PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

OT- Please consider for BOT


#1

This guy is a friend of the family and all around good guy.
www.bagwellforpennstate.com Just wanted to share if you were looking for options…


#2

Re the BOT candidates, and this candidate may want to answer (cause being a good guy isn’t enough), is it more important that the trustees keep the funding coming, or address issues of concern, and do proper investigations? While that answer may seem easy, is that what they did in either the JS affair or the Michael Mann investigation? For those who think the Mann investigation was done properly, there were 4 points asked to be investigated. On the 4th, the investigators punted, not even investigating. Here’s what was reported.

Penn State convened a panel under Henry Foley, its vice president for research. It asked whether Mann had 1) suppressed or falsified data; 2) tried to conceal or destroy e-mails or other information; 3) misused confidential information; or 4) did anything that “seriously deviated from accepted practices” in scholarly research.
The answer from Foley’s panel was no on the first three points; on the fourth, it said there was no evidence, but that a larger panel should take a look. You can find the full text HERE.

Question: why should a larger panel have to take a look on point 4? Why didn’t they investigate it? I am not trying to drag up AGW as a point of contention. My question is based on this. PSU got $475 million in annual grants from the DOE/Federal Government, probably a chunk of that for Mann and his group. Did they do a whitewash due to the $$$$$$? With the potential economic damage done to the PSU brand due to the JS affair, should the BOT leave well enough alone, and not potentially upset the DOE gravy train, determining the funding crucial to the school’s mission, especially with the already considerable risk to funding? Or should they do a proper and truly independent investigation, and clean house if necessary?


#3

Does anyone have a good idea about we/Penn State should do?

My take on it is that the BOT really was at arm’s length from operational details (totally appropriate) and that the power was centered on the unelected industry reps, who in my opinion had pretty good resumes (even if Frazier’s experience knocking down lawsuits over the danger of Vioxx goes against my principles!).

In short, the fault here lies with Spanier, Schultz and Curley - individuals. When the issues came to light, they got bounced and the board exerted its authority. To me, the only second-guessing is around 1., not telling Joe to his face that his continuing as the most prominent face of Penn State was untenable in the crisis environment, and 2., being a little more careful about his termination - not technically “firing” him (even if that was the effect).

All the sturm and drang of the BWI board (which frankly scares me - it reminds me of populist, know-nothing movements like the Tea Party) aside, what needs to change?


#4

I’m guessing the trustee nomination email that came out a couple days ago wasn’t blanketly deleted like in years past


#5

I worry about people who want to “fix” this as much as the old power brokers. I’m not a big fan of ambition.


#6

The ones being voted in don’t have much power to fix anything anyway.


#7

Can’t comment on this thread, just choked on my tea reading tjb’s comments.


#8

Ha! It’s the kind of job that makes you skeptical of anyone who’d want it!


#9

[quote=“tjb, post:3, topic:2985”]Does anyone have a good idea about we/Penn State should do?

My take on it is that the BOT really was at arm’s length from operational details (totally appropriate) and that the power was centered on the unelected industry reps, who in my opinion had pretty good resumes (even if Frazier’s experience knocking down lawsuits over the danger of Vioxx goes against my principles!).

In short, the fault here lies with Spanier, Schultz and Curley - individuals. When the issues came to light, they got bounced and the board exerted its authority. To me, the only second-guessing is around 1., not telling Joe to his face that his continuing as the most prominent face of Penn State was untenable in the crisis environment, and 2., being a little more careful about his termination - not technically “firing” him (even if that was the effect).

All the sturm and drang of the BWI board (which frankly scares me - it reminds me of populist, know-nothing movements like the Tea Party) aside, what needs to change?[/quote]

I agree completely with tjb on this – including the two pints on Paterno. The vitriol from many on the BWI board (and significant segments of the media as well) is scary (or at least disquieting). I think the BOT was ill-served by some combination of Spanier, Curley, Shultz and maybe legal counsel (and I personally believe it was not malicious or an attempt to cover any thing up, but rather inept and failing to comprehend the enormity of what was about to hit the fan).


#10
Does anyone have a good idea about we/Penn State should do?

My take on it is that the BOT really was at arm’s length from operational details (totally appropriate) and that the power was centered on the unelected industry reps, who in my opinion had pretty good resumes (even if Frazier’s experience knocking down lawsuits over the danger of Vioxx goes against my principles!).

In short, the fault here lies with Spanier, Schultz and Curley - individuals. When the issues came to light, they got bounced and the board exerted its authority. To me, the only second-guessing is around 1., not telling Joe to his face that his continuing as the most prominent face of Penn State was untenable in the crisis environment, and 2., being a little more careful about his termination - not technically “firing” him (even if that was the effect).

All the sturm and drang of the BWI board (which frankly scares me - it reminds me of populist, know-nothing movements like the Tea Party) aside, what needs to change?

I agree completely with tjb on this – including the two pints on Paterno. The vitriol from many on the BWI board (and significant segments of the media as well) is scary (or at least disquieting). I think the BOT was ill-served by some combination of Spanier, Curley, Shultz and maybe legal counsel (and I personally believe it was not malicious or an attempt to cover any thing up, but rather inept and failing to comprehend the enormity of what was about to hit the fan).

I think they expected the kind of reaction that Syracuse is getting with Bernie Fine.


#11

IMHO the problem with the BOT is not the individual trustees but the structure of it. 32 people cannot be expected to act quickly and decisively on anything, much less the firestorm that hit in early November.


#12

Generally, I’m suspicious of any politician. Especially those who are running on one issue. I fear that the majority of those running are running solely on the handling of Paterno, and will be blowhards that will distract attention from those better equipped and with more rounded agendas. That includes Mr. Novak, who has some points that I agree with, but I find it very suspicious that he never pro-actively raised them until now.


#13

Novak is a former member of the board of trustees and he’s raised his issues often. The latest does provide him with a nice campaign platform though.


#14

In line with Tim’s comments, the BOT is expected to provide accountability to senior leadership and strategic direction. they are in no way equipped to act quickly in a situation like they were in. Where they may have failed was in the accountability area and not being prepared to the exposure Spanier and Curly had to this situation, although Lar may be right in that they expected a situation like 'cuse and not the firestorm they ended up in.


#15
[quote="tjb, post:3, topic:2985"]Does anyone have a good idea about we/Penn State should do?

My take on it is that the BOT really was at arm’s length from operational details (totally appropriate) and that the power was centered on the unelected industry reps, who in my opinion had pretty good resumes (even if Frazier’s experience knocking down lawsuits over the danger of Vioxx goes against my principles!).

In short, the fault here lies with Spanier, Schultz and Curley - individuals. When the issues came to light, they got bounced and the board exerted its authority. To me, the only second-guessing is around 1., not telling Joe to his face that his continuing as the most prominent face of Penn State was untenable in the crisis environment, and 2., being a little more careful about his termination - not technically “firing” him (even if that was the effect).

All the sturm and drang of the BWI board (which frankly scares me - it reminds me of populist, know-nothing movements like the Tea Party) aside, what needs to change?[/quote]

I agree completely with tjb on this – including the two pints on Paterno. The vitriol from many on the BWI board (and significant segments of the media as well) is scary (or at least disquieting). I think the BOT was ill-served by some combination of Spanier, Curley, Shultz and maybe legal counsel (and I personally believe it was not malicious or an attempt to cover any thing up, but rather inept and failing to comprehend the enormity of what was about to hit the fan).

I think they expected the kind of reaction that Syracuse is getting with Bernie Fine.

And honestly they may have gotten it (at least along similar manageable lines) had there not been perjury charges.


#16
[quote="tjb, post:3, topic:2985"]Does anyone have a good idea about we/Penn State should do?

My take on it is that the BOT really was at arm’s length from operational details (totally appropriate) and that the power was centered on the unelected industry reps, who in my opinion had pretty good resumes (even if Frazier’s experience knocking down lawsuits over the danger of Vioxx goes against my principles!).

In short, the fault here lies with Spanier, Schultz and Curley - individuals. When the issues came to light, they got bounced and the board exerted its authority. To me, the only second-guessing is around 1., not telling Joe to his face that his continuing as the most prominent face of Penn State was untenable in the crisis environment, and 2., being a little more careful about his termination - not technically “firing” him (even if that was the effect).

All the sturm and drang of the BWI board (which frankly scares me - it reminds me of populist, know-nothing movements like the Tea Party) aside, what needs to change?[/quote]

I agree completely with tjb on this – including the two pints on Paterno. The vitriol from many on the BWI board (and significant segments of the media as well) is scary (or at least disquieting). I think the BOT was ill-served by some combination of Spanier, Curley, Shultz and maybe legal counsel (and I personally believe it was not malicious or an attempt to cover any thing up, but rather inept and failing to comprehend the enormity of what was about to hit the fan).

I think they expected the kind of reaction that Syracuse is getting with Bernie Fine.

And honestly they may have gotten it (at least along similar manageable lines) had there not been perjury charges.

I don’t know how anyone could possibly think that the fact that the Head Football coach, an assistant coach, the athletic director and the director of campus police knew about the molesting of a twelve year old and also knew that the police were never notified could be any less than a catastrophe.

When I read about the investigation into Sandusky last April, or whenever it was, I was heartbroken and hoped it wasn’t true. But when I read about Paterno, Schulz and Curley in the GJ presentation, I felt a sickness in the pit of my stomach that I hope I never feel again.

My last major question about this investigation is how Spanier et. al. thought that this could ever possibly blow over. Was he given any advice to play it cool? Did he do an investigation in 2011 as the walls were caving in? Or did he just sit in his office and hope it would all go away?


#17

But as we well know, “police” were notified. What Schultz did with a yet to be determined piece of information is a different story.

And like I said, without perjury charges, the 2002 incident is as high on the public radar as any of the other incidents in question.


#18

And the failure to report charges.


#19
[quote="tjb, post:3, topic:2985"]Does anyone have a good idea about we/Penn State should do?

My take on it is that the BOT really was at arm’s length from operational details (totally appropriate) and that the power was centered on the unelected industry reps, who in my opinion had pretty good resumes (even if Frazier’s experience knocking down lawsuits over the danger of Vioxx goes against my principles!).

In short, the fault here lies with Spanier, Schultz and Curley - individuals. When the issues came to light, they got bounced and the board exerted its authority. To me, the only second-guessing is around 1., not telling Joe to his face that his continuing as the most prominent face of Penn State was untenable in the crisis environment, and 2., being a little more careful about his termination - not technically “firing” him (even if that was the effect).

All the sturm and drang of the BWI board (which frankly scares me - it reminds me of populist, know-nothing movements like the Tea Party) aside, what needs to change?[/quote]

I agree completely with tjb on this – including the two pints on Paterno. The vitriol from many on the BWI board (and significant segments of the media as well) is scary (or at least disquieting). I think the BOT was ill-served by some combination of Spanier, Curley, Shultz and maybe legal counsel (and I personally believe it was not malicious or an attempt to cover any thing up, but rather inept and failing to comprehend the enormity of what was about to hit the fan).

I think they expected the kind of reaction that Syracuse is getting with Bernie Fine.

And honestly they may have gotten it (at least along similar manageable lines) had there not been perjury charges.

Which brings up this hypothetical thought. What if the 2002 incident never happened? Would Paterno and company be on the hook for what Sandusky “allegedly” did with these boys? There is the 2000 incident with the Penn State janitor and most of the victims showered with Sandusky on campus. But other than that, I don’t think any of the others involved any Penn State employees and specifically McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Spanier.

Then we might have had a similar reaction to the Syracuse/Fine allegations in that Boeheim and the rest of the Syracuse administration is being given a pass since none of them can be positively linked to any of Fine’s incidents with the boys. Whether you believe that Boeheim is telling the truth, there still remains no evidence that he did know anything. My beef has always been with Laurie Fine, the Syracuse Post-Standard and ESPN, because of the tape that surfaced nearly ten years ago.

This is why I still give McQueary major props for stepping up and blowing the whistle. How many people in similar situations have done something like that (certainly not the three aforementioned groups in the Fine scandal.) I’m sure many, even those who are saying they would have broken up the 2002 incident, would have run the other way and kept it to themselves. Without MM doing that, none of what is happening to Penn State would be happening and it might be similar to the Syracuse situation…one in which several people had the opportunity to blow a whistle and didn’t.


#20

Probably better yet, what happens when they are found not guilty of perjury, or the charges are dropped altogether, one of which being likely, since by the letter of the law, no perjury was committed, and it’s not even close?