Role of Emeritus Trustees
To: Penn State Trustees
cc: alumni networking
I understand that the Board is considering the proper role of Emeritus Trustees. I am confident that those of the pre-2011 era have valuable experience and advice to provide the Board, but there are others who have no place whatsoever in Penn State's future.
As shown by Kenneth Frazier's and especially Keith Masser's depositions in the Corman-NCAA lawsuit, Emeritus Trustees Jesse Arnelle, James Broadhurst, Steve Garban, David R. Jones, Joel Myers, Anne Riley, and Paul Suhey all scapegoated Coach Joe Paterno and then lied about it in the Board's public statement of March 2012. Somebody who scapegoats any subordinate, whether he pushes a broom or coaches the Nittany Lions, is not qualified to supervise even one employee let alone a university or a corporation. Somebody who then lies about the circumstances of that subordinate's dismissal has nothing constructive whatsoever to offer in terms of advice or counsel.
All these Trustees, along with current ones like Kenneth Frazier, Keith Eckel, and Keith Masser, were parties to the following false (as shown by Masser's and Frazier's depositions) statement: http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/report-of-the-board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions. Note that the Board, as constituted in March 2012, repeated the false accusation "failure of leadership" twice.
"While Coach Paterno did his legal duty by reporting that information the next day, Sunday, March 3, to his immediate superior, the then Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the Board reasonably inferred that he did not call police. We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno. At about 9 pm, we unanimously made the difficult decision that Coach Paterno's failure of leadership required his removal as football coach."
However, Mr. Masser later had to testify as follows under oath http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/19/board-chairman-still-thinks-paterno-wasnt-fired/: "The decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done. It was based upon the distraction of having him on the sidelines would have caused the university and the current football team harm. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno had done, or hadn't done." Mr. Frazier's testimony also admits that, when the Board fired Paterno, it could not identify specifically anything he had done wrong.
If the decision to remove Paterno had nothing to do with what he had done, or hadn't done, he was clearly not removed for "failure of leadership," which means every Board member involved in that statement lied to the public and to the organization to which he or she owed a fiduciary duty. A liar cannot command the trust, respect, confidence, or support of anybody, and lying emphatically constitutes "failure of leadership."
Emeritus Trustees Anne Riley and Paul Suhey deserve particular attention. Anne Riley not only went along with scapegoating the man who tried to save her father's life (and possibly Graham Spanier, who saved HER life during a rafting mishap http://www.allreadable.com/ccd42rWL), she also went along with the March 2012 statement that trashed Paterno's memory. If this assessment sounds harsh, she had every opportunity in the world to set matters right the way Al Clemens set matters right. If she had done that in a timely manner, she might still be an alumni-elected Trustee.
Joe Paterno was Paul Suhey's coach and mentor, and he therefore played a role in Suhey's success both on and off the football field. Suhey nonetheless agreed to scapegoat Paterno and then, like the other Trustees who also disgraced themselves, lent his name to the false public statement of March 2012. Even if he didn't author the "failure of leadership" statement, his support for it would probably fall under the "tolerate those who do" clause of the U.S. Military Academy's Honor Code. The same goes, of course, for every other Trustee involved. Aesop's fable about the birds of a feather is highly instructive here; if you're part of a group that does something wrong, you need to disassociate yourself from the action in question if you don't want to be held equally responsible. Suhey later directed Rodney Erickson, without authorization by the rest of the Board, to remove the Paterno Statue to placate the now-disgraced NCAA.
There is also the matter of Karen Peetz, who probably did the most damage of all to Penn State by affirming the Freeh Report without authorization by the rest of the Board, and therefore in likely violation of the Board's Standing Orders. She also, of course, scapegoated Paterno and then lied about it in March 2012, and also lied in her Penn Stater interview in which she said the Board was not going to express any position on the guilt or innocence of anybody named in the Freeh Report. (She did that herself when she said his service was marred.) It was HER failure of leadership as Chairwoman that played a central role in getting Penn State into the mess it is in today. Yes, her position as a former Board Chairwoman entitles her to be an Emeritus Trustee but, as a practical matter, the sooner Penn State forgets she was even an alumna let alone a Trustee, the better.
The same goes for Keith Masser (also entitled to Emeritus status as a Board Chairman), on whose watch the Commonwealth Court deemed his faction of the Board derelict in its fiduciary duty, and Senator Yudichak said personal agendas rather than a Penn State agenda were driving Board decisions.
I did notice that John Surma's picture is not among the Emeritus Trustees, which is at least one good thing. The mere appearance of any of these individuals at any official Penn State function like a Board of Trustees meeting will evoke contempt, disgust, revulsion, and indeed just about anything but respect.
Yes, the rules of the Board entitle all these people to Emeritus status automatically. My advice is, however, as follows. When Karen Peetz comes up for a vote to be given Emeritus status, raise a point of order to the effect that no vote is needed because the Bylaws say she is automatically entitled to it. This will save her, and the rest of the Board, the embarrassment of having a less-than-unanimous vote on the matter. (If the rules say she is entitled to the status regardless of the manner in which she handled her responsibilities, I would not, as a Trustee, vote no, but I would abstain.) As far as any advice or counsel she may have to offer, however, I think Penn State has had enough of that to last the remainder of its existence.
William A. Levinson, B.S. '78
re: Suhey and Erickson
To: Penn State Trustees
cc: alumni networking
I understand that the Board is considering the proper role of Emeritus Trustees. I am confident that those of the pre-2011 era have valuable experience and advice to provide the Board, but there are others who have no place whatsoever in Penn State's future.
As shown by Kenneth Frazier's and especially Keith Masser's depositions in the Corman-NCAA lawsuit, Emeritus Trustees Jesse Arnelle, James Broadhurst, Steve Garban, David R. Jones, Joel Myers, Anne Riley, and Paul Suhey all scapegoated Coach Joe Paterno and then lied about it in the Board's public statement of March 2012. Somebody who scapegoats any subordinate, whether he pushes a broom or coaches the Nittany Lions, is not qualified to supervise even one employee let alone a university or a corporation. Somebody who then lies about the circumstances of that subordinate's dismissal has nothing constructive whatsoever to offer in terms of advice or counsel.
All these Trustees, along with current ones like Kenneth Frazier, Keith Eckel, and Keith Masser, were parties to the following false (as shown by Masser's and Frazier's depositions) statement: http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/report-of-the-board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions. Note that the Board, as constituted in March 2012, repeated the false accusation "failure of leadership" twice.
"While Coach Paterno did his legal duty by reporting that information the next day, Sunday, March 3, to his immediate superior, the then Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the Board reasonably inferred that he did not call police. We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno. At about 9 pm, we unanimously made the difficult decision that Coach Paterno's failure of leadership required his removal as football coach."
However, Mr. Masser later had to testify as follows under oath http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/19/board-chairman-still-thinks-paterno-wasnt-fired/: "The decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done. It was based upon the distraction of having him on the sidelines would have caused the university and the current football team harm. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno had done, or hadn't done." Mr. Frazier's testimony also admits that, when the Board fired Paterno, it could not identify specifically anything he had done wrong.
If the decision to remove Paterno had nothing to do with what he had done, or hadn't done, he was clearly not removed for "failure of leadership," which means every Board member involved in that statement lied to the public and to the organization to which he or she owed a fiduciary duty. A liar cannot command the trust, respect, confidence, or support of anybody, and lying emphatically constitutes "failure of leadership."
Emeritus Trustees Anne Riley and Paul Suhey deserve particular attention. Anne Riley not only went along with scapegoating the man who tried to save her father's life (and possibly Graham Spanier, who saved HER life during a rafting mishap http://www.allreadable.com/ccd42rWL), she also went along with the March 2012 statement that trashed Paterno's memory. If this assessment sounds harsh, she had every opportunity in the world to set matters right the way Al Clemens set matters right. If she had done that in a timely manner, she might still be an alumni-elected Trustee.
Joe Paterno was Paul Suhey's coach and mentor, and he therefore played a role in Suhey's success both on and off the football field. Suhey nonetheless agreed to scapegoat Paterno and then, like the other Trustees who also disgraced themselves, lent his name to the false public statement of March 2012. Even if he didn't author the "failure of leadership" statement, his support for it would probably fall under the "tolerate those who do" clause of the U.S. Military Academy's Honor Code. The same goes, of course, for every other Trustee involved. Aesop's fable about the birds of a feather is highly instructive here; if you're part of a group that does something wrong, you need to disassociate yourself from the action in question if you don't want to be held equally responsible. Suhey later directed Rodney Erickson, without authorization by the rest of the Board, to remove the Paterno Statue to placate the now-disgraced NCAA.
There is also the matter of Karen Peetz, who probably did the most damage of all to Penn State by affirming the Freeh Report without authorization by the rest of the Board, and therefore in likely violation of the Board's Standing Orders. She also, of course, scapegoated Paterno and then lied about it in March 2012, and also lied in her Penn Stater interview in which she said the Board was not going to express any position on the guilt or innocence of anybody named in the Freeh Report. (She did that herself when she said his service was marred.) It was HER failure of leadership as Chairwoman that played a central role in getting Penn State into the mess it is in today. Yes, her position as a former Board Chairwoman entitles her to be an Emeritus Trustee but, as a practical matter, the sooner Penn State forgets she was even an alumna let alone a Trustee, the better.
The same goes for Keith Masser (also entitled to Emeritus status as a Board Chairman), on whose watch the Commonwealth Court deemed his faction of the Board derelict in its fiduciary duty, and Senator Yudichak said personal agendas rather than a Penn State agenda were driving Board decisions.
I did notice that John Surma's picture is not among the Emeritus Trustees, which is at least one good thing. The mere appearance of any of these individuals at any official Penn State function like a Board of Trustees meeting will evoke contempt, disgust, revulsion, and indeed just about anything but respect.
Yes, the rules of the Board entitle all these people to Emeritus status automatically. My advice is, however, as follows. When Karen Peetz comes up for a vote to be given Emeritus status, raise a point of order to the effect that no vote is needed because the Bylaws say she is automatically entitled to it. This will save her, and the rest of the Board, the embarrassment of having a less-than-unanimous vote on the matter. (If the rules say she is entitled to the status regardless of the manner in which she handled her responsibilities, I would not, as a Trustee, vote no, but I would abstain.) As far as any advice or counsel she may have to offer, however, I think Penn State has had enough of that to last the remainder of its existence.
William A. Levinson, B.S. '78
re: Suhey and Erickson
