Penn State says its costs in Sandusky scandal top $41M
STATE COLLEGE — Penn State has released a document sought by some of its critics detailing the agreement with former FBI Director Louis Freeh to investigate the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, a review that cost the school about $8.1 million.
Including the bill to pay Freeh, Penn State's total costs associated with the scandal topped $41 million as of the end of December, the university disclosed Monday on a website.
The monthly financial update provided more itemization for certain costs, including the Freeh report. The update counted the first of five annual $12 million installments — paid in December — to cover the $60 million fine from the NCAA as part of landmark sanctions over the scandal.
Some alumni had called on the university to release itemized costs and the letter of agreement with Freeh that outlined his responsibilities and the scope of the internal investigation. Penn State posted the letter, which called for the Freeh report to “provide recommendations ... for actions to be taken to attempt to ensure that those and similar failures do not occur again.”
Trustee Anthony Lubrano has said the school should ask for a refund from Freeh because the investigation was not full or complete.
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.
- Geologist: Site of idyllic 1833 painting of Lancaster found
- Conneaut Lake Park to take case to court for tax-exempt status
- Ohio woman shot to death nearly 3 days before police find body in Neshannock home
- Pennsylvania legislative leader Costa blasts suggestion of session before Wolf sworn in as governor
- Kane’s office backtracks on prosecution in email scandal
- ‘Consolidation’ might be the word for some shale companies
- Attorney general Kane reverses claim about child porn in emails