A MOTION - Tom Corbett and his appointees must be removed as Trustees for violation of their Fiduciary Duty

THIS IS A VERY QUICK ROUGH EXAMPLE OF A MOTION THAT COULD BE CRAFTED.
The members of PS4RS, ReBOT, Reorganize the BoT,  March for Truth and SMSS request that the Trustees elected to their position by our efforts offer this motion for consideration demanding that Corbett, his appointees and Frazier, Peetz Lubert etc recuse themselves from the debate and the vote.


MOVED - Gov Tom Corbett and all his appointees and Trustee Ken Frazier on the PSU BoT have violated their fiduciary duty and the Conflicts of Interest clauses in the By Laws of the PSU BoT.

Whereas Tom Corbett and the above mentioned Trustees -- list names --- have a clear Conflict of Interest with their Fiduciary Duty to Penn State they are hereby removed from the Board for the following violations.

1) Tom Corbett, Ken Frazier and *list of trustees caused the Sandusky Scandal to become the Penn State Scandal by firing or causing to be terminated Joe Paterno and Graham Spaniner in the wake of the FALSE presentment of AG Linda Kelly informed by the Grand Jury called and provided with information by Tom Corbett.  Despite this clear conflict of interest Tom Corbett and his appointees remained involved in the meeting of Nov 9 2011. The actions of that Board of Trustees informed the media that the PSU BoT believed the FALSE Presentment - that Mike McQueary saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told that to Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.  That statement was adjudicated to be FALSE by the verdict of the Sandusky Jury.

2) Tom Corbett, his appointees and Ken Frazier acted to pay Louis Freeh 8.2 million dollars and then instructed him to work hand in hand with AG Linda Kelly to craft a FALSE REPORT blaming The Penn State Culture, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schults for "years of covering up for the actions of Jerry Sandusky" despite a failure to interview any of the people involved in any event involving these men and Jerry Sandusky. This FALSE REPORT was clearly extremely damaging to Penn State and therefor constitutes a clear violation of their Fiduciary Duty to protect Penn State.

3) Tom Corbett and his appointees had a clear intention to reduce the Commonwealth's contribution to Penn State University. In order to strengthen his position seeking to deny funding to Penn State, Tom Corbett acted to remove Graham Spanier and have him indicted in order to remove him as an impediment to his plan. This plan to reduce the contribution of the Commonwealth to Penn State is in and of itself a clear violation of the Fiduciary Duty of a Trustee of Penn State and constitutes a CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.


etc etc

HOW TO WIN IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE - a Plan for Complete Victory for Success with Honor.

HOW TO WIN IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE 

The battle for Penn State's Success with Honor is one that must be fought now.

The questions in RED need to be answered  

A plan of attack launched now will have a significant impact because of the election. Is this the NINE elected BoT members best opportunity to seize the high ground and take control of the narrative?  

The best way to take back Penn State from those who trashed it for vendetta, political expediency, and failure to stand up for what was right is to take over a majority on the BoT. The best way to do that is 1) Beat Corbett ) Make certain the person who replaces Corbett understands what happened and is comfortable with the idea of replacing Corbett's appointees ASAP 

Could use of this plan or one conceived with this in mind allow the popularly elected Alumni Trustees to change the narrative during this election cycle despite the outcome of the election? 

Since the proposed actions herein constitute a direct attack on Tom Corbett, Democrats in Pennsylvania will be compelled to review and study the facts for the first time since Freeh. This gives the NINE the opportunity to change the minds of many Democrats who want Corbett out and see this attack as a method that will be effective in doing that. 

This is a rough idea how to change the narrative by a minority in an election year. 

The 9 NINE = popularly elected Alumni Trustees 

The  6 SIX = those already elected in 2012 - 13  

We hold these facts and truths to be irrefutable. 

How many of these facts are accepted as TRUTH by the NINE? 

PROVEN FACTS 

1) FREEH is mostly fiction 

2) BALDWIN violated her fiduciary duty to PSU and Attorney-Client Privilege

3) KELLY'S NOV 5 PRESENTMENT statement on McQueary is a proven lie resulting in a not guilty verdict on that claim

4) Prosecutors are guilty of MALICIOUS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION (failure to treat Dr. Dranov, John McQueary & Jack Raykovitz by the same standard as CSS

5) The Media has ignored these facts

6) Joe Paterno continues to enjoy tremendous popular support in Pennsylvania 

7) The McQueary gambling and sexting information makes him vulnerable

8) The Surma Vendetta has not been covered in the media 

9) Any Democratic Candidate will benefit greatly for the next 6 months when Corbett & his cronies are attacked on this issue. It helped Kane and can help the Gov candidate even more

 ALL OF THE ABOVE  make Corbett & his cronies vulnerable in this election giving the NINE a rare opportunity NOW and only now. 

CAMPAIGN PLATFORM for the 9 and their PS4RS, SMSS etc supporters

Tom Corbett is unfit to be re-elected for the following reasons:

1) Corbett delayed prosecution of Sandusky and endangered children

2) Corbett controlled state agencies DPW CYS - failed to do their jobs 

3) Corbett financial benefactor TSM escaped prosecution and investigation

4) Corbett controlled BoT failed their fiduciary duty to protect Penn State 

5) Corbett's political goal to reduce PSU funding is in direct conflict with the BOT fiduciary duty - and in order to win this budget battle he arranged indictment of Spanier through Fina and Kelly after arranging the Freeh Fiction that worked in collusion with Kelly and the OAG. 

