McQueray Hearing Cancelled.

[ChiTownLion]

Can't speak to the agreements in place, but pretty sure Mike McQueary wasn't on a contract with Penn State. As strange as that sounds, remember that Joe Paterno himself was never on a contract with Penn State until the twilight years of his career for recruiting purposes.

Penn State's post-employment handling of Mike McQueary is yet another example of Cynthia Baldwin screwing the pooch for Dear Old State.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Can't speak to the agreements in place, but pretty sure Mike McQueary wasn't on a contract with Penn State. As strange as that sounds, remember that Joe Paterno himself was never on a contract with Penn State until the twilight years of his career for recruiting purposes.

.

I suspect this will prove wrong. At the end of his career, Joe made a point of ensuring that his assistant coaches would be taken care of. He made public references to it. When Joe renegotiated the last year of his contract in February 2011, I bet he saw to his assistant coaches contracts as well. Penn State paid a total of more than $4 million to Joe's assistants that weren't retained by O'Brien, and I have to assume that McQueary was one whose contract was paid out.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ssistants-severance-44-million/1#.VT5bFJM0MvI

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Can the OP please change the spelling of "McQueary" in the topic title? My OCD thanks you.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Johnnie is busy creating new profiles today.

He's the Eggman.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Can the OP please change the spelling of "McQueary" in the topic title? My OCD thanks you.

That's his spelling, and he's sticking with it.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

The regs were issued in 1999, they talk about team coaches.

Your garbage reply is talking about coaches in regards to gender disclosures and such in other subsections. Has absolutely nothing to do with coaches being "Campus Security Authorities" .But of course you already know this. Either you are the brain dead dumbest Attorney on the Planet, or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Which is it?

Here is the entire Clery Act Subsection. Point out to the good people on this Board where it says anything about "coaches" being identified as "Campus Security Authorities".

HAAA!! You kind of lucked out. This new format has saved you. It says that I can't paste it because it is too big. So I will try to paste it in Parts in my next 5 posts. Feel free to point out in any of the next 5 posts where it says coaches are "Campus Security Authorities". Here is Part 1:


(f) Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics

(1) Each eligible institution participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, other than a foreign institution of higher education, shall on August 1, 1991, begin to collect the following information with respect to campus crime statistics and campus security policies of that institution, and beginning September 1, 1992, and each year thereafter, prepare, publish, and distribute, through appropriate publications or mailings, to all current students and employees, and to any applicant for enrollment or employment upon request, an annual security report containing at least the following information with respect to the campus security policies and campus crime statistics of that institution:

(A) A statement of current campus policies regarding procedures and facilities for students and others to report criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on campus and policies concerning the institution’s response to such reports.

(B) A statement of current policies concerning security and access to campus facilities, including campus residences, and security considerations used in the maintenance of campus facilities.

(C) A statement of current policies concerning campus law enforcement, including—

(i) the law enforcement authority of campus security personnel;

(ii) the working relationship of campus security personnel with State and local law enforcement agencies, including whether the institution has agreements with such agencies, such as written memoranda of understanding, for the investigation of alleged criminal offenses; and

(iii) policies which encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

(D) A description of the type and frequency of programs designed to inform students and employees about campus security procedures and practices and to encourage students and employees to be responsible for their own security and the security of others.

(E) A description of programs designed to inform students and employees about the prevention of crimes.

(F) Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus, in or on noncampus buildings or property, and on public property during the most recent calendar year, and during the 2 preceding calendar years for which data are available—

(i) of the following criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies:

(I) murder;

(II) sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible;

(III) robbery;

(IV) aggravated assault;

(V) burglary;

(VI) motor vehicle theft;

(VII) manslaughter;

(VIII) arson; and

(IX) arrests or persons referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possession; and

(ii) of the crimes described in subclauses (I) through (VIII) of clause (i), of larceny-theft, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property, and of other crimes involving bodily injury to any person, in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim that are reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, which data shall be collected and reported according to category of prejudice.

