NCAA integrity monitor George Mitchell says Penn State shows 'good faith' in reform progress
STATE COLLEGE — Penn State received its latest glowing report card from a watchdog that the NCAA appointed to monitor the university's adherence to an athletics integrity agreement, which was agreed to after the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
Former Sen. George Mitchell delivered on Friday his third quarterly report to Penn State, saying the university's officials “continued to press forward in good faith” from March to May by implementing such reforms as reducing the size of the board of trustees and making available online mandated-reporter training. Mitchell said Penn State administrators and staff have given his team nothing but “full cooperation.”
Penn State must pay for the work done by Mitchell's team and, as of Feb. 28, the bill exceeded $1.4 million.
The latest report from Mitchell follows two other positive reports, the first in November and the second in February.
Penn State President Rodney Erickson said Mitchell's report “validates the significant reforms” university officials have worked to put in place. It also shows the university's “steadfast and ongoing commitment” to integrity and ethics, he said.
Among the most sizable reforms Mitchell noted was the downsizing of the board of trustees from 32 to 30 members by taking away the president's and governor's voting powers. Mitchell also pointed out the revamped trustees' conflict-of-interest policy that expands the definition of what could trigger a potential conflict.
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.