Those pesky regulations and the empty threat of filibuster

Regulation, public policy and the hollow threat of filibuster

Family responsibilities and work have taken me in recent months to Louisville, Ky., Shreveport, La., and Houston, Texas. The changes of place did not change the big picture. In every place, local news stories and larger news stories–this is something one can count on–reconfirmed the need for what the GOP calls ‘job-killing regulations’. This phrase is quite the talking point, by the way, notwithstanding its lack of validity. The nonprofit web site Think Progress reported in April that use of “job-killing regulation” increased 17750 percent in U.S. newspapers between 2007 and 2011.

Orwell lives, and this is one of the big Orwellianisms. Repeat it often enough, and it starts to seem plausible? –Let’s hope not. There is no evidence that regulation kills jobs.

On the contrary, there is every indication that unregulated outsourcing, off-shoring, merger and consolidation do kill jobs, or at least U.S. jobs. This is one of the big reasons why the rightwing noise machine is so against what it characterizes as regulation: protection of jobs, like protection of public health and public safety, works to the advantage of the many, rather than just of the few.

There is also every indication that lack of regulation–genuine regulation, backed up by oversight and enforcement–kills people. Does any responsible person really want an Alzheimer’s facility, or any long-term care facility, to be unregulated and unmonitored? Unlikely, and the same goes for day care centers, private schools, and children’s camps. For that matter, the same goes for the athletic program at Penn State (State Penn).

Travel is a continuing reminder of the need to protect public safety and public health. From the interior space on an airplane–if any–to getting from airport to final destination, from questions like whether your luggage arrives to more essential questions like whether you do, our predominant business model tends to create a continuing tug-of-war between efforts to cut corners at the top (corporate management) and efforts to survive at the bottom (customers). The same goes for every other industry. There are some honorable exceptions, such as CREDO, and they deserve kudos. But exceptions do not disprove the general rule.

Among the local news stories in Kentucky:

  • Neighbors in one community gathered at an elementary school to hear about ground contamination from lead, arsenic and DDT from a 29-acre industrial site near their property.
  • Three day care centers in Louisville recently closed, after the driver of a van crashed, killing a woman passenger and sending 14 children to the hospital, three in intensive care. The company operating the centers had previously been cited by state agencies for dozens of safety violations; this is a perfect example of the kind of ‘small business’ where ‘job-killing regulations’ are bemoaned by Mitt Romney and his spokespersons including Ed Gillespie.
  • In other local news, an abandoned theme park has been getting only minimal maintenance, meaning that its structures will at some point just fall down. The company that owns it, Six Flags, was in bankruptcy reorganization, and the Kentucky State Fair Board faces its own budget constraints–like virtually all state and local agencies.

When we lose ‘government jobs’–another favorite Orwellianism–we lose independent oversight for dangerous occupations and sites.

Speaking of oversight and dangerous sites, word of fraud in the investment world also continually seeps out. A few familiar examples suffice:

  • Bernard Madoff’s brother Peter has pleaded guilty to fabricating compliance reports and deceiving the SEC. This case–the record-breaking Madoff Ponzi scheme–is another reminder of the need for good, honest record-keeping, and for someone to watch the custodians.
  • Houston can do you an Allen Stanford, investment scheme $8 billion.
  • An investment advisor in Glasgow, Ky., is indicted for allegedly defrauding investors in Kentucky and Indiana of $2.4 million. Having promised to invest customers’ money, the so-called advisor allegedly spent it on a shooting range he set up in an old rock quarry, and on himself.
  • Closer to home (D.C. region), the former CEO of Virginia’s Bank of the Commonwealth has been indicted for alleged fraud conspiracy in covering up the bank’s financial condition since 2008.
  • On a grander scale, we have august Barclays bank allegedly depressing its interest rate on lending–and thereby short-changing institutional investors including Baltimore City on returns they could have gotten. The city of Baltimore is suing. Time will tell whether Virginia Attorney General Ken (“Kooky”) Cuccinelli elects to do the same.

All of these problems are a function of privatizing gain, socializing risk; reserving gains for the few and shifting the burdens of compliance, taxation and monitoring to the general public, to the individual, and to state and local government. The pattern fits into a larger one: Over-all family wealth in the U.S. declined 39 percent from 2007 to 2010, while the wealthiest gained 2 percent.

No one talks about it this way, but the NRA and nut-right mantra that what everybody needs are bigger guns and more guns also fits into the same pattern. Why, when you think about it, should a private citizen be expected to go out and purchase ludicrously expensive semi-automatic weapons for protection? Why should the onus of acquiring combat gear and combat training be on private citizens in the first place? Socializing risk, privatizing gain–the big-time weapons commerce fills the bill, and our docile GOP lawmakers relentlessly forward this agenda by talking about it as a “right.” Funnily enough, they do not talk about purchasing health insurance the same way.

For self-defence, there is actually no evidence that bigger magazines and more clips mean more protection. Even at worst–firing a gun at someone–you need one good shot, not a spray of careless rounds. That’s if you really care about self-defense rather than aggression.

But our NRA, and the politicians hired by the NRA, have been intent for decades now on blurring the line between self-defense and aggression.

Again when you think about it, the sole use for automatic and semi-automatic multiple-shot firearms, as for big magazines that hold hundreds of rounds of ammo, would be to kill off a whole crowd or army of attackers. It happens in movies. In real life, armed attacks are generally perpetrated by–what’s that word again?–oh, yes!–loners. In reality, unlike in film, attacks with big-time weapons are more liable to come from one gunman or two, shooting into a crowd or a classroom, than from a crowd shooting at the one lone individual (you, in this paranoid view).

This fact could represent something of a hurdle for the guns-and-ammo industry, the NRA, and the GOP officeholders who support them, if they were to permit its transmission. So they prevent its getting out, as much as possible–no small feat, given that it surfaces again every time some disturbed young guy, heavily armed, commits a mass shooting. So what’s a guns-and-ammo industry to do? –Why, market to the paranoid and unstable, of course. What are the cartel-supporting NRA and the NRA-supporting GOP to do? –Why, vent as much hyperbolic us-and-them rhetoric into the air as possible (Michelle Bachmann’s nonsense about Huma Abedin is only the most recent example).

Anything to obfuscate the fact that mass shootings are committed by the lone off-base guy, against the masses, not the other way around.

James Holmes

This point should not be oversimplified, but it also should not be lost sight of. Back to ‘regulation’ again–that being the GOP word for providing for public safety and public health: Public safety and public health require decent regulation of indecent commerce. Multiple clips and magazines, body armor, automatic or so-called semi-automatic rifles, assault weapons, military-grade- and SWAT-team gear–there is no reason why unauthorized civilians should be allowed to buy them. We need regulation of the online commerce that gets around state and local attempts to protect public safety. We need for private gun sales, second-hand gun sales, straw purchases, auctions, and gun shows to operate under the same law as storefront owners who sell guns do.

The laws, furthermore,  need to be good.

Contrary to the thrust of some media representations, the situation is not hopeless. There is no such thing as perfect safety or perfected public safety, as there is no other perfection on earth. But the fact that we cannot do everything is not an argument for doing nothing. In public policy, some specific remedies are clear.

And in the politics that lead to policy changes, some highly specific small steps are also clear, and timely. There is no reason, for example, why strong public support for reasonable public safety measures should be contravened by a minority in the senate–by the mere threat of filibuster.

Calls to abolish the filibuster by amending the constitution are about as good an idea as most proposed constitutional amendments, which means not very. There is a simpler, cleaner and more legitimate means to address this ridiculous problem that never should have been allowed to arise in the first place: When our GOP minority in the U.S. Senate threatens to filibuster, make them actually filibuster. Let Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe and Dan Coats and the rest get up there and do like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, albeit with less idealism. Let them read aloud from the Bible they profess to love so much, read Shakespeare, read Little Women or Anne of Green Gables for that matter.

Mitch McConnell

Having the mere threat of filibuster substitute for putting in the time on the floor, preventing needed legislation, is unconstitutional.

 

 

[Mistaken report] Different news break: Joe Paterno dead

Update Sunday morning:

Joe Paterno died in the hospital. Family confirmed the death.

False reports of Paterno’s death during the night were a few hours premature.

 

Update [False report] Different news break: Joe Paterno dead

Word out that this report, from networks and cable, is not true. Paterno said by his family to be very ill.

 

A different kind of surprising news, breaking news, in a different political realm: Joe Paterno just died.

Penn State retirement: When the golden parachute becomes a golden athletic supporter

When the golden parachute becomes a golden athletic supporter

Sandusky under arrest

 

Gerald A. (Jerry) Sandusky’s retirement from Penn State looks more opportune all the time.

 

Paterno with team

Information obtained under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law confirms that Sandusky filed his retirement application May 28, 1999, shortly after learning that he would not be head coach at Penn State. According to the indictment alleging repeated acts of abuse against male children and minors, denied by Sandusky, it was in May 1999 that Sandusky was told by Joe Paterno that he would not become head coach. At that time, according to the grand jury report, an emotional Sandusky told one of the boys he allegedly imposed on about the disappointment from Paterno.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania records also show that Sandusky entered the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) March 15, 1969. As explained by Deputy Open-Records Officer Pamela J. Hile,

“Act 41 of 1998 amended the Retirement Code (§5308.2) to provide a limited early retirement period (July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999) in which qualifying members could receive a retirement benefit unreduced by the Early Retirement Reduction Factor. To qualify, a SERS member had to have at least 30 years of Credited Service and he/she had to terminate employment and file his/her application for annuity with SERS by July 1, 1999.”

 

Thus, as luck would have it, Joe Paterno had his heart-to-heart with Sandusky shortly after Sandusky had his thirty years at Penn State under his belt anyway. Or no-heart-to-no-heart talk, one might think.

Questions placed with DC law firm King & Spaulding, where Paterno is represented by J. Sedwick Sollers, get the following response from Director of Communications Les Zuke quoted previously:

“Other than the statement issued Friday evening (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-scott-paterno-on-behalf-of-his-father-133713053.html) there has been no subsequent public comments from the Paternos or Joe Paterno’s attorney, Wick Sollers, nor do I expect any for the foreseeable future. Mr. Sollers will not be able to address your questions.”

 

Not that they didn’t treat Sandusky with all possible consideration. As of now, Sandusky has acknowledged on national television that he horsed around with young kids in the PSU showers. In a series of interviews, he has also used varying language heightening rather than putting to rest questions raised by the indictment. Last week he also told the New York Times, rather embarrassingly for PSU, that he and Paterno never discussed sexual abuse allegations. Thus it is somewhat ironic that back in 1999, Paterno and PSU clearly did everything they could to send Sandusky away happy. In fact, they did not actually send him away. Sandusky was allowed to keep his campus privileges including access to the athletic facilities. He still had the aura, the personal contacts, the free products and other benefits, tangible and intangible, of his long-term relationship with Penn State football.

He also had a hefty retirement. As the indictment says, Sandusky retired at a time when he could take advantage of an “enhanced retirement benefit” (p. 11). As a Class A member of the state retirement system, Sandusky could contribute 5 percent of his salary to retirement. Upon retiring, he would then receive retirement calculated by the formula Average of last three years’ salary X 2 percent X Years of service [30] X Class of Service Multiplier. So if you’re jotting down numbers with your Number 2 pencil on a yellow legal pad, you start with 2 percent times 30, i.e. 60 percent of annual salary averaged from three years at the apparent peak of his career, and go up from there.

In an era of pension funds jeopardized by the subprime-derivatives catastrophe, when retirement benefits often have to be wrung from intransigent management more interested in union-busting, who can at any time threaten to renege on the agreements anyway by declaring bankruptcy, this kind of pension for the old horser-around could be considered to look dubious.

 

Had Pennsylvania’s state legislature not passed Act 41 in 1998, would that May 1999 conversation have gone differently? Would it have taken place?

PA General Assembly

The bill’s primary sponsor was Republican Rep. Bob Allen (Pennsylvania General Assembly 1989-2006). It was referred to the Education Committee in February 1997. Final passage March 31, 1998; vote: unanimous minus one. The final deadline for the governor’s approval was Apr. 11, 1998; the governor signed it into law Apr. 2. The bill had an enormous number of co-sponsors, more than sufficient to make sponsorship politically safe.*

This was while the law enforcement investigation regarding Victim 6 was heating up. (Indictment pp. 18-19) As they later testified, University Police Detective Ronald Shreffler and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston eavesdropped on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 had with Sandusky on May 13, 1998, and May 19, 1998. The investigation, as we know, went nowhere–in spite of the fact that on June 1, 1998, according to the indictment, Sandusky admitted to investigators that he had showered naked with Victim 6 and had hugged Victim 6 while in the shower.

Penn State is located in Centre County, Penn., in the 34th and 35th state Sen districts and the 76th, 77th and 171st state Rep districts. With a fine balance the two major parties in the local area shared split positions on the legislation, Reps Hanna (Dem), Herman (GOP), and Benninghoff (GOP) all co-sponsoring it, other local Reps of both parties not.

Ironically, the bill in all probability was directed against Joe Paterno. As every football fanatic knows, in 1995 Penn State went undefeated in the Big Ten and decisively won the 1995 Rose Bowl. In 1994 it had gone undefeated and untied. But for whatever reasons, the glory dissipated rapidly over the next few years. PSU was 6-2 in the Big Ten conference in 1997, 9-3 over-all. Similar to 1996, a big come-down since the apex. Whatever affected the program—and there does seem to have been a problem somewhere—it continued. In 1998, PSU went 5-3 conference, and for the fourth straight year, 9-3 over-all again. It did not play Big Ten schools Iowa and Indiana, and only two Nittany Lions were drafted for the NFL.

So Sandusky becomes eligible for enhanced retirement March 15, 1999. He files for retirement benefits shortly after the bad news from Joe Pa, May 1999. Paterno has his talk with Sandusky soon after Sandusky’s 30 years are up anyway. And all of this comes soon after the state legislature has sweetened benefits to make retirement—in exactly these circumstances—look better for all concerned.

 

Regardless of whether legislators co-sponsoring that earlier-retirement bill knew of the rumors swirling around Penn State football, their move undeniably made retirement** more palatable for certain ensconced state employees.

 

* ALLEN, STAIRS, COWELL, SCHULER, CORRIGAN, D. W. SNYDER, DeWEESE, HERMAN, LUCYK, ITKIN, McCALL, TULLI, DENT, BOYES, BAKER, BATTISTO, BELARDI, BOSCOLA, BUNT, BUTKOVITZ, BUXTON, CAPPABIANCA, CARN, CARONE, CIVERA, COLAIZZO, CORPORA, CURRY, DALLY, DEMPSEY, DERMODY, DONATUCCI, FICHTER, FLEAGLE, GEIST, GORDNER, GRUPPO, HALUSKA, HANNA, ARGALL, HESS, HORSEY, HUTCHINSON, JAMES, KENNEY, KIRKLAND, KREBS, LaGROTTA, A. H. WILLIAMS, B. SMITH, BEBKO-JONES, BELFANTI, BENNINGHOFF, BLAUM, C. WILLIAMS, CALTAGIRONE, CASORIO, COLAFELLA, CONTI, COY, E. Z. TAYLOR, EACHUS, EVANS, HASAY, J. TAYLOR, JAROLIN, L. I. COHEN, LAUGHLIN, LLOYD, M. COHEN, MANDERINO, MARKOSEK, MARSICO, MELIO, MICOZZIE, MIHALICH, MILLER, MUNDY, NAILOR, NICKOL, O’BRIEN, OLIVER, PETRONE, PLATTS, RAMOS, REBER, RIEGER, ROBERTS, ROEBUCK, ROONEY, S. H. SMITH, SAINATO, SANTONI, SATHER, SAYLOR, SERAFINI, SHANER, STABACK, STEELMAN, STETLER, STRITTMATTER, STURLA, SURRA, THOMAS, TIGUE, TRELLO, VAN HORNE, VANCE, VEON, WOGAN, WOJNAROSKI, M. N. WRIGHT, YEWCIC, YOUNGBLOOD, ZIMMERMAN, ZUG, TRICH, DRUCE, BISHOP, TRAVAGLIO, McNAUGHTON, HERSHEY, FARGO, SEYFERT, PETRARCA, STEVENSON, READSHAW, LESCOVITZ, WILT, CORNELL, WASHINGTON, McILHATTAN and ORIE.

 

**[fuller clarification of SERS, from the open records officer:]

“By way of background, SERS is a state agency created by Pennsylvania law to administer certain public employees’ retirement benefits as defined by the State Employees’ Retirement Code Title 71, Sections 5101-5956 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. (The code is available on the Pennsylvania General Assembly website:  www.legis.state.pa.us.) SERS also ensures compliance with other pertinent law, including the Internal Revenue Code, for example.

SERS currently has more than 227,000 members, including more than 109,000 active employees who work for about 105 different employers.

As a “defined benefit” pension plan, retirement annuities are funded by a combination of member contributions, employer contributions and investment earnings. Over the past ten years, members have contributed 18%, employers have contributed 9%, and investment earnings have contributed 73% to the SERS fund.

Member contributions are set by statute, as a percent of the member’s gross salary. While there are 17 Classes of Service in the system, most members are either Class AA or Class A. Class AA members currently contribute 6.25% of their gross salary toward their retirement benefit, and Class A members contribute 5%. (You can read more about Classes of Service at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=594386&mode=2.)

Employer contributions are paid in the aggregate as a percent of payroll, again, based on the number of employees they have, their Classes of Service, and their salaries. (By way of example–and this is confusing for many people–employers do not transfer their contributions to SERS broken out by individual employee, for instance “$123.45 per month/year for John Doe.”)  Employers pay SERS out of their own operating budgets. Employer contribution rates vary from year-to-year based on actuarial experience and investment performance. Such rates are certified by the SERS board and put into effect by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The current employer contribution rate is 8.01% . . .

While the basic calculation is pretty straightforward, arriving at specific components used in the calculation is not.  In some cases, such components can’t be determined until after a member applies for his/her annuity. For instance, Final Average Salary is the highest average compensation received during any three non-overlapping periods of four consecutive calendar quarters–typically the average of the member’s last three years of compensation, but not always.  Moreover, when a member retires, he/she has a number of benefit payment options to choose from. (You can read more about these options in SERS’ Member Handbook on page 8, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1057065/2011_sers_member_handbook_pdf.) Members who joined SERS prior to Jan. 1, 2011 also have the option to withdraw all or a portion of their own contributions plus 4% interest in a lump sum. If a member takes any lump sum withdrawal, his/her annuity is reduced accordingly, again impacting the amount of a member’s monthly payments.”

Penn State timeline raises further questions

Penn State timeline, more questions

 

Joe Paterno, head coach

In the Penn State matter, the indictment alleges, Gerald (Jerry) Sandusky used material inducements, along with mentoring, to ingratiate himself with male children and minors.

“Usually the persuasion Sandusky employed was accompanied by gifts and opportunities to attend sporting and charity events. He gave Victim 4 dozens of gifts, some purchased and some obtained from various sporting goods vendors such as Nike and Airwalk. Victim 4 received clothes, a snowboard, Nike shoes, golf clubs, ice hockey equipment and lessons, passes for various sporting events, football jerseys, and registration for soccer camp.” [emphasis added]

Specifically, the indictment indicates that Sandusky repeatedly used Nike products among others for gifts to appeal to male children and minors. Did Nike know that Sandusky was passing along Nike products to children and minors? The immediate answer from the company is no.

Erin Dobson, Senior Manager, Global Public Affairs at Nike, Inc., responds to emailed questions,

“Over the years Nike has donated product in good faith to the Second Mile Foundation in the belief that the product would be used in support of the mission of Second Mile to help young people achieve their potential as individuals and as community members.  Nike was not aware of exactly how the product was distributed.”

A related question–did Nike give Sandusky himself the Nike products as gifts?

“Nike does not have any record of Nike product given as gifts specifically for Mr. Sandusky. However we have donated product to Mr. Sandusky for his Second Mile Foundation.”

 

The next question–does Nike still give Sandusky Nike products as gifts?–draws a terse “No.”

Nike, Inc., has had a profitable relationship with Penn State over the years, as with other universities. Ordinarily relationships between merchandisers and universities do not draw questions. But as we know, those commercial relationships become tainted or compromised when questions arise about financial benefit to individuals as opposed to benefit for the university community as a whole.

In Sandusky’s case, the individual benefit alleged went beyond money. Whatever financial benefit Sandusky derived from the aura of Nike (joined to the aura of Penn State) is dwarfed ethically by the inappropriate use of Nike products. If one is not supposed to use one’s university position, or one’s position in a charity, to draw for personal use on funds donated to the university or charity, one is surely not supposed to use such position to line up sex with minors. Regardless of the amounts involved or the exact tax liability in unreported benefits, it is difficult for a non-lawyer to understand why this would not be misappropriation.

 

Nike also gave gifts to Paterno, not unusually for a bigtime coach. Again from the company,

“Nike has over the years given product to Joe Paterno.  As part of our normal course of business, we do on occasion give Nike product upon request to individuals and business partners.”

Ironically, in January 2011 Nike made headlines by donating $400,000 to Penn State in honor of Joe Paterno’s 400th win the previous season.

 

Nike boys

In the chronology of the Penn State scandal, gift-giving, charitable donations and other largesse bulk almost as large as pederasty. Previous to the Nov. 4 indictment, the giant donations were universally praised. Now they need a second look. Sandusky’s relationship with his charity and with Penn State has been long ongoing: Sandusky founded The Second Mile charity in 1977, the year he became assistant coach at Penn State, where he had played football and had worked since 1969.

 

Throwing money at a problem is not new. The four-million-dollar question developing from years of alleged abuses now connected with Penn State is whether that’s what Joe Paterno did.

On Jan. 16, 1998, Paterno made headlines around the nation by donating $3.5 million to Penn State for its libraries. Newspapers showering praise and plaudits included the New York Times, “A Grateful Paterno Promises $3.5 Million to Penn State”; Raleigh News and Observer, “Paterno, wife give $ 3.5 million to PSU”; Philadelphia Inquirer, “Penn State Gets $3.5 Million Gift from Paterno/ THE WINNINGEST ACTIVE DIVISION I-A FOOTBALL COACH SAID HE WANTED TO “GIVE SOMETHING BACK.””; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Paterno and Wife Give Penn State $ 3.5 Million”; and Albany Times Union, “Penn St. is beneficiary of Jo Pa’s patronage.” Editorialists opined that other, better-paid coaches should follow Joe Pa’s example. The gift prompted reports of the heart-warming item that Paterno met his future wife, Sue, in the library. Biographical tidbits including Paterno’s majoring in English as an undergrad were rehashed.

One question arising is whether Paterno knew Sandusky was being investigated at the time of his $3.5M gift to PSU in January 1998. The indictment details numerous relations alleged between Sandusky and minors, between 1994 and 1998. Did Paterno know of any of them?

Paterno is now represented by Washington, D.C.-based attorney J. Sedwick (Wick) Sollers, of King & Spalding. Responding to questions by email, King & Spalding Director of Communications Les Zuke replies,

“Dear Ms. Burns —

Other than the statement issued Friday evening (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-scott-paterno-on-behalf-of-his-father-133713053.html) there has been no subsequent public comments from the Paternos or Joe Paterno’s attorney, Wick Sollers, nor do I expect any for the foreseeable future. Mr. Sollers will not be able to address your questions.

Les Zuke”

 

Other questions arise. Paterno had given large gifts to Penn State before the January 1998 donation. At the time of his previous financial donations to PSU, did Paterno know or had he been told of Sandusky’s alleged acts with children and minors? Had he heard any of the previous rumors swirling around Sandusky, as reported in the Centre Daily? Had he received any hints or reports about Sandusky’s behavior with young boys as alleged in the indictment from 1994 or 1995 onward?

 

If not, why not?

 

Joe and Sue Paterno at 1998 press conference

Penn State was not the only entity to receive donations from Paterno. Sports Illustrated reports that Mike McQueary’s father was affiliated with a local clinic to which Paterno donated a million dollars. McQueary called his father after witnessing the 2002 incident alleged in the indictment. Among other questions directed to Mr. Zuke at K&S is whether the clinic had other connections to the male minors and children allegedly abused by Sandusky. Did the clinic have other connections to Paterno? When did Paterno donate to the clinic? At the time of his donations, did Paterno know of the Sandusky problems?

 

Erin Dobson of Nike states in response to questions that neither Sandusky nor Joe Paterno donated money to Nike’s foundation. Neither Sandusky nor Paterno raised funds for the Nike foundation.

Rewards streamed in for Paterno in the 1990s as well as later. Some of the money for the $3.5 million donation undoubtedly came from Paterno’s participation in the famous Burger King commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfi–PuWswM

 

In November 1992, Paterno donated $250K to the Penn State library, as well as heading a committee to raise a further $20 million including $5 million in private funds. In 1994—a particularly active year for community relations–Paterno served on the advisory board of the Decency Action Council’s Dove Foundation, devoted to publishing a list of videos appropriate for family viewing. Paterno also chaired the Salvation Army drive that year, in connection with one Salvation Army banquet hobnobbing with GOP notables including Sen. Arlen Specter, presidential candidate Bob Dole, and senate candidate Rick Santorum.

In 1995, concerns arose about an adopted son in Sandusky’s home. The boy attempted suicide a few months after being placed in Sandusky’s home, and his mother wrote to the authorities.

Paterno had donated $350K for the library by the end of 1996.

By 2004, the university was (unsuccessfully) asking Paterno to retire. Those years in the late nineties are beginning to look significant.

Add in retirement benefits

On top of everything else, the indictment states—this is another question placed with Sollers’ law firm–that Jerry Sandusky abruptly retired in 1999, telling one of the boys he allegedly imposed on that Paterno had told Sandusky he would not be Penn State’s next head coach. The meeting between Paterno and Sandusky took place in May 1999. Did Paterno know in May 1999 about Sandusky’s alleged illegal acts with children and minors?

The indictment also says that Sandusky retired in 1999 partly to take advantage of an “enhanced retirement benefit” (p. 11). When was that benefit enhanced, and by whom? Did Paterno know of the enhancement? Was it deliberate reward or inducement to get Sandusky to retire?

Questions placed with Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph Amendola, have not yet been replied to.

[Corrected:  At some point,] Penn State attorney Wendell V. Courtney took on an additional gig as counsel for Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile. As reported by Centre Daily, this item differs from the grand jury narrative:

“Courtney also disputes the last sentence, saying he did not begin work for The Second Mile until April 2009.

David Woodle, vice chairman of The Second Mile’s state board of directors and acting CEO, confirmed in an interview that Courtney wasn’t hired until April 2009.

“He wasn’t official counsel. He was just advising periodically, some pro bono, some paid later,” Woodle said. He could not give specific details about what kind of work Courtney performed for the charity.”

 

Courtney has publicly denied being told of the abuses.

 

Sandusky retired as assistant coach at Penn State at the end of the 1999 football season. In the last game, the 1999 Alamo Bowl, PSU shut out Texas A&M 24-0, and Penn State players honored Sandusky at the end of the game. Texas authorities are now investigating the Sandusky matter in connection with the Alamo Bowl.

 

Sandusky honored at 1999 Alama Bowl

It was also in 1999 that Penn State moved its football activities into the new Lasch facility, underwritten by Paterno’s connections among donors.

Were retirement benefits enhanced across the board for all employees at Penn State, or only for certain positions/jobs, or only for Mr. Sandusky?

Were Paterno or Sandusky involved in negotiating the retirement benefits? Did Paterno’s charitable donations affect his contributions to the pension fund? Did donations affect his or Sandusky’s retirement benefits?

