Keith Eckel: Trustees fiduciary duty is to the Board of Trustees (vs. Penn State) Trustees also have their eyes on the clock, and not on the job. To: Penn State Trustees cc: Senators Yudichak, Dinniman, Corman, alumni networking Attachment: unofficial transcript of Tuesdays Board meeting. (1) Video of Eckel Statement youtu.be/FBfvlJIIxM8 to hear Penn State Trustee Keith Eckel say that Trustees owe their fiduciary duty to the Board of Trustees (as opposed to Penn State). This, and the Boards flagrant dereliction of its fiduciary duty this Tuesday, supports State Senator Yudichaks statement that personal agendas, rather than a Penn State agenda, are driving Board decisions. (2) Trustees Primary Goal is to End Meeting on Time Rather than Make a Quality Decision (26 Angry Trustees) Keith Masser and his fellow Board members also showed very clearly that their priority was to watch the clock on Tuesday rather than perform the jobs they signed up to do. There is a scene in Twelve Angry Men in which a juror who has to decide whether a man will live or die says, Right. This better be fast. Ive got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight. I must be the only guy in the whole world who hasnt seen it yet. (youtu.be/7DkI2I0W5i8?t=5m13s) This tells the audience everything it needs to know about Juror Sevens character and sense of responsibility. Now, here is what we have from the unofficial transcript of Tuesdays meeting. Keith Masser [identifiable from the role of Chairman]: We scheduled this meeting to last until noon today. In consideration of peoples schedules, well make every effort to finish our work today by that time. Since we do not have a lot to discuss today -- since we have a lot to discuss today Im going to ask everyone in advance to please be concise in any remarks that you may wish to make so that we can finish in a timely manner. As Chairman, Mr. Masser was responsible for scheduling a meeting that affects millions of dollars of Penn States money, as well as the Universitys reputation as Karen Peetz and Kenneth Frazier allowed Louis Freeh to define it. This responsibility included scheduling enough time so people would not feel inclined to watch the clock rather than their jobs, a priority that comes across loud and clear from the subsequent dialogue. We have this from another Trustee who should have played Juror Seven in Twelve Angry Men: Ive included the entire context so you can see how this individual answered another Trustees legitimate concerns about the well-being of Penn State. Okay. So he [Louis Freeh] had many of the same obstructions which caused -- which brings me back to a point made by trustee Eckel where he says every decision we made was a great decision, I wish I could stand by that, I have made decisions, and I have made mistakes, you foul up but then you have to undo the things that were done by the foul ups. It is unbelievable, Keith [Eckel], that you feel that way, but good for you. I wish I were in that camp. Here is my question, if Freeh had the same incumbents [impediments?], if he couldnt get to a comprehensiveness, that certainly the situation called for, why did we spend almost 9 million and all that time doing all of that work if we knew that it was going to lead to an incomplete product that we have used in some interesting ways. It is a very strange set of circumstances. >> Thats to a past issue, we could spend an hour on it. That doesnt really in one way or another grew for or against go to appointing an ad hoc committee. Mr. Chairman, we have noon. We have a deadline to meet, I would urge that we move along with the vote. I wonder if this Trustee was afraid hed miss seeing Marilyn Monroe in The Seven Year Itch even though one can now time shift a movie on a DVD recorder. Lets vote now. Who knows, maybe we can all go home. Now, here is more of the same: [Another Trustee]: This report said that members of our community were guilty until proven innocent. Do we value expediency above integrity? I dont want to stand behind this report one more day. We feel an obligation to the victims. Were willing to give them considerable financial compensation. Are we willing to seek the truth so that we can come to a full understanding of the complex events that allowed these children to be victimized? Only by doing that can we arrive at solutions that will protect children here and elsewhere. Thats our one silver lining. I believe we have an ethical responsibility to pursue that information. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution. >> [Applause] >> Any other comments? Are we ready for the vote? Now compare those last words to those of a Trustee to whom fiduciary duty is more than a slogan, and also Mr. Massers own obsession with the clock rather than the job of Penn State Trustee. >> Chairman, you know, Im -- Im very curious what this 12:00 deadline is? It seems to me this is an important subject, not everybody -- >> I agree. >> I agree. >> Chairman, I -- >> [Masser, per the context]: Were rehashing the information that we have been -- >> Mr. Chairman, thats your judgment on whats rehash and not. There may be, in fact, be something new. In fact, if certain trustees have chosen not to come today, if trustees have a 12:00 deadline, they can leave. I think we should finish the conversation. The bottom line is that Penn State Trustee is a responsible job rather than a country club membership. If Mr. Masser and his cohorts do not have the time they need with which to exercise basic due diligence regarding millions of dollars of the Universitys money along with its reputation, Penn State needs them to step aside so others can take their places. (3) Kenneth Frazier admits Louis Freehs work was superficial and incomplete. One useful thing did come out of the meeting, though, and that is Kenneth Fraziers admission that Louis Freehs report was slipshod and incomplete, like Freehs investigative work for FIFA as determined by the Court of Arbitration of Sport. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask trustee Fraser, do you believe that Louis Freeh did a complete, thorough investigation? [Frazier]: I think Louis Freeh did an investigation that was limited from the very beginning by the constraints that happened because there was an ongoing criminal proceeding. The answer to that is no. At the same time I would say I think that investigation produced evidence that made a significant impact on the sandusky prosecution and more importantly the facts and conclusions it led us to make (indiscernible) a number of changes in how we ran the University that I think has provided a better safe and secure environment for all of our students as well as the children who participate on campus in programs that may -- video lag. Mr. Frazier has therefore put himself on record as admitting that he publicly accused identifiable Penn State employees or former employees of failing to protect children on the basis of a report he knew to be superficial and incomplete. He has also made it a matter of record that Karen Peetz, in her capacity as Chairwoman, affirmed on Penn States behalf the findings of guilt in a report that he knew to be superficial and incomplete. Noting that both he and Peetz agreed with these findings of guilt, but without authorization by the Board, the Boards decision this Tuesday is unmitigated evidence of dereliction of fiduciary duty, which is entirely consistent with Judge Pellegrinis opinion of April 9 2014. Richard Dandrea, another Trustee who voted against an evaluation (NOT reevaluation) of the Freeh Report, also said the report was superficial and incomplete. Nonetheless, he, Masser, Frazier, Eckel, & Co. have no problem with allowing the NCAA to misappropriate $60 million of Penn States money, and destroy its reputation, on the basis of a report of this nature. Like judge Free, an ad hoc committee of the board would not have subpoena power. Like judge Free an ad hoc committee of the board would not have access to key witnesses four purposes of interviews. Like Judge Free but even in a more difficult setting, the ad hoc committee would not have access to the files of the state attorney general that has been conducting an investigation of the sandusky scandal. The prosecutors in the pending criminal cases, or the files of the federal investigators who are conducting investigations under the Cleary act and under Title 9. Those investigations have been going on for some time. Until these legal proceedings are substantially concluded we cannot -- we could not achieve the objective that Bill sets out. We could not comprehensively evaluate the Free Report while these legal proceedings are pending. Which means Louis Freeh was unable to comprehensively evaluate the situation at Penn State either. Thank you, Mr. Dandrea, for confirming what anybody who exercised the basic diligence of reading the Freeh Report already knows.
Posted on: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:04:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015