HARRISBURG — Jerry Sandusky appealed a decision to revoke his $59,000-a-year pension, arguing the law does not support the action by the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System.
Sandusky attorney Charles Benjamin's five-page letter to the system's board, dated Nov. 21, was obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press through the state Right-to-Know Law.
Benjamin wrote that Sandusky's pension rights became vested in 1969 and amendments to state law did not change them. He argued that Sandusky, a Penn State assistant football coach who retired in 1999, was not a university employee when tougher forfeiture rules were passed in 2004.
“We trust that SERS, upon further reflection, will agree that no legal basis exists for forfeiture of Mr. Sandusky's vested retirement benefits,” Benjamin wrote. He did not return messages seeking comment.
The retirement system yanked Sandusky's pension after a judge in October sentenced him to 30 to 60 years in state prison for sexual abuse of 10 boys.
The retirement system said Sandusky's convictions for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault triggered forfeiture provisions of the state's Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act.
Benjamin said the pension board's argument that Sandusky was a “de facto” employee of Penn State in later years was “illogical and untrue.”
He said many of the payments made by the university to Sandusky after 2004 were smaller speaking fees and that tax records indicate Sandusky described himself after retirement either as self-employed or as a consultant to the charity for children he founded, The Second Mile.
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.