6) Corbett's actions have 1) made this Sandusky Scandal into the PSU Scandal 2) Gutted the Commonwealth's financial support of PSU 3) Trashed the reputations of 4 innocent men 4) Granted Louis Freeh 8.2 million dollars to destroy The Penn State Culture. 

ALL OF THIS WILL BE VERY HELPFUL TO THE DEMOCRATIC OPPONENT - without the candidate having to actively endorse or support the action. In return all we want is for the Gov to ask for the resignations of Corbett appointees and allow the Nine + PS4RS etc to suggest replacements open to a full review of Freeh and support for Joe Graham Tim and Gary.

The PLAN of ACTION - rough draft - how to take advantage of the situation described above. 

Unite the 6 (soon to be 9) popularly elected BoT members who support:

1) Due Process for PSU and Joe

2) Making any 11/9 Trustee accept responsibility and acknowledge they failed in their fiduciary duty to PSU

3) Understand the lies and vendettas by Corbett, Kelly and Surma that led to the Presentment and Freeh

4) Oppose and repudiate the Freeh Fiction 

5) Support the acquittal of Graham, Tim and Gary because that is what is best for Penn State's reputation and rehabilitation.  

6) Understand that Dunham as Corbett's tool will threaten the 9 because he knows the Nov 2011 board decision was dead wrong   

7) Support SUCCESS WITH HONOR - and restoring the legacy of Joe Paterno because Joe did the right thing - and Graham proposed the proper course of action and Tim and Gary did nothing wrong. 

ARE these 7 statements agreed by the NINE? If not what is agreed?  

The STRENGTH of the 9 comes from their popular election

The WEAKNESS of the remainder is their appointment by Corbett  - and/or their conflicts in business - Frazier, Peetz, etc 

The unconflicted members of 11/9/11 were railroaded because of the "crisis" that was not a crisis. Who among the existing BoT might be encouraged to join Al Clemens and express regrets? Identify potential allies on the BoT. 

What to discuss and plan. 

1) How can the minority of 9 reform Trustee's be most effective ?

2) How can they overcome threats posed by Steve Dunham and the Corbett controlled 11/9/11 BoT? 

3) Since they are threatened with removal for simply speaking the truth - can they do that with positive results without fear of removal ?

4) If the reform minded minority of 9 unite to makes statements as a group is Dunham crazy enough to try to remove every popularly elected trustee? 

4A) particularly in an election year when this could be made into a huge negative issue for Corbett?   

Imagine the media fire storm if Dunham & the remaining 11/9/11 board members vote to remove the only popularly elected Trustees. 

Who among the NINE is willing to put their position on the line for Success with Honor? 

Are these the position or a platform that can be agreed to?: 

1) The only trustees elected by popular vote of the Alumni are being threatened with removal for simply voicing their disagreement with and condemnation of the actions of the Nov 9 2011 Trustees controlled by Corbett & Surma who failed in their fiduciary duty to PSU while ignoring the presumption of innocence. 

2) The 9 along with Al Clemens are simply speaking up for what is Constitutionally correct -- DUE PROCESS - clearly violated by the Nov 2011 board 

3) The Sandusky scandal was not a PSU Scandal until the Corbett BoT acted.

4) Failure to support CSS & JoePa violated the fiduciary duty to protect PSU 

5) If Dunham & Corbetts' conflicted Trustees move to remove the only popularly elected Trustees they will further violate their fiduciary duty.  

6) It is politically dangerous in an election year for Corbett & Dunham - and that should be discussed with the Dem Candidate. 

7) The UNITED NINE with the support of the Dem Gov Candidate will receive a significant amount of media coverage. 

Summary of relative positions - Right vs Wrong 

On our side:

The TRUTH

The Facts 

9 popularly elected trustees 

The most active and passionate Facebook groups and twitter followers

SMSS and a complete record of the Truth and Facts 

Joe Paterno Graham Spanier Tim Curley  and Gary Schultz and 160 years of service to Penn State 

On Their side:

Lies 

Distortions 

20 appointed Corbett Conflicted and limited election Trustees 

Louis Freeh 

and a pack of prosecutors 

PLAN OF ACTIONS  Steps to take as a united group of NINE. 

HOW to move this plan of attack forward in the BoT structure. 

Doing this is not that complicated: 

The key is to craft position papers and make motions in BoT meetings 

Issue Press Releases containing Position Papers and Motions

for example CRAFT the following Motions 

1) MOVE that the BoT require Freeh to appear and defend his Fiction - include in the support documents a list of weaknesses, missing documents, & flat out lies in the Freeh Report 

2) MOVE that any and all  'conflicted' BoT members recuse themselves from these discussions -  All Corbett Appointees are conflicted so they should not be allowed to vote - All BoT members who accepted Freeh without reading or review should recuse themselves and accept censure for their failure 

3) Issue a Press Release announcing the intentions of the NINE to review the actions of the 11/9 board in the wake of revelations about Baldwin. 
4) Move that the BoT review the actions of Nov 9 2011 and discuss those actions in hindsight - compose a statement of regret and retraction. 

We the PSU BoT of June 2014 hereby recognize the mistakes of the Nov 9 2011 BoT as expressed by Trustee Al Clemens. 
Trustees who were part of that action could be asked to recuse themselves from the discussion if they refuse that's fine. Insist that the vote on the motion be made public. It that vote shows the NINE popularly elected trustees standing against the Corbett appointees that will be just fine.  Mission Accomplished - headline - Nov 9 members refuse to admit their mistakes. 

We could have a new Press Release every 10 days for the next 5 months with specific goals that publicize the Freeh Falacies & BoT failure. 

Someone familiar with the By-laws of the BoT needs to get a friendly attorney to review the bylaws and take advantage of every loophole that can be found to get these motions on the table and on the floor of the meetings for discussion and vote.  Votes to table should be recorded and reported.  Who knows the ByLaws and who can review them to determine how they can be used? 

This type of attack will have a significant impact because of the election. This is the new BoT members chance to seize the high ground and take control of the narrative.  

APPENDIX A   Notes on national media to engage.  

WE NEED TO ENGAGE A MEDIA PERSON and a united group of 4 or more elected Trustee's can do that with Graham Spanier 

The national media's coverage ended for the most part 12 months ago and enough time has passed to shift the focus of the narrative to the election campaign 

Local and Regional media will not be able to ignore any story or press release generated by 4 or more of the popularly elected Trustees 

These are national news sources that would be interested in bringing down Corbett:  

Rachel Maddow -  handling this in an election cycle vs a Republican incumbent would appeal to her 

Rolling Stone Magazine - this is about a college campus and RS is known for taking on this kind of thing

Mother Jones 

The New Republic 

HELP IDENTIFY POTENTIAL LOCAL/REGIONAL REPORTERS who will be willing to cover the actions of the NINE and their supporters 

Appendix B  (background) 

SMSS has discovered and revealed is the TRUTH - The Prosecutors including Corbett & Baldwin will be defeated both in court & in the court of public opinion. Graham, Tim and Gary will be acquitted. 

The 9 popularly elected Trustees (or a majority of them without open opposition from the other popularity elected) can reopen and drive a new media narrative as a united group

There is enough information now on Balwin's duplicity, the fallacies in the Freeh Report, and the Kelly Presentment LIE to make a series of articles in the media compelling. The stuff that Ray and Eileen have provided is clearly useful for that purpose. Corbett cannot control the entire media - and there appears to be tremendous popular support for Joe and now that we are months removed from the Sandusky trial with the "not guilty" verdict on the "indecent sexual assault" charge for the Mike McQueary false claim and the information about his gambling, sexting and abuse. That whole Nov 5 Presentment is like a BOMB ready to go off if we can get some media attention. The popularly elected BoT members can get that media attention. That's why Dunham and the Corbett cronies are trying so hard to gag them. 

Appendix C  Questions to address

 This election cycle is extremely important - it is really the last chance to alter the narrative. Surely there must be some good reporters out there that would love the opportunity to go after Corbett and his cronies in an election year. 

Did you notice the attack on Bob Jubelirer in this week's Onward State?  This is what our opponents are willing to do 

Questions that must be answered NOW. 

1) WHERE DO THE POPULARLY ELECTED TRUSTEES REALLY STAND?  

2) Will they unite and stand up to their fiduciary duty 

WEAKNESS and Vacillation will not work. This must be a strong positive movement with purpose. The purpose is to reveal the TRUTH and restore the honor of Penn State trashed by Corbett & company. 

I realize I'm talking in the dark here since I have no idea what Barb, Anthony, Ted, Ryan Oldsey or Talliferro are saying to each other. I would expect and hope that they have discussed this situation and ways to attack it. But so far we don't see much evidence of that. 

I believe the popularly elected Trustees supported by PS4RS along with the new candidates - were supported because they believed that the Freeh Report was a crime against PSU authorized by Corbett and his cronies and now being supported by Dunham.  If I were an alumni I would want to know what is being done by the people who were voted in on that premise.  

So can Barb or one of you fill me in on what these Trustee's are doing to fulfill what was vital to their election support from PS4RS and the DUE PROCESS for PSU & JOE people like us? 

The way I see it this election cycle is the last chance to rewrite the narrative and engage the media on the truth. It's that important. And unless a group of us who have been working diligently to make this change happen actually get together with a plan of attack this opportunity will slip by and we will have missed it. Make no mistake - the other side is well funded and organized and they have the power of the Governor's office and the majority of the Trustee's. They will do anything to maintain that advantage. But the evidence is now overwhelming thanks to a lot of work that has been done to focus on the lies and deceptions by Ray Blehar and Eileen Morgan. That evidence has convinced everyone who is truly paying attention. What we need to do is to organize and re-engage the media and the election plus the active willingness of elected trustees should make that happen. 

I am certain the elected Trustee's can depend on any group of people from PS4RS and SMSS to form a group of qualified people to help craft statements, issue press releases, stage announcements, and defend the right of popularly elected trustees to speak their minds without interference from the likes of Corbett and Steve Dunham.

QUICK ROUGH DRAFT of a MOTION demanding the removal of Tom Corbett, his appointees, and Ken Frazier for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Clear Conflict of Interest  

Changing the Board of Trustees Can Change the Narrative at Penn State

We all know to a certainty that Tom Corbett's vendetta against Graham Spanier drove the decisions of the BOT on Nov 9 2011. As Governor Corbett controls 9 votes on the 30 member board directly. The best way to change the BoT is to defeat Tom Corbett.

I realize some of you are likely Republicans - but at the moment it appears that Tom Wolf Democratic businessman has the overwhelming lead in the Democratic Primary making him the most likely replacement for Corbett

Tom Wolf is a Dartmouth College and MIT graduate with not ties to PSU or any other PA university. But Wolf's rather insurmountable lead in the primary is undercut by his less than favorable polling vs Corbett. 

Given this situation this is my suggestion:  

The popularly elected BOT members along with the reform candidates Bagwell, Glocker, Pope, Jubelirer and Lord should try to reach an agreement to reach out to the Wolf campaign. This should be done ASAP. 

We can wait for a period of time to see if one of the other Dem candidates is able to overtake the sizable Wolf lead and then move to support his or her candidacy 

OR 

We could form teams - One existing BOT member with one BOT candidate and one SMSS author/editor or Eileen Morgan & one or two Freehdom Fighters for each of Wolf, McCord and Schwartz - thus covering all of our bases. 

I'm sure some current BoT members and candidates already have favorites in the race - i.e. Lord with McCord.  The trick in politics is to offer assistance when it is most needed and the candidates are looking for support. They are much more apt to listen at that point. 

If you take the combined membership of:

PS4RS 10,000 Facebook members 

PSU Alumni for Reorganization  1000 FB members

PSU ReBOT  2100 members 

SMSS Freehdom Fighters 1000 members 

March for Truth  1000 members 

Put Back the Statue  1000 members 

The 2500 to 3500 BWI McAndrew Forum members who typically follow SMSS posts 

and the 60,000 to 70,000 visits per month to SMSS websites 

We have a 20 to 30,000 person circle of influence - potential all pretty dedicated to seeing Corbett defeated.  We will be supporting something most already support. I've seen many comments from Republican PSU people who say they will vote for whomever opposes Corbett. 

What we want to see happen is for Barb Doran, and the other 5 popularly elected trustees along with (hopefully) 3 more reform candidates elected on May 8 to present as united a front as possible to the strongest Corbett opponent offering support and a plan to take back Penn State from Corbett control. Pre primary contact would be optimum but not absolutely required. Since Lord already has a relationship with McCord and McCord is already on board that really isn't an issue. But it would be good to have someone at least in contact with someone in the Wolf and Schwartz camps. How difficult would it be for Barb to find out if any of the existing Alumni Trustees or strong reform candidates are already Wolf or Schwartz supporters?

I see the best way of doing this as creating a plan that each one of the 9 or as many as possible are willing to support. 

The message should be something like this: 

 We the popularly elected members of the PSU BOT are fighting an uphill battle against Tom Corbett and his controlling faction of 9 appointed Trustees.  We believe that Corbett and his cronies caused the defamation of our Alma Mater by his actions - and the actions of the Board on Nov 9 2011.  In order to correct his problem we wish to assist your campaign.  

We suggest that if elected you consult with us on potential replacements for the Corbett appointees - 1st Ask for the resignation of all Corbett appointees 2nd Replace those Trustees with your own appointees - we would be honored to make the following suggestions. 

The 9 popularly elected Trustees plus 9 appointed by the new Governor would give us an 18 Trustee majority - enough to replace Steve Dunham as General Counsel - enough to repudiate the Freeh Report - enough to take back Penn State and restore the Pride and Culture so defamed by Corbett Surma and their cronies. 

I personally think Graham and Barb & whomever they feel most comfortable with in the group of elected trustees and candidates - should get together first and compose the wording of such a plan. Then reach out to the others with a plan in mind to see if anything needs to be adjusted to get them to sign on to the plan. 

The fact that these trustees have been popularly elected with fairly substantial vote totals should be very impactful with any campaign. 

 2013 Election 

Candidate – Vote Total

Winners 

22.  Barbara L. Doran, '75, New York, NY – 15,085

36.  William F. Oldsey, '76, Basking Ridge, NJ – 13,940

7.  Edward "Ted" B. Brown, III, '68, State College, PA – 11,403

2012 Election Results 

Candidate – Vote Total

Winners 

77. Adam J. Taliaferro, '05, Swedesboro, NJ -- 15,629

59. Anthony P. Lubrano, '82, Exton, PA -- 10,096

2. Ryan J. McCombie, '70, State College, PA -- 4,806

The Corbett appointees and the Business & Industry Trustees have no constituency among the Alumni in terms of people who actually voted for them to serve.  The Agriculture group was elected by Farm Bureau - I suspect nowhere near the 10,000 plus vote mark. The fact that the Alumni members won with those vote total in open non primary contests with 86, 40 and 32 opponents will be impressive to campaign managers. 

Penn State alumni numbers are impressive:

The fact that the anti-Corbett pro reform anti-move on candidates have won the past two trustee elections by significant margins should be emphasized. 

To get an idea of vote totals involved:  Click for larger images 

As you can see the ability to deliver or influence votes in a primary is far more valuable than in a general election.  

I spent most of August September and October of 2008 working for the Obama campaign in Colorado and North Carolina - Two states that made a huge difference in that election. My job in Boulder CO and Asheville NC was managing the data entry staff.  Since I have some serious time with elections serving on the campaign staffs for McGovern, Carter, Gore and Obama in national races and for more local political campaigns than I care to admit, I think I can speak from experience. Candidates will welcome our support and input phrased in the right way. 

VOLUNTEER - CHANGE FOR COLORADO 

NORTH CAROLINA GOTV CAMPAIGN 

With Congressman Jared Polis 

My Michello Obama pics from the Boulder Rally

. 

MORE REASONS WHY This Board of Trustees Election is of Critical Importance

by Barry Bozeman 
May 8, 2013, will mark the end of this years Board of Trustee's election. The turnout as of April 24th is just under 19,000 votes, lagging behind 2012 and 2013 by 20 to 25%. As we have attempted to explain in several posts here on SMSS, the make up of the BoT runs counter to the interests of Penn State University.

No friend to PSU

The Governor is automatically placed on the Penn State Board of Trustees. He also appoints six (6) members in addition to his choices for PA Secretaries of Education, Conservation, and Agriculture, who all sit on the Board along with one (1) non-voting personal representative. The Trustees in the Governor's block depend on him for their positions, effectively making him the single most powerful presence in both voting power and influence.

Six (6) members of the Board are known as Business and Industry Trustees. These members are "self -selected" by an arcane procedure far from being transparent or apparent to those outside the process. Another six (6) members of the Board are known as Agriculture Trustees, who are selected through a county-by-county vote of the Commonwealth's agricultural societies (i.e., the PA Grange and the PA Farm Bureau).  We will discuss the business relationships of most of these members and the influence the Governor holds over them in our next installment.

ONLY Nine (9) members are elected by Alumni, the most independent and democratically selected group. That's only nine members to attempt to balance nine members directly controlled by the Governor plus six each from Business & Industry and from Agriculture. This means that every Alumni elected member who is not committed to opposition of the "old guard" members who violated their fiduciary duty and capitulated to the Governor and John Surma - and their vendettas against Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno - is a critically wasted opportunity. 

See THE SURMA VENDETTA stories (three) listed in the right hand column:
  

CORBETT & SURMA - UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS of INTEREST

and

CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN - UNCOMMONLY CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

Recent revelations concerning the role of Cynthia Baldwin make this election even more important. There is now a larger PSU General Counsel's office with something like ten (10) attorneys. Who hired these attorneys and to whom do they owe their loyalty? It appears that Chief Counsel Stephen Dunham is in lock step with the Old Guard and Tom Corbett, fully committed to the Freeh Fiction and it's detrimental effect on PSU. 

It is clear that the Governor, and those dependent on him for their positions and power -- along with Ken Frazier, Joel Myers, Ira Lubert and just about every old guard Nov 2011 Trustee -- all have a vested interest in seeing Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz convicted of the specious charges against them. BUT the best interests of Penn State University will be served by the acquittal of the "Conspiracy of Silence" Penn State 3 and by the complete posthumous exoneration of Joe Paterno. 

The reasons that acquittal is in the best interest of Penn State should be obvious:

1) Acquittal destroys any vestige of viability the public might suspect exists based on false information contained in the Freeh Report;

2) In the absence of a valid Freeh Report, the NCAA's obvious violation of it's own rules becomes even more apparent;

3) Acquittals should force the media to report that the entire basis for the condemnation of Penn State as complicit in the Sandusky affair was in error; and 

4) Any further lawsuits against Penn State would be seriously endangered. (McQueary vs Penn State) 

These great benefits which would result from the acquittals of Curley, Schultz and Spanier should be prompting the office of the General Counsel of Penn State to do everything in its power to assist these Penn State Administrators. So the question arises - whose interest is the office of the General Counsel serving? Are these attorneys working in Penn State's interest or in the interests of Corbett and his cronies on the BoT? 

Penn State has a new president who is certain to be less familiar with the situation than most of us reading this article. Who is informing him and influencing his opinion? Who is in charge of directing the actions of the office of the PSU General Counsel?  The only people in any position to consult with the Office of the General Counsel are the Trustees, and the only Trustees who are placing the interests of Penn State above the interests of the Governor and his anti-Penn State cronies are those Trustees elected by the Alumni. Even Onward State should recognize that Penn State's best interests are served by the acquittal of Spanier, Curley and Schultz. If Stephen Dunham is supposed to be responsive to the Board of Trustees, then the more trustees on that Board who can force him to justify his support of the Freeh Fiction the better. The more trustees there are to inform the new President and to point out the obvious benefits of acquittal the better.  

If nothing else, it seems the Penn State General Counsel should make available to the PSU3's attorneys all correspondence and email concerning Cynthia Baldwin and, at a minimum, file a "friend of the court" brief in support of the Affidavit of Senior Fellow David Rudovsky of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  Causing Stephen Dunham to make a decision obviously against the best interests of Penn State would only serve to hasten the day of his departure. 

Freeh is required by contract to return to Penn State on demand of the board to answer for his report. The more Trustees who favor this grilling the better. At some point even the nine Corbett appointees and their supporters from Agriculture, Business & Industry will be forced to listen to the elected Trustees but that will depend on numbers and the willingness of the elected members to fight for Penn State. . 

SO VOTE AS IF THE REPUTATION OF YOUR ALMA MATER DEPENDS ON IT. 

IT DOES.

The FREEHdom Fighters do not endorse specific candidates although some of us as individuals have endorsed and made our endorsements known. We can all suggest you choose  Candidates like Ryan Bagwell and Rudy Glocker or PS4RS candidates 

These candidates support reform and oppose the Corbett conflicted cronies.

Candidates like Joel Myers, Jesse Arnelle and the Upward State group who oppose reform and want to "move on" to avoid accountability and personal responsibility do not deserve your vote. 

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY - The Baldwin Duplicity

CYNTHIA BALDWIN - Who is this Woman? 

And how can she have possibly done what she has done ?  

By all biographical and outward signs, Cynthia Baldwin is a major success story:

PSU BA in English 1966, MA in Amer. Lit 1974. Worked as a teacher, English professor and Asst. Dean of Students at PSU's Greater Allegheny Campus. JD from Duquesne 1983, Prosecuting Attorney Bureau of Consumer Protection. First black woman elected to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas 1989 - 2006. Appointed interim Supreme Court Justice by Governor Ed Rendell.Jan 2008 Duane Morris, LLP -. appellate litigation non-profit issues. VP / General Counsel at PSU Jan 2010 to announced resignation in Jan 2012  Baldwin served as the president of the alumni assn 1989-91.and Chair of the Board of Trustees from 2004-2007.

What happened to Cynthia Baldwin seems a complete mystery? 

PSU President Graham Spanier was a good friend and benefactor to Cynthia, putting her name forward for several awards and honors over his 16 years at the helm of PSU. He approved her request to resign from the board and take over as in-house General Counsel & VP when the Board decided to go with in-house counsel in January 2010. Turns out that may be the biggest mistake Graham ever made. 

In 2012, Graham Spanier was under review for a very high security clearance from the Department of Defense and the Intelligence community, since he was involved with:

National Security Higher Education Advisory Board,

The National Counterintelligence Working Group, and

The Board of Advisors for the President at the Naval Postgraduate School & War College

Baldwin told the federal Office of Personnel Management in early 2012 that Spanier was very smart, “a man of integrity,” and “very forthcoming and open” with the board of trustees. 
About six months later she testified before a grand jury that Spanier told a series of lies and misleading statements before and after Sandusky was arrested in late 2011. 

How does that make any sense, Cynthia? How can a person make 180 degree opposite claims in 6 months. In early 2012 Spanier is a "forthcoming open man of integrity" - half a year later he's a "misleading liar". 

When you read the POST HEARING MEMORANDUM from Graham Spanier's Attorneys you will be even more astounded at Cynthia Baldwin's behavior and statements along with the court's acceptance of this behavior. Typically I would not suggest a full reading of a long legal document, but this one is simply astounding. Some excerpts:

2.   Dr. Spanier then testified before the grand jury and, after being asked by Mr. Fina whether he was represented by counsel, identified Ms. Baldwin as his counsel:

Q:  Sir, you’re represented by counsel today?

A:  Yes.

Q:  Could you just identify counsel?

A:  Cynthia Baldwin sitting behind me.

4/13/11 Testimony Trans. at 3.

3.                  Neither Ms. Baldwin nor OAG representatives corrected Dr. Spanier’s identification of Ms. Baldwin as his attorney.  4/13/11 Testimony Trans. at 3.

Was Preceded By: 

2.  The final statements by Judge Feudale and Ms. Baldwin before Dr. Spanier was brought in to be sworn as a witness were as follows:

JUDGE FEUDALE: . . Cindy, just for the record, who do you represent?

MS. BALDWIN:  The university.

JUDGE FEUDALE:  The university solely?

MS. BALDWIN:  Yes, I represent the university solely.

Id. at 28. 

3.  Judge Feudale permitted Ms. Baldwin to remain in the proceedings and be present for Dr. Spanier’s grand jury testimony.  4/13/11 Proceedings Trans. at 28-34; 4/13/11 Testimony Trans. at 1-43.

4.  Dr. Spanier was then brought into Judge Feudale’s chambers and given an instruction on his rights as a grand jury witness.  4/13/11 Proceedings Trans. at 28-34.  Judge Feudale instructed Dr. Spanier that:

In other words, if you’re uncertain as to whether you may lawfully refuse to answer any question or if any other problem arises during the course of your appearance before the Grand Jury, you have the right to stop the questioning and appear before me, either alone or, of course, in this case with your counsel, and I will rule on that matter whatever it may be.

Id. at 30-31 (emphasis added). 

5.    No one present during the in-chambers proceedings advised Dr. Spanier that Ms. Baldwin had stated, outside his presence, that she represented only Penn State.  4/13/11 Proceedings Trans. at 28-34.

