PENN STATE

Crabnm B. Spani4."1'
EP\eritus
Dear Members of the Board ofTrustees:
July 23,2012
Tile Perm!>ylvania
Univer!iily Purk, PA 16M2

I write to you with great regret abol.\t the situation that entire University finds itself in
following the conviction of Jerry Sanduskyiand the release Freeh report. Upon release of
tqe Grand Jury presentment last November.:I was shocked and c'n?nue to be deeply troubled to
have learned a child predator vietitnizei:l while assqfiated with the University, even
after his retirement.. 1 c!ln assure you that I lhadn 't the slightest ifikling until reading the Grand
Jury presentment th8.t Sandusky was being inv-estigated for monjitllan a single incident in a
shower in 2001, something that was to me only as ''hqtsing around."
. I :'
' ' Had I lolown then what we now know about Jerry SandJ$ky, had I received any
information about a sexual act in the or elsewhere, or I had some basis for a higher
suspicion about Sandusky, I would, have strongly and iri:imediately intervened. Never
' . ' . . . -, I'
would I stand by for a moment to allow a c)lild predator to hurt children. I am personally
outraged that any such abusive acts could !:lave occurred in or al!()und Penn State and have
considerable pain that it could perhaps have been ended had we known more sooner.
You need to understand and hear ttl>m me some important facts: I was apparently cotJied
on two emails in 1998, the first, from Gary! Schultz to Tim Curley on May 6 saying that "the
Public Welfare people will interview the iJidividual Thursday." The second email, from Schultz
to Curley on June 9, says "They .met with Jerry on Monday and .conciudcd that there was no
criminal behavior and the matter was as an investigation. He was a little emotional and
expressed conc,c;lm as to how this might hare adversely child. I think the matter has
qeen appropriately investigated and I hope!it is now behind us.! !'have no recollection of any
conversations on the topic or any other enurlls from that era sen!; to me or by me. It is public
knowledge that the District Attorney there was no crin$ I don't understand
now one could conclude from such evidence "concealment" Kl1own child predator.
: ' ; i : -j i ,;
' My kndwledge bfthe 2001 incidenf is fully explained td/the best of my recollection in the
materials I provided to Mr. Freehand that are appended to his E' rt (enclosed again here). I
neYer pearda word about abusi;ve or sexllll.11 behavior, nor were ..' rre any other details presented
lhat would have led me to think along tho::le lines. McQueary' :name was never mentioned to
me, and it is clear that Curley and Schultz not spoken to yet when they gave me. their
initial heads up. I was in fact told that thefwitness wasn't sure )vhat he saw, since it was around a
comer. Dr. Jonathan Dranov's Grand Jury and trial testimony appear to corroborate that nothing
sexual was reported to him in his meeting :with McQueary on the night of the 2001 incident.
I
The Freeh report is also egregious iJi. its incomplete and inaccurate reporting of my 2011
discussions with certain trustees, advice and reporting from the University's General Counsel,
and the recounting of unfolding events in November, 2011. I want to be clear that the Chair of
the Board of Trustees was kept informed b)! me throughout 20 II to the fullest extent ! was able,
beginning on the Sunday after my Grand Jury appearance and in other discussions with trustee
leaders.
In reporting to the Trustees, I was g\)ided by and all instructions from the
University's General Counsel. She told me; very little about hov{. she was handling the Grand
Jury investigation. She never told me anyti:iing about the of the interviews with athletic
department staff or the Curley and Schultz Grand Jury or the interview of Curley and
Schultz by the Attorney General when she Was present. She didttell me on at least three
occasions, however, that this was the third 6r fourth Grand Jury Sn this matter, that there
appeared to be no issue for the University, and that the Attorney ((Jenera! did not seem to have
SOJI!ething happened involving She had, sh7 said,.
spok<:;n several to Attorney General staff. I was never told;py her of any matenals bemg
subpoenaed from the University, or even I had been subpoeb;aed to testifY. She told me I
was going voluntarily, as I had previously agreed to do, and she accompanied me before the
judge and in the Grand Jwy room and sat through my testimony, I had no preparation or
understanding of the context. As I was being sworn in for my Grand Jwy appearance, much to
my surprise she handed over to the judge a drive containing my entire history of cmails
back to 2004. '
! I note that the Freeh report concludJd that the Genetal Cbunsel failed to seek the advice
of a law finn with quality criminal expcrien,'cc to advise her of how to deal with the Attorney
General and the Grand Jury investigation. l have learned this is 11 standard procedure when
CQrporations or other large entities are servdd with Grand Jury subpoenas.
