Corman - Deposition of KMasser - Compressed

Keith Masser
Page 1
1
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JAKE CORMAN, in his official
capacity as Senator from the
34th Senatorial District of
Pennsylvania and Chair of
the Senate Committee on
Appropriations; and ROBERT M.
MCCORD, in his official
capacity as Treasurer of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Plaintiffs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vs.
.
.
THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
.
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
.
Defendant
.
.
vs.
.
.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,.
Defendant
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
16
Deposition of :
KEITH MASSER
Taken by
Plaintiff
Date
Place
Before
Monday, November 24, 2014,

9:15 a.m.
North 3rd Street
Room 401
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Tracy L. Lloyd, Notary Public
Registered Professional Reporter
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Job No.
87530
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
APPEARANCES:
CONRAD O'BRIEN
By: Matthew Haverstick
Stephen MacNett
Alexis Rossman Madden
Sarah Damiani
1500 Market Street
West Tower
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
INDEX
WITNESS
KEITH MASSER
Direct Cross Redirect Recross
By Mr. Haverstick 5 ---By Ms. Gragert
-- 53
--By Mr. Scott
-- ----
LATSHA DAVIS & McKENNA

By: Kevin McKenna
350 Eagleview Boulevard
Exton, Pennsylvania 19341
8
9
10
For - Plaintiffs
LATHAM & WATKINS
By: Allen Gardner
Sarah M. Gragert
555 Eleventh Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
11
12
13
14
15
Killian & Gephart

By: Thomas Scott
218 Pine Street, P.O. Box 886
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
16
17
18
For - Defendant National Collegiate

Athletic Association
REED SMITH
By: Michael Scott
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
19
20
21
22
23
For - Pennsylvania State University
24
23
24
25
25
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STIPULATION
It is hereby stipulated by and between the
respective parties that sealing, certification and
filing are waived; and that all objections except as
to the form of the question are reserved until the
time of trial.
KEVIN MASSER, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:
MR. SCOTT: Before we start the
questioning, would you mind if we went around the
room so Mr. Masser knows who everybody is?
MR. HAVERSTICK: Sure.
MR. SCOTT: You can go first.
MR. HAVERSTICK: Mr. Masser, my name is
Matt Haverstick. We met before.
MR. MacNETT: Steve MacNett with Conrad
O'Brian.
MS. MADDEN: Alexis Madden, also with
Conrad O'Brien.
MS. DAMIANI: Sarah Damiani also with
Conrad O'Brien.
MR. McKENNA: Kevin McKenna, Latsha Davis &
McKenna.
MR. SCOTT: And they all represent Senator
Corman and Rob McCord?
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HAVERSTICK: For today's purpose.

MR. SCOTT: Mike Scott for Penn State.
MS. GRAGERT: Sarah Gragert for the NCAA.
We met outside.
MR. GARDNER: Allen Gardner, NCAA.
MR. TOM SCOTT: Tom Scott, Killian &
Gephart, also representing NCAA.
MR. MASSER: I'm Keith Masser with Penn
State.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Masser.
A. Good morning.
Q. We just all did the introductions. Thank for
coming in today. I hope to keep this relatively
brief. Have you ever been deposed before?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Then you get the gist of what we
will all be doing today. Questions, and hopefully
you can provide answers. At various points in time,
your counsel may want to discuss matters with you,
and we will work that out as we go through the
deposition today.
If you ever feel you need a break, I may want a
break, just speak up. There's a level of formality
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to this, but in terms of really executing, it can be

as informal as we want to in terms of breaks. So
don't feel shy about saying you want to take a break.
A. Okay.
Q. Mr. Masser, how long have you been a Penn State
Board of Trustee member?
A. Since July of 2008.
Q. And when were you elected Chair of the BOT?
A. January of 2013.
Q. Were you, am I correct, immediately proceeded as
chair by Karen Peetz?
A. Correct.
Q. There is an executive committee of BOT; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Who today is on the executive committee?
A. It's 13 members. It includes some positions,
the chair, the vice chairman, the immediate past
chair, the Hershey Medical Center board
representative. I can give you the names.
Q. Please.
A. The Hershey Board is Ed Hintz. The immediate
past chair, Karen Peetz. Myself as chair. The vice
chair is Kathleen Casey. That's five. There's some
at large members, Ryan McCombie, Rick Dandrea, and -I forget who the other at large member is. There's
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13 of us. Ken Frazier is on the executive committee.

It's chairs of committees. Keith Eckel, he's on the
executive committee.
So it includes committee chairs. We have seven
standing committees, and Carl Shaffer who is chair of
the Compensation Committee. Keith Eckel, as I
mentioned, is chair of the Governance Committee. Ken
Frazier is chair of the Legal and Compliance
Committee, and Mark Dambly who is chair of the
Finance, Business, and Capital Planning.
Q. How long have you been on the Executive
Committee?
A. Probably since -- as I recall, around 2010. I
was on the Executive Committee before I was vice
chair. Roughly 2010.
Q. And I meant to ask you this, and I did not. I
apologize. When did you become Vice Chair?
A. I became Vice Chair in January of 2012.
Q. When the Executive Committee meets in -- when
the Executive Committee meets, is counsel present?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it typically University counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it typically include outside counsel?
A. No.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Will outside counsel attend on an ad hoc basis

if there is an issue that you will likely discuss?
A. By invitation, yes.
Q. When is the first time that you recall learning
of allegations of molestation by Jerry Sandusky?
A. May of 2011.
Q. Can you describe the circumstances that brought
this to your attention? How did you learn?
A. I learned in executive session of a full board
meeting. We had a briefing with Cynthia Baldwin who
was University counsel.
MR. SCOTT: I'll counsel you, Mr. Masser,
that to the extent this conversation of this
information came to you via counsel at that kind of a
session, that you need not and should not provide
further details about that.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. I'm not going to ask you specifics, but
Ms. Baldwin apprised you of the potential
allegations?
A. Yes, of some allegations in a different county
by a former employee.
Q. As a result of learning of those allegations,
did the Executive Committee take any action steps at
that time, that is May of 2011?
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. No.
Q. Do you recall having conversations with other
Board members about the allegations outside the
presence of counsel?
A. No.
Q. When is the next time that the -- I'll call it
the Sandusky matter for shorthand. If we need to
explain it, I will. But when is the next time that
you recall the Sandusky matter being discussed with
you by anyone?
A. It would be the first Saturday of November of
2011.
Q. Am I right that -- well, was there a telephone
call in the afternoon of that -A. There was.
Q. And, again, I don't -- let me ask, and then
maybe your counsel will object. Describe to me what
happened on that telephone call.
MR. SCOTT: Well, in the invitation you
offered, was this a conversation with counsel for the
University?
A. So as I recall, Tom Poole, the basically chief
of staff for President Spanier, notified me of a
conference call to be scheduled. I think it was 5:00
or late that afternoon, and it was basically a
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
presentation by Graham Spanier of what was presented

in the press that day.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. When you speak of what was presented in the
press, are you referring to the media reports of
earlier that morning of a Grand Jury presentation
charging Jerry Sandusky with crimes?
A. Right. Yes.
Q. Prior to you reading that newspaper report,
which I presume you read, did you see that?
A. I saw -- I read the presentment that night, that
evening then.
Q. Did you catch the media reports earlier that
day?
A. No.
Q. Prior to that Saturday, and really I mean in
between the main meeting and that Saturday, had you
had occasion to discuss the Sandusky matter with
anyone else that you recall?
A. No.
Q. You had an afternoon telephone call and Graham
Spanier gave a presentation?
A. (Nodding head.)
Q. And he outlined what the presentment was about
and stuff like that?
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. No. It was more about how he was going to

handle the situation, that he's got it under control,
and it was very little information about what was in
the presentment, as I recall.
Q. Do you recall whether at that meeting or shortly
after that meeting, rather, whether there were any
working groups or other subsets of the Executive
Committee formed to handle BOT's response?
A. No. I was on the Executive Committee, but it
never met while I was on the Executive Committee
prior to me becoming -- being elected into
leadership. Every meeting was the full Board.
Q. Okay. So there weren't private meetings of the
Executive Committee to address the Sandusky matter
after it was announced in Mr. Spanier's telephone
call?
A. No.
Q. When do you recall the idea of a special
investigative counsel being retained first being
broached?
A. So it would have been the Sunday evening
after -- the immediate Sunday following the Saturday
that we knew about it. The Board met in Old Main.
20 of us were there in person, and the remaining
Board members were on a conference call.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And Board leadership -- basically the Board

laid out some action steps on how to deal with the
eminent crisis or however you want to describe it.
And during that time one of the action steps was to
hire an independent investigator to find out who knew
what when.
Q. Do you recall who came up with the idea -- do
you recall who came up with the action steps?
A. It was -- it was just recommendations coming
from various members of the Board. I don't recall
who made it, but it was a summary of several action
steps that the Board agreed that we need to do.
Q. So up until that point, nobody had been
delegated the job of coming up with action steps to
report to the full Board?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was there discussion at this Board meeting about
firms that might be hired to perform the special
investigation?
A. No. No. We were back -- the answer to your
question is no.
Q. At that meeting, was there discussion about
forming a special working group of Board members to
oversee the investigation?
A. Not at that meeting.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. At a later one?
A. It came later. Yeah, that came later.
Q. Now, that will be a good transitory point in a
second. Do you recall at that Sunday meeting any
discussion about potential NCAA action against Penn
State as a result of the Sandusky matter?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Describe for me what you remember the discussion
being about what the role of the special counsel was
going to be.
A. I need to understand your question.
Q. Yeah. That's a crummy question. At that Sunday
meeting, was there discussion about what role or
tasks the special counsel was going to perform
specifically?
A. Not specific. Just, you know, to investigate -to do an internal investigation at the University to
find out who knew what when, what went wrong, how we
can correct the failures that occurred at Penn State
University.
So it was general, nothing specific, but it was
agreed to by the Board that such a special
investigation should take place.
Q. Now, you said that there was a later meeting
where there was a subset or a working group formed to
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
work with the special counsel, and that's sort of a

rough paraphrase.
A. The Board leadership, which was Steve Garban and
John Surma, began asking or seeking volunteers to
serve on that special -- to serve on a task force to
select a special investigative firm.
Q. Now, let me ask you a couple questions about
that. When was it decided that there would be -when was it first discussed, rather, that there would
be a task force of Board members to be responsible
for -A. It may have been that Sunday night. It may have
been the following Wednesday evening the Board met.
The Board met the following Wednesday evening in
person at State College. That's the infamous
Wednesday night meeting.
So it probably -- I'm not certain, but it
probably was initiated at that meeting because it was
pretty much a meeting of developing action steps to
get the University moving forward.
Q. Now, I think you said that Mr. Surma and -- I
forget the Board member's name.
A. Mr. Garban.
Q. Thank you. Mr. Garban. Solicited participation
on this task force?
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall how it came to be the two of them
were responsible for soliciting participation?
A. Well, the Board Chair -- by our bylaws and
standing orders charge the chair with appointing
special committees. The Chair of the Board has that
responsibility of appointing members to special task
force.
Q. Do you recall who ended up being on the task
force?
A. I know some of the members. I was not, but Ken
Frazier, Ron Tomalis, the Secretary of Education,
Keith Eckel, Mark Dambly, Karen Peetz.
Q. That's your memory?
A. That's my memory. I'm fairly certain they were
appointed to that task force, and there may be
others, but I know those were members that were on.
I'm fairly certain those were members that were on.
I mean I know Tomalis and Frazier were. I know Karen
Peetz was.
Q. Was it discussed at the Wednesday meeting or any
subsequent meeting that the special investigative
task force was to provide regular briefings to the
rest of the Board?
A. I don't know if that was discussed or whether it
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was an expectation. That task force did provide

updates at future executive sessions and future
Board meetings.
Q. And that did happen, the task force would
periodically update the Executive Committee and the
full Board?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know by what date the special
investigative task force had formed and was staffed
up?
A. I think by the first of the year. During
December of 2011, I'm fairly certain. It may even
have been staffed up by the end of November, but it
was staffed up during the November full Board of
Trustees meeting and the first of the year.
Q. Was its complement filled out prior to the
time that the Freeh Group was retained to do the
special investigation?
A. Oh, sure. Yes.
Q. So whatever date, and I don't know as I sit here
and remember, but whatever -A. Whatever date the engagement letter was signed,
that group had been meeting prior to that.
Q. Okay. Were you made aware of the firms that the
task force interviewed or talked to or whatever they
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did to decide who was going to do the special

