Report of the Special Investigative Counsel  Regarding the Actions of The  Pennsylvania State University Related to  the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by  Gerald A. Sandusky                    Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP  July 12, 2012            TABLE OF CONTENTS  Scope of Review and Methodology ..........................................................................................8  Independence of the Investigation .........................................................................................11  Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................13   Findings   Recommendations  for  University  Governance,  Administration,  and  the  Protection  of  Children  in  University  Facilities  and  Programs  Timeline of Significant Events ................................................................................................19  Chapter  1:    The  Pennsylvania  State  University  –  Governance  and  Administration ...........................................................................................................................31  I. Key Leadership Positions  A.  President  B.  Executive Vice President and Provost (“EVP‐ Provost”)  C.  Senior Vice President ‐ Finance and Business (“SVP‐ FB”)  D.  II. General Counsel  Principal Administrative Areas  A.  University Police and Public Safety (“University  Police Department”)  B.  Office of Human Resources (“OHR”)  C.  Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (“Athletic  Department”)  D.  III. Outreach  Administrative Controls  A.  Policies and Procedures  B.  Oversight and Internal Controls     ii Chapter 2:  Response of University Officials to the Allegation of Child  Sexual Abuse Against Sandusky – 1998 ................................................................................39  I. Sandusky’s Association with Penn State  A.  II. III. Sandusky’s Criminal Activity 1995‐1998  Events of May 3, 1998 at the Lasch Building  Investigation of Sandusky ‐ 1998  A. May 4 – 6, 1998: Police Report, Initial Investigation  and Psychological Evaluation of the Victim   B. May 7 – 9, 1998: A Second Evaluation of the Victim   C. May 12 ‐ 19, 1998: Police Overhear Sandusky Admit  to Showering with the Victim   D. Late May 1998: District Attorney’s Decision to Not  Prosecute Sandusky  E. IV. June 1, 1998: University Police Speak with Sandusky  Involvement of University Officials in the Sandusky  Investigation  A. May 4 – 30, 1998:  Notifications and Updates to  Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley  B. June 1 – 10, 1998:  Report to University Officials on  Sandusky Interview and Case Closure    C. 2011 Grand Jury Testimony of Spanier, Schultz,  Paterno and Curley  D. University Officials Do Not Notify the Board of the  Sandusky Investigation  E. Sandusky’s Criminal Activity 1998 – 2001    Chapter 3:  Sandusky’s Retirement from the University – 1999 .......................................55  I. II. III.   Sandusky’s Decision to Retire  Negotiating the Agreement  Sandusky’s Retirement Agreement  Chapter 4:  Response of University Officials to the Allegation of Child  Sexual Abuse Against Sandusky – 2001 ................................................................................62  iii I. II. III. Janitors’ Observations of Sandusky – 2000  McQueary’s Observations of Sandusky – 2001  University Leaders’ Response to McQueary’s Observations  A. February 11, 2001: Paterno Reports Sandusky  Incident to Schultz and Curley  B.  February 11, 2001:  Schultz Discusses “Reporting of  Suspected Child Abuse” with University’s Outside  Legal Counsel  C.  February 12, 2001:  Initial Response of Spanier,  Schultz and Curley to Sandusky Incident  D.  Schultz and Curley Meet with McQueary – February  2001  E.  February 25, 2001:  Spanier, Schultz and Curley Meet  Again to Discuss Sandusky Incident  F.  February 27, 2001:  Curley Proposes Revised  Response to the Sandusky Incident IV. V. Curley Meets with Sandusky – March 1998  March 19, 2001:  Curley Meets with Second Mile  Leadership  VI. University Officials Do Not Notify the Board of the  Sandusky Incident  VII. Sandusky’s Criminal Activity After 2001    Chapter  5:    Response  of  University  Officials  to  the  Grand  Jury  Investigation – 2010, 2011 .........................................................................................................80  I. Subpoenas Issued for the Grand Jury Testimony of Senior  University Officials  A. II. Law Enforcement Interviews of University Personnel  Patriot‐News Article Reveals Sandusky Investigation –  March 2011  III. Board of Trustees Meeting – May 2011  iv IV. University Response to the Presentment and Criminal  Charges Against Sandusky, Schultz and Curley – October  and November 2011  A. Baldwin, Spanier and Garban Learn of Presentment  and Criminal Charges – October and November 2011  B. Board of Trustees Conference Call – November 5,  2011  C. Board of Trustees Meeting – November 6, 2011  D. Board of Trustees Conference Call – November 8,  2011  E. Board of Trustees Meeting – November 9, 2011    Chapter 6:  Board of Trustees ...................................................................................................97  I. II. Board Structure and Responsibilities  The Board’s Duty of Oversight and Reasonable Inquiry  A. The Board’s Failure of Oversight and Reasonable  Inquiry in 1998 and 2001  B. The Board’s Failure of Reasonable Inquiry in 2011  Chapter 7:  Sandusky’s Post‐Retirement Interactions with the University ..................103  I. Sandusky’s Ongoing Contacts with the University  A. Sandusky’s Continued Access to University Facilities  B.  Sandusky’s Continued Access to the Nittany Lion  Club at Beaver Stadium  C.  Sandusky’s Football Camps at University Campuses  D.  Sandusky’s Continued Business Dealings with the  University  E.  Failure to Prohibit Sandusky’s Access to University  Facilities  II. Sandusky’s  Post‐Retirement  Involvement  in  Second  Mile  Activities  A.  Penn State and the Second Mile Organization  B.  “Collaborative Relationship” between Penn State and  Second Mile  v C.  Second Mile Camps on Penn State Campuses Chapter  8:    Federal  and  State  Child  Sexual  Abuse  Reporting  Requirements ............................................................................................................................110  I. II. III. The Federal “Clery Act”  A. Campus Security Authorities (“CSAs”)  B.  Collecting Crime Statistics  C.  Issuance of Timely Warnings  D.  Preparation of an Annual Safety Report The University’s Failure to Implement the Clery Act  Pennsylvania Child Sexual Abuse Reporting  Requirements  IV. Implications of the University’s Failure to Report  Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse  V. Improvements in Clery Act Compliance Since November  2011    Chapter  9:    The  Protection  of  Children  in  University  Facilities  and  Programs ....................................................................................................................................120  I. University  Policies  for  the  Protection  of  Non‐Student  Minors  AD  39, Minors Involved in University-Sponsored Programs or Programs held at the University and/or Housed in University Facilities  HR 99, Background Check Process  A. B. II. Implementation of the University’s Child Protection  Policies  III. Use of University Facilities by Third Parties for Youth  Programs    Chapter  10:    Recommendations  for  University  Governance,  Administration,  and  the  Protection  of  Children  in  University  Facilities  and Programs ............................................................................................................................127  1.0  Penn State Culture  vi 2.0  Administration and General Counsel: Structure,  Policies and Procedures  3.0  Board of Trustees:  Responsibilities and Operations  4.0  Compliance: Risk and Reporting Misconduct   5.0  Athletic Department: Integration and Compliance  6.0  University Police Department: Oversight, Policies and  Procedures  7.0  Management of University Programs for Children  and Access to University Facilities  8.0  Monitoring Change and Measuring Improvement Appendices   Appendix A – Exhibits   Appendix  B  –  Pennsylvania  State  University  Policies:    AD  67,  AD 72, HR 99        vii SCOPE OF REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY  Freeh  Sporkin  &  Sullivan  LLP,  (“FSS”),  was  engaged  by  the  Special  Investigations  Task  Force  (“Task  Force”)  on  behalf  of  The  Pennsylvania  State  University’s Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”)a as Special Investigative Counsel  on November 21, 2011.  As Special Investigative Counsel, FSS was asked to perform an  independent, full and complete investigation of:   The alleged failure of Pennsylvania State University personnel to respond to,  and  report  to  the  appropriate  authorities,  the  sexual  abuse  of  children  by  former University football coach Gerald A. Sandusky (“Sandusky”);    The  circumstances  under  which  such  abuse  could  occur  in  University  facilities or under the auspices of University programs for youth.  In  addition,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  was  asked  to  provide  recommendations  regarding  University  governance,  oversight,  and  administrative  policies  and  procedures  that  will  better  enable  the  University  to  prevent  and  more  effectively respond to incidents of sexual abuse of minors in the future.   To  achieve  these  objectives  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  developed  and  implemented an investigative plan to:   Identify  individuals  associated  with  the  University  at  any  level  or  in  any  office, who knew, or should have known, of the incidents of sexual abuse of  children committed by Sandusky, the substance of their knowledge, and the  point at which they obtained that knowledge;   Examine  how  these  incidents  became  known  to,  and  were  handled  by,  University  Trustees,  staff,  faculty,  administrators,  coaches  or  others,  with   The  members  of  the  Special  Investigations  Task  Force  are:  Chairman,  Kenneth  C.  Frazier,    Chief  Executive Officer and President, Merck & Co., Inc.; Vice Chairman, Ronald J. Tomalis,  Secretary of the  Pennsylvania Department of Education; H. Jesse Arnelle, Attorney; Guion S. Bluford, Jr., Ph.D., Colonel,  United States Air Force (retired); Mark H. Dambly, President, Pennrose Properties, LLC; Keith W. Eckel,  Sole Proprietor and President, Fred W. Eckel & Sons Farms, Inc.; Daniel R. Hagen, Ph.D., Immediate Past‐ Chair,  The  Pennsylvania  State  University  Faculty  Senate,  Professor,  College  of  Agricultural  Sciences;  Rodney  P.  Hughes,  Doctoral  Student,  The  Pennsylvania  State  University;  Karen  B.  Peetz,  Chairman,  Board  of  Trustees,  The  Pennsylvania  State  University,  Vice  Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Financial Markets and Treasury Services, Bank of New York Mellon. a 8 particular regard to institutional governance, decision making, oversight and  culture.   Identify  any  failures  and  their  causes  on  the  part  of  individuals  associated  with  the  University  at  any  level  or  in  any  office,  or  gaps  in  administrative  processes that precluded the timely and accurate reporting of, or response to,  reports of these incidents.  The Special Investigative Counsel implemented the investigative plan by:   Conducting  over  430  interviews  of  key  University  personnel  and  other  knowledgeable  individuals  to  include:  current  and  former  University  Trustees  and  Emeritus  Trustees;  current  and  former  University  administrators,  faculty,  and  staff,  including  coaches;  former  University  student‐athletes; law enforcement officials; and members of the State College  community at the University Park, Behrend, Altoona, Harrisburg and Wilkes‐ Barre campuses, and at other locations in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York,  Maryland and the District of Columbia, and by telephone;   Analyzing over 3.5 million pieces of pertinent electronic data and documents;   Reviewing  applicable  University  policies,  guidelines,  practices  and  procedures;   Establishing  a  toll‐free  hotline  and  dedicated  email  address  to  receive  information  relevant  to  the  investigation,  and  reviewing  the  information  provided  from  telephone  calls  and  emails  received  between  November  21,  2011 and July 1, 2012;   Cooperating  with  law  enforcement,  government  and  non‐profit  agencies,  including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),  and athletic program governing bodies;   Benchmarking  applicable  University  policies,  practices  and  procedures  against those of other large, public and private universities and youth‐serving  organizations; and   Providing  interim  recommendations  to  the  Board  in  January  2012  for  the  immediate protection of children.  The information in this report was gathered under the applicable attorney‐client  privilege  and  attorney  work  product  doctrine,  and  with  due  regard  for  the  privacy  of  the  interviewees  and  the  documents  reviewed.    All  materials  were  handled  and  9 maintained  in  a  secure  and  confidential  manner.    This  report  sets  forth  the  essential  findings of the investigation, pursuant to the appropriate waiver of the attorney‐client  privilege by the Board.    Citations in this report have been redacted to protect the identity of people who  spoke  with  the  Special  Investigative  Council.    Citations  also  include  references  to  the  internal database maintained by the Special Investigative Council to collect and analyze  documents and emails.   The references include citation to a unique identifying number  assigned  to  each  individual  piece  of  information  and  are  located  in  the  endnotes  and  footnotes of this report.      10 INDEPENDENCE OF THE INVESTIGATION  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel’s  mandate  was  made  clear  in  the  public  statement  of  Trustee  Kenneth  C.  Frazier  announcing  this  investigation.    “No  one  is  above scrutiny,” Frazier said.  “[Freeh] has complete rein to follow any lead, to look into  every corner of the University to get to the bottom of what happened and then to make  recommendations that ensure that it never happens again.”  Frazier assured the Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  the  investigation  would  be  expected  to  operate  with  complete independence and would be empowered to investigate University staff, senior  administrators, and the Board of Trustees.  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  operated  with  total  independence  as  it  conducted  this  investigation.    Its  diverse  membership  included  men  and  women  with  extensive  legal,  law  enforcement  and  child  protection  backgrounds  who  were  experienced in conducting independent, complex and unbiased investigations.  None of  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel’s  attorneys  or  investigators  attended  The  Pennsylvania State University or had any past or present professional relationship with  the University.  The Special Investigative Counsel maintained a secure workspace that  was  separate  from  all  other  University  offices  and  classrooms.    The  workspace  was  accessible  to  the  public  only  when  accompanied  by  a  member  of  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  team.    The  Special  Investigative  Counsel’s  computer  systems  were not connected to the University’s network.  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  had  unfettered  access  to  University  staff,  as  well as to data and documents maintained throughout the University.  The University  staff  provided  a  large  volume  of  raw  data  from  computer  systems,  individual  computers and communications devices.  The Special Investigative Counsel performed  the  forensic  analysis  and  review  of  this  raw  data  independent  of  the  University  staff.   From  this  review  and  analysis,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  discovered  the  most  important documents in this investigation – emails among former President Graham B.  Spanier,  former  Senior  Vice  President‐Finance  and  Business  Gary  C.  Schultz  and  Athletic  Director  Timothy  M.  Curley  from  1998  and  2001  ‐  relating  to  Sandusky’s  crimes.  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  immediately  provided  these  documents  to  law enforcement when they were discovered.  11 The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  interviewed  a  cross‐section  of  individuals  including  current  and  former  University  faculty  and  staff  members,  Trustees,  and  student‐athletes.  The interviews covered a wide range of academic, administrative and  athletic  topics  relating  to  Sandusky’s  crimes  and  the  allegations  against  Schultz  and  Curley;  as  well  as  the  governance  and  oversight  function  of  the  University’s  administrators  and  Board  of  Trustees.    The  temporal  scope  of  the  interviews  ranged  from the late 1960s, when Sandusky first attended the University, to the present.  The  witnesses  interviewed  in  this  investigation,  with  few  exceptions,  were  cooperative and forthright.  Very few individuals declined to be interviewed, including  some who declined on the advice of counsel (i.e., Sandusky, Schultz, Curley and former  University outside legal counsel Wendell Courtney).  At the request of the Pennsylvania  Attorney  General,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  did  not  interview  former  Pennsylvania  State  University  Director  of  Public  Safety  Thomas  Harmon  or  former  coach  Michael  McQueary,  among  others.    Although  the  information  these  individuals  could  have  provided  would  have  been  pertinent  to  the  investigation,  the  findings  contained in this report represent a fair, objective and comprehensive analysis of facts.   Moreover, the extensive contemporaneous documentation that the Special Investigative  Counsel  collected  provided  important  insights,  even  into  the  actions  of  those  who  declined to be interviewed.  No  party  interfered  with,  or  attempted  to  influence,  the  findings  in  this  report.   The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  revealed  this  report  and  the  findings  herein  to  the  Board  of  Trustees  and  the  general  public  at  the  same  time.    No  advance  copy  was  provided  to  the  Board  or  to  any  other  person  outside  of  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel’s team, and the work product was not shared with anyone who was not part of  the Special Investigative Counsel’s team.       12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  On  November  4,  2011  the  Attorney  General  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  (“Attorney  General”)  filed  criminal  charges  against  Gerald  A.  Sandusky  (“Sandusky”)  that  included  multiple  counts  of  involuntary  deviate  sexual  intercourse,  aggravated  indecent  assault,  corruption  of  minors,  unlawful  contact  with  minors  and  endangering the welfare of minors.  Several of the offenses occurred between 1998 and  2002,  during  which  time  Sandusky  was  either  the  Defensive  Coordinator  for  The  Pennsylvania  State  University  (“Penn  State”  or  “University”)  football  team  or  a  Penn  State  professor  Emeritus  with  unrestricted  access  to  the  University’s  football  facilities.   On  November  4,  2011,  the  Attorney  General  filed  criminal  charges  against  the  University’s  Athletic  Director  (“AD”)  Timothy  M.  Curley  (“Curley”)  and  Senior  Vice  President  Finance  and  Business  (“SVP‐FB”),  Gary  C.  Schultz  (“Schultz”)  for  failing  to  report  allegations  of  child  abuse  against  Sandusky  to  law  enforcement  or  child  protection authorities in 2002b and for committing perjury during their testimony about  the allegations to the Grand Jury in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in January 2011.  On  June  22,  2012,  a  Centre  County  jury  in  Bellefonte,  Pennsylvania  found  Sandusky guilty of 45 counts of the criminal charges against him.  As of the date of this  report, the charges against Curley and Schultz have not been heard by the court.  The  criminal  charges  filed  against  these  highly  respected  University  and  community leaders are unprecedented in the history of the University.  Several senior  University  leaders  who  had  knowledge  of  the  allegations  did  not  prepare  for  the  possibility  that  these  criminal  charges  would  be  filed.    In  the  days  and  weeks  surrounding  the  announcement  of  the  charges,  University  leaders  (referred  to  on  campus as “Old Main”) and the University’s Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”),  struggled  to  decide  what  actions  the  University  should  take  and  how  to  be  appropriately transparent about their actions.  The high degree of interest exhibited by  members of the University community, alumni, the public and the national media put  additional pressure on these leaders to act quickly.  On  November  11,  2011,  the  Trustees  formed  the  “Special  Investigations  Task  Force (“Task Force”) of the Board of Trustees of The Pennsylvania State University” and   This date was later determined by the Special Investigative Counsel to be 2001.   b 13 selected  Trustees  Kenneth  C.  Frazier  and  Ronald  J.  Tomalis  to  lead  its  efforts.    On  November 21, 2011 the Task Force engaged  the  law firm  of Freeh Sporkin &  Sullivan,  LLP  (“FSS”)  as  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  to  conduct  an  investigation  into  the  circumstances surrounding the criminal charges of sexual abuse of minors in or on Penn  State facilities by Sandusky; the circumstances leading to the criminal charges of failure  to  report  possible  incidents  of  sexual  abuse  of  minors;  and  the  response  of  University  administrators and staff to the allegations and subsequent Grand Jury investigations of  Sandusky.    In  addition,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  was  asked  to  provide  recommendations  regarding  University  governance,  oversight  and  administrative  procedures that will better enable the University to effectively prevent and respond to  incidents of sexual abuse of minors in the future.  The  Pennsylvania  State  University  is  an  outstanding  institution  nationally  renowned  for  its  excellence  in  academics  and  research.    There  is  a  strong  spirit  of  community  support  and  loyalty  among  its  students,  faculty  and  staff.    Therefore  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the  University  community  was  devastated  by  the  events  that  occurred.  FINDINGS  The most saddening finding by the Special Investigative Counsel is the total and  consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare  of  Sandusky’s  child  victims.    As  the  Grand  Jury  similarly  noted  in  its  presentment,1  there was no “attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2, or to protect that child or any  others  from  similar  conduct  except  as  related  to  preventing  its  re‐occurrence  on  University property.”  Four  of  the  most  powerful  people  at  The  Pennsylvania  State  University  –  President  Graham  B.  Spanier,  Senior  Vice  President‐Finance  and  Business  Gary  C.  Schultz,  Athletic  Director  Timothy  M.  Curley  and  Head  Football  Coach  Joseph  V.  Paterno – failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a  decade.    These  men  concealed  Sandusky’s  activities  from  the  Board  of  Trustees,  the  University  community  and  authorities.    They  exhibited  a  striking  lack  of  empathy  for  Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by  not  attempting  to  determine  the  identity  of  the  child  who  Sandusky  assaulted  in  the  Lasch Building in 2001.  Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting  14 Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity, of what McQueary saw  in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.    These individuals, unchecked by  the  Board of Trustees  that did not perform  its  oversight  duties,  empowered  Sandusky  to  attract  potential  victims  to  the  campus  and  football  events  by  allowing  him  to  have  continued,  unrestricted  and  unsupervised  access  to  the  University’s  facilities  and  affiliation  with  the  University’s  prominent  football  program.    Indeed,  that  continued  access  provided  Sandusky  with  the  very  currency  that  enabled  him  to  attract  his  victims.    Some  coaches,  administrators  and  football program staff  members ignored the red  flags of Sandusky’s behaviors and no  one warned the public about him.   By  not  promptly  and  fully  advising  the  Board  of  Trustees  about  the  1998  and  2001  child  sexual  abuse  allegations  against  Sandusky  and  the  subsequent  Grand  Jury  investigation of him, Spanier failed in his duties as President.  The Board also failed in  its  duties  to  oversee  the  President  and  senior  University  officials  in  1998  and  2001  by  not inquiring about important University matters and by not creating an environment  where senior University officials felt accountable.   Once the Board was made aware of the investigations of Sandusky and the fact  that senior University officials had testified before the Grand Jury in the investigations,  it  should  have  recognized  the  potential  risk  to  the  University  community  and  to  the  University’s  reputation.    Instead,  the  Board,  as  a  governing  body,  failed  to  inquire  reasonably  and  to  demand  detailed  information  from  Spanier.    The  Board’s  overconfidence in Spanier’s abilities to deal with the crisis, and its complacent attitude  left  them  unprepared  to  respond  to  the  November  2011  criminal  charges  filed  against  two  senior  Penn  State  leaders  and  a  former  prominent  coach.    Finally,  the  Board’s  subsequent removal of Paterno as head football coach was poorly handled, as were the  Board’s communications with the public.  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  gave  the  following  reasons  for  taking  no  action  to  identify  the  February 9,  2001  child  victim  and  for  not  reporting  Sandusky  to  the authorities:   Through counsel, Curley and Schultz stated that the “humane” thing to do in  2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but  15 troubling  allegations.    According  to  their  counsel,  these  men  were  good  people trying to do their best to make the right decisions.2   Paterno told a reporter that “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was  afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure  was.    So  I  backed  away  and  turned  it  over  to  some  other  people,  people  I  thought would have a little more expertise than I did.  It didn’t work out that  way.”3   Spanier said, in his interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, that he  never heard a report from anyone that Sandusky was engaged in any sexual  abuse  of  children.    He  also  said  that  if  he  had  known  or  suspected  that  Sandusky was abusing children, he would have been the first to intervene.4  Taking  into  account  the  available  witness  statements  and  evidence,  the  Special  Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid  the  consequences  of  bad  publicity,  the  most  powerful  leaders  at  the  University  –  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  –  repeatedly  concealed  critical  facts  relating  to  Sandusky’s  child  abuse  from  the  authorities,  the  University’s  Board  of  Trustees,  the  Penn State community, and the public at large.  The  avoidance  of  the  consequences  of  bad  publicity  is  the  most  significant,  but  not the only, cause for this failure to protect child victims and report to authorities.  The  investigation also revealed:   A striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders  of the University.   A failure by the Board to exercise its oversight functions in 1998 and 2001 by  not  having  regular  reporting  procedures  or  committee  structures  in  place  to  ensure disclosure to the Board of major risks to the University.   A failure by the Board to make reasonable inquiry in 2011 by not demanding  details from Spanier and the General Counsel about the nature and direction  of  the  grand  jury  investigation  and  the  University’s  response  to  the  investigation.   A President who discouraged discussion and dissent.   A  lack  of  awareness  of  child  abuse  issues,  the  Clery  Act,  and  whistleblower  policies and protections.  16  A  decision  by  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  to  allow  Sandusky  to  retire in  1999, not as  a suspected child  predator, but as a valued  member of  the Penn State football legacy, with future “visibility” at Penn State and ways  “to  continue  to  work  with  young  people  through  Penn  State,”  essentially  granting  him  license  to  bring  boys  to  campus  facilities  for  “grooming”  as  targets  for  his  assaults.    Sandusky  retained  unlimited  access  to  University  facilities until November 2011.   A  football  program  that  did  not  fully  participate  in,  or  opted  out,  of  some  University  programs,  including  Clery  Act  compliance.  Like  the  rest  of  the  University, the football program staff had not been trained in their Clery Act  responsibilities and most had never heard of the Clery Act.   A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels  of the campus community.  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE,  ADMINISTRATION, AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN  UNIVERSITY FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS  From the results of interviews with representatives of the University’s Office of  Human Resources, Office of Internal Audit, Office of Risk Management, Intercollegiate  Athletics, Commonwealth Campuses, Outreach, the President’s Council, Faculty Senate  representatives and the Board of Trustees, and benchmarking similar practices at other  large  universities,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  developed  120  recommendations  for  consideration  by  University  administrators  and  the  Board  in  the  following  eight  areas:   The Penn State Culture   Administration and General Counsel:  Structure, Policies and Procedures   Board of Trustees:  Responsibilities and Operations   Compliance: Risk and Reporting Misconduct   Athletic Department: Integration and Compliance   University Police Department: Oversight, Policies and Procedures   Programs for Non‐Student Minors and Access to Facilities   Monitoring Change and Measuring Improvement  17 These  recommendations  are  detailed  in  Chapter  10  of  this  report,  and  include  several  that  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  recommended  to  the  Board  in  January  2012.  The recommendations made at that time were designed to assist the University in  preparing for its upcoming summer programs for children.  These  steps  should  assist  the  University  in  improving  structures,  policies  and  procedures  that  are  related  to  the  protection  of  children.    Some  of  these  recommendations  will  help  the  University  more  fully  comply  with  federal  and  state  laws and regulations dealing with the protection of children.  Other recommendations  support changes in the structure and operations of the Board, or promote enhancements  to  administrative  processes  and  procedures.    Most  importantly,  the  recommendations  should  create  a  safer  environment  for  young  people  who  participate  in  its  programs  and use its facilities.   One of the most challenging of the tasks confronting the Penn State community is  transforming the culture that permitted Sandusky’s behavior, as illustrated throughout  this report, and which directly contributed to the failure of Penn State’s most powerful  leaders to adequately report and respond to the actions of a serial sexual predator.  It is  up to the entire University community – students, faculty, staff, alumni, the Board, and  the  administration  –  to  undertake  a  thorough  and  honest  review  of  its  culture.    The  current  administration  and  Board  of  Trustees  should  task  the  University  community,  including  students,  faculty,  staff,  alumni,  and  peers  from  similar  institutions  and  outside experts in ethics and communications, to conduct such a review.  The findings  from such a review may well demand further changes.      18 TIMELINE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS   Sandusky joins the Penn State football coaching staff.   After learning that Paterno has told Sandusky that he would not become the  next  head  football  coach,  Curley  begins  discussions  with  Sandusky  about  other  positions  at  the  University,  including  an  Assistant  AD  position  that  Sandusky  turns  down.    Curley  keeps  Spanier  and  Schultz  informed  by  email.  1969       February   1998            May 3,   1998   Sandusky assaults Victim 6c in Lasch Building shower.          The young boys victimized by Sandusky are designated in this report in the same manner as the Grand  Jury presentment.    c 19 May 4‐30,   1998   Victim  6’s  mother  reports  to  the  University  Police  Department  that  Sandusky showered with her 11‐year old son in the Lasch Building on Penn  State campus.  The police promptly begin an investigation.   Schultz  is  immediately  informed  of  the  investigation  and  notifies  Spanier  and Curley.  Schultz’s confidential May 4, 1998 notes about Sandusky state:   “Behavior  –  at  best  inappropriate  @  worst  sexual  improprieties”  and  “At  min  –  Poor  Judgment.”    Schultz  also  notes:  “Is  this  opening  of  pandora’s  box?” and “Other children?”   University Police Department Chief Harmon emails Schultz:  “Weʹre going  to hold off on making any crime log entry.  At this point in time I can justify  that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime.”   Curley notifies Schultz and Spanier that he has “touched base with” Paterno  about  the  incident.    Days  later,  Curley  emails  Schultz:    “Anything  new  in  this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”   Board meeting on May 15: Spanier does not notify the Board of the ongoing  investigation.       June   1998     District Attorney declines to bring charges against Sandusky.   University  Police  detective  and  Department  of  Public  Welfare  caseworker  interview  Sandusky  in  Lasch  Building  so  as  not  to  put  Sandusky  “on  the  defensive.” Sandusky admits hugging Victim 6 in the shower but says there  was  nothing  “sexual  about  it.”    The  detective  advised  Sandusky  not  to  shower with any child.  Sandusky stated he “wouldn’t.”     Harmon  emails  Schultz:    officers  “met  discreetly”  with  Sandusky  and  “his  account  of  the  matter  was  essentially  the  same  as  the  child’s.”    Sandusky  said  “he  had  done  this  with  other  children  in  the  past.    Sandusky  was  advised that there was no criminal behavior established and that the matter  was closed as an investigation.”   Schultz  emails  Curley  and  Spanier:  “I  think  the  matter  has  been  appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind us.”         20 January   1999   Curley emails Spanier and Schultz:  Sandusky wants to coach one more year  and then transition to an outreach program.       May‐August   1999     Sandusky writes a letter to Curley saying, because he will not be next head  football  coach,  he  is  considering  retirement.    Sandusky  also  seeks  “to  maintain a long‐term relationship with the University.”   Curley  emails  Spanier  and  Schultz,  discussing  Sandusky’s  retirement  options:  “Joe did give him the option to continue to coach as long as he was  the  coach.”    Suggests  possibility  of  Sandusky  “coaching  three  more  seasons.”   Sandusky  proposes  continuing  connection  with  Penn  State,  including  running  a  middle  school  youth  football  camp  and  finding  “ways  for  [Sandusky]  to  continue  to  work  with  young  people  through  Penn  State.”  Paterno  handwriting  on  the  note  states:    “Volunteer  Position  Director  –  Positive Action for Youth.”   A  retirement  agreement  with  Sandusky  is  reached  in  June  1999,  including  an unusual lump sum payment of $168,000, an agreement for the University  to  “work  collaboratively”  with  Sandusky  on  Second  Mile  and  other  community  activities,  and  free  lifetime  use  of  East  Area  Locker  Room  facilities.   As the retirement package is being finalized, Curley requests the emergency  re‐hire of Sandusky for the 1999 football season, which is approved.   In August 1999, Sandusky is granted “emeritus” rank, which carries several  privileges, including access to University recreational facilities.  Documents  show  the  unusual  request  for  emeritus  rank  originated  from  Schultz,  was  approved  by  Spanier,  and  granted  by  the  Provost,  who  expressed  some  uneasiness about the decision given Sandusky’s low academic rank and the  precedent that would be set.         21 December   1999   Sandusky brings Victim 4 to 1999 Alamo Bowl in Texas.   Sandusky assaults Victim 4 at team hotel.       November   2000     Sandusky assaults Victim 8 in Lasch Building shower.   Janitor observes assault by Sandusky, but does not report the assault for fear  that  “they’ll  get  rid  of  all  of  us.”    Another  janitor  concludes  that  the  University will close ranks to protect the football program.       February 9,   2001     Sandusky assaults Victim 2 in Lasch Building Shower.   McQueary witnesses the assault by Sandusky.         22 February 10‐12, 2001   McQueary reports the assault to Paterno on Saturday, February 10; Paterno  tells McQueary, “you did what you had to do.  It’s my job now to figure out  what we want to do.”   Paterno reports the incident to Curley and Schultz on Sunday, February 11  as Paterno did not “want to interfere with their weekends.”   On  Sunday,  February  11,  Schultz  consults  with  University  outside  counsel  Wendell Courtney “re reporting of suspected child abuse.”   On  Monday,  Spanier,  Schultz  and  Curley  meet  to  discuss  a  situation  that  Spanier  describes  as  “unique”,  and  a  “heads‐up”  meeting;  Schultz’s  confidential  notes  indicate  he  spoke  to  Curley,  reviewed  the  history  of  the  1998  incident,  and  agreed  that  Curley  would  discuss  the  incident  with  Paterno  and  recommend  that  Curley  meet  with  Sandusky.    Schultz  notes  state:  “Unless he confesses to having a problem, [Curley] will indicate we  need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned  w child welfare.”   Schultz asks University Police Department Chief Harmon if the report of the  1998 incident is in police files; Harmon responds that it is.         February 25‐26,  2001   Spanier,  Schultz  and  Curley  meet  and  devise  an  action  plan,  reflected  in  Schultz’s notes: “3) Tell chair* of Board of Second Mile 2) Report to Dept of  Welfare.  1) Tell JS [Sandusky] to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch  Bldg *who’s the chair??” The plan is confirmed in a subsequent email from  Schultz to Curley.    23 February 27‐28, 2001   Curley  emails  Schultz  and  Spanier  and  says  he  [Curley]  has  changed  his  mind about the plan “after giving it more thought and talking it over with  Joe  [Paterno]  yesterday.”  Curley  now  proposes  to  tell  Sandusky  “we  feel  there is a problem” and offer him “professional help.”  “If he is cooperative  we  would  work  with  him  to  handle  informing”  the  Second  Mile;  if  Sandusky  does  not  cooperate,  “we  don’t  have  a  choice  and  will  inform”  DPW  and  the  Second  Mile.    “Additionally,  I  will  let  him  know  that  his  guests are not permitted to use our facilities.”   Spanier  emails  Curley  and  Schultz:    “This  approach  is  acceptable  to  me.”   He adds:  “The only downside for us is if the message isnʹt ‘heard’ and acted  upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.  But that  can be assessed down the road.  The approach you outline is humane and a  reasonable way to proceed.”   Schultz concurs with the plan in an email to Curley and Spanier:  “this is a  more humane and upfront way to handle this.” Schultz adds, “we can play  it by ear” about informing DPW of the assault.         March 5, 2001       Scheduled  date  of  meeting  between  Curley  and  Sandusky.    In  his  2011  Grand  Jury  testimony,  Curley  said  he  told  Sandusky  “we  were  uncomfortable” about the incident and would report it to the Second Mile.   Curley says he also told Sandusky to stop bringing children to the athletic  facilities.    Sandusky’s  counsel  later  reports  that  no  accusation  of  sexual  abuse  was  made  at  this  meeting  and  that  Sandusky  offered  to  provide  the  name of the boy to Curley, but Curley did not want the boy’s name.      March  16,  2001   Board of Trustees meeting: Spanier does not report the Sandusky incident to  the Board.         March  19, 2001   Curley meets with the executive director of the Second Mile and “shared the  information we had with him.”  The Second Mile leadership concludes the  matter is a “non‐incident,” and takes no further action.    24      July 24,  2001   Schultz  leads  a  transaction  to  sell  a  parcel  of  University  property  to  The  Second  Mile  for  $168,500  –  the  same  as  the  University’s  1999  acquisition  cost.         August  2001   Sandusky assaults Victim 5 in Lasch Building shower.         September  21, 2001   Board  of  Trustees  meeting:  Board  approves  land  sale  to  The  Second  Mile;  neither Spanier nor Schultz disclose any issue concerning Sandusky.         January 7,  2010   The University receives subpoenas from the Pennsylvania Attorney General  for personnel records and correspondence regarding Sandusky.         September  16, 2010   Patriot‐News  reporter  contacts  Spanier;  the  two  exchange  emails  as  to  Spanier’s knowledge of an investigation of Sandusky for suspected criminal  activity while he was a Penn State employee.         25 December 28, 2010 ‐ January 11, 2011   Then‐Penn State  General  Counsel  Cynthia  Baldwin  speaks  to  the  Attorney  General’s Office staff about Grand Jury subpoenas for Schultz, Paterno and  Curley; alerts Spanier of subpoenas; meets with Schultz, Paterno and Curley  to  discuss  Sandusky;  and  calls  former  University  outside  counsel  Wendell  Courtney about his knowledge of Sandusky.   Courtney  emails  Schultz:  Baldwin  “called  me  today  to  ask  what  I  remembered  about  JS  issue  I  spoke  with  you  and  Tim  about  circa  eight  years  ago.    I  told  her  what  I  remembered.    She  did  not  offer  why  she  was  asking,  nor  did  I  ask  her.    Nor  did  I  disclose  that  you  and  I  chatted  about  this.”   Courtney  emails  Baldwin  that  “someone  …  contacted  Children  and  Youth  Services  to  advise  of  the  situation  so  that  they  could  do  whatever  they  thought was appropriate under the circumstances, while being apprised of  what  PSU  actions  were,  i.e.,  advising  JS  to  no  longer  bring  kids  to  PSUʹs  football locker rooms.”         January  12, 2011   Schultz, Paterno and Curley testify before the Grand Jury.         March  31,  2011   Patriot‐News publishes article on Sandusky investigation.         April 1, 2011   A  Trustee  emails  Spanier,  asking  if  the  Board  will  be  briefed  about  the  Sandusky  investigation  reported  in  the  paper.    Spanier  tells  the  Trustee:  “Grand  Jury  matters  are  by  law  secret,  and  I’m  not  sure  what  one  is  permitted to say, if anything.  I’ll need to ask Cynthia [Baldwin] if it would  be permissible for her to brief the Board on the matter.”         26 April 13, 2011   The  Trustee  emails  Spanier  again:  “despite  grand  jury  secrecy, when  high  ranking  people  at  the  university  are  appearing  before  a grand  jury,  the  university  should  communicate  something  about  this  to  its  Board  of  Trustees.”    Spanier  responds,  downplaying  the  significance  of  the  investigation: “Iʹm not sure it is entirely our place to speak about this when  we  are  only  on  the  periphery  of  this.”    Spanier  asks  Baldwin  to  call  the  Trustee.   Spanier appears before the Grand Jury.     Spanier  separately  emails  Baldwin,  noting  “[the  Trustee]  desires  near  total  transparency.    He  will  be  uncomfortable  and  feel  put  off  until  he  gets  a  report.”         April  17, 2011   Spanier,  Baldwin  and  then  Board  Chair  Garban  have  a  conference  call  to  discuss the Sandusky Grand Jury.         May 12,  2011   Board  of  Trustees  meeting:  Spanier  and  Baldwin  brief  Board  on  status  of  Grand Jury investigation; Spanier and Baldwin downplay importance of the  investigation to Penn State. The Board asks a few limited questions.         July 15,  2011   Board  of  Trustees  meeting:  Spanier  and  Baldwin  do  not  update  the  Board  on the Sandusky investigation.  The Board does not ask about the Sandusky  investigation.         September  9, 2011   Board  of  Trustees  meeting:  Spanier  and  Baldwin  do  not  update  the  Board  on the Sandusky investigation.  The Board does not ask about the Sandusky  investigation.    27    October   27‐28, 2011     Baldwin receives information on upcoming Grand Jury indictment.   Baldwin,  Spanier  and  Curley  meet;  Baldwin  and  Spanier  also  meet  with  Garban.   Spanier,  Baldwin,  Garban  and  staff  draft  press  statement  expressing  “unconditional support” for Schultz and Curley.         October 29,  2011   Sandusky  attends  Penn  State  home  football  game  and  sits  in  Nittany  Lion  Club in Beaver Stadium.       November 4, 2011     Courtney  emails  Schultz  a  newspaper  story  about  the  Sandusky  charges.   Schultz  replies:    “I  was  never  aware  that  ‘Penn  State  police  investigated  inappropriate touching in a shower’ in 1998.”   Criminal  charges  filed  against  Sandusky  in  Centre  County;  Grand  Jury  presentment attached as Exhibit A to criminal complaint.   Criminal  charges  are  filed  against  Schultz  and  Curley  in  Dauphin  County;  Grand Jury presentment attached as Exhibit A to criminal complaint.         28 November 5, 2011     Sandusky is arrested.   Grand  Jury  presentment  released,  noting  there  was  no  “attempt  to  investigate, to  identify Victim  2  or  to  protect  that  child  or  any  others from  similar  conduct,  except  as  related  to  preventing  its  re‐occurrence  on  University property.”   A Trustee asks Spanier, “What is going on, and is there any plan to brief the  Board before our meeting next week?”  Baldwin advises Spanier to tell the  Trustee,  “you  are  briefing  the  chair  and  the  Board  will  be  briefed  next  week.”   Spanier  issues  a  press  release  expressing  “unconditional  support”  for  Schultz  and  Curley;  with  regard  to  child  victims,  Spanier  only  states,  “Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.”   Spanier emails Baldwin:  Spanier says that if the Board is briefed,  “it will be  nothing  more  than  what  we  said  publicly.”    The  Board  meets  on  a  conference call that evening.   A  senior  administrator  suggests  an  independent  review  of  Penn  State’s  intercollegiate  athletics.    Baldwin  replies,  “If  we  do  this,  we  will  never  get  rid of this group in some shape or form.  The Board will then think that they  should have such a group.”  Spanier agrees.         November  6, 2011   Board  of  Trustee  meeting:  Board  places  Curley  on  administrative  leave;  Schultz re‐retires.  Spanier issues a second press release stating that Curley  and Schultz voluntarily changed their employment status.  Board members  disagree  and  express  frustration  at  changed  tone  of  press  release.    Spanier  says he only made “grammatical” edits to the press release.         29 November 7, 2011   Pennsylvania  Attorney  General  and  Pennsylvania  State  Police  Commissioner announce charges against Sandusky, Schultz and Curley at a  press conference.   A  Trustee  writes  to  other  Board  members:    “Unfortunately  the  statement  that  was  issued  last  night,  in  my  opinion,  did  not  reflect  the  sense  of  the  Board.”         November 8,  2011   Board  of  Trustees  conference  call:    Third  press  release  issued,  expressing  “outrage”  at  the  “horrifying  details”  of  the  Grand  Jury  presentment,  and  announcing  the  formation  of  an  investigative  task  force  to  review  issues  relating to the criminal charges.      November 9, 2011     Board  of  Trustees  meeting:  Board  removes  Spanier  as  President;  names  Rodney  Erickson  as  Interim  President  (becomes  permanent  President  on  November 17, 2011); removes Paterno as Head Football Coach.   Board  sends  message  to  Paterno  to  phone  the  Board  Vice  Chair,  who  telephonically  notifies  Paterno  that  he  is  no  longer  Penn  State’s  Head  Football Coach.   Board holds press conference announcing its actions.   Students demonstrate in protest on Penn State campus.        30 CHAPTER 1  THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY –   GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION      KEY FINDINGS   Although  the  University  has  a  central  Human  Resources  department  headed  by  an  Associate Vice President, each school and other large departments (such as Intercollegiate  Athletics) has its own HR staff.  Those individual departments sometimes relaxed or opt  out of the standard rules or procedures in implementing University policies and rules.   The  University’s  administrative  controls  include  over  350  policies  and  related  procedures,  however,  oversight  of  compliance  with  these  policies  is  decentralized  and  uneven.   The  University  has  no  centralized  office,  officer  or  committee  to  oversee  institutional  compliance  with  laws,  regulations,  policies  and  procedures;  certain  departments  monitored their own compliance issues with very limited resources.    The  Department  of  Intercollegiate  Athletics  (“Athletic  Department”),  involving  approximately  800  student‐athletes,  has  an  Associate  Athletic  Director  responsible  for  compliance and was significantly understaffed.    Responsibility  for  Clery  Act  compliance  previously  resided  with  a  sergeant  in  the  University  Police  Department  who  was  only  able  to  devote  minimal  time  to  Clery  Act  compliance.  31 The Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State” or “University”) is one of four  public universities within the Commonwealth System of Higher Education and the only  “land‐grant”  educational  institution  in  Pennsylvania.    In  1989,  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature designated the University as a “state‐related” institution that receives some  state  appropriated  funding,  yet  remains  autonomous  from  the  state’s  direct  control,  maintaining its own Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”).  University Park is the central administrative campus for the University located in  State  College,  Pennsylvania.    The  University  has  19  additional  campuses  located  throughout  the  state,  and  offers  degrees  in  160  majors  and  150  graduate  disciplines.   There  are  76,460  undergraduate  students  and  9,745  graduate  students  that  currently  attend the University.5  The University’s annual operating budget is approximately $4.1  billion6 and its endowment is valued at approximately $1.7 billion.7  The  University’s  President  is  responsible  for  the  academic  and  administrative  functions  of  the  institution,  including  the  University’s  College  of  Medicine. 8    The  academic  program  includes  17  colleges  within  the  undergraduate  and  graduate  programs,  and  six  research  institutes. 9    The  President,  along  with  other  senior  administrators  and  officials,  is  responsible  for  administering  University  policies  and  procedures;  managing  the  endowment;  handling  legal  matters;  and  overseeing  the  operation  of  the  University’s  10  business  units,  including  those  related  to  campus  safety, internal audit, human resources, and facilities.  I. KEY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS  A. President  The  Board  delegates  operations  and  control  of  the  University  to  the  President  and his/her designees.10  As the chief executive officer, the President establishes policies  and  procedures  for  operation  of  the  University  and  reports  to  the  Board  on  a  regular  basis.11  The President also meets regularly with the President’s Council, which consists  of 17 direct reports including the General Counsel, the Director of the Board of Trustees,  and  the  Senior  Vice  President  ‐  Finance  and  Business. 12    Graham  B.  Spanier  was  President from September 1, 1995 to November 9, 2011.  Rodney A. Erickson, appointed  on November 9, 2011,13 is the current President.  32     B. Executive Vice President and Provost (“EVP‐Provost”)  The Executive Vice President and Provost serves as chief executive officer in the  President’s  absence  and  is  involved  in  nearly  all  operations  of  the  University.    The  Provost  also  is  the  University’s  chief  academic  officer,  responsible  for  the  academic  administration of the University’s academic units (colleges, schools and campuses) and  research, as well as the general welfare of the faculty and students.14  The EVP‐Provost  is a member of the President’s Council.  Rodney A. Erickson was EVP‐Provost from July  1,  1999  until  November  9,  2011.15   Robert  N.  Pangborn  was  named  the  Interim  EVP‐ Provost on November 15, 2011.16  C. Senior Vice President – Finance and Business (“SVP‐FB”)  The Senior Vice President – Finance and Business sits on the President’s Council  and  manages  the  University’s  endowment  (with  assistance  from  the  University  Investment  Council).    The  SVP‐FB  also  oversees  10  business  units  involved  with  the  University’s  daily  operations,  including  University  Police  and  Public  Safety,  Office  of  Internal Audit, and Human Resources.  Gary C. Schultz was the SVP–FB from January  1, 1995 to June 30, 2009, when he retired.17  Albert Horvath replaced Schultz from July 1,  2009  until  he  resigned  on  September  14,  2011.18   Spanier  asked  Schultz  to  temporarily  return to the position in 2011 while a search was conducted for a successor to Horvath.   Schultz held the temporary position from September 15, 2011 until November 6, 2011.19  D. General Counsel  Until 2010, the University outsourced most of its legal work to McQuaide Blasko,  a law firm in Centre County, Pennsylvania.  The Board of Trustees reassessed this legal  services  model  in  2009  based  on  a  study  conducted  by  the  SVP‐FB  and  approved  the  establishment of the Office of General Counsel for the University.  The General Counsel  is  a  member  of  the  President’s  Council.    In  January  2010,  Spanier  appointed  Cynthia  Baldwin,  a  former  Board  member  and  Chair,  as  the  first  General  Counsel  and  Vice  President  of  the  University.    