![[Just because. Billy Baldwin.] STATE COLLEGE, PA - JANUARY 25: Actor Billy Baldwin talks to the media before paying respect to former Penn State Football coach Joe Paterno during the second public viewing at the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center on the campus of Penn State on January 25, 2012 in State College, Pennsylvania. Paterno, who was 85, died due to complications from lung cancer on January 22, 2012. (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images)](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3062592/137703758_extra_large.jpg)
Patrick Smith - Getty Images
[Just because. Billy Baldwin.] STATE COLLEGE, PA - JANUARY 25: Actor Billy Baldwin talks to the media before paying respect to former Penn State Football coach Joe Paterno during the second public viewing at the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center on the campus of Penn State on January 25, 2012 in State College, Pennsylvania. Paterno, who was 85, died due to complications from lung cancer on January 22, 2012. (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images)
The High Cost Of Shame. That Thing has cost the university $3,200,000 so far:
Penn State revealed that as of Dec. 31, it had spent $3.2 million on crisis communications, former FBI director Louis Freeh’s internal investigation, legal services for the university, external investigations and legal defense for former President Graham Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley and former Vice President Gary Schultz.
Penn State paid almost $1.5 million to Freeh’s firm and almost $300,000 on public relations for Freeh, university spokesman Bill Mahon said. Also, Penn State had paid more than $200,000 in legal fees for Spanier, Curley and Schultz, Mahon said.
I've been more than skeptical of Freeh's investigation from the very beginning. Look at practically any scandal's aftermath, and you'll notice that any "special committee" or "internal investigation" equals "professionally desperate whitewash". Nothing to do but wait until the report is issued, however. But, $1,800,000, already? Seriously?
I would've done this for 1/3rd of the price:
Q: So, um, how should this have been handled, anyway?A: Well, someone should've notified the police. Like, immediately. Or maybe even the day after McQueary found the boy and Sandusky in the shower.
Q: Who should've made the call?
A: Any of them. All of them. Anyone. McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, Curley, Spanier.
Q: To which police?
A: All of them. University Park, State College, Pennsylvania State Police, FBI, Buford Pusser, Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler. Doesn't matter, keep calling. And, you know, maybe try to figure out the name of the victim within nine years.
Q: [uncomfortable silence]
A: [comfortable silence]
Q: So...
A: Yeah, that'll be $600,000. Straight cash, homey.
Congratulations, You're Drafting A Penn State Footballer! If it's Devon Still, be prepared to pay a stiff price. If it's anyone else, you might be sifting through the Bargain Free Agent bin, according to Wes Bunting.
The BOBtract. Well, Penn State said they would publish the new coach's contract, and they have:
O'Brien's five-year deal calls for a base salary beginning at $950,000 in 2012 and increasing by five percent each year. He'll also receive $1 million per year for radio and TV obligations and $350,000 per year from a Nike deal, bringing his total compensation to $2.3 million in Year One. That figure would make O'Brien the Big Ten's sixth highest-paid coach, behind Ohio State's Urban Meyer, Iowa's Kirk Ferentz, Michigan's Brady Hoke, Nebraska's Bo Pelini and Wisconsin's Bret Bielema.
O'Brien can also earn up to $200,000 per year in incentives, including a potential $104,500 bonus if the Nittany Lions make a bowl game next season. O'Brien would make $47,500 for a division title, $76,000 for a Big Ten championship and $85,500 for a BCS national championship in the 2012 season. There are no incentives in the contract for academic achievements, such as graduation rates.
Brandon Ware Calls This "Amateur Hour". Also, Get Off My Lawn. You've heard about the potty-mouthed tweets of Michigan's most recent recruiting class (*** not work-advisable ***)? Get your laughs in, because it's a feature of 18-22 year old athletes on Twitter, not a bug. Look no further than Brandon Ware's reign of Twitter terror during his time in Happy Valley -- multiple accounts, none of which were remotely proper representation of your dear university. He wasn't alone either, just the most prominent example of unchecked stream of consciousness. If there was any doubt that the previous coaching staff was, as a whole, out of touch with its players' activities in recent years, Ware's non-stop tweeting was Exhibit A.
As a committed George Carlinite, I'm generally opposed to any forms of censorship or speech suppression, but if Bill O'Brien decides to order his players to get off Twitter, count me as a supporter. The risk and probability of institutional embarassment far outweighs any potential benefits.
Set To Destroy. Mike Mauti vows to be ready for August and obliterate anything in his path.
"There's no apprehension in any aspect of this whole transition," Mauti said. "There's zero apprehension. Obviously, there's going to be a new defense, a new defensive coordinator. Everything is going to be new. But I don't think there's going to be that much of a learning curve.
"I'd say excitement is the word. We have new blood. It's motivating."
The Sara Ganim Victory Tour. The reporter who broke story after story during the unfolding Sandusky scandal recently talked to future journalists at the University of Maryland.
Although Ganim said she understood other papers' hestitation to run the piece, given sources' unwillingness to be named, she struggled with the same obstacles her competitors grappled with. And while other reporters opted to hold off on the story, Ganim gathered five sources for her initial report — a number her editors required.
"So what kept you after it?" asked a faculty member during the discussion's waning minutes.
"It was curiosity, I guess," Ganim said. "When I cover something, the natural progression was ‘Okay, what's next?' After you get so far, there's a point of no return."
Ganim has gone well beyond that point on the story that's thrust her in the national spotlight. She hasn't written an article on anything else since November.
Yet that doesn't mean she's done. Far from it.
"Information leads to change. Truth leads to change," she said, brimming with the enthusiasm of someone fresh out of journalism school. "I feel honored to have the opportunity to cover this story."
"Victory Tour" isn't meant to be insulting, either. Sara followed every possible lead and did fantastic work on the story, and will certainly be considered for a Pulitzer. Her accomplishments should be celebrated, even if the story itself is horrific.
Listen Up, Junior. We sort of consolidated Penn State Bloganistan here last summer, but Victory Bell Rings is still going strong, and they have a master list of the high school juniors expected to visit PSU's Junior Day. Complete with links to highlights. Nice work.
Lonely Valley. Ladies! Alone in the 814 tonight? Onward State has options.
Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
0 recs | 142 comments
PSU documents
They have several other documents for public view posted on their “openness” website, too…
http://openness.psu.edu/documents.html
tadhg - February 14, 2012
Great
None of that is my money anyway.
Now let’s see the Guv and AG open up how much this freakshow is costing me as a PA taxpayer. Oh, I’m sorry, asking a bit much, am I?
Smee - February 14, 2012
they did save a lot money on investigations the first 2 and a half years
that way Corbett wwas able to find opposition politicians to the AG that used staff members on their campaigns. A much more serious crime to Pennsylvania citizens than a investigating a man that may be a child molester being the front man for a troubled child organization.
BMAN13 - February 15, 2012
I've always Craigslist hookup adds
equally morbidly interesting and terrifying. Like theres a little part of me that says “I wonder what it would be like to actually do this”, yet another part that wonders how the hell you would explain it if you actually started a relationship with someone this way.
Like “Oh, I really love your girlfriend, she’s so sweet”
“Yeah, I got her on Craigslist”
skarocksoi - February 14, 2012
Another part of me wonders
“Why do people do this? This is how you end up hacked up in somebody’s freezer”
jman07 - February 14, 2012
One of my friends went as the Craigslist Killer for Halloween.
It was fantastic.
Kyle_Martin - February 15, 2012
Wasn't the Craigslist Killer just some bro?
WorldBFat - February 15, 2012
I do at times read them as well
Since they are usually hysterical in their patheticness and what people actual write, like it would actual get someone to respond to them in all sincerity.
A buddy of mine, who was writing articles for a comedy magazine, did a fake craigslist relationship thing for M4M in Seattle; then wanted to write an article about it. He would put the most bizare things in there that he was into and got quite a few responses, and lets just say I read a bunch, and glad he did it in Seattle and not where we were. There are some real freaks out there.
AriesGD - February 14, 2012
There was one night awhile ago
We joked in the comments on starting a late night BSD section, for us single BSD’ers. But I guess Onward State took care of that for us.
AriesGD - February 14, 2012
how did they beat us to this?
belbijou - February 14, 2012
Not sure really
AriesGD - February 14, 2012
Late night BSD has been around for a while
skarocksoi - February 15, 2012
Ok, so let’s talk about openness.
The administration has come under fire for its seemingly shifty behavior and behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. For my part I think this criticism is justified and they should be more forthright about how they are running the university. (Side note, I do not agree that we should know EVERYTHING that is going on the same way I feel the government should be able to keep certain things under wrap for various security/special reasons.)
That being said, what in tarnation does the nitty gritty details for BOB’s contact have to do with that? Everyone knows that major football coaches make a ton of money. This is isn’t a surprise! Does releasing his contract appease us into believing their being more open with us?
Not hardly. I still do not understand who is running our university nor trust that they have our best intentions in mind. This is all just a dog and pony show.
belbijou - February 14, 2012
2 thoughts.
(1) They are being more open. They fought the state open records law to try to keep from having to disclose Joe’s salary at all, let alone his contract. Now, more open does not necessarily equal sufficiently open and transparent, but it is more so than previously,
(2) At least the FAQ’s address the clear desire to change the Board and structure. Maybe not well enough, but they aren’t completely tone deaf.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
I always wondered about why they fought about Joe's salary
It was pretty small compared to Satan and others. It may have been Joe’s wish, in a way salary should be private, but these are not normal positions.
letsgopsu - February 14, 2012
Although publicly Joe stated that he didn't care.
I was under the impression that because it was a records release from the state pension plan, it had more to do with other individual salaries being released (more so than just Joe’s). I could be wrong though.
CvilleLion - February 15, 2012
Correct
reedjohnmiller - February 15, 2012
There's no denying that I love money!!
rahpsu92 - February 15, 2012
I think they discussed with BOB the intention to release his contract details before he was ever hired...
since his price point for a coach is pretty much exactly the middle of the B1G pack.
Coincidence? I think not.
I’m certain this was discussed so that they could put to rest PA residents issue with never knowing what Paterno made and to show just how dedicated PSU is to academics because they didn’t go out and set a new record for the size of a coaches contract. Why did Urban fall through the cracks? Probably because PSU knew it would be an awful PR move to pay him the kind of money OSU was willing to.
BNittsDeMilo - February 14, 2012
Once McQueary decided not to make a report to the police that night
it would have been at least inappropriate, bordering on illegal, for anyone, including him, to call the police. At that point, it should have worked its way up the chain to the designated reporter for Penn State.
That’s how it works in every educational setting in Pennsylvania until they change the law which will allow anyone, anywhere to make any report without any backing whatsoever. And then people will be wishing we had the old system.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
Hopefully we won't get too far down this road,
but no, absolutely not. Nothing in there says those in the chain can’t call the police, just that they need to at least report it up the chain. It is total misinformation to suggest that it would be illegal to call the police after you report it up the chain. You have discharged your duty and passed it on to your supervisor but it doesn’t mean you can’t, or even shouldn’t, call the police.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
You're 100% correct.
And we won’t go very far down any road as long as we continue to speak in generalities and hypotheticals.
dbl5030 - February 14, 2012
I was a mandated reporter in a school in Pennsylvania
I was told explicitly never to call the police. Also, I was told never to talk to anyone about the report other than the guidance office. The guidance counselor said, “Do not talk to the child, your mentor teacher, your department head, the principal, or ANYONE but guidance.” I was also told never to follow up as I could be tampering with a criminal investigation. It was at this point that they said not to talk to police directly unless they approached me first.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I'm a bit confused about this.
As a mandated reporter, you’re not supposed to go to the police?
dbl5030 - February 14, 2012
I read it as the school didn't *want* him going to the police.
Which doesn’t mean that he was legally forbidden from doing so.
Chris Grovich - February 14, 2012
Then what's the purpose of a mandated reporter?
What’s the mandate, and who are they supposed to be reporting to?
Apparently not the police or the head of the school.
dbl5030 - February 14, 2012
Yes, the head of the school.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
As stated above, in our school it was the guidance office.
Also, it was my understanding (from my education at Penn State, not the school I worked in) that I’d have the ability to call “Childline.” I’m pretty sure that Childline would have called the school and confirmed there was an active internal investigation without going directly to the police.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I don't know about childline.
But again, you certainly would have discharged your legal duty by going to the principal. It would have been quite satisfactory and legal. However, the principal doesn’t want to deal with it, so they designate an agent. But that doesn’t change the law, you can go to the agent or the head of the school.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
Perhaps
All I know is I don’t remember a single thing from my orientation except that I was supposed to go to Guidance only. There was a police officer in the room when they were telling me this as well and he seemed unsurprised by this information.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
It *is* the head of the school.
It essentially makes the head of the school the ultimately responsible party for what happens there. Doesn’t allow for an excuse for anyone in the chain. Underlings have to report up, Principal has to report out.
Chris Grovich - February 14, 2012
(None of which forbids anyone involved from actually calling the police.)
Chris Grovich - February 14, 2012
Right, and that's exactly how I understood it.
At least until AdamShell said how he was explicitly told not to go to his principal.
dbl5030 - February 14, 2012
Fine print.
that person shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge
In Adam’s scenario, I’m guessing the guidance counselor was the designated agent.
Chris Grovich - February 14, 2012
Reading comprehension.
I don’t haz it.
dbl5030 - February 14, 2012
We had a designated reporter in the school (all schools have them).
The designated reporter was a guidance counselor (I think all of the guidance counselors could have made the report to the police, but there may have literally been just one of them who was tasked with doing that).
I never explicitly got a reason why, but I do know that schools have the ability (currently) to conduct an internal investigation which the police will take into consideration. If the school investigation turns out that “We really don’t suspect any wrongdoing here, but here’s our formal report to the police,” via the designated reporter, then the police could choose whether or not they need to launch their own investigation. This is especially helpful in instances where kids just make crap up, which happens all the time.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
Under the law, the designated reporter is the "agent" of the head of the school.
They are there as a safeguard against a false accusation, trying to prevent the school from getting sued. If the school told employees to call the police if they came across an accusation, and someone escalates it right to the police, and the police aren’t as careful in the investigation as they should be, then you bet your sweet bippy the school is getting sued.
Now, keep in mind, the principals themselves don’t want this difficult responsibiltiy. Boom, assign an agent under the law, “mandatory reporter.”
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
Precisely.
And I really can’t reiterate enough how much this actually is an issue in schools today. There aren’t too many teachers that i know who haven’t been threatened by one punk kid that they would accuse them of abuse.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
No one will dispute that it happens,
but it is very naive to think the mandatory reporter is there to protect the innocent who are accused. They are there to protect the school from suit.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
Yes, but the way the law is written now
is to protect the teachers, not the system. When they change it, the school’s interest will still be to protect the system, but the law doesn’t protect the teacher anymore so teachers will be hung out to dry.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I don't understand your point.
The way the law is written now? The law didn’t create this system, the school’s did. Every single person can get a report and go to both the police and the principal. The school tries to talk you out of it. What does the law have to do with that?
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
The way they're talking about changing the law
it would legally require an immediate report to the police. Any rumor, no matter how credible, would immediately need to be reported to the police. That’s troublesome in my mind.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I think I misunderstood your point.
Yeah, I mean, you don’t think that would cool off some of the false rumors?
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
The ones generated by adults I mean?
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
It's not the ones by adults that I'm concerned about.
I haven’t heard too many stories of unsubstantiated threats from adults.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
Yeah, ok.
You do seem to be making an assumption that I don’t think is automatic. Which is that the police would not be as discreet as the school when investigating whether the accusation has any basis.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
Yeah, I am making that assumption.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I'd be less worried about discreetness...
and more worried about police being overwhelmed by false allegations and, therefore, missing the cases that have more “meat” to them. Currently schools are a filter for that junk. Not a perfect system, but also not a system that throws teachers under the bus without reason.
Consider why male teachers make up less than 10% of elementary teachers now… frankly, it is a “dangerous job.” One accusation and people treat you like an animal. Not to mention they are more hyper-vigilant with male teachers than females. And I’m not saying that’s necessarily wrong given the statistics, but there has to be a buffer.
BNittsDeMilo - February 14, 2012
The Problem
Is that the police will be over run with crap. And that people who would be amazing teachers will not wish to work in the profession for fear of any of this. Heck…I am a preschool teacher and I’ve considered moving out of that to go to High School because of the accusations that can arise from it. Its ridiculous….and that before your even proven innocent or guilty the public will throw you under a boss automatically I get frustrated that people forget the thing we call “Due process.”
Modanya - February 14, 2012
Throw you under a boss you say?
We happen to be hiring an IP support person who would report to me.
WorldBFat - February 14, 2012
Under a bus*
Tired…dogs fighting…thinking faster then I can type.
Modanya - February 14, 2012
*Under Boss, as in PSUinBOSSton
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
He wishes
skarocksoi - February 15, 2012
Under the Boss
psuphysicist - February 15, 2012
How about a position with 4 people right underneath you?
rahpsu92 - February 15, 2012
*Smacks forehead*
Modanya - February 16, 2012
I have seen soo much: what is the saying "don't believe everything you see and only half of what you hear"
Being in my children’s environment while they were in school was vital. I volunteered, worked on committees, facilitated programs and was a substitute teacher for 12+ years from K thru 12. The world is ugly for kids and educators. What is beyond imagination is actually realistic but not necessarily the truth.
ComfortHePuHuTh - February 15, 2012
If you were told explicitly never to call the police,
then it was for the school’s own liability and because they WANT employees of a certain level only to be making those calls, not because it would be illegal.
Quite frankly, I don’t care what they told you about following up. The officers would probably not appreciate being questioned and second guessed, but unless you tried to pressure them towards an outcome, there would be no way you were committing a criminal activity.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
that was most likely the school's policy, not the law
letsgopsu - February 14, 2012
And in the real world, especially if allegations turn out to not be true,
this is the kind of thing you get blackballed for when it comes time to advance in your career.
That’s the line we’re walking here.
I’m not saying you don’t report if you’re the eye witness, I am saying that going to the police when you are not is possibly a very bad career move if it turns out the person who told you was lying. And, if I’m being honest with myself, I think it is the rare case where I’m willing to stick my neck out and risk the livelihood of my family based on second-hand information.
BNittsDeMilo - February 14, 2012
Thats the problem really isn't it
That in this day and age we are afraid to stick our neck out for the fear of job security and it sounds harsh, but its true.
Modanya - February 16, 2012
Just to expand upon this
The way the law is currently written, it allows time for an internal investigation which the state has always deemed appropriate in educational settings.
Let’s say that a child wants a better grade in a class. He or she could threaten a teacher and say, “Give me a better grade or I’ll tell everyone you sexually abused me.” The teacher’s appropriate steps in this scenario would be to A.) ensure that he was never alone with that student again and B.) document the threat to his superiors. If the child made good on the threat, an internal investigation would find that the teacher had taken the appropriate measures to protect himself and the teacher would be given the opportunity to provide an alibi.
If the law changes the way that they’re talking about, any teacher who hears any student say “So-and-so molested me,” even if the claim is patently false, would be mandated by law to report this matter to police immediately. The police would then have to launch their own public investigation and a totally innocent teacher would be under the same fire that Sandusky currently is.
We’re headed for witch hunts, in my opinion. False accusations by kids happen with alarming regularity and threats.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I think we can all agree that there is a difficult and delicate balance of taking
the accusations seriously and making sure no children are harmed, and being concerned about discretion and not ruining someone’s reputation without foundation.
It’s a terribly difficult balance to strike, but I don’t think any good can come out of arguing about where the balance needs to be struck. Arguments on both sides are valid and often informed by personal experience, and I don’t know that debate will ever be an effective way to change an opinion in this area.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
Agreed there needs to be a balance, but that can be done with the right procedures
That’s part of what the $3.2 million or whatever ought to go to – studying “best practices” and what not on how to investigate these things very discretely. Establish and clarify a clear process by which anyone can go to the police and they will keep it all under wraps unless the DA actually goes forward with charges.
Part of that may be out of PSU’s hands depending on the PA law. Unfortunately, I’m afraid public sentiment right now is behind “disclose everything” even when that will actually have a chilling effect on reporting of these incidents.
Most of the time, when somebody “knows something” about a case like this, they have a sketchy report or some vague suspicion – the guy seemed a bit handsy, they heard something, the kid seemed a bit put-off by the guy, etc. Indeed, contrary to the GJP, it now appears that what McQuery saw was only “very suspicious, but not conclusive.” If everyone who had this sort of info could tell the police confidentially, then the police could put together the composite picture from all of these puzzle pieces and sort out what’s really going on and only come public with it when they have a complete picture.
But if people are afraid of ruining a guy’s reputation for life based on something vague or inconclusive, they’ll just keep their mouth shut.
reedjohnmiller - February 14, 2012
And now we're faced with horrible consequences in every scenario
If you report immediately: You potentially ruin the life of a possibly innocent guy.
If you report, but are delayed: You have instance 1 + you ruin your own life
If you don’t report: A kid (or several) might get severely damaged for life
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
I never brought this up in the shitstorm before
but when I lived in Atlanta, I had neighbors who had very loud, violent fights, followed by very loud make up sex. This was in an apartment and you heard way more than you wanted. Usually about the time I would think “someone is getting hurt, I need to call the cops”, it would stop and the sex would start. I never actually saw the couple, only heard them, and this always happened late at night.
The first, and one of the only times (3 or 4 total) I saw them was in the morning when they walked out when I did, and they had a little girl with them. That poor little girl lived there and had to hear all that. Also, if the man beat the woman, did he hit the kid? I struggled for about a week and made up my mind I would call the cops the next time, but they moved out shortly after.
This was years ago but I started thinking I could have done more…
letsgopsu - February 14, 2012
Sometimes
You are afraid to get involved in case you make a poor decision and hurt innocent people. I mean I can understand both sides of the coin.
Modanya - February 14, 2012
in this case
I knew someone was getting hit (the parents , I think they wailed on each other honestly) but I had no indication the child was being hurt, other then having to listen to the parents. I never heard her cry or anything. But isn’t that a type of abuse, or at the very least an unsafe/unhealthy environment.
letsgopsu - February 15, 2012
i'm thinking
it is definitely abuse for the child (at the very least) … and I’m sure you live in the "with the benefit of hindsight’; we all do …
ComfortHePuHuTh - February 15, 2012
My rule of thumb is pretty simple
I ignore everything until somebody yells help. Then I call 911.
jesse. - February 15, 2012
Same
I hate to point this out but some people get off on play fighting then make up sex =P
Modanya - February 16, 2012
what if it is a child involved?
Or if the person just seems to scared to yell for help?
The JuggerNitt - February 16, 2012
That's what I'm afraid of too, the witchhunts.
My nephew has some psychological and behavioral issues. My sister and her husband have never laid a hand on him, besides spanking him a few times when he was younger (he’s 13 now). On more than one occasion, he has told my sister that, “all I have to do is tell the Guidance Counselor at school that you two abuse me.”
jman07 - February 15, 2012
Reporting laws vary from state to state.
It would be instructive to look at the results of different approaches—both the positive effects and the unintended consequences.
nps - February 15, 2012
This has been debated too often, and too incorrectly.
SHALL. Not SHALL ONLY. Or ONLY SHALL.
In other words, the actor MUST notify the person in charge. The actor also MAY notify anyone else.
Sigh.
MainLion - February 14, 2012
People are confusing laws with policies
The law mandates you essentially notify the designated reporter.
By doing so you follow the law and company policy.
While, it is not illegal to contact outside authorities or perform your own investigation, it is most likely a violation of company policy.
By doing so you are still within the law, yet may be legally terminated from your job, even in the best of circumstances.
I just went through training put on by my company’s insurance and it was abundantly clear that you turn such issues over to the people that have proper training and authority. If they need more from you, they will let you know. If they do not, it’s really not much of your business, unless you are a direct participant.
cs93 - February 14, 2012
Good point.
But I’d like to be MM’s attorney IF the school terminated him because he went to the police before dumping it in Coach’s lap. But maybe I’m simplifying it.
cwarner28 - February 14, 2012
Wrong.
cwarner28 - February 14, 2012
how so?
while I may not fully agree with what Adam is saying (and I’m not saying I do or don’t), he is backing up his comments with experience and some facts, tempered with opinion. Just saying
and leaving does neither.
Cari Greene - February 14, 2012
Wrong.
WorldBFat - February 14, 2012
Wrong.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
MainLion - February 14, 2012
love you guys
Cari Greene - February 15, 2012
Fair question.
To suggest that MM (or anyone else) would have done something illegal or inappropriate, regardless of what we know now or think we know now is not correct. While I understand and appreciate his point, his interpretation of the statute is not correct. The interpretation of the statute can not be performed in a vacuum, even one where the institution which employed him may discourage reporting. There is little if any case law supporting this point. While I agree that the system is not perfect, there other avenues by which false or negligent reporting can be addressed. I just think suggesting that it is illegal (or maybe illegal – whatever that means) or inappropriate based on the language of the statute is wrong. Having said that, thank you for calling me out on my laziness.
cwarner28 - February 14, 2012
Wrong.
cwarner28 - February 14, 2012
You're welcome
and thank you for fully explaining your opinion! :)
Cari Greene - February 15, 2012
If Ganim doesn't win at least one Pulitzer I'll lose all respect for any of the Pulitzer prizes.
AdamShell - February 14, 2012
Not all gems
Some of her pieces have been lousy. Like when she wrote a whole article about some random PR flak who didn’t believe Erickson didn’t read the Patriot story in March. That kind of stuff is crap. But most of her reporting has been very good.
reedjohnmiller - February 14, 2012
She was probably nominated in the "Breaking News" category
I’m not a fan, but if she does win, she needs to donate her prize money to THON and the Special Olympics of Pennsylvania, because we are all
enablersand
could have done more.Smee - February 15, 2012
She is going to be tough to beat.
PSUinBOSSton - February 14, 2012
Don't forget
SuePa Kicked Out of Pool – that was hers.
cs93 - February 14, 2012
Ganim is a credit to the College fo Communications and Penn State
I’m also pleased that there has been so little backlash against her.
WFY - February 14, 2012
$3.2 million, and we have exactly what to show for it?
We paid for a crisis management firm? No, we paid someone to do nothing while letting the media control the narrative. That’s not crisis management, that’s chickenshit.
We’re paying an investigator, who has no real power to compel anyone to cooperate or any recourse for false information $1.5+ million? And his report is going to be sent to the BoT twice for revisions prior to its public release? So we’re likely paying a couple million dollars to add artificial legitimacy to the conclusion the BoT wants to promote?
For fuck’s sake, is there no one that can make a competent decision in this administration? I know why we’re in this mess, and it’s because NOBODY in the administration or BoT can recognize a bad idea before throwing a ton of money at it. This is pathetic and downright embarrassing. Somebody just man up and take responsibility already and end this ridiculous charade. Hell, place all the blame, I don’t really care. We all know the truth, we all know who was really responsible. I don’t need a $2+ million investigation to explain it to me. Just direct the hate and vitriol at me and then stop with this shit already. Announce the changes that are being made to make sure this NEVER happens again, that any incident either reporting a sexual assault or reporting the opportunity for a sexual assault be immediately reported to a uniformed police officer and the filing of a police report, and we can get this shit over with already.
Succss With Honor Always - February 14, 2012
The only thing more nauseating than this $$ figure
is that we are again being distracted from the real story today as Corbett cuts $64 million in state money to PSU. I hate wearing a colander on my head and crafting a codpiece from aluminum foil, but I guarantee that there won’t be any student riots or loud protests over this.
cs93 - February 14, 2012
Sadly
Funding cuts (from the State) have been a fact of life at PSU since at least my time there (2004-08). I can’t remember a year when the budget wasn’t cut or tuition didn’t rise.
psuphysicist - February 15, 2012
I don't get why this doesn't put us on the offensive.
We can CLEARLY implicate him in this situation. A unified offensive front by all parties involved could absolutely ruin him. Doing things such as cutting our funding only provokes us to act in hopes of getting a governor who won’t cut funding cough JayPa cough. The only way this really makes sense is if he’s doing this so that he can attribute any future attacks on him to the funding cuts. Either way, I truly believe he needs to be brought down.
Succss With Honor Always - February 15, 2012
Lets be honest here
Half the reason I didn’t go to Penn State was due to how pricey it was and that I had a scholarship to go to Kansas State for soccer. I mean, I would have loved to go to PSU, but the price is expensive even for in state (And I was). So when he cuts more money to PSU I’m already up in arms with him and that just makes me disgusted with him all the more. I hope you guys vote him the hell out
Modanya - February 16, 2012
We must chill
It’s hard to see what the crisis communication people did. I believe they can and do perform a valuable service in some cases, but I can’t see what they did here.
As for the investigation, we’ll just have to see what it produces. I think there’s a lot more to it than just “well, McQuery should have talked to the police.” For one, there’s all the stuff explained above about not wanting to go to the police with bad intel from a kid, but then clearly the way this was handled – with Schultz and Curley just looking into it a bit – didn’t help anyone either. So they need to sort out a better system. Some of the things they’ve already done – putting all the “hotline” numbers on the front page of the website, establishing and publicizing an all-purpose ethics office that reports to the president, etc, are all good moves.
I don’t know why it costs that much to be told to do these things, but my understanding is that it’s not at all atypical for “consultants” to get paid a lot of money to tell companies stuff they should have been able to figure out on their own. The point is that if an outside expert says it, management is more likely to believe it. As it is, a lot of people don’t trust that Freeh is sufficiently independent, but if they had to bring in more independent people to oversee other independent investigators, it would cost even more. It’s just the way these things go. There’s nothing PSU can do about it, so it’s best that they just pay up and make the best out of a crappy situation.
reedjohnmiller - February 14, 2012
There's no need for all this though.
They could allow Freeh to conduct an investigation and release his report to an independent third party for review prior to public release instead of mandating that he produce his first and second drafts to the BoT prior to public release.
Regarding the crisis management thing, I don’t take much issue with that. However I do think that someone at the university should have taken responsibility to put most of this bullshit to an end. There’s no need for the townhall meetings that produce no real answers and BoT interviews with the New York Times further breathing life into the incident. A quick end to this, followed by appropriate actions taken to prevent this from happening again is all that is needed. Their continued efforts on this issue only serve to drag the university’s name further through the mud while passing the responsibility around like a hot potato. There’s also no real guarantee that the Freeh investigation will be the end of this, as whoever gets pinned with the blame is likely to further publicize the scandal while trying to exonerate themselves.
Everything they are doing is serving to keep this incident fresh in the media, period. It’s best to just end it quickly and move on.
Succss With Honor Always - February 14, 2012
Not sure...
That’s just somebody else that has to be paid. And in the end, it’s all going to come back to the board and what the board decides to do with the recommendations. Creating one or sixteen layers of independent people inbetween them and the investigation isn’t going to change that.
My understanding was that the board subcommittee led by Frasier would look at interim progress reports that won’t be public. Wwhich is fine, I think because they might say “we’re looking into so-and-so’s involvement, but we don’t know about them for sure” and then later on they decide that so-and-so wasn’t involved, but by that time the media will have run with it and so-and-so will be vilified. To some extent, that’s already happened. But no need to make t worse.
I did not read anything about them approving “drafts,” but I could be mistaken. Perhaps you could cite what you’re referring to. Yeah, obviously, if this subcommittee gets to rewrite the report behind closed doors than it’s no good, but that’s not my understanding of what is going to happen.
As or your next paragraph, I can’t disagree. The thing in the NYT, days after JoePa talked to the Post was a masterclass in committee-think and general fuckwittery of the highest order. And the guy who they hired to advise Erickson and say shit like “the board was unanimous” – I’ve already forgotten his name – is making things worse. Erickson would be better on his own. At least Erickson appears to be honest, albeit not always fully up to speed on what the board did in the past. He also has a tendency to say things that the media willfully misconstrues. But at least he comes off as honest. This lawyer guy does not.
Given that it doesn’t have subpoena power (how could it?) I’m hoping that the Freeh investigation waits a bit for the trials to move along or wrap up so it can collect as much info as possible. And then, instead of focusing on who fucked up what, it focuses on how to prevent this from ever happening again. Because with out subpoena power, there’s no way it can really get to the bottom of stuff that happened over ten years ago. But it can suggest ways to prevent these things, I imagine and see what structures PSU has that are not conducive to good communication.
reedjohnmiller - February 14, 2012
Regarding the Freeh revisions
Here is what ESPN has to say:
Succss With Honor Always - February 14, 2012
So essentially
we will only know what the BOT wants us to know. Right back to where we started.
LAPSU - February 14, 2012
Less about $2 million.
That’s why I claimed the only outcome of the investigation would be to add artificial legitimacy to whatever the board wants to claim.
Succss With Honor Always - February 14, 2012
Yeah, what a hack job this has been
Hopefully current students are taking note of the way you DON’T handle things in the real world.
LAPSU - February 14, 2012
Unless you rise to power
Then this is a prime example of how to cover your ass.
Step 1) Deflect any criticism by throwing someone famous under a bus. The classic ‘look, a unicorn’ approach.
Step 2) ….
Step 3) Profit
psuphysicist - February 15, 2012
I see what you did there
lion09 - February 15, 2012
That's not what it says
It says he’ll get their “input” and then FREEH will make revisions to the report. Although I can see how that could be unclear. This sentence is poorly written.
It implies that he made revisions to the report (that hasn’t been written yet) and then talked to the Faculty Council.
I see nothing here that says that the Special Committee gets to veto or censor anything. It’s possible that they’ll tell him “we want you to expand more in this section or clarify what you mean here.”
We’ll just have to see what the final product looks like.
Like I said, because they don’t have subpoena power, the Freeh report won’t reveal much about what happened in the Sandusky case. We’ll have to wait for the prosecutors investigations and the DOE’s investigations to find out more about that. The best that could ever be hoped for from this investigation, no matter how independent it is, are recommendations for reforms. We’ll just have to see what they come up with.
reedjohnmiller - February 15, 2012
It just strikes me as odd
that the results of Freeh’s investigation will be presented to a group of people who should be one of the focal points/subjects of said investigation. The fact that the BOT has the chance to have input into the revisions seems counter-intuitive to the whole reason for hiring Freeh in the first place. Like you, I would hope that they are only allowed input of the ‘please clarify this’ variety, but based on their handling of this whole situation from the outset, I doubt that it will be that innocent.
LAPSU - February 15, 2012
Not just a figure in the investigation,
also the people writing his check.
Succss With Honor Always - February 15, 2012
HA, that too
I imagine that check will have, written in the notes line: “Thanks for everything!”
LAPSU - February 16, 2012
personally I'm waiting for the NCAA report
because if there’s one organization that understands and enables the abuse of young people for the profitable gains of college sports it is them.
The JuggerNitt - February 16, 2012
Jesus fucking Christ
Way to let the BOT edit out the parts where Freeh notices they’re brain damaged.
Tailgate Shogun - February 14, 2012
Serious question.
From McQueary to today, has anybody not handled this situation in an unbelievably clumsy, stupid, and/or evil manner?
Chris Grovich - February 15, 2012
Amendola.
The guy may have made a couple mistakes early on (Bob Costas?) but he clearly seems to know what he’s doing. He’s the only one I’ve seen that is proactive, not reactive.
dbl5030 - February 15, 2012
You're not allowed to say that, he's the bad guy!
Thats like saying “Man, Hans Gruber came up with a really well thought out plan, but damn if it werent for that nosy cop McClane just ruined everything.”
skarocksoi - February 15, 2012
And I would have gotten away with it too
if it wasn’t for those meddling kids and their dog.
jman07 - February 15, 2012
Evil geniuses are called that for a reason.
Gruber had an extremely well-thought out plan, and McClane’s presence was a completely random event. They would have coasted to the easiest heist ever if it weren’t for an unforseeable wild card.
But Amendola also isn’t a bad guy. He’s a defense attorney, so he’s seen as representing evil. But his existence is the crux of our legal system, and is pretty much the only thing standing in the way of trying alleged evil-doers purely in the court of public opinion. He makes the prosecutors prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his client is guilty, and that’s the single most important part of the justice system.
dbl5030 - February 15, 2012
I know he's not really a bad guy
though he did knock up a 17 year old…
skarocksoi - February 15, 2012
It would be fun to see
Die Hard re-shot from the bad guy’s perspective. Lots of in depth character background on the crew liberating the bearer bonds and John Mclane as a 2 dimensional cowboy.
rahpsu92 - February 15, 2012
No.
I think Paterno did a good job once the story broke in not trying to fuel the fire. He could have made ploys for public sympathy but he decided to stay out of the spotlight. That is what we need more of. We need conversations to remain internal or at least behind closed doors. Parading everything in front of the public will only serve to keep this story in the pres and create additional outrage.
Succss With Honor Always - February 15, 2012
Well yeah.....
FB6244 - February 15, 2012
Lots of Skill players on the Junior Day list
Not a ton of big men = Me no likey
Tons of stud QBs visiting = Me freakin likey
jls83 - February 14, 2012
Get the high-profile skill guys first...
…work on the mudders later.
There are going to be some big names at this event. Some have no real interest in PSU, some are just matter-of-time commits. Either way, it never hurts to get a bunch of recruits together, talking, on Penn State’s campus.
Jeff Junstrom - February 14, 2012
a lot from the same skill position
5 QB
1 RB
5 WR
1 TE
4 OL
1 DT
1 DE
4 LB
2 DB
1 kicker
jetskijoe - February 14, 2012
VBR's list isn't complete.
There are more guys coming, but I’m not worried about the balance of Junior Day. At least not the first one.
Jeff Junstrom - February 14, 2012
Just don't pull a Rich-Rod @ Michigan move
You need the guys in the trenches and they should get significant attention.
kijana's acl - February 14, 2012
And they will.
But if there are a bunch of good skill players there this weekend, you don’t NOT recruit them because we still need linemen. The linemen will be there. BOB recently did a two-part interview with Lions247, and after reading his answers, I’m certain he won’t RichRod PSU.
Jeff Junstrom - February 14, 2012
I'll only be worried if every list is dominated by skill guys
and nobody who knows how to tackle actually gets an invitation. We know how that story plays out in the B1G.
kijana's acl - February 14, 2012
Right.
It’s still early, so the linemen will come. If a big weekend in December doesn’t have any linemen and we still don’t have any commits, then I’ll worry. But with LJ recruiting the DL and McWhorter on the OL, I think we’ll be OK.
Jeff Junstrom - February 14, 2012
Absolutely right Jeff...
I said in another post that I thought BOB learned from past mistakes like Weiss and possibly Rich-Rod. In those cases you had a high profile offensive mind who left the D up to someone else and paid for it.
In this case, BOB made sure he kept LJ Sr. and Vandy. These guys will keep the D recruits rolling in.
I’m starting to get excited about this year.
Give us one good year, one successful season, and the kids will flock to PSU. BOB can make a huge statement with a winning season. A few good games, where the offense shines and we’ll own Pennsylvania recruiting.
Winning takes care of the marketing.
87Townie - February 15, 2012
By straight cash, Chris really meant...
Kevin Powers - February 15, 2012
Tweeting
Anyone follow Bench? A recent comment of his was B-Ware-esque, not sure I got the whole context of it. But if anyone speaks/tweets with him, you might want to let him know he is getting into some potentially bad waters.
emccomb1 - February 15, 2012
He does tweet an awful lot for someone who's supposed to be at school all day.
None of it seems to be that bad though.
dbl5030 - February 15, 2012
I post here an awful lot for someone who is supposed to be working all day
skarocksoi - February 15, 2012
Touche
dbl5030 - February 15, 2012
Some of it is rather insightful for a kid
I worry that he thinks too much about girls. We need him to focus on more important stuff. He’ll have plenty of time to chase women when he’s in the NFL.
reedjohnmiller - February 15, 2012
From someone who was 18 just under 2 years ago...
All boys his age think way too much about girls
CMUWR12 - February 15, 2012
FTFY
All
boys hisguys any age think way too much about girlsjman07 - February 15, 2012
I'm over 50 and lean back in my chair to watch when women walk by my cube.
I don’t see too much problem with him thinking about girls. I remember sitting in calculus class my senior year in high school wondering why I didn’t take business math as an elective.
BMAN13 - February 15, 2012
no problem whatsoever
with
looking at porn….reading BSD….working all dayhbeach08 - February 15, 2012
Wow
Someone actually thinks students are in school and not tweeting and facebooking all the time. And I do mean ALL the time, even when the teacher is standing right over then watching.
AriesGD - February 15, 2012
Novel idea . . .
someone thinking
hope it catches on
ComfortHePuHuTh - February 15, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Black Shoe Diaries to post a comment.