Doesn’t seem to be … Sara did a series on TSM in 2012 when she was still with the Patriot News, but nothing has been released (as many have pointed out here) on TSM by any investigative body that I can find. Here are the links, with my (hopefully) objective summary characterization of the series below them, followed by my subjective take on the matter.
Part 1: Sandusky resigned from TSM in 2009 because he had been under investigation for child molestation for a year and had lost his clearance to work with children. He informed the board. A law firm conducting an internal review for TSM abandoned it because the state asked its to keep quiet about it (state was investigating).
Part 2: Background on the TSM resignation. Sandusky told TSM’s Jack Raykovitz in November 2008, a year before his resignation, that he was under investigation for molesting a boy. Raykovitz told Sandusky to stay away from children - at TSM events and outside TSM events. After a 2009 Children and Youth Services hearing on the charge in which the boy said he was subjected to mutual oral sex with Sandusky over a period of months, Sandusky loses his clearance. When Sandusky dropped his appeal of that ruling, Raykovitz said he had to resign and be honest with the board about why. No investigative authorities had alerted TSM about the 2008 charge or investigation. TSM opts to stay quiet about investigation (at least in part because the state had urged it to do so so as not to impede its ongoing investigation - see Part 1); the story remains that “Sandusky retired” in November 2009.
Part 3: TSM Development Director Bonnie Marshall, hired in 2009 and put in the loop about the child molestation allegation soon after hiring, asks Raykovitz is anything had ever happened before. Raykovitz tells her about Curley’s 2001 report.
that “something inappropriate” happened in the showers and that Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to campus FIX: Marshall quoted Raykovitz as saying, ‘Yes, we knew of something in 2001 that Tim Curley talked to me about.’ At that point, I didn’t particularly want to know any more and he didn’t volunteer anything else.” Real estate investor Bruce Heim recalled that he asked Raykovitz in 2001 if anything inappropriate had happened, and Raykovitz told Heim that based on what Curley had told him, nothing had. Raykovitz asked Heim if he should inform the whole TSM board, and Heim said no: “I said I don’t think it’s relevant. It happens every day at the YMCA. I remember the conversation specifically because it seemed like a nonstarter because of what Penn State said went on.” Only a few people at TSM knew of the 2001 allegation before the grand jury presentment broke that news to them.
Part 4: The 1998 investigations by the state Department of Welfare and DA Ray Gricar
should have resulted in no findings of wrongdoing, but TSM and Child Welfare were required to develop a safety plan once the allegation against Sandusky was made. It appears that TSM was never notified, and no safety plan was created. In other words, until November 2008, the only allegation TSM knew about was the one Curley passed along to them in 2001, and which TSM officials have said Curley characterized to them as nothing inappropriate.
Part 5: TSM was an insular organization run by only a handful of people and many board members were completely out of the loop.
My Bottom Line:
The parallels to the Penn State Sandusky story are amazing - and probably similar to other cases of child sexual abuse in similar organizations. Allegations were given short-shrift, few people were told about them, legally required safety mechanisms (the safety plan required following the 1998 allegation) were not executed.
To me, this is also the best “defense” that Penn State administrators have, from part 4:
[TSM Development Officer Myra] Toomey and [Bonnie] Marshall said they understood that when working with troubled kids, there is always a risk of being accused.
Sandusky had such a great reputation, it seemed impossible.
Regarding why no one from TSM has been charged, it seems like the explanatory narrative that this provides is:
- TSM was never informed of the 1998 investigation, so no culpability
- Curley told TSM that nothing inappropriate happened in the shower in 2001, but PSU was prohibiting Jerry from bringing kids to campus, so no culpability.
- When Sandusky told Raykovitz about the 2008 investigation, Raykovitz told Sandusky not to work with kids, and when the 2009 hearing on the charge resulted in Sandusky losing his clearance and Sandusky dropped his appeal, Raykovitz made Sandusky resign and inform the board about why, so no culpability - the triggering allegation was already being investigated
TSM did a lot that can be second-guessed, but according to this narrative painted by Ganim’s reporting, the red flags were a lot less bright than they seem to have been for Curley and Schultz.
The entirety of Penn State’s liability in this matter seems to me to be Curley’s handling of McQueary’s allegation. Schultz and Spanier are implicated because they participated in the process that was delegated to Curley (by virtue of his position as AD), and Paterno may have had a role suggested by Curley’s cryptic reference to changing his mind about how to handle the allegation* after talking with Paterno.
Though it explicitly avoids the conduct of Penn State and The Second Mile, the Moulton investigation into the A.G.'s handling of the investigation is a very good read about the mechanics of the investigation.
*It’s not certain what exactly changed for Curley; one possible reading is that he decided to confront Sandusky directly rather than inform child protective agencies, another is that he decided to confront Sandusky directly in addition to informing child protective agencies. There is apparently no record of Curley informing the state; however, records of investigations in which no wrongdoing is found must be expunged from the state registry.
Interesting to me in the Moulton Report (and I haven’t read all 330+ pages yet) is the notion that even though the 1998 records had to be expunged, little effort was made to garner “institutional knowledge” about the '98 allegations from the Centre County DA’s office. I suspect the same might have happened with 2001 - did anybody attempt to find out whether Curley did pass along the allegation? I believe Schultz testified that he thought Curley had. Would be a massive MacGuffin if he did so - and then Penn State administrators surely would be criticized for their settlements with victims. I personally find it hard to believe that this would not have been investigated by someone - especially insurance company investigators - but we’ve all seen where “impossible to believe” has gotten folks throughout this tragedy.
NOTE: I made lots of edits - some to correct mistakes, others to add clarity. I marked some of them with strike-throughs (the mistakes, primarily). If you don’t know, though, I believe everyone (not just admins/moderators) can see all revisions by clicking the orange edit notification in the top right of a post.