Replies

Since Mr. Sandusky has been indicted by a grand jury, do we have to keep saying “alleged abuse” and “might have occurred”?

And it’s not clear to me what Mr. Freeh’s legal standing is. Is he a licensed private investigator? An employee of the University? An attorney retained by the Board of Trustees?

Does he legally have access to all university records and communications? Without subpoena authority, what is his basis for compelling disclosure of any information? What authority to his “recommendations,” if any, have on the University?

Louis Freeh has the quality the trustees most desire.

Freeh is the dunce who falsely accused Richard Jewell - with the Olympic bombing.

He is a hack who will accuse whoever the trustees wish accused of something while shielding whoever they want shielded. That is his track record, and it is really the only reason anyone would hire him now.

Does he legally have access to all university records and communications? Without subpoena authority, what is his basis for compelling disclosure of any information?

Sure. The Trustees can see whatever they want and give their agent authority to see anything in University files as well as compel participation by University staff. S taff can of course clam up and lawyer up.

If the corruption here stopped at the staff level this all makes sense. If, on the other hand, the Trustees knew about this then the whole thing is a whitewash.

Since Mr. Sandusky has been indicted by a grand jury, do we have to keep saying “alleged abuse” and “might have occurred”?

Inasmuch as an indictment handed down by a grand jury is in effect just an allegation, the short answer is "yes".

Does he legally have access to all university records and communications? Without subpoena authority, what is his basis for compelling disclosure of any information? What authority to his “recommendations,” if any, have on the University?

He has no inherent power. It's that simple. His recommendations are not binding. He can request information and the University may order it to be produced. He has no legal mechanism to compel truthful testimony, to sanction witnesses, or to compel production.

Here's the disturbing thing. Did you realize that Penn State University is not subject to the Pennsylvania Open Records law?

When Penn State gave up its private status in the early 1970s it did not become a member of public Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. Instead, it's a member of Pennsylvania's Commonwealth System of Higher Education, like Temple and University of Pittsburgh. Universities in the Commonwealth System of Higher Education are considered 'public' universities and receive public money, but they are under their own independent control rather than control of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Penn State controls Penn State; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not. And the state open records laws do not apply to Penn State.

I continue to find the ex officio role of the Governor, Tom Corbett, on the Board of Trustees fascinating. Did you realize that in 2009, Corbett, as State Attorney General, began the Sandusky investigation? It was only after he was elected governor in 2010 that he ceased to be involved in the Sandusky investigation. And he sat on the Board of Trustees (unable to disclose things he knew through the grand jury and other investigative processes) with fellow Board members. No wonder the Penn State Trustees acted so quickly to fire Spanier and Paterno once Governor Corbett arrived for the Board's special meeting.