IBJNews

NCAA says Penn State fine money in special account

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NCAA said Thursday it has no immediate plans to spend the $12 million already paid to it as part of the sanctions against Penn State University over its handling of child sex abuse allegations against former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

The fate of that money — and the rest of the $60 million Penn State owes the Indianapolis-based NCAA — is the subject of two legal challenges, one from a state lawmaker and the other from Pennsylvania's governor.

On Wednesday, a Pennsylvania judge put on hold state Sen. Jake Corman's request for an injunction barring the NCAA from spending the money. Corman asked for the injunction request to be put on hold, indicating the filing had the support of the NCAA.

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said the organization has not been negotiating with Corman, either about spending the $12 million or the larger lawsuit, and called his lawsuit groundless.

Corman, a Republican who represents State College and chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, sued the NCAA two weeks ago, arguing the NCAA's plans to spend $60 million over five years from Penn State runs afoul of his oversight role in state spending. The state contributed $214 million this year to Penn State, which has a $4.3 billion budget.

"We believe the senator's lawsuit is without basis, and we intend to proceed with the litigation," Williams said. "As we've explained to the senator's lawyers in our discussions, no funds will be disbursed until a third party administrator is appointed, and until that time the funds are held in an independent account not controlled by the NCAA."

Corman's request to put on hold his injunction said the NCAA informed him "that for multiple reasons it has no intention to disburse or otherwise dissipate said funds in the immediate future," and agreed to give Corman two months' notice if that changes.

At a convention in Grapevine, Texas, NCAA president Mark Emmert disputed Corman's statement that the NCAA has been negotiating over the lawsuit and said his organization will never see the money or decide where it is spent.

"A group of presidents and others are setting up the framework by which all that will happen," Emmert said. "As they set that up and get it all in place, then indeed that group can make a decision to dispense money."

Commonwealth Court Judge Keith Quigley's order put Corman's application for an injunction on hold unless Corman seeks to reactivate it.

Also Wednesday, Corman introduced a narrowly focused bill, the Institution of Higher Education Consent Decree Endowment Act, which would determine how matters such as Penn State's are handled. Corman's office said he believes it would also apply to the NCAA-Penn State consent agreement.

The act's primary provision is that fine money must go into a custodial trust in the state treasury, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency would distribute the money in the state for child sexual abuse prevention or to help victims.

The NCAA also is defending a federal antitrust lawsuit filed Jan. 2 by Gov. Tom Corbett that seeks to have the $60 million fine and other penalties against the university thrown out. There have not yet been any additional substantive filings in that case.

Penn State and the NCAA entered into the agreement in July, following Sandusky's conviction on 45 counts of child sexual abuse. The former assistant football coach is serving a 30- to 60-year state prison sentence but maintains his innocence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT