All things Cynthia Baldwin

[J. J. in Phila]

This is a nice blog post for figuring out who is who: http://www.bagwellforpennstate.com/blog/what-did-hintz-and-baldwin-know/

It was posted a page or so back by Rlaub44. I make no comment on CB's position as a trustee or whether or not she interferred with the investigation by refusing to supply information. But it is interesting stuff to read.

Salem

Baldwin was not the counsel in 2001, nor was she on the Board in 2011. According to Baldwin's testimony, she contacted SCS about the subpoena, and they told her that there wasn't anything.

 

[Salem]

What do you think about this, from the Freech report (in the other thread ):

"Spanier and Baldwin opposed an independent investigation of the Sandusky issue, with Baldwin stating that "f we do this, we will never get rid of this [outside investigative] group in some shape or form. The Board will then think that they should have such a group." Spanier agreed."

This is the kind of stuff that bothers me -- CB had a duty and responsibility to brief the Trustees - thoroughly - and it appears that she didn't and that she didn't want any outside help. This is arrogance (sp?) of the highest order in my mind.

It looks like they really thought they could sweep it all under the rug - again.

Salem

ETA: here is a link to the original post: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8156183&postcount=2"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - How will the BOT respond to the Freeh Report recommendations?[/ame]

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What do you think about this, from the Freech report (in the other thread ):

"Spanier and Baldwin opposed an independent investigation of the Sandusky issue, with Baldwin stating that "f we do this, we will never get rid of this [outside investigative] group in some shape or form. The Board will then think that they should have such a group." Spanier agreed."

This is the kind of stuff that bothers me -- CB had a duty and responsibility to brief the Trustees - thoroughly - and it appears that she didn't and that she didn't want any outside help. This is arrogance (sp?) of the highest order in my mind.

It looks like they really thought they could sweep it all under the rug - again.

Salem

ETA: here is a link to the original post: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - How will the BOT respond to the Freeh Report recommendations?

Under the rules, CB did not have a responsibility to report to the Board. Wagner, the state Auditor General, noted that in some comments just today; he cited it as some of the problems with the rules and bylaws, just today.

From another thread:

http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Department/Press/WagnerCallsOnGenAssemblyGovTakeLead.html
It appears Mr. Wagner doesn't appreciate the effort the board is making.

 

[Rlaub44]

I don't think CB backpedaled. I think she was at the Grand Jury representing Penn State. I think Curley & Schultz where the "physical manifestations" of that representation. When Curley & Schultz stopped performing for Penn State and stepped into their individual skins (so to speak) any and all representation from CB stopped. CB told the judge that she represented Penn State. No ambiguity there. I agree with CB's spokespeople that she NEVER represented the individuals, Curley & Schultz. I know it seems like semantics, but in law, it is semantics.

When an entity is involved, be it a University or a corporation or partnership, semantics becomes very important. A corp. doesn't run itself - it takes individual people to do that - but those individuals are NOT the "entity." Don't know if I'm making sense here but I think it is a very important distinction and the whole case rests on it (the CB v. C&S case).

If I understand it correctly, Curley and Schultz were witnesses at the Grand Jury to explain their actions, on behalf of the University, over the 1998 action against Sandusky and the McQuery report. So.. the quesion at issue was "what did the University do about these reports?" CB could provide counsel in answering this question. When C & S stepped outside the bounds of the question, they were acting as individuals. It is CB's responsibility to protect the University, including witnessing against those that take actions that hurt the University.

Salem

I appreciate your take on things. But can you say that you believe she is being honest when she claims, through her spokesperson, that she didn't hear either man claim in court that she represented him? That is so ridiculous to me, that it begs the question of why.

If her actions were legitimate, why invent such a half-hearted excuse?

And there is this: Paterno testified from 11:06-11:13. Baldwin didn't attempt to sit in the Grand Jury room and listen during his testimony, although it certainly had as many ramifications for the University as that of the administrators. She enters with Curley and Schultz, stays during both of their turns on the stand from 11:20-12:52, demonstrates that she has a terrible attention span by missing the third answer given by Curley and the second question asked to Schultz (and let's be reasonable - when someone says your name, you tend to hear it), and I assume, left when they were finished.

Why doesn't she represent the University when Paterno is on the stand? Because he brought his own counsel. It is the only material difference between Paterno and the others. I contend that Baldwin represented the administrators at the GJ as part of representing the University. As such, I think she made a grave mistake later testifying at the GJ herself

 

[Rlaub44]

Under the rules, CB did not have a responsibility to report to the Board. Wagner, the state Auditor General, noted that in some comments just today; he cited it as some of the problems with the rules and bylaws, just today.

From another thread:

I'm still waiting to hear back from Lubrano; but if this is true, it's just one more thing Freeh got wrong, even with more access than we have to board policy and interviews with the players.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm still waiting to hear back from Lubrano; but if this is true, it's just one more thing Freeh got wrong, even with more access than we have to board policy and interviews with the players.

Freeh did not address the issue of structure or procedure at all, IIRC. That was outside of his scope of investigation.

