Skip to comments.Penn St. leaders passed on reform (in 2004 @ Paterno's kitchen table)
Posted on 07/18/2012 5:25:29 PM PDT by Libloather
Penn St. leaders passed on reform
By Don Van Natta Jr. | ESPN.com
Updated: July 18, 2012, 12:45 PM ET
In November 2004, four of Penn State's leaders, including then-president Graham Spanier, sat down at Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning. The men asked the iconic coach to retire. Paterno said no, and that was that.
That same month, seven members of Penn State's board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board's oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to documents obtained this week by "Outside the Lines." The group told the full board, "Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand the test of being informed decisions."
But the board never took a vote on the proposal. Spanier and then-board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin considered the reforms -- and, just as Paterno had done, said no, three current trustees say.
The revelation comes to light five days after former FBI director Louis Freeh's firm released its school-sanctioned report on what the university did to protect children in the wake of the arrest of former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky and the board's Nov. 9 firing of Paterno and Spanier. The report, which blasted the board for poor governance and a failure of leadership, has led some trustees to say they now regret the good-governance proposal never was put to a full vote by the board's 32 members eight years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
Paterno in my opinion aided and abetted the rape of children. He must be permanently and swiftly erased from the memory of Penn State. He was a reprobate in the worst order in my judgment. Kids sleeping by his sorry statue should consult spiritual guidance for the key to forgiveness for their sins.
It is all about covering-your-ass for both Penn State and the Paternos. Whatever will do the minimal damage will be the option for both.
Paterno’s legacy and Penn State’s reputation are at stake. The victims can go pound sand, as far as they are concerned. In fact, I am betting that both Penn State and Paterno will come out relatively unscathed. There is too much money, power, glory, and ego involved.
No one should be allowed to accrue that kind of power in what is perceived as a position subordinate to the board of regents.
I cannot accept that you are correct. Penn State will be a pariah— a shunned and disrespected entity for decades. No-one will go there out of fear of being tainted. Even prisoners in penal institutions are killed by fellow inmates over the taint of child rape.There will be no unscathing. There will be no ESPN. They are finished if they do not cleanse the school of the memory of this horrible man, in my opinion.
Close the school.
The NCAA exists as an entity founded to circumvent the establishment of government bodies which together with much litigation would reign in college sports. If the public believes the NCAA can not or will not fulfill this function, then local courts will begin to step in and strip away the shield from litigation that has for decades shielded College sports from the bulk of entanglements with the court system.
A scandal of proportions big enough to threaten the NCAA’s semi autonomous position will cause it to act. Self preservation of the organization and its function as a shield from litigation and government regulation is going to trump Penn State's monetary contribution.
One person's (or more) crimes shouldn't necessarily shut down the institution. Perfect example - the White House.
Clean house. It wasn’t one guy. It was the whole rotten administrative edifice - which is all still in place.
Maybe the courts and the NCAA won’t mess them up too badly, but they’re not going to live this down for a long time. People still remember Florida State as “Free Shoes U”, and that was almost twenty years ago. How long do you think people will be making “Ped State” jokes?
If you want on/off the PA Ping List, please freepmail me. Thanks!
What am I missing here? The article says:
The men asked the iconic coach to retire. Paterno said no, and that was that.
That same month, seven members of Penn State’s board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms . . .
Where does it say Joe was involved in the “sweeping reforms”
It doesn't. However, if you've read several different articles on this newest disclosure, then you'll find that Paterno was one of the subjects of the 'sweeping reforms' discussions.
The seven members of Penn State's BOT proposed more oversight of and less power for Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, Tim Curley, Joe Paterno and . . . football. Interesting foresight for 2004, eh? A group of trustees never permitted the proposal to go to or to be discussed by the full board.
Before this story broke, sportswriters were discussing whether the NCAA would levy the 'death penalty' on Penn State based on "Lack of Institutional Control" due the actions and inactions of Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno.
Now, apparently, we find out that members of the BOT, were concerned about the lack of institutional control by those four and the fact the football program had run amuck chose to address it eight years ago by . . . intentionally not addressing it.
Google and read other articles on this story. The NCAA's going to have a field day with it.