PSU/Old Guard Trustee's Response to Alumni Trustees Filing

[BlueBand]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. PSU is arguing that they didn't want to give the alumni trustees full access to the Freeh files, but the judge ruled against PSU, but PSU believes the judge was wrong, so PSU doesn't want to pay alum trustees legal fees?

That's not what they're arguing, if I'm reading this correctly. The university is saying that they offered to give the alumni trustees access to the documents, if they signed a confidentiality agreement. In the end, the court agreed that the trustees have access but required a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, since the court ruling was in essence what PSU offered in the first place, they shouldn't have to pay legal fees. Which does make some sense.

However, I'm not sure that 1.) the university was so willing to let them see the documents in the beginning, in which case legal fees were incurred fighting that, and 2.) if the confidentiality agreement is substantially different than what PSU offered. I do seem to recall all sorts of rules the university wanted to place on them, like where and when they could review, if counsel could review, etc. Either of those changes the argument in favor of the trustees in my mind.

I don't have enough knowledge on all of the prior rulings, but this is how I'm reading this latest filing.

 

[lubrano]

Plaintiff's lawyers didn't need the Freeh report to establish a case against PSU. Do you actually believe that plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have sued the university if the Freeh report was sympathetic to PSU and its administrators? For Christ's sake there were criminal indictments by the State Attorney General's Office of PSU administrators, investigations by the DOE, and the trial and conviction of Jerry Sandusky before the report was even issued. The Freeh report did little more than confirm what had already been established by other independent parties. If the dissidents wanted to sue someone, they should have sued Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Sandusky in a civil action, not PSU for something that the Board determined wasn't pressing business.

Further, the dissidents were offered access to the names and responses of the more than 300 people interviewed by FSS if they would sign a confidentiality agreement. They refused and the court would later affirm PSU's position that a confidentiality agreement be signed before viewing the work product.

I am disappointed that you continue to regurgitate that nonsense. Frankly, I thought I set the record straight with you last November.

 

[marshall23]

I am disappointed that you continue to regurgitate that nonsense. Frankly, I thought I set the record straight with you last November.

In fairness to CR its not like he has a lot to work with.

 

[PSUSignore]

That's not what they're arguing, if I'm reading this correctly. The university is saying that they offered to give the alumni trustees access to the documents, if they signed a confidentiality agreement. In the end, the court agreed that the trustees have access but required a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, since the court ruling was in essence what PSU offered in the first place, they shouldn't have to pay legal fees. Which does make some sense.

Except the OG BOT's offer for access had another condition in addition to the confidentiality agreement... redactions of the names of those interviewed. The alumni trustees wisely said thanks but no thanks. The court ruling granted access, without any redactions. So going to court was necessary in order for the alumni trustees to get what they asked for, and what they are entitled to as part of their role on the BOT.

 

[BlueBand]

If the dissidents wanted to sue someone, they should have sued Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Sandusky in a civil action, not PSU for something that the Board determined wasn't pressing business.

Just because the Chair of the BOT and a few of his cronies doesn't think something is pressing business, doesn't mean it isn't. He could be wrong, let alone, in this situation, hiding something.

But forget that. And forget that this has cost the university hundreds of millions in legal fees, settlements, lost football revenue, fines, etc. for something that has still not been determined in a court of law that PSU was solely responsible for. Forget that this has put a huge black eye on the university that still exists, despite everyone being urged to move on. A reputation hit that can cost millions to fix.

IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, then consider this: you have an obviously fractured alumni base. This affects fundraising among other things important to the university, who has always prided itself on having a highly supportive and mostly unified group. It's not getting better, people are not moving on. If the documents will prove to everyone that Joe and C/S/S were involved and were rightly terminated, and that other parties were not to blame, then why not tell the alumni trustees to have at it? Let them go through the documents and report back that PSU officials screwed up and should be held accountable. Hell, since we're all about transparency, publish them online for everyone to see. Redact names when necessary to protect confidential sources, and if you need to hold back some documents, fine but let the trustees review them and tell everyone there's nothing there that exonerates PSU.

Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it leads to lots of conspiracy theories... some of which just may be true. It would seem to me that in order to move on, a significant number of alumni need to know what happened, and will take their lumps as need be, if need be. And THAT, because it affects fundraising and alumni relations, is pressing business.

 

[canuckhal]

That's not what they're arguing, if I'm reading this correctly. The university is saying that they offered to give the alumni trustees access to the documents, if they signed a confidentiality agreement. In the end, the court agreed that the trustees have access but required a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, since the court ruling was in essence what PSU offered in the first place, they shouldn't have to pay legal fees. Which does make some sense.

However, I'm not sure that 1.) the university was so willing to let them see the documents in the beginning, in which case legal fees were incurred fighting that, and 2.) if the confidentiality agreement is substantially different than what PSU offered. I do seem to recall all sorts of rules the university wanted to place on them, like where and when they could review, if counsel could review, etc. Either of those changes the argument in favor of the trustees in my mind.

I don't have enough knowledge on all of the prior rulings, but this is how I'm reading this latest filing.

Sounds to me that your interpretation is pretty close to mine, with a few minor edits. Instead of judge being wrong, PSU believes the judge actually agreed with them.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

I am disappointed that you continue to regurgitate that nonsense. Frankly, I thought I set the record straight with you last November.

I am disappointed that you continue to regurgitate that nonsense. Frankly, I thought I set the record straight with you last November.

Please remember CR is a BOT sycophant. That explains all.

 

[BlueBand]

Except the OG BOT's offer for access had another condition in addition to the confidentiality agreement... redactions of the names of those interviewed. The alumni trustees wisely said thanks but no thanks. The court ruling granted access, without any redactions. So going to court was necessary in order for the alumni trustees to get what they asked for, and what they are entitled to as part of their role on the BOT.

Which is why I said after the section you quoted that I thought there were other issues involved, and that changes the equation in my mind. But I wasn't 100% familiar with them.

 

[PennSt8er]

Apparently it's lost on CR66 that when freeh was commissioned JS had only been indicted and not even convicted of anything yet (same with C/S). The OAG at the time even stated their dismay at how PSU treated Joe, one of their PROSECUTION WITNESSES, whom they said had been truthful and cooperative with them...also when commissioned, freeh was asked to find how the PSU failures occurred not IF any PSU failures occurred.....hmmm...that's quite presumptuous isn't it??

Now with the serious charges against the admins being quashed, freeh's conclusions (which he reached without subpoena power or talking with any of the key players mind you) don't even line up with what the PA judiciary is saying or what Fina himself said in the interview here he admitted he found no evidence of a cover up by Joe.....oopsies!!

The situation PSU finds itself in now is EXACTLY the reason why you wait for due process to run it's course before throwing your own employees and legendary coach under the bus and paying out tens of millions of dollars for settlements based on an inaccurate and incomplete report.

The OGBOT/Freeh/NCAA/Fina/Corbett/Baldwin/et al. are going to be in a world of hurt once all the lawsuits are done.

^what he said

 

[StinkStankStunk]

That's not what they're arguing, if I'm reading this correctly. The university is saying that they offered to give the alumni trustees access to the documents, if they signed a confidentiality agreement. In the end, the court agreed that the trustees have access but required a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, since the court ruling was in essence what PSU offered in the first place, they shouldn't have to pay legal fees. Which does make some sense.

However, I'm not sure that 1.) the university was so willing to let them see the documents in the beginning, in which case legal fees were incurred fighting that, and 2.) if the confidentiality agreement is substantially different than what PSU offered. I do seem to recall all sorts of rules the university wanted to place on them, like where and when they could review, if counsel could review, etc. Either of those changes the argument in favor of the trustees in my mind.

I don't have enough knowledge on all of the prior rulings, but this is how I'm reading this latest filing.

Xxx

 

[m.knox]

Wow, they will go to great lengths to protect the Triponey Report. I guarantee that c-word is 80% of the report..... all because a football coach told her she was wrong.....

 

[marshall23]

I recall rumors of athletic department employees feeling intimidated and threatened during the Freeh Inquisition. Perhaps the fear of those tactics being revealed lurks as well.

 

[Lionfan01]

Plaintiff's lawyers didn't need the Freeh report to establish a case against PSU. Do you actually believe that plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have sued the university if the Freeh report was sympathetic to PSU and its administrators? For Christ's sake there were criminal indictments by the State Attorney General's Office of PSU administrators, investigations by the DOE, and the trial and conviction of Jerry Sandusky before the report was even issued. The Freeh report did little more than confirm what had already been established by other independent parties. If the dissidents wanted to sue someone, they should have sued Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Sandusky in a civil action, not PSU for something that the Board determined wasn't pressing business.

Further, the dissidents were offered access to the names and responses of the more than 300 people interviewed by FSS if they would sign a confidentiality agreement. They refused and the court would later affirm PSU's position that a confidentiality agreement be signed before viewing the work product.

Didn't Dr. Barron just drop half a million on this? Why does it not apply to the BOT?

INTEGRITY: We act with integrity and honesty in accordance with the highest academic, professional, and ethical standards.

RESPECT: We respect and honor the dignity of each person, embrace civil discourse, and foster a diverse and inclusive community.

RESPONSIBILITY: We act responsibly, and we are accountable for our decisions, actions, and their consequences.

DISCOVERY: We seek and create new knowledge and understanding, and foster creativity and innovation, for the benefit of our communities, society, and the environment.

EXCELLENCE: We strive for excellence in all our endeavors as individuals, an institution, and a leader in higher education.

COMMUNITY: We work together for the betterment of our University, the communities we serve, and the world.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Plaintiff's lawyers didn't need the Freeh report to establish a case against PSU. Do you actually believe that plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have sued the university if the Freeh report was sympathetic to PSU and its administrators? For Christ's sake there were criminal indictments by the State Attorney General's Office of PSU administrators, investigations by the DOE, and the trial and conviction of Jerry Sandusky before the report was even issued. The Freeh report did little more than confirm what had already been established by other independent parties. If the dissidents wanted to sue someone, they should have sued Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Sandusky in a civil action, not PSU for something that the Board determined wasn't pressing business.

Further, the dissidents were offered access to the names and responses of the more than 300 people interviewed by FSS if they would sign a confidentiality agreement. They refused and the court would later affirm PSU's position that a confidentiality agreement be signed before viewing the work product.

CR 66 you know very well that the issue was access to UNREDACTED source materials. The confidentiality agreement was a separate issue. The fact that you continue to lie on this issue indicates how indefensible your position is.

 

[psu00]

Didn't Barron just write a letter saying the opposite. We need to let due process through the courts run its course before honoring Joe, and even mentioning C/S/S?

That's Barron and BoT logic for you.

Sooooooo...........we need due process before we will honor or even mention certain people. However, we DON'T need due process if we want to condemn those same people.

I never realized due process was just a 1 way street. It's needed to exonerate people but not needed to condemn them from unproven charges.

Only at Penn State...........

 

[chizco]

Please remember CR is a BOT sycophant. That explains all.

I think seeing Aunt Karen in that leather corset would also help explain CR's mindset.

 

[Aoshiro]

CR 66 you know very well that the issue was access to UNREDACTED source materials. The confidentiality agreement was a separate issue. The fact that you continue to lie on this issue indicates how indefensible your position is.

Sort of. As I recall, the "confidentiality agreement*" that the university was insisting that the alumni trustees sign included a clause saying that the trustees agreed to the provision that all interviewee names would be redacted. The university attorneys knew full well that the alumni trustees would not agree to that, so they used it as a pretense to endlessly bitch about the alumni trustees refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement. It was a charade and it's one that CR66 still refuses to give up, even after the judge said that the university had no right to do that. AFAIK, from the outset the alumni trustees agreed to sign what any normal person would consider a normal confidentiality agreement.

