On July 12, 2012, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP, the firm engaged by Penn State to complete a special investigation of the Sandusky child sex abuse scandal issued its “Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of The Pennsylvania State University Related to Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky” (“The Freeh Report”).
The Freeh Report resulted from Pennsylvania State University’s (“Penn State”) desire to have an independent investigation of: (1) The alleged failure of Penn State personnel to respond to, and report to the appropriate authorities, the sexual abuse of children by former Penn State football coach Gerald A. Sandusky (“Sandusky”); and (2) The circumstances under which such abuse could occur in Penn State facilities or under the auspices of Penn State programs for youth. Penn State also asked that recommendations be provided regarding Penn State governance, oversight and administrative policies and procedures to better enable Penn State to prevent and more effectively respond to incidents of sexual abuse of minors in the future. The Freeh Report is a cautionary tale for any organization and those individuals who are responsible for the operation of an organization, including directors, officers and employees. It concludes that Sandusky’s abuse of children was allowed to occur due to the abuse of extreme power held by several individuals and the failure of members of the Penn State organization to follow existing policies and procedures. The Freeh Report made the following findings:
- There was a total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims;
- Four of the most powerful people at Penn State (President Graham Spanier (“Spanier”); Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary Schultz (“Schultz”); Athletic Director Timothy Curley (“Curley”) and Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno (“Paterno”)) failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade by concealing Sandusky’s activities from the Penn State Board of Trustees, the Penn State community and from law enforcement authorities;
- The Penn State Board of Trustees, once it was made aware of the criminal investigation of Sandusky and senior Penn State officials, should have recognized the potential risk to the Penn State community and to its reputation but, instead failed to inquire reasonably and to demand detailed information from Spanier; and
- Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity.
Of most interest to employees, directors and officers of organizations is The Freeh Report’s conclusion that the avoidance of the consequences of bad publicity was most significant, but not the only cause for the failure to protect child victims and report to authorities. The investigation also revealed:
- A striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of Penn State;
- A failure by the Board of Trustees to exercise its oversight functions in 1998 and 2001 by not having regular reporting procedures or committee structures in place to ensure disclosure to the Board of Trustees of major risks to Penn State;
- A failure by the Board of Trustees to make reasonably inquiry in 2011 by not demanding details from Spanier and Penn State’s General Counsel about the nature and direction of the grand jury investigation and Penn State’s response to the investigation;
- Spanier discouraged discussion and dissent;
- A lack of awareness of child abuse issues, the Clery Act1, and whistleblower policies and protections;
- A decision by Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley to allow Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy, with future “visibility” at Penn State and ways “to continue to work with young people through Penn State,” essentially granting him license to bring boys to campus facilities for “grooming” as targets for his assaults and giving Sandusky unlimited access to Penn State facilities until November 2011;
- A football program that did not fully participate in, or opted out, of some Penn State programs, including Clery Act compliance, like the rest of Penn State, the football program staff and not been trained in their Clery Act responsibilities and most had never heard of the Clery Act; and
- A culture of reverence for the football program ingrained at all levels of the Penn State community.
Although The Freeh Report was based upon the investigation of the Sandusky scandal at Penn State, it informs all organizations that if they engage in certain behaviors results can be disastrous to both victims and the organizations themselves. These behaviors include:
- Having a greater concern for the reputation of the organization than for individuals who are being victimized by illegal activity;
- Placing too much power in the hands of certain individuals;
- Failure of a board to exercise oversight functions by not having regular reporting procedures or committee structures in place to ensure disclosure of information to the board of major risks to the organization;
- Failure of a board to make reasonable inquiry of officers and employees once a problem has been clearly identified;
- Lack of discussion or dissent by a board encouraged by an officer of the organization;
- Failure of an organization to recognize and follow policies, procedures and laws; and
- A culture of reverence for one aspect or department of an organization.
Employees, officers and directors of organizations do organizations a disservice by not recognizing the dangers that led to the Penn State Sandusky Scandal by simply believing that such a thing could never happen within their organizations. The better course of action would be to scrutinize the operations of their organizations, especially in those areas highlighted in the Freeh Report, to better protect against such dangers. 1 The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. ∫ 1092(f). The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education and violations can result in civil penalties of up to $27,500 per violation against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs. The law is named for Jeanne Clery, a 19 year old university freshman who was raped and murdered in her residence hall in 1986. The backlash against unreported crimes on numerous campuses across the country led to the passage of the Clery Act by Congress in 1990. 
