What should they have done?

[demlion]

What reports regarding "Jerry's strangeness" did the BOT receive in the 1990s (or earlier)?--post by CDW....


Never heard of this? What? You have been on here defending the OG BoT for all these years and you never heard of this?

 

[Obliviax]

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

So far, there is no evidence Joe was complicit as he followed policy perfectly. And that policy was affirmed by the NCAA. So we agree. Regardless, we need the truth, period. Those guilty should be wrung up. Justice needs to be served. If it comes out Joe was complicit, so be it.

 

[Pitt is #1]

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

I have a q

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

Well...what if it showed Paterno wasn't the man you thought he was? I'm not saying he wasn't..but what if?

 

[psu ironman]

I'm no BOT apologist, but there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking ITT.
Hind sight is 20/20.

 

[CDW3333]

What reports regarding "Jerry's strangeness" did the BOT receive in the 1990s (or earlier)?--post by CDW....


Never heard of this? What? You have been on here defending the OG BoT for all these years and you never heard of this?

I've never defended your BOT. I don't give a rats ass about your BOT.

I am interested in evidence that it knew or should have known that Sandusky was a pedophile back in the 90s (or earlier).

 

[RentechCEO]

He's surreal, no need to thank him.

 

[bjf1984]

I've never defended your BOT. I don't give a rats ass about your BOT.

I am interested in evidence that it knew or should have known that Sandusky was a pedophile back in the 90s (or earlier).

 

[demlion]

I've never defended your BOT. I don't give a rats ass about your BOT.

I am interested in evidence that it knew or should have known that Sandusky was a pedophile back in the 90s (or earlier).

Sorry pal. A former trustee said, on television, that in the 90s it was a joke among BoT members that you did not want your kids around JS. For you to come here after all this time and tell us with a straight face that you never heard this or saw the interview means that you have never been serious in all this time. I am done with you chief.

 

[Zenophile]

I'm no BOT apologist, but there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking ITT.
Hind sight is 20/20.

1. I sincerely hope the irony of your statement is intentional.

2. Some of us knew & were very vocal in real time about what should have been happening.

 

[RentechCEO]

What reports regarding "Jerry's strangeness" did the BOT receive in the 1990s (or earlier)?--post by CDW....


Never heard of this? What? You have been on here defending the OG BoT for all these years and you never heard of this?

So you are saying the BOT knew about Sandusky being a pedophile in the 1990s? Were the BOT in place on Nov 2011 also on the BOT in the 90s as well. What evidence did they have that PSU did not?

 

[Glen]

Sorry pal. A former trustee said, on television, that in the 90s it was a joke among BoT members that you did not want your kids around JS. For you to come here after all this time and tell us with a straight face that you never heard this or saw the interview means that you have never been serious in all this time. I am done with you chief.

And yet CDW will use the same arguement to claim Joe knew. Amazing!!!

As to the OP, if there had been a BoT in 2011 that was not compromised, they should have stood up to the governor and A g and demanded why they were shifting the focus from a pedophile to those that aided the investigation. They allowed the narrative to be shifted and then stood back as it went out of control to the point there was no voice demanding the legal process be given the chance to work.

 

[CDW3333]

Sorry pal. A former trustee said, on television, that in the 90s it was a joke among BoT members that you did not want your kids around JS. For you to come here after all this time and tell us with a straight face that you never heard this or saw the interview means that you have never been serious in all this time. I am done with you chief.

Who said that? Is there a Youtube clip or something? How do you know this?

I'm perfectly willing to believe the BOT had reason to suspect Sandusky, but looked the other way. I've just never seen any evidence of it.

 

[CDW3333]

And yet CDW will use the same arguement to claim Joe knew. Amazing!!!

As to the OP, if there had been a BoT in 2011 that was not compromised, they should have stood up to the governor and A g and demanded why they were shifting the focus from a pedophile to those that aided the investigation. They allowed the narrative to be shifted and then stood back as it went out of control to the point there was no voice demanding the legal process be given the chance to work.

My evidence regarding Paterno is that he testified under oath that he "knew" that Sandusky had done something "inappropriate" with a young boy in the Lasch showers.

 

[bjf1984]

So you are saying the BOT knew about Sandusky being a pedophile in the 1990s? Were the BOT in place on Nov 2011 also on the BOT in the 90s as well. What evidence did they have that PSU did not?

Thanks for stopping by!

 

[kgilbert78]

I have a q

Well...what if it showed Paterno wasn't the man you thought he was? I'm not saying he wasn't..but what if?

Then it is what it is. The ideals still stand. Unless you are suggesting we should only follow the ideals of a perfect person. There's only been one of those, at most, depending on your beliefs--and He ain't Joe.

 

[Obliviax]

My evidence regarding Paterno is that he testified under oath that he "knew" that Sandusky had done something "inappropriate" with a young boy in the Lasch showers.

Yes...exactly. And he reported it. Exactly as policy dictated and exactly as the NCAA's update policy dictates today.

 

[Offside Clyde]

Well at least someone brought a new topic to the board.

 

[simons96]

Yes...exactly. And he reported it. Exactly as policy dictated and exactly as the NCAA's update policy dictates today.

exactly as law enforcement requires, despite what Frank "I turned a blind eye to my officers molesting kids in Thailand" Noonan says.

 

[Fayette_LION]

So you are saying the BOT knew about Sandusky being a pedophile in the 1990s? Were the BOT in place on Nov 2011 also on the BOT in the 90s as well. What evidence did they have that PSU did not?

The BOT knew he was clingy with kids. Some called it strange but he was vetted and allowed to adopt kids. I do not believe anyone knew of him being a pedophile.

 

[Pardlion]

Curious as to your answers.

What should the BOT have done? Simple: they should have, and were obligated to act prudently.

There is another question, though: what should the BOT not have done? What would a reasonably prudent BOT member not have done under the circumstances. Here are a few suggestions:

1. They should have resigned when the scandal hit, and it became apparent that none of them had been doing their jobs for the last decade or more.

2. They should have hired competent counsel and advisers immediately.

3. They should not have allowed the NCAA unfettered access to and influence over the "independent" investigation. They should not have allowed the investigation to be more transparent to the NCAA than it was to the actual BOT.

4. They should not have allowed the investigator to grandstand and release the report to the public, to the great damage of the institution, without having first read it and asked follow-up questions. The investigator should not have been given carte blanche to go off script in a way that damaged the university.

5. They should not have allowed a small faction of the board to "run" the entire crisis without full transparency to the rest of the board.

 

[simons96]

The BOT knew he was clingy with kids. Some called it strange but he was vetted and allowed to adopt kids. I do not believe anyone knew of him being a pedophile.

was that former trustee Ben Novak? I think he's been spot on in his criticism of how the BoT operates, but I don't put a lot of stock in his statements about Sandusky.

With that said, I think the co-mingling of PSU trustees and TSM trustees makes it hard to think after Sandusky was indicated as an abuser by CYS in the Aaron Fisher case, they weren't tipped about what was going on.

 

[simons96]

but going back to your original post, consider what Syracuse did with the Bernie Fine allegations, and why they are not considered "Pedo U" in the same breath as Penn State by the media.

 

[WeR0206]

To this day im still baffled/enraged when watching Surma during the press conference where they "relieved" Joe of his duties. In his comments surma actually says that they dont have all the facts yet, only the GJP (a one sided non factual prosecutorial document mind you) and media reports (based on GJP). I remember thinking at the time wtf...if you dont know the facts yet why are you having this late night press conference and why are you making decisions based on a freaking GJP?!? Apparently non of the lawyers on the BOT made surma aware of what a GJP actually is.

Since when do trustees make any hiring/firing decisions when they admit to not knowing any facts yet? And yet the media gobbled it up no questions asked...smh

That is a prime example of how compromised/incompetent the BOT exec comm is.

 

[Pitt is #1]

Then it is what it is. The ideals still stand. Unless you are suggesting we should only follow the ideals of a perfect person. There's only been one of those, at most, depending on your beliefs--and He ain't Joe.

Well, there is a reason I asked that question. I was banned on this board when the scandal broke. The reason I was banned was this question..."Is it really such a stretch to believe Joe was human and possibly looked the other way to protect something he loved?" I found it amazing out of all the posts I've ever made here...that was the one that got me banned?

 

[LundyPSU]

Well, there is a reason I asked that question. I was banned on this board when the scandal broke. The reason I was banned was this question..."Is it really such a stretch to believe Joe was human and possibly looked the other way to protect something he loved?" I found it amazing out of all the posts I've ever made here...that was the one that got me banned?

Well there was so much crap flying on these board's then, anything questionable was being cleaned up and your moniker probably didn't help. And as a response to your question, we know JVP didn't look the other way.

 

[Art]

The BoT never should have allowed itself to be put in the position in which it found itself in November. Regardless of what Spanier and/or Baldwin reported, it had sufficient advance warning of the very real possibility that the shit would hit the fan and somehow blow back and stain PSU. At that point it should have initiated action to prepare for that possibility. Had it acted competently and with sufficient foresight, it would not needed to improvise come November.

 

[WeR0206]

Well there was so much crap flying on these board's then, anything questionable was being cleaned up and your moniker probably didn't help. And as a response to your question, we know JVP didn't look the other way.

Exactly...CSS didn't look the other way either. 2001 was treated seriously, an action plan was developed/implimented and it was reported OUTSIDE of PSU to the child care experts and employers of JS at TSM. If anyone looked the other way or didn't do enough re: 2001 it was JR, Heim, and the folks running TSM.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Reknowned crisis manager and PSU alum Steven Fink has written on this topic at length. Highly recommend his work.

 

[sluggo72]

My evidence regarding Paterno is that he testified under oath that he "knew" that Sandusky had done something "inappropriate" with a young boy in the Lasch showers.

how are you so sure as to what JVP testified to?? The only record of his testimony has been read in by someone else, from something transcribed from a machine with what? 8 keys on it? Change the words 'it was' to 'was it', and add in 'of a sexual nature', and you'll know why he also said, "I don't know what you call it'. Nice try

 

[nagromth]

Not trying to build my resume, but you have CEO in your title so, I am using that as a reference point.
1 - As was already pointed out, the BOT was derelict in their fiduciary duties on multiple levels.
2 - The overall governance approach for the university was outdated. As a BOD member of a small private school in GA, we had more controls in place recommended by the Freeh Report than our University. I think that this reflects 2 key points, 1, the BOT members viewed this role as a 'club' for self enrichment. 2, they took their responsibility too lightly and when the defecation hit the rotating oscillator, they were ill prepared, because they should have done more. The BOT members are high profile members of publically traded companies, they understand their responsibilities and they scapegoated them most conveniently.
3 - No executive likes surprises, yet when notified over many years, out BOT did nothing to prepare for or insurance against any potential fall out.
4 - Corbett, the former AG turned governor knew what was happening around JS. As a Board member, Governor, he let PSU burn while playing his fiddle.
5 - Follow the money trail.
In my book, everything rises and falls on leadership. PSU lacked leadership when it needed it the most. The BOT is reprehensible and incorrigible.

 

[WeR0206]

how are you so sure as to what JVP testified to?? The only record of his testimony has been read in by someone else, from something transcribed from a machine with what? 8 keys on it? Change the words 'it was' to 'was it', and add in 'of a sexual nature', and you'll know why he also said, "I don't know what you call it'. Nice try

Yep, and the guy who read Joe's GJ testimony into the record was none other than James Barker, one of Fina's cronies/moles who Kane fired unceremoniously from the OAG a few weeks ago. Not that this proves anything...just another coincidence to add to the pile

 

[CDW3333]

how are you so sure as to what JVP testified to?? The only record of his testimony has been read in by someone else, from something transcribed from a machine with what? 8 keys on it? Change the words 'it was' to 'was it', and add in 'of a sexual nature', and you'll know why he also said, "I don't know what you call it'. Nice try

The court reporter's machine has a built-in recording mechanism that records the testimony as it is being transcribed.

 

[CDW3333]

Yep, and the guy who read Joe's GJ testimony into the record was none other than James Barker, one of Fina's cronies/moles who Kane fired unceremoniously from the OAG a few weeks ago. Not that this proves anything...just another coincidence to add to the pile

When testimony is read in to the record, all the lawyers and the judge have copies of the transcript and follow along. If something is read incorrectly there is plenty of opportunity to object.

 

[91Joe95]

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

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

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

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

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

They had a presentation on it in the March bot meeting from both the president of the university and the head of the general counsel, and literally not a single question was asked.

 

[bplionfan]

Well, there is a reason I asked that question. I was banned on this board when the scandal broke. The reason I was banned was this question..."Is it really such a stretch to believe Joe was human and possibly looked the other way to protect something he loved?" I found it amazing out of all the posts I've ever made here...that was the one that got me banned?

When you are implying Joe possibly looked the other way, what exactly are you saying? What do you consider looking the other way? Please clarify

 

[demlion]

They had a presentation on it in the March bot meeting from both the president of the university and the head of the general counsel, and literally not a single question was asked.

The fact that Joe and Spanier and Curley and Schultz had testified was in the newspaper in March of 2011. In May of that same year there was a briefing at which Spanier and Baldwin told them what the subject of the GJ investigation was. They did NOTHING, and asked no questions, and indeed they later claimed not to have known anything about any of it until the GJ presentment came out in NOVEMBER 11.

The fact is that in the 1990s there was talk about not leaving your kids with Jerry. This talk was reported BY A BOARD MEMBER after the scandal broke. These people fired Joe for not doing the right thing. By their very own standards they were guilty of the same sort of dereliction of duty.

 

[bplionfan]

Yep, and the guy who read Joe's GJ testimony into the record was none other than James Barker, one of Fina's cronies/moles who Kane fired unceremoniously from the OAG a few weeks ago. Not that this proves anything...just another coincidence to add to the pile

And when you look at the follow up question, no mention of sexual nature.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don't know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was.

I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told ? I didn't go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?

Mr. Paterno: In the shower.

 

[Maddog]

The BOT knew he was clingy with kids. Some called it strange but he was vetted and allowed to adopt kids. I do not believe anyone knew of him being a pedophile.

THIS! People knew Jerry was somewhat 'strange". I've seen the word "child-like" used to describe him. But NOBODY thought he was a pedophile. After all, would a pedophile be allowed to adopt multiple kids, and be a foster parent to an even larger number of kids? Professionals in the field evaluated him repeatedly and found nothing to be concerned about. So why should a football coach, even if he was a legend, believe any differently?

 

[Mr. Nickels 11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

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

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

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

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

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

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

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

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

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

Curious as to your answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who should have taken his place in the interim?

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

Should he have answered any and all questions?

Do you think he would have handled it well?

What should the BOT have done with Joe?

Should they have asked him to resign?

Should they have suspended him?

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

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

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

How should PSU have answered the NCAA letter?

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

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

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

Curious as to your answers.

The answer to your question is very simple. The BOT should have properly discharged its responsibilities as fiduciaries of the institution. Doing that properly and in the best interest of the University would have led to a much different and better outcome for all Penn Staters.

 

[rmb297]

The first two members of the BOT to learn about the Sandusky investigation were Paul Suhey and Ira Lubert -- both in 2009. That knowledge brought about the selection of Frazier as a B&I trustee (and lawyer), then the hiring of Cynthia Baldwin. Baldwin stonewalled the case until March 2011....when Corbett and Surma agreed to go after Spanier and Paterno using Sandusky.

By November 2011, the course was set.

Had the University been acting on proper legal advice, it would have stated that he charges against PSU officials were groundless AND that there was NO EVIDENCE that any of Sandusky's crimes occurred on campus after THEY intervened in 2001. Furthermore, the University should have stated that they received a similar report of Sandusky showering with two boys in 1998 and that police and child protection agents did not find it to be a case of child abuse. That incident drove their decision making in 2001 to report the incident to The Second Mile and to ban Sandusky from using the workout facilities with children after the incident. All evidence indicates that he abided by that directive. PSU was not provided any information in 1998, 2001, or any time up until just prior to charges being filed in 2011 that Sandusky's behavior crossed the line into an abuse situation.

Any assertions otherwise have no basis in reality.