NCAA objects to mediation petition
The NCAA is balking at a request from state officials to have mediators decide where Penn State's $60 million fine in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal should be spent.
The collegiate athletics agency on Friday objected to a petition from state Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre County, and Pennsylvania Treasurer Rob McCord, who want to resolve through mediation a lawsuit they filed against the NCAA.
The officials sued in Commonwealth Court to uphold a state law requiring the fines to remain in Pennsylvania for child-abuse treatment and prevention. Penn State's consent decree with the NCAA requires the fines to go into an endowment for programs nationwide.
The NCAA challenged the constitutionality of the state's Endowment Act in federal court.
McCord and Corman petitioned Commonwealth Court on Thursday to send their complaint to mediation. Penn State isn't a party to either lawsuit but issued a statement offering to help broker a settlement. Corman said a speedy resolution would benefit everyone.
“The NCAA welcomes constructive ideas, but the legislation appears to us to be an insurmountable obstacle to resolution. Mediation, therefore, could not be productive,” NCAA lawyer Everett C. John wrote in a letter to Commonwealth Court.
“We strongly disagree with the NCAA and hope it will change course and seek a workable settlement that helps Pennsylvanians,” McCord said.
Commonwealth Court, which has yet to rule on the mediation request, is scheduled to hear the NCAA's arguments to dismiss the officials' complaint June 19.
Debra Erdley is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-320-7996.
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 â 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.