It seems the primary game plan was resolve the claims as quickly as possible with the express purpose of keeping as much out of the news cycle as possible.
The following was extracted from a victim lawsuit filing. It includes quotes from various depositions of former BOT members. I don't believe any of this has been made public. Note - The filing in question was available very briefly before it was sealed. It's clear the plaintiff attorney swayed as much as humanly possible in his clients favor, but its also clear our former BOT members made it easy. Also, PSU apparently did try to fight this lawsuit for awhile; the case was settled shortly after it was scheduled for what would've been a public trial.
## John Doe MM Lawsuit Filing 12/1/2017, and Deposition Extracts
### Based on John Doe MM Deposition, p.10
Plaintiff attended several PSU football games with Defendant Sandusky. On at least one of those occasions Gary Schultz was present. This was in 2006, before Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Sandusky. See Exhibit “B” pgs. 177- 192. Schultz not only saw the Plaintiff with Sandusky, Mr. Schultz spoke with Plaintiff's father. At this point, Mr. Schultz knew that Sandusky had sexually abused several TSM children in 1998 and 2001. Id. Despite having this knowledge and seeing TSM children with Sandusky, including Plaintiff, in a box at PSU's football stadium, Mr. Schultz never once warned Plaintiff and/or his father about the danger Sandusky posed. This cowardly indifference to Plaintiff's welfare placed him in the position to be sexually assaulted by Sandusky not one year later. Plaintiff identified Mr. Schultz in a photograph as the man who saw Plaintiff with Sandusky and who spoke with Plaintiff's father during the PSU football game. See Exhibit “B” pgs. 177- 192; See also Exhibit “HH” Photograph of Gary Schultz Shown to Plaintiff.
### Based on Karen Peetz Deposition, p.11-12
PSU's averments and arguments throughout all four Motions for Summary Judgment are incredulous, given that PSU has already accepted full responsibility for all of the sexual abuse that occurred to TSM children, including Plaintiff. Starting with then Chairman of the PSU Board of Trustees Karen Peetz, who during one of her depositions answered questions about the statement she gave, authorized by and on behalf of PSU, at the conclusion of Judge Louis Freeh's internal investigation into PSU:
Q. It starts [Miss Peetz statement regarding the Freeh Report]: “Today's comprehensive [Freeh] report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first.” Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. “The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the university, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred.” Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you agree with that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And accepting full responsibility for the failures that occurred, that means endangering the welfare of children, doesn't it?
A. I think what it means is that as the senior most body of the university, where the president reports to the board of the university, that it is very important that we step up and say: The buck stops here. We accept responsibility and accountability.
See Exhibit “D” pgs. 27-28; lines 4-24, 1-8. This statement by PSU's assigned representative, in and of itself provides a genuine issue of material fact that defeats all of PSU's Motions for Summary Judgment. PSU cannot say they did not owe a duty to Plaintiff and that they are not responsible, when one of PSU's highest-ranking members is saying otherwise.
### Based on James Broadhurst Deposition, p.16-17
James Broadhurst, who served on the Board of Trustees for PSU since 1998, and was the Chairman for two years, also accepted full responsibility and liability on behalf of PSU. He was deposed by Victim No. 9's attorney. To put Victim No. 9's abuse in context, he was sexually assaulted and abused from 2005 until 2009, Plaintiff in this case was sexually abused during that same timeframe, in 2007. Mr. Broadhurst specifically addresses how PSU failed to prevent, stop, and/or warn of the dangers Sandusky, a convicted pedophile, posed to all children he came into contact with.
Q. Our client, this young boy was sexually molested, raped, between 2005 and early 2009?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the period of time that you were both a trustee, you were vice-chair of the board of trustees and you then served as the chair of the board of trustees. Will you accept responsibility for permitting him [the victim] to be in a situation where Gerry Sandusky was using the athletic facilities, met him at The Second Mile Camp, took him to football games, walked around the Penn State football stadium with Joe Paterno, will you sit here and accept responsibility that that should not have happened had the board discharged its fiduciary obligations?
A. I'm very disappointed that, that our senior leadership team didn't do what was necessary to prevent this terrible act to occur. As far as responsibility by the board, the university, I can't, I can't speak to that in the manner that, the way you presented the question. This was a matter of failure of individuals to perform their appropriate duties and responsibility that had knowledge of these circumstance.
Q. And who are those, who are those individuals who failed?
A. These are the senior officers that were previously mentioned, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, Tim Curley.
Q. And Joe Paterno?
A. And Joe Paterno.
See Exhibit “F” pgs. 82-84, lines 1-24, 1-24, 1-6. Mr. Broadhurst was asked directly about specific findings contained in the Freeh report:
Q. “Four of the most powerful people at The Penn State University -- Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice-President –Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno – failed to protect against a sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001. Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child's identity, of what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.” Do you accept that finding by Judge Freeh?
A. I accept the failures of these individuals as reported by Judge Freeh.
### Based on Ken Frazier Deposition, p.18-20
Another member of the Board Trustees and Chairman of the Special Investigative Task Force, discussed above, Kenneth Frazier,6 also accepts the findings of the Freeh Report and takes full responsibility, accountability and liability on behalf of PSU for the failures of PSU to prevent, stop, and/or warn of the dangers Sandusky posed to every child who Sandusky came into contact with. Before making any statements regarding PSU's accountability for the abuse that occurred, Mr. Frazier fully read the Freeh report and went through the evidence that supported the findings of the Freeh report. During his deposition, he was questioned about the statements he made on behalf of PSU.
...
Q. And when you saw the internal e-mails that were attached to the Freeh Report, the evidence, were you upset?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is that?
A. I was upset because personally I believed then I believe now that people who are in a position of responsibility in the University should take reports of suspected child abuse very seriously and that implies in my mind that if there is sufficient information of adults to suspect the possibility that children are in danger that those facts or information, whether it's complete or perfect or not, gives rise to a responsibility to take whatever steps can reasonably be taken to ensure that those children are protected from what might be sexual abuse, and that to me included making a report about those suspicions to the people who are trained and responsible for determining, whether, in fact, children are at risk.
***
Q. And after reading the Freeh Report and after looking at the evidence that was attached to the Freeh Report, you believed that the University needed to accept responsibility for children being harmed. Isn't that accurate?
A. In fact, I said that as a Board of Trustees, as the highest entity entitled to act on behalf of the University, we were accepting responsibility and accountability for failures that occurred. I remember saying that.
### Based on Anne Riley Deposition, p.20
Board of Trustee Member, Francis Anne Riley, a trustee from July of 1999 until June of 2012, specifically agreed, during her deposition, that PSU enabled and allowed Sandusky to lure and abuse all of his child victims:
Q. You know, I've been thinking about this. Maybe you can help me out particularly because you have been a teacher and involved with education for a good part of your life and Penn State. Beaver Stadium, Penn State has just not Pennsylvania relevance. It's got national attention and to some extent absolutely well deserved. But here you have a pedophile who was using the facilities bringing young, typically troubled, sometimes parent-less or single parent, young boys to the stadium, probably from their point of view for the time of their life, an opportunity to be with well-known people at a well-known institution. As you look back on it now, just as a reflection, don't you think that enabled, allowing that to happen, using Penn State's facilities helped enable Sandusky to commit his crimes?
A. Yes.
### Based on Steve Garban Deposition, p.20-21
Another high-ranking member of PSU and a life-long employee, Steve Garban unequivocally stated, that Penn State was responsible for all of the abuse committed by Sandusky from 1998 through 2012. Additionally, Mr. Garban on behalf of PSU, fully accepted the findings contained in the Freeh report.
Q. That when you used - - I'm going to read it again [Mr. Garban's resignation letter as chairman of the board of trustees]: “The Board of Trustees accepted responsibility for the failures of governance that took place on our watch.” What period of time did you mean when you wrote that sentence?
A. My view is it meant all the time I was on the board.
Q. Meaning 1998 through and including 2012?
A. Well, that's what I was referring to, yes.
See Exhibit “I” pgs. 41-42, lines 14-24, 1.
Q. Now let me read the last paragraph on that page [letter the PSU Board of Trustees put out on the day the Freeh Report was released] and it goes over to the back: “The Board of Trustees acknowledges that it failed to create an environment of accountability and transparency and did not have optimal reporting procedures or committee structures.” Is that an accurate statement of the board's position at that time”
A. Yes.
See Exhibit “I” pg. 65, lines 3-11.
Quoting from the same document as above:
Q. The next sentence, actually the next paragraph, quote, “The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount responsibility for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures cited in the Free Report.” You agree with that, do you not?
A. Yes.