THIS IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE - HOW CAN THIS BE TOLERATED?

Judge Feudale knew Cynthia Baldwin did not represent Graham Spanier.

Prosecutor Fina knew Cynthia Baldwin did not represent Graham Spanier.

Cynthia Baldwin certainly knew she did not represent Graham Spanier.

ONLY GRAHAM SPANIER WAS PURPOSELY KEPT IN THE DARK. 

Spanier specifically stated that Baldwin was representing him, in their presence, but none of them disabused him of that notion.  

Read this affidavit of David Rudovsky:

  

See entire Affidavit at this LINK: David Rudovsky Affidavit 

Reading this the question arises - Does former Commonwealth Supreme Court Justice Baldwin know the law?  In what universe is her behavior responsible, ethical, or even legal? 

We might expect a prosecutor of Fina's low ethical standards to fail to live up to his obligations as an officer of the court and violate the clear standards conduct imposed by the Bar Association and the courts. 

“ The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not to persecute, but to prosecute, and that he should endeavor to protect the innocent as well as to prosecute the guilty. He should always be interested in seeing that the truth and the right shall prevail….”

We know that the prosecution wanted this case tried in the court of public opinion from the elaborate staged performances of both Presentments. The Nov 5 Penn State Presentment in which Sandusky and Penn State Administrators were given equal billing on the exhibits:

And the Nov 1 2012 stage show when Graham Spanier was added to the big CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE PRESENTMENT:

Remember Ray Blehar's Media Conspiracy of Silence earlier this week? Among that wealth of information was this portion on the subpoenas. It shows that Baldwin - a former prosecutor and State Supreme court justice -  failed to respond to subpoenas and then allowed the prosecution to infer that it was Penn State administrators that were 'obstructing the investigation'. What kind of counsel does something like that?

Corbett stated:  “I’m very disappointed in the lack of forthcoming evidence to the subpoena that was given to them by the Attorney General’s office.” 

The statement was a continuation of a theme of misattribution – or assigning blame or responsibility where it didn’t belong.  It is a fact that Cynthia Baldwin received a letter from the Attorney General in December 2011 that admonished her for failure to comply with grand jury subpoenas.  The letter referenced information that was subpoenaed before Curley, Schultz, and Spanier had any knowledge of the investigation.  Moreover, Schultz was retired at the time of the subpoena, thus had no role in answering that particular request.  Corbett’s July 2012 statement was part of the Commonwealth’s strategy of trying the case in the court of public opinion.  

Baldwin and Subpoena Compliance

The Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment reported that then PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin requested that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier search for the files and records pertinent to Subpoena 1179.  Subpoena 1179 requested “[A]ny and all records pertaining to Jerry Sandusky and incidents reported to have occurred on or about March 2002 and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky in inappropriate contact with underage males on and off University property.”

Baldwin stated that she held several meetings with the PSU Three to discuss the subpoena (page 21) and that each man told her they had no information responsive to the inquiry.  Baldwin also stated she kept Spanier continuously informed of all aspects of the investigation.

Despite Baldwin’s insistence that she met with the PSU Three to discuss documents related to the 2002 incident, all three men gave different answers for the year of the McQueary incident at their grand jury appearances.  Notably, Schultz stated he took the report of the incident seriously after what had transpired with Maurice Humphrey’s case.  The Humphrey case was in 2003.  Curley testified he believed the incident occurred in 2000. Spanier recalled the incident occurred in 2002.   This evidence indicates that Baldwin never showed them or informed them regarding the Subpoena.  

Former PSU President Graham Spanier stated (in The New Yorker) that he never saw a single subpoena in the case.  Not even the one which required him to testify.  

Sources close to former Athletic Director, Timothy Curley, stated he was never provided with a copy of his subpoena to testify. 

Scott Paterno also related that he had to make several demands before Baldwin furnished a copy of Joe Paterno’s subpoena to appear.   Scott noted that Baldwin told him she could not give the subpoena to his father directly because he was in Tampa preparing for a bowl game.  Ironically, Baldwin was also in Tampa, staying at the same hotel as Joe Paterno.  Baldwin’s stories about the delivery of subpoenas to PSU officials don’t hold water.

According to PSU Policy AD-49, which was revised by Baldwin on July 19, 2010, it is the responsibility of the Office of General Counsel to handle subpoenas.  Specific language follows:

“All legal documents including subpoenas are to be referred to or routed through The Office of General Counsel. The Office has the prerogative to send them to other parties after receipt. The Office of General Counsel shall establish all procedures for handling and addressing legal documents.”

Baldwin oversaw the July 2010 and July 2012 revisions of AD-49, thus she was aware of her responsibilities to handle subpoenas.

The Freeh Report and preliminary hearing testimony did not reveal any evidence showing that Baldwin responded promptly to Subpoena 1179 or to any other subpoena.  The Freeh Report should have included e-mails or other records of preservation notices which she would have sent to affected employees.  No such evidence was in the Freeh Report or provided at any of the judicial proceedings to date.

The Baldwin and Spanier grand jury transcripts also reflect that Baldwin did not respond promptly to Subpoena 1179.

At the April 13, 2011, grand jury appearance of Graham Spanier, Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach raised the issue that Counsel Baldwin had never responded to Subpoena 1179 (which was issued in December 2010) and had not filed a motion to quash.  In response, Counsel Baldwin requested to make an oral motion to quash while in chambers that day.  The motion was granted, Baldwin was excused while Fina made his in-camera argument for e-mails and documents from 1997 and prior, then Baldwin returned and agreed to provide the materials on Friday, April 15th. 

On December 18, 2011 - after the removal of Spanier as President of Penn State -- prosecutor Fina sent a letter (see Exhibit O) to Baldwin in which he admonished her for her noncompliance with a December 2010 subpoena and threatened to hold the University in contempt.  Based on the letter, her grand jury testimony, and the other evidence, it appears that Baldwin (and likely her "handlers" on the PSU BOT) had been stonewalling the investigation ever since she took over as General Counsel in February 2010. 

 Baldwin fails to correct the Governor’s and the OAG’s allegations that it is Spanier, Curley, and Schultz who have obstructed the investigation.  

I hate to think that Cynthia Baldwin is cut from the same cloth as Corbett, Kelly, and Fina or even subject to the same sorry failure of fiduciary duty of BoT members who failed to stand up for Penn State. But these failures as General Counsel for Penn State were completely devastating. 

When President Spanier, who suggested the proper course of action, was forced out and the VP and AD were indicted, the only people who could stand up and work to protect the university were the Board of Trustees and the VP/General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. But Baldwin failed miserably in that obligation. So we are left to try to understand why she did such a terrible job. 

Was it incompetence? Fear? Willful negligence? An ethical problem? Coercion? 

The most compelling reason to my limited understanding is a realization that she was primarily responsible for protecting Penn State as General Counsel. She failed miserably and is attempting to pass the blame for that failure on to 3 PSU administrators. Since Graham Spanier did not see any of the correspondence between Sandusky investigators and Baldwin, he was completely unaware of any potential problem or potential danger. 

Spanier only knew Sandusky's reputation as an honored charity founder dedicated to serving deprived children. He did not know him. There was no conception that he could possibly be considered as some kind of molester protector. He took Tim Curley and Gary Schultz's opinions and trusted their judgment. 

Curley & Schultz knew Sandusky as an honored charity founder and foster father who was physically demonstrative. Mike's 3 slaps story suggested horseplay between a charity founder and a boy in his care - not molestation. A 1998 investigation of a similar shower cleared Sandusky. They were not trained to know about grooming behavior. They reported the incident to the child psychologist who was Sandusky's employer and the man responsible for the welfare of those children. If Mike's own father and doctor - 2 trained medical professionals - did not consider MIke's story worthy of reporting to police should they? They weren't covering up for a molester - they didn't realize he could possibly be one. 

REMEMBER JOEL MYER'S ABSURD CLAIM? 
Myers claimed Spanier "did not keep the BoT informed." But it's clear from all evidence that former board Chair and Trustee Baldwin, who attended every board meeting, was the only person who knew about the subpoenas.

But what truly makes this simply unbelievable -  for anyone with a reasonable handle on logic -  is this wild claim of CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE. Here are accomplished individuals who have handled very demanding jobs with Penn State for 100 years . The Prosecution wants the world to believe these men knowingly and deliberately conspired to cover up for Sandusky's crimes for years, without any shred of benefit to them financially or personally. 

"Conspiracy of Silence" participants years of service to PSU (as of Nov, 2011):

Paterno: 61 years, 45 as head coach - since Joe is deceased he is not charged.

Spanier: 25 years, 16+ as President

Schultz: 40 years, 16 as Senior Vice President

Curley: 35 years, 17+ as athletic director

More than 160 years combined, 95 years in their "current" positions *Nov 2011

99 years if you deduct Joe Paterno. 

Tell me this, then: We are all familiar with Occam's Razor - you know - in the absence of evidence to the contrary the simplest explanation is the most likely?  So what is more likely to you: 
     Three accomplished, intelligent, long time PSU administrators, covering up for the crimes of a known child molester, failed to get together (with or without an attorney) to get their stories straight about their crime so their testimony before the Grand Jury concerning the molester they conspired to protect would at least agree as to the dates and their actions?

OR 

   Three accomplished, intelligent PSU administrators were so unconcerned about the correctness of their actions concerning Sandusky that they had no concern whatever about their testimony?

I think most informed and rational people believe that men of means with important jobs can afford and do receive the best legal counsel available whenever a situation arises that might put them in some legal jeopardy. So why were Spanier, Curley and Schultz - the men prosecutors would have you believe conspired to willfully and knowingly allow a known child molester to go free and covered up for his behavior - fail to get the best representation possible for their Grand Jury appearances? They wouldn't even need to pay for that representation since as administrators, they could have that covered by the university. 

The TRUTH is very obvious to me. They had nothing to hide and they believed that Cynthia Baldwin was there to look out for their best interests because in this case, their interest and Penn State's interest should have been the same. But they failed to account for Cynthia Baldwin's incompetence, duplicity, disability, fear, ethics _______???   That's a question we ALL should want answered. What happened with Cynthia Baldwin?