Wagner has a poor understanding of meeting procedure, but he noted the control that the President (and not just Spanier) has over the control of information.

 

[Rlaub44]

Mr. Lubrano might not be the best source for interpreting a rule. I would note that, according to the current Penn Stater, an alumnus is president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians, so it would seem that someone could receive an expert opinion on the rule.

I certainly defer to your expertise in Parliamentary procedure. Lubrano acknowledged that he didn't know the answer on his own; I expect that he will ask someone knowledgeable on-site to clarify how the rule was interpreted in-house.

Most organizations have the counsel or solicitor as a resource for the board, but I just found this organizational chart, and I now believe you have been correct all along:
http://www.psu.edu/provost/assets/Administrative.pdf

It appears that this board was happy to be very "hands-off", as all roads did go through Spanier. I would have thought the powers that be would have wanted their in-house counsel to be able to function as an independent watchdog, but it appears she was at Spanier's command. How can you represent and advise the University when you have no access to the top level of leadership?

As a former BOT Chair, she had to understand what she was doing in accepting that role. Another article I read indicated that she and Spanier were very close, so it may have been that the arrangement was comfortable for both.

And people thought Paterno was the most powerful man in University Park.

 

[Rlaub44]

Freeh did not address the issue of structure or procedure at all, IIRC.

In the key findings at the beginning of Chapter 5 of the Freeh Report, he notes that "Neither Spanier nor the University's General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, briefed the Board of Trustees..." and that "From March 31-November 4, 2011, the Board did not make reasonable inquiry of Spanier or Baldwin about the Sandusky investigation..."

This makes it sound as if Baldwin or the Board had the power to communicate directly, and we now know that this wasn't the case. All of the blame for lack of communication then has to be attributed solely to Spanier.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I certainly defer to your expertise in Parliamentary procedure. Lubrano acknowledged that he didn't know the answer on his own; I expect that he will ask someone knowledgeable on-site to clarify how the rule was interpreted in-house.

Well, the key is not "in house," but who the AG, CB and/or Spanier can call as a witness. If the defense would claim that CB had a duty to report this to the Board, it might be possible to produce an expert, an objective one, to say, "No, she didn't."

Most organizations have the counsel or solicitor as a resource for the board, but I just found this organizational chart, and I now believe you have been correct all along:
http://www.psu.edu/provost/assets/Administrative.pdf

That depends. In some organizations, the rule is, "Hired by the group, but answerable to the chair alone."

It appears that this board was happy to be very "hands-off", as all roads did go through Spanier. I would have thought the powers that be would have wanted their in-house counsel to be able to function as an independent watchdog, but it appears she was at Spanier's command. How can you represent and advise the University when you have no access to the top level of leadership?

As a former BOT Chair, she had to understand what she was doing in accepting that role. Another article I read indicated that she and Spanier were very close, so it may have been that the arrangement was comfortable for both.

Not just her. The Board adopted the rule. It has been in force since before anyone at the AG's Office even knew about Victim 2, and might predate Spanier.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In the key findings at the beginning of Chapter 5 of the Freeh Report, he notes that "Neither Spanier nor the University's General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, briefed the Board of Trustees..." and that "From March 31-November 4, 2011, the Board did not make reasonable inquiry of Spanier or Baldwin about the Sandusky investigation..."

This makes it sound as if Baldwin or the Board had the power to communicate directly, and we now know that this wasn't the case. All of the blame for lack of communication then has to be attributed solely to Spanier.

I think he was stating fact; neither briefed the board.

It is a bit like saying, "J. J. in Phila did not brief the Board of Trustees..." and that "From March 31-November 4, 2011, the Board did not make reasonable inquiry of J. J. in Phila... ." I certainly did not have a right or a duty to go before the Board and brief them. They certainly didn't send me an e-mail asking me if I knew anything about Sandusky; I have no idea if any of them even know who "J. J. in Phila" is.

As I have indicated, there were several methods that the Board could have used to hear directly from Baldwin. It would not surprise me in the least that they were unaware of how to do it. On top of that, they trusted Spanier to tell them everything.

 

[Salem]

Well, the key is not "in house," but who the AG, CB and/or Spanier can call as a witness. If the defense would claim that CB had a duty to report this to the Board, it might be possible to produce an expert, an objective one, to say, "No, she didn't."



That depends. In some organizations, the rule is, "Hired by the group, but answerable to the chair alone."



Not just her. The Board adopted the rule. It has been in force since before anyone at the AG's Office even knew about Victim 2, and might predate Spanier.

What does the bolded part mean?

I don't understand how Gen Counsel would not be required/mandated to inform the Board of activities that put the entity at risk, especially if the President is involved in those activities. That makes no sense to me and is contrary to everything I learned in Legal ethics. :waitasec:

Salem

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What does the bolded part mean?

I don't understand how Gen Counsel would not be required/mandated to inform the Board of activities that put the entity at risk, especially if the President is involved in those activities. That makes no sense to me and is contrary to everything I learned in Legal ethics. :waitasec:

Salem

It is not uncommon in private organizations. Sometimes it is due to billing; the attorney will charge for the 20 phone calls he gets from board members. Sometimes the administration doesn't want the staff disrupted by the 20 phone calls.

 

[Rlaub44]

Well, the key is not "in house," but who the AG, CB and/or Spanier can call as a witness. If the defense would claim that CB had a duty to report this to the Board, it might be possible to produce an expert, an objective one, to say, "No, she didn't."

That depends. In some organizations, the rule is, "Hired by the group, but answerable to the chair alone."

Not just her. The Board adopted the rule. It has been in force since before anyone at the AG's Office even knew about Victim 2, and might predate Spanier.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't she the first in-house counsel? Up until she was hired, I believe the work was contracted to the firm of McQuaide & Blasko who employed Wendell Courtney.

I understand that the rule covers everyone, so it wasn't adopted to handcuff her; but unlike a lawyer coming to the University from outside, she knew what she was getting into.

Your quote about "answerable to the chair alone" is especially ironic, given that Spanier wasn't even the Board chair; but in reality, it appears he had more power than the chair anyway.

 

[Rlaub44]

It is not uncommon in private organizations. Sometimes it is due to billing; the attorney will charge for the 20 phone calls he gets from board members. Sometimes the administration doesn't want the staff disrupted by the 20 phone calls.

I could see that when they contracted with McQuaide Blasko, but you would think the point of in-house counsel was for increased utilization and access. The entire situation boggles my mind.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The "chair" comment refers to some of the consulting that I do. I generally have that type of relationship when I'm hired by a group.

I could see that when they contracted with McQuaide Blasko, but you would think the point of in-house counsel was for increased utilization and access. The entire situation boggles my mind.

The rule is still there today.

I have a feeling it was put in, at some point, and nobody thought to change it.

Let me repeat that, if the Board had wanted to hear from Baldwin, directly, there were some methods they could use.

 

[Rlaub44]

I had a question that I wanted to throw out there for anyone with legal knowledge - if in her role as General counsel, Ms. Baldwin prepped the PSU administrators for their Grand Jury appearance, by going over practice questions, etc; although the University itself was her client, would that be enough to create an attorney-client relationship with each man?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I had a question that I wanted to throw out there for anyone with legal knowledge - if in her role as General counsel, Ms. Baldwin prepped the PSU administrators for their Grand Jury appearance, by going over practice questions, etc; although the University itself was her client, would that be enough to create an attorney-client relationship with each man?

Not quite a "legal eagle" but I previously noted the requirement for being an "attorney of record." Baldwin did not meet that standard.

In a broader sense, perhaps, but it would apply to confidential information only. http://www.superpages.com/supertips/attorney-client.html

If Curley or Schultz told her something, e.g., "We really did know that Sandusky was having sex with boys," that might be subject to attorney-client privilege. Their testimony, under oath, is not.

 

[Rlaub44]

Not quite a "legal eagle" but I previously noted the requirement for being an "attorney of record." Baldwin did not meet that standard.

In a broader sense, perhaps, but it would apply to confidential information only. http://www.superpages.com/supertips/attorney-client.html

If Curley or Schultz told her something, e.g., "We really did know that Sandusky was having sex with boys," that might be subject to attorney-client privilege. Their testimony, under oath, is not.

That was my assumption as well. Anything they spoke to her about would then be protected information.

Now, the latest Grand Jury report places a lot of weight on Baldwin's testimony to establish cause for charging Spanier. As the General Counsel representing the University, but reporting directly to and only to Spanier, if Spanier used her as a sounding board, would she be allowed to testify to things she heard from him?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That was my assumption as well. Anything they spoke to her about would then be protected information.

Now, the latest Grand Jury report places a lot of weight on Baldwin's testimony to establish cause for charging Spanier. As the General Counsel representing the University, but reporting directly to and only to Spanier, if Spanier used her as a sounding board, would she be allowed to testify to things she heard from him?

I reread it after your prior question. Nothing in presentment indicates that this is what she testified about. The e-mails are the damning part.

Baldwin can testify regarding the subpoena (p. 22); it was required to be carried out. She can testify about being excused from the meeting (pp. 27-28). She can testify that the rule required Spanier to give an accurate report to the board (p. 28). She can testify that Spanier appeared to remember the 1998 and 2001 incident, because he was saying this in the presence of others (pp. 31-32). None of those things are covered by privilege.

There is also some legal/ethical requirement for an attorney to inform the court if he thinks his client has committed perjury. Robert S. Bennett, the attorney for Clinton during impeachment, had to write one to comply with the ethical requirement. It is mentioned here: http://www.prba.net/main.cfm?action...mpContent&htmlKey=editorialsAguirreTwo&s=prba

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Apparently, our discussions here are mirror those of the trial participants: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/11/...-attorney.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

On a bit of personal note, I am quite grateful to Rlaub44 for raising some of these questions. They made me think and look at the presentment again and this is a very good example of solid, decorous, and sane discussion. :great: