Jerry Sandusky's $4,900 monthly pension is revoked by state retirement system
By Adam Smeltz
Published: Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, 7:02 a.m.
Convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky lost his state pension on the day a judge sentenced him to prison, a state spokeswoman confirmed Thursday.
Sandusky, 68, retired in 1999 as an assistant football coach at Penn State University. His benefits through the State Employees' Retirement System totaled about $59,000 a year.
State officials informed Sandusky that they ended his retirement payments, citing a state pension forfeiture law, SERS board Chairman Nicholas J. Maiale said. The rule halts state-funded pensions for public school employees convicted of sex crimes against a student or students.
A Centre County jury convicted Sandusky in June on 45 criminal counts, finding him guilty of sexually abusing 10 boys over 15 years. Judge John Cleland sentenced him Tuesday in Bellefonte to 30 to 60 years in a state prison.
Maiale, in a prepared statement, said Sandusky has 30 days to respond to the decision.
“Since the board may be required to serve as adjudicator, it is inappropriate for any board member to discuss the details of this case further,” Maiale said.
Lawyers representing Sandusky said he would fight any effort to block his pension. The state does not appear to have legitimate grounds to end his payments, defense attorney Karl Rominger has said.
He said Sandusky's “alleged victims” were not Penn State students. Penn State is not a public school as defined in the relevant state statute, Rominger argued.
SERS has said Sandusky could keep more than $900,000 in pension payments he collected between his 1999 retirement and September 2012. State law does not enable SERS to seek money paid before the date of a conviction or plea.
Sandusky, whose lawyers plan to appeal his conviction, and his wife, Dottie, wrote defiant letters to his judge before sentencing, attacking the motives of his victims, expressing a loss of faith in the judicial system and insisting he isn't a child molester.
The letters were released Thursday by Cleland.
Dottie Sandusky wrote that she never saw her husband do anything inappropriate to any child and was deeply critical of the couple's adopted son, Matt Sandusky, who had been expected to be a defense witness until he claimed he also had been abused.
She said Matt Sandusky is bipolar but “refuses to take his medication” and “has had many run-ins with the law and has stolen....from our family.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Adam Smeltz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5676or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.