An Emotional Meeting of the Board of Trustees

March 15, 2013 at 9:58 pm 127 comments

Ken Frazier, shown in this file photo, was one of the main speakers at Friday's Board of Trustees meeting.

Ken Frazier, shown in this file photo, was one of the main speakers at Friday’s Board of Trustees meeting.

For more than two and a half hours, everyone fidgeted in their seats, and the tension built. The Board of Trustees meeting plodded along. Through a long informational report on the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. Through a time-lapse video of the Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital construction. Through a PowerPoint presentation about residence halls, one that touched on room and board fees.

The time scheduled for public comment, 3:45 p.m, came and went. Media checked their watches. Alumni speculated on Twitter about the board’s motive for dragging out the proceedings for so long.

And then, finally, what everyone was expecting—waiting for, really—happened.

Trustee Ken Frazier ’75, chair of the board task force that commissioned the Freeh report, defended Louis Freeh’s investigation in a full, public board meeting—and trustee Anthony Lubrano ’82, elected to the board 10 months ago because of alumni anger over the Sandusky scandal and how Joe Paterno was treated by the trustees, questioned the report’s validity.

Minutes later, during the public comment portion, five football lettermen, each wearing a sticker proclaiming himself “Member of the GRAND EXPERIMENT,” suggested that the trustees were driven by a hidden agenda, that they had failed in their leadership role, that they had opened the door to NCAA sanctions, that they had fractured the university community.

“The good news here,” said Mark Battaglia ’82, a center on the 1982 national championship team, “is that we’re losing. We didn’t lose. We’re losing badly. We need to change the strategy. You guys can do that. There’s still time.”

It was a moment that had been building, really, since the scandal broke 16 months ago, even before the Freeh report was released in July. Alumni anger intensified with the Freeh report, and then the release of the Paterno report last month seemed to mark another milestone. After more than a year of near-silence about the situation on Twitter, Jay Paterno ’91 and Scott Paterno ’97 began engaging with followers. More lettermen organized.

And Lubrano pushed his case harder Friday in the board’s public meeting.

First, Keith Eckel, chair of the legal and compliance committee, invited Frazier to “remind us what the thought process was surrounding the Freeh report.” Frazier largely repeated his defense of the report from Thursday’s separate committee meeting (the Centre Daily Times has a good summary here), although he did apologize for making an O.J. Simpson analogy: He had referred to Bill Cluck ’82, who had questioned him, as “one of the few people in this country that looks like you who actually believes the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict was correct.”

On the Freeh report, Frazier said in part: “The facts are the facts. And the contemporaneous emails and other documentation are among the most important evidence produced. … The documents appear to show, in varying degrees, by date and by individual, that people who were in a position to protect kids did not do so.” And he reiterated his desire to not re-examine the Freeh report because that would be “rewriting history.”

Anthony Lubrano, seen in this file photo, questioned the validity of the Freeh report.

Anthony Lubrano, seen in this file photo, questioned the validity of the Freeh report.

Which prompted this response from Lubrano, who wants Louis Freeh and Dick Thornburgh, the former U.S. attorney general and Pennsylvania governor who wrote part of the Paterno family’s report, to meet with the board: “I understand that Ken says he doesn’t want to rewrite history. But I’m not sure history was correct.”

Loud applause.

“This isn’t grandstanding,” Lubrano added. “This is a serious matter. This is a very, very serious matter. Like the rest of you, I love this institution. What I understand in dealing with the alumni community is this very simple fact: They too love Penn State. And they don’t feel that due process and truth was something we had here.”

That was the crux of the discussion between the two men. Among the other points they touched on was whether the engagement letter promising that Freeh investigators would turn over evidence to the state attorney general was irregular; Lubrano questioned it, but Frazier said such a clause is standard procedure when an investigation overlaps in time with an ongoing criminal investigation.

And then former football player Adam Taliaferro ’05, who has rarely spoken in full board meetings since he was elected 10 months ago, chimed in:

“I’ve been an active listener since I joined the board,” he said. “As you can see, we’ve got very smart people on this board and very different positions on the hows and whys. We all know what the ‘what’ is. I do believe that bringing in people and asking the hows and whys would help us, I think, move forward. I think we all want to move forward. For me, I know it would help me better understand each side. Because I come here with my own preconceived notions. It’s hard for me not to.”

This prompted Alvin Clemens ’59 to speak: “The problem here is there’s a bit of divide between the alumni and the board. We all won’t be on board until we somehow smoke this out.” He said he wanted to know why NCAA president Mark Emmert has repeatedly mentioned the 1998 incident, which was investigated by the authorities, and why state authorities weren’t monitoring Jerry Sandusky after that 1998 investigation, although no charges were filed.

At this point, 29 minutes after the legal committee report began with Frazier’s Freeh report explanation, Jim Broadhurst ’65 suggested that it was time to move on to the next item on the committee’s agenda. Many of the public in attendance booed, but the board did move on.

So what’s next? Will Freeh and/or Thornburgh be invited to address the board? Will the discussion continue?

Board chair Keith Masser ’73 said afterward that the way to bring any such item to the full board is to go through the appropriate committee—in this case, legal and compliance—and ask the committee chair to have the committee vote. (That’s what the governance and long-range planning committee did during its Thursday meeting with the changes to the board structure. But that’s a subject for an upcoming blog post.) He and vice chair Stephanie Deviney ’97g said they would assure that that would follow up with the appropriate chair, Eckel.

I feel like I end a lot of scandal- and trustees-related posts like this, but it’s always appropriate: Stay tuned.

Lori Shontz, senior editor

Entry filed under: Board of Trustees. Tags: , , , , , , .

The Faculty and the Trustees A Week in Cuba

127 Comments Add your own

  • 1. John Rudisill  |  March 15, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    Time for Frazier to go.

  • 2. Michael Day  |  March 15, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    Bill Cluck teed Frazier up yesterday, and Lubrano just drove him down the fairway today. Frazier has lost all credibility within the Penn State community.

  • 3. AJ  |  March 15, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    Frazier is toxic for Penn State. I am appalled he is in a position of power for any entity, let alone my alma mater.

  • 4. Ray Blehar  |  March 15, 2013 at 11:28 pm

    The fact of the matter is, Mr. Frazier, that the history has yet to be written. It may be history in your mind, however, it is not history to Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier, who have not gotten their day in court.

    I find it very discouraging that an accomplished attorney, like Mr. Frazier would assign guilt before the courts have established it. Mr. Frazier said yesterday that acquittals don’t matter because Freeh’s evidence (which he admitted doesn’t meet the legal standard) found that the men failed to report the incident.

    However, not one, but two PSU officials, Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney, both recalled that the University reported the 2001 incident to local authorities — AS REQUIRED BY LAW. After doing so, they had no obligation to report the incident to DPW. That obligation was on CYS.

    Moreover, if Mr. Frazier wishes to stand by the Freeh Report, he needs to turn his attention to Chapter 8 on Legal Reporting requirements. He will find that Judge Freeh referenced the PA Child Abuse Reporting law — and, ironically, Freeh DID NOT MAKE A FINDING that PSU was in violation of the law.

    It is one of the few parts of the Freeh Report that Freeh correctly found NO WRONGDOING.

  • 5. Christopher Garrison '87  |  March 15, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    It is time for Frazier and his cronies on the board to go. They have caused enough damage. If they cannot stand up for Penn State and its culture of excellence get out of the way so those of that care about Penn State can.

  • 6. KLH "80  |  March 16, 2013 at 12:08 am

    “…a bit of divide between the alumni and the board” ?? That must be the most monumental understatement I’ve ever heard.
    No one has the right to obstruct justice, yet the board continues to do so with impunity.

  • 7. Richard M. Garland  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:54 am

    RMG “82”

    Frazier’s racist and arrogant comments are an affront to all Penn Staters.
    He should be removed from the board of trustees immediately.

  • 8. Jamie  |  March 16, 2013 at 8:08 am

    I, for one, am deeply insulted that our own Board continues to discredit our Athletic and Academic Integrity! Progressing? Progressing from what? Are you saying we had a problem? because as Mr. Labrano shoved down Rodney’s throat yesterday….”we have aways had athletic integrity haven’t we.” To which Rod had no reply. This Board continues to look down on its alumni and it arrogance is intolerable.

  • 9. Ken Gilbert  |  March 16, 2013 at 8:21 am

    Penn State won’t get a dime of my money until this board is *gone*. We will be paying for their mistakes for the next 100 years. I was a regular donor since my graduation in 1978. That includes THON and the NLC as eventually *any* money donated will end up helping to pay for this mess. It’s simple. Even if you designate giving, then all the admin has to do is reduce the budget for that item from other sources and use *that* money to pay for the mess. They’ve already noted that capital spending for athletics will be reduced. Look, it was a bad situation and horrible things did happen. Penn State *does* bear some responsibility for it. There *is* a price to pay. But the board needs to also stand up for the truth: We alums are *not* responsible for this, just because we love football. Penn State never put academics before football, as the head of the NCAA said. Punishing Penn State for the crimes committed on campus is one thing. Punishing the guilty is prober. But punishing Penn State for things that never happened is another. The board must defend our honor and the integrity of our degrees.

  • 10. Bruce Lane  |  March 16, 2013 at 8:42 am

    Ken Frazier admits that many of the key people were not interviewed, further he says “documents APPEAR to show…” and yet he says there is no point in taking another careful look???

    I doubt the Harvard Law School taught him to think like that.

    He and his cohorts have damaged the University with their words, actions, and inactions.

    It is clear that the only thing Ken Frazier cares about his himself. He and Louis Freeh blew it and neither is man enough to admit that.

