Order in Spanier vs. Freeh case finds 7 statements factual in nature(link)

[StinkStankStunk]

There is part of the problem...if Spanier wins I would expect the award to go way north of $8M and no way he'll take that without dragging the BOT into the settlement.

Whatever the settlement is, the BOT will use PSU funds to pay it
Is that even in question?

The BOT now belongs to Ira Lubert - and the entire PSU treasury along with it

 

[bwifan]

This is an excellent question about the Clery Act. A little research will show there was widespread confusion in the late 90's and early 00's about what exactly universities needed to report.

And a little more research will reveal that PSU was submitting Clery Act reports long before what's currently available on PSU's website, which only goes back to 2013.
http://police.psu.edu/annual-security-reports

And common sense will tell you PSU was submitting Clery Act reports as soon as it was mandated by law, otherwise there would have been fines from the DOE along with negative publicity; and Freeh would have mentioned it.


----- This article addresses the effectiveness of the Clery Act, circa 2002
http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawrevie...-improvement-of-the-act-and-campus-safety.pdf

Here are extracts regarding the confusion in reporting requirements under the Clery Act, starting at page 10, footnotes not included:

Another stream of articles addressed the confusion felt by campus officials about how they should report the annual crime statistics. In an article that appeared shortly after the passage of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments, Fred Woodhams indicated that campus administrators were unclear about the impact of changes in the Clery Act and feared that these changes would add record-keeping burdens and lower actual crime prevention. A May 1999 article by Julie Nicklin focused on the necessity to comport crime statistics reports to FBI statistics and not individual state laws. In another May 1999 article, Stephen Burd described concern about the fact that crimes reported to counselors were not being included in campus-crime statistical reports. In the article, counselors reported being concerned that campus police do not seek information for only statistical purposes, but also seek privileged information. In July 2000, another article described a $25,000 fine issued to Mount St. Clare College by the DOE for failing to comply with reporting requirements. The ambiguity of the Act and its regulations were cited as being problematic for Mount St. Clare College and other institutions trying to comply.

Finally, an article written by Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President of the American Council on Education (ACE), appeared in the January 12, 2001 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. In this article, Hartle called for a simpler law and regulations than now exist for the Clery Act; he suggested that “rather than focus on essential information, the crime regulations mandate that colleges report everything that anyone might conceivably like to know — be it an arrest for underage drinking away from the campus or a violent crime on the campus.” Before suggesting several ways to improve the Act, Hartle opined, “[T]he law does little to improve safety on campuses or to influence student behavior.” Among his suggested improvements were (1) focusing on violent crime rather than all crime, (2) limiting who is responsible for collecting and reporting crime, (3) clarifying the right to privacy of alleged crime victims, (4) providing increased and better informed support for institutions by the DOE, and (5) ensuring adequate training for federal auditors and clarification to campus officials before potentially punitive audits take place.

Reaction to Hartle’s article was swift and furious. The February 9, 2001 Chronicle contained letters to the editor from Howard and Connie Clery representing Security on Campus, Inc., and William M. Lawbaugh, representing the Society of Professional Journalists. Both took Hartle to task for the positions taken by ACE, but neither responded specifically to the proposed improvements.​

This article also quotes from a 2001 article by Dennis Gregory, at page 21:

Since its inception, the Clery Act and its implementing regulations (34 CFR 668) have drawn questions or criticism from campus administrative constituencies, including campus police and student affairs administrators. This criticism has resulted not from the intent of the legislation, which is to assist in making institutional campuses safer places to work and study, but from a perceived lack of clarity, changing interpretations of what crimes need be reported and by whom. It has also come from the conflict between the legal interpretations related to privacy of student judicial records as guaranteed by (FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g) and the need to report criminal activity which may also result in student conduct adjudication on campus.​

-----
Here are Freeh's first three key findings regarding the Clery Act, at the beginning of Chapter 8, p.110:

- The Clery Act requires the University to collect crime statistics relating to designated crimes, including sexual offenses, occurring on University property, make timely warnings of certain crimes that pose an ongoing threat to the community, and prepare an annual safety report and distribute it to the campus community. The Clery Act requires “Campus Security Authorities,” including coaches and athletic directors, to report crimes to police. **From approximately 1991 until 2007, University officials delegated Clery Act compliance to the University Police Department's Crime Prevention Officer (“CPO”).** The delegated CPO was not provided any formal training before taking over the position nor does he recall receiving any Clery Act training until 2007.

- In 2007, the Director of the University Police Department transferred the Clery Act compliance responsibility from the CPO to a departmental sergeant and instituted some Clery Act training programs. The sergeant could only devote minimal time to these duties. Despite the efforts of the University Police Department, awareness and interest in Clery Act compliance throughout the University remained significantly lacking.

- As of November 2011, the University's Clery Act policy was still in draft form and had not been implemented. Many employees interviewed were unaware that they were required to report incidents and had been provided with little, if any, training. Although University administrators identified compliance with laws and regulations as one of the top 10 risks to the University in 2009, Clery Act compliance had never been audited by the University's internal auditors or received attention from any other University department, including the Office of General Counsel. ​

But Freeh first cited the Clery Act back in the Executive Summary at pages 16 & 17. The following two bullet points related to the Clery Act were among those used to explain the "cause for this failure to protect child victims and report to authorities":

- A lack of awareness of child abuse issues, the Clery Act, and whistleblower policies and protections.

- A football program that did not fully participate in, or opted out, of some University programs, including Clery Act compliance. Like the rest of the University, the football program staff had not been trained in their Clery Act responsibilities and most had never heard of the Clery Act. ​

-----
FYI - Penn State was submitting Clery Act reports long before 2011. But I've only been able to find links to reports that go back to stats from 2005; nothing earlier. Note that this was before anybody received training in 2007.


From 2008-2009 (earliest available, cover stats in 2005, 2006, & 2007):
http://web.archive.org/web/20110425...psu.edu/cleryact/documents/universitypark.pdf

From 2009-2010:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100609190811/http://www.police.psu.edu/cleryact/documents/2009-101504 c PolicySafety_UnivPrk.pdf

From 2010-2011:
-- could not find a copy of this one

From 2011-2012:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130126195623/http://www.police.psu.edu/cleryact/documents/2009-101504 c PolicySafety_UnivPrk.pdf

From 2012 (revised 10/17/2012):
http://web.archive.org/web/20130621...documents/UniversityParkPolicySafetyU2012.pdf

Hey now... CR666 will have none of this using facts and research to show how he was wrong again. He prefers to use diversion and not answering the question as his tactics and he will not take to this kindly, your using facts to show him wrong...

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Whatever the settlement is, the BOT will use PSU funds to pay it
Is that even in question?

The BOT now belongs to Ira Lubert - and the entire PSU treasury along with it

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Are you saying that you have personally spoken with every Penn State employee who was interviewed? If not then what is the basis for your statement?

Why don't you ask your cohort Cruising, the wiffleball king of North Jersey, that, since he seems pretty certain what 300+ people had to say?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Why does Dambly travel to and from the BOT meetings with Ira - on his private jet?

Simply......he doesn't want to have to check his bags:

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Why don't you ask your cohort Cruising, the wiffleball king of North Jersey, that, since he seems pretty certain what 300+ people had to say?

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Wonder if Zip still has those headphones?

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Wonder if Zip still has those headphones?

Wonder if he still has functioning A/C?

 

[GTACSA]

Yes

Both you and I know that is not correct. I'll leave it at that.

 

[lionlurker]

Both you and I know that is not correct. I'll leave it at that.

But it's very likely that I WAS correct. I'm sure Sollers et al has catalogued every one of them.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

This is an excellent question about the Clery Act. A little research will show there was widespread confusion in the late 90's and early 00's about what exactly universities needed to report.

And a little more research will reveal that PSU was submitting Clery Act reports long before what's currently available on PSU's website, which only goes back to 2013.
http://police.psu.edu/annual-security-reports

And common sense will tell you PSU was submitting Clery Act reports as soon as it was mandated by law, otherwise there would have been fines from the DOE along with negative publicity; and Freeh would have mentioned it.


----- This article addresses the effectiveness of the Clery Act, circa 2002
http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawrevie...-improvement-of-the-act-and-campus-safety.pdf

Here are extracts regarding the confusion in reporting requirements under the Clery Act, starting at page 10, footnotes not included:

Another stream of articles addressed the confusion felt by campus officials about how they should report the annual crime statistics. In an article that appeared shortly after the passage of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments, Fred Woodhams indicated that campus administrators were unclear about the impact of changes in the Clery Act and feared that these changes would add record-keeping burdens and lower actual crime prevention. A May 1999 article by Julie Nicklin focused on the necessity to comport crime statistics reports to FBI statistics and not individual state laws. In another May 1999 article, Stephen Burd described concern about the fact that crimes reported to counselors were not being included in campus-crime statistical reports. In the article, counselors reported being concerned that campus police do not seek information for only statistical purposes, but also seek privileged information. In July 2000, another article described a $25,000 fine issued to Mount St. Clare College by the DOE for failing to comply with reporting requirements. The ambiguity of the Act and its regulations were cited as being problematic for Mount St. Clare College and other institutions trying to comply.

Finally, an article written by Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President of the American Council on Education (ACE), appeared in the January 12, 2001 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. In this article, Hartle called for a simpler law and regulations than now exist for the Clery Act; he suggested that “rather than focus on essential information, the crime regulations mandate that colleges report everything that anyone might conceivably like to know — be it an arrest for underage drinking away from the campus or a violent crime on the campus.” Before suggesting several ways to improve the Act, Hartle opined, “[T]he law does little to improve safety on campuses or to influence student behavior.” Among his suggested improvements were (1) focusing on violent crime rather than all crime, (2) limiting who is responsible for collecting and reporting crime, (3) clarifying the right to privacy of alleged crime victims, (4) providing increased and better informed support for institutions by the DOE, and (5) ensuring adequate training for federal auditors and clarification to campus officials before potentially punitive audits take place.

Reaction to Hartle’s article was swift and furious. The February 9, 2001 Chronicle contained letters to the editor from Howard and Connie Clery representing Security on Campus, Inc., and William M. Lawbaugh, representing the Society of Professional Journalists. Both took Hartle to task for the positions taken by ACE, but neither responded specifically to the proposed improvements.​

This article also quotes from a 2001 article by Dennis Gregory, at page 21:

Since its inception, the Clery Act and its implementing regulations (34 CFR 668) have drawn questions or criticism from campus administrative constituencies, including campus police and student affairs administrators. This criticism has resulted not from the intent of the legislation, which is to assist in making institutional campuses safer places to work and study, but from a perceived lack of clarity, changing interpretations of what crimes need be reported and by whom. It has also come from the conflict between the legal interpretations related to privacy of student judicial records as guaranteed by (FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g) and the need to report criminal activity which may also result in student conduct adjudication on campus.​

-----
Here are Freeh's first three key findings regarding the Clery Act, at the beginning of Chapter 8, p.110:

- The Clery Act requires the University to collect crime statistics relating to designated crimes, including sexual offenses, occurring on University property, make timely warnings of certain crimes that pose an ongoing threat to the community, and prepare an annual safety report and distribute it to the campus community. The Clery Act requires “Campus Security Authorities,” including coaches and athletic directors, to report crimes to police. **From approximately 1991 until 2007, University officials delegated Clery Act compliance to the University Police Department's Crime Prevention Officer (“CPO”).** The delegated CPO was not provided any formal training before taking over the position nor does he recall receiving any Clery Act training until 2007.

- In 2007, the Director of the University Police Department transferred the Clery Act compliance responsibility from the CPO to a departmental sergeant and instituted some Clery Act training programs. The sergeant could only devote minimal time to these duties. Despite the efforts of the University Police Department, awareness and interest in Clery Act compliance throughout the University remained significantly lacking.

- As of November 2011, the University's Clery Act policy was still in draft form and had not been implemented. Many employees interviewed were unaware that they were required to report incidents and had been provided with little, if any, training. Although University administrators identified compliance with laws and regulations as one of the top 10 risks to the University in 2009, Clery Act compliance had never been audited by the University's internal auditors or received attention from any other University department, including the Office of General Counsel. ​

But Freeh first cited the Clery Act back in the Executive Summary at pages 16 & 17. The following two bullet points related to the Clery Act were among those used to explain the "cause for this failure to protect child victims and report to authorities":

- A lack of awareness of child abuse issues, the Clery Act, and whistleblower policies and protections.

- A football program that did not fully participate in, or opted out, of some University programs, including Clery Act compliance. Like the rest of the University, the football program staff had not been trained in their Clery Act responsibilities and most had never heard of the Clery Act. ​

-----
FYI - Penn State was submitting Clery Act reports long before 2011. But I've only been able to find links to reports that go back to stats from 2005; nothing earlier. Note that this was before anybody received training in 2007.


From 2008-2009 (earliest available, cover stats in 2005, 2006, & 2007):
http://web.archive.org/web/20110425...psu.edu/cleryact/documents/universitypark.pdf

From 2009-2010:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100609190811/http://www.police.psu.edu/cleryact/documents/2009-101504 c PolicySafety_UnivPrk.pdf

From 2010-2011:
-- could not find a copy of this one

From 2011-2012:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130126195623/http://www.police.psu.edu/cleryact/documents/2009-101504 c PolicySafety_UnivPrk.pdf

From 2012 (revised 10/17/2012):
http://web.archive.org/web/20130621...documents/UniversityParkPolicySafetyU2012.pdf

Actually, the VaTech mass shootings was the event that triggered all the "Cleary Audits" at University's (believe it was 2007), because the DOE fined VaTech as the shooter was not reported under the Cleary Act despite prior reportable incidents. The national organization of accredited universities' put out an advisory that all University's should make sure they were in compliance and conduct a "Cleary Audit" which virtually all large institutions did including PSU if I remember correctly.

 

[Chris92]

The depositions of the Freeh team should be promising. The healthy one in the prime of his career has "no recollection" of anything and the other is suffering from post traumatic tree syndrome.