It is unfathomable and illogical to tt1ink that a respected ilunily sociologist and family
therapist, someone who personally experienced massive and abuse as a child, someone
who devoted a significant portion of his carFc:r to the welfare of and youth, including
service on the boards of four such two as chair board, would have
a blind eye report cf clllld abuse or pretatory sexual acts directed at
childten. As I have stated in the' clearest pqssible terms, at no time during my presidency did
:myope ever repbrt to me that Sandusl(y was observed abuJing a child or youth or engaged
iri a sexual act With a child or yo'uth. ; i'
' ,,
I j i!'
. .. This have been clear to Mt Freeh and his colleagues who
interviewed me for five hours before their was finished al\d interrogated scores of
einployees about me. Yet the report is full pf factual errors and jumps to conclusions that are
u)ttrue and unwarranted. I have identified errors in the report that pertrun to me, which my
attorneys will share confidentially with UnilVersity legal counsel for your records
consideration. Moreover, I look forward the opportunity to set the record straight with
representatives of the Board of Trustees as you might desire.
: As my attorneys have pointecl out, Jnother inveStigation of my conduct, an inveStigation
by federal officials responsible for my top secret security clearance, was carried out
l
I
I
simultaneously with the Freeh investigation. This clearance required are-review when the
Sandusky matter surfaced in November. Ff!deral investigators tlten conducted a four-month
investigation of their own in which they many same individuals the Freeh
Group interviewed and other relevant indivtouals Freeh did not iP.terview. The investigation was
significantly focused on any possible role I plight have played Ui:th\t Sandusky matter.
At the conclusion the my top secret was reaffirmed. Although
I told Mr. directly about the federal investigation and its it\'lt, there is no mention of it
a!lyW:herc tn htsJ report. . ' II
' ' ' ' l;i
Commehts from the Fre6h report ani! some trustees my leadership of Penn State
over more than)6 years are confusing I tried to keep the !rustees informed of all of the
niost:relevant issues. Following our prior qadition Meetings," I instituted a
with trustee leadership, Seminars, and report in public
with atliple time for questions on allY topic. We initiated Board subcommittees, an audit
committee, a governance committee, and npmerous other reforms to improve governance. I also
believe his report is unfairly critical of the Board of Trustees in parts.
' I worked with seven board chairs, ceived stellar annual. reviews following surveys of all
l:loard membeJ:s, and four conuact I had an open door. policy with trustees, returned all
calls and answered all board members' emails on a same-day bis. I never hesitated to bring to
board leadership discussion of any sensitivf issue. 1 believe record as president of Penn State
sPeaks for itself. Together, we accomplished a great deal of g* .during my 16-year presidency
of Penn State. Yet I find myself excoriated\ by the Freeh report individual trustees speaking
negatively of me in public. My reputation F been profoundly
1
:d;m1aged .
. :.. . . In l.igh .. t.,ofm. y 2.6 years o .. fservice to. Penn State, my co. ntp.' b,.'utions as president for more
t,han 16 years, !p1d tny <;<>ntinuil}g service after I left the prylsil:!ency, l would ask to have an
with, the boardto answer any you might have. l write you
with a heavy heart fof the who .vtctirnized by Sandusky, and
mtb, regretfot the difficult challenges ahe'd for this great Umv;rrsxty.
Graham Spanier
,,
i'
I'
t:
I!
ji
I'!
i
Initial Heads u
. . p
More than a decade ago, Tim Curley and Glu'y Schultz asked to me after another meeting
to give me a "heads up" about a matter. LoPking back at my calndar for what is now presumed
to be February, 2001, I sunnise that meeting to have been on Mdnday, February 12, at about
2:30pm, following a scheduled meeting offtle President's Council. It was common that
members of the council would catch me inqividually for brief updates following such meetings.
The meeting lasted perhaps 1 0-l 5 minutes. i Curley and Schultz ;>bared that they had received a
rc;port that a member of the athletic departo:ient staff had reportd:i something to Joe Paterno, and
that Joe had passed that report on to Tim an,d Gary. The that Jerry Sandusky was seen
in an athletic locker room facility with one of his Mile youth, after a workout,
and that they were "horsing around" (or "engaged in horseplay1: reported that the staff
was not sure what he saw because ft was around a co, 41ld indirect.
1
, king I ' ''
rec!':' as , . t)-vo questlons; , . !' ,
"1\re..iybu.suie tha.: tis. how it wa5.;described 1o you, as horsing arqf1Ud"? Both replied "yes."
"Are:you sure that that is all that was repoJied?" Both replied
: ' I . ' I' , ,:
We then agreed, that we were with such a situatiJp., that it was inappropriate, and
tl\latWe did noiwant it to happen again. I l!Sked that Tim meet Sandusky to tell him that he
niust never again bring youth into the shoWers. We further that we should inform the
Mile president that we were we Jerry to never !iothis again and furthennore
we did not wish Second Mile youth to be in our showers.
Notes:
I
'J1here was no mention of anything abusivei sexual, or criminal.
i
At ne time was it said who had made the rljport to Joe Paterno. !(I never heard Mike McQuery's
associated with this episode until November 7, 2011, I read it in a newspaper story.)
I :i
lhe hour of the day was not mentioned.
I
I
The specific building and locke!" room not mentioned. !:
.. wa)s not ... l it "}ugh school child under
.\erry's or.sponsotship, smce that 1s all I knew Second Mile.
1 .'.' " ,. H ',: ,: !i: I . j''
l1Je wasno of any and I had recollection of having heard of
a priOr incident ' . i !:
. . I
Follow Up
In reviewing my calendar for February, 2001, I note a double entry for Sunday, February 25. I
hlt.d been out of town for several days and Was scheduled to return in time to see a Penn State
women's basketball game at 2pm. My assiStant noted on the calndar that I should stop in to see
Tim Curley briefly in my way into the I have no recollec#on of that meeting other than
that Tim was worried about how he should pandle things if he ir:ed Sandusky that we were
forbidding him from bringing Second Mile lyo.uth into our facili and then Sandusky disagreed
with this directive. I do not recall knowing! about any prior inci : ts but it is apparent from
emails recently released to the media that 1iim also indicated tha,'t there had been an earlier
when showered wi1ih a minor. We also abw know that I was copied on
tWO 1998' that 'niay ha:te alerted me to that (the first on\llleing a vague reference with
no the saying that the had been I had_
al:>so1utely no ofthli,t history m(2001 nor do I today. I don't believe I replied
. to. those cmails !lor: Was I briefe4 verbal! y. ; . : '
Tim 6urley seni me a follow up email that L recently been with the news media. My
use of the word "humane" refers specitical\Y and only to my thdught that it was humane of Tim
to wish to inform Sandu:iky first and to allqw him to accompany Tiro to the :meeting with the
P,resident of the Second Mile. Moreover, would be humane td offer counseling to Sandusky if
he didn't understand why this was inappro]priate and unacceptable to us. My comment that we
e;ould be vulnerable for not reporting it fur1ber relates specifically and only to Tim's concern
a,bout the possH>ility that J ecry 'Would not our directive all'd repeat the practice. Were that
the oUtcome of his discussion I would havcf worried that we didinot enlist more help in enforcing
s\.lch'a directive. I suggested that we could! visit that question the road, meaning after
Curley informed Sandusky of our directive: and learoing of his ..j.li.Uingness to comply.
A fe\.v days after the brief Sunday I saw Tim Curle;'wd he reported that both of the
discussions had taken place, that those discussions had gone wep (jnd our directive accepted, and
, .. I . . (i !:
,
.f pad ,absolutely ri?. idea untiliml.dway throu?h :voluntary grand jury testimony
:nqUlry was aboUt anyth:mg more ,nan the one ep1sode t the shower.
Notes: . 1
1 do not recall that I was privy to any follof, up discussions betWeen Curley, Schultz. legal
ounsel, or others. I had five out of town tpps that month, my appropriations hearings, THON, .a
packed calendar with 164 appointments, a:; average of 100 inwming and SO outgoing eroails a
C!lay, and the turmoil of the Black Caucus 1isruption and the takeover of the student union.
' '
do .not recall being involved in any discufsions about DPW oJthe police, although I now
;tSSUme that DPW is the "other organizati$" being referenced py Curley and Schultz in their
q:mails. 1 i

"
'
v
!'
[: