ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

PSU trustees get access to Freeh materials

| Monday, Dec. 1, 2014, 8:48 p.m.

HARRISBURG — Nine Penn State alumni-elected trustees are getting access to documents used to form a 2012 report about how top university administrators handled sex abuse complaints against former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Penn State board chairman Keith Masser said in a letter to trustees Monday that he has directed a Philadelphia lawyer to make available a database and interview materials used to produce the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh.

Masser said trustees who want to review the large set of documents will have to sign an agreement designed to protect confidentiality agreements made when people provided “sensitive and private information.”

“I note that the alumni-elected trustees have requested access to millions of pages and so, obviously, there are both legal and practical issues to be considered,” Masser wrote. “I will leave those details to be worked out with legal counsel.”

Alumni-elected trustee Anthony Lubrano called Masser's letter “a good start,” saying he and the others probably will have some ideas about the logistics.

“To the extent that they make available the records we've asked for, I think in the end that's very positive. It'll allow us to do what we're supposed to do as fiduciaries,” Lubrano said.

The nine trustees have been critical of the report, which concluded there were serious shortcomings in how officials at the highest positions in university leadership responded to complaints about Sandusky.

The nine wrote Masser on Wednesday to argue the materials were property of the board and to say they needed access to “fully and independently evaluate the findings and conclusions” in the Freeh report.

Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse in 2012.

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.

click me