You are on page 1of 17

>> Before we begin, I'd like to ask Tom for a roll call.

>> Thank you. Please unmute your phones for the roll call.
(Roll call being taken)

>> Mute your phones again.
>> The Board met this morning in executive session to discuss this matter in a privileged session with
our general counsel and outside counsel. The sole subject of the meetings today is to discuss a possible
settlement of the litigation between the NCAA and certain Commonwealth parties related to the $60-
million fine in the NCAA consent decree.
The University is a party in one of the two cases between the NCAA and the Commonwealth parties. We
have convened a special meeting because the parties have asked for the Board's position in the
settlement discussions. We distributed a draft resolution late yesterday that provides further
Let me say at the outset that there is no agreement on the terms of a possible settlement. I invite the
Trustees to provide any advice and counsel on what those terms should be. Let me note that we all,
including the Trustee plaintiffs in Paterno case, have in the past meetings been appropriately sensitive
to conflict issues that are presented by participation of those plaintiff Trustees in any board action that
relates to the University' position or in defense of the Paterno litigation.
The resolution we have in front of us has no connection to the Paterno litigation, which continues
unaffected by this resolution. If we were to go into any Board action that relates to the issues in Paterno
litigation, then a vote on any such action by the plaintiff Trustees would rise issues of a conflict of
We are now ready to proceed with the public deliberations of a proposed resolution. A draft of the
resolution was sent to all members of the Board yesterday afternoon. For the convenience of the public
and the media, the text of the draft resolution is available on the University's website at
A possible settlement re the endowment act litigation has been discussed in the Legal Subcommittee, so
I call on Rick Dandrea, as Chair of the subcommittee, to make an introduction.
>> Point of order. Clarification. We were not provided (Inaudible).
>> We have an opportunity to present it.
>> After the discussion of Rick, we can entertain additional items with additional -- the purpose of this
meeting is as I have stated, and we will limit it to this Endowment Act litigation with a $60 million fine.
Let's keep our comments brief and to the point. Rick, go ahead.
>> So Chairman Masser, the purpose of this conversation, at least as you described it to me, was to
discuss this matter, this matter that's in front of us with respect to the consent decree. Are you saying
now that the only thing we are going to discuss is the resolution that you have put forward? And that it
will not be a full and open conversation with respect to the various options available to this University?
Is that what you just said?
>> KEITH MASSER: No, let's get a motion on the table, then we will have a full discussion. If there's no
resolution, then we will proceed in that manner.
>> But you are suggesting that Trustee Lubrano or any other (Inaudible). Either amends or responds to
the resolution that you put in front of us?
>> KEITH MASSER: You can discuss those factors in the discussion period.
>> Before Trustee Dandrea proceeds, I'm not sure we've gotten an accurate answer to our question.
>> The answer to the question, Bill, is we'll bring that up within the discussion period of the motion.
>> I am not sure what that means, Keith.
>> KEITH MASSER: There is going to be a motion put on the floor, and then there will be discussion. So
we'll discuss -- we'll discuss the motion. And if it's appropriate to have discussion around the
amendments to the resolution, there will be a period for that.
>> Mr. Chairman, Keith Eckel, a question.
>> KEITH MASSER: Go ahead.
>> KEITH ECKEL: That question, Mr. Chairman, is simply that I've understood that you are limiting the
discussion for this public meeting on this particular subject, and it would be my belief, but I am asking
the Chair that the discussion would be on that motion, but anyone can offer amendments or substitutes
to the motion as long as they're germane to the subject. Would that be correct?
>> That's correct.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
>> Mr. Eckel, at this meeting, I seem to recall that yesterday you suggested to Trustee Lubrano that this
would be a full and open conversation. The notice that we got (Inaudible) the motion in consideration of
litigation settlement. I thought we were considering the litigation settlement and, frankly, as we
discussed in the executive session, we have vast differences about the litigation settlement.
Your motion deals with the (Inaudible) basically has been settled since April and is essentially a
statement of the obvious, does not take on the consent decree (audio breaking up)
. The State Court raised that issue.
I understand and heard that these were taken up in May and aired fully. I think I wasn't at the May
meeting. (Inaudible). Frankly, I think that is the issue that's on the table, and the gentleman who is
about to speak next, Trustee Dandrea, has already recognized that this is a vast difference and needs to
be reconciled.
