OT: All PSU records are private by state law since 2007

Submitted by AMazinBlue on

Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2011/11/15/ac-griffin-penn-state-secrecy.cnn

 

Apparently former university president Spanier lobbied to have a law passed in 2007 that all records and reports about anything happening on the campus or involving anyone connected to the university or its police force are private and are not subect to the Public Right to Know laws.

Apparently there are four schools in Pennsylvania that are exempt from the Commonweatlth of Pennsylvania version of the Freedom of Information Act; PSU, Pitt, Temple and some other school.  The timing, 2007 seems quite fishy considering what is happening now.

Based on this report, we may never know what truly went on and Sandusky will never be prosecuted unless enough victims come forth.  Problem there is, it's a he said/he said thing.

Mr. Rager

November 16th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

 Why aren't the major media outlets mentioning the PA DA who disappeared / laptop was found in a river with the hard drive removed?  This seems like a major coverup.

[Edit - Also what about the "rumor" that there was "pimping" going on?  If this comes to light and is true.. I don't know what to think.]

ijohnb

November 16th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^

football games, but a coverup to coverup a coverup.  Penn State would have won football games with or without Paterno, I actually think he was kind of holding the program back in recent years more than anything else.  But individuals with knowledge of the kind of conduct that Sandusky was involved in have two options, report it right away, regardless of whether you have complete information or not, or be subjected to the tag of having "not reported" it right away if and when they ever did.  They were not convering for Sandusky, they were not ensuring the football team would continue to win, they were covering for their own inactivity.  They were intentionally covering up a circumstantial collective omission.  Nobody intended initially to "hide" anything, as nobody accused of involvement wanted abuse to continue, they were probably as horiffied as anybody or more due to their proximity to the situation, but they eventially all agreed that everything needed to be hidden because it was not disclosed immediately.  it is actually a very interesting dynamic, and most certainly a conspiracy, just not the one you think.

And violent criminals don't tend to associate the actual prosecutor with the office of the prosecuting attorney.  There are very few crimes committed against prosecutors by defendants, less than there are by criminal defendants against their own defense attorney.

mackbru

November 16th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

Because that "connection" thus far remains a real stretch. The PSU case had been closed for years. He was working on drug cases. And he was about to retire. Also, it was more than likely a suicide rather than a homicide. There's no evidence that the PSU case was a going concern with either him or his office.

mackbru

November 16th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

He parked near a large river, and his computer later washed ashore. Presumably, then, the river carried him away somewhere, perhaps to other bodies of water. If it had been a closed body of water -- a pond or somesuch -- they could probably (although not necessarily) find him. But an open body of water greatly reduced the odds of recovery.

Presumably, he was distraught/embarrassed about something was on his computer. At this point, who knows why? So he took the computer down with him. The computer washed ashore; the body didn't.

Suicide seems likely because, on the day of his disappearance, he suddenly told his gf he was taking the day off in order to take a long drive in the country. Sounds like somebody planning a suicide.

Just a theory, of course. As of now, though, it seems to make the most sense. Also note that his brother had previously killed himself by drowning in the same river. So that seems a likely MO. 

Nobody knows the why part. If the tragedy had something to do with the PSU case, nobody has found one. Suicide, remember, often defies logic.

Jon06

November 16th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

has that law withstood any major judicial challenges? it seems like lawyers in the cases to come here are going to be able to subpoena a lot of that stuff anyway, but if that law plays a role in allowing PSU to hide any of it, i wonder if they'll be able to have it overturned as unconstitutional (or something) by making the case that it was passed at the urging of people trying to hide child sex rings.

edit: also, is the law retroactive or are pre-2007 records subject to FOIA requests? moreover, is FOIA not federal, in which case it should supercede the 2007 law?

ChiBlueBoy

November 16th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^

The exemption will have have no affect on the case. Prosecutors don't need FOIA requests--they can subpoena records. The purpose of the law, theoretically, could have been to decrease the likelihood of the media finding out about the allegations. Once they're know, they don't impact the ability to prosecute or for the prosecutor to get records. As such, judicial challenge could come from media outlets, but prosecutors have no dog in that fight.

There are federal FOIA laws and each state has its own. In this case, Penn State is not a federal agency, so federal FOIA would be irrelevant unless the records somehow related to a federal agency or branch.

The FOIA exemption could, depending on facts, show an attempt to cover up (but it would be a strange way to try to cover up when it obviously has potential to blow up in the school's face), but won't impact the prosecution one iota. (Or alpha, theta, or other greek letter.)

Everyone Murders

November 16th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

 

Based on this report, we may never know what truly went on and Sandusky will never be prosecuted unless enough victims come forth.  

The premise of this post seems misplaced.  If the state authorities want any of the PSU information, they'll get it by court order / subpoena.  FOIA is a nonissue to the prosecutors - they don't obtain this sort of information via FOIA in the first place. 

It is however, interesting that Spanier is behind this.  The 2007 law you reference certainly presents an obstacle for the press getting information that it might otherwise obtain, and given the culture of PSU's administration it seems reasonable to surmise that they did not lobby for this bill to protect the students.

 

ChiBlueBoy

November 16th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^

Whether it supercedes is only relevant if there's a conflict between them. In this case, Federal FOIA applies to federal entities. State FOIA applies to State agencies. Different universes, so they wouldn't conflict normally (exception would be, for example, if State FOIA law said that federal regulators couldn't view State records).

As to your sanity, I would need to do an assessment.

My name ... is Tim

November 16th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

Just because it's "private" doesn't mean that it's not reachable by subpoena in a criminal investigation, or as part of a discovery demand in a civil lawsuit. I'm assuming the only impact this has is keeping the information from the general public and media sorts. It doesn't mean this won't ever get out.

AMazinBlue

November 16th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

I meant "convicted", not prosecuted.  It seems PSU is attempting, and so far, succeeding at being above the law.

Paterno's move to put the house in his wife's name for $1, was smart.  Apparently he knows several things, no one else does.

AMazinBlue

November 16th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^

seems very similiar to OSU's.  Funny how those that break the rules/laws the most, find some obscure way to use the rules/laws to cover it up.

Is that some strange form of irony?

m1jjb00

November 16th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

According to this Bloomberg article Penn State’s argument for limited liability as a public institution may not work.  PSU bills itself as a privately-chartered organization that has received annual appropriations.  It has successfully argued in the past that some mandates on public institutions didn’t apply to it, but it’s going to argue that the liability shields to public institutions do apply.  Apparently, the credit-ratings agency, Moody’s, is trying to figure out the liability risk.

Nacho Mama

November 16th, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^

Many times state universities have special constitutional provisions. University of Michigan is most commonly called a special "creature" of the State of Michigan allowing it certain protections.  Previous posts are correct that exemption from FOIA will not stop prosecutors from examining records, but it could prevent the public from ever seeing the records. It's too bad.  FOIA should be limited to a state university. It's the citizens who are subsidizing it.  

Michigan Shirt

November 16th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^

 

The 2007 law was trying to add Penn State to the Open Records law and Spanier was tyring to prevent that from happening, his rationale:

"Nobody would argue the point that the public has a right to know how public funds are spent," Spanier said at the time. "But these proposals will fundamentally change the way we operate, the way our trustees govern and the way the university administers their policies."

I am not saying I agree with this, just that Penn State didn't pass a law to get them removed from the Open Records law, just preventing the law from applying to them, which if it didn't before I can see why they wouldn't all of a sudden want it apply.

From the below article:

"In 2007, state lawmakers considered a change that would have included the school under the open records law. But Spanier testified against the move before the House State Government Committee."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/16/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

AMazinBlue

November 16th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^

that according to the CNN report, PSU will, as a result of the 2007 law, be able to conceal or hide or keep from public view any of the records relating to any investigations or findings regarding Sandusky.  Specifically, who knew what, when they knew it and what did they do about it.  I feel that the public has a right to know what investigations were done, what was found and what was done about the findings. 

If the university and/or any agents of the university, namely Paterno, the AD, the VP over the campus police and any members of the police department knew about, or covered up or ignored anything related to Sandusky's activities with children then that needs to be brought to the public's attention.  No one should get away with anything in this case, especially by trying to hide under the veil of university records being withheld due to a law drawn up by the then president of the university in an effort to protect itself in the event they committed a crime or covered one up.

I want PSU exposed for the inbred cult that it increasingly seems to be.  There seems to be no end to the corruption and manipulation by the higherups in the university.  It makes me sick that Paterno and his cronies think they are above the law and were just trying to "protect the university and the football program."  Hell, I think all they have been and are still trying to do is protect their reputations and legacies."  In my book Paterno is nothing more than a small town mobster.

Of course, I am foregoing the presumption of innocence, but the mounting evidence seems to supercede most people's belief that there is nothing here but a misunderstanding.

ChiBlueBoy

November 16th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^

If PennState were a private school, none of the records would be public. Media can still find out things the way it does with everyone else--pay off an administrative assistant. If and when there's a trial, plenty will come out. FOIA makes public things that would otherwise be private. There's no FOIA provision, to my knowledge, making private what would otherwise be public.

With that said, I do hope that justice is served. If these allegations are true, my heart goes out to the victims, and I hope that a sick culture is cleaned up and none of those responsible for covering up this mess ever is given responsibility over others ever again.