    He needs to resign immediately.

  • 11. Joe Cattano  |  March 16, 2013 at 9:11 am

    I am disgusted by Mr. Frazier’s comments. I would never want to be in a foxhole with him – he would turn and run. This man has accepted a document that is tainted, poorly researched (Freeh has done this before – his FIFA investigation was thrown out of court for being poorly constructed) and highly prejudice – including the manner in which it was presented. Get him off the board.

  • 12. Tim McKeown  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:13 am

    How can anyone who claims to care about what Sandusky did to those kids flippantly dismiss Mr. Clemente’s report as “just a report”? The close minded arrogance of this man is breathtaking. There is certainly something rotten in the state of Denmark.

  • 13. Judy  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:22 am

    Just when you think the BOT can’t look any worse, they look worse!

  • 14. Michele Rhoades  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Ken Frazier Merck CEO continues to bring disgrace & shame to the university. He & Merck have been allowed to feed at the Penn State trough for far too long. Mr. Frazier & his cabal of Business & Industry trustees need to be removed from the board. This board has proven that they are not competent enough to reform themselves. They just do not get it. Their arrogance knows no bounds.

  • 15. NAL  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:28 am

    The board again continues to hide behind their dog and pony show. The legal committee is comprimised of those MOST suspect of following an alternate agenda – so a open forum on Penn State’s campus or with the BOT is a forgone conclusion. Ken Frazier achieved success at Merck by defending the VIOXX coverup by ironically fighting. Why do so MANY – alumni and onlookers – believe so strongly that something is awry at Penn State… perhaps 41 MILLION DOLLARS has something to do with it!

  • 16. Michele Rhoades  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:30 am

    The ONLY thing that these trustees are protecting is each other, certainly not the university, students or children for that matter. They are the textbook definition of breach of fiduciary duty.

  • 17. Dave Ketchen  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Thank you, Penn Stater Magazine, for taking a balanced approach in this piece. A welcome change.

    Lubrano, AT, and Clemens have offered a very reasonable idea: Bring in Freeh and Dick T. to answer questions. Both men have expressed willingness to do so.

    Why are some trustees reluctant to take this step? A university should pursue reasoned discourse and work to find the truth.

  • 18. Mary Cooper  |  March 16, 2013 at 11:40 am

    This is a well written, balanced piece that translates the tone of the events precisely. Rare in these happenings and these times, thank you!
    Mr Frazier appears to be set in his opinion and careless in his evaluation of his opinion’s effect and its influence. Mr Frazier has divided the PSU faithful into Paterno supporters and those who take responsibility for the child abuse on campus. Preposterous statement! We are and have all been horrified by the Sandusky saga, and we are now more aware of child abuse and its prevalence. We support helping child abuse victims and advocates, and equally we can support our University and those good men who have not been proven guilty. Most importantly, we can support the quest for truth. We not only have the tragedy of Sandusky, but this resultant tragedy of rushed opinions leading to rushed and gargantuous punishments, leading to great divisions within the Penn State community. Yes, ‘stay tuned’, if we can bear it.

  • 19. Stephen Fotos  |  March 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    A balanced report on the proceedings, which I thank you for.

    This Board has repeatedly failed the University and the Alumni. If they were subject to a vote by either Alumni or the citizens of the Commonwealth they would be tossed out. That is not an opinion, it can be very easily determined by the 2012 election results for the Attorney General’s race, as well as the Governor’s poll results and resulting NCAA lawsuit.

    We must reform this Board from the outside. I invite everyone to support this effort on Monday by appearing at the State Senate hearing on Penn State governance at 10:30 AM in the Capitol. The committee is the one on State Governance, and the Chair is Senator Smucker from Lancaster.

    If this Board thinks we are going to give up, I can assure them that is not the case. We are not going away and we will pursue them until all of the Alumni incumbents responsible for this mess are defeated and all of the current insiders are gone. They cannot be forced out, but they can hounded at each and every Board meeting, forever.

    Regarding Mr. Frazier, he is correct in that he can fire any employee without due process. He is correct that he is entitled to his opinion on the Freeh report. He is incorrect that we will ‘move on’.

  • 20. sjfotos  |  March 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    I should add that I have no doubt that the proposal to invite Freeh and Governor Thornburgh to a discussion with the Board will be strangled to death in the Legal Committee. Hence the need to involve the State Legislature, a body outside the control of Mr. Frazier and Mr. Masser, et al.

  • 21. Mark Zisek  |  March 16, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    The alumni aren’t going anywhere. On one side you have a person against due process and against getting at the truth under the guise of protecting children and “moving on”. How you can determine that when you know you only have a piece of the story shows their lack of leadership. Topping off that side was the racist remarks said during a tirade because Mr. Frazier was tired of hearing about the facts on the other side. Asking for a dialogue seems prudent now that there is more information and stomping his feet and insulting the alumni seems rather childish. What sort of leadership follows the petulant child?

  • 22. A. Cook  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    If the Legal & Compliance Committee does not vote to have both Freeh & Thornburg come to a public BOT meeting to discuss their findings, then we all can assume the members of that committee have something to hide. Actions speak louder than words. If the PSU Trustees who have dismissed the “Paterno Report” out of hand, truly feel the Freeh report will stand on its own merits, they should welcome such a open and public discussion of both reports.

  • 23. Scott Kimler  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    There are 2 documents upon which the Board relied as the basis for their decisions: the Grand Jury Report and the Freeh report. Both are arguably flawed, so it follows that so too would be decisions based on them. Reliance on these document is untenable and harmful to the institution.

    1) One cannot defend Penn State by relying on a document that is flawed, too limited in its scope and has neither been officially accepted, nor critically analyzed.

    2) Considering “new information” (i.e., the Paterno report) is not “re-writing history”, but rather a prudent thing to do, demonstrates having an open mind and will likely yield more sound decisions.

    3) There are many other organizations that are just as, if not more, culpable than Penn State when it came to allowing Sandusky to victimize children (Child Youth Services, The Second Mile, just to name two). The best defense of Penn State is not stepping forward as the lone institution admitting guilt and accepting all of the blame.

    4) One cannot claim to have the best interests of protecting children in mind and also push an agenda that attempts to put this all behind us as rapidly as possible. A better way of protecting children and Penn State would be to keep an open mind, collect all of the facts, make decisions based on factual evidence, have difficult conversations about child sex abuse and train ourselves with as much information about identifying child sex abuse as possible.

    Trying to defend bad decisions made hastily by the board only serves to further divide the Nittany Nation. The sooner this can be acknowledged and rectified, the better for all involved.

    Mr. Frazier, are actually an impediment to moving forward and are failing in their fiduciary duty to act in a manner that has the best interests of Penn State at the fore.

  • 24. Jeff Taylor  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    When a person arrives on a crisis that I will characterize as a fire, leaders carry two buckets; one bucket is for water, the other bucket is gasoline. The buckets can be used to put out the fire or explode the fire into a disaster. How did this PSU BOT manage this crisis? This moment in time is to be used to determine and evaluate how did this PSU board execute their fiduciary duties during this historical crisis. My dear PSU brother and sisters, the fire is still burning. I close by asking would you want this board to represent you in a fire? The answer is an emphatic no! Accordingly, I invite your action to make PSU more effective in their ability to manage our university for the Glory of Dear Old State. Please vote your heart during this and every PSU BOT election. Jeff Taylor PSU 82

  • 25. Psusmc2003  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Frazier’s racially charged comments and his blatant disregard for the importance of due process have once again made Penn State a laughing stock among those living outside the Happy Valley bubble. His irrational defense of the clearly flawed Freeh report makes him unsuitable for continued service on the BoT.

  • 26. Diane Hockenberry  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Well, I’m comment #26 and I think the Alums that have commented so far are in agreement: Frazier is a DISGRACE for our institution. I just graduated in December with my Masters and I can guarantee that Penn State will not see a dime of my money until the old members of this board are GONE!! Sad too, because I was looking forward to giving back especially in lieu of a single mother like myself who may be struggling to get through school and raise her children to better herself.

  • 27. Scott E Phillips  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Mr Frazier does not want to “re-write history” but he is sadly unaware of what that history is. The context and meaning of the emails Frazier refers to are unknown and currently unavailable. He is defending Freeh’s baseless and unsupported conclusions as history when, in fact, they are nothing more than fairy tales.

    He appears frustrated by the lack of acceptance of the Freeh report and I cannot understand why. The holes and leaps of faith made by Freeh seem obvious to me and so many others. That Frazier dismisses the Thornburgh critique so easily and still defends Freeh leave questions about his motives and suggests that he is hiding something sinister.

    Mr Frazier should be aware that the appearance of impropriety is often more damning than actual misdeeds. His racially charged comments and outbursts make him appear unbalanced.

    There is too much at stake for Mr Frazier’s behavior to be allowed to continue in this matter. If he is unable to control his out bursts or unwilling to discuss the criticisms of the Freeh report, rationaly, then he needs to step down from his position.

  • 28. Jim Defrank  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Mr Frazier remarks are over the top. How Merck has him as their CEO is appalling. You can fax to Merck a note of disaprroval
    Merck s fax number is 908.735.1385

  • 29. Alan Jagolinzer  |  March 16, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    I think it is well past time for a formal investigation into certain members of the board. It is clear they are hiding something.

  • 30. John in Oregon  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    In the Freeh report, they reference Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Spanier by name. Nowhere do they refer to them as “an administrator” or “a manager”.

    When referencing an action of a Board member, the Freeh report uses “Trustee” and never gives their name. “a Trustee contacted Spannier …”, etc.

    The act of redacting the names of the trustees alone demonstrates the Freeh report is inherently biased.

  • 31. John in Oregon  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    Frazier says history cannot be re-written. If that is true, what university won the 2006 Orange Bowl and who was the head coach of record for that team?

  • 32. David  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Frazier once again refers to their legal position. They do not need to follow due process in employment matters but they should. They quote law not morals. They fired Joe for following the law and what they believe wasn’t enough yet that does not apply to them. Do the right thing, find out what really went down not one interpretation. I agree with him that the facts are the facts but when the facts are not cut and dry you need to look at all alternative interpretations

  • 33. David E. Lutz  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Had the media and BOTs simply researched the actual PA “reporting” law, then this entire controversy would have been eliminated. It states that “faculty/staff of educational institutions MUST follow chain of command” or “face disciplinary action that could include termination.” This requirement was included in the law to prevent the possibility of any over-reaction. JoePa did exactly this! Of course, this revelation would not have sold as many newspapers.

  • 34. Mark  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Frazier is an embarrassment to the university. Not only with his racist comments, but also with his attempt at hiding the real truth of what he is covering up.

  • 35. Brian Dawson  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    My most extreme frustration right now (and something I wish someone would bring up to the trustees faces) is that this Board and Frazier in particular have stressed, repeatedly, that they HAVE NOT accepted the findings of the Freeh report. And yet, they WILLINGLY allowed the NCAA to use those unverified or approved “findings” to drop the bomb on Penn State. Despite Rod Erickson saying it was the “hardest decision I’ve ever had to make” I find myself questioning that since it seems like they chose to accept sanctions that punish and demonize this community, declared open season on our players for other schools, and created untold long term damage to the football program with a smile on their face without a hint of protest, bargaining, or consideration of other legal options.

    I have no idea what legal implications rejecting the Freeh Report would have, but in my opinion, it gives us a leg up on the NCAA for fighting back. If they hadn’t already violated their own rules in punishing us, then they would have the added embarrassment of basing those sanctions and a report that the university has rejected as flawed and incomplete. But they won’t do it, because people like Ken Frazier are megalomaniacs and have too much personal pride and ego invested in the Freeh Report to admit just how flawed it is, and how they wasted 8 MILLION dollars on something that had any of us handed into as a research paper to our professors at Penn State, would have been failed outright for making conclusions or false claims without any valid supporting evidence. This isn’t just an insult to the Penn State community, it’s an insult to the diplomas we share. This is what the university chooses to display as the defining document of our University right now, and I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m greatly insulted by that.

  • 36. Matt R  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    I have been saying that the entire board needs to step down since this catastrophe started. They cleaned house, but not their own. As elected officials, they are supposed to represent the will of their constituents, not the legacy of their own name. If we ever want to turn the page, then all those involved need to be removed; replaced with new blood and a different perspective.

    I could go on and on, especially about the treatment of the man that built this institution that we all love. The Board needs to ask themselves one question: Would you want to lose your job, lifestyle and family name because your boss’ had a knee-jerk response to an issue that deserves due-process.

    Name me another school where the football stadium is named for its founder, and the library named for its Football coach.

  • 37. Nancy Youtzy  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    I want to thank you for a well balanced report. Mr. Frazier insulting comments during the 2 days are an embarrasment to the entire Penn State community. He states he can fire anyone without due process. I do believe the 14th amentment gives us all that right. Joe Paterno had a contract so he was definitely assured of due process which he did not receive. Mr. Frazier needs to step down now. And please take some of his cronies with him.

  • 38. Craig in Chicago  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    With regard to history being re-written….the history has not yet been completely written, and cannot until such time as someone on the BOT has the courage to admit they royally screwed this up from day one. Mr. Frazier, your Vioxx defense tactics may have very well worked in the past (limiting the millions your company was required to pay), but make no mistake, your approach will not fly with this alumni base.

    Your recent performance has been shameful at best. My University deserves better and it will get it.

  • 39. Linda Berkland  |  March 16, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    The board promised transparency and boy are they delivering! Filabustering at a board meeting so they would be forced to rush through important business. Ignoring the elephant in the room. Accepting changes to board structure that do nothing but to further strengthen their hold on the university and ignoring changes that are inconvenient for a select few. All the while the university community clamors that they step down for breaching their fiduciary responsibilities. I am disgusted by this board. I never in my life imagined that I could be ashamed of anything having to do with Penn State as my status as an alumnus has always been a source of great pride to me. They do not represent the university that I love. They do not represent me. They care about nothing but their own self interests and they MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT SANDUSKY’S VICTIMS OR THE SAFETY OF THE COMMONWEALTH’S CHILDREN! Transparent indeed…..we can see right through you!

  • Frazier and the power players of the BOT can’t understand why all these people keep questioning them. They need to realize that they are no longer in their corporate cacoons, where their minions hang on their every word and give them constant feedback on how great they are. They are now representatives in service to diverse constituencies (students, parents, alums, faculty, government) who do not fear their titles and influence. Frazier’s uncontrolled anger is a symptom of the frustration they feel. The alums and students will not stop asking for the truth until they get it from the BOT. Frazier is an embarrassment to all stakeholders in the university. He must resign.

  • 41. Jared (current student) in State College  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    There are too many unanswered questions. The people who are urging everyone to move on, don’t really care about getting to the truth. It’s clear. everyone knows there are unanswered questions. How is it possible to accept this? If someone was convicted of a crime and they were truly innocent, do you think they would stop fighting? The simple answer is NO. We are basing a lot of things on the Freeh Report. When everything is said and done, i’m sure the university will pay in excess of $100M. Where is this money going? Where is the accountability? I want to see the due diligence back up Frazier and his committee performed when selecting Freeh. I want to see the apples to apples comparison showing the evaluation of all the bidding companies. It’s taken this long for the university to release the contract…i’m sure they’ll never release that information because it probably doesn’t exist. Did the BOT issue a Request For Proposal to assure equal opportunity for the bidding companies? I feel as though this process did not take place. Since this is my opinion, I feel like there was some inside wrong doing on the behalf of Frazier. I feel like he’s trying to hide something. I know I will not rest until the truth has been found. Right now we are not there yet so it’s impossible to “move on.”

  • 42. Mike '04  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Ken Frazier’s racially-charged comments are simply deplorable and he should be removed from the board. He is a terrible representative of our university. Not only are his actions pathetic but a microcosm of 95% of this board. They are spineless and simply want to sit in the corner with their ears and eyes closed as if they were children. The fact is that most alumni and friends of Penn State will not move on until the board collectively begins to stand up for our alma mater and change the narrative that they helped set.

  • 43. Christine  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    I am disappointed in those members of the BoT that are hanging their hat on Mr Freeh. Did you do your homework first? Do you realize his reputation is tarnished because of bad calls he made throughout his career. FIFA, Jewell, Lee…and how many others? The BoT seriously needs to reconsider the validity of the Freeh report. Admit the mistake, and move on. The longer you continue to hide behind Freeh the more damage you cause the University you are suppose to be protecting. WE ARE… and WE BELIEVE IN JVP.

  • 44. Helen Page Woodyard  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    The fracture between alumni and the Board will not heal until the Board thoroughly and transparently reviews the Freeh report.

  • 45. Gerry Ricciutti, President, Youngstown OH Alumni Chapter  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    I’m sure if I am wrong someone will correct me. The BoT is a representative institution. Its members are elected and/or appointed to REPRESENT the greater student body and Alumni. Those members led by Mr. Frazier have, in fact, been an abject failure. They have long ago stopped representing the rest — they seem only concerned with saving face for their original ill-advised knee-jerk reactions to what happened. Then, as if to intentionally add insult to injury, when said members realized their actions failed ‘to stem the bleeding’ they simply meandered off on other bad decisions. Its been a bad domino effect on steroids. As someone who works in media, I am stunned and appalled at the ineptitude of members of the Board, who by their resumes describe themselves as leaders of business and industry. Yet the callous way many of the older sitting members have acted shows they cannot comprehend how their actions would be viewed by the public at large and the University community — not to mention how destructive those actions have been. The sooner they are gone, the sooner the REAL healing can begin.

  • 46. Mary B. Winterhalter Shoffner, Ph.D.  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Mr. Frazier’s pubic, racist, and ill-conceived comments to Mr. Cluck this past Thursday at the BOT meeting were an embarrassment to a university that needs no further embarrassment. He should be dismissed from the BOT immediately. Racist rhetoric should never be associated with Penn State.

  • 47. Mary B. Winterhalter Shoffner, Ph.D.  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    What an unfortunate typo! PUBLIC

  • 48. Mary Agliardo  |  March 16, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Either the BoT has not read the Clemente part of the Paterno report or they are afraid it will point up the unprofessional and fraudulent claims of their multi-million dollar Edsel known as the Freeh report. Reports of child abuse appear in the news media on a nearly daily basis. It is reasonable to assume that the BoT is using the passé red flags of Louis Freeh’s assumptions about child abuse as guidelines for their claims to making sure Sandusky-style abuse never happens on campus again. In fact, they’re moving backward. Pedophiles must be thrilled. Openly endorsing the Clemente recommendations might help the BoT take a significant beginning step forward. Otherwise, the relations between the BoT and alumni will remain in stasis.

  • 49. Bill Frattarola Jr  |  March 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    We want the truth and we will not rest until then. This issue is a lot bigger than only right and wrong, which it is also about. My heart is broken and I would assume there are many others that feel this same way and we will not rest until the truth is told. Those who want to stand in the way of the truth will learn a valuable lesson in life that money and power doesn’t always win out!

  • 50. Wendy Silverwood  |  March 16, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Lori: Thank you for this article. I sat in the Thursday meeting where Messr Frazier blew up…much to the gasps and scraping of chairs from the other Trustees & staff.

