 |
| Graham Spanier, removed by Penn State board in 2011 over handling of Sandusky scandal |
Spanier's machinations were fricasseed in the just-released report of the independent investigator hired by Penn State, former FBI director Louis Freeh. Excerpts from the report follow the video below.
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 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.
...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...
...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.
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...
...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...
...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...
...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...
...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. Board of Trustees meeting: Spanier does not report the Sandusky incident to the Board...
...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..."
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: "I'm not sure it is entirely our place to speak about this when we are only on the periphery of this..."
...Spanier separately emails Baldwin, noting "[the Trustee] desires near total transparency. He will be uncomfortable and feel put off until he gets a report..."
...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...
...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...
...Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct on May 3, 1998 in the Lasch Building. Despite their knowledge of the criminal investigation of Sandusky, Spanier, Schultz, 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...
...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." 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. In a written statement from Spanier, he characterized the May 5, 1998 email as a "vague reference with no individual named..."
...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...
...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 case and banned the agent from campus. Spanier said the agent "fooled around with the integrity of the university, and I won?t stand for that." The University conducted its own investigation, and provided the results to law enforcement. 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..."
...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. 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?" 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. According to Baldwin, after the interview, Spanier said the interview "was no big deal" and he was "quite comfortable" going before the Grand Jury...
...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...
...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...
...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...
...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...
...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. When Curley communicated about other sensitive issues involving Sandusky, however, he did not use "code" words.
No comments:
Post a Comment