A9 report out in the open
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
bwifan
Well-Known Member
This cluster f will go down in history and taught by business schools that here is the perfect example of what not to do when a crisis hits... To think some of these people were high level executives and successful people in the business world. I have never seen such deer in headlights and fumbling stumbling group of people in my life.
Here's all you need to know....the imbeciles on the BoT paid Freeh for his phony crap to protect their family and friends jammed up in TSM. Then they decided to shell out money to a raft of slapnuts, without establishing any type of credibility for the fairy tales and bullshit stories they produced.
And back to our regular scheduled thread...isn't it odd that Penn Live has absolutely no mention of this as of about 15 minutes ago? Whether you think this leaked report will change the narrative or not, it is certainly newsworthy that a number of Trustees representing a major university with perhaps the biggest scandal in higher education, definitely in the state of Pennsylvania, seems to have solid evidence refuting the conclusions in the Freeh report. I don't know what it means, but I'm sure it means something.
Weird how everyone at PennLie seems to like clicks. They would have a lot of them if they ran any story.
Its pretty evident Corbett and Surma knew exactly what they were doing. They had enough support among the OGBOT who didn't want folks looking behind the curtain or needed corporate favors. The rest were the "deer in the headlights."
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Most likely you are correct... It was deer in headlights the rest covering up for their friends who were involved over at TSM.
Not to forget those who wanted something....like more influence over the athletic department and a job that would provide a "pension."
In essence just like in the real world, 99.999% of those wanting transfer ain't getting picked up by anything better. Like a backed up toilet, those turds ain't going away.
The term you are looking for is "selectively" transparent.....
Per the official PSU response signed by Barron and Dambly, I think the value they refer to as being violated is non-transparency.
While not providing that big smoking gun a lot were expecting, from the 60-70 pages I scanned, the conclusion I came to was that the framework and conclusions were created early by external biased parties, and any information collected through the investigation that conflicted with these subjective opinions and conclusions were fro the most part were disregarded, with the exception, fortunately, of not destroying source documents.
I was particularly interested in, but not surprised by how news articles and opinions by parties outside the investigation seemed to influence the direction and conclusions of the effort more than the findings of internal research. While having access to supposed experts in the field, notably the class provided by a retiring FBI agent expert in the field, the Freeh group seemed to be more influenced by an NCAA briefing on the framework for determining lack of institutional control. I didn't read this section in detail, but it seemed to me the woman with experience in sexual abuse at the Catholic church who volunteered her services may have also brought with her a bias and expectation that the Penn State situation was similar
to that in the church.
From what even this incomplete, inaccurate, and obviously biased effort showed, there was only one situation that possibly could be child sexual abuse that Penn State had direct involvement in. In my mind, the raw data show well-intentioned but humanly-flawed actions, and openness to discuss these actions afterwards by the four portrayed otherwise by its conclusions. With this it is hard for me to conclude any negative pattern (a pattern has to have at least two data points, and probably more for some of us), or (and I say this as a Catholic) that it compares or scales in any way to what has happened (over decades) in the Catholic church. I believe Sandusky has major issues, but I'm not sure they were as extreme, prolific, or done as out in the open or as often in the Penn State environment. I just think there would have been more physical evidence.
The other conclusion I came to (again without finishing the report fully), is while the Freeh group had all the resources necessary to do a more useful and accurate report, money, staff, and access to some relevant experts, they chose a combination that adversely affected the output's quality. While not having full access to the four, the source documents with direct quotes or actions of the four was enough to counter or sway their conclusions.
One decision I liked was noted early in the report where they chose to use a discontinued research method, with its flaws noted.
Even though it may be too little too late, I'm glad it came out and lives.
I can sleep a little better, and now have a valid response to those who mention the Freeh report, 'Did you read the review?'.
Maybe a Penn State professor with balls can use this document in a case study.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
It should be burned down to the ground, but then where would we get our ice cream?
What happened to Wendy? I'd wonder what her opinion on this is. If I recall correctly, she was mentioned in the media and since has seemed to disappear. @wensilver
1. I read it very quick before bed last night, but there was an enlightening section on how the Freeh group still hadn't figured out a motive for the group even as the Sandusky trial was going. One of the Trustees (can't remember which one) then circulated an ESPN article and Freeh then starts using it as the new theory...It happened a couple of times....
That was Frazier I believe. I must say that is somewhat surprising to see that the Freeh group was following the lead of the media. It’s one thing to lead a sham of an investigation, but to use ESPN articles as a guiding light seems low for even the Freeh group.
Recall that almost everyone on this message board demanded that Freeh release the report without submitting it to the BoT for review.
I do believe that the BoT may have tempered some of the claims, or even pulled a Baylor and not release at all, had they had a chance to review.
He operated independently in the worst way while simultaneously being influenced in the worst ways.
I do believe that the BoT may have tempered some of the claims, or even pulled a Baylor and not release at all, had they had a chance to review.
He operated independently in the worst way while simultaneously being influenced in the worst ways.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
She's active on twitter and has been tweeting and re-tweeting stuff there. If you follow her you can see her posts - twitter.com/wensilver.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Is this correct? I think had we known what an outright hatchet job and selective hit-piece the report was going to be we would have preferred some review and comment by the BOT prior to a full release. It's like asking a question in court that you don't know the answer to - which suggests the BOT knew what was coming (and approved).
In fairness, what people on this message board or in the greater Penn State community wanted had absolutely nothing to do with how the investigation was carried out.
--We all knew (suspected) that the conclusions of the Freeh report were manipulated/predetermined by a group from the BOT;
--the alumni trustee review of the Freeh report methodology and conclusions supports this belief;
--a complete repudiation of the Freeh report by the PSU BOT at their meeting on 2/22 is warranted;
--failure to repudiate the report becomes a public admission that the 2011 BOT did, in fact, orchestrate the entire Freeh report fiasco, perpetuated by the current BOT.
--the alumni trustee review of the Freeh report methodology and conclusions supports this belief;
--a complete repudiation of the Freeh report by the PSU BOT at their meeting on 2/22 is warranted;
--failure to repudiate the report becomes a public admission that the 2011 BOT did, in fact, orchestrate the entire Freeh report fiasco, perpetuated by the current BOT.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
FWIW, I don’t think you’re too far off, although I’ve frequently wavered on the dishonest coward part. It’s impossible to know what he did, or intended to do, with the story over time. I’m with you in having little doubt he experienced something that was truly disturbing to him. I also think he thought he was doing the right thing in going to joe and C/S. And he must have been terrified—and looked to joe to serve as a shield v the s-storm that would become inevitable if/when this blew up.
Stories take on lives of their own with time, experience, numerous rounds of questions—a natural human tendency towards self-doubt and self-preservation, etc. Once this got out, he was under attack from all sides.
Let’s have little doubt that this story ruined many a life, including his.
I actually think that they followed the play book for how to handle a crisis in a business setting: namely, throw money at it, until the stock prices go back up.
What they didn't realize was that university stakeholders (students, faculty, alumni) are NOT the same as the stakeholder (shareholders) in a business. This speaks to NOT having your BOT dominated by "captains of industry", but academics and alumni (with maybe a couple of business folks for when you need to build a dorm or something).
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Boards don't exist to plan and execute. Their purpose is to oversee those who plan and execute.
Having a significant number of academics on the Board would be a disaster in more ways than one. I don't have a magic formula for board composition, but I do have one requirement: anyone who does significant business with the university should not be a board member.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
PennLive, we know you are out there watching. Where's the coverage?
Philly.com, WJAC and Onward State have stepped up so far.
We know it doesn't fit the agenda...
Once the snow storm ends, we might hear from our "friend" at CNN. Maybe Sara can give her take on her bestie losing her law license as well.
Similar threads