    I also sat thru the Friday meeting. Messr Frazier is going to GREAT LENGTHS to defend his Freeh “Report”, which we know is NOT a smoking gun, rather a water pistol at best.

    It’s almost (almost!) heartbreaking to hear him struggle to justify WHY we need to believe so passionately in that “document” and the “facts within”.

    If only Frazier would exhibit that same passion in demanding accountability from CYS, PaDPW, the Second Mile & the PaOAG…who’s motto ironically is “Protecting Pennsylvania’s Families”. Pity.

    I suspect the Freeh “Report” is now an Albatross ’round Messr Frazier’s neck.

  • 51. tharrop  |  March 16, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Like most other respondents, all I want is the truth. The BoT should be standing PENN STATE PROUD and pushing for the truth. I can’t stand people who submit to incomplete and potentially erroneous reports and that is just what Mr. Frazier is doing. He needs to step aside and let somebody with a higher level of passion for PSU fight the fight.

  • 52. bobagain  |  March 16, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    I watched the entire meeting (Friday). Frazier and a few others are beating the rest of the board into submission (or at least trying).

    Here is a recap of what Frazier seems to be saying:

    1. Paterno report is just self serving with no facts or guidance for PSU. The experts Paterno hired did not provide any new evidence or facts to understand what happened at PSU. (for this alone the rest of the board should have stopped him in his tracks and said, “Whoa Ken, none of us are dismissing the Paterno report out of hand, please do not put us in that boat and those words in our collective mouths”.)

    2. He is saying that due-process is not something the BoT has to consider when making decisions in such an enormous case with accusations flying everywhere. (Ken, Joe would have been appalled at that statement, as is the alumni and the BoT should be telling you they do not agree with you).

    3. Frazier’s tirade toward Cluck seems to be says much more than Frazier’s racism. His tirade says “Anyone who does not believe that the university employess were complicit in a cover-up and were insenstive to Pedophilia for the sake of their reputations and football program (as Freeh purports) is an idiot”. His tirade should have been stopped by other board members, and since it was not, should be followed up with a statement of why the board believes and backs Frazier’s statement. Otherwise rebuke Frazier and his statements. (Yet we haven’t heard a peep from any of the BoT regarding this outburst. Again, they are being brow beaten into submission).

    Keep voting them out. They are getting collectively worse.

  • 53. Bill '68 71 '85  |  March 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    Re: Comment No. 15 VIOXX Coverup:

    Mr. Frazier cannot rewrite his own history can he?

  • 54. Angie Clark  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Time to get your head out of the sand BOT – this thing is not going to just go away -you may have agreed to everything to hope it would just go away and everyone forgot about it but every step you have taken has only made the situation worse and magnified it.

  • 55. Anonymous  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    Frazier is an absolute disgrace (as are a number of the board members…Peetz included). Will it take the University Family marching on the BOT to get them to step down? Their message of ‘move on’ is nothing more than an attempt to get people to look the other way as they continue to play ‘good ole boy games’ in State College. I am a proud graduate of PSU; I am proud of our alumni, our athletes and our integrity…I am ashamed of our leadership; leadership being the current BOT. The only thing I want to move on is Ken Frazier, Karen Peetz, Mr. Suhey and a few others…

  • 56. Gary Tyler  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Gary ’75
    I also am a member of the ‘Grand Experiment’ and I will not vote for the close minded members on the Board. An educational institution with Penn State’s stature deserves better! That a lawyer would not see the discrepancies between the reports and want to see them resolved is not rational. History will not be settled until all of the questions have been asked and answered by all parties involved.

  • 57. Al Haberbusch Col (Ret) USAF PSU'64  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Messers Frazier and his henchmen on the BOT continue to obfuscate rather than move to transperency and continue to try to push the Freeh “noodle” down the road despite major unresolved questions about it’s method and findings. Lori –thanks for your account of the proceedings. It is most welcome to the tens of thousands of alumni who are too far away from BOT meeting sites to come. Bet you could easily fill the Stadium for a BOT meeting to hear a full disclosure discussion about the Freeh Report and the Thornberg Report. And to Messers Lubrano, Meyers, and Taliafero thanks for doing a great service in representing the alumni. We need more like you on the BOT and less like Frazier et al. I’ve read all 51 prior comments and recommend them for everyone to read. Put so well by #50 “….all I want is the truth.”

  • 58. Shepdogg  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    That was a Freudian slip Shoffner!

  • 59. Ryan '00  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Ken Frazier’s comments were extremely inappropriate and he needs to be held accountable for these latest actions, remove him immediately. In regards to the BOT, I will continue to believe that those pounding the “move forward” mantra are complicit in a coverup to pin their lack of leadership on the athletic department. Let us find the truth.

  • 60. Annie Costello  |  March 16, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Our once proud university has been nearly destroyed due to the despicable and horrendous decisions made by this inept Board of Trustees, and Ken Frazier is largely responsible for most of them. Each decision worse than the previous one! And the pompous way these trustees refuse to make even the sightest effort to begin to repair the damage they caused shows a level of arrogance that is simply astonishing. Seriously, my grandchildren have better decsion making skills than these so called giants of Business and Industry. Please, BOT, if you can’t handle the responsibilities of the job, step aside, and let others who our more honorable and ethical than you clean up your mess. We will not move on till you do!

  • 61. Anonymous  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    Ken Frazier must resign immediately. Why does the BOT fear the truth? Why have they not defended our school?

  • 62. Greg Szymik  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    For the alumni reading the comments posted for this article who live in Pennsylvania: contact your senator and representative in the legislature and strongly request (demand) that the members of the Penn State Board of Trustees who served on the Board in November 2011 be removed from the Board as soon as possible. The university is being damaged by their actions. But, more importantly, children whose abuse was abetted by inaction from the Department of Public Welfare and The Second Mile are being ignored largely because of the Board’s actions focussing blame on Penn State alone.

  • 63. Carol Pilgrim  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    Thank you Lori for a very balanced accounting of the events at the recent BOT meetings in Hershey. I was alerted to Kenneth Frazier’s tirade regarding Bill Cluck’s questions via social media, so I listened to the audio and was shocked. Subsequently, I observed yesterday’s live stream and was very disturbed to find that it appears that a large contingent of members are vested in the status quo of the Freeh findings, and have no interest in seeking the truth of events to truly lead us onward in the fight for our honor and our children. Oh how I long for the type of leadership displayed by Donna Shalala at the University of Miami. One has to question the motives of this group of people whose version of history conveniently focuses on three vague emails, rather than the body of work done by those it condemns without due process. I feel no more enlightened by our administration and board, and have no intention of moving on until the suggestions of further investigation from Anthony Lubrano and others requesting answers are enacted. Kenneth Frazier needs to resign or be censured. Given the situation we’ve been dealt, we can ill afford to have someone who responds to legitimate questions unethically leading our University.

  • 64. Bill Cluck  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    Following the release of the Freeh fee agreement (which redacted the fees) and the responses of Trustee Frazier and PSU general counsel on Thursday, I have developed the following questions that must be answered (and they don’t require disclosure of confidential information):

    1. Who participated in selecting the members of the Special Task Force
    2. How many firms submitted proposals and who saw the proposals
    3. How many of those firms were interviewed
    4. Who conducted the interviews
    5. After his firm was retained, was there communication from Freeh to task force
    6. Was such communication orally or written
    7. To whom was the communication directed, did entire task force receive it
    8. Were any of those communications shared with members of BOT who were not on task force
    9. If so, which ones and what communications
    10. Freeh contract required notice to Task Force if he used third parties
    11. What third parties were used and was notice provided to task force
    12. Did task force or psu approve fee arrangements for third parties
    13. Were all Freeh contacts with AG officials also noticed to task force, if Freeh gave any docs to AG were copies given to Task Force
    14. Did Task Force hold any meetings, conference calls
    15. Following release of Freeh report, did task force meet? Review document? Provide comments?

  • 65. Karen Heilig Decker  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    (Thank you to Ryan McCombie, too.)

  • 66. Bruce Lane  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    It’s interesting that politicians get in trouble all the time for steering work to a particular company (typically owned by an associate or by someone who has provided “favors”). It’s often for fairly small amounts of money. There is at least a possibility that Ken Frazier chose Mr. Freeh because he wanted to, rather than because he had the best proposal or the best cost.

    Ken Frazier needs to go. He clearly is not acting in the best interest of the University.

    One day he will be a wealthy old man. He will have lots of business success that he will remind people of. But deep in his heart he will know that he was wrong and not man enough to admit that.

  • 67. jeff grimm (BSCE 82, AFROTC)  |  March 16, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Why would the cowardly BOT, especially Ken Frazier, not think that $8.1 million and (counting) for the Freeh fraud report is absolutely ludicrous? Because they all play in the same playground. One that most of us will never be invited to see, let alone play there too.

    Frazier made $13.4 million in total annual compensation in 2011, the first year they made him Chair, CEO, and President. That, of course, doesn’t even count all his stock options and retirement plan benefits. In 2010 he made $9.4 million and 2009, $5 million. So, in his mind, how can he be wrong? He is a millionaire many items over for goodness sake. All of us are just peons.

    He will never understand what made Penn State great and what we have lost because of the cowardly BOT. He is an elitist, how could he possibly relate to most of the PSU Alumni who love to drink soda and beer, down a burger with everything and chips, throw the football around and cheer on a bunch of young men, MADE men by Joe Paterno, representing their school on a balmy State College Saturday with over 100,000 friends and colleagues?!

