ADVERTISEMENT

FC: Baldwin defends PSU's actions in MM case

mn78psu83

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2011
24,135
12,240
1
LINK: Pennlive for those of you who don't want to click

BELLEFONTE - "Mark my words. If Mike McQueary is in that stadium, we will bring the house down."

***

"This man (McQueary) is a target, and we need to realize that."

***

It was calls and messages like that to the Penn State Athletic Department in the wake of head football coach Joe Paterno's abrupt firing on Nov. 9, 2011, former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin said, that led to a quick decision to keep Mike McQueary off the field and out of Beaver Stadium for that Saturday's scheduled game.

Baldwin, in an ironic twist, wound up being a staunch defender Tuesday of the university's decision to place McQueary on paid, administrative leave during the upheaval that followed the Nov. 5, 2011 arrest of former PSU football assistant Jerry Sandusky on child sex abuse charges.

Baldwin said the calls and emails started to come in shortly after then-Acting Head Coach Tom Bradley declared, the morning after Paterno's firing, that he expected McQueary would coach in the Nebraska game.

She took the concerns that had been relayed to her about security to newly-appointed Acting President Rodney Erickson, and he moved swiftly - first to ensure that McQueary would not be in attendance at the game.

"Dr. Erickson was very concerned about threats on Mr. McQueary's life," Baldwin said, under cross-examination from attorneys for Penn State. "We'd do what we could do to make him safe."

Baldwin also testified to a follow-up Nov. 13, 2011 meeting at which McQueary was placed on paid administrative leave.

He was told that he would be getting his salary for the remainder of his contract, which ran through June 30, 2012, Baldwin said, but was asked to stay away from all PSU football facilities and stop all work for the team.

Acting Athletic Director Mark Sherburne, meanwhile, also stated that "it has not been determined whether there will be a new contract (for McQueary) at that time."

McQueary, she said, was polite and composed throughout, but not happy about his changing circumstances.

Baldwin recalled McQueary stating that he did not feel that he had done anything wrong, and that he still wanted to coach football at Penn State.

"I said: 'I'll let them know,'" Baldwin said.

The irony in Baldwin's testimony is this:

For most of the life of the Sandusky scandal, she has been poised to be a potentially devastating prosecution witness in the criminal charges against three former Penn State administrators accused of failing to report McQueary's 2001 eyewitness allegation against Sandusky to police or child welfare investigators.

Baldwin dropped out of the criminal case earlier this year, when a Superior Court panel ruled that her presence during the grand jury appearances of the administrators as Penn State's counsel violated their rights to counsel since she later claimed to not be representing the men personally.

On Tuesday, however, it was just like the old days, with Baldwin largely defending everything her former employer did with regard to McQueary's status.

If anything about it strayed from normal university procedure, she added, "we never had an incident where someone's life was in danger if they continued to do the job... And that's what happened with Mr. McQueary."

Sherburne too, in his own turn on the stand, defended Erickson's move.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for the administrative leave," he said.

Baldwin was also asked to testify about the Oct. 28, 2011 meeting at which then-Penn State President Graham Spanier formulated a statement about the pending Sandusky-related charges against his top lieutenants Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.

Like other attendees at that session, Baldwin said stated that McQueary's name never came up at the meeting.

"No one thought about, or mentioned, Mike McQueary," Baldwin said.

Earlier in her testimony, however, Baldwin did make it clear that Spanier, Curley and Schultz - through questioning at their respective grand jury appearances - all would have known that McQueary was the person who'd offered the eyewitness account about Sandusky long before that information became public.

Baldwin, who retired from Penn State in July 2012 and now works part-time as an arbitrator, also reinforced another point for the university Tuesday.

She asserted that it was important during contract negotiations with Bill O'Brien - Penn State's first permanent, post-Paterno head football coach - that O'Brien have the ability to bring in his own coaching staff.

Baldwin noted she wrote O'Brien's contract.

Penn State has argued that that, more than anything, is the reason why McQueary did not return to the field at Beaver Stadium.

[URL='http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY%20VS%20THE%20PENNSYLVANIA%20STATE%20UNIVERSITY%20COMPLAINT.pdf']The essence of McQueary's case,
is that he – as the only PSU assistant to speak out to state investigators on Sandusky allegations - was singled out and treated differently by the university than than other employees who did not come forward with reports about Sandusky.

McQueary has also argued the Penn State administrators' collective failure to act on his initial 2001 report was an intentional misrepresentation that's caused him "irreparable harm to his ability to earn a living, especially in his chosen profession of coaching football."

In his suit, McQueary, now 42, is seeking $4 million in damages to account for the lost wages from what he had expected would have been a career as a high-level football coach.

Penn State counters that McQueary's tribulations since 2012 have more to do with past career choices, and public perceptions the university has nothing to do with, than any direct acts it has taken toward McQueary.

For a whistle-blower suit to succeed, the plaintiff must prove a direct connection between a termination and a good faith report by the employee of wrongdoing that was adverse to his employer's interest.

If that's established, then the burden shifts to the employer to prove that there were other reasons for whatever job action is at question, besides retaliation.

The trial is expected to resume Wednesday, with Sherburne still on the stand.[/URL]
 
LINK: Pennlive for those of you who don't want to click

BELLEFONTE - "Mark my words. If Mike McQueary is in that stadium, we will bring the house down."

***

"This man (McQueary) is a target, and we need to realize that."

***

It was calls and messages like that to the Penn State Athletic Department in the wake of head football coach Joe Paterno's abrupt firing on Nov. 9, 2011, former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin said, that led to a quick decision to keep Mike McQueary off the field and out of Beaver Stadium for that Saturday's scheduled game.

Baldwin, in an ironic twist, wound up being a staunch defender Tuesday of the university's decision to place McQueary on paid, administrative leave during the upheaval that followed the Nov. 5, 2011 arrest of former PSU football assistant Jerry Sandusky on child sex abuse charges.

Baldwin said the calls and emails started to come in shortly after then-Acting Head Coach Tom Bradley declared, the morning after Paterno's firing, that he expected McQueary would coach in the Nebraska game.

She took the concerns that had been relayed to her about security to newly-appointed Acting President Rodney Erickson, and he moved swiftly - first to ensure that McQueary would not be in attendance at the game.

"Dr. Erickson was very concerned about threats on Mr. McQueary's life," Baldwin said, under cross-examination from attorneys for Penn State. "We'd do what we could do to make him safe."

Baldwin also testified to a follow-up Nov. 13, 2011 meeting at which McQueary was placed on paid administrative leave.

He was told that he would be getting his salary for the remainder of his contract, which ran through June 30, 2012, Baldwin said, but was asked to stay away from all PSU football facilities and stop all work for the team.

Acting Athletic Director Mark Sherburne, meanwhile, also stated that "it has not been determined whether there will be a new contract (for McQueary) at that time."

McQueary, she said, was polite and composed throughout, but not happy about his changing circumstances.

Baldwin recalled McQueary stating that he did not feel that he had done anything wrong, and that he still wanted to coach football at Penn State.

"I said: 'I'll let them know,'" Baldwin said.

The irony in Baldwin's testimony is this:

For most of the life of the Sandusky scandal, she has been poised to be a potentially devastating prosecution witness in the criminal charges against three former Penn State administrators accused of failing to report McQueary's 2001 eyewitness allegation against Sandusky to police or child welfare investigators.

Baldwin dropped out of the criminal case earlier this year, when a Superior Court panel ruled that her presence during the grand jury appearances of the administrators as Penn State's counsel violated their rights to counsel since she later claimed to not be representing the men personally.

On Tuesday, however, it was just like the old days, with Baldwin largely defending everything her former employer did with regard to McQueary's status.

If anything about it strayed from normal university procedure, she added, "we never had an incident where someone's life was in danger if they continued to do the job... And that's what happened with Mr. McQueary."