investigation?
A. I was only made aware of the recommendation to
the full Board.
Q. What was that recommendation?
A. Louis Freeh's firm.
Q. Do you recall a meeting at which that was -that hiring was recommended to the full Board?
A. Not specifically.
Q. Do you recall who spoke at the meeting
advocating the task force's recommendation to hire
Freeh?
A. Ken Frazier was the chair of that group, so it
most likely Ken Frazier. I remember Ron Tomalis
providing some feedback and input, as well, but it
was primarily Ken Frazier.
Q. Now, at that time was either the Executive
Committee or the full Board informed that there had
been outreach by NCAA to Penn State?
MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.
MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. You can answer.
A. Not prior to that engagement.
Q. When did, and if there's a difference in the
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
times when the Executive Committee learned versus the

full Board learned, please let me know. When did the
Board of Trustees from your vantage point learn that
there was NCAA interest in the Jerry Sandusky
situation?
A. Sometime in between January and July of 2012.
Q. Do you recall if, whenever that happened, it was
in the context of an Executive Committee meeting or a
full Board meeting?
A. I don't. We have the -- a full Board has
executive sessions, briefing sessions that aren't
public, and the Executive Committee would meet for
information. The Executive Committee has never made
a decision for the Board since I've been on the
Executive Committee at Penn State. It's been
basically briefing sessions.
Q. Do you recall who told you that there was NCAA
outreach to Penn State about the Jerry Sandusky
situation, whenever that was that it happened?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you recall whether that information may have
come from a special investigative task force
briefing?
A. The time when I am specific that my -- my
specific recollection is it would have been that I
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
learned about it was the Wednesday Board meeting

after the consent decree was signed.
Q. After the consent decree was signed?
A. (Nodding head.)
Q. That's the first you remember learning of it?
A. Right.
Q. So you were never told prior to that time that
the NCAA had been in contact with Penn State
officials?
A. So what I was aware of is that the NCAA was
interested in this situation that was occurring at
Penn State, and I was aware that there was a possible
investigation that could take place by the NCAA. And
I was aware that the Board of Trustees had engaged
its own investigation to do up -- for the purposes
that was previously stated. And I do know that the
Board was interested in not having the NCAA do an
investigation.
So I was aware, and I don't know specifically
when that the Freeh investigation was to be
communicated -- that the knowledge of that, and I
don't know any specific terms, but that the NCAA was
to be made aware that we're doing our own
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
investigation to try to prevent the NCAA from doing

their own investigation of Penn State.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Do you remember from whom you got that
information?
A. No, I don't. They could have -- it could have
been Karen Peetz. I was the Vice Chair. She was the
Chair. She was on the Special Investigative
Committee.
Q. Were you told at any time that in December of
2011, Freeh Group personnel met with NCAA personnel?
A. No, not in December of 2011 that I recall. I
don't recall.
Q. Was it your expectation that the Freeh Group
once hired would be having meetings with the NCAA
throughout its investigation?
A. My expectation was that Penn State's own
internal investigation, I was hopeful that it would
prevent the NCAA from doing their investigation or
from doing another separate independent
investigation.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Then I'm not sure I understand the answer. Let
me ask it another way.
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I can clarify it.

Q. Please.
A. So Penn State had this bombardment of entities,
if you will, who requested to do investigations. We
have the Department of Education. There was the
State Attorney General's Office doing an
investigation. And we felt we had to do our own
internal investigation so we could learn more about
how to prevent any kind of Sandusky issue from
happening again at Penn State.
And then there was the Middle States
accreditation putting us on watch, and we were
bombarded with all these investigations on Penn
State. We were trying to keep the NCAA and utilizing
the information that was being obtained from the
Freeh Group to preclude them from doing their own
investigation.
Q. So do I take that to mean that you expected that
at the conclusion of the Freeh Group investigation,
information learned by the Freeh Group would be
shared with other groups like the accreditation
association or the NCAA?
MS. GRAGERT: Join that objection.
A. It's my expectation that the Freeh investigation
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be made public.

BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. And then that would -- that Freeh Group
investigation would hopefully prevent other
organizations from doing their own investigations?
A. (Nodding head.)
Q. Were you ever -- strike that. Was it your
expectation that one of the things the Freeh Group
was supposed to do was investigate whether Penn State
had violated NCAA bylaws?
A. Not specifically.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Big Ten was one of the organizations, do you
recall, was interested in investigating Penn State?
A. We're a member, so -- we're a member of the Big
Ten. I don't know of any specific discussions
surrounding the Big Ten prior to the Freeh Report
being issued.
Q. Were you aware throughout the first half of
2012 that Big Ten in its words was collaborating with
the Freeh Group in the investigation?
A. I was not aware.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Were you aware in that same time period that

NCAA was in periodic contact with the Freeh Group?
A. I'm not sure I would characterize it that way.
As I stated before, we were interested in not having
the NCAA doing its independent investigation, and I
wasn't -- it wasn't on my radar to know of the
discussions. I felt the task force assigned to Freeh
was taking care of that. I was working on other
things such as accreditation.
Q. So this may be the right question to ask you, is
it the case that the task force -- if anyone at Penn
State would have known about this type of
information, it would be the task force?
MR. SCOTT: Objection.
A. It wasn't part of my responsibilities in my
position to know what was going on in that regard.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Understood. So I close this circle, you weren't
made aware in the first half of 2012 that NCAA had
given a PowerPoint presentation to the Freeh Group on
NCAA bylaws issues?
A. No. I wasn't aware of that.
Q. And you weren't aware that NCAA had provided the
Freeh Group with proposed questions to ask folks that
the Freeh Group was going to interview?
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Mischaracterizes testimony.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. You can answer.
A. I wasn't aware.
Q. Let's jump ahead to the time that you learned of
NCAA action against Penn State.
MR. HAVERSTICK: Can I actually get done
with my question?
MS. GRAGERT: I did not mean to interrupt.
MR. HAVERSTICK: Then don't, please.
MS. GRAGERT: Chill out. Ask your
question.
MR. HAVERSTICK: Sarah, I will -- let me
ask my question. Then I'll give you all of the time
in the world to object, okay, because we can get done
a lot faster if we do it that way. Thanks.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Am I right that you learned about NCAA action
against Penn State after the consent decree was
signed?
MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form. The use
of the word "against".
A. I don't understand that question. I mean the
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way it's posed is the NCAA action afterwards. I was

aware of prior to the consent decree being signed of
some of the proposed items within the consent
decree. I was aware of options.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. That's what I'm driving out. I misunderstood
your earlier testimony. You knew of the possibility
of sanctions against Penn State by NCAA prior to the
time the consent decree was signed?
A. Yes. I was getting confused by your questions
prior to the Freeh Report being released and the
consent decree being signed. Those are different
timelines.
Q. Why don't you -- maybe I really misunderstood
your answer. Why don't you, as best as you recall,
tell me what you recall about the timing of when you
learned of the potential of NCAA sanctions against
Penn State?
A. Karen Peetz and I got a call from Rod Erickson
several days before -- probably five, six -- within a
week of the consent decree being signed that -MR. SCOTT: When you say within a week,
you mean a week prior?
A. Within a week prior that the NCAA was concerned
about the Freeh Report findings. And prior to that,
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the NCAA wasn't on my radar, but Rod Erickson

informed Karen and I that there were -- that the
NCAA was interested in providing some kind of
sanctions to Penn State. And that's -- and that -and then we were having periodic updates through that
week.
After that initial call with Rod Erickson, we
had a short, maybe a day or so after that, an
Executive Committee briefing by Rod Erickson. And
then we were briefed periodically during that week
prior to the consent decree being offered.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Was that briefing by President Erickson or
somebody else?
A. It initially started with Rod Erickson. As the
sanctions became more real and the options more
clear, we had University counsel involved, but there
was periodic -- frequent periodic discussions or
briefings by Rod Erickson to the Executive Committee
during that meeting.
Q. Let's start with the first -- let's start with
the telephone call from President Erickson to you and
Ms. Peetz. What can you recall specifically
President Erickson telling you in that telephone
call?
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. That's more than two years ago. I don't

remember anything specific. I just recall being
informed that things weren't looking good for Penn
State from the NCAA point of view. That there was
death penalty being discussed.
It was basically a call of grave concern that
President Erickson was filling in Board leadership
that things weren't progressing on the path of the
NCAA not being involved with the Sandusky issue.
Q. Did President Erickson, if you remember -- I
understand it was two years ago, so if you don't, you
don't. Did President Erickson mention telephone
calls he was having with President Emmert of the NCAA
in this first phone call?
A. I don't recall. I do recall being notified
that we're getting special outside counsel to
guide -- to provide guidance through this chain of
events.
Q. As an aside -A. Gene Marsh, specifically.
Q. Gene Marsh specifically as outside counsel?
A. Yeah.
Q. As an aside, do you know why prior to this time
Penn State had not retained Mr. Marsh or someone like
him to assist with the NCAA issues?
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I would only be speculating. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?
A. No.
Q. What's your speculation?
A. Our own general counsel wanted more specific
expertise on NCAA issues, and so we were briefed,
Executive Committee was briefed on qualifications of
Gene Marsh and the reason for hiring him. Executive
Committee was also briefed about the president
having the authority to make decisions with regard to
NCAA.
Q. So is your speculation for why counsel with this
expertise was not retained earlier -- let me ask it a
different way.
A. I can't even specifically answer when he was -when Gene Marsh was retained, so I don't know when he
was retained. To answer your question earlier, he
may have been retained earlier as far as I know.
Q. You don't know?
A. I don't know.
Q. I think you answered this, do you recall
anything that President Erickson said to you in this
first phone call with you and Ms. Peetz about
comments made by President Emmert?
A. Not specifically, no, I don't. I'm just
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
referring to the NCAA in general. I don't know if it

was from presidents who were on the board, whether it
was Mark Emmert. I don't recall where the -- I knew
there was a sense of urgency that this was going
fast, and that it wasn't looking good for Penn State.
Q. It was a dire phone call?
A. Yes.
Q. What action, if any, did President Erickson
request of you and Ms. Peetz at that time?
A. No action. Just information.
Q. To keep you briefed?
A. And to discuss -- our involvement or our
discussion was how broad do we take this information
to the full Board, and we agreed that we would take
it to the Executive Committee because of the
confidentiality provisions that were being stipulated
to President Erickson through his discussions. So we
were dealing with a confidentiality versus good
governance issue.
Q. Your understanding at the time of this first
phone call was that NCAA required confidentiality
and -- let me break the question up. Was that your
understanding that NCAA required the
confidentiality?
A. Well, as options were being presented, those
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
options would not be available if they were disclosed

by Board members.
Q. President Erickson -A. Or anybody. I mean Penn State. If Penn State
was disclosing discussions that were taking place
between Penn State and the NCAA, it would impact any
options that would be available.
Q. So President Erickson was communicating to you
that if certain potential settlement or resolution
terms got out, that they would be taken away and
taken off the table?
A. Yes.
Q. And so I think the answer to my question is yes,
but the earlier question. NCAA was, to your
knowledge, telling President Erickson that there must
be strict confidentiality maintained over this
process?
A. Yes.
Q. And that led to a conversation between you,
President Erickson, and Ms. Peetz about who on the
Board should know?
A. Yes.
MS. GRAGERT: I don't think we had a verbal
answer.
A. Pardon?
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. GRAGERT: Was that a yes?

A. That's what the first phone call was, and then
we agreed that a phone call with the Executive
Committee would be appropriate.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Do you know if President Erickson had to go
back and run that decision by NCAA to make sure NCAA
was okay with the Executive Committee knowing?
A. No. I'm assuming not. I'm assuming it was keep
it confidential and, you know, the president has the
authority to make a decision. And Rod Erickson was
keeping his Board members informed as best he could
without jeopardizing options for the University.
Q. Do you know what options or do you remember
rather in this first phone call what options, if any?
A. Not in the first phone call.
Q. Later?
A. Later phone calls. I mean it was either accept
the consent decree or not accept it and run the risk
of other actions that the NCAA might take.
Q. I'm going to recap this first phone call. Then
we'll go to the executive session. You don't recall
specific penalty options being discussed by President
Erickson in the first call?
A. Not in the first call, no.
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Do you recall President Erickson mentioning the

death penalty or suspension of play in the first call
as a possible sanction?
A. No. I don't recall. It was dire.
Q. You recall that President Erickson indicated
that the matter had to be resolved quickly?
A. Yeah. This was -- I recall it was happening
fast.
Q. Do you recall whether that was NCAA's desire or
was it Penn State's desire or neither or both?
A. I assumed it was the NCAA was coming down on
Penn State quickly.
Q. As a result of the telephone call, it was
decided that the Executive Committee would be briefed
on the NCAA action; right?
A. Right.
Q. When did that briefing occur?
A. Tuesday or Wednesday evening of that week, of
the week prior to the consent decree being signed.
Q. Tell me what you recall about that briefing.
A. There was -- the consent decree option may have
been put on the table at that briefing and a rough
outline of what that would entail.
Q. Do you remember -A. And there may be -- we may have had our legal
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
counsel involved then with the Executive Committee.

I'm almost certain that our legal counsel was
involved.
Q. Your inhouse legal counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that point would that have been Steve
Dunham or Mark Faulkner?
A. No, not Mark Faulkner. Steve and it may have
been Frank Guadagnino. I'm not certain. Frank at
that time was not inhouse. I mean he was outside
counsel hired.
Q. Right. He wasn't working for Penn State?
A. He was working for Penn State as -Q. As outside counsel?
A. He was working for Reed Smith, but we retained
him. And Steve Dunham, I think, was just a couple
weeks into working for Penn State as general counsel
when he took the position, but we had -- I recall
having had legal -- our own legal counsel, not Gene
Marsh, but our own legal counsel in those discussions
during that week.
Q. Had Gene Marsh or did Gene Marsh brief the
executive session, as well?
A. I don't think so. I think it was our counsel
bringing information from -- we were aware that there
877-702-9580
Keith Masser
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was expert counsel being referred to or being

utilized, but not that -- I don't recall Gene Marsh
being on any of those calls.
Q. In between the telephone call that you and Ms.
Peetz had with President Erickson and the executive
session, were you receiving any form of update from
anyone inside Penn State about the course of the
discussions between Penn State and NCAA?
A. Not other than Rod Erickson, and Rod was
communicating. We agreed that we would -- that we
could trust the Executive Committee without breaching
confidentiality issues, so that periodic briefings,
which I'm thinking may have been daily or every other
day or when there was new information available, was
provided by Rod Erickson to the Executive Committee.
And we had a discussion -- the Executive
Committee had a discussion whether they needed to
meet and whether it should be -- that information
should be just entrusted with Karen and myself, and
Rod decided to keep the full Executive Committee
briefed during that period of time.
Q. What do you recall President Erickson telling
you in these phone calls in that interim period?
A. As the consent decree was being formulated, that
it was the benefits of -- that's not the right word
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to use. But the looking at the -- we were basically

formulating down during that week looking down at
basically having two alternatives.
Looking at a consent decree that Rod Erickson
would sign and accepting the terms of the consent
decree versus the other possible actions that the
NCAA could impose on Penn State by not taking that
option. And that the -- those actions -- the consent
decree defined a timeline, defined specific actions
that I recall the Board -- the Executive Committee of
the Board looking at and Rod Erickson explaining the
reasons why I signed the consent decree would be
advantageous to not signing the consent decree.
Q. Do you recall whether -- do you recall any of
the other options that President Erickson explained
to you could happen if the consent decree was not
signed?
A. Well, the death penalty was basically an option,
having other -- having investigations take place from
the NCAA and having the death penalty imposed then -having the death penalty imposed and then having the
investigation take place or an investigation take
place which could result in the death penalty. Those
kinds of options.
Q. Those were the things that President Erickson
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was telling you were potentials?

A. Yes.
Q. Were those same options communicated to the full
Executive Committee when it was briefed in that
briefing you were discussing?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall in that Executive Committee
meeting whether there was any recommendation made
about what Penn State should do?
A. No. I mean the Executive Committee wasn't
making a decision. It was discussed and the
Executive Committee was briefed on the fact that Rod
Erickson clearly had -- we were clear that he had the
authority to make the decision, and he was leaning
toward wanting to make the decision of the consent
decree for various publicly stated reasons which he
briefed us on first.
Q. Do you recall debate in that Executive Committee
meeting whether the full Board should decide on
President Erickson's authority to enter into the
consent decree?
A. We were confident he had the authority. That it
didn't need a full Board decision. We were confident
by the terms of the contract to the membership
organization and NCAA as well as our contract with
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Big Ten that the president had the authority,

both fiscally and to make decisions on
intercollegiate athletics, that authority was
delegated to the president.
Q. Based on Penn State's agreement with the NCAA?
A. Based on the membership rules, yes.
Q. And membership rules of Big Ten?
A. Right.
Q. Do you recall receiving any -- I'm going to ask
a yes/no, and then we'll sort out whether you can do
beyond yes/no. Do you recall receiving any legal
opinion from your counsel regarding whether Penn
State's bylaws permitted President Erickson to make
the decision of the consent decree?
A. I want to say yes, but I don't specifically
know I can say that prior to -- the week prior to.
Q. Do you recall at some point being provided with
the legal opinion on President Erickson's authority
under Penn State's rules to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. And -A. It was at least -- I had that opinion at least
the Wednesday after the consent decree was signed.
I think we had it prior, but I don't know
specifically. I can specifically say that I had that
877-702-9580
10
Keith Masser
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opinion Wednesday after the consent decree was

signed. It was signed Monday evening.
MR. SCOTT: Just so we're clear, you're
talking about a written opinion; correct?
MR. HAVERSTICK: Or oral.
A. I'm talking oral.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. I want to make sure. When we mean opinion, we
mean an opinion from counsel about President
Erickson's authority.
A. Yes. Our counsel, Steve Dunham, provided an
opinion to us at some point in that time frame that
President Erickson had the authority.
Q. Based on Penn State's bylaws?
A. Bylaws.
Q. And you don't recall whether that opinion was
provided to you before or after the consent decree
was executed?
A. I think the Executive Committee had that
opinion. We discussed it, so we would have had that
before the full Board had it shortly thereafter.
Q. When did the Executive Committee have that
opinion, if you remember?
A. Sometime during that week.
Q. Was it at the same time the Executive Committee
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussed its view that NCAA's membership agreement

authorized President Erickson to do this?
A. Yeah. It was consistent with our bylaws, were
consistent with our membership rules.
Q. You remember that being discussed at this first
Executive Committee session?
A. Right. It was a broader discussion, I mean
whether we had to take this issue to the full Board.
I mean it was -- there was a lot of discussion around
the president's authority and this confidentiality
that was imposed that this consent decree would not
be an option should the information leak, and we had
Board members who just went to the press with
everything. So we had this confidentiality versus
good governance discussion that whole week.
Q. And was it reiterated at the Executive Committee
session that should the terms of the potential
consent decree be leaked, that it would be taken off
the table?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Executive Committee decided that as a
result, it was not going to take the consent decree
decision to the full Board or -- I'm sorry -- it was
not going to inform the full Board of the consent
decree terms prior to the agreement's execution?
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. The Executive Committee agreed -- well,
they -- there was no deliberation and there was no
motion, but it was the consensus -- the Executive
Committee was of the opinion that Rod Erickson had
the authority to sign the consent decree, and the
Executive Committee was supportive of Rod Erickson's
decision to sign it.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. And was it also a consensus decision rather than
a vote?
A. There was no vote.
Q. So am I right in saying that it was a consensus
decision that the full Board should not be informed
of potential consent decree terms because of NCAA's
confidentiality request?
A. I want to make sure the terminology is right.
It was of the opinion of every member of the
Executive Committee that Rod Erickson could not bring
the discussions he was having with the Executive
Committee to the full Board to run the risk of
members of the full Board leaking to the press,
removing that option, the consent decree option, to
Penn State. The Executive Committee supported Rod
Erickson's decision not to take it to the full
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board.
Q. As far as you understood in these meetings, it
was the NCAA that desired the consent decree's
potential terms to be kept confidential?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it your understanding that that was a
demand by the NCAA?
A. Yes.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Your answer was yes?
A. If the terms of the consent decree -- it's my
understanding and it was with that understanding
that decisions were made during that whole week
that if the terms of the consent decree were leaked
by Penn State to the public, it would not be an
option.
Q. And did you have an understanding of what
would happen to Penn State if it no longer was an
option?
A. Not specifically. I just knew the consent
decree would not be an option.
Q. Prior to President Erickson signing the consent
decree, were you -- let's start with just you -informed the terms of the consent decree?
877-702-9580
11
Keith Masser
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Prior to signing it?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. When did that happen?
A. Sunday morning, sometime Sunday before the
document was -- I mean I was informed almost
immediately prior to signing it what was in it.
Q. Was that presentation by President Erickson?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it to you only?
A. No. It was to the Executive Committee was -we had the discussion earlier in the week should
these discussions occur only between Karen Peetz,
Keith Masser, and Rod Erickson, and Rod make a
decision he could trust the full Executive Committee
for these leaks, which were the leaks were contained.
I mean there were no leaks of the information.
So the full Executive Committee had a -- the
full Executive Committee was briefed by Rod
Erickson. The final version of the consent decree
that was signed was provided to the full Executive
Committee prior to Rod Erickson signing.
Q. So when it was communicated to you, it was in
the context of an Executive Committee?
A. Yeah. It was not a personal phone call between
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rod Erickson and me. It was in the context of an

Executive Committee.
Q. What do you recall President Erickson saying in
this executive session prior to -- Executive
Committee session -- I beg your pardon -- prior to
his signing of the document?
A. That it would be the toughest decision he's
ever had to make of his 40 years of working at Penn
State, and that it was the least damaging option
for Penn State University and the surrounding
community.
Q. Was there again discussion of other options
available to Penn State should it choose not to
accept the consent decree?
A. It was a discussion of the unknown. It was
the potential of the death penalty. There was
rationale for signing the consent decree, and the
other things that were out there were uncertain.
The consent decree defined certainty.
It defined a four-year road map to get the
Sandusky issue behind us, and it provided what took
place in the waning hours of the consent decree
being formulated. There was the option to take
another look at it after a period of time which
resulted in -- subsequently it resulted in the
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
softening of sanctions.
Q. Who discussed taking another look at the
sanctions?
A. It wasn't discussed.
Q. I'm sorry. I thought you said in the waning
hours?
A. There was language that allowed the consent
decree to be opened up and to -- there was language
put into the consent decree under mutual agreement
to take another look. So it could have -Q. It could be amended?
A. Yeah, but it could go both ways. We
understood it could -- I mean it cut both ways that
the -- it could be beneficial to Penn State if Penn
State was -- it was our intent to perform to the
athletic integrity agreement beyond everyone's
expectations, and hopefully it would benefit Penn
State.
Or if Penn State didn't perform to
expectations, it could have been harsher sanctions,
but we were looking at it from a positive outlook.
Q. It was your understanding prior to the consent
decree that there was a potential for the NCAA to
come back and sanction Penn State with even harsher
terms?
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. The language opened it up. So it could have
went either way.
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Why would Penn State agree to open up the
consent decree and agree to harsher sanctions?
A. We were looking at -- I told you we were
looking at it from a positive aspect being able to
open up and meet and exceed our expectations of
performing under the athletic integrity agreement,
but it wasn't a check valve. It wasn't language in
there to preclude it. We understood there was risk,
but there was more reward than there was risk.
Q. And the risk was the potential for increased or
harsher sanctions down the line?
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. Go ahead.
A. That's the risk.
Q. That's what you understood prior to the
signing of the agreement?
A. We understood there was language in there that
could open this up under mutual agreement and have
it discussed. So personally I looked at that as a
877-702-9580
12
Keith Masser
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
risk on both sides, but was committed to have Penn

State exceed people's expectations in fulfilling the
athletic integrity agreement in the hopes that this
four-year agreement could be shortened.
Q. Do you recall any of Penn State's legal advisors
telling you in this -- in the run-up to signing of
the agreement that it could be reopened and tougher
sanctions could be imposed?
A. No. That was my own personal assessment.
Q. Do you recall in the final conversation the
Executive Committee had prior to President Erickson
executing the consent decree whether he reiterated
what the negative options were for Penn State if it
wasn't signed?
A. When? What time frame are you looking at?
Q. The last meeting you had on that Sunday prior
to his signing the document?
A. I don't know if that was at the last meeting
because the consent decree versus not signing the
consent decree was discussed during that week as it
was evolving, so I don't know if that was at the very
last meeting or not.
Q. At some point along that continuum it was
discussed?
A. Yes.
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. What was your understanding of the likelihood

of the imposition of the death penalty if Penn State
did not agree to the consent decree?
MS. GRAGERT: I'll join that objection.
A. We knew it was possible. We didn't know it was
certain, but we weren't willing to take the risk. We
knew there was sentiments among -- Rod Erickson
communicated some sentiments among some other
university presidents who were members and who were
on the NCAA Board that we got a sense that there was
sentiments to give Penn State the death penalty.
We didn't know how that would play out if we
put it to the test. We weren't willing. Rod
Erickson was not willing to put it to the test if we
had an option that could define our penalties and not
let it open-ended.
We were concerned about having a football coach
recruit student athletes under the cloud of not
knowing and how that would impact negatively
between -- there was all kinds of considerations of
not signing, looking at what the benefits of the
consent decree provided versus the other, not signing
the consent decree.
I don't want to communicate that there was a
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
benefit. It was the least harmful of two options, as

I remember it.
Q. Do you know whether the full Board was informed
of the terms of the consent decree before it was
signed?
A. It was not.
Q. Do you know when the full Board learned of the
execution of the consent decree?
A. I think the full Board -- we had a meeting, I
think it was Monday concurrent with or prior to Mark
Emmert's announcement.
Q. As far as you know, that's when the rest of the
Board learned about consent decree?
A. (Nodding head.)
Q. Do you know if the full Board was aware up to
that point of negotiations with NCAA at all?
A. I don't know specifically. There were -there would be specific members of the Board, but
the Board as a whole did not convene and make a
decision.
Q. Would those specific members be the ones who
were on the Executive Committee?
A. Yes.
Q. So, to your knowledge, you're not aware of any
other Board member who wasn't on the Executive
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Committee knowing about discussions with NCAA?

A. That's correct.
MR. HAVERSTICK: Okay. Give me five
minutes, and then I think we're done. We'll go off
the record.
(Recess taken from 10:29 a.m. until 10:32 a.m.)
BY MR. HAVERSTICK:
Q. One or two questions to get my mind right about
something. When, if ever, did you learn that in the
first half of 2012 there had been contact between
NCAA and the Freeh Group?
A. I don't know specifically. I know it was -I was involved in a briefing that we were trying to
keep -- that the University was hoping to keep -- was
trying to keep the NCAA was doing their own
investigation of this.
I knew there was a letter sent to the
University, and we had to answer, and so I just know
top line that the -- our own independent
investigation that the University was doing was
trying to be used to deter the NCAA from doing their
own investigation, to preclude another investigation
being done. I don't know. I don't have a date, but
I remember generally being made aware that that was
taking place.
877-702-9580
13
Keith Masser
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Do you recall who gave that briefing?

A. I don't. Karen Peetz and I had a lot of
discussions. She may have learned from -- she was on
the special task force, so it may have come that way.
It wasn't a -- I don't recall it being a formal
Executive Committee discussion.
Q. It may have been just one of the, I assume, many
conversations you and Karen Peetz had throughout the
first half of 2012?
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you recall whenever it happened, it was
prior to the time you learned about -- prior to the
time that you, President Erickson, and Karen Peetz
had the telephone call where you learned about
impending NCAA action?
A. Right.
Q. It was before that?
A. Yes.
Q. But beyond that, you don't recall as we sit here
today?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall any level of specificity about -strike that. It doesn't sound like whenever it was
that it was a particularly memorable or significant
event?
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. It was our opinion that this -- I was operating

in at least the first half of 2012 that this wasn't a
significant issue for the NCAA. And when I got -when Rod Erickson first called and said it is -Q. It was a surprise?
A. Yeah.
Q. Your expectation was that hopefully the Freeh
Group process would forestall action by other bodies
including NCAA, and you named some of them before,
too?
A. Right.
MR. HAVERSTICK: Thank you, Mr. Masser. I
really appreciate your time. I don't have any more
questions.
MR. SCOTT: Any questions over here?
MS. GRAGERT: I do, but I need five
minutes. Your five minutes was a little short.
MR. HAVERSTICK: We can take a little
break.
(Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. until 10:49 a.m.)
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. GRAGERT:
Q. Mr. Masser, earlier you testified about the
provisions in the consent decree that allowed it to
be reopened. Do you recall that testimony?
Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yes.
Q. And is it true that in practice that the
consent decree was, in fact, reopened?
A. Yes.
Q. And that many of the sanctions were eased?
A. Yes.
Q. The bowl ban was lifted?
A. Correct.
Q. The scholarship reductions were lifted?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also testified that if you hadn't
accepted the consent decree, there was an unknown, is
that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And that unknown, that uncertainty, may have
involved a time -- a process that would have taken
some period of time to complete, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that uncertainty would have had -- would
have been a risk to your recruiting efforts for your
football program, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So there was some value in moving quickly? Let
me rephrase the question. So there was -A. I don't know if I'd categorize it as value. I
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was looking at it from a least harm aspect, so

however you want to characterize it.
Q. There was at least some value from the
recruiting perspective in having a more quick
resolution than an unknown long drawn-out procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. In light of all of that, do you believe sitting
here today that you made the right decision in
supporting President Erickson with the consent
decree?
A. I do.
Q. I want to talk briefly about the decision to
fire Coach Paterno. You previously -MR. SCOTT: This lawsuit has grown wildly
from its origins, but I don't think we're at the
point where this lawsuit involves that, but I'll let
you ask the question.
A. I won't agree that he was fired either.
BY MS. GRAGERT:
Q. Okay. How would you describe it?
A. He was removed from his duties as head football
coach.
Q. You previously stated that that was -- it
happened at a meeting on a Wednesday in November, is
that right?
877-702-9580
14
Keith Masser
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HAVERSTICK: I'm sorry. Did he testify

to that today or is that something -MS. GRAGERT: Yes, earlier.
MR. HAVERSTICK: That Paterno was removed?
MR. SCOTT: I missed that, as well.
MS. GRAGERT: My apology.
BY MS. GRAGERT:
Q. You earlier referred to an infamous meeting on a
Wednesday in November?
A. Right.
Q. Why were you referring to it as infamous?
A. Because we removed a president from his duties
and a head football coach, and we set a course to get
those events behind us. I refer to it as infamous
because how widely publicized it was and the news
media debacle that followed it.
Q. Was that decision to remove Coach Paterno a
challenging decision for you?
A. Personally?
Q. Yes.
A. It was.
Q. Did you ultimately vote in favor of removing
Coach Paterno from his duties?
A. I did.
Q. And on what basis?
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCOTT: I'm not going to let him

answer that question. It's so far afield from
anything that has anything to do with this case.
MS. GRAGERT: Understood. Let me just ask
a few more questions about this.
BY MS. GRAGERT:
Q. At that point there hadn't been any
investigation -- the Freeh firm had not yet been
hired to conduct investigations, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know if anyone had interviewed Coach
Paterno prior to that decision being made?
A. The decision to remove Coach Paterno had
nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't
done. It was based upon the distraction of having
him on the sidelines would have caused the
University and the harm to the current football
team. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno
had done or hadn't done.
Q. Did you believe that the Board had enough
information at that point in time to make the
decision it made?
A. Enough information that -- it was 32 members on
our board. Our Board is made up of members from
various modes of entry. The Board members are a
Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
diverse group of individuals, and the decision was

made in unanimity.
Q. You don't believe that that decision
constituted a rush to judgment, do you?
MR. SCOTT: Objection.
A. I don't like the way you asked the question.
You're saying what I believe what -BY MS. GRAGERT:
Q. Let me ask it this way.
A. We made a decision that we had to make. The
University made a decision.
Q. At that point the Grand Jury presentment had
come out on a Saturday, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the infamous meeting occurred the following
Wednesday?
A. Yes.
Q. So that's four days later?
A. Mm-hmm.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q.
But you believe that was sufficient time to

make the decision that you all made?
A. Yes.
MS. GRAGERT: I don't have any further
questions.
MR. SCOTT: Good job. You're done.
(The deposition concluded at 10:55 p.m.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
_________________
KEITH MASSER
14
15
16
17
18
Subscribed and sworn to before me

this _____ day of ________, 2014.
__________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
19
20
20
21
Page 57
// Testimony continues on folllowing page in order

to include jurat.
21
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
877-702-9580
15
Keith Masser
Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF YORK
)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
4
5
6
7
8
I further certify that said witness was by me

duly sworn to testify the whole and complete truth in
said cause; that the testimony then given was
reported by me stenographically, and subsequently
transcribed under my direction and supervision; and
that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
transcript of my original shorthand notes.
I further certify that I am not counsel for
nor related to any of the parties to the foregoing
cause, nor employed by them or their attorneys, and
am not interested in the subject matter or outcome
thereof.
Dated at York, Pennsylvania, this 25th day of
November, 2014.
17
18
19
20
I, Tracy L. Lloyd, Reporter and Notary Public

in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
County of York, do hereby certify that the foregoing
testimony was taken before me at the time and place
hereinbefore set forth, and that it is the testimony
of:
KEITH MASSER
8
9
Page 59
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
_______________________________
Tracy L. Lloyd, Notary Public
Registered Professional Reporter
20
21
22
23
(The foregoing certification does not apply to any

reproduction of the same by any means unless under
the direct control and/or supervision of the
certifying reporter.)
24
25
NAME OF CASE: Jake Corman v. NCAA

DATE OF DEPOSITION: 11-24-2014
NAME OF WITNESS: KEITH MASSER
Reason Codes:
1. To clarify the record.
2. To conform to the facts.
3. To correct transcription errors.
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______
From _____________________ to _____________________
________________________
KEITH MASSER
877-702-9580
16
Keith Masser
Page 1
A
a.m (5)
1:19 49:6,6 51:20,20
able (1)
45:9
accept (3)
31:18,19 43:14
accepted (1)
52:12
accepting (1)
35:5
accreditation (3)
21:12,21 23:9
action (16)
8:24 12:2,4,8,11,14
13:5 14:19 24:7,20
25:1 29:8,10 32:15
50:15 51:8
actions (4)
31:20 35:6,8,9
ad (1)
8:1
address (1)
11:14
advantageous (1)
35:13
advisors (1)
46:5
advocating (1)
17:11
afield (1)
55:2
afternoon (3)
9:14,25 10:21
ago (2)
27:1,11
agree (4)
45:5,6 47:3 53:18
agreed (6)
12:12 13:22 29:14
31:3 34:10 40:2
agreement (10)
37:5 39:1 44:9,16
45:11,22,24 46:3,4
46:7
agreement's (1)
39:25
ahead (2)
24:6 45:19
Alexis (2)
2:3 4:18
allegations (5)
8:5,20,21,23 9:3
Allen (2)
2:11 5:5
allowed (2)
44:7 51:24
alternatives (1)
35:3
amended (1)
44:11
and/or (1)
58:24
announced (1)
11:15
announcement (1)
48:11
answer (12)
12:20 17:23 20:24
24:4 25:15 28:15,17
30:13,24 41:11
49:18 55:2
answered (1)
28:21
answers (1)
5:20
anybody (1)
30:4
apologize (1)
7:17
apology (1)
54:6
APPEARANCES (1)
2:1
apply (1)
58:23
appointed (1)
15:16
appointing (2)
15:5,7
appreciate (1)
51:13
apprised (1)
8:19
appropriate (1)
31:4
Appropriations (1)
1:6
Arch (1)
2:20
aside (2)
27:19,23
asked (1)
56:6
asking (1)
14:4
aspect (2)
45:9 53:1
assessment (1)
46:9
assigned (1)
23:7
assist (1)
27:25
association (3)
1:10 2:18 21:22
assume (1)
50:7
assumed (1)
32:11
assuming (2)
31:9,9
athletes (1)
47:19
athletic (5)
1:10 2:18 44:16 45:11
46:3
athletics (1)
37:3
attend (1)
8:1
attention (1)
8:8
Attorney (1)
21:6
attorneys (1)
58:14
authority (12)
28:10 31:11 36:14,20
36:22 37:1,3,18
38:10,13 39:10 40:6
authorized (1)
39:2
available (4)
30:1,7 34:14 43:13
aware (20)
16:24 17:3 19:12,14
19:16,21,25 22:20
22:24 23:1,19,22,23
24:5 25:2,4 33:25
48:15,24 49:24
B
back (3)
12:20 31:7 44:24
Baldwin (2)
8:10,19
ban (1)
52:7
based (4)
37:5,6 38:14 55:15
basically (8)
9:22,25 12:1 18:16

27:6 35:1,3,18
basis (2)
8:1 54:25
becoming (1)
11:11
beg (1)
43:5
began (1)
14:4
believe (5)
53:7 55:20 56:3,7
57:1
beneficial (1)
44:14
benefit (2)
44:17 48:1
benefits (2)
34:25 47:22
best (2)
25:15 31:12
beyond (3)
37:11 44:16 50:19
Big (6)
22:14,16,18,21 37:1,7
board (70)
6:6,18,21 8:9 9:3
11:12,23,25 12:1,1
12:10,12,15,17,23
13:22 14:3,10,13,14
14:22 15:4,6,24
16:3,6,14 17:4,8,18
18:2,3,9,10,14 19:1
19:16,19 27:7 29:2
29:14 30:2,21 31:12
35:10,11 36:19,23
38:21 39:8,13,23,24
40:14,21,22 41:1
47:11 48:3,7,9,13
48:15,18,19,25
55:20,24,24,25
bodies (1)
51:8
bombarded (1)
21:13
bombardment (1)
21:3
BOT (2)
6:8,13
BOT's (1)
11:8
Boulevard (1)
2:8
bowl (1)
877-702-9580
52:7
Box (1)
2:15
breaching (1)
34:11
break (5)
5:24,25 6:3 29:22
51:19
breaks (1)
6:2
brief (2)
5:16 33:22
briefed (11)
26:10 28:6,7,9 29:11
32:14 34:21 36:4,12
36:17 42:19
briefing (12)
8:10 18:11,16,23 26:9
26:13 32:17,20,22
36:5 49:13 50:1
briefings (3)
15:23 26:19 34:12
briefly (1)
53:12
bring (1)
40:19
bringing (1)
33:25
broached (1)
11:20
broad (1)
29:13
broader (1)
39:7
brought (1)
8:7
Business (1)
7:10
bylaws (7)
15:4 22:10 23:21
37:13 38:14,15 39:3
C
call (28)
9:6,14,18,24 10:21
11:16,25 25:19 26:7
26:22,25 27:6,14
28:23 29:6,21 31:2
31:3,15,16,21,24,25
32:2,13 34:4 42:25
50:14
called (2)
4:7 51:4
calls (4)
Keith Masser
Page 2
27:13 31:18 34:3,23
capacity (2)
1:4,7
Capital (1)
7:10
care (1)
23:8
Carl (1)
7:5
case (3)
23:11 55:3 59:1
Casey (1)
6:23
catch (1)
10:13
categorize (1)
52:25
cause (2)
58:10,14
caused (1)
55:16
Center (1)
6:18
certain (8)
14:17 15:15,18 16:12
30:9 33:2,9 47:7
certainty (1)
43:19
certification (2)
4:3 58:23
certify (3)
58:4,9,13
certifying (1)
58:25
chain (1)
27:17
chair (21)
1:5 6:8,11,17,18,22
6:22,23 7:5,7,8,9,15
7:17,18 15:4,5,6
17:13 20:7,8
chairman (1)
6:17
chairs (2)
7:2,4
challenging (1)
54:18
characterize (2)
23:3 53:2
charge (1)
15:5
charging (1)
10:7
check (1)
45:12
chief (1)
9:22
Chill (1)
24:13
choose (1)
43:13
circle (1)
23:18
circumstances (1)
8:7
clarify (2)
21:1 59:5
clear (3)
26:17 36:13 38:3
clearly (1)
36:13
close (1)
23:18
cloud (1)
47:19
coach (9)
47:18 53:13,22 54:13
54:17,23 55:11,13
55:18
Codes (1)
59:4
collaborating (1)
22:21
College (1)
14:15
Collegiate (2)
1:10 2:17
come (4)
18:22 44:24 50:4
56:13
coming (4)
5:15 12:9,14 32:11
comments (1)
28:24
committed (1)
46:1
committee (69)
1:5 6:13,15 7:1,3,4,6
7:7,9,12,14,19,20
8:24 11:8,9,10,14
16:5 17:18 18:1,8
18:12,13,15 20:9
26:9,19 28:7,9
29:15 31:4,8 32:14
33:1 34:11,15,17,20
35:10 36:4,7,10,12
36:18 38:19,22,25
39:6,16,21 40:2,5,7
40:19,21,24 42:11
42:15,18,19,22,24
43:2,5 46:11 48:22
49:1 50:6
committees (3)
7:2,5 15:6
Commonwealth (4)
1:1,7 58:1,4
communicate (1)
47:25
communicated (4)
19:23 36:3 42:23 47:9
communicating (2)
30:8 34:10
community (1)
43:11
Compensation (1)
7:6
complement (1)
16:16
complete (2)
52:17 58:9
Compliance (1)
7:8
concern (1)
27:6
concerned (2)
25:24 47:18
concluded (1)
57:7
conclusion (1)
21:19
concurrent (1)
48:10
conduct (1)
55:9
conference (2)
9:24 11:25
confident (2)
36:22,23
confidential (2)
31:10 41:4
confidentiality (9)
29:16,18,21,24 30:16
34:12 39:10,14
40:16
conform (1)
59:6
confused (1)
25:10
Conrad (4)
2:2 4:16,19,21
consensus (3)
40:4,10,13
consent (60)
19:2,3 24:21 25:2,3,9
25:12,21 26:11
31:19 32:19,21
34:24 35:4,5,8,12
35:13,16 36:15,21
37:14,23 38:1,17
39:11,18,22,24 40:6
40:15,23 41:3,12,15
41:21,23,25 42:20
43:14,17,19,22 44:7
44:9,22 45:6 46:12
46:19,20 47:3,23,24
48:4,8,13 51:24
52:3,12 53:9
considerations (1)
47:21
consistent (2)
39:3,4
constituted (1)
56:4
contact (3)
19:8 23:2 49:10
contained (1)
42:16
context (3)
18:8 42:24 43:1
continues (1)
56:21
continuum (1)
46:23
contract (2)
36:24,25
control (2)
11:2 58:24
convene (1)
48:19
conversation (4)
8:13 9:20 30:19 46:10
conversations (2)
9:2 50:8
Corman (3)
1:3 4:25 59:1
correct (16)
6:10,12,13 12:16
13:19 38:4 49:2
52:8,10,14,21,22
55:10 56:13 58:11
59:7
counsel (34)
5:21 7:20,22,24 8:1
8:11,12,14 9:4,17
9:20 11:19 13:9,14
14:1 26:17 27:16,21
877-702-9580
28:5,12 33:1,2,4,11
33:14,17,19,20,24
34:1 37:12 38:9,11
58:13
county (3)
8:21 58:2,4
couple (2)
14:7 33:16
course (2)
34:7 54:13
COURT (1)
1:1
crimes (1)
10:7
crisis (1)
12:3
Cross (2)
3:3 51:21
crummy (1)
13:12
current (1)
55:17
cut (1)
44:13
Cynthia (1)
8:10
D
D (1)
3:1
D.C (1)
2:13
daily (1)
34:13
damaging (1)
43:9
Dambly (2)
7:9 15:13
Damiani (3)
2:4 4:20,20
Dandrea (1)
6:24
date (6)
1:18 16:8,20,22 49:23
59:2
Dated (1)
58:16
Davis (2)
2:7 4:22
day (6)
10:2,14 26:8 34:14
57:16 58:16
days (2)
25:20 56:18
Keith Masser
Page 3
deal (1)
12:2
dealing (1)
29:18
death (9)
27:5 32:2 35:18,20,21
35:23 43:16 47:2,12
debacle (1)
54:16
debate (1)
36:18
December (3)
16:12 20:10,12
decide (2)
17:1 36:19
decided (4)
14:8 32:14 34:20
39:21
decision (28)
18:14 31:7,11 36:11
36:14,15,23 37:14
39:23 40:8,10,14,25
42:15 43:7 48:20
53:8,12 54:17,18
55:12,13,22 56:1,3
56:10,11 57:2
decisions (3)
28:10 37:2 41:14
decree (59)
19:2,3 24:21 25:2,4,9
25:12,21 26:11
31:19 32:19,21
34:24 35:4,6,9,12
35:13,16 36:16,21
37:14,23 38:1,17
39:11,18,22,25 40:6
40:15,23 41:12,15
41:22,24,25 42:20
43:14,17,19,22 44:8
44:9,23 45:6 46:12
46:19,20 47:3,23,24
48:4,8,13 51:24
52:3,12 53:10
decree's (1)
41:3
Defendant (3)
1:11,13 2:17
define (1)
47:16
defined (4)
35:9,9 43:19,20
delegated (2)
12:14 37:4
deliberation (1)
40:3
demand (1)
41:7
Department (1)
21:5
deposed (1)
5:16
deposition (4)
1:16 5:23 57:7 59:2
describe (5)
8:7 9:17 12:3 13:8
53:20
desire (2)
32:9,10
desired (1)
41:3
details (1)
8:16
deter (1)
49:21
developing (1)
14:19
difference (1)
17:25
different (3)
8:21 25:12 28:14
dire (2)
29:6 32:4
direct (3)
3:3 5:10 58:24
direction (1)
58:11
disclosed (1)
30:1
disclosing (1)
30:5
discuss (4)
5:21 8:2 10:18 29:12
discussed (15)
9:9 14:9 15:21,25
27:5 31:23 36:11
38:20 39:1,5 44:2,4
45:25 46:20,24
discussing (1)
36:5
discussion (15)
12:17,22 13:5,8,13
29:13 34:16,17 39:7
39:9,15 42:12 43:12
43:15 50:6
discussions (11)
22:17 23:7 26:18
29:17 30:5 33:20
34:8 40:20 42:13
49:1 50:3
distraction (1)
55:15
District (1)
1:4
diverse (1)
56:1
document (3)
42:6 43:6 46:17
doing (12)
5:19 19:25 20:1,20,21
21:6,16 22:5 23:5
49:15,20,21
drawn-out (1)
53:5
driving (1)
25:6
duly (2)
4:8 58:9
Dunham (3)
33:7,16 38:11
duties (3)
53:21 54:12,23
E
E (1)
3:1
Eagleview (1)
2:8
earlier (11)
10:6,13 25:7 28:13,17
28:18 30:14 42:12
51:23 54:3,8
eased (1)
52:5
Eckel (3)
7:2,6 15:13
Ed (1)
6:21
Education (2)
15:12 21:5
efforts (1)
52:20
either (4)
17:17 31:18 45:3
53:18
elected (2)
6:8 11:11
Eleventh (1)
2:12
eminent (1)
12:3
Emmert (3)
27:13 28:24 29:3
Emmert's (1)
48:11
employed (1)
58:14
employee (1)
8:22
ended (1)
15:9
engaged (1)
19:16
engagement (2)
16:22 17:24
entail (1)
32:23
enter (1)
36:20
entities (1)
21:3
entrusted (1)
34:19
entry (1)
55:25
Erickson (51)
25:19 26:1,7,9,13,15
26:19,22,24 27:7,10
27:12 28:22 29:8,17
30:3,8,15,20 31:6
31:11,24 32:1,5
34:5,9,15,22 35:4
35:11,15,25 36:13
37:13 38:13 39:2
40:5,19 41:23 42:8
42:14,20,22 43:1,3
46:11 47:8,15 50:13
51:4 53:9
Erickson's (5)
36:20 37:18 38:10
40:7,25
errors (1)
59:7
evening (6)
10:12 11:21 14:13,14
32:18 38:2
event (1)
50:25
events (2)
27:18 54:14
everybody (1)
4:11
everyone's (1)
44:16
evolving (1)
46:21
EXAMINATION (2)
877-702-9580
5:10 51:21
examined (1)
4:8
exceed (2)
45:10 46:2
executed (1)
38:18
executing (2)
6:1 46:12
execution (2)
39:25 48:8
executive (70)
6:13,15 7:1,3,11,14
7:19,20 8:9,24 11:7
11:9,10,14 16:2,5
17:17 18:1,8,11,12
18:13,15 26:9,19
28:7,8 29:15 31:3,8
31:22 32:14 33:1,23
34:5,11,15,16,20
35:10 36:4,7,10,12
36:18 38:19,22,25
39:6,16,21 40:2,4,7
40:19,20,24 42:11
42:15,18,19,21,24
43:2,4,4 46:11
48:22,25 50:6
expectation (6)
16:1 20:14,18 21:25
22:8 51:7
expectations (4)
44:17,20 45:10 46:2
expected (1)
21:18
expert (1)
34:1
expertise (2)
28:6,13
explain (1)
9:8
explained (1)
35:15
explaining (1)
35:11
extent (1)
8:13
Exton (1)
2:8
F
fact (2)
36:12 52:3
facts (1)
59:6
Keith Masser
Page 4
failures (1)
13:19
fairly (3)
15:15,18 16:12
far (4)
28:18 41:2 48:12 55:2
fast (2)
29:5 32:8
faster (1)
24:18
Faulkner (2)
33:7,8
favor (1)
54:22
feedback (1)
17:15
feel (2)
5:24 6:3
felt (2)
21:7 23:7
filing (1)
4:4
filled (1)
16:16
filling (1)
27:7
final (2)
42:20 46:10
Finance (1)
7:10
find (2)
12:5 13:18
findings (1)
25:25
fire (1)
53:13
fired (1)
53:18
firm (3)
14:6 17:6 55:8
firms (2)
12:18 16:24
first (27)
4:13 8:4 9:11 11:19
14:9 16:11,15 19:5
22:20 23:19 26:21
27:14 28:23 29:20
31:2,15,16,21,24,25
32:2 36:17 39:5
49:10 50:9 51:2,4
fiscally (1)
37:2
five (5)
6:23 25:20 49:3 51:16
51:17
folks (1)
23:24
folllowing (1)
56:21
followed (1)
54:16
following (4)
11:22 14:13,14 56:15
follows (1)
4:8
football (5)
47:18 52:21 53:21
54:13 55:17
force (16)
14:5,10,25 15:8,10,16
15:23 16:1,4,9,25
18:22 23:7,11,13
50:4
force's (1)
17:11
foregoing (4)
58:4,11,13,23
forestall (1)
51:8
forget (2)
6:25 14:22
form (19)
4:5 17:20,21 19:10,11
20:17 21:23 22:11
22:23 24:1,8,23
34:6 40:1 41:9 45:1
45:7,17 47:4
formal (1)
50:5
formality (1)
5:25
formed (3)
11:8 13:25 16:9
former (1)
8:22
forming (1)
12:23
formulated (2)
34:24 43:23
formulating (1)
35:2
forth (1)
58:5
forward (1)
14:20
four (1)
56:18
four-year (2)
43:20 46:4
frame (2)
38:12 46:15
Frank (2)
33:9,9
Frazier (7)
7:1,8 15:12,19 17:13
17:14,16
Freeh (23)
16:17 17:12 19:22
20:11,14 21:16,19
21:20,25 22:3,8,18
22:22 23:2,7,20,24
23:25 25:11,25
49:11 51:7 55:8
Freeh's (1)
17:6
frequent (1)
26:18
fulfilling (1)
46:2
full (33)
8:9 11:12 12:15 16:6
16:14 17:4,8,18
18:2,9,10 29:14
34:20 36:3,19,23
38:21 39:8,23,24
40:14,21,22,25
42:15,18,19,21 48:3
48:7,9,15 58:11
further (4)
8:16 57:4 58:9,13
future (2)
16:2,2
G
Garban (3)
14:3,23,24
Gardner (3)
2:11 5:5,5
Gene (8)
27:20,21 28:8,16
33:19,22,22 34:2
general (4)
13:21 28:5 29:1 33:17
General's (1)
21:6
generally (1)
49:24
Gephart (2)
2:14 5:7
getting (2)
25:10 27:16
gist (1)
5:18
give (4)
6:19 24:16 47:12 49:3
given (2)
23:20 58:10
go (7)
4:13 5:22 31:6,22
44:12 45:19 49:4
going (13)
8:18 11:1 13:10,14
17:1 23:16,25 29:4
31:21 37:9 39:22,24
55:1
good (8)
5:12,13 13:3 27:3
29:5,18 39:15 57:6
governance (3)
7:7 29:19 39:15
Gragert (31)
2:12 3:5 5:3,3 17:20
19:11 20:17 21:24
22:11,23 24:1,8,11
24:13,23 30:23 31:1
41:9 45:1,17 47:5
51:16,22 53:19 54:3
54:6,7 55:4,6 56:8
57:4
Graham (2)
10:1,21
Grand (2)
10:6 56:12
grave (1)
27:6
group (20)
12:23 13:25 16:17,23
17:13 20:11,14
21:16,19,20 22:3,8
22:22 23:2,20,24,25
49:11 51:8 56:1
groups (2)
11:7 21:21
grown (1)
53:14
Guadagnino (1)
33:9
guidance (1)
27:17
guide (1)
27:17
H
half (5)
22:20 23:19 49:10
50:9 51:2
877-702-9580
handle (2)
11:2,8
happen (4)
16:4 35:16 41:19 42:4
happened (5)
9:18 18:7,19 50:11
53:24
happening (2)
21:10 32:7
harm (2)
53:1 55:17
harmful (1)
48:1
Harrisburg (2)
1:21 2:16
harsher (4)
44:20,24 45:6,16
Haverstick (36)
2:2 3:4 4:12,14,15 5:1
5:11 8:17 10:3
17:22 20:3,23 22:2
22:13,25 23:17 24:3
24:9,12,15,19 25:5
26:12 31:5 38:5,7
40:9 41:10 45:4,18
49:3,7 51:12,18
54:1,4
head (6)
10:23 19:4 22:6 48:14
53:21 54:13
hereinbefore (1)
58:5
Hershey (2)
6:18,21
Hintz (1)
6:21
hire (2)
12:5 17:11
hired (4)
12:18 20:15 33:11
55:9
hiring (2)
17:8 28:8
hoc (1)
8:1
hope (1)
5:15
hopeful (1)
20:19
hopefully (4)
5:19 22:4 44:17 51:7
hopes (1)
46:3
hoping (1)
Keith Masser
Page 5
49:14
hours (2)
43:22 44:6
I
idea (2)
11:18 12:7
immediate (3)
6:17,21 11:22
immediately (2)
6:10 42:7
impact (2)
30:6 47:20
impending (1)
50:15
impose (1)
35:7
imposed (4)
35:20,21 39:11 46:8
imposition (1)
47:2
include (2)
7:24 56:22
includes (2)
6:16 7:4
including (1)
51:9
increased (1)
45:15
independent (4)
12:5 20:21 23:5 49:19
indicated (1)
32:5
individuals (1)
56:1
infamous (5)
14:15 54:8,11,14
56:15
inform (1)
39:24
informal (1)
6:2
information (17)
8:14 11:3 18:13,21
20:5 21:15,20 23:13
29:10,13 33:25
34:14,18 39:12
42:17 55:21,23
informed (8)
17:18 26:2 27:3 31:12
40:14 41:25 42:6
48:3
inhouse (2)
33:4,10
initial (1)
26:7
initially (1)
26:15
initiated (1)
14:18
input (1)
17:15
inside (1)
34:7
integrity (3)
44:16 45:11 46:3
intent (1)
44:15
intercollegiate (1)
37:3
interest (1)
18:4
interested (6)
19:13,19 22:15 23:4
26:3 58:14
interim (1)
34:23
internal (3)
13:17 20:19 21:8
interrupt (1)
24:11
interview (1)
23:25
interviewed (2)
16:25 55:11
introductions (1)
5:14
investigate (2)
13:16 22:9
investigating (1)
22:15
investigation (31)
12:19,24 13:17,23
16:18 17:2 19:15,17
19:20,22 20:1,2,16
20:19,20,22 21:7,8
21:17,19,25 22:4,22
23:5 35:22,22 49:16
49:20,22,22 55:8
investigations (5)
21:4,13 22:5 35:19
55:9
investigative (6)
11:19 14:6 15:22 16:9
18:22 20:8
investigator (1)
12:5
invitation (2)
8:3 9:19
involved (6)
26:17 27:9 33:1,3
49:13 52:16
involvement (1)
29:12
involves (1)
53:16
issue (7)
8:2 21:9 27:9 29:19
39:8 43:21 51:3
issued (1)
22:19
issues (4)
23:21 27:25 28:6
34:12
items (1)
25:3
34:20 49:14,14,15
keeping (1)
31:12
Keith (11)
1:16 3:3 5:8 7:2,6
15:13 42:14 57:13
58:7 59:3,25
Ken (6)
7:1,7 15:11 17:13,14
17:16
kept (1)
41:4
Kevin (3)
2:7 4:7,22
Killian (2)
2:14 5:6
kind (3)
8:14 21:9 26:3
kinds (2)
35:24 47:21
knew (9)
11:23 12:5 13:18 25:7
29:3 41:21 47:6,8
49:17
know (44)
13:16 15:11,17,19,19
15:25 16:8,20 18:2
19:18,21,24 22:17
23:6,16 27:23 28:1
28:2,16,18,19,20
29:1 30:21 31:6,10
31:14 37:16,24
46:18,21 47:6,13
48:3,7,12,15,17
49:12,12,18,23
52:25 55:11
knowing (3)
31:8 47:20 49:1
knowledge (3)
19:23 30:15 48:24
known (2)
23:12 55:14
knows (1)
4:11
J
Jake (2)
1:3 59:1
January (3)
6:9 7:18 18:6
jeopardizing (1)
31:13
Jerry (4)
8:5 10:7 18:4,18
job (3)
1:25 12:14 57:6
John (1)
14:4
join (2)
21:24 47:5
judgment (1)
56:4
July (2)
6:7 18:6
jump (1)
24:6
jurat (1)
56:22
Jury (2)
10:6 56:12
K
Karen (12)
6:11,22 15:13,19 20:7
25:19 26:2 34:19
42:13 50:2,8,13
Kathleen (1)
6:23
keep (8)
5:15 21:14 29:11 31:9
L
L (3)
1:22 58:3,20
laid (1)
12:2
language (5)
44:7,8 45:2,12,23
large (2)
6:24,25
877-702-9580
late (1)
9:25
LATHAM (1)
2:11
Latsha (2)
2:7 4:22
lawsuit (2)
53:14,16
leadership (4)
11:12 12:1 14:3 27:7
leak (1)
39:12
leaked (2)
39:18 41:15
leaking (1)
40:22
leaks (3)
42:16,16,17
leaning (1)
36:14
learn (4)
8:8 18:3 21:8 49:9
learned (13)
8:9 18:1,2 19:1 21:20
24:6,20 25:17 48:7
48:13 50:3,12,14
learning (3)
8:4,23 19:5
led (1)
30:19
legal (10)
7:8 32:25 33:2,4,19
33:19,20 37:11,18
46:5
let's (4)
24:6 26:21,21 41:24
letter (2)
16:22 49:17
level (2)
5:25 50:22
lifted (2)
52:7,9
light (1)
53:7
likelihood (1)
47:1
line (10)
45:16 49:19 59:8,10
59:12,14,16,18,20
59:22
little (3)
11:3 51:17,18
Lloyd (3)
1:22 58:3,20
Keith Masser
Page 6
Logan (1)
2:20
long (3)
6:5 7:11 53:5
longer (1)
41:19
look (3)
43:24 44:2,10
looked (1)
45:25
looking (12)
27:3 29:5 35:1,2,4,11
44:21 45:8,9 46:15
47:22 53:1
lot (3)
24:18 39:9 50:2
Louis (1)
17:6
M
M (2)
1:6 2:12
MacNett (3)
2:3 4:16,16
Madden (3)
2:3 4:18,18
main (2)
10:17 11:23
maintained (1)
30:16
making (1)
36:11
map (1)
43:20
Mark (6)
7:9 15:13 29:3 33:7,8
48:10
Market (1)
2:4
Marsh (9)
27:20,21,24 28:8,16
33:20,22,22 34:2
Masser (17)
1:16 3:3 4:7,11,14 5:8
5:8,12 6:5 8:12
42:14 51:12,23
57:13 58:7 59:3,25
Matt (1)
4:15
matter (7)
9:7,9 10:18 11:14
13:6 32:6 58:14
matters (1)
5:21
Matthew (1)
2:2
McCombie (1)
6:24
McCord (2)
1:6 4:25
McKENNA (5)
2:7,7 4:22,22,23
mean (17)
10:16 15:19 21:18
24:11,25 25:23 30:4
31:18 33:10 36:10
38:8,9 39:7,9 42:6
42:17 44:13
means (1)
58:23
meant (1)
7:16
media (3)
10:5,13 54:16
Medical (1)
6:18
meet (3)
18:12 34:18 45:10
meeting (33)
8:10 10:17 11:5,6,12
12:17,22,25 13:4,13
13:24 14:16,18,19
15:21,22 16:15,23
17:7,10 18:8,9 19:1
26:20 36:8,19 46:16
46:18,22 48:9 53:24
54:8 56:15
meetings (4)
11:13 16:3 20:15 41:2
meets (2)
7:19,20
member (6)
6:6,25 22:16,16 40:18
48:25
member's (1)
14:22
members (21)
6:16,24 9:3 11:25
12:10,23 14:10 15:7
15:11,17,18 30:2
31:12 39:13 40:22
47:10 48:18,21
55:23,24,25
membership (5)
36:24 37:6,7 39:1,4
memorable (1)
50:24
memory (2)
15:14,15
mention (1)
27:12
mentioned (1)
7:7
mentioning (1)
32:1
met (7)
4:15 5:4 11:10,23
14:13,14 20:11
Michael (1)
2:19
Middle (1)
21:11
Mike (1)
5:2
mind (2)
4:10 49:8
minutes (3)
49:4 51:17,17
Mischaracterizes (1)
24:2
missed (1)
54:5
misunderstood (2)
25:6,14
Mm-hmm (1)
56:19
modes (1)
55:25
molestation (1)
8:5
Monday (3)
1:18 38:2 48:10
morning (4)
5:12,13 10:6 42:5
motion (1)
40:4
moving (2)
14:20 52:23
mutual (2)
44:9 45:24
N
N (1)
3:1
name (4)
4:14 14:22 59:1,3
named (1)
51:9
names (1)
6:19
National (2)
1:10 2:17
NCAA (66)
5:3,5,7 13:5 17:19
18:4,17 19:8,12,15
19:19,24 20:1,11,15
20:20 21:14,22
22:10 23:2,5,19,21
23:23 24:7,20 25:1
25:8,17,24 26:1,3
27:4,9,13,25 28:6
28:11 29:1,21,23
30:6,14 31:7,7,20
32:11,15 34:8 35:7
35:20 36:25 37:5
41:3,7 44:23 47:11
48:16 49:1,11,15,21
50:15 51:3,9 59:1
NCAA's (3)
32:9 39:1 40:15
need (7)
5:24 8:15 9:7 12:12
13:11 36:23 51:16
needed (1)
34:17
negative (1)
46:13
negatively (1)
47:20
negotiations (1)
48:16
neither (1)
32:10
never (3)
11:10 18:13 19:7
new (1)
34:14
news (1)
54:15
newspaper (1)
10:9
night (3)
10:11 14:12,16
Nodding (4)
10:23 19:4 22:6 48:14
North (1)
1:20
Notary (4)
1:22 57:18 58:3,20
notes (1)
58:12
notified (2)
9:23 27:15
November (7)
1:18 9:11 16:13,14
53:24 54:9 58:16
877-702-9580
NW (1)
2:12
O
O'Brian (1)
4:17
O'Brien (3)
2:2 4:19,21
object (19)
9:17 17:20,21 19:10
19:11 20:17 21:23
22:11,23 24:1,8,17
24:23 40:1 41:9
45:1,7,17 47:4
objection (4)
21:24 23:14 47:5 56:5
objections (1)
4:4
obtained (1)
21:15
occasion (1)
10:18
occur (2)
32:17 42:13
occurred (2)
13:19 56:15
occurring (1)
19:13
offered (2)
9:20 26:11
Office (1)
21:6
official (2)
1:3,6
officials (1)
19:9
Oh (1)
16:19
okay (7)
6:4 11:13 16:24 24:17
31:8 49:3 53:20
Old (1)
11:23
once (1)
20:15
ones (1)
48:21
open (3)
45:5,10,24
open-ended (1)
47:17
opened (2)
44:8 45:2
operating (1)
Keith Masser
Page 7
51:1
opinion (14)
37:12,18,22 38:1,4,8
38:9,12,16,20,23
40:5,18 51:1
option (12)
32:21 35:8,18 39:12
40:23,23 41:17,20
41:22 43:9,23 47:16
options (15)
25:4 26:16 29:25 30:1
30:7 31:13,14,15,23
35:15,24 36:3 43:12
46:13 48:1
oral (2)
38:5,6
order (1)
56:21
orders (1)
15:5
organization (1)
36:25
organizations (2)
22:5,14
original (1)
58:12
origins (1)
53:15
outcome (1)
58:14
outline (1)
32:23
outlined (1)
10:24
outlook (1)
44:21
outreach (2)
17:19 18:18
outside (8)
5:4 7:24 8:1 9:3 27:16
27:21 33:10,14
oversee (1)
12:24
P
p.m (1)
57:7
P.O (1)
2:15
page (9)
56:21 59:8,10,12,14
59:16,18,20,22
paraphrase (1)
14:2
pardon (2)
30:25 43:5
part (1)
23:15
participation (2)
14:24 15:3
particularly (1)
50:24
parties (2)
4:3 58:13
Paterno (7)
53:13 54:4,17,23
55:12,13,18
path (1)
27:8
Peetz (15)
6:11,22 15:13,20 20:7
25:19 26:23 28:23
29:9 30:20 34:5
42:13 50:2,8,13
penalties (1)
47:16
penalty (10)
27:5 31:23 32:2 35:18
35:20,21,23 43:16
47:2,12
Penn (59)
5:2,8 6:5 13:5,19
17:19 18:15,18 19:8
19:14 20:2,18 21:3
21:10,13 22:9,15
23:11 24:7,21 25:8
25:18 26:4 27:3,24
29:5 30:4,4,6 32:10
32:12 33:12,13,17
34:7,8 35:7 36:9
37:5,12,19 38:14
40:24 41:16,19 43:8
43:10,13 44:14,14
44:17,19,24 45:5
46:1,5,13 47:2,12
Pennsylvania (13)
1:1,5,7,13,21 2:5,8,16
2:21,22 58:1,4,16
people's (1)
46:2
perform (4)
12:18 13:14 44:15,19
performing (1)
45:11
period (5)
23:1 34:21,23 43:24
52:17
periodic (5)
23:2 26:5,18,18 34:12

periodically (2)
16:5 26:10
permitted (1)
37:13
person (2)
11:24 14:15
personal (2)
42:25 46:9
personally (2)
45:25 54:19
personnel (2)
20:11,11
perspective (1)
53:4
Philadelphia (2)
2:5,21
phone (12)
27:14 28:23 29:6,21
31:2,3,15,16,18,21
34:23 42:25
Pine (1)
2:15
place (10)
1:20 13:23 19:15 30:5
35:19,22,23 43:22
49:25 58:5
Plaintiff (1)
1:17
Plaintiffs (2)
1:8 2:10
Planning (1)
7:10
play (2)
32:2 47:13
please (4)
6:20 18:2 21:2 24:12
point (13)
12:13 13:3 18:3 27:4
33:6 37:17 38:12
46:23 48:16 53:16
55:7,21 56:12
points (1)
5:20
Poole (1)
9:22
posed (1)
25:1
position (2)
23:16 33:18
positions (1)
6:16
positive (2)
44:21 45:9
possibility (1)
25:7
possible (4)
19:14 32:3 35:6 47:6
potential (10)
8:19 13:5 25:17 30:9
39:17 40:15 41:4
43:16 44:23 45:15
potentials (1)
36:1
PowerPoint (1)
23:20
practice (1)
52:2
preclude (3)
21:16 45:13 49:22
presence (1)
9:4
present (1)
7:20
presentation (5)
10:1,6,22 23:20 42:8
presented (3)
10:1,4 29:25
presentment (4)
10:11,24 11:4 56:12
president (41)
9:23 26:13,22,24 27:7
27:10,12,13 28:9,22
28:24 29:8,17 30:3
30:8,15,20 31:6,10
31:23 32:1,5 34:5
34:22 35:15,25
36:20 37:1,4,13,18
38:9,13 39:2 41:23
42:8 43:3 46:11
50:13 53:9 54:12
president's (1)
39:10
presidents (2)
29:2 47:10
press (4)
10:2,5 39:13 40:22
presume (1)
10:10
pretty (1)
14:19
prevent (4)
20:1,20 21:9 22:4
previously (3)
19:18 53:13,23
primarily (1)
17:16
prior (35)
877-702-9580
10:9,16 11:11 16:16

16:23 17:24 19:7
22:18 25:2,8,11,23
25:24,25 26:11
27:23 32:19 37:16
37:16,24 39:25
41:23 42:1,7,22
43:4,5 44:22 45:21
46:11,16 48:10
50:12,12 55:12
private (1)
11:13
probably (4)
7:13 14:17,18 25:20
procedure (1)
53:5
proceeded (1)
6:10
process (3)
30:17 51:8 52:16
Professional (2)
1:22 58:20
program (1)
52:21
progressing (1)
27:8
proposed (2)
23:24 25:3
provide (5)
5:20 8:15 15:23 16:1
27:17
provided (8)
23:23 34:15 37:17
38:11,17 42:21
43:21 47:23
providing (2)
17:15 26:3
provisions (2)
29:16 51:24
public (7)
1:22 18:12 22:1 41:16
57:18 58:3,20
publicized (1)
54:15
publicly (1)
36:16
purpose (1)
5:1
purposes (1)
19:17
put (4)
32:22 44:9 47:14,15
putting (1)
21:12
Keith Masser
Page 8
Q
qualifications (1)
28:7
question (17)
4:5 12:21 13:11,12
23:10 24:10,14,16
24:25 28:17 29:22
30:13,14 52:24
53:17 55:2 56:6
questioning (1)
4:10
questions (9)
5:19 14:7 23:24 25:10
49:8 51:14,15 55:5
57:5
quick (1)
53:4
quickly (3)
32:6,12 52:23
R
radar (2)
23:6 26:1
rationale (1)
43:17
read (2)
10:10,11
reading (1)
10:9
real (1)
26:16
really (4)
6:1 10:16 25:14 51:13
reason (10)
28:8 59:4,8,10,12,14
59:16,18,20,22
reasons (2)
35:12 36:16
recall (60)
7:13 8:4 9:2,9,22
10:19 11:4,5,18
12:7,8,10 13:4 15:2
15:9 17:7,10 18:7
18:17,20,21 20:12
20:13 22:15 25:15
25:16 26:23 27:2,15
27:15 28:21 29:3
31:22 32:1,4,5,7,9
32:20 33:18 34:2,22
35:10,14,14 36:7,18
37:9,11,17 38:16
43:3 46:5,10 50:1,5
50:11,19,22 51:25
recap (1)
31:21
receiving (3)
34:6 37:9,11
Recess (2)
49:6 51:20
recollection (1)
18:25
recommendation (4)
17:3,5,11 36:8
recommendations (1)
12:9
recommended (1)
17:8
record (2)
49:5 59:5
Recross (1)
3:3
recruit (1)
47:19
recruiting (2)
52:20 53:4
Redirect (1)
3:3
reductions (1)
52:9
Reed (2)
2:19 33:15
refer (1)
54:14
referred (2)
34:1 54:8
referring (3)
10:5 29:1 54:11
regard (2)
23:16 28:10
regarding (1)
37:12
Registered (2)
1:22 58:20
regular (1)
15:23
reiterated (2)
39:16 46:12
related (1)
58:13
relatively (1)
5:15
released (1)
25:11
remaining (1)
11:24
remember (13)
13:8 16:21 17:14 19:5
20:4 27:2,10 31:14
32:24 38:23 39:5

48:2 49:24
remove (2)
54:17 55:13
removed (3)
53:21 54:4,12
removing (2)
40:23 54:22
reopened (3)
46:7 51:25 52:3
rephrase (1)
52:24
report (5)
10:9 12:15 22:18
25:11,25
reported (1)
58:10
reporter (4)
1:22 58:3,20,25
reports (2)
10:5,13
represent (1)
4:24
representative (1)
6:19
representing (1)
5:7
reproduction (1)
58:23
request (2)
29:9 40:16
requested (1)
21:4
required (2)
29:21,23
reserved (1)
4:5
resolution (2)
30:9 53:5
resolved (1)
32:6
respective (1)
4:3
response (1)
11:8
responsibilities (1)
23:15
responsibility (1)
15:7
responsible (2)
14:10 15:3
rest (2)
15:24 48:12
result (5)
8:23 13:6 32:13 35:23

39:22
resulted (2)
43:25,25
retained (8)
11:19 16:17 27:24
28:13,16,17,18
33:15
reward (1)
45:14
Rick (1)
6:24
right (23)
5:18 9:13 10:8 19:6
23:10 24:20 32:15
32:16 33:12 34:25
37:8 39:7 40:13,17
49:8 50:16 51:11
52:13,17 53:8,25
54:10 55:9
risk (9)
31:19 40:21 45:13,14
45:15,20 46:1 47:7
52:20
road (1)
43:20
Rob (1)
4:25
ROBERT (1)
1:6
Rod (26)
25:19 26:1,7,9,15,19
31:11 34:9,9,15,20
35:4,11 36:12 40:5
40:7,19,24 42:14,14
42:19,22 43:1 47:8
47:14 51:4
role (2)
13:9,13
Ron (2)
15:12 17:14
room (2)
1:20 4:11
Rossman (1)
2:3
rough (2)
14:2 32:22
Roughly (1)
7:15
rules (4)
37:6,7,19 39:4
run (3)
31:7,19 40:21
run-up (1)
877-702-9580
46:6
rush (1)
56:4
Ryan (1)
6:24
S
sanction (2)
32:3 44:24
sanctions (11)
25:8,17 26:4,16 44:1
44:3,20 45:6,16
46:8 52:5
Sandusky (12)
8:5 9:7,9 10:7,18
11:14 13:6 18:4,18
21:9 27:9 43:21
Sarah (5)
2:4,12 4:20 5:3 24:15
Saturday (5)
9:11 10:16,17 11:22
56:13
saw (1)
10:11
saying (4)
6:3 40:13 43:3 56:7
scheduled (1)
9:24
scholarship (1)
52:9
Scott (27)
2:15,19 3:6 4:9,13,24
5:2,2,6,6 8:12 9:19
17:21 19:10 21:23
23:14 25:22 38:3
40:1 45:7 47:4
51:15 53:14 54:5
55:1 56:5 57:6
sealing (1)
4:3
second (1)
13:4
Secretary (1)
15:12
see (1)
10:10
seeking (1)
14:4
select (1)
14:6
Senate (1)
1:5
Senator (2)
1:4 4:24
Keith Masser
Page 9
Senatorial (1)
1:4
sense (2)
29:4 47:11
sent (1)
49:17
sentiments (3)
47:8,9,12
separate (1)
20:21
serve (2)
14:5,5
session (9)
8:9,15 31:22 33:23
34:6 39:6,17 43:4,5
sessions (4)
16:2 18:11,11,16
set (2)
54:13 58:5
settlement (1)
30:9
seven (1)
7:4
Shaffer (1)
7:5
shared (1)
21:21
short (2)
26:8 51:17
shortened (1)
46:4
shorthand (2)
9:7 58:12
shortly (2)
11:5 38:21
shy (1)
6:3
sidelines (1)
55:16
sides (1)
46:1
sign (3)
35:5 40:6,8
signed (17)
16:22 19:2,3 24:22
25:2,9,12,21 32:19
35:12,17 37:23 38:2
38:2 42:21 46:14
48:5
significant (2)
50:24 51:3
signing (13)
35:13 41:23 42:1,7,22
43:6,17 45:22 46:6
46:17,19 47:22,23
sit (2)
16:20 50:19
sitting (1)
53:7
situation (4)
11:2 18:5,19 19:13
six (1)
25:20
Smith (2)
2:19 33:15
softening (1)
44:1
Solicited (1)
14:24
soliciting (1)
15:3
somebody (1)
26:14
sorry (3)
39:23 44:5 54:1
sort (2)
14:1 37:10
sound (1)
50:23
Spanier (3)
9:23 10:1,22
Spanier's (1)
11:15
speak (2)
5:25 10:4
special (19)
11:18 12:18,23 13:9
13:14,22 14:1,5,6
15:6,7,22 16:8,18
17:1 18:22 20:8
27:16 50:4
specific (12)
13:16,21 18:24,25
19:24 22:17 27:2
28:5 31:23 35:9
48:18,21
specifically (15)
13:15 17:9 19:21
22:12 26:23 27:20
27:21 28:15,25
37:15,25,25 41:21
48:17 49:12
specificity (1)
50:22
specifics (1)
8:18
speculating (1)
28:1
speculation (2)
28:4,12
spoke (1)
17:10
Square (1)
2:20
SS (1)
58:1
staff (1)
9:23
staffed (3)
16:9,13,14
standing (2)
7:5 15:5
start (4)
4:9 26:21,21 41:24
started (1)
26:15
State (56)
1:13 2:22 5:2,9 6:5
13:6,19 14:15 17:19
18:15,18 19:8,14
20:2 21:3,6,10,14
22:9,15 23:12 24:7
24:21 25:8,18 26:4
27:4,24 29:5 30:4,4
30:6 32:12 33:12,13
33:17 34:7,8 35:7
36:9 40:24 41:16,19
43:9,10,13 44:14,15
44:18,19,24 45:5
46:2,13 47:2,12
State's (7)
20:18 32:10 37:5,13
37:19 38:14 46:5
stated (4)
19:18 23:4 36:16
53:23
States (1)
21:11
stenographically (1)
58:10
Stephen (1)
2:3
steps (7)
8:24 12:2,4,8,12,14
14:19
Steve (6)
4:16 14:3 33:6,8,16
38:11
stipulated (2)
4:2 29:16
STIPULATION (1)
4:1
Street (5)
1:20 2:4,12,15,20
strict (1)
30:16
strike (2)
22:7 50:23
student (1)
47:19
stuff (1)
10:25
subject (1)
58:14
Subscribed (1)
57:15
subsequent (1)
15:22
subsequently (2)
43:25 58:10
subset (1)
13:25
subsets (1)
11:7
sufficient (1)
57:1
summary (1)
12:11
Sunday (8)
11:21,22 13:4,12
14:12 42:5,5 46:16
supervision (2)
58:11,24
supported (1)
40:24
supporting (1)
53:9
supportive (1)
40:7
supposed (1)
22:9
sure (7)
4:12 16:19 20:24 23:3
31:7 38:8 40:17
Surma (2)
14:4,21
surprise (1)
51:5
surrounding (2)
22:18 43:10
suspension (1)
32:2
sworn (3)
4:8 57:15 58:9
877-702-9580
table (3)
30:11 32:22 39:19
take (18)
6:3 8:24 13:23 19:15
21:18 29:13,14
31:20 35:19,22,22
39:8,22 40:25 43:23
44:10 47:7 51:18
taken (8)
1:17 30:10,11 39:18
49:6 51:20 52:16
58:5
talk (1)
53:12
talked (1)
16:25
talking (2)
38:4,6
task (17)
14:5,10,25 15:7,9,16
15:23 16:1,4,9,25
17:11 18:22 23:7,11
23:13 50:4
tasks (1)
13:14
team (1)
55:18
telephone (10)
9:13,18 10:21 11:15
26:22,24 27:12
32:13 34:4 50:14
tell (2)
25:16 32:20
telling (5)
26:24 30:15 34:22
36:1 46:6
Ten (6)
22:14,17,18,21 37:1,7
terminology (1)
40:17
terms (15)
6:1,2 19:24 30:10
35:5 36:24 39:17,25
40:15 41:4,12,15,25
44:25 48:4
test (2)
47:14,15
testified (3)
4:8 51:23 52:11
testify (2)
54:1 58:9
testimony (7)
24:2 25:7 51:25 56:21
58:5,5,10
Keith Masser
Page 10
Thank (3)
5:14 14:24 51:12
Thanks (1)
24:18
thereof (1)
58:15
things (6)
22:8 23:9 27:3,8
35:25 43:18
think (15)
9:24 14:21 16:11
28:21 30:13,23
33:16,24,24 37:24
38:19 48:9,10 49:4
53:15
thinking (1)
34:13
Thomas (1)
2:15
thought (1)
44:5
Three (1)
2:20
time (33)
4:6 5:20 8:4,25 9:6,8
12:4 16:17 17:17
18:24 19:7 20:10
23:1 24:6,16 25:9
27:23 29:9,20 33:10
34:21 38:12,25
43:24 46:15 50:12
50:13 51:13 52:16
52:17 55:21 57:1
58:5
timeline (1)
35:9
timelines (1)
25:13
times (1)
18:1
timing (1)
25:16
today (7)
5:15,19,23 6:15 50:20
53:8 54:2
today's (1)
5:1
told (4)
18:17 19:7 20:10 45:8
Tom (3)
5:6,6 9:22
Tomalis (3)
15:12,19 17:14
top (1)
49:19
tougher (1)
46:7
toughest (1)
43:7
Tower (1)
2:5
Tracy (3)
1:22 58:3,20
transcribed (1)
58:11
transcript (1)
58:12
transcription (1)
59:7
transitory (1)
13:3
Treasurer (1)
1:7
trial (1)
4:6
true (2)
52:2 58:11
trust (2)
34:11 42:15
Trustee (1)
6:6
Trustees (3)
16:15 18:3 19:16
truth (1)
58:9
try (1)
20:1
trying (4)
21:14 49:13,15,21
Tuesday (1)
32:18
two (6)
15:2 27:1,11 35:3
48:1 49:8
type (1)
23:12
typically (2)
7:22,24
U
ultimately (1)
54:22
unanimity (1)
56:2
uncertain (1)
43:18
uncertainty (2)
52:15,19
understand (4)
13:11 20:24 24:25
27:11
understanding (8)
29:20,23 41:6,13,13
41:18 44:22 47:1
understood (7)
23:18 41:2 44:13
45:13,21,23 55:4
university (17)
1:13 2:22 7:22 8:11
9:21 13:17,20 14:20
26:17 31:13 43:10
47:10 49:14,18,20
55:17 56:11
unknown (4)
43:15 52:12,15 53:5
update (2)
16:5 34:6
updates (2)
16:2 26:5
urgency (1)
29:4
use (2)
24:23 35:1
utilized (1)
34:2
utilizing (1)
21:14
V
v (1)
59:1
value (3)
52:23,25 53:3
valve (1)
45:12
vantage (1)
18:3
various (4)
5:20 12:10 36:16
55:25
verbal (1)
30:23
version (1)
42:20
versus (6)
18:1 29:18 35:6 39:14
46:19 47:23
vice (6)
6:17,22 7:14,17,18
20:7
view (2)
27:4 39:1
violated (1)
22:10
volunteers (1)
14:4
vote (3)
40:11,12 54:22
vs (2)
1:9,12
W
waived (1)
4:4
waning (2)
43:22 44:5
want (11)
5:21,24 6:2,3 12:3
37:15 38:8 40:17
47:25 53:2,12
wanted (1)
28:5
wanting (1)
36:15
Washington (1)
2:13
wasn't (16)
23:6,6,15,22 24:5
26:1 29:5 33:12
36:10 44:4 45:12,12
46:14 48:25 50:5
51:2
watch (1)
21:12
WATKINS (1)
2:11
way (9)
20:25 23:3 24:18 25:1
28:14 45:3 50:4
56:6,9
ways (2)
44:12,13
we'll (3)
31:22 37:10 49:4
we're (7)
19:25 22:16,16 27:16
38:3 49:4 53:15
Wednesday (11)
14:13,14,16 15:21
19:1 32:18 37:23
38:1 53:24 54:9
56:16
week (16)
25:21,22,23,24 26:6
26:10 32:18,19
33:21 35:2 37:16
877-702-9580
38:24 39:15 41:14

42:12 46:20
weeks (1)
33:17
went (4)
4:10 13:18 39:13 45:3
weren't (7)
11:13 23:18,23 27:3,8
47:7,14
West (1)
2:5
widely (1)
54:15
wildly (1)
53:14
willing (3)
47:7,14,15
witness (4)
3:2 4:7 58:9 59:3
word (2)
24:24 34:25
words (1)
22:21
work (2)
5:22 14:1
working (9)
11:7 12:23 13:25 23:8
33:12,13,15,17 43:8
world (1)
24:17
written (1)
38:4
wrong (1)
13:18
X
X (1)
3:1
Y
Yeah (9)
13:2,12 27:22 32:7
39:3 42:25 44:12
50:10 51:6
year (2)
16:11,15
years (3)
27:1,11 43:8
yes/no (2)
37:10,11
York (3)
58:2,4,16
Z
Keith Masser
Page 11
0
1
1 (1)
59:5
10:29 (1)
49:6
10:32 (1)
49:6
10:35 (1)
51:20
10:49 (1)
51:20
10:55 (1)
57:7
11-24-2014 (1)
59:2
13 (2)
6:16 7:1
1500 (1)
2:4
17108 (1)
2:16
1717 (1)
2:20
19102 (1)
2:5
19103 (1)
2:21
19341 (1)
2:8
2
2 (1)
59:6
20 (1)
11:24
20004 (1)
2:13
2008 (1)
6:7
2010 (2)
7:13,15
2011 (6)
8:6,25 9:12 16:12
20:11,12
2012 (7)
7:18 18:6 22:21 23:19
49:10 50:9 51:2
2013 (1)
6:9
2014 (3)
1:18 57:16 58:16
218 (1)
2:15
24 (1)
1:18
25th (1)
58:16
3
3 (1)
59:7
32 (1)
55:23
34th (1)
1:4
350 (1)
2:8
3rd (1)
1:20
4
40 (1)
43:8
401 (1)
1:20
5
5 (1)
3:4
5:00 (1)
9:24
53 (1)
3:5
555 (1)
2:12
6
7
8
87530 (1)
1:25
886 (1)
2:15
9
9:15 (1)
1:19
877-702-9580

Corman - Deposition of KMasser - Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corman - Deposition of KMasser - Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keith Masser

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Monday, November 24, 2014,

LATSHA DAVIS & McKENNA

Killian & Gephart

For - Defendant National Collegiate

For - Pennsylvania State University

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

MR. HAVERSTICK: For today's purpose.

to this, but in terms of really executing, it can be

13 of us. Ken Frazier is on the executive committee.

Q. Will outside counsel attend on an ad hoc basis

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

presentation by Graham Spanier of what was presented

A. No. It was more about how he was going to

And Board leadership -- basically the Board

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

work with the special counsel, and that's sort of a

was an expectation. That task force did provide

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

did to decide who was going to do the special

times when the Executive Committee learned versus the

learned about it was the Wednesday Board meeting

investigation to try to prevent the NCAA from doing

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

A. I can clarify it.

would be made public.

Q. Were you aware in that same time period that

MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

way it's posed is the NCAA action afterwards. I was

the NCAA wasn't on my radar, but Rod Erickson

A. That's more than two years ago. I don't

A. I would only be speculating. I don't know.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

referring to the NCAA in general. I don't know if it

options would not be available if they were disclosed

MS. GRAGERT: Was that a yes?

Q. Do you recall President Erickson mentioning the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

counsel involved then with the Executive Committee.

was expert counsel being referred to or being

to use. But the looking at the -- we were basically

was telling you were potentials?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

the Big Ten that the president had the authority,

opinion Wednesday after the consent decree was

discussed its view that NCAA's membership agreement

MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

A. Prior to signing it?

Rod Erickson and me. It was in the context of an

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.

risk on both sides, but was committed to have Penn

Q. What was your understanding of the likelihood

benefit. It was the least harmful of two options, as

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

Committee knowing about discussions with NCAA?

Q. Do you recall who gave that briefing?

A. It was our opinion that this -- I was operating

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

was looking at it from a least harm aspect, so