Penn State News and Information & 2013 Trustee Election

Penn State Continues Successful Recruiting

Myke Triebold — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:57:56 +0000

There is something that is not understood in today’s college football atmosphere. You see, it’s not supposed to be cool to play football at Penn State University. Playing on the gridiron in Happy Valley is supposed to be the furthest thing from a teenager’s mind. This is because people in positions of power within the school made unspeakable mistakes in the past–and have since been removed– that these athletes had absolutely nothing to do with, so they, and the current coaching staff, is supposed to suffer because of that,or so says the NCAA at least.

However, there’s one problem. Someone forgot to tell this to head coach Bill O’Brien, his coaching staff, and the top-tier prospective football recruits in the country.

This upcoming season was supposed to be the time period where Penn State began to feel the Berlin Wall of recruiting failures begin to fall upon them. The domino effect of their inevitable downfall and disappearance into obscurity was supposed to begin with nearly every considerable recruit in the nation refusing to go to the central-Pennsylvania institution. People referred to Penn State’s punishment dealt to them by the NCAA as this era’s version of the ‘Death Penalty.’ Top-level talent not going there was intended to render the program to the point of near irrelevancy by the time the five-year probation concludes.

Today, yet again, Bill O’Brien and his staff once again displayed that they will do everything in their power to make sure that the NCAA’s intended outcome for the football program never comes to fruition.

O’Brien and staff secured the commitment of four-star safety Marcus Allen from Upper Marlboro, Maryland, adding to an already impressive 2014 incoming class. Stuff like this wasn’t supposed to happen.

Although I was never one to pay too much attention to recruiting rankings, in this case, Penn State’s current 2014 recruiting rankings given their situation are nothing short of incredible. Popular recruiting site 24/7 has the Lions listed with the number 15 class for 2014, ESPN has them at 14, and Scout.com has them all the way up at 11–nearly cracking the Top 10.

How is this happening?

With promises of across-the-Atlantic Ocean games to supplement the absence of a bowl game, adequate preparation for a career at the next level from a man who has worked with the best in the game in Bill Belichick, and schooling from one of the most impressive academic institutions in the country–that’s how this is happening.

If you are the type to give the majority of your stock to recruiting rankings, then Penn State’s recruiting successes so far have them in prime position to field one of the more impressive programs every fall for the next few years to come. Again, not exactly what NCAA President Mark Emmert intended when he stood at the podium and announced the crippling sanctions early last Summer.

In 2017 when Penn State is scheduled to arise from the proverbial grave they were put in by the NCAA, they were supposed to literally be a zombie-like figure in regards to being an actual contending football program. If this kind of recruiting success keeps up, you might almost be able to pencil them in for a trip to the Big Ten Championship Game.

________

Jack is a College Football Contributor for Rant Sports. Follow Jack on Twitter @JackJ14RS

Tagged: Joe Paterno, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, Penn State, penn state football

Bringing Down a Legend: How an “Independent” Grand Jury Ended Joe Paterno’s Career

Myke Triebold — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:41:27 +0000

By Brian Gallini

Entering the 2011 collegiate football season, Joseph Vincent “Joe” Paterno was the longest tenured head football coach in the nation, the winningest coach in Penn State and major college football history, and his current Nittany Lion squad was enjoying another standout season. That fall, things changed for him almost overnight.

On November 5, 2011, Pennsylvania State Police arrested Jerry Sandusky, an ex-assistant defensive coach to Joe Paterno, for sexually abusing eight boys. The arrest followed what Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly called a “widereaching grand jury investigation,” the results of which—contained in a grand jury presentment—became publicly available on the same day Sandusky was arrested. Although the presentment was replete with horrific sexual abuse allegations related specifically to Sandusky, it also included a handful of “facts” relevant to Paterno. In general, the presentment described inappropriate sexual contact between Sandusky and eight young boys.

When describing an incident on March 1, 2002, between Sandusky and “victim 2,” the presentment indicated that a “graduate assistant” (later identified as Mike McQueary) witnessed Sandusky showering with “a naked boy . . . whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.” The next day, according to the presentment, the graduate assistant “telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he had seen.” Paterno responded by calling Penn State’s athletic director at his home the next day to report “that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

A media frenzy erupted immediately after the report came out. News about the so-called “Penn State scandal” was all over every major newspaper in the nation and occupied time on almost every major network and cable news station for days. Alongside the understandable public outcry surrounding Sandusky’s horrid alleged behavior lingered some basic questions about Joe Paterno: how much did he know about Sandusky’s conduct and, correspondingly, when did he know it?

On November 7, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly clarified that Paterno was not the subject of the state’s criminal investigation into how the school handled the allegations against Sandusky. That, however, did not satisfy the court of public opinion. Sensing the end of his career was perhaps near, and seeking to unilaterally decide the date of his retirement, Paterno announced on the morning of November 9 that he would retire at the end of the 2011 season.

The University’s Board of Trustees ignored Paterno’s announcement and dismissed him, effective immediately, that same evening.

The University community reacted violently to the news of Paterno’s firing. Paterno tried to calm supporters who had gathered outside his home shortly after news of his firing became public by telling them “we still have things to do.” He was wrong. Just sixty-four days later, Paterno died on January 22, 2012, at the age of eighty-five due to metastatic small cell carcinoma of the lung.

Paterno’s downfall began with the investigative grand jury naming Paterno in the presentment targeted toward Sandusky. But Paterno was denied the opportunity to legally respond—there existed no venue for him to file any kind of response or seek to strike portions of the Sandusky presentment. In federal court and many state courts, strict secrecy rules governing grand jury activity would likely have ensured that Paterno would never have had to respond —publicly or legally—to a presentment issued by an investigating grand jury that investigated someone else.

Secrecy rules aside, federal grand jury targets, defendants, and/or witnesses never have to respond to grand jury presentments because presentments have been disallowed in the federal criminal justice system since 1946. Federal courts also disallow so-called grand jury reports—documents that, historically speaking, report on matters of public concern or the conduct of public officials. But a gap in the Supreme Court’s grand jury jurisprudence promotes inconsistency in the treatment of grand jury documents, secrecy rules, and uninvestigated third parties. The Supreme Court’s historic emphasis on the grand jury’s independence is to blame. Indeed, the Court’s long-held characterization of the grand jury as a body “acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge” promotes and allows for the extreme position taken by Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme. Pennsylvania continues to authorize both presentments and reports but, in doing so, does not regulate with precision what and who is permissibly included in those documents. Its failure to do so allows the grand jury to name anyone, such as an uninvestigated third party like Paterno, in a presentment or report without correspondingly providing that third party with the ability to defend himself meaningfully.

Accordingly, this Article argues that the Supreme Court’s current view of the grand jury allowed a Pennsylvania investigative grandjury to needlessly and unfairly include Paterno, practically accusing him of a crime. An important job of the grand jury is to investigate crimes, but by naming Paterno in the Sandusky presentment it implicitly said that Paterno committed a crime without having gone through the appropriate steps to establish probable cause that he did commit a crime. Any grand jury that names an uninvestigated person in a presentment or report subverts the grand jury’s investigative purpose and abuses the grand jury system. Just as problematic, the Sandusky document immediately became public. Releasing that document to the public undermines the factfinding mission that is central to our jury system. Indeed, allowing the public to view sensitive grand jury documents—untested by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard—harms the reputation of any named third party and unduly prejudices the suspect’s potential jury pool. Finally, it inappropriately allows for a trial by media that can ensnare third parties, like Joe Paterno, who are not the subject of the grand jury’s investigation. Paterno’s involvement may certainly have become public absent his being named in the Sandusky presentment, but a grand jury investigation into someone else—in this case Sandusky—should have no role in that eventuality. It may likewise be the case that what appeared in the Sandusky presentment about Paterno is absolutely true. Indeed, Paterno may well have protected a child molester for a decade for the most selfish of reasons—but his personal guilt is not the point. Paterno’s story simply makes for an outstanding illustration of the Supreme Court’s problematic view of the grand jury as an independent body. The absence of consistent regulation over that body, a byproduct of the Supreme Court’s approach, allowed a grand jury presentment investigating one person to improperly accuse an uninvestigated third party of impropriety.

But at least Sandusky had his day in court. Paterno will not. Paterno is a private third party who was not under investigation and is thus historically not properly included in either the presentment of someone else, or the subject of a separate grand jury report. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s decision to make the Sandusky presentment public ignores that history and, in doing so, denies to Paterno the opportunity to defend his name, his reputation, or what he did—or did not do—during Sandusky’s tenure on his staff, leading up to Sandusky’s retirement, and following Sandusky’s retirement. Paterno’s inability to do so has nothing to do with the fact that he is dead. Even assuming that Paterno had not died from lung cancer, there exists no meaningful legal proceeding in Pennsylvania that would allow him to distance himself from the grand jury’s investigation into Sandusky. Even if such a proceeding existed, it’s unlikely the public would forget about his inclusion in Sandusky’s investigation.

After all, the public reaction to Sandusky’s acquittal on involuntary deviate sexual intercourse against victim two (the same victim who McQueary allegedly saw in the shower with Sandusky) has hardly cleared Paterno’s name—though it was Paterno’s handling of the story related to victim two that led to his firing. Part of the collective problem, of course, stems from the manner in which the Sandusky presentment was written. Emblazoned with Findings of Fact at the top of the page, the media at large took it as precisely as that—some members of the media even went so far as to assume the document constituted an indictment against Sandusky. Thus, the average reader of the media’s subsequent stories about Sandusky, let alone the average lawyer, likely had no idea about the difference between a “presentment” and an “indictment.” And why would they—the Sandusky presentment was not even labeled as such; the document omitted a title page and announced itself immediately with its “findings of fact” label. The public likely has no idea that those findings were not the product of an adversary proceeding.

The totality of the Sandusky investigation perfectly illustrates why federal grand jury practice has, as discussed above, all but eliminated the grand jury’s presentment and reporting abilities. Its doing so “should not be mourned.” Federal grand jury practice “properly reflect[s] an unwillingness to allow an ex parte, unaccountable body to inflict damage on reputations and careers.” Several states have followed suit by, for example, restricting the filing of grand jury reports that single out individuals, requiring that such reports follow procedural safeguards, or at least providing the named individual with the opportunity to challenge the report’s contents. But state practice is not constitutionally obligated to follow any particular procedural approach. Accordingly, the more central problem is the perhaps unintended consequence of the Supreme Court’s thematic emphasis on the grand jury being an “independent” body that is not “textually assigned” to anybranch of government.

The idea that the investigative grand jury in Pennsylvania is truly “independent” seems difficult to reconcile with the fact that it cannot operate without either the prosecutor, or a supervising judge. Paterno’s story so compellingly demonstrates these collective problems because of the consequences of the Sandusky investigation to him: (1) he believed he would die without football, and (2) the Sandusky investigative grand jury took football from him—whether intentionally or not. As to the first point, Paterno never had interest in retirement. In an interview for The New York Times in 1997, Paterno, then age seventy, said, “I don’t want to retire. Too many people quit their jobs too early and don’t know what to do with themselves.” CBS sportscaster Brent Musburger said over a decade later in 2008 that his friend, Paterno, was haunted by Bear Bryant’s death. Bryant, of course, was the legendary coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide football team from 1958-82, who retired in 1982 and died from a massive heart attack just twenty-nine days later. Musburger added the following: “[Paterno] is a man that doesn’t fish, doesn’t play golf . . . he has no other interest other than his family and football[.] And he’s just afraid what would happen with the rest of his life if he walks away from it.” Paterno was apparently even more direct with current Nittany Lion, Donovan Smith; Paterno told him “I’m afraid to stop coaching because I’ll die.” Although some contend that Paterno died from a broken heart, others suggest that medical evidence supports the idea that the grief he experienced as a result of the Sandusky investigation and his firing hastened Paterno’s passing. According to a recent study, grief experienced from loss—as in, for example, a job—can increase the risk of a heart attack “21-fold.” One national expert on aging said that in Paterno’s case specifically, his firing could have accelerated his death: “[w]hen you feel that you’ve lost your place in this world, death is never far behind[.]” And, more basically, “coexisting conditions such as high psychological stress, depression and major changes in a life event are all associated with increased mortality.” Regardless of the accuracy of the medical evidence, the point of this Article remains the same: all of this started with an “independent” grand jury investigating Sandusky that named Paterno in a presentment related only to Sandusky. Doing so was gratuitous, superfluous, and denied to Paterno the opportunity to explain what he did, or did not do, about Sandusky’s criminal behavior. Pennsylvania, floating in a sea of other states with differing approaches to grand jury practice, allows the investigative grand jury to issue a presentment, a document long ago described by a New York appellate court as follows:

A presentment is a foul blow. It wins the importance of a judicial document, yet it lacks its principal attributes—the right to answer and to appeal. It accuses but furnishes no forum for a denial. No one knows upon what evidence the findings are based. An indictment may be challenged—even defeated. The presentment is immune. It is like the “hit and run” motorist. Before application can be made to suppress it, it is the subject of public gossip. The damage is done. The injury it may unjustly inflict may never be healed.

I hope they’re not going to judge me on how many games I won or lost . . . I hope they judge me on some other things, the impact we’ve had on people’s lives. Some have been good and, obviously, some have not been so good. But I hope the overall picture is that we have done some good for people. At the time, of course, no one knew that Penn State would fire Paterno after its Board of Trustees concluded that Paterno exemplified a “failure of leadership” by failing to do more after being told that his former assistant coach anally raped a young boy. Commentators no doubt will continue to debate whether Paterno did, in fact, do “enough” when told about Sandusky. But, while that debate remains unresolved, what is clear is that a grand jury document unrelated to Paterno should not have been the cause of his termination. When the Sandusky grand jury’s Findings of Fact became public, the court of public opinion took that document as precisely that: fact. Problematically, however, grand jury proceedings are not governed by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard and, moreover, Paterno was not under investigation. The possibility that a criminally innocent third party could be ensnared by the grand jury investigation of someone else is precisely why the Supreme Court should provide more grand jury regulatory guidance and abandon the modernly inapplicable notion that the grand jury is “independent

Tagged: Brian Gallini, Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, Nittany Lion, Paterno, Penn State, Pennsylvania, sandusky

Louis Freeh and Company–At it Again–Biased, Non Factual!

Myke Triebold — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:41:35 +0000

Does any of this sound familiar?? At least the Board of Trustees knew who to hire to cover THEIR Butts–even if it meant throwing Penn State and Joe Paterno and State College under the bus. The Board of Trustees was interested in ONE Thing–keeping themselves protected at the expense of everyone else. Failure of their fiduciary duties and so much more!!

Universal Entertainment Corporation announced that Judge Michael Chertoff, the former U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary, has issued an assessment castigating last year’s report by Former FBI Director Louis J. Freehconcerning the affairs of Japanese gaming entrepreneur Kazuo Okada and his
affiliated companies. According to Judge Chertoff, the Freeh report was”structurally deficient, one-sided, and seemingly advocacy-driven.” Moreover, its conclusions, “simply are not credible.” Instead, Judge Chertoff found
Freeh’s report to be “deeply flawed” and “lack[ing] basic indicia of a credible
investigation.”
Freeh’s report was prepared on February 18, 2012 at the behest of Wynn Resorts, Limited. At the direction of Steve Wynn, Wynn Resorts turned around and used the report that same day to rationalize the forcible redemption of 24,549,222 shares of Wynn Resorts held by Aruze USA, Inc., a company whose ultimate majority owner is Mr. Okada. At the time, Aruze USA was the largest single shareholder in Wynn Resorts, owning close to 20% of Wynn Resorts’ outstanding stock.

Although Aruze USA’s shareholdings had a market value of at least 2.7 billion U.S. dollars at the time, Wynn Resorts provided Aruze USA with just a non-transferrable, fully subordinated, $1.9 billion, ten-year note in exchange. Wynn Resorts’ stock price rose $6.71, or 5.9%, per share the next day, providing tremendous financial gains to Steve Wynn and the other Wynn Resorts Directors who had just stripped Aruze USA of its shareholdings based on the Freeh report.

Statement from Kazuo Okada

In response to the independent analysis provided by Judge Chertoff, Universal Entertainment founder and Chairman Kazuo Okada said, “This confirms what I have maintained since the day the Freeh report was issued and the Wynn Board moved to strip us of our stake in a company we helped found — that the Freeh report was prepared carelessly and improperly, and contains a number of clear errors. It’s obvious that this biased report was part of Steve Wynn’s campaign to eliminate me as a rival to his power within Wynn Resorts.’”

According to the summary, the Freeh report’s most significant shortcomings include:

   -- Timing that implies that Wynn Resorts commissioned the report for a clear 
      purpose: to justify ousting Mr. Okada from the Board and redeeming Aruze 
      USA's 20 percent stake in the company at a substantial discount; 

   -- Consistently pairing grave and far-reaching conclusions with scant and 
      unreliable supporting evidence and incomplete investigation and analysis, 
      including broadly alleging a "practice and pattern" of Foreign Corrupt 
      Practices Act (FCPA) violations without sufficient detail to meaningfully 
      evaluate these incidents; 

   -- Reaching legal conclusions through deficient legal analysis, including 
      asserting a bad faith, possibly criminal violation of Philippine law 
      while ignoring key aspects of the legal analysis Wynn Resorts 
      commissioned from a local law firm; and, 

   -- Failing to provide any meaningful explanation of its process and citing 
      documents that are of dubious provenance or otherwise unreliable, as well 
      as relying on potentially biased interviewees.
Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2013

Tagged: Aruze USA, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Michael Chertoff, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, Penn State, penn state football, Philippine, Steve Wynn, United States, Universal Entertainment Corporation, Wynn Resort

Why Penn State Board of Trustees Needs to Be Fired!

Myke Triebold — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:29:54 +0000

This is based and paraphrased from an article in the National Law Review written by Ty Howard, a Penn State Alumnus who is a practicing attorney in Nashville Tennessee.

Penn State should have quickly done an internal investigation to learn the scope of the conduct, assess their legal exposure, and charted a course of action. Such an investigation would have preserved any historical information, key documents and obtained statements from individuals who wouldn’t or couldn’t speak later. It would have revealed the university’s legal and public-relations exposure so the Board of Trustees could make informed decisions going forward. As the investigation developed, the BOT and administration should have been preparing. For employees called to testify, they should have been reviewing documents, refreshing distant memories and anticipating questioning. Penn State officials–Curley, Schultz, and Spanier testified before a grand jury without having been prepared by experienced criminal-defense counsel, reviewing pertinent documents or having any understanding of the grand jury process, which resulted in charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. Preparation also means evaluating the need for separate counsel, particularly when the interests of Penn State and individual employees may conflict. Joe Paterno is the only person who did this, and not by any recommendation of Penn State. Curley and Schultz definitely thought that Cynthia Baldwin was THEIR counsel–being provided by Penn State. Penn State even made public statements that the University would be providing legal assistance for them.

The Penn State Board of Trustees should have ensured that the investigating counsel (Cynthia Baldwin) remain its advocate. The BOT should have used their counsel’s findings to craft a strategy and insist that counsel advocate for them while the legal and criminal investigations continued.

The so-called “Freeh report,” produced by lawyers hired by the board of trustees after the fact, was protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges and could not have been disclosed without the board’s (special task force) consent. The board allowed it to be disclosed publicly without prior review—a serious tactical error. Regardless of any media clamoring, it’s entirely appropriate for a client to review materials prepared by its own lawyers to determine if and how the materials are released. The BOT should have limited that release to factual findings and recommendations. (The Freeh Report didn’t have any).

The Penn State BOT should have managed the media so the legal case against Jerry Sandusky (who was no longer an employee when the crimes were committed) didn’t become the uncontrollable media event with Penn State in the crosshairs. Penn State (had the BOT been competent) should have had a well-planned media strategy that included a consistent message, timely responses and proactive tactics.

Penn State was caught flat-footed in November 2011 when the news first broke and continued to falter as the scandal grew. By firing Joe Paterno and removing Graham Spanier immediately without due process, they actually were declaring them guilty. But those mistakes pale in comparison to its further mishandling of the Freeh report. By allowing the report to be released without review, the board erred again by accepting the report in full. By doing so, it undermined any principled objection to the media’s—and ultimately, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s—rubber-stamping the report’s opinions, regardless of whether they were supported by facts in the report. Having lost control of the media narrative, the university was left defenseless, largely by its own doing.

It is my opinion that due to their inept handling of the entire affair, the Board of Trustees has failed in its fiduciary responsibility to the University, has cost the University millions of dollars, has destroyed, defamed and slandered Penn State, Joe Paterno, and the community of State College, Pennsylvania. It is also my opinion that there are members of the BOT such as John Surma (whose brother Vic had publicly declared a vendetta to destroy Joe Paterno) who used the Sandusky scandal for personal agendas rather than fulfilling their responsibilities to the institution they were serving. Every member of the Board of Trustees that was present for the November 2011 firing of Penn State’s football coach and President needs to resign or be removed from office. Only then can we as alumni move forward.

Tagged: Board of directors, Cynthia Baldwin, Graham Spanier, Jerry Sandusky, joepaterno, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, National Law Review, Penn State Board of Trustee, PennState

Report of Mid States Regarding Accreditation

Myke Triebold — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:28:44 +0000

STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 201 Old Main Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: (814) 865-4700; Fax: (814) 865-1100 http://www.psu.edu


Chief Executive Officer:			Dr. Rodney A. Erickson, President
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
		Enrollment (Headcount):	74371 Undergraduate; 13024 Graduate
		Control:	Public
		Affiliation:	State
		Carnegie Classification:	Research – Very High Research Activity
		Degrees Offered:	Postsecondary Certificate (< 1 year), Postsecondary Certificate (>=1 year, < 2 years), Associate’s, Bachelor’s, Postbaccalaureate Certificate, Master’s, Doctor’s – Professional Practice, Doctor’s – Research/Scholarship;
		Distance Education Programs:	Yes
		Accreditors Approved by U.S. Secretary of Education: American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar; American Physical Therapy Association, Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education; American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; Commission on Acceditation of Healthcare Management Education; Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education; Commission on English Language Program Accreditation; Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology; Liaison Committee on Medical Education; National Association of Schools of Art and Design, Commission on Accreditation; National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation; National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on Accreditation; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education; National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission
		Other Accreditors: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences; Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND); Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education; Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology; Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications; American Academy of Forensic Science; American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians; American Chemical Society; Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International; Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-International (AACSB); Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business; Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education; Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education; Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs; Council on Rehabilitation Education; Institute of Food Technologists; Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB); National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences; National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB); National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE); National Association of Schools of Public Affairs & Administration (NASPAA); North American Wildlife Technology Association; Pennsylvania State Board of Nursing – Licensing; Pennsylvania Department of Education; Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) of America; Society of American Foresters; Society of Wood Science and Technology
	Instructional Locations
		Branch Campuses: Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle, PA; Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA
		Additional Locations: Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, Malvern, PA; Penn State Abington, Abington, PA; Penn State Altoona, Altoona, PA; Penn State Beaver, Monaca, PA; Penn State Berks, Reading, PA; Penn State Brandywine, Media, PA; Penn State DuBois, DuBois, PA; Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, Erie, PA; Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus, Uniontown, PA; Penn State Greater Allegheny, McKeesport, PA; Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA; Penn State Hazleton, Hazleton, PA; Penn State Lehigh Valley, Center Valley, PA; Penn State Mont Alto, Mont Alto, PA; Penn State New Kensington, Upper Burrell, PA; Penn State Schuylkill, Schuylkill Haven, PA; Penn State Shenango, Sharon, PA; Penn State Wilkes-Barre, Lehman, PA; Penn State Worthington Scranton, Dunmore, PA; Penn State York, York, PA
		Other Instructional Sites: Abington Hospital, Abington, PA; Aria Health, Philadelphia, PA; ARIS-SON, Abington, PA; Clearfield Area High School, Clearfield, PA; Community Education Council of Elk and Cameron Counties, St. Marys, PA; Downtown Conference Center, Altoona, PA; Erie Regional Skill Center, Erie, PA; Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA; Kraft, Wilkes-Barre, PA; Lancaster Center, Lancaster, PA; Lebanon, Lebanon, PA; Mount Nittany Medical Center/Clinics in Centre County, State College, PA; Northern Tier Center, Towanda, PA; Penn State Continuing Education at Williamsport, Williamsport, PA; Pittsburgh Mills Mall, Tarentum, PA; Proctor & Gamble, Mehoopany, PA; Regional Learning Alliance, Cranberry Twp., PA; Sallie Mae, Hanover Twp., PA; Shaver’s Creek, Petersburg, PA; The Penn State Learning Center (Lewistown), Lewistown, PA; Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, PA; Westmoreland County Community College, Youngwood, PA
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
		Status: Member since 1921
		Last Reaffirmed: November 15, 2012

Most Recent Commission Action:

November 15, 2012:

To accept the monitoring report, to note the visit by the Commission’s representatives, to remove the warning, and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report, due November 1, 2013, documenting (1) the impact on the University budget and the identification of sources of funding to cover the requirements of (a) the report of the U.S. Department of Education regarding the University’s compliance with the Clery Act and associated penalties; (b) updated estimates of the projected costs and liabilities associated with related litigation and the implementation of the Freeh Report recommendations and the NCAA Consent Decree requirements; and (c) the recommendations that are articulated in the report of the external monitor called for by Recommendation 8.3 of the Freeh Report (Standard 3); and (2) developments associated with the revision of the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees to accommodate (a) the expanded involvement of faculty, staff, and students on Board committees and (b) the dual reporting accountability to both the Board and the President of key positions, including that of the General Counsel and the Directors of Internal Audit and Compliance (Standard 4). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:

November 18, 2010:

To accept the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a progress report due by April 1, 2012 documenting evidence of further progress in: (1) the establishment of learning goals at the program level in all programs; and (2) the use of appropriate assessment of the attainment of learning goals at the program level, including use of direct measures of the assessment of student learning and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.

March 1, 2012:

To accept the Commission-requested information report, to remind the institution that the Commission must continue to be informed of any further developments that may result in changes in mission, programs, personnel and/or budget arising from the institution’s investigation or that may result in a change of status with external oversight bodies, such as the NCAA, and to request that the institution provide to the Commission copies of all relevant reports from its investigation or to its external oversight bodies. To further remind the institution of the progress report due by April 1, 2012 documenting evidence of further progress in: (1) the establishment of learning goals at the program level in all programs; and (2) the use of appropriate assessment of the attainment of learning goals at the program level, including use of direct measures of the assessment of student learning and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.

June 28, 2012:

To accept the progress report. To remind the institution that the Commission must continue to be informed of any further developments that may result in changes in mission, programs, personnel, and/or budget arising from the institution’s investigation or that may result in a change of status with external oversight bodies, such as the NCAA, and to request that the institution provide to the Commission copies of all relevant reports from its investigation or to its external oversight bodies. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2014-2015.

August 6, 2012:

To warn the institution that its accreditation is in jeopardy based on information contained in the institutionally commissioned Report of the Special Investigative Counsel (Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP, July 12, 2012) and the Binding Consent Decree Imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Accepted by the Pennsylvania State University (July 23, 2013) and insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation 5 (compliance with all applicable government policies, regulations, and requirements) and 9 (institution’s governing body responsibility for the quality and integrity of the institution, for ensuring that the institution’s mission is being carried out, and for making freely available to the Commission accurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and its operations) and with Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance) and Standard 6 (Integrity). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report due by September 30, 2012 documenting steps that have been taken and are planned to ensure the institution’s full compliance with Requirements of Affiliation 5 and 9 as well as Accreditation Standards 4 and 6. In addition, to request that the monitoring report also address Accreditation Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) with regard to the institution’s capacity and plans for addressing financial obligations that will or may result from the investigation and related settlements, etc. A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To remind the institution that the Commission must continue to be informed of any further significant related developments, including the provision of copies of any and all relevant external reports. The due date for the next evaluation visit will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2014 – 2015

Next Periodic Review Report: 2020

Date Printed: April 15, 2013

DEFINITIONS

Branch Campus – A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. The location is independent if the location: offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and has its own budgetary and hiring authority.
Additional Location – A location, other than a branch campus, that is geographically apart from the main campus and at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program. ANYA (“Approved but Not Yet Active”) indicates that the location is included within the scope of accreditation but has not yet begun to offer courses. This designation is removed after the Commission receives notification that courses have begun at this location.
Other Instructional Sites – A location, other than a branch campus or additional location, at which the institution offers one or more courses for credit.
Distance Education Programs – Yes or No indicates whether or not the institution has been approved to offer one or more degree or certificate/diploma programs for which students could meet 50% or more of their requirements by taking distance education courses.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS

An institution’s accreditation continues unless it is explicitly suspended or removed. In addition to reviewing the institution’s accreditation status at least every 5 years, actions are taken for substantive changes (such as a new degree or geographic site, or a change of ownership) or when other events occur that require review for continued compliance. Any type of report or visit required by the Commission is reviewed and voted on by the Commission after it is completed.

In increasing order of seriousness, a report by an institution to the Commission may be accepted, acknowledged, or rejected.

Levels of Actions:

Grant or Re-Affirm Accreditation without follow-up

Defer a decision on initial accreditation: The institution shows promise but the evaluation team has identified issues of concern and recommends that the institution be given a specified time period to address those concerns.

Postpone a decision on (reaffirmation of) accreditation: The Commission has determined that there is insufficient information to substantiate institutional compliance with one or more standards.

Continue accreditation: A delay of up to one year may be granted to ensure a current and accurate representation of the institution or in the event of circumstances beyond the institution’s control (natural disaster, U.S. State Department travel warnings, etc.)

Recommendations to be addressed in the next Periodic Review Report: Suggestions for improvement are given, but no follow-up is needed for compliance.

Supplemental Information Report: This is required when a decision is postponed and are intended only to allow the institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action.

Progress report: The Commission needs assurance that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of a report or on-site visit.

Monitoring report: There is a potential for the institution to become non-compliant with MSCHE standards; issues are more complex or more numerous; or issues require a substantive, detailed report. A visit may or may not be required.

Warning: The Commission acts to Warn an institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy when the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and a follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance. Warning indicates that the Commission believes that, although the institution is out of compliance, the institution has the capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and the institution has the capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation: The Commission places an institution on Probation when, in the Commission’s judgment, the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and that the non-compliance is sufficiently serious, extensive, or acute that it raises concern about one or more of the following:

the adequacy of the education provided by the institution;
the institution’s capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or
the institution’s capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation is often, but need not always be, preceded by an action of Warning or Postponement. If the Commission had previously postponed a decision or placed the institution on Warning, the Commission may place the institution on Probation if it determines that the institution has failed to address satisfactorily the Commission’s concerns in the prior action of postponement or warning regarding compliance with Commission standards. This action is accompanied by a request for a monitoring report, and a special visit follows. Probation may, but need not always, precede an action of Show Cause.

Suspend accreditation: Accreditation has been Continued for one year and an appropriate evaluation is not possible. This is a procedural action that would result in Removal of Accreditation if accreditation cannot be reaffirmed within the period of suspension.

Show cause why the institution’s accreditation should not be removed: The institution is required to present its case for accreditation by means of a substantive report and/or an on-site evaluation. A “Public Disclosure Statement” is issued by the Commission.

Remove accreditation. If the institution appeals this action, its accreditation remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

Other actions are described in the Commission policy, “Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation.”

Tagged: Colleges and Universities, Education, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, Nittany Lion, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University, Rodney Erickson, State College, United States

Penn State Lionette Dance Team National Champs

Myke Triebold — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:26:13 +0000

Tagged: Big Ten Conference, dance, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, National Collegiate Athletic Association, Penn State

Curley, Spanier, Schultz to go to Preliminary Hearing

Myke Triebold — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:41:59 +0000

The judge who presided over the grand jury investigation of Jerry Sandusky and senior Penn State officials denied Tuesday motions to throw out pieces of evidence against the men before a preliminary hearing, saying their lawyers are using stall tactics to delay the case.

In a 16-page ruling, Feudale singled out one issue in making his decision: whether he has the jurisdiction to entertain such motions.

The judge also denied a motion to throw out the grand jury testimonies of Spanier and former university general counsel Cynthia Baldwin as well as to bar Baldwin from taking the stand during a yet-unscheduled preliminary hearing.

“In the view of this court, the motions extant are in effect legal chimera’s (sic),” Feudale wrote, calling them “concepts perceived by this (j)udge as legally creative, imaginative but implausible and serve only to delay the administration of justice in this simple case involving whether Spanier, Curley and Schultz did or did not commit the crimes alleged.”

The judge’s ruling would appear to give the Curley, Schultz and Spanier cases the green light to proceed to a preliminary hearing in a case that has been on hold since the men were arraigned in suburban Harrisburg in November. The men were indicted using Baldwin’s testimony as well as evidence that was turned up in the Freeh report.

The defense lawyers had argued in court papers that Baldwin violated attorney-client privilege when she testified to the grand jury against the men. The lawyers also have said their clients thought Baldwin was representing them at the grand jury, but Baldwin has said she was representing the interests of Penn State.

Feudale’s decision came after the prosecuting attorneys and the defense lawyers gave oral arguments Jan. 24. The judge also said his decision was based on an “extensive and careful review” of records related to the case.

Feudale firmly believed he does not have the jurisdiction to handle the requests. Instead, his role as the supervising judge of the grand jury is to keep its proceedings secret, and his duties ended when he accepted the grand jury presentment that a majority of the grand jurors approved by a vote.

Feudale said even if he had jurisdiction, he does not think the defense lawyers’ motions have legal merit.

“Even if attorney Baldwin exercised poor judgment and/or improper ethical conduct in her handling of the Sandusky investigation; such does not (in this court’s view) provide a defense to any crimes,” Feudale wrote.

Feudale said he does not believe Baldwin violated attorney-client privilege, and the appropriate course for that would be to take the matter to the attorney disciplinary board or a civil court — not a grand jury.

Tagged: Baldwin, Cynthia Baldwin, Graham Spanier, Grand Jury, Harrisburg Pennsylvania, Jerry Sandusky, Lawyer, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, Penn State

Board of Trustee Election Starts Today!!!! Vote!!

Myke Triebold — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:32:26 +0000

Voting begins today in the contentious election for three alumni seats on Penn State’s Board of Trustees. The trustees race once generated little interest in the general public, let alone the 560,000 Penn State alumni across the country. But that changed last year following scrutiny on the actions of university leaders in the aftermath of retired assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s arrest in November 2011 on child sex abuse charges. Any of the university’s 560,000 alumni can vote, though they must first contact the Board of Trustees office. Voters can cast ballots online or through the mail. Voting ends May 2, with results to be announced the following day at the trustees meeting

If you did not get your ballot, be sure to contact the alumni office!!!!!

I recommend you Vote for Scott Kimler!!!!!!!

Tagged: Alumnus, Board of directors, Board of Trustees, Child sexual abuse, Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, joepaterno, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, PennState, Pennsylvania State University, scott kimler, Voting

Penn State Board of Trustees Needs Scott Kimler

Myke Triebold — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:51:21 +0000

Scott is one of the 6-person Executive Committee on PSU-ReBOT.org – which formed as a direct result of the Sandusky scandal. Our group mission has been to reform the Penn State Board of Trustees. We embarked on several initiatives to improve Penn State, which include:
-Supporting the Faculty Senate “BOT Vote of No Confidence” by making presenting at the January 2012 meeting and collecting more than 4,500 petition signatures
-Embarking on an ambitious research project to collect & evaluate governance metrics from 60+ land-grant and BigTen universities for peer review comparison with Penn State
-Advocate for Alumni BOT election reform, which resulted in:
-first-ever Meet and Greet during Blue/White weekend;
-first-ever 86-candidate straw poll (Scott) http://goo.gl/dG478 and
-a single, interactive web-page with candidate information for all 86 candidates “Super Table” (Scott) – http://goo.gl/NjPnc
-Work with existing Board members to advocate reform (spring 2012)
-Work with former Auditor General Jack Wagner and his staff on governance reform (summer 2012) http://goo.gl/bqfRS
-A letter-writing campaign to BOT members urging Wagner reform recommendations (Jan 2013) – http://goo.gl/76DLz
In addition to strategic planning and leadership duties on the Executive Committee, I am also responsible for PSU-ReBOT.org web properties. I designed, created and maintain the http://www.psu-rebot.org website, the Facebook page and the @psu_rebot Twitter presence. PSU Board Relevance – Demonstrated daily commitment to improving Penn State, for over a year. I didn’t wait for a seat on the Board to make a positive impact, I got involved and have applied myself to the task of improving Penn State with both purposeand resolve. Through my involvement, I am aware of the history of decisions the Board has made post-Sandusky, have made many contacts with members of the Penn State community including members of the current Board, various members and leaders of alumni groups, Penn State faculty and many students. As a Board member, I can hit the ground running and am eager to continue reform efforts in person and working with other reform-minded Trustees. My web development and social media abilities will be an asset to the ‘tip-of-the-spear’ efforts for transparency, openness and trust desperately needed within the Penn State Board of Trustees.

Tagged: Board of directors, election, Facebook, Jack Wagner, Jerry Sandusky, joepaterno, Louis Freeh, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, Penn State Board of Trustee, penn state board of trustees, PennState, scott kimler

Mark Emmert and Vicky Triponey, Continued

Myke Triebold — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:58:43 +0000

Hmmmmmm Wichita State. Louisville. Michigan. Syracuse.
These will be the four schools squaring off today to decide which teams will make up the national title game Monday night.

Mark Emmert‘s Final Four news conference even had little to do with the upcoming national semifinals. It was mostly him defending his past after a troubling report about his career as a university president was released earlier this week. The NCAA president even got into it with CBS Sports reporter Dennis Dodd, who has said in recent months that Emmert should step down. Wichita State, Huh–Emmert and Triponey!! Syracuse, hey Bernie!!–

Guess who was the President of the Middle States in 2012 that threatened Penn State? Barbara Gildenstein, president of the College of New Jersey under whom Vicky Triponey serves as Vice President of Student Affairs. Middle States accuses Penn Sate of potentially violating four different areas of their accreditation requirements, relating to the following:
■Compliance with all applicable government policies, regulations, and requirements. (Affiliation 5)
■Institution’s governing body responsibility for the quality and integrity of the institution, for ensuring that the institution’s mission is being carried out, and for making freely available to the Commission accurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and its operations. (Affiliation 9)
■Leadership and Governance (Standard 4)
■Integrity (Standard 6)

Middle States is The Middle States Commission on Higher Education

One email from Triponey, to Spanier said “please do something to stop this atrocious behavior before this team and an entire generation of Penn State students leave here believing that this is appropriate and acceptable behavior within a civil university community.”
Triponey was a lightning rod for controversy due to her policy implementations at both Penn State and before that the University of Connecticut. Spanier hired Triponey in 2003 knowing her controversial background at UConn (hired by Mark Emmert); he supported her actions vis-a-vis Paterno for a time; and the biggest clashes came after the 2004 season when Spanier had tried to strong-arm Paterno’s resignation, or at least get Paterno to plan a retirement timeline. The team started winning again in the 2005 season, and after that Spanier appears to have stopped supporting Triponey, i.e. he gave up trying to get Paterno to retire, for the time being at least. By 2007 Triponey was out at PSU.
In one email to Spanier in Sept. 2005 she wrote, “I do not support the way this man is running our football program.” Um, whose football program?
Did Paterno cause Triponey’s demise at Penn State? Almost certainly.
Did Paterno have a reputation for using his power to fire people, or get them fired? No, he didn’t.
Could Paterno wield his clout forcefully? Yes.

Tagged: Graham Spanier, Joe Paterno, Mark Emmert, myke, myke atwater triebold, myke triebold, National Collegiate Athletic Association, Penn State, Pennsylvania State University, Triponey, University of Connecticut