More MK10Art From Sara Bronfman to Ben Myers to Kristin Kreuk

The real story here may be simpler: a huge settlement created a pool of money and a network of professionals formed around it. Therapists, administrators, trustees, advisers — everyone gets a slice. Once that ecosystem forms, nobody inside it has an incentive to question the original story that created the money.

Fucking right I too hope Sandusky dies in prison or by rope of choice. I no Howard stern wants him clipped.

Yawn.

Say Hi to Jer for me!

And tell him not to drop the soap!

Recently found this random photo of Jerry Sandusky at my parents house;

Jerry Sandusky needs to be freed.

[redacted]

Sandusky deserves a new trial. Period.

I have been a lawyer for 22 years, and a public servant for almost all of that time. I have not retained an attorney to advise me to speak, or to remain silent. I am an attorney.

i_challenge_ag_kane_to_face_me.html

McGettigan: May he enjoy the warmer climate he just relocated to.

“When you’ve finally had enough of the status quo and decide to become the main characters of your own neon-purple fever dream. Business as usual? Not today. We’re taking the luggage, the fur, and the first flight out of Finaville.”

Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-7-08-45-AM.png

(3) Just as concerning is that not only does the Board hide information from the public and deliberate in private, Board leadership even hides information from some trustees who are merely trying to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

— Nothing but low life scum bags that sit on these corrupt boards and play games of hiding information/evidence from each other.

Special Interests agendas are what’s priority in Pennsylvania.

https://www.statecollege.com/articles/opinion/op-ed-5-reasons-to-worry-about-how-penn-states-board-of-trustees-university-leadership-continue-to-conduct-business/

Op-Ed: 5 Reasons to Worry About How Penn State’s Board of Trustees, University Leadership Continue to Conduct Business

By

Alvin de Levie

–

March 19, 2026 – 1:52 pm

Latest Penn State News, Opinion

I was quoted in a column in October 2024 when I stated the Penn State Board of Trustees and university leadership had lost their way. Sadly, it has only gotten much, much worse.

(1) In a brazen and unprecedented attempt to circumvent and in defiance of the Pennsylvania Right To Know Law (RTKL) and in an attempt to hide from the public communications sent to trustees who were state agency secretaries appointed by the governor, it was suggested and discussed by trustees that such emails be sent only to their private email addresses, not to their official state email addresses, all in the hope that those emails would not be subject to a RTKL request.

It was also suggested and discussed by trustees that information sent to those secretaries also be sent through Diligent, a cloud based platform, again in a calculated attempt to shield such communications from a RTKL request. I personally heard all this from board members while I was on campus for a board meeting. At the time, I was a member of the Penn State Board of Trustees.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court wholly rejected this attempt by Penn State, noting that ruling otherwise “would perversely incentivize Commonwealth agencies, local agencies and affected third parties like Penn State to utilize remote servers and/or cloud-based services, in order to ensure that they would no longer need to disclose what would otherwise constitute public records.”

To allow Penn State to utilize remote and/or cloud-based services would enable the university to dodge Pennsylvania transparency laws. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Penn State and the Pennsylvania Department of Education sought review of the decision in which the Commonwealth Court ruled Penn State cannot shield records from the public simply by storing them in a file-sharing system or alleging they contain proprietary information.

In the petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking review of the lower court decision, Penn State claimed that although the secretaries had access to and could review the records on the cloud-based server, that the gubernatorial appointed trustees actually never received the records. HUH?

So although those trustees had access to the records, could read them, think about them and read as many times as they wanted to, they never possessed them? HUH?

Penn State claimed that since the materials on the server could not be “xeroxed,” to use an ancient term, the trustees appointed by the governor did not possess the records and were therefore not subject to a RTKL request. And yet, it was common practice for trustees to have “xeroxed” copies of the documents before, during and after trustee meetings. So the Penn State argument is fatally factually and legally flawed.

Sadly, Penn State revoked access by the governor’s appointees to the online file-sharing platform. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no explanation by the Penn State administration, by the Board of Trustees or by the individual secretaries whose access has been revoked whether they have otherwise been provided the materials necessary for them to conduct university business. If not, what are the ramifications of these trustees not having access to the information necessary for them to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities? And if they received the records, how and when did they?

(2) After years on the Board, either former Board of Trustees Chair Mathew Schuyler did not know about and did not have the foggiest or faintest understanding of how and why the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law applied to Board deliberations, or worse perhaps, he knew, but did not care and/or felt the Board was above the law.

The Sunshine Law required the Board to fully deliberate IN PUBLIC — not behind closed doors in executive session with debate hidden from the public — before it voted on the $700 million appropriation for the renovation of Beaver Stadium, which many times has been referred to by the university as the largest appropriation in Penn State history.

Due to the significant public interest and the magnitude of committing Penn State to a $700 million obligation (at the time I was a member of the Penn State Board of Trustees and chair of the Legal and Compliance Committee), I explained to former Chair Schuyler the Board needed more time to deliberate IN PUBLIC. Chair Schuyler did not heed my advice and cut short public deliberation, stating the Board had ample time to deliberate in executive session… meaning in private, behind closed doors, hidden from the public.

Spotlight PA (an independent newsroom in Pennsylvania, focused on investigative and public service journalism) cited the conversation between myself and former Chair Schuyler in a lawsuit it filed alleging the Board of Trustees violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law. Rather than face certain public ridicule and scrutiny from an adverse court decision, the Board agreed to send all of its members to school to be taught the importance of and why the Board must comply with the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law.

Well, I was not on the Board when trustees “went to school” to learn about why it is important for them to adhere to the Sunshine Law. Isn’t it sad and disappointing trustees even had to “go to school” to learn about the importance of public deliberation and the applicability of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law?

So why is public deliberation, discussion and debate by the Board critical? This issue was discussed and addressed in a recent Spotlight PA story. It quoted a statement of Ross Mugler, interim president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges: “Public discussion can improve trust and help leaders make better decisions. When board members spend meaningful time in discussion, institutions benefit from the candid dialogue and healthy skepticism that occurs before final decisions are made. Quick approvals without inquiry fall short of fiduciary duty. Leaders must encourage questions, test, assumptions, and explore alternatives before decision-making.”

(3) Just as concerning is that not only does the Board hide information from the public and deliberate in private, Board leadership even hides information from some trustees who are merely trying to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

An alumni-elected trustee asked Board leadership for information regarding Penn State’s approximate $5 billion endowment because of his concerns regarding expenses charged by endowment managers, and the performance of the endowment investments. One of the trustee’s concerns was that management costs and fees had tripled. This trustee wanted to examine records, including an IRS form, to see if there was an explanation.

Maybe there was a good explanation; maybe not. But that really doesn’t matter one way or the other. It is pretty straightforward: The trustee was entitled to review the documents he requested. If there was a problem with the endowment, all the better to find out. If there was no problem, all the better.

The trustee also sought documents regarding the university’s award of a contract to Elevate Sports Ventures, a professional ticketing sales agency for Penn State football games.

Board leadership and the chair of the finance committee refused to give the information to their colleague even after the trustee asked for the information about a half dozen times. So in July 2024, the trustee filed suit in Centre County Court requesting the information in accordance with state law. Finally, in February 2025, Board leadership agreed to give their fellow trustee the information that they themselves certainly had access to.

I am certainly not privy to what any review of those documents revealed. But regardless of what a review of the financial documents and contract revealed, the documents should have been released to the trustee without the necessity of his filing suit.

(4) Has board governance overall become more transparent? Sadly, no. While the Penn State Board of Trustees has actually spent more time discussing certain university business in its public meetings in 2025 than in previous years, that does not tell the whole story. In those full public meetings, data analyzed by Spotlight PA reveals that all but five minutes of the board’s public conversations in 2025 were almost entirely regarding only three topics: naming the field at Beaver Stadium; removing a sitting trustee from the board who requested information regarding the university endowments, ostensibly for other reasons; and closing seven branch campuses.

From review of the Board’s full public meetings in 2025, Spotlight PA found such topics as the Penn State strategic plan, the university’s annual operating budget (about $10 billion) and President Neeli Bendapudi’s compensation package and raise of approximately $1 million received 29 seconds of public discussion.

In all fairness to the board, in addition to full public board meetings, committees meet in public sessions where various matters are certainly discussed. But again, that does not tell the whole story. In those public committee meetings, committee members, who are handpicked by the board leadership, can ask questions, and when and if time permits, other trustees can ask questions, BUT only if called upon by the Board chair.

And if you believe the full board met extensively in public in 2025, you would be wrong, again. According to an analysis conducted by Spotlight PA, the full board met in public nine times in 2025 for a total of approximately 10.5 hours.

The Board acts as if it is a privately owned and closely held corporation, which owes no accountability to the public, the constituencies of Penn State and the commonwealth that appropriates $300 million annually to Penn State.

(5) So you might hope things could not get worse. Sadly, you would be wrong again.

You might think and hope trustees who have not had a full opportunity to ask questions or have a fulsome discussion and opportunity to deliberate during public meetings could talk freely and directly with the public and/or press to express their thoughts, concerns and opinions. But censorship and Big Brother live at Penn State. Let me explain.

A recent change to the Board’s bylaws muzzles direct and unfettered communication by trustees to the university’s constituencies: the students, the staff, alumni and the entire Penn State community. The recent change states trustees “shall coordinate media and press interactions relating to matters that have come before the Board with the Board office in advance and shall respect guidance regarding such interactions that might be conveyed by them or the office of strategic communications.” In other words, say what Big Brother wants or face censure, or worse, expulsion.

So what does all this mean?

Board leadership that failed to adhere to the PA Sunshine Law, that failed to adhere to the PA Right To Know Law, that withheld information from a trustee only trying to do his job, and that restricted public deliberation regarding the $700 million renovation of Beaver Stadium has truly no shame nor accountability. Big Brother lives at Penn State.

It also means that the Board of Trustees and university leadership dictate what you know and what you hear because they want to control what you think. In the meantime, we can all look forward to the “puff pieces” trustees and university leaders routinely post on LinkedIn and other social media, while we are force-fed countless promotional articles from the Office of Strategic Communications.

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Experience teaches us Penn State will not voluntarily change how they conduct business. Will contacting the Board of Trustees and university leadership change anything? Probably not. Experience teaches us they don’t care. Why do I say that? Because in 2021, the Penn State Board of Trustees banned in-person public comment and discussion. Was the criticism too strong or were they simply unprepared to answer the tough question? OR did they not want to explain what they were doing. It was just another way they could insulate themselves and not be held accountable.

This is not about politics. It’s about good governance and transparency. This is an election year. Contact the candidates for governor, state representatives and state senators repeatedly and and ask them to hold Penn State accountable by (1) amending the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law to include serious financial penalties and sanctions if Penn State does not adhere to the letter of the law; (2) amending the Right To Know Law to make it to make it more broadly, applicable to Penn State and again to include serious financial penalties and sanctions if Penn State does not adhere to the Law. AND, continue to seek accountability from individual trustees, the president and all those on the president’s council.

Alvin de Levie is an attorney and former member of the Penn State Board of Trustees.