Tag Archives: Joel Myers

Mar 14 2013

Lettermen to Blast Trustees on Friday–live stream


By Mike Dawson — mdawson@centredaily.com

Before the fireworks Friday, when former Penn State football lettermen have promised to lay into the board of trustees, a handful of board members will convene Thursday to pave the way for ground-breaking changes to how the 158-year-old university is governed. The board’s committee on governance and long-range planning is expected to review and recommend reforms for a vote of the full board on Friday in Hershey. Exactly what those reforms are, though, will not be known until the meeting, because its agenda is confidential, and a university spokesman could not provide firmer details about which reforms will be up for consideration.

The committee meeting is at 1 p.m. This will be streamed live on WPSU.com

Regardless of the uncertainty, the result will be unprecedented because of the long tradition of university and board governance, which became a lightning rod for criticism after the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

Politicians, elected officials and alumni have been calling for reform and changes, and the board of trustees continues to bear the brunt of the anger from seething fans and alumni over its handling of coach Joe Paterno’s ouster and the NCAA sanctions. Some groups want to purge the board of those who voted to remove Paterno as coach, while others want the size of the board reduced, a different composition or certain members stripped of their voting ability.

The best hints about what reforms to expect Thursday  are from the  committee’s last discussion on the topic in January, when the members reviewed the long list of reforms suggested by former Auditor General Jack Wagner.

Among the reforms that were discussed: whether the Penn State president or the state’s governor should have voting powers, whether the president will be the board’s secretary or whether retired university employees have to wait a few years before they can run for a board seat.

The committee is chaired by James Broadhurst and includes the former chairwoman Karen Peetz and  Joel Myers, who fired off an email a few weeks ago criticizing the NCAA and the Freeh report.

Peetz and Myers were supportive of removing the president’s voting powers, and the committee sounded in favor of stripping the governor’s voting powers, too. Broadhurst said he first wanted to discuss the latter one with Gov. Tom Corbett.

A reduction in the president’s powers was one of Wagner’s core recommendations. The former auditor general also recommended reducing the size of the board from its size of 32 members

Aug 11 2012

Penn State Trustee Speaks Out on Due Process


From Trustee Ryan McCombie
10 August 2012
To: The Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees
As I noted during the Board meeting last Tuesday (August 7), my principal issue in this ongoing saga is the lack of fairness and due process that has been afforded the University and other parties, including persons completely innocent of any wrongdoing, at the hands of the NCAA. My focus in the protective notice of appeal that was filed, and in future proceedings that may be considered, will not be on the authority of President Erickson; rather, it will be on the unlawful and extortionate actions of the NCAA, and the “rush to judgment” that has occurred as a result. This Board should not become a part of this rush to judgment under the guise of attempting to put this matter behind us. So long as the full truth has yet to come out, and there has not been a fair and thorough adjudicative process, this institution will be unable to truly begin a healing process.
Everyone should understand that at the moment in time and under the circumstances that were presented to President Erickson, he faced truly draconian choices. Under the duress of the tyrannical and unbridled power of the NCAA – - power to impose sanctions and penalties not only on our University but an entire region of Pennsylvania – - President Erickson did what I believe most of us would have done. Standing before an almighty adversary with academic, economic and other lives at stake, bravado is seldom a good tactic. Our President knew that he could be criticized for his difficult decisions, but his responsibility was to protect and mitigate the damage that had been done to what he held dear and was responsible to defend. At that moment in time, I believe President Erickson acted with courage and self sacrifice.
It is however, the very imposition of these circumstances of unbridled power, lack of due process, and total lack of accountability by an organization which has acquired immense power, that I protest. By their own admission this was not a negotiation, it was a “cram down” intended to do grave damage to this University and its reputation.
When I see fear in the eyes and voices of University Presidents, Athletic Directors and coaches when discussing the NCAA, I know something has gone fundamentally wrong. No one should fear their government or governing body. The unchecked power of the NCAA and its ability to decree and impose penalties on its members, and by extension their communities, without due process or the rule of law – even their own – must be reviewed.
There have been a great many mistakes made in this Shakespearean tragedy, but it is culminating in the authority of an organization that has become too powerful and too willing to use that power well beyond its charter, by-laws or established precedent.
I have just had an opportunity to read the email by Joel Myers with his suggestions and proposals for moving forward on these issues. I fully support and endorse Mr. Myer’s recommendations and the reasons behind them. The NCAA’s consent decree, to which I take exception, criticizes this Board for failing to “perform its oversight duties” and for failing in its “duties to oversee the President and senior University officials.” We should not fall victim to these same fiduciary shortcomings now, simply because it will help take the attention off the NCAA or make it easier for them to deprive certain parties with their rights to have the decree reviewed by an independent appeals committee. To allow sufficient time for the full and deliberative review that Mr. Myers suggests, I will instruct my counsel to refrain from further prosecution of pending appeals or consideration of other legal actions. It is time to pause, reflect and be fully informed as a Board before casting further votes that will impact the present and future of this great University. Let’s not continue this rush to judgment and pursuit of closure for the sake of closure.
Ryan McCombie August 10, 2012
Aug 7 2012

Fight on State! Some Trustees Have Guts!


Joel Myers, a long-time Penn State trustee, expressed support for new trustee Ryan McCombie’s appeal Monday of the NCAA sanctions leveled against Penn State.

Myers, the founder, president and chairman of the board of State College-based AccuWeather, told StateCollege.com the NCAA’s sense of fair play failed.

“(Ryan) served his country and I support what he’s doing,” Myers said of McCombie, a former Navy SEAL. “He wrote about fairness and justice and I support what he said – it’s fundamentally unfair.

“The whole process was unfair and un-American.”

McCombie was elected to the Penn State Board of Trustees this past May and started his term July 1. On Monday, he sent a letter to the entire board and a notice of appeal to the NCAA.

By Monday afternoon, a group of fellow trustees had already expressed support for McCombie’s actions taken to appeal the sanctions dealt to the Penn State football team, which is facing a four-year postseason ban and scholarship reductions.

Myers said while the appeal is important, the board has also expressed sympathy for and pledged to aid the victims of Jerry Sandusky.

“We feel for the victims … we have great compassion for them and what they’ve gone through. We’ve taken action as a board and as a university to acknowledge that.”

Myers said the NCAA’s action is now making victims out of those who neither knew about or had anything to do with Sandusky’s serial abuse.

“My belief is the NCAA ‘s sense of fair play failed,” said Myers, the father of Dan Myers, Publisher and Owner of Lazerpro, the parent company of StateCollege.com.

On July 25, the board met behind closed doors at the Penn Stater for three hours to discuss Penn State President Rodney Erickson’s acceptance of the sanctions, something he moved ahead with sans consent from the full board.

No action was taken at that meeting and board chairwoman Karen Peetz released a statement Aug. 1 saying the board and the university intend to comply with the sanctions and support Erickson.

McCombie’s appeal is the second to challenge the NCAA sanctions.

The Paterno family announced Friday they would be filing an appeal to in an attempt to reconcile the “enormous damage” done to Penn State.

NCAA Vice President of Communications Bob Williams said later Friday on Twitter that “the Penn State sanctions are not subject to appeal.”

Jul 18 2012

ESPN report on failure of Penn State Board of Trustees


byDan Van Natta, Jr. ESPN

In November 2004, four of Penn State’s leaders, including then-president Graham
Spanier, sat down at Joe Paterno‘s kitchen table on a Sunday morning. The men
asked the iconic coach to retire. Paterno said no, and that was
that.

That same month, seven members of Penn State’s board of trustees
proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board’s oversight
power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to
documents obtained this week by “Outside the Lines.” The group told the full
board, “Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand
the test of being informed decisions.”

But the board never took a vote on
the proposal. Spanier and then-board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin considered the
reforms — and, just as Paterno had done, said no, three current trustees
say.

