Did Gov. Tom Corbett sacrifice Penn State to avoid investigations?

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had a responsibility to investigate whether the Jerry Sandusky scandal violated any of its rules and regulations, as spelled out in detail in its Constitution and By-Laws, which we have discussed in an earlier editorial

Below is how the Committee on Infractions  is constituted:

“19.1.1 Composition of Committee. The committee shall be composed of ten members, seven of whom shall be at present or previously on the staff of an active member institution or member conference of the Association, no more than three and no less than two of whom shall be from the general public and shall not be associated with a collegiate institution, conference, or professional or similar sports organization, or represent coaches or athletes in any capacity. One of the members shall serve as chair and one member shall serve as vice chair. Two members shall be elected as coordinators of appeals, one of whom may be a public member. Two positions shall be allocated for men, two allocated for women and six unallocated. There shall be no subdivision restrictions except that all nonpublic members may not be from the same subdivision; however, the coordinators of appeals shall not be considered in determining whether such a requirement is satisfied.”

Note how the committee is made up not only of non-NCAA officials but a representatives from diverse member universities and the public.  Presumably this is to assure not only that the rules are properly enforced but to avoid dangerous precedents and power grabs.   It would not appear in the interest of the university members to have the NCAA widen is jurisdiction beyond assuring fair competition.

This process encourages a thorough investigation of all relevant facts.  Furthermore, with so many involved in the appeals process including the representatives of several universities, testimony concerning such a sensational case is prone to leaks of information to the general public.

From Bill Keisling’s report “Timeline Clery Act violations and failures to investigate by Tom Corbett and Penn State University” that on repeated occasions, first as attorney general and later as governor, it is clear:  Corbett took steps to discourage the investigation of the criminal pedophilia of Jerry Sandusky; he declined to properly investigate the vanishing of Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar;  he accepted $641,481.21 in political contributions from board members of Sandusky founded and led Second Mile Foundation; the state appropriated (and  now Gov. Corbett’s approved) $3 million in funds to the Second Mile Foundation despite his knowledge of the Sandusky concerns; Corbett’s failed to recuse himself as a Penn State trustee in relevant discussions; and he recommended that the controversial Luis Freeh be engaged to write a report and restricted Freeh from investigating activities outside of the University, thus protecting himself.

What would have influenced Penn State President Rodney Erickson, without consultation with his board of trustees, to by-pass the safeguards of an NCAA investigation and accept such draconian penalties?

From the vantage point of the NCAA, how could the NCAA agree to a pre-packaged settlement without an investigation unless Penn State volunteered to accept every possible punishment conceivable under the NCAA By-Laws?

And from where did the notion of a potential “death penalty” for Penn State football spring?  From a reading of the NCAA By-Laws, it appears hardly likely that such a first time disciplinary action against Penn State would be permitted.

The editor sees the hand of Tom Corbett behind these various mechanizations… a clear pattern (including the scapegoating of Coach Joe Paterno) of diverting public attention from his politically motivated failure to promptly have Jerry Sandusky arrested three years earlier and his use of every power at his disposal to avoid any investigation that would be beyond his influence and likely control.

But let’s be clear: we should not look at Gov. Corbett’s failure to demand proper investigations as solely at Penn State. As many Pennsylvanians are aware, Tom Corbett has repeatedly refused to investigate many troubling matters involving insider corruption and cronyism around the state, including long-festering problems at the Hershey Trust, the Republican-controlled state senate, the Harrisburg debt scandal, and the Luzerne County cash-for-kids scandal, to name a few. In each of these cases, as at Penn State, Tom Corbett in fact was, and is, the main obstacle preventing meaningful investigations. The pattern is clear: Corbett has become Non-Investigation Tom. One wonders, What does Corbett have to hide?

As the federal government continues its investigation of Penn State for Clery Act violations, we can only hope that federal investigators do not draw the same imaginary line around Penn State (as did Louis Feeeh and the NCAA) and so refuse to meaningfully investigate the larger problem of corruption in state offices that contributed to the long-running Sandusky scandal. Ignoring the larger problem of protected corruption in Pennsylvania will only serve to discredit the Clery Act and the federal investigators, as both Louis Freeh and the NCAA have now been widely discredited and criticized.

But, back to Penn State: What would have influenced Penn State President Rodney Erickson, without consultation with his board of trustees, to by-pass the safeguards of an NCAA investigation and accept such draconian penalties?

Our hypothesis:  Penn State University relies upon state funding to maintain its level of operations.   Gov. Corbett virtually controls whether funding will continue at past level or be severely reduced …for so called austerity reasons.  So what choice would Erickson have had?