Let’s be honest about Penn State Law’s plan for Carlisle campus

If the latest proposal for the Penn State Dickinson School of Law goes through, the likelihood is there won’t be a law school in Carlisle in about a decade.
Building Dedication at Penn State LawMore than 500 people celebrated the dedication of The Lewis Katz Hall and H. Laddie Montague Jr. Law Library at The Penn State Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle in 2009.
CHRISTINE BAKER, The Patriot-News

I know law school dean Philip McConnaughay says Penn State remains “fully committed” to Carlisle. His heart is likely in the right place, but his plan would dramatically alter Carlisle. The central Pennsylvania community, not to mention the school’s alumni, needs to have an honest discussion about this shift.

The dean’s intention is to have all first-year law students at University Park, possibly as early as 2013. That right there signals the death of the law school in Carlisle. Once a student matriculates at University Park, he or she isn’t likely to leave.

Dean McConnaughay argues that students will want to come to the Carlisle campus to take advantage of specialty offerings such as centers focusing on child advocacy, law and development and state and local government. When pressed, the dean admitted that “maybe” a typical student would come to Carlisle. Even then, they are only likely to be here for a semester or even a summer.

In other words, the Carlisle campus would go from a vibrant place with hundreds of law students here for three years to one that has a few dozen (in a best-case scenario) here for a few weeks. It will be the end to stories such as that of Rep. Stephen Bloom’s (R-Carlisle). He came to the law school in the 1980s and stayed, raising a family, starting a business and ultimately getting involved in public life. That kind of story is repeated over and over in this area.

In the new scheme, Penn State Dickinson School of Law students will probably wonder why the school is even called Dickinson because the majority will spend their time exclusively at University Park. They will have little to no connection to Carlisle during or after their school days.

The marriage of Dickinson Law and Penn State never has been rosy since the 1997 agreement. Those who lived in the area in 2004-05 will likely recall the firestorm when Penn State last tried to move the law school to University Park. The university even threatened to walk away entirely from Dickinson.

After much political pressure and horse trading, a new agreement was signed to make the law school have two complete campuses. As any student of history knows, “separate but equal” usually doesn’t turn out well. The Carlisle campus received a $50 million facelift, but University Park got a $60 million new building. As one recent alum told me, “That was the beginning of the end for Carlisle.”

A remnant of that dual-campus agreement is that the law school is legally bound to stay in Carlisle until at least 2025. The dean has cleverly tried to recast the Carlisle campus as an international one. He envisions the LLM program, a one-year degree for foreign lawyers to learn the American legal system and prep for the bar exam, in Carlisle.

It would basically turn Carlisle into a continuing education center. It’s a decent revenue-generating idea, but it’s not exactly a law school.

This saga isn’t over yet. The dean must secure approval from various bodies to move all the first years to University Park.

“The dean can’t just move it because he would like to do it,” state Sen. Pat Vance, R-Cumberland, says. She’s open-minded to hearing more about the proposal, but “The prime objective is to keep the law school in Carlisle.”

Outside local lawmakers, there might be more sympathy to the dean’s idea in the state’s halls of power because of costs. It never made financial sense to run two fully fledged campuses. The dean is pitching his solution as a way to make the law school, which the university subsidizes by about $5 million a year, into a revenue-neutral operation. It doesn’t look good for Carlisle unless the alumni speak up again.

Perhaps the most interesting solution I have heard comes from Jason Kutulakis, an alum who co-founded Abom and Kutulakis in HEATHER LONG, The Patriot-News

‘Zombie Muhammad’ case won’t die

Just when you thought you were safe from ridiculous news…

The Zombie Muhammad is back – with support from a politically connected conservative Philadelphia “think tank” – demanding that Pennsylvania’s Judicial Conduct Board revisit a controversial decision of Mechanicsburg Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin and remove Martin from the bench.

Last October, Ernest Perce V – a self-professed atheist – marched in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade as “Zombie Muhammad” with a sign around his neck reading “Muhammad of Islam” on the front.

This is the same Ernest Perce who subsequently designed a billboard erected in Harrisburg’s Allison Hill neighborhood depicting a slave with a spiked metal collar around his neck and the Biblical inscription “Slaves, obey your masters.” Homer Floyd, the former director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission said the billboard “bordered on a hate crime,” and it was quickly removed by the company that owned it.

Judge Martin became involved with Perce because as the atheist was marching as “Zombie Muhammad” a man emerged from the crowd watching the parade and attempted to pull the sign off him, which Perce described as an assault and an attempt to choke him.

The man, 46-year-old Talaag Elbayomy, was a Muslim offended by the display. Perce said he had been attacked, and police filed a summary harassment charge against Elbayomy.

Judge Martin, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve who had served two tours in Iraq, dismissed the charge, noting that the law required an “intent to harass.” But Judge Martin went further, telling Perce his “Zombie Muhammad” get-up and actions in the parade not only made him look like a “doofus” but also were deeply offensive to others.

The judge attempted to explain to Perce why his actions could be offensive, saying “I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.”

Perce subsequently posted an edited recording of the hearing to the Internet in which it sounded like Judge Martin claimed he too was Muslim.

Judge Martin is a life-long Lutheran.

Nevertheless, the Internet posting inflamed conservative activists who alleged a Muslim judge in Mechanicsburg was attempting to apply Sharia Law to citizens of the United States.

The hate mail and death threats began to pour in, and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts moved Judge Martin’s office from Mechanicsburg to the county courthouse in Carlisle for the judge’s safety.

A complaint about Judge Martin was filed with the Judicial Conduct Board, which investigated and issued a private “letter of caution” to the judge in June.

Perce – with the backing of the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum – is now demanding the case be revisited and Judge Martin removed from the bench because, they claim, “He used his bench as a bully pulpit to enforce Islamic anti-blasphemy laws” and that his decision “is part of a larger and unfortunate trend to bring Sharia law into our American court system.”

The Middle East Forum is a conservative, pro-Israel group that also runs a “campus watch” to monitor Middle Eastern Studies programs on university campuses. Its board of directors includes Bob Guzzardi, a Philadelphia lawyer and political financier who has supported Rick Santorum and multiple conservative candidates for the Pennsylvania Legislature.

Judge Martin is currently in training preparing for deployment to Afghanistan.

His attorney Jay Abom said, “I don’t think anyone can credibly attack his love of the Constitution or this country and the things for which both stand.”

Abom also said the Judicial Conduct Board investigation found no probable cause to believe Judge Martin issued his ruling in any improper fashion nor any cause that he should have recused himself.

“There was no finding of any kind of wrong-doing at all,” said Abom.

The Judicial Conduct Board did not return calls for comment.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated from the original to include Abom’s comments and to correct an inaccuracy in the stage of Judge Martin’s current military deployment.

DONALD GILLILAND, The Patriot-News

Trial continues for man accused of molesting children

CARLISLE, Pa. (WHTM) –

It’s a case that is filled with graphic allegations of sexual abuse of four children by Robert Brown.

Tuesday in court, one of the victims testified that Brown abused her several times when she was eight or nine years old. She told the court that she was “scared” during the abuse and that it “made her feel uncomfortable.”

Brown was seated in the courtroom as she testified. Child advocates say that although very important to the judicial process, putting children victims on the stand can be a difficult experience for them.

Jason Kutulakis has worked extensively with the organization Child-First Pa. The organization aims to better train professionals on how to handle claims of abuse, and to put the needs of the victim first. He explained that this is achieved by making the process more child-friendly by using language children understand, and by videotaping interviews of them so they don’t have to repeat their statements several times.

“Bringing a young child in who’s little feet can’t even touch the ground is an intimidating situation,” he explained, saying the atmosphere of a courtroom can make adults uncomfortable let alone children who will be seated just feet away from their abusers.

Prosecutors played video recordings of interviews between Brown and a Pennsylvania State Police corporal. During the interviews, Brown admitted to touching all four victims.

At one point, the corporal asked Brown if he understood what he was doing was illegal and Brown said he did. He claimed the abuse happened after the victims asked him questions out of curiosity.

The trial will continue Wednesday morning.

Courtesy of ABC27

Grand jury to decide charges against Williamstown woman who fatally shot husband in self-defense claim

WILLIAMSTOWN — Gina Anne Murphy told state police she was defending herself from her knife-wielding ex-husband when she retrieved her .22-caliber revolver and fatally shot him in the chest Monday night.

It was the latest in an ongoing pattern of threats from her ex-husband, she told investigators. Murphy has not been charged in Dauphin County’s ninth homicide of 2012, but some midstate criminal defense attorneys said Thursday she might have a difficult time arguing self-defense.

What it might come down to is the gap of time between the threat with the knife and when she retrieved her weapon, said Harrisburg attorney Brian W. Perry of Gover, Perry & Shore.

“If it happened simultaneously, that’s one thing,” Perry said. “If he threatened her with a knife and she was able to get out of the situation, go into another room, grab her gun and comes back and shoots him, that’s going to be hard for her self-defense claim.”

A grand jury will meet Friday to determine if charges will be filed against Murphy, said Trooper Adam Reed, a state police spokesman. The fact-finding effort will likely take several days, Reed said.

Daniel Joseph Murphy, 52, died of a single gunshot wound to the heart after he was shot about 10:45 p.m. at the Murphys’ home in the 400 block of East Market Street. When troopers arrived, they found Gina Murphy kneeling over her ex-husband’s body, according to court papers.

Despite being remarried to others, the Murphys were living together in the two-story, stone house surrounded by a white picket fence in the northernmost part of Dauphin County. Gina Murphy did not return a message left on her cellphone Thursday.

Murphy told investigators her ex-husband had repeatedly threatened her with knives and would leave threatening notes for her in the home, according to court papers.

During an interview with police, Murphy also said she “used her computer to Facebook her friends telling them of the arguments and threats from Daniel.”

Any history of violence between the couple is going to be key to the outcome of any case if charges are filed, said Carlisle attorney Jay Abom of Abom & Kutulakis.

“If she knows he’s been violent in the past, she’s allowed to consider that when she decides to use deadly force,” Abom said. “His history of violence [against her] is relevant in her estimating the necessary use of force.”

Dauphin County Court had no record of protection-from-abuse orders issued by Gina Murphy against her ex-husband, according to a court official. The county’s district attorney, Edward M. Marsico Jr., said he wasn’t aware of police being called to the home on previous occasions.

A neighbor said Tuesday there’d often be parties at the home during the week. The neighbor, Heather Wenrich, also said she noticed several vehicles parked in an alley behind the home several hours before the shooting, indicating they might have had company.

Attorneys say more investigation is needed to determine if Murphy’s actions are supported by the state’s Castle Doctrine, which was expanded last year to give people the right to use deadly force when they feel threatened outside the home.

Under the previous law, people could use firearms or other deadly force without retreating only if they were attacked in their homes, vehicles or businesses.

“You have to immediately believe you were protecting yourself against death or serious bodily injury,” Abom said.

On the night of the homicide, the Murphys had both been drinking, police said. Gina Murphy was drinking at home and at Uncle Jim’s Tavern, according to court papers.

When she returned home from the bar, the couple began arguing, and Daniel Murphy threatened her with a knife. It was at that time that she shot him, according to court papers.

Police obtained a search warrant to search the Murphy’s home for all firearms, including the .22-caliber revolver, ammunition, casings, gunshot residue, knives, knife-sharpening equipment, notes related to Gina and Daniel Murphy, DNA and other evidence.

Results from that search, which was supposed to be completed by Thursday morning, have not been disclosed.

State police said they are investigating the self-defense angle and have not determined if charges will be filed.

Nevertheless, self-defense cases are among the most difficult to prove in court, Abom said.

“Juries have to infer intent,” he said. “It requires jurors to interpret or decide what people were thinking, and that’s not an easy task.”

Carlisle tax collector facing drug charges claims he uses marijuana for medical reasons

A day after his arrest on charges of selling marijuana, Carlisle’s elected tax collector said he uses the drug for medical reasons.

George Thomas Hicks Jr. said in an interview Wednesday that he regularly smokes marijuana to cope with a mood disorder.

Hicks said the prescription drugs he used to take caused side effects and led to physical problems.
Hicks.jpgView full sizeGeorge T. Hicks Jr.

“I opted for an alternative,” Hicks said.

As for the charges — police said Hicks blatantly sold marijuana outside his office — the 21-year-old contends he sold marijuana only as a favor to a friend. He said he is not a drug dealer and will fight the two felony drug-dealing charges lodged against him in Cumberland County Court.

Hicks said he had smoked marijuana with a woman he knows through a debt collection agency which he owns and operates. The agency is in an office in the first block of South Hanover Street, on the same floor as his tax collector office.

On Aug. 2, Hicks said the woman asked him to sell marijuana to her friend, a man he said he knew only as Chris. Hicks said he agreed. Hicks said the woman then insisted the sale take place at the collection agency office.

Four days later, the woman called again, Hicks said, to say Chris wanted to buy more pot. Again, the woman asked Hicks to carry out the sale at the debt collection agency.

“[The woman] said [Chris’] dealer is on vacation. Can you get him some more? I said, ‘Why not?’,” Hicks said on Wednesday.

According to documents filed in District Judge Jessica Brewbaker’s office, Hicks took $100 from an undercover officer in an Aug. 2 marijuana sale and $200 in a marijuana sale on Monday.

Hicks was arrested the next day and is free on $5,000 bail.

Cumberland County District Attorney Dave Freed has asked the court to keep Hicks from collecting tax payments until his case is resolved. A judge will weigh Freed’s request on Monday. Until then, under a temporary injunction granted by county Judge Christylee Peck, collecting duties are out of Hicks’ hands. Taxes must be paid at the borough office at 53 W. South St.

Hicks, who as of Wednesday did not have an attorney, said he shouldn’t be barred from carrying out his tax collector duties.

The case is similar to that of former Cumberland Coroner Todd Eckenrode, who remained in office after being charged with mishandling prescription drugs obtained through death investigations conducted by his office. Between his arrest on Jan. 4 until he resigned effective May 12, Eckenrode was barred from involvement in any death investigations that could become criminal cases, including cases that were in progress when he was arrested, as a bail condition imposed by the state attorney general’s office.

Eckenrode on Friday was sentenced to a year of probation and 120 hours of community service after pleading guilty to a charge of mishandling the prescription drugs.

Pennsylvania State Department press secretary Ron Ruman said there is no state law requiring criminally-charged elected officials to leave office.

“The only stipulation is if you’ve been convicted, then you’re listed as not qualified to hold office. There’s nothing in the law to say if you’ve been charged with something you can’t serve,” Ruman said.

Hicks said he believes the court injunction, and the press conference at which charges against him were announced, were heavy-handed.

Freed disagrees.

“I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I would like to hold elected officials to a higher standard,” Freed said.

Especially, Freed said, since the alleged sales by Hicks took place down the hall from the tax collector office.

Hicks said the pot he sold amounted to less than 1 ounce in total. He said he sold the pot as a favor and didn’t charge more than he paid for the drug.

Jay Abom, a Carlisle criminal defense lawyer who is not connected to the case, said the quantity of drugs sold is not relevant in the felony charges lodged against Hicks. And, if Hicks sold the pot as a favor at no profit — even if he gave pot to the undercover officer — Abom said drug delivery charges would still apply.

“A dealer doesn’t need to make a profit to be a drug dealer,” Abom said.

Abom said the maximum prison sentence for each drug delivery is five years; however, mandatory minimum sentencing wouldn’t kick in unless Hicks sold at least 2 pounds of marijuana.

Hicks, a Philadelphia native, turned 21 on April 3. He said he’s fluent in Italian and came to Carlisle to attend Dickinson College and major in the language.

He said he decided last year to take time off from his studies and said he had worked for a debt collection agency before launching his own firm in June.

Since his arrest, Hicks said he’s received many messages from supporters.

“I love Carlisle,” he said. “I was building a business at the same time as being a tax collector.”


ELIZABETH GIBSON, The Patriot-News

DAs hope Penn State fines fund child advocacy centers

abc27 WHTM

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) –

The Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association wants some of $60 million fine levied on Penn State by the NCAA to go toward funding and opening child advocacy centers.

Several members of the PDAA, as well as child advocates, announced Wednesday that the association has sent letters to Penn State and the NCAA advocating part of the endowment help fund child advocacy centers across the state.

Advocates said of 67 counties in Pennsylvania, only 20 currently have child advocacy centers. They are hoping, in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky tragedy, that a positive change will be brought about.

Victim advocate Jennifer Storm said the money would be very beneficial at a time when cuts are forcing centers to scale back and even shut down.

“Children in the commonwealth have been significantly harmed,” Storm said. “The only way to help them is to allocate more resources. If we don’t do that, more children will be harmed.”

Shawn Wagner, Adams County District Attorney and PDAA President, said supporting child advocacy centers is the ideal use of endowment funds.

“Children advocacy centers most effectively fulfill the NCAA’s endowment directives and will be the best use of their funds,” Wagner said.

Child advocacy centers help victims get resources, such as counseling and medical help, as well as help investigators bring their abusers to justice.

“Children’s advocacy centers and our Children’s Resource here in Dauphin County are at the forefront of new and effective ways of helping children navigate their way through the criminal justice system,” Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico said.

A timeframe of when endowment funds will be distributed has not been announced. Officials believe that Penn State and NCAA will make a joint decision as to who will get the money.

Other non-profits have also expressed interest in receiving the endowment funds.

The Pennsylvania Children and Youth Solicitors Association has been developing plans to build a child protection training center since before the Sandusky tragedy. The structure would house courtrooms, a mock house, and would give professionals a place to get hands-on training.

Spokesman Jason Kutulakis said such a facility would help professionals learn how to put the needs of victims first. He estimated the costs of building the facility around $6 million, and said it would likely be built in Dauphin County so it would be accessible to professionals across the state.

Jeannie Flitner – ABC27

Featured in 717 from the publisher of Harrisburg Magazine

Jason Kutulakis drew a circle with eyes and a mouth and asked the little boy what was missing in this face.

Grown-ups know there’s only one answer. It’s the nose, of course.

“The ears,” said the boy.

Just a reminder, Kutulakis knows now that kids see the world without adult encumbrances.

Kutulakis was talking to the boy as part of his training for Child First Pennsylvania, the methodical child-abuse response system now being installed in counties statewide. As a founder and officer of the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Solicitors Association, Kutulakis helped bring Child First to Pennsylvania, starting in 2009.

With years of experience in juvenile justice and child-abuse cases, the Carlisle attorney and senior partner of Abom & Kutulakis was appointed to the Pennsylvania Task Force on Child Protection, the task force created in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky alleged child sex abuse scandal.

 

How does Child First Pennsylvania work?

It trains first responders of suspected child abuse – law enforcement, prosecutors, child abuse caseworkers, solicitors and forensic interviewers. It brings those professional groups together in multidisciplinary teams. It trains them how to talk to kids. We train the forensic interviewer how to interview. And we train how to corroborate a kid’s statement so the case doesn’t go to court just based on that statement. We put the kid first throughout the process. We started all this before the Sandusky fiasco. We’ve trained 19 counties and about 120 professionals so far.


Does that mean that Pennsylvania had started moving in some good directions before the Sandusky case?

No. I think they were going in a very bad direction. Under the previous administration, a lot of things have morphed into not putting the child first. It’s become more family welfare, instead of child welfare. There’s nothing wrong with incorporating family into the process, but when you’re dealing with children, you absolutely have to put them on the pedestal, the Corbett administration and the current Department of Public Welfare secretary, the priority is putting kids first, making sure the counties are prepared to do very good, concrete investigations.

 

Was that part of the problem, that things fell through the cracks time after time?

We know so little about the total picture, but based upon what I’ve seen, a lot of things went wrong. But out of horrible tings, good things can come. Unfortunately there are kids that have been victimized, but there are many people that have not forgotten those victims. It gets us to Sen. Kim Ward and House Speaker Sam Smith and the governor putting together this task force. They are all very worried about what happened and trying to figure out how to prevent this and ensure there’s confidence in the system. Every individual in the system, and I’ve met them all across the state, is there because they want to be. It’s tough work and doesn’t pay much. There’s no doubt they’re trying to do the best they can, but the system has things we can fix.

 

Such as what?

The Child Protective Service Law as been the target of the Band-Aid approach for a long time, with piecemeal changes. For 30 years, it’s been essentially the same animal. It needs to be updated. IT has become reactionary instead of proactive. We Focus on kids that have been victimized more than addressing things in the front end and talking about how to identify kids at risk. How do you pout in services to prevent these things? Who is a mandated reporter? What are the consequences for failure to report? That was a big problem in the Sandusky case.

 

How do you write all that into law?

Lots of states have done it. There are a lot of things we can do. Redefining child abuse. Redefining perpetrator. Keeping statistics in a better way. Here’s one easy fix. We define a perpetrator. Keeping statistics in a better way. Here’s one easy fix. We define a perpetrator of child abuse as someone who has a relationship with a kid. So, if I see a 5-year-old on the street and get a crazy urge to punch him in the head, that’s clearly a criminal act. Horrible to do – that’s not child abuse. Because I’m not a member of the household, I’m not a teacher and I’m not in a caregiving role, it’s not child abuse. That doesn’t mean it won’t be prosecuted, but the ideal situation would be to ensure that services are in place for the child and the parent to deal with the situation. That’s an extreme example, but the ones that are common are somebody who’s involved with the family but not a caregiver. There are cases – I could make your head spin around like Beetlejuice. Mom’s paramour sexually assaults the child. A grandmother pimps out the granddaughter for crack. She’s not in a caregiving role, so it may not be child abuse.

 

There’s been so much focus on child sexual abuse. Should we focus just as much on physical and emotional abuse?

This is one of the things the task force is looking at. Do we need to redefine child abuse? From the task force perspective, everything’s on the table. From my perspective, no abuse in more or less significant whenever you’re abusing the most precious resource we have. We have to worry about all versions and flavors and varieties of abuse. Sexual abuse is the most offensive to the general public. Prosecuting child abuse – especially sexual abuse – the prosecutor has a very hard role because most people do not want to admit the human beings can do this to kids.

 
What changes have you seen since news broke about the Sandusky case?
There’s a ton of proposed legislation. Thank goodness the task force process put the brakes on that. Knee-jerk reactions are not good. There are a lot of very good proposed bills out there, and we want to make sure they all come together in a cohesive way.

 

What has kept you involved in this issue over the years?

This is an opportunity to give back. WE all believe that kids have to be our priority, and I’ve internalized that, so they become the pillars of our community that they’re supposed to be. If we can’t helo the most innocent, I’m not sure what that says about our society.

 

How can the task force impact Pennsylvania’s future?

There’s an opportunity with the Sandusky care, if we’re brave about it, to become the leader instead of the follower. We rank last in the states on admissibility of certain evidence in child-abuse cases. We’re not a leader in child abuse right now. The governor and Speaker Smith and Sen. Ward want to make Pennsylvania not only address what wrongs, if any, have occurred, but also make Pennsylvania proactive in protection of children and in child-abuse cases. That’s a monumental process.

 

How is the task force working together so far?

Great. Wonderful people from across the state. Dr.Cindy Christian from Philadelphia and Dr. Rachel Berger from Pittsburgh are wonderful pediatricians. There’s a great prosecutor from Blair County. There are some good things that will absolutely come out of this – I’m convinced.

By Alan Wycheck – 717 Magazine.

Penn State considers moves involving Dickinson School of Law

Some proposed changes at Penn State’s law school are drawing scrutiny, and concerns from some who worry it could weaken the Carlisle campus.
An internal memo obtained by The Patriot-News outlines at least one measure that would do away with the Dickinson School of Law’s two-campus operation. Penn State received a $25 million state grant on the condition it maintain two fully accredited campuses through June 2025.

Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law operates campuses in Carlisle and State College. An internal memo obtained by The Patriot-News outlines at least one measure that would make changes at the Dickinson School of Law’s Carlisle campus.

Critics fear it would lead to a weaker program, and worry that it’s leading to steps that could eventually result in the closure of the Carlisle campus.

Professors who voted on the proposals have been told not to publicly discuss them. And an advisory board, charged with ensuring Penn State meets terms of an agreement to maintain two law campuses, won’t comment.

Law school Dean Philip McConnaughay insists that there are no plans to close the Carlisle campus. He asserts the plans would in fact lead to a stronger program in Carlisle.

The two-campus arrangement was approved in 2005 in drawn-out, heated negotiations after Penn State proposed moving the law school from Carlisle to State College. The university received a $25 million state grant on the condition it maintain two fully accredited campuses through June 2025.

In the memo, McConnaughay said that at least one money-saving proposal would require a waiver from the advisory board.

That option calls for eliminating the program for first-year students in Carlisle. Instead, those students would attend classes only in State College. The memo said the option “better serves the long-term interests of the law school.” Among advantages he cites is a potential boost in rankings because the two-campus operation would “finally… make sense to academic observers.”

Another option would require all students to spend one semester or longer in State College. Students now can elect to study at either campus. McConnaughay said in the memo that such a change would not require a contract waiver.

Penn State President Rod Erickson is aware of McConnaughay’s proposals, according to university spokeswoman Lisa Powers. Powers said the issue has not been discussed by trustees.

Without addressing specific proposals, McConnaughay on Tuesday said the changes would cut expenses and enhance the law school’s reputation as it, along with law schools across the nation, confronts a downturn in student applications. He contends the aim is to maintain and strengthen the law school. To portray changes as anything less than an enhancement would be false, he said.

But that’s not how some see it.

The call for an end to the two-campus solution rips a scab from still-healing law school alumni and officials who fought plans in 2003 to close the Carlisle facility.

Carlisle Mayor Bill “Doc” Kronenberg said he would be appalled if Penn State broke its two-campus agreement.

Borough Councilwoman Linda Cecconello took an active role in talks with university officials when the two-campus solution was reached.

“People around here thought this was settled. The feeling I get is that nobody really knows what will happen next,” Cecconello said.

McConnaughay was expected to ask the law school advisory board last week for a contract waiver to permit elimination of the first-year program in Carlisle. It wasn’t known if the board gave it. Members contacted for this story — Hubert X. Gilroy, H. Laddie Montague, U.S. Middle District Senior Judge Sylvia H. Rambo and state Supreme Court Judge J. Michael Eakin — refused to comment or did not return calls seeking comment.

Law school faculty also were mum.

Professors apparently were asked on July 18 to vote on options put forth by McConnaughay. All professors contacted for this story refused to comment. One said, on the condition of anonymity, that McConnaughay had instructed faculty to keep the information confidential.

“It’s outrageous that Penn State, after the mishandling of the Sandusky case, wants to go out on a limb and breach a contract,” said Jason Kutulakis, a law school alum and former member of law school board.

Some, such as Kutulakis, aren’t happy with what they see as a lack of open dialogue regarding the potenial for important changes at the law school. It raises serious doubts about the university’s sincerity in the wake of promises for transparency, Kutulakis said.

“It’s time for full disclosure and clarity on what’s really going on,” Kutulakis said.

He said he suspects Penn State seeks to use money saved in law school cuts toward a $60 million fine imposed by the NCAA and other costs associated with the Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

Powers said that the university will use athletics reserve money and capital maintenance funds and, if needed, will borrow money through an internal bond issue to cover the NCAA fine.

If Penn State moves forward on changes that violate its two-campus agreement, it wasn’t clear what, if any, type of sanctions the school might face.

Steve Aichele, Gov. Tom Corbett’s chief of staff, did not respond to a phone message Tuesday. Questions e-mailed Tuesday morning to the governor’s communications office were not answered.

The state grant is administered by the Cumberland County Redevelopment Authority. Authority Executive Director Ben Laudermilch said the university recently requested the last large draw of $2.5 million, leaving $625,000 in the account. That money will remain under county control until an audit of the project is completed next year, Laudermilch said.

ELIZABETH GIBSON, The Patriot-News

Governor Corbett deserves credit for his handling of the Sandusky case

For more than 15 years, I have dedicated a portion of my professional career to children’s rights and the fight to protect children from abuse. Ten of those years, I spent representing Dauphin County Children & Youth, where I litigated more than 450 child abuse appeals before the Department of Public Welfare.

In this quasi-prosecutorial role, I fought to ensure that those who were identified as perpetrators of child abuse remained on the statewide ChildLine database.

Prosecuting child abuse-related crimes is extraordinarily difficult, often more so than even homicide cases. Most individuals understand the concept of one person killing another — albeit justified or not. To the contrary, it is our society’s human nature to want to disbelieve that one human being can sexually abuse the most innocent members of our community, our children.

Prosecutors must first convince the jury that adults can and do sexually abuse children. Then they must prove to the jury that the individual before them did those heinous acts.

As the Sandusky trial unfolded, I heard many differing opinions on what the verdict might be. There were many who said “Where is the proof that the child was sexually abused by Sandusky?” These statements exemplify the difficulties facing prosecutors in trying these cases and victims have in telling their stories. Rarely is there physical evidence to corroborate the sexual assault of a child.

The “CSI” effect is a factor as the public expects videotapes of the incident to appear, DNA to be left behind or injuries to be caused upon the child victim. This simply is not the real world.

The statements that have been made about Gov. Corbett’s handling of the Sandusky investigation while he was attorney general created unfair confusion about how to best pursue a child abuser who operated behind the veil of charity and prestige for many years.

Two of the Sandusky victims were brought to the attention of law enforcement and child protective agencies. In Centre County, in 1998, the district attorney opted against prosecution. A decade later, CYS officials in Clinton County were notified of complaints by the boy known as Victim No. 8.

But it was only after an anonymous referral in 2009 that the attorney general’s office, under Corbett, did something unique. It assumed jurisdiction in the matter of Sandusky even after county prosecutors passed on the case. Were it not for this rare decision, Sandusky would not have faced justice.

There were significant impediments to the attorney general’s investigation that had to be overcome before formal charges could be filed against Sandusky:

-The mere fact that other prosecutors had information and chose not to charge.
-Element of time of more than a decade passing since the first report.
-Investigating a revered defensive football coach who many contend built
“Linebacker U.”
-Potentially placing a never-ending scar on the face of an outstanding state university and its larger-than-life coach.

Had then-Attorney General Corbett decided not to bring charges, many would have concluded that he was somehow protecting Penn State. On the other hand, should charges have been warranted, as they obviously were, the collateral consequences for one of the nation’s most well-known universities and its winningest coach would undoubtedly bring swift consequences and criticisms.

The trail was cold on some of the cases. One of the victims, seen in a Penn State shower with Sandusky, could not even be located.

The major problem was taking on a larger-than-life football hero who had further enlarged his stature by running a charity for troubled boys. Sandusky enjoyed the aura of Penn State and its legendary coach. Building that sort of case requires time and a wealth of evidence.

While there is rarely physical evidence of child sexual abuse, there are many ways to strengthen a prosecution through corroboration of the child’s story as to where the incident(s) occurred or, as with the Sandusky case, statements of multiple child victims. It is imperative that criminal charges are not lodged prematurely as this might jeopardize the chances for conviction.

The plain fact is that the Sandusky investigation took so long because it was so thorough and, because it was so thorough, Sandusky was convicted of 45 charges and his victims were finally given some measure of closure.

With the investigation continuing, investigators are now likely to find more victims. With Sandusky’s guilt confirmed and his veneer as a surrogate dad to troubled boys stripped away, those who struggled with the confusion and self-loathing that comes with sexual victimhood will no longer see his stature as standing between them and a willingness to tell the truth.

That doesn’t happen overnight.

Without Corbett’s willingness to do the right thing the right way, it wouldn’t have happened at all.

By Jason Kutulakis