The  Board  approved  Baldwin’s  appointment  on  January  22,  2010.20   Baldwin  retired  on  June  30,  2012  and  has  been  succeeded  by  Stephen  S.  Dunham, pending final approval by the Board of Trustees.  II. Principal Administrative Areas  33 The University has 22 principal administrative areas:21  Office of the President   Alumni Relations   Affirmative Action Office   Athletics   Commonwealth Campuses   Development  Diversity  Educational Equity  Executive Vice President and Provost  Finance and Business  General Counsel   Government Affairs  Health Affairs and Medicine  Human Resources  Outreach and Cooperative Extension  Research and Graduate School  Undergraduate Education  University Relations  Student Affairs   Physical Plant  Planning, Institutional Assessment  Vice President for Administration    Several  components  of  these  principal  administrative  areas  are  particularly  important to this investigation: the University Police and Public Safety Department; the  Office  of  Human  Resources;  the  Office  of  Risk  Management;  the  Office  of  Internal  Audit; Outreach and Intercollegiate Athletics.22  A. University Police and Public Safety (“University Police Department”)  The University Police Department is part of the Finance and Business unit.  It has  jurisdiction over all crimes that occur on University grounds.  Its officers have the same  authority as municipal police officers and enforce both the laws of the Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  and  University  regulations.    As  part  of  its  responsibilities,  the  University Police Department collects campus crime statistics that the University must  publish  annually  to  comply  with  The  Jeanne  Clery  Disclosure  of  Campus  Security  Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (“Clery Act”).23  The  University  Police  Department  is  currently  staffed  with  46  full‐time  sworn  officers.    They  are  assisted  by  approximately  200  auxiliary  officers  and  escorts  who  assist with crowd and traffic control at special events and security at residence halls.24   The police officers provide 24‐hour patrol services to the campus and University‐owned  properties.  In addition to the police officers at University Park, approximately 73 full‐ time  and  30  part‐time  sworn  officers  work  at  the  various  Commonwealth  campuses.   University  Police  work  regularly  with  the  Pennsylvania  State  Police,  State  College  Borough Police and surrounding police agencies.25  34 The  University  Police  Department  is  headed  by  a  Director  who  reports  to  the  Assistant  Vice  President  of  Police  and  Public  Safety  (“AVP‐Police  and  Public  Safety”)  who, in turn, reports to the SVP‐FB.26  David E. Stormer was the AVP‐Police and Public  Safety  until  April  1998,27 after  which  the  AVP‐Police  and  Public  Safety  position  was  eliminated.28  In 1998,  Thomas R. Harmon  was the Director.   When  Harmon  retired  in  2005,  Stephen  G.  Shelow  became  Director.    In  April  2011,  Shelow  took  over  the  re‐ created  position  of  AVP‐Police  and  Public  Safety. 29  Tyrone  Parham  is  the  current  Director and reports to Shelow.30  B. Office of Human Resources (“OHR”)  The University’s OHR is responsible for employee recruitment and background  checks, compensation and benefits, professional development and employee relations.31   Its senior official, Associate Vice President Susan M. Basso, also reports to the SVP‐FB.32   Basso  replaced  Billie  Sue  Willits  who  was  Associate  Vice  President  from  1989  until  2010. 33 Although  there  is  a  central  HR  department  headed  by  an  Associate  Vice  President,  each  school  and  other  large  departments  (such  as  Intercollegiate  Athletics)  has  its  own  HR  staff. 34    Those  individual  departments  are  charged  with  enforcing  University  rules  and  policies  in  their  own  groups  but,  in  practice,  they  sometimes  relaxed or opted out of the standard rules or procedures.35  C. Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (“Athletic Department”)  The  Athletic  Department  is  organized  into  30  sports  teams  and  oversees  approximately  800  athletes.36 The  Athletic  Department  is  headed  by  a  Director  who  is  not a Vice President, but who sits by invitation on the President’s Council and reports  to the President.  Timothy M. Curley was the Director of Athletics from December 1993  until  November  6,  2011.37   On  November  16,  2011,  David  M.  Joyner  was  named  the  Acting AD.38  The largest sport in the Athletic Department is the football program, which is led  by  a  Head  Coach  who  reports  to  the  AD.    Joseph  V.  Paterno  was  Head  Coach  of  the  football program from 1966 until November 9, 2011.39  Bill O’Brien was named the new  Head Coach on January 6, 2012.40  The Athletic Department also conducts sports camps for children.  Historically,  the  Associate  Athletic  Director  for  Football  Operations  and  assistant  football  coaches  35 have directed the football sports camps without the involvement of the Head Coach.41   Richard J. Bartolomea has been the Sports Camp Coordinator since 1993.  D. Outreach  The  Penn  State  Outreach  program  conducts  numerous  activities,  including  running  various  youth  camps  on  campus.    The  Outreach  program  is  led  by  the  Vice  President of Outreach, who also sits on the President’s Council.  Dr. James H. Ryan was  the Vice President of Outreach in 1998 and continued in that position until 2003, when  Dr.  Craig  D.  Weidemann  took  over  the  position,  which  he  still  holds. 42    Outreach  oversaw  the  sports  camps  until  November  2010,  when  the  responsibility  was  transferred to the Athletic Department.43  III. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS  The  University’s  administrative  controls  include  over  350  policies  and  related  procedures  designed  to  ensure  reasonable  control  over  its  operations.44   However,  as  discussed  further  below,  oversight  of  compliance  with  such  policies  is  decentralized  throughout  various  University  departments  and  of  uneven  quality  among  the  departments.  A. Policies and Procedures  The University has had a fairly comprehensive set of policies and procedures in  place  to  safeguard  the  campus  community,  promote  ethical  conduct  and  encourage  crime reporting since 1986.  Examples of relevant policies include the following:   AD12  –  Sexual  Assault,  Relationship  and  Domestic  Violence,  and  Stalking  (created in 1996)   AD39  –  Minors  Involved  in  University‐Sponsored  Programs  or  Programs  Held  at  the  University  and/or  Housed  in  University  Facilities  (created  in  1992)   AD41 – Sexual Harassment (created in 1998)   AD47 – General Standards of Professional Ethics (created in 1986)   AD67  –  Disclosure  of  Wrongful  Conduct  and  Protection  from  Retaliation  (created in 2010)   AD99 – Background Check Process (created in 2012)   RA20 – Individual Conflict of Interest (created in 2009)  36  RA21  –  Institutional  Financial  Conflict  of  Interest  Involving  Sponsored  Projects,  Dedicated  Gifts,  Research,  Scholarship,  and  Technology  Transfer  (created in 2003)   The Penn State Principles (created in 2001)45  B. Oversight and Internal Controls  1. Compliance.  The University has no centralized office, officer or committee to  oversee  institutional  compliance  with  laws,  regulations,  policies  and  procedures. 46   Rather,  certain  departments  monitor  their  own  compliance  issues,  some  with  very  limited  resources.    As  an  example,  the  Athletic  Department  has  an  Associate  Athletic  Director  responsible  for  National  Collegiate  Athletic  Association  (“NCAA”)  compliance, but that group is significantly understaffed.47  The responsibility for Clery  Act compliance previously resided with a sergeant in the University Police Department  who  was able to  devote only  minimal  time to Clery Act compliance.48  The University  Police Department appointed a full‐time Clery Compliance Officer on March 26, 2012.49  2.  Risk  Management.    The  University’s  Office  of  Risk  Management  (“ORM”)  identifies  and  manages  potential  risks  throughout  the  University  relating  to  financial,  physical and reputational loss.  The scope of the ORM’s work includes managing risks  involving physical, personnel and financial resources, privacy, and legal and regulatory  compliance,50 but in reality, most of its work centers on assessing contract‐based risks.51  3.  Audit. The University has internal and external auditing processes that focus  on financial and business matters.  The Office of Internal Audit (“OIA”), established in  2003, evaluates a range of operational risks throughout the University and oversees an  “Ethics  Hotline”  for  reporting  financial  fraud  and  human  resources  issues.52   The  OIA  has  full  access  to  all  University  activities,  records,  property  and  personnel,  including  direct access to the President of the University and the Board of Trustees.53  The OIA is  led by an Internal Audit Director who reports to the SVP‐FB, and to the Chairman of the  Board  of  Trustees’  Subcommittee  on  Audit 54  (recently  renamed  the  Committee  on  Finance, Business and Capital Planning).  The  OIA  has  conducted  audits  relating  to  compliance  with  various  University  policies  and  procedures,  although  it  is  not  responsible  for  ensuring  compliance  with  such  policies.55   The  OIA  has  reviewed  the  University  policies  for  screening  summer  camp  counselors,  but  not  the  policies  regarding  background  checks  of  University  37 employees.56  The OIA has not conducted any audits regarding Clery Act compliance or  the safety of minors on campus or summer camps.57  The internal auditors issue annual reports on financial matters, which are shared  with  the  Board  at  its  annual  meetings.    They  also  perform  annual  audits  on  the  University’s  compliance  with  certain  NCAA  rules.58   In  addition  to  the  internal  audits  conducted by the OIA, independent accountants also audit the University.59    38 CHAPTER 2   RESPONSE OF UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO THE  ALLEGATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST  SANDUSKY – 1998       ;  KEY FINDINGS  Before  May  1998,  several  staff  members  and  football  coaches  regularly  observed  Sandusky showering with young boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker  Building or “Old Lasch”).  None of the individuals interviewed notified their superiors of  this behavior.     University  Police  and  the  Department  of  Public  Welfare  responded  promptly  to  the  report  by  a  young  boy’s  mother  of  a  possible  sexual  assault  by  Sandusky  in  the  Lasch  Building on May 3, 1998.     While  no  information  indicates  University  leaders  interfered  with  the  investigation,  Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley were kept informed of the investigation.   On  May  5,  1998,  Schultz’s  notes  about  the  incident  state:  “Is  this  opening  of  pandora’s  box?   Other children? “   On  June  9,  1998,  Schultz  emails  Spanier  and  Curley:  “I  think  the  matter  has  been  appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind us [emphasis added].”   Detective recalled interviewing Sandusky in the Lasch Building so as not to put him “on  the  defensive.”  The  detective  advised  Sandusky  not  to  shower  with  any  child  and  Sandusky  said  he  “wouldn’t.”At  the  conclusion  of  the  investigation,  no  charges  were  filed against Sandusky.    Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct   Despite  their  knowledge  of  the  criminal  investigation  of  Sandusky,  Spanier,  Schultz,  on May 3, 1998 in the Lasch Building.  Paterno  and  Curley  took  no  action  to  limit  Sandusky’s  access  to  Penn  State  facilities  or  took any measures to protect children on their campuses.    Spanier and Schultz failed to report the 1998 investigation to the Board of Trustees.   Sandusky was convicted of several assaults that occurred after the 1998 incident.  Some of  these sexual assaults against young boys might have been prevented had Sandusky been  prohibited  from  bringing  minors  to  University  facilities  and  University  football  bowl  games.    39 I. Sandusky’s Association with Penn State  Gerald  A.  Sandusky  (“Sandusky”)  was  a  student  at  Penn  State  from  1962‐1966.   While  an  undergraduate  he  played  on  the  football  team,  and  after  his  graduation  in  1966  he  became  a  graduate  assistant  in  the  football  program  for  one  year.    Sandusky  was a physical education instructor and coach at Juniata College from 1967‐1968 and at  Boston  University  from  1968‐1969.    He  returned  to  Penn  State  in  1969  as  an  assistant  football coach and assistant professor of physical education.  He held the positions for  30 years until his retirement in 1999.  Sandusky reported to Head Football Coach Joseph  Paterno (“Paterno”) for his entire career at Penn State.  Sandusky was granted tenure in  1980.    Sandusky gained a national reputation as a successful defensive coach.  He was  well‐known in the community and highly thought of for his work with youth.    Sandusky authored or coauthored three books ‐ two about coaching linebackers,  and  Touched:  The  Jerry  Sandusky  Story,  an  autobiography  that  focuses  on  his  claimed  passion  for  helping  disadvantaged  youth.    According  to  Sandusky’s  autobiography,  it  was his interest in young people that motivated him to found the “Second Mile,” a non‐ profit organization that provides various services and activities for disadvantaged boys  and girls in Pennsylvania.  Many Penn State officials and some members of the Board of  Trustees  (“Board”  or  “Trustees”)  or  their  families  supported  the  Second  Mile  through  volunteer service and donations.  Over the years, the University has allowed the Second  Mile to use its facilities for a variety of educational and support programs for youth.  A. Sandusky’s Criminal Activity 1995‐1998  Before May 1998, several staff members and football coaches regularly observed  Sandusky showering with young boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker  Building  or  “Old  Lasch”).    None  of  the  individuals  interviewed  by  the  Special  Investigative Counsel notified their superiors of this behavior.  Former Coach Richard  Anderson  testified  at  Sandusky’s  trial  in  June  2012  that  he  often  saw  Sandusky  in  the  showers with children in the football facilities but he did not believe the practice to be  improper.60    40 The  Centre  County  jury  convicted  Sandusky  in  June  2012  of  assaulting  three  different boys at Penn State’s football facilities and other places on campus before May  1998.  These assaults occurred against Victim 4 (assaults on various dates from October  1996  to  December  2000  at,  among  other  places,  the  East  Area  Locker  Building  (“Old  Lasch”) and  Lasch Football  Building (“Lasch Building”); Victim 7 (assaults  on various  dates  from  September  1995  to  December  1996  at  East  Area  Locker  Building  and  elsewhere); and Victim 10 (assaults on various dates from September 1997 to July 1999  in an outdoor pool at University Park and elsewhere).61  Another adult male, not part of the June 2012 Sandusky trial, alleged that he was  molested  by  Sandusky  over  100  times  as  a  child  and  that  Sandusky  took  him  to  the  Penn  State  Rose  Bowl  game  in  Pasadena,  California  in  1995. 62    He  also  said  that  Sandusky brought him to the Penn State football locker room showers where Sandusky  fondled him and performed oral sex on him.  II. Events of May 3, 1998 at the Lasch Building    According  to  Centre  County  court  records  and  University  Police  Department  records,  on the afternoon  of May 3, 1998,  Sandusky  called  the  home  of  an 11‐year‐old  boy63 and  invited  him  to  go  to  a  Penn  State  athletic  facility  that  evening  to  exercise.64   The  boy,  who  met  Sandusky  through  the  Second  Mile  youth  organization  about  a  month earlier, accepted the invitation.65  Sandusky picked up the boy at about 7:00 p.m.,  and took him to the Lasch Building on the Penn State campus.66  As the central facility  for Penn State football, the Lasch Building contained a number of exercise machines as  well as dressing rooms, showers and Sandusky’s office, which for many years was the  office closest to Paterno’s.  Sandusky  and  the  boy  went  to  a  coaches’  locker  room,  where  the  two  wrestled  and  Sandusky  tried  to  “pin”  the  boy.67   After  wrestling,  the  boy  changed  into  clothes  that Sandusky  provided and  followed him  to  work out  on exercise machines.68  When  they  finished  exercising,  Sandusky  kissed  the  boy’s  head  and  said,  “I  love  you.” 69   Sandusky and the boy then went to a coaches’ locker room70 where Sandusky turned on  the showers and asked the boy if he wanted to shower.71  The boy agreed and began to  turn  on  a  shower  several  feet  from  Sandusky.72   Sandusky  directed  him  to  a  shower  head closer to Sandusky, saying it took some time for the water to warm up.73  41 While  in  the  shower,  Sandusky  wrapped  his  hands  around  the  boy’s  chest  and  said,  “Iʹm  gonna  squeeze  your  guts  out.”74   The  boy  then  washed  his  body  and  hair.75   Sandusky lifted the boy to “get the soap out of” the boy’s hair, bringing the boy’s feet  “up  pretty  high”  near  Sandusky’s  waist.76   The  boy’s  back  was  touching  Sandusky’s  chest  and  his  feet  touched  Sandusky’s  thigh. 77  The  boy  felt  “weird”  and  “uncomfortable” during the time in the shower.78  Sandusky  brought  the  boy  home  around  9:00  p.m.  and  left.    The  boy’s  mother  noticed  that  her  son’s  hair  was  wet  and  he  told  her  that  he  had  showered  with  Sandusky.  The mother also observed that her son was acting in a way that he did when  he was upset about something,79 that he did not sleep well and took another shower the  next morning.80  III. Investigation of Sandusky – 1998  A. May 4–6, 1998: Police Report, Initial Investigation and Psychological Evaluation of  the Victim  At 7:43 a.m. on May 4, 1998, the boy’s mother called Alycia Chambers, a licensed  State  College  psychologist81 who  had  been  working  with  her  son,  to  see  if  she  was  “overreacting”  to  Sandusky’s  showering  with  her  son.82   The  psychologist  assured  the  mother that she was not overreacting and told her to make a report to the authorities.83    The boy’s mother called the University Police Department and reported the incident to  Detective Ron Schreffler around 11:00 a.m.84  Around  11:30  a.m.,  Detective  Schreffler  interviewed  the  boy. 85    The  boy  told  Schreffler what happened with Sandusky the previous evening,86 and added that a 10‐ year‐old friend of his had been in a shower with Sandusky on another occasion where  Sandusky similarly squeezed the friend.87  Later that day, Chambers met with the boy88 who told her about the prior day’s  events and that he felt “like the luckiest kid in the world” to get to sit on the sidelines at  Penn  State  football  games.89   The  boy  said  that  he  did  not  want  to  get  Sandusky  in  “trouble,” and that Sandusky must not have meant anything by his actions.90  The boy  did not want anyone to talk to Sandusky because he might not invite him to any more  games. 91    Chambers  made  a  report  to  the  Pennsylvania  child  abuse  line 92  and  also  consulted  with  colleagues.    Her  colleagues  agreed  that  “the  incidents  meet  all  of  our  42 definitions,  based  on  experience  and  education,  of  a  likely  pedophile’s  pattern  of  building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving,’  ‘special’ relationship.”93  That  afternoon  Schreffler  contacted  John  Miller,  a  caseworker  with  the  Centre  County  Children  and  Youth  Services  (“CYS”)  about  the  allegation.94   However,  there  were  several  conflicts  of  interest  with  CYS’s  involvement  in  the  case95   (e.g.,  CYS  had  various contracts with Second Mile ‐ including placement of children in a Second Mile  residential  program;96 the Second  Mile’s  executive  director  had  a  contract  with  CYS  to  conduct children’s evaluations;97 and the initial referral sheet from Chambers indicated  the  case  might  involve  a  foster  child).98 In  light  of  these  conflicts,  the  Department  of  Public Welfare (“DPW”) took over the case from CYS on May 5, 1998.  DPW officials in  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania  took  the  lead  because  of  Sandusky’s  high  profile  and  assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.99  Schreffler also contacted Karen Arnold, Centre County prosecutor in the District  Attorney’s office, to discuss the case.100  Schreffler had decided to call the prosecutor at  the  outset  of  the  investigation  so  he  did  not  “have  to  worry  about  Old  Main  sticking  their nose in the investigation,” which he knew from experience could occur.101  Around  8:00  p.m.  on  May  4,  1998,  Schreffler  and  Miller  spoke  with  the  boy’s  friend  about  his  contact  with  Sandusky.102   The  friend  stated  that  he  had  gone  to  the  Penn State campus on two occasions with Sandusky, whom he met through the Second  Mile. 103    Sandusky  took  him  to  the  Lasch  Building,  where  they  wrestled  and  then  showered together.104  While in the shower, Sandusky came from behind and lifted him  in a bear hug.105  Following this interview, Schreffler and Miller re‐interviewed the first  boy.  On May 6, 1998, Schreffler reviewed voicemail messages and caller identification  information from the home of the victim.  Sandusky had called the boy twice on May 3,  1998 and once on May 6, 1998.  Sandusky left a voicemail on May 6, 1998, inviting the  boy to work out.  The boy did not return the call.106  43 B. May 7–9, 1998: A Second Evaluation of the Victim    On  May  7,  1998,  Chambers  provided  a  copy  of  her  written  report  to  Schreffler.   Chambers  said  she  was  pleased  with  the  response  of  the  agencies  involved,  as  the  “gravity of the incidents seems to be well appreciated.”107  Also  on  May  7,  1998,  Lauro  interviewed  the  boy’s  mother.    According  to  Schreffler’s  notes,  Lauro  had  received  copies  of  the  boy’s  recorded  statement, 108  yet  Lauro advised the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not have full access to the  facts of the case and was unaware of psychologist Chambers’ evaluation.109  Lauro said  that  if  he  “had  seen  [Chambers’]  report,  I  would  not  have  stopped  the  investigation,”  which he thought at the time fell into a “gray” area and involved possible “boundary”  issues.110   Schreffler had a discussion with Arnold that day as well.  Arnold told Schreffler  to  postpone  a  second  psychological  evaluation  of  the  boy  until  an  additional  investigation  could  be  completed. 111    Nonetheless,  a  second  evaluation  of  the  boy  occurred on May 8, 1998 as part of DPW’s investigation.  Counselor John Seasock, who  had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.112   During  the  meeting  with  Seasock  the  boy  described  the  incident  with  Sandusky.113 Given that the boy did not feel forced to engage in any activity and did not  voice discomfort to Sandusky, Seasock opined that “there seems to be no incident which  could  be  termed as  sexual  abuse, nor did  there  appear  to be  any  sequential  pattern of  logic  and  behavior  which  is  usually  consistent  with  adults  who  have  difficulty  with  sexual abuse of children.”114 Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy “had been placed in  a  situation  where  he  was  being  ‘groomed  for  future  sexual  victimization.’”115 Seasock  recommended that someone speak with Sandusky about what is acceptable with young  children and explained, “The intent of the conversation with Mr. Sandusky is not to cast  dispersion (sic) upon his actions but to help him stay out of such gray area situations in  the future.”116  On  May  9,  1998,  Schreffler  discussed  the  outcome  of  Seasock’s  evaluation  with  Seasock. 117    While  Seasock  said  he  identified  some  “gray  areas,”  he  did  not  find  evidence of abuse and had never heard of a 52‐year‐old man “becoming a pedophile.”118  When  Schreffler  questioned  Seasock’s  awareness  of  details  of  the  boy’s  experience,  Seasock acknowledged he was not aware of many of the concerns Schreffler raised but  44 stated Sandusky “didn’t fit the profile of a pedophile,”119 and that he couldn’t find any  indication of child abuse.  Seasock  served  as  an  independent  contractor  at  Penn  State  from  2000  to  2006.   His first payment from Penn State was made on April 20, 2000 for $1,236.86.120  His total  payments  were  $11,448.86. 121    The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  did  not  find  any  evidence  to  suggest  that  these  payments  had  any  relation  to  Seasock’s  work  on  the  Sandusky case in 1998.  According to the Second Mile’s counsel, there was no business  relationship between Seasock and the Second Mile.122  C. May 12‐19, 1998:  Police Overhear Sandusky Admit to Showering with the Victim   On May 12, 1998, Sandusky called the boy again and arranged to pick him up at  his  house  the  next  day.   On  May 13, 1998, Schreffler and a State College  police  officer  went to the boy’s house and hid inside.  When Sandusky arrived they covertly listened  in  to  his conversation  with the boy’s mother.123  Schreffler overheard Sandusky say  he  had  gone  to  the  boy’s  baseball  game  the  night  before  but  found  the  game  had  been  cancelled.124  The boy’s mother told Sandusky that her son had been acting “different”  since  they  had  been  together  on  May  3,  1998 125 and  asked  Sandusky  if  anything  had  happened that day.  Sandusky replied, “[w]e worked out.  Did [the boy] say something  happened?”126 Sandusky  added  that  the  boy  had  taken  a  shower,  and  said  “[m]aybe  I  worked him too hard.”127  Sandusky also asked the boy’s mother if he should leave him  alone, and she said that would be best.  Sandusky then apologized.128  On  May  19,  1998,  at  the  direction  of  the  police,  the  boy’s  mother  met  with  Sandusky again in her home.  As they listened from another room,129 the officers heard  the mother ask  Sandusky  about the bear hug in the  shower, and whether his “private  parts”  touched  the  boy  while  they  hugged.    Sandusky  said,  “I  don’t  think  so  …  maybe.”130   He  also  said  he  had  showered  with  other  boys  before,  but  denied  having  “sexual feelings” when he hugged her son.131  He admitted telling the boy that he loved  him.  Sandusky asked to speak with her son and the mother replied that she did not feel  that was a good idea as her son was confused and she did not want Sandusky to attend  any of the boy’s baseball games.  Sandusky responded, “I understand.  I was wrong.  I  wish I could get forgiveness.  I know I won’t get it from you.  I wish I were dead.”132  The  law  enforcement  officers  did  not  question  Sandusky  at  this  time.    Had  the  officers been better trained in the investigation of child sexual abuse they would have  45 interrogated Sandusky directly after his confrontation with the boy’s mother.  A timely  interview with Sandusky may have elicited candid responses such as the identification  of other victims.  D. Late May 1998:  District Attorney’s Decision to Not Prosecute Sandusky  Sometime  between  May  27,  1998  and  June  1,  1998,  the  local  District  Attorney  declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch  Building  on  May  3,  1998.    A  senior  administrator  of  a  local  victim  resource  center  familiar  with  the  1998  incident  said  the  case  against  Sandusky  was  “severely  hampered” by Seasock’s report.133  The District Attorney at the time of the 1998 incident has been missing for several  years  and  has  been  declared  dead.    The  prosecutor  assigned  to  the  Sandusky  case  declined to be interviewed by the Special Investigative Counsel.    E. June 1, 1998:  University Police Speak with Sandusky  On June 1, 1998, Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky.  Lauro said he did  not discuss an interview strategy with Schreffler before meeting with Sandusky.  Lauro  recalled  that  the  interview  took  place  in  a  small  weight  room  in  the  Lasch  Building  while  Sandusky  was  seated  on  a  weight  bench  and 134 that  Lauro  asked  most  of  the  questions.135   Schreffler  recalled  that  the  interview  was  conducted  in  an  office  in  the  Lasch Building so as not to put Sandusky on the defensive.136  According to the interview notes in the case file, Sandusky told the interviewers  that he hugged the boy in the shower but said there “wasn’t anything sexual about it.”   Sandusky  also said  that he had showered  with other  boys in  the  past.   Lauro advised  Sandusky  that  it  was  a  mistake  to  shower  with  kids.    Sandusky  agreed  and  said,  “honest to God nothing happened.”137  Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with  any  child  and  Sandusky  replied  that  he  “wouldn’t.”138   Schreffler  and  Lauro  also  told  Sandusky that the police139 could not determine if a sexual assault occurred.  No notes  or records reflect that Schreffler or Lauro consulted with the District Attorney during or  after the interview.    Lauro  also  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  he  never  spoke  to  Schreffler about whether improper actions took place between Sandusky and the boy.140   Lauro stated, “it wasn’t until Schreffler told me that there wasn’t anything to the case  46 that  I  closed  mine.” 141  Schreffler’s  file  notes  state  that  Lauro  agreed  that  no  sexual  assault occurred.142  IV. Involvement of University Officials in  The Sandusky Investigation  A.  May  4  ‐  30,  1998:    Notifications  and  Updates  to  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  On the advice of counsel, Schultz and Curley declined to meet with the Special  Investigative  Counsel  to  discuss  their  knowledge  and  actions  pertaining  to  the  1998  Sandusky  incident.    However,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  discovered  and  reviewed  numerous  emails  between  Spanier,  Schultz  and  Curley  concerning  the  incident,  and  reviewed  some  of  Schultz’s  files  and  handwritten  notes  as  well.    These  documents provide a contemporaneous record of the 1998 events.  It is not known how Schultz learned of the incident involving Sandusky, but it is  clear that he knew of it by the time he attended a meeting about it at 5:00 p.m. on May 4,  1998. In documents Schultz held confidentially in his office and that had been concealed  from  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Schultz  had  handwritten  notes  summarizing  this meeting. d  Other notes written by Schultz and contemporaneous records pertaining  to  the  matter  indicate  that  then‐University  Police  Department  Chief  Thomas  Harmon  regularly informed Schultz of the investigation’s progress.  In fact, when the case began,  Harmon told Schreffler that he wanted to be kept updated on the case so he could “send  everything up the flag pole” and advise Schultz.143  Schultz’s confidential notes dated May 4, 1998 state: a woman reported that her  “11 1/2 yr old son” who had been involved with the Second Mile was taken by “Jerry”  to  the  football  locker  rooms;  that  taped  police  interview  reflected  “Behavior  ‐  at  best  inappropriate  @  worst  sexual  improprieties;”  the  conduct  was  “At  min  –  Poor  Judgment;” that Sandusky and the child were in the shower, and Sandusky “came up  behind  &  gave  him  a  bear  hug  ‐  said  he  would  squeeze  guts  out  –  all;”  and  that  the  boy’s  ten‐year‐old  friend    “claims  same  thing  went  on  with  him.”  The  notes  conclude  with the words “Critical issue ‐ contact w genitals?  Assuming same experience w the  second boy?  Not criminal.”144 Exhibit 2‐H.   Schultz’s notes do not indicate who was present at the meeting.  d 47 It  is  not  clear  if  Schultz,  or  another  person,  determined  the  matter  was  “not  criminal”  on  the  first  day  of  the  investigation.    Schultz’s  confidential  notes  also  show  that  sometime  before  9:00  a.m.  on  May  5,  1998,  Harmon  reported  to  Schultz  that  the  victim  had  been  re‐interviewed  and  had  provided  additional  details  about  the  incident 145 and  demonstrated  “on  chair  how  Jerry  hugged  from  back  hands  around  abdmin  (sic)  &  down  to  thighs  ‐  picked  him  up  and  held  him  at  shower  head  ‐  rinse  soap out of ears.”e  The notes also state that “the mother had spoken to a psychologist  who had been seeing the boy, who would call child abuse hot line & will generate an  incident no ‐ with Dept of Public Welfare;” and that the police interviewed the second  boy who reported “Similar acct.  Locker room.  Wrestling.   Kissed on head.  Hugging  from behind in shower.  No allegation beyond that.”146  Schultz’s notes end with these  questions: “Is this opening of pandoraʹs box?  Other children?”147  By  May  5,  1998,  Schultz  had  communicated  with  Curley  about  the  Sandusky  incident.    In  an  email  from  Curley  to  Schultz  and  Spanier  at  5:24  p.m.  captioned  “Joe  Paterno,”  Curley  reports,  “I  have  touched  base  with  the  coach.    Keep  us  posted.  Thanks.”f In  an  interview  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Spanier  said  he  did  not recall this email, and pointed out that he received numerous emails everyday that  provide him with updates on various issues.148  In a written statement from Spanier, he  characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a “vague reference with no individual named.”g  On  May  5,  1998,  Schultz  also  learned  from  Harmon  that  the  Penn  State  University Police were “going to hold off” making any crime log entry for the Sandusky  allegations.149   The  crime  log  entry  would  have  been  a  public  record  of  the  incident  concerning  Sandusky  with  the  boy,  yet  Harmon  reported  to  Schultz  before  noon  on  May 5 that “[w]eʹre going to hold off on making any crime log entry.  At this point in  time I can justify that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime.”150  Schreffler  said  he  delayed  pulling  an  incident  number  for  the  Sandusky  investigation  because it was his  normal  procedure for drug  investigations and he  was  not initially sure of what type of investigation he had.151  Schreffler did not know why  the  report  ultimately  was  opened  as  an  “Administrative  Information”  file  but  said  he  Exhibit 2‐I.  Exhibit 2‐A (Control Number 00643730).  g Exhibit 2‐J.  e f 48 may have been the one who decided on the label.152  All pages of the police report are  labeled “Administrative Information.”153  Schreffler  also  noted  that  no  referral  of  the Sandusky  incident  was  made  to the  Penn  State  Office  of  Human  Resources  (“OHR”). 154    Schreffler  said  such  referrals  routinely  were  made  in  other  cases.155   A  senior  OHR  official  recalled  no  report  of  the  Sandusky incident in 1998, and the OHR files contained no such report.156  The official  thought  the  Sandusky  case  was  so  “sensitive”  that  it  was  handled  by  Schultz  alone.157  The official said no written policy required OHR to be notified by the campus  police  of  incidents  involving  employees,  but  it  was  “very  rare”  for  OHR  not  to  be  notified.158  Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW’s role in the  investigation  and  their  potential  conflict  of  interest  with  the  Second  Mile.159 Harmon  provided  an  update  to  Schultz  on  May  8,  1998  reporting  that  Lauro  “indicated  that  it  was  his  intent  to  have  a  psychologist  who  specializes  in  child  abuse  interview  the  children.    This  is  expected  to  occur  in  the  next  week  to  week  and  a  half.    I  donʹt  anticipate anything to be done until that happens.”160    As  the  investigation  progressed,  Curley  made  several  requests  to  Schultz  for  updates.    On  May  13,  1998  at  2:21  p.m.,  Curley  emailed  Schultz  a  message  captioned  “Jerry” and asked, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where  it  stands.” h    Schultz  forwarded  Curley’s  note  to  Harmon, 161  who  provided  an  email  update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.162  The reference to Coach is believed to  be Paterno.    On May 18, 1998, Curley requested another update by email.i  Schultz responded  that there was no news and that he did not expect to hear anything before the end of the  week.  On  May  30,  1998,  Curley  asked  for  another  update  by  email.163   Schultz  was  on  vacation at the time, but responded on June 8, 1998, saying that he understood before he  left for vacation that “DPW and Univ Police services were planning to meet with him.   Iʹll see if this has happened and get back to you.”164  Exhibit 2‐B (Control Number 00641616).  Exhibit 2‐C (Control Number 00644098).  h i 49 B. June 1 ‐ 10, 1998:  Report to University Officials on Sandusky Interview and Case  Closure   Sometime between May 27 and June 1, 1998, when he learned Sandusky would  not  face  criminal  charges,  Harmon  called  Schultz  to  advise  him  of  the  District  Attorney’s decision.165 On June 1, 1998, the same day as Sandusky’s interview, Harmon  sent  Schultz  an  email  describing  the  interview.    Harmon  reported  that  the  DPW  caseworker  and  Schreffler  “met  discreetly”  with  Sandusky,  and  his  “account  of  the  matter was essential[ly] the same as the child’s.”j  Sandusky said “he had done this with  other  children  in  the  past.”    The  investigators  told  Sandusky  there  “was  no  criminal  behavior  established  [and]  that  the  matter  was  closed  as  an  investigation.”    Sandusky  was  “a  little  emotional”  and  concerned  as  to  how  this  incident  might  affect  the  boy.   Harmon’s  message  to  Schultz  did  not  mention  that  Sandusky  was  told  not  to  shower  with children.  On  June  9,  1998,  after  returning  from  a  vacation,  Schultz  updated  Curley  and  Spanier on the Sandusky interview by email.  He wrote that the investigators:  met  with  Jerry  on  Monday  and  concluded  that  there  was  no  criminal  behavior  and  the  matter  was  closed  as  an  investigation.    He  was  a  little  emotional  and  expressed concern as to how this might have adversely affected the child.  I think  the  matter  has  been  appropriately  investigated  and  I  hope  it  is  now  behind  us.  [emphasis added].k  Schultz’s message to Curley and Spanier also did not mention that Sandusky was  advised not to shower with children.   Neither Harmon nor Schultz’s emails set forth, or suggest, that they planned to  discuss the incident with Sandusky, to review or monitor his use of University facilities,  to  discuss  his  role  at  the  Second  Mile  and  his  involvement  in  Second  Mile  overnight  programs operated in Penn State facilities, or to consider the propriety of a continuing  j Exhibit 2‐D (Control Number 00645223).  Exhibit 2‐E (Control Number 00646346).  k 50 connection  between  Penn  State  and  the  Second  Mile.    There  also  is  no  mention  of  whether Sandusky should receive counseling.l   Further,  the  emails  do  not  indicate  that  any  officials  attempted  to  determine  whether  Sandusky’s  conduct  violated  existing  University  policy  or  was  reportable  under  The  Jeanne  Clery  Disclosure  of  Campus  Security  Policy  and  Campus  Crime  Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (“Clery Act”).  The emails also do not indicate if any  person responsible for Penn State’s risk management examined Sandusky’s conduct.  A  risk  management  review  might  have  resulted  in  the  University  providing  contractual  notice to its insurers about the incident, imposition of a general ban on the presence of  children in the Lasch Building, or other limitations on Sandusky’s activities.m    After  Curley’s  initial  updates  to  Paterno,  the  available  record  is  not  clear  as  to  how  the  conclusion  of  the  Sandusky  investigation  was  conveyed  to  Paterno. 166   Witnesses  consistently  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  Paterno  was  in  control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.” 167  As Head  Coach,  he  had  the  authority  to  establish  permissible  uses  of  his  football  facilities.  Nothing  in  the  record  indicates  that  Curley  or  Schultz  discussed  whether  Paterno  should  restrict  or  terminate  Sandusky’s  uses  of  the  facilities  or  that  Paterno  conveyed  any  such  expectations  to  Sandusky.    Nothing  in  the  record  indicates  that  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  or  Curley  spoke  directly  with  Sandusky  about  the  allegation,  monitored his activities, contacted the Office of Human Resources for guidance, or took,  or documented, any personnel actions concerning this incident in any official University  file.  Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  no  effort  was  made  to  limit  Sandusky’s  access  to  Penn  State. 168    Spanier  said  he  was  unaware  that  Sandusky   When Penn State officials considered meeting with Sandusky in 2001 in response to allegations that he  brought children into the Lasch Building showers, Curley wrote “I would plan to tell him we are aware of  the first situation.  I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get  professional help.”  Exhibit 2‐F (Control Number 00679428).  m Penn State officials were familiar with the issues of liability that could arise from Sandusky bringing  minors to the Lasch Building.  For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed  several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999.  Among these connections was  that he would have continuing “[a]ccess to training and workout facilities.”  A handwritten note on this  proposal reads:  “Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids.  No to 2nd Mile.  Liability problems.”  Exhibit  2‐G (Control Number JVP000027).  l 51 continued to run camps at Penn State and have access to children sleeping in Penn State  dormitories. 169  Spanier never declared Sandusky a “persona non grata” on Penn State campuses,  as he did toward a sports agent who, before the 1997 Citrus Bowl, bought $400 worth of  clothing  for  a  Penn  State  football  player.    Spanier  was  very  aggressive  in  that  case170   and  banned  the  agent  from  campus.    Spanier  said  the  agent  “fooled  around  with  the  integrity of the university, and I wonʹt stand for that.” 171  The University conducted its  own  investigation,  and  provided  the  results  to  law  enforcement. 172   In  an  email  dated  May  13,  1998,  Spanier  said,  “The  idea  is  to  keep  [the  sports  agent]  off  campus  permanently,  to  keep  him  away  from  current  athletes,  and  to  keep  him  away  from  current graduates or students whose eligibility has recently expired.”173  Despite  his  initial  concern  about  “Old  Main  sticking  their  nose  in  the  investigation”  Schreffler  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  no  one  from  the  University  interfered  with  the  Sandusky  investigation. 174  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel did not find any evidence of interference by University administrators with the  1998 Sandusky investigation.  C. 2011 Grand Jury Testimony of Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley  When  he  appeared  before  the  Grand  Jury  in  January  2011,  to  answer  questions  about the 1998 incident involving Sandusky, Schultz testified that he did not recall that  he, “knew anything about the details of what the allegation was from the mother.” He  stated,  “I  do  recall  there  was  a  mother  with  a  young  boy  who  reported  some  inappropriate  behavior  of  Jerry  Sandusky.    But  I  don’t  recall  it  being  reported  in  the  Lasch  Building  or  anything  of  that  sort.”175   On  November  4,  2011,  Schultz  emailed  Wendell  Courtney,  Penn  State’s  former  outside  legal  counsel,  stating,  “I  was  never  aware  that  ‘Penn  State  police  investigated  inappropriate  touching  in  a  shower’  in  1998.”176    At the same Grand Jury hearing in January 2011, Curley was asked if an incident  involving  alleged  criminal  conduct  by  a  coach  on  campus  would  be  brought  to  his  attention.  Curley said he thought so, but did not know.  Curley then was asked, “[b]ut  the 1998 incident was never brought to your attention?”  He replied, “[n]o, ma’am, not  that I recall.”177   52 Paterno also testified in January 2011 before the Grand Jury.  Paterno was asked,  “Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in  any  way,  through  rumor,  direct  knowledge  or  any  other  fashion,  of  any  other  inappropriate  sexual  conduct  by  Jerry  Sandusky  with  young  boys?”    Paterno  responded,  “I  do  not  know  of  anything  else  that  Jerry  would  be  involved  in  of  that  nature, no.  I do not know of it.  You did mention — I think you said something about a  rumor.  It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody.  I  don’t know.  I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.”178   The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  requested  an  interview  with  Paterno  in  December  2011.   Through  his  counsel,  Paterno  expressed  interest  in  participating  but  died  before  he  could  be  interviewed.    Paterno’s  family  has  publicly  denied  that  Paterno  had  knowledge of the 1998 incident.179  Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  his  first  knowledge  of  the  1998  event  came  when  he  was  before  the  Grand  Jury  on  April  13,  2011.180   Yet  notes  from  Spanier’s  interview  on  March  22,  2011  with  members  of  the  Attorney  General’s  Office  reflect  he  was  asked,  “[d]id  you  have  info  @  the  1998  incident?” 181    Cynthia  Baldwin,  who  was  then  General  Counsel,  confirmed  to  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel that Spanier was asked about the 1998 event in the interview before the Grand  Jury  appearance. 182    According  to  Baldwin,  after  the  interview,  Spanier  said  the  interview  “was  no  big  deal”  and  he  was  “quite  comfortable”  going  before  the  Grand  Jury.183   Finally,  on  January  4,  2011,  when  State  Police  came  to  Penn  State  to  obtain  a  copy of the 1998 police report concerning Sandusky, Albert Horvath, then Senior Vice  President  ‐ Finance  and  Business  said he would “let  Graham and  Tim know” that  the  police  requested  the  1998  report  as  part  of  a  “Jerry  Sandusky  investigation  which  has  been ongoing for the past year.”184  D. University Officials Do Not Notify the Board of the Sandusky Investigation  The  Penn  State  Board  of  Trustees  met  on  May  14  and  15,  1998.    Nothing  in  the  Board’s  records  or  from  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel’s  interviews  of  Trustees  indicates  that  Spanier,  or  any  University  official,  notified  the  Board  of  the  Sandusky  investigation,  or  that  there  were  any  contemporaneous  discussions  with  Board  members  of  the  1998  Sandusky  investigation.    In  1998,  the  Board  of  Trustees  did  not  have  a  process  or  a  committee  structure  for  receiving  regular  reports  from  University  officials on risk issues such as the Sandusky investigation.  53 E. Sandusky’s Criminal Activity 1998 ‐ 2001  The  Centre  County  jury  convicted  Sandusky  in  June  2012  of  assaulting  five  different  boys  at  Penn  State’s  football  facilities  and  other  places  on  campus  after  May  1998.    These  assaults  occurred  against  Victim  2  (assault  in  the  Lasch  Building  in  February 2001); Victim 3 (assaults on various dates from July 1999 to December 2001 in  the Lasch Building and at other places); Victim 4 (assaults on various dates from 1999 to  2000 in Old Lasch and the Lasch Building and a Penn State football bowl trip to Texas in  December 1999); Victim 5 (assault in August 2001 in the Lasch Building); and Victim 8  (assault in November 2000 in the Lasch Building).185    54 CHAPTER 3  SANDUSKY’S RETIREMENT FROM   THE UNIVERSITY – 1999        KEY FINDINGS   Before  the  May  1998  incident,  Sandusky  knew  that  he  was  not  going  to  be  selected  to  succeed Joseph Paterno as Head Football Coach at Penn State.   Curley  talked  with  Sandusky  about  his  future  role  with  the  football  program  and  offered  him the possibility of an Assistant Athletic Director position.    Sandusky  explored  taking  an  early  retirement  and  requested  several  benefits  from  Penn  State (i.e., a $20,000 yearly annuity in addition to his pension; to run a middle school youth  football camp; “active involvement in developing an outreach program featuring Penn State  Athletics;”  and  finding  “ways  for  [Sandusky]  to  continue  to  work  with  young  people  through Penn State.”   On June 29, 1999, Spanier approved a one‐time lump sum payment to Sandusky of $168,000.   A senior University Controller’s office official and a retired Senior Vice President both stated  that  they  had  never  known  the  University  to  provide  this  type  of  payment  to  a  retiring  employee.   While  Sandusky’s  retirement  agreement  was  being  finalized,  Curley  sought  and  received  authorization for Sandusky to be re‐employed as an “emergency hire” for the 1999 football  season.   Sandusky was also awarded “emeritus” rank, with special privileges including access to the  University’s East Area locker room complex.  Sandusky’s positions in the University did not  meet the general eligibility requirements for this honor, yet University administrators found  themselves in a “bind” because Spanier had promised the emeritus rank to Sandusky.   The Special Investigative Counsel found no evidence to indicate that Sandusky’s retirement  was related to the police investigation of him in 1998.    55 I. Sandusky’s Decision to Retire  Before the May 3, 1998 incident in the Lasch Building, Curley had already spoken  with Sandusky about his future role in the University’s football program.  On February  8,  1998,  for  example,  Curley  emailed  Spanier  and  Schultz,  stating  that  he  had  several  conversations  over  the  past  week  with  Sandusky  about  taking  an  Assistant  Athletic  Director position.n  Curley stated in the email that Paterno had also met with Sandusky  about his future with Penn State football.186  On  February  9,  1998,  Curley  emailed  Schultz  and  Spanier  reporting  that  Sandusky  did  not  want  the  Assistant  Athletic  Director  position,  and  would  continue  coaching  for  the  next  year.o   Curley  told  them  Sandusky  “will  have  30  years  in  the  system  next  year,  which  will  give  him  some  options  after  next  season.”187   He  added,  “Joe tells me he made it clear to Jerry he will not be the next head coach.”188  Curley’s  reference  to  the  “system”  is  the  Pennsylvania  State  Employees’  Retirement System (“SERS”) to which Sandusky belonged.  From July 1, 1998 to June 30,  1999,  SERS  provided  a  “30‐and‐out”  retirement  window,  allowing  members  like  Sandusky  who  had  30  years  of  service  to  retire  at  any  age  without  the  usual  early  retirement  penalty,  and  receive  all  retirement  benefits  earned  to  that  date.189   Without  the window, the SERS code required that members have 35 years of credited service at  any age ‐ or reach age 60  ‐ before they could retire with full benefits.190  Sandusky  and  others  explored  the  possibility  of  starting  a  Division  III  football  program  at  the  University’s  Altoona  campus  where  Sandusky  could  coach.  Sandusky  even spoke with a businessman who was a supporter of Penn State athletics in March  1998 about financing for the plan.191  Paterno’s undated, handwritten notes, maintained  in  his  home  office  and  provided  to  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  by  his  attorney,  discussed  the  plan,  and  suggested  that  Sandusky  work  on  making  “FB  at  Altoona  Happen”  until  the  “window  closes.” 192    If  Sandusky  could  not  get  the  program  established  before  the  window  closed,  “he  retires  with  a  pension  fully  vested  with  a  severance pkg. which could include deferred income or a supplemental payment for 20  year (sic).”193  Exhibit 3‐A (Control Number 00644655).  Exhibit 3‐B (Control Number 03008143).  n o 56 On May 19, 1998, a senior administrator in University Development and Alumni  Relations  emailed  Spanier,  Curley,  Schultz  and  others  raising  questions  to  consider  while  conducting  “a  limited  feasibility  study”  of  football  at  Altoona  that  Spanier  had  requested. 194    The  administrator  reported  that  the  financial  support  needed  for  the  program  could  not  be  raised.195 The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  found  no  evidence  that  the  decision  regarding  the  establishment  of  a  football  program  at  Altoona  was  related to the incident in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998.196    II. Negotiating the Agreement  On January 19, 1999, Curley wrote to Spanier and Schultz to report on a meeting  with Sandusky.p  Curley told them that Sandusky “is interested in going one more year  and then transition into a spot that handles our outreach program.”197  Curley noted as a  postscript  that  “[Sandusky]  is  not  pleased  about  the  entire  situation  as  you  might  expect.”198  Several  notes  and  documents  provided  by  Paterno’s  attorney  to  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  pertain  to  Sandusky’s  retirement. 199   One  page  of  these  notes,  which  appear  to  be  in  Paterno’s  handwriting,  relate  a  conversation,  or  planned  conversation,  between  Paterno  and  Sandusky  concerning  Sandusky’s  coaching  future.  The notes state:  We know this isn’t easy for you and it isn’t easy for us or Penn State.  Part of the  reason it isn’t easy is because I allowed and at times tried to help you with your  developing the 2nd Mile.  If there were no 2nd Mile then I believe you belief [sic]  that you probably could be the next Penn State FB Coach.  But  you wanted the  best of two worlds and I probably should have sat down with you six or seven  years  ago  and  said  look  Jerry  if  you  want  to  be  the  Head  Coach  at  Penn  State,  give up your association with the 2nd Mile and concentrate on nothing but your  family  and  Penn  State.    Don’t  worry  about  the  2nd  Mile  –  you  don’t  have  the  luxury of doing both.  One will always demand a decision of preference.  You are  too deeply involved in both.q  Exhibit 3‐C (Control Number 03013385).  Exhibit 3‐D (JVP000017).  p q 57 One  of  the  documents  provided  from  Paterno’s  file  is  a  letter  signed  by  Sandusky, dated May 28, 1999.  In the letter Sandusky acknowledged that he would not  be  the  next  Penn  State  football  head  coach,  and  outlined  options  for  his  future. r    Sandusky wanted an on‐going relationship between the Second Mile and Penn State, as  well  as  continuing  “visibility”  at  Penn  State. 200    Sandusky  also  wanted  “active  involvement  in  developing  an  outreach  program  featuring  Penn  State  Athletes”201 and  sought “ways for [him] to continue to work with young people through Penn State.”202  Also  in  the  file  was  a  “Retirement  Requests”  list  from  Sandusky. s    This  list  included  a  request  for  a  $20,000  yearly  annuity  to  cover  the  difference  between  Sandusky’s retiring with 30 years of service and retiring with 35 years of service,203 and  a title reflecting his relationship with Penn State.  Sandusky also asked to run a middle  school  youth  football  camp.204    Handwriting  on  the  note  states:  “Volunteer  Position  Director  –  Positive  Action  for  Youth.” 205    An  employee  who  worked  closely  with  Paterno  for  10  years  and  knew  his  handwriting  identified  this  note  as  written  by  Paterno.206   On  June  13,  1999,  Curley  updated  Spanier  and  Schultz  by  email  advising  that  Sandusky  was  leaning  toward  retirement  if  Penn  State  would  agree  to  the  $20,000  yearly annuity.  Curley noted, “Joe did give him the option to continue to coach as long  as [Paterno] was the coach.”t  Curley suggested another option of Sandusky “coaching  three more seasons and we get creative with his base salary or some other scheme that  makes him whole and then some, but doesnʹt cost us an arm and a leg,” and stated he  was  not  comfortable  with  the  annuity.207   Curley  noted  that  “[s]ince  Joe  is  okay  with  [Sandusky]  continuing  to  coach  this  might  make  more  sense  to  all  concerned.”208   The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  did  not  find  evidence  that  Sandusky’s  retirement  was  caused by the May 3, 1998 incident at the Lasch Building.  On June 13, 1999, Curley emailed Spanier and Schultz that he “touched base with  Joe  and  we  are  in  agreement  that  we  should  not  do  anything  more  for  Jerry.”209   Two  days  later,  Curley  emailed  Spanier  that  Sandusky  appeared  headed  for  taking  retirement.210  The next day, Schultz and Sandusky met to talk “about the supplemental  annuity.”211  Schultz’s notes say that he told Sandusky “we wanted to help [Sandusky]  Exhibit 3‐E (JVP000025‐26).  Exhibit 3‐F (JVP000027).  tExhibit 3‐G (Control Number 03014658).  r s 58 though [sic] this  important decision.”212  Undated notes  from  Paterno indicated: “Jerry  Annuity:  Take  138  Buy  Insurance  >  amount  his  retirement  fund  is  worth.    Variable  Annuity and take full retirement.”213  On June 17, 1999, Wendell Courtney, the University’s then outside legal counsel,  provided  Curley  with  a  draft  “retirement  perquisites”  agreement  for  Sandusky  that  included having the University pay Sandusky a lifetime annuity of $12,000 per year.214   The draft also provided that Sandusky and Penn State would “work collaboratively in  the  future  in  community  outreach  programs,  such  as  the  Second  Mile.”215   A  June  21,  1999 revision of the agreement added free use for life of “University weight rooms and  fitness  facilities  available  to  faculty  and  staff.” 216    On  June  22,  1999,  Sandusky  and  Curley  agreed  to  revise  the  permitted  use  to  include  “a  locker,  weight  rooms,  fitness  facilities and training room in the East Area locker room complex.”217  After  an  issue  arose  over  the  taxation  of  annual  annuity  payments,  the  parties  amended the draft agreement to provide Sandusky with a one‐time lump sum payment  of $168,000.  The parties agreed to these terms on June 29, 1999.u  III. Sandusky’s Retirement Agreement  Penn  State’s  payroll  records  show  that  Sandusky  received  a  $168,000  special  payment on June 30, 1999.  After tax withholding and other deductions, the net amount  was  $111,990.18.218   A  senior  official  in  the  University  Controller’s  office  advised  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  in  his  many  years  at  the  University,  he  had  never  heard of a payment being made to a retiring employee like the one made to Sandusky.219   A  retired  Senior  Vice  President  who  worked  at  Penn  State  for  over  32  years  similarly  said  he  had  never  heard  of  this  type  of  lump  sum  payment  being  made  to  a  retiring  employee.220 While the $168,000 lump sum payment made to Sandusky at his retirement  in  1999  was  unusual,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  did  not  find  evidence  to  show  that the payment was related to the 1998 incident at the Lasch Building.  At the same time Sandusky’s retirement  agreement  was  being  finalized,  Curley  sought to have him re‐employed as an “emergency hire,” because Sandusky had been  “integrally  involved  in  the  planning  and  instructional  aspects  of  preparation  for  this  coming [1999] football season and is essential to the continuity of the program’s success  Exhibit 3‐H (Control Number 006_0000043).  u 59 during this time  frame.”221  Curley submitted a  request for  Sandusky’s  re‐hire  on  June  30, 1999.222  Sandusky was re‐hired for 95 days at his existing salary plus a six percent  cost of living increase.223  On August 31, 1999, Sandusky also was awarded “emeritus” rank, which carries  with  it  a  number  of  special  privileges  including  access  to  the  University’s  recreational  facilities.224  According to Penn State policy, this rank is granted to those who leave and  hold  the  title  of  professor,  associate  professor,  librarian,  associate  librarian,  senior  scientist,  or  senior  research  associate,  or  to  personnel  classified  as  executive,  associate  dean, or director of an academic unit in recognition  of their meritorious service to the  University.225   Age  and  service  qualifications  also  exist.226   The  President  may  grant  or  deny emeritus rank on “an exception basis.”227  When  he  retired,  Sandusky  held  the  positions  of  assistant  football  coach  and  assistant  professor  of  physical  education,  neither  of  which  are  among  the  positions  listed  as  eligible  for  emeritus  rank.    On  August  13,  1999,  the  then  Assistant  Vice  President  of  Human  Resources  sent  a  fax  to  the  Dean  of  the  College  of  Health  and  Human  Development  (“Dean”). 228    The  fax  included  a  draft  memo  from  Schultz  to  Spanier  that  contained  handwritten  edits  that  changed  the  name  of  the  memo’s  originator  from  Schultz  to  the  Dean.229 The  former  Dean  did  not  recall  the  request  but  advised the Special Investigative Counsel that the request did take an unusual path.230  The  former  Assistant  Vice  President,  after  being  shown  the  Sandusky  emeritus  paperwork by the Special Investigative Counsel, said it was clear the request had come  from Schultz or at least Schultz’s office and was forwarded by the former Assistant Vice  President to the former Dean for submission.231   When  the  Provost’s  office  received  the  emeritus  request,  the  staff  conducted  research  to  see  if  similar  situations  existed. 232  While  not  able  to  find  “specific  precedent,” the staff found itself in a “bind” as Spanier had promised the emeritus rank  to Sandusky.233 A contemporaneous email from a staff member to the Provost explained  that:  [Spanier]  told  [Sandusky]  that  we  would  do  this  –  he  was  wholly  within  his  rights  here  since  the  policy  [HR  25]  says  “The  President  may  grant  (or  deny)  Emeritus Rank on an exception basis” – then informed [Curley], who suggested  going through the college and went to [the Dean], who then made the request of  60 us.    (I  had  wrongly  assumed  all  along  that  the  request  originated  with  [the  Dean].)v  On August 31, 1999, Rodney Erickson, who had been Provost since July 1, 1999,  honored  Spanier’s  promise  to  grant  Sandusky  emeritus  rank  given  the  President’s  broad discretion under the policy.234  He told the staff member that he hoped that “not  too  many  others  take  that  careful  notice.” 235  In  an  interview  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Erickson  described  feeling  “uneasiness”  about  the  decision  on  Sandusky  because  of  Sandusky’s  low  academic  title  and  the  prior  history  of  who  was  granted  emeritus  rank. 236    While  the  decision  to  grant  Sandusky  emeritus  rank  was  unusual, the Special Investigative Counsel found no evidence to show that the emeritus  rank was related to the 1998 events at the Lasch Building.    v Exhibit 3‐I (Control Number RAE_000001).  61 CHAPTER 4  RESPONSE OF UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO THE  ALLEGATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE   AGAINST SANDUSKY – 2001        KEY FINDINGS   In  the  Fall  of  2000,  a  University  janitor  observed  Sandusky  sexually  assault  a  young boy in the East Area Locker Building and advised co‐workers of what he  saw.  Also that evening, another janitor saw two pairs of feet in the same shower,  and then saw Sandusky and a young boy leaving the locker room holding hands.   Fearing  that  they  would  be  fired  for  disclosing  what  they  saw,  neither  janitor  reported the incidents to University officials, law enforcement or child protection  authorities.    On  Friday,  February  9,  2001,  University  graduate  assistant  Michael  McQueary  observed Sandusky involved in sexual activity with a boy in the coach’s shower  room in the University’s Lasch Building.  McQueary met with and reported the  incident to Paterno on Saturday, February 10, 2001.  Paterno did not immediately  report  what  McQueary  told  him,  explaining  that  he  did  not  want  to  interfere  with anyone’s weekend.     McQueary  testified  that  he  reported  what  he  saw  to  Paterno  because  “heʹs  the  head  coach  and  he  needs  to  know  if  things  happen  inside  that  program  and  inside  that  building.”    He  said  that  Paterno’s  response  was  that  he  [Paterno]  needed  to  “tell  some  people  about  what  you  saw”  and  would  let  McQueary  know what would happen next.  After Sandusky’s arrest, Paterno told a reporter  that he told McQueary, “I said you did what you had to do.  It’s my job now to  figure out what we want to do.”   On  Sunday,  February  11,  2001,  Paterno  met  with  and  reported  the  incident  to  Curley and Schultz.      On  Sunday,  February  11,  2001,  Schultz  reached  out  to  then  University  outside  legal  counsel  Wendell  Courtney  to  discuss  the  “reporting  of  suspected  child  abuse.”  Courtney  conducted  legal  research  on  this  issue  and  had  another  conference with Schultz about it that day.   On February 12, 2001, Schultz and Curley met with Spanier to give him a “heads  up”  about  the  report  concerning  Sandusky.    Spanier  said  this  meeting  was  “unique” and that the subject matter of a University employee in a shower with a  child had never come up before  62  A contemporaneous “confidential” note of a February 12, 2001 meeting between    states that Schultz and Curley “[a]greed [Curley] will discuss w JVP [Paterno] &    advise  we  think  [Curley]  should  meet  w  JS  [Sandusky]  on  Friday.    Unless  he    [Curley]  will  indicate  we  need  to  have  DPW  confesses  to  having  a  problem,  [Department  of  Public  Welfare]  review  the  matter  as  an  independent  agency    concerned  w  child  welfare.”  Without  ever  speaking  to  McQueary,  Schultz  and  Curley had already decided that not reporting Sandusky’s conduct to authorities    may be an option.    On  February  12,  2001,  Schultz  asked  University  Police  Chief  Tom  Harmon  if  a  police report still existed of the 1998 incident.  Harmon replied that it did.      By February 12, 2001, Schultz and/or Curley had: met with Paterno who reported    what McQueary had told him; had a “heads up” meeting with Spanier advising  him about the incident; discussed the “reporting of suspected child abuse” with    outside  counsel;  reviewed  the  history  of  the  1998  incident;  checked  to  see  if  the    incident was documented in police files; agreed that Curley would discuss with  Paterno the idea of approaching Sandusky to see if he would “confess to having a    problem;” and researched the Board membership of the Second Mile.      There is no information indicating that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley made  any effort to identify the child victim or determine if he had been harmed.     At a February 25, 2001 meeting, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley discussed an action  plan for addressing the Sandusky incident.  Schultz’s handwritten notes from this    meeting  indicate:    “3)  Tell  chair*  of  Board  of  Second  Mile  2)  Report  to  Dept  of    Welfare.  1) Tell JS [Sandusky] to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg*  whoʹs the chair??”     On February 26, 2001 Schultz emailed Curley, confirming the plan from the prior    day’s meeting.  This email and several that follow are written in unusually cryptic  tones, without the use of proper names or titles.      Schultz  and  Curley  reflects  that  the  men  “[r]eviewed  1998  history.”  The  note        On February 27, 2001, however, after discussing the matter with Paterno the day  before, Curley recommended a different course of action to Spanier and Schultz:   I. JANITORS’ OBSERVATIONS OF SANDUSKY‐ 2000   they  would  offer  Sandusky  “professional  help;”  assist  him  in  informing  “his  organization”  (the  Second  Mile)  about  the  allegation;  and,  if  Sandusky  was  According to the testimony of witnesses in Sandusky’s trial in Centre County in   “cooperative,” not inform the Department of Public Welfare of the allegation.        Advising  Sandusky  that  the  February  9,  2001  assault  in  the  Lasch  Building  had  been  reported  exposed  the  victim  to  additional  harm  because  only  Sandusky  knew his identity.         63  On March 5, 2001, Curley met with Sandusky and told him: we are “uncomfortable”  with this information about the incident, that he was going to report the incident to    the Executive Director of the Second Mile; and that Sandusky was not to be in athletic    facilities  with  any  young  people.    According  to  Sandusky’s  counsel,  Curley  never  accused  Sandusky  of  abusing  children  or  used  the  words  “sex”  or  “intercourse”      during the discussion.   against Sandusky, approved Curley’s revised plan.  Spanier noted in an email that the  “only  downside  for  us  is  if  the  message  isnʹt  ‘heard’  and  acted  upon,  and  we  then      Schultz  and  Spanier,  having  prior  knowledge  of  the  1998  child  sex  abuse  allegation  become  vulnerable  for  not  having  reported  it.    But  that  can  be  assessed  down  the  road.  The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.”   Curley met with the Second Mile executive director in March 2001, and reported that  an  unidentified  person  saw  Sandusky  in  the  locker  room  with  a  young  boy,  was    “uncomfortable” with the situation, and that Curley had discussed the incident with    Sandusky and determined nothing inappropriate had occurred.       Curley  told  the  Second  Mile’s  executive  director  that  Sandusky  would  not  be  permitted  to  bring  children  onto  the  Penn  State  campus  in  order  to  avoid  publicity  issues; Curley also asked the executive director to emphasize that to Sandusky.       incident  involving  Sandusky  and  they  concluded  it  was  a  non‐incident  for  Second        The  Second  Mile  executive  director  informed  two  Second  Mile  Trustees  about  the  Mile and there was no need for further action.     The Second Mile executive director also met with Sandusky and passed on Curley’s  prohibition  about  bringing  children  on  campus.    Sandusky  replied  that  the  prohibition applied only to the locker rooms.     Board  meeting,  March  15‐16,  2001:  There  is  no  record  that  the  President  briefed  the  Board about the ongoing investigation of Sandusky.        On  September  21,  2001,  Schultz  obtained  Board  approval  for  the  sale  of  a  parcel  of  Penn  State  land  to  the  Second  Mile.    The  Board  minutes  do  not  reflect  any  contemporaneous discussion of the 2001 investigation, the propriety of a continuing    and  the  Second  Mile,  or  the  risks  involved  by  relationship  between  Penn  State  allowing  Sandusky  to  be  prominently  associated  with  Penn  State.    Schultz  even    issued a press release about the transaction lauding Sandusky.   After  the  February  2001  incident,  Sandusky  engaged  in  improper  conduct  with  at  least  two  children  in  the  Lasch    Building.    Those  assaults  may  well  have  been  prevented  if  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  had  taken  additional  actions  to  safeguard children on University facilities.            64 I. Janitors’ Observations of Sandusky – 2000  According  to the testimony of  witnesses in  Gerald  A. Sandusky’s  (“Sandusky”)  trial in Centre County in June 2012,237 in the Fall of 2000, a temporary University janitor  (“Janitor  A”)238 observed  a  man,  later  identified  to  him  as  Sandusky,  in  the  Assistant  Coaches’  locker  room  showers  of  the  Lasch  Building  with  a  young  boy  in  the  Fall  of  2000.    Sandusky had  the boy  pinned  against the wall and  was  performing  oral  sex  on  him.  The janitor immediately told one of his fellow janitors (“Janitor B”) what he had  witnessed, stating that he had “fought in the [Korean] War…seen people with their guts  blowed  out,  arms  dismembered…  .    I  just  witnessed  something  in  there  I’ll  never  forget.”  On that same night, Janitor B observed two pairs of feet in this same shower at  the Lasch Building but could not see the upper bodies of the two persons.239  He waited  for  the  two  to  finish  their  shower,  and  later  saw  Jerry  Sandusky  and  a  young  boy,  around  the  age  of  12,  exit  the  locker  room  holding  hands.240   Janitor  B  frequently  saw  Sandusky  in  the  Lasch  Building  after  hours,  usually  accompanied  by  one  or  more  young boys.241  Janitor B closely followed Penn State football, and knew Sandusky from  watching football games.242  A senior janitorial employee (“Janitor C”) on duty that night spoke with the staff,  who had gathered with Janitor A to calm him down.243   Janitor C advised Janitor A how  he could report what he saw, if he wanted to do so. Janitor B said he would stand by  Janitor A if he reported the incident to the police, but Janitor A said, “no, they’ll get rid  of all of us.”244    Janitor  B  explained  to  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  reporting  the  incident “would have been like going against the President of the United States in my  eyes.”245   “I  know  Paterno  has  so  much  power,  if  he  wanted  to  get  rid  of  someone,  I  would have been gone.” 246   He explained “football runs this University,” and said the  University would have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs.247w       Some individuals interviewed identified the handling of a student disciplinary matter in 2007 as an  example of Paterno’s excessive influence at the University.  The April 2007 incident involved a fight at an  off‐campus apartment in which several individuals were severely injured by Penn State football players.  The former University official responsible for the student disciplinary process, who the Special  Investigative Counsel interviewed, perceived pressure from the Athletics Department, and particularly  w 65 Later  the  same  night,  two  of  these  janitors  saw  Sandusky  in  the  parking  lot,  driving by slowly and looking into the windows of the Lasch building.248 The first time  was  around  11:00  p.m.,  the  second  was  around  2:00  a.m.249   The  young  boy  was  not  observed with Sandusky at these times. Janitor B thought that Sandusky had returned  to determine whether anyone had called the police to report the incident.250  II. McQueary’s Observations of Sandusky – 2001  The November 2011 Grand Jury presentment described an incident, observed by  Penn  State  assistant  football  coach  Michael  McQueary,  of  a  “sexual  nature”  between  Sandusky  and  a  boy  in  the  Lasch  Building  that  allegedly  took  place  in  March  2002.   During  this  investigation,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  found  evidence  that  this  incident  actually  occurred  on  or  about  February  9,  2001  and  promptly  reported  this  information to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.251  McQueary  testified  at  a  December  2011  Grand  Jury  hearing,  and  again  on  June  12,  2012  at  Sandusky’s  criminal  trial,  about  what  he  saw.    At  the  time  of  the  incident,  McQueary  was  a  graduate  assistant  with  the  football  program  and  had  gone  to  the  support  staff  locker  room  in  the  Lasch  Building  around  9:00  or  9:30  p.m.  on  a  Friday  night.252   Upon  opening  the  locker  room  door,  McQueary  heard  “rhythmic  slapping  sounds”  from  the  shower.253   McQueary  looked  into  the  shower  through  a  mirror  and  saw  Sandusky  with  a  “prepubescent”  10‐  or  12‐year‐old  boy. 254    McQueary  saw  Sandusky  “directly  behind”  the  boy  with  his  arms  around  the  boy’s  waist  or  midsection.255   The  boy  had  his  hands  against  the  wall,  and  the  two  were  in  “a  very  sexual  position.”256   McQueary  believed  Sandusky  was  “sexually  molesting”  the  boy  and “having some type of intercourse with him” although he “did not see insertion nor  was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling.”257  McQueary  testified  that  he  slammed  his  locker  shut  and  moved  toward  the  shower.258  He said  Sandusky and  the boy separated and looked directly at  McQueary  the football program, to treat players in ways that would maintain their ability to play sports, including  during the 2007 incident.[‐] Interview (3‐9‐12) When the Student Affairs Office (“SAO”) sanctioned the  players involved, the sanctions were subsequently reduced by Spanier to enable players to participate in  football practice. [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12) A senior staff member in the SAO advised that his office handles  over 4,000 cases a year of off‐campus student conduct violations. [‐] Interview (12‐12‐11) In all of the cases  he has managed over the years, this incident and one other involving a football player were the only  incidents in which issued sanctions were reduced. [‐] Interview (12‐12‐11); [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12)  66 without saying a word.259  Seeing the two had separated, McQueary said he “thought it  was best to leave the locker room.”260  McQueary went to his office and called his fatherx  for  advice.261   He  then  went  to  his  father’s  house  to  discuss  the  matter  further.262   The  two decided McQueary should tell Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno (“Paterno”),  who was McQueary’s immediate superior, about the incident.263  McQueary  testified  that  he  called  Paterno  at  home  around  7:30  or  8:00  a.m.  the  next  morning  and  told  him  that  he  needed  to  meet  with  him.264   McQueary  recalled  Paterno  said  he  did  not  have  a  job  for  McQueary,y so  “if  thatʹs  what  itʹs  about,  donʹt  bother  coming  over.”265   McQueary  told  him  the  matter  was  “something  much  more  serious”266 and Paterno agreed to a meeting.  McQueary went to Paterno’s home to talk,  and according to his Grand Jury and trial testimony, he told Paterno he saw Sandusky  and  “a  young  boy  in  the  shower  and  that  it  was  way  over  the  lines.”267 Recalling  the  activity as  “extremely sexual in nature,” McQueary described the “rough positioning”  of  Sandusky  and  the  boy  “but  not  in  very  much  detail”  and  without  using  the  terms  “sodomy” or “anal intercourse.”268  Paterno told the Grand Jury in 2011 that he recalled having this discussion with  McQueary  on  a  Saturday  morning269 and  that  McQueary  told  him  he  saw  Sandusky  “fondling, whatever you might call it ‐‐ Iʹm not sure what the term would be ‐‐ a young  boy”  in  the  showers  at  the  Lasch  Building.270   Paterno  explained,  “[o]bviously,  he  was  doing something with the youngster.  It was a sexual nature.  Iʹm not sure exactly what  it was.  I didnʹt push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset.”271  McQueary  testified  that  he  reported  what  he  saw  to  Paterno  because  “heʹs  the  head coach and he needs to know if things happen inside that program and inside that  John McQueary and his supervisor (a medical doctor) heard Mike McQueary’s initial report of the Lasch  Building  events  the  evening  it  happened.    Preliminary  Hearing  Trans.  (12‐16‐11),  134.    John  McQueary  advised his son to report the matter to Paterno, and neither John McQueary nor his boss advised him to  immediately call the police.  Id.  John McQueary later had a conversation with Schultz about what his son  saw, and how Schultz handled the situation.  Id.  The conversation may have come up in discussions John  McQueary had with Schultz in mid‐May 2001 about a past due amount on a lease for a medical business  where John McQueary worked.  See Control Number 00675188.  yMcQueary was hired as a permanent assistant football coach in 2004.  The Special Investigative Counsel  found  no  information  to  suggest  that  McQueary’s  selection  for  that  job  was  related  to  his  witnessing  Sandusky assault a boy in the shower room at the Lasch Building. Three witnesses stated that McQueary  was very well‐qualified for the position.  [‐] Interview (3‐8‐2012); [‐] Interview (3‐12‐2012); [‐] Interview  (3‐1‐2012).  x 67 building.”272  He said that Paterno’s response was that he [Paterno] needed to “tell some  people  about  what  you  saw”  and  would  let  McQueary  know  what  would  happen  next.273  After Sandusky’s arrest, Paterno told a reporter that he told McQueary, “I said  you did what you had to do.  It’s my job now to figure out what we want to do.”274  No  record  or  communication  indicates  that  McQueary  or  Paterno  made  any  effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child had been  harmed.  III. University Leaders’ Response to McQueary’s Observations  A. February 11, 2001:  Paterno Reports Sandusky Incident to Schultz and Curley  Paterno  also  testified  to  the  Grand  Jury  that  he  “ordinarily  would  have  called  people  right  away,  [after  hearing  McQueary’s  report]  but  it  was  a  Saturday  morning  and  I  didnʹt  want  to  interfere  with  their  weekends.”      Paterno  thought  he  spoke  to  Curley  “early  the  next  week”  or  “within  the  week.”275     Paterno  had  a  telephone  call  with Curley and said, “[h]ey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him.”276   When  asked  if  the  “information  that  [he]  passed  along  was  substantially  the  same  information that [McQueary]” had given him, Paterno said “yes.”277   Curley testified to the same Grand Jury that Paterno called him on a Sunday and  asked  him  and  Schultz  to  come  to  Paterno’s  home278  where  Paterno  related  that  an  assistant coach saw “two people” in the shower of the football building locker room.279   Curley  recalled  that  Paterno  said  the  assistant  saw  the  people  through  a  mirror,  “was  uncomfortable  with  the  activity  in  the  shower  area,”  and  had  reported  the  issue  to  Paterno.280  Schultz  testified  to  the  same  Grand  Jury  in  2011  that  he  attended  the  meeting  with  Paterno  and  Curley  and  that  it  occurred  in  Schultz’s  office  or  “possibly”  at  Paterno’s house.281  Schultz told the Grand Jury that Paterno said “someone” had seen  Sandusky and “some unnamed boy” engaging in “some behavior in the football locker  room  that  was  disturbing.”    He  testified,  “I  believe  the  impression  I  got  was  it  was  inappropriate and he wanted to bring that to Tim Curley and my attention.”282  Schultz  did not recall Paterno’s precise words, and said Paterno described the events “in a very  general way.”283 Schultz thought the conduct might involve “wrestling around activity”  and  Sandusky  “might  have  grabbed  the  young  boyʹs  genitals  or  something  of  that  68 sort.”284  Schultz said the “allegations came across as not that serious.  It didnʹt appear at  that  time,  based  on  what  was  reported,  to  be  that  serious,  that  a  crime  had  occurred.   We had no indication a crime had occurred.”285  B. February 11, 2001:  Schultz Discusses “Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse” with  University’s Outside Legal Counsel  On Sunday, February 11, 2001, Schultz had a conference call about the “reporting  of  suspected  child  abuse”  with  Penn  State’s  then  outside  legal  counsel,  Wendell  Courtney.z  Courtney conducted legal research on this issue and had another conference  that day with Schultz about the matter.286  Courtney charged 2.9 hours of time to Penn  State for his legal work.  Courtney’s work on the 2001 matter is confirmed in an email  Courtney sent to Schultz in 2011 when Penn State received subpoenas for testimony by  Schultz and others concerning the criminal investigation of Sandusky.aa    Nearly  10  years  later,  on  January  10,  2011,  Courtney  emailed  Schultz  and  said,  “Gary ‐ Cynthia Baldwin called me today to ask what I remembered about JS issue I spoke with  you and Tim about circa eight years ago [emphasis added].  I told her what I remembered.   She did not offer why she was asking, nor did I ask her.  Nor did I disclose that you and  I  chatted  about  this.”287 The  initials  “JS”  in  Courtney’s  2011  email  appear  to  indicate  Jerry Sandusky.   Courtney  served  as  Penn  State’s  outside  legal  counsel  for  28  years  and  was  a  partner at a law firm that performed legal work for the University for nearly 50 years.   Based  on  the  advice  of  counsel,  Courtney  declined  to  be  interviewed  by  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel.    Thus,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  was  unable  to  learn  Courtney’s explanation about the legal work he performed on February 11, 2001.  C.  February  12,  2001:    Initial  Response  of  Spanier,  Schultz  and  Curley  to  Sandusky  Incident   After the Commonwealth brought criminal charges against Schultz in November  2011, Schultz’s assistant removed some of the Sandusky files from Schultz’s Penn State  office and delivered them to Schultz.  The assistant failed to disclose in two interviews  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  the  Sandusky  files  had  been  removed.288  Exhibit 5‐A (McQuaide Blasko documents).   Exhibit 5‐B (Control Number 11118161).  z aa 69 Only  in  May  2012  did  the  existence  of  these  important  files  come  to  light  so  that  the  documents could be retrieved.289  Schultz’s  handwritten  notes,  which  he  marked  as  “confidential,”  reflect  a  Monday,  February  12,  2001  meeting  with  Curley  to  discuss  the  Sandusky  allegations.   According  to  Schultz’s  notes,  Curley  and  Schultz  talked  and  first  “[r]eviewed  1998  history.”bb   The  notes  state  that  Schultz  and  Curley  “[a]greed  [Curley]  will  discuss  w  JVP & advise we think [Curley] should meet w JS on Friday.  Unless he ‘confesses’ to  having  a  problem,  TMC  will  indicate  we  need  to  have  DPW  review  the  matter  as  an  independent agency concerned w child welfare.”290  The initials “JVP” in Schultz’s notes  appear  to  indicate  Joseph  V.  Paterno.    The  initials  “JS”  in  Schultz’s  notes  appear  to  indicate Jerry Sandusky.  The initials “TMC” appear to indicate Curley.    In an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said that he met  with Schultz and Curley to discuss Sandusky around 2:30 p.m. on February 12, 2001.291    Spanier said the men gave him a “heads up” that a member of the Athletic Department  staff  had  reported  to  Paterno  that  Sandusky  was  in  an  athletic  locker  room  facility  showering with one of his Second Mile youth after a workout.  Sandusky and the youth,  according to Spanier, were “horsing around” or “engaged in horseplay.”292  Spanier said  the  staff  member  “was  not  sure  what  he  saw  because  it  was  around  a  corner  and  indirect.” 293   Spanier  said  this  meeting  was  “unique”  and  that  the  subject  matter  of  a  University employee in a shower with a child had never come up before.294  Spanier also  said that he did not ask, nor did Schultz or Curley define, what was meant by “horsing  around” or “horseplay.”295  Spanier said he asked two questions:  (i) “Are you sure that it was described to  you  as  horsing  around?”  and  (ii)  “Are  you  sure  that  that  is  all  that  was  reported?”296  According  to  Spanier,  both  Schultz  and  Curley  said  “yes”  to  both  questions.  Spanier  said the men agreed that they were “uncomfortable” with such a situation, that it was  inappropriate, and that they did not want it to happen again. 297  Spanier says he asked  Curley to meet with Sandusky and tell him that he must never again bring youth into  the  showers.    Spanier  said  the  men  also  agreed  to  inform  the  Second  Mile  that  this  direction was given to Sandusky and “we did not wish Second Mile youth to be in our  showers.”298  Spanier said there was no mention of anything abusive or sexual, and he  Exhibit 5‐C (Schultz documents).   bb 70 was not aware of the hour of day, the specific building involved, the age of the child, or  any other prior shower incident.299 Spanier also said he did not ask for such details.  When  then‐Penn  State  General  Counsel  Cynthia  Baldwin  first  heard  that  the  Attorney General’s office planned to subpoena Schultz, Paterno, and Curley to appear  before the Grand Jury, she called Spanier to inform him of the news.300  Baldwin’s notes  from  this  call  on  December  28,  2010  reflect  that  Baldwin  informed  Spanier  of  the  situation. 301    Baldwin’s  notes  of  the  call  reflect  that  Spanier  said  he  “[m]ay  have  consulted  w/Wendell  when  Tim,  Gary  &  Graham  spoke”  when  he  first  heard  of  the  2001 incident.302   On February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 a.m., Schultz researched the internet about  the  Board  members  of  the  Second  Mile,  the  charitable  organization  Sandusky  founded.303  On February 12, 2001, Schultz also asked Penn State University Police Chief  Tom  Harmon  if  a  police  file  still  existed  for  the  1998  event.304   At  9:56  p.m.,  Harmon  emailed Schultz to report, “[r]egarding the incident in 1998 involving the former coach,  I checked and the incident is documented in our imaged a[r]chives.”cc  By February 12, 2001, Schultz and/or Curley had: (i) given Spanier a “heads up”  concerning a “unique” situation involving Sandusky in the showers with a child;305 (ii)  met with Paterno, who reported to them the “same information” McQueary had given  to  Paterno;  (iii)  discussed  the  “reporting  of  suspected  child  abuse”  with  Penn  State’s  then outside legal counsel and also with Spanier,306 (iv) reviewed the history of the 1998  Sandusky  incident; 307  (v)  checked  to  see  if  the  1998  police  report  on  Sandusky  was  documented  in  University  police  files;308 (vi)  agreed  that  Curley  would  discuss  with  Paterno  the  idea  about  approaching  Sandusky  to  see  if  he  “confesses  to  having  a  problem;”309 and, (vii) researched the Board membership of the Second Mile.310  There is  no  indication  that  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno,  Curley  or  any  other  leader  at  Penn  State  made any effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child  had been harmed.   D. Schultz and Curley Meet with McQueary – February 2001   Schultz and Curley did not meet with McQueary to hear directly from him as to  what he observed in the Lasch Building shower before taking these actions.  McQueary  Exhibit 5‐D (Control Number 00675162).  cc 71 testified at the Grand Jury that he first heard from Curley when Curley called to arrange  a meeting to discuss what McQueary had reported to Paterno on a Saturday morning,  about “nine or 10” days earlier.311  Curley could not recall how many days it was after  hearing from Paterno that he met with McQueary to get the information directly from  him, but he thought it was within a week.312    McQueary also testified to the Grand Jury that he met with Schultz and Curley  either the same day he received Curley’s call or the next day.  McQueary said he told  the  men  he  saw  Sandusky  in  the  shower  with  a  young  boy,  with  Sandusky’s  arms  wrapped  around  the  boy.313   McQueary  said  he  told  the  men  that  the  situation  was  “extremely  sexual”  and  that  McQueary  “thought  that  some  kind  of  intercourse  was  going  on.”314Curley  testified  to  the  Grand  Jury  that  McQueary  told  him  he  had  heard  people in the shower who were “horsing around, that they were playful, and that it just  did not feel appropriate.”315    Schultz  told  the  same  Grand  Jury  that  he  did  not  recall  specifically  what  McQueary  reported,  but  his  impression  was  that  there  was  some  physical  conduct,  some  horsing  around,  some  wrestling  that  resulted  in  contact  with  a  boyʹs  genitals  in  the context of wrestling.316  Schultz testified that he did not understand the incident to  have involved sexual conduct or intercourse.317  E. February 25, 2001:  Spanier, Schultz and Curley Meet Again to Discuss Sandusky  Incident   On  Thursday,  February  22,  2001,  Schultz  sent  an  email  to  Spanier  and  Curley,  stating,  “Graham,  Tim  and  I  will  meet  at  2:00  p.m.  on  Sunday  in  Timʹs  office.” 318   Spanier  acknowledged  the  2:00  p.m.  meeting  in  an  email  to  Schultz  and  Curley  on  February  23,  2001.319   The  February  25  meeting  was  arranged  12  days  after  McQueary  notified Paterno about seeing Sandusky in the Lasch Building sexually abusing a young  boy.    McQueary  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  he  met  with  Curley  and  Schultz  about “nine or 10” days after the Saturday morning discussion with Paterno.320  Among  documents  that  Schultz  held  confidentially  in  his  office  and  that  had  been  withheld  from  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  were  handwritten  notes  for  a  meeting on “2/25/01.”  The notes do not identify who was present for the meeting, but  72 indicate:  “3) Tell chair* of Board of Second Mile 2) Report to Dept of Welfare.  1) Tell JS  to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg * whoʹs the chair??”dd  Spanier’s  hardcopy  calendar  of  February  25,  2001  indicates  a  2:00  p.m.  appointment in “TMC office.”321  Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that the  February  25  meeting  was  with  only  Curley.322   He  denied  that  Schultz  was  present.323   He also denied that any mention was made of the Department of Public Welfare.324  He  stated  that  Curley  was  worried  about  how  to  handle  things  if  he  informed  Sandusky  that he was forbidden to bring Second Mile youth to Penn State facilities and Sandusky  disagreed. 325    Spanier  explained  that  he  was  concerned  with  Sandusky  because  the  situation “doesn’t look good, I was concerned with what people will think, the visibility  and the public relations aspects of it.  I was not concerned with criminality.  There was  no suggestion of anything about abuse or sexual contact.”326  The next day, on February 26, 2001, Schultz sent an email to Curley confirming  the plan from the prior day’s meeting.  Schultz wrote:  “Tim, Iʹm assuming that youʹve  got the ball to 1) talk with the subject ASAP regarding the future appropriate use of the  University  facility;  2)  contacting  the  chair  of  the  Charitable  Organization;  and  3)  contacting  the  Dept  of  Welfare.    As  you  know  Iʹm  out  of  the  office  for  the  next  two  weeks, but if you need anything from me, please let me know.”ee  The  February  26,  2001  email  and  related  emails  that  follow  among  Curley,  Schultz and Spanier over the next two days are unique from the hundreds of thousands  of other emails reviewed by the Special Investigative Counsel.  These messages are the  rare  documents  where  proper  names  and  identifying  information  are  replaced  with  generic  references.    Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  Curley  communicated  in  “code”  in  sensitive  emails  because  the  Athletic  Department  was  notorious  for  leaks. 327    When  Curley  communicated  about  other  sensitive  issues  involving  Sandusky,  however,  he  did  not  use  “code”  words.    For  example,  emails  written  between  February  25  and  February  28,  2001,  refer  to  Sandusky  as  the  “subject,”328 the “person  involved,”329 or “the  person.”330 The emails refer to the Second  Mile  as  “his  organization;”  and  to  the  Department  of  Public  Welfare  as  “the  other  organization” 331  and  the  “other  one.” 332    This  contrasts  with  emails  written  in  1998,  concerning the police investigation, in which Curley and Schultz frequently referred to  Exhibit 5‐E (Schultz documents).  Exhibit 5‐F (Control Number 00677433).  dd ee 73 Sandusky  as  “Jerry.” 333    This  also  contrasts  with  emails  written  in  1999,  concerning  Sandusky’s  retirement,  where  Curley,  Schultz  and  Spanier  frequently  referred  to  Sandusky as “Jerry.”334   On  March  22,  2011,  Spanier  met  with  members  of  the  Pennsylvania  Attorney  General’s  Office  accompanied  by  Baldwin. 335    The  General  Counsel’s  notes  of  that  meeting reflect Spanier’s statement that Schultz and Curley met with Spanier to explain  that  an  employee  had  seen  Sandusky  “horsing  around”  in  a  shower  with  a  child  and  thought  they  should  bring  the  issue  to  Spanier’s  attention.336   The  notes  also  indicate  that  Spanier  said  to  Schultz  and  Curley  that  if  “nothing  more  detailed  was  reported,  Tim should tell JS that we request that he not bring children into shower again.  Since JS  no longer employed that we advise chair of Board of Second Mile of what we heard.”337  F. February 27‐28, 2001:  Curley Proposes Revised Response to the Sandusky Incident   On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, Curley emailed Schultz and Spanier:   I  had  scheduled  a  meeting  with  you  this  afternoon  about  the  subject  we  discussed on Sunday.  After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe  yesterday‐‐ I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.  I am  having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved.  I think I would  be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information  we received.  I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation.  I would  indicate  we  feel  there  is  a  problem  and  we  want  to  assist  the  individual  to  get  professional help.  Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his  organization  and  [sic]  maybe  the  other  one  about  the  situation.    If  he  is  cooperative  we  would  work with  him  to  handle  informing  the  organization.   If  not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups.  Additionally, I will  let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some  help on this one.  What do you think about this approach?ffgg  Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428).   The Special Investigative Counsel discovered these emails after Joe Paterno died.  When the Special  Investigative Counsel questioned Paterno’s representatives about the emails, they stated that because  they did not have the benefit of the emails before Paterno’s death, they were unable to inquire with  Paterno about the emails.  ff gg 74 Several  people  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  Curley  is  a  State  College  native  with  a  long  family  history  at  Penn  State,  including  his  father  and  brothers who worked at Penn State.338  A senior Penn State official referred to Curley as  Paterno’s “errand boy.”339  Athletic Department staff said Paterno’s words carried a lot  of weight with Curley, who would run big decisions by Paterno.340  Others interviewed  described  Curley  as  “loyal  to  a  fault”  to  University  management  and  the  chain  of  command,  someone  who  followed  instructions  regardless  of  the  consequences,  and  someone who avoided confrontation.341  Also on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 10:18 p.m., Spanier responded to Curley’s  proposal for dealing with Sandusky.  Spanier emailed Curley and Schultz:   Tim:  This approach is acceptable to me.  It requires you to go a step further and  means  that  your  conversation  will  be  all  the  more  difficult,  but  I  admire  your  willingness  to  do  that  and  I  am supportive.    The  only  downside  for  us  is  if  the  message  isnʹt  “heard”  and  acted  upon,  and  we  then  become  vulnerable  for  not  having reported it.  But that can be assessed down the road.  The approach you  outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.342  A  reasonable  conclusion  from  Spanier’s  email  statement  that  “[t]he  only  downside  for  us  is  if  the  message  isnʹt  ‘heard’  and  acted  upon,  and  we  then  become  vulnerable for not having reported it” is that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were agreeing  not to report Sandusky’s activity.    It also is reasonable to conclude from this email statement that the men decided  not  to  report  to  a  law  enforcement  or  child  protection  authority  because  they  already  had  agreed  to  “report”  the  incident  to  Second  Mile.    Spanier’s  oral  and  written  statements  to  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  do  not  address  this  “reported  it”  reference.    Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  the  comment  related  “specifically and only to [Curley’s] concern about the possibility that [Sandusky] would  not  accept  our  directive  and  repeat  the  practice.    Were  that  the  outcome  of  his  discussion I would have worried that we did not enlist more help in enforcing such a  directive.”343   Spanier said that  his use of the word “humane” refers “specifically and only to  my thought that it was humane of [Curley] to wish to inform Sandusky first and allow  him  to  accompany  [Curley]  to  the  meeting  with  the  president  of  the  Second  Mile.   75 Moreover, it would be humane to offer counseling to Sandusky if he didn’t understand  why this was inappropriate and unacceptable to us.”344    On  Wednesday,  February  28,  2001,  at  7:12  p.m.,  Schultz  responded  to  Curley’s  proposal for dealing with Sandusky.  Schultz wrote to Curley and Spanier:  Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this.  I can  support  this  approach,  with  the  understanding  that  we  will  inform  his  organization, with or without his cooperation (I think thatʹs what Tim proposed).   We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization.hh  The “other organization” mentioned by Schultz appears to be a reference to the  Department  of  Public  Welfare.    Again,  at  no  time  did  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  or  Curley try to identify the child in the shower or whether the child had suffered harm.   By advising Sandusky, rather than the authorities, that they knew about the February 9,  2001 assault, they exposed this victim to additional harm because only Sandusky knew  the child victim’s identity at the time.     On  February  28,  2001,  Curley  emailed  Schultz  and  Spanier,  explaining  in  part  that  he  was  “planning  to  meet  with  the  person  next  Monday  on  the  other  subject.”ii   Spanier  replied  the  same  day,  telling  Curley,  “[i]f  you  need  to  start  in  one  direction  without me, do so.  I think we are on the same wavelength and I will support you.”345  IV. Curley Meets with Sandusky – March 1998  Curley testified to the Grand Jury that he met twice with Sandusky, as Sandusky  did  not  “initially”  admit  to  being  in  the  shower  with  a  boy.346   According  to  Curley’s  testimony, Sandusky later returned to admit he had been present.347  Curley said he told  Sandusky:  [a]bout  the  information  that  we  received,  that  we  were  uncomfortable  with  the  information  and  that  I  was  going  to  take  the  information  and  report  it  to  the  executive director of the Second Mile and that I did not want him in the future to  be in our athletic facilities with any young people.348  Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428).  Exhibit 5‐H (Control Number 00676529).  hh ii 76 While  Sandusky  declined  an  interview  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Sandusky’s counsel stated in a telephone call with the Special Investigative Counsel that  Sandusky generally agreed with Curleyʹs version of the 2002 incident, which Sandusky  thought took place in 2001.349  Sandusky’s counsel said Curley told Sandusky that they  had heard Sandusky had been in the shower with a young child, and someone felt this  was  inappropriate.350   According  to  Sandusky’s  counsel,  Curley  never  used  the  word  sex or intercourse in the discussion.351  Counsel said Sandusky offered to give the child’s  name to Curley, but Curley did not  accept  this  invitation.352  Counsel also said Curley  told Sandusky he did not want Sandusky to bring children to the shower any more.353   Sandusky’s counsel said no one accused Sandusky of abusing kids.354  On March 7, 2001, Schultz’s assistant wrote to Curley, asking if he had updated  Schultz  on  the  actions  set  out  in  Schultz’s  February  26,  2001  email.jj   Before  he  left  for  vacation,  Schultz  had  left  directions  for  his  assistant  to  check  on  this  issue.355   Curley  reported to the assistant that he had updated Schultz.356  Schultz testified before the Grand Jury that he had the “impression that Tim did  follow  through  and  make  sure  Jerry  understood  that  he  was  no  longer  permitted  to  bring Second Mile children into the football facility.”357 Penn State’s General Counsel’s  notes  from  a  March  2011  conversation  with  Spanier,  reflect  that  Spanier  said  he  “[b]umped  into  Tim  Curley  and  Tim  advised”  that  he  had  a  conversation  with  Sandusky not to bring children into the shower again.358   Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  a  “few  days  after  the  brief  Sunday interaction, [he] saw [Curley] and he reported that both of the discussions had  taken place, that those discussions had gone well and our directive accepted, and that  the  matter  was  closed.” 359    Spanier  did  not  know  whether  Sandusky  ever  received  counseling.360  Paterno gave the following explanation to a reporter for the Washington Post as to  why he did not more aggressively pursue the information that McQueary provided.  “I  didn’t  know  exactly  how  to  handle  it  and  I  was  afraid  to  do  something  that  might  jeopardize what the University procedure was.  So I backed away and turned it over to  some  other  people,  people  I  thought  would  have  a  little  more  expertise  than  I  did.    It  jj Exhibit 5‐I (Control Number 00674655).   77 didn’t work out that way.” Paterno added, “In hindsight, I wish I had done more” and  regretted that he had not.361  V. March 19, 2001:  Curley Meets with Second Mile Leadership  Curley  testified  at  the  Grand  Jury  that  he  met  “the  executive  director  of  the  Second Mile.  I shared the information that we had with him.”  The Special Investigative  Counsel found no written records concerning this meeting.    The Second Mile executive director declined to be interviewed.  Counsel for the  Second Mile told the Special Investigative Counsel, however, that the executive director  told him that the executive director had a calendar entry for a meeting with Curley on  March 19, 2001.362 He also told counsel that during the executive director’s meeting with  Curley that Curley related that an unidentified person saw Sandusky in the locker room  shower  on  campus  with  a  boy  and  felt  uncomfortable  with  the  situation;363 and  that  Curley  had  discussed  the  issue  with  Sandusky  and  concluded  that  nothing  inappropriate  occurred.364 According  to  Counsel  for  the  Second  Mile,  Curley  told  the  executive  director,  that  “to  avoid  publicity  issues,”  the  University  would  not  permit  Sandusky  to  bring  kids  on  campus.365   Curley  also  told  the  executive  director  that  he  was  telling  Second  Mile  so  that  the  executive  director  could  emphasize  the  issue  to  Sandusky.366  The  executive  director  later  advised  two  Second  Mile  Trustees  of  the  meeting,  and they concluded the matter was a “non‐incident for the Second Mile and there was  no  need  to  do  anything  further.” 367 He  also  talked  to  Sandusky,  who  admitted  showering  with  boys  but  nothing  more.368   The  executive  director  passed  on  Curley’s  advice  on  the  prohibition  against  bringing  kids  on  campus,  and  Sandusky  responded  that it applied only to the locker rooms.369  The executive director urged him to get the  issue clarified.370  VI. University Officials Do Not Notify  the Board of the Sandusky Incident  The Penn State Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”) met on March 15 and  16,  2001.    Nothing  in  the  Board  records  or  interviews  of  Trustees  indicate  any  contemporaneous  discussions  of  the  2001  Sandusky  incident  and  investigation  during  the meeting.  The Board did not have a process or committee structure at that time for  78 receiving regular reports from University officials about matters of potential risk to the  University, such as the allegation against Sandusky.   On July 24, 2001, Schultz met with leaders of the Second Mile and agreed to sell a  parcel  to  the  Second  Mile  for  $168,500.371  The  University  had  bought  the  property  in  1999 for $168,500.372  On September 21, 2001, less than eight months after the Sandusky  incident, the Board approved the sale of a parcel of land to the Second Mile.373 Nothing  in  the  Board’s  records  or  interviews  of  Trustees  indicate  any  contemporaneous  discussions  of  the  2001  Sandusky  incident  and  investigation,  the  propriety  of  a  continuing relationship between Penn State and the Second Mile, or the risks created by   a public association with Sandusky when the land transaction was discussed.  Schultz,  who  oversaw  the  transaction,  did  not  make  any  disclosure  of  the  Sandusky  incident  during  the  Board’s  review  of  the  land  deal.    In  fact,  Schultz  approved  a  press  release,  issued September 21, 2001 announcing the land sale in which he praised Sandusky for  his work with Second Mile. 374   VII. Sandusky’s Criminal Activity After 2001  The Centre County jury convicted Sandusky in June 2012 of assaulting two boys  at Penn State’s football facilities and other places on campus after February 2001.  These  assaults  occurred  against  Victim  3  (assaults  on  various  dates  from  July  1999  to  December  2001  in  the  Lasch  Building  and  at  other  places)  and  Victim  5  (assault  in  August 2001 in the Lasch Building).    At  the  preliminary  hearing,  Curley  agreed  that  there  was  no  “practical  way  to  enforce [Sandusky] not bringing children onto the campus” after he was warned not to  do so.375  There is no indication that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, or Curley had discussions  about  any  other enforceable actions that  could have  been taken  to  safeguard children.  Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  he  did  not  do  anything  to  prohibit  Sandusky from using Penn State facilities, nor did he instruct anyone else to do so.376  79 CHAPTER 5  RESPONSE OF UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS   TO THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION ‐  2010, 2011    KEY FINDINGS     In  early  2010  the  Pennsylvania  Attorney  General,  in  connection  with  a  Grand  Jury  investigation of Sandusky, issued subpoenas to the University for certain documents; in  late  2010  the  Grand  Jury  issued  subpoenas  for  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno,  Curley  and  various members of the Athletic Department in relation to a Grand Jury investigation of  Sandusky for child sexual abuse.     In  2011,  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno,  Curley  and  various  members  of  the  Athletic  Department  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury.    The  Grand  Jury  appearances  and  the  Sandusky investigation were reported in a news story on March 31, 2011.   Neither  Spanier  nor  the  University’s  General  Counsel,  Cynthia  Baldwin,  briefed  the  Board of Trustees about the Grand Jury investigation of Sandusky or the potential risk to  the University until the Board’s meeting on May 11, 2011 and, then, only at the request of  a Trustee who had read the March 31, 2011 article.     After  receiving  a  Trustee’s  request  for  more  information  about  the  Grand  Jury  investigation,  Spanier  emailed  Baldwin  noting  that  “[the  Trustee]  desires  near  total  transparency.  He will be uncomfortable and feel put off until he gets a report.”   At  the  May  2011  Board  meeting,  Spanier  and  Baldwin  briefed  the  Board  about  the  investigation,  but  minimized  its  seriousness  by  not  fully  describing  the  nature  of  the  allegations or raising the issue of possible negative impact to the University.     From  March  31  –  November  4,  2011,  the  Board  did  not  make  reasonable  inquiry  of  Spanier or Baldwin about the Sandusky investigation or potential risks to the University.   The  Board  did  not  take  steps  that  might  have  protected  the  University,  such  as  conducting  an  internal  investigation,  engaging  experienced  criminal  counsel,  or  preparing for the possibility that the results of the Grand Jury investigation could have a  negative impact on the University.   Spanier and Baldwin opposed an independent investigation of the Sandusky issue, with  Baldwin stating that “[i]f we do this, we will never get rid of this [outside investigative]  group in some shape or form.  The Board will then think that they should have such a  group.”  Spanier agreed.  80  Even  after  criminal  charges  were  announced  against  Schultz  and  Curley  in  November  2011, Spanier continued to downplay the serious harm that could result to Penn State’s    reputation from the criminal charges, and issued a statement of “unconditional support”  for Schultz and Curley.     Within  a  few  hours  of  the  criminal  charges  becoming  public,  staff  members  advised  Spanier  that  the  Board  needed  to    be  updated.    Spanier  said  that  any  briefing  “will  be  nothing more than what we said publicly.”    Only after the presentment of criminal charges in November 2011 did the Board call for a    Special  Investigations  Task  Force  to  perform  an  independent  investigation  into  the   allegations, and to challenge Spanier’s and Paterno’s actions and failures.    Until Sandusky’s arrest in November 2011, Curley continued to invite him to numerous  high‐profile  athletic  events  at  the    University,  many  of  which  he  attended.  During  the  Spring of 2011, Baldwin advised some University personnel that Sandusky’s access to the  Lasch Building could not be terminated because of his emeritus status and the fact that    he had not been convicted of a crime.   The  Board  was  unprepared  to  handle  the  crisis  that  occurred  when  Sandusky,  Curley    and Schultz were charged. This contributed significantly to its poor handling of the firing  of  Paterno,  and  the  subsequent  severe  reaction  by  the  Penn  State  community  and  the  public to the Board’s oversight of the University and Paterno’s firing.                          81   I. Subpoenas Issued for the Grand Jury Testimony of  Senior University Officials  On January 7, 2010, the Grand Jury issued a subpoena seeking production of all  the  University  employment  and  personnel  records  for  Gerald  A.  Sandusky  (“Sandusky”).377   The  Penn  State  employee  handling  the  subpoena  consulted  with  a  lawyer at McQuaide Blasko, the State College law firm that served at the time as outside  legal counsel for Penn State, about how to respond to the subpoena.378 This lawyer, who  had no grand jury experience, then spoke with colleague Wendell Courtney, although  this  lawyer  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  they  did  not  discuss  any  potential  reason  for  the  subpoena  or  any  prior  incidents  involving  Sandusky.379   The  lawyer  also  did  not  discuss  the  nature  of  the  investigation  with  anyone  from  the  Attorney General’s Office.380  Through McQuaide Blasko, Penn State agreed with the Attorney General’s Office  on  a  non‐disclosure  order  concerning  the  subpoena.381   At  the  time,  Penn  State  staff  compiled  a  list  of  all  persons  who  knew  of  the  subpoena,  which  included  Spanier,  Paterno and Curley.382  On  September  16,  2010,  a  Patriot‐News  reporter  contacted  Spanier.    The  two  exchanged  emails  as  to  Spanier’s  knowledge  of  an  investigation  of  Sandusky  for  suspected criminal activity while he was a Penn State employee.  On  December  22,  2010,  the  McQuaide  Blasko  lawyer  called  then‐University  General Counsel Baldwin to inform her that a prosecutor from the Attorney General’s  Office  had  called  McQuaide  Blasko  to  say  that the  Grand  Jury  would  like  to  hear  testimony  from  “some  very  important  people”  at  Penn  State. 383    The  lawyer  also  provided Baldwin with background information about the January 2010 subpoena.384  On  December  28,  2010,  at  9:30  a.m.,  Baldwin  spoke  with  two  prosecutors  from  the Attorney General’s office, who explained that the office would be issuing subpoenas  for Schultz, Paterno and Curley to appear before the Grand Jury.385  Baldwin explained  in an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel that she asked if the University  or  its  staff  were  targets  of  the  investigation.386   According  to  Baldwin,  the  prosecutors  said that they were looking at Sandusky, although Baldwin’s notes of the conversation  do  not  reflect  discussion  of  this  issue. 387  Baldwin  did  not  seek  the  assistance  of  an  82 attorney  experienced  in  addressing  criminal  investigations  or  conducting  internal  investigations at that time.  At 9:45 a.m. on December 28, 2010, Baldwin informed Spanier of the situation.388  Baldwin’s notes of the call reflect: “[m]ay have consulted w/Wendell when Tim, Gary &  Graham spoke.”389  At 10:01 a.m., Baldwin390 met with Spanier and Schultz.391   On December 28, 2010, after Schultz spoke to Baldwin, he contacted Courtney.392   On December 30, 2010, Courtney emailed Schultz, “[t]he attached is the last thing in my  Penn State file re Sandusky.  There is nothing regarding the issues we discussed.”393  The  attachment to the email was a 1999 letter concerning Sandusky’s retirement.394   On  Monday,  January  3,  2011,  Baldwin  met  with  Paterno. 395  Baldwin’s  notes  indicate that  Paterno  recalled  McQueary  coming  to  see him on  a Saturday morning.396   According to the notes, Paterno said McQueary “[s]aw Jerry horsing around w the kid a  young man in shower inappropriate behavior.  Turned it over to Tim Curley.  Notified  Tim  Curley  didn’t  talk  to  Gary.    No  conv.  since  then.”397   Baldwin  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  she  did  not  investigate  the  Sandusky  matter  or  look  for  Schultz,  Paterno  or  Curley  emails  in  the  University  system  that  might  relate  to  the  Grand Jury’s investigation.398  Baldwin also met with Curley on January 3, 2011.    On  January  3,  2011,  a  Pennsylvania  State  Police  commander  visited  the  University Police Department and reported that an investigation of “sexual allegations  against  a  small  child”  involving  Sandusky  had  been  ongoing  for  the  past  year.399   The  commander said they were “wrapping everything up but were also collecting any and  all  reports  of  similar  situations.”400   The  University  Police  Department  provided  the  commander with a copy of the 1998 police report.401  The  next  day,  January  4,  2011,  when  Baldwin  learned  that  the  State  Police  had  received a copy of the 1998 police report,402  she asked the University Police Department  for  a  copy  of  the  report. 403   Baldwin  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  she  reviewed  the  1998  report  to  find  out  what  happened  and  if  there  had  been  a  full  investigation.404  On  January  9,  2011,  Baldwin  reached  out  to  Courtney  about  the  Grand  Jury  investigation.  Courtney responded by email to Baldwin stating:  83 We  don’t  have  any  file  on  the  matter  you  and  I  discussed  yesterday,  and  my  recollection  of  events  is  as  I  stated  yesterday.    However,  I  also  recall  that  someone  (I  donʹt  think  this  was  me,  since  if  it  was  I  would  have  written  documentation  of  contact)  contacted  Children  and  Youth  Services  to  advise  of  the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was appropriate under  the circumstances, while being apprised of what PSU actions were, i.e., advising  JS to no longer bring kids to PSUʹs football locker rooms.405  Baldwin  advised  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that,  unknown  to  her  at  the  time, Courtney emailed Schultz on January 10, 2011.  In Courtney’s email to Schultz he  reported  that:  Baldwin  “called  me  today  to  ask  what  I  remembered  about  JS  issue  I  spoke with you and Tim about circa eight years ago.”406 In the email Courtney said he  told  her  what  he  remembered,  and  added  that  Baldwin  “did  not  offer  why  she  was  asking, nor did I ask her.  Nor did I disclose that you and I chatted about this.”407  On January 11, 2011, Baldwin provided an update to Spanier on the Grand Jury  investigation. 408  Baldwin  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  Spanier  was  surprised to hear of the subpoenas but was not excited over the matter.409  Spanier told  her that things would be fine.410  The next day, on January 12, 2011, Schultz, Paterno and Curley appeared before  the  Grand  Jury.    Baldwin  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  she  went  to  the  Grand Jury appearances as the attorney for Penn State,411 and that she told both Curley  and  Schultz  that  she  represented  the  University  and  that  they  could  hire  their  own  counsel, if they wished.412   A. Law Enforcement Interviews of University Personnel  On  February  15,  2011,  Baldwin  met  with  several  assistant  football  coaches  to  interview them about Sandusky, his interactions with young boys, rumors about him in  the community and his decision to retire from Penn State.413  The next day, investigators  from  the  Pennsylvania  Attorney  General’s  Office  and  the  Pennsylvania  State  Police  interviewed approximately eight coaches, with Baldwin present.414  Between interviews,  the  investigators  told  Baldwin  that  they  also  wanted  to  interview  Spanier  so  she  scheduled that interview for them.415  84 On  March  22,  2011,  Spanier  met  with  the  Attorney  General’s  investigators  to  answer questions about Sandusky.  Baldwin attended the meeting and, according to her  notes,  the  investigators  asked  Spanier  about  the  2002416 incident  and  how  Penn  State  handled the incident, why Sandusky retired in 1999, and the relationship between Penn  State and the Second Mile.417  On March 24, 2011, the Attorney General’s Office issued a  subpoena for Spanier to testify before the Grand Jury.418  II. Patriot‐News Article  Reveals Sandusky Investigation – March 2011  On  March  28,  2011,  Curley  received  an  email  from  a  Harrisburg  Patriot‐News  reporter asking about his testimony before the Grand Jury.419  The reporter told Curley  that  the  paper  would  be  running  a  story  soon  about  the  investigation  of  Sandusky.   Curley  advised  Baldwin,  the  Athletic  Department  and  Penn  State’s  communications  staffs about the call and impending article.420  On March 28, 2011, another Patriot‐News  reporter approached Spanier at a budget hearing in Harrisburg to obtain his comments  about  the  story.421   On  March  30,  2011,  Spanier  received  word  that  the  Patriot‐News  would be running a story about a “former football coach” the next day.422    On  March  31,  2011,  the  Patriot‐News  ran  an  article  under  the  headline,  “Jerry  Sandusky,  Former  Penn  State  Football  Staffer,  Subject  of  Grand  Jury  Investigation.”423   The  article  reported  that  Sandusky  was  “the  subject  of  a  grand  jury  investigation  into  allegations that he indecently assaulted a teenage boy.”424 The article referred to a 2009  incident  with  a  boy  at  Central  Mountain  High  School  and  the  1998  incident  at  Penn  State involving Sandusky showering with a 12‐year‐old‐boy in the football building on  Penn  State’s  campus.425 The  article  also  noted  that  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  were  among those appearing before the Grand Jury.426  The  day  after  the  article  was  published,  a  Trustee  emailed  Spanier,  asking  “[w]hat  is  the  story  on  allegations  against  Jerry  Sandusky  that  required  testimony  by  Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, and I heard, also Garry [sic] Schultz?  Is this something the  Board  should  know  a  [sic]  be  briefed  on  or  what?”427   Spanier  replied  by  email  to  the  Trustee  and  copied  Baldwin  and  then  Board  Chairman  Steve  Garban.    He  stated,  “I  believe  that  Grand  Jury  matters  are  by  law  secret,  and  I’m  not  sure  what  one  is  permitted to say, if anything.”  Spanier told the Trustee he would check with Baldwin  on  whether  it  was  “permissible”  to  brief  the  Board.428   The  next  day,  Baldwin  emailed  85 Spanier to explain that those who “testify before the Grand Jury are not held to secrecy  and  can  disclose  if  they  so  desire.”429   Baldwin  offered  to  put  together  something  for  Spanier to provide to the Board.   On  April  13,  2011,  the  Trustee  emailed  Spanier  again  and  asked,  “[w]hat  is  the  outcome  on  this?  I  frankly  think  that,  despite  grand  jury  secrecy, when  high  ranking  people  at  the  university  are  appearing  before  a grand  jury,  the  university  should  communicate something about this to its Board of Trustees.”430  Spanier  replied  to  the  Trustee  on  the  same  day  that  he  had  recently  learned  “through  media  reports  that  the  Grand  Jury  has  been  investigating  for  two  years  and  has  not  yet  brought  charges.    They  continue  their  investigation.    Iʹm  not  sure  it  is  entirely  our  place  to  speak  about  this  when  we  are  only  on  the  periphery  of  this.”431   Spanier  went  on  to  say  that  Baldwin  would  report  on  the  issue  at  the  next  Board  meeting.432  Spanier separately emailed Baldwin, noting, “[the Trustee] desires near total  transparency.   He will be uncomfortable and feel put off until he gets a report.”433   Spanier  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  in  July  2012  that  the  Grand  Jury  investigation “struck me as a Second Mile issue.  This did not strike me as a Penn State  issue.”434  The  same  day  that  Spanier  responded  to  the  Trustee,  he  testified  before  the  Grand Jury.435  Baldwin  joined Spanier for his  appearance, explaining  to  the court  and  Spanier that she represented the University.   In  response  to  the  Trustee’s  emails  concerning  the  Grand  Jury  investigation,  Garban  asked  for  a  meeting  with  Baldwin  and  Spanier. 436   Garban  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  he  met  with  Baldwin  and  Spanier  in  April  2011.kk   Baldwin  recalled that Spanier provided  Garban with an update on the investigation and 437 that  Spanier downplayed the Sandusky investigation.438  Garban recalled Spanier saying “it  was the third or fourth Grand Jury and nothing would come of it.”439  Baldwin told the  Special Investigative Counsel that she believed that Spanier, as a member of the Board,  and Garban, as its then Chair, would have relayed this information to the other Board  members.440  kk  Emails confirm the meeting was April 17, 2011.  86 Beyond  one  Trustee’s  request  that  Spanier  brief  the  Board  on  the  Grand  Jury  investigation  of  Sandusky,  the  March  31,  2011  Patriot  News  article  went  virtually  unnoticed by the Board.  The article was not disseminated to the full Board and many  Board  members  did  not  read  the  article.    The  Board  members  who  were  aware  of  the  article should have inquired further about Sandusky and the possible risks of litigation  or  public  relations  issues,  and, most  importantly,  whether  the  University  has  effective  policies in place to protect children on its campuses.   III. Board of Trustees Meeting – May 2011  In  his  interview  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Spanier  said  that  at  a  dinner the evening before the May 12, 2011 Board meeting, he told four Board members  about the status of the Sandusky investigation.441  Spanier stated he told these Trustees  at  the  dinner  that  he  had  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury.442   The  Special  Investigative  Counsel re‐interviewed the four Trustees present for the dinner.  None of the Trustees  recalled Spanier mentioning anything at the dinner about the Sandusky Grand Jury or  his testimony.443  In her interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Baldwin stated that she  provided a briefing on the Sandusky investigation to the Board at its regular meeting on  May 12, 2011.  Fifty minutes were set aside for the briefing but Baldwin recalled that her  report  lasted  20  minutes  before  Spanier  directed  her  to  leave.    Several  Trustees  described the briefing as a three to five minute, “oh by the way” presentation, at the end  of the day.444   In  an  affidavit  Baldwin  prepared  for  the  Board  in  January  2012  to  provide  her  recollection  of  the  May  2011  briefing,  she  stated  that  she  told  the  Board  that  the  University  did  not  appear  to  be  a  focus  of  the  investigation. 445  Furthermore,  she  affirmed  that  she  had  also  explained  to  the  Board:  (i)  what  a  grand  jury  is;  (ii)  how  it  works;  (iii)  the  fact  that  the  grand  jury  process  is  confidential  ‐  although  those  who  testify  are  free  to  divulge  their  testimony;  (iv)  that  Schultz,  Paterno,  and  Curley  “had  been interviewed” in January 2011 and Spanier “had been interviewed” in April 2011;446  and  (v)  that  those  who  testified  had  been  asked  about  a  2002  incident  in  the  football  building.ll  She also stated that she told the Board that the University Police Department,  Exhibit 6‐A (Baldwin affidavit).  ll 87 the  District  Attorney’s  Office,  and  Children  and  Youth  Services  had  investigated  an  incident involving Sandusky in 1998 and that no charges had been filed.447  Baldwin  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  her  affidavit  had  not  been  intended to list everything she told the Board.448  She said that she also explained to the  Board that a grand jury could return a “presentment” that, even if not alleging a crime,  can nonetheless contain negative information about an institution.449  Board  members  had  differing  recollections  of  Baldwin’s  May  2011  report.   Several Trustees had the impression that the Sandusky investigation involved issues at  the  Second  Mile  and  did  not  involve  Penn  State.450   Several  Trustees  recalled  hearing  that this was the third or fourth time a grand jury had investigated Sandusky and took  that as an indication that criminal charges were not likely.451  Some Trustees understood  that  some  Penn  State  senior  administrators  had  testified,452 while  others  did  not.453   A  common perception was that this was not an “important” issue for the University and  the investigation was not a cause for concern.454   Some  Trustees  faulted  Spanier  and  Baldwin  for  not  informing  the  Board  about  the Sandusky investigation in a more useful manner.455 The common complaint was that  Spanier’s and Baldwin’s May 2011 report to the Board did not address the core question  of  why  four  senior  Penn  State  officials  needed  to  appear  before  the  Grand  Jury  if  the  investigation did not “involve” Penn State.  Their report also did not indicate that the  Attorney  General’s  investigators  had  spent  two  days  interviewing  the  University’s  football  coaching  staff;456 that  the  investigators  had  subpoenaed  all  emails  dating  back  to  1997  for  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley;457 that  investigators  subpoenaed  the  names  of  all  Penn  State  Physical  Plant  employees  from  1990;458 and  that  more  football  program staffmm were to testify before the Grand Jury.459  One  Trustee  said  that  Spanier  may  have  been  “left  to  float  too  freely  by  himself” 460  because  he  felt  he  could  fix  anything. 461  Other  Trustees  expressed  that  Spanier  “filtered”462 issues  in  the  best  light  of  a  desired  outcome;463 showed  Trustees  “rainbows” but not  “rusty  nails;”464 and “scripted” or “baked”  issues  leaving no  room  to  debate  issues  or  confront  Spanier  even  when  disagreement  arose.465   One  Trustee   On May 12, 2011, the same day as the Board meeting, Baldwin interviewed a football equipment  manager who had been approached that day by Attorney General investigators.  According to Baldwin’s  notes, the manager advised her that McQueary had told him “that [McQueary] saw something that  changed his life.  [McQueary] had to tell Coach Paterno.”  Control Number 09325388.  mm 88 called Spanier’s ”managing of messages” and the Board’s reactive nature a “recipe for  disaster.”466   Trustees  generally  recalled  that  members  asked  Baldwin  or  Spanier  few  questions  about  the  investigation. 467    The  Trustees  did  not  discuss  whether  the  University  should  conduct  an  internal  investigation  to  understand  the  facts  and  any  potential  liability  issues,  engage  experienced  criminal  counsel,  or  prepare  for  the  possibility  that  the  Grand  Jury  investigation  might  result  in  some  criticism  of  the  University  or  its  staff.    One  Trustee  recalled  that  the  Board  did  not  ask  for  any  investigation into the Sandusky issues because, from the way it was presented, the issue  did  not  seem  like  a  matter  of  concern. 468  In  their  report  to  the  Board,  Spanier  and  Baldwin  significantly  downplayed  the  nature  of  the  Sandusky  investigation  and  the  potential  damage  it  could  cause  the  University.    Given  the  information  that  was  presented to them, the Board members did not reasonably inquire if the University had  taken any measures to limit Sandusky’s access to its facilities.   IV. University Response to the Presentment and Criminal Charges  Against Sandusky, Schultz and Curley ‐  October and November 2011  A. Baldwin, Spanier and Garban Learn of Presentment and Criminal Charges –  October and November 2011  In  late  October  2011,  Baldwin  learned  from  an  employee  at  the  Attorney  General’s  Office  that  “Curley  and  Schultz  will  be  in  our  presentment,”  meaning  that  Curley  and  Schultz,  two  prominent  Penn  State  officials,  were  about  to  be  indicted.469  Baldwin  advised  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  she  understood  the  charges  concerned  the  “duty  to  protect”  and  “reporting  abuse.”    There  was  no  mention  of  perjury.470 On October 27, 2011, at 3:43 p.m., Baldwin sent Curley an urgent message to  meet  her  and  Spanier  that  evening.471 They  met  at  8:00  p.m.  and  Baldwin  told  Curley  and Schultz that they may be indicted by the Grand Jury.472   On  October  28,  2011,  Spanier  and  Baldwin  had  a  series  of  meetings  concerning  the charges, including one with the Penn State Communications Office staff.473  A staff  member  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  during  that  meeting,  Spanier  said  that he knew Curley and Schultz had done nothing wrong.474  By 1:00 p.m. on October  89 28, 2011, Spanier had distributed a draft statement to Garban and the Communications  staff that read:  The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they  be  investigated  thoroughly.    Protecting  children  requires  the  utmost  vigilance.   With  regard  to  the  other  indictments,  I  wish  to  say  that  Tim  Curley  and  Gary  Schultz  have  my  unconditional  support.    I  have  known  and  worked  daily  with  Tim and Gary for more than 16 years.  I have complete confidence in how they  have  handled the  allegations  about  a former  University  employee.    Tim  Curley  and  Gary  Schultz  operate  at  the  highest  levels  of  honesty,  integrity  and  compassion.    I  am  confident  the  record  will  show  that  these  charges  are  groundless  and  that  they  conducted  themselves  professionally  and  appropriately.475  Spanier  requested  input  from  Baldwin  and  the  Communications  staff  on  the  draft.    One  of  the  communications  staff  members  stated  to  the  Special  Investigative  476 Counsel  that  the  Communications  staff  member  thought  the  phrase  “unconditional  support”  was  “horrendous”  but  others  at  the  meeting  were  “sheep”  and  went  along  with  Spanier’s  idea.477   This  officer  remembered  that  Spanier  said  he  should  back  up  Curley and Schultz  because he  had asked  them to take  care  of something,  they  did  it,  and  something  bad  happened,  and  that  he  should  not  abandon  them  merely  because  things did not turn out well.478  In  his  interview  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Spanier  stated  that  the  media  did  not  focus  on  the  part  of  his  statement  that  was  empathetic  to  the  victims.   When  asked  if  the  six  words  “[p]rotecting  children  requires  the  utmost  vigilance”  sufficiently reflected the harm suffered by children who had been abused on the Penn  State campus, Spanier said it was not his “place to jump to any conclusions or declare  someone guilty before there was any due process.”479  Spanier said he had not made an  effort  to  investigate  the  facts  concerning  Sandusky,  and  did  not  want  to  appear  to  interfere with the police work.480  Spanier  and  Baldwin  met with  Garban at  noon  on  October  28, 2011.481  Baldwin  told the Special Investigative Counsel that Garban was the “conduit” to the Board, and  Baldwin  intended  that  he  pass  the  information  about  the  charges  to  the  Board  members. 482    Garban  had  a  different  understanding,  however,  telling  the  Special  90 Investigative Counsel that, in his meeting with Spanier and Baldwin, Spanier said that  he still thought nothing would come of the investigation because other grand juries had  reviewed the matter without bringing charges.483  Over  the  weekend  of  October  28‐30,  2011,  Garban  had  conversations  with  Trustees John Surma and Jim Broadhurst and told them what he learned from Spanier  and Baldwin.484 Garban also spoke again with Spanier who told him Baldwin was going  to try to convince the Attorney General’s Office that they did not have a case.485  Garban  told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was “astounded” to see Sandusky in the  Nittany  Lion  Club  at  the  football  game  on  October  29,  2011,  given  what  he  had  learned. 486  Neither  Garban,  Spanier,  Broadhurst,  Surma  nor  Baldwin  spoke  to  the  remaining  Board  members  about  the  impending  charges  until  after  the  charges  were  filed against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz on November 4, 2011.   Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that Baldwin originally had been  told  that  charges  would  not  be  brought  until  November  12,  2011.487   Spanier  said  he  planned  to  “scrap”  the  Board  agenda  for  November  10  and  devote  the  meeting  to  discussing  Sandusky.488   Spanier  said  that  he  took  a  senior  Board  staff  person  into  his  confidence on November 2 and told that person “we know charges are being brought.   We will scrap the Trustee seminar agenda, and devote the day to this matter.  It will be  good timing, we will get ready.”489  After Spanier’s interview, the Special Investigative  Counsel  re‐interviewed  the  senior  Board  staff  person.    The  staff  person  did  not  recall  any conversation with Spanier about scrapping the Board agenda, or about charges that  would be filed against Sandusky.490  On Friday, November 4, 2011, at 2:26 p.m., newspapers reported that Sandusky  had been indicted on charges of indecent assault of minors, among others.491  The initial  stories,  however,  did  not  mention  charges  against  Schultz  or  Curley. 492  The  presentment,  which  was  attached  to  the  charging  documents,  had  been  inadvertently  released  on  November  4,  2011.    On  Saturday,  November  5,  2011,  law  enforcement  officers  arrested  Sandusky  on  the  criminal  charges,  and  released  a  press  statement  detailing the allegations against Sandusky, Curley, Schultz and others at Penn State.493  In his interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier said that it was  his  idea  to  bring  the  Board  together  when  the  presentment  was  released  so  the  Board  could be properly informed.   91 On  November  5,  2011,  at  1:41  p.m.,  a  Trustee  emailed  Spanier  and  Garban,  asking when the Board would be briefed.494  Ten minutes later, Baldwin advised Spanier  that “[i]t may be best to tell [the Trustee] that you are briefing the chair and the Board  will  be  briefed  next  week.”495   At  2:09  p.m.,  Spanier  wrote  to  Baldwin,  “Steve  already  said we should alert the Board, but at this point it will be nothing more than what we  are  saying  publicly.”    Shortly  thereafter  on  that  day,  Spanier  released  the  statement  expressing  his  “unconditional  support”  for  Curley  and  Schultz.496   Spanier  remained  “confident  the  record  will  show that  these  charges  are  groundless and  that  they  conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.”497  B. Board of Trustees Conference Call ‐ November 5, 2011  Senior  administration  staff  suggested  to  Spanier  that  he  brief  the  Board,498 and  schedule a conference call for 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2011.  According to the Board’s  notes,  Spanier  began  the  call  by  stating  that  the  charges  against  Curley  and  Schultz  were  erroneous,  unfair  and  unfortunate,  and  he  expected  “exoneration.” 499    Some  Trustees  questioned  the  quality  of  the  University’s  investigation  of  the  2002  incident,  but  Spanier  denied  that  the  charges  had  anything  to  do  with  the  University’s  investigative  process. 500    One  Trustee  suggested  an  “independent  investigation”  by  outside  counsel  and  retention  of  a  crisis  management  firm. 501    Another  Trustee  mentioned  the  employment  status  of  Curley  and  Schultz.502   A  meeting  was  called  for  the next day in which crisis management and legal advisors would make presentations  to the Board on how to approach the crisis.503  Spanier  and  Baldwin  opposed  an  independent  investigation  of  the  Sandusky  issue.  Baldwin emailed Spanier that, “[i]f we do this, we will never get rid of this group  in  some  shape  or  form.    The  Board  will  then  think  that  they  should  have  such  a  group.”504  Spanier agreed.505   In  meetings  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  some  Trustees  recalled  that  Spanier  wanted to  wait for the regular Board meeting later  in  the week  to discuss  the  matter.506   A  Trustee  recalled  that  Spanier  said  he  managed  crises  every  day  at  Penn  State and he could handle this issue.507   C. Board of Trustees Meeting ‐ November 6, 2011  92 Garban called another Board meeting for Sunday, November 6, 2011, at 7:00 p.m.   According  to  the  Board  notes,  several  members  advocated  for  the  formation  of  a  task  force to work with outside counsel on crisis management.508  Other members questioned  whether  the  Board  had  received  the  relevant  information  about  the  investigation.509   One  Board  member  suggested  that  Curley,  Schultz  and  Spanier  should  be  suspended  from  their  duties,  but  Garban  said  Spanier  should  not  be  suspended.510 Some  Board  members  also  observed  that  Spanier’s  public  statements  did  not  sufficiently  address  harm to the victims of Sandusky’s crimes.511  Later  in  the  evening  of  November  6,  2011,  the  University  issued  another  press  release  stating  that  Curley  asked  to  be  placed  on  administrative  leave  and  Schultz  would  re‐retire  so  that  both  men  could  devote  time  to  defending  themselves.512   The  release  also  announced  that  a  “task  force”  would  review  the  University’s  policies  and  procedures  on  the  protection  of  children. 513  The  press  release  on  November  7,  2011  reflected that Curley and Schultz had requested and been granted administrative leave.    Some Board members were upset with the wording of the release, as they recalled that  it was their decision to place Curley and Schultz on administrative leave.514    In  meetings  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  several  Trustees  described  the second press release as a “turning point” for Spanier.515  Changes that Spanier made  to  the  statement  after  the  Board  had  agreed  on  its  points  angered  several  members.516   This  led  some  Trustees  to  grow  concerned  with  Spanier’s  ability  to  lead. 517    In  an  interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, Spanier denied making anything other  than minor grammatical changes to the Board’s statement.518  Some  Trustees  thought  Garban’s  history  of  being  previously  employed  at  Penn  State, where as SVP‐FB he reported directly to Spanier, hampered his ability to lead the  Board.519  Garban told the Trustees that he had not advised them about the presentment  when he learned of it because he was not sure it would come to fruition.520  On  November  7,  2011,  a  Board  member  questioned  whether  the  prior  day’s  statement  reflected  the  “sense  of  the  Board,”  and  urged  the  Board  to  have  another  meeting.521  D. Board of Trustees Conference Call ‐ November 8, 2011  93 On  November  8,  2011,  the  Board  met  again  by  conference  call.    Garban  announced  that  he  would  turn  the  position  of  Board  Chair  over  to  Vice  Chair  John  Surma.  Surma then told the Board that he intended that they discuss forming a special  investigative  group  of  the  Board,  and  deliberate  on  Paterno’s  and  Spanier’s  leadership.522  The Board established the Special Investigations Task Force (“Task Force”).  The  Board  also  discussed  University  leadership,523 but  the  members  quickly  decided  that  this  type  of  discussion  should  be  held  in  person.524   Other  members  thought  that  no  personnel  action  should  occur  until  the  investigation  was  completed. 525    The  Board  reached a consensus to delay decisions until the next day, and to issue a more thorough  press release to express the Board’s concerns.526  During  the  evening  of  November  8,  2011,  the  Board  issued  its  own  statement,  expressing its outrage over “the horrifying details” of the Sandusky case.527  The Board  stated  that  it  would  appoint  a  special  group  to  examine  the  circumstances  of  the  charges, including “what failures occurred and who is responsible and what measures  are necessary to ensure that this never happens at our University again and that those  responsible  are  held  fully  accountable.”528 The  Board’s  statement  concluded:  “We  are  committed to restoring public trust in the university.”529  E. Board of Trustees Meeting ‐ November 9, 2011  The  Board  met  again  in  person  on  the  evening  of  November  9,  2011.    Surma  chaired the meeting.530 The Board discussed Spanier first, and the consensus was that he  would  be  terminated  without  cause.531   Executive  Vice  President  and  Provost  Rodney  Erickson was named interim President.532  In  interviews  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  all  of  the  Trustees  who  participated  in  the  deliberations  regarding  the  personnel  actions  said  the  decision  concerning Spanier was their clear consensus.533  The decision to terminate Paterno was  more  difficult  because  Board  members  had  different  viewpoints  about  his  role.   Nevertheless,  one  Board  member  stated  that  each  of  the  Trustees  reached  the  same  decision in a different way.534  Some  Board  members  felt  that  Paterno  could  have  done  more  after  learning  about Sandusky’s activities.535  Some Board members recall former athletes stating that  94 Paterno had tremendous control over what happened in his program.536  Several Board  members were disturbed by Paterno’s attempt to usurp the Board’s role by discussing  his retirement plans for the end of the season and holding his own press conference.537   Others said Paterno could not continue to function as coach in the current environment  and had become a distraction.538  The  Trustees  have  differing  recollections  of  Governor  Thomas  Corbett’s  role  in  the Board discussion.  Some Trustees recall people asking if the Governor was still on  the  phone  line,  as  he  was  quiet  during  parts  of  the  call.539   Some  Trustees,  including  Corbett himself, said Corbett did not assert himself more than other Trustees.  At least  one said Surma gave Corbett the opportunity to do so.540  Some Trustees recall Corbett  saying  something  right  before  the  vote  on  Paterno  along  the  lines  of  “I  hope  you’ll  remember  the  children.” 541    Others  described  him  as  being  vocal  and  playing  a  leadership  role  in  the  meeting.542   One  Trustee  recalled  Corbett  saying  that  the  Board  needed  to  take  decisive  action  or  there  might  be  a  loss  of  support  for  Penn  State.   Corbett told  the  Special  Investigative Counsel that  he  did not attend the May briefing  on Sandusky and his representatives did not report about the meeting to him.  Corbett  further  told  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that,  if  he  had  attended  the  briefing,  he  would have asked more questions or prompted other Trustees to ask further questions.   Some  Trustees  felt  that  the  discussion  on  Paterno’s  future  with  the  football  program was rushed and not sufficient for the situation.543 One Trustee said the Board  was seeking to act quickly when it instead should have acted in a more deliberate way,  with all of the facts.544  The same Trustee feared “getting in front of the facts.”545 Another  Trustee  argued  for  placing  Paterno  on  administrative  leave  and  for  balancing  the  tremendous good Paterno did for Penn State against the “worst mistake of his life.”546 A  Trustee commented that it was a sad, but necessary, action the Board had to take.547  The  Board  did  not  explore  the  range  of  personnel  actions  available  to  them  regarding  Paterno’s role in the football program before the Board concluded that Paterno should  be removed as Head Football Coach.”548  The Board did not have a plan in place to notify Paterno of its decision.  None of  the Board members seem to have considered alternative times or locations for meeting  with  Paterno  and  no  one  appears  to  have  communicated  with  him  in  advance  of  the  Board  meeting  that  evening.    In  hindsight,  some  Trustees  felt  that  they  should  have  95 found a way to go to Paterno’s home to notify him in person but at the time they did  not feel it was feasible.   Some  Trustees  were  concerned  that  the  crowds  and  media  around  Paterno’s  home precluded  having Paterno come to their meeting place  or having Trustees  go to  his home so that they could tell him of its decision.  Neither University officials nor the  Board contacted local law enforcement about the possible public reaction to its decision,  despite the growing crowds on campus and in State College.549  Some  Trustees  also  were  concerned  that  the  media  would  report  their  decision  about Paterno before he could be notified.  Therefore, in order to inform Paterno of its  decision to remove him from his position, the Board directed a staff member from the  Athletic Department to deliver a note to Paterno at his home.  The note directed Paterno  to call a phone number that belonged to Surma.  When Paterno called, Surma advised  him  that  the  Board  was  removing  him  from  his  position  as  Head  Football  Coach.   Paterno ended the call without speaking further to Surma.  Shortly thereafter, Paterno’s  wife  called  Surma  to  complain  about  the  Board’s  treatment  of  her  husband.    The  consequences  of  this  awkward  termination  resulted  in  an  outpouring  of  criticism  against  the  Trustees  by  students,  alumni  and  other  Penn  State  supporters.    Students  demonstrated on the campus in protest and the media coverage was extraordinary and  generally unfavorable.  Most  of  the  Trustees  agreed  that  the  Board  did  not  properly  handle  the  termination  of  Paterno. 550  Some  Trustees  agreed  that  the  Board  was  ill‐prepared  to  address the situation.551    96   CHAPTER 6  BOARD OF TRUSTEES      KEY FINDINGS   The  charter,  by‐laws  and  standing  orders  of  the  Penn  State  Board  state  that  the  Board  “shall  receive  and  consider  thorough  and  forthright  reports  on  the  affairs  of  the  University  by  the  President  or  those  designated  by  the  President.  It  has  a  continuing  obligation to require information or answers on any University matter with which it is  concerned.”   In  1998  and  2001,  the  Board  of  Trustees  failed  to  exercise  its  oversight  and  reasonable  inquiry  responsibilities.    In  that  time,  the  Board  did  not  have  regular  reporting  procedures or committee structures in place to ensure disclosure to the Board of major  risks to the University.     Because  the  Board  did  not  demand  regular  reporting  of  such  risks,  the  President  and  senior University officials in this period did not bring major risks facing the University  to the Board.    The Board did not create a ‘Tone at the Top’ environment wherein Sandusky and other  senior University officials believed they were accountable to it.   Spanier and senior University officials did not make thorough and forthright reports to  the Board, which itself equally failed in its continuing obligation to require information  or answers on any University matter with which it is concerned.   Some  Trustees  reported  that  their  meetings  felt  “scripted”  or  that  they  were  “rubber  stamping” major decisions already made by Spanier and a smaller group of Trustees.     After the Sandusky investigation became publicly known in late March 2011, the Board  did  not  independently  assess  this  information  or  further  inquire,  up  to  and  including  the May 12, 2011 Board meeting.     After  the  May  2011  Board  briefing  on  the  Sandusky  investigation,  the  Board  did  not  reasonably  inquire  about  this  serious  matter  at  Board  meetings  in  July  or  September  2011.    97 I. Board Structure and Responsibilities  Established  by  Charter,  the  Board  of  Trustees  (“Board”  or  “Trustees”)  of  The  Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State” or “University”) is the corporate body that  has  complete  responsibility  for  the  government  and  welfare  of  the  University  and  all  the interests pertaining thereto, including students, faculty, staff and alumni.552  The  Board  is  composed  of  32  members.    Five  are  ex  officio  members:    the  University President; Governor of Pennsylvania; and secretaries of the departments of  Agriculture,  Education,  and  Conservation  and  Natural  Resources.    The  Governor  appoints six Trustees, the alumni elect nine Trustees, the Commonwealth’s agricultural  societies  elect  six  Trustees,  and  the  Board  elects  six  members  from  business  and  industry  groups.    Elected  terms  and  appointments  begin  on  July  1  and  Trustees  serve  three‐year  terms  and  can  be  reappointed.    The  six  gubernatorial  appointments  are  staggered with two appointed each year for three‐year terms or “until their successors  are appointed  and confirmed.”  These appointments  are subject to confirmation  by  the  State Senate.553 On May 16, 2003, the Board adopted term limits of 15 years applicable to  alumni,  agricultural,  and  business  and  industry  Trustees. 554  Recently,  President  Erickson  invited  five  additional  representatives  of  several  University  constituencies,  including  alumni,  faculty,  staff  and  students,  to  participate  in  the  Universityʹs  Board  committees and meetings, effective July 2012.   The  Board  also  can  confer  “Trustee  Emeritus”  status  on  any  living  former  member of the Board who served for 12 or more years with distinction.  Trustees who  served 20 years as of May 13, 2011, are entitled to automatic Emeritus status.  Referred  to  as  “Emeritus  Trustees”  or  “Trustees  Emeriti,”  these  individuals  are  entitled  to  all  Trustee  privileges  except  those  of  making  motions,  voting  and  holding  office.555 There  are currently 16 Emeritus Trustees.556  The  Board  operates  under  a  Charter,  Corporate  By‐Laws  and  Standing  Orders.   In the exercise of its responsibilities, the Board is guided by the following policies:  1. The  authority  for  day‐to‐day  management  and  control  of  the  University,  and  the  establishment  of  policies  and  procedures  for  the  educational  program and other operations of the University shall be delegated to the  President,  and  by  him/her,  either  by  delegation  to,  or  consultation  with,  the faculty and the student body in accordance with a general directive of  98 the Board.  This delegation of authority requires that the Board rely on the  judgment  and  decisions  of  those  who  operate  under  its  authority.   However,  this  reliance  of  the  Board  must  be  based  upon  its  continuing  awareness  of  the  operations  of  the  University.    Therefore,  the  Board  shall  receive  and  consider  thorough  and  forthright  reports  on  the  affairs  of  the  University  by  the  President  or  those  designated  by  the  President.    It  has  a  continuing  obligation  to  require  information  or  answers  on  any  University  matter  with  which  it  is  concerned.    Finally,  upon  request  the  Board  shall  advise  the  President  on  any  University  matter  of  concern  to  him/her.  [emphasis added].  2. The  Board  of  Trustees  shall  carry  out  certain  responsibilities  as  a  Board,  without delegation.  These responsibilities are:  a. The selection of the President of the University;  b. The  determination  of  the  major  goals  of  the  University  and  the  approval of the policies and procedures for implementation of such  goals;  c. The review and approval of the operating and capital budget of the  University;  d. Such  other  responsibilities  as  law,  governmental  directives,  or  custom require the Board to act upon.  3. The  Board  of  Trustees  shall  inform  the  citizens  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania of the  University’s performance of its role in  the  education  of the youth of Pennsylvania.  4. The  Board  of  Trustees  shall  assist  the  President  in  the  development  of  effective relationships between the University and the various agencies of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  United  States  of  America  which provide to the University assistance and direction.557  The Board provides oversight to the University through its standing committees.   As  of  1998  the  Board  had  three  standing  committees:    (1)  Committee  on  Educational  Policy;  (2)  Committee  on  Finance  and  Physical  Plant;  and  (3)  Committee  on  Campus  99 Environment.558  The Board established by Standing Order a Subcommittee for Audit on  March 19, 2004, and a Subcommittee for Finance on September 19, 2008.559   At  its  meeting  of  March  16,  2012,  the  Board  replaced  the  three  standing  committees with five new committees:  (1) Committee on Academic Affairs and Student  Life;  (2)  Committee  on  Finance,  Business  and  Capital  Planning;  (3)  Committee  on  Governance  and  Long‐Range  Planning;  (4)  Committee  on  Audit,  Risk,  Legal  and  Compliance; and (5) Committee on Outreach, Development and Community Relations.   Each  committee  oversees  its  designated  area(s)  of  responsibility  and  makes  recommendations  to  the  full  Board  for  actions  that  enhance  the  functionality  of  the  University.nn  The Board meets six times each year.560  II. The Board’s Duty of Oversight and Reasonable Inquiry  An  effective  board  exercises  objective  and  independent  judgment  while  overseeing systems to ensure that the institution operates according to the law and its  governing  framework.    Under  Pennsylvania  law  concerning  non‐profit  boards,  board  members have not only a duty of loyalty, but also a duty of care, including “reasonable  inquiry, skill and diligence, as a person of ordinary prudence would use under similar  circumstances.”561  Indeed, the standing orders of the Penn State Board reflect this duty  of inquiry, directing that the Board “shall receive and consider thorough and forthright  reports  on  the  affairs  of  the  University  by  the  President  or  those  designates  by  the  President.    It  has  a  continuing  obligation  to  require  information  or  answers  on  any  University matter with which it is concerned.”562  A board can breach its duty when it “utterly fails to implement any reporting or  information  system  or  controls”  or  having  implemented  such  system  or  controls  “consciously  fails  to  monitor  or  oversee  its  operations  thus  disabling  themselves  from  being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention.”563  The board breaches its  duty  not  because  a  mistake  occurs,  but  because  the  board  fails  to  provide  reasonable  oversight in a “sustained or systematic” fashion.564  During  the  course  of  this  investigation,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  interviewed  all  current  members  of  the  Board,  the  majority  of  emeriti  members  and  several  former  members.  The  Trustee  interviews yielded a number of pertinent recommendations that are included in Chapter 10 of this report.    nn 100 A. The Board’s Failure of Oversight and Reasonable Inquiry in 1998 and 2001  In 1998 and 2001, the Penn State Board failed to exercise its oversight functions.   In  that  time,  the  Board  did  not  have  regular  reporting  procedures  or  committee  structures in place to ensure disclosure to the Board of major risks.  Because the Board  did  not  demand  regular  reporting  of  these  risks,  Spanier  and  other  senior  University  officials  in this  period did not bring up  the Sandusky investigations. For example,  the  Board met in May 1998 and March 2001, but was not advised by Spanier regarding the  Sandusky  incidents.    While  Spanier  failed  to  disclose  these  facts,  the  Board  has  a  continuing obligation to require information about such an important matter.  Similarly,  in  September  2001,  the  Board  approved  a  favorable  land  deal  to  Sandusky’s  Second  Mile, just six months after Sandusky was investigated for assaulting a young boy in the  Lasch  Building  showers.    The  Board  should  have  elicited  such  important  information  from senior University officials before the sale.   Some  Trustees  reported  that  their  meetings  felt  “scripted”  or  that  they  were  “rubber  stamping”  major  decisions  already  made  by  Spanier  and  a  smaller  group  of  Trustees.”565  Sometimes Trustees learned of the President’s decisions in public meetings  where there were no questions or discussions.566  B. The Board’s Failure of Reasonable Inquiry in 2011   In 2011, the Board failed to perform its duty of inquiry, especially when it was on  notice  that  the  University  was  facing  a  major  risk  involving  the  Grand  Jury  investigation.    While  Spanier  and  Baldwin’s  May  2011  briefing  to  the  Board  downplayed  the  nature  of  the  Grand  Jury  investigation  of  Sandusky,  the  Board  members  did  not  independently  assess  the  information  or  demand  detailed  reporting  from Spanier and Baldwin on this serious matter.567 For example, Spanier and Baldwin  indicated that the investigation did not involve the University, yet they did not explain  why  the  Grand  Jury  called  four  senior  Penn  State  officials  to  testify.568   The  Board  did  not  inquire  about  the  details  of  the  Attorney  General’s  investigation,  including  the  request  for  subpoenas  seeking  historic email information for Spanier, Schultz, Paterno  and  Curley.    When  a  Board  member  asked  for  more  information,  Spanier  complained  about  this  member,  noting  to  Baldwin  that  “[the  Trustee]  desires  near  total  transparency.  He will be uncomfortable and feel put off until he gets a report.”569    101 After the May 2011 briefing, Board members did not ask for further updates on  the  investigation  at  Board  meetings  in  July  and  September  2011.    The  Board  therefore  did  not  meet  its  “continuing  obligation  to  require  information  or  answers  on  any  University matter with which it is concerned.”570  Further,  because  the  Board  did  not  push  Spanier  and  other  senior  officials  on  such  an  important  matter,  Spanier  did  not  feel  accountable  for  keeping  the  Board  immediately informed on serious developments, such as advance notice that Sandusky,  Schultz and Curley faced criminal charges.  The Board allowed itself to be marginalized  by not demanding “thorough and forthright reports on the affairs of the University.”571  Spanier’s  communications  reflected  his  attitude  toward  keeping  the  Board  informed of major developments.  For example, hours after Spanier appeared before the  Grand  Jury,  he  communicated  with  a  Trustee  who  asked  about  the  status  of  the  investigation.    Spanier  avoided  the  Trustee’s  question  and  asserted  that  he  was  “not  sure  it  is  entirely  our  place  to  speak  about  this  when  we  are  only  on  the  periphery  of  this.”572  However, Spanier did not disclose that he had just been before the Grand Jury.   Within  a  few  hours  of  the  criminal  charges  becoming  public,  staff  members  advised  Spanier  that  the  Board  needed  to  be  updated.    Spanier  said  that  any  briefing  “will  be  nothing more than what we said publicly.”573  He considered advising the Board that he  was  “briefing  the  Chair  and  the  Board  will  be  briefed  next  week.”574   When  he  finally  briefed  the  Board,  he  focused  on  issues  of  alleged  bias  in  the  government’s  investigation, calling the charges “erroneous unfair and unfortunate.”575  It was only on November 5, 2011, that members of the Board first began to press  Spanier  about  the  criminal  charges.    Noting  that  the  charges  presented  a  picture  of  a  “sexual  predator”  and  “perjury,”  one  Trustee  asserted  that  the  Board  had  a  duty  of  oversight and reporting.    102 CHAPTER 7  SANDUSKY’S POST‐RETIREMENT   INTERACTIONS WITH THE UNIVERSITY      KEY FINDINGS   Despite Spanier’s, Schultz’s, Paterno’s and Curley’s knowledge of criminal investigations  of  Sandusky  regarding  child  abuse  as  early  as  1998,  they  failed  to  control  Sandusky’s  access to the University’s facilities and campuses. In fact, Sandusky was allowed to have  a  key  for,  and  continued  to  work  out  in,  the  Lasch  Building  until  November  2011,  and  had keys to other Penn State facilities.     Even  after  the  Attorney  General’s  investigation  became  public  in  March  2011,  former  Penn State  General  Counsel Baldwin said  that  because  of  Sandusky’s “emeritus”  status  and  because  he  had  yet  to  be  convicted,  his  access  to  University  facilities  could  not  be  terminated.    Between  2002  and  2008  the  University  also  allowed  Sandusky  to  use  the  University  facilities  at  the  Altoona  and  Behrend  (Erie)  campuses  to  run “Jerry  Sandusky” summer  football  camps  for  youth.    Although  University  policy  required  a  Memorandum  of  Agreement (MOA) with all third parties using University facilities, Sandusky, who some  admired  “like a god” because he was a former football coach, was allowed to operate the  camps without any MOA.    The University continued to support the Second Mile throughout this time by providing  facilities and services for the organization’s day camps and fund‐raisers. Sandusky was a  corporate officer, volunteer and public “face” of the Second Mile throughout this time.    The University’s visible support of the Second Mile provided Sandusky with numerous  opportunities to bring young boys to campus and to interact with them through various  camps and activities.     After  his  retirement,  Sandusky  retained  access  to  the  Nittany  Lion  Club,  an  exclusive  seating area at Beaver Stadium.  Sandusky continued to be invited by senior University  officials and attend Nittany Lion Club events until his November 2011 arrest.     If University leaders had not granted Sandusky full use of Penn State’s football facilities  and  supported  his  ways  to  “work  with  young  people  through  Penn  State,”  sexual  assaults of several young boys on the Penn State campus might have been prevented.    103 I. Sandusky’s Ongoing Contacts with The University  After  his  retirement  from  Penn  State  on  June  30,  1999,  Gerald  A.  Sandusky  (“Sandusky”)  continued  to  maintain  a  prominent  relationship  with  Penn  State.   Sandusky  was  able  to  use  that  relationship  and  the  privileges  he  received  in  his  retirement  agreement  to  continue  to  bring  young  boys  to  University  facilities  and  events.    Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  were  aware  of  the  allegations  against  Sandusky  in  1998  and  2001.    Nonetheless,  they  put  children  in  danger  by  permitting  Sandusky  to  participate  in  these  activities  and  by  providing  continued  support  to  Second Mile activities.  A. Sandusky’s Continued Access to University Facilities  Sandusky  had  access  to  Penn  State’s  exclusive  football  fitness  facilities  (i.e.,  the  Lasch Football Building and the East Area Locker Room Building (“Old Lasch”)) as part  of his retirement agreement,576 whereas emeritus rank provided him with access only to  “University  recreational  facilities”  (among  other  benefits). 577  Until  October  31,  2011,  Penn  State  football  staff  regularly  saw  Sandusky  working  out  in  the  Lasch  Building  weight room.578  Sandusky still had keys to the Lasch Building when he was arrested in  November 2011.579  As recently as 2010, Sandusky had a “sub‐master” key to the press  box at Beaver Stadium, as well as a key for the stadium gates.580  The University also provided Sandusky with an office in Old Lasch as a term of  his  1999  retirement  agreement  and  emeritus  status. 581    Between  2007  and  2008,  Sandusky  relinquished  his  office  for  other  sports  teams  due  to  a  space  shortage. 582  Sandusky  was  able  to  use  this  office  to  store  personal  notes  and  documents. 583  University  officials  were  unaware  that  there  were  numerous  boxes  of  Sandusky’s  documents  and  belongings  in  Old  Lasch  until  the  Attorney  General’s  Office  investigators  and  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  found  these  documents  in  April  2012.    The  documents  contained  communications  between  Sandusky  and  Victim  4,  as  well as between Sandusky and other victims.  One of Sandusky’s documents was a “contract” between Sandusky and Victim 4  that  proposed  various  rewards,  including  a  “possible  bowl  trip,”  for  personal  and  school  achievements. 584  Victim  4  testified  at  Sandusky’s  trial  in  June  2012  as  to  the  104 existence of this contract.  A former Second Mile counselor who worked with Sandusky  at  the  Penn  State  camps  recalled  that  Sandusky  kept  notes  about  campers  during  the  camps.    Campers  were  given  written  goals  and  benchmarks  to  achieve  during  the  upcoming school year so the camper could return the following summer. 585  B. Sandusky’s Continued Access to the Nittany Lion Club at Beaver Stadium  After  his  retirement,  Sandusky  had  regular  access  to  premium  season  seats  for  Penn  State  home  football  games  in  the  Nittany  Lion  Club,  an  exclusive  seating  area  accessible  by  invitation  only. 586    In  July  2011,  for  the  first  time,  Curley  deleted  Sandusky’s name from the annual invitation list for the 2011 football season.587  In early  September 2011, Sandusky’s wife called the Nittany Lion Club staff to inquire about his  season  tickets. 588    The  staff  brought  the  issue  to  Curley,  who  reversed  his  previous  decision  and  approved  season  tickets  for  Sandusky. 589  On  October  7  and  8,  2011,  Sandusky participated in the 25th anniversary celebration of the 1986 Penn State national  championship team.590 Sandusky attended six home games in the 2011 season, including  the  game  played  the  week  before  criminal  charges  were  filed  against  him.591 After  his  arrest, Sandusky called the Nittany Lion Club and said that he would not attend the last  game of the 2011 season.592  Several individuals advised the Special Investigative Counsel that, because of his  continued  attendance  at  the  Nittany  Lion  Club,  they  were  under  the  impression  that  Sandusky  was  cleared  of  the  allegations  in  the  newspaper  reports  and  was  no  longer  under investigation.593   C. Sandusky’s Football Camps at University Campuses  After  Sandusky  retired,  the  University  allowed  him  to  operate  summer  youth  football camps at University facilities through his company, Sandusky and Associates.   Sandusky  used  two  University  campuses  for  his  camps,  Behrend  (in  Erie)  and  Harrisburg.    The  Behrend  campus  hosted  Sandusky’s  football  camps  from  2000  to  2008594 and  the  Harrisburg  campus  hosted  the  Sandusky  Football  Camp  in  2007  and  2008.      Both  of  these  campuses  provided  athletic  and  recreational  facilities,  food  and  lodging for the camps.  It  was  standard  practice  and  procedure  for  the  University  to  enter  into  a  Memorandum  of  Agreement  (“MOA”) 595  with  all  external  parties  that  utilized  105 University  facilities.    However,  the  Sandusky  Football  Camp  repeatedly  was  allowed  access to the Behrend campus for its overnight youth football camps without an MOA.   The Behrend campus did obtain an insurance certificate from Sandusky and Associates  but  required  only  “a  handshake”  with  him  to  permit  him  to  run  his  youth  football  camps  each  year  from  2000  to  2008. 596  Individuals  interviewed  by  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  stated  that,  during  these  years,  Sandusky  was  treated  as  a  celebrity and some University employees admired him “like a god.”597 He did not have  to  go  through  the  usual  administrative  procedures  because  he  was  a  former  football  coach at Penn State and a well‐respected employee for over 30 years.598  D. Sandusky’s Continued Business Dealings with the University  The  University  continued  to  conduct  business  with  Sandusky  after  his  retirement.    According  to  University  accounting  records,  Penn  State  made  71  separate  payments  to  Sandusky  for  travel,  meals,  lodging,  speaking  engagements,  camps  and  other  activities  from  January  5,  2000  through  July  22,  2008.599   Some  of  these  activities  included  a  speech  at  the  American  Football  Coaches  Association  meeting  in  2000,600 a  speech  at  the  2007  Penn  State  Leadership  Conference  for  Student  Organization  leaders,601 attendance  at  a  2000  Football  Coaches  Clinic  held  at  the  Behrend  campus,602  presentations  at  the  2002  Penn  State  Spring  Conference 603  and  the  2002  National  Association of College and University Food Services Region II Conference.604  On May  14,  2010,  Curley  wrote  a  letter  of  recommendation  for  Sandusky  for  the  American  Football Coaches Association Outstanding Achievement Award.    E. Failure to Prohibit Sandusky’s Access to University Facilities  Despite  Spanier’s,  Schultz’s,  Paterno’s  and  Curley’s  knowledge  of  criminal  investigations of Sandusky regarding child abuse as early as 1998, they failed to control  Sandusky’s access to the University’s facilities and campuses.  After  news  of  the  Sandusky  investigation  appeared  in  newspapers  in  March  2011, some members of the Athletic Department staff questioned Sandusky’s continued  access  to  athletic  facilities.605 Some  members  of  the  Athletics  Department  staff  asked  Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin if Sandusky could be restricted from the  athletic facilities.606 607 She told them that the University could not take his keys.608  106 Baldwin  advised  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  because  of  Sandusky’s  emeritus status and the fact that he had not been charged with a crime, his access could  not be eliminated without the University being sued.609  However, Baldwin said that she  believed that either Curley or another Athletic Department staff member was going to  ask  Sandusky  to  return  his  keys  voluntarily.    Baldwin  did  not  recall  any  further  discussion of the topic until Sandusky was charged.610  At that time, Baldwin requested  a human resources supervisor in the Athletic Department to ask Sandusky’s lawyer for  Sandusky’s keys.611  Before that was done, however, the University changed the locks on  the building so that Sandusky would no longer have access.612613 The supervisor told the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  the  supervisor  did  not  know  if  Sandusky  ever  returned his keys.   II. Sandusky’s Post‐Retirement Involvement  In Second Mile Activities  A. Penn State and the Second Mile Organization  The Second Mile is a non‐profit organization for underprivileged youth founded  by  Sandusky  in  1977,  when  he  was  the  Defensive  Coordinator  for  the  Penn  State  football  team.    Second  Mile  began  as  a  group  foster  home  for  the  purpose  of  helping  troubled  boys.    Over  the  years,  it  evolved  into  a  statewide,  three‐region  charity  dedicated to the welfare of children.  Since its founding, Second Mile has been closely  intertwined with the University.  In 2011, more than three‐quarters of the Second Mile  Board were University alumni.  University students served as interns and volunteers at  Second  Mile  events  and  solicited  donations  from  local  businesses  for  these  charitable  events.    Wendell  Courtney  was  the  outside  legal  counsel  at  Penn  State  from  1980  until  2010.  From 2008 to 2011, he was also legal counsel for the Second Mile and sat on  its  Board.  Sandusky  acted  as  a  corporate  officer,  key  fundraiser,  and  the  “face”614 of  the  organization while continuing to coach football at the University.  When he retired from  the  University  in  1999  he  became  a  paid  consultant  for  the  Second  Mile  until  August  2010,  when  he  retired 615  from  that  role.    Sandusky  remained  a  part  of  Second  Mile  through his presence and contacts even after his retirement.  107 B. “Collaborative Relationship” Between Penn State and Second Mile  An  article  posted  on  the  University’s  website  on  July  1,  1999  announced  Sandusky’s  retirement.    In  this  article,  Curley  stated  that  Sandusky  is  “the  founder  of  Second  Mile  …  [and]  will  continue  to  offer  his  services  on  a  volunteer  basis  to  the  athletic department’s Lifeskills and Outreach programs.”616  In the same announcement,  Paterno praised Sandusky for his contributions to the University’s football program and  stated  that  Sandusky  was  “…  a  person  of  great  character  and  integrity.” 617  In  a  memorandum dated August 23, 1999 from Second Mile Chairman Robert Poole to the  Second  Mile  Board,  Poole  wrote  that  beginning  in  January  2000,  Sandusky  would  become  a  paid  consultant  for  the  organization  and  earn  $57,000  per  year  plus  travel  expenses.618  In Sandusky’s retirement agreement with the University, both parties agreed to  “work  collaboratively”  in  community  outreach  programs  such  as  the  Second  Mile.619   The  collaboration  took  several  forms.    Penn  State  football  staff  and  players  helped  Sandusky  with  annual  Second  Mile  Golf  Tournaments  held  at  the  Penn  State  golf  course(s) from 2003 to 2011.620  Each year the Second Mile distributed playing cards that  displayed both Penn  State and Second Mile logos and contained images of Penn State  football  players,  coaches  and  other  student‐athletes.    A  number  of  the  University’s  football players and other student‐athletes routinely volunteered for Second Mile youth  programs.  In  addition,  in  February  2009,  Schultz  contacted  a  bank  on  behalf  of  Sandusky  and  the  Second  Mile.    Schultz  advised  the  bank  “the  Second  Mile  is  raising  funds  to  support an expansion of their facilities here in State College…. Would you be agreeable  to meet with Jerry Sandusky … and me?  They are really good people and this is a great  cause related to kids.”621  Bank officials agreed to meet with Sandusky.622  The  University’s  visible  support  of  the  Second  Mile  provided  Sandusky  with  numerous  opportunities  to  bring  young  boys  to  campus  and  to  interact  with  them  through various camps and activities.    C. Second Mile Camps on Penn State Campuses  Between  1999  and  2008,  the  Second  Mile  operated  six  one‐week  long  summer  youth camps at the University Park campus as well as at other non‐University locations.   108 Sandusky  operated  numerous  summer  youth  camps  at  various  Commonwealth  campuses through Second Mile and his own corporation, Sandusky and Associates.623   At  the  University  Park  campus,  camp  activities  were  held  at  various  locations  including  classrooms,  an  outdoor  swimming  pool,  athletic  fields  and  football  facilities.624   Sandusky  frequently  visited  the  boys’  camps  during  the  swimming  pool  activity in the afternoon, and the night sessions, which were usually held in one of the  football meeting rooms. 625   Second  Mile  also  offered  a  “Friend  Program,”  a  mentorship  program  that  matched a college volunteer with an at‐risk elementary student.626 The Friend Program  events  took  place  in  Blair,  Centre,  Clinton  and  Lancaster  counties  as  well  as  in  the  Lehigh  Valley  and  other  locations  in  Pennsylvania.    The  Friend  Program  events  included  picnics,  holiday  parties,  swimming  and  bowling. 627    Sandusky  sometimes  participated  in  the  Friend  Program  at  the  Altoona  campus.    When  he  did,  Sandusky  often arrived accompanied by a boy from Second Mile who was not part of the invited  group.628 According  to  a  Director  of  Programs  for  Second  Mile,  the  last  time  he  saw  Sandusky participate in any Second Mile activities was in 2008.629  109 CHAPTER 8  FEDERAL AND STATE CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS      KEY FINDINGS       requires  the  University  to  collect  crime  statistics  relating  to  designated  The  Clery  Act  crimes,  including  sexual  offenses,  occurring  on  University  property,  make  timely  warnings of certain crimes that pose an ongoing threat to the community, and prepare an  annual safety report and distribute it to the campus community.  The Clery Act requires  “Campus Security Authorities,” including coaches and athletic directors, to report crimes  to police.  From approximately 1991 until 2007, University officials delegated Clery Act  compliance  to  the  University  Police  Department’s  Crime  Prevention  Officer  (“CPO”).    The delegated CPO was not provided any formal training before taking over the position  nor does he recall receiving any Clery Act training until 2007.      In  2007,  the  Director  of  the  University  Police  Department  transferred  the  Clery  Act  compliance responsibility from the CPO to a departmental sergeant and instituted some  Clery  Act  training  programs.    The  sergeant  could  only  devote  minimal  time  to  these  duties.  Despite the efforts of the University Police Department, awareness and interest in  Clery Act compliance throughout the University remained significantly lacking.    As of November 2011, the University’s Clery Act policy was still in draft form and had  not  been  implemented.    Many  employees  interviewed  were  unaware  that  they  were  required to report incidents and had been provided with little, if any, training.  Although  University administrators identified compliance with laws and regulations as one of the  top 10 risks to the University in 2009, Clery Act compliance had never been audited by  the  University’s  internal  auditors  or  received  attention  from  any  other  University  department, including the Office of General Counsel.   The University Police Department instituted an electronic report format in 2007 for easier  reporting, but it received only one completed form between 2007 and 2011.   Paterno,  Curley  and McQueary  were  obligated  to  report  the  2001  Sandusky  incident  to  the University Police Department for inclusion in Clery Act statistics and for determining  whether  a  timely  warning  should  be  issued  to  the  University  community.    No  record  exists of such a report.  While Schultz and Spanier were arguably not Campus Security  Authorities  under  the  Clery  Act,  given  the  leadership  positions  they  held  within  the  University, they should have ensured that the University was compliant with the Clery  Act with regard to this incident.    110  Spanier advised the Special Investigative Counsel that although the University was “big”      on compliance, he was not aware that the Clery Act policy had not been implemented;  that  anyone  had  ever  advised  him  that  the  University  was  not  in  compliance  with  the  Clery  Act;  or  whether  there  had  ever  been  an  internal  or  external  audit  of  the  University’s Clery Act compliance.  111 I. The Federal “Clery Act”  The  Jeanne  Clery  Disclosure  of  Campus  Security  Policy  and  Campus  Crime  Statistics  Act,  20  U.S.C.  §  1092(f)  (“Clery  Act”),  is  a  federal  law  applicable  to  any  institution (“Institution”) of higher learning that participates in federal student financial  aid  programs.    The  Pennsylvania  State  University  (“Penn  State”  or  “University”)  participates in such programs and, therefore, must comply with the requirements of the  Clery  Act.    The  Clery  Act  is  enforced  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Education  (“Department of Education”), which has the authority to issue fines for violations of the  Clery Act or, in extreme cases, to end federal funding to the Institution.   The purpose of the Clery Act is to provide an Institution’s students, parents and  employees  with  information  about  campus  safety  so  that  members  of  the  campus  community  can  make  informed  decisions  to  protect  themselves  from  crime.    Among  other things, the Clery Act requires Institutions to: (1) collect crime statistics relating to  designated  crimes  (“Clery  Crimes”)  occurring  on  designated  locations  associated  with  the Institution; (2) make timely warnings of certain Clery Crimes that pose an ongoing  threat to the community; and, (3) prepare and distribute to the campus community an  annual safety report that contains the crime statistics described above, as well as other  information  about  the  Institution’s  safety  policies  and  procedures.oo   Institutions  are  required to collect crime data from all “Campus Security Authorities.”pp  A. Campus Security Authorities (“CSAs”)  The  Department  of  Education  establishes  the  regulations  for  implementing  the  Clery  Act  and  broadly  defines  the  term  “Campus  Security  Authority”  to  include  the  following entities or individuals:  1. A  campus  police  department  or  a  campus  security  department  of  an  Institution.  2. Any  individual  or  individuals  who  have  responsibility  for  campus  security  but  who  do  not  constitute  a  campus  police  department  or  a  20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1), (3), (5).  The Clery Act was originally passed in 1990, and Congress amended the  law several times over the years.      pp20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1)(F); 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(a).      oo 112 campus security department . . . such as an individual who is responsible  for monitoring entrance into Institutional property.  3. Any  individual  or  organization  specified  in  an  institution’s  statement  of  campus security policy as an individual or organization to which students  and employees should report criminal offenses.  4. An  official  of  an  institution  who  has  significant  responsibility  for  student  and  campus  activities  including,  but  not  limited  to,  student  housing,  student  discipline, and campus judicial proceedings. [emphasis added]qq  The  Department  of  Education  has  defined  the  last  group  of  CSAs  to  include,  among others, the following individuals:   A dean of students who oversees student housing, a student center or student  extracurricular activities.   A  director  of  athletics,  a  team  coach  or  a  faculty  advisor  to  a  student  group.  [emphasis added]   A  student  resident  advisor  or  assistant  or  a  student  who  monitors  access  to  dormitories.   A coordinator of [fraternity and sorority affairs].   A  physician  in  a  campus  health  center,  a  counselor  in  a  campus  counseling  center or a victim advocate or sexual assault response team in a campus rape  crisis  center  if  they  are  identified  by  [an  Institution]  as  someone  to  whom  crimes  should  be  reported  or  if  they  have  significant  responsibility  for  student and campus activities. . . .rr  B. Collecting Crime Statistics  The  Clery  Act  requires  Institutions  to  collect  information  about  all  Clery  Crimes,ss which include forcible and non‐forcible sex offenses,tt so that the information  34 C.F.R. § 668.46(a).  While the above citation is from 2011, the Department of Education has had similar guidance in place  setting forth its interpretation of the definition of Campus Security Authorities since at least 1999.  United  States Department of Education, Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting (hereinafter U.S.  Dept.  of  Education  Clery  Handbook)  (Washington  D.C.,  February  2011),  75.    See  64  F.R.  59060,  59063  (November 1, 1999).  ss20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1)(F)(i).    qq rr 113 can  be  used  for  reporting  statistics  to  the  public  on  an  annual  basis  and  determining  whether to issue timely warnings to the campus community.  Institutions are required  to report Clery Crimes that are “reported to campus security authorities or local police  agencies” on an annual basis.uu  Institutions are required to include any Clery Crime in  their  collected  statistics,  even  if  there  is  no  criminal  charge  filed  or  arrest  made.    The  Institution must collect and report the crime if the information is reported to a CSA who  believes that the allegation was made to him or her “in good faith.”vv  C. Issuance of Timely Warnings  The Clery Act requires an institution to issue “timely warnings” of Clery Crimes  if  the  crime  is  reported  to  a  CSA  and  is  “considered  by  the  Institution  to  represent  a  threat to students and employees.”ww  If the Institution, in the exercise of its judgment,  determines that the reported crime poses an ongoing threat to students and employees,  the Institution must utilize appropriate procedures to notify students and employees of  the threat “in a manner that is timely and will aid in the prevention of similar crimes.”xx  D. Preparation of an Annual Safety Report  The  Clery  Act  requires  Institutions  to  prepare  and  distribute  an  annual  safety  report  (“ASR”)  to  the  campus  community,  which  includes,  among  other  things,  the  annual  Clery  Act  crime  statistics  described  above.    The  Clery  Act  and  accompanying  regulations  set  forth  in  detail  what  the  ASR  must  include,  including  where  and  how  crimes  should  be  reported,  crime  prevention  policies,  alcohol  and  drug  information,  and emergency response and evacuation information.yy      Clery Crimes include:  murder, manslaughter, forcible and non‐forcible sex offenses, robbery,  aggravated assault, motor vehicle theft, arson, and certain drug and alcohol violations.  20 U.S.C. §  1092(f)(1)(F)(i).    uu20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1)(F)(i).  vv“If  a  campus  security  authority  receives  the  crime  information  and  believes  it  was  provided  in  good  faith, he or she should document it as a crime report.  In ‘good faith’ means there is a reasonable basis for  believing that the information is not simply rumor or hearsay.  That is, there is little or no reason to doubt  the validity of the information.“  U.S. Dept. of Education, Clery Handbook, 73.  ww34 C.F.R. § 668.46(e); see 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(3).  xx34 C.F.R. § 668.46(e).    yy20 U.S.C. § 1092(f).   tt 114 II. The University’s Failure To Implement the Clery Act  The  Clery  Act  was  passed  in  1990  and  became  effective  in  1991.    From  approximately  1991  until  2007,  University  officials  delegated  Clery  Act  compliance  to  the University Police Department’s Crime Prevention Officer (“CPO”).630  The CPO was  not  provided  any  formal  training  before  taking  over  the  position  nor  does  he  recall  receiving any Clery Act training until 2007.631  The CPO was supervised by others in the  University  Police  Department,  including,  ultimately,  then  Chief  Thomas  Harmon. 632  Before 2007, the CPO was unaware that the Clery Act included the concept of CSAs or  that the University had an obligation to collect crime data from student organizations,  coaches, and others who have regular contact with students.  To the CPO’s knowledge,  his  supervisors  were  also  unaware  of  these  requirements.633   In  fact,  according  to  the  CPO,  he  told  one  of  his  supervisors  in  2007  that  there  was  a  need  for  additional  personnel to assist with the Clery Act and “we could get hurt really bad here.”634  The  supervisor responded by saying “we really don’t have the money.”635  In  2007,  the  Director  of  the  University  Police  Department,  Stephen  Shelow,  transferred  the  Clery  Act  compliance  responsibility  from  the  CPO  to  a  departmental  sergeant, because he believed that compliance with the Clery Act had not been handled  well in the past.636  However, the sergeant in the University Police Department was only  able to devote minimal time to Clery Act responsibilities.   Shelow  also  directed  a  number  of  University  police  department  employees  to  attend  a  training  program  on  the  Clery  Act.    When  the  trainers  discussed  the  requirements to identify and train CSAs, the attendees realized that the University did  not  have  a  sufficient  process  for  those  tasks.637   In  fact,  Shelow  does  not  believe  that  anyone at the University understood, before that conference, that the Clery Act requires  that information be gathered from outside the University Police Department.638  Realizing that the University had serious deficiencies in the way that it gathered  Clery Crime information,639 the University Police Department began to provide training  and  conduct  outreach  to  the  broader  group  of  CSAs  to  gather  crime  data.    They  developed  a  crime  report  form  to  be  completed  by  any  CSA  to  whom  a  crime  was  reported  and  made  the  form  available  on  the  internet. 640    The  sergeant  created  PowerPoint materials and provided some training and information sessions for groups  at University Park and some of the Commonwealth campuses.641  The University Police  115 Department  also  held  meetings  with  faculty  and  staff  members  involved  in  athletics,  student  activities  and  the  fraternity  and  sorority  system  to  increase  awareness  of  the  Clery Act and to explain the obligations of some of these individuals as CSAs.642  Despite  the  efforts  of  the  University  Police  Department,  awareness  and  interest  in Clery Act compliance remained lacking throughout the University.643  Since making  the  report  form  available  electronically  in  2007,  the  University  Police  Department  has  received  only  one  completed  form  through  2011. 644    No  record  reflects  that  any  Commonwealth campus used the form until 2009.645  The training sessions and outreach  efforts  were  conducted primarily for just one or two  years, were  “sporadic” and  were  not well attended.646  The  Director  and  the  sergeant’s  intention  to  properly  follow  Clery  Act  regulations also were stymied by their own lack of time and resources.  The sergeant, in  addition  to  her  Clery  Act  responsibilities,  also  was  in  charge  of  all  criminal  investigations and was only able to devote minimal time to Clery Act compliance.647 The  Director  suggested  to  the  then  Senior  Vice  President  Finance  and  Business  that  the  University  appoint  a  “compliance  coordinator”  to  assist  with  Clery  Act  implementation.648   The  Director  was  told  that  while  the  need  for  the  position  existed,  the University had other priorities that needed attention first.649  In April 2009, the University’s outside legal counsel provided information to the  University about Clery Act compliance.650  The Director, the sergeant and others created  a “draft” Clery Act policy that would have required written notification to all CSAs of  their roles and responsibilities.651   As  of  November  2011,  the  University’s  Clery  Act  policy  was  still  in  draft  form  and  had  not  been  implemented. 652    Many  University  employees  interviewed  were  unaware  of  their  CSA  status  or  responsibilities  under  the  Clery  Act.    In  an  interview  with  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Spanier  said  that  he  was  not  aware  that  the  Clery Act policy had not been implemented and remained in draft form.653  Spanier said  no one at Penn State had ever informed him that the University was not in compliance  with  the  Clery  Act.654   Spanier  also  stated  that  there  had  been  no  internal  or  external  audits  for  Clery  Act  compliance.655   He  also  said  he  had  never  briefed  the  Board  on  Clery Act compliance, nor had the Board asked him questions on this issue.656  Spanier  emphasized that Penn State “was big on compliance, more than other universities.”657  116 III. Pennsylvania Child Sexual Abuse Reporting Requirements  The  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania  charged  Curley  and Schultz in November  2011 with violating Pennsylvania’s statute, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6311, relating to the mandatory  reporting  of  child  abuse  in  2002.    That  statute  requires  certain  individuals  who  are  “mandatory reporters” to report suspected child abuse to the appropriate state agency.   The statute has been amended several times but the relevant provision in effect in 2001  states:  Persons who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their  profession,  come  into  contact  with  children  shall  report  or  cause  a  report  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  section  6313  (relating  to  reporting  procedure)  when  they have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional  or  other  training  and  experience,  that  a  child  coming  before  them  in  their  professional or official capacity is an abused child. . . .  The 2012 version of the statute states:  A  person  who,  in  the  course  of  employment,  occupation  or  practice  of  a  profession, comes into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be  made in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting procedure) when the  person has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional or  other training and experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance  or training of that person or of an agency, institution, organization or other entity  with  which  that  person  is  affiliated  is  a  victim  of  child  abuse,  including  child  abuse by an individual who is not a perpetrator.  Both the 2001 and 2012 versions of the law also state:   In  addition  to  those  persons  and  officials  required  to  report  suspected  child  abuse, any person may make such a report if that person has reasonable cause to  suspect that a child is an abused child.zz    23 Pa. C.S. § 6312.    zz 117   IV. Implications of The University’s Failure to  Report Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse  McQueary  testified  at  the  preliminary  hearing  on  December  16,  2011  that  he  described the 2002658 incident involving Sandusky and a child in the Lasch Building to  Paterno as “a young boy in the shower and it was way over the lines” and “extremely  sexual  in  nature.”659   McQueary  testified  at  that  same  hearing  that  he  later  met  with  Curley  and  Schultz,  and  told  them  that  he  observed  Sandusky  in  the  shower  with  a  young boy and that he “thought that some kind of intercourse was going on.”660  While  Curley  and  Schultz  dispute  McQueary’s  version  of  what  he  told  them  about  the  incident,  Paterno  testified  to  the  Grand  Jury  on  January  12,  2011  that  McQueary  described  the  incident  to  him  as  “fondling”  and  “a  sexual  nature.” 661    The  conduct  described by McQueary and Paterno constitutes the Clery Crime of sexual assault.    Based  on  the  facts  uncovered  by  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel,  Paterno,  Curley and McQueary were obligated as CSAs to report this incident to the University  Police  Department  for  inclusion  in  Clery  Act  statistics  and  for  determining  whether  a  timely  warning  should  be  issued  to  the  University  community.  The  Special  Investigative Counsel found no indication that Paterno, Curley and McQueary met their  responsibilities as CSAs by reporting, or ensuring that someone reported, this incident  to  the  University  Police  Department.  As a  result, no timely warning could  have been  issued  to  the  University  community  and  the  incident  was  not  included  in  the  University’s Clery Crime statistics for 2001.662   McQueary, Paterno and Curley did report  the incident  to Schultz who, as SVP‐ FB,  was  ultimately  in  charge  of  the  University  Police  Department.    However,  Schultz  was not a law enforcement officer and was not the person designated to receive Clery  Crime reports or to collect Clery Crime statistics for the University.aaa Arguably, as the  most  senior  leaders  of  the  University,  Schultz  and  Spanier  should  have  ensured  compliance with the Clery Act regarding this incident.  There is no record that Spanier  or  Schultz  reported,  or  designated  someone  to  report,  the  incident  to  the  University  Police  Department,  which  should  have  caused  the  incident  to  be  included  in  the  34 C.F.R. § 668.46(b)(2) requires the University to include in its ASR a statement setting forth to whom  individuals  should  report  crimes.    The  University’s  ASR  for  2001  did  not  contain  any  such  statement;  however, it generally states that the police department investigates crimes.    aaa 118 University’s  Clery  Crime  statistics  and  may  have  triggered  the  issuance  of  a  timely  warning to the University community.   V. Improvements in Clery Act Compliance  Since November 2011  After the criminal charges against Sandusky, Curley and Schultz became known,  the  University  assessed  its  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  Clery  Act.   Notwithstanding  an  investigation  begun  on  November  9,  2011  by  the  Department  of  Education  concerning  the  same  issues,bbb the  University  moved  forward  by  hiring  a  reputable  national  consultant  to  conduct  this  assessment.    The  consultant’s  study  identified  several  shortcomings  in  the  University’s  Clery  Act  procedures,  including  those cited above.663  On  January  19,  2012,  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  recommended  several  actions relative to compliance with the Clery Act’s training and reporting requirements.   As  described  in  Chapter  10  of  this  report,  some  of  the  recommended  actions  were  already  in  place  and  the  others  have  now  been  implemented  or  are  underway,  664  including the appointment of a full‐time Clery Compliance Officer on March 26, 2012.      As of the date of this report, the Department of Education’s investigation is ongoing.  bbb 119 CHAPTER 9   THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN   UNIVERSITY FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS    KEY FINDINGS     The University had two main policies, Background Check Process, and Protection of Minors    Involved  in  University  Sponsored  Programs,  that  were  designed  to  protect  children  using    in  University‐supported  programs.    The  policies  University  facilities  and  participating  for background checks on employees and volunteers were significantly inadequate.       University  staff  involved  with  youth  programs  said  that  some  persons  serving  as  volunteer  coaches  and  counselors    “fell  through  the  cracks”  and  were  allowed  to  participate in youth programs or events without appropriate clearances.      Factors in the inconsistent application of these policies and procedures include confusion  among University staff members about what the background process entails and who is  subject to the process.        trained  administrators  of  youth  programs  on  the  The  University  historically  has  not  policies.    The  University  also  has  not  consistently  required  timely  submission  of    background applications so as to allow sufficient time for background checks.              120   I. University Policies for the Protection of Non‐Student Minors  The Special Investigative Counsel found that The Pennsylvania State University’s  (“Penn  State”  or  “University”)  system  for  implementing  the  child  protection  policies  was  inadequate,  but  that  corrective  efforts  are  underway.    While  the  identified  deficiencies  historically  may  not  have  had  a  direct  impact  on  Sandusky’s  crimes,  the  issues  are  serious  and  reflect  that  the  University  has  not  sufficiently  focused  on  the  protection of children in the past.    University  programs  for  youth  are  diverse  and  are  held  at  nearly  every  Commonwealth  campus.    Youth  programs  range  from  summer  academic  and  sport  camps that can be day or overnight, to year‐round activities and events in arts, theatre,  science,  sports,  adventure,  nature,  and  leadership.    Penn  State  Outreach  plays  a  prominent  role  in  the  youth  programming  offered  by  the  University  as  does  the  Intercollegiate  Athletics  Department  (“ICA”).665   At  University  Park  alone,  more  than  20,000 non‐student minors are now attending the 2012 summer sport camps offered by  the ICA.666  Two  University  policies  –  AD  39,  Minors  Involved  in  University‐Sponsored  Programs or Programs Held at the University and/or Housed in University Facilities (formerly  Programs Involving Minors Housed in University Facilities) 667 and HR 99, Background Check  Process, are the core policies the University relies on to help protect the many thousands  of children who visit its campuses each year.   All  20  Penn  State  campuses  offer  an  “open‐campus”  environment,  sharing  academic  and  recreational  facilities  with  the  local  community.    The  largest  campus  located  at  University  Park  annually  invites  hundreds  of  thousands  of  minors  to  participate  in  University  sponsored  educational,  recreational,  cultural  and  sports  programs.    A. AD 39, Minors Involved in University‐Sponsored Programs or Programs held at the  University and/or Housed in University Facilities  The Penn State policy on minors involved in University‐sponsored programs or  youth programs held at the University or housed in University facilities was created in  October  1992  and  is  closely  aligned  with  the  nationally  accepted  American  Camping  Association  Standards.668   The  policy  was  revised  several  times  over  the  years  and  on  121 April  11,  2012,  the  University  issued  another  revision.    The  purpose  of  the  revision  is  “[t]o  provide  for  appropriate  supervision  of  minors  who  are  involved  in  University‐ sponsored  programs,  programs  held  at  the  University  and/or  programs  housed  in  University  facilities  at  all  geographic  locations.”669   The  policy  addresses  background  clearances;  codes  of  conduct;  legal  consents;  medical  information;  counselor/staff  member training/orientation; adult‐to‐participant ratios; and child abuse and mandated  reporting  procedures.670     Policy  AD  39  also  applies  to  any  external  organization  that  utilizes University facilities for youth activities through a Memorandum of Agreement  (“MOA”).671  Recent  revisions  made  to  Policy  AD  39  are  intended  to  strengthen  the  University’s internal controls and procedures for the protection of non‐student minors  on University campuses.  The revised policy expands mandatory background checks for  all  individuals,  paid  or  unpaid,  working  with  minors. 672    The  policy  requires  self‐ disclosure  of  arrests  and  convictions.    The  Office  of  Human  Resources  (“OHR”)  must  review  and  approve  all  background  check  verifications.    The  policy  also  requires  mandatory  annual  training  on  child  protection  and  reporting  incidents  of  possible  abuse to appropriate authorities.   B. HR‐99, Background Check Process  Historically,  background  checks  at  Penn  State  have  been  conducted  under  two  policies,  Policies  HR‐95  and  HR‐96. 673    Policy  HR‐96  for  “other‐than‐academic  appointments,”  had  been  the  governing  policy  for  those  participating  in  youth  programs.    The  University  also  developed  an  implementation  guide,  the  Reference and  Background Check Process Guideline.  On  July  5,  2012,  the  University  implemented  Policy  HR‐99,  Background  Check  Process, which supersedes and consolidates the prior policies HR‐95 and HR‐96.674  HR‐ 99  establishes  “a  process  for  ensuring  background  checks  are  completed  for  any  individual  who  is  engaged  by  the  University  in  any  work  capacity  including  employees,  volunteers,  adjunct  faculty,  students,  consultants,  contractors  or  other  122 similar positions.”675  The revised background check process will require an additional  23,650 background checks to be conducted annually.ccc  The new policy requires any individual engaged by the University in any work  capacity  to  have  a  University  background  check  and/or  verification  of  successful  completion  of  Pennsylvania  Act  34  (background  check)  and  Act  151  (child  abuse  clearance).  Covered staff must provide notice to the University of any criminal charges  within  72  hours  of  their  arrest. 676    The  new  policy  also  defines  key  terms  such  as  “minor,” “sex and violent offender registry check,” and “sensitive/critical positions.”677  II. Implementation of the University’s Child Protection Policies  Penn  State  staff  involved  with  youth  programs  explained  to  the  Special  Investigative  Counsel  that  some  persons  serving  as  volunteer  coaches  and  counselors  were  “slipping  through  the  cracks” 678  and  were  allowed  to  participate  in  youth  programs or events without appropriate clearances.  An Outreach employee involved in  University  summer  sport  camps  stated  that  participation  by  unscreened  individuals  occurred “every year and all the time.”679  One senior Outreach employee described the  background  check  process  as  a  “sieve.”680   A  report  prepared  by  an  employee  in  the  Outreach Finance Office in May 2010 revealed that 234 of the 735 coaches paid to work  at the summer sports camps in 2009 did not have a background check completed before  the start of the sport camp for which they worked.681  When interviewed by the Special Investigative Counsel, the director of the Sport  Camps Office denied that there had ever been any issues or incidents with the summer  sport camps.682 Other interviews conducted and documents reviewed, however, pointed  to  several  instances  of  unauthorized  participation  in  summer  youth  camps. 683  For  example, in 2010, at least five coaches or counselors with criminal records were allowed  to work at University Park summer youth programs.684  One individual who registered  for a coaching position for the University Park Football I camp in 2010 indicated in his  self‐disclosure statement that he had no criminal history, and camp personnel “cleared”  him to participate in the camp.  A background check initiated a day later and completed  This number is Penn State’s estimate of the total number of background checks that the University  would need to complete annually if it implemented a policy that required a background check for every  category of employee and volunteers, attached hereto as Appendix B.  ccc 123 the following day revealed that the man had a criminal record for child endangerment.   The man had already stayed overnight in a Penn State residence hall with minors.685  Several  significant  factors  contributed  to  the  inconsistent  implementation  of  Policy  AD39  and  the  background  check  process.    For  example,  some  University  staff  members appeared confused about the background check and child welfare policies.686  Even  those  familiar  with  the  policies  had  different  interpretations  of  what  the  background process entailed and who was subject to the process.687  One HR employee  who was involved in the process said the policies are “clear as mud.”688 The University  historically  has  not  trained  administrators  of  youth  programs  on  the  policies.689 The  University also has not consistently required timely submission of applications so as to  allow sufficient time for background checks.690  Application  of  the  background  check  process  is  not  uniform  across  the  Commonwealth campuses.  The process varies from the use of a web‐based computer  application  to  conduct  background  checks 691  and  background  checks  using  fingerprints, 692  to  campuses  that  never  required  any  background  check  until  the  Sandusky  charges  became  public,  and  now  use  only  a  free  internet  search  of  questionable accuracy.693  In past years, problems with the background check process have been brought to  the  attention  of  Penn  State  administrators  and  those  responsible  for  overseeing  youth  programs  at  Penn  State. 694    One  employee  who  presented  reports  concerning  shortcomings in the process felt “like [she] wasn’t being heard,” but did not pursue the  matter because the employee “didn’t feel like it was [her] place to say anything.”  She  further stated, “I have to be careful, I had my job [to lose].”695  Another employee who  prepared the May 2010 report on background checks expressed concern for the degree  of  risk  to  the  University.696   When  the  employee  voiced  concerns  to  the  director  of  the  Sports Camps Office, the director dismissed the issue and said that other matters were  more pressing.697  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  found  only  one  instance  where  a  University  employee  was  held  accountable  for  not  complying  with  Policy  AD39  and  the  background check process.  After multiple failures to enforce the policies in the summer  of 2010, a “Memorandum of Conversation” was placed in the personnel file of a senior  Sports  Camp  employee  that  states,  “any  future  failure…might  result  in  disciplinary  124 action  up  to  and  including  termination.”    The  memorandum  addressed  only  one  of  multiple incidents.698  Some  Penn  State  staff  expressed  concerns  with  the  complexity  of  the  revised  policies.699 According to  one  employee “[w]e all  understand why  [a  background check  process is needed] but the issue now is how are we going to do this?”700     125 III. Use of University Facilities   by Third Parties for Youth Programs  Under  the  University’s  standard  MOAs  for  use  of  University  facilities  by  third  parties,  701  the  party  contracting  with  the  University  has  the  duty  to  ensure  that  its  counselors  and  staff  possess  the  appropriate  background  clearances. 702    The  revised  Policy  AD39  provides  that  non‐University  groups  using  University  facilities  “must  provide  to  the  sponsoring  unit  satisfactory  evidence  of  compliance  with  all  of  the  requirements  of  this  Policy  at  least  (30)  days  prior  to  the  scheduled  use  of  University  facilities.”      126 CHAPTER 10  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITY  GOVERNANCE, ADMINISTRATION, AND THE  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN UNIVERSITY  FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS    The failure of President Graham B. Spanier (“Spanier”), Senior Vice President –  Finance  and  Business  (“SVP‐FB”)  Gary  C.  Schultz  (“Schultz”),  Head  Football  Coach  Joseph  V.  Paterno  (“Paterno”)  and  Athletic  Director  (“AD”)  Timothy  M.  Curley  (“Curley”)  to  protect  children  by  allowing  Gerald  A.  Sandusky  (“Sandusky”)  unrestricted and uncontrolled access to Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State” or  “University”)  facilities  reveals  numerous  individual  failings,  but  it  also  reveals  weaknesses of the University’s culture, governance, administration, compliance policies  and procedures  for  protecting children.   It is  critical for institutions and organizations  that provide programs and facilities for children to institute and adhere to practices that  have been found to be effective in reducing the risk of abuse.  Equally important is the  need  for  the  leaders  of  those  institutions  and  organizations  to  govern  in  ways  that  reflect the ethics and values of those entities.    The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  provided  several  recommendations  to  the  Board  and  the  University  in  January  2012  to  address  exigent  needs  to  reform  policies  and  procedures,  particularly  those  involving  upcoming  activities,  such  as  summer  camps.    Before,  but  especially  since  November  2011,  the  Board  and  University  administrators  have  reviewed,  modified,  or  added  relevant  policies,  guidelines,  practices  and  procedures  relating  to  the  protection  of  children  and  University  governance.    Consistent  with  the  recommendations  in  this  report,  members  of  the  Board, University administrators, faculty and staff have:   Strengthened  security  measures  and  policies  to  safeguard  minors,  students  and others associated with the University and its Outreach programs.   Improved  the  organization  and  procedures  of  the  Board  to  better  identify,  report,  and  address  issues  of  significance  to  the  University  and  members  of  its community.  127    Increased  compliance  with  The  Jeanne  Clery  Disclosure  of  Campus  Security  Policy  and  Campus  Crime  Statistics  Act,  20  U.S.C.  §  1092(f)  (“Clery  Act”)  training, information collection and reporting requirements.   Encouraged prompt reporting of incidents of abuse and sexual misconduct.   Conducted abuse‐awareness training for many University areas, including its  top leadership.   Provided  better  oversight  and  governance  of  the  University’s  educational,  research and athletic compliance programs.  One of the most challenging tasks confronting the University community – and  possibly the most important step in ensuring that the other recommended reforms are  effectively sustained, and that public confidence in the University and its leadership is  restored  –  is  an  open,  honest,  and  thorough  examination  of  the  culture  that  underlies  the  failure  of  Penn  State’s  most  powerful  leaders  to  respond  appropriately  to  Sandusky’s crimes.    The following recommendations are intended to assist University administrators,  faculty, staff and the Board, in improving how they govern and provide protection for  children  in  University  facilities  and  programs.    These  recommendations  relate  to  the  University’s administrative structure, policies and procedures and the Office of General  Counsel;  the  responsibilities  and  operations  of  the  Board;  the  identification  of  risk;  compliance with federal and state statutes and reporting misconduct; the integration of  the Athletic Department into the greater University community; the oversight, policies  and  procedures  of  the  University’s  Police  Department;  and  the  management  of  programs  for  non‐student  minors  and  access  to  University  facilities.    In  addition,  recommendations are included that will assist the University in monitoring change and  measuring future improvement. ddd       Recommendations accompanied by an asterisk are being implemented or have been completed as of  June 2012.   ddd 128   1.0 – Penn State Culture   The  University  is  a  major  employer,  landholder  and  investor  in  State  College,  and its administrators, staff, faculty and many of its Board members have strong ties to  the local community.  Certain aspects of the community culture are laudable, such as its  collegiality, high  standards of  educational  excellence and research,  and respect for  the  environment.    However,  there  is  an  over‐emphasis  on  “The  Penn  State  Way”  as  an  approach  to  decision‐making,  a  resistance  to  seeking  outside  perspectives,  and  an  excessive  focus  on  athletics  that  can,  if  not  recognized,  negatively  impact  the  University’s reputation as a progressive institution.    University  administration  and  the  Board  should  consider  taking  the  following  actions to create a values‐ and ethics‐centered community where everyone is engaged in  placing the needs of children above the needs of adults; and to create an environment  where  everyone  who  sees  or  suspects  child  abuse  will  feel  empowered  to  report  the  abuse.    1.1      Organize  a  Penn  State‐led  effort  to  vigorously  examine  and  understand  the  Penn  State  culture  in  order  to:  1)  reinforce  the  commitment  of  all  University  members  to  protect  children;  2)  create  a  stronger  sense  of  accountability among the University’s leadership; 3) establish values and  ethics‐based decision  making and adherence to  the  Penn State  Principles  as the standard for all University faculty, staff and students; 4) promote an  environment  of  increased  transparency  into  the  management  of  the  University;  and  5)  ensure  a  sustained  integration  of  the  Intercollegiate  Athletics program into the broader Penn State community.  This  effort  should  include  the  participation  of  representatives  from  the  Special  Faculty  Committee  on  University  Governance;  Penn  State’s  Coalition  on  Intercollegiate  Athletics;  Penn  State’s  Rock  Ethics  Institute;  students,  alumni,  faculty  and  staff;  as  well  as  representatives  from  peer  institutions  with  experience  in  reviewing  and  improving  institutional  culture in academic settings.  129 1.2  Appoint a University Ethics Officer to provide advice and counsel to the  President and the Board of Trustees on ethics issues and adherence to the  Penn State Principles; develop and provide, in conjunction with the Rock  Ethics  Center, leadership and  ethics training modules  for  all areas of  the  University;  and  coordinate  ethics  initiatives  with  the  University’s  Chief  Compliance Officer.* (See also Recommendation 4.0)  1.2.1  Establish  an  “Ethics  Council”  to  assist  the  Ethics  Officer  in  providing advice and  counsel to the  President  and  the Board on  ethical issues and training.  1.2.2  Finalize  and  approve  the  proposed  modifications  to  the  Institutional  Conflict  of  Interest  Policy;  identify  the  senior  administrative  and  faculty  positions  to  which  the  policy  should  apply, and implement the policy throughout the University.  1.3  Conduct  open  and  inclusive  searches  for  new  employees  and  provide  professional training for employees who undertake new responsibilities.  1.4  Continue to benchmark the University’s practices and policies with other  similarly  situated  institutions,  focus  on  continuous  improvement  and  make administrative, operational or personnel changes when warranted.  1.5  Communicate  regularly  with  University  students,  faculty,  staff,  alumni  and  the  community  regarding  significant  University  policies  and  issues  through a variety of methods and media.  1.6  Emphasize  and  practice  openness  and  transparency  at  all  levels  and  within all areas of the University.  2.0 – Administration and General Counsel: Structure, Policies and  Procedures  In  various  ways  the  University’s  administrative  structure,  the  absence  or  poor  enforcement  of  policies  relating  to  the  protection  of  children  and  employee  misconduct,eee and  the  lack  of  emphasis  on  values  and  ethics‐based  action  created  an  The University has policies for investigating employee misconduct: HR‐78 created in 1974, and HR‐70,  created in 2005; and a whistleblower policy, AD67 created in 2010.  eee 130 environment  in  which  Spanier,  Schultz,  Paterno  and  Curley  were  able  to  make  decisions  to  avoid  the  consequences  of  bad  publicity.    Standard  personnel  practices  were  ignored  or  undermined  by  the  lack  of  centralized  control  over  the  human  resources  functions  of  various  departments  –  most  particularly,  the  Athletic  Department.  University administrators, faculty, staff and the Board should consider taking the  following actions to create an atmosphere of values and ethics‐based decision making.  2.1  Review  organizational  structures  and  make  adjustments  for  greater  efficiency and effectiveness.  2.1.1  Evaluate  the  span  of  control  of  the  University  President  and  make  adjustments  as  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  President’s  duties  are  realistic  and  capable  of  the  President’s  oversight  and  control.  2.1.2   Evaluate the span of control and responsibility of the Senior Vice  President  –  Finance  and  Business  (“SVP‐FB”)  and  make  adjustments  as  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  SVP‐FB’s  duties  are  realistic and capable of the SVP‐FB’s oversight and control.   2.1.3  Upgrade the position of the Associate Vice President for Human  Resources  to  a  Vice  President  position  reporting  directly  to  the  University President.  2.1.4  Evaluate the size, composition and procedures of the President’s  Council and make adjustments as necessary.  2.2  Review  administrative  processes  and  procedures  and  make  adjustments  for greater efficiency and effectiveness.  2.2.1  Separate  the  University’s  Office  of  Human  Resources  (“OHR”) from the University’s Finance and Business organization.   2.2.2  Assign  all  human  resources (“HR”)  policy  making  responsibilities  to  the  OHR  and  limit  the  ability  of  individual  departments  and  campuses  to  disregard  the  University’s  human  resources policies and rules.  131 2.2.3  Centralize  HR functions,  where  feasible,  such  as  background  checks,  hiring,  promotions,  terminations,  on‐board  orientation  and  management  training,  while  recognizing  the  unique  requirements  of  University  components  and  Commonwealth  campuses, and their need for measured autonomy.*  2.2.4  Designate the Vice President for Human Resources (“VP‐HR”) as  the  hiring  authority  for  HR  representatives  throughout  the  University  and  establish  a  “dotted‐line”  reporting  relationship  between  the  HR  representatives  and  the  VP‐HR  similar  to  that  used in the Finance and Audit areas.  2.2.5  Develop  job  descriptions  for  all  new  key  leadership  positions  and incumbent positions if none exist.  2.2.6  Evaluate the size of the OHR staff, benchmark its human capital  capacity  against  public  universities  of  similar  size  and  scope  of  responsibility, and modify as necessary.  2.2.7  Adopt  a  Human  Resource  Information/Capital  Management  System (“HRIS/HCM”) with sufficient growth capacity for use at  University Park and all Commonwealth campuses.  2.2.8  Engage external HR professionals to assist in the development of  the University’s next performance management system.  2.2.9  Provide  the  OHR  with  complete  access  to  executive  compensation  information  and  utilize  the  OHR,  in  conjunction  with the University Budget Office, to benchmark and advise the  administration and the Board of Trustees on matters of executive  compensation.  2.2.10  Develop a mechanism to provide and track all employee training  mandated by state and federal law and University policies.  2.2.11  Update,  standardize,  centralize, and  monitor  background  check  procedures.*  2.2.12  Require  updated  background  checks  for  employees,  contractors  and volunteers at least every five years.*  132 2.2.13  Audit  periodically the  effectiveness  of  background  check  procedures  and  the  University’s  self‐reporting  system  for  employees.*  2.2.14  Update computer‐use policies and regularly inform employees of  the University’s expectations and employee responsibilities with  regard to electronic data and materials.  2.2.15  Develop  a  procedure  to  ensure  that  the  University  immediately  retrieves keys and access cards from unauthorized persons.*  2.3  Complete the development of the University’s Office of General Counsel  (“OGC”).  2.3.1  Develop a mission statement for the OGC that clearly defines the  General  Counsel’s  responsibilities  and  reporting  obligations  to  the University and the Board of Trustees.  2.3.2  Select and hire a permanent General Counsel (“GC”).*  2.3.3  Expand  the  GC’s office  staff  to  provide  broader  coverage  of  routine legal issues including employment law.  2.3.4  Appropriate  sufficient  budget  to  the  OGC to  hire  specialized  outside counsel when needed.  2.4  Advertise all senior executive positions externally and engage educational  search experts to broaden the talent pools for senior executive positions.*  2.5  Integrate  faculty  and  staff  from  different  disciplines  and  areas  in  University‐wide professional development/leadership training to increase  their  exposure  to  other  University  personnel,  programs,  challenges  and  solutions.*  2.6  Implement consistent, state‐of‐the  art records management  and  retention  procedures.  2.7  Provide sufficient support and oversight of the Office of Student Affairs to  make certain that all students follow the same standards of conduct.*  133 2.8  Designate  an  individual,  administrative  entity  or  committee  to  approve  and review all new and modified University policies.  2.8.1  Develop  guidelines  for  creating,  standardizing,  approving,  reviewing and updating University policies.  2.8.2  Review  periodically  all  University  policies  for  relevance,  utility  and necessity, and modify or rescind as appropriate.  3.0 – Board of Trustees: Responsibilities and Operations   Spanier and other University leaders failed to report timely and sufficiently the  incidents of child sexual abuse against Sandusky to the Board of Trustees in 1998, 2001  and 2011.  Nonetheless, the Board’s over‐confidence in Spanier’s abilities, and its failure  to conduct oversight and responsible inquiry of Spanier and senior University officials,  hindered  the  Board’s  ability  to  deal  properly  with  the  most  profound  crisis  ever  confronted by the University.  The  Board  should  consider  taking  the  following  actions  to  increase  public  confidence  and  transparency,  realign  and  refocus  its  responsibilities  and  operations,  improve  internal  and  external  communications  and  strengthen  its  practices  and  procedures.    3.1  Review  the  administrative  and  governance  issues  raised  in  this  report,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  structure,  composition,  eligibility  requirements  and  term  limits  of  the  Board,  the  need  to  include  more  members who are not associated with the University, and the role of the  Emeriti.  In conducting this review, the Board should seek the opinions of  members of the Penn State community, as well as governance and higher  education  experts  not  affiliated  with  the  University.    The  Board  should  make public the results and recommendations generated from the review.  3.2  Review,  develop  and  adopt  an  ethics/conflict  of  interest  policy  for  the  Board  that  includes  guidelines  for  conflict  management  and  a  commitment to transparency regarding significant issues.  134 3.2.1  Include  training  on  ethics  and  oversight  responsibilities  in  the  current regulatory environment in Board member orientation.  3.2.2  Require  full  and  public  disclosure  by  Board  members  of  financial relationships between themselves and their businesses  and the University.  3.3  Implement  the  Board’s  proposals  for  revised  committee  structures  to  include  a  committee  on  Risk,  Compliance,  Legal  and  Audit  and  subcommittees  for  Audit  and  Legal  matters;  and  a  subcommittee  for  Human  Resources  as  part  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  Business  and  Capital Planning.*fff  3.3.1  Rotate Committee Chairs every five years or sooner.  3.4  Increase and improve the channels of communication between the Board  and University administrators.  3.4.1  Ensure  that  the  University  President,  General  Counsel  and  relevant  members  of  senior  staff  thoroughly  and  forthrightly  brief the Board of Trustees at each meeting on significant issues  facing the University.*  3.4.2  Require  regular  Risk  Management,  Compliance  and  Internal  Audit  reports  to  the  Board  on  assessment  of  risks,  pending  investigations,  compliance  with  federal  and  state  regulations  as  well as on measures in place to mitigate those risks.  3.4.3  Require that the SVP‐FB, the GC and/or their designee to provide  timely briefings to the Board on potential problem areas such as  unusual  severance  or  termination  payments,  Faculty  and  staff  Emeriti  appointments,  settlement  agreements,  government  inquiries, important litigation and whistleblower complaints.  3.4.4  Use  the  Board’s  Executive  Session/Question  Period  with  the  President  to  make  relevant  and  reasonable  inquiry  into  substantive matters and to facilitate sound decision‐making.   Exhibit 10‐A, Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees, Organizational Chart.  fff 135 3.4.5  Review  annually  the  University’s  Return  of  Organization’s  Exempt  from  Income  Tax  Form  (990),  Clery  Act  reports,  and  the  compensation and performance of senior executives and leaders.*  3.4.6  Conduct  an  informational  seminar  for  the  Board  and  senior  administrators  on  Clery  Act  compliance  and  reporting  procedures.  3.4.7  Continue  to  provide  all  Board  members  with  regular  reports  of  local, national and academic media coverage of the University.*  3.5  Increase and improve the channels of communication between the Board  and the University community.  3.5.1  Establish  and  enforce  rules  regarding  public  and  press  statements  made  by  Board  members  and  Emeriti  regarding  confidential University matters.  3.5.2  Increase and publicize the ways in which individuals can convey  messages and concerns to Board members.  3.5.2.1 Provide  Board  members  with  individual University  email  addresses and make them known to the public.  3.5.2.2 Use  common  social  media  communications  tools  to  communicate with the public on various Board matters.  3.6  Develop  a  critical  incident  management  plan,  including  training  and  exercises, for the Board and University administrators.  3.7  Continue  to  conduct  and  publicize  periodic  internal  and  external  self‐ assessments of Board performance.* 136 4.0 – Compliance: Risk and Reporting Misconduct  The University’s incomplete implementation of the Clery Act was a contributing  factor  in  the  failure  to  report  the  2001  child  sexual  abuse  committed  by  Sandusky.    A  strong  compliance  function,  much  like  exists  in  the  University’s  financial  area,  should  encourage individuals to report misconduct more readily in the future.  A regularized  risk  identification  and  management  system  is  as  prudent  and  consistent  with  best  business practices.  University  administrators  and  the  Board  should  consider  taking  the  following  actions  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  multiple  laws,  regulations,  rules  and  mandates  that effect its operations, risk management and national reputation.  4.1  Establish  and  select  an  individual  for  a  position  of  “Chief  Compliance  Officer,”*  The Chief Compliance Officer should:  4.1.1  Head  an  independent  office  equivalent  to  the  Office  of  Internal  Audit.  4.1.2  Chair a Compliance Council. 4.1.3  Coordinate  compliance  functions  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  Office of Internal Audit.  4.1.4  Have  similar  access  to,  and  a  reporting  relationship  with  the  Board, as does the Internal Auditor.  4.1.5  Coordinate  the  Chief Compliance  Officer’s  responsibilities  with  the Office of General Counsel, the Director of Risk Management  and the Director of Internal Audit.  4.1.6  Direct  further  review  of  any  incidents  or  risks  reported  to  the  Compliance Officer.  4.2      Assign full‐time responsibility for Clery Act compliance to an individual  within the University Police Department and provide the individual with  sufficient resources and personnel to meet Clery Act regulations.*  The individual responsible for Clery Act compliance should:  137 4.2.1  Establish a University policy for the implementation of the Clery Act.  4.2.2  Create  a  master  list  of  names  of  those  persons  with  Clery Act  reporting responsibilities, notify them annually of the Clery Act  responsibilities and publish the list to the University community. 4.2.3  Require,  monitor  and  track  training, and  periodic  retraining  for  Campus Security Authorities (“CSAs”) on Clery Act compliance.  4.2.4  Provide  information  to  the  OHR  on  Clery  Act  responsibilities,  reporting  suspicious  activity  to  CSAs  and  whistleblower  protection for inclusion in the general training for all employees.  4.2.5  Coordinate timely notices of incidents and threat warnings with  the  Vice  President  for  Student  Affairs,  the  Chief  Compliance  Officer and the General Counsel.  4.2.6  Review  annual  Clery  Act  reports  with  the  President’s  Council,  the Board of Trustees and the Compliance Officer.  4.2.7  Coordinate  Clery  Act  training  and  compliance  with  responsible  officials at the Commonwealth campuses.  4.2.8  Arrange  for  periodic  internal  and  external  audits  of  Clery  Act  compliance.  4.3  Update regularly and prioritize the University’s list of institutional risks;  determine  the  appropriate  implementation  and  audit  schedule  for  those  risks; and present the results to the Board.  4.4  Send a communication to all University students, faculty and staff at the  beginning  of  each  academic  term:  that  encourages  the  reporting  of  misconduct;  describes  the  channels  for  direct  or  anonymous  reporting;  and the University’s whistleblower policy and protection from retaliation.  4.5  Publicize  the  employee  misconduct  hotline  regularly  and  prominently  throughout  the  University  on  a  variety  of  platforms  including  social  media networks and the webpages of individual University components.*    138 5.0 – Athletic Department: Integration and Compliance  For the past several decades, the University’s Athletic Department was permitted  to  become  a  closed  community.    There  was  little  personnel  turnover  or  hiring  from  outside the University and strong internal loyalty.  The football program, in particular,  opted  out  of  most  of  the  University’s  Clery  Act,  sexual  abuse  awareness  and  summer  camp  procedures  training.    The  Athletic  Department  was  perceived  by  many  in  the  Penn State community as “an island,” where staff members lived by their own rules.  University administrators and the Board of Trustees should consider taking the  following  actions  to  more  fully  involve  the  Athletic  Department  within  the  broader  University  community;  provide  relevant  training  and  support  to  the  Athletic  Department  staff  to  ensure  compliance  with  external  regulations  and  University  policies;  and  maintain  a  safe  environment  for  those  who  use  the  University’s  recreational facilities, especially children.  5.1  Revise  the  organizational  structure  of  the  Athletic  Department  to  clearly  define lines of authority, responsibilities and reporting relationships.   5.2  Evaluate security and access protocols for athletic, recreational and camp  facilities  and  modify  as  necessary  to  provide  reasonable  protections  for  those using the facilities.*  5.3  Conduct  national  searches  for  candidates  for  key  positions,  including  head coaches and Associate Athletic Director(s) and above.  5.4  Integrate, where feasible, academic support staff, programs and locations  for student‐athletes.*  5.5  Provide the University’s Athletic Compliance Office with additional staff  and adequate resources to meet its many responsibilities.*  5.5.1  Benchmark against peer institutions to determine an appropriate  staffing level for the office.  5.5.2  Establish an effective reporting relationship with  the  University  Compliance Officer.  139 5.5.3  Realign  the  compliance‐related  responsibilities  of  Athletic  Department  staff  members  to  ensure  that  the  Athletic  Compliance Office has oversight of the entire program.  5.5.4  Ensure that new hires and incumbent compliance personnel have  requisite working knowledge of the NCAA, Big Ten Conference  and University rules.  5.6  Ensure that Athletic Department employees comply with University‐wide  training mandates.  5.6.1  Provide  and  track  initial  and  on‐going  training  for  athletic  staff  in  matters  of  leadership,  ethics,  the  Penn  State  Principles  and  standards of conduct, abuse awareness, and reporting misconduct  pursuant to the Clery Act and University policy.  5.6.2  Include Athletic Department employees in management training  programs provided to other University managers.    6.0 – University Police Department: Oversight, Policies and Procedures  The  University  Police  Department  promptly  responded  to  the  1998  complaint  about Sandusky’s conduct, but the sensitivity of the investigation and the need to report  on  its  progress  to  a  senior  administrator  could  have  compromised  the  extent  of  its  inquiry. The independence of the University’s law enforcement function is essential to  providing  unbiased  service  and  protection  to  the  University  community.    The  University  Police  Department’s  recent  restructuring  and  additional  training  for  its  employees is an important step in the continuous improvement of the Department.  The  University  Police  Department  and/or  University  administrators  should  consider taking the following additional actions to improve the functions and oversight  of the University’s law enforcement services:    140 6.1  Arrange  for  an  external  examination  of  the  University  Police  Department’s  structure,  organization,  policies  and  procedures  through  a  professionally  recognized  accreditation  body, ggg  with  a  particular  emphasis  on  the  University  Police  Department’s  training  for  and  qualifications of sex abuse investigators.*  6.2  Review the organizational placement of the University Police Department  in  the  University’s  Finance  and  Business  area  in  conjunction  with  the  review of the span of control of the SVP‐FB. (See Section 2.0)  6.3  Provide  the  Vice  President/Director  of  Public  Safety  with  sufficient  administrative  authority  and  resources  to  operate  effectively  and  independently.  6.4  Review  records  management  procedures  and  controls  and  revise  where  needed.*  6.4.1  Establish  a  policy  to  ensure  that  all  police  reports  alleging  criminal  conduct  by  Penn  State  students,  faculty  and  staff  are  reported to the OHR.hhh  6.4.2  Establish  or  reinforce  protocols  to  assign  a  timely  incident  number  and  proper  offense  classification  to  all  complaints  received.iii*  6.4.3  Include the final disposition of each complaint in the original or  follow‐up  report  (e.g.,  founded,  unfounded,  exceptionally  cleared).  6.5  Establish  a  policy  to  request  assistance  from  other  law  enforcement  agencies in sensitive or extraordinary cases or where a conflict of interest  may exist.  The  University  Police  Department  has  engaged  the  Pennsylvania  State  Police  Chiefs  Association  to  conduct an external review.  For a more expansive review, the University should utilize an organization  that  has  extensive  experience  in  reviewing  and  accrediting  college  and  university  police  departments,  such as the Commission on the Accreditation on Law Enforcement (“CALEA”).   hhh Notifications  regarding  students,  faculty  and  staff  who  are  confirmed  suspects  of  allegations  of  criminal  conduct  are  made  to  the  OHR  as  a  standard  practice,  but  there  is  no  departmental  policy  to  confirm or guide the practice.  iiiThe University Police Department has established an automatic system to assign timely incident  numbers and eliminated the “Administrative” category of offenses.  ggg 141 6.6  Implement  consistent  law  enforcement  standards  and  practices,  through  regular training at all Penn State campuses.  6.7  Review  and  update,  with  the  GC,  the  current  policies  pertaining  to  the  investigation  of  various  categories  of  offenses  involving  Penn  State  employees.  6.8  Provide specialized training to investigators in the area of sexual abuse of  children.    7.0 – Management of University Programs for Children and Access to  University Facilities  Over  the  years,  University  policies  regarding  programs  for  non‐student  minors  were  inconsistently  implemented  throughout  the  University.    Enforcement  of  those  policies  was  uneven  and  uncoordinated  and,  as  a  result,  Sandusky  was  allowed  to  conduct football camps at University Park and three Commonwealth campuses without  any direct oversight by University officials.  The University’s background check process  also was arbitrarily applied and on‐site supervision at camps was sometimes provided  by staff members who had not been fully vetted.  University administrators and the Board of Trustees should consider taking the  following  actions  to  create  a  safer  environment  for  children  involved  in  University  programs, activities, and who use its facilities.  University administrators must provide  better  oversight  of  staff  members  responsible  for  youth  programs  and  increase  abuse  awareness through training of responsible adults.  7.1  Increase  the  physical  security  and  access  procedures  in  areas  frequented  by children or used in camps and programs for children.*  7.2  Require and provide abuse awareness and mandatory reporter training to  all  University  leaders,  including  faculty,  coaches  and  other  staff,  volunteers and interns.jjj  On June 6, 2012, the University implemented AD72, Reporting Suspected Child Abuse, requiring all  University personnel to report incidents or allegations of suspected abuse or be subject to disciplinary  action, up to, and including, dismissal.  jjj 142 7.2.1  Consolidate  the  responsibility  for  abuse  awareness  training  and  mandatory  reporting  in  the  OHR  and  coordinate  an  abuse  awareness  training  program  throughout  the  University’s  campuses.*  7.3  Consolidate  oversight  of  the  University’s  policies  and  procedures  for  programs  involving  non‐student  minors  in  the  OHR  and  appoint  a  coordinator  to  oversee  the  implementation  of  those  policies.    The  Coordinator should have sufficient authority to:  7.3.1  Develop  and  maintain  an  inventory  of  all  University  programs  for children.*  7.3.2  Update,  revise  or  create  policies  for  unaccompanied  children  at  University facilities, housing and University programs.*  7.3.3  Enforce  all  policies  relating  to  non‐student  minors  involved  in  University programs at all Penn State campuses.  7.3.4  Assist  the  University’s camp  and  youth  program  administrators in  ensuring  that  staff  and  volunteers  are  appropriately  supervised.  7.3.5  Provide  information  to  parents  of  non‐student  minors  involved  in  University  programs  regarding  the  University’s  safety  protocols  and  reporting  mechanisms  for  suspicious  or  improper  activity.    8.0 – Monitoring Change and Measuring Improvement  The Pennsylvania State University has taken several significant steps to improve  its governance and more adequately protect the hundreds of thousands of children who  use  its  facilities  and  participate  in  its  programs  every  year.    However,  restoring  confidence in the University’s leadership and the Board will require greater effort over  a prolonged period of time.  As the institution moves forward, it is incumbent upon its  leaders  to  monitor  those  changes,  make  adjustments  as  necessary  and  communicate  their progress to the Penn State community as well as to the public.   143 University administrators and the Board of Trustees should consider taking the  following actions to ensure that their initiatives to prevent and respond to incidents of  sexual  abuse  of  children  and  to  improve  University  governance  are  duly  enforced,  monitored, measured and modified as needed:  8.1  Designate  an  internal  monitor  or  coordinator  to  oversee  the  implementation  of  recommendations  initiated,  or  adopted,  by  the  Board  and/or the University administration.  The monitor/coordinator would:  8.1.1  Chair a panel of the individuals responsible for developing and  implementing  these  and  other  approved  recommendations  and  for establishing realistic milestones.  8.1.2  Select  a  practical  and  diverse  number  of  members  of  the  University  community  and  solicit  input  from  the  larger  University community, to provide insights and recommendations  to the monitor. (See Recommendation 1.0)  8.1.3  Report  actions  and  accomplishments  regularly  to  the  Board  of  Trustees and University administration.*  8.2  Provide the monitor, or the Chief Compliance Officer, with the authority  and resources to hire appropriate external evaluators/compliance auditors  to  certify  that  milestones  for  implementation  of  these  recommendations  are being met.  8.3  Conduct  a  review  of  the  University’s  progress  12  months  from  the  acceptance  of  this  report  using  internal  and  external  examiners  and  provide  the  findings  to  University  administrators,  the  Board  and  the  public.  8.4  Conduct a second review of the University’s progress 24 months from the  acceptance  of  this  report  using  internal  and  external  examiners  and  provide  the  findings  to  University  administrators,  the  Board  and  the  public.  144 ENDNOTES   Presentment of Statewide Grand Jury, November 4, 2011.   http://034fccc.netsolhost.com/WordPress/.   3 Sally Jenkins, “Joe Paterno’s Last Interview,” The Washington Post (1‐14‐12).  4 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).   5 http://www.budget.psu.edu/FactBook/StudentDynamic/UGGREnrollSummary.aspx?YearCode=2011Enr &FBPlusIndc=N.  6 http://www.budget.psu.edu/factbook/StateAppropriation/TtlOperBudget1112.asp.  7 http://www.psu.edu/Trustees/pdf/march2012agendafppappendix2.12.pdf;  http://www.controller.psu.edu/Divisions/ControllersOffice/docs/FinStmts/2011FinStmts.pdf.   8 Penn  State  is  accredited  by  The  Middle  States  Commission  on  Higher  Education,  which  contacted  the  University about concerns relating to the Sandusky investigation on November 11, 2011.  The University  responded in its Informational Report to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education on December 21,  2011.  9 http://www.research.psu.edu/about/documents/strategicplan.pdf.  10 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order IX(1)(b)(1).  11 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order IX(1)(b)(2).  12 http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/administration.html.   13 http://president.psu.edu/.  14 http://www.psu.edu/provost/provost.htm.   15 http://president.psu/edu/biography.    16 http://www.psu.edu/provost/provost.htm.   17 [‐] Interview (6‐12‐12).  18 [‐] Interview (6‐12‐12).  19 [‐] Interview (6‐12‐12).  20 Board of Trustees Minutes of Meeting at 7 (1‐22‐10).  21 http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/administration.html.   22  Although  not  further  described  here,  the  Office  of  Research  Programs  manages  the  University’s  Conflict of Interest policies.   23 See Chapter 8, Federal and State Child Sexual Abuse Reporting Requirements.  24 http://www.police.psu.edu/aboutus/.  25 http://www.police.psu.edu/cleryact/documents/116593_PolicySafety_Up.pdf.  26 [‐] Interview (4‐9‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  27 http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1998/May21/partings.html.   28 See Organizational Chart for the Pennsylvania State University Administrative Organization,  http://www.psu.edu/provost/assets/President_organizational_chart%2008.pdf.  29 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).    30 See  Organizational  Chart  for  the  Pennsylvania  State  University  Administrative  Organization,  http://www.psu.edu/provost/assets/President_organizational_chart%2008.pdf.  [‐] Interview (3‐1‐12).   31 Office of Human Resources website, http://ohr.psu.edu/;  [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).   32 See  Organizational  Chart  for  the  Pennsylvania  State  University  Administrative  Organization,  http://www.psu.edu/provost/assets/President_organizational_chart%2008.pdf.   33 [‐] Interview (12‐8‐11).  34 [‐] Interview (12‐15‐11).   35 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  1 2 145  http://www.gopsusports.com/compliance/psu‐compliance.html.    http://www.gopsusports.com/genrel/curley_tim00.html.   38  http://www.gopsusports.com/genrel/111611aaa.html.   39 www.gopsusports.com/sports/m‐footbl/mtt/paterno_joe00.html.  40 http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m‐footbl/mtt/obrien_bill00.html.   41 [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11).  42 www.outreach.psu.edu/crai‐weidemann.html; [‐]  Interview (1‐5‐12).   43 [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11); [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  44 http://guru.psu.edu/policies/.  45 http://www.psu.edu/ur/2001/principles.html.  46 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  47 [‐] Interview (1‐10‐12).  48 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  49 http://live.psu.edu/story/58968.  50 http://www.controller.psu.edu/divisions/RiskManagement/indexRM.html.  51 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  52 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).  53 http://www.internalaudit.psu.edu/.  54 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).   55 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).  56 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).  57 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).   58 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐12‐12).  59 [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).   60 Sara  Ganim,  “Jerry  Sandusky  Trial:    Coaching  colleagues  describe  Sandusky  as  busy,  involved  with  children,” Patriot‐News (6‐18‐12).  61 Amended  Bill  of  Particulars,  Commonwealth v. Sandusky,  CP‐14‐CR‐2421‐2011;  CP‐14‐CR‐2422‐2011  (5‐ 18‐12); Bill of Particulars, Commonwealth v. Sandusky, CP‐14‐CR‐2421‐2011; CP‐14‐CR‐2422‐2011 (2‐21‐12).  62 Jeremy Roebuck, “Alleged Sandusky victim tells NBC: ‘He knows what he did,’” Philadelphia Inquirer,  (6‐12‐12).    63 The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  did  not  interview  the  boy  involved  in  the  Lasch  Building  incident.   The details of the incident are described as found in the Penn State University Police Department report  and the Grand Jury report.    64 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 27.  65 Id. at 26.  66 Id. at 2.  67 Id. at 29.  68 Id. at 23.  69 Id.   70 Id. at 30.  71 Id.   72 Id.   73 Id. at 30, 52.  74 Id. at 40.  75 Id. at 31, 44.  76 Id. at 45.  36 37 146  Id. at 45‐46.   Id. at 46, 52.  79 Id. at 22.  80 Id.   81 [‐] Interview (4‐18‐12).  82 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 22.  83 Id. at 22.  84 Id. at 3.  85 Id. at 3‐4.  86  Details  regarding  the  investigation  come  from  the  University  Police  Department  records  and  his  interview; [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).    87 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 3‐4.  88 Id. at 21.  89 Id. at 22.  90 Id.   91 Id. at 23.  92 Id.   93 Id.   94 Id. at 5; http://www.co.centre.pa.us/511.asp.  95 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 9.  96 [‐] Interview (4‐26‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  97 [‐] Interview (4‐26‐12).  98 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 19‐20; [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  99 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); Id. at 41‐98‐1609 at 9.  100 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 6.  101 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  102 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 7.  103 Id. at 41‐98‐1609 at 7.  104 Id.   105 Id.   106 Id. at 10.  107 Id. at 21.  108 Id. at 10.  109 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  110 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  111 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 11; [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  112 [‐] Interview (4‐26‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐13‐12).  113 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 87‐88.  114 Id. at 88.  115 Id.   116 Id. at 90.  117 Id. at 12.  118 Id.; [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  119 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 12.  120 Email from [‐] (5‐31‐12), included in Controller Records relating to [‐] payments [Box.net].   121 Email from [‐] (5‐31‐12), included in Controller Records relating to [‐] payments [Box.net].  77 78 147  [‐] File Memo (3‐5‐12).   Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 14.  124 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 14.  125 Id. at 14.  126 Id.   127 Id. at 15.  128 Id.   129 Id. at 16.  130 Id.   131 Id.   132 Id. at 17.  133 [‐] Interview (4‐18‐12).  134 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  135 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  136 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  137 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  138 Penn State University Police Report 41‐98‐1609 at 18.  139 Id. at 41‐98‐1609 at 015_0000018.  140 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).    141 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  142 Penn State University Police Report at 18.  143 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  144 Exhibit 2‐H.  145 The May 5, 1998 notes refer to a meeting that was scheduled to take place at 9:00 a.m. on May 5 with  the “local child abuse people.” This reference supports the inference that these notes were taken before  9:00 a.m. on May 5.   146 Exhibit 2‐I.  147 Exhibit 2‐I.  148 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  149 Control Number 00649354.  150 Control Number 00649354.  151 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  152 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  153 Penn State University Police Report at 2‐18.  154 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  155 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  156 [‐] Interview (2‐2‐12).  157 [‐] Interview (2‐2‐12).  158 [‐] Interview (2‐2‐12).  159 Schultz confidential file notes (5‐1‐12).  160 Control Number 3009518.  161 Control Number 00641616.  162 Control Number 00648360.  163 Exhibit 2‐C (Control Number 00644098).  164 Control Number 644098.  165 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 120 (12‐16‐11).  122 123 148  See Exhibits 2‐A and 2‐B.   [‐] Interview (5‐1‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐6‐11); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  168 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  169 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  170 Michael Raphael, “Penn State Wants Agent Prosecuted,” AP News Archive (1‐6‐98).  171 Id.  172 Id.  173 Control Number 00644972.  174 [‐] Interview (1‐27‐12).  175 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 219 (12‐16‐11).  176 Control Number 06018018.  177 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 190 (12‐16‐11).  178 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 177‐78 (12‐16‐11).  179 Sara Ganim, “Jerry Sandusky book ‘Game Over’ angers Joe Paterno’s family,” Patriot‐News (4‐18‐12).  180 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  181 [‐]Notes (3‐22‐11).  182 [‐] Interview (7‐9‐12).  183 [‐] Interview (7‐9‐12).  184 Control Number 09354508.  185  Amended  Bill  of  Particulars,  Commonwealth  v.  Sandusky,  CP‐14‐CR‐2421‐2011;  CP‐14‐CR‐2422‐2011  (May  18,  2012);  Bill  of  Particulars,  Commonwealth v. Sandusky,  CP‐14‐CR‐2421‐2011;  CP‐14‐CR‐2422‐2011  (Feb. 21, 2012).  186 Control Number 00644655.  187 Control Number 03008143.  188 Control Number 03008143.  189 “30‐and‐Out Window Closing,” SERSNews (Spring 1999),  www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1079979/1999_q2_pdf; [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).  190 “30‐and‐Out Window Closing,” SERSNews (Spring 1999),  www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1079979/1999_q2_pdf; [‐] Interview (1‐4‐12).  191 Control Number 00643981.  192 Control Number JVP‐000021.  193 Control Number JVP‐000021.  194 Control Number 00642802.    195 [‐] Interview (2‐2‐12).  196 [‐] Interview (2‐2‐12).  197 Control Number 03013385.  198 Control Number 03013385.  199 Documents provided by Wick Sollers to Special Investigative Counsel.   200 Control Number JVP000025‐26.  201 Control Number JVP000025‐26.  202 Control Number JVP000025‐26.  203 Exhibit 3‐F (Control Number JVP000027).  204 Exhibit 3‐F (Control Number JVP000027).  205 Exhibit 3‐F (Control Number JVP000027).  206 [‐] Interview (7‐3‐12).  207 Exhibit 3‐G (Control Number 03014658).  166 167 149  Exhibit 3‐G (Control Number 03014658).   Control Number 00650775.   210 Control Number 00650174.  211 Control Number 00650174.   212 Control Number 00650174.  213 Control Number JVP‐000023.  214 Control Number 006_0000014.  215 Control Number 006_0000014.  216 Control Number 006_0000011.  217 Control Number 006_0000005.  218 [‐] Interview (1‐12‐12).  219 [‐] Interview (1‐12‐12).  220 [‐] Interview (4‐30‐12).   221 Control Number 006_0000029.  222 Control Numbers 006_0000035, 014_0000127.  223 Control Number 014_0000133.  224 Penn State Policy HR‐25 (Control Number 014_0000034).  225 Id.  226 Id.  227 Id.  228 Control Number 014_0000136.  229 Control Number 014_0000136.  230 [‐] Interview (2‐22‐12).  231 [‐] Interview (3‐14‐12).  232 Control Number RAE_000001.  233 Control Number RAE_000001.  234 Control Number RAE_000001.  235 Control Number RAE_000001.  236 [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12).  237 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  238 [‐] Interview (4‐15‐12).  239 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  240 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  241 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  242 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  243 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  244 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  245 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  246 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  247 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  248 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  249 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  250 [‐] Interview (7‐2‐12).  251 Email from [‐] to [‐] (3‐21‐12); Penn State University Press Release, “Former FBI director Freeh to conduct  independent  investigation”  (11‐21‐11)  (Judge  Freeh  noted,  “We  will  cooperate  fully  with  the  law  enforcement authorities, will defer to them, and will not impede their work in any way”).   208 209 150  Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 10 (12‐16‐11).   Id. at 9‐10.  254 Id. at 10, 14.  255 Id. at 13.   256 Id.   257 Id. at 13‐14, 16‐17.   258 Id. at 17.   259 Id. at 17, 19.   260 Id. at 19.   261 Id. at 20‐21.   262 Id. at 22.   263 Id. at 22‐23.   264 Id.   265 Id. at 23.   266 Id. at 23‐24.   267 [‐] Interview (3‐1‐12).  268 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 24‐25 (12‐16‐11).  269 Id. at 176.  270 Id. at 175‐76.  271 Id. at 176.  272 Id. at 25‐26.  273 Id. at 26.  274 Sally Jenkins, “Joe Paterno’s Last Interview,” Washington Post (1‐14‐12).  275 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 177 (12‐16‐11).  276 Id  at 177.  277 Id. at 177.  278 Id. at 180, 202.  279 Id.   280 Id. at 181.   281 Id. at 229.   282 Id. at 206.   283 Id. at 211.   284 Id.   285 Id. at 229.   286 Exhibit 5‐A.  287 Control Number 11118161.  288 [‐] Interview (1‐12‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12).  289 [‐] File Memo (5‐1‐12).  290 Exhibit 5‐C.  291 Exhibit 2‐J.  292 Id.   293 Id.   294 Id.   295 Id.   296 Id.   297 Id.   252 253 151  Id.    Id.    300 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  301 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  302 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  303 Schultz confidential file notes (5‐1‐12).  304 Schultz confidential file notes (5‐1‐12).  305 Exhibit 2‐J; [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  306Exhibit 5‐A.  307Exhibit 5‐C.  308Exhibit 5‐D (Control Number 00675162).  309Exhibit 5‐C.  310 Schultz confidential file notes (5‐1‐12).  311 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 30 (12‐16‐11).  312 Id. at 202‐03.   313 Id. at 32‐33.   314 Id. at 35.   315 Id. at 183.   316 Id. at 225.   317 Id.   318 Control Number 00681288.  319 Control Number 03030942.    320 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 30 (12‐16‐11).  321 Spanier 2001 Calendar.  322 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  323 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  324 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  325 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  326 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  327 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  328 Exhibit 5‐F (Control Number 00677433).  329 Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428).  330 Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428); Exhibit 5‐H (Control Number 00676529).  331 Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428).  332 Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428).  333 See Control Number 00642973 (6‐9‐1998) (email subject is “Jerry”); Control Number 00645223 (6‐1‐1998)  (“The  DPW  investigator  and  our  officer  met  discreetly  with  Jerry  this  morning”);  Control  Number  00646346 (6‐9‐1998)(“ They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded that there was no criminal behavior  and  the  matter  was  closed  as  an  investigation”);  Control  Number  00647284  (5‐19‐1998)(email  subject  is  “Jerry”);  Control  Number  00648360  (5‐14‐1998)  (“Tim,  I  understand  that  a  DPW  person  was  here  last  week; donʹt know for sure if they talked with Jerry”).  334 Control Numbers 00650775, 00650174, 00650775, 03014658, 03013385.   335 Control Numbers 09302202, 09350582; [‐] Notes of meeting with Graham Spanier (3‐22‐11).  336 [‐] Notes of meeting with Graham Spanier (3‐22‐11).  337 [‐] Notes of meeting with Graham Spanier (3‐22‐11).  338 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐23‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐12‐11); [‐] Interview (1‐3‐12).  298 299 152  [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12).   [‐] Interview (2‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐17‐12).  341 [‐] Interview (2‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐25‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐24‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐3‐12); [‐] Interview  (2‐7‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐23‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐12‐11).  342 Exhibit 5‐G (Control Number 00679428).  343 See Exhibit 2‐J.  344 See Exhibit 2‐J.  345 Exhibit 5‐H (Control Number 00676529).  346 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 185‐86 (12‐16‐11).   347 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 185‐86 (12‐16‐11).   348 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 182 (12‐16‐11).  349 [‐] File Memo (2‐28‐12).  350 [‐] File Memo (2‐28‐12).  351 [‐] File Memo (2‐28‐12).  352 [‐] File Memo (2‐28‐12).  353 [‐] File Memo (2‐28‐12).  354 [‐] File Memo (2‐28‐12).  355 Schultz  confidential file notes (5‐1‐12).  356 Control Number 00680519.  357 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 215 (12‐16‐11).  358 [‐]Notes of meeting with Graham Spanier (3‐22‐11).  359 Exhibit 2‐J.  360 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  361 Sally Jenkins, “Joe Paterno’s Last Interview,” Washington Post (1‐14‐12).  362 [‐] File Memo (4‐9‐12).  363 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  364 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  365 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  366 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  367 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  368 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  369 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  370 [‐] File Memo (3‐22‐12).  371 Control Number 03036051.  372 Control Number 03036051.  373 Control Number 00684991.  374 Control Number 00684991.    375 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 191‐92 (12‐16‐11).  376 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).      377 Subpoena from  Statewide  Investigating  Grand  Jury,  Supreme  Court  of Pennsylvania, 190 M.D. Misc.  Dkt. 2001, Dauphin County Common Pleas, No. 1430, M.D. 2008, Notice 29, Subpoena 671 (1‐7‐10).  378 [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐21‐12).  379 [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12).  380 [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12); Control Number 09327800 (“The specifics of the investigation were not disclosed  to us”); Control Number 09369385 (the prosecutor “kept the core of the issue very close to her vest”).   381 Notes of [‐] (2‐8‐10); [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12).  339 340 153  Notes of [‐] (3‐1‐10); [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12).   Control Number 09327800.  384 Control Number 09327800.  385 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  386 [‐] Interview (11‐23‐11).  387 [‐] Interview (11‐23‐11); [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  388 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  389 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  390 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  391 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  392 [‐] Notes (12‐28‐10).  393 Control Number 11117847.  394 Control Number 11117847.  395 [‐] Notes (1‐3‐11).  396 [‐] Notes (1‐3‐11).  397 [‐] Notes (1‐3‐11).  398 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).    399 Control Number 09354508.  400 Control Number 09354508.  401 Control Number 09354508.  402 Control Number 09354508.  403 Control Number 09361218.  404 [‐] Interview (11‐23‐11).  405 Control Number 09382271.  406 Control Number 04065904.  407 Control Number 04065904.  408 Control Number 166851.  409 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  410 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  411 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  412 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  413 Control Number 06633947; [‐] Notes of [‐] Interviews (1‐15‐11).    414 Control Number 00045093.  415 Control Number 09405967.  416 Spanier was questioned about a 2002 incident that was later determined to have occurred in 2001.   417 [‐] Notes of meeting with Graham Spanier (3‐22‐11); Control Number 09302202.  418  Subpoena  92.    Spanier  suggested  in  recent  court  filings  that  he  appeared  before  the  Grand  Jury  “voluntarily  and  without  subpoena.”    Spanier  v.  Pennsylvania  State  University,  Verified  Complaint  in  Equity (5‐25‐12).    419 Control Number 00035001.  420 Control Number 00043675.  421 [‐] Interview (1‐25‐12); Control Number 04046135.  422 Control Number 4046135.  423 Sara Ganim, “Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State football staffer, subject of Grand Jury investigation,”  Patriot‐News (3‐31‐11).   424 Id.   382 383 154  Id.   Id.  427 Control Number 1096008.  428 Control Number 1096008.  429 Control Number 9341973.  430 Control Number 9365024.  431 Control Number 9365024.  432 Control Number 9365024.  433 Control Number 9365024.  434 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  435 [‐] Notes (4‐13‐11).  436 Control Number 9365024.  437 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  438 [‐] Interview (2‐20‐12).    439 [‐] Interview (2‐20‐12).    440 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  441 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  442 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  443 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  444 [‐] Interview (4‐20‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12).  445 Exhibit 6‐A (Baldwin affidavit).  446 Exhibit 6‐A (Baldwin affidavit).  447 Exhibit 6‐A (Baldwin affidavit).  448 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  449 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  450 See, e.g., [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12); [‐] Interview (5‐3‐12); [‐]  Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐ 16‐12).  451 See, e.g., [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12); [‐]  Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (5‐3‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐ 15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12).  452 See, e.g., [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12);  [‐]  Interview (5‐3‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12).  453 [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).  454 See, e.g., [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐]  Interview (3‐22‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐ 16‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐16‐11);  [‐]  Interview  (5‐3‐12);    [‐]  Interview  (4‐20‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐16‐12);  [‐]  Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐ 13‐12).  455  Control  Number  12005881;  [‐]  Interview  (4‐6‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐15‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐14‐12);  [‐]  Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (5‐3‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12).  456 Control Numbers 06633947, 00045093, 09405967, 10615894, 06630379; [‐] Notes of [‐] Interviews (1‐15‐ 11); [‐] Notes of [‐] Interviews of [‐] and [‐] (1‐17‐11).  457 Grand Jury Subpoena 109 (3‐24‐11).  458 Grand Jury Subpoena 191 (5‐11‐11).  459 Grand Jury Subpoena 183 (5‐9‐11); Grand Jury Subpoena 185 (5‐10‐11).  425 426 155  [‐] Interview (4‐20‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12).   [‐] Interview (4‐20‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12).    462 [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).  463 [‐] Interview (4‐12‐12).    464 [‐] Interview (3‐14‐12).  465 [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12); [‐] Interview  (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐14‐12).  466 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).  467 See, e.g., [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (5‐3‐12).  468 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).    469 [‐] Interview (11‐25‐11).  470  [‐] Interview (11‐25‐11).  471 Control Number 00039079.  472 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  473 Spanier Calendar 2011; Control Number 01000672.  474 [‐] Interview (1‐25‐12).   475 Control Number 01001160.  476 Control Numbers 01001782, 09377177, 09382920, 09388808, 09398766.    477 [‐] Interview (1‐25‐12).  478 [‐] Interview (1‐25‐12).   479 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  480 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  481 Spanier Calendar 2011.  482 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  483 [‐] Interview (2‐20‐12).  484 [‐] Interview (2‐20‐12).  485 [‐] Interview (2‐20‐12).  486 [‐] Interview (2‐20‐12).  487 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  488 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  489 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  490 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  491 Control Number 00510882.  492 Control Numbers 09361376, 09368381, 09361329.  493 Control Numbers 10245114.  494 Control Number 1001210.  495 Control Number 1001203.    496 Control Number 09347465.  497 Control Number 09347465.  498 Control Number 1001210.  499 [‐] Notes (11‐5‐11).  500 [‐] Notes (11‐5‐11).  501 [‐] Notes (11‐5‐11).  502 [‐] Notes (11‐5‐11).  503 [‐] Notes (11‐5‐11).  504 Control Number 1001228.  460 461 156  Control Number 1001228.   [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐12‐12).    507 [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).  508 [‐] Notes (11‐6‐11).  509 [‐] Notes (11‐6‐11).  510 [‐] Notes (11‐6‐11).  511 [‐] Notes (11‐6‐11).  512 Control Number 01035996.  513 Control Number 01035996.  514 [‐] Notes (11‐6‐11).  515 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).    516  [‐]  Interview  (4‐13‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐12‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐16‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐16‐12);  [‐]  Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).    517 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12); [‐] Interview  (3‐12‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐13‐12)  518  [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  519  [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12).    520  [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12).  521 Control Number 1001535.  522 [‐] Notes (11‐8‐11).  523 [‐] Notes (11‐8‐11).  524 [‐] Notes (11‐8‐11).  525 [‐] Notes (11‐8‐11).  526 [‐] Notes (11‐8‐11).  527 http://live.psu.edu/story/56285.   528 http://live.psu.edu/story/56285.   529 http://live.psu.edu/story/56285.   530 [‐] Notes (11‐9‐11).  531 [‐] Notes (11‐9‐11).  532 [‐] Notes (11‐9‐11).  533 [‐] Interview (5‐16‐12).  534 [‐] Interview (4‐23‐12).    535 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12).    536 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐12‐12).    537 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12).     538 [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (5‐16‐12).  539 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).    540 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).     541 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).    542 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).    543 [‐] Interview (4‐23‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐18‐12).  544 [‐] Interview (4‐23‐12).    545 [‐] Interview (4‐23‐12).    546 [‐] Interview (4‐23‐12).  547 [‐] Notes (11‐9‐11).  548 [‐] Notes (11‐9‐11).  505 506 157  Jessica VanderKolk, “King says PSU Gave Little Warning,” Center Daily Times (11‐16‐11).   [‐] Interview (5‐9‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); [‐] Interview  (4‐18‐12).    551 [‐] Interview (4‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).  552 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order IX(1)(a).   553 http://www.psu.edu/trustees/selection.html.   554 See Board of Trustees Minutes of Meeting at 208‐12 (5‐16‐03).  555 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order XI.  556 http://www.psu.edu/trustees/membership.html.   557 See  Standing  Orders  of  the  Penn  State  Board  of  Trustees,  Order  IX.  This  statement  on  the  general  policies of the Board of Trustees was initially set forth and approved by the Board on June 11, 1970 and  amended from time, the most recent being January 19, 1996.  www.psu.edu/Trustees/governance.html.  558 Board of Trustees Corporate By‐Laws, Art. 4, Sections 7‐9 (2010).  559 Board  of  Trustees  Minutes  of  Meeting,  March  19,  2004  and  September  19,  2008,  http://www.psu.edu/trustees/archives.html#2008.   560 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order III. During the period 1998‐2002, the Board  met six times per year.   561See 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5712; In re Caremark International, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959, 970‐71  (Del. Ch. 1996).  562 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order IX(1)(b)(2).  563 See Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 370 (Del. Ch. 2006).    564 See Caremark, 698 A.2d at 970‐971.    565 [‐] Interview (3‐22‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12); [‐] Interview  (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐14‐12).  566 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).  567 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).    568  Control  Number  12005881;  [‐]  Interview  (4‐6‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐15‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐14‐12);  [‐]  Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (5‐3‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐ 22‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐15‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐12‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐16‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐16‐12);  [‐]  Interview (3‐13‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐15‐12).  569 Control Number 9365024.  570 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order IX(1)(b)(2).  571 Standing Orders of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Order IX(1)(b)(2).  572 Control Number 9365024.  573 Control Number 1001203.  574 Control Number 1001203.  575 [‐] Notes (11‐5‐11).  576 Control Number 006_0000043.  577 Penn State Policy HR‐25 (Control Number 014_0000034).  578  [‐]  Interview  (2‐15‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (12‐7‐11);  [‐]  Interview  (12‐5‐11);  [‐]  Interview  (12‐12‐11);  [‐]  Interview (12‐16‐11).   579 [‐] Interview (12‐15‐11); [‐] Interview (1‐25‐12).  580 [‐] Interview (1‐25‐12); keylist.xls.  581 Penn State Policy HR‐25 (Control Number 014_0000034); Control Number 006_0000043.  582 [‐] Interview (12‐07‐11).  549 550 158  The  Special  Investigative  Counsel  and  investigators  with  the  Attorney  General’s  Office  found  Sandusky’s documents in April 2012.  584 Id.  585 [‐] Interview (4‐19‐12).   586 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐10‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐8‐12).    587 Nittany Lion Club Records (7‐8‐11); [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐8‐12).  588 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐8‐12).  589 Nittany Lion Club Records, November 2011; [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐8‐12).  590 Letterman Club Records, Nittany Lion Club Records.  591Nittany Lion Club Records, September‐October 2011.  592 [‐] Interview (2‐8‐12).  593 [‐] Interview (3‐14‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11).  594 Sandusky was scheduled to conduct a camp in 2009, but his wife called the campus and cancelled the  camp.    595 Penn State Policy AD39.  596 See [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12).   597 [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12).  598 See, e.g., [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12).  599 XL spreadsheet of PSU payments to Sandusky provided by the Controller’s Office.  600 XL spreadsheet of PSU payments to Sandusky provided by the Controller’s Office.  601 Control Number 014_0000054.  602 XL spreadsheet of PSU payments to Sandusky provided by the Controller’s Office.  603 XL spreadsheet of PSU payments to Sandusky provided by the Controller’s Office.  604 XL spreadsheet of PSU payments to Sandusky provided by the Controller’s Office.  605 See e.g., [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).  606 [‐] Interview (12‐5‐11); (12‐5‐11); [‐] Interview (12‐6‐11).   607 Control Number 00033853; [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  608 [‐] Interview (2‐22‐12).   609 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  610 [‐] Interview (2‐15‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐14‐12).  611 [‐] Interview (2‐29‐12).  612 [‐] Interview (12‐16‐11); [‐] Interview (1‐18‐12).  613 [‐] Interview (12‐16‐11); [‐] Interview (1‐18‐12).  614 Armen Keteyian, “Sandusky’s Second Mile charity probed for clues,” CBS Evening News (11‐11‐11).  615 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  616 http://www.psu.edu/dept/psusportsinfo/football/profiles/sanduskyretires.html.   617 Id.    618 Memorandum from [‐] to The Board of Directors (8‐23‐1999).  619 Control Number 006_0000044.  620 Second Mile Golf Tournament documents provided by Controller’s Office (2‐9‐12).  621 Control Number 00555509.  622 Control Number 04122803.  623 [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐24‐12); Exhibit 3‐F.  624 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/19/penn‐state‐paid‐by‐sanduskys‐charity‐for‐use‐facilities‐as‐ recently‐as‐2009/.   625 [‐] Interview (4‐19‐12).  583 159  [‐] Interview (4‐19‐12).   [‐] Interview (4‐19‐12).  628 [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12); [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).  629 [‐] Interview (4‐11‐12).   630 [‐] Interview (1‐13‐12).    631 [‐] Interview (1‐13‐12).    632 [‐] Interview (1‐13‐12).  633 [‐] Interview (1‐13‐12).    634 [‐] Interview (1‐13‐12).    635 [‐] Interview (1‐13‐12).    636 In its 2002 ASR, for example, the University mistakenly reported that there were no sexual assaults in  its Clery Act statistics.  A watchdog organization noticed the discrepancy; the University discovered that  it  had  made  a  mistake  in  its  calculation  and  reissued  the  statistics.    The  incident  resulted  in  negative  publicity in the local newspaper.   See Email of 1‐12‐2004 at 3:47:09 p.m.  637 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  638 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).  639 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  640 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  641 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  642 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12); e.g., Control Number 09503459.  643 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12); [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).  644 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).    645 Control Number 09528529.  646 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12); [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).  647 [‐] Interview (1‐5‐12).    648 Control Number 08036801.  649 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).  650 Control Number 09618422.  651 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).  652 [‐] Interview (2‐1‐12).  653 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  654 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  655 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  656 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  657 [‐] Interview (7‐6‐12).  658 The Special Investigative Counsel determined that this incident occurred in 2001.   659 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 24‐25 (12‐16‐11).  660 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 34 (12‐16‐11).  661 Preliminary Hearing Trans. at 175‐76 (12‐16‐11).  662 The  University  Police  Department  recently  surveyed  everyone  who  worked  there  in  February  2001.   None of those employees had ever been informed of this incident.  The incident was not included in Penn  State’s Clery statistics and no timely warning was made about it.  [‐] Interview (6‐1‐12).  663 Report prepared by [‐] for Penn State, November 27, 2011.   664 See Chapter 9, The Protection of Children in University Facilities and Programs.  665 Outreach  consists  of  five  major  units:  Continuing  Education,  Cooperative  Extension,  Economic  and  Workforce Development, Public Broadcasting and Online Education.   626 627 160  Email from [‐] to [‐] (8‐6‐10).   See Appendix (2), Penn State Policy AD39.  668 Control Number 09341611.  669 See Appendix (2), Penn State Policy AD39.  670 See id.   671Additional  clarifications,  added  June  7,  2012,  include  updated  requirements  for  high  school  students  visiting on pre‐enrollment visits with Penn State students, clarification of reporting process and exclusion  of client representation clinics in Dickinson School of Law from policy.    672Although Policy AD39 first took effect in 1992, it was not until April 28, 2010 that the Policy addressed  background  checks.    Under  the  revised  Policy  AD39,  the  background  check  consists  of  a  University  background check or evidence of completion of Pennsylvania Act 34 (background check), Pennsylvania  Act  151  (child  abuse  clearance)  and  FBI  background  history  report  clearance  before  being  hired  and/or  interacting with minors.   673 See Appendix (2), Penn State Policies HR‐95 and HR‐96.     674 See Appendix (2), Penn State Policy HR‐99, Background Check Process.  675 See Appendix (2), Penn State Policy HR‐99, Background Check Process.   676 See Appendix (2), Penn State Policy HR‐99, Background Check Process.  677 See Appendix (2), Penn State Policy HR‐99, Background Check Process.  678 [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).  679 [‐] Interview (3‐12‐12).  680 [‐] Interview (2‐23‐12).   681 [‐] Interview (2‐23‐12).  682 [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11).  683  See,  e.g.  [‐]  Interview  (3‐6‐12)  (stating  that,  “it  has  happened  here  [at  Altoona]”  on  a  number  of  occasions over the years and coaches have always just been told not to do it again); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12)  (stating that the use of individuals that were not registered or subjected to background checks happened  once or twice each year.  When those in her office would discover such individuals their response was,  “guess what happened again?”).  684 [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).  685 [‐] Interview (2‐23‐12).  686 See,  e.g.,  [‐]  Interview  (2‐23‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐24‐12)  (stating  that  such  unauthorized  participation  occurred every year, “all the time”); [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12)(stating that “it has happened here [at Altoona}  and on a number of occasions over the years and coaches have always just been told not to do it again); [‐]  Interview (3‐8‐12) (stating that the use of individuals that were not registered or subjected to background  checks happened once or twice each year).   687 Email from [‐] to [‐] (8‐6‐10).  688 [‐] Interview (3‐1‐12).   689 See  e.g.,  [‐]  Interview  (3‐1‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐5‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (4‐25‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐6‐12);  [‐]  Interview (4‐24‐12).   690 [‐] Interview (3‐1‐12); [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).    691 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12).  692 [‐] Interview (4‐25‐12).    693  [‐]  Interview  (4‐24‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐6‐12);  [‐]  Interview  (3‐21‐12).    Using  E‐PATCH,  a  coach  or  counselor can apply for a criminal background check online and, most of the time, a “no record” result is  returned  immediately.    [‐]  Interview  (3‐5‐12);  see  also,  www.portal.state.pa.us.    The  coach  or  counselor  requesting the background check bears the cost of this search.  If a result of “no record” is returned, the  666 667 161 coach or counselor is allowed to work with youth with the limitation that the coach or counselor is not  allowed  to  stay  overnight  with  youth  in  a  residence  hall  until  the  University  background  check  is  completed.  [‐] Interview (3‐6‐12).    694 [‐] Interview (4‐16‐12). Senior administrator interviewers were unaware that fingerprinting was being  utilized at this campus.  695 [‐] Interview (3‐24‐12).   696 [‐] Interview (3‐8‐12).   697 [‐] Interview (3‐12‐12).  698 [‐] Interview (3‐23‐12).   699 [‐] Interview (3‐23‐12).   700 [‐] Interview (3‐23‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11).    701 [‐] Interview (3‐23‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11).    702 [‐] Interview (3‐23‐12); [‐] Interview (12‐19‐11).    162 APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXHIBITS EXHIBIT LIST 2A: 2B: 2C: 2D: 2E: 2F: 2G: 2H: 2H 2I: 2J: 3A: 3B: 3C: 3D: 3E: 3F: 3G: 3H: 3I: 5A: 5B: 5C: 5D: 5E: 5F: 5G: 5H: 5I: 6A: 6A 10A: EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, 5.6.98; RE: JOE PATERNO EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO HARMON, 5.14.98; RE: JERRY EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO HARMON, 6.9.98;  EMAIL RE: JERRY; EMAIL SCHULTZ TO  CURLEY 6.8.98 CURLEY 6.8.98 EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO HARMON, 6.9.98; RE: CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, SPANIER, HARMON, 6.9.98; RE: JERRY EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO SPANIER, CURLEY, 2.28.01; RE: MEETING NOTE, TYPED FORM/ HANDWRITTEN NOTES; SANDUSKY RETIREMENT  REQUESTS NOTE SCHULTZ HANDWRITTEN NOTES 5 4 98 @ 5 00PM NOTE, SCHULTZ HANDWRITTEN NOTES, 5.4.98 @ 5:00PM NOTE, SCHULTZ HANDWRITTEN NOTES, 5.5.98;  RE: LAST EVENING NOTE, SPANIER STATEMENT EMAIL, CURLEY TO SPANIER, 2.8.99; RE: SANDUSKY UPDATE EMAIL, SPANIER TO CURLEY, SCHULTZ, 2.10.98; RE: SANDUSKY UPDATE; EMAIL,  CURLEY, 2.9.98  EMAIL, SPANIER TO CURLEY, 1.19.99; RE: JERRY INTERPRETATION OF JVP HANDWRITTEN NOTES, FROM PATERNO RESIDENCE;  RE: MEETING WITH JERRY AND TIM C LETTER, SANDUSKY TO CURLEY, 5.28.99; RE: RETIREMENT OPTIONS NOTE, TYPED FORM/ HANDWRITTEN NOTES; SANDUSKY RETIREMENT  REQUESTS EMAIL, CURLEY TO SPANIER, 6.13.99; RE: JERRY LETTER, CURLEY TO SANDUSKY, 6.29.99; RE: RETIREMENT PREREQUISITES EMAIL, ERICKSON TO SECOR; RE: EMERITUS QUESTION; EMAIL, REBECCA  YOUNG TO SECOR, 8.30.99; RE: EMERITUS QUESTION TIMESHEET, MCQUAIDE BLASKO, INC., COURTNEY, 2.1.01 TO 4.30.01 EMAIL SCHULTZ TO COURTNEY 1 10 11; RE: JSRECE; EMAIL COURTNEY TO EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO COURTNEY, 1.10.11; RE: JSRECE; EMAIL COURTNEY TO  SCHULTZ, 1.10.11; RE: JS NOTE, SCHULTZ CONFIDENTIAL HANDWRITTEN NOTE, 2.12.01 EMAIL, HARMON TO SCHULTZ, 2.12.01; RE: INCIDENT IN 1998 NOTE, SCHULTZ HANDWRITTEN NOTES, 2.25.01 EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, COBLE, 2.26.01; RE: CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO SPANIER, CURLEY, 2.28.01; RE: MEETING; EMAIL, SPANIER,  2.27.01; RE: MEETING; EMAIL, CURLEY, 2.27.01 EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, 3.1.01; RE: SCHEDULE EMAIL, COBLE TO CURLEY, 3.7.01; RE: CONFIDENTIAL; EMAIL SCHULTZ TO  CURLEY, 2.26.01; RE: CONFIDENTIAL AFFIDAVIT, BALDWIN, 1.16.12 A I A I , A IN, 6 COMMITTEE LIST, ORGANIZATION CHART BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS OF  FEBRUARY 1998, FEBRUARY 2001, JULY 1, 2012 Exhibit 2A From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Wednesday. May 06, 1998 2:06 PM To: Tim Curley Cc: Spanier?Graham ((335) Subject: Re: Joe Paterno Will do. Since we talked tonight I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday. At 05:24 PM 515198 43400, Tim Curley wrote: >1 have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks. >Tim Curlev >Tmc3@gsu.edu 12' Exhibit 23 From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:55 AM To: Thomas Harmon Subject: Re: Jerry Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve quickly. At 04:48 PM 5/13/98 EST, Thomas Harmon wrote: >The from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken >to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I >have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly. Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:11:19 -0400 To: Tim Curley From: "Gary C. Schultz" c52 su.edu> Subject: Re: Jerry Tim, I understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know for sure if they talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child talk to the boys sometime over the next week. We won't know anything before then. At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote: >Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. >Tim Curley >Tmc3@psu.edu Gary C. Schultz Sr. VP. for Finance and Business/Treasurer 208 Old Main Phone: 855-6574 Fax: 863-8685 >Thomas R. Harmon >Director of Police Services >The State University Eisenhower Parking Deck >University Park, PA 16802 >(814) 865-1864 >harmon@police.psu.edu 11 Exhibit 2C From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 2:03 AM To: Harmon-Thomas (TRH) Subject: Re: Jerry Tom, I've been holding some "catch up time" on my calendar on Monday and l'd suggest that we use a piece of it to meet and discuss the status (I also recall the last time we talked you indicated that there was some aspects of this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk). Please get ahold ofJoan and see what time will work. thanks >Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 21:59:42 -0400 >To: Tim Curley >From: "Gary C. Schultz" c52 su.edu> >Subject: Re: Jerry >Tim, I don't have an update at this point. Just before I left for vac, Tom told me that the DPW and Univ Police services were planning to meet with him. I'll see if this has happened and get back to you. >At 10:27 AM 5/30/98 -O400, Tim Curley wrote: >>Any further update? >>At 09:46 AM 5/19/98 -0400, you wrote: but I don't expect we'll hear anything prior to the end ofthis week. 09:37 PM 5/18/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote: update? 04:11 AM 5/ 14/98 -0400, you wrote: I understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know sure ifthey talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child talk to the boys sometime over the next week. We won't know anything before then. 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote: new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. Curley C. Schultz VP. for Finance and Business/Treasurer Old Main 865-6574 863-8685 Curley C. Schultz VP. for Finance and Business/Treasurer Oid Main 855-6574 863-8685 23> >y >>Tim Curiev Exhibit 2D From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 2:04 AM To: Thomas Harmon Subject: Re: Confidential Tom, you can ignore my earlier email, unless you feel that we should talk some more about this. thanks At 01:11 PM 6/1/98 EST, Thomas Harmon wrote: >Gary, >The DPW investigator and our officer met discreetly with Jerry this >morning. His account of the matter was essential the same as the >child's. He also indicated that he had done this with other children >in the past. He was advised since there was no criminal behavior >established that the matter was closed as an investigation. >He was a little emotional and expressed concern as to how this might >have adversely affected the child. >Tom >Thomas R. Harmon >Director of Police Services >The State University Eisenhower Parking Deck >University Park, PA 16802 >(814) 865-1864 >harmon@police.psu.edu 10 Exhibit 2E From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 2:09 AM To: Curley-Tim (TMC) Cc: Spanier-Graham Harmon-Thomas (TRH) Subject: Re: Jerry They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded that there was no criminal behavior and the matter was closed as an investigation. He was a little emotional and expressed concern as to how this might have adversely affected the child. I think the matter has been appropriatedly investigated and I hope it is now behind us. >Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 21:59:42 -O400 >To: Tim Curley >From: "Gary C. Schultz" c52 su.edu> >Subject: Re: Jerry >Tim, I don't have an update at this point. Just before I left for vac, Tom told me that the DPW and Univ Police services were planning to meet with him. I'll see if this has happened and get back to you. >At 10:27 AM 5/30/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote: >>Any further update? >>At 09:46 AM 5/19/98 -0400, you wrote: but I don't expect we'll hear anything prior to the end of this week. 09:37 PM 5/18/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote: update? 04:11 AM 5/ 14/98 -0400, you wrote: I understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know sure if they talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child talk to the boys sometime over the next week. We won't know anything before then. 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote: new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. Curley C. Schultz VP. for Finance and Business/Treasurer Old Main 865?6574 863-3685 Curley 15>} C. Schultz VP. for Finance and Business/Treasurer Did Main 865-6514 863-8635 b2?) >2>Tim Curie-y Exhibit 2F From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:13 PM To: Graham Spanier; Tim Curley Subject: Re: Meeting Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this.  I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization. 

At 10:18 PM 2/27/01 - 0500, Graham Spanier wrote:

At 08:10 PM 2/27/01 - 0500, Tim Curley wrote:
had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-? I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.  I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware ofthe first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities.

I need some help on this one. What do you think about this
Graham B. Spanier
President
The State University
201 Old Main
University Park, 16802

Phone:  814-865-7611
Exhibit ZG Retirement Requeets I . 13f . An office and telephonefr DJ Ukrvj 7g?) 320.000/vear ??zcity that includee protectien in; }F?i In Dottie *Pleaee refer to 1.3, an .3103qu Fr- . . . . . justification for requeet. F3 Lax/Eff]; 'Ixr in -f\l - - 'rh f3.g A title that reflects my relationship W14 en State. IN, I: ?11?qu Bulky. (AVIKJ . 4. maintain my option to tlLketa mg. Will . amee fer [und?IalSan.h Ft} VA Access to training and workout facilit ee. The opportunity to run a football camp fel middle (r?r27*" :r a ., Discuss ways of maintaining Vieibility. .) Mi- rm? (ed: "e . 2/3) :1 ff, ?l - INA page/M; ?31, an?! nub 141:! I U: I min" werelet/14.4.! 'w II ll rl?l? {w i u- I val {turf ?a Exhibit 2H . ricer?! . ?exam1.1 math .mm 513%. if} .. 65 bxizcm?hanmu .i was}. iaai?bu? I ,lr wry; Axis. . wo a atom 35% 1: - Ebuc?. I i .93. I g?g t. "mum?s, $4.1 i . m; Ad 3 k? ?rm?k? Roma .. Hi? nU-j?3.unCam? tux. . un?nn :2 1 A: r. in?ux. . h. a Exhibit 2 I w?q ?warm on; v.5 M. mxgg?qiagwn.? 9; mm?? 3.: fl. .. a. yr. $5.53 an. - 5% . 4 AV?th 5% hm99? 31??er NS T. {army [Flag KNWWIT mi?tmvmum a a. qr avg Okrafcm x912 Erma. 1 w}.me Iw?$.9th nupch he rw Ono iv ?viva a, Em. Nth: AHAFLU ?unk . {hg?r? \m ?Nu . \m Ewe Lycra? Exhibit 2] Initial Heads Up More than a decade ago, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz asked to catch me after another meeting to give me a ?heads up? about a matter. Looking back at my calendar for what is now presumed to be February, 2001, I surmise that meeting to have been on Monday, February 12, at about 2:30pm, following a scheduled meeting of the President?s Council. It was common that members of the council would catch me individually for brief updates following such meetings. The meeting lasted perhaps 10-15 minutes. Curley and Schultz shared that they had received a report that a member of the athletic department staff had reported something to Joe Paterno, and that Joe had passed that report on to Tim and Gary. The report was that Jerry Sandusky was seen in an athletic locker room facility showering with one of his Second Mile youth, after a workout, and that they were ?horsing around? (or ?engaged in horseplay?). It was reported that the staff member was not sure what he saw because it was around a corner and indirect. I recall asking two questions: ?Are you sure that is how it was described to you, as horsing around?? Both replied ?yes.? ?Are you sure that that is all that was reported?? Both replied ?yes.? We then agreed that we were uncomfortable with such a situation, that it was inappropriate, and that we did not want it to happen again. I asked that Tim meet with Sandusky to tell him that he must never again bring youth into the showers. We further agreed that we should inform the Second Mile president that we were directing Jerry accordingly and furthermore that we did not wish Second Mile youth to be in our showers. Notes: There was no mention of anything abusive, sexual, or criminal. At no time was it said who had made the report to Joe Paterno. (I never heard Mike McQuery?s name associated with this episode until November 7, 2011, when I read it in a newspaper story.) The hour of the day was not mentioned. The speci?c building and locker room were not mentioned. The age of the child was not mentioned. I had presumed it was a high school age child under erry?s guardianship or sponsorship, since that is all I knew about the Second Mile. There was no mention in that meeting of any prior shower incident, and I had no recollection of having heard of a prior incident. PHDATA 3849685_1 Follow Up In reviewing my calendar for February, 2001, I note a double entry for Sunday, February 25. I had been out of town for several days and was scheduled to return in time to see a Penn State women?s basketball game at 2pm. My assistant noted on the calendar that I should stop in to see Tim Curley brie?y in my way into the game. I have no recollection of that meeting other than that Tim was worried about how he should handle things if he informed Sandusky that we were forbidding him from bringing Second Mile youth into our facilities and then Sandusky disagreed with this directive. I do not recall knowing about any prior incidents, but it is apparent from emails recently released to the media that Tim also indicated that there had been an earlier occasion when Sandusky had showered with a minor. We also now know that I was copied on two emails in 1998 that may have alerted me to that (the ?rst one being a vague reference with no individual named) and the second essentially saying that the matter had been closed. I had absolutely no recollection of that history in 2001 nor do I recall it today. I don?t believe I replied to those emails nor was I briefed verbally. Tim Curley sent me a follow up email that has recently been shared with the news media. My use of the word ?humane? refers speci?cally and only to my thought that it was humane of Tim to wish to inform Sandusky ?rst and to allow him to accompany Tim to the meeting with the president of the Second Mile. Moreover, it would be humane to offer counseling to Sandusky if he didn?t understand why this was inappropriate and unacceptable to us. My comment that we could be vulnerable for not reporting it further relates speci?cally and only to Tim?s concern about the possibility that Jerry would not accept our directive and repeat the practice. Were that the outcome of his discussion I would have worried that we did not enlist more help in enforcing such a directive. I suggested that we could visit that question down the road, meaning after Curley informed Sandusky of our directive and learning of his willingness to comply and after talking with Second Mile executives who had responsibility for the Second Mile youth. A few days after the brief Sunday interaction, I saw Tim Curley and he reported that both of the discussions had taken place, that those discussions had gone well and our directive accepted, and that the matter was closed. I never heard another word about this from any individual until I learned of the investigation into Sandusky. I was eager to assist the attorney general and was completely honest to the best of my recollection. I had absolutely no idea until midway through my voluntary grand jury testimony that this inquiry was about anything more than the one episode in the shower. Notes: I do not recall that I was privy to any follow up discussions between Curley, Schultz, legal counsel, or others. February 2001 was an extraordinarly pressured period for Penn State and me: I had ?ve out of town trips that month, my appropriations hearings, THON, a packed calendar with 164 appointments, an average of 100 incoming and 50 outgoing emails a day, and the turmoil of the Black Caucus disruption and the takeover of the student union. 2 PHDATA 3849685_1 I do not recall being involved in any discussions about DPW or the police, although I now assume that DPW is the ?other organization? being referenced by Curley and Schultz in their emails. 3 PHDATA 3849685_1 Exhibit 3A Shared Mailbox From: Tim Curley Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 11:19 AM To: gspanier@psu.edu; gc52@psu.edu Subject: Sandusky update Jerry and I had several conversations this past week about the Assistant AD position. He visited with Joe last week and is to let me know early this week if he is interested. I told him he would continue with his base salary and that he would give up his camp and bowl compensation. Also, i indicated that his dealer car may be a concern since Sue Scheetz is not provided one. We talked about his involvement with the Second Mile and my expectations for the position. I did not get any indication which way he was leaning. I will keep you informed as the week progresses. Thanks. Tim Curley Tmc3@psu.edu 19 Exhibit 33 Shared Mailbox From: Graham Spanier Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 9:40 PM To: Curley, Tim Cc: Schultz, Gary C. Subject: Re: Sandusky update Thanks for this update. We are looking for a dean of the Eberly College Science. Does Joe Sarra have any background there? At 08:51 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Tim Curley wrote: >Jerry is not interested in the Assistant AD position. Joe and Jerry >have agreed that he will continue in the coaching capacity for the next year. >Jerry will have 30 years in the system next year, which will give him >some options after next season. Joe tells me he made it clear to Jerry >he will not be the next head coach. Joe did indicate that he still >p ans to make a change on the defensive side of the ball. He wants to >ta k to me at a later date about what might be available for Joe Sarra. >Do you two need an administrative assistant? >Tim Curley >Tmc3@gsu.edu Graham B. Spanier President The State University 201 Old Main University Park, 16802 Phone: 814-865-7611 email: gspanierQquedu 18 Exhibit 3C Shared Mailbox From: Graham Spanier Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 11:12 PM To: Curley, Tim Subject: Re: Jerry Thanks. Let me know if I can be helpful as this moves forward. At 10:14 PM 1/19/99 -0500, Tim Curley wrote: had a good meeting with Jerry today. He is interested in going one >more year and then transition into a spot that handles our outreach >program. We talked about his benefits situation and his expectations >about salary. I told him that we needed to get with Billie about his >benefits and that i would take a look at what kind of position we could >deve op and how we might handle his salary situation. Additionally, we >need to have Joe in support. I plan to follow-up and will keep you in the loop. is not pleased about >the entire situation as you might expect. >Tim Curley Graham B. Spanier President The State University 201 Old Main University Park, 16802 Phone: 814-865-7611 email: gspanier@psu.edu 17 Exhibit 3D The following is typewritten interpretatibn of handwritten notes on document 000017 from Sandusky ?le kept at Paterno residence. Meeting with Jerry and Tim Jerry We know this isn?t easy for you and it isn?t easy for us or Penn State. Part of the reason it isn?t easy is because I allowed and at times tried to help you with your developing the 2"d Mile. If there were no 2"d Mile then I believe you belief that you probably could be the next Penn State FB Coach. But you wanted the best of two worlds and I probably should have sat down with you 6 or 7 years ago and said ?look Jerry if you want to be the Head COach at Penn State, give up? your association with the 2"d Mile and concentrate on nothing but your family and Penn State. Don?t worry about the 2nd Mile ?you don?t have the luxury ofdoing both. One will always demand a decision of preference. You are too deeply involved in both. (Interpretation of notes by T. Cloud) Exhibit 3E {w I luv 5 Hh'rv RRY- MU a ?Pig it l, ivtrail {Mi hwy/ 7" Mtet?h. i? :0 - Attent1on' Tim Cur?e?,? g: ti\r? yw?um ?aambig in . whey f? 4c if.? 1m. Kw? mil?truggle with the deC1510? or a career 5 change, many factors enter my mind? ForemOSti I am Cemb?ew . concerned about my mental health. the security 0f - 19 well?being of The Second Mile. 1 my family and Mother, and Mr; Based on my conversations with Coach Paterno, his concern with the inevitable transition into Penn State football, the realisation that I am not going to a? We 1 All f: and the opportunity that with inthJ If. 1 retire from the University and work for The Second Mile. I 5 that the University has offered to ?ijy in? he the next head coach. a thirty?year window. the timing may be right for me to also appreciate the eip . - me durino process. ngever, there are questions that I $m .Jnl st 4- i b?433? . what impact will my retirement have on The Second Mile 3 qrowth and can a relationghip be maintained between Penn State ?M?l '1 (Athletics) and The Second Mile? Is there maintain ViSibility With Penn btate? Is my active involvement in deVelOPing an outreaCh program featuflng Penn State AthlEtBS a I Are there ways for me to continue possibility? to work with young people through Penn State? What 13 a fair financial arrangement? I believe that Penn State football has played a significant role in the foundation of The Second Mile. idditignally? The Second Mile has promoted and enhanced Penn VP-000025 foatnali This is a unique situation and an attempt State to satisfy my desire to maintain an long+term relationship with the University. signifiCanf role in my Many [actars have played and forage other more deniaiona to stay at Penn State Lucrative options. Dne element that was important was the probability of becoming the next head football coach 5L Penn addijgn Lg Lhe perg?hal satisfaction that this 3LaLe In would have afiarded me this would have also enabled me :0 better secure my family's economic future. AS I have been lufgrmed that this will not happen. I continue t0 make an eifort to iind avenues 0t fultliiment and ta remain positive about a tremendous experience. With all Of this in gangldefatlgn I encloge a List of requestn. Thank you! {a JD ry Sandusky u! Exhibit 3F I If I. x. . ., r1Retirement Requests (j . i An office and telephone FNJF it annuity that includes piotection Jy -, Vt: Hi?ulk Dottie *Pleaee refer to the enclosed . juetification for this request EELN Eb??'l??lv ih I ?430 I 3.) A title that reflects my relationship Penn 1. State_ I 'l Lb '3 ?r?ullg 6 i 7? 5" - wgew . maintain my option ticket I I -ameg icu- ?iu?7 ?f?r Access to training and workout iacilitiee V?Q?quI:-l:l for middle ?y?ll??j A The opportunity to run a football camp '(E?iy?h i ?nd/L an? Ik_ I school youth. I I I. {In {by} . . I?Ld-l Pr? 0 Diecues ways of maintaining Vieibilitybut]: J) [gaffe-l] {?lial . 0 fix! . [Jf ?1 I fl 2?16{In} 2w-" t. :1 bf) . :3 Egg-wig21?? flit-L. EMA- 15?" JVP-OUOO27 :7 I :?rgarlr w. Exhibit 36 Shared Mailbox From: Tim Curley Sent: Sunday, June 13, 1999 8:19 PM To: Spanier, Graham Cc: Schultz, Gary C. Subject: Jerry Jerry just called and said he is leaning towards the retirement window option if we will agree to the $20,000 annuity and two basketball tickets in addition to the other items he requested. lam at home and do not have the projected costs for the annuity, but my recollection was it would cost us about $268,000. Joe did give him the option to continue to coach as long as he was the coach. I am not comfortable with the $20,000 annuity, but wanted to check to see if you feel the same way. Perhaps we could suggest another option of him coaching three more seasons and we get creative with his base salary or some other scheme that makes him whole and then some, but doesn't cost us an arm and a leg. Since Joe is okay with him continuing to coach this might make more sense to all concerned. I do need some help on what this third option might be if you agree. Also, I need to run it by Joe. I can get with Gary and Billie first thing tomorrow to see what we can work out if you are in agreement. We need to respond to him asap since time is running out. I need some help on this one. Thank you. 16 Exhibit 3H fierth .June'29, 1'999 Gerald A. Snndusky 130 Grandview Road State College, PA 16801 INREE Retirement Pei-quiche: Deer ML'Sandusky? 'i . In accordance With our discos'siOiis' regarding your retirement from University-service e?'eCtiVe June 29, 1999, and in recognition of your many contrilmtions to the University and its Intercollegiate Athletics Program during the tenure of your employmennl am pleased to con?rm? the following petqulsioes to be extended to you upon and e?er your retirement on June 29. 1999: 1. The will pay you the amount of One Hundred Sixty- eight Thousand and 001100 Dollars in ltunp sum, less applicable withh'oldings as required by law, on or before July 1999. The University will give you four (4) complimentaiy football Season tickets in your current location, and in addition, you will be - given the option to purchase font- (4) more football season tickets within the thirty-?ve yard lines and below the walkway. This bene?t will continue for the balance of your lifetime. The University will give youtwo (2) complimentary men?s basketball season tickets and two (2) complimentary women's basketball Season tickets. The location of these tickets will be within the normal Football Sta?'ticket location. This bene?t will continue for the baIanee of your lifetime. The University will permit you to use, at no charge, a locker, Weight rooms, ?mess facilities and training room in the East locker room complex. This bene?t will continue for the balance of your lifetime. oos_0000043 Gerald A. Sundusky June 29. 1999 . Page 2 5. For aperiod of ?ve (5) years commencing July 1, 1999, and subject to renewal upon concurrence of both parties, you and the University agree to work collaborativer with each other in the ?xture in community outreach programs, such as the Second Mile. and other programs which provide positive visibility to the University ?5 Intercollegiate Athletics Program. It is understood - that the nature and extent of such collaborative efforts, which will include con?rmation of the Nittany Lion TIPS and PEAK Programs -'and occasional recognitions of the Second Mile in the Beaver Stadium Pictorial and the Penn State Football Story Show, wiil be as mutually agreed period of ten (10) years, commencing July I, 1999, and . subject to renewal upon concurrence of both parties, you will be given an o?ice and a phone in the East Aron locker room complex for pin-poses of the collcborative arrangements referenced in no. 5 above. If'?rc foregoing understandings are egreeabie, kindly indicate your acceptance by signing entire line lac-10w and returning a copy to me. Sincerely, A. A1 Timothy M. Carley Director of Athletics Il'rereby accept?thre above-mentioned'iems? on June 29, I999. 4. smog-r.- Gerald A. Sundusky 006_0000044 PS Exhibit 3 To: Robert From: Rodney A. Erickson Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Emeritus Question Bob. Let's go ahead and grant it if Graham has already promised it. We can hope that not too many others take that careful notice. These requests would have to come through the deans in any case. and i can't imagine many deans lobbying for assistant professors. Rod At 10:23 AM 8131/99 -O400. you wrote: >ln addition to the exchange below. I've talked with Billie Wtilits. >Aithough she said we have made exceptions in the past for assistant profs. >she could not give any particulars because any information would have been >?ied with the faculty member?s ?le and she wouldn't know where to look. >In other words, if this really happened (and without particulars it is hard >to know), it may have been way past, and so not terribly helpful if we adon?t have a speci?c precedent to clot to. But we are In a bind. >Apparentiy. Graham told we would do thisvhc was wholly awithtn his rights here since the policy says ?The President may grant {or asuggested going through the college and went to Barbara, who then made the >request of us. (I had wron I assumed all along that the request >originated with Barbara.) is also going to be honored by the college >as an Alumni Fellow this fal .and i think they may want to present the >emen?tus status to him on that occasion (or at least announce it then. >elthough I'm not positive about this connection}. I'm not sure what our >besi options are at this point. Maybe we need to go along with the >Assistant Professor Emeritus of Physical Educatioanssistant Coach >recommendetlon. since by tying the two there is nobody else with that >double designation who can claim they have the exact same credentials and >are not being given the emeritus title. >>X-Senden ray2@mall.psu.edu >>X-Maliar: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) >>Date: Mon. 30 Aug 1999 09:07:06 -0400 V4.1 @f04n07 rxsz@psu.edu >>From: Rebecca Young >>Subject: Re: Emeritus Question Seccr, >>Here are Jeanie's comments regarding emeritus rank for? iv: >>good points she raises. -?Becky jsa3@email.psu.edu Mon. 30 Aug 1999 08:39:34 0400 V4.1@f04n01 Rebecca Young Janine Andrews Re: Emeritus Question Becky. I had an opportunity to look into your question from a previous with regard to exceptions for Assistant Professors. Historically, have made exceptions. although not forthis exact title. Assistant Emeritus of Physical EducationIAssistant Coachi In my opinion. the circumstances. the most appropriate title would be the one - Assistant Professor Emeritus of Physical i say this because if we keep the professorial connection out of title and just use something like Assistant Coach Emeritus. we then a new precedence by giving someone a 'Coach" emeritus status we have never done based on what i could gather. So . . . the title serves two purposes: it keeps the professonai connection. is very inclusive by adding in the "coach" connection. let me know if you need anything else. Have a great day. 01:20 PM 8/25/99 -0400, you wrote: Jeanie. Just wanted to update you on the question. Dr. has received the request, as we anticipated. It's for the title Professor Emeritus of Physical Education/Assistant Coach. thought from here. If it?s not well advised to grant the emen?tus rank, how about Assistant Coach Emeritus? We'll wait hear from you. ?Becky A. Young of the Provost Old Main Park, PA 16802 863-7494 (Telephone) 863-8583 (FAX) S. Andrews Manager Relations Division of Human Resources State University 865-1412 jsaS@psu.edu 9 (0)3 We ARE ..Penn Statelli >>Rebecoa A. Young >>Of?ce of the Provest >>201 Old Main >>University Park. PA 16802 863-7494 (T elephone) W114) 853-8583 (FAX) >1 >Robart Secor Wine Prov-:33! for Academic Affalrs >201 Old Main >(814) 883-?494 Exhibit 5A McQuaide Blasko, Inc. Applied and Unapplied by Workng Attorney From: 02-01-01 Through: 04-30?01 .1 1: 54 AM orking Attomey(s): Select 9 Page No.4 Mutter ID. Description Task.Aclivi?y Hours 02?0801 4000?465063 PSU - Labor - Human Resources P8010 0.60 Conference with Purdum re holiday pay issue; Conference with Maney re same 4000-490106 PSU - Personnel - Continuing Distance Educat 0.50 Conference with Elliott re Marshall; Conference with Schultz 4000-49014?) PSU - Personnel Mont Alto Campus 2.20 Conference with Leathers re Goldenberg; Preparation of correspondence to Spanier; Review of files; Preparation of correspondence to Spanier et al; Conference with Leathers 4000-481582 PSU Students - Student Affairs 2.90 Interof?ce conference re camping policy; Legal research re same 4000-481582 PSU Students - Student Affairs 1.70 Study/analyze documents re LGB tenant; Interof?ce conference re same; Legal research; Preparation of correspondence to Spanier et al re same 4000-490163 PSU - Personnel - Human Resources 0.30 Conference with Maney re Khalliq 4000-465026 PSU - Labor - COM General 1.50 Preparation of documents re HMC parking Total for2/8/2001 9.70 0.00 02-09-01 4000?490143 PSU - Personnel - Mont Alto Campus 1.60 Review of documents re Goldenberg; Preparation of correspondence to Spanier; Preparation of correspondence to Leathers; Legal research 4000-451558 PSU - Gifts Grants - Develop and Alumni Rela 0.20 Review of files re Hagan estate 4000-49011? PSU Personnel - College of Liberal Arts 1.10 Conference with Battista re Echemendia; Interof?ce conference 4000-425562 PSU - Contracts - Hershey Medical Center 0.80 Review of documents re Purchase of Services Agreement; Interoftice conference re same 4000-465026 PSU - Labor - COM - General 2.60 Conference with Kushner re HMC parking fees; Preparation of correspondence to Kushner re same; Preparation of documents; Legal research 4000-46506?) PSU Labor - Human Resources P8010 0.70 Review Schaeffer brief Total for2/9/2001 7.00 0.00 02?11-01 2.90 4000-450061 PSU - General - Finance/Business Central Conference with Schultz re reporting of suspected child abuse; Legal research re same; Conference with Schultz 02-12?01 Applied and Unapplied by Working Attorney 31?21/20 2 10:42:54 AM McQuaide Blasko, lnc. Page No.4 Exhibit SB From: Schultz, Gary C. Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:34 PM To: First Administrative GCSZ@psu.edu Subject: Re: JSRece Thanks for letting me know. Gary Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless From: Wendell Courtney To: "Schultz, Gary su.edu> Sent: Mon, Jan 10, 2011 23:59:28 Subject: JS Baldwin called me today to ask what I remembered about I issue I spoke with you and Tim about circa 8 years ago. I told her what I remembered. She did not offer why she was asking, nor did I ask her. Nor did I disclose that you and I chatted about this. Wendell V. Courtney, Esquire McQuaide Blasko Law Of?ces 81 1 University Drive State College, Pa. 16801 wvcourtnev@mqblaw.com Phone: (814) 238-4926 Fax: (814) 234-5620 This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged or con?dential information intended only for the individual person(s) identi?ed as addressee(s). Any use, distribution, copying, or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender indicating this error and delete the transmission from your system immediately. This electronic mail transmission may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or may contain privileged or con?dential information intended only for the individual person(s) identi?ed as addressee(s). Any use, distribution, copying, or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender indicating this error and delete the transmission from your system immediately. Tax Advice Disclosure: Pursuant to requirements imposed under the U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, we hereby inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise speci?cally stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code; or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Exhibit 5C . 4 PENNSTATE 12(01 . From: Gary C. Schultz To: an? he ?7 . . Surf "71% MM $969,, .J. an I (9/th Ls aux ?61314" v. I .I {us '3 74,4: 1n?. '7ch 1.410 a: {mg 0 as. hem?) maho?m I) I I, (?Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurcr The Slate Univeusily 208 Old Main University Park. PA 16802-1503 (8 l4) 865-6574 Fax: (814) 863-7 88 Exhibit 5D From: Thomas R. Harmon Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:57 PM To: gc52@psu.edu Subject: Incident in 1998 Regarding the incident in 1998 involving the former coach, I checked and the incident is documented in our imaged achives. Thomas R. Harmon Director, University Police The State University 30-B Eisenhower Parking Deck University Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-1864 15 Exhibit 5E .15ia?j?jzfs?x?c 663 grhuh-1? C) 94:1) I I :t-Mtb? ., I to \?l?fp (Ci/0?0? CxL-vcagvahil-? ow "Sim La?wey W26 Kr: L, a LA LA {51.3 06mg.ka Exhibit 5F I: From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 1:57 PM To: TMC3@psu.edu Cc: Coble-Joan (JLC) Subject: Confidential Tim, I'm assuming that you've got the ball to 1) talk with the subject ASAP regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility; 2) contacting the chair of the Charitable Organization; and 3) contacting the Dept of Welfare. As you know I'm out of the office for the next two weeks, but if you need anything from me, please let me know. Exhibit SG From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:13 PM To: Graham Spanier; Tim Curley Subject: Re: Meeting Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this.  I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization. 

At 10:18 PM 2/27/01 - 0500, Graham Spanier wrote:

At 08:10 PM 2/27/01 0500, Tim Curley wrote:
had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday?- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.  I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities.

I need some help on this one. What do you think about this Graham B. Spanier
President
The State University
201 Old Main
University Park, 16802

Phone:  814-865-7611
email:  gspanier@ psu.edu
Exhibit 5H From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:06 PM To: Tim Curley Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Schedule OK, Tim.  You can reach me anytime thru my office.

At 07:34 AM 3/1/01 -0500, Tim Curley wrote:

Gary: I will be sure to keep in touch with you on the basketball situation.



X-Sender: X?Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:18:24 -0500
X-PH: V4.1 f04n01
To: Tim Curley From: Graham Spanier Subject: Re: Schedule

Tim:  l'll be in Australia, and it might be difficult to reach me--a 15 hour time difference.  But call if you need me-?Carolyn has my phone numbers.  I will try to check email from time to time, but who knows how easy that will be.  I will return late Saturday night (but that involves starting my return sometime on Friday, US time), so you might try calling me at home on Sunday afternoon if we haven't communicated earlier via If you need to start in one direction without me, do so.  i think we are on the same wavelength and I will support you.

At 08:19 PM 2/28/01 -0500, Tim Curley wrote:
Graham: I know you are going out of town. When will you be returning? I may need to touch base with you regarding the basketball situation towards the end of next week. We will play next Thursday and pending the outcome of the next two games I will need to make a recommendation to you next Friday. lam planning to meet with the person next Monday on the other subject. Have a great trip!! You sure deserve a break! Graham B. Spanier
President
The State University
201 Old Main
University Park, 16802

Phone:  814-865-7611
email:  Exhibit 5 From: Joan Coble Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:54 AM To: TMC3@psu.edu Cc: gc52@psu.edu Subject: Fwd: Confidential Tim Have you updated Gary lately? Before he left for FL, he asked me to ck. w/you re this. Pls. know that he is doing e-mail, but will not be reading until Sun., 3/11. He is spending a few days with Dave Schuckers and you may either phone him on his cellphone at 777-7393 or Schuckers at 941/388?3034. Pls. know that the Schuckers live in a Condominium you may have to go through some referrals to get to speak w/them, so be patient if you go that route. Thx. Joan X-Sender: gc32@imap.cac.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:57:16 -0500 V4.l@f04n01 To: TMC3@psu.edu From: "Gary C. Schultz? cs2 su.edu> Subject: Con?dential Cc: jlc9@psu.edu Tim, I'm assuming that you've got the ball to l) talk with the subject ASAP regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility; 2) contacting the chair of the Charitable Organization; and 3) contacting the Dept of Welfare. As you know I'm out of the of?ce for the next two weeks, but if you need anything from me, please let me know. Gary C. Schultz Senior Vice President for Finance Business/Treasurer Penn State University 208 Old Main University Park, PA 16802 814/865?6574 814/863-8685 (fax) Joan L. Coble Administrative Assistant Of?ce of the Senior Vice President for Finance Business/Treasurer 208 Old Main University Park, PA 16802 13 814/865-6574 (phone) 814/863-8685 (fax) 14 Exhibit 6A AFFIDAVIT OF A. BALDWIN The undersigned, A. Baldwin, having been duly sworn according to law, hereby states that the following is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief: I. have been employed with The State University as Vice President and General Counsel since February, 2010. 2. I was asked to brief the Board of Trustees by President Graham Spanier who was also a member of the Board of Trustees in the month of April,201 l. 3. On Thursday, May 12, 2011, 1 presented a report on an investigation by The Of?ce of Attorney General into allegations of child sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky, an employee who had retired from Penn State in 1999, to the Trustees who were in attendance. (See Attachment 1) 4. The following items were included in my report: 0 De?nition and description of a Grand Jury and how it works; 0 That the Grand Jury process was con?dential, but those who testi?ed before the Grand Jury are free to divulge their testimony; - That Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Joe Paterno had been interviewed in January and Graham Spanier had been interviewed in April; 0 "That the people who had testi?ed had been asked aboat a 2002 incident in the football building; Page 1 of 2 Intel-nu (Inllanv?mal?cmk?'hzidudn af?davit rtt-c I The fact that there had been a 1998 incident involving Mr. Sandusky that had been investigated by the University Police, the District Attorney?s Of?ce and Children and Youth Services and that no charges had been ?led against Mr. Sandusky; and 0 That the University did not appear to be a focus of the investigation; After the report, I responded to several questions. At that point Dr. Spanier said that he would take over. I left and the Board continued in Executive Session. The undersigned hereby veri?es that the facts set forth in the foregoing Af?davit are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief and that false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 4094, relating to unsworn falsi?cation to authorities. Date: 35757?? COMMONWEALTH OF ss COUNTY OF CENTRE On this EA day of 2012, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared, to me or satisfactorily proven to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged the same for the purposes therein contained. In witness whereof; I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary/Public m? "1 . Pi-Ljife I a Pa.th Of2 \Documcl?l?'lADMlN Documenlsihaldwin a?idnvit?oc "1 I'm - ..T-I - .I . - .. Exhibit 10A FEBRUARY 1998 COMMITTEE LIST ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY Edward P. Junker HI, President Edward R. Hintz, Vice President Graham B. Spanier, Secretary Gary C. Schultz, Treasurer The President of the Board of Trustees, Edward P. Junker and the President of the University, Graham B. Spanier, are, according to the Bylaws, ex o?icio members of all standing and special committees and subcommittees. EDUCATIONAL LI PHYSICAL PLANT ENVIRONMENT Joel N. Myers, Chairman Mary G. Beahm, Vice Chairwoman L. J. Rowell, Jr., Chairman Robert D. Metzgar, Vice Chairman A. Baldwin, Chairwoman Anne Riley, Vice Chairwoman I FINANCE AND 1 - .. SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENGINEER SELECTION COMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER William L. Weiss, Chairman Boyd E. Wolff, Vice Chairman Elected by the Board of Trustees on January 15, 1998 Mary G. Beahm Alvin H. Clemens Edward R. Hintz David R. Jones David A. Morrow Anne Riley Barry K. Robinson L. J. Rowell, Jr. William L. Weiss The President of the Board of Trustees is chairman of the Executive Committee, and the Secretary of the Board is the recording secretary of the Executive Committee. NOMINATING COMMITTEE David A. Morrow, Chair FEBRUARY 2001 COMMITTEE LIST ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY Edward R. Hintz, Jr., President A. Baldwin, Vice President Graham B. Spanier, Secretary Gary C. Schultz, Treasurer The President of the Board of Trustees, Edward R. Hintz, Jr., and the President of the University, Graham B. Spanier, are, according to the Bylaws, ex officio members of all standing and special committees and subcommittees. COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY Joel N. Myers, Chairman David R. Jones, Vice Chairman COMMITTEE ON MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER William L. Weiss, Chairman Steve A. Garban, Vice Chairman COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PHYSICAL PLANT L. J. Rowell, Jr., Chairman Robert D. Metzgar, Vice Chairman .mv t- SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENGINEER SELECTION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Elected by the Board of Trustees on January 19, 2001 A. Baldwin Charles C. Brosius Steve A. Garban David R. Jones David A. Morrow Joel N. Myers Anne Riley L. J. Rowell, Jr. Carl T. Shaffer William L. Weiss The President of the Board of Trustees is chairman of the Executive Committee, and the Secretary of the Board is the recording secretary of the Freer/{time Committee COMMITTEE ON CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT Anne Riley, Chairwoman Mary C. Beahm, Vice Chairwoman NOMINATING COMMITTEE Edward P. Junker Chair JULY 1, 2012 COMMITTEE LIST ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY Karen B. Peetz, President Keith E. Masser, Vice President Rodney A. Erickson, Secretary David]. Gray, Treasurer The President of the Board of Trustees, Edward R. Hintz, Ir, and the President of the University, Graham B. Spanier, are, according to the Bylaws, ex ojj?icio members of all standing and special committees and subcommittees. COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND STUDENT LIFE Marianne E. Alexander, Chair Peter A. Khoury, Vice Chair COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH, DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS Mark H. Dambly, Chair Paul V. Suhey, Vice Chair EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Elected by the Board of Trustees on March 16, 2012 Marianne E. Alexander James S. Broadhurst Mark H. Dambly Keith W. Eckel Rodney A. Erickson, Ex Officio Kenneth C. Frazier Edward R. Hintz, Jr. Keith E. Masser Karen B. Peetz, Ex Officio Linda B. Strumpf John P. Surma The President of the Board of Trustees is chairman of the Executive Committee, and the Secretary of the Board is the recording secretary of the Executive Committee. I?v COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING James S. Broadhurst, Chair John P. Surma, Vice Chair COMMITTEE ON AUDIT, RISK, LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE Keith W. Eckel, Chair Ira M. Lubert, Vice Chair . SUBCOMMITTEE ON AUDIT (authorized by board in 2004) . -7 SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGAL (authorized by board in 2012) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, BUSINESS, AND CAPITAL PLANNING Linda B. Strumpf, Chair Paul H. SilVis, Vice Chair . SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENGINEER SELECTION SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE (authorized by board in 2012) SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES (authorized by board in 2012)                       APPENDIX B  PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY  POLICIES:  AD 67, AD 72, HR 99      PENN STATE - ADMINISTRATIVE Policy AD39 MINORS INVOLVED IN UNIVERSITYSPONSORED PROGRAMS OR PROGRAMS HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY AND / OR HOUSED IN UNIVERSITY FACILITIES (Formerly Programs Involving Minors Housed in University Facilities) Contents: Purpose Definitions Policy Cross References PURPOSE: To provide for appropriate supervision of minors who are involved in University-sponsored programs, programs held at the University and/or programs housed in University facilities at all geographic locations with the exception of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center campus (including the College of Medicine), the client representation clinics of the Dickinson School of Law, and University Health Services which will follow separate policies that reflect their unique activities. Supervision of minors who are involved in University research is addressed by Institutional Review Board processes as outlined in RA14, and is not addressed by this policy. This policy also does not apply to general public events where parents/guardians are invited/expected to provide supervision of minors. DEFINITIONS: Minor A person under the age of eighteen (18) who is not enrolled or accepted for enrollment at the University. Students who are “dually enrolled” in University programs while also enrolled in elementary, middle and/or high school are not included in this policy unless such enrollment includes overnight housing in University facilities. University Facilities Facilities owned by, or under the control of, the University with the exception of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center campus (including the College of Medicine) and the Student Health Center (University Park) which will follow separate policies that reflect the unique activities that occur in those locations. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39. Programs Programs and activities offered by various academic or administrative units of the University, or by non-University groups using University facilities subject to Policies AD02 or AD03. This includes but is not limited to workshops, sport camps, academic camps, conferences, pre-enrollment visits, 4H or Cooperative Extension programs and similar activities. Sponsoring UnitThe academic or administrative unit of the University which offers a program or gives approval for housing or use of facilities pursuant to AD02 or AD03. Authorized AdultIndividuals, age 18 and older, paid or unpaid, who interact with, supervise, chaperone, or otherwise oversee minors in program activities, or recreational, and/or residential facilities. This includes but is not limited to faculty, staff, volunteers, graduate and undergraduate students, interns, employees of temporary employment agencies, and independent contractors/consultants. The Authorized Adults’ roles may include positions as counselors, chaperones, coaches, instructors, etc. Authorized Adults are considered to be mandated reporters as defined by Pennsylvania law. Further guidance on mandated reporters is provided in University Human Resources policy(ies). Direct Contact Positions with the possibility of care, supervision, guidance or control of minors and/or routine interaction with minors. One-On-One Contact Personal, unsupervised interaction between any Authorized Adult and a participant without at least one other Authorized Adult, parent or legal guardian being present. POLICY: A sponsoring unit offering or approving a program which involves minors or provides University housing for minors participating in a program, or a non-University group being sponsored for a program, whether utilizing University housing or not, shall: 1. Establish a procedure for the notification of the minor's parent/legal guardian in case of an emergency, including medical or behavioral problem, natural disasters, or other significant program disruptions. Authorized Adults with the program, as well as participants and their parents/legal guardians, must be advised of this procedure in writing prior to the participation of the minors in the program. 2. Provide a list of all program participants and a directory of program staff to the campus unit(s) responsible for police services (their contact information will be provided to the sponsors by the University). This list shall include participant's name; local room assignment (if applicable); gender, age, address, and phone number(s) of parent or legal guardian, as well as emergency contact information. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 2 of 9 3. Provide information to parent or legal guardian detailing the manner in which the participant can be contacted during the program. 4. Provide a Medical Treatment Authorization form to the campus unit responsible for health services. Any request to amend the approved form must be approved by the Director of University Health Services prior to its distribution or use. All forms must include the following: a. A statement informing the parent/legal guardian that the University does (or does not, as applicable) provide medical insurance to cover medical care for the minor. b. A statement authorizing the release of medical information (HIPAA) and emergency treatment in case the parent/legal guardian/emergency contact cannot be reached for permission. c. A list of any physical, mental or medical conditions the minor may have, including any allergies that could impact his/her participation in the program. d. All emergency contact information including name, address and phone number of the emergency contact. 5. Follow guidance from University Health Services concerning communicable diseases. 6. University Policy SY21 shall be followed concerning first aid kits and epinephrine (“epi”) pens. Participants’ medicines may be distributed by program staff, under the following conditions: a. The participant’s family provides the medicine in its original pharmacy container labeled with the participant’s name, medicine name, dosage and timing of consumption. Over-the-counter medications must be provided in their manufacturers’ container. b. Staff shall keep the medicine in a secure location, and at the appropriate time for distribution shall meet with the participant. c. The staff member shall allow the participant to self-administer the appropriate dose as shown on the container. d. Any medicine which the participant cannot self-administer, must be stored and administered by a licensed healthcare professional associated with the campus or, if no one is available, arrangements must be made with another health care professional in advance of the participant’s arrival. The event coordinator should consult with the location’s health service and the Office of Affirmative Action ADA Coordinator to discuss reasonable accommodations in the above situation. e. Personal “epi” pens and inhalers may be carried by the participant during activities. 7. Arrange to access emergency medical services at all locations and, for events at University Park, access to these services must be pursuant to ADG04. Medical care appropriate for the nature of the events, expected attendance and other variables should be discussed with the Director of University Health Services. 8. Follow appropriate safety measures approved by the Office of Environmental Health & Safety for laboratory and research work as outlined in SY01. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 3 of 9 9. Ensure adequate supervision of minors while they are on University property. All activities involving minors must be supervised by at least two or more Authorized Adults or by their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) at all times. Some of the factors to consider in determining "adequate supervision" are the number and age of participants, the activity(ies) involved, type of housing if applicable, and age and experience of the counselors. See also, item 15 below. When Penn State students are hosting High School students, including prospective athletes, participating in pre-enrollment visitation, the requirement for two Authorized Adults will be waived. The requirement also does not apply to licensed psychologists providing psychological and counseling services to minors. All supervised participants in a University program or a program taking place on University property are permitted in the general use facilities [e.g. athletic fields, public spaces, academic buildings] but may be restricted from certain areas of the facilities [e.g. storage rooms, equipment rooms, athletic training rooms, staff/faculty offices] or from utilizing certain equipment. 10. Develop and make available to participants the rules and discipline measures applicable to the program. Program participants and staff must abide by all University regulations and may be removed from the program for non-compliance with rules. The following must be included in program rules: a. The possession or use of alcohol and other drugs, fireworks, guns and other weapons is prohibited. b. The operation of a motor vehicle by minors is prohibited while attending and participating in the program. c. The parking of staff and participant vehicles must be in accordance with University parking regulations. d. Rules and procedures governing when and under what circumstances participants may leave University property during the program. e. No violence, including sexual abuse or harassment, will be tolerated. f. Hazing of any kind is prohibited. Bullying including verbal, physical, and cyber bullying are prohibited. g. No theft of property regardless of owner will be tolerated. h. No use of tobacco products (smoking is prohibited in all University buildings) will be tolerated. i. Misuse or damage of University property is prohibited. Charges will be assessed against those participants who are responsible for damage or misusing University property. j. The inappropriate use of cameras, imaging, and digital devices is prohibited including use of such devices in showers, restrooms, or other areas where privacy is expected by participants. 11. Obtain all media and liability releases as part of the program registration process. All data gathered shall be confidential, is subject to records retention guidelines, and shall not be disclosed, except as provided by law. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 4 of 9 12. Assign a staff member who is at least 21 years of age to be accessible to participants. The staff member must reside in the housing unit, if applicable. Additional Authorized Adults will be assigned to ensure one-on-one contact with minors does not occur and that appropriate levels of supervision are implemented. See also item 15 below. When there are High School students, including prospective athletes, participating in preenrollment visitation, the hosting Penn State University student(s) will not be required to be at least 21 years of age and the requirement for two Authorized Adults will also be waived. 13. All Authorized Adults who have direct contact with minors are required to have a current background check on record with the University at the time of hire and/or beginning work with minors. This background check must be reviewed and approved by the applicable Human Resources department prior to being hired and/or working with minors. When there are High School students, including prospective athletes, participating in preenrollment visitation, the hosting Penn State University student(s) will not be required to undergo a background check. New hires will be required to complete the University background check process at the time of hire. All other individuals must complete the University background check process or provide evidence of completion of PA State Criminal History Record, PA Department of Public Welfare Child Abuse Report and FBI criminal history report clearance dated within 6 months of the initial date of assignment. This includes current employees who have not previously had a background check completed, as well as all other individuals, paid or unpaid. If PA State Criminal History Record, PA Department of Public Welfare Child Abuse Report, and FBI criminal history report clearances are to be considered as a replacement for a University background check, verifications must be reviewed and approved by the applicable Human Resources department prior to being hired and/or interacting with minors. All Authorized Adults must also complete a self-disclosure form confirming that they have disclosed any arrests and/or convictions that have occurred since the date of a background check and/or clearance and will disclose any arrest and/or convictions within 72 hours of their occurrence. The cost for completion of PA State Criminal History Record, PA Department of Public Welfare Child Abuse Report, and FBI criminal history report clearances for non-employees will be the responsibility of the individual unless specifically authorized for processing and/or payment by the hiring unit. Overall guidance for background checks is provided in University Human Resources policy(ies). 14. If applicable, require the program to adopt and implement rules and regulations for proper supervision of minors in University housing. The following must be included: a. Written permission signed by the parent/guardian for the minor to reside in University housing. b. A curfew time which is age-appropriate for the participants, but in no case shall it be later than midnight. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 5 of 9 c. In-room visitation to be restricted to participants of the same gender. d. Guests of participants (other than a parent/legal guardian and other program participants) are restricted to visitation in the building lobby and/or floor lounges, and only during approved hours specified by the program. e. The program must comply with all security measures and procedures specified by University Housing Services and Police Services. f. Pre-enrollment visit programs for high school students housed overnight in residence halls must be registered with the Office of Residence Life. 15. Require the program to provide and supervise trained counselors (also considered to be Authorized Adults) who must be at least 18 years of age, in accordance with the following: a. The ratio of counselors to program participants must reflect the gender distribution of the participants, and should meet the following: Standards for resident camps are: One staff member for every five campers ages 4 and 5 One staff member for every six campers ages 6 to 8 One staff member for every eight campers ages 9 to 14 One staff member for every 10 campers ages 15 to 17 Standards for day camps are: One staff member for every six campers ages 4 and 5 One staff member for every eight campers ages 6 to 8 One staff member for every ten campers ages 9 to 14 One staff member for every twelve campers ages 15 to 17 b. Training for the counselors must include, at a minimum, information about responsibilities and expectations; policies, procedures, and enforcement; appropriate crisis/emergency responses; safety and security precautions; confidentiality issues involving minors; and University responsibility/liability. Counselors must know how to request local emergency services and how to report suspected child abuse (counselors are considered to be mandatory reporters as defined by Pennsylvania law). c. Responsibilities of the counselors must include, at a minimum, informing program participants about safety and security procedures, University rules, rules established by the program, and behavioral expectations. Counselors are responsible for following and enforcing all rules and must be able to provide information included herein to program participants and be able to respond to emergency(ies). 16. Each Authorized Adult, who will be participating in a program covered by this Policy shall attend annual mandatory training on the conduct requirements of this Policy, on protecting participants from abusive emotional and physical treatment, and on appropriate or required reporting of incidents of improper conduct to the proper authorities including, but not limited to, appropriate law enforcement authorities. If a program participant discloses any type of assault or abuse (at any time previously or during the program), or an Authorized Adult has reason to http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 6 of 9 suspect that the participant has been subject to such assault or abuse, the Authorized Adult, as a mandatory reporter should inform the Program Director (Department Manager/Director for noncamp activities) immediately, unless the Authorized Adult believes that the Program Director (Department Manager/Director for non-camp activities) may be involved in the allegations of assault or abuse. The Program Director (Department Manager/Director for non-camp activities) and the Authorized Adult will then call the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s reporting ChildLine (800-932-0313) together and provide written notification to the Department of Public Welfare within 48 hours of filing the oral report (utilizing form CY 47 available from the County Children and Youth agencies). In addition, the Program Director (Department Manager/Director for non-camp activities) will immediately notify University Police Services, Penn State’s Office of General Counsel and Penn State’s Risk Management Department. If the Program Director (Department Manager/Director for non-camp activities) is unavailable, or if the Program Director or his/her designee does not call Childline, the Authorized Adult should immediately call the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s reporting ChildLine (800-932-0313). Authorized Adults must make all reasonable efforts to ensure the safety of minors participating in programs and activities covered by this Policy, including removal of minors from dangerous or potentially dangerous situations, irrespective of any other limitation or requirement. If a situation is felt to present imminent danger to a minor, University Police Services should be called immediately. 17. Authorized Adults participating in programs and activities covered by this Policy shall not: a. Have one-on-one contact with minors: there must be two or more Authorized Adults present during activities where minors are present. Authorized Adults also shall not have any direct electronic contact with minors without another Authorized Adult being included in the communication. b. In the case of adults supervising minors overnight, Authorized Adult should not enter a minor’s room, bathroom facility, or similar area without another Authorized Adult in attendance, consistent with the policy of not having one-on-one contact with minors. c. Separate accommodations for adults and minors are required other than the minors’ parents or guardians. d. Engage in abusive conduct of any kind toward, or in the presence of, a minor. e. Strike, hit, administer corporal punishment to, or touch in an inappropriate or illegal manner any minor. f. Pick up minors from or drop off minors at their homes, other than the driver’s child(ren), except as specifically authorized in writing by the minor’s parent or legal guardian. g. Authorized Adults shall not provide alcohol or illegal drugs to any minor. Authorized Adults shall not provide prescription drugs or any medication to any minor unless specifically authorized in writing by the parent or legal guardian as being required for the minor’s care or the minor’s emergency treatment. Participants’ medicines may be distributed by program staff, following the conditions outlined in Policy IV. 5 in this document. h. Make sexual materials in any form available to minors participating in programs or activities covered by this Policy or assist them in any way in gaining access to such materials. Items 17a, 17b, and 17c, do not apply when there are High School students, including http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 7 of 9 prospective athletes, participating in pre-enrollment visitation, hosted by Penn State University student(s). Item 17a does not apply to licensed psychologists providing psychological and counseling services to minors. 18. If an allegation of inappropriate conduct has been made against an Authorized Adult participating in a program, s/he shall discontinue any further participation in programs and activities covered by this Policy until such allegation has been satisfactorily resolved. Authorized personnel/signatories for non-University groups using University facilities must provide to the sponsoring unit satisfactory evidence of compliance with all of the requirements of this Policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled use of University facilities, as well as sign an approved agreement for use of University facilities, if applicable. 19. Any exceptions to the application of the policy must be approved by the Office of Human Resources Recruitment and Compensation Division. CROSS REFERENCES: Other Policies in this Manual should also be referenced, especially the following: AD02 - Non-University Groups Using University Facilities, AD03 - Conducting Educational Programs Using the Name of The University, AD26 - Sales of Food and Beverages at University Locations, AD27 - Commercial Sales Activities at University Locations, AD34 - University Recycling Program, AD42 - Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment, AD72 - Reporting Suspected Child Abuse, ADG04 - Providing Emergency Medical Services at University Events at University Park, HR02 - Employment of Minors, SY01 - Environmental Health and Safety Policy, SY05 - Persons, Other Than Students or Employees, Who are Injured or Become Ill on University Property, SY21 - First Aid Kits, SY28 - Emergency Evacuations and Fire Drills - Residence Halls, and RA14 - The Use of Human Participants in Research http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html Page 8 of 9 Effective Date: June 7, 2012 Date Approved: May 14, 2012 Date Published: June 7, 2012 Most Recent Changes: June 7, 2012 - Additional clarifications, including update of requirements for high school students visiting on pre-enrollment visits with Penn State students, clarification of reporting process and exclusion of client representation clinics in Dickinson School of Law from policy. Revision History (and effective dates): April 11, 2012 - Major revisions, reflecting improvements to the process. Revisions include clarifications about procedure, training, clearances, responsibilities and reporting of incidents for individuals who supervising minors that are participating in programs and activities covered by this policy. April 28, 2010 - Multiple changes, clarifying policy details pertinent to the administration of youth programs involving minors housed in University facilities. June 15, 2006 - Revision History added. June 1, 1998 - Added reference to Administrative Guideline ADG04, EMT Services. August 28, 1995 - Major Revisions. October 20, 1992 - New Policy. top of this policy GURU home http://guru.psu.edu/policies/Ad39.html GURU policy menu GURU Tech Support GURU policy search Penn State website Page 9 of 9 PENN STATE - ADMINISTRATIVE Policy AD67 DISCLOSURE OF WRONGFUL CONDUCT AND PROTECTION FROM RETALIATION Contents: Purpose Policy Definitions Reporting Wrongful Conduct Investigating Allegations of Wrongful Conduct Protection From Retaliation Disciplinary Sanctions Cross References PURPOSE: The University is committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethics and conduct, consistent with applicable legal requirements and University policies. Through the establishment of this policy, the University wishes to encourage and protect from Retaliation those who desire to report potential violations of these standards. POLICY: It is the policy of the University to encourage and enable any member of the University faculty, staff, or student body to make Good Faith Reports of suspected Wrongful Conduct, and to protect such individuals from Retaliation for making such reports to the University or an Appropriate Authority, participating in any investigation, hearing, or inquiry by the University or an Appropriate Authority or participating in a court proceeding relating to an allegation of suspected Wrongful Conduct at the University. DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this policy, the following definitions shall apply: “Good Faith Report” means any report, communication or other disclosure about actual or suspected Wrongful Conduct engaged in by a member of the University faculty, staff, or student body, which is made with a good faith reason to believe that Wrongful Conduct has occurred. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD67.html Page 1 of 4 “Wrongful Conduct” includes a violation of University policy (including guidelines and codes of ethics or conduct which are available on GURU, or as hot links through a policy contained within GURU); a violation of a federal, state, and/or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance; and the substantive use of University tangible and intangible assets, equipment, supplies and services for personal gain or for another purpose not authorized by the University. “Appropriate Authority” means a federal, state or local government body, agency, or organization having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement, regulatory violations, professional conduct or ethics, or waste; or a member, officer, agent, representative or supervisory employee of the body, agency or organization. “Retaliation” means any adverse action taken by a member of the University faculty, staff, or student body against any individual on the basis of a Good Faith Report made by such individual, or on the basis of such individual’s participation in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by the University or an Appropriate Authority, or participation in a court proceeding relating to suspected Wrongful Conduct at the University. Retaliation shall include, but not be limited to, harassment, discrimination, threats of physical harm, job termination, punitive work schedule or research assignments, decrease in pay or responsibilities, or negative impact on academic progress. REPORTING WRONGFUL CONDUCT: Any individual having reason to believe that a member of the University faculty, staff, or student body has engaged in Wrongful Conduct can report such suspected Wrongful Conduct to the designated contacts below. A report should include a description of the facts, avoid speculation and predetermined conclusions, and be based on a good faith reason to believe that suspected Wrongful Conduct has occurred. An individual desiring to submit a Good Faith Report should contact the appropriate person as identified under the applicable University policy. Some key contacts are referenced on the University Ethics website. Members of the University community may also report suspected Wrongful Conduct on an anonymous, confidential basis through the University’s Ethics and Compliance Hotline at 1-800-560-1637. INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGFUL CONDUCT: Upon receiving a Good Faith Report of suspected Wrongful Conduct, the University will investigate and resolve the matter. The University may notify the individual suspected of Wrongful Conduct and may interview members of the faculty, staff and student body to gather all information necessary to resolve the matter. The University will make every reasonable effort to conduct all investigations in the most confidential manner possible. PROTECTION FROM RETALIATION: No individual who makes or advises the University that he or she intends to make a Good Faith Report of suspected Wrongful Conduct to the University or an Appropriate Authority, participates in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by the University or an Appropriate Authority or participates in a court proceeding involving suspected Wrongful Conduct at the University shall be subject to Retaliation from any member of the University faculty, staff, or student body. Any individual who believes that he or she http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD67.html Page 2 of 4 may have been subject to prohibited Retaliation should notify one of the key contacts identified in the link above. Upon receiving a report of Retaliation, the University will investigate and resolve the matter. Protection from Retaliation for persons reporting under this policy is also provided by Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. Section 1421 et seq. DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS: No member of the University faculty, staff, or student body may retaliate against any individual for making a Good Faith Report of suspected Wrongful Conduct to the University or an Appropriate Authority, for participating in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by the University or an Appropriate Authority or for participating in a court proceeding involving suspected Wrongful Conduct at the University. Any member of the University who retaliates against any individual in violation of this policy will be subject to disciplinary sanctions, which may range from a disciplinary warning to termination or expulsion from the University. In addition, any member of the University faculty, staff, or student body who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, provides false information in a report of Wrongful Conduct, or in a report of Retaliation, will be subject to disciplinary sanctions ranging from a disciplinary warning to termination or expulsion from the University. Allegations of suspected Wrongful Conduct or Retaliation that are not substantiated but are made in good faith are excused from disciplinary action. CROSS REFERENCES: AD12 - Sexual Assault, Relationship and Domestic Violence, and Stalking AD41 - Sexual Harassment AD42 - Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment FN19 - Policy for Handling and Distributing Confidential Internal Audit Reports and Other Documents HR01 - Fair Employment Practices HR11 - Affirmative Action in Employment at The Pennsylvania State University HR76 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities HR79 - Staff Grievance Procedure RA10 - Handling Inquiries / Investigations into Questions of Ethics in Research and in Other Scholarly Activities Effective Date: June 22, 2010 Date Approved: June 14, 2010 Date Published: June 22, 2010 Revision History (and effective dates): http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD67.html Page 3 of 4 June 22, 2010 - New Policy. top of this policy GURU home http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD67.html GURU policy menu GURU Tech Support GURU policy search Penn State website Page 4 of 4 PENN STATE - ADMINISTRATIVE Policy AD72 - REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE Contents: Purpose Definitions Policy Cross References PURPOSE: To provide guidance to University employees, regarding mandated reporting requirements, per the University and the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law. DEFINITIONS: Child abuse - is defined in Pennsylvania as a child under 18 years of age who has experienced: Serious Physical Injury: must cause the child severe pain or it must significantly impair functioning, either temporarily or permanently. Serious Mental Injury: a condition diagnosed by a physician or licensed psychologist that renders the child chronically and severely anxious, agitated, depressed, socially withdrawn, psychotic, or in reasonable fear that his/her safety is threatened, or seriously interferes with the child’s ability to accomplish age-appropriate developmental and social tasks. Sexual Abuse or Exploitation: the use or coercion of any child to engage in any sexually explicit conduct, or any simulation of any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction, or the rape, sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, molestation, incest, indecent exposure, prostitution, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation of children. Serious Physical Neglect: any condition that arises from prolonged or repeated lack of supervision or the failure to provide essentials of life, including adequate medical care, which endangers a child's life or development or impairs the child's functioning. Imminent Risk: any act, or failure to act, that creates an imminent risk of serious physical injury or sexual abuse and exploitation of a child. (23 Pa.C.S. 6303) POLICY: Pennsylvania law requires certain individuals to report child abuse, whenever they have reasonable http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD72.html Page 1 of 3 suspicion of child abuse. However, ANY person may report abuse if they have reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused. Pennsylvania law requires the following individuals to make a report about the suspected child abuse: A person who, in the course of employment comes into contact with children, and the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse. Specifically named professionals include, but are NOT limited to: any licensed physician, osteopath, medical examiner, coroner, funeral director, dentist, optometrist, chiropractor, podiatrist, intern, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of persons, Christian Science practitioner, member of the clergy, school administrator, school teacher, school nurse, social services worker, day-care center worker or any other child-care or foster-care worker, mental health professional, peace officer or law enforcement official. Two exceptions are made in the law for reporting requirement which involve confidential communications to a member of the clergy, and for confidential communications made to an attorney (23 Pa.C.S. § 6311). Penn State University requires all University employees who have reasonable suspicion of abuse to make a report, with an exception to any confidential communications made to a University-employed attorney, or confidential communication made to University-employed member of the clergy. As Penn State University is committed to research, Penn State policy (RA14) provides for ethical treatment and protection of human research participants. All human subjects research is safeguarded by the Institutional Review Board. The research environment presents unique circumstances related to reporting of child abuse, and reporting procedures must be reviewed, approved, and monitored by the IRB. The Principal Investigator is responsible for all aspects of the research, including reporting any child abuse identified through the research. How to make a report of suspected child abuse: 1. If you suspect child abuse, immediately contact ChildLine, which is operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare at 1-800-932-0313. This hotline is staffed at all times of day and night. If the call is not answered, then immediately contact the county child welfare agency in the county in which the incident occurred. If you do not reach an individual either through ChildLine or through the local county child welfare office, the reporter must continue calling until they reach an individual to complete the reporting process. 2. If a child is in imminent danger, the employee should contact police at 911 to obtain immediate protection for the child. 3. Finally, if you are considered to be an Authorized Adult as defined in policy AD39, follow the reporting procedure as described in AD39. Liability As per Pennsylvania law, any person or institution participating in good faith in the making of a report or testifying in any proceeding arising out of an instance of suspected child abuse shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise result by reason of such actions. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD72.html Page 2 of 3 Any person or official required by law to report a case of suspected child abuse who willfully fails to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for subsequent violations. Most importantly, without making a report, a child may continue to be at risk. 23 Pa.C.S. §6318 and §6319. Compliance All University employees will be required to complete mandated reporter training annually through the Office of Human Resources, Center for Workplace Learning and Performance. If any University employee willfully fails to report a case of suspected child abuse, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including, dismissal. CROSS REFERENCES: Other Policies in this Manual should also be referenced, especially the following: AD39 - Minors Involved in University-Sponsored Programs or Programs Held at the University, HR05 - “Regular” and “NonRegular” University Employees, HR70 - Dismissal of Tenured or Tenured-eligible Faculty Members, HR78 - Staff Employee Failure to Meet Acceptable Standards of Performance, and RA14 - The Use of Human Participants in Research Effective Date: June 7, 2012 Date Approved: May 14, 2012 Date Published: June 7, 2012 Revision History (and effective dates): May 14, 2012- New Policy. top of this policy GURU home http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD72.html GURU policy menu GURU Tech Support GURU policy search Penn State website Page 3 of 3 PENN STATE - HUMAN RESOURCES Policy HR99 Background Check Process POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: July 5, 2012 THIS VERSION Effective: July 5, 2012 Contents: Purpose Overview Individuals Covered by This Policy Definitions Background Check Inquiries Background Check Process Periodic Updates or Additional Background Checks Recruitment Notices Roles and Responsibilities Evaluation of Resulting Report Confidentiality Related Documents Cross-references PURPOSE: This policy establishes a process for ensuring background checks are completed for any individuals, age 18 and over, (paid or unpaid) who are engaged by Penn State in any work capacity effective on or after the date of this policy. This includes employees; volunteers, working with minors; adjunct faculty; consultants; contractors; or other similar positions. In addition, it establishes a process requiring all individuals engaged by the University, including those engaged prior to, as of, or after, the effective date of this policy, to selfdisclose criminal arrests and/or convictions as outlined in the Penn State Arrest and Conviction selfdisclosure form within a 72-hour period of their occurrence. Background checks will be used solely to evaluate candidates’ eligibility to be engaged in any work capacity by the University, and will not be used to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religious creed, gender, disability or handicap, age, veteran’s status, gender identity or sexual orientation. Criminal convictions will be reviewed with respect to the nature and gravity of the offense(s); time since conviction; completion of sentence or any other remediation; relevance to the position for which the candidate is being considered/employee is performing; and discrepancies between the background check and what the candidate/employee self-reported. When a finding adversely impacts eligibility to be engaged by http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 1 of 11 the University in a specific position, the candidate will be notified of the decision and given associated information required by law. (Note: Nothing herein is intended to contradict or lessen application of applicable federal or state laws or regulations.) OVERVIEW: Penn State strives to provide the safest possible environment for its students, faculty, staff and visitors; to preserve University resources; and to uphold the reputation and integrity of the University. This policy supports the University’s efforts to minimize institutional risk, provide a safe environment, and assist hiring authorities in making sound hiring decisions. INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THIS POLICY: Any individual engaged by Penn State in any work capacity beginning on or after the date of this policy including, but not limited to, the following positions: Staff Faculty (including Adjunct Faculty) Technical Service Temporary Employees not sponsored by a staffing agency (wage payroll) Administrators and Academic Administrators Executives Volunteers (if working with minors) Graduate Assistants Graduate and undergraduate student employees Work study students Interns (paid or unpaid) Third-party employees such as consultants, contractors and temporary staffing agency employees Any individual not previously described who is either paid directly by the University or who is working in a sensitive/critical position (defined below) DEFINITIONS: Consumer Report Defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act as: “Any communication of information by a Consumer Reporting Agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, or personal characteristics.” This includes background check information such as criminal history, child abuse checks, motor vehicle record checks, educational checks, etc. if provided by a Consumer Reporting Agency. Penn State’s use of credit history checks will be limited to circumstances described below in “credit history check” definition. Consumer Reporting Agency Defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act as: “Any person or entity which, for a fee, dues or on a http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 2 of 11 cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information, or other information, on consumers for the purpose of furnishing Consumer Reports to third parties.” For the purposes of this policy, a Consumer Reporting Agency refers to the vendor used by Penn State to conduct Background Checks. Credit History Check Review of the individual’s detailed credit history, as contained in a Consumer Report in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Penn State’s use of credit history checks will be consistent with Pennsylvania law that states “it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer or any employer's agent, representative or designee to require an employee or prospective employee to consent to the creation of a credit report that contains information about the employee's or prospective employee's credit score, credit account balances, payment history, savings or checking account balances or savings or checking account numbers as a condition of employment unless one of the following applies: (1) Such report is substantially related to the employee's current or potential job. (2) Such report is required by law. (3) The employer reasonably believes that the employee has engaged in a specific activity that constitutes a violation of the law.” Federal laws prohibit discrimination against an applicant or employee as a result of bankruptcy. Criminal Conviction Being found guilty, entering a guilty plea or pleading no contest to a felony and/or misdemeanor as outlined in the Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form. Convictions for which the individual’s record has been expunged may not be considered. Criminal History Check Verification that the individual does not have any undisclosed criminal convictions in any jurisdiction where he or she has resided or where he or she currently resides. Educational Verification Confirmation of the individual’s educational credentials listed on the application, resume or cover letter, or otherwise cited by the individual. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) A Federal law designed to promote the accuracy, fairness and privacy of information in the files of Consumer Reporting Agencies, codified at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. License Verification Confirmation that the selected candidate or employee possesses all licenses listed on the application, resume or cover letter, or otherwise cited by the candidate or employee, including verification of the disposition of such licenses. This includes any motor vehicle driver’s licenses required for a position. Minor A person under the age of eighteen (18) who is not enrolled or accepted for enrollment at the University. Students who are “dually enrolled” in University programs while also enrolled in elementary, middle and/or http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 3 of 11 high school are not included in this policy unless such enrollment includes overnight housing in University facilities. Penn State University Any campus, unit, program, association or entity of Penn State with the exception of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center campus (including the College of Medicine) which will follow a separate policy that reflects the unique activities that occur on that campus. Senior Leader For the purposes of this policy, the Senior Leader will be considered as one or more of the following: President Provost Vice Presidents Chancellors Assistant or Associate Vice Presidents Vice Chancellors Vice Provosts Deans Department Heads and Chairs Sensitive/Critical Positions Positions whose responsibilities may include the following: Master key access to all, or the majority of all, offices/facilities within buildings (including residences or other on-site or off-site facilities) Direct responsibility for the care, safety and security of people, or the safety and security of personal and University property (includes child care workers, physicians, student affairs officers, residence hall supervisors, coaches, transit drivers, etc.) Direct responsibility for the care, safety and security of animals Direct responsibility for providing legal counsel to the University and/or outside parties Direct access to or responsibility for cash, cash equivalents, checks, credit card account information, or University property disbursements or receipts Extensive authority for committing the financial resources of the University Direct access to or responsibility for controlled substances or hazardous materials Direct access to or responsibility for protected, personal or other sensitive data (includes auditors, information systems personnel, human resources and payroll staff, registrars, etc.) Administrator, Academic Administrator and Executive positions, if background check is not completed by executive search firm or other similar agency Other positions as defined by units that have a job-related need for additional background checks Sex and Violent Offender Registry Check Verification that the selected individual does not have undisclosed convictions of certain sex and violent crimes in every jurisdiction where he or she has resided or currently resides. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 4 of 11 Volunteers (working with minors) Unpaid individuals working with minors as defined and covered by Policy AD39 - Minors involved in University-sponsored Programs or Programs held at the University and/or Housed in University Facilities. BACKGROUND CHECK INQUIRIES: Verification of credentials and other information about an employee or other individual (paid or unpaid) may include any or all of the following: Standard Background Check: Criminal History Check Sex and Violent Offender Registry Check Additional Background Check items as required for specific positions based on job-related need: Education Verification (required for all academic positions) Motor Vehicle Record (required for positions where it can be regularly anticipated that a responsibility of the position will be to drive a University-owned vehicle) Credit History Check (conducted only for sensitive/critical positions with extensive authority to commit financial resources of the University including Administrator and Executive positions; or as required by law; or due to a reasonable belief that an employee has engaged in a specific activity that constitutes a violation of the law) Employment Verifications License Verification Other verifications, as needed, based on job requirements BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS: A successful background check must be completed prior to the first day of work/engagement with the University in the position identified. Any exceptions will need to be approved by the Office of Human Resources’ Recruitment and Compensation Division. Employees: Employees are considered to be any person whose wages are paid directly by Penn State, whether full-or part-time and regardless of whether the position is benefits-eligible. Candidates will be informed that the offer is contingent on a satisfactory background check that will be conducted by a consumer reporting agency for review by the University. The candidate will be required to complete self-disclosure and consent forms authorizing Penn State to complete the background check process. Candidates for employment who fail to participate fully or who provide inaccurate information in a background check will be eliminated from consideration for the position. Candidates may decline to authorize a background check; in such cases, no background check will be performed, but the candidate will not be considered further. The existence of a criminal conviction will not automatically disqualify an individual from employment or http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 5 of 11 employment consideration. The University will consider the nature and gravity of the offense(s); time since conviction; completion of sentence or any other remediation; relevance to the position for which the candidate is being considered/employee is performing; and discrepancies between the background check and what the candidate/employee self-reported. When a finding adversely impacts employment eligibility, the candidate will be notified and may be withdrawn from employment consideration after Human Resources consults with the Senior Leader on the matter. The University will provide candidates access to a copy of their background check reports upon request, regardless of outcome and without charge to the candidate. In cases where information in the background check report will result in an adverse hiring decision, the University will provide a copy of the report to the candidate without his or her request. In cases in which information in a Consumer Report, such as a background check showing criminal convictions affecting the candidate’s ability to perform the specific job in question, will result in an adverse employment decision, the University will provide the candidate with all required notifications pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and applicable law(s). Executives, Administrators, and Academic Administrators hired through an executive staffing agency or similar staffing company must complete either a Penn State background check consistent with position requirements or have confirmation of a background check of the required criteria having been completed by the staffing agency. For employees, a break in service of six months or less does not require a new background check unless the individual returns to an assignment requiring a check(s) which was not previously performed. Individuals with a break in service of six months or less should be reminded that the self-disclosure requirement to report arrests and/or convictions within 72 hours of their occurrence is still in force. Approved employee leaves such as sabbatical leave, maternity leave, or other types of approved leaves of six months or longer will require the employee to complete a Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form before returning to work. Other breaks in service for employees of greater than six months require a new background check to be completed. Unpaid Individuals: This includes interns, adjunct faculty or other individuals working for or engaged by the University. Depending upon the responsibilities of the position, the individual must either: 1. Follow the instructions for completion of background checks described in Penn State Information for Completing PA Publicly Available Background Checks. Complete Pennsylvania criminal history check via the Pennsylvania State Police website, Pennsylvania child abuse clearance via the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare website and an FBI criminal history report clearance via the Cogent Applicant Fingerprint Registration System website. All clearances must be dated within two years prior to the date of the assignment. The cost for these clearances will be the responsibility of the individual unless specifically authorized for reimbursement processing by the sponsoring organization. In addition, the individual must self-disclose any arrests or convictions as outlined in the Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form that occur between the time of clearance and the date work begins. 2. Be sponsored by the engaging unit to have a background check(s) completed by the University based on the job requirements of the position. The background check must be satisfactorily completed prior to beginning work. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 6 of 11 Volunteers working with minors must follow the requirements of Policy AD39 which requires that successful background checks are dated within 6 months prior to the initial date of assignment. Successful completion of Pennsylvania criminal history check, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare child abuse clearance and FBI criminal history report clearance may be substituted for the Penn State background check process for unpaid individuals unless additional background checks are outlined as being required for the position. Third-party Employees: This includes consultants, contractors and temporary staffing agency employees working for or engaged by the University. Depending upon the responsibilities of the position, the individual must either: 1. Follow the instructions for completion of background checks described in Penn State Information for Completing PA Publicly Available Background Checks. Complete Pennsylvania criminal history check via the Pennsylvania State Police website, Pennsylvania child abuse clearance via the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare website and an FBI criminal history report clearance via the Cogent Applicant Fingerprint Registration System website. All clearances must be dated within two years prior to the date of the assignment. The cost for these clearances will be the responsibility of the individual unless specifically authorized for reimbursement processing by the sponsoring organization. In addition, the individual must self-disclose any arrests or convictions as outlined in the Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form that occur between the time of clearance and the date work begins. 2. Be covered by a signed contractor’s/vendor’s agreement that confirms its employees have had background checks that meet or exceed the University’s standards for the type of work being performed. 3. Be sponsored by the engaging unit to have a background check(s) completed by the University based on the job requirements of the position. The background check must be satisfactorily completed prior to beginning work. Successful completion of Pennsylvania criminal history check, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare child abuse clearance and FBI criminal history report clearance may be substituted for the Penn State background check process for third-party employees unless additional background checks are outlined and communicated to the candidate and/or employee as being required for the position. PERIODIC UPDATES OR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS: Penn State retains the right to conduct relevant background checks of current employees when it has reasonable grounds to do so, e.g., no prior check was performed, a workplace incident has occurred, upon self-disclosure of criminal activity, update of information due to designation as sensitive/critical position, or upon a change of assignment. Further, all individuals engaged by the University (whether paid or unpaid) are required to notify the appropriate Human Resources representative of any criminal activities with which they are charged, as well as, upon final conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor within 72 hours of knowledge of the arrest or conviction. The Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form provides the list of arrests and/or convictions that must be disclosed and this form must be used to provide the information in writing to the appropriate Human Resources representative for review. This includes any arrests or convictions that occur http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 7 of 11 either between the date of disclosure for a University run background check and the date work begins, or the date of issuance of the Pennsylvania criminal history check via Pennsylvania State Police website, Pennsylvania child abuse clearance via the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare website and an FBI criminal history report clearance via the Cogent Applicant Fingerprint Registration System website and the date work begins. Failure to report such incidents may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. Information will be used only if job related and will not necessarily affect employment. Human Resources will notify the employee's department of an arrest or conviction only if it is determined that the arrest and/or conviction is pertinent to the employee's ability to carry out the duties or functions of his or her position. If reported to the employee's department, such arrests and/or convictions, depending on the facts and the employee's involvement in the events leading to arrest and/or conviction, may subject the employee to discipline, up to and including termination. Positions where it can be regularly anticipated that a responsibility of the position will be to drive a University-owned vehicle or where an individual may be asked to transport minors, must pass a motor vehicle record check. Motor vehicle checks will be updated every three years for positions, as relevant, and it is the department's and supervisor's responsibility to initiate the process. Employees must comply with the self-disclosure requirement by notifying Human Resources of any arrests or convictions for driving while under the influence or the loss of the individual’s driver’s license due to traffic violations or other similar charges/convictions. This disclosure must be made within 72 hours of occurrence using the Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form. Such convictions may subject the employee or individual to discipline, up to and including termination. Failure to report such incidents may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. State or federal law or regulations, professional associations, licensing entities or contracting partners may impose background screening check requirements upon certain individuals. In these cases, the affected individual and department should coordinate the need for such a check with the Office of Human Resources’ Recruitment and Compensation Division. Under no circumstances should employees conduct, or seek to conduct, a background check, without first consulting with and receiving approval from Recruitment and Compensation. RECRUITMENT NOTICES: All job postings (paid or unpaid) that require more verifications than the standard background check will include language identifying the need for all individuals (including current University employees) to undergo a background check appropriate to the position’s responsibilities. All offers of employment to new hires of the University will be made contingent upon the results of the background check. If a current employee applies for a position that requires a non-standard background check, the offer for the new position will be contingent upon the results of the background check. All unpaid positions will be contingent upon the results of the background check or verified successful results from Pennsylvania criminal history check via Pennsylvania State Police website, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare child abuse clearance via the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare website and an FBI criminal history report clearance via the Cogent Applicant Fingerprint Registration System website. Individuals should review the information concerning completion of background checks described in Penn State Information for Completing PA Publicly Available Background Checks. http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 8 of 11 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: College/Campus/Unit Human Resources Responsibilities: 1. Issue all offer letters as “contingent upon successful background check”. 2. Initiate the background check process via methodology proscribed by Recruitment and Compensation; communicate procedures to candidates. 3. Ensure that all individuals engaged by the University (paid or unpaid) have successfully completed a background check or provided evidence of completion of acceptable background checks (Pennsylvania criminal history check; Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare child abuse clearance and FBI criminal history report clearance; executive search firm background clearance; police officer background check) before beginning any assignments/work responsibilities. 4. Review information provided by Recruitment and Compensation that results from the third-party vendor’s background check of an individual and determine whether the information may be relevant to the hiring/engaging decision. 5. Confirm any authorization for payment for background checks for non-employees. Recruitment and Compensation Responsibilities: 1. Secure contracts with consumer reporting agency for consumer reports including background screening services. 2. Develop procedures for oversight of the background check policy and communicate methodology, forms, and/or computer access needs to college/campus/unit Human Resources departments. 3. Coordinate with the hiring/engaging Human Resources department and the consumer reporting agency throughout the background check process. 4. Review all information resulting from the consumer reporting agency’s background check of an individual and determine whether the information may be relevant to the hiring/engaging unit’s decision. Forward information along with recommended guidance to the hiring/engaging unit for further review and decision. 5. If a candidate may no longer be considered for a position based on the background check results, provide written notice to the candidate including a copy of the background check report. The written notification will include a specified period of time in which the candidate may respond, which will be no less than five calendar days. a. If the candidate fails to respond within the specified time period, issue a second letter informing the candidate that he/she is no longer being considered for the position. b. If the candidate responds within the specified time period, review any appeal submitted by the candidate challenging the accuracy of information contained in the report. 6. Implement and interpret this policy and provide guidance to hiring/engaging units. EVALUATION OF RESULTING REPORT: The following are among the factors that Human Resources will consider when evaluating the results of the background screening check: Nature and gravity of the offense(s), Time since conviction, completion of sentence or any other remediation, Relevancy to the position for which the candidate is being considered/employee is performing; and http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 9 of 11 Discrepancies between the background check and what the candidate/employee self-reported. The background screening check of a candidate who also is a current employee, may impact the current employee's employment, particularly absent full self-disclosure. CONFIDENTIALITY: Records gathered as a result of a background screening check are part of an employee's personnel file. However, Human Resources will keep such records in files separately from the individual's general personnel file. Records gathered as a result of a background screening check for non-employees will be maintained by the appropriate college/campus/unit Human Resources department. The records related to the background screening check will include: Authorization, Consent and Release forms; Information collected from the check; Analysis and decision if criminal activity substantially relates to the position; and, Correspondence related to criminal background screening check Alternatively, these records may be maintained in a secure database. Any records related to a candidate or an employee must be returned to Human Resources and will be maintained in accordance with the Penn State records retention schedule. RELATED DOCUMENTS: Summary of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act: www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre35.pdf Penn State Arrest and Conviction self-disclosure form Penn State Information for Completing PA Publicly Available Background Checks CROSS REFERENCES: Other Policies in this Manual should also be referenced, especially the following: AD12 - Sexual Assault, Relationship and Domestic Violence, and Stalking AD29 - Statement on Intolerance AD33 - A Drug-Free Workplace AD39 - Minors involved in University-sponsored Programs or Programs held at the University and/or Housed in University Facilities http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html Page 10 of 11 AD41 - Sexual Harassment AD42 - Statement on Nondiscrimination AD72- Reporting Suspected Child Abuse HR05 - "Regular" and "Nonregular" University Employees HR06 - Types of Appointments HR07 - University Appointments without Remuneration HR08 - Establishment of a Staff or a Technical Service Position HR11 - Affirmative Action in Employment at The Pennsylvania State University HR13 - Recommended Procedure for Hiring New Faculty HR14 - Forms to be Filled Out by and for Each New Regular Employee HR34 - Employment Conditions for Staff Employees top of this policy GURU home GURU policy menu GURU Tech Support http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr99.html GURU policy search Penn State website Page 11 of 11