[FredZarguna]

Felony convictions remove that obligation.

Not relevant (yet), and not true.

Not relevant because NO ONE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME in this case, and certainly no one has been convicted of a felony.

Second not true, because benefit forfeiture under PA Act 140 is not automatic on conviction of just any old felony. The felony has to have occurred during the time of the employees service, and for an act in violation of the public trust. Thus, ironically, unless one or more of Sandusky's victims before 1999 come forward, he might well not lose his benefits (or his wife lose her survivorship benefit, if he opted for one for her) while Schultz might very well lose his.

This is from the PA SERS (State Employee Retirement System) website:

Act 140 requires forfeiture of all pension and retirement benefits by any SERS member who commits certain crimes that breach the member's duty of faithful and honest public service. Also forfeited are any benefits for the member's beneficiaries and survivor annuitants.

Note that whatever the courts may determine, Penn State will have no say in the matter either way. This IS NOT Penn State's retirement system: PSU doesn't have a system; PSU doesn't pay anyone, anything for a pension.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=593234&mode=2

I don’t see anything that would allow the stripping of his pension - specifically any sexual stuff.
The law is specific...

[nickcarraway]

Nevertheless, the public has a right to now about this pension.

[mia]

Thank you. Too many are not thinking, but reacting. Sandusky has not been found guilty or sentenced YET. There is a process, it must be followed.

Too bad Sandusky went on national tv; he probably has tainted most of the jury pool.