The revelation comes to light five days after former FBI director
Louis Freeh‘s firm released its school-sanctioned report on what the university
did to protect children in the wake of the arrest of former defensive
coordinator Jerry Sandusky and the board’s Nov. 9 firing of Paterno and Spanier.
The report, which blasted the board for poor governance and a failure of
leadership, has led some trustees to say they now regret the good-governance
proposal never was put to a full vote by the board’s 32 members eight years
ago.

Joel Myers, a longtime trustee, said the Freeh investigators told
him that if the good-governance proposal had been adopted by the board back in
2004, “This (crisis) could have been avoided.”

The 2004 proposals are
eerily prescient considering how the trustees, according to the Freeh report,
were left in the dark by Spanier, Baldwin and trustee Steve Garban as the
Sandusky criminal investigation escalated in 2011. If the proposals had passed,
the trustees say the measures might have made a difference in the way the board
had responded to the Sandusky matter.

Two trustees said Freeh’s
investigators had asked them and other trustees about the 2004 good-governance
proposal and appeared determined to find out why it had not been adopted. One
trustee also said Freeh’s investigators told them they had obtained emails
between Spanier and Baldwin and others discussing the merits of the trustees’
proposal. The trustee also said Freeh’s investigators said that the emails
showed “Spanier and Baldwin put a stop” to the good-governance proposal. “They
didn’t want the added scrutiny,” the trustee said.

“It was a big, missed
opportunity,” said Al Clemens, another longtime trustee. “Back in 2004, we just
knew there wasn’t enough accountability, and it seemed like a reasonable step to
try to protect the university. It seemed like the right thing to
do.”

Joel Myers, a longtime trustee, said the Freeh investigators told
him that if the good-governance proposal had been adopted by the board back in
2004, “This (crisis) could have been avoided.”

After the good-governance
proposal was discussed in a private board session in 2004, at least four young
boys were sexually abused by Sandusky. Two trustees who spoke on condition of
anonymity said they fear the board’s failure to adopt the good-governance
proposal will be used by victims’ lawyers in the negligence lawsuits against
Penn State.

“This could increase our liability,” a current trustee said,
“possibly by millions.”

Yet there is no mention in the Freeh report of
the trustees’ failed good-governance proposal or the Spanier and Baldwin emails.
A spokesman for the Freeh Group declined to comment.

The board’s failure
to improve its good-governance practices is a curious omission from the Freeh
report, which made the trustees’ governance failure a main focus of its
findings.

According to the Freeh report, the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office told
then-university counsel Baldwin on Dec. 28, 2010, that Paterno, athletics
director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz would be subpoenaed to
testify before the Sandusky grand jury. Baldwin did not seek outside counsel’s
advice.

The Freeh report found that Spanier and Baldwin dealt with the
escalating Sandusky crisis throughout 2011 with no outside advice from lawyers
with experience dealing with grand jury investigations. Spanier and Baldwin also
failed to seek the full advice of the board on how to handle the
crisis.

This failure was noted by the Freeh Group, which referred to the
administrators’ “over-emphasis on ‘The Penn State Way.’ ” As defined by Freeh,
“The Penn State Way” is “an approach to decision-making, a resistance to seeking
outside perspectives, and an excessive focus on athletics that can, if not
recognized, negatively impact the university’s reputation as a progressive
institution.”

Baldwin and Spanier representatives have both said the
Freeh report contains many errors, though no specifics have been
provided.

Maribeth Schmidt of the alumni group Penn Staters for
Responsible Stewardship said the board’s inaction and the omission of the failed
good-governance proposal in the Freeh report are disturbing.

“This new
development certainly raises additional questions about the integrity of the
Freeh report and further demonstrates that its objectivity is severely in
question,” she said in a statement. “The members of Penn Staters for Responsible
Stewardship would certainly expect that any misstep by the board — especially
one this significant — which occurred in the years included in the Freeh
investigation would have been documented and reported in its entirety.”

The closest Freeh’s investigators come to mentioning the board’s
evolving governance procedures can be found in the fine print, in footnote 557:
“See Standing Orders of the Penn State board of trustees, Order IX. This
statement on the general policies of the board of trustees was initially set
forth and approved by the board on June 11, 1970 and amended from time to time,
the most recent being January 19, 1996.”