*When Penn State's attorneys use the term "confidentiality agreement" doesn't really mean "confidentiality agreement." It means "we agree to let you redact a bunch of stuff from these documents before we can see them agreement."

 

[psu00]

That's not what they're arguing, if I'm reading this correctly. The university is saying that they offered to give the alumni trustees access to the documents, if they signed a confidentiality agreement. In the end, the court agreed that the trustees have access but required a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, since the court ruling was in essence what PSU offered in the first place, they shouldn't have to pay legal fees. Which does make some sense.

However, I'm not sure that 1.) the university was so willing to let them see the documents in the beginning, in which case legal fees were incurred fighting that, and 2.) if the confidentiality agreement is substantially different than what PSU offered. I do seem to recall all sorts of rules the university wanted to place on them, like where and when they could review, if counsel could review, etc. Either of those changes the argument in favor of the trustees in my mind.

I don't have enough knowledge on all of the prior rulings, but this is how I'm reading this latest filing.

Problem is that what the court ruled is NOT what the BoT offered. The confidentiality issue was a red herring as the alumni reps agreed to it from the beginning (which was a mistake that will cause fallout later IMO but I digress ).

What the BoT offered was redacted documents so the alumni reps couldn't tell who said what and thus not weigh them properly. Alumni reps wanted unredacted. The judge ruled for unredacted.

So if everyone in the AD and Old Main (say 50 people) said 'X' was true but only Tripponey said 'Y' was true and the Freeh report said 'Y' then it's a big deal. Especially when you factor in Tripponey's well known antipathy for Paterno and aggressive behavior leading to her being removed (IIRC) at UConn and PSU. Context is very key- especially when there are people with agendas involved.

What if we find out that the criticism of Curley and Schultz came from Erickson (who reportedly said Curley was Paterno's lapdog or a similar phrase). Or that the claim the football program was 'too big and influential' came from Erickson (who is apparently on record saying he wanted football downsized) and Peetz (who thought it took away from her field hockey which she considered just as important). Or that the remaining evidence for Freeh was from Tripponey.........it changes everything. If you don't allow the alumni reps to see who said what it kills any fair review.

Also, let's not forget that Freeh would not allow interviewees to have a lawyer present, they could not record the interview or get (and approve) notes of their interview. If they didn't agree to this they could/ would be fired. Freeh's people have admitted that they didn't transcribe the interviews like in standard legal practice but instead had the interviewer just write his (? biased ?) impression of what the interviewee said (rather than their exact words). So if they interviewed you and you said 'X' but Freeh claimed you said 'Y' there'd be no way to authenticate claims if names were redacted.

The real issue wasn't confidentiality but redaction and sanitiziation of Freeh's notes.

 

[StefenD001]

All that to say " Eff you. Bring it."

 

[sarasotan]

We know the FactFreeh report was put together carelessly (missing/out of order footnotes and assorted internal references). That seemed unimportant in the initial explosion. Yet careful review of those fundamental inconsistencies alone could tell the *dissidents* quite a bit about how the report came to be revised at the last minute. I hope they get a chance to do that.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

Didn't Dr. Barron just drop half a million on this? Why does it not apply to the BOT?

INTEGRITY: We act with integrity and honesty in accordance with the highest academic, professional, and ethical standards.

RESPECT: We respect and honor the dignity of each person, embrace civil discourse, and foster a diverse and inclusive community.

RESPONSIBILITY: We act responsibly, and we are accountable for our decisions, actions, and their consequences.

DISCOVERY: We seek and create new knowledge and understanding, and foster creativity and innovation, for the benefit of our communities, society, and the environment.

EXCELLENCE: We strive for excellence in all our endeavors as individuals, an institution, and a leader in higher education.

COMMUNITY: We work together for the betterment of our University, the communities we serve, and the world.

It doesn't apply to the BOT because they likely never read it, just like they never read the news reports about the Sandusky GJ nor the fact Freeh report.

 

[JmmyW]

Plaintiff's lawyers didn't need the Freeh report to establish a case against PSU. Do you actually believe that plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have sued the university if the Freeh report was sympathetic to PSU and its administrators? For Christ's sake there were criminal indictments by the State Attorney General's Office of PSU administrators, investigations by the DOE, and the trial and conviction of Jerry Sandusky before the report was even issued. The Freeh report did little more than confirm what had already been established by other independent parties. If the dissidents wanted to sue someone, they should have sued Curley, Shultz, Spanier, and Sandusky in a civil action, not PSU for something that the Board determined wasn't pressing business.

There wasn't pressing business? As of September 2015 there were at least four civil lawsuits against Penn State (at least two remain) all of which referenced the Freeh report, at least one of which was granted access to Freeh materials in discovery. Freeh source materials were also provided in discovery in the three criminal cases against CSS. (Start at slide 6 in the PowerPoint in the link at the bottom.)

Further, the dissidents were offered access to the names and responses of the more than 300 people interviewed by FSS if they would sign a confidentiality agreement. They refused and the court would later affirm PSU's position that a confidentiality agreement be signed before viewing the work product.

Daniel Brier, attorney for petitioner trustees, addressed this at the 9/8/2015 oral argument. Page 38:

No, it's not true. It's not true. It's not true just like the argument that everyone was promised confidentiality isn't true. What we refused to sign is their confidentiality agreement.

You know why? Because it says we will redact the interview memoranda. We'll take away the knowledge so that the reader will not know who's the person who purportedly said this.

There's no provision in 1512 for redacted corporate records. Those persons charged with the fiduciary responsibility to manage the affairs have the right to see everything.

And that's what we seek, the right to see the source materials. Not redacted, which is what they want. But we are more than willing to agree to a confidentiality agreement.

 

[ChiTownLion]

I recall rumors of athletic department employees feeling intimidated and threatened during the Freeh Inquisition. Perhaps the fear of those tactics being revealed lurks as well.

Bothers me that the interviews conducted by Freeh and his team were never recorded or transcribed. Perhaps by design, we'll never fully know the content/context/tone of the questions posed. It's almost like they anticipated the upcoming scrutiny and made sure not to leave behind any dirty footprints.

 

[didier]

I suspect that finding out who Freeh didn't interview may be as enlightening as learning about the ones he did.

 

[simons96]

There wasn't pressing business? As of September 2015 there were at least four civil lawsuits against Penn State (at least two remain) all of which referenced the Freeh report, at least one of which was granted access to Freeh materials in discovery. Freeh source materials were also provided in discovery in the three criminal cases against CSS. (Start at slide 6 in the PowerPoint in the link at the bottom.)



Daniel Brier, attorney for petitioner trustees, addressed this at the 9/8/2015 oral argument. Page 38:

No, it's not true. It's not true. It's not true just like the argument that everyone was promised confidentiality isn't true. What we refused to sign is their confidentiality agreement.

You know why? Because it says we will redact the interview memoranda. We'll take away the knowledge so that the reader will not know who's the person who purportedly said this.

There's no provision in 1512 for redacted corporate records. Those persons charged with the fiduciary responsibility to manage the affairs have the right to see everything.

And that's what we seek, the right to see the source materials. Not redacted, which is what they want. But we are more than willing to agree to a confidentiality agreement.

View embedded media

I am shocked SHOCKED I TELL YOU to find out CR66 is a lying sack of beetle dung who continues to misrepresent, misapply, misdirect, obfuscate, and otherwise refuse to be in the vicinity of the truth

I am nearly outraged, but that seems so cliché

 

[BobPSU92]

I am shocked SHOCKED I TELL YOU to find out CR66 is a lying sack of beetle dung who continues to misrepresent, misapply, misdirect, obfuscate, and otherwise refuse to be in the vicinity of the truth

I am nearly outraged, but that seems so cliché

You forgot that he's "morally vacuous".

Where do we go BEYOND. OUTRAGE. ?

 

[demlion]

Just because the Chair of the BOT and a few of his cronies doesn't think something is pressing business, doesn't mean it isn't. He could be wrong, let alone, in this situation, hiding something.

But forget that. And forget that this has cost the university hundreds of millions in legal fees, settlements, lost football revenue, fines, etc. for something that has still not been determined in a court of law that PSU was solely responsible for. Forget that this has put a huge black eye on the university that still exists, despite everyone being urged to move on. A reputation hit that can cost millions to fix.

IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, then consider this: you have an obviously fractured alumni base. This affects fundraising among other things important to the university, who has always prided itself on having a highly supportive and mostly unified group. It's not getting better, people are not moving on. If the documents will prove to everyone that Joe and C/S/S were involved and were rightly terminated, and that other parties were not to blame, then why not tell the alumni trustees to have at it? Let them go through the documents and report back that PSU officials screwed up and should be held accountable. Hell, since we're all about transparency, publish them online for everyone to see. Redact names when necessary to protect confidential sources, and if you need to hold back some documents, fine but let the trustees review them and tell everyone there's nothing there that exonerates PSU.

Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it leads to lots of conspiracy theories... some of which just may be true. It would seem to me that in order to move on, a significant number of alumni need to know what happened, and will take their lumps as need be, if need be. And THAT, because it affects fundraising and alumni relations, is pressing business.

Excellent.

 

[10 Years After]

Bothers me that the interviews conducted by Freeh and his team were never recorded or transcribed. Perhaps by design, we'll never fully know the content/context/tone of the questions posed. It's almost like they anticipated the upcoming scrutiny and made sure not to leave behind any dirty footprints.

In my opinion you can remove the "perhaps". This is exactly why there was no representation allowed, no interviewee recordings, no interviewee notes allowed. They wanted absolutely nothing to contradict what they put down in their own notes. If there is some way to get all of this Freeh material public, don't be surprised if some of the people who were interviewed are "surprised" with the content of the notes describing what was said in their interview with the Freeh people.

 

[Talpsu]

It's interesting how CRs only defense at this point is that the Freeh report wasn't pressing business. Hahahaha I mean heck it only ended up costing the university over 200 million dollars and still counting. Shucks that have more important things to do like accepting bids for 100 thou dans dollar dorm rooms, naming a building after dickrod, having a circle jerk etc.

I can't imagine a more important thing to review and adress immediately other than the Freeh report the day that rag came out!!! Yet here we are 4 years later and the BOT is fighting the elected alumni from even seeing it let alone reviewing as a full board. WTF?!?!?!?

 

[demlion]

There wasn't pressing business? As of September 2015 there were at least four civil lawsuits against Penn State (at least two remain) all of which referenced the Freeh report, at least one of which was granted access to Freeh materials in discovery. Freeh source materials were also provided in discovery in the three criminal cases against CSS. (Start at slide 6 in the PowerPoint in the link at the bottom.)



Daniel Brier, attorney for petitioner trustees, addressed this at the 9/8/2015 oral argument. Page 38:

No, it's not true. It's not true. It's not true just like the argument that everyone was promised confidentiality isn't true. What we refused to sign is their confidentiality agreement.

You know why? Because it says we will redact the interview memoranda. We'll take away the knowledge so that the reader will not know who's the person who purportedly said this.

There's no provision in 1512 for redacted corporate records. Those persons charged with the fiduciary responsibility to manage the affairs have the right to see everything.

And that's what we seek, the right to see the source materials. Not redacted, which is what they want. But we are more than willing to agree to a confidentiality agreement.

View embedded media

Excellent Jimmy W. Just astonishing that this is where we are. $5 billion dollar org commissions an 8 million dollar report. Without reading it, the org sends the report author, a noted publicity hound, out to give a national TV Press conference in which he makes claims that go hurtling past any support provided in the documents he allegedly reviewed. Within days, without reading it, without reviewing or voting on it, the org has its President sign a massively destructive consent decree with a regulator acting outside its jurisdiction, which damages the reputations of everyone involved with the football program, not least the 18-22 year olds who were in grade school in 2001.