(G) A statement of policy concerning the monitoring and recording through local police agencies of criminal activity at off-campus student organizations which are recognized by the institution and that are engaged in by students attending the institution, including those student organizations with off-campus housing facilities.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Clery Act Part 2:


(H) A statement of policy regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and enforcement of State underage drinking laws and a statement of policy regarding the possession, use, and sale of illegal drugs and enforcement of Federal and State drug laws and a description of any drug or alcohol abuse education programs as required under section 1011i of this title.

(I) A statement advising the campus community where law enforcement agency information provided by a State under section 14071 (j) [2] of title 42, concerning registered sex offenders may be obtained, such as the law enforcement office of the institution, a local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction for the campus, or a computer network address.

(J) A statement of current campus policies regarding immediate emergency response and evacuation procedures, including the use of electronic and cellular communication (if appropriate), which policies shall include procedures to—

(i) immediately notify the campus community upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or staff occurring on the campus, as defined in paragraph (6), unless issuing a notification will compromise efforts to contain the emergency;

(ii) publicize emergency response and evacuation procedures on an annual basis in a manner designed to reach students and staff; and

(iii) test emergency response and evacuation procedures on an annual basis.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to require particular policies, procedures, or practices by institutions of higher education with respect to campus crimes or campus security.

(3) Each institution participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, other than a foreign institution of higher education, shall make timely reports to the campus community on crimes considered to be a threat to other students and employees described in paragraph (1)(F) that are reported to campus security or local law police agencies. Such reports shall be provided to students and employees in a manner that is timely and that will aid in the prevention of similar occurrences.

(4)

(A) Each institution participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, other than a foreign institution of higher education, that maintains a police or security department of any kind shall make, keep, and maintain a daily log, written in a form that can be easily understood, recording all crimes reported to such police or security department, including—

(i) the nature, date, time, and general location of each crime; and

(ii) the disposition of the complaint, if known.

(B)

(i) All entries that are required pursuant to this paragraph shall, except where disclosure of such information is prohibited by law or such disclosure would jeopardize the confidentiality of the victim, be open to public inspection within two business days of the initial report being made to the department or a campus security authority.

(ii) If new information about an entry into a log becomes available to a police or security department, then the new information shall be recorded in the log not later than two business days after the information becomes available to the police or security department.

(iii) If there is clear and convincing evidence that the release of such information would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation or the safety of an individual, cause a suspect to flee or evade detection, or result in the destruction of evidence, such information may be withheld until that damage is no longer likely to occur from the release of such information.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Clery Act Part 3:

(5) On an annual basis, each institution participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, other than a foreign institution of higher education, shall submit to the Secretary a copy of the statistics required to be made available under paragraph (1)(F). The Secretary shall—

(A) review such statistics and report to the authorizing committees on campus crime statistics by September 1, 2000;

(B) make copies of the statistics submitted to the Secretary available to the public; and

(C) in coordination with representatives of institutions of higher education, identify exemplary campus security policies, procedures, and practices and disseminate information concerning those policies, procedures, and practices that have proven effective in the reduction of campus crime.

(6)

(A) In this subsection:

(i) The term “campus” means—

(I) any building or property owned or controlled by an institution of higher education within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution and used by the institution in direct support of, or in a manner related to, the institution’s educational purposes, including residence halls; and

(II) property within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution that is owned by the institution but controlled by another person, is used by students, and supports institutional purposes (such as a food or other retail vendor).

(ii) The term “noncampus building or property” means—

(I) any building or property owned or controlled by a student organization recognized by the institution; and

(II) any building or property (other than a branch campus) owned or controlled by an institution of higher education that is used in direct support of, or in relation to, the institution’s educational purposes, is used by students, and is not within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution.

(iii) The term “public property” means all public property that is within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution, such as a sidewalk, a street, other thoroughfare, or parking facility, and is adjacent to a facility owned or controlled by the institution if the facility is used by the institution in direct support of, or in a manner related to the institution’s educational purposes.

(B) In cases where branch campuses of an institution of higher education, schools within an institution of higher education, or administrative divisions within an institution are not within a reasonably contiguous geographic area, such entities shall be considered separate campuses for purposes of the reporting requirements of this section.

(7) The statistics described in paragraph (1)(F) shall be compiled in accordance with the definitions used in the uniform crime reporting system of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the modifications in such definitions as implemented pursuant to the Hate Crime Statistics Act. Such statistics shall not identify victims of crimes or persons accused of crimes.

 

[CDW3333]

Your garbage reply is talking about coaches in regards to gender disclosures and such in other subsections. Has absolutely nothing to do with coaches being "Campus Security Authorities" .But of course you already know this. Either you are the brain dead dumbest Attorney on the Planet, or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Which is it?

Here is the entire Clery Act Subsection. Point out to the good people on this Board where it says anything about "coaches" being identified as "Campus Security Authorities".

HAAA!! You kind of lucked out. This new format has saved you. It says that I can't paste it because it is too big. So I will try to paste it in Parts in my next 4 posts. Feel free to point out in any of the next 4 posts where it says coaches are "Campus Security Authorities". Here is Part 1:


(f) Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics

(1) Each eligible institution participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, other than a foreign institution of higher education, shall on August 1, 1991, begin to collect the following information with respect to campus crime statistics and campus security policies of that institution, and beginning September 1, 1992, and each year thereafter, prepare, publish, and distribute, through appropriate publications or mailings, to all current students and employees, and to any applicant for enrollment or employment upon request, an annual security report containing at least the following information with respect to the campus security policies and campus crime statistics of that institution:

(A) A statement of current campus policies regarding procedures and facilities for students and others to report criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on campus and policies concerning the institution’s response to such reports.

(B) A statement of current policies concerning security and access to campus facilities, including campus residences, and security considerations used in the maintenance of campus facilities.

(C) A statement of current policies concerning campus law enforcement, including—

(i) the law enforcement authority of campus security personnel;

(ii) the working relationship of campus security personnel with State and local law enforcement agencies, including whether the institution has agreements with such agencies, such as written memoranda of understanding, for the investigation of alleged criminal offenses; and

(iii) policies which encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

(D) A description of the type and frequency of programs designed to inform students and employees about campus security procedures and practices and to encourage students and employees to be responsible for their own security and the security of others.

(E) A description of programs designed to inform students and employees about the prevention of crimes.

(F) Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus, in or on noncampus buildings or property, and on public property during the most recent calendar year, and during the 2 preceding calendar years for which data are available—

(i) of the following criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies:

(I) murder;

(II) sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible;

(III) robbery;

(IV) aggravated assault;

(V) burglary;

(VI) motor vehicle theft;

(VII) manslaughter;

(VIII) arson; and

(IX) arrests or persons referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possession; and

(ii) of the crimes described in subclauses (I) through (VIII) of clause (i), of larceny-theft, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property, and of other crimes involving bodily injury to any person, in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim that are reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, which data shall be collected and reported according to category of prejudice.

(G) A statement of policy concerning the monitoring and recording through local police agencies of criminal activity at off-campus student organizations which are recognized by the institution and that are engaged in by students attending the institution, including those student organizations with off-campus housing facilities.

Hey, stupid, that's the law, not the regs that inform the law. Go see if you can find the regs.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Clery Act Part 4:


(8)

(A) Each institution of higher education participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, other than a foreign institution of higher education, shall develop and distribute as part of the report described in paragraph (1) a statement of policy regarding—

(i) such institution’s campus sexual assault programs, which shall be aimed at prevention of sex offenses; and

(ii) the procedures followed once a sex offense has occurred.

(B) The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas:

(i) Education programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, and other sex offenses.

(ii) Possible sanctions to be imposed following the final determination of an on-campus disciplinary procedure regarding rape, acquaintance rape, or other sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible.

(iii) Procedures students should follow if a sex offense occurs, including who should be contacted, the importance of preserving evidence as may be necessary to the proof of criminal sexual assault, and to whom the alleged offense should be reported.

(iv) Procedures for on-campus disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault, which shall include a clear statement that—

(I) the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a campus disciplinary proceeding; and

(II) both the accuser and the accused shall be informed of the outcome of any campus disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sexual assault.

(v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.

(vi) Notification of students of existing counseling, mental health or student services for victims of sexual assault, both on campus and in the community.

(vii) Notification of students of options for, and available assistance in, changing academic and living situations after an alleged sexual assault incident, if so requested by the victim and if such changes are reasonably available.

(C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to confer a private right of action upon any person to enforce the provisions of this paragraph.

(9) The Secretary shall provide technical assistance in complying with the provisions of this section to an institution of higher education who requests such assistance.

(10) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the reporting or disclosure of privileged information.

(11) The Secretary shall report to the appropriate committees of Congress each institution of higher education that the Secretary determines is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of this subsection.

(12) For purposes of reporting the statistics with respect to crimes described in paragraph (1)(F), an institution of higher education shall distinguish, by means of separate categories, any criminal offenses that occur—

(A) on campus;

(B) in or on a noncampus building or property;

(C) on public property; and

(D) in dormitories or other residential facilities for students on campus.

(13) Upon a determination pursuant to section 1094 (c)(3)(B) of this title that an institution of higher education has substantially misrepresented the number, location, or nature of the crimes required to be reported under this subsection, the Secretary shall impose a civil penalty upon the institution in the same amount and pursuant to the same procedures as a civil penalty is imposed under section 1094 (c)(3)(B) of this title.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Clery Act Part 5. Last Part. Show everyone where it says anything about coaches being Campus Security Authorities.:


(14)

(A) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to—

(i) create a cause of action against any institution of higher education or any employee of such an institution for any civil liability; or

(ii) establish any standard of care.

(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with this subsection shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce this subsection.

(15) The Secretary shall annually report to the authorizing committees regarding compliance with this subsection by institutions of higher education, including an up-to-date report on the Secretary’s monitoring of such compliance.

(16) The Secretary may seek the advice and counsel of the Attorney General concerning the development, and dissemination to institutions of higher education, of best practices information about campus safety and emergencies.

(17) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit an institution, or an officer, employee, or agent of an institution, participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42 to retaliate, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the implementation of any provision of this subsection.

(18) This subsection may be cited as the “Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act”.

 

[kgilbert78]

My understanding is that being placed on leave is at the center of MM's lawsuit. He contends that the security concerns were a mere pretext and he was stigmatized by being treated differently than the other coaches.

Possibly. I'd heard that he had his perks/benefits taken away sooner than the others, such as insurance and a car. He should be able to make a case on that. But I can't see why PSU hasn't settled this one. Unlike JayPa's suit, which is more to get folks on the record, I doubt that either side really wants this to go to trial/deposition.

 

[pnnylion]

Hey, stupid, that's the law, not the regs that inform the law. Go see if you can find the regs.

You making things up again?

 

[Art]

I suspect this will prove wrong. At the end of his career, Joe made a point of ensuring that his assistant coaches would be taken care of. He made public references to it. When Joe renegotiated the last year of his contract in February 2011, I bet he saw to his assistant coaches contracts as well. Penn State paid a total of more than $4 million to Joe's assistants that weren't retained by O'Brien, and I have to assume that McQueary was one whose contract was paid out.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ssistants-severance-44-million/1#.VT5bFJM0MvI

Can't speak to the agreements in place, but pretty sure Mike McQueary wasn't on a contract with Penn State. As strange as that sounds, remember that Joe Paterno himself was never on a contract with Penn State until the twilight years of his career for recruiting purposes.

Penn State's post-employment handling of Mike McQueary is yet another example of Cynthia Baldwin screwing the pooch for Dear Old State.

Certainly no surprise that Joe didn't have a contract until late in his tenure. I would guess that the assistants. McQuade included, had them much earlier, primarily to enumerate amounts due on termination, which Joe either never worried or cared about.

 

[Obliviax]

Regardless of any assumptions about what McQueary exactly said to Joe, according to Joe's interview with Sassano, Joe made it very clear that he knew what was happening from what Mike said.

...and Joe reported it to the proper authorities, as protocol dictated at the time and in 2015. Moreover, Joe was legally bared from doing anything else beyond what he did (he was not an employer, owner of the facility, witness, etc.).

 

[CDW3333]

Here are the regs. When a law is passed by congress, a certain department of the executive branch is charged with enforcing the law (in this case the Department of Education). Part of the enforcement process is issuing regulations that clarify the law. In the case of the Clery Act, the regs were finally passed in 1999 and published in the federal register (linked). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-11-01/pdf/FR-1999-11-01.pdf

You will see on page 59063, the following language:

To determine if an institution must collect crime statistics from a particular employee or official, or provide a timely warning report based on crimes reported or known to the employee or official, an institution must first determine if that official is a campus security authority. In addition to campus law enforcement staff, a campus security authority is someone with ‘‘significant responsibility for student and campus activities.’’ Absent this responsibility, an employee is not a campus security authority. For example, a dean of students who oversees student housing, a student center, or student extra-curricular activities, has significant responsibility for student and campus activities. Similarly, a director of athletics, team coach, and faculty advisor to a student group also have significant responsibility for student and campus activities. A single teaching faculty member is unlikely to have significant responsibility for student and campus activities, except when serving as an advisor to a student group. A physician in a campus health center or a counselor in a counseling center whose only responsibility is to provide care to students are unlikely to have significant responsibility for student and campus activities. Also, clerical staff are unlikely to have significant responsibility for student and campus activities. Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations. (Emphasis added).

Hope that helps.

 

[Trey Suevos]

Sure, Trey. We believe you. After all, your track record here is stellar, and I'm sure you've been following this issue for quite some time.

Oh, wait. I just noticed your post number. I guess you really might just be a troll, after all. Silly me.

Who said I'm trying to convince you of anything? Joe's interview with Sassano is what it is.

 

[Trey Suevos]

...and Joe reported it to the proper authorities, as protocol dictated at the time and in 2015. Moreover, Joe was legally bared from doing anything else beyond what he did (he was not an employer, owner of the facility, witness, etc.).

The post had nothing to do with what Joe did after he talked to Mike. It merely shows Joe's own statement that confirms that he understood what Mike was telling him.

 

[pnnylion]

Who said I'm trying to convince you of anything? Joe's interview with Sassano is what it is.

And you continue to spin it Shuttlesworth you Penn Live troll.

 

[Obliviax]

The post had nothing to do with what Joe did after he talked to Mike. It merely shows Joe's own statement that confirms that he understood what Mike was telling him.

You are taking it out of context. Joe also says "I don't know what you would call it." After he called it "sexual".

 

[Trey Suevos]

You are taking it out of context. Joe also says "I don't know what you would call it." After he called it "sexual".

Remember that this was the same man who needed an explanation of the word 'sodomy'. That being said, why would the phrase "I don't know what you would call it" be a surprise?

 

[mdahmus]

...and Joe reported it to the proper authorities, as protocol dictated at the time and in 2015. Moreover, Joe was legally bared from doing anything else beyond what he did (he was not an employer, owner of the facility, witness, etc.).

This is another common lie. Joe was not legally barred from doing anything else beyond what he did. He could have done more. It might have been a good idea, might not have, but it was not illegal.

 

[Madsol]

This is another common lie. Joe was not legally barred from doing anything else beyond what he did. He could have done more. It might have been a good idea, might not have, but it was not illegal.

You throw the word "lie" around an awful lot. Why is that? How do you know he's lying and simply not mistaken?

 

[Obliviax]

This is another common lie. Joe was not legally barred from doing anything else beyond what he did. He could have done more. It might have been a good idea, might not have, but it was not illegal.

You are totally incorrect on this. He could have inquired on what the status was, but he would have been rebuffed because these kinds of cases are considered to be highly confidential do to the damaging nature of accusations. Joe could have asked, but any response other than "I can't say" would have been illegal. As it stands, McQueary has stated that Joe asked him, several times, if he was OK...clearly meaning if he was ok with what was happening. MM gave him an affirmative answer each time. If MM was OK with what was happening, why would Joe make an illegal inquiry?

What else could he do? Be specific.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Here are the regs. When a law is passed by congress, a certain department of the executive branch is charged with enforcing the law (in this case the Department of Education). Part of the enforcement process is issuing regulations that clarify the law. In the case of the Clery Act, the regs were finally passed in 1999 and published in the federal register (linked). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-11-01/pdf/FR-1999-11-01.pdf

You will see on page 59063, the following language:

To determine if an institution must collect crime statistics from a particular employee or official, or provide a timely warning report based on crimes reported or known to the employee or official, an institution must first determine if that official is a campus security authority. In addition to campus law enforcement staff, a campus security authority is someone with ‘‘significant responsibility for student and campus activities.’’ Absent this responsibility, an employee is not a campus security authority. For example, a dean of students who oversees student housing, a student center, or student extra-curricular activities, has significant responsibility for student and campus activities. Similarly, a director of athletics, team coach, and faculty advisor to a student group also have significant responsibility for student and campus activities. A single teaching faculty member is unlikely to have significant responsibility for student and campus activities, except when serving as an advisor to a student group. A physician in a campus health center or a counselor in a counseling center whose only responsibility is to provide care to students are unlikely to have significant responsibility for student and campus activities. Also, clerical staff are unlikely to have significant responsibility for student and campus activities. Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations. (Emphasis added).

Hope that helps.

[Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations. ]

That "additional guidance" was in the form of the Cleary Act Handbook. It didn't exist when McQueary made his 2001 Report to Joe. The law never said anything about "team coaches". Neither did the Clery Regs 34 C.F.R. § 668.46.

 

[CDW3333]

Buffalo Lion, you are truly an idiot. You obviously didn't take five minutes to look at the link. That's not a "handbook", those are THE regulations, in the original format, promulgated by the federal government and published in the Federal Register. They are law. If a university violates the regs, it gets punished. And you would see, if you bothered to read, they were issued Nov. 1, 1999.

You obviously failed civics class.

Or maybe you didn't get that far in high school.

 

[pnnylion]

Buffalo Lion, you are truly an idiot. You obviously didn't take five minutes to look at the link. That's not a "handbook", those THE regulations, in the original format, promulgated by the federal government and published in the Federal Register. They are law. If a university violates the regs, it gets punished. And you would see, if you bothered to read, they were issued Nov. 1, 1999.

You obviously failed civics class.

Or maybe you didn't get that far in high school.

Spinning again?

 

[mdahmus]

You throw the word "lie" around an awful lot. Why is that? How do you know he's lying and simply not mistaken?

Because it's been corrected multiple times on this very site and yet keeps getting thrown around as a talking point. There is no excuse other than willful dishonesty.

 

[mdahmus]

You are totally incorrect on this. He could have inquired on what the status was, but he would have been rebuffed because these kinds of cases are considered to be highly confidential do to the damaging nature of accusations. Joe could have asked, but any response other than "I can't say" would have been illegal. As it stands, McQueary has stated that Joe asked him, several times, if he was OK...clearly meaning if he was ok with what was happening. MM gave him an affirmative answer each time. If MM was OK with what was happening, why would Joe make an illegal inquiry?

What else could he do? Be specific.

He could have asked - which you have said is illegal, but that's not true.

He could have gone to the press - which is also not illegal.

Note again, being a good idea; being against his employment contract; being likely to work - these are different things than "illegal", which has a very specific meaning. Paterno inquiring would not have been illegal. Period. When you continue to say so, you are lying.

 

[Raffycorn]

You are totally incorrect on this. He could have inquired on what the status was, but he would have been rebuffed because these kinds of cases are considered to be highly confidential do to the damaging nature of accusations. Joe could have asked, but any response other than "I can't say" would have been illegal. As it stands, McQueary has stated that Joe asked him, several times, if he was OK...clearly meaning if he was ok with what was happening. MM gave him an affirmative answer each time. If MM was OK with what was happening, why would Joe make an illegal inquiry?

What else could he do? Be specific.

That legality certainly didn't stop Curley (and potentially Paterno, depending on the meaning of the "informed the coach" emails) from finding out information about the 1998 investigation, did it? Wouldn't that have been confidential, too?

 

[Aoshiro]

Buffalo Lion, you are truly an idiot. You obviously didn't take five minutes to look at the link. That's not a "handbook", those THE regulations, in the original format, promulgated by the federal government and published in the Federal Register. They are law. If a university violates the regs, it gets punished. And you would see, if you bothered to read, they were issued Nov. 1, 1999.

Actually, the language you quoted from the Federal Register (your link doesn't work, BTW) is not the language from the regulation. It a discussion about various commenters' reactions to the proposed regulations. Here is a link that actually works. The relevant discussion starts on page 59060. As you are undoubtedly aware, since you read this document, it ends with the following comment: "Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations"

But none of that is neither here nor there. Paterno was not even required to pass on McQueary's report for statistical purposes unless McQueary reported an assault to him, and it's entirely unclear that's what McQueary reported. Furthermore, Paterno unquestionably did pass on the information that he received from McQueary, so I'll be damned if I can understand why the heck you keep prattling on about some purported failure to comply with Clery requirements. But I guess that we shouldn't expect much from an "attorney" who doesn't know the difference between a regulation and a discussion of a regulation.

 

[nits74]

Actually, the language you quoted from the Federal Register (your link doesn't work, BTW) is not the language from the regulation. It a discussion about various commenters' reactions to the proposed regulations. Here is a link that actually works. The relevant discussion starts on page 59060. As you are undoubtedly aware, since you read this document, it ends with the following comment: "Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations"

But none of that is neither here nor there. Paterno was not even required to pass on McQueary's report for statistical purposes unless McQueary reported an assault to him, and it's entirely unclear that's what McQueary reported. Furthermore, Paterno unquestionably did pass on the information that he received from McQueary, so I'll be damned if I can understand why the heck you keep prattling on about some purported failure to comply with Clery requirements. But I guess that we shouldn't expect much from an "attorney" who doesn't know the difference between a regulation and a discussion of a regulation.

Well said. Of the few posters still clinging to the narrative, CDW's agenda is the most transparent. His posts are no longer even worth the time and effort it takes to read them.

 

[pnnylion]

Actually, the language you quoted from the Federal Register (your link doesn't work, BTW) is not the language from the regulation. It a discussion about various commenters' reactions to the proposed regulations. Here is a link that actually works. The relevant discussion starts on page 59060. As you are undoubtedly aware, since you read this document, it ends with the following comment: "Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations"

But none of that is neither here nor there. Paterno was not even required to pass on McQueary's report for statistical purposes unless McQueary reported an assault to him, and it's entirely unclear that's what McQueary reported. Furthermore, Paterno unquestionably did pass on the information that he received from McQueary, so I'll be damned if I can understand why the heck you keep prattling on about some purported failure to comply with Clery requirements. But I guess that we shouldn't expect much from an "attorney" who doesn't know the difference between a regulation and a discussion of a regulation.

It's Penn Live prattle, that's why.

 

[Aoshiro]

He could have gone to the press - which is also not illegal.

You're seriously suggesting that Paterno should have gone to the press with an unsubstantiated report?

That is just nuts. For all Paterno knew, Mike's report was investigated and it was determined that Mike was wrong about what he saw. Mike never once indicated to Joe that he thought that his report hadn't been handled right.

I think that your problem--and this goes back to the Rashard Casey business--is that you have some kind of skewed worldview in which (1) a person accused is always guilty and (2) it's a football's coach's job to dispense justice.

You are, quite obviously, wrong on both counts.

 

[B_Levinson]

So what exactly where his different stories? I always see it referenced that he has changed his story but I think this is a common myth. I can't think of one single thing that he has actually changed. I'm not defending his actions because frankly there are plenty of things about his actions don't make any sense or are indefensible but I don't think he was waivered on anything he ever said. Closest thing that might come close is when this all went down there were rumors he told his players or a letter to them that he "stopped it" that night but later on he claimed under oath about slamming a locker

In the Sandusky hearing, he testified (after prodding by the prosecutor) that he actually saw a sexual assault while, in the Curley/Schultz hearing, he said he didn't see one, or indeed any crime reportable to police.

 

[pnnylion]

99% of what's on Penn Live is lies and made up crap.

 

[simons96]

Actually, the language you quoted from the Federal Register (your link doesn't work, BTW) is not the language from the regulation. It a discussion about various commenters' reactions to the proposed regulations. Here is a link that actually works. The relevant discussion starts on page 59060. As you are undoubtedly aware, since you read this document, it ends with the following comment: "Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical. However, as stated above, we will provide additional guidance at a later date concerning interpretation of these regulations"

But none of that is neither here nor there. Paterno was not even required to pass on McQueary's report for statistical purposes unless McQueary reported an assault to him, and it's entirely unclear that's what McQueary reported. Furthermore, Paterno unquestionably did pass on the information that he received from McQueary, so I'll be damned if I can understand why the heck you keep prattling on about some purported failure to comply with Clery requirements. But I guess that we shouldn't expect much from an "attorney" who doesn't know the difference between a regulation and a discussion of a regulation.

BOOM! (mic drop)

 

[WeR0206]

CDW's twisting of the Clery Act language is VERY similar to the way he was trying to somehow spin Schultz's 12/16/11 prelim testimony into "Schultz thought MM reported a sex crime to him" which CLEARLY isn't in Schultz's testimony when you read the FULL CONTEXT and not just cherry pick a few lines. I provided the full context of Schultz testimony to disprove him then he never responded to it, go figure.

 

[pnnylion]

CDW's twisting of the Clery Act language is VERY similar to the way he was trying to somehow spin Schultz's 12/16/11 prelim testimony into "Schultz thought MM reported a sex crime to him" which CLEARLY isn't in Schultz's testimony when you read the FULL CONTEXT and not just cherry pick a few lines. I provided the full context of Schultz testimony to disprove him then he never responded to it, go figure.

He squats over on Penn Live lying and spinning constantly.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Buffalo Lion, you are truly an idiot. You obviously didn't take five minutes to look at the link. That's not a "handbook", those are THE regulations, in the original format, promulgated by the federal government and published in the Federal Register. They are law. If a university violates the regs, it gets punished. And you would see, if you bothered to read, they were issued Nov. 1, 1999.

You obviously failed civics class.

Or maybe you didn't get that far in high school.

HAAAA!!! What part of ["Since official responsibilities and job titles vary significantly from campus to campus, we believe that including a list of specific titles in the regulation is not practical."] don't you understand?

Here are the actual regs. The Ruling in the Federal Register decided they weren't going to change them. They were going to offer "additional guidance at a later date". That's why we now have the Handbook. The Handbook wasn't available to Joe in 2001.

Here are the actual regs. Tell me where it says anything in the actual regs about a coach being a CSA. I must say CDW, I'm starting to think you are a computer that's about to have a short circuit melt down when things just don't compute. Kind of like Romney when Candy Crowley hit him broadside in that debate. : ^ )


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title34-vol3/pdf/CFR-2011-title34-vol3-sec668-46.pdf