Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'BWI / McAndrew Board' started by lionville, Jun 26, 2018.
I believe, had Spanier thrown JVP under the bus, he'd still be president of PSU to this day.
This is such a dumb statement. At least you admitted & warned us you were trolling.
Organizations are NOT RESPONSIBLE for out-of-program acts, that is precisely why they are called out-of-program.
You always find a way to make just the exact argument which is the opposite of what's real. It's no wonder that like 5 of the last 6 PA AGs think you are a loon. Exceptibg of course the one that's in prison.
So, when the Exec director becomes aware that the FOUNDER of the organization is flagrantly violating the rules regarding out of program contact After the FOUNDER has already been told "just wear swim trunks," when showering alone during naked out of program contact with the vulnerable troubled kids the org serves, the organization has successfully shielded itself from any civil liability for the FOUNDER's conduct, even if he does not wear swim trunks. Got it.
Of course, even when one of the board members, hearing that the organization's founder has been banned from bringing children to PSU..... provides another venue for said individual to work out AND shower. You are an idiot.
No way. Anybody who had any connection to Sandusky regarding how to handle the incident was gone. No two ways about it. If he threw JoePa under the bus, would he have been prosecuted? Maybe not.
I guess you don't see the irony in your statement.
Why was Spanier fired? Because he wouldn't fire Joe.
Yes Dr. Jack was and still is the most powerful man in PA.
All that matters is that he was the most powerful man at the second mile, the organization that had responsibility for Sandusky and the alleged victim.
Why would they have responsibility for a guy who was not acting as a TSM counselor at the time or a kid who wasn't enrolled in TSM at the time?
Two people acting outside of program. They had as much responsibility for that as you did.
You're an idiot. Stick to subs.
He had not only the power but the CLEAR LEGAL DUTY to report CSA, which he suspected when he said "just wear swim trunks." He did not do it. Was not prosecuted while they vilified college admins and a FB coach.
Anybody who could have done something different back in 2001 was radioactive and would have eventually been fired. Had Spanier not met with Curley in 2001 to discuss the incident, he still would have been fired because it happened on his watch.
raykovitz actually testified for the state against Spanier. Unreal.
Let that settle in a minute. raykovitz, the head of the second mile and a mandatory reporter, testified against Spanier, who wasn't a mandatory reporter, for Spanier's alleged neglect of a child, for whom he was not responsible, when there was no direct evidence that Spanier knew of the details of the shower incident.
I see now. You're simply inventing fictitious crimes and saying people should do jail time for violating your fictitious laws. Sorry I wasted my time with you. You're just silly.
So you are saying that JS had no role (i.e. don't just focus on "counselor") at TSM, and that he had no contact with anyone (i.e. don't just focus on AM) currently enrolled?
Hmmm, just jumped in here and me thinks we got someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about !
Programs are responsible for all acts THAT ARE REPORTED TO THEM, as this one was.
Subsection (a)(1) applies. Spanier absolutely “employed” or “supervised” individuals at Penn State who were persons supervising the welfare of children, either at the on-campus child care facility or otherwise - there’s nothing in the statute that specifies that the person being employed or supervised also must be the same person endangering a child. You could also make the argument that Spanier was a “supervisor” (but not the sole supervisor) of Sandusky by virtue of the permission given to Sandusky to use the facilities in 1999 with the knowledge that Sandusky was bringing children into the facilities - but that’s a weaker argument IMO for Spanier. It’s stronger for Curley and, to a lesser extent, Schultz.
The remainder of subsection (a)(1) regarding the violation of the duty of care, protection, or support was a jury determination, but it seems pretty black and white that at least subsection (a)(1) applied to Spanier. Note that it would also certainly apply to Raykovitz, too, but......
Back to Spanier not putting up a defense. It was a risky move. I am sure it was discussed at length by Spanier and his legal team. That risky move obviously didn't work. Now maybe Spanier was going to get convicted of something not matter what was done as was evidenced by the jury interviews after the fact. But it was a risky move to not bring up any type of defense at all.
But, I disagree 100% with the assertion that (a)(1) applies. Spanier never even met the kid so he cannot possibly be the person supervising or caring for the welfare of the child. Nor did Spanier employ or 'supervise' Sandusky in the capacity of running a day care. child care center or similar. Furthermore, since Spanier never met the child, he could not have violated the duty of care either. End of story.
If Spanier falls under this law, then so does the entire BOT, the UP Police Department, and on and on up through the PA Governor and finally the POTUS. That is because there is a never-ending web of reporting and authority relationships in that entire lineage. Sure, I know that's a ridiculous statement. Sso, too, is the assertion that the EWOC applies to Spanier.
Spanier did not employ anyone, Penn state did.
Who specifically did Spanier directly supervise that directly supervised the welfare of children? Where these specific people appropriately trained, and what was required of them in 2001? How is "welfare of children" legally defined?
Did Penn State have an on campus child care facility? Was it run by PSU, or some separate company? (Generally those, 'on campus' child care facilities are run by completely separate companies.)
No--he was fired because he got in Corbett's grill about funding and Corbett decided to "get" him.
Mind you, I would have asked Spanier for his resignation, at a minimum. Something bad did happen on Spanier's watch. Unlike the Commonwealth, I don't think it was criminal. But still, that's what they pay college presidents the big bucks for--not to get into that kind of situation in the first place.
But did Tom Mix weep? Inquiring minds needs to know!
PSU has students at main campus, living in dorms, as young as 14 years old. Not very many, but if there's even one, he is responsible.
Many Many freshman are 17 when they start out.
COVEY, IS THAT YOU??
No shit. That doesn’t mean he directly supervised them, or someone who did.
Now take a shot at the questions in my post (the post that you replied to, yet ignored all the tough questions.)
I respect Spanier for fighting and for making the statement he did in 2011, backing up his direct reports. It was probably a bit ill-timed & tone-deaf, but that's kind of what I would want my leader to do. But he could have been a bit less strong, so soon, and said that he backs them, pending a full investigation & learning all details. He could have said that, set it in motion, and offered his resignation, and if he had, Joe might have not been next in the crosshairs. Who knows. It all happened fast & the first two days were weekend days.
With respect to the above, the real problem was that between March & November 2011, no one did ANYTHING to prepare except wishing that this would all go away. And Spanier IS to largely to blame for that. They could have had a PR response planned & waiting in April, just in case. He's the main reason they didn't.
Responsible how? Criminally? Not even close.
I blame Baldwin for that. She fouled up everything she touched in this case. A smart, ethical attorney would have provided the guidance Spanier needed to understand the precariousness of their situation. Instead, she advised them that it was all a “fishing expedition”.
It was not only risky, it was stupid. What would have been the risk of putting up a defense?
Right. I agree.
I disagree. I think they handled the matter appropriately. They saw Sandusky showering alone as a potential he said/he said scenario and took steps to prevent that from occurring in the future. As soon as Curley informed Jack Raykoitz, PSU should have been off the hook.
I assume you mean that "without the benefit of hindsight, I disagree"
Because what they actually did ended badly in real life.
If the “stuff” from the Freeh File has not been quashed for the last two years, Cindy Baby woulda’ been dis-barred by now.
It ended badly because some powerful people did not want TSM to become the focus of the Sandusky "problem". People like Tom Corbett, for one.
He mighta’ laughed. Not sure.
But Wyatt woulda’ just shot someone.
And.... if I remember correctly..... you’re the guy who took offense to being called a moron.
Wyatt was dead. Mix never wept until Wyatt's funeral (and they've been trying to cover that up ever since).