For almost four years now they have refused to go back and take a look at how these terrible mistakes, which they paid the University's money to cause, damaged the University. A few trustees are courageous enough to ask the question and they are shut down cold. For once the BoT is not the final authority, though. The few Trustees sue and WIN, as they had to in any fair analysis of fiduciary duties.

Even if the Alum Trustees are unsuccessful at getting their attorney fees, I want to know who on the Board is going to go in his own pocket to pay PSU's OWN private, high priced counsel for this wasteful joke of a fight. The attorney fees to Saul Ewing to defend this case are NOT a proper expenditure of University funds. So, the next question is, How much? How much did this frivolous hide-the-ball exercise cost the University? Compared to the quarter billion they already wasted it may seem like peanuts to them, but compared to the cost of a PSU education? Not so much. If it is less than $20,000 I would be shocked.

 

[lionlurker]

In my opinion you can remove the "perhaps". This is exactly why there was no representation allowed, no interviewee recordings, no interviewee notes allowed. They wanted absolutely nothing to contradict what they put down in their own notes. If there is some way to get all of this Freeh material public, don't be surprised if some of the people who were interviewed are "surprised" with the content of the notes describing what was said in their interview with the Freeh people.

Hopefully that is where the people who allegedly flipped sides will come in.

 

[demlion]

It's all relative.

All my relatives are fat, too.

 

[Evan Ceg]

The entire BoT must have complete access to Freeh's unredacted work product. I agree that this is consistent with their fiduciary duty. I do want to see the identities of the interviewees protected from the general public, and, as I understand it, that will be the case.

 

[demlion]

The entire BoT must have complete access to Freeh's unredacted work product. I agree that this is consistent with their fiduciary duty. I do want to see the identities of the interviewees protected from the general public, and, as I understand it, that will be the case.

I agree. you know who doesn't agree? The people who run the BoT. As I understand it, this court action will not allow the non-plaintiff trustees to look at the unredacted work product.

Can you think of any innocent reason why the BoT majority would not make that happen immediately? You agree that this is something each trustee has to know about, right?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I agree. you know who doesn't agree? The people who run the BoT. As I understand it, this court action will not allow the non-plaintiff trustees to look at the unredacted work product.

Can you think of any innocent reason why the BoT majority would not make that happen immediately? You agree that this is something each trustee has to know about, right?

"Immediately"? How about 3 1/2 years ago?

 

[marshall23]

I believe there are people who have come forward to the Paterno Legal Team to express that their testimony has been altered.

 

[m.knox]

The entire BoT must have complete access to Freeh's unredacted work product. I agree that this is consistent with their fiduciary duty. I do want to see the identities of the interviewees protected from the general public, and, as I understand it, that will be the case.

Wait until you see what they find... The entire Freeh report driven by Triponey's vendetta against Paterno.....

The house of cards will fall. The BOT will be exposed as total and complete idiots.

 

[chizco]

It's interesting how CRs only defense at this point is that the Freeh report wasn't pressing business. Hahahaha I mean heck it only ended up costing the university over 200 million dollars and still counting. Shucks that have more important things to do like accepting bids for 100 thou dans dollar dorm rooms, naming a building after dickrod, having a circle jerk etc.

I can't imagine a more important thing to review and adress immediately other than the Freeh report the day that rag came out!!! Yet here we are 4 years later and the BOT is fighting the elected alumni from even seeing it let alone reviewing as a full board. WTF?!?!?!?

$200 million is mere pocket change for elitists like CR.

 

[Talpsu]

Question for Anthony Lubrano


With this confidentiality agree, you obviously can't let out who said what but I do have 3 questions about it.


1) Are you allowed to make public information you find as to what was said as long as you don't say who said it?

2) Can you approach any of the people interviewed after you have read the notes and ask them if they are accurate?

3) Lastly will the public have access to the confidentiality agreement the elected alumni have to sign in order to access the notes ?

 

[jjsocrates]

Here we go

Are they delaying this because they're trying to book their tickets to flee the country and visit Cindy, or does Freeh need more time to doctor all of his source materials?

I'm sure Mr. Tribeck and Lubrano are quite happy with this development.