    What he will never understand, will never even TRY to understand, is that Penn State wasn’t a business enterprise to us, it’s alumni. It was a family. That’s right A FAMILY! We protected each other, watched out for each other, helped each other, and were brought together in large part by the man who made Penn State what it WAS for me and my family; a home. You could go anywhere in the country, and out, and see a Penn State shirt or that, and you instantly had someone you could relate to.How awesome was that feeling was.

    It wasn’t a “football culture” at Penn State that Joseph Vincent Paterno made, it was our FAMILY, and THAT is why everyone outside of PSU (and now we find, INSIDE PSU) was so jealous and hated us and couldn’t wait to break it up, just like everything else good in this nation these days.

    That has all been destroyed. They threw JVP under the bus and us along with him, and that wasn’t good enough. They kept backing it up and doing it again. Ken Frazier isn’t a businessman, he is a “one percenter”, a coward, and an arrogant destroyer.

    How sad. Worse, there is nothing we seem to be able to do about it.

  • 68. Hank Miller Sr.  |  March 16, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    Having read all of the quote-reports, I have come to the conclusion Freeh presented what he was paid to produce. That is fiction, unsubstantiated commentary, incomplete guess work.

    How could he not interview the accused at all? His interviewees were not under oath, some gave words , not testimony, under the secrecy of anonymity.

    There are some huge questions in my mind; when did “Jerry” suddenly become a pedophile? One bit of statement from an interview said it was a common sight for “Jerry” to be showering with ‘boys’ in the locker room showers. Implying it was something that went back quite some time. Did you hear or read of complaints from 20-30-40 years ago? That may be an exagerration about the time period but I do it to make a point; “Jerry” openly admitted to the law officers in the ’98 incident that he had often showered with ‘boys.’
    So what the heck was done about it? What did it mean? Was each incident pedophilia?

    When all of the law suits are over and no more legal actions are pending, then maybe we will get some answers to the many holes in the claims of Freeh. And the unresearched opinions and actions of the NCAA.

  • 69. Steve '69 in VA  |  March 16, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Well stated Jeff ’82 … I only disagree with your last sentence, “Worse, there is nothing we seem to be able to do about it.” … granted it’s been slow but people are doing something and more voices are added everyday and we are starting to be heard and eventually the tide will turn and justice WILL be served … till then …

    We Are … Because He Was!

    Steve ’69

  • 70. David Walenga  |  March 16, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    The University and the Alumni Assoctiation need to wake up. Unless there are drastic changes, the alumni are not going to move on to anywhere but to life without Penn State.

    I’ve personally never been closer to dropping my Alumni Association membership than I am today. I’ve continued donating but have done so only for very specific purposes like THON. No one at the University is listening, and its sad, I’m sad and I’ve just about had enough.

    We are not a vocal minority. Find me one, just one, alum who is actually happy with how the University and Board has handled and continues to handle this mess. You can’t. It is utterly dumbfounding how many outright errors have and are being made.

    Ken Fraizer’s actions are just the latest example on this timeline of embrassing behavior. The result is a further devaluing of my degrees and another kick in my back pushing me away from a place I never thought I’d abandon.

  • 71. Deb '81  |  March 16, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    Board of Trustees, are you reading these comments? If not, you really should!

  • 72. Peggy Glaser  |  March 16, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    The BOT loves the Freeh report because it justified their inappropriate actions.

  • 73. Betsy Sharpe  |  March 16, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    Sadly, this bot has been making terrible decisions for 16 months. Even now, with the Soller’s report that has identified pillar of the community and good guy predators, this bot is blind. Freeh’s report was spit out verbatim what was asked of him by the bot. They threw Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier under the bus. The bus is now backing up and aiming straight for the bot. The lies and coverups will come to light. Hopefully very soon. The despicable behavior of Frazier and his cronies needs to be brought to light. We are…
    and the bot is not.

  • 74. Anonymous  |  March 17, 2013 at 12:07 am

    In complete agreement with so many here. The 2011 BOT is a disgrace, and its remnants continue to defile the university – and dig their own graves. Some bad days are forthcoming for Ken Frazier and his cronies. Looking forward to those days, and looking forward to the continued pursuit of truth and justice from PSU alums. National voices such as Bob Costas are awakening, finally, to the realities of this matter. May the Clemente Report report become common knowledge in society.

  • 75. Kathy Gabin  |  March 17, 2013 at 12:51 am

    Silly me. I thought that a university was a place where knowledge and truth were idealized. Perhaps this BOT need to be reminded that “knowledge is power and the truth shall set you Free”.

    The BOT appears to have been offended that they have been forced to deal with this dirty affair. What could be easier than blaming everything on those who dedicated their lives to the university while the fat cat board sits back and whines at cocktail hour. It would be interesting to know how many of the board members had some association with The Second Mile.

    Frazier’s behavior of bullying other board member is disgraceful and he should be removed immediately. The entire board should step down and a new unbiased and smaller board should be put in place to restore crediblility and start over with a fresh look at all the facts.

    Curley, Spannier and Schultz should be allowed their day in court without the BOT condemning them and attempting to poison the jury pool prior to trial

  • 76. Doug robb  |  March 17, 2013 at 2:41 am

    Frazier is a disgrace to Penn State and should issue a formal, public apology to Penn State and William Cluck, and then immediately resign his seat on the BoT. Thornburgh and Freeh should appear before the board and alumni from PSU ReBoT and PS4RS should be allowed to question both men about their respective investigations into the Sandusky scandal. And Freeh and Thornburgh should have the ability to question each other regarding their investigations. The BoT can then listen and decide for themselves what course of action should be taken. Without Frazier on the board, of course.

  • 77. Richard Y  |  March 17, 2013 at 3:03 am

    I cannot believe the arrogance of Frazier, Peetz, Surma and other members of this board! The overwhelming majority of the Alumni, students and PSU supporters what the ENTIRE truth before we can “move on.” (I’m sick of hearing that now overused term)

    Why are some of the members of the BoT’s power structure afraid of a real investigation? Have they something to hide? Why do they continue to play the “blame the dead guy” game?

    The time for mass resignations is past due.

  • 78. Lex Brolin  |  March 17, 2013 at 7:18 am

    Time for Frazier and all those on the board who want to take the “easy” road out of this to go. The media dictated how things were handled at Penn State – and now, for whatever reason they will not admit they where wrong. I have read the Freeh report a couple times. There is no fact to base anything on. I don’t care about a debate on this. The BOT need to fight back and fight back now. There was no vote to accept the NCAA sanctions; lets get those sanctions thrown out even if it means starting over from scratch. I would have rather had the death penalty than what we’re dealing with now – and now that the truth has started to come out and the media has shut their mouth, the NCAA wont be feeling the pressure to make an example of Penn State.

    There only needs to be one question asked – was there a cover up? Since several agencies have investigated at different times and law officials and social services and all those that should have known did know and did investigate, the answer has to be no.

    To the BOT – get over yourselves and your pride. Your continued ignorance on this is making you look worse than you did when these decisions where made. Apologize and take action. We all want to move forward, but to move forward with the truth.

  • 79. Steve '69 in VA  |  March 17, 2013 at 9:11 am

    I know Frazier and most of the “old” board won’t read these comments so I ask … no BEG one of the “new” board members to some how get these comments on the board record in hopes that they will act upon them. Or by their lack of action further show the world their incompetence!

  • 80. Mark Buzzell 86  |  March 17, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Ken Frzier is a disgrace to Penn State and needs to resign immediately. I have read many things about his and other BOT members and their relationship with the Second Mile and Freeh. Who knows all the truth but that is what most PSU alumni would like to know. What are they hiding?
    What was the purpose of letting Freeh draw “conclusions” that appear to many to be driven by an agenda and shaped by the likes of Vicki Triponey. How do they condone the false statements on “culture”? The facts and history would show a record from Spanier! Curley and Paterno that would suggest differently. How did all of the so called experts get fooled?
    What Sandusky did to those kids is terrible. He must pay the price and we can all play our part to help with future prevention and healing.
    However, to bring down the reputation of our alumni, students and student athletes with no support by Frazier, Surma and others on the BOT who may have their own agendas is another crime.
    I will continue to support the Levi Lamb fund because I care about our current student athletes and they make me Penn State proud. However, I hate that in a way that shows my support to these clowns who have brought harsh and unfair sanctions to our football program.

  • 81. Bill Engel (@psbengel)  |  March 17, 2013 at 10:51 am

    Great comments by all but we mustn’t make this about Joe but rather about the truth. Finding that truth can only happen after we take back our University from those whose obvious agenda is to obfuscate that truth by having us all bow to their $8M holy sacrament (the obviously flawed Freeh Report).

    We as Alumni are frustrated due to our inability to have any say in what has happened and is happening to Penn State. From being powerless as we watched the BOT deflect blame and then sit silent while the media and the NCAA essentially tore our history and future apart to now being looked down upon as common serfs by the power structure that failed our school.

    Peetz, Frazier, Surma et al are essentially a dictatorship. They handpicked President Erickson (and will select our next President). They handpicked the Athletic Director who is part of their power structure. This group also determines where money is allocated which essentially keeps all groups (including the Alumni Association) in line.

    The arrogance demonstrated by this BOT throughout their failed handling of this crisis culminated in Frazier’s unacceptable outburst. He is simply not accustomed to being held accountable. Hopefully this will help those who have remained silent and accepting of the board’s actions realize this situation requires action rather than complacency and acceptance.

    We must be vocal in our opposition to their self serving leadership. Every 2011 board member that has not supported due process must be voted out at the first opportunity. Those board members who inexplicably cannot be voted out must feel the full voice of the largest university alumni group in the world. As a group, we must pressure these people where they live and where they work.

    I know it seems extreme but sitting back and allowing those who put their own interests in front of the interests of Penn State’s past, present and future must not be allowed to continue to destroy our great university. We are!

  • 82. A loyal alum  |  March 17, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Mr. Frazier’s conduct has likely compromised the most critical priority of the BOT, and that is to hire a great President who, in turn, must attract and retain the best talent. Any quality candidate will likely wonder if this type of conduct and thought process is typical of both Mr. Frazier and the BOT in general. Who will be attracted to working with this Board?

  • 83. Lisa'94  |  March 17, 2013 at 11:12 am

    How can we stop this train wreck? If we allow the Bot to keep going, PSU will end up bankrupt and in shambles. They are proven liars and their behavior suggests they have something significant they are hiding.

  • 84. Lori '83  |  March 17, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    It’s time for the whole truth to come out. A rush to judgment was done by the BOT in an effort to “move on”. What they fail to realize is that this did the exact opposite. Before you can judge, you have to have all the facts. If you find – after a thorough investigation – that the Freeh report is correct then stand by it; however, if the facts lead in another direction, man up and admit you were wrong. What better example to teach our children that when you are wrong, admit to it and don’t dig your heels in because you don’t like to be wrong or questioned.

  • 85. Kathryn Keve '61  |  March 17, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    I still say that Joe Paterno was apparently the only one who did the right thing. THere is no evidence that anyone else did. WHy is the drum of disgrace beating on Joe Paterno’s good name and hsitory. Why not something like the Sandusky Scandal???

  • 86. Bill Cluck  |  March 17, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Ken Frazier just called and offered his heart felt apology. I accepted his apology. We had a nice civil conversation and he even volunteered that I have his vote. He will respond to my list of questions posted about the Task Force.

  • 87. Ann '81  |  March 17, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Frazier is a disgrace and is bringing down this University. Everyone was sick and mad about the crimes one former employee of PSU committed. The BOT aka Frazier and his cronies made the situation about Penn State not JS. Frazier believes the bias’ of the Freeh report ahead of what a court of law would find out-PRICELESS. How someone like this is associated with a great University is an embarrassment and a travesty. He needs to step down immediately.

  • 88. jeff grimm (BSCE 82, AFROTC)  |  March 17, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Bill Cluck, comment 86. Way too little, way too late for the like of Ken Frazier. I do not believe such a man can be “heartfelt” about ANYTHING but his own self-serving pride, and oh yes, MONEY and POWER. It is long past time for him to step down, and now we must hit him where it hurts.

    Forgive the length of this comment, but I have mailed the following letter to the Merck Board of Directors. His is a disgrace not just to PSU, but to Merck and all their shareholders as well. May Fosamax finally and rightfully bring him to his knees.

    William B. Harrison, Jr.
    Board of Directors
    Lead Director and Chair, Committee on Governance, Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility
    Merck & Co., Inc.
    P.O. Box 1150
    Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889

    16 March 2013

    To Mr. Harrison and The Board of Directors,

    In a recent public appearance by the Merck Chair of the Board of Directors, CEO and President, one Mr. Keith Frazier, he embarrassed himself and the company which he represents, and which each one of you has a fiduciary responsibility to help oversee for the good of the shareholders.

    When you are a high level corporate executive, and when you use that title to your personal advantage to be elected to sit on other governing boards and committees, there is a minimum level of decorum that is expected. High level, high profile, seven plus figure salaried employees are expected to perform at the level of professionalism their salaries and position define. MR. Frazier failed on all levels and thus has brought shame and potential business and financial harm to Merck as its senior officer.

    But this not merely about the lack of character and professionalism of one man in an isolated case.

    I ask you, is this the man that you want to be sitting in front of a jury of his peers, or representing your company as you move through yet another series of lawsuits for your drug, Fosamax? It is not just a matter of being able to hold your cool and debate dispassionately when someone is firing questions at you and questioning your actions and integrity, it is about how his most recent outburst and the CONTENT of that outburst could make defense of your position on Fosamax much more difficult.

    To whit, here is but a portion of his comments made on March 13th and 14th that I think you should be concerned with:

    “We are not subject to the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and you’re a lawyer, so you can stop pretending that you think we are,”

    “We can take employment actions, we can take corrective actions without any need to resort to the so-called due process, reasonable doubt standard, and I don’t care if they are acquitted. And you know the difference.”

    “If you cared about that, you are one of the few people in this country that looks like you who actually believes the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict was correct.”

    First, it is totally a racist comment since Mr. Frazier is black and the person debating him was white. Quite simply, how does this type of rant mesh with the Merck Company document “OUR VALUES AND STANDARDS, THE BASIS OF OUR SUCCESS, Code of Conduct | Edition III” where it states: “Honesty, integrity and high standards of conduct remain the very foundation upon which we will build the new Merck.” From Mr. Frazier’s statements, it would certainly seem to be a house built on sand. Neither do I see any demonstration of the ethics and transparency from Mr. Frazier that is spoken about across your website. This is truly disturbing.

    Secondly, if I were any of the Fosamax plaintiff’s lawyers, I would be on these quotes and his actions and displayed temperament like bees on honey. It clearly shows that he has a complete lack of a sense of fairness or justice, that HE is in control and no one else, and that what happens to other people in or outside of the the legal realm, right or wrong, does not concern him one little bit.

    Now, I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that the words and deeds would certainly be useful to show a jury exactly what type of man is running Merck and how his public statements would certainly lend a lot of credibility to the statements that are NOT public when it comes to the appearance of a cover-up of wrong doing by your firm. His other related comments stating that there is no reason in looking at other facts regarding a very serious matter, there is no point in revisiting history, and that moving forward without actually ensuring he has the facts and the truth, all public, printed and recorded statements, would certainly bode well for the plaintiffs’ case as well.

    While I am not a direct shareholder, I do own several health care funds in my investment and retirement portfolios, of which Merck is among the top five holdings. Therefore, financially, it is in my own best interest to see Merck thrive and succeed. I must admit, after seeing and hearing how your current Chairman, CEO and President conducts himself in public forums, I am extremely concerned about the near term future of Merck.

    A man doesn’t change his stripes from one forum to another. He is what he is, and what Ken Frazier apparently really is, I want no part of as an investor or a consumer. I cannot trust your cooperate efforts if this man represents who you are as a company in word and deed.

    As members of the Board of a publicly traded company with duties to the shareholders and investors of your stock, I would certainly ask that you review these concerns and give due consideration to removing Mr. Keith Frazier from his post immediately for cause. At the very least you should require him to resign from any and all other Boards which do not apply directly to his responsibilities at Merck before he brings even more shame and embarrassment and potential financial loss.

    Thank you.

  • 89. Mark psu parent  |  March 17, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    I thought the BOT function is to be an advocate for the University no different than Frazier being an avocate for Merck. It seems that Frazier is hiding something because that can be the only explanation for his behavior. No was would he act this way for Merck, which was demonstrated by his defense of the indefensable vioxx.

  • 90.  |  March 17, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    How can there be any harm bringing Freeh, Thornburg AND Clemente to an open meeting before the board. It is important to add Clemente because he actually explains how this whole mess could have hapened.
    For Frazier an attorney to say “it doesn’t matter if they are acquitted by a real court we have found them guilty anyway” is absolutely the most despicable thing I can think of from an officer of the court. Please resign go defend your drug company.

  • 91. Rob Bowsher  |  March 17, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    At the very least, Penn State needs to remove Mr. Frazier from the search committee for its next president. Too often, people who have a hard time controlling their tempers hire other people who have a hard time controlling their tempers. The last thing Penn State needs now is a university president with anger management problems.

    Mr. Cluck, thank you for handling Mr. Frazier’s behavior the way you did at the committee meeting and thank you for talking on the phone with him today. Our alma mater can’t afford another outburst of this kind from Mr. Frazier or any other Board of Trustees member. We can only hope Mr. Frazier will carry himself in a much more professional manner at all future meetings that Penn State permits him to attend as one of its trustees.

  • 92. Jeff Roby, 1969  |  March 17, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    Another great job by the Penn Stater folks. I recall an interview with Peetz sometime back that generated over 500 comments, mostly against Peetz. This one already has over 90, none supporting Frazier. Other articles rarely generate any comments, or at most, one or two.

    I assume the actions of this board will generate many a Graduate Business School case study on incompetence and mishandling of a crisis. My feeling is that any second grade class in the country could have done a better job of this crisis than our BOT.

    And, I agree with a previous poster- if you are a Pennsylvania resident, write letters to your representatives. They need to take action to restructure the Penn State Board.

    If I were a PA rep (probably one reason I’m not), I’d consider my own nuclear option and threaten to totally defund the University until the 2011 BOT is gone.

  • 93. Liz Bligan  |  March 17, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Ken Frazier needs to go, no question. What’s interesting is that people are focusing on the racially offensive (not racist, but every bit as offensive) part of his comment, and not on the fact that, with his analogy to the OJ Simpson trial, Mr. Frazier declared Messrs. Curley, Schultz and Spanier guilty — whether or not they’re acquited. He absolutely declared the concept of due process — a profoundly important piece of our nation’s very foundation — as totally irrelevant. That’s simply astounding, that a CEO of a multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation can so blithely dismiss the importance of the presumption of innocence.

    Make no mistake, the entire BOT (except for the three new Alumni members) all believe that Freeh’s “evidence” proves that not only are Curley, Spanier and Schultz guilty, so is Joe. They believe that, I promise you. The lawyers on the BOT believe it, despite the fact that they should know better. They truly believe that, and they truly believe that what they’re doing is going to rescue Penn State from the “pedo state” taunts and the damaged reputation. They truly believe that Penn State, with their leadership, must accept every punishment meted out, to atone for the fact that Sandusky committed his crimes on our campus. Forget that he also committed his crimes in hotels, his own home, and in high schools — only Penn State is responsible. They believe this. That is why they must go.

  • 94. DLM  |  March 17, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    Frazier and OJ have two things in common – They are both liars and cowards.

  • 95. Rich L.  |  March 17, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    For the moment, I am speaking perhaps the only language the board will be able to hear — After donating to the library and the Four Diamonds fund for 25+ years (every single year since I graduated), last year was the first year I did NOT donate to Penn State. It pained me to do so, but I cannot think of a more effective way to hold them accountable and motivate the changes I desire.

  • 96. Rebecca Knowles, UM  |  March 17, 2013 at 11:37 pm

    What a treasure trove of material for undergrad/ grad training and research. PSU professors and students could perhaps make a difference on behalf of children, university governance, crisis management, and media responsibility by creating curricula and bodies of research dealing with the various aspects of the Sandusky case. For example, a relatively simple exercise of critically comparing the Freeh and Sollar reports could build skills in approach, analysis, exposition, and debate. And maybe the BoT would participate by providing your students insight into their thinking and their defenses of the positions they’ve taken throughout this mess!

  • 97. Richard  |  March 18, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Mr. Frazier is a disgrace to PennState. I will be writing to Merck.

  • 98. Deborah Beidel, Class of 1976  |  March 18, 2013 at 8:56 am

    When Penn State Trustee Ken Frazier uttered his infamous remark “If you cared about that, you are one of the few people in this country that looks like you who actually believes the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict was correct”, the entire scene was reminiscent of Spike Lee’s classic movie Do The Right Thing. Sal, the white pizza owner in racially diverse Bedford-Stuyvesant, chastises others for their racist attitudes, believing that he is superior to others in his community. Yet, when the heat is on, tensions are high and Sal is challenged by two black men as to why he does not have pictures of Malcom X and Martin Luther King next to Frank Sinatra, Sal’s racism breaks through – in a rain of vitriol accompanied by a baseball bat.

    Just as Sal’s racism was finally revealed, it appears that in the heat and strain of having to continuously defend a hopelessly flawed Freeh report, Mr. Frazier’s inner character was revealed. Having previously elevated himself as judge and jury regarding the fate of others, by his comment and despite his apology, Mr. Frazier has lost credibility and the ability to serve Penn State. As Mr. Frazier noted during that fateful March 14th meeting “There are no do overs.” The same standards Mr. Frazier applied to others must also apply to his behavior. It is time for Mr. Frazier to do the right thing and resign. He no longer has the credibility to serve as a Trustee.

  • 99. toneii  |  March 18, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    It is very well known that Joe made his own rules. Penn State tried to fire him for years for this reason, but he was too powerful. If you’re still trying to make him a hero in the wake of this incredible failure, you are sadly and pathetically deluded, and a shame to Penn State. If you stand up for the accomplish of a child rapist, who put his team ahead of the community’s children, you have no honor.

  • 100. Myke Triebold  |  March 18, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Penn State News and Information & 2013 Trustee Election.

  • 101. Bill Levinson PSU B.S. '78  |  March 18, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    “[Frazier] had referred to Bill Cluck ’82, who had questioned him, as “one of the few people in this country THAT LOOKS LIKE YOU who actually believes the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict was correct.””

    I do not believe that Frazier’s apology was sincere. He is sorry only that he got caught throwing a juvenile temper tantrum, complete with a derogatory statement about somebody else’s skin color, in public. This is not going to go away, and it (along with his contempt for due process) reflects on his fitness to be a Trustee of Penn State.

    By the way, I am somebody who “looks like Bill Cluck” who believes the OJ verdict was correct, noting loss of chain of custody of the Ford Bronco. I believe that Simpson did it, but not beyond the reasonable doubt that was introduced by the prosecution’s foul-ups.

  • 102. wlevinson  |  March 18, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Re: Bill Cluck

    “Ken Frazier just called and offered his heart felt apology. I accepted his apology.”

    (1) TOO LATE, CHUM. (Google on the origin of this phrase.)

    (2) In chess, you don’t get to take a losing move back.

    (3) He is sorry only that he got caught. Note that his apology was not accompanied by action, such as an apology for affirming the Freeh Report as he did last July (by saying the most powerful men at Penn State failed to protect children) and then immediately urging the rest of the Board to re-visit and reassess the Freeh Report’s quality. Which is trash, as Frazier would know if he had read it before he opened his pie hole last year.

    “We had a nice civil conversation and he even volunteered that I have his vote.” It’s a secret ballot; I am sure he will vote for his hand puppets Suhey and Deviney, and not somebody who wants to challenge the Freeh Report.

  • 103. Gary Tyler  |  March 18, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    First, please spell check your blogs. Afterall you have one of the best educations in the country! Second, That you would call anyone who has a history of decency like Mr. Paterno an accomplice is not fathomable!! The basis of our law and culture is that you are always innocent until proven guilty. The only person who was proven guilty here was the beast sandusky. he is where he belongs. If you didn’t know Joe (I did) and he wasn’t honestly tried by his peers then you probably need to examine your motives!!!!

  • 104. toneii  |  March 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Joe made his own rules. For example, from Wiki “Paterno believed that scholarship college athletes should receive a modest stipend, so that they have some spending money. As justification, Paterno pointed out that many scholarship athletes came from poor families and that other students had time to hold down a part-time job, whereas busy practice and conditioning schedules prevented college athletes from working during the school year.”

    In 1993, a Penn State football player told me that alumni backers would stuff crumpled up $100 bills in the tips of their shoes while the players were out on the field. This was unsolicited information and was told to me 20 years ago, WAY before there was any question about the integrity of Paterno. It wasn’t until the Sandusky story broke that I put two and two together, and realized that Joe made his own rules. He didn’t operate by the rules of the NCAA. If he didn’t like their rules, he broke them.

  • 105. wlevinson  |  March 18, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    Do you think that, if this is true, the players who got the money told Paterno???

  • 106. Anonymous  |  March 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    The story was told by a Penn State player I met; in the course of talking, we found out we had Penn State in common. He specifically said something to the effect of “you know I really loved playing for Penn State, but I have to tell you all that stuff that Joe talked was fake; he was really a ruthless, win at any cost kind of guy”, I said, “What do you mean?” He says, “Well, for example, we weren’t supposed to receive any money, but when we were out on the field, the alumni backers would sneak in to the locker room and cram hundred dollar bills in to the tips of our shoes.”

    So, yeah, the implication was specifically that this was instigated by Joe.

    Again, the guy brought this up specifically as an example of Joe’s true character in about 1992-3. While I went to Penn State, I didn’t pay much attention to football, and his story didn’t mean anything to me for the last 20 or so years. This this thing comes up in the news, and I go to the Wikipedia page on Joe, and there it is right there! The wiki page specifically mentions this payment controversy which was exactly what this guy was talking about.

    20 years later, I realized more astutely what that player meant.

  • 107. Gary Tyler  |  March 18, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    I am a former player and I challenge the veracity of your statement. You obviously don’t understand what this is all about. Joe’s commitment to honesty is unparalleled in the sport. As far as Joe trying to get a stipend for his and all other football players – that is a fact. Players are not allowed to participate in work study programs or have jobs while on scholarship during the school year. Poor students are placed at a disadvantage because of this, while their schools are making millions of dollars off of their labor. Your second hand statement shows how little you know about athletics and especially athletics at Penn State.

  • 108. wlevinson  |  March 18, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    How do the misdeeds of certain alumni, if they happen, show that Paterno knew about them??? Do you think they would have told him?

  • 109. Anonymous  |  March 18, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Frankly, I could care less what anyone thinks. I am just being honest about the whole experience. I find it more than ironic that the wikipedia article specifically mentions this controversy, and I have a memory of this guy telling me this 20 years ago, and 20 years later it all makes sense – what he said 20 years ago was true.

    And you guys try to treat him like some kind of mafia don – “you can’t prove anything”… just goes to further show the truth about the authoritarian, hero worship culture that surrounded him. It’s digusting, the loyalty to a man who was told of a child being raped and he literally “dropped the ball”.

    “oh – I didn’t understand it… I didn’t quite hear it…. I am too old to have heard of such a thing… I did my job…. “. Disgusting!

    Think about it – the man you speak kindly of – would have gotten to the bottom of it right then, if he had ever actually existed.

  • 110. Gary Tyler  |  March 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    Again you demonstrate your ignorance of what the stipend issue was all about. First you can’t believe anything on Wikipedia and second Joe has held that position since the early 70’s and he was open about it. Get your facts straight before you besmirch anyone’s reputation.

  • 111. Anonymous  |  March 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    What was the stipend issue all about then, Gary? What does Wiki have wrong?

  • 112. Gary Tyler  |  March 18, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    Poor kids in all sports women and men who can’t work making millions for universities. This has been an issue with the NCAA for decades.

  • 113. Steve '69 in VA  |  March 19, 2013 at 8:01 am

    I have read the Wikipedia article on JoePa and I find no mention of the “shoe stuffing” incident as mentioned here earlier. It does mention the “stipend issue” but I see no problem with that … I agree with JoePa on that issue … the schools and the NCAAsses are making a lot of $$$$$$$ what’s wrong with letting those that do the real work get some of it?

  • 114. Anonymous  |  March 19, 2013 at 8:38 am

    No one is contradicting that Joe had that opinion. The issue is whether NCAA rules were skirted in the “House of Joe”, and the only reason that is relevant, is because the statement was made that Joe made his own rules, and he did. This is why children were repeatedly raped in his facility. He handled things in-house. There was an incident with some players who beat someone up – they didn’t face the same rules as everyone else at the university, just Joe’s slap on the wrist.

