Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated

[timauman]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the Parker incidents. However, if we have learned nothing else from both the Sandusky & Portland scandals it is that Penn State has had a pattern of naïvely hoping problems quietly disappear with regards to the Athletic Dept.

[tjb]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the Parker incidents. However, if we have learned nothing else from both the Sandusky & Portland scandals it is that Penn State has had a pattern of naïvely hoping problems quietly disappear with regards to the Athletic Dept.

I always had the sense - subject to correction by actual facts - that the athletic department handled sex assault allegations and physical assault allegations poorly. Skip a class and the boom was lowered. The other stuff not so much.

[TJM78]

[quote="CAPPY, post:7998, topic:2287"]https://twitter.com/audsnyder4/status/791772849174228992[/quote]

Good for him. Now I hope he can pick up at least some of the pieces of his shattered life.

Lar, + about 10,000!!!

Firing McQueary was, in my view, the most boneheaded decision the Board of Trustees, Joyner, Erickson, Barron Barbour, etc, etc, etc, made.

I get not keeping him on the footfall staff, but if they kept him in the athletic department and giving him a job doing.......something. It would have cost over the past five years, what, less than a half mil or so. Let's see 1/2 mil vs 7 mil plus legal fees. OK

I've had discussions with Paterno loyalists who trashed Mike, and I mean trashed him big time. In my view the Penn Stater who was unfairly hurt the most by all of this was Mike McQueary, and it isn't even close.

I hope that judgment holds and he ends up with a lot of money in his pocket.

[NittanyIllini]

[quote="CAPPY, post:7998, topic:2287"]https://twitter.com/audsnyder4/status/791772849174228992[/quote]

Good for him. Now I hope he can pick up at least some of the pieces of his shattered life.

Lar, + about 10,000!!!

Firing McQueary was, in my view, the most boneheaded decision the Board of Trustees, Joyner, Erickson, Barron Barbour, etc, etc, etc, made.

I get not keeping him on the footfall staff, but if they kept him in the athletic department and giving him a job doing.......something. It would have cost over the past five years, what, less than a half mil or so. Let's see 1/2 mil vs 7 mil plus legal fees. OK

I've had discussions with Paterno loyalists who trashed Mike, and I mean trashed him big time. In my view the Penn Stater who was unfairly hurt the most by all of this was Mike McQueary, and it isn't even close.

I hope that judgment holds and he ends up with a lot of money in his pocket.

Absolutely. Great for him. But I'm sure MM will tell you that no amount of money will ever right the wrongs of his situation.

This whole case has really put an added burden on people who wish to blow the whistle in similar situations. And that just stinks.

[Skeeza]

[quote="CAPPY, post:7998, topic:2287"]https://twitter.com/audsnyder4/status/791772849174228992[/quote]

Good for him. Now I hope he can pick up at least some of the pieces of his shattered life.

Lar, + about 10,000!!!

Firing McQueary was, in my view, the most boneheaded decision the Board of Trustees, Joyner, Erickson, Barron Barbour, etc, etc, etc, made.

I get not keeping him on the footfall staff, but if they kept him in the athletic department and giving him a job doing.......something. It would have cost over the past five years, what, less than a half mil or so. Let's see 1/2 mil vs 7 mil plus legal fees. OK

I've had discussions with Paterno loyalists who trashed Mike, and I mean trashed him big time. In my view the Penn Stater who was unfairly hurt the most by all of this was Mike McQueary, and it isn't even close.

I hope that judgment holds and he ends up with a lot of money in his pocket.

Oddly enough, I think the two people who have their fates tied most closely together are MM and Paterno. These 2 guys are in almost identical situations.

The one thing that I thought when I heard about the MM Court decision is, "What does this mean for Paterno?". I think, of all the events since the scandal, this one court decision does the most for redeeming Paterno.

[rwd5035]

It doesn't mean anything for Paterno.

[Skeeza]

It doesn't mean anything for Paterno.

I know that people have their opinions pretty much locked in stone, but you cannot deny the parallels between MM and Paterno.

They both saw/heard something. They both passed their information up their chain of command. They were both fired. They were both chastised by the public for not doing more.

If MM just won a big court decision saying he was treated wrong by the University, I think that speaks for itself. I think Paterno's position is parallel to MM's.

[mjg]

[quote="greenmanRD, post:8006, topic:2287"]It doesn't mean anything for Paterno.[/quote]

I know that people have their opinions pretty much locked in stone, but you cannot deny the parallels between MM and Paterno.

They both saw/heard something. They both passed their information up their chain of command. They were both fired. They were both chastised by the public for not doing more.

If MM just won a big court decision saying he was treated wrong by the University, I think that speaks for itself. I think Paterno's position is parallel to MM's.

To a certain degree, perhaps. If the Paterno's win their lawsuit too, then maybe a little more. But they are still very different -- Paterno was in charge, the CEO. MM was a grad assistant, an intern.

[Skeeza]

[quote="greenmanRD, post:8006, topic:2287"]It doesn't mean anything for Paterno.[/quote]

I know that people have their opinions pretty much locked in stone, but you cannot deny the parallels between MM and Paterno.

They both saw/heard something. They both passed their information up their chain of command. They were both fired. They were both chastised by the public for not doing more.

If MM just won a big court decision saying he was treated wrong by the University, I think that speaks for itself. I think Paterno's position is parallel to MM's.

To a certain degree, perhaps. If the Paterno's win their lawsuit too, then maybe a little more. But they are still very different -- Paterno was in charge, the CEO. MM was a grad assistant, an intern.

On the contrary, Paterno was NOT the CEO. Curley was the CEO. Sure, Paterno was further up the chain than MM, but Paterno was NOT the top of chain. Paterno and MM were both a step along the way to the CEO.

[mjg]

[quote="greenmanRD, post:8006, topic:2287"]It doesn't mean anything for Paterno.[/quote]

I know that people have their opinions pretty much locked in stone, but you cannot deny the parallels between MM and Paterno.

They both saw/heard something. They both passed their information up their chain of command. They were both fired. They were both chastised by the public for not doing more.

If MM just won a big court decision saying he was treated wrong by the University, I think that speaks for itself. I think Paterno's position is parallel to MM's.

To a certain degree, perhaps. If the Paterno's win their lawsuit too, then maybe a little more. But they are still very different -- Paterno was in charge, the CEO. MM was a grad assistant, an intern.

On the contrary, Paterno was NOT the CEO. Curley was the CEO. Sure, Paterno was further up the chain than MM, but Paterno was NOT the top of chain. Paterno and MM were both a step along the way to the CEO.

Okay, CEO of the football team. Those aren't real titles. It was just meant to show the difference between the two was A LOT on the corporate ladder, so to speak.

[Skeeza]

[quote="greenmanRD, post:8006, topic:2287"]It doesn't mean anything for Paterno.[/quote]

I know that people have their opinions pretty much locked in stone, but you cannot deny the parallels between MM and Paterno.

They both saw/heard something. They both passed their information up their chain of command. They were both fired. They were both chastised by the public for not doing more.

If MM just won a big court decision saying he was treated wrong by the University, I think that speaks for itself. I think Paterno's position is parallel to MM's.

To a certain degree, perhaps. If the Paterno's win their lawsuit too, then maybe a little more. But they are still very different -- Paterno was in charge, the CEO. MM was a grad assistant, an intern.

On the contrary, Paterno was NOT the CEO. Curley was the CEO. Sure, Paterno was further up the chain than MM, but Paterno was NOT the top of chain. Paterno and MM were both a step along the way to the CEO.

Okay, CEO of the football team. Those aren't real titles. It was just meant to show the difference between the two was A LOT on the corporate ladder, so to speak.

Yes, but their responsibilities and fates were the same. I am speaking to the congruence of the situation.

[timauman]

Just a few thoughts on the McQ lawsuit.

1) I did not attend the trial, so my knowledge is limited to reports. Something I try to remind the children following the pied pipings of John Ziegler.

2) I am no expert in employment law.

3) Things rarely go well for whistle-blowers. Just compare the career paths of Abar Rouse and Dave Bliss

4) From what I read, it seems that PSU made some basic, idiotic missteps - allegedly Joyner did not want Mike to receive the Bowl bonus and other details of his contract were allegedly not initially honored

5) One thing I do know about whistle-blower situations is that the company/organization is supposed to do two things. Protect them from any retaliation and not to treat them any differently. While this is a sound principle, it often creates a Catch-22 in practice. How does one take measures to protect them from retaliation without treating them any differently?

6) Many people have suggested that Penn State should had given him another job outside of football after his contract ran out. Ironically, that scenario would have in fact been treating Mike differently as no other coaches, to my knowledge, were offered given such jobs.

[UncleLar]

The Clery Act fines have been announced by the Department of Education. They total $2.4 million.

Virtually every news agency is reporting this as Jerry Sandusky fines. The truth is that about $27,000 of it is Sandusky related. The vast vast majority are for other "failures", which, by the way, virtually any other university would have gotten nailed with had they been investigated with the thoroughness that PSU was. The reality is that all schools were paying lip service to the Clery Act.

[Evan_Ceg]

The $2.4 million is a lot less than what I and a good number of other people expected. As you noted, Lar, very few of the cited violations had anything to do with Sandusky, but that fact won't serve as click bait. The only reason we got nailed and other schools did not (so far) is that the Sandusky matter shined a public light on our non-compliance.

[Tom]

The Clery Act fines have been announced by the Department of Education. They total $2.4 million.

Virtually every news agency is reporting this as Jerry Sandusky fines. The truth is that about $27,000 of it is Sandusky related. The vast vast majority are for other "failures", which, by the way, virtually any other university would have gotten nailed with had they been investigated with the thoroughness that PSU was. The reality is that all schools were paying lip service to the Clery Act.

And the inclusion of any fine for Sandusky is a shaky application of the Clery Act law to begin with

[mjg]

The truth is that about $27,000 of it is Sandusky related.

Even that is tied to the admin side not recording the report properly. The AD obviously reported it to Schultz / Spanier. And reading through a bunch of stuff it seems like the BoT is once again a big problem but they aren't getting the headlines, because, well, Sandusky.

[Tom]

The Sandusky fine is tied to the "senior administrators" (which, in context, means the Board of Trustees) who didn't provide a timely warning to the university (which of course wouldn't make any sense) when they learned Sandusky was going to be charged with those ~50 counts (which would seem like some violation of something to announce charges like that)

[UncleLar]

McQueary just got another $5M from the judge in the case (it's not clear in this story but I assume its his ruling on the whistleblower portion of suit).

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20161201_Judge_orders_Penn_State_to_pay_McQueary_another__5_million.html

[tjb]

AP story says it was the whistleblower piece. This is good news, IMO.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/judge-adds-5m-plus-to-mcquearys-7m-verdict-vs-penn-state/

Judge Gavin was appointed when I was covering the courts in Chester County 30 years ago. The scuttlebutt at the time was that none of Chester County's judges would apply the death penalty in any case (all GOP judges, but these were different times) and Gavin was appointed in part to have a death penalty judge on the court. He wasn't a bloodthirsty jerk or a monster (to the extent that that's what the rumor implied), just a dude with a very firm idea of justice and right and wrong. Not surprised from my brief experience with him that he would lay the wood to Penn State.

[mjg]

I'll put this here because it's probably somewhat controversial.

http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/a-letter-to-mark-emmert,1470239/