 

More later

Protesting Penn Staters should read the grand jury report

Required reading: Rioting Penn Staters should read the grand jury report

 

Joe Paterno in happier times

 

Penn State plays Nebraska at noon today. As everybody knows, longtime coach Joe Paterno and assistant coach Mike McQueary will not be among those present.

 

McQueary

As most people know, McQueary walked in on the anal rape of a ten-year-old boy, but did not intervene. Paterno learned of the assault from McQueary the next day but did not fire the alleged perpetrator or investigate the incident. Neither man reported the 2002 matter to law enforcement. The man in question, former longtime Penn State assistant coach Gerald (Jerry) Sandusky, now faces trial on similar allegations of acts involving at least eight male children and minors since the 1990s.

 

The grand jury report leaves no doubt about the nature of the acts alleged.

 

Every Penn Stater who thinks the university’s board of trustees was mistaken to fire Joe Paterno should read it.

 

Rioting over Paterno's ouster

A quick recap, for those who cannot face the grand jury report:

  • Sandusky himself, who worked for Paterno as assistant coach and was also a friend of Paterno’s, founded The Second Mile in 1977. The Second Mile was characterized as a non-profit to help at-risk youth. It entailed Sandusky’s working closely with young boys and teenagers, visiting them, traveling with them, taking them on outings, and hosting them in his home.
  • Every one of the eight children or minors referred to in the grand jury report (presentment) came to Sandusky’s attention through The Second Mile. The Second Mile program involved several hundred boys and teens in vulnerable situations.
  • Sandusky’s position as longtime assistant coach at Penn State was a major attraction or source of appeal for the minors referred to in the grand jury report. Sandusky was able to carry youths out of town to football games, to convey them to sports facilities including locker rooms and showers, and to socialize with them in hotels and in his home by virtue of his Penn State position and his closeness to Penn State athletics.
  • The oldest boys referred to in the grand jury report were 12 or 13 when they came into Sandusky’s orbit. The youngest were 7 or 8. The boy whom Sandusky allegedly anally assaulted in 2002, seen by McQueary, was about 10.
  • Sandusky’s actions alleged in the grand jury report include specifically anal sex performed on a minor, performing oral sex on a minor, having a minor perform oral sex on him, and—always with minors or children—initiating acts of kissing, blowing, touching of genitals including with erection, wrestling, hugging, and showering together; etc.
  • The anal penetration of a child estimated to be 10, seen by McQueary in 2002, was brought to Joe Paterno’s attention the next day. Paterno took one action: another day later, he reported the matter to Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley. Curley and Penn State VP for Finance Gary Schultz have been arraigned for making false statements to the grand jury.
  • Sandusky had been investigated by State College police and by Penn State University police in 1998 for similar acts.

 

Sandusky

 

Up until Sandusky’s keys to Penn State facilities were taken away after the scene in 2002, much or most of Sandusky’s activity with youngsters involved Penn State. Sandusky had the prestige of the athletic program behind him, and his longtime closeness with the legendary Joe Paterno. He was a fixture on campus until 1999, when he retired after Paterno informed him that he would not be the next head coach. Even after retiring, he had free access to athletic facilities including weight rooms, locker room and showers. By virtue of his position at Penn State, Sandusky had associations with pro football players and with other athletic programs. He received products from Nike and other companies, and could line up sports-related products to be conveyed as gifts to the young boys in The Second Mile.

 

Anyone who looks at this picture, even briefly, should understand that responsibility for the situation goes to the top.

 

The grand jury document is widely accessible online, provided by outlets including ABC, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times.

It has already been pointed out that protesting the firing of Joe Paterno (along with the less-noted firing of the university’s president) does not reflect well on Penn State, alma mater to about one in ten college graduates in the United States.

It also does not reflect well on the United States.

[Update Nov. 15

Since the initial reports and the grand jury indictment, Mike McQueary has stated that he stopped the assault he witnessed. Sandusky is denying all charges, with his attorney present.]

 

Next:

More timelines