How will the BOT respond to the Freeh Report recommendations?

[Reader]

http://progress.psu.edu/

[Thanks to JurysOut for the link.]

Purpose:

This website is the University's official information resource designed to anchor communications discussing difficult issues from the last year, including ongoing legal matters, in addition to providing updates on the initiatives we've put in place to address the serious issue of child abuse.

A message from President Rodney Erickson to the University community

Moving forward from the Freeh Report

Dear University Community:

As we all can attest, it has been a heart-wrenching and difficult eight months since we first learned of the charges against Jerry Sandusky and top-level Penn State officials. With the release Thursday of the investigative report by Judge Louis Freeh, the last several days have taken an additional toll.

My heart remains heavy for the victims of this tragedy, which has been a sobering reminder of what can occur when we fail to protect society's weakest and most vulnerable. As one learned scholar so aptly said, "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."

We can never again allow this to happen.

The 267-page Freeh Report, while difficult to digest, was a necessary step in finding the truth and continuing our healing process as a community. We must not be afraid to examine ourselves, our policies and our actions — with the clear intent of taking corrective measures and righting the wrongs...........


Much more at the link....

 

[Reader]

Posting some background from the Freeh Report on how the board was not informed by Penn State of the Sandusky investigation:

VI. University Officials Do Not Notify the Board of the Sandusky Incident
The Penn State Board of Trustees ("Board" or "Trustees") met on March 15 and 16, 2001. Nothing in the Board records or interviews of Trustees indicate any contemporaneous discussions of the 2001 Sandusky incident and investigation during the meeting. The Board did not have a process or committee structure at that time for 78
receiving regular reports from University officials about matters of potential risk to the University, such as the allegation against Sandusky. On July 24, 2001, Schultz met with leaders of the Second Mile and agreed to sell a parcel to the Second Mile for $168,500.371 The University had bought the property in 1999 for $168,500.372 On September 21, 2001, less than eight months after the Sandusky incident, the Board approved the sale of a parcel of land to the Second Mile.373 Nothing in the Board's records or interviews of Trustees indicate any contemporaneous discussions of the 2001 Sandusky incident and investigation, the propriety of a continuing relationship between Penn State and the Second Mile, or the risks created by a public association with Sandusky when the land transaction was discussed. Schultz, who oversaw the transaction, did not make any disclosure of the Sandusky incident during the Board's review of the land deal. In fact, Schultz approved a press release, issued September 21, 2001 announcing the land sale in which he praised Sandusky for his work with Second Mile. 374

CHAPTER 5 RESPONSE OF UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION - 2010, 2011
KEY FINDINGS

In early 2010 the Pennsylvania Attorney General, in connection with a Grand Jury investigation of Sandusky, issued subpoenas to the University for certain documents; in late 2010 the Grand Jury issued subpoenas for Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, Curley and various members of the Athletic Department in relation to a Grand Jury investigation of Sandusky for child sexual abuse.

In 2011, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, Curley and various members of the Athletic Department testified before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appearances and the Sandusky investigation were reported in a news story on March 31, 2011.

Neither Spanier nor the University's General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, briefed the Board of Trustees about the Grand Jury investigation of Sandusky or the potential risk to the University until the Board's meeting on May 11, 2011 and, then, only at the request of a Trustee who had read the March 31, 2011 article.

After receiving a Trustee's request for more information about the Grand Jury investigation, Spanier emailed Baldwin noting that "[the Trustee] desires near total transparency. He will be uncomfortable and feel put off until he gets a report."

At the May 2011 Board meeting, Spanier and Baldwin briefed the Board about the investigation, but minimized its seriousness by not fully describing the nature of the allegations or raising the issue of possible negative impact to the University.

From March 31 - November 4, 2011, the Board did not make reasonable inquiry of Spanier or Baldwin about the Sandusky investigation or potential risks to the University. The Board did not take steps that might have protected the University, such as conducting an internal investigation, engaging experienced criminal counsel, or preparing for the possibility that the results of the Grand Jury investigation could have a negative impact on the University.

Spanier and Baldwin opposed an independent investigation of the Sandusky issue, with Baldwin stating that "f we do this, we will never get rid of this [outside investigative] group in some shape or form. The Board will then think that they should have such a group." Spanier agreed.

80

 

[Reader]

Penn State trustee: 'We failed to ask the right questions'

SCRANTON, Pa. -- In their first response to an independent report implicating Pennsylvania State University's board of trustees alongside its top school officials, board members say their "hearts remain heavy" in accepting responsibility for a system that did not sooner stop incidents of sexual abuse by a former assistant football coach.

"We failed to ask the right questions, the tough questions, or to take definitive action," said Kenneth Frazier, who chaired the special investigation task force formed in November. "Put simply, we did not force the issue."

The report released this morning from a team led by investigator Louis Freeh concluded that prior board officials fell short in their oversight of senior university officials, saying they "failed to create an environment which held the university's most senior leaders accountable to it."


Read more: http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12194/1246159-143.stm#ixzz20vB9tX00

 

[Reader]

Sandusky independent investigation shows how university-trustee relationship broke down

............But Spanier brushed off the trustee, first hiding behind a cloak of grand jury secrecy that did not actually cover him, and then, when the trustee persisted, asserting a dozen days later, "I'm not sure it is entirely our place to speak about this when we are only on the periphery of this."

The e-mail exchange - recounted in a damning internal report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh - should have been a red flag, experts on university governance said. No board member should learn of a sensitive matter from a newspaper, they said, calling the way Spanier handled the Sandusky scandal a disastrous lesson in what not [to] do.............

Healthy university boards need to operate as equal partners with their presidents, experts said in interviews. Too often, a board may act with excessive deference toward a president, as seemed to be the case at Penn State, where Spanier's 16-year reign had brought the school to new heights academically. .................

"The board needs to create a climate in which presidents are encouraged and rewarded for disclosure of problems," Chait said. "And presidents need to create a climate that encourages trustees to be inquisitive, persistent and skeptical, and - if there's a need - critical. Presidents should not view that as a vote of no confidence."

A board is charged with oversight, rather than the day-to-day management of a university. Conflicts inevitably arise and can be challenging.

But a concerned board member should be able to voice concerns to the chairman, to the board as a whole in private session - or to go public at an open meeting if all else fails, several university officials said.

Penn State's lone inquisitive trustee (not named in the Freeh report) should have been able to bring his concerns to the entire board and say that he had been trying to get information but had been thwarted by Spanier, Chait said.

"The power of the board is in the collective. It's not in the individual," Chait said.

After seeing what went wrong at Penn State, more people "will be rethinking their participation," O'Donnell predicted.

"Every person who sits on a board in a leadership role as a trustee is watching this."................


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/14/3705231/sandusky-independent-investigation.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Reader]

Penn State trustees must decide individually if they should remain on the board, president Rodney Erickson says

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/each_member_of_penn_states_boa.html

UNIVERSITY PARK -- Each member of the Penn State board of trustees must decide whether the university can move forward from the Jerry Sandusky scandal if they remain on the board, university President Rodney Erickson said in an interview today with The Patriot-News.

“They need to look at that individually,” Erickson said. “Whatever they do, the overriding question should be, ‘What’s in the best interest of the university?’”...........

He addressed several issues, including that the university will respond to questions asked about the scandal by the NCAA within days.

He said Graham Spanier’s status — as a professor on sabbatical who could return this academic year — is being re-evaluated in light of the Freeh report.

The status of Tim Curley’s paid leave from his post as athletic director while he awaits criminal trial on perjury and failure to report charges, is also being reviewed.

Erickson said he can’t envision a scenario where Curley returns to that job.

He also changed his stance on honoring the late coach Joe Paterno.......

“The Freeh report, certainly that casts a different light on things,” Erickson said. “There are individuals who have very strong feelings on this.......

He also said the contract of Mike McQueary, the assistant coach who reported the incident in 2001 that has embattled the university, has expired and he was not renewed.


More at link....

 

[IzzyBlanche]

A little O/T maybe? But good grief, what a cesspool.

From link, BBM:

In November 2004, four of Penn State's leaders, including then-president Graham Spanier, sat down at Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning. The men asked the iconic coach to retire. Paterno said no, and that was that.

That same month, seven members of Penn State's board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board's oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to documents obtained this week by "Outside the Lines." The group told the full board, "Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand the test of being informed decisions."

But the board never took a vote on the proposal. Spanier and then-board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin considered the reforms -- and, just as Paterno had done, said no, three current trustees say....

Joel Myers, a longtime trustee, said the Freeh investigators told him that if the good-governance proposal had been adopted by the board back in 2004, "This (crisis) could have been avoided."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ate-nittany-lions-trustees-passed-reform-2004

 

[Jacie Estes]

BOTs are notorious for CYA mode. When this happens the students are failed. When we, as students, go to a University, we must follow a Code of Conduct; at Penn State it seems the only ones following that Code were the students. Sandusky's victims were led like lambs to slaughter. IMHO

 

[costalpilot]

Penn State trustees must decide individually if they should remain on the board, president Rodney Erickson says

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/each_member_of_penn_states_boa.html

UNIVERSITY PARK -- Each member of the Penn State board of trustees must decide whether the university can move forward from the Jerry Sandusky scandal if they remain on the board, university President Rodney Erickson said in an interview today with The Patriot-News.

“They need to look at that individually,” Erickson said. “Whatever they do, the overriding question should be, ‘What’s in the best interest of the university?’”...........

He addressed several issues, including that the university will respond to questions asked about the scandal by the NCAA within days.

He said Graham Spanier’s status — as a professor on sabbatical who could return this academic year — is being re-evaluated in light of the Freeh report.

The status of Tim Curley’s paid leave from his post as athletic director while he awaits criminal trial on perjury and failure to report charges, is also being reviewed.

Erickson said he can’t envision a scenario where Curley returns to that job.

He also changed his stance on honoring the late coach Joe Paterno.......

“The Freeh report, certainly that casts a different light on things,” Erickson said. “There are individuals who have very strong feelings on this.......

He also said the contract of Mike McQueary, the assistant coach who reported the incident in 2001 that has embattled the university, has expired and he was not renewed.


More at link....

the board needs to be careful about resigning, and leaving the board in the hands of the pro joe Lucarnow people. that would be a diaster of the first magnitude for penn state. to have that fool in a place of power on the board would be fatal, a public relations diaster of the highest order.

 

[BigCat]

Apprently some members of the BOT made an attempt at reform in 2004.

Penn St. leaders passed on reform

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ate-nittany-lions-trustees-passed-reform-2004

In November 2004, four of Penn State's leaders, including then-president Graham Spanier, sat down at Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning. The men asked the iconic coach to retire. Paterno said no, and that was that.

That same month, seven members of Penn State's board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board's oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to documents obtained this week by "Outside the Lines." The group told the full board, "Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand the test of being informed decisions."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is pressure from some on the BoT on former board chairman Steve Garban to resign.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/18/3265726/pressure-mounts-for-ex-psu-board.html#disqus_thread

 

[ynotdivein]

There is pressure from some on the BoT on former board chairman Steve Garban to resign.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/18/3265726/pressure-mounts-for-ex-psu-board.html#disqus_thread

From what I've read, it would be a good move for Garban to do so. IMO a board chair is responsible for communicating significant information to the board so that they can do the best job possible. Also IMO, Garban failed spectacularly to do that.

From the article BigCat posted above, emphasis mine:

"Two trustees said the board was most angry at Steve Garban, the then-board chairman who was informed by Spanier in April 2011 of the Sandusky investigation but failed to notify his fellow trustees, according to the Freeh report."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8169124/sources-penn-state-trustees-pressed-ex-chairman-steve-garban-resign

 

[LRinCA]

Penn State trustee Steve Garban, who was chairman of the board when the Jerry Sandusky scandal unfolded, has stepped down, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

The embattled former chairman was the target of criticism and calls to resign for his handling of the situation. According to the Freeh report, then-Chairman Garban heard from university leaders in late October about the grand jury investigations and potential charges. Garban discussed it with Vice Chairman John Surma and board member Jim Broadhurst.


Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/19/3266448/steve-garban-embattled-penn-state.html#storylink=cpy

 

[J. J. in Phila]

From what I've read, it would be a good move for Garban to do so. IMO a board chair is responsible for communicating significant information to the board so that they can do the best job possible. Also IMO, Garban failed spectacularly to do that.

I am in agreement. Garban did two things:

A. Fail to inform the Board as a whole.

B. Fail to adequately respond to an individual question from an unknown (currently) board member on the issue.

The problem is, the Board does not directly have the power to remove him. Statute permits the people who elected him to remove him, but I think that the alumni. http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/corporations-and-unincorporated-associations/00.057.026.000.html

The Board would basically have to adopt a rule or bylaw for handling removal by the alumni, which they could do. Their charter/bylaws are here:

http://www.psu.edu/trustees/charter.html

The interesting thing is that, if they do that, not only would I get to vote on the removal, but so would Jerry and Dottie Sandusky.

 

[ynotdivein]

Penn State trustee Steve Garban, who was chairman of the board when the Jerry Sandusky scandal unfolded, has stepped down, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

The embattled former chairman was the target of criticism and calls to resign for his handling of the situation. According to the Freeh report, then-Chairman Garban heard from university leaders in late October about the grand jury investigations and potential charges. Garban discussed it with Vice Chairman John Surma and board member Jim Broadhurst.


Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/19/3266448/steve-garban-embattled-penn-state.html#storylink=cpy

Wow. Late October 2011 as in this article, or April 2011, as in the article linked above?

Either way... he stepped down. I'm 100% ok with that...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Penn State trustee Steve Garban, who was chairman of the board when the Jerry Sandusky scandal unfolded, has stepped down, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

The embattled former chairman was the target of criticism and calls to resign for his handling of the situation. According to the Freeh report, then-Chairman Garban heard from university leaders in late October about the grand jury investigations and potential charges. Garban discussed it with Vice Chairman John Surma and board member Jim Broadhurst.


Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/19/3266448/steve-garban-embattled-penn-state.html#storylink=cpy

Outstanding!

He should have brought this to the board. And the board should have been asking questions. I'd like to know who was that one member that tried.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Wow. Late October 2011 as in this article, or April 2011, as in the article linked above?

Either way... he stepped down. I'm 100% ok with that...

That article refers to that one trustee that was on the ball and was asking questions by e-mail in April 2011.

 

[ynotdivein]

That article refers to that one trustee that was on the ball and was asking questions by e-mail in April 2011.

Whoever that trustee was, kudos to her/him.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Whoever that trustee was, kudos to her/him.

You had a few members that actually saw their role, correctly, as oversight. Part of that job is making the employees, and Spanier was an employee, justify their actions. It, ultimately, makes them better employees, because they have to put some thought into what they are doing.

Half of the alumni Trustees regarded being on the Board as a high honor for loyal support to the Alumni Association (they were officers) or because they were involved in fundraising. I'm factoring out the new three.

The Board was considered to be "The Country Club." It was a status symbol and meant you could still be BMOC.

There were exceptions, like Joel Myers, who interestingly supported early efforts at transparency.

 

[StellarsJay]

BOT Chair Garban is gone.
No wonder he felt more like a university insider than a Board leader.

The uni's bios says he was Senior Vice President of Finance and Operations/Treasurer Emeritus.- 33 years working for Penn State, the last 12 as VP.
http://www.psu.edu/trustees/members/garban.html

Garban played Penn State football 1956-58 and was team captain. Paterno was an assistant coach in that time.
Garban got a B.S. in Business from Penn State in 1959, no record of higher degrees.

Probably when Garban retired. Schultz (bachelors and master`s in Industrial Engineering at Penn State) became Vice-President of Finance and Business in 1995.
Garban was elected to the Board in July 1998.

 

[costalpilot]

You had a few members that actually saw their role, correctly, as oversight. Half of the alumni Trustees regarded being on the Board as a high honor for loyal support to the Alumni Association (they were officers) or because they were involved in fundraising. I'm factoring out the new three.

The Board was considered to be "The Country Club." It was a status symbol and meant you could still be BMOC.

.

wonder if the boards of similar institutuions are pretty much the same as this, or if this was different. maybe as a result of paterno's control of the school? or maybe not, maybe lots of boards are loose associations of BMOC wanta bes..wouldnt surprise me? just dont know.

i do know boards are not supposed to be that way but????