Penn State trustee wants refund on Freeh report
STATE COLLEGE — A Penn State trustee says a consultant should be asked to return “some or all” of the millions of dollars Penn State University paid for an internal investigation into the handling of sexual abuse allegations.
Trustee Anthony Lubrano, who said the university is “entitled” to a refund, has been a critic of the $6.5 million report by former FBI director Louis Freeh, which concluded that longtime coach Joe Paterno and three former administrators covered up child sexual abuse allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
Lubrano, who joined the board last year when drawing support from disgruntled alumni, cited another report commissioned by the Paterno family and released this month. It said Freeh's investigation resulted in a “rush to injustice.”
“The Freeh report purports to be the result of something that it is not — a full and complete investigation,” Lubrano said in a statement on Sunday. “Putting aside its inaccuracy and unfairness, the Freeh report is far from complete, and as a result, I believe Penn State is entitled to a refund.”
Penn State spokesman David La Torre declined comment.
Several other board members have called for a re-examination of the report in light of the critique in the Paterno family's report. Freeh has stood by his findings and called the family's report a “self-serving” effort to shape the legacy of Paterno, who died in January 2012 at 85.
Sandusky is serving a 30- to 60-year prison term for his conviction on 45 counts of child sexual abuse involving 10 boys. He maintains his innocence.
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.