Tuesday, November 3

Feudale Email Exposes Beemer, Others

AG First Deputy, Bruce Beemer's claim that Kane's conduct in releasing private emails was unethical seemingly pales in comparison to other potential misconduct in the case of the PSU 3.  

Ray Blehar

In a memo to top attorneys in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office (OAG), Bruce Beemer alleged that AG Kathleen Kane had conducted herself unethically for producing the so-called "private emails" of former (bumbling) grand jury judge, Barry Feudale.

In what should come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this case, Beemer has his own ethical issues regarding his handling of evidence in the cases of the PSU 3 (i.e., Timothy Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier).

And what also should come as no surprise, the evidence involves emails.

Spanier Discovery Request

On September 9, 2014, counsel for Spanier joined a motion by the attorneys for Curley and Schultz requesting discovery of emails between Feudale and Fina regarding his removal as grand jury judge AND any correspondence about the Conspiracy of Silence case.   See below.

On September 9, 2014, the Commonwealth responded and clarified that First Deputy Attorney Bruce Beemer was the "lead prosecutor" since the filing of charges on November 1st, 2012.  Prior to the filing of charges, Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was the lead prosecutor on the case and was supervised by Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fina.

The Spanier filing also revealed the Beemer was instrumental in directing the searches for emails and in responding to requests of the status of the discovery.

3/545 = Playing "hide the ball"
Bruce Beemer:  Kept
playing"hide the ball?"

The Commonwealth's response stated it found 545 emails related to the search terms provided by the defendants and that the majority of the emails dealt with case logistics. Only three dealt with matters that were material to the case.

The "material" emails were from December 16 and 17, 2011 and referenced expanded Information Technology (IT) evidence collection  to be conducted by the PSU IT staff for hard drives, portable devices, and copies of emails from persons of interest.

When the Spanier defense team stated it "strained credulity" that only three emails were found, the OAG indignantly responded that the case prosecutors had been "forthright, cooperative, and direct" and that it "strained credulity" for them to be accused of playing "hide the ball."  

As reported in early 2014, substantial evidence in the case showed that the prosecutors had been playing "hide the ball" all along.  

The Feudale emails simply added to the existing mountain of evidence that has been suppressed in the case of the PSU 3.

Feudale Email

The July 18, 2013 email from Judge Barry Feudale to the Inky's Craig R. McCoy revealed that his email to Frank Fina regarding his removal as judge contained grand jury information.  Given that the email included various rants about AG Kathleen Kane over his removal -- and that Kane had stirred the hornet's nest with the Mouton investigation - there is little doubt it referenced the Sandusky and/or Conspiracy of Silence grand jury.   See below.

AG Kane told reporters that Feudale mistakenly sent emails to Fina at his old email address in the OAG's office and those emails resided on OAG servers.  Feudale's emails were discovered after his removal as a grand jury judge in July of 2013 -- uncovered during the investigation of the Sandusky investigation, conducted by Special Deputy AG, Geoffrey Moulton.  The Moulton Report revealed that emails from the OAG accounts were recovered beginning in November 2013 and continuing into March 2014.

In summary, the OAG's attorneys, including Beemer, Laura Ditka, and James Barker deceived the legal teams of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier regarding the existence of email evidence.

It is extremely rich that Bruce Beemer wrote a memo accusing AG Kathleen Kane of unethical conduct regarding the release of Feudale's so-called "private emails," given his possible misconduct in the PSU 3 case.

Duke Redeaux

Former Durham County, North Carolina, District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for similar misrepresentations to opposing counsel and the court in the Duke Lacrosse case.  


94. On December 13, 2006, the Duke Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis, detailing their discovery of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and explaining that this evidence had not been included DSI's written report.  The motion did not allege any attempt or agreement to conceal the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence or test results.   The Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis was addressed by the Honorable Osmond W. Smith III, Superior Court Judge presiding, at a hearing on December 15, 2006.

