise Paterno because of you clowns and we aren’t far from it. Enough already. The window has closed. Life isn’t fair. Move on already.

I don’t believe the window has closed. I am not ready to move on. A travesty of epic proportions has been imposed on Penn State and their leadership team and the transgressions of those responsible are in plain sight for those who care to see. I care about the injustice that has been bestowed on Penn State and the good men who had led the university. I am not ready to move on until the motivations and actions of the bad actors such as Tom Corbett, Louis Freeh, Frank Fina and others are evident.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Thanks Anthony...don't ever quit. I remember a while back when you said you would never give up and posters applauded you. Now these same posters tell you to quit, that you are wasting your time. Don't listen to them. Stay in the fight...I so wish I could help you. Screw these bums, they need to be pursued till they are rotting in hell. JVP would be proud of you.

 

[Kiber]

Anthony,
First, I applaud your efforts. If it's not "obvious", then it's at very least "possible" that Paterno, Spanier, and Penn State did not get fairly treated in that whole ordeal, and IMO it's never too late to "right a wrong". For those who say "it's too late, let it go...". I ask, "what if your Father or your Grandfather was grossly mis-treated and had his character assassinated, would you say 'oh, it's too late just let it go'. Or would you work tirelessly to fix their good name?"

That being said, what I keep going back to is "WHEN did the power players in the BOT know about the impending Sandusky situation and WHEN did they set their action plan in motion"? Once we know this, then we can start asking WHY.

True story .... A real good buddy of mine is what we'd all refer to as a "townie". When I attended Penn State '83-88, I befriended a guy who was born, bred and raised in State College. He has remained in SC. He is now 54, so his entire 54 years has been in SC. As you can all guess, he knows many people in SC. But he is NOT a "power player", he is NOT a well connected person of influence. He actually works at one of the local hotels for the past 15-20 years.....
.... Anyhow, in Spring of 2011 he & I are talking and during our conversation he says to me (to paraphrase):
> he says: "There is some major shit going to come out later this year about Sandusky that's going to be really bad"
> I reply: "Like what, Sandusky is long gone he hasn't been around in like 10 years"
> he says: "I don't know everything, but from what I hear it involves Sandusky and some little boys".

Now, this was told to me by a "townie" in Spring of 2011. By the time the Sandusky story broke in the news in Nov. 2011 I almost forgot about the conversation.

My point is this .... If a "townie" knew about "bad news involving Sandusky and little boys" a good 6-7 months BEFORE the official news broke in Nov. 2011, then you can bet your life the power-players in the BOT also knew of this impending situation. Powerful people have powerful connections. These power-players in the BOT have connections in politics, government, law enforcement..... There is no way you could ever convince me that a "townie" knew about it, but the power-players in the BOT did not, and were caught off guard.... This means that they had a good 6-7 months (probably more) to strategize about how they would respond and handle this once the story broke. Their plan was concocted over months and months of conversations and planning. For whatever reason (and THIS is what needs to be answered) they decided to go with a strategy that made McQuery legitimate, and at the same time shifted guilt onto Paterno, Spanier, Curly and therefore Penn State.

IMO, the logical plan and the logical thought process would have been "How do we distance Penn State from Sandusky, how do we make this isolated to Sandusky and distance Penn State from him?" I'd have to assume that given 6-7 months of advance planning time, the powerful people connected to the BOT could have accomplished this plan. Instead, it's almost as if they planned to connect Paterno, Spanier and Penn State to Sandusky.... WHY?

I think until we have this underlying question answered, then we will never really get the entire story.

 

[Zenophile]

Y’know, if I were the betting sort, I’d be inclined to wager that this resolution isn’t a standalone tactic.

 

[psuro]

You stop fighting when you stop caring.

You can, and should, as a member of the BoT or any large board or committee, have the ability to have more than one subject matter to consider. Focusing on the Freeh report does not mean that Lubrano or others are not also focussed on other items affecting the University.

It's amazing how limited some of you people are in your comprehension levels. I would assume it's because you can only do one thing at a time so you assume others can only do one thing at a time also.

 

[Obliviax]

It’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.
Best of luck. Freeh has been discredited in several cases but the problem is the rest of the BOT. That is the fight. I’ve met the enemy and it is us you’ve got to defeat the BOT guidelines and rules. I don’t know how that is possible without you suffering great personal harm

 

[psu1969a]

Before I call it a night, I thought I would share with this all-knowing board what I’m readying for my return to the BOT.

This entire mess continues to keep me up at nights. I have no doubt based on my review of documents that Louis Freeh knowingly represented his opinion as facts. Moreover, he had absolutely no basis to reach his conclusions.

I would like your input on the following resolution. Thanks in advance.

Proposed Resolution

Re: the July 12, 2012 “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel” issued by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (“Freeh Report”)

Whereas, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP (“Freeh”) was engaged on December 2, 2011 by the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by a former employee of The Pennsylvania State University (the “University”) and the alleged failure of University personnel to report the alleged sexual abuse to law enforcement;

Whereas, Freeh was to perform an independent investigation and issue a report to the University concerning (i) whether failures occurred in the reporting process; (ii) the cause of those failures; (iii) the identities of persons with knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and (iv) how those allegations were handled by the Trustees, University administrators, coaches and other staff;

Whereas, Freeh was engaged to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation, leaving no stone unturned, and without fear or favor;

Whereas, Freeh publicly announced the conclusions and issued the report (the “Freeh Report”) on July 12, 2012, the same date Freeh provided the Freeh Report to the University;

Whereas, Freeh’s investigation was subject to severe limitations including the inability to subpoena testimony and the production of relevant documents, lack of access to documents in the possession of governmental and regulatory bodies and the inability to interview all relevant witnesses;

Whereas, Freeh, without justification, elected not to pursue interviews of certain key witnesses;

Whereas, subsequent criminal and civil proceedings, governmental and administrative proceedings and other factual investigations (“Related Proceedings”) have shed further factual light on the issues covered by the Freeh Report;

Whereas, Louis Freeh testified under oath that the conclusions in the Freeh Report are nothing more than his opinions;

Whereas, the University has not formally accepted or denied any of the conclusions in the Freeh Report;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report regarding the University’s culture have severely and negatively impacted the University’s general wellbeing;

Whereas, certain sweeping assertions and unsupported conclusions in the Freeh Report have damaged the reputation of the University;
1

Whereas, on July 23, 2012, the University accepted a binding consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) in which the University agreed, among other sanctions, to pay a $60 million fine;

Whereas, the NCAA subsequently acknowledged that it did not complete its own investigation of the University, and instead relied upon the Freeh Report to justify the Consent Decree;

Whereas, the imposition of the Consent Decree on the University by the NCAA has caused financial and reputational damage to the University;

Whereas, the University relied on Freeh’s representation, that the Freeh Report was accurate, complete, independent and the product of a comprehensive investigation;

Whereas, the NCAA’s imposition of the Consent Decree upon the University was based upon such representation, and the Executive Committee of the Board accepted the Consent Decree on the basis of such representation;

Whereas, the Executive Committee of the Board of the University believed that the NCAA complied with its own governance charter and bylaws and was authorized to impose the Consent Decree;

Whereas, since the Freeh Report was issued, credible criticisms of the Freeh Report have emerged both with respect to the purported conclusions and with respect to the manner in which Freeh conducted the investigation;

Whereas, publicly available documents confirm that, at the time that Freeh was purportedly acting independently, one or more representatives of Freeh were covertly seeking to curry favor with, and become engaged by, the NCAA;

Whereas, representatives of Freeh have since acknowledged that the purported “conclusions” within the Freeh Report are not based in fact but are instead the personal opinions of the author or authors;

Whereas, in the nearly eight years since the Consent Decree was imposed, credible criticisms of the process by which the NCAA adopted the purported investigative findings in the Freeh Report and the NCAA’s failure to adhere to its own charter and bylaws in imposing punishments on the University, have emerged;

Whereas, on January 16, 2015, the Consent Decree was repealed and replaced by another agreement (the “New NCAA Agreement”);

Whereas, certain terms and conditions of the Consent Decree remain in the New NCAA Agreement, including the imposition of the $60 million fine;

Whereas, neither the University nor the Board ever undertook a review of the information (the “Source Material”) upon which the Freeh Report is based;
2

Whereas, on April 15, 2015 Trustees Edward B. Brown, III, Barbara L. Doran Robert C. Jubelirer, Anthony P. Lubrano, Ryan J. McCombie, William F. Oldsey and Alice W. Pope (the “Plaintiff Trustees”) made a Formal Demand to Inspect and Copy Corporate Records under Section 5512 (a) of the Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation Law of 1988 (“the Inspection Demand”) the Source Material;

Whereas, after the Inspection Demand was rejected by the University, on April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff Trustees filed a Petition to Compel the Inspection of Corporate Documents in the Court of Common Pleas (the “Court”) of Centre County, PA;

Whereas, on November 19, 2015 the Court Ordered the University to provide the Plaintiff Trustees access to the Source Materials;

Whereas, on January 21, 2016, the Alumni-Elected Trustees and the University entered into a Stipulation and Order providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided;

Whereas, other Trustees entered into an agreement with the University providing for the conditions under which access to the Source Materials would be provided to such Trustees;

Whereas, after more than 27 months of review, Plaintiff Trustees presented its written report of the findings (the “Report”) to the Board in an Executive Privileged session;

Whereas, other Trustees who have been provided access to the Source Materials have today presented findings to the Board in an Executive Privileged session today;

Whereas, based on the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees and other Trustees, the Board questions the accuracy, independence and completeness of the Freeh Report and believes that it may not be conclusive in all material respects;

Whereas, in light of the above, including the review and findings of the Plaintiff Trustees and the other Trustees, the Board has determined that the public release of the Report by the Plaintiff Trustees is in the best interest of the University.
3

Therefore, be it Resolved that
The Board rejects the conclusions of the Freeh Report and officially repudiates the Freeh Report; and,

The Board hereby authorizes the public release of the Report that the Plaintiff Trustees presented to the Board; and

The Board authorizes General Counsel to engage specialized independent outside litigation counsel to evaluate and recommend claims against Freeh and others, as are appropriate, including but not limited to an action to recover the more than $8.3 million paid by the University to Freeh for the work associated with the Freeh Report.

Tony, you have had my support for 9+ years on this topic. I applaud you and the other Alumni Trustees for your endeavors. Being out numbered presents extreme difficulty, but I know that you will prevail.