Sherburne too, in his own turn on the stand, defended Erickson's move.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for the administrative leave," he said.

Baldwin was also asked to testify about the Oct. 28, 2011 meeting at which then-Penn State President Graham Spanier formulated a statement about the pending Sandusky-related charges against his top lieutenants Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.

Like other attendees at that session, Baldwin said stated that McQueary's name never came up at the meeting.


"No one thought about, or mentioned, Mike McQueary," Baldwin said.

Earlier in her testimony, however, Baldwin did make it clear that Spanier, Curley and Schultz - through questioning at their respective grand jury appearances - all would have known that McQueary was the person who'd offered the eyewitness account about Sandusky long before that information became public.

Baldwin, who retired from Penn State in July 2012 and now works part-time as an arbitrator, also reinforced another point for the university Tuesday.

She asserted that it was important during contract negotiations with Bill O'Brien - Penn State's first permanent, post-Paterno head football coach - that O'Brien have the ability to bring in his own coaching staff.

Baldwin noted she wrote O'Brien's contract.

Penn State has argued that that, more than anything, is the reason why McQueary did not return to the field at Beaver Stadium.

The essence of McQueary's case, is that he – as the only PSU assistant to speak out to state investigators on Sandusky allegations - was singled out and treated differently by the university than than other employees who did not come forward with reports about Sandusky.

McQueary has also argued the Penn State administrators' collective failure to act on his initial 2001 report was an intentional misrepresentation that's caused him "irreparable harm to his ability to earn a living, especially in his chosen profession of coaching football."

In his suit, McQueary, now 42, is seeking $4 million in damages to account for the lost wages from what he had expected would have been a career as a high-level football coach.

Penn State counters that McQueary's tribulations since 2012 have more to do with past career choices, and public perceptions the university has nothing to do with, than any direct acts it has taken toward McQueary.

For a whistle-blower suit to succeed, the plaintiff must prove a direct connection between a termination and a good faith report by the employee of wrongdoing that was adverse to his employer's interest.

If that's established, then the burden shifts to the employer to prove that there were other reasons for whatever job action is at question, besides retaliation.

The trial is expected to resume Wednesday, with Sherburne still on the stand.

So Baldwin was in the meeting where Spanier's statement was drafted and therefore knew he intended to release it in support of Gary and Tim? I thought the BOT was up in arms over that and that release helped to seal Spanier's fate? Baldwin didn't communicate that to the BOT, or didn't strongly advise Spanier to not release the statement? And I think I saw elsewhere that Garban was at that meeting also. (Don't quote me on that, though). If so, then he saw nothing wrong with releasing the statement, or nothing wrong enough to stop Spanier from releasing it?
Maybe because they knew that Spanier was correct in his assessment that neither Gary nor Tim had done anything wrong....?

Is Baldwin the 'least-foresightful' attorney ever to not only pass the bar but then sit on a multi-billion entity's BOT?
 
So why didn't they put McQueary in the booth if they thought his life was in danger?

So if memory serves..... didn't they insist that JayPa coach from the sidelines vs. Nebraska and not in the booth as he usually was? Were they hoping the threat would transfer itself onto Jay?

I understand the concern over McQ necessitating an unusual measure. Admin leave would have been a better option for JVP as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
So if memory serves..... didn't they insist that JayPa coach from the sidelines vs. Nebraska and not in the booth as he usually was? Were they hoping the threat would transfer itself onto Jay?

I understand the concern over McQ necessitating an unusual measure. Admin leave would have been a better option for JVP as well.
Why sure then you don't have to pay them for the bowl game and take away their car
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
I'd be curious if "Cindy" ever contacted the OAG to complain about their actions resulting in death threats to a commonwealth citizen, whose safety & constitutional rights they were sworn to uphold.
Here is rare footage of Cindy's precise response at this point in time...
event_106156492.jpeg
 
If his life was 'in danger' then did Cindy and Erickson turn over these online threats to the police? I assume they would be easy to track. If they didn't turn them over to the police- then why not?

Baldwin's testimony was that it was the police (and the athletic department) that told her about threats against McQueary.
 
LINK: Pennlive for those of you who don't want to click

BELLEFONTE - "Mark my words. If Mike McQueary is in that stadium, we will bring the house down."

***

"This man (McQueary) is a target, and we need to realize that."

***

It was calls and messages like that to the Penn State Athletic Department in the wake of head football coach Joe Paterno's abrupt firing on Nov. 9, 2011, former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin said, that led to a quick decision to keep Mike McQueary off the field and out of Beaver Stadium for that Saturday's scheduled game.

Baldwin, in an ironic twist, wound up being a staunch defender Tuesday of the university's decision to place McQueary on paid, administrative leave during the upheaval that followed the Nov. 5, 2011 arrest of former PSU football assistant Jerry Sandusky on child sex abuse charges.

Baldwin said the calls and emails started to come in shortly after then-Acting Head Coach Tom Bradley declared, the morning after Paterno's firing, that he expected McQueary would coach in the Nebraska game.

She took the concerns that had been relayed to her about security to newly-appointed Acting President Rodney Erickson, and he moved swiftly - first to ensure that McQueary would not be in attendance at the game.

"Dr. Erickson was very concerned about threats on Mr. McQueary's life," Baldwin said, under cross-examination from attorneys for Penn State. "We'd do what we could do to make him safe."

Baldwin also testified to a follow-up Nov. 13, 2011 meeting at which McQueary was placed on paid administrative leave.

He was told that he would be getting his salary for the remainder of his contract, which ran through June 30, 2012, Baldwin said, but was asked to stay away from all PSU football facilities and stop all work for the team.

Acting Athletic Director Mark Sherburne, meanwhile, also stated that "it has not been determined whether there will be a new contract (for McQueary) at that time."

McQueary, she said, was polite and composed throughout, but not happy about his changing circumstances.

Baldwin recalled McQueary stating that he did not feel that he had done anything wrong, and that he still wanted to coach football at Penn State.

"I said: 'I'll let them know,'" Baldwin said.

The irony in Baldwin's testimony is this:

For most of the life of the Sandusky scandal, she has been poised to be a potentially devastating prosecution witness in the criminal charges against three former Penn State administrators accused of failing to report McQueary's 2001 eyewitness allegation against Sandusky to police or child welfare investigators.

Baldwin dropped out of the criminal case earlier this year, when a Superior Court panel ruled that her presence during the grand jury appearances of the administrators as Penn State's counsel violated their rights to counsel since she later claimed to not be representing the men personally.

On Tuesday, however, it was just like the old days, with Baldwin largely defending everything her former employer did with regard to McQueary's status.

If anything about it strayed from normal university procedure, she added, "we never had an incident where someone's life was in danger if they continued to do the job... And that's what happened with Mr. McQueary."

Sherburne too, in his own turn on the stand, defended Erickson's move.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for the administrative leave," he said.

Baldwin was also asked to testify about the Oct. 28, 2011 meeting at which then-Penn State President Graham Spanier formulated a statement about the pending Sandusky-related charges against his top lieutenants Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.

Like other attendees at that session, Baldwin said stated that McQueary's name never came up at the meeting.

"No one thought about, or mentioned, Mike McQueary," Baldwin said.

Earlier in her testimony, however, Baldwin did make it clear that Spanier, Curley and Schultz - through questioning at their respective grand jury appearances - all would have known that McQueary was the person who'd offered the eyewitness account about Sandusky long before that information became public.

Baldwin, who retired from Penn State in July 2012 and now works part-time as an arbitrator, also reinforced another point for the university Tuesday.

She asserted that it was important during contract negotiations with Bill O'Brien - Penn State's first permanent, post-Paterno head football coach - that O'Brien have the ability to bring in his own coaching staff.

Baldwin noted she wrote O'Brien's contract.

Penn State has argued that that, more than anything, is the reason why McQueary did not return to the field at Beaver Stadium.

The essence of McQueary's case, is that he – as the only PSU assistant to speak out to state investigators on Sandusky allegations - was singled out and treated differently by the university than than other employees who did not come forward with reports about Sandusky.

McQueary has also argued the Penn State administrators' collective failure to act on his initial 2001 report was an intentional misrepresentation that's caused him "irreparable harm to his ability to earn a living, especially in his chosen profession of coaching football."

In his suit, McQueary, now 42, is seeking $4 million in damages to account for the lost wages from what he had expected would have been a career as a high-level football coach.

Penn State counters that McQueary's tribulations since 2012 have more to do with past career choices, and public perceptions the university has nothing to do with, than any direct acts it has taken toward McQueary.

For a whistle-blower suit to succeed, the plaintiff must prove a direct connection between a termination and a good faith report by the employee of wrongdoing that was adverse to his employer's interest.

If that's established, then the burden shifts to the employer to prove that there were other reasons for whatever job action is at question, besides retaliation.

The trial is expected to resume Wednesday, with Sherburne still on the stand.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that Bradley was subjected to death threats too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Baldwin's testimony was that it was the police (and the athletic department) that told her about threats against McQueary.


Thanks for the clarification. Have we ever heard of any arrests over these threats? Whatever happened there? I just have a hard time taking anything Baldwin says at face value anymore. ;)

I still don't get why alleged threats against MM would require him to be told to stay away from PSU facilities and cease all work for PSU.
 
Last edited:
Well, he'd be, like, in the booth and all.

Not exposed on the sideline. Nobody would see him.

I couldn't tell if he was being serious or not. Of course, that doesn't explain why practices, film room, etc. weren't safe, nor does it explain how he could walk around freely. Even worse, it says nothing about the multiple layers of security at the facility. MM's should have a field day with this topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jansmuts
Is Baldwin a witness for McQueary??? Based on her testimony and others, this case is going nowhere.
 
I couldn't tell if he was being serious or not. Of course, that doesn't explain why practices, film room, etc. weren't safe, nor does it explain how he could walk around freely. Even worse, it says nothing about the multiple layers of security at the facility. MM's should have a field day with this topic.
They don't want to say, but obviously his presence would be a distraction. But even if they admitted that, I don't see how that helps his case. Given the circumstances, it would be perfectly understandable that his presence would be a distraction. I don't see how that harms his reputation. It's just common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
They don't want to say, but obviously his presence would be a distraction. But even if they admitted that, I don't see how that helps his case. Given the circumstances, it would be perfectly understandable that his presence would be a distraction. I don't see how that harms his reputation. It's just common sense.

They don't want to say because they would be admitting to retaliation. The problem is, this safety issue is easy to destroy and make PSU look like they are trying to keep their real reasons hidden. Didn't PSU once send Joe to the booth for his safety?
 
They don't want to say because they would be admitting to retaliation. The problem is, this safety issue is easy to destroy and make PSU look like they are trying to keep their real reasons hidden. Didn't PSU once send Joe to the booth for his safety?
Not even comparable. I think it is completely reasonable for PSU to have taken this action.
 
Well, he'd be, like, in the booth and all.

Not exposed on the sideline. Nobody would see him.

Ya...never saw a TV shot of a person in those bullet proof booths brfore. Then there is the magic carpet to and from Campus to the booth....and around campus....maybe Red could have worn some Groucho Marks glasses provided by PSU....lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: jansmuts
Ya...never saw a TV shot of a person in those bullet proof booths brfore. Then there is the magic carpet to and from Campus to the booth....and around campus....maybe Red could have worn some Groucho Marks glasses provided by PSU....lol

1) when is the last time you saw someone shot...er, shot at, in a football game? How would you get a rifle into a game in 2011?
2) who would know when and how MM was taken to the stadium?
3) Did they ban MM from Campus too? My God the humanity!

C'mon....I'd bet that there is a threat to Urban Myer and/or Nick Saban on just about any given weekend.
 
Not even comparable. I think it is completely reasonable for PSU to have taken this action.

Based on what? MM was walking around freely. Police was not providing any protection for him, nor was anyone else. On the other hand, the stadium has security, actually lots of it. They even check for weapons. Now, if you want to talk about riots, the stadium actually has plans, very good ones at that, in place for when they expect fans to storm the field. If they put him in the booth, access is extremely limited with even better security. That doesn't take in to account practices, which are closed, game planning, film sessions, etc. etc. They didn't ask MM what security measures he would agree to. It also doesn't address why PSU never reinstated him after any threats had passed or died down. Now, the coup de gras, PSU didn't do anything until after they were asked about MM in a press conference and responded they would have to address later. The idiots are on public record that they planned on addressing his status before any security bs came out. So, who did PSU consult about increasing security, or did they not even do that? Why did PSU previously send Joe to the booth for security purposes, but they couldn't for MM? There are so many questions PSU can be utterly skewered on that make it look like they are actually trying to hide something. There are just so many lines of questioning and questions that can absolutely unravel PSU's reasoning. So many.
 
1) when is the last time you saw someone shot...er, shot at, in a football game? How would you get a rifle into a game in 2011?
2) who would know when and how MM was taken to the stadium?
3) Did they ban MM from Campus too? My God the humanity!

C'mon....I'd bet that there is a threat to Urban Myer and/or Nick Saban on just about any given weekend.

All I know is PSU better be trotting out their head of security who can unequivocally state he made the call, and not the admins and/or bot. He should also contain a detailed knowledge of the threats and every reason why they could not be addressed in every situation. Then he can dovetail into why MM was walking around freely with no police protection.
 
Based on what? MM was walking around freely. Police was not providing any protection for him, nor was anyone else. On the other hand, the stadium has security, actually lots of it. They even check for weapons. Now, if you want to talk about riots, the stadium actually has plans, very good ones at that, in place for when they expect fans to storm the field. If they put him in the booth, access is extremely limited with even better security. That doesn't take in to account practices, which are closed, game planning, film sessions, etc. etc. They didn't ask MM what security measures he would agree to. It also doesn't address why PSU never reinstated him after any threats had passed or died down. Now, the coup de gras, PSU didn't do anything until after they were asked about MM in a press conference and responded they would have to address later. The idiots are on public record that they planned on addressing his status before any security bs came out. So, who did PSU consult about increasing security, or did they not even do that? Why did PSU previously send Joe to the booth for security purposes, but they couldn't for MM? There are so many questions PSU can be utterly skewered on that make it look like they are actually trying to hide something. There are just so many lines of questioning and questions that can absolutely unravel PSU's reasoning. So many.
When was Joe put in the booth because of death threats or bomb threats?
 
IMO one of the many mistakes made by the BOT was firing Paterno. When they fired Paterno and said he didn't do enough, a lot of people started saying well if he didn't do enough neither did MM. So why is he still coaching? Whether that's fair or not for MM it's the situation the BOT created when they fired Paterno. I'd be willing to bet that most of the threats made against MM was after they fired Paterno. Imo the best thing to do would've been to put those guys on administrative leave, find out the facts and go from there. Instead Corbett and Surma were to busy chomping at the bit to fire Paterno. Collateral damage be damned.
 
When was Joe put in the booth because of death threats or bomb threats?

I want to say early 80's, FBI was involved. What's important is the university was fully capable of dealing with threats against members of the coaching staff that fell far short of suspension.
 
1) when is the last time you saw someone shot...er, shot at, in a football game? How would you get a rifle into a game in 2011?
2) who would know when and how MM was taken to the stadium?
3) Did they ban MM from Campus too? My God the humanity!

C'mon....I'd bet that there is a threat to Urban Myer and/or Nick Saban on just about any given weekend.


Untitled-1-74.jpg


In re, #1.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT