Posted on 03/10/2013 8:32:44 PM PDT by Colofornian
STATE COLLEGE — Penn State trustee Paul Suhey admits relieving Joe Paterno of his head coaching duties in November 2011 over a late-night phone call was not the right tact.
Stephanie Deviney, another trustee, is certain the whole board feels that way.
“We apologize, we screwed it up as far as how we delivered the message,” Suhey said Friday in an interview. “Our decision, we’re not going to go back on. But we messed that up big time.
“People are still so hurt by that, and you know, damn it, we screwed it up.”
The Paterno decision will go down in the annals as the trigger of when Penn State alumni and diehard fans turned against the board, and the anger has not relented. They email the trustees, write letters — even call them out in advertisements in this newspaper.
But, four trustees, in an interview with the Centre Daily Times’ editorial board, said they are committed to turning the corner, opening up and building on the progress the university has already seen in responding in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky abuse scandal. The trustees — Suhey, Deviney, board Chairman Keith Masser and Paul Silvis — said they hope the university community will meet them in the middle as part of moving forward.
SNIP
The trustees say they did not fire Paterno, thought they stood behind it as the right decision given the details of the presentment.
“We retired him three weeks early,” Suhey said...
(Excerpt) Read more at centredaily.com ...
Really!!!
So you are saying that Paterno didn't notify his superiors who subsequently notified Sandusky's charity, all of whom told him that he was not to bring any more kids into the football facilities???
And after being told that there were no more incidents by Sandusky at Penn State, and no more incidents for the duration of Four years of apparent stop of abuse:
Chronological Chart of Sandusky’s Abuse from the 2010 Grand Jury Presentment:
•Victim 7 - Abused 1997 in PSU pool.
•Victim 10 – Abused 1997-1999 in pool and Sandusky’s home
•Victim 4 - Abused 1998-2000 in various locations.
•Victim 6 - Single shower incident 1998.
•Victim 5 - Single shower incident 1998.
•Victim 3 - Abused 2000 at Sandusky home & in shower.
•Victim 8 - Abused PSU shower 2000, Victim has not been identified, only by hearsay witness.
•Victim 2 – Abused PSU shower 2001 - witnessed by McQueary – reported by PSU officials, who reported it to Second Mile.
(Four years of apparent stop of abuse.)
•Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) – Abused 2005-2008 at Sandusky’s home & CMHS.
•Victim 9 – Abused 2006-2009 at Sandusky’s home
As I said in post #37, "Many university police forces employ a combination of police officers, security guards and student workers" -- yet that doesn't make Schultz "security-guard-in-chief" for all the security workers on campus, does it?
He doesn't go around & conduct police & security investigations as part of his job description, does he?
Why is Gary Schultz involved in the 1998 investigation as part of law enforcement???
A parallel situation would be a Mormon church leader who is the liaison to overseeing the local Boy Scout troop at his church. If he is told about an abusive situation, and doesn't report it, he is legally accountable...
Why did Gary Schulz call Chief Harmon in 2001 to check on the records of the 1998 Sandusky investigation.
Yes, why? Because Penn State bureaucrats would routinely confuse their responsibilities and engage in BOTH overreach -- like this -- and underreach (not pass on allegations to local law enforcement authorities).
He wasn't some elusive bureaucrat but head of the PSPD -- and everyone knew it.
"...Schultz has massive responsibilities that fall on the nonacademic side of the university operation. He oversees the physical plant, including the many building projects that always seem to be under way. He also had the hefty responsibility of keeping watch over the university budget which this year totals $4.1 billion, the university police force, investment management, legal services and other areas that employ a combined total of 2,500 people. During his 14-year tenure as vice president, Schultz saw the university’s budget double as Penn State blossomed into one of the nation’s top research universities."
Source: Top-level Penn State University executive Gary Schultz charged with perjury in Jerry Sandusky case
Schultz was an EXEC...A budget paper-pusher!!! What? Are you claiming that because Schultz' exec role included overseeing Penn State "legal services" that somehow made him "lawyer-in-chief" there???
How ludicrous in pushing credulity are Penn State pushers like you willing to go to try any argument that you hope will somehow stick???
Schultz headed their "investment management" exec area too...
So, somehow you think this guy regularly managed to crawl below his exec level to be an investor, a lawyer, a human resources trench-guy, and wear his police hat, too, all while he crunched #s as a budget guy for $millions of dollars, eh?
How many Gary Schultzes were there to perform all these roles? (And the many others I didn't even include there)
Yes, Paterno told his superiors. That was the “legal minimum” to which I referred.
But Paterno was told, by a man he trusted, that Sandusky had sexual contact with a child. And all he did was pass that along to his nominal boss.
Are you telling me that The Mighty JoePa was so powerless at Penn State, that all he could do was pass the information along and hope that somebody would prevent Sandusky from raping any more kids?
Even if we take Paterno at his word, his response to the allegations was anemic at best. Hardly worthy of a man, especially one so proud of his own honor.
Oh, I forgot. JoePa was good at football games. That’s all that really matters, after all.
It was also the legal maximum since he did not witness the incident but was getting it second hand.
If McCreary was so sure that what he saw was molestation, he should have called the police -- which would have been the University police, the head of which he did speak with about the incident a few days later.
Are you telling me that The Mighty JoePa was so powerless at Penn State, that all he could do was pass the information along and hope that somebody would prevent Sandusky from raping any more kids?
He was powerful enough to follow the law as it related to such reporting and to see to it that his superiors followed up with an interview.
What more would you have wanted him do??? -- hold a press conference and accuse another person publicly of child molestation with no evidence, an incident that he did not witness, but was hearing second hand from another person??? Get real.
YEP
Wrong.
The Freeh Report makes no such thing clear. The Freeh report asserts without proof that a person referred to as "Coach" in a third-party email is Paterno. That claim is unjustified and almost certainly false. Paterno was not called "Coach" by anyone. He was called "Joe." The "Coach" in the email who wanted to know the progress of the investigation is Jerry Sandusky.
Wishing you had done more isn’t an admission that he was involved in a cover up. Keep discrediting yourself with your wild hatred. You’re a disgusting disgrace to a website predicated on Christian charity and the rule of law.
More lying baloney, from your lying mouth.
By his own admission, Mike McQueary didn't tell Paterno about a rape.
Just keep lying. It's what liars do.
What's really sad is the pro-Paterno groupies don't understand that's the best you could say for Paterno in this matter. Occams Razor hints that it's likely far worse than that.
Wrong.
He was there only because of Paterno's approval.
Wrong.
One word, and Paterno could have permanently gotten Sandusky banned from the Penn State campus within 5 minutes.
Wrong.
That's three strikes. You're out.
Sandusky and Paterno were not friends. They did not socialize, and Paterno did not patronize events held for The Second Mile except on apro forma basis.
Sandusky's access to Penn State was the same as any other Faculty Emeritus, and was part of his separation contract with Penn State. Paterno could no more have voided it than he could have voided Sandusky's pension.
The fact that he was STILL there after many, many rumors and allegations against him
Wow. What a despicable liar you are. There were not "many many rumors and allegations." There were two. At issue is whether Paterno himself was fully aware of a single one of them. Testimony before the grand jury indicates he was not.
Paterno did NOTHING about the sexual abuse when it was obvious something wrong was going on.
Obvious to you and other haters in hindsight, but not obvious to any actually functioning human beings at the time.
Paterno is, in my book, just as guilty as Sandusky, and BOTH should have been fired, arrested and jailed years ago.
Of course he is, because you're just another drone in a hate-obsessed lynch mob who isn't interested in the facts of the case and just wants to talk out of his posterior.
You've posted one lie after another on this thread. Why?
The head of campus police is law enforcement. PSU has its own taxing authority, voting precincts, and police department. They aren't rent-a-cops.
Read the Freeh report sometime and you might just find out how stupid that statement is.
The CDT reflecting the views of its constituents? Not hardly. The CDT is reviled in State College and is referred to as "the Seedy T".
People in State College upset that The Second Mile has closed? Nope. Not in the least. Saddened that a once well-respected charity was actually a front for a pedophile, yes.
PSU bureaucrats still being paid? Yes. They have not been convicted of any crime. Apparently you would want your own employer to fire you on the basis of an allegation that as yet has no determination of proof behind it. OK. Luckily most people's employers aren't jackesses. [And dont' take advice from people who are.]
Spanier still tenured? Same issue. Losing tenure isn't done for the same reasons for positions (like University President) held for termination at will. That's why professors want tenure to begin with, and why Spanier insisted on it when he came from Nebraska.
Does the word "Duh" mean anything to you?
Please add five more exclamation points in your next post. It won't make any of your lies true, but at least you and the rest of the lynch mob will feel better about your own sanctimonious drivel.
Ever notice how the "let's move on," crowd is composed of people who know they haven't got any facts on their side but don't want the narrative they've established to be challenged? I'm for "moving on" with the Board of Trustees the same way I was for "moving on" with Bill Clinton: by getting his resignation.
It's time for the Coliform to move on, too. He hasn't yet managed to post a factual article on FR, but he sure has set a record for number of exclamation marks per post!!!!!!! Maybe they could use his kind at MoveOn.org.
The stupidity is greatest with those who try to defend the indefensible. Defending someone who basically looked the other way (at best) in a matter that destroyed young men’s lives is simply despicable.
But you're still hiding whatever your own personal issues are behind a facade of sanctimonious (and false) attribution.
He received hearsay testimony from an intern about a well-respected former associate, and reported it to the head of University Police.
It could have been false; we know now it wasn't. But Paterno didn't know that at the time. Had he run around screaming a false accusation from the rooftops, you and all the other haters would have wanted his head for that instead.
You don't know that. We do know he did the bare minumum in reporting. Considering what the allegation was, I find the extent of his reporting lacking, and so do most people other than the Joegroupies.
He received hearsay testimony from an intern about a well-respected former associate
Hearsay testimony? Good grief, he was told by a current assistant coach about things of a sexual nature he saw with a young boy in the shower. It's not like a coach at a rival university reported this, your word "hearsay" doesn't cover it at all. Most people would have wanted to know the truth of this kind of thing, it's clear little was done to find out anything, the bare minimum was done at a time a lot more should have happened.
Had he run around screaming a false accusation from the rooftops
Nobody wanted that, you're building a strawman, but it sure would have been nice if Joe would have gotten on it and found out the truth, but he didn't.
I have no hate for Joe, but the best you can say is that he did the bare minimum at a time he should have done a lot more. Even he apparently knew that, but the Joegroupies here have no clue what that means. I'd give you a hint, but you don't seem capable of doing anything in this case but defending the indefensible.
You're right.
The lynch mob here think that they are conservative but they are no better than the leftist lynch mob that rose up in Sanford Florida a year ago.
Declaring someone guilty in lieu of evidence and without due process of law is part of the leftist mindset that this lynch mob adheres to.
Hmmm, you think the fact that no one returned Freeh’s phone calls had anything to do with “Editorializing about known evidence”?
Self-fulfilling logic for Penn State Alumni - The Freeh report is junk because there is little factual info. No one talked to Freeh because he was not intended on getting the facts.
The problem is not with the massive CYA at Penn State, it’s with Freeh - Right Alumni?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.