  • 115. Lori Shontz  |  March 19, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Hi everyone — As always, we appreciate the energetic and robust discussion here. We did delete one comment because of language, however. You’re all welcome to continue the conversation, but please keep it civil. Thanks. Lori

  • 116. bobagain  |  March 19, 2013 at 10:24 am

    The Senate hearings on PSU BoT governance was fascinating yesterday. I watched the entire proceedings. The link is below. If you just want to see what Lubrano and ex-trustee Horst testified, fast forward to 127:52 and settle in and watch till completion. Both gentlemen did a real service to PSU yesterday. Horst is a very bright and dedicated man. And Lubrano is tireless and practical.

  • 117. Nancy Lash Freiermuth  |  March 19, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Thank you for this article & thank you to Mr Williams of the Alumni Association.. I had a couple of email exchanges with him regarding my reluctance to renew my alumni membership based on K Peetz article etc. I have sent my check and urge all other alumni to do the same. They deserve our support.
    If we could get the “Task Force” to see the error of their leadership and resign and the BOT to read the Paterno report and learn from it and denounce the Freeh report and stand up to the despicable sanctions, I feel we could move on but not before then. Truth and due process do matter.

  • 118. William A Levinson  |  March 19, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    “This is why children were repeatedly raped in his facility. He handled things in-house. There was an incident with some players who beat someone up – they didn’t face the same rules as everyone else at the university, just Joe’s slap on the wrist.” proves the writer to be a liar.

    The single rape of a child that was alleged to have taken place in the Lasch Building was never proven in court. The players who allegedly beat somebody up were dealt with by local law enforcement with no intervention on their behalf from Coach Paterno, who also imposed his own discipline on them. (In other words, even if law enforcement could not prosecute them, or they were acquitted, they got punishment an ordinary student would not have gotten.)

  • 119. toneii  |  March 19, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    What a wonderful legacy to lay on our collective university – “allegations that weren’t proven”… Never mind what was proven in court about the other allegations, never mind what the janitors saw…

    Joe took justice into his own hands, you just made that point.

    By that logic, when Joe saw that nothing happened to Jerry after what was reported, why didn’t he “impose his own discipline” in that instance?

    This denial is as sickening as Sandusky’s crimes.

  • 120. William A Levinson  |  March 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Re: #119 Joe had the right to impose administrative discipline on team members, such as suspension from games, extra drills, and so on, for misconduct. E.g. he didn’t have to go to a court to remove a player who was caught with alcohol in public, in violation of team rules.

  • 121. jeff grimm (BSCE 82, AFROTC)  |  March 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Re: #117. I’m sorry Nancy, but I have to disagree with you. The day after they fired Joe Paterno, the Official Alumni Association website had an official response saying that they supported the BOT and their actions. I don’t remember authorizing them to do that. So, in my book, the Alumni Association is NOT representative of the Alumni at all, but is merely another arm of the official Penn State Administrative Bureaucracy. The exact same bureaucracy that created this mess in the first place.

    I immediately resigned my lifetime membership, dumped my 30 year-long season tickets, my numbered reserved parking, my membership in the Nittany Lion Club and donating to anything but direct to student centered activities like THON and the Catholic Center. I don’t need my money laundered by the Alumni Association to do that, and I refuse to give them any official sanctioning by doing so. At its core, the Alumni Association is just another fundraising arm of the University.

    Sorry for the strong feelings, but a grievous and egregious wrong was committed by this institution on Joe Paterno, his legacy, and his family and good name, and until it is corrected, which I see absolutely no movement to do so, I will be sorrowfully remain a Penn State Alumni, but not a member of the Association or any other official organization of this pitiful excuse for a University.

    We were once all family, that is what made us special as Penn Staters. By throwing the patriarch of a lot of what was good about Penn State under the bus, and then backing up over him time and again, they have severed that relationship with me and m family completely and utterly.

  • 122. jeff grimm (BSCE 82, AFROTC)  |  March 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Sorry for the typos, but whenever I have to write about this, I seethe so much I don’t always catch everything…..

  • 123. bobagain  |  March 19, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    Jeff (122). This issue tears me up. My wife and I planned on retiring there in State with a home in Florda for a few months in winter. All three of my kids attend(ed) PSU and my wife and I were first generation college graduates. Between games and business visits, I am personally at PSU at least 8 times a year, some years more. Golly PSU means tons to us. My daughter was an officer of Thon, my son played a sport there and my third child is findeing her way through PSU now. We are Lifetime Members of the Alumni Association. I used to pull out that card with pride. Is it harder to do now (show the card), yes. We donate everywhere we can NLC, college specific, Thon, etc. I am confilicted. The Alumni Association for so many good reasons needs to be neutral. I can get that. Imagine the diverse interests and fanaticism the Association faces from course selections, narcissist agendas, personal agendas, attempting to do business with the univeristy, etc, etc. Roger has a difficult job. He really does. Personally, besides the Sandusky affair, the Alumni Assoication, in my view, does a good job promoting and offering worthwhile programs for Alumni (from trips, education, cultural events, etc. My wife and I attend several a year. We attended a Barnes Art exhibit recently in Philly and are attending the same program’s event in NYC with our PSU grad daughter (I believe in April). The list goes on. I guess what I am saying is I think we have a good Alumni Association. We also try to attend a couple local chapter events. With all of that said, I support PS4RS, as well; I think this BoT needs reforming and resign, and I know (without question) they royally screwed up. Sit and watch the Senate hearings from yesterday, here’s the link: If its tough to sit through Broadhurst, Masser and Lubert’s testimony, fast forward to 127:52 seconds into the testimony and watch Lubrano and Horst. Horst is methodical and tough to get through (as a layman) but he is one bright, passionate man who can help us see the problems with the BoT. Lubrano is doing everything we can hope for in an Alumni elected trustee. I am so impressed with his preparation, calm demeanor and abilty to get complicated points across in simple terms. That is a gift and we are lucky to have elected him. He mad a couple of subtkle comments (with humor) that were not easily picked uo by the Senate committee, but I bet when they review the notes, they will get them. BTW, I was expecting not to be impressed with the Senate Committee. I was wrong. Here is my other point: I want to “not give money” to Alimni Association, just like you; believe me.
    But two things will keep me donating my paltry “sums” compared to “some”.
    1. My wife will not let me “not give”. She is smarter than me.
    2. And the Alumni Association needs to keep supporting Alumni functions and Alumni strength. We Are..

    Now for my Alumni Magazine/Association slam…where in the heck is the good reprting on the Senate hearing yesterday? I will apologize if I missed it. You should be there with full accurate reporting. This is an Alumni issue!

    In advance, sorry for any typos…

  • 124. Perry Bevivino (@jpbevivino)  |  March 20, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Turns out one of the positive outcomes of this whole mess is that we exposed the BOT in place when this started as totally incompetent.

  • 125. BunRab  |  March 20, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Frazier has to go. You just don’t come back from chairing a committee responsible for the Freeh debacle and compounding that with bullying and racist remarks. Why hasn’t he resigned?

    As reported on the notpsu website by Alice Pope, who attended the Senate hearings, Senator Folmer asked the BOT this question:

    “The alumni seem very angry. Why is that? What are you doing about that?”

    Broadhurst, after a long pause acknowledged that it was a good question and said the BOT wanted to move on but they have difficult decisions to make, are criticized for doing their best, but want to be responsive. Note that he never answered Senator Folmer’s first question regarding the source of alumni anger. Lubert chimed in and pointed to BOT public comment sessions, attendance at committee meetings, and a new website with progress updates (which website version is this since transparency promises were made back in early 2012?) as evidence of BOT responsiveness to alumni concerns.

    I think Senator Folmer deserves an answer to his question. It is clear the BOTs can’t or won’t respond. I think the alums would welcome the opportunity to make a record for the Pennsylvania Senate if someone could set up an easy to use site for responses.This would be something the Alumni Association could do for us, but they won’t, because they are seemingly terrified of offending the BOTs who have already done incalculable harm to a great university and continue to do so.

  • 126. bobagain  |  March 20, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    I agree with you on all points regarding the BoT, thier actions, etc. Here is where I differ: its on the Alumni Association. They should not take a stand on one side or another, or express any opinbion. As much as that pains me to say, that is what I believe, even if the major majority wants them to do so (and I bet emotionally and factually regarding the case the Alumni would like their association to take an aggressive stand). See my earlier post, please, complete with typos.

    We are not a an association that lobbies congress (in this case the BoT) because we are backed by a particular interest group; we are an association that provides alumni with many other things/opportunities. And a proud, educated, socially aware group.

    Here is where I am impressed with our Alumni Association: They are providing an avenue (ie: this blog) to air our anger, analysis, etc. I am just happy and impressed that our Association has the courage to allow this. I do not believe (I may be wrong) that smaller or private schools would have an association as “public” as our. And by the way, I am not a shill for the association. And I bet our Association, in a private manner, allows the board to see where we stand.

  • 127. Doug Robb  |  July 4, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    It is clear from this report that Broadhurst, Frazier, Masser and others are co-conspirators on a corrupt and incompetent board of trustees which lack the integrity and.responsibility to address issues like the fraudulent Freeh report properly. Even Freeh’s own investigators agree the report should have never been used by the NCAA in determining the case against Penn State in levying the sanctions. For Frazier to continue to support the obviously flawed Freeh report is clear evidence that he and Broadhurst are no longer fit to serve on the PS BoT. They must both resign immediately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Follow The Penn Stater on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow us and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 515 other followers

%d bloggers like this: