To: Penn State Trustees
cc: alumni networking
I read at http://ps4rs.org/2015/04/09/alumni-elected-statements-on-apr-9-resolution/ that an alumnus claims to have spoken to Agriculture Trustee Keith Eckel after Thursday's conference call.
"I had the opportunity today to run into BOT member Eckel. The conversation did not go well. He spoke of today's conference call and said he was appalled at the stands taken by the above elected members."
Nobody cares whether Keith Eckel is appalled, amused, or anything else. The opinion of a liar-and this is what Keith Masser's deposition in the Corman-NCAA lawsuit shows Mr. Eckel to be, along with Mr. Masser and every other member of the Board in March 2012-means nothing to what the 19th and early 20th centuries would have called a gentleman or a lady, and the U.S. Military Academy still calls a gentleman or a lady; somebody who does not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
Lying is cause for expulsion at the USMA because (1) a liar cannot command, and does not deserve, the trust, confidence, or respect of other soldiers, and (2) lying can result in loss of personnel, equipment, and/or mission. As an example, scapegoating a purportedly gay sailor for the U.S.S. Iowa turret explosion jeopardized the entire battleship fleet by diverting attention from the accident's likely root cause. In Penn State's case, scapegoating Joe Paterno (as proven below) and then lying about it caused enormous damage to the University's finances and reputation. Somebody who scapegoats any subordinate is not qualified for any position of supervisory responsibility whatsoever.
If Mr. Eckel finds this assessment offensive, I remind him of how eloquently his fellow liar Kenneth Frazier put it during his racist tirade in March 2013. "The fact of the matter is, those documents say what they say, and no amount of hand waving will ever change what those documents say." Well, here is what the documents say, and no amount of hand-waving can ever change what they say. Mr. Eckel, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Masser, Karen Peetz, and every single one of their colleagues were parties to the following statement which is still hosted at psu.edu as an official statement of the University.
http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/report-of-the-board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions
"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."
In other words, Mr. Eckel was party to this statement that Paterno was fired for "failure of leadership," and that phrase was repeated twice, even though Mr. Masser later testified under oath that he was fired for no reason other than to gratify public opinion. 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."
Kenneth Frazier's testimony at http://av.pasenategop.com/ncaa/discovery/depositions/ken-frazier/transcripts/frazier.pdf supports Mr. Masser's, although not as explicitly. The bottom line is, however, that if "the decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done," then Paterno was not fired for "failure of leadership." This means every Trustee who was a party to the indicated statement not only scapegoated Paterno on November 9, 2011, he or she then lied about it in March 2012.
As for the settlements with Sandusky's victims, a Trustee should remember that his or her position is one of stewardship. That means one does not squander one's organization's money in a manner in which one would not spend one's own money. As a simple example, if you stay in a mid-range hotel when traveling on vacation, you do not stay in a four-star hotel when your employer is paying the bill; you spend your employer's money as you would spend your own. In this case, unless Mr. Eckel and his friends would pay their own money to people who have, at best, a nebulous claim on it, they shouldn't squander the tuition of Penn State students and the taxes of the Commonwealth in this manner. This is simply another example of what the Commonwealth Court opined was dereliction of fiduciary duty a year ago, and it reinforces Senator Yudichak's perception that personal agendas, rather than a Penn State agenda, are driving Board decisions.
In addition, Trustee McCombie pointed out, "I have not heard the perspective of our insurance companies." I cannot give legal advice but, if the insurance companies refused to pay these settlements, and left Penn State holding the bag, I would have to agree with them. The actions of the Business and Industry, Agriculture, and Governor-appointed Trustees (mistakes I hope Governor Wolf will remove soon) are similar to those of somebody who, upon peripheral involvement in a multi-vehicle crash caused by a drunk driver, tells everybody he is responsible, and his insurance company will pay the damages. I can't give legal advice, but I doubt that any court would order the insurance company to pay.
In any event, when Senator Yudichak's legislation to restructure the Board becomes law, Mr. Eckel will no longer be a problem, and the same goes of course for Mr. Eckel, Mr. Frazier, and the rest of the 11/9/2011 holdovers.
William A. Levinson, B.S. '78
cc: alumni networking
I read at http://ps4rs.org/2015/04/09/alumni-elected-statements-on-apr-9-resolution/ that an alumnus claims to have spoken to Agriculture Trustee Keith Eckel after Thursday's conference call.
"I had the opportunity today to run into BOT member Eckel. The conversation did not go well. He spoke of today's conference call and said he was appalled at the stands taken by the above elected members."
Nobody cares whether Keith Eckel is appalled, amused, or anything else. The opinion of a liar-and this is what Keith Masser's deposition in the Corman-NCAA lawsuit shows Mr. Eckel to be, along with Mr. Masser and every other member of the Board in March 2012-means nothing to what the 19th and early 20th centuries would have called a gentleman or a lady, and the U.S. Military Academy still calls a gentleman or a lady; somebody who does not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
Lying is cause for expulsion at the USMA because (1) a liar cannot command, and does not deserve, the trust, confidence, or respect of other soldiers, and (2) lying can result in loss of personnel, equipment, and/or mission. As an example, scapegoating a purportedly gay sailor for the U.S.S. Iowa turret explosion jeopardized the entire battleship fleet by diverting attention from the accident's likely root cause. In Penn State's case, scapegoating Joe Paterno (as proven below) and then lying about it caused enormous damage to the University's finances and reputation. Somebody who scapegoats any subordinate is not qualified for any position of supervisory responsibility whatsoever.
If Mr. Eckel finds this assessment offensive, I remind him of how eloquently his fellow liar Kenneth Frazier put it during his racist tirade in March 2013. "The fact of the matter is, those documents say what they say, and no amount of hand waving will ever change what those documents say." Well, here is what the documents say, and no amount of hand-waving can ever change what they say. Mr. Eckel, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Masser, Karen Peetz, and every single one of their colleagues were parties to the following statement which is still hosted at psu.edu as an official statement of the University.
http://progress.psu.edu/resource-library/story/report-of-the-board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions
"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."
In other words, Mr. Eckel was party to this statement that Paterno was fired for "failure of leadership," and that phrase was repeated twice, even though Mr. Masser later testified under oath that he was fired for no reason other than to gratify public opinion. 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."
Kenneth Frazier's testimony at http://av.pasenategop.com/ncaa/discovery/depositions/ken-frazier/transcripts/frazier.pdf supports Mr. Masser's, although not as explicitly. The bottom line is, however, that if "the decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done," then Paterno was not fired for "failure of leadership." This means every Trustee who was a party to the indicated statement not only scapegoated Paterno on November 9, 2011, he or she then lied about it in March 2012.
As for the settlements with Sandusky's victims, a Trustee should remember that his or her position is one of stewardship. That means one does not squander one's organization's money in a manner in which one would not spend one's own money. As a simple example, if you stay in a mid-range hotel when traveling on vacation, you do not stay in a four-star hotel when your employer is paying the bill; you spend your employer's money as you would spend your own. In this case, unless Mr. Eckel and his friends would pay their own money to people who have, at best, a nebulous claim on it, they shouldn't squander the tuition of Penn State students and the taxes of the Commonwealth in this manner. This is simply another example of what the Commonwealth Court opined was dereliction of fiduciary duty a year ago, and it reinforces Senator Yudichak's perception that personal agendas, rather than a Penn State agenda, are driving Board decisions.
In addition, Trustee McCombie pointed out, "I have not heard the perspective of our insurance companies." I cannot give legal advice but, if the insurance companies refused to pay these settlements, and left Penn State holding the bag, I would have to agree with them. The actions of the Business and Industry, Agriculture, and Governor-appointed Trustees (mistakes I hope Governor Wolf will remove soon) are similar to those of somebody who, upon peripheral involvement in a multi-vehicle crash caused by a drunk driver, tells everybody he is responsible, and his insurance company will pay the damages. I can't give legal advice, but I doubt that any court would order the insurance company to pay.
In any event, when Senator Yudichak's legislation to restructure the Board becomes law, Mr. Eckel will no longer be a problem, and the same goes of course for Mr. Eckel, Mr. Frazier, and the rest of the 11/9/2011 holdovers.
William A. Levinson, B.S. '78