>> I have heard nothing that the Chairman has said that indicates that this conversation will be limited.
My understanding is the Chairman has recognized Mr. Dandrea for the purpose of making a motion and
a second, if there is a second present. And then my understanding is that we would proceed with a full
and open discussion, as I described in my email, Trustee Lubrano, yesterday.
>> You said that the chairman has not suggested there will be any limitations. He's already told trust
Lubrano that he (Inaudible) a competing resolution.
>> I am just going to yield to the Chairman. That's his decision. I asked the question of him. I am satisfied
it's going to be open, as any discussion on any motion ever is.
>> Are you disputing what the Chairman said?
>> I am not disputing at all what the Chairman said. I am in agreement with the Chairman. I want to see
us moving forward with the Chairman having recognized Dandrea. If I was Chairman, I would rule both
of us out of order at this point because he's recognized Trustee Dandrea.
(Overlapping speakers)
>> Mr. Chairman, would you please make certain that the people who are attending use the proper
decorum in asking their questions or applauding or not applauding various statements by other
members of the Board?
>> Mr. Chairman --
>> Point of order. I've given Rick Dandrea the floor. Trustee Dandrea.
>> RICHARD DEANDREA: Thank you, Keith. This is Rick Dandrea. As Keith Masser noted generally,
Pennsylvania Senator Jake Corman and Treasurer Rod McCord have filed a lawsuit against the NCAA that
relates to the $60-million fine that is part of the NCAA consent decree.
The parties to the lawsuit have had preliminary settlement discussions, and the Commonwealth parties
have asked for an expression of the Board's position on a possible settlement. That's the reason that we
convened this special meeting on short notice today.
The resolution distributed to the Board yesterday basically expresses two positions: First, the resolution
endorses settling on terms that would result in payment of the $60-million fine to the Commonwealth
for distribution in Pennsylvania for the benefit of Pennsylvania children. Secondly, the resolution
provides that any settlement should be consistent with the University's continuing commitment to full
compliance with the consent decree.
And with that introduction, I move that the Board adopt the resolution before us.
>> KEITH MASSER: Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> KEITH MASSER: Who offers the second? Confirm the name.
>> Karen Peetz.
>> KEITH MASSER: Karen Peetz made the second.
Now, is there discussion?
>> Mr. Chairman, (Inaudible). I would like to read into the record the resolution that's before us
because, as we discussed in executive session, there's a paragraph that many of us here in this room are
troubled by.
>> KEITH MASSER: Do you want to read that paragraph?
>> I would. Consent decree. (Inaudible) -- agrees that a $60 million fine (audio breaking up)
The University remains committed to full compliance (Inaudible) as amended from time to time. Any
settlement (Inaudible).
Mr. Chair, as we discussed in executive session, I stand in opposition to this resolution as presented
simply because -- actually, for a couple of reasons. First, we were provided this resolution (Inaudible) to
review this discussion and potentially amend. Second of all, more importantly, this resolution addresses
(Inaudible) table this motion at this time and give us an opportunity to (Inaudible). Thank you.

>> RICHARD DEANDREA: Mr. Chair, this is Rick Dandrea. May I respond to Mr. Lubrano's comments,
>> RICHARD DEANDREA: As we discussed earlier this morning and we've had the discussion on prior
occasions, the crux of the matter here is it goes to the second point in the resolution, that any
settlement in the litigation should be consistent with the university's continuing commitment to full
compliance with the consent decree. The crux of the issue is do we, two years after the consent decree
was entered, reverse the course of the University's compliance with the consent decree and, at this
point, attack it, attempt to terminate it, move to invalidate it, however you want to express that? And so
I think we do have a clear issue, and I think we have a clear understanding of what that means, and I
think that it's something that we've considered for a long time, and I think that we are prepared to make
a decision on that subject because I believe the majority of the board is in complete agreement with the
University position not to attack the consent decree at this point in time but, rather, to continue with
our program for compliance, a program that has been constructed not only demonstrating the
University's commitment to doing what it can do avoid a repeat of the Sandusky episode, but also has
been productive to result in a reduction in the sanctions that are part of the consent decree, and the
program that University has followed the last few years hopefully will result in a further reduction of the
sanctions in the near-term. I don't think this is something that requires extensive further debate. I think
we all understand where we are. Mr. Lord, Mr. Lubrano, you and your colleagues, you've expressed your
position that you would like to invalidate, terminate the consent decree. I think the Board overall knows
well where we each individually stand on this issue, and I think we are prepared to vote today.
>> Well, thank you, Rick. You've made your position quite clear. (Inaudible) endorse the consent decree,
and the actions, valid or invalid, that the NCAA has taken, so be it. There are only nine of us, we believe.
I would appeal to each Trustee. You heard me talk about the collective conscience of this Board. I
assume each of you have individual consciences. I appeal to each Trustee to capitalize on this
opportunity that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Appeals has given to Penn State and to
replace the consent decree.
We are, as Rick described, vastly apart. We do not believe that the consent decree is valid. Seven
persons, a number of legal experts, have expressed the same conclusion that our legal subcommittee
and our friends at Reid Smith and a variety of other people seem to think that they have a better point
of view than the court of appeals is, to me, debatable. There's no question you have the votes or you
wouldn't be conducting this meeting.
We have heard that the driving force for this rush to judgment, a repeat of rush to judgment of 2012
and, frankly, 2011, this repeat of a rush to judgment is highly irregular, and frankly, you've told us the
reason is the State is pushing you to an answer by December 31. The State is asking the Board to come
to an agreement about these issues and bring a united front. We are not even close to a united front. If
you choose to bring a 21-9 or 22-8 vote or some other vote and endorse the consent decree as drafted
and endorse the behavior of the NCAA, who got way beyond its own rules and rely 100% on a Freeh
Report which has been remarkably discredited and you want to sit out there with two other actions
pending that will likely reverse your action, then go ahead with your 21-9 vote. The idea that this issue is
about $60 million is a bit of a joke. The Appeals Court said check the validity of the consent decree. You
have said, Rick, that you believe, Chair of the Legal Subcommittee, that is a valid document, and you
seem to imply that the fact that we have undergone its sanctions for two years is reason not to
challenge the consent decree. It seems to me that is precisely the reason to challenge, and we have
undergone incredible pain and suffering at this university, immense financial damage, and more than
financial damage, reputational damage, and it's time that the NCAA recognize that this is a stand-alone
organization that can act on its own and act once in a while with a backbone.
That is the issue that's on the table. If, in fact, Chairman Masser is not going to allow us to introduce a
resolution, I, then, want to submit at least a few comments with respect to issues that we believe need
to be on the table to be used to amend your resolution. I assume that you will allow us to, in fact, read
those into the record.
I am going to ask Trustee McCombie to read them in. Thank you.
>> Is this germane to this motion right now?
>> KEITH MASSER: I think so. I will allow it.
>> I would encourage us to allow them to read that into the record.
>> RYAN McCOMBIE: If you will, Chairman Masser, I am going to read our resolution, and you can take
the parts out of it on your own. Whereas, litigation initiated in 2013 in the Commonwealth court in
Pennsylvania, Corman et al. vs. the national collegiate education system, under the Act, the $60-million
fine imposed on the University by the NCAA pursuant by the July 2012 consent decree must be paid to
the Commonwealth. Whereas, disputed issues of fact arose regarding the validity of the consent decree
that underlines all the other issues in the litigation, the Court ordered that the University be added as
party to protect the University's interest in that regard; whereas, the parties in the litigation have had
preliminary discussion, through counsel, but have not reached agreement on any terms; whereas, a
federal court action between the NCAA and certain Commonwealth parties also related to the Act is
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, although the
University is not a party in the federal action, the NCAA and the Commonwealth parties have requested
the University to participate in the settlement discussions intended to achieve a global resolution in the
litigation and the federal action; whereas, the Commonwealth parties have requested that the Board of
Trustees consider and express its position on a possible settlement; whereas, no meaningful discovery
has yet occurred in the litigation, the University has not yet fulfilled its obligation, and the mandate for
the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of Appeals to resolve disputed factual issues regarding the
validity of the consent decree, including, for example: Was the Freeh Report accepted or discussed by
the Board? If yes, was it done in a public meeting or executive discussion? Was it accepted by the full
Board or by the Executive Committee? Who specifically crafted the consent decree? Was a consent
decree discussed or accepted by the Board? If yes, was it done in a public meeting or an executive
session? Was it discussed or accepted by the full Board or by the Executive Committee? Did the general
counsel advise the Board to accept the consent decree? Did the general counsel advise the Board to
accept the Freeh Report? What were the substance of the communications between and among Louis
Freeh, free and Sullivan, and the NCAA? Has the Board seen all such communication? Did the Board see
those communications prior to agreeing to a consent decree? Provided the consent decree is voided in
its entirety (Inaudible) is put in place that recognizes the legal and factual defects as a consent decree as
set forth below, a $60-million fine would be paid to the Commonwealth in compliance with the Act?
It is therefore resolved that the University should pursue a settlement of the litigation that, A,
acknowledges the insufficiency of the Freeh Report for purposes of the consent decree. All remaining
sanctions imposed on the University by the NCAA, returns penalty funds paid into escrow by the
University and rescinds further obligation under that penalty; authorizes and requests that consistent
with the University's commitment to transparency, NCAA to release all its communications between and
among the university, the Freeh Group, and/or Louis Freeh; acknowledges Jerry Sandusky's sole
responsibility for the crimes he committed; acknowledges the NCAA accepted and publicize the
University's acceptance of the consent decree, notwithstanding the fact that the NCAA knew that the
University Board of Trustees had not yet conducted a vote regarding its validity; acknowledges and
regrets crimes committed on this University property; acknowledges settlements made with victims and
University's compassion by those harmed by its former employee, Jerry Sandusky; the University will not
pursue the NCA for tens of millions of dollars of forgone revenue caused by the sanctions imposed on
the University more than two years ago; recommends that the Commonwealth acknowledges this and
further agree to forego any further litigation against the NCAA with respect to the consent decree's
validity and recognizes that parties forego further action against signers of the consent decree except as
set forth (Inaudible).
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> KEITH MASSER: Thank you, Ryan.
>> KEITH ECKEL: Mr. Chairman, Keith Eckel. I would like to speak in support of the motion that has been
placed on the floor.
>> KEITH MASSER: Go ahead.
>> KEITH ECKEL: I believe, number one, Mr. Chairman that the Commonwealth Court has set the
timetable for this, that the court that has ruled on this has set the timetable for us to give a response.
My recollection from the beginning is that our Board and our leadership always supported the concept
that the $60 million be spent in Pennsylvania for the benefit of abused children in this state.
I believe, as I understand it, the resolution presented positively deals with that aspect, and I think that's
critically important, and I do not like to see that money in any type of reserve fund instead of being used
by Pennsylvania people for the benefit of our children. So I am strongly in support of that concept.
When it comes to the question of the statement about the consent decree, what we are talking about,
what we say, is strictly focused on compliance. And we have complied with it for over two years. When I
consider this, I think of the 98,000 students that we serve, and I believe it's imperative that these issues
be resolved as soon as possible for the student. The timetable that the consent decree encompasses, we
can see the end of that. I do not see the end of that with legal b
I also believe that we have set a high standard of compliance recognized across the country. I believe it
would be a major mistake to turn back now. Our leadership has done an exemplary job. I believe we
move forward.
And finally, I absolutely rely on our general counsel's counsel to us from the beginning. This is the
President's decision. I have absolute confidence in Dr. Barron in making this decision, and I urge support
of the resolution that has been properly introduced and seconded, and if there is no further discussion, I
would call for the question.
>> ANTHONY LUBRANO: Mr. Chair, this is Anthony Lubrano again. I would be remiss if I didn't respond
briefly. We are all concerned about children everywhere. (Audio breaking up)
We are all concerned about the 98,000 students. But there are also 600,000 alumni around the country
who, unlike (Inaudible), they can't (Inaudible) -- specifically why the consent decree, among other
things, and frankly, they have been let down by this Board. And I would hope we all look very carefully
inside and ask ourselves whether this University (Inaudible) are served by adopting this resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> WILLIAM OLDSEY: Mr. Chairman, this is Trustee Oldsey. I would like to go back to a conversation we
had earlier about Paragraph 8. There are comments in Paragraph 8 that seem to many of us not to fit
with the resolution and the sole purpose of the resolution, which today is the $60 million in settlement
in the case.
I don't understand, and I believe when we were talking with general counsel (music) -- apparently he
was -- he seemed to be approachable in terms of striking some of the language that some of us find
objectionable. I think it would make sense (audio interference on the line)
-- vote on the resolution -- do you remember our discussion about potentially striking that paragraph?
>> KEITH MASSER: I remember the discussion. I motion as it stands now is the resolution intact.
>> RICHARD DEANDREA: Mr. Chair, this is Rick Dandrea. May I address that?
>> RICHARD DEANDREA: I do not believe we should alter the resolution at all. Part of the resolution that
Mr. Oldsey refers to is the statement that the University remains committed to full compliance with the
consent decree and that any settlement should be consistent with this commitment. I think it would be
a huge mistake for the University to retreat from that commitment and do not believe that we should
wordsmith this resolution to dilute that notion at all.
>> WILLIAM OLDSEY: Well, just as a further point, deleting that language from this resolution does not
constitute an official opinion that we're walking away from a consent decree or not doing all the
superlative work that some of you referred to in terms of compliance. It simply takes that language out
of this particular resolution.
I don't understand why you're confusing that with taking a position contrary to the consent decree. It
simply removes it.
>> RICHARD DEANDREA: Bill, I am not confusing anything. I recognize the issue we are dealing with
today is a group of Trustees who want to attack the consent decree, who want to try to invalidate it,
versus what I believe is the majority of the Board that believes we should continue on with a program of
full compliance, and I don't want to delete -- I don't want to dilute the message that comes from this
resolution at all by in any manner equivocating on the fact that the Board believes that we should
continue with full compliance rather than take some steps to invalidate or terminate the consent
So this isn't just a matter of wordsmithing. This has to do with the fundamental issue that we are dealing
with here today.
>> EDWARD HINTZ: Mr. Chairman, this is Ed Hintz.
What the NCAA has done they've done, and they have astonished me -- and I'm sure a lot of others --
the extent to which they went. I have been as passionate as anybody about that particular point.
However, if I were sitting there with the type of people who made that first decision in September, I'd
say, well, maybe we ought to just let's let it run maybe a couple more years. I don't see any reason, as
absurd as that might be, that that couldn't happen. And I'd be very concerned about what the NCAA
would look upon this as backing -- backtracking on some of the things which we already accomplished,
which have been quite good.
And so, you know, I think it would be a very Pyrrhic victory if we were those people who believe we
should ignore the decree, and I do agree with Keith Eckel that it's the first time at the present we will be
asked to weigh in on a very important matter and how he feels should be relevant to us.
I do believe that if you ask the alumni how they felt about a couple more years of scholarships and so
forth, I think they'd want to see us get this behind us as quickly as possible, despite all of the efforts
made to try to reverse it.
>> I think, Ed, just in direct response to what you've said, part of what forms the gulf here is that, yes,
we have made a lot of very positive moves in terms of compliance in the last two to three years, but
what I find extraordinary when we talk about our record is that we don't think about the last 60 years.
When Myles Bran was Executive Director of the NCAA, he made a very famous speech in which he said
Penn State is simply the model for how you match up academics and athletics. We have been doing that
for decades. It's not something we've done in the last two years. It's something we've done over a
period of 60 or 70 years. So this isn't something new.
I still don't understand where the language is germane to the motion in front of us. Ting should be --
(Overlapping speakers)
>> I agree with what you've said entirely. Everything you've said I agree with. It's just that I think that
there are times when you want to fight and times when you don't want to fight. Maybe this is one,
again, where I believe that the NCAA --
>> So Ed, look, you made your point quite clearly, and you did say there are times you want to fight and
times you don't want to fight. I think there are a fair number of alumni -- please don't talk for all alumni,
>> I am not.
>> Ed, I am talking. There are a lot of alumni who are not prepared to trade scholarships and ball games
for our reputation.

>> EDWARD HINTZ: They should already realize that we -- maybe -- you may be upset by this, but we
have the largest applications at any time by any size to Penn State. We've raised $2.1 billion over the last
several years. I don't know how such a terrible reputation that you think we've had now can match up
with the statistics.
>> (Inaudible) -- indicate that they don't trust this Board. We are an amazing, amazing group of people,
the Penn State alumni. We have the ability to separate some bad decisions from a great institution. And
this is just another example. And if you believe that the majority of alumni simply want to move on, you
are mistaken. This isn't about football. It never has been. This is about the integrity of this institution. It's
about the heart and soul of Penn State. It's who we are! And I don't understand why folks on this Board
don't understand that.

(Overlapping speakers)
>> KEITH MASSER: Hold on. We have a couple of people talking at one time. Did I hear Trustee Benson?
>> Bob Jubelirer.
>> KEITH MASSER: Okay. Bob, go ahead.
>> ROBERT JUBELIRER: Mr. Chairman, this goes to the core of what Penn State is. This is breaking a lot of
hearts and putting a lot of people through a lot of things, and I can only imagine what Dr. Barron is going
through right now, and I don't envy him. But we have to stand for something. Penn State has always
stood for doing what's right. Call it success, we can go through all the slogans, but the fact is we have
been the model for everyone. If we continue to put our heads in the sand, and this is the first time ever
that the Board of Trustees has had to review the consent agreement, three or four people did it the last
time, and President Erickson made the decision, but it was not brought before the Board of Trustees at
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this needs a lot more time, and with all due respect to my colleague from
the Class of 1959, Ed Hintz, I couldn't disagree with him more that the alumni wouldn't care about
another three years. I think they care very deeply, and they are very involved, and they are very
emotionally involved, and they want to see their university do the right thing at the expense of nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Article 8 of the resolution be deleted and ask for a roll call vote.
>> KEITH MASSER: Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> WILLIAM OLDSEY: Trustee Oldsey. I second the motion.
>> KEITH MASSER: So there is a motion to amend the resolution to delete item 8.
>> Clarification. This is Paul Silvis. Clarification on that amendment. Are we talking about the last two
sentences? The first sentence itself is the crux of the motion; is it not? Authorizing the President --
>> The motion was to remove Article 8.
>> PAUL SILVIS: The entire paragraph?
>> The entire paragraph. Call for the vote.
>> Tom, you want to do a roll call vote?
[talking simultaneously]
>> This is trustee Goldstein, as a point of clarification in terms of the process here, I'm concerned
because I think that there are still some discussions that need to occur, just based on that motion, the
motion that was just brought to the table. So I'm wondering if the Chairman would honor the
opportunity for some discussion to occur prior to taking the vote.
>> I would, I'm just looking at this, I'd say, if we remove the last two sentences, I think that would satisfy
what we need to do.
>> So, who's that? Who just spoke?
>> Who?
>> Let me -- was that Bob Jubelirer amending his motion?
>> Yeah, I can amend it to the last two sentences.
Have those removed from the resolution.
>> Chairman Masser, since I seconded the motion originally, I'd second the revised motion.
>> Okay.
>> This is Kathy, can we comment on the motion?
>> Yes, please comment.
>> Yeah, I'd like to just go back to the original point that was made with respect to the intent of the
statement. I think that if the removal of this language is to suggest that we would be backing away from
the continued commitment to full compliance with the consent agreement, I think that'd be a horrible
message to send, at a time when, again, they're looking at the prospects of additional relief and this
relief is not ephemeral.
This is real, I don't disagree with, and I understand very deeply the, the issues that have been raised
about some of the alumni. The search for truth and the desire for so greater accounting. What I'd also
say though, I can't believe that would result in a statement today that we are disavowing our continued
commitment to the clients. I think the other point though, this is, I guess a question I would ask, in the,
in the meeting we had in our last board meeting, a resolution was offered with respect to considering
the reports and we tabled that motion. Some of the elements of that resolution appear to have been, I
guess I'm asking this, read into the record and formed the basis of some of the comments today. So I
question whether or not that debate is still something that we can have later in September when it was
intended. And rather than taking such a, rather than taking, I think an unintended statement and
suggesting that we are not, that we're not committed to, to continuing to, to build compliance, and that
that might have an adverse effect on the prospect of additional relief within the next month or early
weeks, I think that would be a tragedy if we were to lose that opportunity for, for the university and for
student athletes.
>> I'm confused. I don't understand how we're moving the language to suggest that somehow we're not
interested in being compliant. That's perplexing and secondly, with respect to the impact of student
athletes, you want to remember, Finance Committee, I would submit to you that the numbers aren't
simply having $5 million, to $15 million, but that there are associated expenses with those revenues and
you know, if you're looking at it from a good economic standpoint, in light of the fact that we spent
probably over $100 million and given this issue is really not about football.
>> I appreciate your comments very much, but I wanted to sort of, you highlight a bigger point. I know
that part of the interest here, the broader interest is in restoring and again, using yours, sort of restoring
the reputation of the school, it seems to me there'll be no single statement or act that will ultimately
achieve that over time. But I do think, when you think about the kind of relief we've seen under the,
under the sanctions, I think that that does more than just underscore the fact that we've had good
compliance. It also underscores, I think, the fact that there is a view that the sanctions were accepted.
Some might even say unjustified, but that actually gets to the point of restoring our reputation, I think,
when those actions are taken. It's a validation of what the school is doing.
So, I guess I'm just trying to say, I think it has greater meaning and actually speaks to the interest that
you all, and I think we all have in assuring the reputation of the university continues to be the highest it
possibly can.
>> Kathleen, this is -- [talking simultaneously]>> You, you, you make reference to a reputation with, with
respect to compliance. This university has been in compliance for 160 years. Our reputation has nothing
to do with compliance, our reputation has to do with success with honors and to, and certain that we
are somehow a world class compliance entity. That's not what we want to be famous for. We want to,
we do want to comply with the, with the rules of the NCAA, so long as we believe the consent decree to
be valid. We don't believe it's valid. All of the sanctions that underline the consent decree become
invalid. Why we're dealing with one isolated sanction seems to be stoic. We are the masters of the
obvious. We're going to give the state of Pennsylvania money it already has. And in, in the meantime,
we're going to try to slip in a, an approval of the original -- [audio echoing].
>> Mr. Chairman, first of all [voice fading]. The counsel deciding to put it in the resolution to reaffirm
when he didn't need to. That makes it even more, more imperative that we remove it. It doesn't need to
be there. It shouldn't have been there in the first place. I think he should recognize that. And actually, as
Trustee Lord has said, the whole issue is going to get down to the legality. It's going to go to court, it's
going to, it's already starting to track, but it is going to be struck down by the courts, maybe it'll be too
late, but it, we're standing for something and, you know, it just seems to me that the people who cared
and built this university and made it what it was are looking to us to see what we stand for and whether
we care enough to stand for something regardless of what might happen for the damn NCAA which is
under fire now, everywhere you go, with the OBannon suit and everything else they've done run. Every
place it goes, I don't understand why we're [indiscernible] for the NCAA. He's done nothing. All we want
to do is remove the language that has the, has the consent agreement there. I once again call for a
permanent vote, let's, let's get to the vote and let's remove the last two sentences here. It shouldn't
have been there in the first place. And all of us ought to be able to support.
>> Chairman Masser, I'd like to respond quickly. I think we're merging issues here. I think Trustee Lord
should put a resolution before us in July that we tabled that will deal with all the issues of validity about
consent decree and those we want to take up again in September. This resolution, since it simply states
what everyone agrees. We want the money to stay in Pennsylvania and we're going to remain in
compliance. We're not saying we're validating the consent decree. We're saying we're going to stay in
compliance, which is an important message and we want the money to stay in Pennsylvania. For that
reason, I support the resolution and encourage the extended dialogue we anticipate having on Trustee
Lord's prior resolution, which we agreed to talk about in September.
>> That was a prereport. [Audio echoing].>> When you say you're in support of the resolution, we're
discussing the motion on the floor that Trustee Jubelirer put forth.
>> Just a point of verification, my support is of the original resolution, not of the amendments, I'm sorry.
I think we ought to proceed with the original resolution, I'm sorry for confusing it.
>> We, we -- [audio echoing/overlapping]. >> I'm not protecting the overall settlement or any of these
proposed amendments, but I do worry that taking a vote at this moment leaves many people, including
myself undecided, unclear on the implications of this resolution. I did ask during the executive session, I
think that the question got lost in the process. If somebody can outline the potential implications of not
deciding today on how we feel about the resolution or the settlement.
>> Trustee Dandrea, you want to address that?
>> I'll take a crack at it.
>> The reason we're presenting this is in support of a vote because the safe party to the settlement
discussion have asked for the board's position on, on positive settlements. That's the timing issue.
They've asked for that by the, so that it, if a settlement is possible, it could be done by the end of the
month which is also indicated as part of the consideration. That's the timing of it. I don't think I can
answer further than that, I just would add one other thing to an earlier question. To note that there is a
difference between compliance and [breaking up] currently written.
Focuses only on compliance. The validity issues are separate issues.
>> It didn't have to be there. >> It's a good clarification, Steve. I still believe and think frankly, because of
earlier comments that you made, you can see the point that it is gratuitous in terms of what this
document is, this resolution is trying to do. I don't, it's a sore thumb. When I read it --
>> It is!
>> And the second, third, fourth and eighth, I thought, why is it there? It's not what we're trying to do in
the resolution.
>> Mr. Chairman, Chairman Eckel, I believe we should move forward and have the vote on the
>> Would you do a roll call vote on the amendment, please?
>> Mr. Chair, I'd like [indiscernible] to be on the record, please. [Voice is far from mic].
>> I think, Chairman, it'd be good to get clarification on what we're voting on which, you know,
which action we're voting on. >> So, we'll be voting on the removing the last two sentences of paragraph
eight in the resolution.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> And an affirmative vote will be a vote to remove.
>> Roll call?
>> Benson.
>> No.
>> Brown?
>> I vote for removal.
>> Casey.
>> No.
>> [Indiscernible]?
>> Sorry, I didn't hear.
>> Nay, no.
>> Dandrea?
>> No. [Audio is echoing].
>> Doran?
>> Dumaresq? Eckel?
>> No.
>> Frazier?
>> No.
>> Goldstein.
>> Abstain.
>> Brown? Hintz?
>> No.
>> Huber?
>> No.
>> Jubelirer? Jubelirer?
>> Aye!
>> [Indiscernible].
>> Yes.
>> Masser? Masser?
>> No.
>> McCombie?
>> Yes.
>> [Indiscernible]?
>> No.
>> Pope?
>> Yes.
>> Rakowich?
>> No.
>> Rucci?
>> No.
>> Silvis?
>> No.
>> [Indiscernible] --
>> Abstain, I think we need further conversation on this whole topic.
>> Thank you. There were eight no votes. Eight yes votes, eighteen no votes.
>> I'd like to do a vote on the original resolution.
>> Mr. Chairman, before we have a vote, I'd like to remind everybody of something that happened 150
years ago next year. U.S. house impeached the President of the United States. Because they had the
votes. All he was trying to do was implement what Lincoln wanted to happen after the civil war. Thank
God there was one senator that voted not guilty and the President was not found guilty. I hope today
we have some trustees that have the same courage to vote against this proposal.
>> Tom, redo the vote?
>> This is a vote for --
>> I ask this vote be on the record.
>> Are we ready for the vote?
>> Ready for the vote.
>> The vote on the resolution. Benson?
>> Yes.
>> Brown?
>> No.
>> Casey?
>> Yes.
>> Cotner?
>> Yes.
>> Chamblee?
>> Yes.
>> Dandrea?
>> Yes.
>> Doran?
>> No.
>> Dumaresq? Eckel?
>> Yes.
>> Goldstein? ....
>> Kent?
>> Huber?
>> Yes.
>> Jubelirer?
>> No.
>> Lord?
>> No.
>> Lubrano?
>> No.
>> Masser?
>> Yes.
>> McCombie?
>> No.
>> Mead.
>> Yes.
>> Oldsey?
>> No.
>> Peetz?
>> Yes.
>> [Indiscernible].
>> No.
>> Rakowich?
>> [Indiscernible].
>> Rucci?
>> Yes.
>> Silvis.
>> Yes.
>> Taliaferro?
>> We have so many smart people on this board, I know we can figure this out.
>> I want to go back and ask what I didn't hear. Did you say you didn't hear my vote?
>> Yes, I did, please.
>> Maybe I count three or four times.
>> This is Trustee Oldsey, the fact that Trustee Lord's vote wasn't heard reminds me to make a point. I'd
hardly endorse a policy among this board that when we meet on things this important in the future, that
we actually meet. This telephonic nonsense --
>> -- I know is convenient for people, but if you're truly an engaged trustee on this board, you can get to
State College and meet face-to-face. I'd like to look into the eyes of some people when we make these
votes. I'd like to have the right kind of exchange of information and discourse that a functional board
should have. When we're having meetings like this, I for one would appreciate if in the future, we're
informed well ahead of time what we're voting on and considering and I think these meetings ought to
be face-to-face. We owe it to the university, to the students, to the faculty, to the staff, to everybody
that is Penn State to show up for these kinds of meetings.
>> 19 yes votes, [indiscernible] nos and two abstentions.
>> If this was the sole purpose of the meeting today, there'd be no other business before us, this
concludes the meeting. Thank you everyone.