Penn State Goings-On

[Barrister]

i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony

I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed.  Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.

And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.

[Rasputin]

i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony

I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed.  Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.

And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.

i agree that the evidence suggests that the university knew sandusky was a problem and the nature of the problem

I'm also prepared to accept, until the evidence suggests otherwise, that the same cabal of mangement who worked so hard to conceal the problem from the outside world, would have worked very hard to conceal the same issue from the board of trustees whose political loyalties are not with school management but instead lie with the governor who appointed them

joe pa reported to curley

curley and schutz reported to spanner

the board was spanner's boss

the board answers only to the governor

as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check

[jimmy olsen]

http://phillysportsdaily.com/college/2011/11/10/allegation-sandusky-pimped-out-kids/

Allegation: Sandusky "Pimped Out" Kids

    By: Philly Sports Daily Staff on November 10, 2011 9:31 am

Pittsburgh talk show host Mark Madden, who wrote an article seven months ago that foretold of the events that have unfolded over the last week, made an explosive allegation Thursday morning on a Boston radio station.

"There is a rumor ... Jerry Sandusky and The Second Mile were 'pimping out' kids to rich donors," Madden said on WEEI-AM.

Madden continued on, saying that Sandusky was forced into retirement in 1999 at the age of 55 in exchange for a cover-up of the alleged 1998 sexual assault.

"Jerry Sandusky was told he had to retire in exchange for the cover-up."

The entire audio is here.

Madden makes the allegation at about the 7:30 mark of the audio.

[alfred russel]

These people should have been held accountable for this stuff years ago, they waited until the fucking District Attorney did something before they held the people in charge accountable for what damn sure appears to be a cover up.  The DA were the ones who broke this story, not Penn State or the School President, not Joe Paterno, nope this story was not important enough to ever mention to anybody off campus.  It was always kept in house.  Now the Governor had to step  in to get the BoT to do the very belated right thing.

Again, I don't know the details. For all I know the president of the school knew everything and actively covered this up and is going to end up in jail. But just based on the grand jury testimony, he was informed that there was an investigation of some sort in 2002, and it was resolved with Sandusky not allowed to bring children on campus. That seems a very tenuous reason to fire someone, even if there were later stories that a grand jury was investigating other incidents with Sandusky. Did you want the president to have the university launch its own investigation while the grand jury investigation was ongoing? Do you think that would be appreciated, and don't you think that could be viewed very suspiciously?

It is possible that there is a lot more that Board knows beyond the grand jury testimony, but for legal reasons was not stating that and not providing other reasons for terminations. But I think a solid line of questioning on this could have made the Board look foolish last night.

[alfred russel]

i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony

I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed.  Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.

And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.

i agree that the evidence suggests that the university knew sandusky was a problem and the nature of the problem

I'm also prepared to accept, until the evidence suggests otherwise, that the same cabal of mangement who worked so hard to conceal the problem from the outside world, would have worked very hard to conceal the same issue from the board of trustees whose political loyalties are not with school management but instead lie with the governor who appointed them

joe pa reported to curley

curley and schutz reported to spanner

the board was spanner's boss

the board answers only to the governor

as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check

This goes to the top. Impeach the governor!

[Rasputin]

i wont speak for pennsylvania but down here grand jury investigations are secret and its a crime to tell anyone of the nature of your testimony

I'm aware that is the rule, but since I constantly hear about 'leaks' from grand jury testimony I didn't figure it was well observed.  Certainly I have trouble believing that Curley et al wouldn't mention to others 'hey guys, I just spent the day testifying before the grand jury, you might want to prepare yourselves in case charges against you know who are approved'.

And from what I understand Sandusky had been removed from the university as of 2008, so the university certainly knew something.

i agree that the evidence suggests that the university knew sandusky was a problem and the nature of the problem

I'm also prepared to accept, until the evidence suggests otherwise, that the same cabal of mangement who worked so hard to conceal the problem from the outside world, would have worked very hard to conceal the same issue from the board of trustees whose political loyalties are not with school management but instead lie with the governor who appointed them

joe pa reported to curley

curley and schutz reported to spanner

the board was spanner's boss

the board answers only to the governor

as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check

This goes to the top. Impeach the governor!

exactly and what of the electors of pennsylvania who chose a governor capable of appointing such an incompetent board? what shall we do with them?

perhaps we ought to cede the colony back to mother england?

[Neil]

It doesn't matter what the laws are and what the board knew.  There will be enough hysterical Valmys and Tims out there baying for blood that the governor will make the easy choice.

[crazy canuck]

as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check

In addition if your university administration works similar to ours it would have been Spanner with the assitance of Curley and Schultz who would have briefed the Board about these matters.  It is not hard to imagine that the briefing would have deflected or minimized the allegations.

It is also probably that the Board came to the conclusion that the President had to go based on the fact they were hearing all this for the first time.  So the Board's statement that they knew nothing other than what was reported in the media also means the President didnt tell them anything about what he knew and he ought to have done so.

[jimmy olsen]

A sister of one of the victims goes to Penn state.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/1/sister_of_sandusky_victim_talk.html

[Rasputin]

as the board could sanction spanner, it's sensible that spanner curley and schultz might have thought it best to keep these things from the board....none of whom depended upon spanner for a pay check

In addition if your university administration works similar to ours it would have been Spanner with the assitance of Curley and Schultz who would have briefed the Board about these matters.  It is not hard to imagine that the briefing would have deflected or minimized the allegations.

It is also probably that the Board came to the conclusion that the President had to go based on the fact they were hearing all this for the first time.  So the Board's statement that they knew nothing other than what was reported in the media also means the President didnt tell them anything about what he knew and he ought to have done so.

from what we presently know, this board did it's job and then some; here in florida at least our boards are not empowered to fire coaches...only the university presidents can  do that

if it works similarly in pennsylvania,  the board could have fired spanner and made known to the interim president that joe pa must go but theoretically the board does not have that direct authority

i suspect that this board might have known this but might have wanted to make a political statement without regards to their technical authority

[Neil]

And now the human interest stories begin.

[alfred russel]

It is also probably that the Board came to the conclusion that the President had to go based on the fact they were hearing all this for the first time.  So the Board's statement that they knew nothing other than what was reported in the media also means the President didnt tell them anything about what he knew and he ought to have done so.

Two things: one is that I'm guessing the president was told a very sanitized story as well. Does the Board really need to be informed of questionable (but probably not outright obscene) behavior of a retired assistant football coach?

Second, how likely do you think it is that the board knows a lot more? I'm not a lawyer, so I'd be interested what you think of my take on the press conference. "We only know what we heard in the media, and relied on the grand jury report." By claiming to put your all your reliance on the grand jury testimony, that is legally sworn testimony produced by a third party. They obviously have made decisions in a very rushed manner (10 PM press conference, and informing long time employees of terminations by phone). I doubt any other evidence they have is at such a substantiated level. Also, the reasons for termination were very vague (we need a change in leadership due to the challenges the university faces). It seemed designed to avoid any wrongful termination litigation.

[Valmy]

from what we presently know, this board did it's job and then some; here in florida at least our boards are not empowered to fire coaches...only the university presidents can  do that

if it works similarly in pennsylvania,  the board could have fired spanner and made known to the interim president that joe pa must go but theoretically the board does not have that direct authority

i suspect that this board might have known this but might have wanted to make a political statement without regards to their technical authority

Fair enough.  I just find it hard to believe nobody board never heard anything about this and never investigated prior to it becoming a major news story.  But there is that whole culture of silence going on.

[Valmy]

It doesn't matter what the laws are and what the board knew.  There will be enough hysterical Valmys and Tims out there baying for blood that the governor will make the easy choice.

It matters a great deal.  My question is if it was out enough for media stories to be published about it earlier this year why were no questions posed to the school President then?  It just feels like the story started to embarrass the University so they scrambled to cover their asses.  I am not even calling for anybody to be prosecuted, but at least take responsibility for the failures in their leadership structure.  Granted the big changes will not happen immediately for logistical reasons.

[Rasputin]

It doesn't matter what the laws are and what the board knew.  There will be enough hysterical Valmys and Tims out there baying for blood that the governor will make the easy choice.

It matters a great deal.  My question is if it was out enough for media stories to be published about it earlier this year why were no questions posed to the school President then?  It just feels like the story started to embarrass the University so they scrambled to cover their asses.  I am not even calling for anybody to be prosecuted, but at least take responsibility for the failures in their leadership structure.  Granted the big changes will not happen immediately for logistical reasons.

if the board had actual knowledge and ignored it i agree with you...i think canuck hit the nail on the head; the people reporting to this board were the very same people covering this up from the public

it makes little sense to believe that magament concealed things from the public but were truthful to a board who owed them no allegiance

as for the newspaper article, it proved brilliant in hindsight

in my experience however there are constantly articles blogs op ed pieces etc speculating about rumors and scandals; boards do not track each them them down because the overwhelming majority are conspiratorial bullshit; it would be disruptive and cost prohibiticve to investigate every rumor that makes it to print about any given institution