PSU starts talks with 20 Sandusky accusers
Penn State University has entered into preliminary settlement talks with at least 20 men accusing Jerry Sandusky of sexual abuse, the college's appointed mediators said.
That figure — more than double the number of victims who testified against the former assistant football coach at trial — offers the first glimpse of Penn State's potential liability in the largest scandal in its history.
Their ranks include the eight accusers named in state prosecutors' case against Sandusky, four more who have either filed lawsuits or come forward to claim molestation in the news media, and at least eight more who have not publicly aired their allegations of abuse.
The university's appointed mediators have yet to begin the process of vetting any of the 20 claims, negotiator Michael K. Rozen said in an interview last week.
“All of these claims will be very different from one another factually and potentially legally,” Rozen said. “We're having lots of discussions so far about how to go about evaluating them.”
Penn State hired Rozen and law partner Kenneth R. Feinberg to handle settlement negotiations last month. Their firm previously managed the 9/11 victims compensation fund and settlements with those affected by the 2010 BP gulf oil spill.
So far, the mediators have reached out to attorneys representing the accusers but described their discussions on Friday as preliminary. Rozen said he and Feinberg had yet to come up with criteria to evaluate the claims.
“Right now, we're trying to think through how we transparently — both to the claimants and the university — put the claims into some sort of hierarchy,” Rozen said.
“Because there's so much attention being paid to this, we don't think we can have 20 separate negotiations and 20 separate resolutions.”
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
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.