 

[91Joe95]

Both you and I know that is not correct. I'll leave it at that.

Got a link?

 

[GTACSA]

But it's very likely that I WAS correct. I'm sure Sollers et al has catalogued every one of them.

What does that have to do with the fiction posted by psuro?

 

[lionlurker]

Ultimately, it has everything to do with it. While I agree with SSS's assessment that all of Freeh's formal notes are long gone, I'm sure that some of these people who were interviewed took notes, knowing that this day would come. And then we'll find out precisely how those interviews were conducted, right from the horse's mouth.

What we think/speculate doesn't matter. Those people will speak, under oath. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

 

[indynittany]

Assuming Spanier wins and gets an award, you'll see Louie pull out the details of what the BOT told him to do and he'll simply state that he was instructed by his customer. If it gets anywhere near this you'll see our BOT go into a bunker that would survive Armageddon.

Since he's indemnified by the BOT, don't you think he'll fall on his sword? I think that's what $8.5 million buys.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Ultimately, it has everything to do with it. While I agree with SSS's assessment that all of Freeh's formal notes are long gone, I'm sure that some of these people who were interviewed took notes, knowing that this day would come. And then we'll find out precisely how those interviews were conducted, right from the horse's mouth.

What we think/speculate doesn't matter. Those people will speak, under oath. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

If they speak - and I don't know if they will or will not - so what?
With contemporaneous documentation, where does that leave you?

If I was interviewed by the Freeh boys 4 years ago.......and now I pull out some notes - even if I claim to have written them down as soon as I left the interview - that say:
"Louis told me I better make football/Paterno look bad, or he would contact my supervisor and have my ass fired"
What does that do?
Louis says "are you crazy? I never did any such thing!........I am outraged!!!!!"
And then we are where? Aside from where we are right now;
Folks who know Louis' history thinking that Louis as a lying assclown.......and 99.9% of the (ignorant) public thinking "Poor Louis, those statue-polishing sycophants will stop at nothing to rehabilitate their tarnished image"

I'm not trying to "Pooh-Pooh" the effort.......but in and of itself I just can't see how it even moves the needle

ESPECIALLY after some of the shit that has gone over the last four years - and even more "especially" the last few months

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Since he's indemnified by the BOT, don't you think he'll fall on his sword? I think that's what $8.5 million buys.

EXACTLY

I've been saying that for FOUR YEARS

That is EXACTLY what they paid him for

 

[masterbaker65]

I've really been thinking about removing Zipster from my ignore list. The bruttle beatings he's taking are just to fun to miss out on.

 

[lionlurker]

If they speak - and I don't know if they will or will not - so what?
With contemporaneous documentation, where does that leave you?

If I was interviewed by the Freeh boys 4 years ago.......and now I pull out some notes - even if I claim to have written them down as soon as I left the interview - that say:
"Louis told me I better make football/Paterno look bad, or he would contact my supervisor and have my ass fired"
What does that do?
Louis says "are you crazy? I never did any such thing!........I am outraged!!!!!"
And then we are where? Aside from where we are right now;
Folks who know Louis' history thinking that Louis as a lying assclown.......and 99.9% of the (ignorant) public thinking "Poor Louis, those statue-polishing sycophants will stop at nothing to rehabilitate their tarnished image"

Not if 50 people all say the same thing. And if one or two truly believable individuals get on the stand and get televised, who knows?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Not if 50 people all say the same thing. And if one or two truly believable individuals get on the stand and get televised, who knows?

I hope that happens

 

[Sam Spade 80]

Since he's indemnified by the BOT, don't you think he'll fall on his sword? I think that's what $8.5 million buys.

I think you're probably right. It would be hard for Louie to come out and blame this on the BOT. What would he say? My investigations are all phony and I just write whatever those paying me want? That would be worse for him than saying he just screwed up.

 

[mn78psu83]

and others the opinion of Freeh.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SPANIER VS FREEH ORDER FILED SEPTEMBER 27 2016.pdf

I'm too lazy to read this. Was the tortious interference claim tossed? Found the answer here:

Judge Pares Spanier's Claims Against Freeh


Along with trimming the defamation claims, Eby's decision, which was issued late Tuesday, also axed Spanier's tortious interference claim, based on the allegation that Freeh interfered with a job Spanier intended to start with the federal government.

Although Spanier pointed to a stay in the litigation between February 2014 and January 2016 as the reason the tortious interference claim was not brought before the October 2015 deadline, Eby said Spanier had other means of preserving the claim.

"Plaintiff could have filed the tortious interference claims before seeking the stay or before the stay was granted," Eby said. "He could also have alerted the court to the looming expiration of the statute of limitations and sought emergency relief from the stay once it was granted."