95. At the December 15 hearing, both in chambers and again in open court, Nifong stated or implied to Judge Smith that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items until he received the December 13 motion and/or was unaware that the results of any DNA testing performed by DSI had been excluded from DSI's written report.  Nifong stated to Judge Smith in open court:  "The first I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports -- this motion on Wednesday of this week."

96. Nifong's representations that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and/or that he was unaware of the exclusion of such evidence from DSI's written report, were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel.

Violations of the Code of Ethics

(c) By not providing to the Duke Defendants prior to November 16, 2006, a complete report setting forth the results of all tests and examinations conducted by DSI, including the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and including written or recorded memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements, Nifong:

ii. failed to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request, in violation of former Rule 3.4(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct;  

(d) By never providing the Duke Defendants on or after November 16, 2006, and prior to his recusal on January 12, 2007, a report setting forth the results of all tests or examinations conducted by DSI, including the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and including written or recorded memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements, Nifong:

ii. failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew, or reasonably should have known, was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence, or court opinions, in violation of current Rule 3.4(d)(3) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct

(e) By falsely representing to the Court and to counsel for the Duke Defendants that he had provided all discoverable material in his possession and that the substance of all Dr. Meehan's oral statements to him concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI were included in DSI's written report, Nifong made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1), made false statements of material fact to a third person in the course of representing a client in violation of Rule 4.1, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

(f) By representing or implying to the Court that he was not aware of the existence on rape kit items of DNA from multiple unidentified males who were not members of the lacrosse team and/or that he was not aware of the exclusion of that evidence from DSI's written report at the beginning of the December 15, 2006, hearing, Nifong made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

Media Defends Corruption

"Duke Lacrosse on Steroids" is an apt description of the Sandusky and Conspiracy of Silence cases because the degree of possible misconduct and the number of players who were likely involved.

Judges, prosecutors, and politicians all have taken part in abusing the so-called system of justice in the Commonwealth.

AG Kathleen Kane, who made good on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation, likely had no idea what Fina, Feudale, Beemer, and others likely feared her investigation would uncover about their misconduct -- and it wasn't pornography.

The media, who should be a watch dog to root out corruption, continues to be a lap dog of the corrupt. Instead of recognizing how officers of the court have compromised the system of justice, it has aligned itself with them.  

To make an analogy, instead of being against the "crack dealers" who sell drugs to children, it has turned against the "undercover cops" who identified them.  As for the children, the media is content to leave them to fend for themselves.

Kane and the corrupt are now engaged in a scorched earth policy in which few will be left unscathed.

Unfortunately, those among the scorched will be every citizen of the Commonwealth who will have the unfortunate circumstance to be abused by this corrupt system of justice.

Friday, October 30

Feudale Confirms Sham Case vs. PSU 3

Feudale appears to confirm OAG wasn't going to prosecute the case against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and that he is part of the Conspiracy of Silence that endangers children.

Ray Blehar

A July 14, 2013 email from Barry Feudale to the Inky's "corruption defenders" - Angela Couloumbis and Craig McCoy - appears to confirm that the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) prosecutors had no intention of trying former Penn State University (PSU) officials.

During the Sandusky trial, prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told Judge Cleland that "we're not going to try that case."  Feudale's emails shows he also got word that the prosecution of the PSU 3 was unlikely.

As I wrote here, Rod Erickson's notebook confirmed that it was Fina's intention to use the trumped up charges against Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz to get one or both to flip on former PSU President Graham Spanier.

Thursday, October 29

Inky Lied: Feudale Provided Emails to AG

The Philadelphia Inquirer's report that AG Kathleen Kane surreptitiously obtained former Feudale's emails was refuted by evidence in the paper's possession.

Ray Blehar

In yet another case of bald-faced lying to protect Pennsylvania's corrupt network of prosecutors and judges, the Inquirer published a knowingly false story that Judge Barry Feudale did not give permission nor did he have knowledge that the Office of Attorney General (OAG) obtained his private emails.

Feudale's July 8, 2013 email to the Inquirer's Craig McCoy proves that the Inky knew Feudale turned over a very critical email to OAG Special Deputy Geoffrey Moulton.

Fumbling, Bumbling Barry Feudale

Feudale fumble: Sent private
emails to Fina's AG account?
The Inky's October 27th story also implied that Kane had obtained the emails through surreptitious methods, but to its credit, allowed that Feudale's office security practices were quite poor.

Feudale provided his computer password to two of his secretaries, plus had it written on a Post It note on a pull out shelf in his desk. Additionally, the absent minded judge also kept the key to his office under the base of the American flag in the grand jury room.

In other words, any number of individuals could have accessed Feudale's office.  But that didn't stop the bumbling judge from acting as if he was the victim of the crime of the century.

"I am outraged by the invasion of my privacy. It shouldn't happen to anybody.  It not only upsets me, it saddens me."

But it gets even worse for Bumbling Barry....

After the paper's latest attempted smear, AG Kane informed the Inky's "corruption defenders" that Feudale's private emails were on the OAG's servers.

Citing yet another anonymous source (likely Frank Fina), the Inky reported that Feudale sent his private emails to a former top prosecutor (likely Frank Fina) in the attorney general's office.


But just when you thought things couldn't go any lower,  the Inky, Fina, and others in the corrupt network are questioning the ethics of Kane for not notifying Feudale that he accidentally left a trail of criminal evidence on a government computer system and then exposing his criminal behavior to the public.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

Feudale oversaw the Bonusgate investigation that was also plagued by leaks.  The Sandusky grand jury investigation, which he also oversaw, was plagued by leaks to newspapers.

And now Feudale has been caught leaking secret information again.

Does the Inky really think the public is stupid enough to believe that Kane is the person with a leak problem?

Wednesday, October 28

Franco Harris: We Are In This Together

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” --Buddha

In the first year or so after the Sandusky scandal broke, we continuously faced setback after setback in our quest for the Truth and during that time the media had their own agenda and created a false narrative about Penn State and Joe Paterno that still exists today. This false narrative created fear and people distanced themselves from Joe and Penn State.
However, this past Saturday night Joe Paterno was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame. I believe this is the first honor bestowed upon Joe since the scandal. Jay Paterno accepted this honor on behalf of his father and the Paterno family. He gave an amazing speech that I can only describe as a “moment of Truth” for the world to hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaBexQx9rmo&feature=youtu.be (watch speech)

http://www.votejaypaterno.com/#!pa-hall-of-fame-speech/sizgc (read speech)

Joe told us to find the Truth. I know it’s been tough and we have faced many difficult challenges, but we won’t give up, we will keep seeking the Truth.
We are not there yet, but this honor shows that we are moving forward and that our path to the Truth is having an impact. “Success is walking from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.”

We want people to know that this has never been about football. This is beyond football. This is about who WE ARE. It’s what we do that defines us.

Penn State is our second home. Joe Paterno is our family.

WE ARE in this together.

Franco 10/26/15

Image result for We Are Because You Were

Monday, October 26

Jay Paterno: HoF Speech Calls Out False Narrative

Jay Paterno calls out "false narrative" during Hall of Fame tribute to his father.


Ray Blehar

At Joe Paterno's Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame induction ceremony, Jay Paterno took to the microphone to give a speech before receiving the honor on behalf of his father.

But rather than simply pay tribute to the accomplishments of his father, Jay did exactly as his father would have done.

Confronted "false narrative" head on 
Jay recognized that the honor given to Joe Paterno was an honor shared by all Penn Staters.  He also made the point that you don't have to have a degree from Penn State to be a Penn Stater.  It was -- is -- about a shared set of values.

Success with honor.

Much like myself, Jay really didn't think much about the removal of Joe Paterno's statue.  The bronze cast of Joe, with his finger raised aloft for number one, wasn't the Joe we all knew.   

Franco Harris Backs Judge Anne Covey: 'Smart. Tough. Right'

Judge Covey is best known as the trial judge in the case of Corman v. NCAA. Judge Covey authored the opinion that ruled the Endowment Act constitutional and brought the NCAA to their knees by making them prove the validity of the NCAA Consent Decree.

We need Judge Covey to keep fighting for the values of Pennsylvanians.  

As your Supreme Court Justice, Anne Covey will uphold our Constitution and continue to conduct herself fairly, ethically and professionally.

Wednesday, October 21

Media Chose to Ignore Failures At The Second Mile

Violations of the CPSL and other failures to protect children by The Second Mile were ignored by the media -- in order to sell newspapers.

Ray Blehar

Had Jerry Sandusky been a Boy Scout leader, there likely would not have been a "sex scandal" at Penn State University (PSU).

Imagine the following scenario...

Upon receiving a report that local Scoutmaster Jerry Sandusky had been observed showering with a boy, late at night in a seemingly abandoned PSU locker room, University officials reported the incident to the Board of Sandusky's Boy Scout troop.  

After being informed of the incident, a discussion ensued among a small group of the troop's  Board members.  One very prominent member stood up and defended Sandusky's actions,  stating he didn't think it was a big deal that a scoutmaster had showered with one of the scouts.  He added that men and children shower every day at the YMCA and the issue seemed to be a "non-starter."  He told the other Board members not to take it to the full Board for a decision.  The report was stopped dead in its tracks.

Ten years later, Sandusky was charged with the abuse of 8 boy scouts.  The investigative report revealed that PSU officials had alerted the Boy Scout troop about Sandusky and that its Board took no action.  As a result, more scouts were subjected to abuse.

What would the media have done with this information?

Would it have blamed PSU for not fulfilling its "moral obligation" to protect the boy scouts? 

Or would it have put the blame where it belonged -- on the scout troop's board?

The answer is obvious, given that there were cover ups of prior sex abuse cases in the Boy Scouts.  It would have become a story of national interest

But The Second Mile (TSM) wasn't the Boy Scouts. 

 As one PSU graduate in journalism recently tweeted....

Selling newspapers and getting clicks trumps the truth every time.

Note the next tweet by Amy Z. Quinn's employer....

There are numerous ways that so-called journalists could reference Jerry Sandusky, such as "convicted child molester" or "serial child molester," however, as the latter tweet confirmed, the media didn't believe that Sandusky's name was nearly as important (to garnering readers) as his association with PSU.

Sadly, that has been the case from the alleged leak of the Sandusky charges and subsequent press release by the Office of Attorney General (OAG).  The press ran with the OAG's story apparently without the least bit of fact checking.

Had they done any research at all, they would have learned that the unknown charity called The Second Mile (TSM) was located in a county with a history of covering up serial child sex abuse cases.  A former TSM board member, Judge Bradley Lunsford, was involved in one of the decisions that kept the lid on a prior abuse case. 

So much for investigative journalism.

The media pack pushed on, ignored TSM, made Sandusky a secondary player in the scandal, put Penn State at the forefront, and totally whiffed on the lessons learned and improvements for protecting children that should have emanated from the scandal.

Wensilver Responds To Heim Coin Toss Flap

The recent “coin toss” controversy this month regarding the Co-Founder and long-time Board Member of Sandusky’s Second Mile children’s charitable non-profit, Mr. Bruce Heim, opened the door slightly for the media and the public to re-focus their questions on the role of the Second Mile leadership in their failures to protect children.  

Penn State President Barron rescinded the honorary Army/PSU game opening coin toss invitation to Mr. Heim after a flood of complaints from well-informed alumni.  Alumni that have been questioning the leadership decisions at Second Mile since the scandal broke in late 2011.  More specifically, alumni have questioned the actions of charity CEO and licensed child psychologist, Dr. Jack Raykovitz, on addressing Sandusky's conduct, which was reported to him in 2001, and PSU's subsequent banning of Second Mile clients from the campus. 

We've heard nothing on the Second Mile until this coin toss controversy and Mr. Heim's compulsion to reply to complaints via an Op-Ed on October 7th in a local State College publication 
 In it, Mr. Heim voices his displeasure on the revoking of this coin toss honorarium, complains of being dishonored, and laments that with benefit of hindsight, he wished he had done more. Yet he also admits to both his and charity Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz’s roles in concealing PSU’s 2001 complaint from the Second Mile Board at large, the Second Mile staffers and charity volunteers. 

Mr. Heim admits to the agreed upon concealment of facts from others in charity leadership positions. Facts, that had they been escalated by a concerned parent about their charity figurehead's conduct with minors, would very likely have led to bad publicity for the Second Mile.  That is an issue any full Board of a children's charity needs to know about.

Mr. Heim’s statement that the Second Mile didn’t have “some culpability” in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based on “conjecture” is a demonstration of his own ignorance of the charity’s legal requirements and the facts in evidence. 

One has to ask that as an involved, decades-long board member and Co-Founder with Sandusky of a Pennsylvania children’s charitable non-profit, why Mr. Heim was not educated on the standards of safe conduct for adults working with children, and more specifically, reporting requirements in Pennsylvania?  

Mr. Heim states this “It never occurred as a possibility until the release of the 2011 Grand Jury presentment that shocked a nation, destroyed a great charity, devastated a town, impugned a university, and by implication its wide alumni base, and maligned a personal friend, partner, and icon who did everything he was supposed to do with the information he had: Joe Paterno.” 

However, Mr. Heim confesses in his Op-Ed that the break in the reporting chain was among the leadership at Second Mile.  Therefore there was never a “cover up” among the administrators at Penn State, least of all with Mr. Paterno. The Second Mile was legally mandated to follow up on institutional complaints on its employee’s conduct with minors, investigate it, possibly report it to outside agencies and implement a written safety plan as per state mandate.

That never happened.

Monday, October 19

Bruce Heim's Letter Provides Learning Opportunities

The breakdowns in PA's child protection system were lost in the sensational reporting about Penn State's role in the Sandusky scandal.  Bruce Heim's letter provides another opportunity to highlight them.

Ray Blehar

Bruce Heim's October 7th guest op-ed (Bruce Heim: Shedding Light on The Second Mile's Decision Making) provides us with a number of opportunities to learn about how the system broke down and enabled Sandusky to perpetrate crimes for over a decade.

The mistakes by the county agencies and  The Second Mile have garnered little attention, but had the correct steps been taken, children may have been spared from abuse. 

Heim:  "At the time [2001], The Second Mile had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, which was not reported to us."

By law, Centre County Office of Children and Youth Services (CYS) was required to notify The Second Mile within 24 hours of receiving the 1998 abuse allegations against Sandusky.  The purpose of the notification was to ensure that the charity put a plan of supervision in place to protect program participants while Sandusky was under investigation.  

That didn't happen.

According to the 1998 University Park police report, Sandusky continued to contact the two children who were subjects of the investigation.  Both children were participants in the charity's activities. In addition, according to court documents, Sandusky was accessing Victim 4 - another participant - during this period.

The law also states that in instances where the county agency has passed the responsibility for investigating to the regional office or the Department, as it did in 1998, it still maintains responsibility for the plan of supervision and other notifications.

About ten years later, similar failures occurred.

Charity did not put
approved plan in place
after the 2009 finding
Heim:  "Upon receipt of the 2008 report, it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities."

In 2008, Clinton County CYS was the investigating agency and it also failed its oversight duties.  Clinton County CYS Director, Gerald Rosamilia, erred by assuming that because Sandusky was no longer accessing the subject (Aaron Fisher) that no plan of supervision was needed.  

As noted above, The Second Mile was required to develop a plan of supervision to ensure Sandusky did not have access to children.  However, the law also required the plan be approved by the county agency and kept on file until the closure of the investigation.

By the charity's own admission, it kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  It did not inform program participants or the public.  It is doubtful that such a plan would have been approved by Clinton County CYS or DPW.

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009.   Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010

Similar failures, ten years apart by two different county agencies, reveals that child protection employees were not well versed in their responsibilities to keep children safe during investigations.  

The evidence also shows that The Second Mile did not comply with the law by failing to get its plan of supervision approved and that its plan was insufficient for protecting children.

Mr. Heim's statement that The Second Mile didn't have "some culpability" in the scandal and that contrary opinions are based "on conjecture," is based on ignorance.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

CDT: Full letter to the editor regarding Heim

My recent letter to the editor was cut-off at the half way point.  I contacted the CDT about the error and hopefully it will be corrected soon.  

Until then, here is the full letter, plus the relevant laws.

Recent letter writers to the CDT believe it was wrong for Penn State to rescind its invitation to Bruce Heim to participate in the coin-toss prior to the Penn State - Army football game.  Both writers believe that it was a simple case of guilt by association (to The Second Mile) that drove Penn State's decision. 

Both writers also appear to share the opinion of Bruce Heim, who in response to the coin-toss flap, stated The Second Mile had no culpability in the Sandusky scandal and that opinions otherwise were based on “conjecture.”

The evidence and the law proves those opinions are wrong. 

Bruce Heim was among the charity's decision makers about handling the Sandusky matter. Heim stated: “Upon receipt of the 2008 report [when Sandusky informed the board he was under investigation], it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities.”

What Heim didn’t say was that the charity kept quiet about the abuse investigation in order to allow Sandusky to continue raising money.  The charity also did not inform program participants or the public. 

The law required The Second Mile to have their plan of supervision (i.e., ban from “kid related activities”) approved by the county agency. The law also required the plan kept on file by the county until the closure of the investigation.

Those things didn’t happen. 

According to court documents and trial testimony, two children were abused while Sandusky was under investigation in 2009. Also, media reports revealed that Sandusky attended a banquet in March 2009 and attended TSM's Summer Challenge Camp in 2010

In short, the Second Mile's plan of supervision was ineffective.

Statements that The Second Mile - or that anyone besides Sandusky - didn't have "some culpability" are simply not supported by the law or the evidence.



The legal requirement for The Second Mile to put an approved plan of supervision in place follows:

§ 6303.  Definitions.

"Child-care services."  Includes any of the following:
(1)  Child day-care centers.
(2)  Group day-care homes.
(3)  Family child-care homes.
(4)  Foster homes.
(5)  Adoptive parents.
(6)  Boarding homes for children.
(7)  Juvenile detention center services or programs for delinquent or dependent children.
(8)  Mental health services for children.
(9)  Services for children with intellectual disabilities.
(10)  Early intervention services for children.
(11)  Drug and alcohol services for children.
(12)  Day-care services or programs that are offered by a school.
(13)  Other child-care services that are provided by or subject to approval, licensure, registration or certification by the department or a county social services agency or that are provided pursuant to a contract with the department or a county social services agency.

§ 6368.  Investigation of reports.

(i)  Investigation concerning a school or child-care service employee.--
(1)  Upon notification that an investigation involves suspected child abuse by a school or child-care service employee, including, but not limited to, a service provider, independent contractor or administrator, the school or child-care service shall immediately implement a plan of supervision or alternative arrangement for the individual under investigation to ensure the safety of the child and other children who are in the care of the school or child-care service.
(2)  The plan of supervision or alternative arrangement shall be approved by the county agency and kept on file with the agency until the investigation is completed.