"Spanier said, in his interview with the Special Investigative Counsel, that he never heard a report from anyone that Sandusky was engaged in any sexual abuse of children. He also said that if he had known or suspected that Sandusky was abusing children, he would have been the first to intervene."
"Even after criminal charges were announced against Schultz and Curley in November 2011, Spanier continued to downplay the serious harm that could result to Penn State's reputation from the criminal charges, and issued a statement of 'unconditional support' for Schultz and Curley."
Penn State's Board of Trustees:
"Once the Board was made aware of the investigations of Sandusky and the fact that senior University officials had testified before the Grand Jury in the investigations, it should have recognized the potential risk to the University community and to the University's reputation. Instead, the Board, as a governing body, failed to inquire reasonably and to demand detailed information from Spanier."
"The Board's overconfidence in Spanier's abilities to deal with the crisis, and its complacent attitude left them unprepared to respond to the November 2011 criminal charges filed against two senior Penn State leaders and a former prominent coach. Finally, the Board's subsequent removal of Paterno as head football coach was poorly handled, as were the Board's communications with the public."
"The Board did not take steps that might have protected the University, such as conducting an internal investigation, engaging experienced criminal counsel, or preparing for the possibility that the results of the Grand Jury investigation could have a negative impact on the University. "
On Penn State culture:
"One of the most challenging of the tasks confronting the Penn State community is transforming the culture that permitted Sandusky's behavior, as illustrated throughout this report, and which directly contributed to the failure of Penn State's most powerful leaders to adequately report and respond to the actions of a serial sexual predator."
"It is up to the entire University community -- students, faculty, staff, alumni, the Board, and the administration -- to undertake a thorough and honest review of its culture. The current administration and Board of Trustees should task the University community, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and peers from similar institutions and outside experts in ethics and communications, to conduct such a review. The findings from such a review may well demand further changes."
On Penn State policies:
"The policies for background checks on employees and volunteers were significantly inadequate."
"University staff involved with youth programs said that some persons serving as volunteer coaches and counselors 'fell through the cracks' and were allowed to participate in youth programs or events without appropriate clearances."
"The University historically has not trained administrators of youth programs on the policies. The University also has not consistently required timely submission of background applications so as to allow sufficient time for background checks."
"The University has no centralized office, officer or committee to oversee institutional compliance with laws, regulations, policies and procedures; certain departments monitored their own compliance issues with very limited resources."
"Between 2002 and 2008 the University also allowed Sandusky to use the University facilities at the Altoona and Behrend (Erie) campuses to run 'Jerry Sandusky' summer football camps for youth. Although University policy required a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with all third parties using University facilities, Sandusky, who some admired 'like a god' because he was a former football coach, was allowed to operate the camps without any MOA. "
"Paterno, Curley and McQueary were obligated to report the 2001 Sandusky incident to the University Police Department for inclusion in Clery Act statistics and for determining whether a timely warning should be issued to the University community. No record exists of such a report. While Schultz and Spanier were arguably not Campus Security Authorities under the Clery Act, given the leadership positions they held within the University, they should have ensured that the University was compliant with the Clery Act with regard to this incident. " The Clery Act requires the school to collect crime statistics on university property and report crime to police.
"Victim 6's mother reports to the University Police Department that Sandusky showered with her 11-year-old son in the Lasch Building on Penn State campus. The police promptly begin an investigation.
"Schultz is immediately informed of the investigation and notifies Spanier and Curley. Schultz's confidential May 4, 1998 notes about Sandusky state: 'Behavior -- at best inappropriate @ worst sexual improprieties' and 'At min -- Poor Judgment.' Schultz also notes: 'Is this opening of pandora's box?' and 'Other children?' "
Schultz e-mails Spanier and Curley: "I think the matter has been appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind us [emphasis added]."
"... A University janitor observed Sandusky sexually assault a young boy in the East Area Locker Building and advised co-workers of what he saw. Also that evening, another janitor saw two pairs of feet in the same shower, and then saw Sandusky and a young boy leaving the locker room holding hands. Fearing that they would be fired for disclosing what they saw, neither janitor reported the incidents to University officials, law enforcement or child protection authorities."
May to August 1999