20141124 - corman - deposition of kmasser - compressed

Keith Masser

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.2

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JAKE CORMAN, in his official .

4 capacity as Senator from the . 34th Senatorial District of .

5 Pennsylvania and Chair of . the Senate Committee on .

6 Appropriations; and ROBERT M. . MCCORD, in his official .

7 capacity as Treasurer of the . Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, .

8 Plaintiffs . .

9 vs. . .

10 THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE . ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, .

11 Defendant . .

12 vs. . .

13 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,. Defendant .

14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

16

Deposition of : KEITH MASSER17

Taken by : Plaintiff18

Date : Monday, November 24, 2014,19 9:15 a.m.20 Place : North 3rd Street

Room 40121 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania22 Before : Tracy L. Lloyd, Notary Public

Registered Professional Reporter23

24

25 Job No. 87530

Keith Masser


1 APPEARANCES:2 CONRAD O'BRIEN

By: Matthew Haverstick3 Stephen MacNett

Alexis Rossman Madden4 Sarah Damiani

1500 Market Street5 West Tower

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191026

7 LATSHA DAVIS & McKENNA By: Kevin McKenna

8 350 Eagleview Boulevard Exton, Pennsylvania 19341

9

10 For - Plaintiffs11 LATHAM & WATKINS

By: Allen Gardner12 Sarah M. Gragert

555 Eleventh Street, NW13 Washington, D.C. 2000414

Killian & Gephart15 By: Thomas Scott

218 Pine Street, P.O. Box 88616 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710817

For - Defendant National Collegiate18 Athletic Association19 REED SMITH

By: Michael Scott20 Three Logan Square

1717 Arch Street21 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1910322

For - Pennsylvania State University23

24

25

Page 4

1 STIPULATION2 It is hereby stipulated by and between the3 respective parties that sealing, certification and4 filing are waived; and that all objections except as5 to the form of the question are reserved until the6 time of trial.7 KEVIN MASSER, called as a witness, being8 duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:9 MR. SCOTT: Before we start the

10 questioning, would you mind if we went around the11 room so Mr. Masser knows who everybody is?12 MR. HAVERSTICK: Sure.13 MR. SCOTT: You can go first.14 MR. HAVERSTICK: Mr. Masser, my name is15 Matt Haverstick. We met before.16 MR. MacNETT: Steve MacNett with Conrad17 O'Brian.18 MS. MADDEN: Alexis Madden, also with19 Conrad O'Brien.20 MS. DAMIANI: Sarah Damiani also with21 Conrad O'Brien.22 MR. McKENNA: Kevin McKenna, Latsha Davis &23 McKenna.24 MR. SCOTT: And they all represent Senator25 Corman and Rob McCord?

Page 3

1 I N D E X2 WITNESS3 KEITH MASSER Direct Cross Redirect Recross4 By Mr. Haverstick 5 -- -- --5 By Ms. Gragert -- 53 -- --6 By Mr. Scott -- -- -- --7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5

1 MR. HAVERSTICK: For today's purpose.2 MR. SCOTT: Mike Scott for Penn State.3 MS. GRAGERT: Sarah Gragert for the NCAA.4 We met outside.5 MR. GARDNER: Allen Gardner, NCAA.6 MR. TOM SCOTT: Tom Scott, Killian &7 Gephart, also representing NCAA.8 MR. MASSER: I'm Keith Masser with Penn9 State.

10 DIRECT EXAMINATION11 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Masser.13 A. Good morning.14 Q. We just all did the introductions. Thank for15 coming in today. I hope to keep this relatively16 brief. Have you ever been deposed before?17 A. Yes.18 Q. All right. Then you get the gist of what we19 will all be doing today. Questions, and hopefully20 you can provide answers. At various points in time,21 your counsel may want to discuss matters with you,22 and we will work that out as we go through the23 deposition today.24 If you ever feel you need a break, I may want a25 break, just speak up. There's a level of formality

Keith Masser


Page 6

1 to this, but in terms of really executing, it can be2 as informal as we want to in terms of breaks. So3 don't feel shy about saying you want to take a break.4 A. Okay.5 Q. Mr. Masser, how long have you been a Penn State6 Board of Trustee member?7 A. Since July of 2008.8 Q. And when were you elected Chair of the BOT?9 A. January of 2013.

10 Q. Were you, am I correct, immediately proceeded as11 chair by Karen Peetz?12 A. Correct.13 Q. There is an executive committee of BOT; correct?14 A. Yes.15 Q. Who today is on the executive committee?16 A. It's 13 members. It includes some positions,17 the chair, the vice chairman, the immediate past18 chair, the Hershey Medical Center board19 representative. I can give you the names.20 Q. Please.21 A. The Hershey Board is Ed Hintz. The immediate22 past chair, Karen Peetz. Myself as chair. The vice23 chair is Kathleen Casey. That's five. There's some24 at large members, Ryan McCombie, Rick Dandrea, and --25 I forget who the other at large member is. There's

Page 8

1 Q. Will outside counsel attend on an ad hoc basis2 if there is an issue that you will likely discuss?3 A. By invitation, yes.4 Q. When is the first time that you recall learning5 of allegations of molestation by Jerry Sandusky?6 A. May of 2011.7 Q. Can you describe the circumstances that brought8 this to your attention? How did you learn?9 A. I learned in executive session of a full board

10 meeting. We had a briefing with Cynthia Baldwin who11 was University counsel.12 MR. SCOTT: I'll counsel you, Mr. Masser,13 that to the extent this conversation of this14 information came to you via counsel at that kind of a15 session, that you need not and should not provide16 further details about that.17 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:18 Q. I'm not going to ask you specifics, but19 Ms. Baldwin apprised you of the potential20 allegations?21 A. Yes, of some allegations in a different county22 by a former employee.23 Q. As a result of learning of those allegations,24 did the Executive Committee take any action steps at25 that time, that is May of 2011?

Page 7

1 13 of us. Ken Frazier is on the executive committee.2 It's chairs of committees. Keith Eckel, he's on the3 executive committee.4 So it includes committee chairs. We have seven5 standing committees, and Carl Shaffer who is chair of6 the Compensation Committee. Keith Eckel, as I7 mentioned, is chair of the Governance Committee. Ken8 Frazier is chair of the Legal and Compliance9 Committee, and Mark Dambly who is chair of the

10 Finance, Business, and Capital Planning.11 Q. How long have you been on the Executive12 Committee?13 A. Probably since -- as I recall, around 2010. I14 was on the Executive Committee before I was vice15 chair. Roughly 2010.16 Q. And I meant to ask you this, and I did not. I17 apologize. When did you become Vice Chair?18 A. I became Vice Chair in January of 2012.19 Q. When the Executive Committee meets in -- when20 the Executive Committee meets, is counsel present?21 A. Yes.22 Q. Is it typically University counsel?23 A. Yes.24 Q. Does it typically include outside counsel?25 A. No.

Page 9

1 A. No.2 Q. Do you recall having conversations with other3 Board members about the allegations outside the4 presence of counsel?5 A. No.6 Q. When is the next time that the -- I'll call it7 the Sandusky matter for shorthand. If we need to8 explain it, I will. But when is the next time that9 you recall the Sandusky matter being discussed with

10 you by anyone?11 A. It would be the first Saturday of November of12 2011.13 Q. Am I right that -- well, was there a telephone14 call in the afternoon of that --15 A. There was.16 Q. And, again, I don't -- let me ask, and then17 maybe your counsel will object. Describe to me what18 happened on that telephone call.19 MR. SCOTT: Well, in the invitation you20 offered, was this a conversation with counsel for the21 University?22 A. So as I recall, Tom Poole, the basically chief23 of staff for President Spanier, notified me of a24 conference call to be scheduled. I think it was 5:0025 or late that afternoon, and it was basically a

Keith Masser


Page 10

1 presentation by Graham Spanier of what was presented2 in the press that day.3 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:4 Q. When you speak of what was presented in the5 press, are you referring to the media reports of6 earlier that morning of a Grand Jury presentation7 charging Jerry Sandusky with crimes?8 A. Right. Yes.9 Q. Prior to you reading that newspaper report,

10 which I presume you read, did you see that?11 A. I saw -- I read the presentment that night, that12 evening then.13 Q. Did you catch the media reports earlier that14 day?15 A. No.16 Q. Prior to that Saturday, and really I mean in17 between the main meeting and that Saturday, had you18 had occasion to discuss the Sandusky matter with19 anyone else that you recall?20 A. No.21 Q. You had an afternoon telephone call and Graham22 Spanier gave a presentation?23 A. (Nodding head.)24 Q. And he outlined what the presentment was about25 and stuff like that?

Page 12

1 And Board leadership -- basically the Board2 laid out some action steps on how to deal with the3 eminent crisis or however you want to describe it.4 And during that time one of the action steps was to5 hire an independent investigator to find out who knew6 what when.7 Q. Do you recall who came up with the idea -- do8 you recall who came up with the action steps?9 A. It was -- it was just recommendations coming

10 from various members of the Board. I don't recall11 who made it, but it was a summary of several action12 steps that the Board agreed that we need to do.13 Q. So up until that point, nobody had been14 delegated the job of coming up with action steps to15 report to the full Board?16 A. That's correct.17 Q. Was there discussion at this Board meeting about18 firms that might be hired to perform the special19 investigation?20 A. No. No. We were back -- the answer to your21 question is no.22 Q. At that meeting, was there discussion about23 forming a special working group of Board members to24 oversee the investigation?25 A. Not at that meeting.

Page 11

1 A. No. It was more about how he was going to2 handle the situation, that he's got it under control,3 and it was very little information about what was in4 the presentment, as I recall.5 Q. Do you recall whether at that meeting or shortly6 after that meeting, rather, whether there were any7 working groups or other subsets of the Executive8 Committee formed to handle BOT's response?9 A. No. I was on the Executive Committee, but it

10 never met while I was on the Executive Committee11 prior to me becoming -- being elected into12 leadership. Every meeting was the full Board.13 Q. Okay. So there weren't private meetings of the14 Executive Committee to address the Sandusky matter15 after it was announced in Mr. Spanier's telephone16 call?17 A. No.18 Q. When do you recall the idea of a special19 investigative counsel being retained first being20 broached?21 A. So it would have been the Sunday evening22 after -- the immediate Sunday following the Saturday23 that we knew about it. The Board met in Old Main.24 20 of us were there in person, and the remaining25 Board members were on a conference call.

Page 13

1 Q. At a later one?2 A. It came later. Yeah, that came later.3 Q. Now, that will be a good transitory point in a4 second. Do you recall at that Sunday meeting any5 discussion about potential NCAA action against Penn6 State as a result of the Sandusky matter?7 A. No, I don't.8 Q. Describe for me what you remember the discussion9 being about what the role of the special counsel was

10 going to be.11 A. I need to understand your question.12 Q. Yeah. That's a crummy question. At that Sunday13 meeting, was there discussion about what role or14 tasks the special counsel was going to perform15 specifically?16 A. Not specific. Just, you know, to investigate --17 to do an internal investigation at the University to18 find out who knew what when, what went wrong, how we19 can correct the failures that occurred at Penn State20 University.21 So it was general, nothing specific, but it was22 agreed to by the Board that such a special23 investigation should take place.24 Q. Now, you said that there was a later meeting25 where there was a subset or a working group formed to

Keith Masser


Page 14

1 work with the special counsel, and that's sort of a2 rough paraphrase.3 A. The Board leadership, which was Steve Garban and4 John Surma, began asking or seeking volunteers to5 serve on that special -- to serve on a task force to6 select a special investigative firm.7 Q. Now, let me ask you a couple questions about8 that. When was it decided that there would be --9 when was it first discussed, rather, that there would

10 be a task force of Board members to be responsible11 for --12 A. It may have been that Sunday night. It may have13 been the following Wednesday evening the Board met.14 The Board met the following Wednesday evening in15 person at State College. That's the infamous16 Wednesday night meeting.17 So it probably -- I'm not certain, but it18 probably was initiated at that meeting because it was19 pretty much a meeting of developing action steps to20 get the University moving forward.21 Q. Now, I think you said that Mr. Surma and -- I22 forget the Board member's name.23 A. Mr. Garban.24 Q. Thank you. Mr. Garban. Solicited participation25 on this task force?

Page 16

1 was an expectation. That task force did provide2 updates at future executive sessions and future3 Board meetings.4 Q. And that did happen, the task force would5 periodically update the Executive Committee and the6 full Board?7 A. Yes.8 Q. Do you know by what date the special9 investigative task force had formed and was staffed

10 up?11 A. I think by the first of the year. During12 December of 2011, I'm fairly certain. It may even13 have been staffed up by the end of November, but it14 was staffed up during the November full Board of15 Trustees meeting and the first of the year.16 Q. Was its complement filled out prior to the17 time that the Freeh Group was retained to do the18 special investigation?19 A. Oh, sure. Yes.20 Q. So whatever date, and I don't know as I sit here21 and remember, but whatever --22 A. Whatever date the engagement letter was signed,23 that group had been meeting prior to that.24 Q. Okay. Were you made aware of the firms that the25 task force interviewed or talked to or whatever they

Page 15

1 A. Yes.2 Q. Do you recall how it came to be the two of them3 were responsible for soliciting participation?4 A. Well, the Board Chair -- by our bylaws and5 standing orders charge the chair with appointing6 special committees. The Chair of the Board has that7 responsibility of appointing members to special task8 force.9 Q. Do you recall who ended up being on the task

10 force?11 A. I know some of the members. I was not, but Ken12 Frazier, Ron Tomalis, the Secretary of Education,13 Keith Eckel, Mark Dambly, Karen Peetz.14 Q. That's your memory?15 A. That's my memory. I'm fairly certain they were16 appointed to that task force, and there may be17 others, but I know those were members that were on.18 I'm fairly certain those were members that were on.19 I mean I know Tomalis and Frazier were. I know Karen20 Peetz was.21 Q. Was it discussed at the Wednesday meeting or any22 subsequent meeting that the special investigative23 task force was to provide regular briefings to the24 rest of the Board?25 A. I don't know if that was discussed or whether it

Page 17

1 did to decide who was going to do the special2 investigation?3 A. I was only made aware of the recommendation to4 the full Board.5 Q. What was that recommendation?6 A. Louis Freeh's firm.7 Q. Do you recall a meeting at which that was --8 that hiring was recommended to the full Board?9 A. Not specifically.

10 Q. Do you recall who spoke at the meeting11 advocating the task force's recommendation to hire12 Freeh?13 A. Ken Frazier was the chair of that group, so it14 most likely Ken Frazier. I remember Ron Tomalis15 providing some feedback and input, as well, but it16 was primarily Ken Frazier.17 Q. Now, at that time was either the Executive18 Committee or the full Board informed that there had19 been outreach by NCAA to Penn State?20 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.21 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.22 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:23 Q. You can answer.24 A. Not prior to that engagement.25 Q. When did, and if there's a difference in the

Keith Masser


Page 18

1 times when the Executive Committee learned versus the2 full Board learned, please let me know. When did the3 Board of Trustees from your vantage point learn that4 there was NCAA interest in the Jerry Sandusky5 situation?6 A. Sometime in between January and July of 2012.7 Q. Do you recall if, whenever that happened, it was8 in the context of an Executive Committee meeting or a9 full Board meeting?

10 A. I don't. We have the -- a full Board has11 executive sessions, briefing sessions that aren't12 public, and the Executive Committee would meet for13 information. The Executive Committee has never made14 a decision for the Board since I've been on the15 Executive Committee at Penn State. It's been16 basically briefing sessions.17 Q. Do you recall who told you that there was NCAA18 outreach to Penn State about the Jerry Sandusky19 situation, whenever that was that it happened?20 A. I don't recall.21 Q. Do you recall whether that information may have22 come from a special investigative task force23 briefing?24 A. The time when I am specific that my -- my25 specific recollection is it would have been that I

Page 20

1 investigation to try to prevent the NCAA from doing2 their own investigation of Penn State.3 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:4 Q. Do you remember from whom you got that5 information?6 A. No, I don't. They could have -- it could have7 been Karen Peetz. I was the Vice Chair. She was the8 Chair. She was on the Special Investigative9 Committee.

10 Q. Were you told at any time that in December of11 2011, Freeh Group personnel met with NCAA personnel?12 A. No, not in December of 2011 that I recall. I13 don't recall.14 Q. Was it your expectation that the Freeh Group15 once hired would be having meetings with the NCAA16 throughout its investigation?17 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.18 A. My expectation was that Penn State's own19 internal investigation, I was hopeful that it would20 prevent the NCAA from doing their investigation or21 from doing another separate independent22 investigation.23 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:24 Q. Then I'm not sure I understand the answer. Let25 me ask it another way.

Page 19

1 learned about it was the Wednesday Board meeting2 after the consent decree was signed.3 Q. After the consent decree was signed?4 A. (Nodding head.)5 Q. That's the first you remember learning of it?6 A. Right.7 Q. So you were never told prior to that time that8 the NCAA had been in contact with Penn State9 officials?

10 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.11 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.12 A. So what I was aware of is that the NCAA was13 interested in this situation that was occurring at14 Penn State, and I was aware that there was a possible15 investigation that could take place by the NCAA. And16 I was aware that the Board of Trustees had engaged17 its own investigation to do up -- for the purposes18 that was previously stated. And I do know that the19 Board was interested in not having the NCAA do an20 investigation.21 So I was aware, and I don't know specifically22 when that the Freeh investigation was to be23 communicated -- that the knowledge of that, and I24 don't know any specific terms, but that the NCAA was25 to be made aware that we're doing our own

Page 21

1 A. I can clarify it.2 Q. Please.3 A. So Penn State had this bombardment of entities,4 if you will, who requested to do investigations. We5 have the Department of Education. There was the6 State Attorney General's Office doing an7 investigation. And we felt we had to do our own8 internal investigation so we could learn more about9 how to prevent any kind of Sandusky issue from

10 happening again at Penn State.11 And then there was the Middle States12 accreditation putting us on watch, and we were13 bombarded with all these investigations on Penn14 State. We were trying to keep the NCAA and utilizing15 the information that was being obtained from the16 Freeh Group to preclude them from doing their own17 investigation.18 Q. So do I take that to mean that you expected that19 at the conclusion of the Freeh Group investigation,20 information learned by the Freeh Group would be21 shared with other groups like the accreditation22 association or the NCAA?23 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.24 MS. GRAGERT: Join that objection.25 A. It's my expectation that the Freeh investigation

Keith Masser


Page 22

1 would be made public.2 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:3 Q. And then that would -- that Freeh Group4 investigation would hopefully prevent other5 organizations from doing their own investigations?6 A. (Nodding head.)7 Q. Were you ever -- strike that. Was it your8 expectation that one of the things the Freeh Group9 was supposed to do was investigate whether Penn State

10 had violated NCAA bylaws?11 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.12 A. Not specifically.13 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:14 Q. Big Ten was one of the organizations, do you15 recall, was interested in investigating Penn State?16 A. We're a member, so -- we're a member of the Big17 Ten. I don't know of any specific discussions18 surrounding the Big Ten prior to the Freeh Report19 being issued.20 Q. Were you aware throughout the first half of21 2012 that Big Ten in its words was collaborating with22 the Freeh Group in the investigation?23 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.24 A. I was not aware.25 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:

Page 24

1 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.2 Mischaracterizes testimony.3 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:4 Q. You can answer.5 A. I wasn't aware.6 Q. Let's jump ahead to the time that you learned of7 NCAA action against Penn State.8 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.9 MR. HAVERSTICK: Can I actually get done

10 with my question?11 MS. GRAGERT: I did not mean to interrupt.12 MR. HAVERSTICK: Then don't, please.13 MS. GRAGERT: Chill out. Ask your14 question.15 MR. HAVERSTICK: Sarah, I will -- let me16 ask my question. Then I'll give you all of the time17 in the world to object, okay, because we can get done18 a lot faster if we do it that way. Thanks.19 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:20 Q. Am I right that you learned about NCAA action21 against Penn State after the consent decree was22 signed?23 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form. The use24 of the word "against".25 A. I don't understand that question. I mean the

Page 23

1 Q. Were you aware in that same time period that2 NCAA was in periodic contact with the Freeh Group?3 A. I'm not sure I would characterize it that way.4 As I stated before, we were interested in not having5 the NCAA doing its independent investigation, and I6 wasn't -- it wasn't on my radar to know of the7 discussions. I felt the task force assigned to Freeh8 was taking care of that. I was working on other9 things such as accreditation.

10 Q. So this may be the right question to ask you, is11 it the case that the task force -- if anyone at Penn12 State would have known about this type of13 information, it would be the task force?14 MR. SCOTT: Objection.15 A. It wasn't part of my responsibilities in my16 position to know what was going on in that regard.17 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:18 Q. Understood. So I close this circle, you weren't19 made aware in the first half of 2012 that NCAA had20 given a PowerPoint presentation to the Freeh Group on21 NCAA bylaws issues?22 A. No. I wasn't aware of that.23 Q. And you weren't aware that NCAA had provided the24 Freeh Group with proposed questions to ask folks that25 the Freeh Group was going to interview?

Page 25

1 way it's posed is the NCAA action afterwards. I was2 aware of prior to the consent decree being signed of3 some of the proposed items within the consent4 decree. I was aware of options.5 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:6 Q. That's what I'm driving out. I misunderstood7 your earlier testimony. You knew of the possibility8 of sanctions against Penn State by NCAA prior to the9 time the consent decree was signed?

10 A. Yes. I was getting confused by your questions11 prior to the Freeh Report being released and the12 consent decree being signed. Those are different13 timelines.14 Q. Why don't you -- maybe I really misunderstood15 your answer. Why don't you, as best as you recall,16 tell me what you recall about the timing of when you17 learned of the potential of NCAA sanctions against18 Penn State?19 A. Karen Peetz and I got a call from Rod Erickson20 several days before -- probably five, six -- within a21 week of the consent decree being signed that --22 MR. SCOTT: When you say within a week,23 you mean a week prior?24 A. Within a week prior that the NCAA was concerned25 about the Freeh Report findings. And prior to that,

Keith Masser


Page 26

1 the NCAA wasn't on my radar, but Rod Erickson2 informed Karen and I that there were -- that the3 NCAA was interested in providing some kind of4 sanctions to Penn State. And that's -- and that --5 and then we were having periodic updates through that6 week.7 After that initial call with Rod Erickson, we8 had a short, maybe a day or so after that, an9 Executive Committee briefing by Rod Erickson. And

10 then we were briefed periodically during that week11 prior to the consent decree being offered.12 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:13 Q. Was that briefing by President Erickson or14 somebody else?15 A. It initially started with Rod Erickson. As the16 sanctions became more real and the options more17 clear, we had University counsel involved, but there18 was periodic -- frequent periodic discussions or19 briefings by Rod Erickson to the Executive Committee20 during that meeting.21 Q. Let's start with the first -- let's start with22 the telephone call from President Erickson to you and23 Ms. Peetz. What can you recall specifically24 President Erickson telling you in that telephone25 call?

Page 28

1 A. I would only be speculating. I don't know.2 Q. You don't know?3 A. No.4 Q. What's your speculation?5 A. Our own general counsel wanted more specific6 expertise on NCAA issues, and so we were briefed,7 Executive Committee was briefed on qualifications of8 Gene Marsh and the reason for hiring him. Executive9 Committee was also briefed about the president

10 having the authority to make decisions with regard to11 NCAA.12 Q. So is your speculation for why counsel with this13 expertise was not retained earlier -- let me ask it a14 different way.15 A. I can't even specifically answer when he was --16 when Gene Marsh was retained, so I don't know when he17 was retained. To answer your question earlier, he18 may have been retained earlier as far as I know.19 Q. You don't know?20 A. I don't know.21 Q. I think you answered this, do you recall22 anything that President Erickson said to you in this23 first phone call with you and Ms. Peetz about24 comments made by President Emmert?25 A. Not specifically, no, I don't. I'm just

Page 27

1 A. That's more than two years ago. I don't2 remember anything specific. I just recall being3 informed that things weren't looking good for Penn4 State from the NCAA point of view. That there was5 death penalty being discussed.6 It was basically a call of grave concern that7 President Erickson was filling in Board leadership8 that things weren't progressing on the path of the9 NCAA not being involved with the Sandusky issue.

10 Q. Did President Erickson, if you remember -- I11 understand it was two years ago, so if you don't, you12 don't. Did President Erickson mention telephone13 calls he was having with President Emmert of the NCAA14 in this first phone call?15 A. I don't recall. I do recall being notified16 that we're getting special outside counsel to17 guide -- to provide guidance through this chain of18 events.19 Q. As an aside --20 A. Gene Marsh, specifically.21 Q. Gene Marsh specifically as outside counsel?22 A. Yeah.23 Q. As an aside, do you know why prior to this time24 Penn State had not retained Mr. Marsh or someone like25 him to assist with the NCAA issues?

Page 29

1 referring to the NCAA in general. I don't know if it2 was from presidents who were on the board, whether it3 was Mark Emmert. I don't recall where the -- I knew4 there was a sense of urgency that this was going5 fast, and that it wasn't looking good for Penn State.6 Q. It was a dire phone call?7 A. Yes.8 Q. What action, if any, did President Erickson9 request of you and Ms. Peetz at that time?

10 A. No action. Just information.11 Q. To keep you briefed?12 A. And to discuss -- our involvement or our13 discussion was how broad do we take this information14 to the full Board, and we agreed that we would take15 it to the Executive Committee because of the16 confidentiality provisions that were being stipulated17 to President Erickson through his discussions. So we18 were dealing with a confidentiality versus good19 governance issue.20 Q. Your understanding at the time of this first21 phone call was that NCAA required confidentiality22 and -- let me break the question up. Was that your23 understanding that NCAA required the24 confidentiality?25 A. Well, as options were being presented, those

Keith Masser


Page 30

1 options would not be available if they were disclosed2 by Board members.3 Q. President Erickson --4 A. Or anybody. I mean Penn State. If Penn State5 was disclosing discussions that were taking place6 between Penn State and the NCAA, it would impact any7 options that would be available.8 Q. So President Erickson was communicating to you9 that if certain potential settlement or resolution

10 terms got out, that they would be taken away and11 taken off the table?12 A. Yes.13 Q. And so I think the answer to my question is yes,14 but the earlier question. NCAA was, to your15 knowledge, telling President Erickson that there must16 be strict confidentiality maintained over this17 process?18 A. Yes.19 Q. And that led to a conversation between you,20 President Erickson, and Ms. Peetz about who on the21 Board should know?22 A. Yes.23 MS. GRAGERT: I don't think we had a verbal24 answer.25 A. Pardon?

Page 32

1 Q. Do you recall President Erickson mentioning the2 death penalty or suspension of play in the first call3 as a possible sanction?4 A. No. I don't recall. It was dire.5 Q. You recall that President Erickson indicated6 that the matter had to be resolved quickly?7 A. Yeah. This was -- I recall it was happening8 fast.9 Q. Do you recall whether that was NCAA's desire or

10 was it Penn State's desire or neither or both?11 A. I assumed it was the NCAA was coming down on12 Penn State quickly.13 Q. As a result of the telephone call, it was14 decided that the Executive Committee would be briefed15 on the NCAA action; right?16 A. Right.17 Q. When did that briefing occur?18 A. Tuesday or Wednesday evening of that week, of19 the week prior to the consent decree being signed.20 Q. Tell me what you recall about that briefing.21 A. There was -- the consent decree option may have22 been put on the table at that briefing and a rough23 outline of what that would entail.24 Q. Do you remember --25 A. And there may be -- we may have had our legal

Page 31

1 MS. GRAGERT: Was that a yes?2 A. That's what the first phone call was, and then3 we agreed that a phone call with the Executive4 Committee would be appropriate.5 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:6 Q. Do you know if President Erickson had to go7 back and run that decision by NCAA to make sure NCAA8 was okay with the Executive Committee knowing?9 A. No. I'm assuming not. I'm assuming it was keep

10 it confidential and, you know, the president has the11 authority to make a decision. And Rod Erickson was12 keeping his Board members informed as best he could13 without jeopardizing options for the University.14 Q. Do you know what options or do you remember15 rather in this first phone call what options, if any?16 A. Not in the first phone call.17 Q. Later?18 A. Later phone calls. I mean it was either accept19 the consent decree or not accept it and run the risk20 of other actions that the NCAA might take.21 Q. I'm going to recap this first phone call. Then22 we'll go to the executive session. You don't recall23 specific penalty options being discussed by President24 Erickson in the first call?25 A. Not in the first call, no.

Page 33

1 counsel involved then with the Executive Committee.2 I'm almost certain that our legal counsel was3 involved.4 Q. Your inhouse legal counsel?5 A. Yes.6 Q. And at that point would that have been Steve7 Dunham or Mark Faulkner?8 A. No, not Mark Faulkner. Steve and it may have9 been Frank Guadagnino. I'm not certain. Frank at

10 that time was not inhouse. I mean he was outside11 counsel hired.12 Q. Right. He wasn't working for Penn State?13 A. He was working for Penn State as --14 Q. As outside counsel?15 A. He was working for Reed Smith, but we retained16 him. And Steve Dunham, I think, was just a couple17 weeks into working for Penn State as general counsel18 when he took the position, but we had -- I recall19 having had legal -- our own legal counsel, not Gene20 Marsh, but our own legal counsel in those discussions21 during that week.22 Q. Had Gene Marsh or did Gene Marsh brief the23 executive session, as well?24 A. I don't think so. I think it was our counsel25 bringing information from -- we were aware that there

Keith Masser


Page 34

1 was expert counsel being referred to or being2 utilized, but not that -- I don't recall Gene Marsh3 being on any of those calls.4 Q. In between the telephone call that you and Ms.5 Peetz had with President Erickson and the executive6 session, were you receiving any form of update from7 anyone inside Penn State about the course of the8 discussions between Penn State and NCAA?9 A. Not other than Rod Erickson, and Rod was

10 communicating. We agreed that we would -- that we11 could trust the Executive Committee without breaching12 confidentiality issues, so that periodic briefings,13 which I'm thinking may have been daily or every other14 day or when there was new information available, was15 provided by Rod Erickson to the Executive Committee.16 And we had a discussion -- the Executive17 Committee had a discussion whether they needed to18 meet and whether it should be -- that information19 should be just entrusted with Karen and myself, and20 Rod decided to keep the full Executive Committee21 briefed during that period of time.22 Q. What do you recall President Erickson telling23 you in these phone calls in that interim period?24 A. As the consent decree was being formulated, that25 it was the benefits of -- that's not the right word

Page 36

1 was telling you were potentials?2 A. Yes.3 Q. Were those same options communicated to the full4 Executive Committee when it was briefed in that5 briefing you were discussing?6 A. Yes.7 Q. Do you recall in that Executive Committee8 meeting whether there was any recommendation made9 about what Penn State should do?

10 A. No. I mean the Executive Committee wasn't11 making a decision. It was discussed and the12 Executive Committee was briefed on the fact that Rod13 Erickson clearly had -- we were clear that he had the14 authority to make the decision, and he was leaning15 toward wanting to make the decision of the consent16 decree for various publicly stated reasons which he17 briefed us on first.18 Q. Do you recall debate in that Executive Committee19 meeting whether the full Board should decide on20 President Erickson's authority to enter into the21 consent decree?22 A. We were confident he had the authority. That it23 didn't need a full Board decision. We were confident24 by the terms of the contract to the membership25 organization and NCAA as well as our contract with

Page 35

1 to use. But the looking at the -- we were basically2 formulating down during that week looking down at3 basically having two alternatives.4 Looking at a consent decree that Rod Erickson5 would sign and accepting the terms of the consent6 decree versus the other possible actions that the7 NCAA could impose on Penn State by not taking that8 option. And that the -- those actions -- the consent9 decree defined a timeline, defined specific actions

10 that I recall the Board -- the Executive Committee of11 the Board looking at and Rod Erickson explaining the12 reasons why I signed the consent decree would be13 advantageous to not signing the consent decree.14 Q. Do you recall whether -- do you recall any of15 the other options that President Erickson explained16 to you could happen if the consent decree was not17 signed?18 A. Well, the death penalty was basically an option,19 having other -- having investigations take place from20 the NCAA and having the death penalty imposed then --21 having the death penalty imposed and then having the22 investigation take place or an investigation take23 place which could result in the death penalty. Those24 kinds of options.25 Q. Those were the things that President Erickson

Page 37

1 the Big Ten that the president had the authority,2 both fiscally and to make decisions on3 intercollegiate athletics, that authority was4 delegated to the president.5 Q. Based on Penn State's agreement with the NCAA?6 A. Based on the membership rules, yes.7 Q. And membership rules of Big Ten?8 A. Right.9 Q. Do you recall receiving any -- I'm going to ask

10 a yes/no, and then we'll sort out whether you can do11 beyond yes/no. Do you recall receiving any legal12 opinion from your counsel regarding whether Penn13 State's bylaws permitted President Erickson to make14 the decision of the consent decree?15 A. I want to say yes, but I don't specifically16 know I can say that prior to -- the week prior to.17 Q. Do you recall at some point being provided with18 the legal opinion on President Erickson's authority19 under Penn State's rules to do that?20 A. Yes.21 Q. And --22 A. It was at least -- I had that opinion at least23 the Wednesday after the consent decree was signed.24 I think we had it prior, but I don't know25 specifically. I can specifically say that I had that

Keith Masser


Page 38

1 opinion Wednesday after the consent decree was2 signed. It was signed Monday evening.3 MR. SCOTT: Just so we're clear, you're4 talking about a written opinion; correct?5 MR. HAVERSTICK: Or oral.6 A. I'm talking oral.7 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:8 Q. I want to make sure. When we mean opinion, we9 mean an opinion from counsel about President

10 Erickson's authority.11 A. Yes. Our counsel, Steve Dunham, provided an12 opinion to us at some point in that time frame that13 President Erickson had the authority.14 Q. Based on Penn State's bylaws?15 A. Bylaws.16 Q. And you don't recall whether that opinion was17 provided to you before or after the consent decree18 was executed?19 A. I think the Executive Committee had that20 opinion. We discussed it, so we would have had that21 before the full Board had it shortly thereafter.22 Q. When did the Executive Committee have that23 opinion, if you remember?24 A. Sometime during that week.25 Q. Was it at the same time the Executive Committee

Page 40

1 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.2 A. The Executive Committee agreed -- well,3 they -- there was no deliberation and there was no4 motion, but it was the consensus -- the Executive5 Committee was of the opinion that Rod Erickson had6 the authority to sign the consent decree, and the7 Executive Committee was supportive of Rod Erickson's8 decision to sign it.9 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:

10 Q. And was it also a consensus decision rather than11 a vote?12 A. There was no vote.13 Q. So am I right in saying that it was a consensus14 decision that the full Board should not be informed15 of potential consent decree terms because of NCAA's16 confidentiality request?17 A. I want to make sure the terminology is right.18 It was of the opinion of every member of the19 Executive Committee that Rod Erickson could not bring20 the discussions he was having with the Executive21 Committee to the full Board to run the risk of22 members of the full Board leaking to the press,23 removing that option, the consent decree option, to24 Penn State. The Executive Committee supported Rod25 Erickson's decision not to take it to the full

Page 39

1 discussed its view that NCAA's membership agreement2 authorized President Erickson to do this?3 A. Yeah. It was consistent with our bylaws, were4 consistent with our membership rules.5 Q. You remember that being discussed at this first6 Executive Committee session?7 A. Right. It was a broader discussion, I mean8 whether we had to take this issue to the full Board.9 I mean it was -- there was a lot of discussion around

10 the president's authority and this confidentiality11 that was imposed that this consent decree would not12 be an option should the information leak, and we had13 Board members who just went to the press with14 everything. So we had this confidentiality versus15 good governance discussion that whole week.16 Q. And was it reiterated at the Executive Committee17 session that should the terms of the potential18 consent decree be leaked, that it would be taken off19 the table?20 A. Yes.21 Q. And the Executive Committee decided that as a22 result, it was not going to take the consent decree23 decision to the full Board or -- I'm sorry -- it was24 not going to inform the full Board of the consent25 decree terms prior to the agreement's execution?

Page 41

1 Board.2 Q. As far as you understood in these meetings, it3 was the NCAA that desired the consent decree's4 potential terms to be kept confidential?5 A. Yes.6 Q. Was it your understanding that that was a7 demand by the NCAA?8 A. Yes.9 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.

10 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:11 Q. Your answer was yes?12 A. If the terms of the consent decree -- it's my13 understanding and it was with that understanding14 that decisions were made during that whole week15 that if the terms of the consent decree were leaked16 by Penn State to the public, it would not be an17 option.18 Q. And did you have an understanding of what19 would happen to Penn State if it no longer was an20 option?21 A. Not specifically. I just knew the consent22 decree would not be an option.23 Q. Prior to President Erickson signing the consent24 decree, were you -- let's start with just you --25 informed the terms of the consent decree?

Keith Masser


Page 42

1 A. Prior to signing it?2 Q. Yes.3 A. Yes.4 Q. When did that happen?5 A. Sunday morning, sometime Sunday before the6 document was -- I mean I was informed almost7 immediately prior to signing it what was in it.8 Q. Was that presentation by President Erickson?9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was it to you only?11 A. No. It was to the Executive Committee was --12 we had the discussion earlier in the week should13 these discussions occur only between Karen Peetz,14 Keith Masser, and Rod Erickson, and Rod make a15 decision he could trust the full Executive Committee16 for these leaks, which were the leaks were contained.17 I mean there were no leaks of the information.18 So the full Executive Committee had a -- the19 full Executive Committee was briefed by Rod20 Erickson. The final version of the consent decree21 that was signed was provided to the full Executive22 Committee prior to Rod Erickson signing.23 Q. So when it was communicated to you, it was in24 the context of an Executive Committee?25 A. Yeah. It was not a personal phone call between

Page 44

1 softening of sanctions.2 Q. Who discussed taking another look at the3 sanctions?4 A. It wasn't discussed.5 Q. I'm sorry. I thought you said in the waning6 hours?7 A. There was language that allowed the consent8 decree to be opened up and to -- there was language9 put into the consent decree under mutual agreement

10 to take another look. So it could have --11 Q. It could be amended?12 A. Yeah, but it could go both ways. We13 understood it could -- I mean it cut both ways that14 the -- it could be beneficial to Penn State if Penn15 State was -- it was our intent to perform to the16 athletic integrity agreement beyond everyone's17 expectations, and hopefully it would benefit Penn18 State.19 Or if Penn State didn't perform to20 expectations, it could have been harsher sanctions,21 but we were looking at it from a positive outlook.22 Q. It was your understanding prior to the consent23 decree that there was a potential for the NCAA to24 come back and sanction Penn State with even harsher25 terms?

Page 43

1 Rod Erickson and me. It was in the context of an2 Executive Committee.3 Q. What do you recall President Erickson saying in4 this executive session prior to -- Executive5 Committee session -- I beg your pardon -- prior to6 his signing of the document?7 A. That it would be the toughest decision he's8 ever had to make of his 40 years of working at Penn9 State, and that it was the least damaging option

10 for Penn State University and the surrounding11 community.12 Q. Was there again discussion of other options13 available to Penn State should it choose not to14 accept the consent decree?15 A. It was a discussion of the unknown. It was16 the potential of the death penalty. There was17 rationale for signing the consent decree, and the18 other things that were out there were uncertain.19 The consent decree defined certainty.20 It defined a four-year road map to get the21 Sandusky issue behind us, and it provided what took22 place in the waning hours of the consent decree23 being formulated. There was the option to take24 another look at it after a period of time which25 resulted in -- subsequently it resulted in the

Page 45

1 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.2 A. The language opened it up. So it could have3 went either way.4 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:5 Q. Why would Penn State agree to open up the6 consent decree and agree to harsher sanctions?7 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.8 A. We were looking at -- I told you we were9 looking at it from a positive aspect being able to

10 open up and meet and exceed our expectations of11 performing under the athletic integrity agreement,12 but it wasn't a check valve. It wasn't language in13 there to preclude it. We understood there was risk,14 but there was more reward than there was risk.15 Q. And the risk was the potential for increased or16 harsher sanctions down the line?17 MS. GRAGERT: Object to the form.18 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:19 Q. Go ahead.20 A. That's the risk.21 Q. That's what you understood prior to the22 signing of the agreement?23 A. We understood there was language in there that24 could open this up under mutual agreement and have25 it discussed. So personally I looked at that as a

Keith Masser


Page 46

1 risk on both sides, but was committed to have Penn2 State exceed people's expectations in fulfilling the3 athletic integrity agreement in the hopes that this4 four-year agreement could be shortened.5 Q. Do you recall any of Penn State's legal advisors6 telling you in this -- in the run-up to signing of7 the agreement that it could be reopened and tougher8 sanctions could be imposed?9 A. No. That was my own personal assessment.

10 Q. Do you recall in the final conversation the11 Executive Committee had prior to President Erickson12 executing the consent decree whether he reiterated13 what the negative options were for Penn State if it14 wasn't signed?15 A. When? What time frame are you looking at?16 Q. The last meeting you had on that Sunday prior17 to his signing the document?18 A. I don't know if that was at the last meeting19 because the consent decree versus not signing the20 consent decree was discussed during that week as it21 was evolving, so I don't know if that was at the very22 last meeting or not.23 Q. At some point along that continuum it was24 discussed?25 A. Yes.

Page 48

1 benefit. It was the least harmful of two options, as2 I remember it.3 Q. Do you know whether the full Board was informed4 of the terms of the consent decree before it was5 signed?6 A. It was not.7 Q. Do you know when the full Board learned of the8 execution of the consent decree?9 A. I think the full Board -- we had a meeting, I

10 think it was Monday concurrent with or prior to Mark11 Emmert's announcement.12 Q. As far as you know, that's when the rest of the13 Board learned about consent decree?14 A. (Nodding head.)15 Q. Do you know if the full Board was aware up to16 that point of negotiations with NCAA at all?17 A. I don't know specifically. There were --18 there would be specific members of the Board, but19 the Board as a whole did not convene and make a20 decision.21 Q. Would those specific members be the ones who22 were on the Executive Committee?23 A. Yes.24 Q. So, to your knowledge, you're not aware of any25 other Board member who wasn't on the Executive

Page 47

1 Q. What was your understanding of the likelihood2 of the imposition of the death penalty if Penn State3 did not agree to the consent decree?4 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form.5 MS. GRAGERT: I'll join that objection.6 A. We knew it was possible. We didn't know it was7 certain, but we weren't willing to take the risk. We8 knew there was sentiments among -- Rod Erickson9 communicated some sentiments among some other

10 university presidents who were members and who were11 on the NCAA Board that we got a sense that there was12 sentiments to give Penn State the death penalty.13 We didn't know how that would play out if we14 put it to the test. We weren't willing. Rod15 Erickson was not willing to put it to the test if we16 had an option that could define our penalties and not17 let it open-ended.18 We were concerned about having a football coach19 recruit student athletes under the cloud of not20 knowing and how that would impact negatively21 between -- there was all kinds of considerations of22 not signing, looking at what the benefits of the23 consent decree provided versus the other, not signing24 the consent decree.25 I don't want to communicate that there was a

Page 49

1 Committee knowing about discussions with NCAA?2 A. That's correct.3 MR. HAVERSTICK: Okay. Give me five4 minutes, and then I think we're done. We'll go off5 the record.6 (Recess taken from 10:29 a.m. until 10:32 a.m.)7 BY MR. HAVERSTICK:8 Q. One or two questions to get my mind right about9 something. When, if ever, did you learn that in the

10 first half of 2012 there had been contact between11 NCAA and the Freeh Group?12 A. I don't know specifically. I know it was --13 I was involved in a briefing that we were trying to14 keep -- that the University was hoping to keep -- was15 trying to keep the NCAA was doing their own16 investigation of this.17 I knew there was a letter sent to the18 University, and we had to answer, and so I just know19 top line that the -- our own independent20 investigation that the University was doing was21 trying to be used to deter the NCAA from doing their22 own investigation, to preclude another investigation23 being done. I don't know. I don't have a date, but24 I remember generally being made aware that that was25 taking place.

Keith Masser


Page 50

1 Q. Do you recall who gave that briefing?2 A. I don't. Karen Peetz and I had a lot of3 discussions. She may have learned from -- she was on4 the special task force, so it may have come that way.5 It wasn't a -- I don't recall it being a formal6 Executive Committee discussion.7 Q. It may have been just one of the, I assume, many8 conversations you and Karen Peetz had throughout the9 first half of 2012?

10 A. Yeah.11 Q. Do you recall whenever it happened, it was12 prior to the time you learned about -- prior to the13 time that you, President Erickson, and Karen Peetz14 had the telephone call where you learned about15 impending NCAA action?16 A. Right.17 Q. It was before that?18 A. Yes.19 Q. But beyond that, you don't recall as we sit here20 today?21 A. No.22 Q. Do you recall any level of specificity about --23 strike that. It doesn't sound like whenever it was24 that it was a particularly memorable or significant25 event?

Page 52

1 A. Yes.2 Q. And is it true that in practice that the3 consent decree was, in fact, reopened?4 A. Yes.5 Q. And that many of the sanctions were eased?6 A. Yes.7 Q. The bowl ban was lifted?8 A. Correct.9 Q. The scholarship reductions were lifted?

10 A. Correct.11 Q. And you also testified that if you hadn't12 accepted the consent decree, there was an unknown, is13 that right?14 A. Correct.15 Q. And that unknown, that uncertainty, may have16 involved a time -- a process that would have taken17 some period of time to complete, is that right?18 A. Yes.19 Q. And that uncertainty would have had -- would20 have been a risk to your recruiting efforts for your21 football program, is that correct?22 A. Correct.23 Q. So there was some value in moving quickly? Let24 me rephrase the question. So there was --25 A. I don't know if I'd categorize it as value. I

Page 51

1 A. It was our opinion that this -- I was operating2 in at least the first half of 2012 that this wasn't a3 significant issue for the NCAA. And when I got --4 when Rod Erickson first called and said it is --5 Q. It was a surprise?6 A. Yeah.7 Q. Your expectation was that hopefully the Freeh8 Group process would forestall action by other bodies9 including NCAA, and you named some of them before,

10 too?11 A. Right.12 MR. HAVERSTICK: Thank you, Mr. Masser. I13 really appreciate your time. I don't have any more14 questions.15 MR. SCOTT: Any questions over here?16 MS. GRAGERT: I do, but I need five17 minutes. Your five minutes was a little short.18 MR. HAVERSTICK: We can take a little19 break.20 (Recess taken from 10:35 a.m. until 10:49 a.m.)21 CROSS EXAMINATION22 BY MS. GRAGERT:23 Q. Mr. Masser, earlier you testified about the24 provisions in the consent decree that allowed it to25 be reopened. Do you recall that testimony?

Page 53

1 was looking at it from a least harm aspect, so2 however you want to characterize it.3 Q. There was at least some value from the4 recruiting perspective in having a more quick5 resolution than an unknown long drawn-out procedure?6 A. Yes.7 Q. In light of all of that, do you believe sitting8 here today that you made the right decision in9 supporting President Erickson with the consent

10 decree?11 A. I do.12 Q. I want to talk briefly about the decision to13 fire Coach Paterno. You previously --14 MR. SCOTT: This lawsuit has grown wildly15 from its origins, but I don't think we're at the16 point where this lawsuit involves that, but I'll let17 you ask the question.18 A. I won't agree that he was fired either.19 BY MS. GRAGERT:20 Q. Okay. How would you describe it?21 A. He was removed from his duties as head football22 coach.23 Q. You previously stated that that was -- it24 happened at a meeting on a Wednesday in November, is25 that right?

Keith Masser


Page 54

1 MR. HAVERSTICK: I'm sorry. Did he testify2 to that today or is that something --3 MS. GRAGERT: Yes, earlier.4 MR. HAVERSTICK: That Paterno was removed?5 MR. SCOTT: I missed that, as well.6 MS. GRAGERT: My apology.7 BY MS. GRAGERT:8 Q. You earlier referred to an infamous meeting on a9 Wednesday in November?

10 A. Right.11 Q. Why were you referring to it as infamous?12 A. Because we removed a president from his duties13 and a head football coach, and we set a course to get14 those events behind us. I refer to it as infamous15 because how widely publicized it was and the news16 media debacle that followed it.17 Q. Was that decision to remove Coach Paterno a18 challenging decision for you?19 A. Personally?20 Q. Yes.21 A. It was.22 Q. Did you ultimately vote in favor of removing23 Coach Paterno from his duties?24 A. I did.25 Q. And on what basis?

Page 56

1 diverse group of individuals, and the decision was2 made in unanimity.3 Q. You don't believe that that decision4 constituted a rush to judgment, do you?5 MR. SCOTT: Objection.6 A. I don't like the way you asked the question.7 You're saying what I believe what --8 BY MS. GRAGERT:9 Q. Let me ask it this way.

10 A. We made a decision that we had to make. The11 University made a decision.12 Q. At that point the Grand Jury presentment had13 come out on a Saturday, is that correct?14 A. Yes.15 Q. And the infamous meeting occurred the following16 Wednesday?17 A. Yes.18 Q. So that's four days later?19 A. Mm-hmm.20

21 // Testimony continues on folllowing page in order22 to include jurat.23

24

25

Page 55

1 MR. SCOTT: I'm not going to let him2 answer that question. It's so far afield from3 anything that has anything to do with this case.4 MS. GRAGERT: Understood. Let me just ask5 a few more questions about this.6 BY MS. GRAGERT:7 Q. At that point there hadn't been any8 investigation -- the Freeh firm had not yet been9 hired to conduct investigations, is that right?

10 A. Correct.11 Q. Do you know if anyone had interviewed Coach12 Paterno prior to that decision being made?13 A. The decision to remove Coach Paterno had14 nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't15 done. It was based upon the distraction of having16 him on the sidelines would have caused the17 University and the harm to the current football18 team. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno19 had done or hadn't done.20 Q. Did you believe that the Board had enough21 information at that point in time to make the22 decision it made?23 A. Enough information that -- it was 32 members on24 our board. Our Board is made up of members from25 various modes of entry. The Board members are a

Page 57

1 Q. But you believe that was sufficient time to2 make the decision that you all made?3 A. Yes.4 MS. GRAGERT: I don't have any further5 questions.6 MR. SCOTT: Good job. You're done.7 (The deposition concluded at 10:55 p.m.)8

9

10

11

12 _________________13 KEITH MASSER14

15 Subscribed and sworn to before me16 this _____ day of ________, 2014.17 __________________________18 NOTARY PUBLIC19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Keith Masser


Page 581 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )

) SS.2 COUNTY OF YORK )3

I, Tracy L. Lloyd, Reporter and Notary Public4 in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and

County of York, do hereby certify that the foregoing5 testimony was taken before me at the time and place

hereinbefore set forth, and that it is the testimony6 of:7

KEITH MASSER8

9 I further certify that said witness was by meduly sworn to testify the whole and complete truth in

10 said cause; that the testimony then given wasreported by me stenographically, and subsequently

11 transcribed under my direction and supervision; andthat the foregoing is a full, true and correct

12 transcript of my original shorthand notes.13 I further certify that I am not counsel for

nor related to any of the parties to the foregoing14 cause, nor employed by them or their attorneys, and

am not interested in the subject matter or outcome15 thereof.16 Dated at York, Pennsylvania, this 25th day of

November, 2014.17

18

19

_______________________________20 Tracy L. Lloyd, Notary Public

Registered Professional Reporter21

22

23 (The foregoing certification does not apply to anyreproduction of the same by any means unless under

24 the direct control and/or supervision of the25 certifying reporter.)

Page 59

1 NAME OF CASE: Jake Corman v. NCAA2 DATE OF DEPOSITION: 11-24-20143 NAME OF WITNESS: KEITH MASSER4 Reason Codes:5 1. To clarify the record.6 2. To conform to the facts.7 3. To correct transcription errors.8 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______9 From _____________________ to _____________________

10 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______11 From _____________________ to _____________________12 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______13 From _____________________ to _____________________14 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______15 From _____________________ to _____________________16 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______17 From _____________________ to _____________________18 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______19 From _____________________ to _____________________20 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______21 From _____________________ to _____________________22 Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______23 From _____________________ to _____________________24 ________________________25 KEITH MASSER

Keith Masser


Keith Masser


Page 1

Aa.m (5)1:19 49:6,6 51:20,20able (1)45:9accept (3)31:18,19 43:14accepted (1)52:12accepting (1)35:5accreditation (3)21:12,21 23:9action (16)8:24 12:2,4,8,11,14

13:5 14:19 24:7,2025:1 29:8,10 32:1550:15 51:8

actions (4)31:20 35:6,8,9ad (1)8:1address (1)11:14advantageous (1)35:13advisors (1)46:5advocating (1)17:11afield (1)55:2afternoon (3)9:14,25 10:21ago (2)27:1,11agree (4)45:5,6 47:3 53:18agreed (6)12:12 13:22 29:14

31:3 34:10 40:2agreement (10)37:5 39:1 44:9,16

45:11,22,24 46:3,446:7

agreement's (1)39:25ahead (2)24:6 45:19Alexis (2)2:3 4:18allegations (5)8:5,20,21,23 9:3Allen (2)

2:11 5:5allowed (2)44:7 51:24alternatives (1)35:3amended (1)44:11and/or (1)58:24announced (1)11:15announcement (1)48:11answer (12)12:20 17:23 20:24

24:4 25:15 28:15,1730:13,24 41:1149:18 55:2

answered (1)28:21answers (1)5:20anybody (1)30:4apologize (1)7:17apology (1)54:6APPEARANCES (1)2:1apply (1)58:23appointed (1)15:16appointing (2)15:5,7appreciate (1)51:13apprised (1)8:19appropriate (1)31:4Appropriations (1)1:6Arch (1)2:20aside (2)27:19,23asked (1)56:6asking (1)14:4aspect (2)45:9 53:1

assessment (1)46:9assigned (1)23:7assist (1)27:25association (3)1:10 2:18 21:22assume (1)50:7assumed (1)32:11assuming (2)31:9,9athletes (1)47:19athletic (5)1:10 2:18 44:16 45:11

46:3athletics (1)37:3attend (1)8:1attention (1)8:8Attorney (1)21:6attorneys (1)58:14authority (12)28:10 31:11 36:14,20

36:22 37:1,3,1838:10,13 39:10 40:6

authorized (1)39:2available (4)30:1,7 34:14 43:13aware (20)16:24 17:3 19:12,14

19:16,21,25 22:2022:24 23:1,19,22,2324:5 25:2,4 33:2548:15,24 49:24

Bback (3)12:20 31:7 44:24Baldwin (2)8:10,19ban (1)52:7based (4)37:5,6 38:14 55:15basically (8)

9:22,25 12:1 18:1627:6 35:1,3,18

basis (2)8:1 54:25becoming (1)11:11beg (1)43:5began (1)14:4believe (5)53:7 55:20 56:3,7

57:1beneficial (1)44:14benefit (2)44:17 48:1benefits (2)34:25 47:22best (2)25:15 31:12beyond (3)37:11 44:16 50:19Big (6)22:14,16,18,21 37:1,7board (70)6:6,18,21 8:9 9:3

11:12,23,25 12:1,112:10,12,15,17,2313:22 14:3,10,13,1414:22 15:4,6,2416:3,6,14 17:4,8,1818:2,3,9,10,14 19:119:16,19 27:7 29:229:14 30:2,21 31:1235:10,11 36:19,2338:21 39:8,13,23,2440:14,21,22 41:147:11 48:3,7,9,1348:15,18,19,2555:20,24,24,25

bodies (1)51:8bombarded (1)21:13bombardment (1)21:3BOT (2)6:8,13BOT's (1)11:8Boulevard (1)2:8bowl (1)

52:7Box (1)2:15breaching (1)34:11break (5)5:24,25 6:3 29:22

51:19breaks (1)6:2brief (2)5:16 33:22briefed (11)26:10 28:6,7,9 29:11

32:14 34:21 36:4,1236:17 42:19

briefing (12)8:10 18:11,16,23 26:9

26:13 32:17,20,2236:5 49:13 50:1

briefings (3)15:23 26:19 34:12briefly (1)53:12bring (1)40:19bringing (1)33:25broached (1)11:20broad (1)29:13broader (1)39:7brought (1)8:7Business (1)7:10bylaws (7)15:4 22:10 23:21

37:13 38:14,15 39:3

Ccall (28)9:6,14,18,24 10:21

11:16,25 25:19 26:726:22,25 27:6,1428:23 29:6,21 31:231:3,15,16,21,24,2532:2,13 34:4 42:2550:14

called (2)4:7 51:4calls (4)

Keith Masser


Page 2

27:13 31:18 34:3,23capacity (2)1:4,7Capital (1)7:10care (1)23:8Carl (1)7:5case (3)23:11 55:3 59:1Casey (1)6:23catch (1)10:13categorize (1)52:25cause (2)58:10,14caused (1)55:16Center (1)6:18certain (8)14:17 15:15,18 16:12

30:9 33:2,9 47:7certainty (1)43:19certification (2)4:3 58:23certify (3)58:4,9,13certifying (1)58:25chain (1)27:17chair (21)1:5 6:8,11,17,18,22

6:22,23 7:5,7,8,9,157:17,18 15:4,5,617:13 20:7,8

chairman (1)6:17chairs (2)7:2,4challenging (1)54:18characterize (2)23:3 53:2charge (1)15:5charging (1)10:7check (1)

45:12chief (1)9:22Chill (1)24:13choose (1)43:13circle (1)23:18circumstances (1)8:7clarify (2)21:1 59:5clear (3)26:17 36:13 38:3clearly (1)36:13close (1)23:18cloud (1)47:19coach (9)47:18 53:13,22 54:13

54:17,23 55:11,1355:18

Codes (1)59:4collaborating (1)22:21College (1)14:15Collegiate (2)1:10 2:17come (4)18:22 44:24 50:4

56:13coming (4)5:15 12:9,14 32:11comments (1)28:24committed (1)46:1committee (69)1:5 6:13,15 7:1,3,4,6

7:7,9,12,14,19,208:24 11:8,9,10,1416:5 17:18 18:1,818:12,13,15 20:926:9,19 28:7,929:15 31:4,8 32:1433:1 34:11,15,17,2035:10 36:4,7,10,1236:18 38:19,22,2539:6,16,21 40:2,5,7

40:19,21,24 42:1142:15,18,19,22,2443:2,5 46:11 48:2249:1 50:6

committees (3)7:2,5 15:6Commonwealth (4)1:1,7 58:1,4communicate (1)47:25communicated (4)19:23 36:3 42:23 47:9communicating (2)30:8 34:10community (1)43:11Compensation (1)7:6complement (1)16:16complete (2)52:17 58:9Compliance (1)7:8concern (1)27:6concerned (2)25:24 47:18concluded (1)57:7conclusion (1)21:19concurrent (1)48:10conduct (1)55:9conference (2)9:24 11:25confident (2)36:22,23confidential (2)31:10 41:4confidentiality (9)29:16,18,21,24 30:16

34:12 39:10,1440:16

conform (1)59:6confused (1)25:10Conrad (4)2:2 4:16,19,21consensus (3)40:4,10,13

consent (60)19:2,3 24:21 25:2,3,9

25:12,21 26:1131:19 32:19,2134:24 35:4,5,8,1235:13,16 36:15,2137:14,23 38:1,1739:11,18,22,24 40:640:15,23 41:3,12,1541:21,23,25 42:2043:14,17,19,22 44:744:9,22 45:6 46:1246:19,20 47:3,23,2448:4,8,13 51:2452:3,12 53:9

considerations (1)47:21consistent (2)39:3,4constituted (1)56:4contact (3)19:8 23:2 49:10contained (1)42:16context (3)18:8 42:24 43:1continues (1)56:21continuum (1)46:23contract (2)36:24,25control (2)11:2 58:24convene (1)48:19conversation (4)8:13 9:20 30:19 46:10conversations (2)9:2 50:8Corman (3)1:3 4:25 59:1correct (16)6:10,12,13 12:16

13:19 38:4 49:252:8,10,14,21,2255:10 56:13 58:1159:7

counsel (34)5:21 7:20,22,24 8:1

8:11,12,14 9:4,179:20 11:19 13:9,1414:1 26:17 27:16,21

28:5,12 33:1,2,4,1133:14,17,19,20,2434:1 37:12 38:9,1158:13

county (3)8:21 58:2,4couple (2)14:7 33:16course (2)34:7 54:13COURT (1)1:1crimes (1)10:7crisis (1)12:3Cross (2)3:3 51:21crummy (1)13:12current (1)55:17cut (1)44:13Cynthia (1)8:10

DD (1)3:1D.C (1)2:13daily (1)34:13damaging (1)43:9Dambly (2)7:9 15:13Damiani (3)2:4 4:20,20Dandrea (1)6:24date (6)1:18 16:8,20,22 49:23

59:2Dated (1)58:16Davis (2)2:7 4:22day (6)10:2,14 26:8 34:14

57:16 58:16days (2)25:20 56:18

Keith Masser


Page 3

deal (1)12:2dealing (1)29:18death (9)27:5 32:2 35:18,20,21

35:23 43:16 47:2,12debacle (1)54:16debate (1)36:18December (3)16:12 20:10,12decide (2)17:1 36:19decided (4)14:8 32:14 34:20

39:21decision (28)18:14 31:7,11 36:11

36:14,15,23 37:1439:23 40:8,10,14,2542:15 43:7 48:2053:8,12 54:17,1855:12,13,22 56:1,356:10,11 57:2

decisions (3)28:10 37:2 41:14decree (59)19:2,3 24:21 25:2,4,9

25:12,21 26:1131:19 32:19,2134:24 35:4,6,9,1235:13,16 36:16,2137:14,23 38:1,1739:11,18,22,25 40:640:15,23 41:12,1541:22,24,25 42:2043:14,17,19,22 44:844:9,23 45:6 46:1246:19,20 47:3,23,2448:4,8,13 51:2452:3,12 53:10

decree's (1)41:3Defendant (3)1:11,13 2:17define (1)47:16defined (4)35:9,9 43:19,20delegated (2)12:14 37:4deliberation (1)

40:3demand (1)41:7Department (1)21:5deposed (1)5:16deposition (4)1:16 5:23 57:7 59:2describe (5)8:7 9:17 12:3 13:8

53:20desire (2)32:9,10desired (1)41:3details (1)8:16deter (1)49:21developing (1)14:19difference (1)17:25different (3)8:21 25:12 28:14dire (2)29:6 32:4direct (3)3:3 5:10 58:24direction (1)58:11disclosed (1)30:1disclosing (1)30:5discuss (4)5:21 8:2 10:18 29:12discussed (15)9:9 14:9 15:21,25

27:5 31:23 36:1138:20 39:1,5 44:2,445:25 46:20,24

discussing (1)36:5discussion (15)12:17,22 13:5,8,13

29:13 34:16,17 39:739:9,15 42:12 43:1243:15 50:6

discussions (11)22:17 23:7 26:18

29:17 30:5 33:2034:8 40:20 42:13

49:1 50:3distraction (1)55:15District (1)1:4diverse (1)56:1document (3)42:6 43:6 46:17doing (12)5:19 19:25 20:1,20,21

21:6,16 22:5 23:549:15,20,21

drawn-out (1)53:5driving (1)25:6duly (2)4:8 58:9Dunham (3)33:7,16 38:11duties (3)53:21 54:12,23

EE (1)3:1Eagleview (1)2:8earlier (11)10:6,13 25:7 28:13,17

28:18 30:14 42:1251:23 54:3,8

eased (1)52:5Eckel (3)7:2,6 15:13Ed (1)6:21Education (2)15:12 21:5efforts (1)52:20either (4)17:17 31:18 45:3

53:18elected (2)6:8 11:11Eleventh (1)2:12eminent (1)12:3Emmert (3)27:13 28:24 29:3

Emmert's (1)48:11employed (1)58:14employee (1)8:22ended (1)15:9engaged (1)19:16engagement (2)16:22 17:24entail (1)32:23enter (1)36:20entities (1)21:3entrusted (1)34:19entry (1)55:25Erickson (51)25:19 26:1,7,9,13,15

26:19,22,24 27:7,1027:12 28:22 29:8,1730:3,8,15,20 31:631:11,24 32:1,534:5,9,15,22 35:435:11,15,25 36:1337:13 38:13 39:240:5,19 41:23 42:842:14,20,22 43:1,346:11 47:8,15 50:1351:4 53:9

Erickson's (5)36:20 37:18 38:10

40:7,25errors (1)59:7evening (6)10:12 11:21 14:13,14

32:18 38:2event (1)50:25events (2)27:18 54:14everybody (1)4:11everyone's (1)44:16evolving (1)46:21EXAMINATION (2)

5:10 51:21examined (1)4:8exceed (2)45:10 46:2executed (1)38:18executing (2)6:1 46:12execution (2)39:25 48:8executive (70)6:13,15 7:1,3,11,14

7:19,20 8:9,24 11:711:9,10,14 16:2,517:17 18:1,8,11,1218:13,15 26:9,1928:7,8 29:15 31:3,831:22 32:14 33:1,2334:5,11,15,16,2035:10 36:4,7,10,1236:18 38:19,22,2539:6,16,21 40:2,4,740:19,20,24 42:1142:15,18,19,21,2443:2,4,4 46:1148:22,25 50:6

expectation (6)16:1 20:14,18 21:25

22:8 51:7expectations (4)44:17,20 45:10 46:2expected (1)21:18expert (1)34:1expertise (2)28:6,13explain (1)9:8explained (1)35:15explaining (1)35:11extent (1)8:13Exton (1)2:8

Ffact (2)36:12 52:3facts (1)59:6

Keith Masser


Page 4

failures (1)13:19fairly (3)15:15,18 16:12far (4)28:18 41:2 48:12 55:2fast (2)29:5 32:8faster (1)24:18Faulkner (2)33:7,8favor (1)54:22feedback (1)17:15feel (2)5:24 6:3felt (2)21:7 23:7filing (1)4:4filled (1)16:16filling (1)27:7final (2)42:20 46:10Finance (1)7:10find (2)12:5 13:18findings (1)25:25fire (1)53:13fired (1)53:18firm (3)14:6 17:6 55:8firms (2)12:18 16:24first (27)4:13 8:4 9:11 11:19

14:9 16:11,15 19:522:20 23:19 26:2127:14 28:23 29:2031:2,15,16,21,24,2532:2 36:17 39:549:10 50:9 51:2,4

fiscally (1)37:2five (5)6:23 25:20 49:3 51:16

51:17folks (1)23:24folllowing (1)56:21followed (1)54:16following (4)11:22 14:13,14 56:15follows (1)4:8football (5)47:18 52:21 53:21

54:13 55:17force (16)14:5,10,25 15:8,10,16

15:23 16:1,4,9,2518:22 23:7,11,1350:4

force's (1)17:11foregoing (4)58:4,11,13,23forestall (1)51:8forget (2)6:25 14:22form (19)4:5 17:20,21 19:10,11

20:17 21:23 22:1122:23 24:1,8,2334:6 40:1 41:9 45:145:7,17 47:4

formal (1)50:5formality (1)5:25formed (3)11:8 13:25 16:9former (1)8:22forming (1)12:23formulated (2)34:24 43:23formulating (1)35:2forth (1)58:5forward (1)14:20four (1)56:18four-year (2)

43:20 46:4frame (2)38:12 46:15Frank (2)33:9,9Frazier (7)7:1,8 15:12,19 17:13

17:14,16Freeh (23)16:17 17:12 19:22

20:11,14 21:16,1921:20,25 22:3,8,1822:22 23:2,7,20,2423:25 25:11,2549:11 51:7 55:8

Freeh's (1)17:6frequent (1)26:18fulfilling (1)46:2full (33)8:9 11:12 12:15 16:6

16:14 17:4,8,1818:2,9,10 29:1434:20 36:3,19,2338:21 39:8,23,2440:14,21,22,2542:15,18,19,21 48:348:7,9,15 58:11

further (4)8:16 57:4 58:9,13future (2)16:2,2

GGarban (3)14:3,23,24Gardner (3)2:11 5:5,5Gene (8)27:20,21 28:8,16

33:19,22,22 34:2general (4)13:21 28:5 29:1 33:17General's (1)21:6generally (1)49:24Gephart (2)2:14 5:7getting (2)25:10 27:16gist (1)

5:18give (4)6:19 24:16 47:12 49:3given (2)23:20 58:10go (7)4:13 5:22 31:6,22

44:12 45:19 49:4going (13)8:18 11:1 13:10,14

17:1 23:16,25 29:431:21 37:9 39:22,2455:1

good (8)5:12,13 13:3 27:3

29:5,18 39:15 57:6governance (3)7:7 29:19 39:15Gragert (31)2:12 3:5 5:3,3 17:20

19:11 20:17 21:2422:11,23 24:1,8,1124:13,23 30:23 31:141:9 45:1,17 47:551:16,22 53:19 54:354:6,7 55:4,6 56:857:4

Graham (2)10:1,21Grand (2)10:6 56:12grave (1)27:6group (20)12:23 13:25 16:17,23

17:13 20:11,1421:16,19,20 22:3,822:22 23:2,20,24,2549:11 51:8 56:1

groups (2)11:7 21:21grown (1)53:14Guadagnino (1)33:9guidance (1)27:17guide (1)27:17

Hhalf (5)22:20 23:19 49:10

50:9 51:2

handle (2)11:2,8happen (4)16:4 35:16 41:19 42:4happened (5)9:18 18:7,19 50:11

53:24happening (2)21:10 32:7harm (2)53:1 55:17harmful (1)48:1Harrisburg (2)1:21 2:16harsher (4)44:20,24 45:6,16Haverstick (36)2:2 3:4 4:12,14,15 5:1

5:11 8:17 10:317:22 20:3,23 22:222:13,25 23:17 24:324:9,12,15,19 25:526:12 31:5 38:5,740:9 41:10 45:4,1849:3,7 51:12,1854:1,4

head (6)10:23 19:4 22:6 48:14

53:21 54:13hereinbefore (1)58:5Hershey (2)6:18,21Hintz (1)6:21hire (2)12:5 17:11hired (4)12:18 20:15 33:11

55:9hiring (2)17:8 28:8hoc (1)8:1hope (1)5:15hopeful (1)20:19hopefully (4)5:19 22:4 44:17 51:7hopes (1)46:3hoping (1)

Keith Masser


Page 5

49:14hours (2)43:22 44:6

Iidea (2)11:18 12:7immediate (3)6:17,21 11:22immediately (2)6:10 42:7impact (2)30:6 47:20impending (1)50:15impose (1)35:7imposed (4)35:20,21 39:11 46:8imposition (1)47:2include (2)7:24 56:22includes (2)6:16 7:4including (1)51:9increased (1)45:15independent (4)12:5 20:21 23:5 49:19indicated (1)32:5individuals (1)56:1infamous (5)14:15 54:8,11,14

56:15inform (1)39:24informal (1)6:2information (17)8:14 11:3 18:13,21

20:5 21:15,20 23:1329:10,13 33:2534:14,18 39:1242:17 55:21,23

informed (8)17:18 26:2 27:3 31:12

40:14 41:25 42:648:3

inhouse (2)33:4,10

initial (1)26:7initially (1)26:15initiated (1)14:18input (1)17:15inside (1)34:7integrity (3)44:16 45:11 46:3intent (1)44:15intercollegiate (1)37:3interest (1)18:4interested (6)19:13,19 22:15 23:4

26:3 58:14interim (1)34:23internal (3)13:17 20:19 21:8interrupt (1)24:11interview (1)23:25interviewed (2)16:25 55:11introductions (1)5:14investigate (2)13:16 22:9investigating (1)22:15investigation (31)12:19,24 13:17,23

16:18 17:2 19:15,1719:20,22 20:1,2,1620:19,20,22 21:7,821:17,19,25 22:4,2223:5 35:22,22 49:1649:20,22,22 55:8

investigations (5)21:4,13 22:5 35:19

55:9investigative (6)11:19 14:6 15:22 16:9

18:22 20:8investigator (1)12:5invitation (2)

8:3 9:19involved (6)26:17 27:9 33:1,3

49:13 52:16involvement (1)29:12involves (1)53:16issue (7)8:2 21:9 27:9 29:19

39:8 43:21 51:3issued (1)22:19issues (4)23:21 27:25 28:6

34:12items (1)25:3

JJake (2)1:3 59:1January (3)6:9 7:18 18:6jeopardizing (1)31:13Jerry (4)8:5 10:7 18:4,18job (3)1:25 12:14 57:6John (1)14:4join (2)21:24 47:5judgment (1)56:4July (2)6:7 18:6jump (1)24:6jurat (1)56:22Jury (2)10:6 56:12

KKaren (12)6:11,22 15:13,19 20:7

25:19 26:2 34:1942:13 50:2,8,13

Kathleen (1)6:23keep (8)5:15 21:14 29:11 31:9

34:20 49:14,14,15keeping (1)31:12Keith (11)1:16 3:3 5:8 7:2,6

15:13 42:14 57:1358:7 59:3,25

Ken (6)7:1,7 15:11 17:13,14

17:16kept (1)41:4Kevin (3)2:7 4:7,22Killian (2)2:14 5:6kind (3)8:14 21:9 26:3kinds (2)35:24 47:21knew (9)11:23 12:5 13:18 25:7

29:3 41:21 47:6,849:17

know (44)13:16 15:11,17,19,19

15:25 16:8,20 18:219:18,21,24 22:1723:6,16 27:23 28:128:2,16,18,19,2029:1 30:21 31:6,1031:14 37:16,2446:18,21 47:6,1348:3,7,12,15,1749:12,12,18,2352:25 55:11

knowing (3)31:8 47:20 49:1knowledge (3)19:23 30:15 48:24known (2)23:12 55:14knows (1)4:11

LL (3)1:22 58:3,20laid (1)12:2language (5)44:7,8 45:2,12,23large (2)6:24,25

late (1)9:25LATHAM (1)2:11Latsha (2)2:7 4:22lawsuit (2)53:14,16leadership (4)11:12 12:1 14:3 27:7leak (1)39:12leaked (2)39:18 41:15leaking (1)40:22leaks (3)42:16,16,17leaning (1)36:14learn (4)8:8 18:3 21:8 49:9learned (13)8:9 18:1,2 19:1 21:20

24:6,20 25:17 48:748:13 50:3,12,14

learning (3)8:4,23 19:5led (1)30:19legal (10)7:8 32:25 33:2,4,19

33:19,20 37:11,1846:5

let's (4)24:6 26:21,21 41:24letter (2)16:22 49:17level (2)5:25 50:22lifted (2)52:7,9light (1)53:7likelihood (1)47:1line (10)45:16 49:19 59:8,10

59:12,14,16,18,2059:22

little (3)11:3 51:17,18Lloyd (3)1:22 58:3,20

Keith Masser


Page 6

Logan (1)2:20long (3)6:5 7:11 53:5longer (1)41:19look (3)43:24 44:2,10looked (1)45:25looking (12)27:3 29:5 35:1,2,4,11

44:21 45:8,9 46:1547:22 53:1

lot (3)24:18 39:9 50:2Louis (1)17:6

MM (2)1:6 2:12MacNett (3)2:3 4:16,16Madden (3)2:3 4:18,18main (2)10:17 11:23maintained (1)30:16making (1)36:11map (1)43:20Mark (6)7:9 15:13 29:3 33:7,8

48:10Market (1)2:4Marsh (9)27:20,21,24 28:8,16

33:20,22,22 34:2Masser (17)1:16 3:3 4:7,11,14 5:8

5:8,12 6:5 8:1242:14 51:12,2357:13 58:7 59:3,25

Matt (1)4:15matter (7)9:7,9 10:18 11:14

13:6 32:6 58:14matters (1)5:21

Matthew (1)2:2McCombie (1)6:24McCord (2)1:6 4:25McKENNA (5)2:7,7 4:22,22,23mean (17)10:16 15:19 21:18

24:11,25 25:23 30:431:18 33:10 36:1038:8,9 39:7,9 42:642:17 44:13

means (1)58:23meant (1)7:16media (3)10:5,13 54:16Medical (1)6:18meet (3)18:12 34:18 45:10meeting (33)8:10 10:17 11:5,6,12

12:17,22,25 13:4,1313:24 14:16,18,1915:21,22 16:15,2317:7,10 18:8,9 19:126:20 36:8,19 46:1646:18,22 48:9 53:2454:8 56:15

meetings (4)11:13 16:3 20:15 41:2meets (2)7:19,20member (6)6:6,25 22:16,16 40:18

48:25member's (1)14:22members (21)6:16,24 9:3 11:25

12:10,23 14:10 15:715:11,17,18 30:231:12 39:13 40:2247:10 48:18,2155:23,24,25

membership (5)36:24 37:6,7 39:1,4memorable (1)50:24memory (2)

15:14,15mention (1)27:12mentioned (1)7:7mentioning (1)32:1met (7)4:15 5:4 11:10,23

14:13,14 20:11Michael (1)2:19Middle (1)21:11Mike (1)5:2mind (2)4:10 49:8minutes (3)49:4 51:17,17Mischaracterizes (1)24:2missed (1)54:5misunderstood (2)25:6,14Mm-hmm (1)56:19modes (1)55:25molestation (1)8:5Monday (3)1:18 38:2 48:10morning (4)5:12,13 10:6 42:5motion (1)40:4moving (2)14:20 52:23mutual (2)44:9 45:24

NN (1)3:1name (4)4:14 14:22 59:1,3named (1)51:9names (1)6:19National (2)1:10 2:17

NCAA (66)5:3,5,7 13:5 17:19

18:4,17 19:8,12,1519:19,24 20:1,11,1520:20 21:14,2222:10 23:2,5,19,2123:23 24:7,20 25:125:8,17,24 26:1,327:4,9,13,25 28:628:11 29:1,21,2330:6,14 31:7,7,2032:11,15 34:8 35:735:20 36:25 37:541:3,7 44:23 47:1148:16 49:1,11,15,2150:15 51:3,9 59:1

NCAA's (3)32:9 39:1 40:15need (7)5:24 8:15 9:7 12:12

13:11 36:23 51:16needed (1)34:17negative (1)46:13negatively (1)47:20negotiations (1)48:16neither (1)32:10never (3)11:10 18:13 19:7new (1)34:14news (1)54:15newspaper (1)10:9night (3)10:11 14:12,16Nodding (4)10:23 19:4 22:6 48:14North (1)1:20Notary (4)1:22 57:18 58:3,20notes (1)58:12notified (2)9:23 27:15November (7)1:18 9:11 16:13,14

53:24 54:9 58:16

NW (1)2:12

OO'Brian (1)4:17O'Brien (3)2:2 4:19,21object (19)9:17 17:20,21 19:10

19:11 20:17 21:2322:11,23 24:1,8,1724:23 40:1 41:945:1,7,17 47:4

objection (4)21:24 23:14 47:5 56:5objections (1)4:4obtained (1)21:15occasion (1)10:18occur (2)32:17 42:13occurred (2)13:19 56:15occurring (1)19:13offered (2)9:20 26:11Office (1)21:6official (2)1:3,6officials (1)19:9Oh (1)16:19okay (7)6:4 11:13 16:24 24:17

31:8 49:3 53:20Old (1)11:23once (1)20:15ones (1)48:21open (3)45:5,10,24open-ended (1)47:17opened (2)44:8 45:2operating (1)

Keith Masser


Page 7

51:1opinion (14)37:12,18,22 38:1,4,8

38:9,12,16,20,2340:5,18 51:1

option (12)32:21 35:8,18 39:12

40:23,23 41:17,2041:22 43:9,23 47:16

options (15)25:4 26:16 29:25 30:1

30:7 31:13,14,15,2335:15,24 36:3 43:1246:13 48:1

oral (2)38:5,6order (1)56:21orders (1)15:5organization (1)36:25organizations (2)22:5,14original (1)58:12origins (1)53:15outcome (1)58:14outline (1)32:23outlined (1)10:24outlook (1)44:21outreach (2)17:19 18:18outside (8)5:4 7:24 8:1 9:3 27:16

27:21 33:10,14oversee (1)12:24

Pp.m (1)57:7P.O (1)2:15page (9)56:21 59:8,10,12,14

59:16,18,20,22paraphrase (1)14:2

pardon (2)30:25 43:5part (1)23:15participation (2)14:24 15:3particularly (1)50:24parties (2)4:3 58:13Paterno (7)53:13 54:4,17,23

55:12,13,18path (1)27:8Peetz (15)6:11,22 15:13,20 20:7

25:19 26:23 28:2329:9 30:20 34:542:13 50:2,8,13

penalties (1)47:16penalty (10)27:5 31:23 32:2 35:18

35:20,21,23 43:1647:2,12

Penn (59)5:2,8 6:5 13:5,19

17:19 18:15,18 19:819:14 20:2,18 21:321:10,13 22:9,1523:11 24:7,21 25:825:18 26:4 27:3,2429:5 30:4,4,6 32:1032:12 33:12,13,1734:7,8 35:7 36:937:5,12,19 38:1440:24 41:16,19 43:843:10,13 44:14,1444:17,19,24 45:546:1,5,13 47:2,12

Pennsylvania (13)1:1,5,7,13,21 2:5,8,16

2:21,22 58:1,4,16people's (1)46:2perform (4)12:18 13:14 44:15,19performing (1)45:11period (5)23:1 34:21,23 43:24

52:17periodic (5)

23:2 26:5,18,18 34:12periodically (2)16:5 26:10permitted (1)37:13person (2)11:24 14:15personal (2)42:25 46:9personally (2)45:25 54:19personnel (2)20:11,11perspective (1)53:4Philadelphia (2)2:5,21phone (12)27:14 28:23 29:6,21

31:2,3,15,16,18,2134:23 42:25

Pine (1)2:15place (10)1:20 13:23 19:15 30:5

35:19,22,23 43:2249:25 58:5

Plaintiff (1)1:17Plaintiffs (2)1:8 2:10Planning (1)7:10play (2)32:2 47:13please (4)6:20 18:2 21:2 24:12point (13)12:13 13:3 18:3 27:4

33:6 37:17 38:1246:23 48:16 53:1655:7,21 56:12

points (1)5:20Poole (1)9:22posed (1)25:1position (2)23:16 33:18positions (1)6:16positive (2)44:21 45:9

possibility (1)25:7possible (4)19:14 32:3 35:6 47:6potential (10)8:19 13:5 25:17 30:9

39:17 40:15 41:443:16 44:23 45:15

potentials (1)36:1PowerPoint (1)23:20practice (1)52:2preclude (3)21:16 45:13 49:22presence (1)9:4present (1)7:20presentation (5)10:1,6,22 23:20 42:8presented (3)10:1,4 29:25presentment (4)10:11,24 11:4 56:12president (41)9:23 26:13,22,24 27:7

27:10,12,13 28:9,2228:24 29:8,17 30:330:8,15,20 31:6,1031:23 32:1,5 34:534:22 35:15,2536:20 37:1,4,13,1838:9,13 39:2 41:2342:8 43:3 46:1150:13 53:9 54:12

president's (1)39:10presidents (2)29:2 47:10press (4)10:2,5 39:13 40:22presume (1)10:10pretty (1)14:19prevent (4)20:1,20 21:9 22:4previously (3)19:18 53:13,23primarily (1)17:16prior (35)

10:9,16 11:11 16:1616:23 17:24 19:722:18 25:2,8,11,2325:24,25 26:1127:23 32:19 37:1637:16,24 39:2541:23 42:1,7,2243:4,5 44:22 45:2146:11,16 48:1050:12,12 55:12

private (1)11:13probably (4)7:13 14:17,18 25:20procedure (1)53:5proceeded (1)6:10process (3)30:17 51:8 52:16Professional (2)1:22 58:20program (1)52:21progressing (1)27:8proposed (2)23:24 25:3provide (5)5:20 8:15 15:23 16:1

27:17provided (8)23:23 34:15 37:17

38:11,17 42:2143:21 47:23

providing (2)17:15 26:3provisions (2)29:16 51:24public (7)1:22 18:12 22:1 41:16

57:18 58:3,20publicized (1)54:15publicly (1)36:16purpose (1)5:1purposes (1)19:17put (4)32:22 44:9 47:14,15putting (1)21:12

Keith Masser


Page 8

Qqualifications (1)28:7question (17)4:5 12:21 13:11,12

23:10 24:10,14,1624:25 28:17 29:2230:13,14 52:2453:17 55:2 56:6

questioning (1)4:10questions (9)5:19 14:7 23:24 25:10

49:8 51:14,15 55:557:5

quick (1)53:4quickly (3)32:6,12 52:23

Rradar (2)23:6 26:1rationale (1)43:17read (2)10:10,11reading (1)10:9real (1)26:16really (4)6:1 10:16 25:14 51:13reason (10)28:8 59:4,8,10,12,14

59:16,18,20,22reasons (2)35:12 36:16recall (60)7:13 8:4 9:2,9,22

10:19 11:4,5,1812:7,8,10 13:4 15:215:9 17:7,10 18:718:17,20,21 20:1220:13 22:15 25:1525:16 26:23 27:2,1527:15 28:21 29:331:22 32:1,4,5,7,932:20 33:18 34:2,2235:10,14,14 36:7,1837:9,11,17 38:1643:3 46:5,10 50:1,550:11,19,22 51:25

recap (1)

31:21receiving (3)34:6 37:9,11Recess (2)49:6 51:20recollection (1)18:25recommendation (4)17:3,5,11 36:8recommendations (1)12:9recommended (1)17:8record (2)49:5 59:5Recross (1)3:3recruit (1)47:19recruiting (2)52:20 53:4Redirect (1)3:3reductions (1)52:9Reed (2)2:19 33:15refer (1)54:14referred (2)34:1 54:8referring (3)10:5 29:1 54:11regard (2)23:16 28:10regarding (1)37:12Registered (2)1:22 58:20regular (1)15:23reiterated (2)39:16 46:12related (1)58:13relatively (1)5:15released (1)25:11remaining (1)11:24remember (13)13:8 16:21 17:14 19:5

20:4 27:2,10 31:14

32:24 38:23 39:548:2 49:24

remove (2)54:17 55:13removed (3)53:21 54:4,12removing (2)40:23 54:22reopened (3)46:7 51:25 52:3rephrase (1)52:24report (5)10:9 12:15 22:18

25:11,25reported (1)58:10reporter (4)1:22 58:3,20,25reports (2)10:5,13represent (1)4:24representative (1)6:19representing (1)5:7reproduction (1)58:23request (2)29:9 40:16requested (1)21:4required (2)29:21,23reserved (1)4:5resolution (2)30:9 53:5resolved (1)32:6respective (1)4:3response (1)11:8responsibilities (1)23:15responsibility (1)15:7responsible (2)14:10 15:3rest (2)15:24 48:12result (5)

8:23 13:6 32:13 35:2339:22

resulted (2)43:25,25retained (8)11:19 16:17 27:24

28:13,16,17,1833:15

reward (1)45:14Rick (1)6:24right (23)5:18 9:13 10:8 19:6

23:10 24:20 32:1532:16 33:12 34:2537:8 39:7 40:13,1749:8 50:16 51:1152:13,17 53:8,2554:10 55:9

risk (9)31:19 40:21 45:13,14

45:15,20 46:1 47:752:20

road (1)43:20Rob (1)4:25ROBERT (1)1:6Rod (26)25:19 26:1,7,9,15,19

31:11 34:9,9,15,2035:4,11 36:12 40:540:7,19,24 42:14,1442:19,22 43:1 47:847:14 51:4

role (2)13:9,13Ron (2)15:12 17:14room (2)1:20 4:11Rossman (1)2:3rough (2)14:2 32:22Roughly (1)7:15rules (4)37:6,7,19 39:4run (3)31:7,19 40:21run-up (1)

46:6rush (1)56:4Ryan (1)6:24

Ssanction (2)32:3 44:24sanctions (11)25:8,17 26:4,16 44:1

44:3,20 45:6,1646:8 52:5

Sandusky (12)8:5 9:7,9 10:7,18

11:14 13:6 18:4,1821:9 27:9 43:21

Sarah (5)2:4,12 4:20 5:3 24:15Saturday (5)9:11 10:16,17 11:22

56:13saw (1)10:11saying (4)6:3 40:13 43:3 56:7scheduled (1)9:24scholarship (1)52:9Scott (27)2:15,19 3:6 4:9,13,24

5:2,2,6,6 8:12 9:1917:21 19:10 21:2323:14 25:22 38:340:1 45:7 47:451:15 53:14 54:555:1 56:5 57:6

sealing (1)4:3second (1)13:4Secretary (1)15:12see (1)10:10seeking (1)14:4select (1)14:6Senate (1)1:5Senator (2)1:4 4:24

Keith Masser


Page 9

Senatorial (1)1:4sense (2)29:4 47:11sent (1)49:17sentiments (3)47:8,9,12separate (1)20:21serve (2)14:5,5session (9)8:9,15 31:22 33:23

34:6 39:6,17 43:4,5sessions (4)16:2 18:11,11,16set (2)54:13 58:5settlement (1)30:9seven (1)7:4Shaffer (1)7:5shared (1)21:21short (2)26:8 51:17shortened (1)46:4shorthand (2)9:7 58:12shortly (2)11:5 38:21shy (1)6:3sidelines (1)55:16sides (1)46:1sign (3)35:5 40:6,8signed (17)16:22 19:2,3 24:22

25:2,9,12,21 32:1935:12,17 37:23 38:238:2 42:21 46:1448:5

significant (2)50:24 51:3signing (13)35:13 41:23 42:1,7,22

43:6,17 45:22 46:6

46:17,19 47:22,23sit (2)16:20 50:19sitting (1)53:7situation (4)11:2 18:5,19 19:13six (1)25:20Smith (2)2:19 33:15softening (1)44:1Solicited (1)14:24soliciting (1)15:3somebody (1)26:14sorry (3)39:23 44:5 54:1sort (2)14:1 37:10sound (1)50:23Spanier (3)9:23 10:1,22Spanier's (1)11:15speak (2)5:25 10:4special (19)11:18 12:18,23 13:9

13:14,22 14:1,5,615:6,7,22 16:8,1817:1 18:22 20:827:16 50:4

specific (12)13:16,21 18:24,25

19:24 22:17 27:228:5 31:23 35:948:18,21

specifically (15)13:15 17:9 19:21

22:12 26:23 27:2027:21 28:15,2537:15,25,25 41:2148:17 49:12

specificity (1)50:22specifics (1)8:18speculating (1)28:1

speculation (2)28:4,12spoke (1)17:10Square (1)2:20SS (1)58:1staff (1)9:23staffed (3)16:9,13,14standing (2)7:5 15:5start (4)4:9 26:21,21 41:24started (1)26:15State (56)1:13 2:22 5:2,9 6:5

13:6,19 14:15 17:1918:15,18 19:8,1420:2 21:3,6,10,1422:9,15 23:12 24:724:21 25:8,18 26:427:4,24 29:5 30:4,430:6 32:12 33:12,1333:17 34:7,8 35:736:9 40:24 41:16,1943:9,10,13 44:14,1544:18,19,24 45:546:2,13 47:2,12

State's (7)20:18 32:10 37:5,13

37:19 38:14 46:5stated (4)19:18 23:4 36:16

53:23States (1)21:11stenographically (1)58:10Stephen (1)2:3steps (7)8:24 12:2,4,8,12,14

14:19Steve (6)4:16 14:3 33:6,8,16

38:11stipulated (2)4:2 29:16STIPULATION (1)4:1

Street (5)1:20 2:4,12,15,20strict (1)30:16strike (2)22:7 50:23student (1)47:19stuff (1)10:25subject (1)58:14Subscribed (1)57:15subsequent (1)15:22subsequently (2)43:25 58:10subset (1)13:25subsets (1)11:7sufficient (1)57:1summary (1)12:11Sunday (8)11:21,22 13:4,12

14:12 42:5,5 46:16supervision (2)58:11,24supported (1)40:24supporting (1)53:9supportive (1)40:7supposed (1)22:9sure (7)4:12 16:19 20:24 23:3

31:7 38:8 40:17Surma (2)14:4,21surprise (1)51:5surrounding (2)22:18 43:10suspension (1)32:2sworn (3)4:8 57:15 58:9

T

table (3)30:11 32:22 39:19take (18)6:3 8:24 13:23 19:15

21:18 29:13,1431:20 35:19,22,2239:8,22 40:25 43:2344:10 47:7 51:18

taken (8)1:17 30:10,11 39:18

49:6 51:20 52:1658:5

talk (1)53:12talked (1)16:25talking (2)38:4,6task (17)14:5,10,25 15:7,9,16

15:23 16:1,4,9,2517:11 18:22 23:7,1123:13 50:4

tasks (1)13:14team (1)55:18telephone (10)9:13,18 10:21 11:15

26:22,24 27:1232:13 34:4 50:14

tell (2)25:16 32:20telling (5)26:24 30:15 34:22

36:1 46:6Ten (6)22:14,17,18,21 37:1,7terminology (1)40:17terms (15)6:1,2 19:24 30:10

35:5 36:24 39:17,2540:15 41:4,12,15,2544:25 48:4

test (2)47:14,15testified (3)4:8 51:23 52:11testify (2)54:1 58:9testimony (7)24:2 25:7 51:25 56:21

58:5,5,10

Keith Masser


Page 10

Thank (3)5:14 14:24 51:12Thanks (1)24:18thereof (1)58:15things (6)22:8 23:9 27:3,8

35:25 43:18think (15)9:24 14:21 16:11

28:21 30:13,2333:16,24,24 37:2438:19 48:9,10 49:453:15

thinking (1)34:13Thomas (1)2:15thought (1)44:5Three (1)2:20time (33)4:6 5:20 8:4,25 9:6,8

12:4 16:17 17:1718:24 19:7 20:1023:1 24:6,16 25:927:23 29:9,20 33:1034:21 38:12,2543:24 46:15 50:1250:13 51:13 52:1652:17 55:21 57:158:5

timeline (1)35:9timelines (1)25:13times (1)18:1timing (1)25:16today (7)5:15,19,23 6:15 50:20

53:8 54:2today's (1)5:1told (4)18:17 19:7 20:10 45:8Tom (3)5:6,6 9:22Tomalis (3)15:12,19 17:14top (1)

49:19tougher (1)46:7toughest (1)43:7Tower (1)2:5Tracy (3)1:22 58:3,20transcribed (1)58:11transcript (1)58:12transcription (1)59:7transitory (1)13:3Treasurer (1)1:7trial (1)4:6true (2)52:2 58:11trust (2)34:11 42:15Trustee (1)6:6Trustees (3)16:15 18:3 19:16truth (1)58:9try (1)20:1trying (4)21:14 49:13,15,21Tuesday (1)32:18two (6)15:2 27:1,11 35:3

48:1 49:8type (1)23:12typically (2)7:22,24

Uultimately (1)54:22unanimity (1)56:2uncertain (1)43:18uncertainty (2)52:15,19

understand (4)13:11 20:24 24:25

27:11understanding (8)29:20,23 41:6,13,13

41:18 44:22 47:1understood (7)23:18 41:2 44:13

45:13,21,23 55:4university (17)1:13 2:22 7:22 8:11

9:21 13:17,20 14:2026:17 31:13 43:1047:10 49:14,18,2055:17 56:11

unknown (4)43:15 52:12,15 53:5update (2)16:5 34:6updates (2)16:2 26:5urgency (1)29:4use (2)24:23 35:1utilized (1)34:2utilizing (1)21:14

Vv (1)59:1value (3)52:23,25 53:3valve (1)45:12vantage (1)18:3various (4)5:20 12:10 36:16

55:25verbal (1)30:23version (1)42:20versus (6)18:1 29:18 35:6 39:14

46:19 47:23vice (6)6:17,22 7:14,17,18

20:7view (2)27:4 39:1

violated (1)22:10volunteers (1)14:4vote (3)40:11,12 54:22vs (2)1:9,12

Wwaived (1)4:4waning (2)43:22 44:5want (11)5:21,24 6:2,3 12:3

37:15 38:8 40:1747:25 53:2,12

wanted (1)28:5wanting (1)36:15Washington (1)2:13wasn't (16)23:6,6,15,22 24:5

26:1 29:5 33:1236:10 44:4 45:12,1246:14 48:25 50:551:2

watch (1)21:12WATKINS (1)2:11way (9)20:25 23:3 24:18 25:1

28:14 45:3 50:456:6,9

ways (2)44:12,13we'll (3)31:22 37:10 49:4we're (7)19:25 22:16,16 27:16

38:3 49:4 53:15Wednesday (11)14:13,14,16 15:21

19:1 32:18 37:2338:1 53:24 54:956:16

week (16)25:21,22,23,24 26:6

26:10 32:18,1933:21 35:2 37:16

38:24 39:15 41:1442:12 46:20

weeks (1)33:17went (4)4:10 13:18 39:13 45:3weren't (7)11:13 23:18,23 27:3,8

47:7,14West (1)2:5widely (1)54:15wildly (1)53:14willing (3)47:7,14,15witness (4)3:2 4:7 58:9 59:3word (2)24:24 34:25words (1)22:21work (2)5:22 14:1working (9)11:7 12:23 13:25 23:8

33:12,13,15,17 43:8world (1)24:17written (1)38:4wrong (1)13:18

XX (1)3:1

YYeah (9)13:2,12 27:22 32:7

39:3 42:25 44:1250:10 51:6

year (2)16:11,15years (3)27:1,11 43:8yes/no (2)37:10,11York (3)58:2,4,16

Z

Keith Masser


Page 11

0

11 (1)59:510:29 (1)49:610:32 (1)49:610:35 (1)51:2010:49 (1)51:2010:55 (1)57:711-24-2014 (1)59:213 (2)6:16 7:11500 (1)2:417108 (1)2:161717 (1)2:2019102 (1)2:519103 (1)2:2119341 (1)2:8

22 (1)59:620 (1)11:2420004 (1)2:132008 (1)6:72010 (2)7:13,152011 (6)8:6,25 9:12 16:12

20:11,122012 (7)7:18 18:6 22:21 23:19

49:10 50:9 51:22013 (1)6:92014 (3)1:18 57:16 58:16218 (1)

2:1524 (1)1:1825th (1)58:16

33 (1)59:732 (1)55:2334th (1)1:4350 (1)2:83rd (1)1:20

440 (1)43:8401 (1)1:20

55 (1)3:45:00 (1)9:2453 (1)3:5555 (1)2:12

6

7

887530 (1)1:25886 (1)2:15

99:15 (1)1:19

20141124 - corman - deposition of kmasser - compressed

Documents

commonwealth of pennsylvania

tom scott

kevin masser

thomas scott

mike scott

im keith masser

sarah gragert

keith masser17