What should they have done?

[RentechCEO]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

If bugger off what do you think the NCAA would have done?

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

Curious as to your answers.

 

[Chris92]

This whole mess was known to the BOT well before the presentment hit. Sara Ganim wrote a story on the GJ investigating JS on 3/31/11. We were discussing it on this very board, the CDT ran a piece the same day and it was picked up by the AP. JVP took questions about it at his press conference the next day for the opening of Spring Practice. The very first question was about Sandusky.

The BOT claiming to know nothing about the investigation is just pure BS and a CYA move. I'll add that Cynthia Baldwin could go down as the worst hire in the history of higher education. The PSU administration, the BOT and our General Counsel failed miserably to get on the front end of this mess. They had seven months plus to formulate a plan and never did. The biggest break the BOT caught is when ESPN decided to make this a football story; a STORY the BOT readily embraced and rapidly moved forward.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Impossible to say. Some BOT members had foreknowledge of this, there's no doubt. What was the source and depth of that knowledge? Who among them was clued in and to what extent? Who among them were at least as culpable as any of the people charged? What promises were made to various people on the board by politicos? Your questions are impossible to answer without more information.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Suspend all parties possibly involved and let the judicial system sort things out. It wasn't that hard to figure out what to do, but people wanted blood and they buckled.

 

[fairgambit]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

If bugger off what do you think the NCA knoA would have done?

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

Curious as to your answers.

I know you are not trolling and are sincerely looking for answers, but I, for one, will not be providing any input. This matter has discussed at length here, over thousands of hours these past 4 years. To open it all back up, just because someone asked, is something I want no part of.

 

[dwiz]

This whole mess was known to the BOT well before the presentment hit. Sara Ganim wrote a story on the GJ investigating JS on 3/31/11. We were discussing it on this very board, the CDT ran a piece the same day and it was picked up by the AP. JVP took questions about it at his press conference the next day for the opening of Spring Practice. The very first question was about Sandusky.

The BOT claiming to know nothing about the investigation is just pure BS and a CYA move. I'll add that Cynthia Baldwin could go down as the worst hire in the history of higher education. The PSU administration, the BOT and our General Counsel failed miserably to get on the front end of this mess. They had seven months plus to formulate a plan and never did. The biggest break the BOT caught is when ESPN decided to make this a football story; a STORY the BOT readily embraced and rapidly moved forward.

Remember when PSU Board member Stephanie Deviney claimed the first time she heard about sandusky was on fox news when the story broke in november? And then she ran for re-election and hosted a facebook page to answer questions because she actually thought she could win again? These idiots on the board of trustees were either along for the ride (partying at football games, hanging out with sandusky, not making decisions) or were in the other group (making sweet inside deals for huge amount of contracts from penn state & second mile, and making all the decisions). It's pretty clear what was (and still is) going on. Several people made millions from sweetheart deals through the second mile, covered up for Jerry (perhaps shared his interests) and will go down with the ship to protect the image they think they still have. My money is on Anne Riley to spill the beans before her death. She has gone ahead and ruined her family's reputation with her actions. She could redeem herself by exposing what happened at the BOT meetings. One of the nobodies from the 2011 BOT must have a conscience. We know who doesn't (Masser, Garban, Suhey, Peetz, Joyner, Meyers, Surma, Eckel).

 

[Madsol]

Remember when PSU Board member Stephanie Deviney claimed the first time she heard about sandusky was on fox news when the story broke in november? And then she ran for re-election and hosted a facebook page to answer questions because she actually thought she could win again? These idiots on the board of trustees were either along for the ride (partying at football games, hanging out with sandusky, not making decisions) or were in the other group (making sweet inside deals for huge amount of contracts from penn state & second mile, and making all the decisions). It's pretty clear what was (and still is) going on. Several people made millions from sweetheart deals through the second mile, covered up for Jerry (perhaps shared his interests) and will go down with the ship to protect the image they think they still have. My money is on Anne Riley to spill the beans before her death. She has gone ahead and ruined her family's reputation with her actions. She could redeem herself by exposing what happened at the BOT meetings. One of the nobodies from the 2011 BOT must have a conscience. We know who doesn't (Masser, Garban, Suhey, Peetz, Joyner, Meyers, Surma, Eckel).

This is the one area that I struggle with. I have long believed that there is something rotten at PSU that lots of people are trying desperately to hide. But how is it that no one connected to the BOT has broken ranks? There was the one guy (can't remember his name) who when he retired said they were wrong to fire Paterno. But that's as far as it's gone. Can there be no one else connected with the BOT with a conscience? Just like I don't believe McQueary, his dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier all suddenly became monsters and knowingly protected a pedophile, not everyone connected to the BOT can be evil, can they? Is it the case that they so concentrated power that only a relatively few people know the truth and those willing to speak up simply don't know anything because they were kept in the dark?

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Another thing they should not have done was blame the alums, the town, the county, the students, and the popcorn selling kid in the stands as being responsible as some sort of cultural problem. This was the worst and most egregious bunch of horseshit that was foisted on the Penn State public. It doesn't matter now, the damage is done. That's the story that was told. Collective guilt. Masser still wants you to wear it. Dambly, Frazier and Eckel want you to wear it. They are laughing at us.

 

[RentechCEO]

So for those of you that do not want to answer, so be it, I understand.

A question for those who say the BOT knew about all of this back in March 2011. What did they know and who would have told them? Did Spanier?

I figured CSS and Paterno knew then because they had testified at the GJ. I read where one BOT member said Spanier told them in May 2011 I believe that Spanier told them that it was a Second Mile problem.

The final question many of us ask is why would your BOT hate your school so much to do all these things to it? Aren't they all PSU grads? Wouldn't it reflect just as badly on them as it would on other alums?

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

Off the top of my head...
- they weren't ahead of the scandal. Saying they didn't know this was coming is BS. It was in the papers months before.
- when everything broke it took a painful amount for time for PSU to generate any response. Days of silence led to more media fires. PR experts teach classes now using PSU as an example how NOT to handle a crisis.
- They shouldn't have cancelled Joe's PC an hour before it started with hundreds of media there.
- They shouldn't have fired Joe over the phone and at night. I understand they didn't want him on the sidelines due to the distraction. All they had to do was put him on administrative leave until they got more info. People would have been pissed but it would have been manageable
- the mess with the Freeh report goes without saying. It caused damage to the university that will never be repaired

 

[Victor E. Bell]

They are absolutely not all PSU grads. Most are political poodles.

All are extremely wealthy. They are big shots in business, law, and industry. Their own ass is paramount, as would be mine. I don't blame them for that but it is a fact...But recognize this:

They sought these positions. Nobody came along and forced them to be trustees. If you are a trustee by statute and don't want it, resign. Therefore if they are criminally or civilly liable for any loss, personal or financial, they can NOT hide behind ME as a graduate of Penn State. They have to own it or resign. You don't have to be a millionaire or a lawyer to be a head-nodding poodle at these meetings. Get out if you don't like it. You have enough money to buy all the seats you want at Beaver.

 

[NapaNit]

So for those of you that do not want to answer, so be it, I understand.

A question for those who say the BOT knew about all of this back in March 2011. What did they know and who would have told them? Did Spanier?

I figured CSS and Paterno knew then because they had testified at the GJ. I read where one BOT member said Spanier told them in May 2011 I believe that Spanier told them that it was a Second Mile problem.

The final question many of us ask is why would your BOT hate your school so much to do all these things to it? Aren't they all PSU grads? Wouldn't it reflect just as badly on them as it would on other alums?

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

They knew about it in Novemeber of 2010. Think about it.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Yes. Spanier informed the Board of the Sandusky investigation in a less than useful manner and used poor judgement in judging the seriousness of the the matter on the university. He later changed the second Board authored press release in contravention of their wishes.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Clearly the logical choice is the Executive Vice President and Provost who acts as the CEO of the university in the absence of the president. Rod Erickson held that position and accordingly was named acting president when Spanier was removed.

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

No

Should he have answered any and all questions?

No.

Do you think he would have handled it well?

No

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Exactly what they did.......... remove him from his coaching responsibilities but in a more responsible way.

Should they have asked him to resign?

No

Should they have suspended him?

JVP's removal from his coaching duties was an ad hoc suspension.

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

No

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

The needs of the Board/university greatly exceeded what the criminal justice system would have provided. An independent review by an outside third party produced more than 100 recommendations for shoring up deficiencies in many areas of the university.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

An independent outside third party with experience in analyzing operations in large complex organizations and with experience investigating criminal matters. The marching orders as was expressed in the Freeh engagement letter.


How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?
Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

Erickson properly asked for and was granted additional time to respond to the NCAA's questions but then was later not permitted to submit a formal written response to the questions.


If bugger off what do you think the NCAA would have done?

Begun its own investigation via its Committee on Infractions which most likely would have taken considerably longer and been less exhaustive than one conducted by an independent outside third party.

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

My guess is that it would have resulted in harsher penalties than what was administered under the consent decree and possibly all but ended PSU Athletics as we know it.

Curious as to your answers.

 

[bjf1984]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

If bugger off what do you think the NCAA would have done?

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

Curious as to your answers.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[NapaNit]

Thanks for stopping by.

He's surreal, no need to thank him.

 

[PSUSignore]

The answer is very simple. An immediate public statement was needed. It should have first expressed concern for the victims above everything else. Following a short paragraph about the severity of the accusations and victim support, the statement should have mentioned that all involved parties would be placed on immediate administrative leave pending investigation of the accusations. This should have included Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky's emeritus status, and on down the line.

To this day I still don't understand why this wasn't the immediate reaction from from the BOT. This could have been done within the first few hours of the scandal going public, then they could privately discuss how to perform the investigation that would ultimately decide the fate of all involved parties. This would have bought them some time and a properly crafted press release would have let the public and the media know that they were taking these actions very seriously.

 

[bdgan]

Suspend all parties possibly involved and let the judicial system sort things out. It wasn't that hard to figure out what to do, but people wanted blood and they buckled.

Yes. You don't fire a coach with 61 years of service without allowing him to tell his side of the story. You certainly don't do it with a late night phone call. Same for the administrators. The BOT virtually told the public that these guys were guilty without an investigation.

The BOT should have suspended all involved parties pending a thorough investigation. Instead they set off a media frenzy by throwing everybody under the bus while bypassing any sort of due process.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

If bugger off what do you think the NCAA would have done?

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

Curious as to your answers.

They should have gotten medication for that restless 'knee jerk' issue they immediately developed.
Seriously? 'Bugger off" ....no.

The Board of Trustees, reported to be a Board of Trustees, should have acted somewhat like a board of trustees. Perhaps they should have mustered up a modicum of poise and genuine responsibility toward things like due process, guardianship of the universities reputation, their fiduciary responsibility to the University as well as the State and acted with respect toward the facts at hand. In short, as the leaders sitting in the position where the buck stopped, anything but panic and a round display of weakness would have sufficed on their part.

1. Arrange to manage the Paterno interview.
2. Suspend Spanier and Curly pending the outcome of their trials.
3. Answered the NCAA letter with a strong letter admonishing Emmert and Co. fo crossing the line. Stating to them that there was no room in the NCAAs bi-laws and charter for "Witch Hunts" and that PSU would not grant those rights to the NCAA by acquiescing to institutional hysteria.
4. Hired someone that could actually speak to be the spokesman for the University.
5. Given that criminal charges limited any investigative approach beyond any usefulness, the BOT should have acknowledged this fact publicly and handed the process over to the criminal courts with their subpoena power and supported the process by simply ordering a lock down and offsite back up of all records to aid and secure due process (announcing this action publicly).

In short... poise and leadership were the order of the day..... not hysteria ..... and/or pandering to hysteria.

 

[mbahses]

The only thing that needed to be done was tell Emmert and the NCAA to go to hell from day one.

 

[Zenophile]

The final question many of us ask is why would your BOT hate your school so much to do all these things to it? Aren't they all PSU grads? Wouldn't it reflect just as badly on them as it would on other alums?

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

Your initial questions are good ones, and I'll attempt to answer those later, time provided.

RE the above: This isn't a "school hatred" situation. The board found itself amidst a crisis that it both insisted upon managing and was also completely incapable of managing. If you are familiar with the corporate playbook (& I suspect you are), you'll recognize the play. Circle the corporate wagons and offer the middle managers as scapegoats.

And this was clearly their intention at the gate. You may recall that Spanier released a statement in support of Shultz and Curley at the onset of the crisis. You may also recall that Spanier was effectively removed from duty upon release of that statement. I would argue that he was ousted as his statement was completely incongruent with the direction the board was going to be taking.

 

[Bobpsu]

I know you are not trolling and are sincerely looking for answers, but I, for one, will not be providing any input. This matter has discussed at length here, over thousands of hours these past 4 years. To open it all back up, just because someone asked, is something I want no part of.

Good deal !

 

[Bobpsu]

Yes. You don't fire a coach with 61 years of service without allowing him to tell his side of the story. You certainly don't do it with a late night phone call. Same for the administrators. The BOT virtually told the public that these guys were guilty without an investigation.

The BOT should have suspended all involved parties pending a thorough investigation. Instead they set off a media frenzy by throwing everybody under the bus while bypassing any sort of due process.

One Name......SURMA

 

[Fayette_LION]

Suspend all parties possibly involved and let the judicial system sort things out. It wasn't that hard to figure out what to do, but people wanted blood and they buckled.

Exactly, let the evidence go where ever it would go and then act accordingly. Decisions made by the BOT made the situation much worse and the lack of a message allowed the media to set their own agenda and run with it.

 

[indynittany]

....The final question many of us ask is why would your BOT hate your school so much to do all these things to it? Aren't they all PSU grads? Wouldn't it reflect just as badly on them as it would on other alums?

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

IMO, the BOT believed that protecting itself was tantamount to protecting the university in the long run. It's amazing what big egos can rationalize.

However, I think we're here because the OAG decided to make this a PSU scandal. I believe the indictments of Curley and Schultz did catch people unprepared, including Curley and Schultz (who obviously had no idea they were targets of the GJ when they testified). I believe Corbett convinced those on the executive committee that it really was a PSU football scandal. He may have even believed it himself, though I tend to doubt it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Exactly, let the evidence go where ever it would go and then act accordingly. Decisions made by the BOT made the situation much worse and the lack of a message allowed the media to set their own agenda and run with it.

They took the quickest easiest way out and I've never understood the crack crew that applauded them back in the day. Of course it was only a small handful with ties to the BoT, but how can you honestly say they did anything right at all with a straight face. People make mistakes, but at some point you have to own those mistakes too.

 

[demlion]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

If bugger off what do you think the NCAA would have done?

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

Curious as to your answers.

Not gonna fill out your whole chart, but the first thing the BoT should have done, back in the 1990s, was take seriously the reports they already had back then about Jerry's....let's call it "strangeness." Whatever reasons they give for the firing of Paterno and Spanier, they were long since guilty of the same thing. They had certain knowledge, which seems VERY clear in hindsight, regarding JS. Not one of them over the years distanced himself from TSM. Their friends and associates and family members continued to serve on the board of TSM. Not one of them will now admit to knowing ANYTHING until after the indictments. So the first thing they could do is stop lying about the state of their knowledge.

They specifically pretended in November not to know about the March,'11 PennLive article, and it was partly because they did NOTHING that I was reassured there was nothing there.

In May of '11 they were given a briefing by Spanier and Baldwin about the GJ, at which JVP and the admins had testified. When the briefing finished, the report is that they had NO questions. Only 2 reasons to ask no questions--either you already know the answer or you just do not care enough to ask. Their later behavior seems to suggest that they cared a great deal about not getting the dirt on their own shoes, so the second choice seems to be unlikely.

Once these great foundation blocks of deceit were laid in place, they had little choice but to go find someone who could make the "blame Joe" plan work. Enter Louis Freeh. Once they had nailed Joe and Spanier and the others to the cross, they had no choice but to let the NCAA do whatever it wanted to PSU FB. After all, they had approved and paid the University's money for the findings.

I suspect there were people on the board--a majority most likely--who were almost as much in the dark as we were regarding the Freeh Report, because the vast majority of the PSU board was kept in the dark, then as now, about what those insiders at the top were doing. No serious person would tell a dingbat like Anne Riley or Paul Suhey what the real plan was, especially if it were this nasty and full of bald-faced lies. In my view Paul Suhey now KNOWS they lied to the public, but is such a coward he has never come forward. He did not even have the decency to resign in protest.

When Masser stupidly ran his mouth about a coverup, they jumped him publicly and harshly for letting the mask slip. He was so f'ing dumb he did not get how they were working it. Now he is in charge, and that may be the worst thing those scum ever did--even worse than firing JVP.

Your post presumes that a BoT leader existed at the time who was, himself, so unsullied and untainted with prior knowledge about Jerry that s/he could credibly go on the offensive. I do not think there was such a person anywhere near the ruling cabal who ran things.

The best the BoT could have done with the NCAA was show that the fault lay with the BOT and not the FB program. That was a nonstarter, so they blamed the dead guy. The same dynamic drove the settlements with the victims--"We hate to give up all this money, but we have no choice." BTW, these same people who had knowledge of the proclivities of JS, are also the ones charged with protecting the University's assets in the event of just this kind of thing they already had knowledge about, but somehow the insurance provides no coverage and the hundred mil for the victims comes right out of the University's cash.

I know this does not answer your questions. Take it as proof that I cannot answer them, since once you know what really happened you will see that they could not fight the NCAA or the victims.

 

[robbrunskill]

They should have gotten medication for that restless 'knee jerk' issue they immediately developed.
Seriously? 'Bugger off" ....no.

The Board of Trustees, reported to be a Board of Trustees, should have acted somewhat like a board of trustees. Perhaps they should have mustered up a modicum of poise and genuine responsibility toward things like due process, guardianship of the universities reputation, their fiduciary responsibility to the University as well as the State and acted with respect toward the facts at hand. In short, as the leaders sitting in the position where the buck stopped, anything but panic and a round display of weakness would have sufficed on their part.

1. Arrange to manage the Paterno interview.
2. Suspend Spanier and Curly pending the outcome of their trials.
3. Answered the NCAA letter with a strong letter admonishing Emmert and Co. fo crossing the line. Stating to them that there was no room in the NCAAs bi-laws and charter for "Witch Hunts" and that PSU would not grant those rights to the NCAA by acquiescing to institutional hysteria.
4. Hired someone that could actually speak to be the spokesman for the University.
5. Given that criminal charges limited any investigative approach beyond any usefulness, the BOT should have acknowledged this fact publicly and handed the process over to the criminal courts with their subpoena power and supported the process by simply ordering a lock down and offsite back up of all records to aid and secure due process (announcing this action publicly).

In short... poise and leadership were the order of the day..... not hysteria ..... and/or pandering to hysteria.

Ideally either a Board Member with legal background (Frazier) or the University Counsel should have explained that the Grand Jury Presentment is strictly biased towards the prosecution making its case for going to trial and is not bound by the same procedural or evidentiary requirements as an actual trail. The GJP only shows one side of the story and contains a lot of spin and conjecture, sort of like and independent investigation conducted by a former judge and disgraced FBI director. Furthermore he or she should have explained that Pennsylvania is one of only a few remaining states where a Grand Jury Presentment can be made public for obvious reasons. Anyone think it strange that there was no investigation into the GJ leaks to Ganim? That seems to be modus operandi in Pa. if the top politicos want to launch a vendetta/witch hunt against someone they pursue GJ leaks, otherwise they seem to be tolerated if not encouraged.

 

[simons96]

not sure if this has been mentioned, but you would think with all the lawyers on the BoT . . . any statement should have started with sympathy for the victims mentioned but also clarify that a Grand Jury presentment is not a STATEMENT OF FACTS

as we found later, the most destructive portion of the GJ presentment turned out to be a bald faced lie.

 

[simons96]

damn rob, great minds think alike . . .

 

[mbahses]

We would not be discussing any of this today if Erickson had any balls, and the BoT wasn't trying to hide things. The NCAA should've been told to get lost with their first inquiry.

 

[sylvanialion]

BOT should have put C/SH on admin leave given that they were indicted.

BOT should have issued a statement that :

showed sympathy for those affected
demonstrated that this is being taken seriously
that they pledge to cooperate and ask people to allow the legal system to run its course (people are inncoent until proven guilty etc .....)
this in no way represents Penn State
allow Spanier to stay in office but should details change, this decision could change
quoted the GJP which stated Joe did the right thing according to policy and that he was cooperating and would remain our coach
started the branding to distance the university from the act of a former rouge employee

This was not that difficult .... the mess today stems from failed decisions in week 1 which has so far resulted in 400 million PSU dollars down the drain (and counting), alum who despise the schools OG leadership and shame beyond comprehension.

 

[Bob78]

Remember when PSU Board member Stephanie Deviney claimed the first time she heard about sandusky was on fox news when the story broke in november? And then she ran for re-election and hosted a facebook page to answer questions because she actually thought she could win again? These idiots on the board of trustees were either along for the ride (partying at football games, hanging out with sandusky, not making decisions) or were in the other group (making sweet inside deals for huge amount of contracts from penn state & second mile, and making all the decisions). It's pretty clear what was (and still is) going on. Several people made millions from sweetheart deals through the second mile, covered up for Jerry (perhaps shared his interests) and will go down with the ship to protect the image they think they still have. My money is on Anne Riley to spill the beans before her death. She has gone ahead and ruined her family's reputation with her actions. She could redeem herself by exposing what happened at the BOT meetings. One of the nobodies from the 2011 BOT must have a conscience. We know who doesn't (Masser, Garban, Suhey, Peetz, Joyner, Meyers, Surma, Eckel).

My view on who comes forward eventually.... not Anne "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" Riley. Plus she has another big skeleton in her closet thanks to her boyfriend Lee who is under indictment for the same charges as JS. Steve Garban is the one who, from what I hear, struggles with all of this on a daily basis and fully understands what a screw-up the BOT made of it all. My guess is that he disagreed with the statement that Surma made that night, at least to the extent that Surma and others felt he could not present it well enough for their purposes, and therefore Surma stepped in grabbed his 15 minutes. Garban also is most likely one of the BOT members who had more knowledge about the JS suspicions than most well ahead of Nov. 2011, certainly more than Joe. Curley et. al. did with the information what they thought was best - no cover-up. I seriously doubt they knew what they were dealing with. Anyone who knows Curley knows he would not have traded in his strong moral and ethical center for this.

 

[simons96]

My view on who comes forward eventually.... not Anne "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" Riley. Plus she has another big skeleton in her closet thanks to her boyfriend Lee who is under indictment for the same charges as JS. Steve Garban is the one who, from what I hear, struggles with all of this on a daily basis and fully understands what a screw-up the BOT made of it all. My guess is that he disagreed with the statement that Surma made that night, at least to the extent that Surma and others felt he could not present it well enough for their purposes, and therefore Surma stepped in grabbed his 15 minutes. Garban also is most likely one of the BOT members who had more knowledge about the JS suspicions than most well ahead of Nov. 2011, certainly more than Joe. Curley et. al. did with the information what they thought was best - no cover-up. I seriously doubt they knew what they were dealing with. Anyone who knows Curley knows he would not have traded in his strong moral and ethical center for this.

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Garban one of the 4 trustees Spanier spoke with in Feb/March 2011 in response to the Ganim article??

I'll tell you another one of my "this is why it doesn't make sense" theories . . . if C/S/S WERE involved in a cover up and had just testified "falsely" to the Grand Jury . . . not one of them did a damn thing to head off any blowback coming their way. They all seemed genuinely shocked in November.

 

[Obliviax]

1. The BOT should have had a spokesperson for any event. Especially in the aftermath of the VT shooting, disaster contingency dictates such preventative planning. That's on the BOT. Penn St., I believe, was naive but the BOT are (supposed) titans of industry and probably have these contingencies at their companies.
2. An appropriate immediate response should have been that they are aware of the allegations and indictments. They will immediately put on leave all parties that may have been involved in a cover up pending further investigation.
3. They should have immediately understood the damage done to the brand and understood the liability buy immediately insinuating C/S/S and Joe were complicit. These implicit actions cost the university hundreds of millions of dollars and Corbett his governorship.
4. They should have then hired a true investigator, and gave the process time to work itself out. Instead, their over reaction caused them to get defensive and seek to blame rather than seek the truth. This, again, cost Penn St. hundreds of millions of dollars.
5. Pending review, they would have seen that the case against C/S/S was shaky, probably the charges were brought against C/S/S to keep them from undermining MM's shaky testimony.
6. JS would have been found guilty and the press would have understood that C/S/S were tangentially involved, JoePa was not involved at all, and they could have written meaningful articles about detection of predators (instead of scaring to death anyone involved and causing them to NOT report questionable activity).
7. If the above preventative actions were in place, and mitigation actions would have been executed, C/S/S would be free, Joe would be retired as the hero he was, and Penn St. would be several hundred million dollars heavier. In addition, the event could have helped public awareness in the appropriate actions in spotting and preventing child abuse.

Instead, innocent people were irreparably harmed, a great university's brand has been destroyed, hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost, and child abuse is more likely to go unreported today than it was in 2010.

Nice job.

 

[CDW3333]

Not gonna fill out your whole chart, but the first thing the BoT should have done, back in the 1990s, was take seriously the reports they already had back then about Jerry's....let's call it "strangeness." Whatever reasons they give for the firing of Paterno and Spanier, they were long since guilty of the same thing. They had certain knowledge, which seems VERY clear in hindsight, regarding JS. Not one of them over the years distanced himself from TSM. Their friends and associates and family members continued to serve on the board of TSM. Not one of them will now admit to knowing ANYTHING until after the indictments. So the first thing they could do is stop lying about the state of their knowledge.

They specifically pretended in November not to know about the March,'11 PennLive article, and it was partly because they did NOTHING that I was reassured there was nothing there.

In May of '11 they were given a briefing by Spanier and Baldwin about the GJ, at which JVP and the admins had testified. When the briefing finished, the report is that they had NO questions. Only 2 reasons to ask no questions--either you already know the answer or you just do not care enough to ask. Their later behavior seems to suggest that they cared a great deal about not getting the dirt on their own shoes, so the second choice seems to be unlikely.

Once these great foundation blocks of deceit were laid in place, they had little choice but to go find someone who could make the "blame Joe" plan work. Enter Louis Freeh. Once they had nailed Joe and Spanier and the others to the cross, they had no choice but to let the NCAA do whatever it wanted to PSU FB. After all, they had approved and paid the University's money for the findings.

I suspect there were people on the board--a majority most likely--who were almost as much in the dark as we were regarding the Freeh Report, because the vast majority of the PSU board was kept in the dark, then as now, about what those insiders at the top were doing. No serious person would tell a dingbat like Anne Riley or Paul Suhey what the real plan was, especially if it were this nasty and full of bald-faced lies. In my view Paul Suhey now KNOWS they lied to the public, but is such a coward he has never come forward. He did not even have the decency to resign in protest.

When Masser stupidly ran his mouth about a coverup, they jumped him publicly and harshly for letting the mask slip. He was so f'ing dumb he did not get how they were working it. Now he is in charge, and that may be the worst thing those scum ever did--even worse than firing JVP.

Your post presumes that a BoT leader existed at the time who was, himself, so unsullied and untainted with prior knowledge about Jerry that s/he could credibly go on the offensive. I do not think there was such a person anywhere near the ruling cabal who ran things.

The best the BoT could have done with the NCAA was show that the fault lay with the BOT and not the FB program. That was a nonstarter, so they blamed the dead guy. The same dynamic drove the settlements with the victims--"We hate to give up all this money, but we have no choice." BTW, these same people who had knowledge of the proclivities of JS, are also the ones charged with protecting the University's assets in the event of just this kind of thing they already had knowledge about, but somehow the insurance provides no coverage and the hundred mil for the victims comes right out of the University's cash.

I know this does not answer your questions. Take it as proof that I cannot answer them, since once you know what really happened you will see that they could not fight the NCAA or the victims.

What reports regarding "Jerry's strangeness" did the BOT receive in the 1990s (or earlier)?

 

[Pitt is #1]

As an outsider, I think there are still a ton of skeletons to be found. I think the guilt here runs very deep and with very powerful political people. I have no doubt JVP
and football have been made the scapegoat. That being said...digging deeper may turn up they were complicit as well. I think the best thing for PSU would be to let a sleeping dog lie. I think the best thing for everyone in the Commonwealth would be for the entire truth to come out.

 

[kgilbert78]

Your initial questions are good ones, and I'll attempt to answer those later, time provided.

RE the above: This isn't a "school hatred" situation. The board found itself amidst a crisis that it both insisted upon managing and was also completely incapable of managing. If you are familiar with the corporate playbook (& I suspect you are), you'll recognize the play. Circle the corporate wagons and offer the middle managers as scapegoats.

And this was clearly their intention at the gate. You may recall that Spanier released a statement in support of Shultz and Curley at the onset of the crisis. You may also recall that Spanier was effectively removed from duty upon release of that statement. I would argue that he was ousted as his statement was completely incongruent with the direction the board was going to be taking.

I think this is the most likely explanation for most of what happened in November of 2011. Most of the BOT were not prepared and tried to handle it in a standard corporate manner. Once they did that, they had to keep on going in the same direction. They also hate to be wrong--or to have anyone think they might have made an mistake....

For me this quote sums it up:

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."--Robert A. Heinlein in "The Logic of Empire".

I'll even include Ms. Baldwin in that.

That said, I do think there were at least two folks who were villains in the original situation (i.e. November 2011): Surma and Corbett. Both had axes to grind as is well known--Surma due to the sad case of his nephew and Corbett due to his conflict with Spanier over funding--and I'd also heard that Corbett was not fond of Paterno because Paterno did not actively support him politically. Petty--but that seems to be Corbett.

 

[bdgan]

1. The BOT should have had a spokesperson for any event. Especially in the aftermath of the VT shooting, disaster contingency dictates such preventative planning. That's on the BOT. Penn St., I believe, was naive but the BOT are (supposed) titans of industry and probably have these contingencies at their companies.
2. An appropriate immediate response should have been that they are aware of the allegations and indictments. They will immediately put on leave all parties that may have been involved in a cover up pending further investigation.
3. They should have immediately understood the damage done to the brand and understood the liability buy immediately insinuating C/S/S and Joe were complicit. These implicit actions cost the university hundreds of millions of dollars and Corbett his governorship.
4. They should have then hired a true investigator, and gave the process time to work itself out. Instead, their over reaction caused them to get defensive and seek to blame rather than seek the truth. This, again, cost Penn St. hundreds of millions of dollars.
5. Pending review, they would have seen that the case against C/S/S was shaky, probably the charges were brought against C/S/S to keep them from undermining MM's shaky testimony.
6. JS would have been found guilty and the press would have understood that C/S/S were tangentially involved, JoePa was not involved at all, and they could have written meaningful articles about detection of predators (instead of scaring to death anyone involved and causing them to NOT report questionable activity).
7. If the above preventative actions were in place, and mitigation actions would have been executed, C/S/S would be free, Joe would be retired as the hero he was, and Penn St. would be several hundred million dollars heavier. In addition, the event could have helped public awareness in the appropriate actions in spotting and preventing child abuse.

Instead, innocent people were irreparably harmed, a great university's brand has been destroyed, hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost, and child abuse is more likely to go unreported today than it was in 2010.

Nice job.[/QUOTE
To this day the BOT can't even seem to agree if Joe was fired, allow to retire, or just told that he couldn't be on the field for the last few games.

 

[kgilbert78]

As an outsider, I think there are still a ton of skeletons to be found. I think the guilt here runs very deep and with very powerful political people. I have no doubt JVP
and football have been made the scapegoat. That being said...digging deeper may turn up they were complicit as well. I think the best thing for PSU would be to let a sleeping dog lie. I think the best thing for everyone in the Commonwealth would be for the entire truth to come out.

As a Penn Stater who believes in the ideals expressed by Paterno, I want nothing less that the truth--"even if that leaves Penn State a pile of smoking rubble" as one regular poster has noted repeatedly. Even if we have to rebuild Penn State from the ground up, there is no better foundation than the truth. Anything else would be "like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand"--"and great was its fall". Let us build instead on the rock of the truth.

 

[LundyPSU]

I have followed this scandal for a number of years and I have wanted to ask some of the Penn State faithful in a more complete format what they think the BOT should have done regarding the Sandusky scandal.

Now I know some of what you think (not signing the consent decree) but I was interested in a comprehensive list starting with the first decision that the BOT made to today. I did read a link some time back written by one of your own about how PSU lost the PR battle but I think it kind of stopped (the story) right after the scandal broke IIRC.

Here are some questions I am interested in knowing your opinion on. Also, I would like to know what you think the outcome or reaction from the state, NCAA, media etc. would have been had the BOT done things differently.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions and am not trolling. As I said this whole affair is pretty fascinating to me but I know it has been painful to you.

Here are some preliminary questions (please try to base your answers on what was known at the time):

Should the BOT have fired/forced out Spanier? I presume if he had been indicted later of course he would have stepped down.

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

Should the press conference with Joe have been held that November?

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

Should he have been allowed to continue to coach thru the bowl game and then retire?

Should the BOT have commissioned a review like what Freeh did or just let the justice system play out.

Who should have been the ones to do that review (if done)and what should their marching orders have been?

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

Bugger off or we'll get back to you or what?

If bugger off what do you think the NCAA would have done?

If PSU had adopted the "fight back/exoneration" strategy how well do you think that would have gone and how would that have been orchestrated?

Curious as to your answers.

This was a giant cluster way before Nov 2011. While PSU (BOT, Spanier, and others) may not have known the full extent of allegations, they knew enough of the ones that happened at PSU. They should have anticipated a firestorm. Taking Spanier out probably was a bad move, because there was no public leadership. Maybe he should not have been, but someone from PSU needed to be out in front from the day the GJP came out. Silence contributed to the media frenzy. Seems like there was zero strategy in dealing with this, despite getting advance notice of indictments for Curley and Schultz and know PSU people testified about 1998 and 2001. As for Joe, they should have spoken to him and came to agreement that he would step aside for the remainder of the season. Not a suspension or firing. Joe should not have had a press conference, as that would have been a disaster. And probably should not have done the Sally Jenkins interview either (although I completely understand why he did).

As for an investigation, it is fine to do it, but how can you do it before the criminal investigation and trials are complete. There was no way that Freeh would come to any conclusion inconsistent with the OAG's case. Hopefully, we learn more about Freeh's work and I expect exculpatory information was intentionally omitted. And I also expect the email evidence included is suspect and taken out of context (at best).

Lastly, from November 2011 on, PSU (Erickson, BOT) pled guility publicly to the JS allegations and threw itself under the bus in terms of culture. No doubt this was a shitstorm, but it seems their goal was expediency vs truth. I understand the value of expediency, but it created irreparable damage to people, institution, and brand. They expected to get hammered anyway, so they created their own hammer to get it over with quickly, so they could move on. Even Erickson said he couldn't stomach this dragging on