Freeh Resolution

[AWS1022]

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.

Oh God, you’re one of “those” parents. I’ve coached kids with parents like you. They’re 10 and 12 and you already have them playing at a high D-1 level university. Give me a break. Many kids at that age show “athletic prowess”....it takes a lot more than that to get to the D-1 level.

 

[MacNit07]

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.

Great point about NCAA and Big10 stealing PSU’s money! Especially when there are very current violations from a number of Big10 schools that are far worse than anything PSU was accused...and these scandals are directed by those a University’s officials and employees! The irony is rich!! Like to see you get on tbe record with that too!!

 

[cjrugger]

Oh God, you’re one of “those” parents. I’ve coached kids with parents like you. They’re 10 and 12 and you already have them playing at a high D-1 level university. Give me a break. Many kids at that age show “athletic prowess”....it takes a lot more than that to get to the D-1 level.

Hes way worse. He already projected them to be NFL 1st round picks

 

[Lion84]

Oh God, you’re one of “those” parents. I’ve coached kids with parents like you. They’re 10 and 12 and you already have them playing at a high D-1 level university. Give me a break. Many kids at that age show “athletic prowess”....it takes a lot more than that to get to the D-1 level.

He's that guy at neighborhood picnic you avoid otherwise all you hear is my new Porsche, my Kids SAT score, our trip to Europe, and at the end of the day they are miserable jerks - if you have to say it to prove it it'd probable not true.

 

[NittPicker]

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.

It sounds like you've found a lot of success in life even though you attended Penn State. My guess is your fondness of the university hasn't lessened because of the Sandusky fallout discussions. Your above post makes it obvious it's really due to your self-loathing over having attended a lowly state university. You prefer to be associated with the brand name private schools - Harvard, MIT, Brown, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. If that makes your life complete then go for it.

 

[Connorpozlee]

He's that guy at neighborhood picnic you avoid otherwise all you hear is my new Porsche, my Kids SAT score, our trip to Europe, and at the end of the day they are miserable jerks - if you have to say it to prove it it'd probable not true.

I’m picturing a window air conditioning unit in his “palace”.

 

[Omar81]

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.

The thing is, that resolution is so long and unnecessarily verbose that it stands absolutely no chance of passage. I was (and whenever I think about it still am) incensed about the entire situation and what it did to damage PSU and JoePa. I’m also a lawyer, and in that capacity have read my share of whereas clauses. Despite those facts, I was bored to tears less than halfway through this “War and Peace” resolution.

Maybe if you just focused on ACCOMPLISHING something tangible instead of throwing in every factoid but the kitchen sink, you’d stand some chance of success.

I supported you and your efforts for a long time but in my opinion, when the time came to really risk something that could open people’s eyes, you (and demlion and others) chickened out and hid behind some legal semantics to keep your silence.

 

[bdgan]

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 don't think there's a chance that the BOT will repudiate the entire Freeh report. I think it makes more sense to push for a more moderate statement. Something to the effect that while the report contains some useful information, many of the key players were not interviewed and that Freeh's opinions are not necessarily based in fact.

 

[hotrodbob34]

Anthony, I applaud you! Well done Sir! Thank you for seeing this through and not giving up on the efforts to set the story right! Good luck presenting this to the board.

 

[CDLionFL]

Seems to me after reading through the comments that those telling Lubrano to pound salt and quit the fight are ok with the report and all of the payouts that stemmed from it. It also seems like they are ok with rolling over, taking the punishment, and moving on, not caring that the truth was never found. While it’s an uphill battle almost 9 years in the making, there are corrupt players breathing who can still be stained by their actions in 2011-12.

Why did schools like North Carolina and MSU get off easy on their allegations? Because they fought. PSU rolled over so the corruption wouldn’t be exposed.

 

[87 Penn St8]

Wordsmithing....but twice you mention representing opinions as facts. First Fresh, then later associates. Maybe combine those two for clarity/effect? Just a suggestion.

 

[marshall23]

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 agree that life isn't fair. You are evidence.

 

[marshall23]

s

So f*ck us now and forever?

Whereas some people seem to enjoy having huge objects shoved up their rectums............

 

[WDLion]

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.

They were planning on how to save their own ass.

 

[francofan]

I don't think there's a chance that the BOT will repudiate the entire Freeh report. I think it makes more sense to push for a more moderate statement. Something to the effect that while the report contains some useful information, many of the key players were not interviewed and that Freeh's opinions are not necessarily based in fact.

Serious question. What useful information does the Freeh Report contain?

 

[BobPSU92]

Serious question. What useful information does the Freeh Report contain?

RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

[psu1969a]

The thing is, that resolution is so long and unnecessarily verbose that it stands absolutely no chance of passage. I was (and whenever I think about it still am) incensed about the entire situation and what it did to damage PSU and JoePa. I’m also a lawyer, and in that capacity have read my share of whereas clauses. Despite those facts, I was bored to tears less than halfway through this “War and Peace” resolution.

Maybe if you just focused on ACCOMPLISHING something tangible instead of throwing in every factoid but the kitchen sink, you’d stand some chance of success.

I supported you and your efforts for a long time but in my opinion, when the time came to really risk something that could open people’s eyes, you (and demlion and others) chickened out and hid behind some legal semantics to keep your silence.

"that resolution is so long and unnecessarily verbose ..." you ain't seen nothing. Tony's not a politician; saw a resolution that went on for pages upon pages.

 

[francofan]

The thing is, that resolution is so long and unnecessarily verbose that it stands absolutely no chance of passage. I was (and whenever I think about it still am) incensed about the entire situation and what it did to damage PSU and JoePa. I’m also a lawyer, and in that capacity have read my share of whereas clauses. Despite those facts, I was bored to tears less than halfway through this “War and Peace” resolution.

Maybe if you just focused on ACCOMPLISHING something tangible instead of throwing in every factoid but the kitchen sink, you’d stand some chance of success.

I supported you and your efforts for a long time but in my opinion, when the time came to really risk something that could open people’s eyes, you (and demlion and others) chickened out and hid behind some legal semantics to keep your silence.

If possible, would you please provide some an example or 2 of a tangible accomplishment that you think would be a basis for success in the future for correcting the narrative that the public has been sold by Freeh and the OAG.

 

[Metal Mike]

Anthony, I support you in this effort. It is never too late to get to the truth. I read the entire Freeh report when it was issued. I was appalled at the major difference between the facts presented in the body of the report and the conclusions reached in the executive summary. Good luck and do not lose sleep.

 

[pandaczar12]

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.

Wasn’t freeh supposed to come back to campus to answer questions or something like that? Maybe it’s time to invite him back.

 

[nits74]

Wordsmithing....but twice you mention representing opinions as facts. First Fresh, then later associates. Maybe combine those two for clarity/effect? Just a suggestion.

I'll add that if a gun were held to his head (I'd like to be the one doing so), Freeh would admit that all of his garbage does not even represent his honest opinion. It was a predetermined outcome designed to support an agenda on many levels.

 

[francofan]

RECOMMENDATIONS.

What specific recommendations? The recommendations may be ok, but if the findings are garbage, I don't have a lot of confidence that recommendations to address questionable findings would be the most important things that the University needed to address.

 

[Bob78]

@lubrano -

How does the Paterno - BOT agreement play into this?

Here's a concern I have over not resolving this... it was almost easy for not only the media to warp the general public mindset, but also for his own university to bury Joe's lifetime of extraordinary achievements. Will the next person so inclined to endeavor to try to do all that for PSU even try? I'm considering all of Joe's contributions, especially off the field and behind the scenes that we have heard about almost incidentally. Which means there are many more, I'd bet.
Who's gonna step up knowing that when going gets tough, the BOT and media will get on the first train outta town?

 

[MJG-90]

Serious question. What useful information does the Freeh Report contain?

Serious question. Do you ever get answers from posters when you ask them tough questions? I honestly don't recall anything more than some tap dancing (avoid the question and ask you a question instead) -- and that's when you get a response at all.

 

[BobPSU92]

What specific recommendations? The recommendations may be ok, but if the findings are garbage, I don't have a lot of confidence that recommendations to address questionable findings would be the most important things that the University needed to address.

I wasn’t being serious. Hence, the .

The establishment claimed they would ignore the freeh “analysis” of Joe, etc. and go straight to the RECOMMENDATIONS. . Yeah, they needed to spend millions of dollars and embarrass themselves for that.

 

[francofan]

Wasn’t freeh supposed to come back to campus to answer questions or something like that? Maybe it’s time to invite him back.

Freeh would probably say that he would only come back if he was totally indemnified and he would get paid for $8.3 million.

There is no way that Freeh will accept an invitation to come back to campus to answer questions. The only way he will talk about the Freeh Report is if he is subpoenaed to do so. I would love to see the day that Graham Spanier subpoenas Freeh's deposition for his defamation suit.

 

[BobPSU92]

Whereas some people seem to enjoy having huge objects shoved up their rectums............

Seemingly. Gee, Anthony didn’t do what I wanted when I wanted it, and I of course understand everything that went on so I can judge harshly, though I did nothing myself. As a result, I’ve decided it’s too late, so f*ck us.

 

[MJG-90]

At this stage, I don't understand why Penn State wouldn't take action to rectify all of the wrongs done. We are approaching the ten year mark. Some strongly worded statements that the Freeh report was never accepted as accurate, just the recommendations were followed. That Paterno was not at fault and in fact did exactly what the NCAA drew up as their new playbook if a similar report is made to another coach in the future. Then go on to outline every false statement, BS Grand Jury report....and all other shenanigans related to the media lynching of our great institution.

If this was done, who would pay attention for more than a few hours? Nobody. Especially if we put our foot done and said "ENOUGH ALREADY"????

 

[francofan]

Serious question. Do you ever get answers from posters when you ask them tough questions? I honestly don't recall anything more than some tap dancing (avoid the question and ask you a question instead) -- and that's when you get a response at all.

Usually not, but not getting a response says that they probably don't have a good answer which would be consistent with my point of view of the topic. On the other hand, they might have a good answer and I may learn something. If they don't have a good answer, then it should be easy to rebut.

 

[Kiber]

I concur, though not certain of the timeline. I was told many months before it actually broke. If I heard it, certainly A LOT of people heard it long before me. I bumped into a guy I worked with in 2011. He reminded me that I was the one that told him something was going to happen about 6 months before it all came down.

Exactly. When this buddy of mine told me, it was at least 6-7 months before the story broke. We call each other about once per month just to touch base and stay in touch with each other. We were talking about other things, and he brought this up. At the time, I actually paid it no attention to it because in my mind, Sandusky no longer meant anything to Penn State so he was irrelevant. Again, there is absolutely no way anyone will ever convince me that the power-players within the BOT did NOT know about this 6-12 months before it broke.... Remember, these are not stupid people. These are all intelligent people, with the financial access to lawyers, consultants, risk management professionals, law enforcement agents, and politicians.... the power-players on the BOT are definitely people with the right contacts to get some excellent advice..... So having 6-12 months to advance plan.... Having 6-12 months to "get in front of the story".... Having 6-12 months to pre-script the response....... The plan that they devised was one that resulted in McQuery being credible, the 2nd Mile having no affiliation, Paterno's name getting destroyed, Spanier's name getting destroyed, The University's name getting destroyed, and the football program which is a financial life-line of the University getting penalized...... Makes you go Hmmmmm.

If this was the plan that they devised with 6-12 months of lead time, then either:
a) they are protecting some other very powerful entities/people
or,
b) they are grossly negligent and stupid

 

[john4psu]

Anthony, good luck with this and you have my support but I doubt anything will happen.

I had hope that Jubelirer with his political connections might accomplish something and that resulted in disappointment and when you endorsed Lubert, I lost all faith.

The only change will occur if ever the state legislature favorably changes the structure of the Board of Trustees.

My greatest disappointment is that the perception of so many individuals, mindless lemmings, believe that Joe Paterno, who throughout his life always tried to do right and what's best for Penn State, knew about Sandusky's activities as far back as the '70s and in their minds that was confirmed by the large payments made without vetting any of those individuals claims.

To see someone of such high character and as fine a representative as our university has ever had thrown to the wolves by the evil cabal of the Board of Trustees to protect themselves lessened my confidence in humanity.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Anthony, I support you in this effort. It is never too late to get to the truth. I read the entire Freeh report when it was issued. I was appalled at the major difference between the facts presented in the body of the report and the conclusions reached in the executive summary. Good luck and do not lose sleep.

I’m the same. I read the entire thing before I read or heard anybody else’s view on the report. When I was done reading it I remember sitting kind of stunned that there wasn’t anything in there. It was an empty document with common sense recommendations that any reasonable person could have come up with along with outlandish accusations.

 

[psu1969a]

If possible, would you please provide some an example or 2 of a tangible accomplishment that you think would be a basis for success in the future for correcting the narrative that the public has been sold by Freeh and the OAG.

First and foremost, replace Joe's statue.

Second, condemn Freeh and his report.

Third, sue the B1G and NCAA for the return of all monies paid in fines and monies not paid while we were being penalized.

Fourth, complete step one.

 

[massimoManca II]

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.

#massivEyeroll

 

[psu1969a]

Wasn’t freeh supposed to come back to campus to answer questions or something like that? Maybe it’s time to invite him back.

Please not in my lifetime.

 

[BBrown]

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.

While this would have been outstanding 8+ years ago is this really the most "pressing" issue you have cause there are far more important things to be concentrating on right now. Of course and as always thats JMO as an alum and one who voted for you.

 

[lionville]

I’m picturing a window air conditioning unit in his “palace”.

“66” came to mind when I read his post.

 

[francofan]

At this stage, I don't understand why Penn State wouldn't take action to rectify all of the wrongs done. We are approaching the ten year mark. Some strongly worded statements that the Freeh report was never accepted as accurate, just the recommendations were followed. That Paterno was not at fault and in fact did exactly what the NCAA drew up as their new playbook if a similar report is made to another coach in the future. Then go on to outline every false statement, BS Grand Jury report....and all other shenanigans related to the media lynching of our great institution.

If this was done, who would pay attention for more than a few hours? Nobody. Especially if we put our foot done and said "ENOUGH ALREADY"????

The problem with this approach is that it would open up a can of worms. If the Freeh Report is shown to be the garbage that it is, then it would be clear that the convictions of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were manufactured and that the OAG committed numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. If would then be obvious that the leading the OAG's charge was Governor Tom Corbett on a political vendetta against Graham Spanier and Penn State. I would love to see this happen, but I am guessing that the BOT will do everything in their power to stop these disclosures in their tracks as soon as possible and ensure that nothing sees the light of day.

 

[Art]

You would be better off effecting change from the outside rather than from within.

Agree, but I don't believe that anyone in Harrisburg is particularly interested in the way PSU is run.

 

[Art]

The problem with this approach is that it would open up a can of worms. If the Freeh Report is shown to be the garbage that it is, then it would be clear that the convictions of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were manufactured and that the OAG committed numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. If would then be obvious that the leading the OAG's charge was Governor Tom Corbett on a political vendetta against Graham Spanier and Penn State. I would love to see this happen, but I am guessing that the BOT will do everything in their power to stop these disclosures in their tracks as soon as possible and ensure that nothing sees the light of day.

Destruction of the Freeh Report would have no bearing on the convictions of Spanier, Curly, and Schultz.