ShareThis Page

State may revoke Sandusky pension

| Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, 12:02 a.m.

Convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky's state pension — reported at $59,000 a year — may be in jeopardy.

The State Employees' Retirement System said on Wednesday that it would review the status of his retirement plan. A state pension-forfeiture law applies to public school employees convicted of a sex crime against a student or students.

A Centre County jury in June convicted Sandusky, 68, in a child-rape case involving 10 boys over 15 years. Jurors found the former Penn State assistant football coach guilty on 45 of 48 counts. Judge John Cleland sentenced Sandusky on Tuesday to 30 to 60 years in prison.

Sandusky worked for Penn State for 30 years before his retirement in 1999. He abused boys in several locations, including his home outside State College and in university facilities.

Reached on Wednesday evening, Sandusky attorney Karl Rominger said he doesn't think the state has grounds to end his client's pension.

“It seems like they're trying to shoehorn it in, but it's not going to fit,” Rominger said of any attempted revocation. He said Sandusky's victims were not Penn State students. Nor is Penn State a public school as defined in the state statute, Rominger argued.

The university is classified as a state-related — not a state-owned — institution.

Rominger had not yet seen a formal pension-review announcement from the retirement system, he said. Retirement system officials could not be reached.

Frank Fina, a state deputy attorney general, has said the Legislature should tighten pension-forfeiture rules for public officials. A bill sponsored by state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York, would end state pension benefits for former officials placed on the Megan's Law list of sexually violent predators.

Cleland classified Sandusky as such a predator.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Adam Smeltz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5676 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me