IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CENTRE COUNTY, 

 

 

 

 

IN RE: APPLICATION OF STACY PARKS .

MILLER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF No. CP-14-MD-
CENTRE COUNTY REQUESTING AN

ORDER DIRECTING THAT AN 

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY BE Notice Number 11
SUMMONED 

TO THE HONORABLE THOMAS K. KISTLER, SUPERVISING JUDGE:

REPORT NO. 11

We, the FirSt Centre County Investigating Grand Jury, duly charged to. inquire into
offenses against the criminal laws of the Commonwealth, having obtained knowledge of
such matters from witnesses sworn by the Court and testifying before us. We make the
following findings of fact upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence and issue
these recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public
interest. 80 finding with no fewer than twelve concurring, we do hereby make this
Report to the Court. 

 

Investigating Grand Jury
Dated: 4912'? If?

 

 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CENTRE COUNTY, 

 

 

 

 

IN RE: APPLICATION OF STACY PARKS .

MILLER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF No. CP-14-MD-
CENTRE COUNTY REQUESTING AN

ORDER DIRECTING THAT AN 

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY BE Notice Number '11
SUMMONED 

FINDINGS AND ORDER

it? if 
AND NOW, this ?day of I

29 mile:

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Report Number 11 is accepted and shall be filed as a
public record with Centre County Court Administration pursuant to 42 ?4552.
The Report may be inspected by any person. After a review of the record, the Court
makes a finding that the Report is based upon facts received ?in the course of the
various investigations authorized by this Court and is supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. The Centre County Court Administration is directed to distribute a copy of

the Report along with this Order to each of the individuals listed below.

BY THE court? 5}

wry/{gs

TH AS Ne KISTLER P.J,
pervising Judge of the Centre County

W. Investigating Grand Jury
Dated: 45$} ?if 7

if?!

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

 

 

Charles T. Jr., State Senator, Senate Law and Justice Committee, Majority
Chair, Senate Box 203010, Room: 187 Main Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3010

James R. Brewster, State Senator, Senate Law and Justice Committee, Minority Chair,

Senate Box 203045, Room: 458 Main Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3045

Jake Corman, State Senator serving Centre County, 34th District, Senate Box 203034,
Room: 350 Main Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3034

Michael Hanna, State Representative serving Centre County, 76th District, 428 Main
Capitol Building, PO Box 202076, Harrisburg, PA 17120~2076

Rich lrvin, State Representative serving Centre County, 81St District, 5 East Wing, PO
Box 202081, Harrisburg, PA 17120?2081 

H. Scott Conklin, State Representative serving Centre County, 77th District, 314 Irvis
Office Building, PO Box 202077, Harrisburg, PA 17120~2077

Kerry A. Benninghotf, State Representative serving Centre County, 171St District, 147
Main Capitol Building, PO Box 202171, Harrisburg, PA 17120?2171

The State University, President Eric J. Barron, President?s Office, 201 Old
Main, University Park, PA 16802 - i

The State University Board of Trustees, 205 Old Main, University Park,
PA 16802

 

 THE OF COMMON PLEAS
- CENTRE COUNTY, 

IN RE: APPLICATION OFSTACY PARKS
MILLER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF No. CP-14-MD-
CENTRE COUNTY REQUESTING AN

ORDER DIRECTING THAT AN

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY BE Notice Number 11
SUMMONED -

ORDER

33v! 
$3 d?ri its it;

AND Now, this /3 dayof?ngI??, 50/7:

59 :5 lit at 3311 um



IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Commonwealth having withdrawn any and all
objections to, and requested the release of, the Response submitted by the
State University, the Court consents to the Commonwealth to publicly
release and distribute Grand Jury Report Number 11, previously tentatively approved
by the Court by its Order dated October 20, 2017, together with the State

University's written Response (and supporting documentation). This Order is effective
immediately.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the University?s Response must be concurrently
appended to, and provided together with, the Report to any recipient of a hard copy. At
the Request of the Commonwealth,-the supporting documentation authorized for
publication, together with the Report and Response, may be made separately publicly
available on the website of the Office of the District Attorney, provided that the

UnIVersity?s Report is made part of the same electronic file with the Report for
download.

BY THE COU 

7222:?
F?r?HorvrAs KING as.

Supervising Judge of the Centre County
Dated: 7 investigating Grand Jury



 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 1
FINDINGS-OF FACT 1
A. The Alpha Upsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi 1
1. A History of Hazing 2
2. The Last Night of Timothy Piazza?s Life: February 2, 2017 7

B. The Pattern of Hazing and Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Greek 

1. The Alpha Upsilon. Chapter of Beta Theta Pi: Ten Years Before Tim 11

2. James Vivenzio 26

3. The Interfraternity Council: Students Regulating Students 39

4. Penn State's 54

5. Barriers to Change 70

C. The Dangers of Greek Life 73
1. At University Park 73

Joe Dado 77

2. At Commonwealth Campuses 82

Marquise Braham 83

3. In the United States 94

LSU 94

(ii) Wheaton College 95
CONCLUSIONS 95
A. Hazing 95

B. Excessive and Illegal Alcohol Consumption 100

 

C. The Invisible Wall Between Penn State University and the Pen. 
lnterfraternity Council 
D. Penn State's Response to Hazing Since the Grand Jury's Presentment 110 
E. A Practice Run at Failure: Parents Weekend 2017 and Beyond 112
m. 123
1. Cure the Currently Deficient Hazing Law 123
2. Strengthen Law for Furnishing Alcohol to Minors 125
3. Create a Pledge's Bill of Rights 127
4. Establish a Hazing Hotline 130
5. Discipline Individual Students Who Violate the Hazing Laws With Actual Zero
Tolerance 131
6. Strengthen Penn State's Hazing Policy 132
7. Implement and Enforce Severe Restrictions in Alcohol Use Because
Incremental Changes Have Proven Useless and Are Disproportionate to the
Problem 133
8. Penn State Must Enforce Those Policies that Protect Penn State Students
137
9. Penn State Should Direct Resources to the Expansion of its Office of
Fraternity and Sorority Life and Office of Student Conduct 138
10. Penn State Should Adequately Fund and Staff the Offices Responsible for
Greek Life . 139
11. Universities Should Train All Employees - Including Students To Recognize
the Gravity of Hazing and to Report It Immediately 140
12. The General Assembly Should Enact Compulsory Reporting Processes For

 

 

 

 

 

Any Elementary, Secondary, or Higher Education Institution, Including
Identifying Mandatory reporters 141

 

  

INTRODUCTION

We, the members of the First Centre County Investigating 
received evidence pertaining to matters occurring in Centre County, 
pursuant to Notice of Submission of Investigation Number 11, do hereby make the

following findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Alpha Upsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi

On the evening of February 2, 2017, the State University chapter of
Beta Theta Pi fraternity hosted its traditional bid acceptance night1 event at their
fraternity house located at 220 N. Burrowes Street in State College, PA. The fourteen
individuals commencing their pledge process for admission into the Beta Theta Pi
brotherhood all received text messages earlier that evening from Daniel Casey, their

?pledgemaster,?2 directing all of them to ?Be outside the kitchen doors behind the house

at 9:07. Dress code is shirt, tie, and jacket.?

Among the hopeful pledges anxiously gathered in the back parking lot behind the
Beta house in the biting February cold that evening stood 19 year old sophomore
Timothy Piazza. Once directed to do so, Timothy, along with his fellow pledges, filed

into the Beta Theta Pi,house behind a Beta brother, each trusting their safety to those

 

1 A ?bid? is an invitation to a person to become a member of the fraternity. Upon accepting a ?bid? the prospective
member becomes a junior member of the fraternity called a ?pledge.? After serving a period of time as a ?pledge,?
he becomes a full member of the fraternity called a "brother.?

2 The ?pledgemaster? is a for the fraternity brother tasked with recruiting and shepherding new

members through the pledging program.

 

1 Page

 

 

 

Whose brotherly friendship they sought to earn. Tragically, Timotl

 

 

 

knowingly set foot outside the fraternity?s doors ever again. When he xt emerged, he

lay unresponsive on a paramedic?s stretcher fighting a losing battle to live.

This Grand Jury initially investigated what occurred inside the walls of the Beta
Theta Pi house that evening. Hours of testimony and scores of witnesses revealed what
Timothy Piazza and his fellow pledges endured at the hands of their future ?brothers.?
Their treatment was not unique to this pledge class within the organization, nor
exclusive to the Beta Theta Pi fraternity. Indeed, ?hazing? proved routine at Beta Theta
Pi and had been for years. The Grand Jury determined it would be failing its duty to the
Commonwealth as a whole if it did not report to the public both what it learned and the
certain dangers it foresees if students, university administrations, and the General
Assembly resist adopting profound changes on college campuses and communities in


A History of Hazing

According to testimony provided to the Grand Jury over multiple days, the history
of hazing by this fraternity at a minimum extends back multiple semesters. Jonah
Neuman admitted to the Grand Jury that he ?ran the gauntlet?3 when he pledged Beta

his freshman year in the fall of 2015, four semesters prior to Tim Piazza?s death.

The next semester, a year before Tim?s death, in the spring of 2016, Adam

Mengden testified that his gauntlet began on the 3rd floor of the Beta house when his

 

3 ?Running the gauntlet? is a type of hazing where pledges are required, on Bid Acceptance Night, to run
throughout the fraternity house, stopping at various intervals to speed drink copious amounts of aicoholic
beverages, including beer, wine, and vodka.

 

2 Page

 

   

pledge master handed him a 1.75 liter bottle4 of Crown Russe vodka

further down the hallway, another brother pressed an already 
Adam?s hand to suck down in a manner known as ?shot gunning.? He then raced to the
second floor where Adam guzzled from a whiffle ball bat filled with beer, after brothers
directed him to use it to spin around a certain number of times. The last station
consisted of a ?beer ping pong? set up where brothers required Mengden to drink the
cup of beer if he could not shoot a ping pong ball into the beer cup. Mengden testified

that before his ball could bounce into the cup, a brother swatted the ball away,

essentially ensuring that Mengden would consume the entire cup of beer.

Text messages extracted from the cellular telephones of Brendan Young and
Daniel Casey (pledge master and assistant pledge master, respectively) during the
spring of 2016 expose the brothers planning a wide array of hazing activities for that
coming semester?s pledge class. In April 2016, Young texted to Casey ?[The pledges]
arrive at 10 and do all the tasks I told them to do, then they go back to their dorms to get
a bag for the week. When they come back, they do a case race and then a lineup.5 l?ll
tell you the week long plan when you get here tonight.? One day later, Young informed
Casey took it easy on them this morning because last night was a massacre.? Casey

responded, ?Was there pledge fitness and did you play any music? Yeah, last night was

shitty."

 

4 Aiso referred to as a ?handle? by the various pledges and brothers

5 Based on testimony provided by other witnesses such as James Vivenzio, the Grand Jury understands a ?line up?
to occur when fraternity brothers require pledges to physically stand in a line and perform various acts of hazing,
typically passing some kind of alcohol up and down.

 

3 Page

 

 

Young also acknowledges in text messages with others th Eit
administering ?Beta brew? to the pledges in April 2016. Beta brew, 
College Police Detective Scicchitano?s interviews, consisted of a variety of old food and
condiments blended together for the pledges to drink. Brothers forced to drink it
admitted to the detective they became ill and vomited. The same day Young planned
the Beta brew, he answered Casey's question regarding the previous night?s activities
as ?not great. It took them a while to drink it, so I lined them up halfway through and
then gave them the chance to drink the rest or go through a lineup.? Young confirmed
the pledges eventually ?did it,? but followed up by calling them ?pussies.? In other
messages by Young to various friends or even family, heconfesses to ?smacking? the
pledges; obtaining goldfish from Petco; arranging with Casey to make ?blood and?pissf"3
and enjoying ?positive feedback from the brothers? after initiating the pledges through

?hell week.?7

20 year old Beta brother Gregory Rizzo informed police that during his rush8
week in the fall semester of 2016,9 he was the oldest of 29 total pledges. In the fall of
2016, Daniel Casey (the ?pledge master? in the spring of 2017) filled the role of assistant
pledge master while Brendan Young (President during Tim Piazza?s death) lorded over
new recruits as the ?pledge master.? Rizzo described his bid acceptance night as very
similar to what the Grand Jury learned Timothy Piazza endured leading to his death.

After a ritual, he and the other 28 pledges ran an obstacle course of drinking games that

 

5 Referring to concoctions made to appear like blood and urine yellow Gatorade substituting for urine).

7 From the testimony of various witnesses, the Grand Jury understands "hell week? to generaily occur in the final
week of pledging in which hazing becomes considerably more severe and frequent.

3 Rush week, according to testimony heard by the Grand Jury, precedes the pledging process, and occurs when
students visit various different fraternities to determine whether they want to seek a formal "bid,? or invitation to
pledge, from the fraternity.

9 The semester immediately prior to Timothy Piazza?s death.

 

4 Page

 

   
 

   

required him to imbibe from a large bottle of vodka, shotgun a beer, an

 

whiffle ball bat before ?chugging? more beer. Following this 
hosted a social where they openly furnished additional alcohol to the pledges as well as

invited guests whether these people were 21 years old or not.

Rizzo explained that during his pledge Hell Week, Casey and Young required
pledges to engage in another ?crate race? (a drinking competition described more fully
below) during which several pledges vomited; perform physical calisthenics such as
squats, push ups, and planks; and participate in a ?mind game? ceremony. During this
ceremony, Beta brothers individually escorted pledges into a room with a pillow case
covering their heads before asking if they were willing to walk over glass for their
brothers and leading them over a path of potato chips. They asked whether the pledges
would drink their brothers? blood before handing them a glass of tomato juice and
Tabasco sauce. They asked if the pledges would be willing to drink their brothers? urine
before makingthem consume Gatorade. Finally, the brothers asked the pledges if they
would be willing to ?take a hit? for their brothers before brothers sharply struck each

pledge with a flat, wooden paddle.

Part of his rush activities that he disclosed included a ?crate race,? which
consisted of the brothers dividing pledges into teams tasked with jointly finishing the
contents of a ?crate? provided to them. Each ?crate? contained a 1.75 liter bottle of
vodka, a 30~can pack of beer, and a box of several liters of wine. The brothers crowned
the first team to successfully consume all the alcohol as the winner. Rizzo testified that

the pledges became very drunk to the point of illness as a result.

 

SIPage

 

 
 

the Grand Jury that alcohol figured prominently into Young?s planning ofiBidecceptafrice
Night in the fall of 2016. Young specifically instructed MichaelAngelo Schiavone that
?we need booze for bid acceptance tomorrow night.? When asked how much by
Schiavone, Young answered lot.? in a later text message, Young
specifically ordered ?a pallet and a bunch of handles.?10 In a message Young sent to
another individual the day of fall 2016?s Bid Acceptance Night, Young explained, have
the obstacle course set up. I just need guys to read and to be involved in the drinking
tonight.? In text messages on Young?s phone, brothers anticipate at least two pledges
will pass out and/or vomit, a behavioral response described in a text to Young as ?par

for the course.?

In the fall of 2016, hell week texts show Young messaging about ?Beta brew
tonight for the pledges? and ?paddling tonight! We got pledges to paddle." In December,
Young laments in a text to his girlfriend that he is ?burnt out from hazing.? Among these
texts included a conversation on December 1, 2016 between Young and his girlfriend in
which his girlfriend writes ?take it out on the pledges.? Young responds ?Whip the dick
out?? His girlfriend replies ?If there was ever a time for an elephant walk, it would be
tonight? to which Young retorts, ?my least favorite part of pledging.? The Grand Jury
learned through another witness, James Vivenzio (whose horrific pledging experience at
the hands of a different fraternity is detailed later in this report), that an ?elephant walk,?

consists of fraternity brothers forcing pledges to walk in a circle with their finger inserted

 

1? A ?handle" is a larger sized bottle of whiskey or other spirit shaped to include a handle. The Grand Jury saw
these bottles on video used by brothers throughout the gauntlet.

 

ElPage

 

 

in the anus of the pledge in front of them while holdingthe scrotum of the,

 

 

 

 

them.

Casey?s cell phone texts in the fall of 2016 exposed a conversation between him
and fellow Beta brother Joseph Ems in which Ems asks ?do we have any hazing events
going on tonight?? Casey answers that a "lineup" is, indeed, slated. Subsequent
messages between Casey and his girlfriend described the lineup as ?messy.? Other
texts between the two reveal Casey?s plans for ?paddling" and ?fake branding.? Texts
between Casey and another Beta brother show that at least one round of paddling

meted out results severe enough to break a pledge?s skin with the paddle.
The Last Night of Timothy Piazza?s Life: February 2, 2017

By now, the Grand Jury expects the horribly tragic details of what transpired
behind the doors of Beta Theta Pi in the winter of 2017 have been discussed, dissected,
and debated on the national stage. This Grand Jury spent several days reviewing
surveillance video and witness testimony before conclusively finding probable cause
exists to warrant recommending that Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller
file hundreds of criminal charges ranging from Aggravated Assault to Tampering with
Evidence for the Beta?s Spring 2017 Bid Acceptance Night. Our Supervising Judge,
Thomas King Kistler accepted the Presentment, and the District Attorney followed the

recommendation of the Grand Jury and filed charges.

At the direction of various members of Beta Theta Pi, Timothy Piazza and his
fellow thirteen pledges ran ?the gauntlet?-??-requiring him to excessively drink alcohol to

please his new soon-to-be brothers. This spiked Tim?s blood alcohol content from a zero

 

7 Page

 

    

to as high as a .36, according to information provided by Dr. Harry Karri oily :5
?celebrate? the pledge?s Bid Acceptance. On this evening, Tim was 
age. In fact, twelve of the fourteen pledges were under the legal drinking age of 21
years old, but that detail didn?t stop fraternity brothers from furnishing alcohol on either
this occasion or at other rush events prior to this night. According to receipts reviewed
by the Grand Jury, Beta brothers purchased a vast quantity of alcohol in anticipation of
the gauntlet and other Spring 2017 rush11 events. Brothers gathered cases of vodka,
Four Lokos,?Z beer, and boxes of wine from various different alcohol distributors and
stores, totaling over $1 just a one week period.?13 Evidence revealed Beta Theta
Pi held three previous rush events in the weeks leading up to Tim?s death, all of which

involved plying pledges with alcohol.

The pledges lined up and finished an entire handle of vodka, struggling with the
emotional manipulation knowing that the brothers expected the pledge at the end of the
line would face responsibility for draining the bottle. When the bottle arrived to the last
pledge, still at least half full, pledge?master Daniel Casey instructed that the pledges
continue to pass it up and doWn the line until the last drop had been consumed. This

chugging event was merely a prelude to the first drinking station.

 

11 Evan Rooney, one of Tim Piazza?s fellow pledges, described that a "rush? occurs when students visit each
fraternity, meeting the individual brothers, to determine whether they would be a good ?fit? there. Mr. Rooney
testified that during his rush in the Spring of 2017 in the months preceding Tim Piazza?s death, the fraternity
infused each event with alcohol such as beer and Four Lokos.

12 The Grand Jury received testimony describing Four Lokos as a potent mixed alcoholic drink.

13 Receipts collected reflect dates from January 25, 2017 to February 2, 2017, the night of Tim?s death.

 

SlPage

 

 

mag:

  
 

The brothers then led the pledges upstairs to run the gauntlet. 

received surveillance video of the first station14 as a line of pledges waitedwbehinda-Ta



 

closed door to be called one at a time. One by one, Daniel Casey delivered a knock to
the door, and one by one, Joseph Sala directed each pledge to begin the gauntlet. The
Grand Jury watched as Daniel Casey handed each pledge a handle of vodka, often with
a smile on his face. At times, the cameras captured Fraternity President Brendan Young
surveying the station and laughing as pledges chugged from the handle, before

sprinting to the second stop down the hallway.

At the second station, three different Beta brothers handed out cans of Natural
Light beer for each pledge to shotgun while a captive audience of other Beta brothers
swigged their own beers, jeering and cheering them on. Nicholas Kubera, Michael
Bonatucci, and Jonah Neuman each distributed at least one beer to the fourteen
pledges?in some cases supervising; in others, actively appearing to encourage the

pledges, such as Tim in particular, to chug faster.

After shotgunning a beer, the pledges dashed to the top of the stairs leading to
the basement, down which Tim would later fall, sustaining his ultimately fatal injuries.
Before proceeding down, each pledge ?slapped? the wine bag15 held aloft by Gary
Dibilio, gulping at least a mouthful of red wine. When the pledges accidentally ran up
the stairs, other Beta brothers who spectated the gauntlet from the second floor directed

them to return downstairs to continue along the gauntlet's proper track.

 

14 The Grand Jury learned that the gauntlet drinking obstacle course inVOlved muitiple different stations where
brothers forced the pledges to stop and consume different types of alcohol in various ways.

15 From the video and testimony of witnesses, Grand Jurors observed ?slapping a wine bag? to one brother
holding a bag of wine up high while the pledge slap it with an open hand and drink directly from the dispensing
noz?e.

 

9 Pagew

 

 

 

Finally, downstairs in the basement, Luke Visser manned the 
during which each pledge chugged a cup of beer if he failed to toss a pingp "Hal

 

 

 

inside the cup. The brothers then organized another pledge class beer shotgun before

melding into the fraternity?s social, where beer and wine continued to flow freely

throughout the night.

During the evening, surveillance recorded the extreme inebriation of Tim Piazza,
documenting his staggering path through the first floor of the Beta house while the party
raged on in the background. Other pledges on the video appeared to be severely
intoxicated as well?one pledge actually fell down a much shorter set of three stairs
descending into the Great Room around the same time as Tim Piazza suffered his own

gruesome, ultimately fatal fall.

Although clearly lurching on his feet as he traversed one end of the foyer to the
other, Tim appeared on. video to still be conscious?a circumstance that would quickly
change once he fell down the stairs. Within minutes after plummeting, multiple Beta
brothers emerge on the video carrying a now clearly unconscious Tim, whose shirt is
gaping open and on whose torso is blooming an identifiable tennis?ball sized bruise that
Dr. Kamerow later determined as the external appearance of a profound laceration to

Tim?s spleen inside his unconscious body.?

Later in the evening, after he?s left alone, the cameras digitally record Tim?s final
hours of life, as he wakens and stumbles around the first floor, sometimes rocking on

his knees in what appears to be excruciating pain; sometimes plunging head-first into

 

16 The Grand Jury Was able to see the bruise from a ceiling?height mounted camera.

 

10]Page

 

 

solid objects, such as doors, metal bannisters, and heavy side tablo?.

 

staggers off camera, presumably down the basement stairs again befora?anoth'ert?group?
of Beta brothers carry him into view again, this time much later the following morning.
And this time, Tim?s condition had markedly deteriorated?his pallor gray; his body
rigid?with Grand Jurors seeing an obviously now?unconscious young man. The Grand
Jury finds that, at this point, one might mistake Tim for deceased in appearance. In fact,
President Brendan Y0ung would later describe Tim in a text message as appearing

?fucking dead."

Despite Tim?s grave appearance, no one immediately called 911. Instead,
brothers gather around him, covering Tim with blankets, evaluating his condition, trying
to manipulate his body to dress him, and searching online for the remedy to head
injuries. No one-called 911 or spoke to emergency services for over forty minutes. ?By
the time someone does, Tim has passed beyond the point of saving. He was
pronounced dead a day later at Hershey Medical Center, suffering from non?survivable
brain injuries and an on its own life threatening splenic laceration draining 80% of Tim's
blood into his abdomen. Grand Jurors were horrified to observe the unsupervised and

irresponsible conduct of Tim?s so-called ?brothers.?
The Pattern of Hazing and Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Greek Life
The Alpha Upsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi: Ten Years Before Tim

The Alpha Upsilon chapter of Beta Theta Pi was touted by Penn State officials,
even in the wake of Tim Piazza?s death, as a ?model fraternity? by all outward

appearances, held out as the golden standard of sobriety among fraternities and

 



 

   

sororities. Witnesses offered unequivocal testimony regarding the cha 

 

struggles with the demons of excessive drinking as recently as 2008, Which ultimately
led to the temporary closure of the fraternity. Shockingly, the Grand Jury learned that
the alcohol abuse in the Alpha Upsilon chapter resulted in closure of the fraternity not
because of Penn State University?s concern or action, but based on the alarm and
initiative of Beta?s national fraternity. Penn State, it seems, either did not know as it
should have, or it turned a blind to the excessive drinking going on routinely at Beta
Theta Pi. The Grand Jury can only imagine how the men of Beta Theta Pi must have
laughed at the University as it claimed Beta was somehow a ?model? to look up to when
University officials were on direct notice of the depraved lifestyle in the Beta Theta Pi

house.

Ken Rawley testified that he attended Penn State University as a member of
Beta Theta Pi from 1974-1977. During that time, Mr. Rawley came to know and become
friends with Donald Abbey, a successful alumnus of both the fraternity and the
university. In 2007, Mr. Abbey employed Mr. Rawley to establish a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
foundation that would serve as an endowment to maintain the physical structure of the

Beta Theta Pi fraternity house at 220 North Burrowes Street.

Mr. Rawley began by establishing the foundation and raising money remotely
from Albany, NY. Before long, however, Mr. Rawley moved to State College to directly
oversee the building?s renovation in 2007. His duties included fundraising efforts for the
endowment, as well as keeping watch over the house for Mr. Abbey. As the renovations

took place, Mr. Rawley approximated that 50 brothers resided in the Beta Theta Pi

 

12 Page

 

 

house. As Mr. Rawley testified, he quickly learned that these 

 

 

 

 

themselves ?very poorly.?

This poor comportment, according to testimony, included frequent drinking of
massive quantities of alcohol and drunken vandalism of the property. Mr. Rawley
testified that he considered that problem as alarming: it seemingly went on nonstop,
was seriously excessive, and well-established. ?Well, it was clear to me that I didn?t
arrive there and they started drinking heavily. They had been doing it for quite a while, I
believe.? Mr. Rawley recalled one instance in particular for the Grand Jury when, before
a football game in 2008, brothers stacked approximately 100 cases of beer into a
pyramid in the house?s backyard, towering several feet high. While excessive drinking
occurred ,?all of the time,? he indicated that particular occurrence stood out especially
due to the sheer scale of the alcohol displayed and consumed. He also recalled
observing kegs and witnessing brothers run a beer funnel,17 pouring beer from the

second floor stainNell down to the mouths of the brothers? standing in the lobby below.

in his view, he informed the Grand Jury that the house functioned more as a
than a fraternity. The mansion was constantly littered with ?hundreds? of beer
cans and alcohol, strewn throughout the house and overflowing the property?s trash
barrels. ?They were emptying trash out the windows. They were throwing used condoms
out on the front?one time they threw a used condom out on the front about
20 minutes before then?University President Graham Spanier arrived with the president

of Hershey Medical Center. They routinely would take furniture, television sets, clothing,

 

17 A beer funnel constituted a plastic hose with a funnel at one end in which brothers poured beer, allowing it to
travel down the length oftube to a waiting brother?s mouth beiow.

 

13]Page

 

 

beer cans, trash, and throw it out the third-floor window to enjoy the

 

exploding down the pavement in the back of the house.? To Mr. 

disregard of societal norms was positively routine behavior at Beta Theta Pi.

Mr. Rawley assessed that the property destruction always seemed to be fueled
by massive alcohol intoxication. He considered this conduct a serious problem and an
obvious impediment to the renovation efforts made by Mr. Abbey. Mr. Rawley testified
that he visited the house every day during his tenure in 2007?2008, and estimated that
he witnessed indicia of excessive drinking and resulting vandalism at least four nights a
week. The situation eventually reached a critical point that required Mr. Rawley to hire
professional cleaners to come in and clean the house on every football weekend?4-
Friday morning, Saturday morning, and Sunday morning. He described the partying,
drinking, and vandalism as so out of hand that without a professional cleaning crew, the

whole house would be ?a lost cause.?

Further, the testimony provided by Mr. Rawley indicates that excessive alcohol
abuse extended beyond the doors of Beta Theta Pi during this time frame. mean, it
just wasn?t at the Beta chapter. It was throughout the whole fraternity system.? He also
explained that, although he did not serve as an actual ?advisor? for Beta Theta Pi, based
on how closely he became involved with the brothers then residing in the house, he
joined an organization called the Lion Fraternities Alumni Association, a collection of
other Penn State chapter fraternity advisors. in the 2007-2008 time period, Mr. Rawley
recalled that several of the advisors for other Penn State fraternities shared his concern I
regarding an excessive and permissive alcohol culture throughout Penn State?s

fraternity system. ?They would share with me that they were fully aware of the problem

 

14 Page

 

 

at Penn State. We talked about it very know it was a proble mw?;

 

 

 

 

well.?

The brothers rejected the reforms that Mr. Abbey, Mr. Rawley, and even the Beta
alumni board initially tried to implement to curb the out of control behavior. Testimony
suggested that an attempt to establish an honor code, detailing proper deportment by
the brothers, failed when the brothers flatly ignored it. Mr. Rawley explained, ?[t]heyjust
simply violated them, so it was pretty clear they didn?t fully agree with them. They
wanted to continue to party and do what they wanted and do it in excess, and that was

it."

Mr. Rawley testified that he passed this information on to the then?president of
the Beta Theta Pi Alpha Upsilon Chapter alumni board, Dan Wilhelm. While President
Wilhelm shared lVlr. Rawley?s concerns and made an effort to rein in the brothers,
specifically by interacting with the student president of the chapter, many of the alumni
board did not agree with a need for reform, and did not find the massive alcohol
consumption to be problematic. Other alumni board members aggressively opposed Mr.
Rawley?s endeavors to ?convert the chapter," the most glaring of which he described as

an email attack against him that led him to file a lawsuit against its author.

The University was aware of the conditions at Beta Theta Pi house. After a
particular incident involving brothers hurling racial slurs at a passerby, Mr. Rawley
recalled speaking to officials from Penn State about the destructive behavior by the
brothers. The Grand Jury credits the testimony of Mr. Rawley that Roy Baker, then

Director of Penn State?s Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, generally realized that a

 

15 Page

 

 

huge drinking problem existed, not only at Beta Theta Pi, but also at t1U

general. Specifically, Mr. Rawley asserted the University was made aNaremofmseverali

    

 

instances of particularly bad behavior, including an incident where a guest at the
fraternity was beaten unconscious at a party and another instance where a guest at the
fraternity was attacked with a beer bOttle. Mr. Rawley took pictures of the renovations at
the house and incidentally captured those remnants of the partying, including beer
bottles and property damage, in photographs.18 He fonrvarded many of the photographs
onto the national fraternity and Penn State officials. Mr. Rawley testified, however, that
in his opinion, Penn State consistently claims that it could not regulate or govern

fraternities because it lacked any authority over them, except to revoke recognition.

Mr. Rawley also testified that he communicated his concerns fairly aggressively
to Damon Sims.19 He recounted for the Grand Jury one occasion when he met with Mr. -
Sims at Zola's, a local restaurant, shortly after both he and Mr. Sims acquired their
respective positions. During that meeting, Mr. Rawley testified that Mr. Sims ?indicated
his concern that Penn State?s marketing was primarily focused on having fun versus any
academic endeavors or anything above that sort of thing, which i heartily agreed with
and felt it was a major problem.? Mr. Rawley went on to observe ?l was at that time, if I
with Damon that that?s the way they marketed the university. And, of
course, the way you market any institution tells you what kind of people are going to buy
from you.? The Grand Jury finds it appalling that the University?s marketing would
emphasize a fun, party atmosphere ahead of' academics, though the Grand Jury

believes the testimony of Mr. Rawley.

 

18 See Exhibit 1
19 Mr. Sims serves as the Vice President for Student Affairs, a leadership position in the Penn State administration.

 

16IPage

 



 

While trying to establish academics as the priority at the fraterriity?M

 

explained that he felt ?a significant lack of focus on addressing the averalldrinkmg
problem." So much so that he ?became more active in communicating concerns directly
to Damon by e-mail, in person, when i saw him.? In the wake of Joe Dado?s20 untimely
death, Mr. Rawley recalled attending a State College borough meeting addressing the
drinking culture at Penn State in which a Penn State administrator?s response to the
concern was ?we?re thinking about it.? He recalled leaving that meeting With a colleague

who agreed that, based on the presentation, Penn State seemed unwilling or unlikely to

do anything to address the problem.

The brothers? behavior continued to spiral out of control until the alumni board
evicted approximately ten brothers from the house in the 2008-2009 school year. When
that extreme action failed to incentivize the remaining brothers to curb their conduct, Mr.
Rawley detailed how the national fraternity shut down the chapter in January 2009.
When the end drew near for the 2008?2009 Beta chapter, Mr. Rawley and Mr. Abbey
reached out to high level Penn State administrators, seeking University assistance in
temporarily disbanding the local Penn State chapter. The Grand Jury finds it reckless
that Penn State officials refused to help, compelling the fraternity to act alone by
shutting down the local chapter. Instead of helping, the University used the beautifully
renovated, and now vacant Beta house as a venue for honors college speaker events,
purportedly to attract a new pool of pledges for Beta Theta Pi from among honors

college students.

 

20 Mr. Dado was a freshman Penn State student whose death is discussed later in this Report. He tragically fell and
died trying to navigate his way back to his dorm after drinking alcohol at different Penn State fraternities.

 

17lPage

 

 

Albert A. Drobka corroborated much of Mr. Rawley?s recollei 

 

 

 

testified: Mr. Drobka earns his living as an architect in State College,

 

He testified that he supervised a multi?year long project concerning the Beta Theta Pi
fraternity house located on North Burrowes Street in State College. Mr. Drobka met
with Donald Abbey to discuss renovating the fraternity house in 2005. Mr. Abbey
reported that the fraternity house was in a poor physical condition despite having
enjoyed renovation in 1996 and 1998. Mr. Drobka indicated that Mr. Abbey invested

approximately 5/2 to 6 million dollars on renovations.

Aside from some immediate repairs for water intrusion and the steam heat
system, Mr. Drobka indicated that workers began at the top of the fraternity house,
restoring the roof, and worked their way down, renovating each floor. Mr. Drobka
recalled enlisting someone to repair the windows on each floor of the fraternity house.
Additionally, workers installed new floors, doors, door trim, bathrooms, and the electrical
system within the fraternity house. According to Mr. Drobka, they essentially had to.

rebuild the entire house.

Mr. Drobka recalled the?renovation project on the fraternity house lasted from
2005 to 2010. During that time, the house was occupied by fraternity members.
Several complications arose during the renovation due to the fraternity brothers residing
within the house. The brothers continually broke items that the workers had just built or
just repaired . For example, the fraternity brothers shattered stained?glass windows. On
other occasions, the workers had to install reinforcing plywood behind the drywall to
prevent further damage. All of the vandalism lowered the morale of the workers to see

their hard work destroyed by the fraternity members.

 

18 Page

 

 

The damage to the house caused by the fraternity brothers became" so xte- give
that Mr Drobka felt compelled to put together a vandalism report aboutifour years mtoE
the project, sometime in 2009. According to Mr. Drobka, there were several incidents of
vandalism, malicious mischief, property damage, and deliberate messes created by the
fraternity brothers that negatively impacted the renovation. On numerous occasions, the

workmen would finish one item only to find it damaged a short time later.

Mr. Drobka also recalled a pervasive cleanliness concern both inside and outside
the fraternity house. Often times during the renovation project, workers had to navigate
puddles of vomit left on the floor by the fraternity brothers. The house often smelled of
vomit, urine, and spilled beer. In fact, the workers would walk around the outside of the
house gathering all the beer cans, trash, and paper in order to make the house look
presentable. Broken bottles littered the area outside the house, forcing renovators to

guard each step to avoid broken glass.

The trash problem also existed on a terrace area where the fraternity brothers
sat, leaving behind their beer cans and trash and smashing fiberglass tables out on the
patio area. Additionally, the fraternity members dropped items such as a television,
furniture, clothing, trash, beer bottles, beer cans, plastic containers/storage bins,
bedding, and water bottles from the third-floor fire escape down to the ground below.
Fraternity members pitched garbage from the windows of the house, including the
windows facing the street. The workers would constantly find liquor bottles, beer cans,
Q?tips, paper, and food left below, also visible to the public. It also appeared that the
fraternity members tossed liquor bottles, beer bottles, and beer cans out of the windows

and onto the new skylight roof installed by the workers.

 

191Page

 

 

    

s-i

 

Mr. Drobka noted that throughout the house, unemptied trash (53



onto the floor with a cascade of pizza boxes, empty beer cans, and ?aperwmr-Hei-walsea
discovered party debris, such as beer cans, red Solo drinking cups, pizza boxes, and

paper towels in places outside the basement, which was the only ?authorized party

location.?21

lVlr. Drobka particularly recalled at one' point during the renovation??after the
party room had been completed in the basement?the fraternity decided to host a party
in the living room and stacked all of the furniture in the so?called trophy room. After the
party, the fraternity brothers left the area in an unkempt condition; he recalled paper
cups and beer cans strewn throughout the entire room, and so much spilled beer on the

floor that it made the workers feet stick to the floor.

Workers would frequently encounter beer cans in the toilets or urinalswithin the
house, sometimes causing the toilets to overflow. At one point, the urinal in the second-
floor bathroom experienced water problems; workers attempting to use a plumbing
snake to clear the obstruction discovered sakrete (which is a powder the user mixes

with water to form concrete) had been poured in the urinal and flushed.

Mr. Drobka provided the Grand Jury with several pictures depicting beer kegs,
trash cans filled with beer cartons, trash bags filled with beer cans, and rooms lined with

beer cans and cartons. He stated that whenever the fraternity held an event?which he

 

21 When asked about authorized party locations, Mr. Drobka testified that "as part of the wish lists, the brothers
wanted to own party room.? He described that extensive renovations were completed on a room in
the basement to adapt it for the brothers? parties?including moving pipes around to lower the ceiling, mounting
ceramic tiles and wainscoting with a marble rail top, adding air conditioning, and installing circular benches, a pool

table, ping pong table, and poker tabies.

 

 



 

estimated occurred at least once a week, every week during the re $9513th
while the brothers lived there?they would find the house in a similar State

  

 

Additionally, the fraternity members prompted code violations within the house.
For example, the fraternity house had a no?smoking policy. Despite this policy, the
fraternity brothers continually disabled the smoke detectors in some of the bedrooms so
that they could smoke, which workers had to take time to repair. Furthermore, the
fraternity brothers discharged the fire extinguishers, resulting in another violation since

the code required the house to feature a full fire extinguisher at all times.

At times, workers would be forced to report to the project two hours early to clean
every floor before an inspection took place. According to Mr. Drobka, the only times he
recounted the Beta house being clean coincided with the times when pledges were

present.

Due to the actions of the fraternity brothers, several changes had to be made to
the fraternity house. The patio doors to the living room had to be completely replaced
because the fraternity brothers kicked in the doors if they forgot their keys. The workers
ultimately gated around those doors, and measures had to be taken to ensure only the
house manager had a key to the gate. workers had to install a swipe

card system with a key fob lock on it.

Changes were also made to the basement area within the fraternity house. The
workers lowered the whole floor of the basement so that there would be adequate
ceiling height and retiled the entire floor and the walls. They also installed a bar and a

giant walk-in cooler-freezer behind the bar. After the workers cleaned up everything

 

21lPage

 

 

  

and the area was code inspected, the fraternity brothers created a mes sgglefto<""t:

 

 

thelfloor, did not flush the toilets, and left paper towels on the floor by thetoilets

A new kitchen also had to be added to the fraternity house. Originally, there was
only one kitchen within the house. This kitchen was intended for use by a chef that
came to the house to cook meals for the fraternity members. However, a second
kitchen was added specifically for the brothers? use after they began to force their way
into the kitchen, hold food fights, and leave behind large messes. Mr. Drobka related
that this condition of the fraternity house persisted until Mr. Abbey eventually closed the

house to residency by the brothers.

The Grand Jury received testimony from Donald Abbey, age 69, a notable Penn
State alumnus. Mr. Abbey attended Penn State University from 1966 to 1970. During
his time on campus, he was a member of both the Penn State football team and the
Beta Theta Pi fraternity. After graduating, Mr. Abbey became a significant donor to both
the football team and the fraternity. in 2005, the then?president of the house solicited a
donation from Mr. Abbey to make repairs to the 1920s era Beta Theta Pi house at 220

North Burrowes Street in State College.

Mr. Abbey testified that what began as a $50,000 project-to correct water a
damage became an $8.5 million dollar project to completely renovate the house. A
successful real estate entrepreneur, Mr. Abbey enthusiastically spent millions of his own
dollars to restore the house to its former architectural glory. Funded entirely by Mr.
Abbey, the project entailed replacing electric and plumbing fixtures; building a new

kitchen; installing air conditioning; lowering the granite basement floor to create a larger

 

22 Page

 

 

 

Mr. Abbey explained to the Grand Jury that his desire to return the home to its
traditional roots meant not only renovating the building, but also changing the culture

from one of partying to one of principle.

Along the way, however, Mr. Abbey?s efforts were thwarted by the destructive
drinking culture and an overall resistance to change from leaders at the Beta Theta Pi
fraternity as well as the university. As the renovations were undenNay, the brothers in
the house would party and destroy his progressive improvements. On one occasion, Mr.
Abbey recalled discovering expensive furniture he had purchased destroyed the
upholstery on the lavish couches sliced by razor blades. An inquiry into the source of
the destruction was met by the Beta brothers with silence Mr. Abbey described a

?protect your buddy? mentality with no brothers willing to divulge what happened.

Mr. Abbey labeled the brothers living at the house during the time period of his
renovations as ?bums.? Throughout the construction process, so much underage and
excessive drinking transpired that Mr. Abbey became concerned that his investment
would be wasted. Not only did Mr. Abbey want to protect the house he had funneled his
own money into, he also became troubled that the men of Beta were not living up to the
?men of principle? standard he envisioned. Mr. Abbey recounted speaking with an
engineering student who denied any interest in joining Beta because he knew it wouldn?t
allow him to focus on his studying. The coat?and?tie dinner, studious culture of Mr.
Abbey?s time at Beta had been replaced by a broken?windows, alcohol fueled,
destructive culture that looked down on honors students and looked up to students of

vice and debauchery. Mr. Abbey testified that he wanted thefraternity to attract scholars

 

23 Page

 

 

      

i

i

than the overdrinking, disrespectful, destructive brothers who 
attract those types of ambitious and smart students, Mr. Abbey knew he needed to

change the culture entirely.

In response to the constant destruction and the eroded culture at Beta, workers
installed cameras in the house. Eventually, however, Mr. Abbey and his employee hired
to monitor the renovations, Ken Rawley, agreed that they needed to clean house by
evicting the destructive fraternity brothers. The active brothers and their families
became hostile to Mr. Abbey and began complaining to the University and the national
fraternity, demanding that they not be restricted by Mr. Abbey?s desire for an honorable
fraternity. A number of alcohol related incidents during this period led to the fraternity

revoking Beta Theta Pi?s Penn State charter.

In response to the shut?down, Mr. Abbey detailed that Beta?s national leaders
approached him, pleading with him to help re?open the house with the ?men of principle?
standard in mind. To do so, they agreed to maintain the house as dry (alcohol free).

They also agreed to end any and all hazing activities.

During this time, Mr. Abbey met with Penn State leaders Damon Sims, then-?
University President Graham Spanier, and then?Dean of Student Affairs, Vicki
Triponey.? At these meetings, Mr. Abbey indicated to the Grand Jury that he advocated
for maintaining a dry fraternity free of the booze?fueled parties that ravaged the house in

years past. Mr. Abbey explained that he also tried to persuade Sims, Spanier, and

 

22 Mr. Abbey testi?ed that Mr. Sims later took OVer Ms. Triponey's position when she left.

 

241Page

 

 

centered ?overwhelmingly? on concern for the house itself and its treatment by the

brothers.

Mr. Abbey testified that while the Penn State leaders expressed support verbally,
encouraging Mr. Abbey in his quest to curb excessive drinking, they offered no practical
assistance. According to Mr. Abbey, he found Penn State leadership?s resistance to
change motivated in part by a group of powerful Philadelphia Beta alums who were
significant donors to the university. Those individuals, per his testimony, were more
concerned with having a fun place to party on football weekends than with maintaining a
fraternity for ambitious, intelligent ?men of principle? as Mr. Abbey envisioned. They
resisted a fraternity ?full of honors students? and instead favored a party environment
conducive to drinking and destruction. In failing to heed his concerns about the drinking
problem at Beta, the Grand Juryfinds the Penn State leaders tacitly condoned the

culture of excessive drinking at Beta and Penn State at large.

At every turn, Mr. Abbey described that his efforts to make the house a dry house
were met with extreme resistance. By 2011-2012, he testified that Beta alums were
actually threatening Mr. Abbey for his ?dry house?.? policy?among them a powerful Penn
State and Beta alum as well as a Penn State trustee who strongly attempted to
persuade Mr. Abbey to drop the ?dry house? policy. These individuals even threatened
Mr. Abbey that his standing among the other alums was dropping and questioned his

legacy as he maintained the dry policy at the house.

 

25lPage

 

 

alcohol, and destruction. Bottles littered the house once again and Mr. Abbey testified

that he discovered his efforts to clean both the house and the culture at Beta thwarted.

Mr. Abbey attributed this in large part to the inaction taken by Penn State
leadership. He alleged that none of the leaders he met with, including Sims, Spanier,
and Timpo-ney, were ever interested in actually doing anything to curb the excessive
drinking on campus. Instead of truly working to support Mr. Abbey?s vision, he avers that
the leaders offered platitudes and little else. Mr. Abbey testified that Penn State
administrators adopted the views of the alums like the Philadelphia Betas, and some of

the sympathetic members of the university?s Board of Trustees.

In sum, the total picture painted by Mr. Abbey?s testimony illustrated a Penn
State leadership that was uninterested in a fraternity composed of ?men of principle.?
The Grand Jury concludes that Mr. Abbey?s testimony clearly indicates that he believed
Penn State leadership was more concerned with maintaining the university?s status as a

?party school? to encourage new student applications, and less concerned, if at all, with

the problem of excessive drinking. 

James Vivenzio

James Vivenzio attended Penn State in 2012 and 2013, as well as the fall
semester of 2014. While in his first semester of freshman year at Penn State, then 18

year old Vivenzio pledged the fraternity Kappa Delta Rho (hereinafter 

 

26 Page

 

 

 

?mmiwm?

i

In order to rush a fraternity, he claims the University requires a st 



with the IFC. Mr. Vivenzio testified that process compelled him to registerusmghis
Penn State Student ID and create a portfolio, which included his name, his picture, his
birthdate, and his age. He decided to pledge a fraternity when his girlfriend at the time
also elected to rush a sorority, explaining that non?Greek males often cannot access the
same fraternity parties unless they join the Greek community. Since he wanted to

maintain his relationship with his girlfriend, he decided to pledge a fraternity.

Decision made, Mr. Vivenzio reported that he attended a mandatory
informational meeting regarding the pledging process, meant to educate students about
both fraternities and Penn State?s very strict, anti-hazing policy. He recalled Roy Baker,
then Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, as well as some of the fraternity presidents,
conducting the meeting. These speakers assured the potential rushes/pledges that if
any hazing occurred, it would be stopped upon complaint. The also

claimed that it would take swift and decisive action to end any hazing behavior reported.

According to Mr. Vivenzio, one of the fraternity presidents presiding over the
meeting was a member of a fraternity that was well-known for the worst hazing on
campus; yet, he was next to Mr. Baker while he was talking about the zero-tolerance
policy for hazing. Mr. Vivenzio claimed that at least half of the fraternities on campus
engage in hazing activity, although some are reputed to be worse than others. He
recalled one organization had a reputation for being sadistic, testifying that it was well?
known that if a person pledged that particular fraternity, they would ?come out with no
soul.? Mr. Vivenzio recounted a story during this particular fraternity?s pledging about a

student being hit in the face with a mop full of broken glass.

 

27 Page

 

 

 

Mr. Vivenzio participated in the rushing events for KDR prior to

 

 

and pledging the fraternity. The rush period lasted from 
2012 through September 22, 2012. Mr. Vivenzio explained that many college students,
mainly freshmen, rushed the different fraternities to educate themselves about the
organizations. According to Mr. Vivenzio, many of the fraternities provided alcohol at

their rush events.

The rush period lasted for approximately two weeks. During the first week, the
frushees would visit all of the fraternity houses to learn about the organizations.
However, to rush during the second week required an invitation back to a house by the
fraternity, usually received by text from a fraternity brother. According to Mr. Vivenzio,
KDR hosted a party every night during the second week of the rush period and, in order

to ultimately receive a bid to pledge, a rushee had to attend each of these social events.

Mr. Vivenzio recalled these social events always included free alcohol, often
accompanied by various drinking games, including flip cup and beer pong. The
fraternity also offered an open bar with several handles of liquor. Brothers would force
people to drink by approaching individuals with Dixie cups or red Solo cups filled with

vodka and instruct them to finish it in 10 minutes.

Each social event had a different theme meant to impress potential pledges.
One night in particular, Mr. Vivenzio remembered the fraternity hosted a ?strip Club
night? in which three strippers performed in the basement area of the house during a
huge party with hundreds of people. On this night, he recalls alcohol was flowing and

abundant. Another theme night involved a crate race, which Mr. Vivenzio described as a

 

28 Page

 

 
 

milk crate filled with multiple liquor bottle handles. Each rushee paire Wit 5
.t

and the first person to finish the crate won. Mr. Vivenzio indicated that 

week included many similar forced alcohol consumption games, similar to the crate

race, throughout the week. if a rushee refused to participate in the drinking event, he

would have been told to leave immediately and would not receive a bid.

All of the partying that week culminated with Bid Acceptance Night on Friday.
The rushees received their bids on Thursday, accepted them the next night, followed by

a huge party hosted by the fraternity in celebration.

According to Mr. Vivenzio, on Bid Acceptance Night at KDR the pledges found
themselves inundated with alcohol playing various drinking games.23 The fraternity
brothers seized the pledges? cell phones and directed them to the basement where a
trash can awaited them in the center of the room beside approximately fifty to seventy
cases of beer. According to Mr. Vivenzio, the pledges drank all of the beer until it was
gone, resulting in each pledge consuming around fifteen beers within an hour. Mr.
Vivenzio estimated that they were drinking about one beer each minute in order to finish
it.

Afterward, the pledges traipsed upstairs before brothers lined them up against
the wall. The brothers instructed the ?19 pledges to pass around a bottle of liquor,
ordering them to finish the entire bottle before it returned to the first person in line. Once
they accepted their bids, the pledges attended a party for the rest of the night with a

house full of several hundred people. During the party that night, Mr. Vivenzio recalls

 

23 According to his testimony, no pledges were ever carded to determine whether they were of legal drinking age.
In fact, everyone in Mr. Vivenzio?s pledge class was under 21?years?old.

 

29 Page

 

<4
i.
Ii

i
a

the brothers directing the pledges to play a drinking game called ?Edwa Frt" ands

i

in which the brothers duct-taped two forty ounce bottles of beer to the pled?ges?mhandsi

1w?? 

 

The brothers would not remove the taped bottles until the pledges finished drinking both
containers. Mr. Vivenzio recalls the brother?s characterizing this night as the pledge?s
one last night of fun before the hell begins, noting that Bid Acceptance Night was the

only night of pledging that didn?t include physical hazing.

The pledging period lasted from approximately September 22, 2012 through the
second week of December 2012. During that time, Mr. Vivenzio testified to various acts
of hazing, many alcohol related. Mr. Vivenzio indicated that brothers forced five pledges
at a time to stand around a trash can with a bottle of liquor. Each pledge had to drink
from the bottle until he vomited before passing the bottle to the next person. In another
alcohol?related hazing event, brothers could force a pledge to shotgun a beer at any
point during the day, on demand. Brothers instructed pledges to shotgun a beer by
biting the beer can to puncture it, punch a hole with their thumbs, and then chug the
beer. According to his testimony, drinking such vast quantities of alcohol caused many
brothers to vomit during pledging. Mr. Vivenzio recalled occasions during which he
became coated in so much vomit that the smell would cause him to continue to throw

up. He asserts that the KDR fraternity brothers never took care of sick pledges. 

The hazing grew more severe after the first week of pledging when it turned
physical. The fraternity members had required the pledges engage in an activity called
a ?lineup? where they stood against a brick wall in the dark basement for ten to fifteen
minutes, while a song blasted loudly on repeat. These lineups would always occur

between the hours of 12:00 am. and 4:00 am, many times when the fraternity brothers

 

30 Page

 

 

were drunk after a party. He also recalls the brothers directing the pledg

 

the wall and pass around a 45 pound weight until their muscles failedThebrothers
would then pass liquor?filled water bottles around to the pledges. After that, the
fraternity brothers ordered the pledges to engage in calisthenics anywhere from thirty
minutes to an hour until they reached the point of exhaustion. Throughout the entire line
up, the fraternity brothers threw cigarettes at the pledges and smashed glass bottles at

their feet.

During one particular lineup, Mr. Vivenzio recollected an incident where a brother
spread bleach 'on the floor while the pledges executed push-ups. One pledge had an
allergic reaction to the bleach, requiring him to use an EpiPen. However, the fraternity
brothers failed to transport him to the hospital for follow up treatment out of fear the

fraternity would be punished.

Mr. Vivenzio described that the lineups became even worse when the fraternity
brothers filled a large spaghetti pot with a concoction of things such as hot sauce,
catnip, cat food, urine, semen, shampoo, conditioner, alcohol, and bread chunks,
warmed it up, and forced the pledges to drink from it. They dubbed this portion of the
lineup ?the pot.? The pledges would have to pass the pot from one to another, finishing
by the time it reached the last pledge. He explained that many pledges would actually
vomit into the pot as they passed it because of how disgusting it became. Mr. Vivenzio
stated that, by the end, vomit covered the basement floor in which the pledges then

performed calisthenics, push-ups, sit?ups, and wall?sits at the brothers? demand.

 

?31]Page?

 

In some instances, Mr. Vivenzio recalled that due to a 

  
 

 

would escape having to drink from the pot if it included dairy products i He?cio?i?icoctibn,

but the brothers made him trade drinking from the pot with chugging a bottle of hot

sauce instead.

. Repercussions for opting out of the hazing acts were severe. Because the
brothers hazed the participating pledges so much harder when a fellow pledge missed a
line up, resentment quickly developed among the pledges. Mr. Vivenzio described an
occasion where, after he fell asleep and missed a scheduled line up, a fellow pledge
ripped Mr. Vivenzio?s shirt over his head, punching him so brutally that one of his moles

actually ripped away from his skin.

These lineups would occur anywhere from one to three times a week during the
pledging process, escalating in severity and lasting longer as time wore on until the last
week of pledging known as ?Hell Week? when a lineup occurred every single night. The

final lineup lasted four hours.

The hazing grew so severe that, around the middle of pledging, Mr. Vivenzio
reached out through the anonymous online hotline to report his experiences. Mr.
Vivenzio recounted that he decided to seek help after a night of passing a bottle of
liquor around until the pledges threw up as the brothers yelled at them to drink. In the
online report he submitted, he disclosed that pledges were suffering significant alcohol
hazing at KDR. Within five hours of sending the email to Penn State, he received a text
from president in a group chat demanding to know who reported the fraternity.

This frightened Mr. Vivenzio, and the hazing became worse after he reported the

 

32 Page

 

 

hazing. In fact, the pledges endured lineups that became interrogatic

 

 

 

who told Penn State about the hazing.

 

After Mr. Vivenzio sent the email, the fraternity also became more secretive by
texting in the GroupMe application,24 and the fraternity actually began tracking the
pledges' movements through the location services within their iPhones. The fraternity
members also obtained a copy of each pledge?s class schedule and required them to be

at the house between the hours of 8:00 am. to 10:00 pm. if not in class.

While at the fraternity house, each pledge tackled certain duties, such as driving
a brother to or from class; cleaning the house and the brothers? individual rooms; doing
their laundry; or even doing their homework for them. Sometimes the brothers forced
pledges to attend class for brothers too hung over to attend themselves. The pledges
also maintained responsibility for setting up the fraternity?s parties and events. Mr.
Vivenzio stated that on his second day of pledging, brothers demanded that he unclog a

toilet with his bare hands during a party.

Mr. Vivenzio described the president of KDR during his pledging process, Matt
Fortunado, as very particular about having his room cleaned by the pledges. The
President even referred to the pledges as ?slaves.? At 8:00 am. every morning, 
president demanded a pledge to clean his room, maintaining everything in perfect order.
Mr. Vivenzio recalled one incident when the president insisted a pair of his scissors had

gone missing; all the pledges suffered another lineup as the resulting punishment. in

 

24 The Grand Jury heard testimony regarding a cellular phone application called ?GroupMe? which allows users to
create digital message threads among groups of people by their telephone number, much like text messaging. Beta
Theta Pi also used variOUs GroupMes to ailow communication within the executive committee, among the pledges,
and between the entire fraternity membership. The Grand Jury also learned from the Beta investigation that when
the creator of a group deletes a GroupMe thread, the messages are lost forever and cannot be recovered.

 

33 Page

 

 

one text Mr. Vivenzio provided to the Grand Jury, the KDR President wr . 

  

 

 

on November 12, 2012: ?You are all fucked. I literally can?t wait till my axamq are, over

 

this week so I can dedicate my free time to destroying your lives, dignities, and
removing your fucking souls out of your bodies. You do whatever you want whenever
you want. Who the fuck are you to question brothers or say'no? The only words that
should come out of your mouth are yes, sir. You are all'too comfortable. You?re fucking

slaves. Do you think slaves have say in what their masters say??

In a follow up text, the KDR president threatened: ?You?re all dead. l?d pray if I
were you that I don?t call Hart down there to correct that sense of entitlement.? Mr.
Vivenzio testified that ?Hart? was a particular alumnus who would occasionally return to
visit the fraternity, typically assist in hazing the pledges. Mr. Vivenzio described ?Hart?
as a large male, with a body builder physique and with a penchant for singling out a
pledge who failed to comply with brothers? demands. On one occasion, Mr. Vivenzio
recounted that ?Hart? called an African American pledge the N?word, choked him,

punched him, and threw him to the ground.

During the parties, the pledges acted as bartenders and also served as look-outs
for the lnterfraternity Council social checkers, warning fraternity members when
the approached. The pledges? lFC-watching duties included knocking cups out of
party-goers? hands to appear in compliance with an rule against ?double cupping,?
which prohibited a person from holding two cups in his or her hands. The pledges also
stalled the IFC social checkers at the fraternity?s front door while the president made

sure the house would pass inspection. president would then walk the social

 

34]Page

 

 

checkers from the side door down a 30 foot hallway to the front 1 


    

 

 

checkers did not venture into other areas of the house.

 

Mr. Vivenzio indicated that if someone quit pledging and left the fraternity,
the hazing became worse for those who remained behind. In fact, the fraternity brothers
used it as a weapon to manipulate pledges to stay. By December of 2012, Mr. Vivenzio
testified that he wanted to abandon the pledging process and leave the fraternity.
However, a brother advised him to suck it up and keep quiet because they would be
done soon. Mr. Vivenzio testified that all of the fraternities acted to hide the events
behind closed doors and prevented pledges from speaking out about pledging. The

secrecy permeated through all of the fraternities, not just KDR.

At some point, another person sent an anonymous email addressing hazing
among multiple organizations, and KDR cracked down even harder on the pledges to
keep things a secret. The pledges could not talk with their girlfriends or their
roommates about the house. According to his testimony, it became obvious to him that
pledges in other organizations also faced assaultive behavior at the hands of their soon?
to-be fraternity brothers when they returned to the dorms covered in bruises.
Additionally, Mr. Vivenzio reported that he knew hazing transpired in other organizations
because a brother from another fraternity accidentally left his phone at the KDR house.
KDR brothers accessed the phone and shared photos on it depicting various hazing
activities. Among the pictures, Mr. Vivenzio claimed to see bloody underwear from too
many ?wedgies,? as well as naked photos of pledges forced to endure the humiliating
act of the ?elephant walk? which occurs when the pledges insert a finger in the rectum of

the person in front of him while grasping onto the genitals of the pledge behind him as

 

35 Page

 

 

 

repugnant food cocktails that the other pledges ate.

During his testimony, Mr. Vivenzio alleged that the hazing did not stop after he
sent the anonymous email to Penn State. He also indicated that no one from the
University ever reached out to him at that time to discuss the matter as a result of his
online submission. Mr. Vivenzio successfully completed the pledging process and
ultimately became a KDR brother, but he left Penn State in May of 2013 due to issues

stemming from his hazing as detailed below.

As a result of pledging KDR, he failed all of his classes during pledging. Mr.
Vivenzio claimed that he began smoking as a result of the hazing since one of his duties
included carrying a pack of cigarettes on him at all times in case a brother wanted one.
He also developed a drinking problem due to the mass consumption of alcohol he was
forced to endure by KDR. In fact, Mr. Vivenzio was later diagnosed with Post?Traumatic
Stress Disorder as a result of the hazing, and he even contemplated suicide. He
testified, ?l was seeing girls on the floor absolutely wasted beyond their belief, eyes
rolling to the back of their heads, you know, crawling on the floor and then being taken

back into a guy?s I?ve seen a lot ofjust really terrible things happen.?

in April of 2014, Mr. Vivenzio reached out to Penn State hoping to bring about
change in the Greek system. First, he spoke with Danny Shaha, the head of the Office
of Fraternity and Sorority Life, who traveled to Mr. Vivenzio?s home in northern Virginia.
Mr. Vivenzio informed the Grand Jury that he shared ?everything? with Mr. Shaha?

including photographs and GroupMe texts messages, although with redacted names.

 

36 Page

 

Mr. Vivenzio testified that he still wanted his disclosures to remain anon 



 

 

fraternity at'that point, fearing ?repercussions? from his ?brothers.? A
Vivenzio, the two went through each text and picture one?by-one, with Mr. Shaha taking
very detailed notes. Mr. Vivenzio testified that Mr. Shaha never asked to take copies of

the documents shared that day.

Mr. Vivenzio testified he discussed in detail everything that happened to him at
KDR. Yet even though Mr. Shaha acknowledged an awareness of the behavior, he
claimed he could not do much about it. Mr. Vivenzio also indicated that he provided
additional information about sexual misconduct occurring in the house through a
Facebook page in which the brothers shared nude photos of unconscious women. The
Facebook page operated as a members-only private group where the brothers would
post messages about needing things like alcohol and drugs, in addition to posting
photos of unconscious young women in various stages of undress; Mr. Vivenzio
claimed that he showed Mr. Shaha a photo of a young woman engaged in an activity
called ?rush boobs? where a young woman scrawls acroSs her chest and poses
for a picture. He testified to Mr. Shaha?s response: ?We see this all the time, I recall him

saying, like this is nothing new. We?re aware that this is happening and we?re trying to

stop 

The Grand Jury also notes testimony by Lieutenant Robb who explained that,
when asked, Mr. Shaha similarly recalled traveling to Virginia to meet with the Vivenzios
regarding hazing allegations. Lieutenant Robb testified that Mr. Shaha denied thatthe
family shared documents with him because they were concerned with people getting in

trouble, although he described seeing papers on a table. He also agreed that Mr.

 

37lPage

 

 

Vivenzio refused to provide him with the names of individuals involved.

 

 

 

 

indicated that Mr. Vivenzio denied any sexual hazing by KDR.

At some point after their meeting, Mr. Vivenzio believes that Mr. Shaha shared
with Roy Baker25 all of the information Mr. Vivenzio had given him. Mr. Vivenzio
testified that he later received a text message from Mr. Shaha indicating that Penn State
did not need his help any longer, and that the University would reach out to him in the

future with any questions.

Mr. Vivenzio also submitted to interviews with other individuals at Penn State
about what he experienced at KDR, including: an employee in the Women?s Studies
Department; a person in the Department of Undergraduate Studies; members of the
Penn State Board of Trustees; and individuals at the Office of Student Conduct. Mr.
Vivenzio stated that he specifically warned Penn State officials that a ?death is
imminent,? and something tragic was bound to happen. Additionally, he confided to the
head of the Penn State Alcoholics Anonymous program about the hazing conducted at
KDR. Penn State, he testified, ultimately returned his first semester?s tuition for a

?trauma drop? due to the hazing he endured at the hands of KDR.

Mr. Vivenzio eventually tried to resume his education at Penn State in September
of 2014. To his dismay, he discovered that nothing had changed with the fraternities
after his meetings with Penn State?s administration. Mr. Vivenzio returned to KDR

within the first week, and observed that the pledges? hazing continued just as it had with

 

25 The Grand Jury iearned that Mr. Baker was previously the Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life until late 2015
when Mr. Shaha took over that position upon Mr. Baker leaving.

 

38. Page

 

 

him. He indicates that he then took pictures, documented information,

 

 

 

 

to another party.

After his return to Penn State, Mr. Vivenzio did continue to access the fraternity?s
private Facebook page he disclosed earlier to Mr. Shaha. He discovered several
pictures of naked women who were clearly passed out with no idea they were being
photographed; all 146 members of the Facebook group had access to those photos.
Mr. Vivenzio took this information to the State College Police Department.26 After that,
he noted some brothers criticizing him on the Facebook page, and the fraternity then

removed him from the group so he could no longer access the page.

The lnterfraternity Council: Students Requlatinq Students

The Grand Jury received testimony explaining that the method by which the
Penn State Greek system self-monitors both underage and excessive alcohol
consumption occurs through the_ lnterfraternity Council?s, (or contract with

Pittsburgh?based security firm, St. Moritz.

Dean Vetere, the President, testified that he took office in February 2017,
although he previously served as the Executive Vice President and the head of risk

management. He eXplained that, as a branch under Penn State?s Office of Student

 

26 State College Police Department investigated the allegations regarding Facebook page. None of the
identified victims wished to cooperate in a public prosecution which would expose their photos in Court. Their
wishes were respected.

 

39 Page

 

  

Affairs,27 the is the student-run governing body for 49 individ 

 

fraternity28 chapters, endowed with the authority to enforce a 
University and rules. Fraternity membership in the IFC is optional; however Vetere
explained that certain benefits transfer with IFC membership. Alex Myers, the
Administrative Vice President responsible for the finances, testified that each
fraternity pays the IFC $25 per member each semester?amounting to roughly
$150,000 per semester?for membership dues: These dues then pay St. Moritz?s

fees,

Mr. Vetere described a complicated marriage between Penn State and the IFC in
which the enjoys purported autonomy and self?regulation of the fraternities under its
purview, but Penn State reserves the power to exert control in certain circumstances.
Part?of the membership dues that a fraternity pays to the IFC, according to Mr. Vetere,
goes to Penn State to pay the salaries of faculty within the Office of Fraternity and
Sorority Life. Vetere noted that Penn State furnishes the services of multiple University
employees from several departments to support the IFC, including an Assistant Director
of the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life and a dedicated graduate assistant from the
Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life. Kathleen Shupenko, the Associate Director for the

Office of Student Conduct, provided corroborating testimony that the Director for the

 

27 Vetere?s testimony reveaied that the fuil hierarchy begins with the overarching Office of Student Affairs, which
in turn oversees the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, under which the IFC falls as the largest of 3 governing
bodies for Penn State?recognized fraternity and sorority chapters.

28 Vetere noted the absence of sororities from the ranks of IFC since they are governed by their own separate
council.

 

401Page

 

 

Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life appointed her to serve as an advis

 

 

 

management of the fraternities? misconducts.29

 

According to Mr. Vetere, Penn State seems to supervise some functioning of
fraternity life??for instance, during every semester?s rush, Penn State administrators
require University review and approval of each fraternity?s written day by day plan for
their intended pledging process. Moreover, Mr. Vetere?s testimony illustrates a division
of labor in which Penn State utilizes its resources and personnel to investigate any
allegations of misconduct by a fraternity, then transfers the results of the investigation to
the who holds the power to sit as both judge and jury?deciding guilt well as
punishment. Both Mr. Vetere and Ms. Shupenko detailed that Penn State?s one and
only punitive power over a fraternity is revoking the University?s recognition of the
chapter, a significant impact of which is that no unrecognized fraternity may operate a
fraternity house.30 On the other hand, per Mr. Vetere?s testimony, where the long arm of
Penn State?s enforcement falls short against a fraternity, the retains authority to
issue an array of punishments that include probation, suspension of various social or
general events, and fines calculated based on the number of fraternity members.
Ensuring that each fraternity actually complies with imposed suspensions or payments
is also the function of the IFC. According to Mr. Vetere, such self-policing includes

monitoring those fraternities barred from hosting social events. Mr. Myers, the

 

29 Ms. Shupenko?s testimony also makes clear that while the IFC adjudicates misconducts for the overall
organization (the fraternity chapters as a whole), the Of?ce of Student Conduct still assumes responsibility for
enforcing violations of the Student Code of Conduct against individual students/fraternity brothers.

30 Mr. Vetere?s testimony indicates that the State College Borough demands Penn State recognize a fraternity
before it will permit a house to operate as a ?fraternity house? within the limits of the borough. As a testament to
the power this recognition represents, Mr. Vetere observed that most fraternities prefer to maintain fraternity
houses for their respective brothers.

 

41 Page

 

 

Administrative Vice President, testified that it is his job to collect any fi

 

 

 

the IFC against a fraternity.

 

Particularly significant to the Grand Jury is Mr. Vetere?s explanation regarding the
risk management policies?namely, how fraternities conduct any social events at
their respective houses. Mr. Vetere outlined that the lFC?s system to prevent excessive
and/or underage drinking includes a series of prohibitions barring hard liquor not in
mixed form; mass consumption devices (such as beer funnels?); and the use of glass
bottles of alcohol. Blake Friedman, the Executive Vice President responsible for all risk
management and a six semester member of the IFC, explained that the policy further
requires six total brothers remain sober and stationed at three separate locations?uthe
front entrance of the fraternity; the back door; and those serving as bartenders. He
indicated that each sober brother wears a red wristband to allow for quick identification
as a designated sober individual. Both Mr. Vetere and Mr. Friedman further testified to
mandatory signs that must be posted in the house with emergency contact telephone
numbers; taxi service telephone numbers; and advertising the availability of alternative

beverages and food.

The Grand Jury finds that in order to preserve at least the appearance that the
IFC enforces these risk management policies, Mr. Vetere and Mr. Friedman testified
that the IFC contracts with a private security firm named St. Moritz to monitor the

fraternities? compliance. Both executive officers authenticated a copy of a patrol

 

31 The Grand Jury is instructed by the previousiy detailed testimony of Mr. Rawley who expiained that beer funnels
inVOlve a tong tube in which a person pours beer into a funnel at one end to be consumed at the other end by
another person.

 

42 Page

 

 
 

checklist32 they direct St. Moritz representatives to complete as they 

ii

 

social. Requiring a simple mark in either the ?yes? or ?no? column, 
St. Moritz security to record whether: there are an appropriate number of sober
members at the entrance; whether those sober members are wearing the required
wristband; whether a single entrance and guest list is being utilized; if they observe any
kegs of beers; if they observe any mass consumption of alcohol devices; if they observe
individual sized glass containers; if they observe any fire hazards such as covered
smoke detectors; if guests can move around freely without having to push; if the noise
level is consistent with a normal social event; if alcohol is ?being used responsibly and in
accordance with the law?; if the designated sober members at the entrance are alcohol
free; whether there are sober members wearing wristbands at the bar; whether proper
signs are posted around the bar; whether snack foods are visible from the bar; whether
the liquor consumed is mixed rather than in shot form; whether there is at least one
sober members at the exit wearing required wristbands; and finally whether there are
proper signs posted around the exit. The Grand Jury was stunned to learn that St.
Moritz was not tasked with assessing visibly intoxicated guests, identifying minors and
pledges, or preventing underage drinking. The Grand Jury finds that none of these
checklist items are designed to? effectively curb underage drinking or dangerously

excessive consumption.

According to Mr. Friedman and Mr. Vetere, every Tuesday, St. Moritz deposits
the only existing copies of the previous weeks? worth of checklists regarding every

fraternity in a locked drop box outside the office at the Hetzel Union Building.

 

32 See Exhibit 2

 

43 Page

 

  

Friedman?s testimony further explains that members of the then sort?
checklists?discarding those without any violations while preserving checklists the
record a violation. While many of the checklists with violations proceed to a conduct
review with Ms. Shupenko's involvement, Mr. Friedman?s testimony at times indicated

that the maintained discretion to not fonrvard certain minor infractions on in the

disciplinary process:
Q: ?Would [Kathleen Shupenko] see them even if it was minor, then??
A: ?No, she wouldn?t see them if there was no conduct review."

Q: ?Okay. So let?s just be clear. You had the discretion to decide if she would see

them. If you thought that it was minor, she would not see them??
A: ?Yes.?

Q: ?So if there was an infraction, you would decide if it was big enough for

Kathleen to see??

A: ?Yes."

Q: ?All of the infractions that have ever been in that box, or do they [the 

exercise discretion and not pass everything on??

 

33 Ms. Shupenko?s testimony corroborates that the Executive Vice President passes the checklists to the IFC
Vice President of Standards, who then reviews them. Ms. Shupenko testified that she does not have the ability to
review the checklists unless the IFC brings them to her attention.

 

44 Page

 

 

A: ?Yeah, not everything is passed on.?

 

 

 

 

Q: ?Okay, so it?s up to their discretion??

A: ?Yes.?

Q: ?Some things that come in on these checklists the does not report on to

the school??
A: ?Yes.?
Q: ?In their discretion??

A: ?Yes.?

Both Mr. Vetere and Mr. Friedman testified that if a checklist with a violation
advances to the next level, the IFC notifies the chapter President of the infraction and a
standards review or conduct hearing occurs. The IFC Vice Presidents for Standards
along with Ms. Shupenko preside over the conduct hearing in which the violation is
discussed before a sanction imposed. According to the IFC officers? testimony, the

fraternity may accept the finding or appeal it to the board.

Although Mr. Friedman at one point began to testify that St. Moritz did a ?good
job? with their safety checks, though ?obviously no one is perfect,? the Grand Jury
concludes that the general consensus among St. Moritz employees?and even from the
IFC President himselfmresoundingly confirm St. Moritz?s spot checks are laughably
ineffective at preventing excessive and underage drinking among fraternities. St. Moritz

employees Devon Mitchell,?Shane Montgomery and Jacob Vigil testified that constraints

 

45 Page

 

 

placed upon them by their employer?in this case, the IFC itself?rec

 

 

 

 

guards, in Devon Mitchell?s words, to ?glorified babysitters.?

Devon Mitchell, the operations manager for the State College branch of St.
Moritz security, explained that although he has previously patrolled the fraternities
himself, typically he assigns anywhere from three to nine guards to monitor the houses
from Tuesday to Saturday night. He explained that the guards break down into two or
three teams and divide the audits of all 40 fraternities amongst themselves. Mitchell
testified that most of the individual officers who patrol the fraternities are young, and
criminal justice students themselves at South Hills School of Business and Technology.
According to Mitchell, the only training the guards receive comes from the IFC directly.
All three employees testified that on a given weekend night, there are only
approximately 12 officers who, in groups of two or three, must patrol approximately 40 

fraternity houses between 10:00 pm. and 2:00 am.

Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Vigil all explained that when they arrive on
scene for a social check, standard procedure requires St. Moritz employees to
impotently wait at each fraternity?s front door until a member of the fraternity executive
board is located inside and can escort them through the house. However, Mitchell,
Montgomery, Vetere, Friedman, and Myers all concede that this delay simply serves as
a ruse to allow the contraband inside to be hidden or re?directed to unsearched areas of
the house. To compound the issue, routine fraternity patrollers Mr. Montgomery and Mr.
Vigil both described that the fraternity escort carves a direct path through the common,
area to the bar area of the party?the does not permit St. Moritz employees to view

inside any bedroom or private space. All witnesses?including the members who

 

46lPage

 

 

testified?similarly agreed that such off-limits area easily facilitate the 

 

 

 

 

checklist violations.

Devon Mitchell described the system in his testimony as follows: normally
knock on the door. Someone opens the door. They tell us to wait. They get their risk
manager or president. We have to wait outside till they get their risk manager or
president. The risk manager or president comes and then walks us around the house.?

He elaborates in his testimony:
Q: ?And they take you only to where they want you to go??
A: ?Yes, 
Q: ?So literally they just show you what they want to show you??
A: ?Yeah, I guess, if you want to say that.?

Q: ?And they keep you waiting outside until they find a person that you are
supposed to meet with, so they could be walking away with their handles into rooms

that you will not enter and all that kind of stuff??
A: ?That?s correct.?

Q: ?In the time period that you guys come and they keep you outside, they could

clean up their infractions??
A: ?Absolutely.?

Q: ?It is easy to beat the system??

 

47 Pagew

 

 

A: ?Absolutely.?

 

 

 

 

Under examination, Mr. Vetere as the president of the IFC also admitted to the
Grand Jury that on a scale of one to 10, it?s ?probably a 10, easy? to beat the rules?
namely, that brothers can have kegs or hard liquor stashed in any of their rooms. He
further conceded that the act of warning people in the party to hide checklist violations
?definitely does happen.? Ultimately, Mr. Vetere agreed with the statement that ?the
fraternity brothers can have all the hard liquor they want in their rooms, all the kegs they -
want, drinking stations, and this security firm would have no idea.? Despite testifying that
he knew lives were at stake, he agreed that ?they?ve orchestrated a system that they

can completely hide what they?re doing.?

Administrative IFC Vice President Myers testified similarly, agreeing that St.
Moritz cannot observe most of the problems in the fraternity parties. Regarding the
requirement that St. Moritz wait while fraternities locate an escort, when asked ?when
that happens, people get rid of their double cups, people hide the bottles, and the kegs
are in the rooms, in the bedrooms, and everybody fixes violations, usually, that can be
seen, and despite that pe0ple still get caught and nothing happens, right?? Mr. Myers

simply responded, ?Right.?

The testimony of multiple witnesses bears out that Mr. Myers is not alone in his
assessment that even observed violations fail to yield significant consequences. Jacob
Vigil, who serves as crew supervisor for the fraternity patrol, described ?Well, a lot of
these kids are just?they feel entitled, that nothing can stop them. So whether they went

to pick a fight with someone?they feel that they are able to. We seen?l mean, let?s

 

48IPage

 

 

see. We had a case last year where one of the officers, Shane, the last

 

 

 

 

in here, saw a guy doing cocaine, and they said that they kicked hirr semi.
back probably two months later and there he is, as an executive member.? Mr. Vigil
further explained that the he has witnessed former vice presidents and presidents
drunk at these parties. Devon Mitchell?s testimony echoed Vigil?s in observing 
are certain houses that, I mean, in the past was every single week would give us
problems and we would report the walking around with double cups
or just any kind of infraction that could be on the checklist, and that same house would
have infractions every single week and they would never fix it, and still
having socials and parties and registered parties, and it seemed to me like nothing was
ever being done.? Mr. Mitchell also testified, ?sometimes it was ridiculous 
would report infractions, and that same house was allowed to have a social or a party
the same?you know, the next week and the following week and continue.? Although the
occasionally levies fines as a sanction for rule breaking, Mr. Myers (the finance
officer) testi?ed that the money forfeited by the fraternities typically stems from internal
membership dues rather than an out of pocket expense. As a result, Mr. Myers agreed
with the characterization that the fines are essentially relegated to ?a late cover charge
to the party" or ?party insurance.? In one semester, Mr. Myers estimated the IFC

collected approximately $35,000 in fines.

Testimony from all the St. Moritz employees who routinely tour fraternity parties
describe the openness with which the members diSplay their behavior and their
perceived fearlessness for any punishment. Jacob Vigil admitted that every weekend

since he accepted his position with St. Moritz in 2015, he and his officers have

 

49lPage

 

witnessed fraternity members smoking ?weed? and ?joints" in front of theimii'it ati-ih-eizsee-sli

  
  



people vomiting from alcohol ?all the time.? He also testified that he has <een1ntox19ated:

 

individuals passed out on furniture, stumbling, and falling over. Despite documenting all
of this behavior, Vigil conveyed that six months into his position, he realized that the IFC
officers ?definitely don?t? penalize the violations he and his officers report. Mr.
Montgomery, who also began his tenure as a St. Moritz social checker for the in
2015, testified that he sees ?drunk people there all the time? and has ?written infractions
every night.? He identified at least three other fraternities who are ?always? observed
with ?floating handles? or with contraband bottles. Mr. Mitchell likewise summarized to
the Grand Jury, ?We see kids drinking out of liquor bottles. We?see kegs. We can smell
marijuana in the houses.? To illustrate the extent of the issue, the Grand Jury heard Mr.
Mitchell testify to occasions in which St. Moritz encountered these fraternity houses

filled with 500 to 1,000 people inside and ?most of the kids are drinking.?

All three security firm witnesses testified, however, that the limits their overall
function. Mr. Mitchell further explained that his security firm is defenseless to determine
underage drinking given that the of?cers are not permitted by rules to identify
partygoers, which provides no method for them to determine whether any member at
the party is in fact underage. As Vigil described it, was always taught that we are
there to deter and we do not enforce anything.? The collective testimony
from St. Moritz employees established that even when they encountered checklist
infractions or highly intoxicated individuals, the lFC?s direction required them to record

and report it rather than enforce any violations independently.

 

50 Page

 

   

As previously discussed above, when the IFC receives St it GeGKlists
w:

is:
35%

denoting fraternity violations, Mr. Friedman?s testimony at times indicated.thaititheiseIf-i.

mm msmmi

regulating IFC retained discretion over which violations were serious enough to fonNard
on in the disciplinary process. Mr. Friedman admitted that the IFC itself was the first
point of disclosure for the checklists. The IFC itself is the single point of entry for all the
violations observed by St. Moritz. if the IFC does not fonNard notice of the infraction to
the'Penn State administration, Ms. Shupenko?the University?s representative?would
never become aware of it. Ms. Shupenko herself testified that she lacked any ?ability? to
demand initial access to the checklists;34 rather ?they bring the social checker sheets to
meif there?s something that I need to know about.? Ms. Shupenko denied holding any
oversight powers in her position with the IFC, although her testimony seems to indicate
that the Director of the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Danny Shaha, and his
assistant director are responsible for advising the IFC on behalf of Penn State
University. Moreover, Ms. Shupenko made clear that her position only allows her to

make suggestions to the IFC executive board and hope the members adopt her advice.

The Grand Jury further weighed testimony provided by both Mr. Montgomery and
Mr. Vigil describing an encounter with President Vetere at the beginning of the 2017
semester. According to both Mr. Vigil and Mr. Montgomery, during that in-person
meeting, Mr. Vetere directed St. Moritz to apply leniency to the fraternities as they

monitored the parties and applied their checklists. Mr. Vigil recalled that Mr. Vetere

 

34 Curiously, Ms. Shupenko also explained that after Timothy Piazza?s death, Penn State did in fact establish its own
list of expectations and rules for the Greek community, instituted separate and apart from the including
implementing its own independent patrol group for the fraternities, comprised of volunteers from the ranks of
Penn State employees rather than a private security firm. It is unknown to the Grand Jury why Penn State did not
intervene with such reguEations earlier if it does, in fact, hoid oversight authority over the fraternities? social
events.

 

51 Page

 

  

explained the fraternity brothers were ?just now getting back, so we



settle in,? instructing Mr. Vigil to ?just be pretty lenient.? Mr. 

 

similar conversation With Mr. Vetere, testifying that ?this year specifically told us to
be more lenient With them.? According to Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Vetere ordered St. Moritz
that ?first time through, be lenient with them. Tell them what they are doing wrong, and it
was kind of just like the beginning of the year, since the parties were coming back in. He
said be lenient with them.? Mr. Vetere himself mostly substantiated the content of this
directive, explaining his intent was to ?help fraternities with their risk management and
tell them what to do right to when he "told him that the sanctions that

were placed on them for the first week would be lighter than normal.?

On the evening of February 2, 2017, the night a highly intoxicated Timothy
Piazza fell down the stairs and sustained the injuries that ultimately led to his death after
the Beta brothers hazed him, Shane Montgomery and Jacob Vigil testified that they had
visited the Beta Theta Pi house per their contract with the Mr. Montgomery
informed the Grand Jury that he believes he recalls seeing a bottle of vodka ?floating
around? the party. Although he didn?t notice it on the particular date of February 2, 2017,
Mr. Montgomery also testified that during his past safety checks, he has previously seen
members of the Beta house hold up a bag of wine, slap it with an open hand, and drink
from it. Mr. Vigil testified that, though he cannot recall with certainty, he believes that he
wrote Beta an infraction for allowing the bartender to consume alcohol that evening and
believes he also saw a ?floating handle? of alcohol. Although the Grand Jury issued a .
subpoena for the February 2, 2017 Beta Theta Pi checklist from the President

Vetere claimed that the discovered that particular checklist is now missing and he

 

52 Page

 

 

   
 

could not produce it. Mr. Vetere insists, however, that contrary to St. Mciritg?sktestim'qny,

the checklist did not document any violation against Beta Theta Pi that?eveningaw

 

 

explains why it would have been discarded per standard practice.35 IFC Executive Vice
President Blake Friedman, however, offered the Grand Jury very different testimony.
Friedman testified that he believes the checklist contained a reported violation against
Beta Theta Pi that evening, but the IFC discarded it as moot because the pending
investigation due to Tim Piazza?s death suspended the lFC?s disciplinary authority over
the fraternity. Friedman specifically testified, however, that he recalled the checklist

documenting a violation:
Q: ?And are you aware that one had a violation on it??
A: ?Beta Theta Pi? Yeah, it was.?
Q: ?And what was it? Do you recall??

A: believe that there were members at the bar?and that?s the only

specifics that I remember from it.?

Overall, Jacob Vigil bluntly informed this Grand Jury that, in his two years of
experience, the parties he has witnessed were ?absolutely not? safe; that the level of
intoxication he observed every time he walked through them was ?extreme;? and agrees
that these parties reflect the lifestyle that has permeated the whole Greek culture at

Penn State. The Grand Jury credits this testimony, and finds appalling the lax

 

35 Mr. Vetere claims in his testimony that he spoke with Jacob Vigil who denied any violations were noted on the
checklist that evening.

 

53 Page

 

 

supervision Penn State permitted over these parties Which almost nightg

  

 

men and women in danger of death or severe bodily injury. . 

Penn State?s Role

The Grand Jury finds that Penn State administrators were aware of Beta Theta
Pi?s problematic condition circa 2009, and of the dangers of university?s Greek life in
general. Regarding Beta?s prior debauchery leading to the fraternity closing this local
chapter?s doors, a document in the possession of Penn State, received by the Grand
Jury during its inquiry, catalogued a litany of offenses from 2007 through early 2009.35
Notable among the itemized list entitled ?Alpha Upsilona?7 Conduct File?38 include the

following quoted bullet points.39
2007

. February 1, risk management education report was submitted by
the chapter risk manager containing admission of pledges consuming
alcohol and being intoxicated at Beta events.

. March 2, 2007?Anonymous report of hazing within the pledge program
and indicating that the 5 of 12 pledges that quit did so due to hazing.
Specific hazing allegations included personal servitude, driving members

around town and sleep deprivation.

 

36 Although the author of this "Conduct File? was never identi?ed, the accuracy of many of its notations was
confirmed by Ken Rawiey, who professed to have daily interaction at the Beta chapter house during this time
pe?od.

37 The Penn State chapter of Beta Theta Pi is the ?Alpha Upsiion? chapter of the national fraternity. Such
designations are how the national fraternity differentiates between individual chapters of Beta Theta Pi.

3?8 See Exhibit 3

39 The Grand Jury lists these ?bullet points? exactly how it received them from the document in the possession of

Penn State.

 

54 Page

 

 

0 March 22, 2007?Police report of underage possession, cr 

 

 

 

 

transportation on the fraternity premises at 1:54 am.

. May 2007-??Report of hazing within the pledge program from a parent,
including accounts of active members harassing dropped pledges by
phone as late as 4:00 am.40

0 July ?14, 2007?Police report of underage possession, consumption and
transportation on the fraternity premises at 11:54 am.

. September 5, male student was apprehended urinating in public
after being observed leaving the chapter house by police. He indicated he
had consumed 8 shots of Vladimir vodka underage at the Beta house.
Another male student was apprehended urinating in public after being
observed leaving the chapter house by police. He indicated he had been
served six or seven cans of Natural Light beer at the house. He was
underage and indicated no attempt to check his ID was made. The police
log indicated ?University Police officers assisted the State College Police
Department in shutting down a large party at Beta Theta Pi fraternity.? A
conference call with officers confirmed the chapter pooled funds, no guest

list and distribution of alcohol to minors.
2008

. April 17, 2008??Police apprehended an underage male student on Beta

property at 1:00 am. with an open container of NaturalLight beer. He

 

4? Even back in 2007, the Grand Jury observes that Penn State had in its possession documents demonstrating that
two acts of hazing were alleged against Beta Theta Pi in just one pledging period.

 

55 Page

 

 
   

indicated getting the alcohol at Beta Theta Pi at a party. 

BAC of 0.189. Several cans of Natural Light were on the 

 

 


it
52?
ii

people?s hands and no other functions were witnessed by police. The
individual indicated no ID was needed to acquire alcohol. A conference
call with chapter officers confirmed that alcohol was purchased by the
chapter and distributed freely, including to underage guests.

April 26, 2008?Police report of furnishing alcohol to minors at 11:08 pm.
July 1, 2008?Police report of a student seen leaving the chapter house at
1:26 am. with alcohol in a red cup. He was found urinating in the parking
lot. He was underage and had a .20 BAC.

July 1, 2008-??Police report of a student leaving the chapter house at
12:23 am. and found urinating in the alley behind the house. He was
underage and had a .114 BAC.

September 6, 2008??~Police reported furnishing alcohol to minors at a
tailgate with 100 people taking Natural Light beer cans freely from a
plastic trash can. No ID was required to obtain alcohol. The incident was
covered in The Daily Collegian on 10/30/08.

September 24, 2008?Incident submitted where a thrown glass beer bottle
hits a girl in the face during a date party. A conference call with chapter
officers did not identify the individual(s) responsible, but revealed
members and guests were engaging in a ?case race? drinking game and

the alcohol was provided through the chapter social budget.

 

56 Page

 

 

October 29, 2008?Members reportedly vandalized the 

 

 

 

breaking an air conditioner and smashing furniture against
Fall parent reports that pledges are kept at the chapter house
until 2 am and are forced to drive members around as late as 3 am and
are suffering from sleep deprivation.
Fall 2008?Reports of hazing witnessed or conveyed to chapter alumni
1. Pledge delivering food/drink to member rooms, loading luggage
in cars, driving brothers to class and tending bars at parties
2. Pledges clean the house by themselves, kept up through night
on occasion
3. Third floor hallway and entry patio surveillance cameras
covered during pledge event.
Fall 2008?Several incidents of members discarding used condoms onto
the property; notably three times out a window near the front door of the

chapter house. Photographic evidence provided.

2009

January keg was reportedly'found on chapter premises in a trash
can in the party room.

January 2009??Evidence of continued drinking games (beer pong) found
February 7, ZOOQ?Social functions held on Friday and Saturday evening
in violation of probation restrictions of one social function per week.
Evidence of beer cups on floor, ledges and tables along with empty liquor

bottles and cans of beer both nights.

 

57lPage

 

 

Other Allegations

 

 

 

 

The chapter maintains a separate social account of funds used to

purchase alcohol.

0 Repeated use of kegs, including in bedrooms. Photographic evidence
provided.

. Use of beer funnels from the second floor stairwell to the lobby.

. Severe disrespect and destruction of property, with photographic records

provided.

in addition to the above memorandum outlining hazing and alcohol concerns at
Beta Theta Pi, Penn State surrendered to the Grand Jury email correspondence (that
reinforces proof of the University?s knowledge. In particular, an email sent to Damon
Sims in September of 2008 shows that Don Abbey and Mr. Sims discussed these
concerns together, and that the message was clear. Mr. Abbey thanks Mr. Sims for
meeting the previous week, adding also thought it quite refreshing to hear a [sic]
honest, non?political answer to the rushing and keg issues. I am sure that the Greek
system goes through at least enough metal to make a tank every week in cans. We
need to work together to change the direction of fraternity life to more about

brotherhood and less about night club.?

The Grand Jury also noted an email from Mr. Sims to then?President Graham
Spanier on January 20, 2009 in which Mr. Sims outlines, ?Don Abbey and the three
other Betas met last Friday of my staff and me to discuss the next steps

towards Don?s vision for the Beta chapter. Their effort to remove the offending parties

 

58 Page

 

  

among the undergraduate actives living in the house has failed be as

 

authority to do more than take their rooms away. The men 
members of the chapter. For that reason Don and company plan to clean house with the
help of national. They?ve asked us to assist. in turn insisted that whatever standard we
held the Beta Chapter to would have to be the standard we could and would apply
equally to all other chapters. Don bristled a bit at my reluctance to lead the charge
against the current membership. He had suggested that the university go to the national
and tell them to shut down the PSU The Grand Jury finds this email

corroborates Donald Abbey?s testimony that he attempted to secure Penn State?s

backing to reform the fraternity culture at Beta Theta Pi.

In February of 2009, Ken Rawley also emailed41 Damon Sims and Roy Baker,
then DireCtor of Fraternity and Sorority Life, attaching a Centre Daily Times news
article42 entitled student drinking leads to more hospital visits.? In the body of his
email, Ken Rawley notes that ?[o]bviously this problem played a role in the closure of
the Beta House,? followed by an entreaty to the Penn State administrators to scale back
the number of IFC sanctioned parties each week. Mr. Rawley expresses that permitting
so many parties each week reinforces ?the drinking culture? and ?the general belief that
there is simply too much drinking at Mr. Rawley also draws the administrators?
attention to the final two lines of the attached article, which notably quotes an
interviewed Penn State junior as saying ?Yeah, this is an excuse to drink,? Kimble said.

?We?re the number three party school, so we have to find an excuse somewhere.?

 

41 Although the email featured no reply by Mr. Sims or Dr. Baker, it appears to have been printed at some point by
?Damon R. Sims? per the emaii?s heading. -
42 According to the email, it appears the Centre Daily Times published the article written by Anne Danahy on

February 26, 2009.

 

591Page

 

 

 
 

  

Moreover, in what appears to be a typed memorandum entitled 

 

 


(PC on also obtained by the Grand Jury via subpoena from .enn States the

 

unidentified author summarizes the circumstances surrounding Beta?s 2009 path to
closure by its own national fraternity. Regardless of his or her specific identity, the
context of the document demonstrates that the author unmistakably served as someone
at least affiliated with high level administrators at Penn State if not a Penn State
employee.44 The memorandum?again adopting the form of bulleted notes?begins by
observing that Beta is ?no worse and perhaps generally better than most of our

The bullets discuss Don Abbey?s involvement, acknowledging:

0 ?Meanwhile, Don [Abbey] his man on the ground were feeding
?evidence? to the Beta Theta Pi National, trying to show that the remaining
men were also a problem in terms of alcohol and damages

- The National put the group on probation about six weeks ago, saying that

alcohol use was not permitted

 

43 See Exhibit 4

44 The Grand Jury draWS support for this conclusion from the language and diction employed by the author. S/he
opens the memorandum by identifying Beta Theta Pi with the inclusive pronoun ?our,? referring to it as ?our
fraternities.? After describing that wealthy alum Don Abbey entirely funded a renovation of the chapter house,
s/he also indicates that ?Graham introduced me to Don shortly after I arrived, and have had various
conversations with him and others about ways the university could encourage the development of a model
fraternity experience at the Beta chapter.? The Grand Jury finds that "Graham? refers to Dr. Graham Spanier, the
previous President of Penn State University in office in 2009. S/he also mentions Graham later, writing ?I?ve been
trying to let the dust settle a bit, but the Alumni Board is meeting here the first week ofJune, Don will be back
then, if not before, and I believe Graham and I will be meeting with him to discuss the future.? Furthermore, at the
end of the document, the writer opines, ?Minimally, during the 23 years the house is not likely to be a fraternity, I
think we should partner with the Alumni Board to use it for visiting scholars, retreats, leadership development
programs, and the like." (emphasis added).

45 Based on the testimony the Grand Jury heard, it cannot fathom any fraternity that could possibly be worse than
Beta Theta Pi in terms of its destructive use of alcohol and its abuse of its pledges. The fraternity?s role and that of
the Beta brothers leading to the death of Timothy Piazza, the Grand Jury finds, certainly cements Beta as among
the worst of the worst. 

 

60 Page

 

 

  

More ?evidence? came to the National from Don Co., an"??th Natigal

decided to suspend the charter and to tell the members theitmtheyawouldtbe

 

 

deactivated and would be given alumni status

. The National sought my endorsement of the action, asking that we issue a
joint release on the topic, but declined saying simply that the group was
not, to my knowledge, in violation of any university regulation?had not
been disciplined, nor was subject to discipline that would othenrvise lead
us to unilaterally seek their closure?we respected their ability to take the

action, but would not endorse it.?

Indeed, the above strategy seems consistent with Penn State?s handling of Beta
Theta Pi?s transgressions and the behavior that ultimately led to its closure in that time
period. Despite Dan Wilhelm, the President of the Alpha Upsilon chapter of Beta Theta
Pi?s alumni board characterizing the decision to close the chapter' as ?well
management issues?46 obtained after ?months of investigation? in an
email in Penn State?s possession, the Grand Jury finds that Penn State refused to take
its own action. Emails obtained from Penn State via subpoena reveal that although
Penn State administrators understood alcohol abuse existed in the Beta house, the
University considered itself only ?an' interested third party,? adopting a policy of

detachment.

For instance, in discussing the 2009 situation that erupted when Beta's alumni

board evicted the brothers residing in the house shortly before national Beta Theta Pi

 

46 Throughout the extensive testimony received in the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury understands
?risk management issues? to refer to pledge programming as well as alcohol consumption concerns.

 

6llPage

 

 

 
  
 

elected to close the local chapter, Damon Sims acknowledged in a 

.
We? 

email to Graham Spanier and another individual that concerns regardirgvalc

 

 

 

choliiweie
fueling the national Beta Theta Pi fraternity?s alarm with Penn State?s local chapter. He
I explained, ?The national seems determined to get out of the picture in the short-term,
fearing liability risks resulting from the continuing violation of its alcohol policies. It
seems entirely possible that the national will suspend the charter, formally removing
itself from the picture, while the men?or some of them?remain, fighting an eviction

proceeding brought by their landlord, the Alumni Board.? (emphasis added).

However, rather than expressing any concern over the potential danger posed by
these ?continuing violations of alcohol policies,? University officials appeared to focus on
a desire not to wade into the fray of the alumni board fighting to evict the brothers. Mr.
Sims opened his email by assuring Dr. Spanier ?So far, none of the many Beta parents
or alums with whom I?ve spoken has directly connected PSU to this action. I?ve gently
reminded them that the matter involves private parties, private contractual relationships,
and private associations. Our role as an interested third party is clear, but we?re keeping
appropriate distance, I think.? Dr. Spanier?s response to Mr. Sims? email confirmed, 
agree that we should keep our distance for now. You are handling this just as you
should.? As the abuse of alcohol can have deadly consequences, the Grand Jury finds
the position of Penn State?s administration to be unreasonably dismissive'of a well

known danger to their students.

Mr. Sims testified before the Grand Jury that to his knowledge, no one in Penn
State administration took action to investigate what the Beta Theta Pi students were

doing. He explained that despite receiving information about the role of alcohol behind

 

62 Page

 

 

 

   

    

the doors at Beta, the University ?didn?t think about? investigating beca isesth?etin?atitn'al
i

fraternity was ?cleaning up their'organization? and the University ?did 

 

 

information about any individuals.? He indicated that Penn State believed the problem
was being ?addressed? through the national fraternity closing the local chapter.
However, Mr. Sims did admit that investigating a future situation from an individual
student conduct perspective ?is fair game for our very deep consideration. I think that
everything that we have learned through this experience suggests we need to make
significant change.? The Grand Jury believes that, in the wake of similar allegations in
the future, Penn State must shift to timely investigations of individual conduct violations
if they have any hope of dealing with alcohol abuse and hazing issues in Greek life

head on.

Additionally, the Grand Jury received an email written by Roy Baker to Damon
Sims on January 28, 2009 in which Mr. Baker details a meeting he had with the Beta
brothers to discuss Don Abbey?s concerns. Mr. Baker conveys that, in light of the
substantial amount of capital Mr. Abbey was investing in the house, he ?explained that
they had an opportunity to do what no fraternity could do at Penn State and that was to
be a model for others to follow. All in all, they do not want to be a model for others
because they are convinced that doing so will be the end of the chapter because of the
?social nature? of the Penn State Greek system.? Mr. Baker writes, ?[The fraternity
brothers] believe they must be a social fraternity to be successful at Penn State.? The
Grand Jury finds such a statement-?from the mouths of fraternity brothers themselves

to Penn State administrators?to be exceptionally telling about how ingrained the

 

63 Page

 

 

 

by University officials.

Danelle Del Corso testified that she has been employed by Penn State University
since November 30, 2016 as an Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, which
is its own department within Penn State University under Student Affairs, located in the
HUB student center on the University Park campus.47 Ms. Del Corso identified her
chain of command as first interim director Danny Shaha as her immediate supervisor;
then Damon Sims, the Vice President of Student Affairs; and finally, President Eric
Barron. Ms. Del Corso testified that, in addition to herself, Evan Ditty also serves as an
assistant director. Ms. Del Corso testified that she and all of her superiors are

employed by and paid by Penn State University.

Ms. Del Corso and Mr. Ditty split the same responsibilities of advising the various

1,48 which

fraternities, both non?members and members of the lnterfraternity Counci
consists of 43 fraternities that each elect a group of IFC executive officers every
November. Ms. Del Corso testified that the IFC serves as a leadership group that

develops the policies and procedures of the fraternities on campus at Penn State.49

 

47 Prior to her acceptance of the position, Penn State was a 24-year-old graduate student to advise the IFC
on how to discipline a fraternity.

48 Ms. Del Corso testi?ed that during the Spring of 2017, she attended three different discussions regarding
violations. She testified that these did not have to be with St. Moritz but could be with regard to a member who
did something that would iook bad for the so they might ask for advice about what to do and how to respond.
She testi?ed that although it has been a positive experience, their thinking is immature.

49 She also testified that each individual fraternity has its own internal policies and procedures to honor as dictated
by its national fraternity organizations.

 

64]Page

 

 

The IFC governs the member fraternities, provides leadership tc

 

 

 

statements on their behalf, and generally creates an identity for them at

 

Ms. Del Corso testified that the staff of the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life
aids in steering the lFC?s operation. Ms. Del Corso and her counterparts
attend the weekly IFC executive council meetings and, if necessary, interject when the
students weigh possible decisions. However, Ms. Del Corso testified that she does not
make any decisions for the fraternities and sororities; and while she may offer opinions,
the ultimate determinations reside with the students. Additionally, although their titles
brand them ?advisors,? the OFSL staff are not privy to all of the information received by

the IFC, which maintains enough autonomy to withhold information.

Within the University, Ms. Del Corso testified that there is a difference between
organizational discipline (the fraternity) and individual discipline (the students of the
fraternity). When misconduct occurs at a fraternity, it can trigger both organizational and

individual discipline.

Ms. Del Corso testified'that an individual student can be disciplined for
misconduct. If this occurs, Penn State handles it through the Office of Student Conduct
and the punishment is imposed directly on the student. If a fraternity receives an
infraction, the adjudicates the violation over the group. Per Ms. Del Corso, Ms.

Shupenko from the Office of Student Conduct assisted the IFC with misconduct

 

5? Similar to the Ms. Del Corso also testified that the national fraternity organizations have a guiding body
known as the National lnterfraternity Conference; however, the National lnterfraternity Conference does not set
any kind of policies for their member groups to follow. They merely provide guidance, programming, and
edueation.

 

65 Page

 

it
:14
at
A

ii
.5

proceedings against fraternities in a limited manner. At times, Ms. Shupggn?kei?heipegigo
ii 

  

i

ii
guide questioning during meetings and weigh in on possible outcomes. i

a) xiv,

 

 

 

Ms. Del Corso testified that there'are times where she will assist the in
advising on the organizational discipline process. The Grand Jury finds that the
standards regarding when Penn State interfered with the decision?making process

and when Penn State received information from the IFC is generally unclear.51

Ms. Del Corso testified that Penn State has minimum standards that fraternities
must meet in order to remain in good standing with the University. For instance, she
described that a fraternity must maintain a minimum collective provide mandatory
education to its members on the subject of alcohol, hazing, and sexual assault; engage
in civic engagement such as the Dance Marathon and forge community
relationships. Ms. Del Corso testified that Penn State University has the ability to
suspend these fraternities for even basic violations, such as failing to maintain these
standards, however, she was unable to explain why Penn State will not revoke a

fraternity?s recognition when hazing allegations are made.

Ms. Del Corso admitted that the is subject to the same policies and
procedures as all student organizations. Fraternities are also considered student
organizations, which means that both the IFC and individual fraternities are bound by

the same University policies and procedures. Therefore, if there is a violation of the

 

5'1 For instance, the Grand Jury notes testimony indicating that after Tim Piazza died, Penn State stepped in to
revoke Beta Theta Pl?s recognition as a fraternity before the IFC made its own disciplinary decision. Additionally,
after Tim Piazza?s death, the University eliminated the use of St. Moritz checkers, opting to form its own
social checkers instead.

 

66 Page

 

 

rules, Penn State has the ability to withdraw the recognition of tigeirii'org'a?i?a?tion,

i
t: 
Vim/f 

 

 

 

 

including the recognition of the IFC.

Despite this, Ms. Del Corso testified that no other department at Penn State
actually imposes organizational discipline over a fraternity other than the Ms. Del
Corso testified that if she receives a report of a hazing violation, she would report that to
her supervisor, Danny Shaha. Rather than having their recognition revoked, Ms. Del
Corso agreed that fraternities receive second, third, and fourth chances when they

violate the University?s hazing policy.

Ms. Del Corso further testified that student organizations, including fraternities,
can request University funds for programming and guest speakers. Fraternities also
have the ability to create a website at the Penn State website address, coordinate at
involvement fairs, place information in individual students? residence hall mailboxes to
recruit new members, and the University will assist in providing marketing materials to

promote the fraternity.

Ms. Del Corso addressed St. Moritz?s contract with the testifying that Penn
State did not require her to look at the checklists documenting fraternity compliance at
each social event. She explained that services for St. Moritz were paid for out of the
lFC?s ASA account, or ?a student organization account.? The collected dues from
all of the fraternities each semester, and the money placed into an ASA account held by

Penn State University. if the requests money from the account, Ms. Del Corso is

 

52 When a fraternity is accused of a violation, there will be written notification sent to the specific organization.
The fraternity can either agree or disagree with the violation. If the fraternity does not agree or wants to appeal,
then a separate conduct review board will review the information and meet to discuss the appeal.

 

67 Page

 

 

the individual that would authorize the withdrawal. A withdrawal of fundsi-i?fr? ErnthelEC

 

 

account cannot occur without Penn State?s approval. The Grand Jury 
State controlled the lFC?s money and, in fact, retained two dollars for each fraternity

member whose dues were paid into the ASA account.

Additionally, Ms. Del Corso testified that since Tim Piazza?s death, the University
started engaging in its own patrols, and she in fact participated in those patrols along
with university volunteers and employees. Her testimony closely matched Danny
Shaha?s written notes documenting the fraternities? violations during Parents Weekend
2017 when fraternities disregarded "all of the university measures that wevasked for,?

such as a ban and/or restriction on alcohol.

With the exception of the one fraternity that essentially violated every single
regulation established during Parents Weekend after Mr. Piazza?s death, the University
failed to take action against each fraternity that violated the University?s rules during
Parents Weekend. Furthermore, the University has taken no action for violations
occurring after Tim?s death on days other than over Parents Weekend. The University
learned that one of the executive officers of the informed his own fraternity

members on how to circumvent some of the regulations imposed after Tim Piazza?s

death.

The Grand Jury summoned Damon Sims, Vice PreSident of Student Affairs to
appear and provide testimony regarding Penn State University?s supervision of its
students and the fraternities that operate with Penn State recognition. Mr. Sims testified

that since August of 2008, he has served as the Vice President of Student Affairs, a

 

68 Page

 

 

   

position that answers directly to the State University Pres'g

 

 

)3

described his position as one of the ?senior leadership positions at 

affording him a seat on the President?s Council. Under the umbrella of the Department
of Student Affairs falls thirty four separate units charged with a myriad of programs that
?support the student experience outside the classroom,? though the two of central
relevance to this Grand Jury are the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life and the Office

of Student Conduct.

Mr. Sims explained that in 2008, Roy Baker, a Penn State employee, directed the
Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life which ?advises? the lnterfraternity Council
and the other Greek organizations. Staff in the OFSL, per Mr. Sims? testimony, "provide
advice and support to the Greek system at Penn State.? However, the itself
shoulders the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the behavior of the chapters

through organizational disciplinary processes.

Mr. Sims repeatedly referred to the as ?an independent, free association?
formed ?decades ago? that is ?not part of the university.? He testified that the reason the
University abdicated discipline of the fraternities to the IFC they had the
rules and regulations for their member organizations within those governing councils.?
Mr. Sims claimed that the ?rules and regulations were the lnterfraternity Council?s rules
and would self?govern its member Roy [Baker]
advised that process.? Mr. Sims further explained this relationship between fraternities
and the University extends .to all student organizations ?We have 1,200 student

organizations and we have advisors for each of these.? However, the advisor?s role did

 

69 Page

 

 

not allow them to ?tell students what to do,? since Penn State found v2 3 

  

 

 

 

the students to ?solve their own problems.?

Despite acknowledging that Penn State leaders were well aware that problems
associated with the Greek system lead to other real problems, such as ?hazing, sexual
that we are aware of in terms of the size of parties and the out?of-
control nature of all that,? Mr. Sims explained that other than the Greek student?run
lnterfraternity Council, no other agency or department at Penn State adjudicated any
kind of organizational discipline against fraternities, with the exception of Penn State?s
ultimate ability to revoke recognition of a fraternity. A step that, as Mr. Sims informed

this Grand Jury, Penn State would only take for ?an extraordinarily egregious? reason.

Although he emphasized multiple times that the University had to allow these
?private organizations? that existed ?independent of the university? to enforce its ?own
rules and regulations,? Mr. Sims also explained that Tim Piazza?s death changed
everything. Currently, Penn State has ?taken those responsibilities, that activity, away
from? the replacing it with a new office within the Department of Fraternity and
Sorority Life entitled ?Fraternity and Sorority Compliance.? The University created 9 new
personnel positions?eight compliance coordinators and one support staff-u?to monitor
fraternity compliance with the University?s new rules and regulations and to enforce

violations.
Barriers to Chang

The Grand Jury would be remiss if it did not address the various factors that

contributed, in varying degrees, to an inertia that has forestalled necessary change in

 

70]Page

 

 

the Greek culture. Mr. Sims testified that the changes the University 2gp phase?
after Tim died were met with ?pushback from alums.? He 
something uniquely peculiar? about what he described as a ?commitment to hazing that
is found within the Greek community.? Mr. Sims related his conclusion after being
approached in private by various advisors of Greek chapters trying to justify the hazing
experience. Mr. Sims expressly rejected the idea that hazing is anything short of
harmful. He further went on to testify that the ?pushback? stemmed from alums,
students, and parents of students. ?We?re getting heavy pushback from alums. We?re
getting heavy pushback from the lnterfraternity Council itself and individual members.?

Although Mr. Sims testified that the Board of Trustees has now endorsed changes to

Greek life, it took Tim Piazza?s tragedy to them there.?

Donald Abbey expanded on the power Greek alumni donors maintain over the
financial health of an institution and its resistance to change, testifying that a substantial
percentage of alumni donations come from Greeks. ?So you have got everybody who is
giving money as part of this culture, boy, is that hard to In light of the
substantial monetary contributions made by Greek alumni, the Grand Jury would be
remiss for not recognizing the influence this factor has on any decision an institution
makes about what these donors value. While it may be impossible to quantify, it is not

impossible to recognize.

Finally, the Grand Jury finds that, whatever values Greek life previously held
dear, the Greek life the Grand Jury saw focuses mainly on excessive drinking and social
debauchery. When Mr. Abbey invested millions of dollars of his money to restore the

Beta Theta Pi house in 2008, emails reviewed by the Grand Jury revealed that brothers

 

71 Page

 

?my

        

m?

and even their parents were more concerned about their freedom Q;t

      

i

ii.

?man

i

i

embracing the original principles of the fraternity to which they pledgged..z.theiIan-loyalty.
Ironically, in one email, a Beta parent complains to the University that ?treating our
children as prison inmates by installing 26 surveillance cameras running 24/7 watched
by alumni will not help rehabilitate and change their behavior.?53 The parent goes on to
complain how Mr. Abbey spent his oWn money on restoring the house rather than ?other
activities or recreation? instead. The Grand Jury finds that the apples do not fall far from
the tree?in Mr. Baker?s January 28, 2009 email to Mr. Sims, he quotes Beta brothers
complaining that Mr. Abbey?s renovations restricted their social lives. Mr. Baker noted
the brothers as criticizing that ?money was wasted in this house?; ?this is not the

fraternity joined?54; and ?we never asked for these renovations.?

In light of these shifting attitudes and deteriorating priorities, the Grand Jury
seriously questions the value and purpose of modern day fraternities if focus cannot be

redirected back to its roots of academic excellence, community service, and respectful

brotherhood.

 

53 While the cameras proved immensely helpful to the investigation of Tim Piazza?s death, the Grand Jury agrees
with this particular parent that the installation of 26 cameras did not help ?rehabilitate? the out-?of-controi culture

at the Beta brotherhood.
54 The fraternity ?he joined? was characterized by unrestricted, unmonitored, excessive social drinking without

regard for the property, the law or the safety of others.

 

72 Page

 

 

The Dangers of Greek Life

 

 

 

 

At University Park

Penn State University acknowledges that Greek Life correlates with a heightened
risk for excessive alcohol consumption and sexual assault. In the months following Tim
Piazza?s death, University President Eric Barron conceded in open letters to the public
that fraternity and sorority members report rates of excessive alcohol consumption
much higher than non-Greek students. He also admits that 17% of Penn State students
are members of Greek organizations. Based on the population of the entire
undergraduate body, by Penn State?s own estimation, thousands of its students are at

risk of suffering the same fate as Tim Piazza.

Lieutenant Keith Robb, a 23 year veteran of the State College Police
Department, testified about a mere sliver of alcohol?related criminal cases within the
Greek community handled by State College law enforcement in the months surrounding
Timothy Piazza?s death. In just that short time period, State College investigated 7
alcohol-related sexual assaults; 6 drug and alcohol overdoses; and several physical

assaults. Lieutenant Robb also testified to include:

0 September 18,? 2014?a 20 year old young woman was sexually
assaulted at a fraternity

- December 4, 2014??an 18 year old young woman reported a sexual
assault by 4 fraternity brothers after the fraternity furnished her alcohol

. August 24, 2015?a woman notified police that her underage sorority

sister became intoxicated and unconscious after drinking in a fraternity

 

73 Page

 

  

?we;

house and the brothers refused to call an ambulance. "side

21??
if
i

forced entry to the home, located the victim, and o?ta-inedmmwedigali
assistance. Her blood alcohol level measured .285. (The legal limit for
persons to drive in for example, is .08% for persons 21
or older and .02% for those under 21 years old. Thus, in this case, the
underage woman was more than 14 times the legal limit to drive with
alcohol in her system.)

August 29, 2015??an 18 year old female was sexually assaulted at a
fraternity house while she was intoxicated and unconscious; her blood
alcohol content measured .296

Fall of 2015?police found a 17 year old female intoxicated and
unconscious in a fraternity bathroom

December 14, 2015-?a 20 year old fraternity brother overdosed on
heroin for the second time

January 2016?an intoxicated 19 year old male fell down the stairs at
another fraternity besides Beta Theta Pi, however those fraternity
brothers summoned an ambulance immediately and he recovered from
a concussion

February 2016??-a 20 year old man was assaulted outside of a
fraternity and transported by helicopter for medical treatment due to
the severity of his injuries

February 26, 2016?a 19 year old victim was sexually assaulted at a

fraternity

 

 

74 Page

 

 

February 27, 2016?a 20 year old female was discovcE

 

 

 

 

and unconscious inside a fraternity

. March 18, 2016?a 19 year old young woman was sexually assaulted
after being furnished with drugs and alcohol at a fraternity

0 March 19, 2016?an intoxicated 19 year old man fell from an elevated
stage inside a fraternity and was flown by helicopter for medical
treatment due to the severity of his injuries

o' April 2016?a 19 year old pledge was assaulted with a champagne
bottle at a fraternity

0 September 24, 2016?police discovered a 19 year old visitor to the
State College area from a different University intoxicated, unconscious,
and not breathing. After surviving on a ventilator, he was eventually
released from the hospital. His blood alcohol level was .490. This
number would be almost 25 times the legal limit to drive a motor
vehicle.

. January 15, 2017?an 18 year old young woman was sexually
assaulted at a fraternity after being supplied with alcohol

. January 21, 2017?a 20 year old victim reported a sexual assault at the
Beta Theta Pi fraternity house

. January 2017-??a 22 year old fraternity brother overdosed on fentanyl

Lt. Robb also detailed that in 2014, State College Police investigated 46 reported
sexual assaults. In 2015, the number nearly doubled to 83, and in 2016, law

enforcement handled 75 complaints of sexual assault. As of the end of March 2017-?

 

75 Page

 

. if
just three short months into the calendar year??detectives .



assault reports. Lt. Robb drew upon his considerable experience 

 

estimate that 60-70% of those sexual assaults investigated by State College Police

were both fraternity and alcohol related.

The Grand Jury received documents from Penn State indicating it received an
anonymous report from a fraternity brother disclosing that he witnessed a sexual assault
of strippers at his fraternity?s Strip Club themed event. He saw the brothers feeding the
females excessive alcohol until they blacked out before watching the brothers insert
their fingers, and in some cases attempting to fit their entire hands, inside the
unconscious women?s vaginas. The anonymous reporter claimed the sexual assault
occurred in the open in front of both Greek and non-Greek guests in addition to being

captured by photograph and shared via the group?s message application.

One of the aspects of Greek life that exacerbates the various dangers associated
with identifying, investigating, and preventing hazing and these alcohol related incidents
revolves around the secrecy of fraternity life. Lt. Robb testified: ?it is not uncommon for a
victim who initially reports a sexual assault to then, several days later, change her mind
and say ?l don?t want to go forward.? And what we found is, in interviewing them, that
their sorority sisters them not to go forward because they don?t want
to lose that relationship with that fraternity. They do not want to party

connection.?

 

76 Page

 

 

Joe Dado

 

 

 

 

Even before Timothy Piazza?s death, however, University Park was no stranger
to Greek life related tragedy. Lt. Robb testified that he became involved in the 2009
investigation into the death of 18 year?old Penn State freshman student. Joseph Dado
had just begun his education at Penn State University in the fall of 2009. On the night of
his death, Dado had gone out with several friends to visit a few of the fraternities. During
the evening, he consumed alcohol at several different fraternity houses. When he failed
to return home to his dorm room, the police initially launched a missing person

investigation.

His body was discovered two days later at the bottom of a building on campus.
Police later learned that Dado had died from blunt force trauma to the head as a result
of an 18 foot fall. Autopsy results revealed that he had a blood concentration level of

.169 at the time of his death.

The investigation revealed that Dado and his friends consumed vodka supplied
by another minor before going out to the fraternities. Dado first stopped at the Alpha
Tau Omega-fraternity where he and his friends were served several cans of beer. He
also played beer pong. At the next stop, Phi Gamma Delta, a fraternity brother supplied
Dado and his friends with beer, whiskey, and marijuana. Dado was last seen that

evening leaving Phi Gamma Delta.

Police ultimately charged several individuals who supplied Dado with alcohol the
night of his death with Furnishing Alcohol to Minors, along with the two fraternities he

had been seen consuming alcohol at: Alpha Tau Omega and Phi Gamma Delta.

 

77 Page

 

 

Lt. Robb explained that, back then, many considered Dado?s dea 

 

the death of Greek Life at Penn State. A task force was initiated with a iaompointiplants
come up with ways to address all of the issues with fraternities, such as requiring guest
lists at fraternities, and limiting the amount and types of alcohol permitted at parties.
However, Lt. Robb indicated that nothing substantively changed for the better after
Dado?s death and the ensuing task force it launched. In fact, Lt. Robb sadly recounted

that several other alcohol related deaths or injuries at fraternities persisted.

2009 would not be the last time that a Penn State related Greek Life Task Force
failed to produce significant change. Just as Joe Dado?s tragic death sparked a Greek
Life Task Force, James Vlvenzio?s-shocking revelations about Facebook page
also spawned a task force in 2015. The Grand Jury received testimony from Thomas
King, former State College Police Department Chief of Police, and an active member of

a 2015 task force launched by Penn State University.

Thomas King testified that he was previously employed by the State College
Police Department for 35 years, the last 23 years as the Chief of Police. He described
his duties as Chief of Police as administrative, focusing on planning, budgeting, staffing,
policy development and working closely with community groups and community
relations, including Penn State University. Mr. King explained that the collaborative
relationship between Penn State and the State College Police Department (hereinafter
focused on programs designed to improve the quality of life in the community,
such as NEAT (Neighborhood Enforcement and Alcohol Team), a joint team policing
model formed because of ongoing problems in neighborhoods in which a large

percentage of the population was comprised of students, including Highlands and

 

78 Page

 

 

  
 

Holmes-Foster neighborhoods. Chief King said this cooperative relationshipsover he

last decade maximized resources and increased a police presence in th com

 

 

 

munitv.

 

As Chief of Police, Mr. King testified that he served on various task forces that
focused on aloohol abuse and dangerous drinking, with one such task force entitled
University Park Campus-Community Partnership. With 70% of the population between
the ages of 18 and 24, the goal of this task force focused on reducing the risk of

dangerous drinking in the community.

Mr. King testified that throughout the State College jurisdiction, more than half of
the crimes in the 18-24 age group population involved drinking. He further estimated
that 70% of crime in State College neighborhoods during overnight hours is alcohol-

related.55 .

Mr. King testified extensively about his involvement on the Fraternity and Sorority
Life Task Force formed by President Barron in the fall of 2015 to study issues
concerning Greek life at Penn State. Mr. King testified that the task force was formed in
large part due to an investigation of KDR fraternity by State College Police Department
in January 2015 due to brothers posting nude or other inappropriate photos of passed
out/inebriated female guests of their fraternity on a password protected page on
Facebook. The task force consisted of a ?Town and Gown membership? which included
some members that were not associated with SCPD or Penn State. This task force

featured approximately thirty members, all but four of whom were associated with Greek

 

55 Although generaliy straightforward when assessing alcohol?related crimes for individuals, Mr. King explained it
becomes far more difficult to determine an exact number of alcohol?related crimes when it occurs in a
nemhborhood.

 

79 Page

 

 

life in some capacity. Mr. King stated he comprised one of the four

 

 

 

connection to Greek life.56

 

Mr. King testified the task force convened a total of five or six times during Fall
Semester 201557 and then five or six times in the Spring Semester 2016.58 The last
meeting occurred during the first week of May 2016. The task force ended by simple
failure to meet again, never pressed past the ?draft? proposal stage, and did not result in

any changes.

Mr. King testified that the task force had various subcommittees that organized
and scheduled their own meetings and reported back to the full task force. These
subcommittees included: 1) accreditation of fraternities and sororities by the national
organization examining the standards of the accreditation; 2) new member education
program; 3) ongoing education programs throughout their time as an active fraternity or
sorority member; 4) policy and enforcement and 5) drugs, alcohol, and sexual

misconduct. Mr. King served on two subcommittees: #4 and 

Mr. King testified each subcommittee submitted recommendations and reported

orally to the entire task force at the meeting, which were recorded in the meeting

minutes. He recalled that Damon Sims (or an administrative assistant) took notes-

during meetings.

Mr. King testified as to a document entitled ?Oversight Policies and Enforcement

Subcommittee,? which described the issues on which the subcommittee should

 

55 The other minority members included Tom Fontaine, State College Borough manager, and two neighborhood
residents ofthe Highlands neighborhood, where the majority of fraternity houses are located.

57 The first meeting occurred on October 2, 2015.

58 The first meeting of that semester occurred on January 14, 2016.



80 Page

 

 

concentrate. He also produced drafts of recommendations from; i 3'
committees. Due to the diversity of the members of the 
agreement was not feasible. Mr. King recollected that, as a subcommittee, it decided to
submit two sets of recommendations, thus giving Penn State the final decision-making

ability on which recommendations to implement.

Mr. King testified to the Enforcement and Policy subcommittee draft
recommendations. These recommendations included: increasing the Fraternity and
Sorority Life and the Student Conduct Staffing; limiting the number of Greek life
organizations attending one social function; limiting the days of a week, hours of day
and frequency of social functions during the semester; reviewing conduct processes for
all councils (fraternity, sorority, Panhellenic, and multicultural Greek organizations); and
exploring new options for membership recruitment, including delaying or deferring the

joining of new members.

Mr. King testified President Barron only attended the initial meeting in October
2015. Mr. Damon Sims or Mr. Danny Shaha were the Penn State representatives at
the full task force meetings and received the recommendations in writing from the
subcommittees. Mr. King testified Mr. Sims expressly said at the last meeting that he
would review all of the recommendations and then meet with President Barron and his

administrative team to determine which recommendations should be implemented.

Mr. King testified regarding the taskforce subcommittee on drug, alcohol and
sexual misconduct. The subcommittee?s focus was on alcohol and sexual misconduct,

with minimal amount of time on drugs. As a result of this investigation, Penn State

 

81lPage

 

 

examined data that showed either being a victim of a sexual assault a

 

 

 

 

sorority or a perpetrator of a sexual assault as a fraternity member was at a higher rate
within the Greek life system than it was within the general population of Penn State. Mr.

King spoke of the connection between fraternity life, excessive drinking, and sexual

assau?s.

Despite all the work of the task force in 2015 and 2016, no change was ever
achieved. Based on his vast experience as Chief of Police of State College Police
Department and his personal experience with these issues, Mr. King testified that
significant,.sustainable changes must made with the alcohol and hazing problems

occurring in Greek life at Penn State.
At Commonwealth Campuses

Lt. Keith Robb testified regarding information provided, by Sean Kelly, Director of
Student Affairs for Penn State?s Altoona campus. Mr. Kelly indicated that currently, only
three Commonwealth Penn State campuses (apart from Main Campus in State College)
have resident fraternities or sororities??-Harrisburg, Altoona, and Erie. These campuses,
he cautioned, are distinctive from the Greek life concerns at University Park because
they function primarily as only two year programs beforestudents funnel up to main
campus to finish their four year degree. As a result, most of the 3,500 to 4,000 students
on Altoona?s campus are freshman and sophomores; which also means that most of the

student population of these campuses falls under the legal drinking age.

Mr. Kelly also noted to Lt. Robb that the Commonwealth campuses do not

recognize official fraternity houses, as its University Park counterpart does in State

 

82 Page

 

i
College. However, Mr. Kelly has learned that the fraternities unofficialiy si?g "p 
campus apartments where several of the brothers live together as ihemloeationstori
fraternity business, including hazing. He also admitted that, in his experience, most

hazing issues that he?s aware of from his campus involve alcohol.

Lt. Robb further explained to the Grand Jury that Mr. Kelly described the
existence of a similar system for organizational discipline on the Altoona campus as the
IFC provides at University Park. At Altoona, a ?Greek Council??comprised of Altoona
campus Penn State students?meet weekly with a senior Penn State administrator
acting as advisor. When a fraternity violates a regulation, the Greek Council adjudicates
discipline, including fines, suspensions, or revoking the fraternity?s recognition Within the
Council. He also noted that Penn State (Altoona campus) recognizes fraternities in the
same way that Penn State (University Park campus) does, and can similarly revoke

such recognition from a fraternity when warranted.

Marquise Braham

The Grand Jury called Richard Braham to testify about the fraternity experiences
of his son, Marquise Braham, who studied Biomechanical Engineering at Penn State
Altoona. Tragically, Marquise Braham?s college and fraternity experience would end

with his untimely suicide during his freshman year.

Mr. Braham, who currently serves as a managing editor for ABC News, recalled
the family?s pride when Marquise decided to attend Penn State in the fall of 2013. He
testified that, as a close family, when Marquise left their New York home, college bound

for another state, Mr. Braham wrung a promise from Marquise to call both his mom and

 

83 Page

 

 

   
 

his dad on a regular basis to keep in touch. When 18 year old Marquise ec

   

Mr

 

 

 

to his father that he intended to pledge a fraternity in his freshman fall semester.
Braham did not initially respond with particular concern for his son?s safety. Any
misgivings that Mr. Braham harbored merely revolved around whether Marquise was
spreading himself too thin, between his class load and his ambition to also become a
Resident Assistant.59 But Mr. Braham described Marquise?s assurance: ?Dad, this is the
only opportunity for me to have any fun? and he consequently relented. According to Mr.
Braham, during his son?s first semester at Penn State Altoona, brothers at Phi Sigma
Kappa sought out Marquise to pledge the fraternity by sending out what they referred to
as ?honeys??or pretty college girls?to entice students. Mr. Braham knew that by
. Spring of 2014, Marquise had become a Phi Sigma Kappa brother, and was elected into

an executive position as secretary.

Marquise committed suicide at the age of 18, while still a freshman at Penn
State. Prior to the day of his death, Marquise had spent several days with his family at
home for spring break week. The following day, Marquise was supposed to leave his
family once more and depart for Penn State, resuming his newly elected position as
secretary of the fraternity he pledged and successfully joined only the semester before.
But Marquise would never return to Penn State Altoona. Instead, he went to one last
lunch with his mother before making his way to the rooftop of a_ Marriott hotel and
plummeting to his death. Mr. Braham testified to this Grand Jury that, knowing the

person his son was, he believed Marquise, who couldn?t bear the guilt of returning to

 

59 A student who receives training to help guide and advise other students.

 

84lPage

 

 

Penn State and meting out the hazing that so tortured him just months

 

 

 

 

his death instead.60

His parents later discovered that this was not his only suicide attempt that week.
Days earlier, Marquise revisited his old high school, made several odd statements to his
former teachers, and wrote two suicide notes before consuming a lethal amount of
alcohol working up the courage to jump off the roof. Mr. Braham told the Grand Jury
that, before he jumped to his death, Marquise confessed to his aunt, ?Auntie, have

sins. have sins.?

in the aftermath of their son?s tragic death, the Braham family began to piece
together the preceding months of Marquise?s life. In searching Marquise?s dorm room,
the Brahams made several alarming discoveriesmtwo empty liquor bottles tattooed with
Sharpie?inscribed signatures and numbers, as well as a notebook recording shorthand
of what appeared to be the Phi Sigma Kappa hazing schedule.61 Concerned with the
potential implications, the Brahams turned the evidence over to Penn State University?s
Altoona campus police; thankfully, pictures were captured of the items first. Later, when
the Brahams attempted to recover the empty alcohol bottles, Penn State informed them
via a letter provided to the Grand Jury that ?[t]he empty alcohol bottles were previously

discarded.?

 

'50 This Grand Jury does not have the power to make a finding of fact as to whether the death of Marquise Braham
was a direct result of his experiences pledging Phi Sigma Kappa at Penn State Altoona Campus, or whether hazing
or furnishing occurred, nor did it endeavor to do so as it lacks jurisdiction to investigate this matter as a criminai
incident. This matter was investigated by a Statewide Grand Jury. While the Statewide Grand Jury did not return a
presentment recommending any charges, this Grand Jury is unaware of the evidence it had available to it at the
time.
51 . .

See Exhibit 5

 

 

85 Page

 

    
   

When Mr. Braham accessed Marquise?s cell phone, he began 



seemingly irrelevant dots. The alcohol bottles appeared to be remnantsuctiMarquiseis,

 

hazing at the hands of Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity. Text messages harvested from
Marquise?s phone show Marquise asking a friend: ?Quick question. Have you ever had
Yukon I have to finish a bottle proof shit. It?s my last
pass down. There?s the Jim bean, mescal, Yukon and Heineken family. Heineken needs
to finish a mini keg by themselves haha.? His friend replies, be okay. You?ll just 
puke a lot. And it?ll burn.? Mr. Braham ultimately learned that the numbers associated
with names on the Yukon bottle corresponded to pledge rank. In another text message,
Marquise explained Hell Week for his Resident Assistant. At week?s end, he alleges that
fraternity brothers ?lit a candle and let the wax fall on our back until we finished drinking
2 bottles of fireball." In a later text, Marquise noted to a friend, have some scars from
that one.? The Grand Jury notes that the photographs of the two empty bottles covered
in signatures and numbers unearthed from Marquise?s room consist of Fireball
cinnamon whiskey and Yukon Jack 100 proof liquor.

Another series of texts to his RA detailed a fight club that the brothers forced
pledges to participate in. Marquise sent her a message saying were allowed to
fall asleep last night but I was too scared. I think I have a concussion and I didn?t want
to fall into a coma.? When his RA asked ?what happened last night,? she immediately
answered her own question by texting right after, guys had to fight. on no I
don?t wanna see you today then. my mom side will come out and I will punch

whatever brother you are with. That?s horrible.? Marquise responded: ?We had to

 

861Page

 

 

brothers didn?t touch had to fight each other.? HE 

 

 

 

 

know. I don?t care. They made you do it. That?s what pisses me off.?

Later, Marquise texted the RA that he couldn?t meet her on campus as he initially
promised, explaining ?l have to drop one of us off at the hospital.? When she asked him
which pledge, he answered ?It?s Nate. I?m not sure if you know him but he?s bad. They
took him in but they sending me back to campus now.? Mr. Braham provided the Grand
Jury with screen shots of a Group text message that appears to be Marquise?s pledge
brothers in which someone programmed as ?Nate? in Marquise?s phone sent-a message
saying ?Yo it?s Connor my phone died and am using nates but nate got blood drawn he
definitely has a concussion but there?s no bleeding internally or externally he?s
extremely light headed and can barely walk to the doctors sugeaa Later in the
same message thread, Connor sent the pledges a photograph of two young men, one
laying in what could be a hospital bed wearing a neck brace. A pledge brother

responded to that picture with the text ?Love you Nate.?

Marquise con?ded his experiences quite a bit in his RA according to other text
messages Mr. Braham provided to the Grand Jury. In one conversation, Marquise wrote
to her owe you so much for the other night. You saved me from some 
When his RA probed what he meant about vinegar, Marquise clarified, ?The loser had to
chug some vinegar but please don?t tell anyone. Some other pledges got dropped for
talking.? Penn State?s RA assured him ?l wouldn?t tell anyone haha I wouldn?t do that to
you haha.? Marquise then confessed to her that the pledges would ?do the milk
challenge this upcoming week.? His RA advises him ?Your gonna throw up. Its better to

just chug and get it over with then go the whole hour feeling yucky.? Marquise

 

87 Page

 

 

 

commented feel like I?ve done so much that it can?t get any worse but 

 

 

 

His RA cautions him, it will get worse. l?m sorry to say hahaha "minthe
responding text, Marquise reflected, ?When I first started to pledge I didn?t think I would

be doing the stuff that I?m doing right now.?

Additional text messages to other people document the hazing Marquise suffered
along with his fellow pledges. One particular photograph depicted another brother
holding a gun to a blindfolded pledge?s head, with the accompanying 
down.?62 Another photograph featured a clearly identifiable male pledge in a Penn State
sweatshirt holding a dead squirrel in one hand, and the animal?s skinned hide and tail in
the other. An investigation by Penn State and than local police agencies determined
that one of the hazing activities required pledges to trap and skin squirrels. One text
from Marquise?s phone circulated among the entire pledge class read, ?Daddy needs

someone to gut a squirrel at bar in the next 5 mins.?

Through the notebooks discovered in Marquise?s dorm room, Penn State
investigators deciphered the detailed hazing schedule executed by the fraternity. The
schedule further detailed how the fraternity instructed the pledges to bring their
belongings to the off campus apartment that functioned as the fraternity house to reside
there for a period of the pledging process; confiscate the pledges? phones and watches;
and teach them proper chugging and vomiting techniques. One event in particular,
dubbed ?locked?in,? involved brothers forcing pledges into a small closet with a large
garbage bucket. To be allowed out of the closet, pledges had to consume enough

alcohol to ?ll the garbage can with vomit. The fraternity further controlled the closet

 

 

62 See Exhibit 5

 

88 Page

 

 

door by allowing only executive board members to open it for the pie 9%

ii

event on the schedule, called a ?Phi Back,? required each pledge to consume..4s5-b.eers

 

within thirty minutes to an hour. The schedule ordered multiple Phi Backs over the
course of one evening, with notes that the total drinks for the night should tally 20-25
per pledge. Brothers also planned for a or gravity bong challenge which required

the pledges to take a certain number of hits from a marijuana bong in order to win.

Mr, Braham also testified that he believed the fraternity ordered pledges,
including Marquise, to enter a convenience store wearing a ski mask and steal a small
item?chips, gum, a drink?from the store. In order to maintain control over the pledge,
brothers would record the act through photographs to later use as blackmail if

necessary.

The Grand Jury found one text message provided by Mr. Braham to be eerily
breathtaking and particularly relevant to the death of Timothy Piazza. ln a text
conversation discovered on Marquise?s phone, he writes, ?And trust me, don?t judge.
l?ve been too messed up to judge anyone else.? When he receives the response, ?What
does that Marquise confesses, ?If you haven?t fell down a flight of stairs

blacked out you?re not on my level yet lol.?

Mr. Braham related that Penn? State suspended Marquise?s fraternity, Phi Sigma

Kappa, for six years following Marquise?s death.

As a part of the Grand Jury investigation, Mr. Braham discussed a report that
was authored by Penn State. Of particular importance within the report, Mr. Braham

explained that one week prior to Marquise?s death, his son?s Resident Assistant sent

 

89 Page

 

  

Marquise a text message conveying her extreme worry for him. The Re si?e?,

then passed her own concern up the chain of command at Penn State taletthemknow

 

she harbored concerns about Marquise?s and emotional well?being due to
hazing that was going on within his fraternity. Mr. Braham further noted that Marquise
signed a release when he first enrolled at Penn State, agreeing that the University had
his permission to discuss any concerns that arose regarding him with his parents.
Despite the concern voiced by Marquise?s Resident Assistant and passed up through

the University?s ranks, his parents were never contacted about Marquise?s mental health

or hazing experiences.

Further, Mr. Braham testified that fraternities sanctioned by the University are
permitted by Penn State to recruit on campus, which mistakenly lulled him into a false
impression that Penn State approval also meant Penn State protection for his son.
a university like Penn State, for example, that is allowing them to recruit your
children, my children, like cattle to slaughter, because in many instances that?s what
happens, there should be greater responsibility on trusted them. This was our
first child, our baby, going away to college, and we believed them, you know. When we
went to orientation, there was mention of Greek life, but it?s only in glowing terms. Oh,
we?ve got lots of Greek life that you can attend and parties. You can make lifelong
friends. And it was all just the good stuff, none of the bad stuff, and Penn State, like
every university in this country, is aware of the bad stuff. They should be compelled to
tell you that. So I would say, if you?re doing something during orientation, you can?tjust
give the blue-sky view of Greek life, because you know about the date rapes or you

- know about the drug arrests of members. You know about the unfortunate deaths,

 

90 Page

 

 
   

 

will, that they think it is, their activities lead to death. They?re aware gofthesethings
you as a parent and then a prospective pledge and student hears that, i think
then you?d think twice about it. This is something you can have a conversation about,
but when you have the university itself, Penn State, to this day despite the death of
Marquise Braham, despite the death of Tim Piazza, still has on their website under
frequently asked questions that, oh, you have been told views of Greek life
may be like Animal House. Nothing could be further from the truth. That?s a myth. They

still have that on their site today.?63

Similarly, Mr. Braham later testified:

Q: I?m sure you?ve seen the media statements where [Penn State] says
we can?t do anything, they?re independent organizations, in your
experience as a parent, do you feel like you thought Penn State was in some
ways backing these fraternities or giving their stamp of approval because they
were allowing these fraternities to operate with Penn State behind them, recruit

on campus, recruit students?

A: Absolutely. You people to be recruited on campus if you?re
not supporting those folks and what they do. You?re giving your stamp of
approval saying you guys have our backing to go after any student here you see

fit who would be a good member of your organization.

 

63 The Grand Jury notes that Mr. Braham testified on September 7, 2017. it is unaware of whether Penn State's
Website has made any changes by the time of the writing of this report.

 

91 Page

 

 

 

University holds individuals accountable for their actions. He concluded 
[Penn State?s] a bad school. I think Penn State is a great school. We were so proud that
Marquise was accepted to Penn State. I could be so proud?~he would have graduated
by now?to have my son be a Nittany Lion. He?s gone. I celebrate his birthdays,
Christmas, Easter, when he was born, at the cemetery. That?s where we go. Our
happiest days, we?re at the cemetery. No one should be need to stop
have got to hold people can?t be slaps on the wrist. That?s
why it keeps happening. It has got to be tough. it has got to have teeth.? The Grand Jury
understood Mr. Braham to be recommending stern enforcement ofanti-hazing and anti?

alcohol policies at Penn State.

When Lt. Robb spoke to Mr. Kelly, he learned that Marquise had been enrolled in
a class that prepared him to become a Resident Assistant During an exercise in
that class, Marquise disclosed his struggle between reconciling his fraternity experience
with his future RA obligations?namely, that he would need to assist hazing victims who
sought help from him as an RA, but knowing that he had both suffered and doled out

hazing behavior as a fraternity pledge and brother.

According to Mr. Kelly, after the RA Marquise confided in finally took the
information to a supervisor, in a conversation that happened just as the students were
about to return home from Spring Break, Marquise confirmed and disclosed to a
Director of Residence Life (who supervised the RAs), that he experienced hazing in Phi
Sigma Kappa, which included excessive alcohol inebriation and vomiting and being in a

fight. Mr. Kelly further admitted to the University learning that texts between Marquise

 

92[Page

 

 

and his RA in this time period included Marquise telling her,?Hazing sea 

 

 

 

 

hard to watch.?

The Director of Residence Life relayed her conversation with Marquise and
concern about Marquise?s mental health to her supervisor, the Director of Student Life.
The Director of Student Life then conveyed the information to Mr. Kelly, who occupied
the position one rung higher on the supervisory ladder. Mr. Kelly recalled to Lt. Robb
that the Residence Life Director, the Student Life Director, and himself all participated in
a conference call in which they discussed their next steps. He admits that, although he
recalls being informed about Marquise?s hazing, that issue became secondary to
concern for Marquise?s mental distress. He explained that while he doesn?t believe the
University ignored the hazing concern, it also did not focus on the hazing as a red flag
at that time due to the more immediate alarm about Marquise?s mental health. By the
end of that phone call, the University administrators ultimately plotted a course of action
to arrange a meeting with Marquise immediately upon his return from Spring Break. He
indicated that Marquise never disclosed anything to the Residence Life Director that
made her believe his safety was in jeopardy, and that promises secured from Marquise
to begin counseling afforded them the belief that he would be safe until they could meet
with him upon his return from the break. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that the University did
not reach out to Marquise?s parents nor did it immediately notify law enforcement that a

crime, specifically hazing, had been reported.

When Marquise committed suicide over Spring Break, Mr. Kelly indicated that
Altoona?s administration met with counterparts at University Park for assistance in how

to proceed. Penn State decided to initiate an internal investigation into the hazing

 

93 Page

 

 

  

allegations. To that end, the investigator attempted to arrange inte 

 

 

fraternity members, but Mr. Kelly admitted that most were 
discuss anything about the fraternity. Information came to the University through
informants?past pledges who never became brothers and who wished to remain
anonymous. After the University wrapped up their investigation, it turned over the

results to law enforcement for investigation.

Mr. Kelly expressed that he was unaware of the importance of early law
enforcement intervention in any criminal matter. Mr. Kelly was seemingly oblivious that
evidence can be compromised or permanently lost and certain investigative techniques
foreclosed forever once another agency gives notice to potential suspects that an
investigation is undenrvay. He indicated that administrators fail to receive any training in
this area and that, had he known, he would not have opposed immediately reporting the
allegations to law enforcement so that the investigations could have occurred in tandem

and been cooperative.
in the United States

SU

p?a?I

At the time of the writing of this report, the Grand Jury became aware of the
death of another college student from the Louisiana State University. While the Grand
Jury obviously is unaware of the details being uncovered in that investigation, the Grand
Jurors are troubled by media references to the freshman victim having attended a
pledge event the same evening he died. The Grand Jury notes media reports indicate

the victim suffered an extremely elevated blood alcohol level combined with marijuana.

 

94 Page

 

 

Wheaton College

 

 

 

 

Details of an alleged hazing case actually charged in the criminal justice system
at the time of the writing of this report also came to the Grand Jury?s attention. ln Illinois?
based Wheaton College, five football players currently face felony level criminal charges
for assaultive behavior and allegations of attempting to sexually assault the victim with a
foreign object in a hazing abduction episode. The victim survived his injuries, but
according to news reports, undenNent surgery for muscular tears in both of his

shoulders.

ll. CONCLUSIONS

Hazing

The Grand Jury finds hazing within the Greek community at the 
State University is rampant and pervasive. In fact, Mr. Sims himself informed the Grand
Jury that a number of IFC and Panhellenic advisors have approached him in the wake
of Tim Piazza?s death to defend the practice as ?an important fundamental element of
how we bond.? Preventive measures have consistently failed to curb the hazing or
ameliorate its dangers. Self-regulation through the IFC has failed abysmally to prevent

hazing during the pledging process.

Besides the litany of evidence the Grand Jury examined that clearly confirms the
hazing acts employed by the fraternity brothers at Beta Theta Pi, Grand Jurors learned
that hazing activity extends far beyond the walls of 220 North Burrowes Street. Even
embedded within the texts of the Beta brothers, the Grand Jury noted references to

other fraternity hazing rituals. For example, the Grand Jury heard testimony that when

 

95 Pagem

 

 

Daniel Casey and Brendan Young plotted the pledges? fate for Spring 2 a i

 

 

 

 

in March 2016, Casey garnered inspiration from other hazing 
Young: ?My roommate told me that pike does this. During a lineup they introduce
everyone from the pledge class the semester before and they run the line?up and that?s
when that pledge class can start hazing. Thought for next semester since a lot of my

pledge class is already involved.? ?Pike,? Grand Jurors learned, refers to another

fraternity on campus.

Testimony given by James Vivenzio also illustrated the depth of the depravity not
just within his own fraternity, but in other fraternities that Mr. Vivenzio learned about
from friends who pledged elsewhere across campus, and even from a cellular telephone
left behind after a party at his own fraternity house. Watching his freshman dormitory
neighbors?who he knew were pledging other fraternities?return home sporting fresh
bruises was neither surprising nor mysterious according to Mr. Vivenzio. He explained
that the common knowledge among them all provided the source of the injuries-?
hazing. In fact, Mr. Vivenzio testified that by reputation, some fraternities boast harsher
hazing practices than others. Obviously, from Mr. Vivenzio?s experiences in 2012, to
Marquise Braham?s in 2013, to Timothy Piazza?s in 2017, Penn State fraternity hazing is
not simply a single-borne illness infecting only one fraternity but a cancer that has

spread across the Greek alphabet.

Just as internal enforcement measures, such as the IFC and University
disciplinary processes, have clearly failed to inspire adequate deterrence for the

dangerous activity of hazing, current criminal law has likewise proven to be wholly

 

96lPage

 

 

deficient. The Grand Jury reviewed current ?Antihazin 

 

 

 

 

under Title 23 (Education), Section 5353, which simply reads,

?Any person who causes or participates in hazing
commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.? Hazing is
statutorily defined under Section 5352 of the same title to
include, ?Any action or situation which recklessly or
intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or
safety of a person or which willfully destroys or removes
public or private property for the purpose of initiation or
admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for
continued membership in, any organization. The term shall
include, but not be limited to, any brutality of a physical
nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forced
calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption
of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance, or any other
forced physical activity which could adversely affect the
physical health and safety of the individual, and shall
include any activity which would subject the individual to
extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation, forced
exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which could
result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced
activity which could adversely affect the mental health or
dignity of the individual, or any willful destruction or
removal of public or private property. For purposes of this
definition, any activity as described in this definition upon
which the initiation or admission into or affiliation with or
continued ?membership in an organization is directly or
indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be ?forced?
activity, the willingness of an individual to participate in
such activity notwithstanding.?

By criminalizing hazing as a mere blanket third degree misdemeanor carrying a
maximum possible punishment of 1 year incarceration (which, assuming a defendant
lacks any prior criminal conviction, will practically only result in probation) and a $2,500
fine, it leaves no particularized ability for a prosecutor to pursue any semblance of
justice for the victims of egregious cases, such as the one currently before the Grand

Jury, that result in significant injury or even death. Prosecutors must look to other more

 

 

 

97 Page

 

 

general statutes and try to fit the facts of serious injury or death from, 

  

 

 

statutes not designed to cover such behavior.

 

The law is currently written for one?size?fits-all justice. Timothy Piazza?s death
reveals the absolute deficit in using this logic. There is no justice in a fine and maybe
probation for the death of a 19 year old who will never graduate from college; never
marry; never serve as his brother?s best man; never introduce his parents to their
grandchildren. When young men recklessly leverage someone?s desire for friendship
against him and direct him to guzzle enough alcohol to endanger his life so he can
aspire to be ?one of them,? and it results in his death or seriously bodily injury, the crime
they face in court should reflect the seriousness of the offense, and not the lowest grade

misdemeanor has in its crimes code.

The Grand Jury acknowledges that a strong sense of victim?blaming still
pervades any discussion of hazing, which has been highlighted by Timothy Piazza?s
case in particular. We applaud the General Assembly?s foresight on this particular issue,
and its legal elimination of it, by specifically codifying that a victim?s ?willingness? to
participate in defined hazing activity is irrelevant to the statute?s application. The Grand
Jury believes, however, that stronger language must be added to the law protecting

people from hazing.

The case involving the death of Timothy Piazza illustrates that when hazing
allegations surface, entirely too much focus improperly shifts to why and whether the
victim contributed to his own victimization by consenting to his own hazing. Much like a

rape victim who finds him/herself facing accusations that s/he invited his/her own rape

 

98lPage

 

    

by dressing too provocatively or flirting too much, hazing victims?pr? ?ey
leave behind?should not be forced to legally defend why they failed td fIght harder on

say ?no? louder. Likewise, the offender should not be afforded the relief of shifting the

scrutiny away from his own criminal actions.

Mr. Vivenzio provided the Grand Jury with his personal insight regarding why
pledges continue to suffer through hazing practices, even as the sadistic tasks
demanded of them surge to unfathomably peaks of depravity. lot of the kids just
really wanted to be a part of something, is what i saw it as like a 
Based on the culmination of all the testimony this Grand Jury reviewed during its
investigation in this case, we find heartbreaking and inescapable truth to this particular
explanation. The students who seek admission into these fraternities may be driven by
a kaleidoscope of reasons, but at least one of those common motivations that recur in
nearly all of them appears to be a distinct desire to create a certain caliber of
friendship?to be part of a brotherhood that purports to last beyond these four collegiate
years and to find acceptance among a ?tribe.? The craving for a clan, especially when
one is plunged into the new and foreign environment of college, is both understandable
and human. That fraternity brothers wield this longing against the pledges as a weapon
makes their activities that much more despicable. This is bullying in its most organized
form. Reduced to its core, hazing is simply a group of individuals preying on the
vulnerabilities of someone who simply wants to be their friend. Hazing succeeds and
persists because the offenders recognize that the initiate?s desire for brotherhood can

be traded as currency to unleash cruelty for the offenders? own amusement.

 

99 Page

 

 

Excessive and Illegal Alcohol Consumption

 

 

 

 

While common sense may also seem to support such a conclusion, the Grand
Jury can ascertain that as far back as 2007, at least with regard to Beta Theta Pi, Penn
State UniVersity became aware of excessive, dangerous alcohol abuse by fraternity
brothers. Not only does the testimony of Mr. Rawley, Mr. Drobka, and Mr. Abbey
document Beta's excessive drinking culture, but the emails between Penn State
administrators reference alcohol as well. However, University officials were remarkably
undisturbed by the complaints regarding alcohol consumption, casually dismissing them

to focus more on the ire of the evicted brothers and their parents.

The Grand Jury understands that an acute rift erupted between the active 2009
Beta brothers (joined by their parents) who resided in the chapter house and Mr. Abbey
and the alumni board regarding excessive alcohol consumption and damages occurring
inside the Beta house during renovations. Such alarm extended to the National
fraternity who, when confronted with sufficient evidence of the allegations, took its own
initiative to close the local chapter, thereby threatening to evict the active members only

two months into the spring 2009 semester.

The Grand Jury further recognizes and respects that Penn State maintained a
position of ?neutrality?B4 between the warring Beta Theta Pi factions over the eviction
proceedings. However, the Grand Jury finds that Penn State University had clear line of
sight to the primary concern at issue both then and now, nearly a decade later. Penn

State officials were aware of the excessive and dangerous alcohol abuse indulged by

 

54 In emaiis exchanged between each other on May 28, 2009, Mr. Sims and Dr. Baker discuss Beta?s closing by its
national organization and agree with each other that "neutrality in this matter is best.?

 

100 Page

 

 

fraternities, such that it was only a matter of time before a death would: ccurduriri a

i,

hazing event. Not unlike a revolver with one cylinder loaded in a treacherousiga?metoi

 

Russian roulette, eventually the fraternities? luck was bound to run out. While the
University had no responsibility to mediate lease disputes between the Beta alumni
board and the active Beta brothers, the Grand Jury finds that it did have both the power
and the obligation to at least investigate the alarming allegations brought to it by the
national chapter and Penn State alumni such as Donald Abbey and Kenneth Rawley.
The Grand Jury finds that Penn State administrators received complaints regarding
alcohol abuse by Beta brothers and, while only accusations, this Grand Jury finds that
Penn State administrators displayed a shocking apathy to the potential danger

associated with doing nothing.65

The Grand Jury concludes that Penn State was content to allow Beta?s national
fraternity to manage the issue of excessive alcohol abuse at the chapter. Despite
acknowledging that a national fraternity swooping in on its own to close its chapter at a
University signals a significant step, Penn State completely abdicated its moral

responsibility of care and failed to control the dangers created by its students at the

Beta house.

While the lFC?s policing process through its contract with St. Moritz presented a
veneer of control over fraternities and sororities, testimony from St. Moritz employees,

fraternity brothers, and the President himself laid bare that the system the had

 

65 At the time Penn State possessed at minimum, a memorandum entitled "Alpha Upsilon Conduct File,? a
February 22, 2009 emaii between Damon Sims and Dr. Spanier acknowiedging, "..continuing violation of [Beta?s]
alcohol The Grand Jury also credits Don Abbey and Ken Rawley?s testimony as to the efforts they made
to notify the University regarding the excessive drinking behavior at the fraternity. Al Drobka?s report was provided
to the University and it contained detailed damages done to the fraternity, including pictures documenting severe
destruction and evidence of excessive alcohol consumption, among other things.

 

101 Page

 

 

    

in place is a joke designed to allow easy circumvention by fraternity

a

window dressing to make it appear that some safeguards were in placewhen, In fact

 

 

 

the IFC engaged in no meaningful oversight of fraternities whatsoever, causing
countless young men to suffer the indignities and depravities ungoverned fraternity

bullies could conjure semester after semester.

The extensive testimony revealed to the Grand Jury that fraternity brothers know
exactly how to evade the system by demanding the security checkers impotently wait on
the front stoop while warnings are passed; by secreting the hard liquor and kegs behind
closed bedroom doors where the St. Moritz guards cannot explore; by controlling the
areas of the fraternity house that the guards tour; and by temporarily suspending their
binge drinking until the safety monitor leaves again. And that?s when the fraternities
even bother to conceal their violations. The St. Moritz testimony collectively paints the
picture of a brazen Greek community who freely flout both IFC regulations and criminal

laws without any fear of reprisal.

When the IFC did receive reports of violations, it controlled whether the
information in the report was passed on to Penn State officials or not. Its discretion
allows the IFC to determine which reports merit disciplinary action and which will be
discarded, without the University ever the wiser about the existence of violations
observed by the hired security firm. Moreover, when documented violations do advance
to a standards hearing, Penn State claims no authority to impose a sanction on the
fraternity as an organization. Rather, the Office of Student Conduct liaison may only
suggest resolutions, and pray that rationality prevails and some sanction is imposed by

the IFC. However, as testimony from St. Moritz made evident, whatever sanctions the

 

102 Page

 

 

 

same disturbing and dangerous behavior week after week.

Even the admitted that the fines it imposes generally fails to deter dangerous
behavior because the fraternities plan for the possibility that fines will be imposed, and
pay them out of previously collected feesmessentially part of the cost of doing business.
When the fines lack clout and any probation periods lack enforcement, there is no true

consequence. There is no fear and, consequently, no reason to curtail the partying.

Lt. Robb testified that shortly after Timothy Piazza?s death, when Penn State
imposed an immediate ban on alcohol and social functions at every recognized
fraternity, the annual State Patty?s Day drinking holiday drastically altered. Lt. Robb,
who worked patrol that particular day in February, testified that the fraternity zone of
State College ?was completely didn?t have the urination. We didn?t have the
reports of people who are residents of that neighborhood having their fences kicked in
or having someone found on their back porch, passed out.? Lt. Robb conceded that
while ?sure they Were drinking? inside their houses, ?they didn?t have the large blowout
parties that would normally be there on a special event weekend. So, yes, as a police
officer and I?m sure as a neighbor in that neighborhood, they do see a difference when

there are restrictions placed on those houses.?

The Grand Jury heard considerable testimony demonstrating that the 
supervised'fraternities engage in a pattern of excessive drinking that not only endangers

the safety of those individuals attending the social events?be it sorority sister, guest, or

 

103lPage

 

fellow fraternity brother?but it also impacts the local State College comi

 

 

when moratoriums are issued by authorities higher than the 
where real consequences?~rather than just imagined ones?hang in the balance, the

results are undeniable: the bad behavior is curtailed.

The invisible Wall Between Penn State University and the Penn State

lnterfraternity Council

Ever since the details of Tim Piazza?s death developed on a national stage, Penn
State University has very carefully cultivated the perception of a distance between the
University and the IFC. Penn State has repeatedly insisted that the IFC exists as a
separate, private, self-governing entity, completely untouchable by the University?s
authority. Similarly, Penn State has endeavored to erect a wall between itself and its
own fraternities, distinguishing them as also private organizations equally outside of the

University?s reach.

In his testimony before this Grand Jury, Damon Sims referred to the IFC and its
member fraternities as ?private? organizations or associations at least ten times. While
we certainly understand that, technically and theoretically, the IFC may constitute an
?entity,? the practical reality is far less well defined in the opinion of this Grand Jury. The
maintains its office on the University Park campus in a University-owned building. It
draws the entirety of its membership from a pool of only Penn State students. In fact,
according to testimony from Penn State employees, it exists as a Penn State student
organization-established under the Office of Student Affairs pursuant to the Policies and
Rules for Student Organizations, subject to the same rules, regulations, and

expectations as any other student organization approved by Penn State.

 

104 Page

 

 

Penn State allows the and individual fraternities to consu?

 

resources, such as marketing materials and printing services. Penn Sitate?..assistsuthe
IFC and fraternities in their recruitment efforts, giving these organizations direct access
to its student body by allowing it to set up information booths in centrally located
campus buildings, advertise through Penn State?s website, and even disseminate
invitations to solicit potential pledges through all residence hall mailboxes. The and
fraternities can also petition for use of University funds for marketing materials to drive

membership and for speakers and other benefits.

Penn State further hires employees that it pays salaries to serve as advisors to
the Danelle Del Corso testified that her position?paid for by Penn State University,
supervised by another University employee, Danny Shaha as the Director of the Office
of Fraternity and Sorority Life?requires her to advise the IFC, guide and monitor them,
shepherding them toward good decisions. Penn State also tasked its employee
Kathleen Shupenko with counseling and advising the IFC through its organizational
disciplinary process. Although Penn State identifies the IFC as a completely
independent organization, the Grand Jury finds that is not the case. The Grand Jury
finds real, substantive ties clearly bind the IFC to the University. The does not

operate in a vacuum sealed bubble impenetrable by the University.

Perhaps most telling about the intersection between fraternities and the
University involves their financial entanglements. The Grand Jury learned that the IFC
collects both regular dues from all of its fraternity members as well as fines when it
imposes sanctions on fraternities through the organizational disciplinary process. The

IFC deposits this money with the University, in a Student Organization Account. Penn

 

105 Page

 

 

 
 

State holds that money and disburses it. The University charges two d%

i
i
person for their involvement. The IFC can only access their money aft

5)
T's;

 

upon approval from a Penn State employee, specifically Danelle Del Corso. Ms. Del
Corso further indicated that she did not rubber stamp her approval of the lFC?s
requests, and will, in fact, question the reason the IFC requested their money. Not only
does the University control the lFC?s money, it also acts as a collection agency for
fraternities according to both Mr. Mengden (who served as Beta Theta Pi?s Treasurer at
the time of Tim Piazza?s death) and Mr. Vivenzio. When a brother joins a fraternity, he
becomes responsible for paying certain dues to them. Upon failing to pay his fraternity,
the fraternity refers the matter to the University, who then collects the outstanding dues.
Mr. Vivenzio explained to the Grand Jury that should a student insist on withholding the
fraternity?s dues, the University can and will freeze the student?s account, preventing
him from registering for classes. Mr. Mengden, Beta?s Treasurer, further testi?ed ?the
thought associated with having the bursar instead of them just paying me or the general
fraternity, is that [the brothers] are incentivized to pay the bursar because it?s essentially
like paying your school say someone refused pay, the bursar can then
hinder them from scheduling classes whereas, you know, it wouldn?t have the same
effect if the members of the fraternity were hounding someone for the money. So that?s
kind of why Penn State put that in place.? interestingly, in the case of Mr. Vivenzio?s
fraternity, he claimed that his fraternity dues also included social dues, from which his
fraternity?s alcohol was purchased. The University, consequently, acts as the
fraternities? financial enforcer, further closing the distance in the degrees of separation

Penn State has taken pains to publicly create.

 

106 Page

 

 

Penn State approves the IFC as a student organization, regii'

 

 

 

 

permits the IFC to use the University?s name, allows it to conduct busine~s on University
property recruiting Penn State students, and controls its money. The notion that the
University is somehow powerless to regulate its fraternity and IFC behavior the Grand
Jury finds patently absurd. The Grand Jury further finds just as illogical the proposition
that Penn State maintains no control over any of the fraternities that bear its name.
Despite attempts by the senior leadership, such as Mr. Sims, to portray the IFC and its
fraternities as ?private, independent? associations, Ms. Del Corso?s testimony reveals
that both the IFC and the individual fraternities are really ?student organizations,? bound
by the policies and rules of the University who recognizes them. Logically, this
conclusion makes complete sense: the Grand Jury hardly believes that these so-called
?private organizations? simply set up camp on Penn State University?s pr0perty, in its
buildings, using its name and its resources, while Penn State must sit idly by. Such a
contention by the University is illogical given these facts and the Grand Jury chooses

not to credit this self?serving assertion.

When Mr. Sims repeatedly described the Greek landscape as ?private 
organizations that structure themselves like private organizations,? and ultimately ?were
responsible for the oversight of their organizations? through the IFC, he
implies that Penn State University had absolutely no control over the IFC. Such rhetoric,
also echoed by President Barron in some of his media statements,?36 suggests that Penn
State lay helpless against a foreign interloper when we unmistakably know it was not.

Penn State proved it was not powerless against the IFC when it assumed control over

 

55 See ?An Open Letter to Penn State?s Greek Community,? by Dr. Eric Barron, April 10, 2017,


 

107 Page

 

 

monitoring fraternities and removed that responsibility from the 



 

 

 

 

Piazza?s death.

In characterizing Penn State?s philosophy on allowing student organizations to
self?govern, Mr. Sims described that ?part of the learning that occurs in a university
occurs in these organizations,? where the University expects students to ?solve their
own problems.? When questioned about whether the University-employed advisors of
these groups provide a protective stopgap measure in case students fail to resolve
dangers appropriately, Mr. Sims explained have advised student organizations
myself, and I quite often have pointed out that there is a cliff over here and you?re about
to go off the cliff and you need to understand what the consequences for that can be,
but in the end, quite often the judgment for many of these things is left to the students
and the student leaders when it comes to organizational issues.? Based on the history
of Beta Theta Pi nearly a decade ago, as well as the horrific experiences shared by Mr.
Vivenzio and Mr. Braham, and the tragic death of Mr. Dado, the Grand Jury finds it
impossible to believe that no one in Penn State?s administration saw this ?cliff?
approaching. The Grand Jury believes it was only a matter of time before a student
suffered serious injury, or death, by either hazing, or by the out of control parties with
the excessive alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the Grand Jury concludes that the

University knew or should have known of these dangers.

Penn State has lamented its restriction in disciplining its fraternities as limited to
?only? revoking an organization?s. University recognition. To that, the Grand Jury
responds: do it. if the University continues to cower at the prospect that these ?private

organizations" conduct their business on ?private property,? which robs Penn State with

 

108 Page

 

if; . I 11:47:? . it: 7' 


any true power to act, then Penn State should exercise the one recourse 

 

.,
available to it, and terminate fraternity recognition when serious violations occur The

Grand Jury sees young men dying. Penn State has at the very least a moral obligation
to protect its students from known dangers such as excessive alcohol'fuse and hazing.
Mr Sims remarked that ?we are not the custodians of private associations on private
property.? However, the Grand Jury took particular notice of how he described his duty
as Vice President of Student Affairs when he first introduced himself in the courtroom: ?l
have primary responsibility for advocating welfare of students at Penn State.?
While the Grand Jury agrees that Penn State may not serve as the custodian of
fraternity houses, the Grand Jury demands it embrace its role as the protector of

student welfare and safety, regardless of whether they live at a fraternity house or a

Penn State dormitory.

The Grand Jury concludes that it is unreasonable for Penn State University to
disavow all accountability for its abject failure in reforming the Greek system to curtail
excessive consumption of alcohol and the hazing of fraternity pledges. Since the
University has maintained control over employees directly responsible for overseeing
the participation of students in fraternity life, the University bears the ultimate
responsibility for the failure to supervise the safety of its students involved in the
fraternity system. The Grand Jury finds the University?s contention that the is ?on its
own? and independent from Penn State to be unreasonable and untrue. Had Penn State
so desired, it could have taken steps to aggressively reform Greek life to curb excessive
drinking and put a stop to fraternity hazing long before Tim Piazza died as it was clearly

on notice of these ongoing, serious dangers years before his untimely and unnecessary

 

109 Page

 

  

?3

the hands of named individuals and the fraternity as a whole, Penn Stateisvinactionits?e?

the table to allow those criminal acts to occur.
Penn State?s Response to Hazinq Since the Grand Jurv?s Presentment

Since the Grand Jury issued its Presentment recommending criminal charges in
the death of Timothy Piazza on May 5, 2017, the State University Board
of Trustees has decided that the danger posed by the fraternity culture has spiked to
untenable heights and finally merits University action. Their response involved adopting
a 15 point plan meant to address hazing misconduct as well as the illegal and excessive
consumption of alcohol. While the Grand Jury approves the intention behind such
remedial efforts, it harbors grave concerns that, unless Penn State recognizes and
takes full responsibility for its own shortcomings and acts decisively, the deadly history
will only?repeat itself. Such risk is especially probable in light of Penn State?s previous
recalcitrance to become too closely associated with the conduct of its students,

particularly its Greek community.

For example, the Grand Jury heard testimony from both past State College
Police Chief Thomas King and Lieutenant Keith Robb that Penn State previously
created task forces in 2009 and 2014 targeting the exact concerns that ultimately played
a central role in Timothy Piazza?s death. Despite the most recent task force meeting on
multiple occasions over the course of approximately one year and even evolving into
comprehensive subcommittees, it ultimately disbanded without ever issuing a single

public recommendation or implementing a single change. Momentum dissipated and the

 

110lPage

 

 

task force dissolved?perhaps when public scrutiny subsided, perhapsE 

Uj



 

re aligned or perhaps when other matters demanded more administratIve-.attention and:
diverted resources. Whatever the reason or excuse, the problems were well-defined
and long known by the University to exist, and yet, Penn State did nothing substantive

to address those problems.

Whatever the reason for failing to act previously, however, the Grand Jury is
mindful and troubled that there is no means of preventing another tragedy like the death
of Timothy Piazza. The University has touted elements of its plan to establish a ?Greek-
life Response Team? composed of various individuals from the community. While the
Grand Jury believes such a committee is essential to anti-hazing success, it will achieve
very little if, like its predecessor, it is defunct and discarded in short order, or its power

and authority so limited that it cannot perform the function for which it is intended.

Moreover, the Board of Trustees has proposed implementing a University?staffed
monitoring system through a ?spot-check team? to patrol fraternities for safety violations
and refer observations of misconduct to Penn State?s internal adjudication process.
However, the Grand Jury discerns little difference between this newly adopted system
of random spot checks and the one installed by the through St. Moritz at the time of
Timothy Piazza?s death. The Grand Jury heard and unequivocal testimony?not
only from the St. Moritz guards, but from the executive officers the itself?
concerning how easily and how often fraternities hid violations. However, the University
astonishingly has failed to admit any awareness of or any sensitivity to how easily

fraternity brothers were defeating the spot check system.

 

 

111 Page

 

 5: 
5

Penn State has failed to articulate what specific steps it plans tio?ge?s

 

would actively prevent this newly proposed and highly self-celebrated ibroceduremfrom
simply becoming the same mockery of safety that existed under the lFC?s employment
of St. Moritz. How will the University prevent its staff from being delayed on the other
side of the fraternity front door while brothers inside quickly conceal alcohol from plain
view? How will it ensure spot checkers achieve access to all areas of the fraternity
house that were inaccessible to the St. Moritz guards to confirm that impermissible
items, such as kegs and beer bongs, are not simply squirreled away in bedrooms? How
will it identify those fraternity brothers, pledges, and guests who are under the legal age
to drink alcohol? How will it train its staff to recognize and treat signs of alcohol

poisoning in those individuals it encounters?
A Practice Run at Failure: Parents Weekend 2017 and Beyond

In fact, the University?s new spot checking system has proven equally ineffectual
at dispelling impermissible alcohol consumption as St. Moritz?s. Penn State
implemented new, stricter guidelines against fraternities after Tim Piazza?s death, taking
advantage of ?Parents Weekend? in April 2017 to test?run these procedures. Bisecting
the following weekend after Parents Weekend, the University banned Saturday alcohol
completely from any fraternity or sorority event; on Sunday, it permitted only beer and
wine subject to numerous conditions, including third party, RAMP67 trained servers;
closed events that only fraternity brothers could attend; registering functions with the
University; random University-staffed spot checks; and no hard liquor. The results of

these experiments, the Grand Jury heard, proved less than promising.

 

67 Referring to the Liquor Control Board?s Responsible Alcohol Management Program

 

112 Page

 

i
i

  
 
 

Spot checking notes recorded by Danny Shaha, and obtained by,
describe the utter disrespect that both Greek members and their 
the rules the University intended to curb excessive alcohol abuse. Mere months from
Tim?s death?when the shock and shame should have been still fresh and raw?-
fraternities still refused to allow spot checkers upstairs in the frat houses; joked about
hiding or cleaning up violations; allowed parties to become so out of control that law

enforcement intervened; lined tables with liquor bottles; and flagrantly flaunted alcohol

moratoriums set by Penn State.

At one fraternity, Mr. Shaha expressed his immediate concern as he arrived at
the house on Saturday, April ist at 12:15 am. A significant number of people??both
students and parents?freely entered and exited the home without any control. Clearly,
the fraternity, who had not registered its intent to hold an event with either the IFC or the
University, appeared to be hosting a party. He observed individuals ?staggering? under
the influence of alcohol with liquor bottles and beer cups readily visible. Inside the
house, the fraternity?s Parents Weekend party boasted ?tables upon tables filled with
liquor bottles half full of liquor with unfettered access by the party attendees? in addition
to ?a few cases of beer? located in the basement. The fraternity furnished the beer,
according to its president, in case ?any of the dads wanted to play beer pong and
needed to do so.? Although some RAMP trained students68 had been tapped to ?monitor-
the alcohol,? the fraternity president conceded that those individuals left at midnight

while the party raged on. Inside the party, Mr. Shaha observed three football players

 

68 Even having only RAMP trained students would have been considered a violation of the University?s regulations
at the time, which actually required fraternities to hire third party vendors to serve alcohoi as opposed to just
trained students.

 

113 Page

 

 


who he recognized and could attest were neither fraternity brothers nor a 


55;?
?zgi.

 

of the fraternity brothers. He also witnessed ?a large number? of menandwomen

drinking in individual rooms. When asked by University staff to close the party, the

chapter failed to comply, requiring State College Police Department intervention.

At another fraternity on April 1, 2017, spot checkers observed a male walk in
toting a handle of vodka. On the second floor, ?we saw a woman holding a bottle of

liquor while two other women drank from bottles over a trash can.?

The Nittany Lion General Manager also provided Penn State administrators
with typed notes of the fraternity and sorority events that utilized Penn State facilities,
such as the Penn Stater Hotel and Conference Center and the Nittany Lion lnn, for its
Parents Weekend events. At one Parents Dinner on March 25, 2017, both Greek
members and their parents ignored signs prohibiting alcohol from being brought in. Staff
seized a water bottle full of gin; empty alcohol containers; and noted beer cans and
flasks in pockets. The Manager noted ?Parents were definitely contributing to the

challenge by disregarding our liquor laws and making disgruntled comments.?

At a sorority?s Parents Dinner on April 1, 2017, the Manager noted concerns such
as soon had issues with beer in a water glass, which we switched out from a fresh
water and the same guest was later seen drinking her boyfriend/brother?s beer so the
beer was confiscated and he was cut off, which he did not receive well. We had a father
give his wristband [signifying the wearer was of drinking age] to his daughter,? who later
admitted she was under the age of 21. ?When asked about giving his daughter the

wristband, he denied it repeatedly and then pretended he didn?t have it. The on-duty

 

114 Page

 

 

 
 

University Police Officer was able to get him to produce the wristban

xi
?i

were asked to leave the property. There were several other instancesewhere?mpeople

 

 

were passing drinks and pouring wine into water giasses so we kept taking them and
switching them out for fresh water.? The staff observed several visibly intoxicated
people, including one girl whose father became angry when staff asked that he remove

her from the event and who complained that he was ?entitled? to an open bar.

At another event on April 1, 2017, the General Manager secured an armed
University Police Officer to man the door of the event to prevent individuals under the
age of 21 from entering the on?site Pub in response to issues from other Greek life
events elsewhere at the Penn Stater that evening, including ?handing off alcohol to

minors and confiscating alcohol.?

The Nittany Lion Inn also served as the venue for a fraternity event on April 1,
2017 which the General Manager described as ?absolutely insane.? Despite being
warned of the alcohol policies, the staff ?had to confiscate a large number of alcohol
beverages from the same people a number of times,? requiring the oversight of two
event supervisors. staff documented that the fraternity and its guests were ?rude and
absolutely uncontrollable. I don?t know how they all got THAT drunk but they were
definitely don?t think we can expect these people to act any different if they

come back for another event.?

The following weekend, the University employed another round of spot?checking
at the University Park fraternity houses. On Saturday, April 8, 2017, Penn State banned

alcohol entirely from any fraternity events. Of the nine fraternities that University Staff

 

115 Page

 

 

randomly spot checked, all but one of them recorded brazen violations.

 

 

 

learned the following from Mr. Shaha?s typed spot checking notes:

 

Fraternity 1: At least one individual held a beer can on the front porch, though
through the windows, at least thirty to forty parents and students stood and sat around
tables among several 6 and 12 packs of beer. Many people migrated upstairs to the
third floor, where loud music blasted and a party was plainly in progress, however, the
fraternity president refused to allow spot checkers to go upstairs to determine the
fraternity?s compliance with the rules. The president conceded that his fraternity also
hosted an unsanctioned party the previous weekend as well. When asked, the president
confessed that ?it's hard to say no to parents and asked if [University spot checkers]

could help him in notifying the parents that alcohol was not allowed.?

Fraternity 2: A brother and female student both walked past spot checkers
holding a beer in violation of the no alcohol condition. The fraternity president refused to

allow checkers upstairs.

Fraternity 3: Even from outside of the fraternity house, spot checkers could
establish that the fraternity hosted a party on the upper floor based on the loud music
and well?populated attendance. inside, checkers observed twenty to thirty women
entering the house and proceeding directly up the stairs, toward the music. The
fraternity refused to allow the University checkers upstairs. Checkers did, however,
discern solo beer cups and dixie shot cups in the garbage. The fraternity president

apologized and assured the checkers that ?things would be shut down.?

 

116lPage

 

 

Fraternity 4: Although the chapter president initially resisted

 

checkers upstairs, he relented. On the upper floor, they witnessed 

parents with beers in hand. Brothers even went into the bathroom carrying beers.

Fraternity 5: Checkers watched women disappear upstairs and one male emerge
down the stairs clutching a solo cup while the fraternity members kept them contained
to the first floor. Although the fraternity president and risk manager claimed the chapter
voted against allowing spot checkers access to the upstairs of the house, ?at one point,
the risk manager received a text and upon reading it, said ?Oh, now you can go
upstairs.? The social checkers and the risk manager laughed because it was obvious
that something had been cleaned upstairs and so now we were allowed to go up.?
Checkers further ?expreSsed concerns over capacity issues as the facility was extremely
crowded.? The brothers explained that. when another fraternity disbanded its party after

checkers had left, their party?s guests moved on to this fraternity.

Fraternity 6: Upon arrival, the fraternity was permitting entrance to ?large
numbers? of individuals. At least one brother and another female could be seen drinking
beer on the first floor, but the fraternity denied the University checkers access to the
upper floors. The checkers subsequently left the house, but returned approximately 45
minutes later at State College Police Department?s request to assist in disbanding an
?out of control party.? ?Police indicated that hordes of people were entering the events,
they had just broken up a fight on the lawn, and a man was vomiting 
appeared that many women and men were entering the facility without any sort of
control.? When confronted about how the situation had deteriorated, the president

claimed that ?as parties were being shut down elsewhere, people came there.?

 

117 Page

 

 

Fraternity 7: Checkers witnessed members confiscating alcohglf?f?r

1

coming down the stairs to where the spot checkers stood. 

 

permitted the checkers upstairs and insisted that the fraternity had provided no alcohol,
the president of another, unrelated fraternity who encountered the checkers claimed
that he was happy the University could see his own fraternity wasn't the only one to
violate the rules. That president described ?chaos? preceded the checker?s arrival,
disclosing that ?there was so much alcohol present in the hallways.? As if on cue, while
checkers spoke in the upstairs hallway, one of Fraternity 7?s brothers opened his

bedroom door, glanced around searchingly, then asked ?Who moved the bar? I need a

chasen?

Fraternity 8: Several brothers traipsed through the house carrying Natural Ice
beer cans. The second floor exhibited clear, recent signs of cleaning, including a dirty
mop as well as the smell and appearance of recent mop job). The president was also

swaying, slurring his words, and noticeably intoxicated. 

In subsequent emails, Mr. Sims robserved to Mr. Shaha that ?This was intended.
as a practice run for the limitations to be imposed next year, and even in this limited
context, with parents present, these groups are falling short.? It appears however, that
Penn State continues to impose punishments for violations against the fraternity as a
group, rather than particular individuals. In an April 5, 2017 email, Mr. Sims expresses
that ?we need to hold the specific groups violating our expectations accountable for
their violations." (emphasis added). Mr. Shaha echoes the sentiment by emailing a
copy of the typed notes to Kathleen Shupenko and Danelle Del Corso, among others,

on April 12, 2017, directing that ?It makes sense that the IFC and Panhellenic conduct

 

118 Page

 

 

processes take it from here. Many of these may just result in a conve 

 

 

 

 

conversations are nonetheless.? (emphasis added).

While the Grand Jury certainly supports any of Penn State?s efforts to hold
fraternities accountable for violations through the organizational disciplinary process,
the Grand Jurors feel strongly that Penn State must begin holding individual
students accountable for their actions as well. Hiding behind the protection of a
group has obviously failed to dissuade fraternity brothers from altering their course of
parties and drinking. That their fraternity as a whole must forfeit a fine, or must attend
various educational programs, or must suffer through, as in the email above, ?a
conversation? with the University, does not call upon the individuals participating in the
violation to answer for their own behavior. It does not inscribe on them any kind of
personal responsibility for the rules desecrated and the trust broken by both the
individuals and by the fraternity. It does not, simply put, effectively stop the misconduct
of a single person to only punish the organization. These brothers are first and foremost

Penn State students. By breaching Penn State University rules and regulations, the

violating students should be the first entity from whom Penn State exacts a penalty.

Additionally, when spot checkers observe infractions of University policy, the new
15 point action plan adopted by Penn State also calls for the University to now directly
address those ?serious violations? rather than the The Grand Jury strongly
advocates that establishing direct University control over disciplinary action is absolutely

critical to accomplishing any progress. Testimony from at least one officer indicated

 

59 See ?President responds to Penn State community?s messages on Greek iife,? June 16, 2017,


 

119]Page

 



 

that the IFC students had been empowered to review and vet all violati





W.

 

St. Moritz guards before deciding which constituted an offense 
involve the University?s Office of Student Conduct. Clearly, the University?s delegation
of responsibility to students policing students failed to effectively manage the dangers
associated with Greek life. Not only was it unclear to the Grand Jury exactly what
punishments were actually meted out by the IFC to rule-breaking members, but
documents subpoenaed by the Grand Jury recording violations were reportedly lost,

discarded upon receipt by the IFC, or generally incomplete.

However, the Grand Jury is disturbed by the qualification of the University?s use
of the phrase ?serious violation.? Such a procedure is disturbingly similar to that already
described by IFC Executive Vice President Blake Friedman, who indicated that the IFC
tagged only certain offenses for submission to the Office of Student Conduct via
Kathleen Shupenko, while withholding ?minor? ones. Under the University?s new
protocol, who then will adjudicate ?minor? offenses if the University only plans to
exercise direct control over ?serious? violations and, equally important, who will decide
which label applies to a given violation? Absent clarity around these issues, the Greek
system is vulnerable to falling into the same patterns of behavior that have proven

woefully ineffective in the past.

In fact, the Grand Jury reviewed with interest an August 24, 2017 news article
written by Penn State junior Elissa Hill and published on the student?run news site,
?Onward State,? entitled ?Why ?Aggressive? Reform Won?t Change Anything for Penn
State Greek Life.? In her article, Ms. Hill dissects, rule by rule, the University?s new and

improved Greek life regulations, predicting how fraternities will handily circumvent each

 

120 Page

 

 

one. In some cases, she precisely describes the exact failure that playei'

 

2017 Parents Weekend dry run. She rebuffs the prohibition against 
checking by pointing out the likelihood of upstairs parties and the places immune to both
St. Moritz and University workers?bedrooms. She dismisses changes in the pledging
process by pointing out that fraternities will ?unofficially? rush their pledges without
registering them and that forcing a fraternity to submit a written plan that the University
approves does not translate to a fraternity adhering to such a plan.70 In assessing the
alcohol restrictions, she bluntly writes ?Bear with me here because there are plenty of
ways to skirt these,? before rattling off a list of. multiple end-arounds that fraternities
already used habitually during the St. Moritz era or during the Parents Weekend dry run
of new procedures. The ultimate point is that the University cannot rely solely on these
regulations since, clearly, the fraternities will find ways to evade them. The evasion is so
simple and obvious that fellow students see it happening all the time?so much so, as to

make the evasions routine.

in this report, while we wholly support the University assuming direct
responsibility for governing all conduct violations alleged against fraternities and its
individual members, the Grand Jury cautions that the effectiveness of any disciplinary
action is only as good as its enforcement. lf Penn State continues to respond to
violations with continued excuses that it harbors ?no real tool? for punishment power
except revoking a fraternity?s recognition, then certainly the disciplinary process will lack

the necessary teeth in deterring misconduct. When violations arise, Penn State must

 

7? Incidentally, according to testimony, Penn State had already required fraternities, including Beta Theta Pi, to
submit new member pledge programs for approval each semester at the time of Timothy Piazza?s death. Not
surprisingly, although Beta failed to include the gauntlet in its pledge plan, it stiil managed to execute the gauntlet
that killed Timothy Piazza.

 

121 Page

 

 

deliver immediate, certain, and strict consequences?to both fraternitier'k

  

 

 

 

brothers/students.

Since February 2, 2017, the Grand Jury has seen Penn State?s rallying cry be
that it could not have saved Timothy Piazza and should not bear responsibility for his
death. it has instead assigned the failures leading to Tim?s death to other alleged
independent, private organizations. The University then further insisted that it was
powerless to interfere with the that it lacked any authority to govern the misconduct
of students inside ?privately owned homes,? situated on ?private property.? Tim?s death
didn?t in any way substantively change the relationship between the and Penn
State. And yet, citing the only difference as Timothy Piazza?s death, Penn State
suddenly announced that it had found the will and made the way to deter excessive
drinking and pledge hazing. Either the University lacked the ability before Tim?s death or
it always had the ability and just didn?t have the someone died, and the world

started watching.

The Grand Jury suggests that Penn State must end the excuses or be doomed to
continually relive the mistakes of its past. Penn State cannot hold itself at arms?length
distance from its students and organizations, but still claim it can effectively deter
misconduct. Penn State cannot claim it lacks any power over its students but then
successfully punish the same students it claimed it could not punish. Penn State must
recognize where critical failure has occurred in the past so that it can come to an actual
understanding of what actions (or, inactions) will likely lead to failure again in the future,

and develop strategies that might actually succeed.

 

122 Page

 

  

The Grand Jury notes the closing lyrics of Penn State?s alma ma 

 

of ours bring shame/To one heart that loves thy name.? Semester afteraisemesterwyear

after year, fraternity members have flouted this sentiment; their actions reflecting
immense shame upon themselves, their organizations, both locally and nationally, and
as the University should take particular note, on The State University
itself. The Grand Jury calls upon the students, the alumni, and the administrators of this
great institution to live up to the promise pledged every time this song resonates
through Beaver Stadium, the Bryce Jordan Center, the HUB, or across Old Main?s lawn.

Let these be empty words no more.
Ill. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions, the First Centre County
Investigating Grand Jury makes the following recommendations for legislative,

executive, or administrative action in the public interest:

1. Cure the Currently Deficient Hazinq Law

. The Grand Jury calls upon the General Assembly, and especially the
distinguished state senator and Majority Leader from Centre County, to enact
legislation, designated ?Tim?s Law? in recognition of Tim Piazza?s senseless
death, amending the criminal offense of Hazing in order to more effectively deter
participation in this crime, as well as to provide justice that is more severe in
circumstances such as these, where a victim has forfeited his/her life.

. The Grand Jury recommends that the offense of hazing be a mum-tiered system

in which the grading of any given offense is contingent on the harm possible or

 

123IPage

 

 

actually inflicted by the behavior, mirroring the manner

 

 

 

 

Commonwealth has codified Simple and Aggravated assaults.

. The Grand Jury specifically proposes a hazing statute in which conduct generally
defaults to a Misdemeanor of the 2nd degree,71 but imposes a heightened
misdemeanor (such as a misdemeanor in the 1St degree) for any hazing72
conduct that causes or risks causing bodily injury?; a felony of the 2nd degree
for hazing conduct that causes or risks causing serious bodily injury?; and a
felony of the ?lSt degree for hazing conduct that results in the death of the victim.

0 While the Grand Jury agrees with the current provision in the statute, it
recommends that the General Assembly adopt stronger and more direct
language in an effort to underscore the law?s rejection of victim blaming efforts.75
The Grand Jury recommends that the General Assembly retain the sentence at
the end of the hazing definition, but also craft a separate enumerated subsection
within the crime itself entitled ?Defenses,? which reads, ?it shall not be a defense
to an offense under this section that the victim consented or voluntarily

participated in any activity that meets the above definition of hazing.?

 

71 Note that this is a change from the current Hazing law, which only applies a Misdemeanor of the 3rd degree. The
Grand Jury ?nds that a Misdemeanor of the 3rd degree does not reflect the gravity of any hazing activity, even
hazing that fails to produce injury or death.

72 The Grand Jury approves of the hazing definition as adopted by 23 P5. 5352 and recommends that the current
definition be maintained in any proposed legislation.

73 The Grand Jury proposes incorporating the de?nition of bodily injury already adopted under Title 18, Section
2301 as ?impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.?
74 Serious bodily injury being defined under 18 2301 as ?Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of
death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ.?

75 The relevant portion currently reads: ?For purposes ofthis de?nition, any activity as described in this definition
upon which the initiation or admission into or af?liation with or continued membership in an organization is
directly or indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be "forced? activity, the willingness of an individual to
participate in sueh activity notwithstanding.? (emphasis added).

 

124 Page

 

 . 

 
   

5?15

. The Grand Jury also recommends that when the Comm

3; 

 

demonstrate an ongoing course of hazing conduct],6 the leggisl-aturewv-ezpese
such recurring behavior to stronger sanctions under a felony of the 3rd degree
grading.

. In addition to the multi?tiered statute, the Grand Jury proposes the application of
a sentencing enhancement for the crime of Hazing if a deadly or offensive
weapon is utilized in the commission of the crime, such as a bat or paddle.

0 Finally, the Grand Jury urges the General Assembly to codify the law under Title
18, the Crimes Code, rather than leaving it under the Education Act, which
removes it from other criminal offenses, both rendering it more difficult for law
enforcement to locate when considering charging decisions as well allowing the

appearance that hazing is a lesser regarded crime in the Commonwealth.
2. Strengthen Laws for Furnishing Alcohol to Minors

. The Grand Jury calls on the General Assembly and again specifically the
distinguished state senator and Majority Leader from Centre County to recognize
that one blanket crime graded as a misdemeanor of the 3ml degree is insufficient
to address or deter this type of conduct and to enact legislation amending the
criminal offense of Furnishing Alcohol to Minors to more accurately reflect the
various degrees of severity that may result from Furnishing.

. The Grand Jury recommends that the offense of Furnishing Alcohol to Minors be?

a multi-tiered system in which the grading of any given offense is contingent on

 

76 Much like the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child enjoys stronger criminal sanctions under a third
degree felony when an ongoing course of conduct is proven.

 

125 Page

 

 

the harm possible or actually inflicted by the behavior, mirroring 

 

 

 

 

which the Commonwealth has codified Simple and Aggravated as
. The Grand Jury specifically proposes that while the Furnishing Alcohol to Minors
statute generally defaults to a Misdemeanor of the 3ml degree as it currently
stands, the General Assembly impose a felony offense (such as a felony in the
3rd degree) for any Furnishing to Minors that occurs during a hazing event; a
felony of the 2"?l degree for Furnishing to Minors that causes serious bodily
injury77; and a felony of the 1St degree for Furnishing to Minors that results in the
death of the victim.
Given the overwhelming evidence received by the Grand Jury demonstrating that
Furnishing Alcohol to Minors persistently and repeatedly occurs on multiple
occasions at multiple fraternities, the Grand Jury also recommends that the
General Assembly legislate increased penalties for second, third, and fourth or
more additional convictions for Furnishing Alcohol to Minors. Specifically, the
Grand Jury finds that upon a second conviction for Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor,
the defendant should be subject to a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree; for a third
conviction, the grading should rise to a felony of the 3ml degree, and if convicted
of four or more offenses, that habitual offender should face a felony of the 2nd

degree.

 

77 Serious bodily injury being defined under 18 2301 as ?Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of
death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodiiy member or organ.?

 

126 Page

 

 

. Create a Pledge?s Bill of Rights

 

 

 

 

The Grand Jury recommends that Penn State establish a Pledgen?msmBill of Rights 
that should be published in every student handbook. Each pledge must sign a
copy of the Bill of Rights before beginning to oath any fraternity, and all current
fraternity brothers and sorority sisters must sign the pledge in acknowledgment of

the change to Penn State?s hazing policy in order to remain in good standing.

This Bill of Rights will outline both acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It will
further detail pledging or rushing activities of the University?s Greek organizations
and other similar student organizations. In developing the Bill of Rights. Penn
State shall review the existing pledge and anti-hazing policies and procedures of
public and independent institutions of higher education within the United States

and shall, as appropriate, incorporate those policies into the Bill of Rights.

Penn State shall make the Pledge?s Bill of Rights available to each

Commonwealth Campus for conformity.

The Bill of Rights shall. include information on the criminal penalties for hazing;
the University?s standards; and the types of behaviors that will not be tolerated.
The Bill of Rights shall provide exact details regarding what is expected of both
students and faculty. For the purpose of this Pledge?s Bill of Rights, a pledge is
defined as any student of the University attempting to become a member of a

fraternity or sorority or other similar campus organization.

 

127lPage

 

For example, the Grand Jury recommends the following language:78

?Actions and activities that are explicitly prohibited include, but are not limited to, the

 

 

 

 

 

following:

Forcing, requiring or endorsing new members/associate members to drink
alcohol or? any other substance and/or providing such alcohol or other substance;
The unauthorized or illegal use of alcohol in any form or quantity during any new
member activity;

Calisthenics (sit?ups, push?ups, and runs);

Branding and tattooing;

Pushing, shoving, punching, whipping, beating, tackling or any other physical
abuse;

Unauthorized line?ups of any nature;

Throwing anything (garbage, water, paint, etc.) at an individual;

Any form of paddling, physical abuse, abuse, deception or shocks;
Requiring individuals to walk or march in formation of any kind;

Publicly wearing apparel which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste
(uniforms, head apparel, boots/shoes, etc.);

Not permitting individuals to speak for extended periods of time and/or forced
exclusion from social contact; .

Preventing any person from practicing personal hygiene;

Any activity which interferes with an individual?s scholastic pursuits (class
attendance, preparation, study time, etc.)

Forced consumption of food or other substances;

Theft, defacement, or destruction of private or public property

Conducting unauthorized scavenger hunts, treasure hunts, quests, road trips,
paddle hunts, big brother/little brother hunts, big sister/little sister hunts;
Engaging in public stunts and buffoonery, public displays, or greetings;

Servitude of any nature (food runs, personal errands, academic work, etc);
Permitting less than six consecutive hours off'Sleep each night;

Conducting a new member related activity between the hours of 12:00 midnight
and 7:00am, or awakening individuals during these hours;

Nudity or exposure to the elements at any time;

Yelling, screaming or calling individuals demeaning names;

Engaging in unauthorized activities which involve compelling an individual or
group of individuals to remain at a certain location or transporting anyone
anywhere, within or outside the city of State College (road trips, kidnaps, sneaks,
drops, etc.);

Assigning or endorsing ?pranks? (stealing composites, trophies, mascots, etc.)
Conducting activities which do not allow adequate time for study during pre-
initiation or initiation periods;

Conducting activities designed to deceive or convince new members that he/she
will not be initiated or will be hurt;

 

78 Courtesy Rutgers Hazing Policy

 

128 Page

 

 Carrying of any items (paddles, bricks, rocks, pocket a

  

 

signature books, etc.) 2 .
Forcing, requiring or endorsing new members/associate 
University regulation, national/international policy or any local, state, or federal
law.?

Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends that Penn State require fraternity and
sorority officers to annually sign a pledge to abide by the University?s hazing
policy. The pledge will also be provided to new members who, by signing the
statement, will promise to report hazing violations against either themselves or
fellow pledges and acknowledge that the failure to do so could result in University
discipline. 

This statement on prohibited hazing activities, the Pledge?s Bill of Rights, and the
oaths by officers and pledges should also be provided to the new members?
parents/guardians, who should be urged by the University to report any
violations.

This Grand Jury fonNards this report to the General Assembly and Attorney
General Josh Shapiro and suggests that legislation be introduced by the General

Assembly requiring all state institutions of higher learning to provide the same

. uniform policies on hazing to prospective pledges and parents in an effort to

prevent another unnecessary tragedy.

The Grand Jury calls upon the General Assembly to pass legislation tasking the
Attorney General with developing a Pledge?s Bill of Rights which outlines
acceptable and unacceptable behavior in regard to the pledge or rushing
activities of college and university fraternities and sororities and other similar

campus organizations. In developing the Bill of Rights, the Attorney General shall

129 Page

 

 

 

_w

review the existing pledge and anti?hazing policies and procedur

 

 

independent institutions of higher education within the 
appropriate, incorporate those policies into the bill of rights. The Attorney General
shall make the Pledge?s Bill of Rights available to each institution of higher
education within the State.

The Pledge?s Bill of Rights developed by the Attorney General shall include

information on the criminal penalties for hazing and furnishing alcohol to minors.

4. Establish a Hazinq Hotline

Hazing is evidently endemic enough to Penn State?s collective fraternities, and-
the secrecy dominating the brothers and pledges so strong, that Penn State must
seek creative, non?traditional ways to allow victims or witnesses to report the
crime. The victims of hazing may only report the crime if assured they can do so
anonymously, easily, and quickly.

The University should establish a 24 hour hotline that anyone can use to
anonymously report hazing, access immediate crisis intervention, and be
directed to services for an array of possible hazing related damages, including
counseling for Post?Traumatic Stress depression, sexual assault,
alcoholism, and drug addiction. This hotline must be published, easily accessible
and particularly known to pledges. The University must follow up and

protect confidentiality if promised.

 

130 Page

 

5. Discipline Individual Students Who Violate the Hazing Laws WithAgtua 

:9in

 

 

 

Tolerance

. The students who flock to the lawn of Old Main at The State
University do so for one driving reason: to obtain a college degree. Indeed, these
students who elect to make University Park their home for four or five years seek
not just any college degree, but specifically one bearing the seal of The
State University. The one shared purpose that gathers all of these
students to University Park, bringing them together in the first place, is to receive
an exemplary education and matriculate with a degree from a world?renowned,
industry-recognized institution. Penn State has either long underestimated or
long ignored the power it holds to deter misconduct by its own students: take
away that which they value most by removing them from the University. A
student who doesn?t merely suspect, but unquestionably knows, that all of his
financial and academic investment will vanish if caught hazing would be
dissuaded from hazing activities far more than a student who believes he only
faces a fine and court costs.

. The Grand Jury finds that hazing represents an alarmingly acute danger to the
safety of students that could, as in the cases of Timothy Piazza and Marquise
Braham, result in death; Universities should therefore treat it as the threat it
actually is. Hazing should not be a second or third strike misconduct offense for
which the University affords adjudicated students marginal punishments for first

offenses.

 

131]Page

 

 

 

. If found to have participated in, planned, or facilitated hazing 

 

 

 

being afforded full due process rights, Penn State University?s pUi is'nment s'noui
be mandatory and unequivocal: expulsion. Anything less will fail to operate as a

truly effective deterrent.
6. Strengthen Penn State?s Hazinq Policy

. Additionally, Penn State?s hazing policy needs to adopt the following significant
changes to ensure a thorough investigation is permitted by all stakeholders and

to guarantee safety of all students and pledges:

. Any allegations that a chapter has engaged in hazing activities will result
in an immediate investigation of the matter by the Office of Fraternity and
Sorority Life and the Office of Student Conduct. All new
member/associate member activities will be suspended pending the
outcome of the investigation.

. In all cases of alleged violations of this policy, alumni and
national/international headquarters of the organization will be
immediately notified.

. Individuals involved in alleged acts of hazing and/or individual officers
who knew of or should have known of these activities may also face
charges pursuant to the University Code of Student Conduct. No person
shall recklessly participate in the haZing of another.

. No student or advisor or employee shall knowingly permit the hazing of
another.

a No student, advisor, or University employee shall fail to report hazing. If
a student is aware of hazing and fails to report it to the University, this
could serve as a basis of discipline within the University. If an advisor or
employee is aware of hazing and fails to report it to the University,
rami?cations could involve disciplinary action and/or termination.

 

132 Page

 

 

The negligence or consent of the student/participant or an} .
risk by the student/participant is not a defense to any a 
pursuant to this policy.

 

 

 

 

. If any advisor, employee, or member of the Penn State faculty is aware of
hazing, or allegations of hazing, and reports the same to Penn State,
Penn State is mandated to report such allegations to the local police
having appropriate jurisdiction over the matter within 24 hours. Penn State
will cooperate with the police as permitted by law;
7. Implement and Enforce Severe Restrictions in Alcohol Use Because

Incremental Changes Have Proven Useless and Are Disproportionate to the

Problem

. The Grand Jury understands that hazing reform may crop up as a topical issue
when a tragedy such as Tim Piazza?s death unfolds, but quickly fades from the
headlines. When the world stops paying attention, many times so do the officials
responsible for effecting permanent change. The Grand Jury ?nds that
meaningful reform must be aggressive and lasting.

. lf Penn State elects to not commit to aggressive and sustained resolutions
against hazing and furnishing, then for the safety of every student, all alcohol
should be permanently banned at fraternity and sorority events as a prerequisite
to the University?s continued recognition of each Greek chapter. No party is worth
the loss of a life.

. The Grand Jury acknowledges that no aggressive or sustained measures have
ever been attempted under complete University control and oversight. However,
the Grand Jurors believe that sincere commitment to such a model could prove

successful.

 

133 Page

 

 

. If the University intends to allow fraternities to continue consul

 

 

 

social events, it should ensure and enforce that all alcohol at any..so.cial..evem
hosted by a fraternity or sorority be served only by bartenders certified through
the Liquor Control Board?s Responsible Alcohol Management
Program deem fraternity brothers ineligible to act as servers, even if
RAMP certified; demand that those RAMP servers require guests to produce
valid identification confirming they are of legal drinking age before service; at a
minimum, limit alcohol to beer and wine rather than hard liquor; and restrict the
number of social events each semester.79

. The Grand Jury agrees with and recommends implementation of delayed
recruitment, shortened recruitment periods, a Greek chapter scorecard,
relaunching of Neighborhood Enforcement Alcohol Team (NEAT), additional

0 semester surveys for new

training, further parent and member education,8
members to identify hazing, and education on Medical Amnesty
Act.

I . Fraternities/Sororities must earn ?Good Standing?? In addition, the Grand Jury
recommends that Penn State direct each fraternity and sorority to first
successfully complete an entire semester of hosting social events with a Penn
State?employed spot checker present for the entire scheduled length of the

event in order to monitor the conduct of the brothers/pledges and guests. The

event chaperones will be employees of Penn State, chosen by the Office of

 

79 Since the Grand Jury began this investigation, the University has publicly announced its intention to institute
these particular requirements. We approve of the University's impiementation of these changes.

50 The Grand Jury also recognizes that this particular recommendation was also suggested and endorsed by Richard
Braham during his testimony.

 

134 Page

 

    

ail
i

Fraternity Compliance and will be paid for by the fraternity/sorori










enjoying events with responsible, legal alcohol consumption Vigirillmidemcastrate;g
the fraternity/sorority?s commitment to following rules, Penn State?s
regulations, I laws and commitment to responsible alcohol
consumption. Only after a semester proving themselves through this method will
the fraternity/sorority be in ?good standing? and advance to a decreased level of
monitoring via random spot checking by Penn State?s new Office of Fraternity
Compliance. Upon any allegations of violation related to. illegal or excessive
alcohol consumption or hazing, the organization will be immediately and
temporarily suspended from all social activity and alcohol consumption during the
investigation. Upon any finding of violation, the Greek organization will be
banned from further social activity and alcohol consumption for the balance of the
semester, after which the fraternity/sorority would immediately return to
supervised social events for a full semester. After another semester of violation?
free events, the fraternity could resume spot checking status.

As discussed more thoroughly throughout the report, the recommendations
above will prove worthless without actual enforcement of violations. In light of
that, the Grand Jury recognizes that the listed alcohol rules are little more than
empty comfort without supporting guarantees.

Consequently, Penn State University should continue and expand a policy of
randomly spot-checking fraternities??on any, and every, night of the week every
semester for fraternities in ?good standing.? Rather than the Mortiz policy

of only spot-checking those fraternities with registered events, Penn State should

 

135 Page

 

  

employ its own social checkers to appear on the doorstep of any ate ,y
on any night of the week, at any time of the evening. In other words the:
monitoring should be truly random. While many fraternities utterly spurned the
Parents Weekend restrictions imposed by the University, at least one truth
became both self?evident and consistent: the checked fraternities were not
especially successful at hiding their violations. Even when fraternity officers
refused checkers access to other floors, the steady stream of guests to the upper
floors; the loud music; the rowdy voices offered clear circumstantial evidence of
illicit partying. Overflowing trash cans of freshly empty shot and solo cups and
scattered beer cans easily corroborated checkers? suspicions. When University
spot checkers encounter these obvious circumstantial signs of violations, there
must be action?both against the fraternity in the organizational disciplinary
process as well as against any individuals also observed to be violating the Code
of Conduct.

Moreover, sanctions for violations of the alcohol policy must be severe,
progressive, and nonnegotiable. No longer should Penn State allow multiple
slaps on the proverbial wrist for alcohol violations. Any fraternity who dismisses
the gravity of alcohol management among its members the first time receives an
alcohol and social moratorium for the rest of the semester (as explained above).
A second alcohol violation in the same academic year expands the alcohol and
social moratorium from a semester to the entire year. A third violation nets the

loss of Penn State recognition. A ?three strikes? policy puts?each of these

 

 

 

136 Page

 

8.

 

fraternities on notice: you have a limited number of chances 

 

 

 

within your own brotherhood before the University takes its own a .
The message should be unequivocal and should be categorically received:
fraternities that gamble with the safety and lives of Penn State students will
immediately, and perhaps permanently, lose that which it values above all else?-
the opportunity to host any alcohol related events in the fraternity house. The
Grand Jury is heartened by Mr. Sims testimony in which he supported permanent
revocation to ?weed out? any fraternity that continues to gamble the safety of
Penn State students by failing to comply with the University?s regulations
regarding alcohol abuse and hazing. He testified, ?We?re not going to be tolerant
of this. We can?t afford to be tolerant of this The Grand Jury urges
Penn State administration to support Mr. Sims? commitment to student safety,

and to enforce a true zero tolerance policy.

Penn State Must Enforce Those Policies that Protect Penn State

Students

As the current model of self?regulation and self?enforcement by the fraternity
members themselves via the Interfraternity Council has clearly failed to prevent
the prevailing habit of both excessive alcohol consumption as well as underage
drinking, the Grand Jury recommends that the University assume sole
responsibility for enforcement and regulation of alcohol consumption during all
Greek life events.

The Grand Jury finds that, rather than abdicating responsibility for the safety of

its students to other students who may lack the ability, the knowledge, or the

 

 

137lPage

 

9.

 

fortitude to apply discipline that prevents irresponsible drinking ar

=1

 

lethal consequences, Penn State must take ownership of all thosemwhompursue
an education at the University.

To that end, the Grand Jury recommends that the University at a minimum adopt
the following curative behavior: Immediately remove the organizational
disciplinary process from the lFC?s control. Penn State University should directly
regulate and adjudicate all violations committed by any University sanctioned
student organization, including fraternities operating under Penn State?s
recognition. Invert the current system in which Penn State employees allegedly
merely observed the lFC?s decisions from a distance to one in which the 
students partner with Penn State employees, observing how administrators with
far more life experience and hopefully far more appreciation for the long term
impact of such crucial adjudications manage these grave concerns. It is time for
Penn State to assume control of not only Penn State students, but also student

organizations that bear the Penn State name.

Penn State Should Direct Resources to the Expansion of its Office of

Fraternity and Sorority Life and Office of Student Conduct

To accomplish the above recommendations, Penn State will require additional
staff to spot check and monitor fraternities? compliance, to investigate allegations
of misconduct, and to adjudicate substantiated violations through an appropriate
disciplinary process. The staff and office resources currently devoted to the
Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life will never support the execution of the above

recommendations, especially when 17% of Penn State?s student body belongs to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1381Page

 

 

 

Council, and the MultiCultural Greek Council. One advisor alone will not be able

to effectively manage and supervise forty three fraternities.

lf Penn State intends to maintain Greek life, it must prioritize resources to funding
those departments charged with monitoring and protecting such a large
percentage of its students who are at demonstrably higher risk of dangerous
intoxication, injury, and sexual assault. Specifically, the University must hire
enough staff such that every organization and every individual believed to be in
violation of hazing and alcohol regulations can be fully investigated and

adjudicated.

10. Penn State Should Adequately Fund and Staff the Offices Responsible for

Greek Life

. Prioritizing the objective of these departments also requires the University to

ensure that it maintains a full staff. For instance, since November of 2016 until at
least the summer of 2017 when he was interviewed, Danny Shaha
simultaneously shouldered the responsibility for at least three substantial
positions at Penn State?s direction?Director of the Office of Student Conduct;
Director of the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life; and Title IX Coordinator. The
University cannot possibly expect its administrators to perform effectively when
spread so thin. I

The University must endeavor to hire qualified, competent candidates as soon as

possible when a vacancy occurs, rather than redistributing responsibilities to

 

139jPage

 

11.

employees who already oversee essential assignments that 

 

 

 

 

 

undivided focus.

Universities Should Train All Employees??Including Students??To

Recognize the Gravity of Hazing and to Report It Immediately

As the Grand Jury learned in Marquise Braham?s case, fellow student RAs may
often become the first point of disclosure for pledges experiencing hazing and,
consequently, could serve as the first line of defense against it.

Universities must impress upon these RA students that reports of hazing cannot
be dismissed, overlooked, or fodder for joking camaraderie. Hazing is not a
normal, everyday activity that an RA takes in stride when a fellow student brings
it to the attention. An RA should have a duty to report such information, and
not encourage a student to ?gut it out? or ?that it will soon be over.? Hazing must
be repugnant to all, and not accepted as normal and ordinary. if students and
universities continue to treat hazing with a ?boys will be boys? indifference, then
it will remain alive and well behind doors bearing Greek letters. It?s an epidemic
on these campuses and it needs to be treated as such.

Universities must conduct and reinforce training with all employees to educate
them on the serious safety risk hazing activity poses to students. Universities
should direct employees that reports of such risk by any student should be
treated as the real threat to life and limb they represent and passed on to high

level administration officials immediately. In turn, high level administration

 

140 Page

 

 

 

Recommendation Number 12).

The Grand Jury tasks Penn State University with setting a per capita fee to
defray the costs of these safety recommendations. This cost shall be assessed
to all Greek life members at the beginning of each semester. The Grand Jury
believes that Greek life will only be true stakeholders in this reform to protect the
lives of all students if they directly contribute to the costs of implementing the

measures.

12. The General Assembly Should Enact Compulsory Reporting Processes For

Any Elementary, Secondary, or Higher Education Institution, lncludinq Identifyirm

Mandatory Reporters

. The Grand Jury approves of Universities supporting internal investigations into

violations of the Codes of Student Conduct. As the Grand Jury has explained in
earlier recommendations, it believes a thorough, prompt investigation of all
accusations as serious as hazing and excessive alcohol consumption is crucial
to the safety of all students. We also understand that violations of Student
Conduct Codes and the criminal law sometimes can?wand should?overlap.

When they do, however, the University should defer to law enforcement?s
investigation. in order to assure this occurs, every institution of education
throughout the Commonwealth should be legally required to report allegations of

the crime of hazing to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

 

 

141 Page

 

      

. As the Grand Jury has well learned during this investigation,??th? bf 

 

secrecy inherent in fraternities create reluctant witnesses. Le-w-w-enforsemyentai
needs every legal tool at its disposal in order to ferret out the truth. These tools
include Grand Juries, search warrants, and wiretaps among a variety of others.
These tools?not to mention good, old fashioned police work such as
canvassing all parties?~demand immediate action because delays often mean
destruction of the evidence. Unfortunately, as illustrated in the case of Marquise
Braham, critical evidence of hazing can be lost or discarded when an
administrative investigation precedes a criminal one, with trained investigators
who have access to compelling information from others that civilians lack. The
Grand Jury received testimony that State College Police Department seized and
extracted, either by warrant or consent, the data from at least 20 cell phones
from Beta Theta Pi pledges and brothers. The data stored on those phones, as
the earlier Presentment made clear, became vital evidence?evidence that may
have been deleted and unrecoverable if law enforcement had been unaware of
the crime and thus unable to react quickly. Over 30 witnesses testified before the
Grand Jury, and State College Police detectives interviewed far more. The
Grand Jurors reviewed hours of surveillance video and pages of text messages.
This investigation alone required a staggering amount of resources, time, and
effort; other similar investigations will demand the same. If these cases fail to be
reported to and investigated by law enforcement immediately, the truth may
never be revealed, justice may never be served, and the danger may never

abate.

 

 

 

142 Page

 

  

. Much as the mandatory reporting requirements already exist f<

 

child abuse, the Grand Jury calls upon the General Assembly tcbegurdedby
that structure and create a similar reporting process and procedure that identifies
individuals with legally recognized responsibility to report the crime of hazing.

. For the same reason, Universities should ensure that all of its staff, and
administrators receive training on why the need for immediate law enforcement
involvement is significant. Administrators such as Mr. Kelly and Mr. Shaha
informed the Grand Jury that they would be completely willing to prioritize early
police involvement, and that any failure to do so in the past stemmed from sheer
unfamiliarity with the avenues required for successful investigation and

prosecution.

 

143 Page

 

 

The First Centre County investigating Grand Jury directs the Dis

 

 

 

 

Centre County, immediately upon acceptance from the Supervising Juoge, transmit to
Grand Jury?s Report to the General Assembly of with appropriate cover
letter asking the General Assembly to consider the Report and its recommendations at
the earliest time consistent with the business of the General Assembly. The
Investigating Grand Jury further directs the District Attorney, again after acceptance by
the Supervising Judge, make public this Report in its entirety, and ensure that the
administration of The State University is served with a copy. The District
Attorney is to also be certain that the governor and such other members of the
executive branch of the government of the Commonwealth, as in the District Attorney?s

discretion the DA considers warranted, shall also receive copies.

Approved:

 

Date: fly/i ?f ?7
Foreman, 1St Investigating Grand Jury

Centre County, PA

A '?ilriliip'?g?e?

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBITS

 

 
 

 

 

KJR0000503

I
5



0



 

 
 
 



 

 



 

 

 

KJROGOOTQS

 

KJRODDO454

 

 

 

 

 

 



6017000080!

 

 

KJR0000223

 

 

KJR0000413

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KJ RODOOEOB

 

 

 



Penn State IFC Social Event Monitor Patrol Checklist
Checked by: 

 

Date:

WFratemity
Social El Party El UnregisteredJ'Other

 

 

 

 

Visit Check Time: 2nd Visit Check Time:

 

Part 1: The following information should be reread and thoroughly understood prior to entrance of each Fraternity house.

In case of any issues, contactDean Vetere, or Alex Fredrick in the event that he cannot be reached. If anyone is in danger, call

 

 

911.
Contact:
Dean Vetere (Executive Vice President) Cell: 917-344?9953 Email: evp@pennstateifc.grg
Alex Fredrick (President) Cell: 941-889-8266 Email: president@pennstateifc.org

Part 2: For each item hereafter mark either ?Yes? or if you mark ?No? and the fraternity is unable to correct the

infraction before your departure from the house please note so in the comments section below.

YN

Entrance

Are there at least 1(for party) sober member(s) at the entrance?
Do any sober members at the door have wristbands?

(Party 0n1y)Is a guest list, or identi?cation system wristbands), in use at entrance?
(Party Only) Is the fraternity using a single entrance (no

tletting guests in back/side doors)?




Is the event free of kegs and party balls?

Is the event free of mass consumption devices beer bongs)?

Is the event freekof individual sized glass containers glass beer bottles)?

Is the event tree of ?re hazards (covered smoke detectors, blocked exits, etc.)?

Can guests move freely around the event without having to push?

Is the level of noise consistent with a normal fraternity social event (Noise Violations)?

Is alcohol being used responsibly and in accordance with the law?
Are all designated

members g. members at entrance) alcohol free?

Bar Area

Is there atleast lsober member around the bar area?
(Party Only) Are there at least 2 sober members around the bar area?
Do all sob er members at the bar have wristb ands?

Are the proper signs posted around the bar area? 
Are snack foods visible from the bar area?
Are non-alcoholic beverages (including water) visible from the bar area?

(Social Only) Is liquor being consumed only in mixed form (not straight] shot form)? 
(Party Only) Is the ev

 

entfree of liquor?


 

Exit
Is there at least one sober member at the exit?

 

 

Did sober member(s) at exit have wristbands?

 

 

 

 

Are the proper signs posted around the exit?

EXHIBIT

i

 

 

 

 Part 3: 11; is the duty of the Seocial Event Monitor to collect the Penn State University ID Cards of each individual member designated as sober
representatives. You are to ?ll the nosition each of these members holds, print their name, and ?ll out their 9-digit D) it, which can be found at the bottom of
the ID card (begins with 9). The last step is to require the individual to sign their name, certifying they are indeed the sober 13:252- .,

 

 

 

 

Fraternity Representative

 

Position Heid

 

Name (Print)

 

eomnPSULo.

 

 

 

Signature

 

 

Sorority Representatives

 

Name (Print)

 

goguPSULo.

 

Signature

 

 

 

Name (Print)

 

QDEHPSULD.

 

Signature

 

 

Name (Print)

 

9 Digit PSU LD.

 

 

Signature

 

 

Name (Print)

 

oomuPSULo.

 

Signature

 

 

Name (Print)

 



 

Signature

 

 

Name (Print)

 

9 Digit PSU LD.

 

Signature

 

 

 

 

 



Alpha Upsilon Conduct File

 

 

 

 

 

2007

2008

2/1/07 A risk management education report was submitted by the chapter risk manager
containing admission of pledges consuming alcohol and being intoxicated at Beta events

2/24/07 Police report of ?assault-simple, non~aggravated? at 3:17 am.

3/2/07 ?a nonymous report of hazing within the pledge program and indicating that the 5 of 12
pledges that quit did so due to hazing. Specific hazing allegations included personal servitude,
driving members around town and sleep deprivation.

3/22/07 Police report of underage'possession, consumption and transportation on the
fraternity premises at 1:54 am.

4/15/07 An incident suggesting that members of the chapter yelled racial slurs from a second
floor-window at an African~American individual who was trespassing on the property.

5/1/2007 Report of hazing within the pledge program from a parent, including accounts of
active members harassing dropped pledges by phone as late as 4:00am

7/14/07 Police report of underage possession, consumption and transportation on the
fraternity premises at 11:54 am.

9/5/07 male student was apprehended urinating in public after being observed leaving the
chapter house by police. He indicated he had consumed 8 shots of Vladimir vodka underage at

the Beta house.

Another male student was apprehended urinating in public after being observed leaving the
chapter house by police. He indicated he had been served six or seven cans of Natural Light beer
at the house. He was underage and indicated no attempt to check his ID was made.

The police log ihdicated'?University Police officers assisted the State College Police Department
in shutting down a large party at Beta Theta Pi frate rnitv." A conference call with of?cers
confirmed the chapter pooled funds, no guest list and distribution of alcohol to minors

9/13/07 Police report of disorderly conduct involving excessive music at 12:33 am.

4/17/08 Police apprehended an underage male student on Beta property at 1:00 am with an
open container of Natural Light beer. He indicated getting the alcohol at Beta Theta Pi at a party.
The male had a BAC of 0.189. Several cans of Natural light were on the lawn, ?oor and people?s
hands and no other functions were witnessed by police. The individual indicated no lD was

needed to acquire alcohol.

EXHIBIT



    

PSU0000253

 

 

 

A conference cali with chapter officers confirmed that alcohol was purchased by
distributed freely, including to underage guests.

 

 

 

 

- 4/26/08 Police report of furnishing alcohol to minors at 11:08 pm.

*1 Spring 2008 ?Two members caught by campus police urinating on campus grounds including
one near Old Main.

6 7/1/08 Police report of a student seen leaving the chapter house at 1:26 am. with alcohol in a
red cup. He was found urinating in the parking lot. He was underage and had a .20 8A0.

- 7/1/08 - Police report of a student ieaving?the chapter house at 12:23 am. and found urinating
in the alley behind the house. He was underage and had a .114 BAC.

6 9/6/08 - Police reported furnishing alcohol to minors at a tailgate with 100 people taking
Natural Light beer cans freely from a plastic trash can- No It) was required to obtain alcohol. The i
incident was covered in The Daily Collegian on 10/30/08.

 

9/11/08 ~The police investigated a guest allegediy beatenunconscious by a member. There was
not enough evidence'to prosecute.

- 9/24/08 Incident submitted where a thrown glass beer bottle hits a giri in the face during a
date party. A conference call with chapter officers did not identify the individualis) responsible,
but reveaied members and guests were engaging in a "case race? drinking game and the alcohol
was provided through the chapter social budget.

a 9/25/08 - Poiice reports of disorderly conduct involving excessive music at 1:30 am. and simple,
non-aggravated assault at 1:40 am. at the chapter house.

- 10/29/08 Members reportedly vandalized the pledge dorm by breaking an air conditioner and
smashing furniture against the wall.

a Fall 2008 A parent reports that pledges are kept at the chapter house until 2am and are forced
to drive members around as late as 3am and are suffering from sleep deprivation.

I Fall 2008 Reports of hazing witnessed or conveyed to chapter alumni
1. Pledges delivering food/drink to members rooms, loading luggage in cars, driving
brothers to class and tending bars at parties
2. Pledges clean the house by themselves; kept up through night on occasion
3. Third floor hallway and entry patio surveillance cameras covered during pledge event

a 2008 A marijuana ?bong? was allegedly found in a bedroom; of?cers may have used the device
- Fall 2008 Severai incidents of members discarding used condoms onto the property; notably

three times out a window near the front door of the chapter house. Photographic evidence
provided. -

CONFIDENTIAL - PSU0000254

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

 
 

2009

- 1/12/09 member allegedly charged $323 in groceries on the chapter account forfpe sonal

use with no expressed intent to repay prior to or after making purchase. Discoveredby
accountant.

 

 

a January 2009 keg was reportedlv found on chapter premises in a trash can in the party room
0 January 2009 Evidence of continued drinking games (beer pong) found
- 2/7/09 Social functions held on Friday and Saturday evening in violation of probation

restrictions of one social function per week. Evidence of beer cups on floor, ledges and tables
along with ernpti,f liquor bottles and cans of beer both nights.

Other Allegations
The chapter maintains a separate social account of funds used to purchase alcohol.

9 Repeated use of kegs, including in bedrooms. Photographic evidence provided.
I: Use of beer funnels from the second floor stairweil to the lobby.

. Severe disrespect and destruction of property, with photographic records provided.



 

.

 





Beta Theta Pi (PC on 3/16/09)

 

 

 

 

 

No worse and perhaps generally better than most of our fraternities

Among its distinctions are its location on Btnrowes and the $6
remodeling project completed in the past six months or so and
funded entirely by Don Abb cy?wealthy alum

Graham introduced me to Don shortly after I arrived, and I have had
various conversations with him and others about ways the university
could encourage the development of a model ?'atemity experience at
the Beta chapter

1. How to purposefully encourage greater connections between
the members and the nitellectual, cultural, and leadership
Opportunities already available on campus

2. But also how to use the facility and Denis resources (Abbey 
Leadership Fund) to attract speakers and related opporttuiities .
that other groups could also take advantage of

Late last semester, Don and a full?time advisor/ overseer he funds to
manage the house starting talking about damage done by the residents,
as well as visitors this discussion quickly focused on the need to get

rid of the bad eggs

Don and his friends control the Board and housing contracts
are individual between the Board and the undergraduate members,
which is not typical semester contracts

At the end of last semester, Don sequestered each member for
questioning about their conmritment to the chapter and its principles,
as well as certain principles expressly articulated by Don and the
Board 10 men were told not to return this spring they moved out,

but remained members in good standing

Meanwhile, Don 85 his man on the ground were feeding ?eyidence? to
the Beta Theta Pi National, trying to show that the remaining men
were also a problem in terms of alcohol and damages

EXHIBIT

 

76

 

 

 

    

 

 

The National put the g1 cup on probation about six weeks a 
that alcohol use was not permitted

 

a More ?evidence? came to the National from Don Co., and the
National decided to snapend the charter and to tell the members ?iat
they would be deactivated and would be given alumni status

a The National sought my endorsement of the action, asking that we
issue a joint release 011 the topic, but I declined, saying simply that the
group was not, to my knowledge, in violation of any university
regulation had not been disciplined, nor was subject to discipline,
that would otherwise lead us to unilaterally seek their closure we
respected their ability to take the action, but would not endorse it

We did raise questions about the timing (wait until the end of the
semester?), the legality eviction law), and the
appearance (a National taking action against a fraternity and vacating - .
the ?'atemity that is next door to Phi Delta Theta)

9 Parents of the students affected mobilized in response; their attorneys
went to work; the National remained committed to its action, but the
Alumni Board backed off on its .insistence that the men move out by
the begiiming of Spring break (Ftiday, March 6)

9 So we have a stalemate through the remainder of the semester, though
some have moved out and moved on the National?s Strepension will
remain in effect, though it clearly wants to re~colonize here Don and
die Alumm Board still hope the re?colonization can occur next fall,
but that seems nearly impossible

a I?ve been trying to let the dust settle a bit, but the Alunmi Board is
meeting here the ?rst week of June, Don will be back then, if not
before, and-I believe Graham and I will be meeting with him to

discuss the future

CONFIDENTIAL - 

 

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

One key member of the Board, dtumg a luncheon leggy;
attended by Don and others, as well as Chris Brady and me nhers

 

 

 
 



 

 

my staff, said that he didn?t (me if the building remained a fraternity,

as long as it could be put to good use advancing the leadership

development ambitions they have

Minimally, during the 23 years the house is not lilcely to be a
fraternity, i think We should partner with the Alumni Board to use it
for visiting scholars, retreats, leadership development pro grams, and
the like 

But my limited experience with Don suggests that there are alWays
many strings attached he expects to control the outcome and we
should not be comertahle with things he has done in this instance or
had done on his behalf



 

 

 

 

- m- mbum .

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r" as? ?2 - . Wigwam"? {madam

        

 

.

 
 
 
 



    

 

 

.-
. 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4'2

35.

 

 

 



.L.

T33


9"ng
yr?

Alli?






 

fir.
Muiw
W1 .

.7th

i. 
5_ 1



hr!

 

 

 

r, - 

23-31:? ppm-1

a.




E??g




5.3.-

4:



p23.



?xs. 474259?? I .

.13;






-.

 

.u .
I If?
Jay'?i"?g-Ian

51

we 1- v?g?h

Ell?!

.s

.s


4s:



 

 

 

 

 

?5:11.

swig"



13?.

?1

Ii

$13137



is.? - . 
- m1.



IV.-



 

 

 
 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CENTRE COUNTY, 

IN RE: INVESTIGATING CENTRE COUNTY
GRAND JURY CRIMINAL DIVISION

O. 

NOTICE 11

THE STATE UN RESPONSE. PURSUANT
TO 42 PA.C.S. TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT

TO THE HONORABLE THOMAS KING KISTLER:

The State University (i?the University? or ?Penn State?), by
and through its undersigned counsel, Duane Morris hereby submits this
Response to the portions of the Grand Jury Report (the ?Report?) received by the
University on Friday, October 27, 2017,1 ?to be attached to the report as part of the

report before the report is made part of the public record,? pursuant to 42 

 

1 Undersigned counsel received a copy of 93 pages of the Report on October
27, 2017?. The Court provided ten (10) business days to provide a response to be
appended to the Report, pursuant to 42 45 52(e). Notwithstanding the
Commonwealth?s intent to release publicly the Report, the University? 3 ability to
disclose the contents of the Report in preparing its Response have been constrained
by Court Order. Despite those limitations, we appreciate the opportunity to
provide this Response to address where possible those broad criticisms, and to
identify where a number of speci?c factual allegations and conclusions in the
Report are incomplete, inaccurate, and ignore evidence available to the Grand Jury.

 

45 52(e), and consistent with the Court?s orders of May 24, 2017, and October 20,
2017.

INTRODUCTION

We thank the Grand Jury for its sincere efforts, as well as its honesty in
concluding that, after months of investigation, ?the Grand Jury is mindful and
troubled that there is no means of preventing another tragedy like the death of

Timothy Piazza.?2

We cannot take any comfort in that conclusion, no matter how
realistic it may be.3 The tragic loss of that ?ne young man to his familywand the

Penn State Communityw is irreparable. Our Response to the Report does nothing

to diminish our recognition of the loss suffered by the Piazza family.

 

2 Report at 81 (Although the portions of the Report received by the
University do not have page numbers, we have identi?ed them herein by the
sequential order in which those portions were provided to the University).

3 We do not know the scope of the investigation under Notice ll,
authorizing the Commonwealth to use the investigating grand jury. We assume
that, because the Court has tentatively authorized the Report?s release, the
Commonwealth submitted to the Court a notice broad enough to encompass the
scope of the 93 pages of the Grand ury?s investigation and Report that are critical
of the University. See 42 4550. It does seem likely that it was the
Commonwealth?s intention to level criticism at the University from the earliest
stages of its investigation. At the time of the Presentment, even before having
heard or received much of the testimony and evidence from the University relevant
to the Grand jury?s investigation, the Grand Jury stated its conclusion and
requested that the District Attorney? of?ce draft a report for the Grand ury?s
consideration ?outlining the evidence upon which the Grand Jury has reached the
conclusion that the university, and/or a sub-unit of the university fostered a
permissive atmosphere which contributed to the death of Timothy Piazza.? Grand
Jury Presentment at 63. The Commonwealth appears to have drafted such a report.

 

Information available to the Grand Jury and this Response should make clear
that the University?in particular through its Vice President for Student Affairs,
Damon Sims? has made extraordinary efforts, and shown an unwavering
commitment to promoting safety and accountability and aligning the values and
behaviors of the ?Greek? system organizations with the expectations of the
University. Progress here and elsewhere across the country has been limited by the
legal and practical limitations faced by all universities. Those limitations include
the unwillingness of the national ?aternities, their associations, undergraduate
members, and fraternity alumni to challenge behavior that has been accepted for
years across the nation, and to accept the need for major reform.

Despite the University?s aggressive actions to address these issues
repeatedly over time,4 the Report ignores totally, or criticizes and dismisses these
major Penn State efforts without analysis or constructive recommendation. The
Report?s curious reliance on a student blog about the ways that fraternities and
their members try to subvert attempts to ?Control? drinking ?and Why reforms will
not work highlights the scope of the challenge faced by the University and the

role that others must play in meeting it.5 The fact that the fraternity members

 

4 See Section I.A., in?a.

5 Report at 91.

 

believe that they can find a way around any rule is a compelling testament as to the
dif?culty the University faces in enforcing those rules. Activities during ?Parents?
Weekend? events show that even parents encourage and facilitate the students?
efforts to violate the University?s rules and the laws of the Commonwealth.
Parents passed wristbands to underage students, and brought unauthorized alcohol
to fraternity?house events with underage students.6 The National Beta
Organization and its alumni were unable to control behavior in a house they
owned, managed, and to which they had total access.7 National fraternities refuse
to revoke recognition of their fraternities? charters despite the loss of University

I recognition, thereby allowing and encouraging these organizations to exist without
University oversight-wand despite clear evidence of hazing and alcohol abuse.8

Policing of these private organizations on private property is the responsibility of

 

6 Report at 85; but see PSU0000087-PSU0000106 (Documents identi?ed by
bates numbers in this Response were produced previously to the Grand Jury. For
purposes of this Response, they have been redacted, where appropriate, to remove
identifying information. Those redacted documents, together with other
documents relied upon herein, have been included in the accompanying
Appendix).

7.Report at 35 n.7.

8 PSU0000533 (Email from Damon Sims to Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity
Announcing Withdrawal of University Recognition of Chapter);
15.pdf (Letter from
Damon Sims to Inter-?Fraternity Council Announcing Withdrawal of University
Recognition of Kappa Delta Rho Fraternity).

 

the Commonwealth. With relatively weak hazing and underage drinking laws,
perhaps law enforcement is incapable of meaningfully addressing these activities.

Notwithstanding all of this, the Report suggests that the University and its
officials? with the weakest ?control? over these organizations (that of University
recognition)? should be expected to solve this problem alone. That makes no
sense. Experts in this ?eld all agree there is an obvious need for partnership and
cooperative action at all levels, if we are to make progress.

We, nevertheless, believe further progress can be made. That there is a long
and pervasive national history of excessive college drinking and hazing, however,
is a fact.9 From the early history of colleges and universities in our country and up
through today?s headlines, alcohol abuse by university students and its tragic

consequences are well known.10 It remains a national problem? a problem that

 

9 See John Marr, A Brief History of the Brutal and the Bizarre World of
Fraternity Hazing, GIZMODO (Sept. 30, 2015See John Hechinger, ?True Gentlemen: The Broken Pledge of America?s
Fraternities? (Public Affairs, 2017); see also Hazing is Nothing New Fraternities
Have Been Beating and orce-F eeding Pledges Since Colonial Times, BUSINESS
INSIDER (Sept. 30, 2017): 
pledges-history?2O 1 7?9

 

often begins in high school or earlier. Widespread problems of binge?drinking and

hazing at colleges and universities echo across the country.?

 

11 See, Ryan Van Velzer, Pompano Beach fraternity pledge found dead
after FSU off?campus party, SUN-SENTINEL (Nov. 4, 2017) (Andrew Coffey, 20,
Pi Kappa Phi, Florida State University); Eli Rosenberg, A fraternity pledge died of
alcohol poisoning. Now 10 are charged with hazing in connection with his death,
THE WASHINGTON POST (Oct. 11, 2017) (Maxwell Gruver, 18, Phi Delta
Theta, Louisiana State University); Michelle Broder Van Dyke, An 18?Year-Old
Student Died After Being Rushed To The Hospital From A Campus Fraternity
House, BUZZFEED NEWS (Sept. 17, 2017) (discussing the deaths of Maxwell
Gruver and Praneet Karki, 22, Beta Kappa Gamma, LSU, in 2015, as well as the
hospitalizations of 2 pledges of the Lambda Chi Alpha ?aternity in spring 2017
following hazing abuses); Jay Caspian Kang, What a Fraternity Hazing Death
Revealed About the Painful Search for an Asian-American Identity, THE NEW
YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, (Aug. 9, 2017) (Chun Hsien ?Michael? Deng, Pi
Delta Psi, Baruch College); Nikie Mayo, Clemson University to pay Tucker Hipps?
family $250,000 as part of lawsuit settlement, ANDERSON INDEPENDENT
MAIL (Aug. 17, 2017) (Tucker Hipps, 19, Sigma Phi Epsilon, Clemson
University); Sarah Litz, Parents file lawsuit against Sigma Nu at UNR for son?s
death, RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL (June 13, 2017) (Ryan Abele, 18, Sigma Nu,
University of Nevada?Reno); Courtney Rozen, Six students charged with hazing in
freshman?s death at Ferrum, USATODAY (June 17, 2016) (Michael Walker, 20,
Sigma Alpha Kappa, Ferrum College); Lawsuit: Parents seek $1 million in Texas
Tech student?s death, (Aug. 5, 2016) (Dalton Debrick, 18, Alpha Sigma
Phi, Texas Tech University); J.P. Lawrence, Lindsay Ellis and Bethany Bump,
Two charged with hazing in alcohol-related death of UAlbany student, TIMES
UNION (Oct. 22, 2015) (Trevor Duffy, 19, Zeta Beta Tau (unof?cial), University
of Albany); ?Big brother? arrested for hazing in connection with WVU frat death,
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, (Feb. 11, 2015) (Nolan Birch, 18, See (Kappa Sigma,
West Virginia University); Mark Bowes, Four men convicted of manslaughter,
hazing in VSU drowning deaths, RICHIVIOND (Feb. 12,
2015) (Marvell Edmondson, 19, and Jauwan Holmes, 19, the ?Men of Honor?
fraternity, Virginia State University); Jacy Marmaduke and Natasha Rausch, Police
documents tell the story of events leading to Clayton Real?s death, THE DAILY
NEBRASKAN (Oct. 27, 2014) (Clayton Real, 18, FarmHouse Fraternity,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln); Robert Rodriguez, Pair get jail time in Fresno
State fraternity hazing death, THE FRESNO BEE (Sept. 16, 2014) (Philip

7

 

Approximately 200 students have died in hazing incidents in colleges in the
United States since the ?rst recorded death of this kind in 1838.12 In the past three
years alone, twelve college students at twelve different institutions have lost their
lives as a result of hazing involving alcohol.I3 Even in the relatively few months
since Timothy Piazza?s tragic and highly publicized death these terrible losses
continue. Indeed, in only the last eight weeks, students have died due to alcohol

and hazing at both Louisiana State University and Florida State University, in

circumstances sadly reminiscent of experiences at Penn State.14 Yet we still must .

 

Dhanens, 18, Theta Chi, California State University, Fresno); Caitlin Owners and
Ruben Vives, CSUN fraternity shuts down after pledge?s death during hazing, LOS
AN GELES TIMES (Sept. 5, 2014) (Armando Villa, California State University,
Northridge); Nina Golgowski, N.C. fraternity pledge died in violent hazing ritual
led by school president?s son: lawsuit, THE DAILY NEWS (Mar. 24, 2014)
(Robert Eugene Tipton Jr., 22, Delta Sigma Phi, High Point University).

12 See ?Hazing deaths on American college campuses remain far too
common,? THE ECONOMIST (Oct. 13, 2017),
O/daily?chart?S

13 See note 11, smara.

14 See, e. Matthew Haag, Florida State Halts Fraternity Activities After
Student?s Death, NY. TIMES (Nov. 7, 2017),

Michael Hectman, Florida State fraternity pledge found
dead after party, N.Y. POST (Nov. 4, 2017), 
Ten people charged for Louisiana
State University hazing death, BBC NEWS (Oct. 11, 2017 
1; Stephanie Saul, 10
Arrested in Death of L.S.U. Student After Fraternity Drinking Ritual, NY. TIMES
(Oct. 11, 2017), 10/ 

 

continue the longstanding earnest attempt within our own University community to
secure and sustain a safe and productive experience for all our students.

We take note of the Report?s struggle to provide even a Single speci?c
recommendation to the University that would help in the ongoing effort here and
across the country to combat issues related to dangerous drinking and hazing
among college students. The express statutory purpose of any grand jury report in
is, in pertinent part, to ?propos[e] recommendations for legislative,
executive, or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated
?ndings.? 42 4542. Yet this Report, at least to the extent it addresses the
University?s actions and responsibilities, provides no new insight or suggestion
that could be put to constructive use by the University or others.15 Despite the
apparent absence of any speci?c recommendation? and the absence of adequate
support for the ?ndings and conclusions contained therein?it would be contrary to

the mission of the University to contest the issuance of the Grand Jury?s Report.16

 

15 Because the Commonwealth has sought the issuance of this Report, we
assume, for purposes of this Response, that that the portions of the Report not
disclosed to the University make such statutorily-authorized recommendations and
that the ?ndings about the University serve a lawfully-authorized purpose of
supporting such recommendations.

16 See 42 45 52(b) (reports authorized for ?ling ?only if the report
is based upon facts received in the course of an investigation authorized by this
subchapter and is supported by the preponderance of the evidence?).

 

It is the intent of this response to encourage, rather than sti?e, dialogue. As noted
elsewhere in this Report, dealing with alcohol abuse is a problem faced by every
college campus in the country.

We are sympathetic to the Grand Jury?s challenge, because it is a challenge .
We have shared over the years. The dif?culty faced by colleges and universities,
including ours, to help combat with seemingly intractable issues related to alcohol
and hazing is certainly not due to lack of attention or effort. To the contrary, harm
and even death to college students resulting ?om these issues continue deSpite
enormous attention and effort over the. course of many years (if not many decades)
both at Penn State and across all of American higher education.

To even suggest that alcohol abuse at Penn State fraternities is somehow
different from every other college campus is a false assertion that the University
cannot accept. The University does not cause students to drink to excess.
Moreover, to suggest that the University has not acted to address alcohol abuse in
recent months or the past decade is simply untrue. Ascribing fault to this
University and the purported failings of its officials, as the Report does,
demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the complex national context in

which these issues exist.

10

 

It cannot be fairly stated that the. cause of Timothy Piazza?s death was
unique to Penn State?s ?culture?.17 There is neither a factual nor a legal basis for
the critiques and allegations in the Report that the University is somehow
responsible for this tragic loss. The Commonwealth?s attorney would seem to
agree. According to the Report ?the Grand Jury recognizes that criminal acts
directly caused Tim?s death at the hands of named individuals and the fraternity as
a whole. . ??18 In arguing that the charged individuals acted with recklessness, the
Commonwealth went further at the Preliminary Hearing. The Commonwealth
argued that the circumstances surrounding the death of Timothy Piazza were
unique?a ?distinct and shocking aberration,? that it was ?an untrue

characterization that this is an ordinary thing.? 19

 

17 The Report makes broad conclusions of responsibility?and its assertion
that the University has abdicated that responsibility?for all conduct of all
fraternity members. See, Report at 79-80. These types of conclusions are
legally unsound, damaging and unproductive. See Wood v. Hughes, 9 144,
154, 173 NE. 2d 21, 21?22 (1961) report based as it is upon the grandjury?s
own criteria of public or private morality, charges the violation of subjective and
unexpressed standards of morality and is the ?rst and last step of the judicial
process. It is at once an accusation and a ?nal condemnation and, emanating from
a judicial body occupying a position of respect and importance in the community,
its potential for harm is incalculable.?)

13 Report at 80.

19 See Transcript of Preliminary Hearing dated Aug. 30, 2017 at 60:13-61 :23
(?We do see furnishing cases. They look absolutely nothing like what has occurred
in this unbelievable case. . .This is a distinct and shocking apparition [sic] of, you

ll

 

The University has not ?abdicated? 20 its role or responsibility. The
University does not have the luxury of laying blame and moving on. 21 As the
University?s Response makes clear, after more than a decade of stepped~up efforts
by Student Affairs and University leadership, through the introduction of education
and prevention programs, like medical amnesty, substance free housing and
mandatory alcohol education, and tougher enforcement, the University and its
leadership have said ?enough is enough.? Following the tragic death of Timothy
Piazza, Penn State has taken additional and unprecedented steps to help curb a

national epidemic of binge?drinking, especially within ?Greek system.?

 

know, human behavior. This is outrageous, this case. So that is an untrue
characterization that this is an ordinary thing?).

20 Report at 71-72 (?completely abdicated its moral responsibility?).

21 District Attorney Parks Miller is quoted as suggesting that the intention of
the Report prepared by the Commonwealth is to assist with eXposing the
University to civil liability, so that other institutions might make unspeci?ed
changes. See 

think across the nation, now Penn State is on the chopping block,
other colleges are watching, even if it?s for self-protection.? But in
terms of concrete changes that she expects the university to make,
Parks?Miller believes that the only way to get their attention is for
the Piazza family to ?le a civil suit and hit them in the wallet. ?Their
first goal is justice for their son, but they need to make more of this
than just burying him. ?Because the university hasn?t been shown to
be directly culpable, even if they morally failed, a civil suit is the
only way they can force them to make changes so Tim?s death
wasn?t in vain??

12

 

 

 

We are not aware of another major university that has taken over monitoring
of a broken self~governance model of the ?Greek system.?22 For example, the
University has asserted control of the ?Greek system? organizational disciplinary
process for chapter misconduct, and introduced a Greek chapter scorecard. But
further progress is contingent on others? willingness to address these problems, It
requires an honest assessment of the challenges, limitations, and problems? as
well as an acknowledgment that many within the national ?Greek system? have
fallen short.

The University appreciates the spirit with which the Report was undertaken,
but were surprised and disappointed that the Report offered no ideas or solutions
that Penn State and others could use to address the problem. We take exception to 
some key omissions and unsupported allegations that misrepresent Penn State?s
tangible commitment to improve safety.

Nevertheless, the University remains focused on an aggressive fourteen~
point safety agenda that builds on preexisting Penn State programs.23 It is

encouraging that others in the Commonwealth and nationally# from State and

 

22 See Section infra.

23 See Penn State Student Affairs, OFSL, Penn State Update: Graphic of
New Safety Initiatives for Greek-Letter Organizations (June 2, 2017),
ennstateup date .p su. edu/ new-safety?initi atives?info graphic.

13

 

national elected of?cials to university presidents? are joining Penn State to
toughen laws and develop new solutions to the serious problems of drinking and
hazing. While the University Will continue to face challenges, it requires the
assistance of all concerned. There must be a partnership with students, parents,
alumni, national fraternities and law enforcement in order to create meaningful
change. 24

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this response to address the allegations in the Report25 is
two-fold:

(I) to address the positive actions that the University has and continues to
take to address the danger of excessive drinking and hazing, While noting the limits
of the University?s ?control,? and its efforts to exert that authority?over private

organizations on private property?? and cooperate with law enforcement; and

 

24 Even with a diverse array of participants, we respectfully suggest that, in
the absence of a partnership and an honest assessment by all, consensus might be
dif?cult to reach. See Report at 55-59 (describing the testimony of Thomas King
about his involvement With the University?s Greek Life Task Force); Report at 80-
81 (criticizing Task Force); see Fraternity and Sorority Life Task Force Roster,
PSU0000862.

25 See 42 45 52(e) (Where a report ?is critical? the subject of that
criticism may ?submit a response to the allegations contained in the report?).

14

 

(II) to correct clear errors contained in the Grand Jury?s assignment of
causation Where there is a mistaken notion and blame that no past action has been
taken following a period of fraternity deactivation.

1. Penn State?s Enforcement, Reforms and the Limits of Its Authority

Although the Grand Jury criticizes the University?s efforts to address these
matters of national concern as insufficient, it offers no clear guidance. Such
criticism, Without advice, is not helpful.26 Nevertheless, the facts are that the
University has done much, and it Will continue to do more to educate students on
the dangers of alcohol abuse, and to investigate and discipline students and student
organizations for alcohol related misconduct. The Report inaccurately and unfairly
criticizes the University?s efforts by: (A) inaccurately concluding that the
University has ignored excessive drinking concerns for the past decade and
dismissing as ineffective the University?s most recent efforts, despite evidence
available to the Grand Jury to the contrary; (B) ignoring the legal and practical
realities of the limits of the University?s authority; and (C) inaccurately describing
the University?s individual disciplinary process and cooperation with law

enforcement.

 

26 See Report at 81?82; Report at 82.

15

 

A. The University Has Continuously Attempted to Address Excessive
Drinking, and Continues to D0 So.

The Report?s allegations that Penn State and its leaders have done nothing to
try to address alcohol abuse, abdicated all responsibility, were ?never interested in
doing anything to curb excessive drinking,? or ?tacitly condoned a culture of
excessive drinking,? are unfair and wrong.27 The University has not ignored these
issues before Mr. Piazza?s death, and does not ignore them now.

The University continues its many existing initiatives aimed squarely at
responding to the issues that alcohol presents for its students. The University
launched many of these initiatives in 2009? the same time-period that the Report
alleges that the University was turning a blind eye.28 The University?s Student
Affairs operations, spearheaded by Vice President for Student Affairs Damon Sims
since August 1, 2008, led many of these initiatives. For example, in 2010, Mr.
Sims presented a report to the full Board pf Trustees in public session, which,
contained a set of 41 separate University initiatives to address alcohol education,
enforcement, the campus and community environment, intervention and

counseling, and outreach.29

 

27 Report at 14-15.
28 Report at l.

29 See lV?nutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees, dated Sept. 17,
2010, 0minutesbot.pdf; see also
Presentation from Vice President Sims to the Penn State University Board of

16

 

Then, as now, it is clear that ?there is no magic formula for success with this
issue.?30 The scope of the challenge presented to the Board of Trustees by lVIr.
Sims was (and remains) daunting: in 2010 alone, 1,764 University Park students
were charged with violations of law or University policy and 683 students were
seen at Mt. Nittany Medical Center?s Emergency Department for alcohol?related
issues.31 These are numbers that, unfortunately, are replicated all across the
country. The 2009 and 2010 initiatives described by M. Sims were designed to
?speak to the University?s concern about the impact the alcohol issue has on
permanent residents in State College, even as they acknowledge the autonomy of
the fraternities imbedded in that community and the need for our ?aternity leaders
themselves, both undergraduates and alumni, to lead on this issue.?32 In presenting
these initiatives, Sims noted that alcohol issues require ?constructive parental

involvement? and ?increasing personal responsibility for this issue among our

 

Trustees, dated September 17, 2010 (the ?2010 Presentation?) and the Report from
Damon Sims to the Board of Trustees regarding Initiatives, dated Sept. 17, 2010
(the ?Initiatives?). The Initiatives included a ?universally required online course
for all incoming Penn State students designed to educate about alcohol use? that
had been instituted and eliminating ?Senior Week? as to minimize participation in
?bar tours.?

30 Initiatives at l.
31 2010 Presentation students.?33 The University has implemented the following practices and

procedures and many other measures outlined in Mr. Sims? initiatives: 34

2008: Required all incoming students to complete amandatory
alcohol education program,35

0 2008: Included alcohol among the issues addressed at orientation,
with both students and parents,36

0 2009: Made its residence halls alcohol free,?

 

33 Id.

34 See also Penn State Student Affairs, OF SL, Penn State Update: Graphic
of New Safety Initiatives for Greek-Letter Organizations (June 2, 2017),


35 The University requires all incoming ?rst-year students who are 21 and
under to complete Penn State SAFE Student Alcohol Feedback and
Education. Penn State SAFE is a con?dential, online alcohol education program.
The program uses science- based research to educate students about alcohol and its
effects. The program seeks to help students make informed decisions about
alcohol and drinking behavior. http: //edge psu edu/f1rstyear/

36 See ?Penn State Parents Families Guide? at 34-36 (addressing ?High
Risk Drinking? and the Alcohol and Drug laws):


37 See 
(University Alcohol Policy) (?The possession or use of alcoholic beverages is
prohibited in all Penn State on?campus undergraduate residence hall buildings,
including Nittany Apartments and Eastview Terrace, regardless of the age of the
individua 

 

18

 

0 2010: Established the Responsible Action Protocol, which, in an
appropriate and effective way, encourages students to seek help for
peers who are at risk because of the misuse of alcohol,38

0 2009: Required all students cited for alcohol violations (whether on
campus or off) or treated at Mt. Nittany Medical Center Emergency
Department for alcohol-related emergencies, to complete 
Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students,39

 

33 The University established a ?Responsible Action Protocol? in response to
?the University Park Undergraduate Association?s campaign for a medical amnesty
policy, whereby students who seek medical assistance for peers suffering from
alcohol poisoning or related problems would not be charged through the campus
student conduct system for their own alcohol violations. Under the protocol,
students who act responsibly by notifying the appropriate authorities calling
911, alerting a resident assistant, contacting police) typically will not face
University disciplinary action for their own alcohol violations, unless they are
responsible for other violations vandalism, assault) as well. However, these
students will be required to attend the fee will be waived.? See
(University Alcohol
Policy).

39 The University?s Mandatory Alcohol Education Program requires that
?All students found responsible for behavior on or off campus involving Prohibited
Underage Possession or Use of Alcoholic Beverages, Excessive Consumption of
Alcohol, or Driving Under the In?uence will be required to complete a University
alcohol education/intervention program. At University Park, the Brief Alcohol
Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) program is
administered by University Health Services and constitutes the mandatory sanction
for ?rst-time alcohol violations in these categories. Students transported to Mount
Nittany Medical Center because of alcohol consumption, whether or not they face
a conduct process, must complete BASICS. BASICS is a non-adversarial
intervention that focuses on harm?reduction. Students mandated to BASICS are
responsible for the $250 fee for the program.? See 


19

 

 2010: Increased foot patrols of its auxiliary police officers in the
downtown area, and expanded police presence at tailgating hotspots,40

2010: Began notifying all parents of students found responsible for
alcohol violations,41

0 2011: Created a Collegiate Recovery Community for students who
were recovering from alcohol addiction,42

0 2011 Engaged faculty by presenting annual reports on the alcohol
issue to the University?s Faculty Senate, and partnered with a 15
member faculty committee to explore the potential role of the
classroom in addressing high risk alcohol consumption among
students,

0 2011: Established the Student Alcohol Advisory Committee at Penn
State.43

 

40 See 
(University Alcohol Policy).

41 Id. (Parental noti?cation occurs when the student accepts responsibility, or
is found responsible, for any offenses in the Alcohol/Drugs category of the Student
Code of Conduct).

42 In 2011, the Penn State Collegiate Recovery Community (CRC) was
founded to help students in recovery from alcohol and other addictions. The Penn
State CRC now has 26 actiVe members. Students in the program remain
completely free of alcohol and other drugs and all students are expected to work a
recovery program in addition to their involvement in the CRC. See ?Penn State
Collegiate Recovery Community helped Organize National Summit,? Penn State
News (February 20, 2017). See also 
and 

43 See ?More Penn State Initiatives Aim to Curb Dangerous Drinking,? Penn
State News,((April 21, 2011) l/O4/21/more-
. 

20

 

 2012: Eliminated ?Senior Week? (the week falling between ?nals and
Commencement), which had previously led to binge?drinking related
problems.44

The University, of course, already prohibits underage drinking and hazing
(on or off-campus). 45 Enforcement of this is nothing new. The University has
included as violations of its Code of Conduct all o?-campus underage possession

or alcohol consumption violations since 2009.46

 

4? Speaking at a University Trustees meeting, then Penn State University
President Graham Spanier said that ending ?Senior Week? will ?eliminate students
being on campus for one week with absolutely nothing to do except go to the bars,
which has been problematic.? See ?Farewell, Senior Week: Penn State to
Reschedule Spring Commencement Events.? See
http: statecollege 


?5 Code of Conduct and Student Conduct Procedures at 6?7; see also policies
and the University?s Student Guide to University Policies and
Rules.

46 See 
(University Alcohol Policy). The Penn State Off?Campus Misconduct
Policy provides that ?Use, possession, service, or consumption of alcoholic
beverages off the premises of the University campus may all be considered
violations of the Student Code of Conduct. Additionally, the following behaviors
constitute Code violations:

1. Excessive consumption of alcohol: When a
student is unconscious, experiences a loss of control, has
a high Blood Alcohol Concentration, and] or needs
medical attention, a charge of Excessive Consumption of
Alcohol may be assigned. This may be true even in cases
where students were not charged with public drunkenness
or disorderly conduct.

21

 

During this same time?period during which the Grand Jury accuses the
University of indifference to, or tacit encouragement of alcohol abuse, the
University?s discipline system adjudicated more alcohol misconduct cases than any
other student discipline system in the Big Ten.? This is not a result of some
?cultural? defect unique to Penn State among its peer institutions. It is due to the
University?s more aggressive enforcement?m ?owing from the decision, nearly a
decade ago, to expand the reach of its discipline process to address a broader range
of off-campus misbehavior involving alcohol than its peers.48

Contrary to the Report?s labeling of the University as showing ?apathy? or
?condoning? excessive drinking, Penn State and Mr. Sims have aggressively

enforced Penn State?s Code of Conduct. That enforcement encompasses students

both on and off campus and has included aggressive enforcement of University

 

2. Furnishing alcohol to minors: A Code of
Conduct violation occurs when a student serves alcohol
to or purchases alcohol for those under the age of 21.

3. Driving under the in?uence: A Code of Conduct
violation occurs when a student is found to be operating a
motor vehicle while legally intoxicated.

Previously, the campus discipline system addressed only those alcohol
misconduct cases off?campus that involved students charged with excessive alcohol
consumption or driving while impaired. 

47 See University Fraternity and Sorority Conduct Cases, 2001-2016.

48 See University Alcohol Policy, supra note 37.

22

 

rules with members of the ?Greek?letter community? and their organizations. The
average number of individual Penn State fraternity and sorority members found
responsible for disciplinary misconduct each year in the past decade was 765.49 In
the past two years alone, thirteen fraternity and sorority chapters have lost
University recognition, which is equal to one of every six chapters at Penn State.50
The Report is silent on these signi?cant historical efforts. The Report?s
narrative that the University as an institution has done nothing historically to
address these concerns, and is only now engaged in ?self-celebrated? reforms, is
unsupportable. The Report dismisses and criticizes the University?s most recent
efforts to address these national concerns with no analysis.51 Instead of a more

thoughtful attempt to understand the problems and the efforts to address them, the

 

49 See University Fraternity and Sorority Conduct Cases, 2007?2016.

50 Since 2015, the University has suspended and/or revoked recognition for
the following fraternities and sororities: Alpha Chi Rho (1 year, enacted July 17,
2017) Alpha Sigma Phi (pending sanction review decision); Beta Theta Pi
(permanent, enacted Mar. 30, 2017); Delta Tau Delta (1.5 years, enacted Nov. 3,
2017); Delta Upsilon (1 year, enacted Oct. 27, 2017); Kappa Delta Rho (3 years,
enacted May 27, 2015); Phi Kappa Tau (3 years, enacted May 1, 2015); Phi Mu
Delta (1 year, enacted July 10, 2017); Pi Kappa Phi (3 years, enacted Apr. 2,
2015); Pi Lambda Phi (2 years), enacted October 27, 2017); Sigma Alpha Mu (2
years, enacted Apr. 20, 2017); Sigma Lambda Gamma (5 years, enacted Apr. 6,
2015); and Alpha Phi Alpha (3 years, Apr. 26, 2016).

51 Report at 80~82.

23

 

Report relies on a student article as to why reforms may not work.52 The Report
ignores the professional, informed, and thoughtful testimony of the University?s
Vice President for Student Affairs, Damon Sims.

Mr. Sims testified to the Grand Jury about the University?s continued good
faith efforts to address excessive drinking and hazing at its fraternities. The Report
does not include Mr. Sims" testimony about recent changes that, most respectfully,
are far more informed and instructive than one student?s opinion. The omission of
any reference to Mr. Sims? testimony, let alone the failure to address why or how
the University?s efforts demonstrate a purported abdication of responsibility,
undermines the basis for the Report?s dismissive criticism of Penn State?s efforts:

0 Mr. Sims explained that, although there may have been a problem in
the past, there has been a sea change about how behavioral issues are
monitored explaining that ?Greek life? monitors will now report
directly to the University. He explained there would be real
consequences if there are rules Violations and that he would not be
bashful about withdrawing recognition of an organization? knowing
that these organizations might challenge the lawfulness of the
University?s actions.

0 Mr. Sims testified at length about the rules put in place in the Spring
of this year; the violation of these rules particularly during Parents?
Weekend and the follow up actions taken by the University to
sanction the Sigma Alpha Mu ?aternity for two years and to further
expand the new rules of conduct.

0 Although reporting at length its criticism of the University for
deferring to the National Beta Theta Pi organization in 2009, the

 

52 Report at 91.

24

 

Grand Jury Report is silent in not reporting Mr. Sims? testimony about
the sanctioning and withdrawal of recognition of the Kappa Delta Rho
fraternity, and his testimony about the more recent withdrawal of
Sigma Alpha Mu?s recognition.53

Mr. Sims testi?ed about the timing of changes being made at the
University and the evaluation of the impact of the changes. He
explained that the University is trying to change a deeply imbedded
culture (one not unique to Penn State). The changes are being made
now with the goal that the changes will have visible results by the
Spring of 2018. The results are anticipated to be evaluated by
surveys, focus groups, a review of police reports, and the monitoring
by the new staff.

As to disciplining an individual (versus sanctioning a group), Mr.
Sims testi?ed about the challenges of identifying speci?c individuals
engaged in misconduct. Mr. Sims testi?ed in detail that individual
misconduct is sanctioned by the University by way of the Of?ce of
Student Conduct, part of the University?s Student Affairs operations.
He explained the additional advancements made by Danny Shaha a
former FBI agent - as to investigating and sanctioning individual
misconduct. 

In response to a grand juror?s question, Mr. Sims explained in detail
his hope that the cultural issue of excessive drinking can be chipped at
over time so that meaningful change will happen. Mr. Sims spoke
about changes to smoking laws that have resulted in real change in
peOple?s behavior and stated that the same can happen as to alcohol
use at universities.

Among the most signi?cant of the recent speci?c changes, the University

has now taken from the IFC the primary role in monitoring and disciplining

 

53 See, PSU0000533 (Email from Damon Sims to Sigma Alpha Mu
Fraternity Announcing Withdrawal of University Recognition of Chapter);
5 .pdf (Letter from
Damon Sims to Inter?Fraternity Council Announcing Withdrawal of University
Recognition of Kappa Delta Rho Fraternity).

25

 

individual Greek?letter organizations with respect to alcohol related violations,
hazing, sexual assault and disruptive social gatherings.54 In order to maintain the
University?s continued recognition, Greek organizations must now allow
University?trained and employed staff monitors from the new Of?ce of Fraternity
and Sorority Compliance (also part of the University?s Student Affairs operations)
to conduct random checks of common areas at any time.55 All organizational
conduct cases involving alcohol related violations, hazing, sexual assault and
disruptive social gatherings are now referred directly to the University?s Of?ce of
Student Conduct?not the IFC.56 The Of?ce of Fraternity and Sorority Compliance
will also monitor student behavior and coordinate with the Of?ce for Student

Conduct for possible discipline.57 If the University ?nds that a chapter jeopardized

 

54 See graphic
(Penn State Student Affairs, OFSL, Penn State Update.? Graphic of New Safety
Initiatives for Greek?Letter Organizations (June 2, 2017));
(Penn State
Student Affairs, OFSL, Penn State Update: Graphic of New Measures Fall 20] 7
(Aug. 21, 2017)); (update of safety
measuresalso note that the rules and regulations for fraternity parties are not
coextensive with the University?s Code of Conduct. Not all violations of the
increasingly strict rules for fraternity gatherings give rise to a violation of the Code
of Conduct (or the law).

26

 

a student?s physical or mental health by hazing, the University will immediately

and permanently revoke its recognition.58

In addition to these efforts, and its recent reforms of the IF C?s governance

and oversight of fraternities, the University did the following:

Immediately following the death of Timothy Piazza, the University
imposed a moratorium on alcohol at Greek?letter organization social
events through October 201-7, until all chapters complete educational
and risk management programs. This moratorium has been extended
with respect to all chapters that have not met the University?s
requirements.59

The University greatly curtailed the number of permitted Greek social
events, and imposed additional conditions to recognition, including
limiting attendance and reducing the number of events with alcohol
per semester, limiting alcohol to beer and wine, and requiring that
alcohol be distributed by RANIP trained servers only.60

The University announced 14 new positions as part of the University?s
Student Affairs operatiOns, eight of which will be dedicated ?Greek
life? monitors.61 The University is seeking monitors with diverse
backgrounds, including candidates with law enforcement backgrounds
and some who may be more experienced. The monitors will receive

 

53 Id.

59 See PSU0000087-PSU0000106

60 See PSU0000547 a student death, the University
immediately called a moratorium on alcohol in TFC chapter social events for the
remainder of the semester?; see also 
graphic?of?newumeasures/ (Penn State Student Affairs, OFSL, Penn State Update:
Graphic of New Measures Fall 20] 7 (Aug. 21, 2017));


61Id.

27

 

training in the University?s revised rules and fraternity counter-
measures.

The University imposed a fee for every student participating in Greek-
letter organizations to support extra services, spotwcheckers/monitors,
and educational activities.62

The University reinstated the Neighborhood Enforcement Alcohol
Team (NEAT). NEAT is a collaborative program between of?cers
from the State College and University police departments. The
of?cers work in pairs with of?cers from the State Police
Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement to conduct additional patrols
around Greek?letter organizations and conduct pre-party checks.63

The University announced and implemented revamped educational
initiatives, including parent and member education sessions.64

The University developed and implemented a program for Greek
presidents and risk managers to work with community partners to
develop risk management plans and procedures. 65

The University required that Greek letter organizations defer formal
recruitment of new fraternity and sorority members until a student?s
sophomore year, raising the average age of students participating in
Greek life.66

With the input of all relevant stakeholders, the University developed a
relationship statement to be signed by all members of Greek?letter

 

64 After the events of the ?Parents? Weekend? trial run on lifting the
moratorium on alcohol at fraternity events, involving parents in the process to the
extent possible is essential.

65 Penn State Student Affairs, OFSL, Perm State Update: Graphic of New
Measures Fall 2017 (Aug. 21, 2017), publicly available at


28

 

organizations, clarifying the respective rights and responsibilities of
the University, the chapters and their memb ers.67

The University demanded a shorter recruitment period and responses
to a survey seeking information on new member processes that will
provide an opportunity to report misconduct anonymously.68

The University created a scorecard designed to display information (to
parents, students and the community) about each chapter. That
scorecard has been made publicly available with information about
risks, signs of troublesome behavior and incident reporting
information.69

The University appointed a Greek?life Response Team to direct and
oversee the implementation of the University?s new initiatives,
provide regular progress reports directly to the President of the
University on progress and coordinate with a partner group that
encompasses key stakeholders, including student representation from
various campuses, members of sororities and fraternities, members of
the Board of Trustees, various faculty and staff leaders, and alumni.70

The University is also evaluating other measures, including:71

A review of the growing size of sororities at the University;

Coordinating a national conference hosted by the Big Ten in Chicago
to examine problems shared by other institutions with Greek-letter
organizations and explore solutions;

Supporting legislative initiatives, such as a congressional proposal to
expand Clery Act reporting to include hazing violations, increased

 

statewide educational initiatives regarding the dangers of hazing and
dangerous drinking, increased penalties for hazing and expanding the
current law on Medical Amnesty for Underage Drinking to apply to
the individual who requires medical assistance.

The University?s decisive efforts-as spearheaded by Mr. Sims? are
specific and well?documented. They re?ect the University?s long-standing effort
to address the very issues that the Report does not. They re?ect ongoing reviews
of efforts undertaken by other universities and prevention educators across the
country, and the review and selection of evidence?based prOgrams. The Report
questions, without basis, the intention and effort in the University and its leaders.
The Commonwealth should not dismiss or ignore these efforts, all in the service of
unsupported broad criticisms. 

The clear and speci?c efforts by the University and Vice President Sims to
address these issues and challenges over the years makes the unfairness of the
criticism that much more irresponsible and damaging. Over the past decade, Vice
President Sims has consistently, repeatedly and publicly advocated the need to act
on the issue of alcohol abuse among students. As demonstrated by the meaningful
initiatives proposed by Mr. Sims ?and acted upon since 2008 by the University
there can be no question that they have aggressively sought and will Continue to
seek new answers to the endless challenge of alcohol abuse. These efforts belie
any suggestion that either the University or Mr. Sims have abdicated their

responsibility for the welfare of students.

30

 

B. Limits on ?Control? of Greek Organizations by the University

Some realities of fraternity life?Hand the limits of authority over
fraternities?are clearly known to the Commonwealth, but seem to have been
discounted in the Report. The Report makes clear that neither Donald Abbey, 72
nor his agents, nor the Beta Housing Corporation, nor the National Beta Theta Pi
organization could manage conduct in the Beta house over which they had total
control. Former State College Borough Chief of Police Thomas King testi?ed that
law-enforcement has dif?culty determining alcohol-related crime levels off-
campus.73 These realities must be recognized to provide meaningful, accurate or
fair recommendations, responses or criticisms of the University?s efforts.

We are sympathetic to the Grand Jury?s frustration with the notion that there

are boundaries to the authority of the University in regulating private conduct on

 

72 Report at 1 (Mr. Abbey is ?a successful alumnus of both the fraternity and
the university. In 2007, Mr. Abbey employed [Ken] Rawley to establish a
501(c)(3) nonpro?t foundation that would serve as an endowment to maintain the
physical structure of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity house at 220 North Burrowes
Street?). For purposes of clarity, the active members of the Beta Theta Pi Alpha
Upsilon Chapter are referred to herein as ?Beta?, the entity that owns and operates
the house on 220 North Burrowes Street is referred to as the ?Beta Housing
Corporation? and the national Beta Theta Pi organization is referred to as the
?National Beta Organization.? These are three distinct entities.

73 Report at 56 n.36 (Former State College Borough Chief of Police Thomas
King ?explained it becomes far more dif?cult to determine an exact number of
alcohol related crimes when it involves a neighborhood,? i.e. not on campus).

31

 

private premises. These limits are, however, very real.? Respectfully, the Report
over~simpli?es the University?s legal and practical ability to demand access to, and
control, private organizations on private property.75 Failing to recognize these
essential limitations illustrates the signi?cant de?ciencies of the Report and
impedes progress and change at Penn State and nationally.

1. Greek Organizations

There is a reason why fraternities choose to operate in privately-owned
houses off?campus. National fraternities, their alumni, and their members
deliberately take shelter outside the limits of any university?s authority.76
Fraternities are governed by their national and alumni organizations. Their only
nexus to the University? outside of the student conduct process for discipline?m is
recognition by the University through its Of?ce of Fraternity and Sorority Life

The only mechanism available to the University to ?control? private

 

74 As discussed above, the University has always maintained responsibility
for individual student discipline?including for certain conduct that occurs off
campus. See Of?ce of Student Conduct, Code of Conduct and Student Conduct
Procedures at 5 (Nov. 3, 2016), publicly available at
conduct. It does not, however, have the ability to
ferret out all misconduct that occurs on private property. 

75 See Report at 79.

76 The Commonwealth?s authority is not so limited. The Commonwealth
has the ability to investigate and identify illegal conduct occurring within its
jurisdiction? conduct like that identi?ed in the ?Alpha Upsilon Conduct File.?

32

 

entities on private property is through recognition by the University. This is not an
excuse. It is reality.

The University?s relationship with fraternities and their houses is, for
example, far different than the University?s relationship with its on-campus
residents and the University?s residence halls. The University owns, operates, and
maintains its residence halls. Fraternities, however, own their houses. They are
private homes, independently operated and maintained, and located on private
property. We understand that the public?and perhaps the Grand Jury?may not
recognize that distinction clearly. In fact, the Report includes in its criticisms of
the University?s limited ability authority over private conduct on private property,
the inaccurate assertion that fraternities operate out of University buildings.77

What the Grand Jury misapprehends is that the restrictions and conditions
for recognition that the University places on these private organizations can only
be imposed to the extent that the organizations choose to accept those restrictions

cc

and conditions.78 The University 3 recognition? does not carry with it priceless

value. The University?s ?recognition? provides its fraternities with, among other

 

77 See Report at 77?78.

73 This includes securing agreement from these private organizations located
on private property to subject themselves to organizational discipline by the
University, rather than the IFC.

33

 

things of potential ?value? to fraternities:79 the ability to participate in 
(2) the ability to participate in Homecoming activities; and (3) the ability to operate
as a fraternity house within the existing State College Borough Code.80 The Report
ignores entirely that the national fraternities? (not the University?s) recognition of
their own charters holds far greater value to these organizations.

Even now, two fraternities that have been stripped of University recognition
are forging ahead with the continued support and recognition of their national
organizations. The University has revoked recognition of two fraternities?Sigma
Alpha Mu and Alpha Chi Rho?both of which egregiously violated clear
expectations about behavioral concerns.81 Yet, their national organizations have
chosen to sustain their charters, allowing each chapter to continue to function as a

fraternity despite having absolutely no University recognition. These fraternities

 

79 Recognized Student Organizations are also permitted to use the PSU
name, provided free web space, permitted to use University facilities, provided
space at the Involvement Fair, and given access to student activity funds.

80 See State College Codi?cation of Ordinances, Ch. XIX 201 (de?ning
?fraternity house? as requiring University recognition); see also Report at 22 n.11.

81 See ?University Suspends Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity Recognition for
Two Years,? Penn State News (April 20, 2017):
://news.psu.edu/ story/ 4 63 8 
Of?ce of Fraternity and Sorority Life,
Spring 2017 IFC Community Scorecard,
(Alpha Chi Rho
suspended for one year).

34

 

now answer only to their national organizations. Alpha Chi Rho is currently
challenging the Borough Code provisions that would prevent it from operating as a
fraternity without University recognition. 32 Should this fraternity?s litigation be
successful in challenging the Borough Code, the only cost for these organizations
of total freedom from any University rules will be the cost of foregoing
participation in a fundraising dance and the Homecoming parade.

The limits of control by even fraternities? national organizations must be
recognized as bounded by their own reality. As Mr. Abbey and the National Beta
Organization found to their dismay as they attempted to impose new restrictions
(on their members, living in their house, over which they had total access and
control),83 their admonitions were ignored. It is well recognized that there are

practical limits to what oversight a fraternity will accept in order to receive

 

82 See 329 ProspectAve. Corp. v. Centre Region Council of Governments
and the Borough of State College, No. 20176088 (C.C.P., Centre Cty, PA, ?led
Aug. 24, 2017). 

83 Despite years of monitoring daily the Beta house and compiling a dossier
of ?conduct? known almost exclusively to them, Mr. Abbey and the National Beta
Organization were unable to control their members? conduct. Mr. Abbey and the
National Beta Organization?those with daily access and control over a private
residence? were unable to accomplish what the Grand Jury suggests that the
University can. See Report at 4 (?the brothers rejected the reforms?); Report at 44-
45 (members rejected reforms of Mr. Abbey). Even the Commonwealth, which
must have known of a number of incidents involving Beta that the University did
not, were presumably unable to address what it now calls a known danger to the
University.

35

 

recognition (whether ?om their national fraternity, or from the University).84 Mr.
Abbey and Beta?s national leadership learned that lesson ?rst?hand in 2009, when
the chapter chose to abandon the fraternity rather than become the ?men of
principle? so admired by Mr. Abbey. The attempt to exert too tight a rein was met
with total rejection by the young men living in the house at that time.

Any legitimate criticism, conclusion or recommendation must also recognize
that a tension exists between exerting as much ?authority? over these private
organizations as possible, and the rejection of University recognition and the loss
of any in?uence. The dangers that result from a total lack of engagement with
?unrecognized? or ?underground? fraternities are well known. 35 The University

welcomes constructive recommendations as to how to balance these interests.

 

84 The University suggests that an email describing that rejection
by Beta members to Mr. Abbey?s rules cannot legitimately sustain a ?nding that
the University endorsed the members? attitude. See Report at 44-45.

85 See, 
(Investigative report addressing ?underground fraternities? at the University of
Buffalo). See also 
point/wn/201 7/0 8/2 8/ 
term=.2e797b3fccd718 (Students Dismissed from
American University for Code of Conduct Violations, WASHINGTON POST (Aug.
28, 2017) (American University recently expelled eighteen students who were
members of an ?underground? group not of?cially ?recognized? by the University,
but known as ?Epsilon Iota,? The dismissed students engaged in physical
violence, hazing and underage drinking).

 

36

 

While there is always room to improve, the criticisms in the Report that the
University has abdicated a moral or legal responsibility are simply wrong.

2. The IFC and St. Moritz

The Report criticizes the University?s relationship with the Inter-Fraternity
Council The University understands the Grand Jury?s consternation that
the University?s position is that the IFC is a distinct organization,86 and the limits
of authority created by that relationship.? The IF is a private, independent, self?

governing organization.88 The University?s description of, and relationship to, the

 

86 See Report at 73-75, 79?80.

87 See Report at Report at 2526, 32, 45-49; see also Report at 78
(addressing the limited role of an advisor to a student Organization).

88 Like other recognized student organizations the IF is
recognized by the University?s Of?ce of Student Activities and subject to the
University?s Policies and Procedures for Student Organizations (the ?Policies and
Procedures?). The Policies and Procedures provide that ?[r]ecognition of student
organizations shall not be construed as agreement, support, or approval by the
University, but only as acknowledgement of the rights of the organization to exist
at the University, subject to the conditions enumerated herein.? See Policies and
Procedures at As an RSO, the University may derecognize the IFC for failure
to abide by these procedures for maintaining recognition.? Id. at 
Additionally, the IFC has rights and responsibilities that are available to all other
RSOs, including the right to apply for funding to host an event, as well as being
eligible to apply for general liability insurance coverage through the University?s
captive insurance group. See ?Overview of Liability Insurance Coverage for
Recognized Student Organizations of the State University,
Commencing July 1, 2016 and Ending July 1, 2017.? Contrary to Mr. Vetere?s
testimony, the IFC does not ?fall? under the Of?ce of Fraternity and Sorority Life.
Report at 21 n.8. Nor does the use of University accounts for IFC funds or the

37

 

IFC is not self~serving or arti?cial. It is not an effort to hide behind an ?invisible
wall.?89

The University agrees with the Grand Jury that the IF Cs and St. Moritz?
efforts at monitoring ?Greek? social events have been ineffective90 There is,
however, absolutely no evidence in the Report that the University had any
knowledge about St. Moritz? alleged studied avoidance of observing and reporting
illegality.

In fact, the Report itself ?nds that deceit was engaged in ?without the
University ever the wiser about the existence of violations observed by the hired
security ?rm.?91 After detailing the withholding of information by St. Moritz and
student IF of?cers, the Report, nevertheless, reaches the illogical ?nding that it is
n92

?appalling the lax supervision Penn State permitted over these parties.

Respectfully, the Report?s conclusion simply does not follow from the details of

 

provision of advisors to the IF render the independence a ?ction. See
Report at 75?76.

89 See Report at 74.

90 Report at 25-26, 32, 72-73. The University is extremely disappointed that
IFC of?cers use their independence to withhold information selectively from the
University.

91 Report at 73.

92 Report at 34?35.

38

 

the relationship between the IFC and St. Moritz? and information that these
entities deliberately withheld from the University.

The Report inexplicably? and inaccuratelyw criticizes the University for
?astonishingly fail[ing] to admit any awareness of or any sensitivity to how easily
fraternity brothers were defeating the spot check system.?3 There is no evidence
before the Grand Jury that the University was?~33 the Report itself makes clear?
aware of St. Moritz? failures.94 Based upon this alleged unwillingness to admit to
the challenges faced by checkers (and on problems occurring during the April 2017
Parents? Weekend), however, the Report inaccurately, and without any evidentiary
basis, concludes that there is ?little difference between this newly adopted system
of spot checks and the one installed by St. Moritz at the time of Timothy Piazza?s
death.?95

There is no support for that conclusion. With regard to the incidents
occurring on Parents? Weekend in April 2017, the new Penn State monitors had
not yet been hired and the new procedures had not yet been developed and

implemented. To the extent the Report criticizes the University for not

 

93 Report at 82.
94 Report at 73.

95 Report at 81.

39

 

acknowledging the inherent dif?culties of monitoring these private entities on
private premises, it is contrary to the evidence available to the Grand Jury.

Although omitted entirely from the Report, Vice President Sims testi?ed at
length about the University?s knowledge of ?counter-measures? sometimes used by
students from time?to?time to avoid sp ot?checkers, and the dif?culties that the
University may encounter in conducting its own spot?checks. In fact, Mr. Sims
gave details of his work as a spot-checker 35 years ago at Indiana University 
Bloomington as part of his explanation that he knew to expect ?counter-measures.?

To the contrary, the Grand Jury heard the testimony of Mr. Sims about how
the University intends to combat these issues:

0 Mr. Sims testi?ed at length about the intended quali?cations and
training for these new University-employed checkers are to be more
experienced, and preferably with a law?enforcement background (126.,
retired police of?cers). 

0 The checkers will be trained to identify ?counter-measures? (such as
the smell of disinfectant), and when to call the police for further
investigation.

0 The checkers will be hired by?the University and will directly report to
staff responsible for compliance and monitoring as part of the
University?s Student Affairs operations.

0 The monitoring will berandom and will occur at any time the week.

0 There will be a knock on the door, and there must be immediate
access to common areas. If a checker thinks there is a reasonable
basis to believe there is a problem in a private area then the checker

40

 

can ask for access and, if necessary, call law enforcement who, with
probable cause, can take additional action.

0 The University rejected the request to have the new monitors
assigned to a speci?c house, so that each house could get comfortable
in ?knowing its monitor.? Mr. Sims rejected this IFC
recommendation because he does not want that kind of comfort
among the monitors and the houses they will monitor.

In light of the evidence available to the Grand Jury about the changes that
the University has made to its relationship with the IFC, we are disappointed that
the Report levels inaccurate criticisms in lieu of meaningful recommendations.

Neither do we believe it to be a fair exercise of the Grand Jury?s authority to
criticize the University for taking additional actions it has not taken previously.96
The University has always retained the ability to revoke recognition regardless of
whatever sanction the IFC might impose. There is, however, no evidence that the
University would have been able to secure the fraternities? agreement to direct
University organizational conduct control previouslyH?even with the threat of

revocation of the University?s recognition. 97

 

96 Report at 32, n.15 (the Report expresses ?curious [ity]? about why the
University did not make these changes sooner); Report at 47, n.32 (referencing the
University?s revocation of Beta Theta Pi?s recognition before IFC undertook its
process and the elimination of St. Moritz checkers to use University personnel).

97 See Section of the Policies and Procedures: ?the Of?ce of Student
Activities shall have the authority to suspend the recognition of any student 
organization due to the organization?s failure to abide by these procedures for
maintaining recognition.?

41

 

The Report does not recognize that the University is forced to obtain
agreement from these private organizations and their constituents (parents, national
organizations, members, alumni) to accomplish such changes. It is unfortunate
that, only when confronted by tragedy, might these organizations agree? and even
then, agreement is often short-lived. When confronted with tragedy, these private
organizations still resist and reject limits to their autonomy. Each for its own
possible reasons: freedom of action, nostalgia, tradition, or just plain defiance. In
2004, for example, after a fraternity death, ?aternities at the University of
Colorado Boulder refused to agree to relatively modest reforms (to sign an
agreement to delay rush until spring, and to haVe live-in supervisors).98 The
fraternities chose, instead, to form an off-campus IFC and forego University
recognition and any bene?ts it carried.99 That University lost any semblance of
in?uence over those organizations. Efforts to bring those fraternities to the table
have been largely unsuccessful over the intervening years. One advocate of the
non?recognized fraternities rejected the value of university recognition in a way

that provides insight to the problem: ?The carrot?s dangling out there, but what's

 

98 See 
fraternities/; 1 13 4800/ cu-re?


99 Id.

42

 

the stick? What do I have to agree to? What are the obligations? What authority
that undergraduates currently have total control over would they be ceding to a
new council or university administration??100

Here, as noted earlier, even after the tragic death of Timothy Piazza,
fraternities that have lost their University recognition at Penn State continue to
operate with only the recognition of their national organizatimiis.101 At ?Parents?
Weekend? events in April 2017?? a mere two months after the death of Timothy
Piazza?u parents of fraternity members openly ?outed, and facilitated and
encouraged violations of, the University?s rules.102 Moreover, fraternity alumni
who have shared with University leadership their strong concerns about the
behavior of undergraduatemembers of their chapters and the damage done to their
houses, split hairs with the University over the limits of the University?s ability to

access, monitor, and address fraternity members? behaviors.

 

100 Id.

101 See Section supra; see also ?University Suspends Sigma Alpha Mu
Fraternity Recognition for Two Years,? Penn State News (April 20, 2017):
://news.psu.edu/story/463 8 8 1/ 20 17/04/ 
Of?ce of Fraternity and Sorority Life,
Spring 2017 IFC Community Scorecard,
(Alpha Chi Rho
suspended for one year).

102 See PSU0000087-PSU0000106

43

 

C. Individual Conduct and Relationships with Law Enforcement

The Report correctly identi?es throughout that the University has always
maintained responsibility for individual student discipline, whether or not those
individuals are part of an organization, and Whether or not the conduct occurs off
campus.103 The Report, nevertheless, at times appears to con?ate its criticisms of
the organizational discipline imposed previously by the IFC with the individual
conduct determinations made by the University. Contrary to the criticisms in the
report, 104 the University has routinely held and continues to hold?? individual
students accountable. Moreover, the University has now asserted control over
organizational conduct of fraternities as well.105

As it relates to Beta, the Report omits mention of the evidence the individual
conduct proceedings related to Beta brothers between 2006 and 2009.106 The

Report further omits any mention of the disciplinary proceedings relating to the

 

103 See Report at 22 n. 10, 46; see also Of?ce of Student Conduct, Code of
Conduct and Student Conduct Procedures at 5 (Nov. 3, 2016), publicly available at


104 See Report at 89.
105 See Report at 90

106 See 8 (Chart of individual conduct discipline
involving Beta members bettveen 2006 and 2009). Only two of these incidents,
described above, appear to have any connection to Beta. The remainder have no
apparent nexus to the fraternity.

44

 

death of Timothy Piazza. Although not announced publicly until after the issuance
of the Report, the Grand Jury was provided with evidence that 32 Beta members
were involved in the University?s individual disciplinary process in connection
with violations arising out of the investigation related to the death of Timothy
Piazza.107
The Report also alternately criticizes the University for pursuing disciplinary
action without deferring first to law enforcement on the one hand; while at the

same time criticizing Penn State for pursuing disciplinary proceedings.108

This critique is unsupported by facts available to the Grand Jury.109

I,

 

107 See Penn State, Student Conduct Of?ce completes 32
investigations related to Beta Theta Pi, PENN STATE NEWS (Nov. 7, 2017),
http: //news ..psu edu/story/492848/2017/l 
office- completes? 32?investigations-
related?utm_ source=newswire&utm_ medium-email&utm_ terrn=492957_ HTML
&utm_ content=ll- 07- 2017-22-5 0&utm _campaign=Penn%20 State%2OToday;
Abbey Drey, Penn State hands down punishments related to frat pledge death
PHILLYCOM (Nov. 7, 2017), 
71 07 .html.

108 See, Report at 68.

109 For example, the Report appears to suggest that the University delayed
taking action in connection with, or mishandled, Mr. Vivenzio?s allegations.
Report at 16?20. This matter is the subject of civil litigation between the University
and Mr. Vivenzio, and this Response is not the appropriate forum to litigate that
action. We must note, however, that the University disputes Mr. Vivenzio?s
version of events. University staff offered Mr. Vivenzio extraordinary assistance
on numerous occasions, and went to great to do so over the course of
nearly nine even sending the director of the Of?ce of Student Conduct to
his home to interview them. See Report at 19. Based upon the facts known to the

45

 

The University has coordinated and cooperated whenever possible with law

enforcement.110 Evidence available to the Grand Jury also shows, however, that

 

University, neither he nor his family were willing to ?le a formal complaint,
provide documentation to the Of?ce of Student Conduct, speak with State College
Police or participate in pursuing the formal disciplinary process available to them,
despite repeated encouragement from University staff. Mr. Vivenzio also did not
inform Penn State staff members of a private Facebook group. University officials
became aware of its existence when informed by State College Police in February
2015. MoreoVer, contrary to the Report, the University denies that Mr. Vivenzio
told any University of?cial that ?death is imminent,? Report at 19-20, and we
cannot speak to what Mr. Vivenzio might have told to the ?head of Penn State?s
Alcoholics Anonymous program.? Id. (emphasis added).

 

 

law enforcement may not have communicated as freely as it might have with the
University. For example, of the numerous incidents described in the National Beta
Organization?s 2009 ?conduct file,? the University?s conduct records ?om that
time?period available to the Grand Jury reveal indicia of only two of those
incidents described.111 Those records further reveal that the University cooperated
with law enforcement in connection with both of them.112 In contrast, there is no

evidence that the Commonwealth provided information to the University about the

 

 

111PSU0002007 PSU0002018.

?2 See 


47

 

 list of other matters re?ecting law enforcement involvementm? We
recognize that the Commonwealth?s ability to share with the University

. investigative information may be constrained to some extent by law.114 We also
note that the University?s Office of Student Conduct?s ability to share information
with law enforcement may be constrained to some extent by federal law.115 The
University is open to recommendations and suggestions as to how to navigate these
issues and better work with law enforcement (including, but not limited to, State
College Borough Police?the agency with primary jurisdiction over all fraternities
in State College, while respecting legal rights and responsibilities
that may impede the coordination and ?ow of information in both directions.

II. Background of Beta Theta Pi The Alleged Historical Role and
Knowledge of the University

Although the circumstances surrounding the disb andment of Beta in 2009

are not reasonably relevant to M. Piazza?s death in 20] 7, some of the most biting

 

?3 The Report also omits in its discussion of the anonymous complaint
involving Phi Lambda Phi, that law enforcement was involved in the investigation.
See Report at 54 (referring to anonymous hotline complaint); but see, Investigation
Notes of Spencer Peters, PSU0001253, at 1 (noting that he received information
from the ?Penn State Police Department?). The University lacked sufficient
information after investigation to take any action. We are unaware of whether the
Commonwealth undertook any investigation or effort to address the complaint.

?4 See, 18 9101, etseq.
?5 See 20 Use. 1232g; 34 99.1 etseq-

48

 

 

criticisms of the University focuses on ?ndings of the University?s role in the
disbandment of Beta nearly a decade ago.116 For that reason, we are compelled to
address them. Those criticisms are simply unfounded. There is simply no nexus
whatsoever to the conduct at Beta in 2007-2009 described in the Report and
conduct at Beta nearly ten?years later after the chapter had been disbanded and
recolonized. There is simply no legitimate basis to suggest that any action taken
by the University related to the activities of those disbanded fraternity members in
2007 to 2009 might have prevented the death of Timothy Piazza almost ten years

later.

 

?6 See, Report at 1 (?Penn State, it seems, either did not know as it
should have, or it turned a blind to the excessive drinking going on routinely at
Beta Theta Pi. . .. University of?cials were on direct notice of the depraved lifestyle
in the Beta Theta Pi House?); Report at 3 5 (elying upon the ?conduct file,? the
?Grand Jury finds that Penn State administrators were aware of Beta Theta Pi?s
problematic condition circa 2009, and of the dangers of university?s Greek life in
general?); Report at 70 (?the Grand Jury can ascertain that as far back as 2007, at
least with regard to Beta Theta Pi, Penn State University became aware of
excessive dangerous alcohol abuse by fraternity brothers?); Report at 71 (?the
Grand Jury finds that Penn State University had a clear line of sight to the primary
concern at issue both then and now, nearly a decade id. (?Penn State was
content to allow Beta?s national fraternity to manage the issue of excessive alcohol
abuse at the chapter?); Report at 78 (?Based on the history of Beta Theta Pi nearly
a decade ago, as well as the horri?c experiences shared by Mr. Vivenzio and Mr.
Braham, and the tragic death of Mr. Dado, the Grand Jury ?nds it impossible to
believe that no one in Penn State?s administration saw this ?cliff approaching?);
Report at 79?80 (alleging that the University ?bears the ultimate responsibility for
the failure to supervise the safety of its students involved in the fraternity system,?
and that the University ?set the table? for Mr. Piazza?s death because it ?clearly
was on notice of these dangers?).

49

 

To the extent that the University?s alleged knowledge of that past history
could possibly matter or relate to the death of Timothy Piazza nearly a decade
later, the Report?s factual assumptions arenot true. The Report erroneously ?nds
that University of?cials were contemporaneously aware of an uninterrupted litany
of misconduct by Beta prior to its disbandment in February 2009, and did nothing
about it.117 In reaching its conclusions, the Report relies upon the recollections of
Mr. Abbey and those in his employ relating to matters almost a decade ago.118 The
Report omits or discredits without justi?cation any contrary testimony. The Grand
Jury appears to have made a fundamental error in its assumptions about what it
identi?es as the ?Alpha Upsilon Conduct File.? Based upon that error, the Grand -
Jury appears to rely largely upon Mr. Abbey?s memory?~ to the exclusion of
information that was or could have been made available to it.

The documentary evidence and testimony available to the Grand Jury,

however, suggest that the ?le and its contents were not shared with anyone at the

 

?7 Report at 35-39 (detailing the incidents set forth in the National Beta
Organization?s ?conduct Report at 36 n.21 (without any support alleging
that, ?[e]ven back in 2007, the Grand Jury observes that Penn State had in its
possession documents demonstrating that two acts of hazing were alleged against
Beta Theta Pi in just one pledging period?).

113 See Report at 71 n.44 (expressly crediting the testimony of Mr. Abbey
and Mr. Rawley based expressly on the assertion that the University had
knowledge of the information in the ?conduct 

50

 

University (and the file perhaps not created) until after the decision was made to
disband the fraternity in February 2009. The Report therefore builds upon what
appears to be an inaccurate assumption about that document to reach its harshest
criticism of the University. It is through that faulty lens that the Report
mischaracterizes entirely communications between Mr. Abbey, his cohorts, and the
University during the 2008?2009 time?period. ?9

A. The National Beta Organization Compiled the Information in the

?Alpha Upsilon Conduct File? and Did Not Share it with the

University Until After the National Beta Organization Decided to
Disband the Chapter.

Mr. Sims testi?ed that there was no knowledge or notice to Penn State of
hazing at Beta during the period in question (2007 to 2009). MI. Sims? testimony
was accurate and supported by the testimony and documents available to the Grand

Jury.

 

?9 See Report at 39 (misinterpreting a September 2008 email exchange
between Mr. Abbey and Mr. Sims as ?reinforce[ing] proof of the University?s
knowledge?). The referenced email simply cannot be read to reinforce proof of the
University?s knowledge of the contents of a document created by the National
Fraternity in February 2009 (or of the conduct described within). See
PSU0000396- PSU0000397 (9/2/08?10/10/08 Email Exchange Between Damon
Sims Don Abbey (Abbey: ?It was a pleasure meeting you last week at PSU, and
I hope you enjoyed the BETA tour. I also thought it quite refreshing to hear a
honest, nonpolitical answer to the rushing and keg issues. I am sure that the Greek
system goes through at least enough metal to make a tank every weekend in cans.?
Sims: ?The obstacles that prevent our fraternities from realizing their ideals are
more complicated than I?d like to think, but I also know they?re not
impenetrable?)).

51

 

The documents produced to the Grand Jury show clearly that the ?conduct
?le? is, in fact, part of a single larger document that includes-the report and
photographs of an architect hired by Mr. Abbey.120 The Grand Jury appears to
have treated the ?conduct ?le? portion of that document as a separate document,
and in doing so reached a series of inaccurate conclusions.

Mr. Drobka (an architect hired by Mr. Abbey)121 testi?ed to the Grand Jury
that he provided his report and photographs to some unidenti?ed person at the
University sometime in 2009 after years of information gathering. Mr. Drobka
speci?cally testi?ed that he compiled and provided a report and pictures of damage
to the house in 2009 to the University after four years of collecting information. 122
Mr. Rawley similarly testi?ed that he ?forwarded many of the photographs to the

national fraternity and Penn State of?cials.?123 Those photographs and lVIr.

 

120 See Scan of Electronic Alpha Upsilon Conduct File, PSU0001878-
PSU0001888. The document was produced in two forms to the Grand Jury: as a
scan of a hard copy document located in the University?s archived documents
related to the disbandment of Beta, and as an image
of an electronic document (PSU0001878- PSU0001888).

121 See Report at 7. .

122533 Report at 6; Report at 8?10; see also Report at 5 (Mr. Rawley stating
he ?forwarded many of the photographs to the national fraternity and Penn State
officials?).

123 Report at 5.

52

 

Drobka?s report are part of the same document as the ?conduct file.?124 A review
of the document in its entirety, together with Mr. Rawley?s and Mr. Drobka?s
testimony, would have assisted the Grand Jury in answering its questions about the
source of the document.125 Contrary to the assumptions and ?ndings of the Grand
Jury, testimony and documentary evidence show that Beta alumni and National
Beta Organization of?cials gathered information themselves for years, but did not
share it with the University until a?er the frustration of the National Beta
Organization resulted in their determination to disband the fraternity.126
Information contained in the metadata of the electronic version of the
document containing the portions identified as the ?Alpha Upsilon Conduct File?
appears to corroborate this. That metadata indicates that the document was created

by the National Beta Organization on February 12, the decision to

 

?4 See Scan of Electronic Alpha Upsilon Conduct File, PSU0001878-
PSU0001888.

125 See Report at 35 n. 17 (?Although the author of this ?Conduct File? was
never identified, the accuracy of many of its notations was confirmed by Ken
Rawley, who professed to have daily interaction at the Beta chapter house at this
time?).

126 The Report?s lauding of the National Beta Organization for taking action
?only two months into the Spring 2009 Semester,? based on purported alarm about
evidence described in the ?conduct file,? Report at 70, appears misplaced. The
National Beta Organization seems to have gathered this information for years,
failed to share it with the Universitywith the urgency with
which the Report credits them.

53

 

disband the fraternity had already been made by the National Beta Organization
earlier in February 2009.127 There is no indication as to when and how this
document was eventually provided to the University. One thing is clear: The
Alpha Upsilon ?le could not have been presented to Penn State before it was
compiled.

What the ?conduct ?le? portion of the document produced to the Grand Jury
actually reveals is that the National Beta Organization and its associates ?not the
University~e~ were aware of the misbehavior described in the ?conduct ?le? as it
I occurred. The testimony and documents available to the Grand Jury make clear
that the events set forth in the ?le would have only been shared with Penn State
personnel after all attempts by Mr. Abbey and the National Beta Organization to
curb Beta behavior failed. In fact, Mr. Rawley detailed to the Grand Jury how the
National Beta Organization shut down the chapter in January 2009, and that
?[w]hen the end drew near for the chapter, Mr. Rawley and Mr. Abbey reached

out to high level Penn State administrators.?128

 

127 The metadata on the electronic document appears to Show that it was
created by an individual named MacGregor Hill a National Beta Organization
employee on February 12,2009 See Metadata Associated with Electronic Alpha
Upsilon COnduct File.

?28 Report at 6.

54

 

Thus, the actual situation is much different from what appears in the Report.
Documents available to the Grand Jury appear to show that the University only had
contemporaneous knowledge of only two of the incidents described in the ?conduct
?le.?129 In both instances, the University coordinated and fully cooperated with
police investigations.130 In both matters, criminal charges were either not pursued
or withdrawn by the Commonwealth. In both cases, the University deferred to the

Commonwealth?s and Court?s decisions in its conduct proceedings.131

 

129 Report at 5 (Mr. Rawley identi?es three speci?c incidents at the Beta
house that the University knew about: (1) an incident involving a racial slur; (2) an
incident involving a man beaten unconscious; and (3) an incident involving a beer
bottle attack). The University?s records of Beta member conduct matters from that
time?period, however, reference only two incidents identi?ed in the ?conduct ?le?
and only one of the incidents described by Mr. Rawley. See PSU0002083
(re?ecting student conduct action against individual student relating to physical
altercation in Beta house, an incident noted in the conduct and apparently
identi?ed by Mr. Rawley); see also PSU0002177- PSUOO 02178 PSU0002207-
PSU0002248-PSU0002250 (separate conduct actions related to a
single incident in which Beta was alleged to have provided alcohol to minors,
which was identi?ed in the ?conduct The ?conduct ?le? also identi?es a
number of matters involving criminal proceedings. See PSU0001878-88. There is
no evidence that the University was noti?ed by the Commonwealth of those
incidents.

130 See 
PSU0002248-PSU0002250.

131 PSU0002083 (withdrawing student conduct action after student found not
guilty in criminal trial); PSU0002207- 
PSU0002248- PSUO 002250 (each conduct action withdrawn after Commonwealth
withdrew charges against individuals, and ?led criminal charges against the
organization). 

55

 

The Beta fraternity house is on private property over which the Beta
Housing Corporation and Mr. Abbey had total control.132 Mr. Rawley and Mr.
Abbey had daily access to the house.133 lVlr. Abbey and the National Beta
Organization began their discussion of issues and goals for their fraternity twelve
years ago in 2005.134 The evidence does not support any conclusion that this
information was shared with the University until after lVlr. Abbey and the National
Beta Organization set in motion their changes. The documents available to the
Grand Jury show that the University tried to assist Mr. Abbey and the National I
Beta Organization with those goals and concerns actually'Shared with the
135

University.

B. The University did not Ignore Concerns 0r Thwart Efforts to
Reform. 

The University did not ignore those goals or thwart any efforts to reform

Beta in 2007 to 2009. The Report?s misperception of the context of the ?conduct

 

132 In fact, Mr. Abbey has sought legal recourse against Beta for the
signi?cant funds he invested in the Beta house?s renovations. See Donald G.
Abbey v. Alpha Upsilon Chapter ofthe Fraternity ofBez?a Theta Pi, Inc., No. 2017~
838 (C.C.P. Centre Cty, PA).

133 See Report at 35 n.17 (Ken Rawley had daily interaction at the Beta
house).

134 Report at 7.

135 See note 28, supra.

56

 

file? and the timing of the University?s awareness of its contents appear to have led
to false accusations against University of?cials. Mr. Abbey?s email to Mr. Sims in
September 2008, for example, cannot be reasonably interpreted as evidence of
knowledge by Mr. Sims and the University of the contents of the ?conduct ?le?
that does not appear to have been shared (or compiled) until February 2009. To
the contrary the email refers only to rushing and keg issues with no mention of
hazing.136 The ?concerns? that Mr. Rawley and Mr. Abbey communicated prior to
the disbandment were generalized and spoke of their disappointment with their
attempts at gaining acceptance of a ?men of principle? model for the Ifraternityd?
The evidence available to the Grand Jury makes clear that these concerns and goals

were (consistent with Mr. Sims? testimony) overwhelmingly focused on the

 

136833 Report at 39 (misinterpreting a September 2008 email exchange
between Mr. Abbey and Mr. Sims as ?reinforce[ing] proof of the University?s
knowledge?). The referenced email simply cannot reasonably be read to reinforce
proof of the University?s knowledge of the contents of a document created by the
National Beta Organization irr'February 2009 (or of the conduct described within).
See 9/2/08~10/ 10/08 Email Exchange Between Damon Sims Don Abbey
(PSU0000396-PSU00003 97) 

137 See (noting lVIr. Abbey?s desire to discuss
partnerships and play golf); (email exchange about
brotherhood, greek life and golf); (email in which Don
Abbey and the University discuss general collaboration to address general issues);
67 (email in which Mr. Rawley provides a document
entitled ?Leadership Development Program at Alpha Upsilon?); 
PSU0000359 (email from Ken Rawley attaching a document entitled ?The Abbey
Leadership Foundation Vision?)

57

 

intentional destruction of the renovation of the Beta fraternity house by the young
men who lived there at the time. 138

The Report?s criticism that the University ?thwarted? or refused to assist Mr.

Abbey in his efforts to address serious concerns is inaccurate and unfair. The

 

138 Mr. Abbey and Rawley?s overwhelming focus on the condition of the
property is evident in the testimony described in the Report. See Report at 1 (?In
2007, Mr. Abbey employed Mr. Rawley to establish a 501(c)(3) nonpro?t
foundation that would serve as an endowment to maintain the physical structure of
the house?); Report at 2 (?Mn Rawley moved to State College to directly
oversee the building?s renovation in 2007. His duties included .. keeping watch
over the house for Mr. Abbey.? The members are described as engaging in
?drunken vandalism?); Report at 3 (discussing trash and property destruction
requiring professional cleaners to address the ?vandalism? and avoid the house?s
condition from becoming a ?lost cause?); Report at 7-13 (Mr. Drobka?s
observations of renovations, vandalism, cleanliness, property destruction, trash,
stacking furniture, over?owing toilets, concrete in plumbing, interference with
workers, code violations involving smoke detectors and smoking, broken doors
and windows, and messy kitchens); Report at 12 (Mr. Abbey describing the 8.5
million dollar project to renovate the house, and that the brothers would ?destroy
his progressive improvements,? including destruction of expensive furniture, and
his ?concern[] that his investment would be wasted?); Report at 13 (describing
broken windows and the installation of cameras and hiring of Ken Rawley to
?monitor the renOvations?). Mr. Drobka also details the massive expenditure of a
high?end ?party room? built for the members in an effort to contain their revelry to
a section of the house?Mnot to stop it. See Report at 9 n5 (an ?authorized party
location? was built in the basement at great expense); Report at 11 (detailing
changes made to the basement for the ?party room?); PSU000355 (?The Abbey
Leadership Foundation Vision? sets forth as the first phase of its three phase plan,
?The physical restoration of the chapter house?); PSU0000158, PSU0000267-
PSU0000268 (re?ecting then-contemporaneous reports from ?aternity members
that Mr. Abbey stated to the members of the fraternity: ?yes, I care much more
about the house I paid for than the Beta brothers living in it,? and reference to
cleanliness).

58

 

Report reaches a number of in?ammatory conclusions about the University?s
interactions with Mr. Abbey that are simply unsupportable from the facts available
to the Grand Jury. The Report concludes that it was ?reckless in the extreme that
Penn State of?cials refused to help?; that Mr. Abbey?s efforts ?met with extreme
resistance?; and that a January 20, 2009 email between University officials
?corroborates Donald Abbey?s testimony that he attempted to secure Penn State?s
backing to reform the fraternity culture at Beta Theta Pi?. 139 To the contrary, the

email described by the Grand Jury shows that the University was actively working
with Mr. Abbey to the extent it could to assist in his efforts and his requests.140

Mr. Sims? email to the then-University President in January 2009 recounting

a meeting among Mr. Abbey, three National Beta Organization representatives,

members of Mr. Sims? staff, and Mr. Sims has been interpreted in the Report

 

139 Report at 6-7 (?reckless in the extreme that Penn State of?cials refused to
help?); Report at 7 (?met with extreme resistance?); Report at 39-40 (?nding that a
January 20, 2009 email between University of?cials ?corroborates Donald
Abbey?s testimony that he attempted to secure Penn State?s backing to reform the
fraternity culture at Beta Theta 

?0 See PSU0000515 (email from Ken Rawley in January 2009 requesting
that the University assist in collaborating in preparing a ?leadership program? for
the fraternity); PSU0000270 (email discussing the University ?drawing up a plan
to help?); PSU000247 (February 2009 email discussing university resources for a
leadership development program).

59

 

without regard for the clear meaning of its contents.141 Mr. Sims reported that
Abbey ?bristled? because the University would not ?lead the charge? in telling the
National Beta Organization ?to shut down the Penn State chapter.? lVIr. Sims
suggestion, however, that a well?regarded and wealthy alumnus who had given
nearly 9 million dollars to his own fraternity might ?lead the charge? with his own
organizationw?instead of the University leading the charge??~ in?no way means that
the University did not care about the result.

The Report similarly mischaracterizes the discussions of University of?cials
to act as an ?interested third party? with respect to the abuses detailed in the

?conduct ?le? and ?continuing violation of [the university?s] alcohol policies.? 142

 

PSUO 000270 (?Don Abbey and three other Betas met last Friday with
Chris Brady, [former dean of the University?s Schreyer Honors College] three
members of my staff, and me to discuss next steps toward Don?s vision for the
Beta chapter. Their effort to remove the offending parties among the undergraduate
actives living in the house has failed simply because they lack authority to do more
than take their rooms away. . .For that reason, Don Co. plan to clean house with
the help of the national, and they?ve asked us to assist. I, in turn, insisted that
whatever standard we would hold the Beta chapter to would have to be a standard
we could and would apply equally to all other chapters. Don bristled a bit at my
reluctance to lead the charge against the current membership (he had suggested
that the University go to the national to tell them to shut down the PSU Chapter),
but eventually seemed to agree to a modi?ed, but still collaborative approach?).

142 See Report at 42-43 (?Emails obtained from Penn State via subpoena
reveal that although Penn State administrators understood alcohol abuse existed in
the Beta house, the University considered itself only an interested third party,
adopting a policy of detachment rather than expressing any concern over the
potential danger posed by these ?continuing violations of alcohol policies,

60

 

Though the Report acknowledges (as it must) that the ?Grand Jury recognizes
and respects that Penn State maintained a position of ?neutrality? between the
warring Beta Theta Pi factions over the eviction proceedings,?143 the Report
nevertheless draws unsupportable conclusions about the extent and the nature of
the University?s ?neutrality.? It draws those unsupportable conclusions from the
inaccurate assumptions about the University?s knowledge of the activities at Beta,
and an alleged apathy about misconduct by its members.144 Nothing could be
further from the truth. Documents and testimony available to the Grand Jury and
the Commonwealth make that clear. Emails available to the Grand Jury show
unambiguously that discussions of ?neutrality? had nothing to do with neutrality
about misconduct at Beta, theyoccurred only a?er the disbandment offhe
fraternity, and address solely the role of the University in brewing disputes

(primarily about housing is sues) between the National Beta Organization, the

 

University officials appeared to focus on a desire not to wade into the fray of the
alumni board ?ghting to evict the brothers?).

?3 Report at 71.

144 See Report at 70 (?University officials were remarkably undisturbed by
the complaints regarding alcohol consumption, casually dismissing them to focus
more on the ire of the evicted brothers and their parents?).

61

 

Housing Corporation, and recently disbanded fraternity members and their
parents.?5

Mr. Sims explained this to the Grand Jury in detail. Mr. Sims testi?ed about
the reasons why the University stayed neutral in what the Report correctly

5,

described as the ?warring Beta factions. Mr. Sims explained the complications
and drama from the 2008 dispute between Mr. Abbey, students, parents and others
was about drinking and vandalism at Beta. Although recognizing that there were

?warring factions? and that the University?s ?neutrality? should be ?respected,? the

Grand Jury Report nevertheless (wrongly) equates this ?neutrality? with a

 

?5 See PSU0000229 (2/22/09 Email from Damon Sims to
Rodney Kirsch and Graham Spanier) (?So far, none of the many Beta parents or
alums with whom I?ve spoken has directly connected PSU to this action. I?ve
gently reminded them that the matter involves private parties, private contractual
relationships, and private associations. Our role as an interested third party is clear,
but we?re keeping appropriate distance, PSU0000225- PSU0000226
(2/22/09 Email complaining about alumni conduct in disbanding fraternity and
response thereto ?Although the University is not a party to the private
relationships governing this dispute, we?re certainly an interested
observer. . .Although we are not well-positioned to determine the ultimate outcome,
we remain committed to both the welfare of our students and the ideal of a thriving
and successful fraternity system?); PSU0000201 (2/23/09 Email from Lisa Powers
(Director, Department of Public Information Penn State) to Damon Sims, Roy
Baker, Gail Hurley and Stan Latta re: housing for displaced Beta brothers) (?We
have offered alternative housing to the members of Beta Theta Pi?who are being
kicked out by their landlord?); PSU0000198 From: (2/25/09 Email
about the possibility of eviction of Beta members from house and response thereto)
(?Several students are meeting with Dr. Damon Sims, VP. for Student Affairs on
Friday 2/27 and our Attorney will be taking a tour of the'house and meeting with a
very small group of brothers on this Monday 

62

 

?shocking apathy.? Simply put, there is no evidence cited that either the
University or Mr. Sims was ?neutral? or ?apathetic? on the issue of Beta?s
misconduct.

The Report?s reliance on Mr. Abbey?s recollection that he received only
verbal support from the University to conclude that the University leaders ?tacitly
condoned the culture of excessive drinking at Beta and Penn State at large,?146 is
also entirely inaccurate and without support. Mr. Rawley?s testimony of his
recollection of a conversation at dinner nearly a decade ago cannot legitimately
support the harsh criticisms and conclusions in the Report that the University
marketed itself as a ?party school. 147 Mr. Rawley?s recollection and that
conclusionare wrong. In a contemporaneous 2009 email to Mr. Sims, Mr. Rawley
describes their dinner conversation very differently (relating to alumni

involvement). ?43 That inaccurate recollection might have been readily and easily

 

?46 Report at 14.

147 Report at 5?6 (Mr. Rawley describes meeting Mr. Sims at a restaurant
where Mr. Rawley purports to recall Mr. Sims stating that the University markets
itself as a party school. Based upon this the ?Grand Jury ?nds it appalling that the
University?s marketing would emphasize a fun, party atmosphere ahead of
academics, though the Grand Jury believes the testimony of Mr. Rawley?); see
also Report at 15 (asserts that ?Penn State?s leadership was more concerned with
maintaining the university?s status as a ?party school? to encourage new student
applications, and less concerned, if at all, with the problem of excessive drinking?).

143 See also PSU0000175 (April 23, 2009 email from Ken Rawley to Damon
Sims) (contemporaneously describing the discussion at Zola?s as being about

63

 

refuted from information that could have been made available to the Grand Jury,
had any inquiry been made to support that damning accusation: Mr. Rawley?s
recollection is wholly unsupported by the University?s marketing materials. ?49 The
Report, instead, builds on these inaccuracies in its ?nding that alumni donors?
pressure contributed to this alleged tacit endorsement marketing of a ?party

school.?150 There is simply no evidence to support that ?nding. 1n crediting 

 

alumni involvement, without any reference to the University?s marketing of itself
as a party school. The document describes the ?convo you and 1 had at Zola re:
getting alumni groups together to work on ?xing things?).

149 See Enrollment 2008
youtube. Enrollment 2010
youtube 
Enrollment 2011
youtube 2012
Enrollment 2013
Regional 2013
Enrollment 2014
1 Q3 Enrollment 2015 Behrend:
Enrollment 2016?2017
Kodo Drums 2010
youtube Penn State Lives Here 2014
youtube. Connected for Life 2014
youtube We Are Penn State 2016?
2017 (60 second) //Www. youtube. com/watch9v?n13 2eounCME); We Are
Penn State 2016-2017 (30 second)


15? Report at 52 (?In light of the substantial monetary contributions made by
Greek alumni, the Grand jury would be remiss for not recognizing the in?uence
this factor has on any decision an institution makes about what these donors
value?).

'64

 

Abbey?s ?opinion? on this matter, the Report ignores the testimony of Mr. Sims
and that he had never encountered any such pressure. The only alumni donor
Whose involvement is evidenced in this matter is Mr. Abbey. 151 We cannot help
but note the irony that the University ?s alleged failure to follow Mr. Abbey ?s
directives is the source of criticism that the University kowtows to such alumni
donors at any cost?even the safety of its students. Penn State has never held itself
out as a ?party school,? as described inthe Report. Indeed, from its founding as
one of the Nation?s first two land~grant universities, Penn State has been
committed to the education of purposeful and contributing members of the
community.

Whatever legitimate criticism might be offered that the University could
have independently investigated historical violations learned of after the

disbandment in 2009,152 the Report?s attempt to draw a through-line ?om 2007 to

the death of Timothy Piazza is Without support. The University and its officials

 

151 See PSU0000399 (8/29/08 email exchange between Mr. Sims and
Graham Spanier really appreciate this. Don has told me he intends to be Penn
State's largest donor ever, so this kind of interaction helps. I'll copy Rod Kirsch for
his development reports?).

152 Report at 44 (?the Grand Jury believes that, in the wake of similar
allegations in the future, Penn State must shift to timely investigations of
individual conduct violatiOns if they have any hope of dealing with alcohol abuse
and hazing issues in Greek life head 

65

 

should not be criticized for not doing more during this time period. The National
Beta Organization was doing everything the University might have possibly done
to clean up the issues at the fraternity. When that intervention, disbandment, and
recolonization occurred, nothing the University could have done would have had
more impact.

The National Beta Organization was trying to create a new model fraternity.
The University?s actions might have been different if the local chapter had not
been closed by the National Beta Organization? but it was closed. The National
Beta Organization and Mr. Abbey installed new members according to a new set of
strict standards.153 University Of?cials joined with the National Beta

Organization and Mr. Abbey in supporting the purportedly alcoholwfree ?Men of

 

153 On this point, there exists no basis for criticism that the University?s
contemplated use of the Beta house for honors student events before Mr. Abbey
installed a new group of members. Report at 7 (?reckless in the extreme that Penn
State of?cials refused to help, compelling the fraternity to act alone by shutting
down the local chapter. Instead of helping, the University used the beautifully
renovated, and now vacant Beta house as a venue for honors college speaker
events, purportedly to attract a new pool of pledges for Beta Theta Pi from among
honors college students?). The discussion of using the facility for honors events
occurred after the disbandment. ~Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Abbey sought
assistance from the University in identifying and attracting members that ?t his
vision, attracting honors students would appear to be a positive. In fact, the Report
expressly states that Mr. Abbey ?envisioned? but the University ?resisted a
fraternity ?full of honors students? and instead favored a party environment
conducive to drinking and destruction.? Report at 14. This ?nding of
?recklessness? is Without merit entirely.

66

 

Principle.? There is no evidence whatsoever that the University was aware or
should have been aware that any conduct of the type described in the ?conduct

?le? continued uninterrupted with the reconstituted fraternity.154

 

154 See 5 64 (showing two IF matters involving
Beta, between 2015 and 2017, relating to apparently minor violations of IFC
alcohol rules); 201 7/ 09/ 29/ 
(quoting an anonymous member of the
Beta member describing the image of the Beta fraternity as ?different? to even its
recruits, and that recent changes to the fraternity, included a desire to increase the
fraternity?s social status on a website called ?GreekRank? in the fall of 2016).

67

 

CONCLUSION

Alcohol abuse and hazing, the governance of private fraternities, and the
relationship between law enforcement and the internal disciplinary process
confront academic institutions across the country. They are deep rooted and
pervasive in our society. There are no easy answers.155 We welcome thoughtful
advice and constructive suggestions.156 The University is prepared to be a leader,
but not a scapegoat.157

Despite this, the University will continue to do whatever it can to help
address these problems confronting academic institutions nationwide. As parents,
we each acknowledge the unimaginable heartbreak of losing a child. University
leaders commit to the family of Timothy Piazza to honor his life by never

forgetting the tragedy of his death. The University pledges to continue to educate,

 

155 Simply asserting that the University has ultimate authority does not make
it so. See Report at 79?80. The University can improve, but it has not abj ectly
failed (morally or otherwise). Nor can it be held to have a legal responsibility for
all fraternity members? activities.

156 Report at 69?70 (?just as internal enforcement measures, such as the IFC
and the University disciplinary processes, have clearly failed to inspire adequate
deterrence for the dangerous activity of hazing, current criminal law has likewise
proven to be wholly deficient?).

157 ?The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions,?
Dwight D. Eisenhower.

68

 

investigate, and vigorously discipline its students to do our best to prevent another

tragic loss caused by the scourge of alcohol abuse.

Dated: November 2017

Respectfully submitted,

DUANE MORRIS LLP

69

Daniel R. Walworth (PA 204968)
E?mail: dwalworth@duanemorris.com
30 South 17th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103?4196
Telephone: +1 215 979 1000
Fax:+1215 9791020

Attorneys for he State
University

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Daniel R. Walworth, certify that today, November g0 2017, I caused a

true and correct copy of the foregoing State University?s Response,
Pursuant to 42 45 52(e), to the Grand Jury Report, to be served upon the
following counsel by electronic and overnight delivery:

Stacy Parks Miller
District Attorney
Commonwealth of 
Of?ce of the District Attorney
102 S. Allegheny St.
Courthouse, Room 404
Bellefonte, PA 16823



Daniel R. Walworth (PA 204968)

70