Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I had never heard of Bob Horst before, but I like him.
The article by Leto in 2002 is also definitely worth a read.
Trustee Elections Hijacked by Multi-Billion-Dollar Insurance Company [PMA]
By Justin Leto, 5/2/2002 | http://voicesweb.org/archive/pe/trustee0502.html
Besides the investigation in 1996, calls for reform have largely gone unanswered. After persistent inquiries from Robert Horst, former Chairman Junker eventually replied: “I will not respond again to further correspondence from you on this subject.”
Old Main has maintained silence on the matter as well. Officials declined an invitation to respond to Horst’s March 17th CDT editorial. Likewise, Penn State spokesman, Tyson Kendig, declined an invitation from Voices to comment on the specific allegations, but maintained that, “Penn State’s trustee election process is held up as a model for universities across the country.”
Bob Horst has been submitting editorials since long before 2011. He wrote one in March 2002 and another in February 2003 on the topics of BOT governance and the Business & Industry trustee elections. Neither are readily accessible on the web anymore (that I could find) but I did save one, included below. The article by Leto in 2002 is also definitely worth a read.
----- By Justin Leto, 5/2/2002
Trustee Elections Hijacked by Multi-Billion-Dollar Insurance Company [PMA]
http://voicesweb.org/archive/pe/trustee0502.html
Snipped from the end of the article:
Besides the investigation in 1996, calls for reform have largely gone unanswered. After persistent inquiries from Robert Horst, former Chairman Junker eventually replied: “I will not respond again to further correspondence from you on this subject.”
Old Main has maintained silence on the matter as well. Officials declined an invitation to respond to Horst’s March 17th CDT editorial. Likewise, Penn State spokesman, Tyson Kendig, declined an invitation from Voices to comment on the specific allegations, but maintained that, “Penn State’s trustee election process is held up as a model for universities across the country.”
----- Robert Horst, 2/21/2003
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/...013336/penn-states-trustee-coup-reflects.html
(no longer available on webarchive for some reason; a copy is provided below)
PENN STATE'S TRUSTEE COUP REFLECTS A DEEPER CRISIS
By Robert L. Horst
February 21, 2003
All engineers and industrial professionals in Pennsylvania take notice. You have been snookered by a coup in the boardroom at Penn State. When the school was established as a land-grant college in 1862, its mission was to teach "agriculture and the mechanic arts." The governing board was expanded in 1875, adding trustees from engineering societies to those from agricultural societies to reflect this founding mission of Penn State. Now, engineers and practitioners of the mechanic arts have been amended out of the Penn State charter as the electors of six "industrial" trustees on the 32-member university governing board. It is a coup because it was spearheaded by trustees who occupy ill-gotten industrial trusteeships and who have now assured their own re election. Note that an analogous election process for the six "agricultural" trustees by delegates from agricultural societies remains unchanged by the amendment. E.R. "Ed" Hintz Jr., the current board chairman, and E.P. "Ted" Junker III, the previous chairman, hold seats that were hijacked from the designated engineering and industrial constituencies, using delegates who were employees of PMA Capital Insurance, a public corporation with which the university has had a long-term, multimillion dollar business relationship, and State College residents who were recruited by PMA. (See CDT, March 16, 2002, or www.centredaily.com/archives.) Frederick W. Anton III, chairman of PMA Capital Corp., has assisted Penn State in facilitating elections of industrial trustees for over two decades. Some have called him the 33rd trustee.
Both Hintz and Junker — and the other four industrial trustees — have now guaranteed their positions as brokers in a power bloc of trustees that has controlled the governance of Penn State in recent years. There is no further need for contrived elections. The stealth maneuver is revealed on the university Web site (www.psu.edu/trustees) in recently posted minutes of the Nov. 22, 2002, board meeting. The coup was accomplished by amending the charter to eliminate the election of six trustees by engineering, mining, manufacturing, and mechanical delegates, and replace that process with a "selection group" of board members who will recommend trustee candidates from business and industry. The selection group is a five-member subset of the current board, and three of the five will be industrial trustees. Such apostolic-like succession ensures that all future trustees from business and industry will be tainted because of the actions of their predecessors who will have ordained them. Those to be selected for 2003 will be confirmed by the total board at the May 16 meeting at University Park. While it may be perfectly acceptable and legal to amend the charter, doing it quietly and without the usual public relations fanfare begs the question on what other shenanigans or crises are under cover. The process that improperly assigned the industrial trustee seats to non-industrial benefactors ostensibly began in 1986. Even after the scam was discovered, documented and reported to the board and university President Graham B. Spanier in 1996, the cover-up and stonewalling continued for another six years. Changing the charter is a big deal. In the past, suggesting a change to the 1855 school charter was considered almost sacrilegious, and there had been no amendments to it for the last 40 years. The first amendment in 1862 changed the school name to The Agricultural College of Pennsylvania, and there had been only a dozen amendments since then. I suspect that Hintz and Junker will attempt to put a ribbon on their successful coup by nominating their chief benefactor for a prestigious university award, such as honorary alumnus.
Now, the unethical and, I believe, illegal process that rewarded selected benefactors with trusteeships under the guise of a publicly-exhibited democratic election has been codified. The selection process will continue, but there will be no more fake and contrived balloting by delegates. A shameful chapter in Penn State governance is now history. But the environment and principals that permitted it are still active. The deeper crisis continues. The university will soon celebrate its $1.3-billion Grand Destiny capital campaign. Let all residents of the commonwealth ask what will Penn State's "Final Destiny" goal be as a "molder of men and women" — students, alumni, and future trustees with exemplary character and integrity. The Penn State alma mater states it best: "May no act of ours bring shame."
Bob Horst, of Lancaster, served as Penn State trustee from 1992 to 1995.
----- Opinion by Robert Horst, 12/4/2011
Former Penn State trustee: change should start at the top
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/12/former_penn_state_trustee_chan.html
To be fair, Hintz is one of the biggest donors to PSU.Hintz's name needs to come off a certain building after the damage he has done to PSU.
To be fair, Hintz is one of the biggest donors to PSU.
Seems plausible, but I still want to know whose idea it was to exclude the coverage in the first place, and an explanation of how that just happened.Demlion
The only thing I would point out is that Sandusky got clearance in 1998 from state agencies and the DA. Also, it would have been known about the retirement agreement with access to the campus given to Sandusky. If there was suspicion, 1998 knowledge could have helped to put that to rest. However, if there was suspicion, then you would think the retirement agreement would have continued that clause. I think Sandusky fooled everyone.
So.To be fair, Hintz is one of the biggest donors to PSU.
I guess I would still like to know whether any other major University ever had such an exclusion in their insurance policy in the 90s. The 50s? Okay, the whole society was in denial about this in the 50s. Nobody could be in denial in the 90s, could they? I mean, in terms of insuring for possible risks.Demlion
The only thing I would point out is that Sandusky got clearance in 1998 from state agencies and the DA. Also, it would have been known about the retirement agreement with access to the campus given to Sandusky. If there was suspicion, 1998 knowledge could have helped to put that to rest. However, if there was suspicion, then you would think the retirement agreement would have continued that clause. I think Sandusky fooled everyone.
^^ You're asking all the right questions, @demlion. Paging @rmb297 and @JmmyW for additional insight and clarification.I am going to try to shorthand this, simply because I suspect there is something I have wrong here. PMA, which has been for decades PSU's insurer, ALSO had a direct hand in selecting the B&I trustees who ran the University for decades. And these were the same decades, am I right about that?
Specifically, did we not find out a few weeks ago in the PMA vs. PSU case that from 92-99 there was an exclusion in place which meant that PSU was not covered for on campus child sex abuse during those years? Did the PMA-selected trustees during those years know about Sandusky? Did they exclude the coverage in order to limit PMA's exposure? Is it mere coincidence that the exclusion ended with the retirement of Jerry Sandusky?
Setting aside all other considerations, I cannot imagine why, during the 90s, a time when the President of the United States was accused of various forms of sexual harassment and abuse, a giant org like PSU willfully excludes from its liability coverage any claims for sex-related anything. I have never known of such an exclusion. Jerry Sandusky or no, you have no coverage if a grad assistant successfully hits on a 17 yo student? If a branch campus teacher hits on a 15 yo summer student? No coverage? That alone seems to be a negligent failure by the trustees to protect the assets of the University.
But if the PMA-selected trustees did not know about Jerry, then why did the exclusion end when he retired?
IF the PMA-selected trustees warned PMA about the risk of Jerry, and played along while PMA cut out the coverage, then they sold the University down the river, selecting the interests of their PMA backers over the interests of the University. I have always felt there were lots of people on the BoT who knew more about this than Joe did.
Kudos to Horst for fighting his lonely fight years ago. It did not work. Seems impossible to assume it could.
I could make lots of money in the insurance business if I had advance knowledge of where to find the risks and exclude them.
Why does PSU have the same risk insurer for all this time? How many times has this insurance business been sent out for bid since PMA became the insurer. Were there other times when oddball insurance exclusions popped up and PSU paid the claims itself? Another question: what was the premium paid to reinstate the coverage after Jerry retired?
Disclaimer--what I have written here is incendiary, I know. As I indicated, I may have the facts wrong. Happy to have that pointed out if it is true.
Thanks ChiTown. I look forward to seeing any clarification Jimmy/Ray can provide. The power bloc has woven a pretty tangled web here. Does not mean we are going to be stopped from untangling it.^^ You're asking all the right questions, @demlion. Paging @rmb297 and @JmmyW for additional insight and clarification.
ANOTHER under-the-radar fact: When the Big Ten Network launched in 2006, a five-person BTN Board of Directors was quietly announced:
- Big Ten President Jim Delany
- Fox Sports Chief Operating Officer Randy Freer
- Fox Sports President Bob Thompson
- New York Mets Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board Fred Wilpon
- Former Chairman of the Penn State Board of Trustees Ted Junker
There's your under-the-radar direct line of communication between the PSU BOT and Jim Delany.
Things that make ya go hmmmm....
cc: @Zenophile @Nellie R @Frank Sheeran
While I agree with most of your points and you raise some important questions, I'll point out that I don't think our society was quite as sue-happy in the 1990s as they are today. That might be a reason for the coverage as it was--they didn't think they needed it. Wrongly, as it turns out, but that is hindsight.I am going to try to shorthand this, simply because I suspect there is something I have wrong here. PMA, which has been for decades PSU's insurer, ALSO had a direct hand in selecting the B&I trustees who ran the University for decades. And these were the same decades, am I right about that?
Specifically, did we not find out a few weeks ago in the PMA vs. PSU case that from 92-99 there was an exclusion in place which meant that PSU was not covered for on campus child sex abuse during those years? Did the PMA-selected trustees during those years know about Sandusky? Did they exclude the coverage in order to limit PMA's exposure? Is it mere coincidence that the exclusion ended with the retirement of Jerry Sandusky?
Setting aside all other considerations, I cannot imagine why, during the 90s, a time when the President of the United States was accused of various forms of sexual harassment and abuse, a giant org like PSU willfully excludes from its liability coverage any claims for sex-related anything. I have never known of such an exclusion. Jerry Sandusky or no, you have no coverage if a grad assistant successfully hits on a 17 yo student? If a branch campus teacher hits on a 15 yo summer student? No coverage? That alone seems to be a negligent failure by the trustees to protect the assets of the University.
But if the PMA-selected trustees did not know about Jerry, then why did the exclusion end when he retired?
IF the PMA-selected trustees warned PMA about the risk of Jerry, and played along while PMA cut out the coverage, then they sold the University down the river, selecting the interests of their PMA backers over the interests of the University. I have always felt there were lots of people on the BoT who knew more about this than Joe did.
Kudos to Horst for fighting his lonely fight years ago. It did not work. Seems impossible to assume it could.
I could make lots of money in the insurance business if I had advance knowledge of where to find the risks and exclude them.
Why does PSU have the same risk insurer for all this time? How many times has this insurance business been sent out for bid since PMA became the insurer. Were there other times when oddball insurance exclusions popped up and PSU paid the claims itself? Another question: what was the premium paid to reinstate the coverage after Jerry retired?
Disclaimer--what I have written here is incendiary, I know. As I indicated, I may have the facts wrong. Happy to have that pointed out if it is true.
While I agree with most of your points and you raise some important questions, I'll point out that I don't think our society was quite as sue-happy in the 1990s as they are today. That might be a reason for the coverage as it was--they didn't think they needed it. Wrongly, as it turns out, but that is hindsight.
First, they had the coverage before that time, then there was an exclusion written. The first Catholic Church CSA lawsuits in PA were filed I think in 1987 in, of all places, the Altoona Diocese.
Second, I think you will find there was plenty of litigation in the 1990s. Plenty. Indeed what is the purpose of having an insurance company exclude a risk if you are not worried that PSU might be sued as a result of the risk?
Pitt and Temple would be an excellent place to begin our search for Universities which had exclusions in their insurance policies for CSA in the 1990s. Would also be interesting to know if Temple's Board's insurance company had exclusions for Board members drugging and raping employees.So, PMA "appoints" BOT members, who in turn buy multiple insurance plans from PMA? Can Sen. Yudichak, in his oversight capacity of state related schools and charter reform, compare similar policies and premiums through the last 20 years with Temple and Pitt to see if our BOT where exercising their fiduciary responsibility or more likely involved in............mischief.
Sen. Yudichak..........I know it is not politically expedient, but please dissolve the 1855 charter that was amended last in 1862 and start over with a new cast of characters. This experiment has failed!
As I recall, litigation became more prevalent in the 70s because every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to be a lawyer. IIRC, law school also provided a military deferment beyond college (ahem, Vietnam) but I may be wrong about that. Result, way too many lawyers needing to earn a buck. Also, IIRC, the 70s was when lawyers began advertising, a practice considered well below the vaunted esteem of the lawyer. The demand for law school acceptance was so great that students in my area who didn't get into Villanova, Penn or Temple, opted for Widener which was unaccredited at that time. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the deferments.First, they had the coverage before that time, then there was an exclusion written. The first Catholic Church CSA lawsuits in PA were filed I think in 1987 in, of all places, the Altoona Diocese.
Second, I think you will find there was plenty of litigation in the 1990s. Plenty. Indeed what is the purpose of having an insurance company exclude a risk if you are not worried that PSU might be sued as a result of the risk?
Pitt and Temple would be an excellent place to begin our search for Universities which had exclusions in their insurance policies for CSA in the 1990s. Would also be interesting to know if Temple's Board's insurance company had exclusions for Board members drugging and raping employees.
Btw, not only did PMA appoint them, but somehow PMA Insurance managed to have exclusions in place for the last 8 years Jerry was employed. A remarkable coincidence, give what later turned out to be going on.
Scares me, too. The suggestion that this was a systematic effort is truly frightening, especially when I reflect that I gave these people one of my kids and a lot of my money for 4 years.This stuff scares me as an alum because logic swings Sandusky back to a character being protected which then begs the question why and by whom?
Scares me, too. The suggestion that this was a systematic effort is truly frightening, especially when I reflect that I gave these people one of my kids and a lot of my money for 4 years.
The truth can certainly scare us, and maybe more than that. But remember, in terms of money Sandusky was protected anyway, since if PMA did not pay, PSU would. I would love to see the documents regarding the decision to exclude coverage, both from the insurer's side and the University's side. And also the docs regarding both PMA's and PSU's decision to cancel the exclusion.
"HE" did it? How about Sandusky and the administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?To be fair, Hintz doesn't come remotely close to the half a billion plus he's cost the university, nor the damage to its good will and reputation.
Press release 06-01-2016:"HE" did it? How about Sandusky and the administrators
who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?
Didn't the PROS handle 1998? Of course the PROS also handled the AF affair. It took them more than 3 years and then they still screwed it up. Maybe the PROS that the auditor general exposed as not answering the phone much of the time. God what an idiot.getmyjive said, "'HE'" did it? How about Sandusky and the administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?"
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or don't you have the capacity to understand simple facts? "... administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?" Really? Notifying the PROS at TSM wasn't enough?
I'm deliberately saying that Sandusky and the Administrators screwed us. The Pros at investigating these claims were the police. If they went to the police and let them figure it out, PSU would be fine right now.getmyjive said, "'HE'" did it? How about Sandusky and the administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?"
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or don't you have the capacity to understand simple facts? "... administrators who decided not to let the pros handle the situation?" Really? Notifying the PROS at TSM wasn't enough?
You are wrong wrong wrong.I'm deliberately saying that Sandusky and the Administrators screwed us. The Pros at investigating these claims were the police. If they went to the police and let them figure it out, PSU would be fine right now.
Yeah, the police figured it out in 98. Maybe we needed the PSP that lied under oath at the JS trial. Or the one who thought the back up QB was one of Sandusky's abused kids. If not for one of the mothers.........I'm not sure the police found a victim. Ray can clarify that.I'm deliberately saying that Sandusky and the Administrators screwed us. The Pros at investigating these claims were the police. If they went to the police and let them figure it out, PSU would be fine right now.
Yup. Just like we'd be fine if they had only called ChildLine.I'm deliberately saying that Sandusky and the Administrators screwed us. The Pros at investigating these claims were the police. If they went to the police and let them figure it out, PSU would be fine right now.
To getmyjive's point: how closely do you expect Joe Paterno was to selecting what sorts of incidents would nd would not be insured in 1992? I daresay that was likely out of Tim Curley's league as well. You've told us whose job it was to keep Jerry away from kids in 2001. Whose job was it to make sure PSU had coverage if there was child sexual abuse on campus from 92-99?
Who was the University's risk-management person in 1992-1999? You know, the guy (?) who reviews the risks PSU must shoulder vs the risks covered by insurance?