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”
discussion?
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.