Better yet, both of them are out.
Edit: My article says the exact same thing, but with a different headline. No matter what, still a nice turn of events.
Better yet, both of them are out.
Edit: My article says the exact same thing, but with a different headline. No matter what, still a nice turn of events.
One returned to retirement. One is taking a leave like the OP said.
Edit: you fixed it while I was writing the response, my bad.
If they want to resign. Let them. But personally, id hate to get fired after being accused of something only to be found not guilty later. Until a court or internal investigation finds that they really did what they're accused of, they should keep their jobs
Best case: they ignored an accusation that an employee was raping children.
EDIT for clarity: a former employee with emeritus status and full access as if he were an employee.
According to the Grand Jury, these two men claimed that the Grad Assistant reported to them that Sandusky was wrestling the young boy and touched him inappropriately. Still F***ed up and wrong, but different than raping. The apparant best case (which is still a real shitty case) according to the Grand Jury is that they ignored an emeritus faculty member inappropriately touching a boy.
It seems like these 2 men covered it up, I agree with that, but they still have a right to defend themselves and not be fired until they are found guilty.
And the Grand Jury found enough evidence that they were full of shit to charge them with perjury which is HARD.
Also your best case, that's a firable offense.
I agree. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be fired, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be fired YET.
Additionally, the burden of proof to bring charges against a person is much less than the burden of proof to convict them. Just because they have been charged does not mean they will be found guilty. If they are, fire their asses, until then, let them defend themselves.
I actually think the state will have a hard time convicting them on the perjury charge. It's basically their word against McQueary's as to what he said at the meeting.
I think the lack of response to the McQueary accusation, regardless of whether he told them what he told Paterno (that it was sexual, but was not specific) or what he told the grand jury, is a firable offense. The full response was to ban Sandusky from bringing children on campus, which they admit was unenforceable. So they did nothing. That's according to their own grand jury testimony.
I edited this to clear up some pronoun issues.
Due to the one sided nature of grand juriy hearings they often produce findings and draw conclusions that aren't mirrored in later court findings. I know the knee-jerk reaction in order to feel good is to fire people based on grand jury summaries, but without the full testimony of these men, it is premature to draw too many conclusions about what happened.
Yes it looks very bad, but until they can adequately defend themselves, they should not be punished (i consider being fired punishment).
at the very least wrestling with a minor while naked in a shower. Their response was to report it to Sandusky's charity organization, take away his keys to the football facility, and ban him from coming on campus with minors. Clearly this is an Athletic Director and a VP of Finance trying to sweep the problem off campus to limit the impact to Penn State, rather than protect minors and fulfill their legal responsibilities to the State. From an ethics stand point alone, they should at least be placed on administrative (unpaid) leave of absense until their case is decided. However, if the state law requires them to report, I think they should be fired. They didn't report.
To further clarify: I don't think you need to break the law to be fired in this kind of situation. There are two different things to think about here: legal ramifications and ethical/moral ones. Legally, I suspect they're both guilty of failure to report. I think it is entirely possible they perjured themselves, but from what is written in the indictment, I don't think they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ethically and morally though? Scumbags who should be removed from a position of authority. And I think employment decisions (ESPECIALLY at a public institution like PSU) are subject to ethical and moral questions, even if they're clear legally. They violated the public trust. The second McQueary left that meeting, they needed to launch a full criminal investigation or forward the case to the state police if they didn't want the campus police to investigate. They didn't. Even if Sandusky is innocent (which I VERY much doubt, considering the consistency of the stories of the victims), they had a responsibility to determine that at the time.
For a Michigan point in a far less serious matter, if the AD were found to have covered up the Ed Martin allegations, you'd want them fired, right? And I'd say the majority of this board thought that Gordon Gee, Gene Smith, and Jim Tressel should have been fired, right? None of them even broke a law. Tressel committed NCAA violations, and Smith/Gee happily ignored them (or was responsible for the people who did; which is why I think the PSU President should go as well).
I agree that they can get fired for not breaking the law, but I also think that a really good prosecuter can make anyone look extremely guilty in a grand jury hearing. Based on the initial summary of their testimonies, I agree that they appear to have committed firable offenses, but grand juries can often make people seem way guiltier than they really are.
I guess my question is if either of the following are in dispute:
1) Curley and Schultz were informed that a potential case of sexual misconduct involving a child occurred on school property involving a former school employee who enjoyed access to PSU facilities, emeritus status at the University, and other perks.
2) No law enforcement or child services official was contacted about this potential case.
That to me, would be more than enough. And I would think if the latter weren't the case, their lawyers would be trumpeting it everywhere.
My opinion on this is that anything produced in a grand jury summary is up for dispute. If we had the transcripts of their hearings I would be quicker to make conclusions. The prosecuter can make circumstantial cases against these men and then question them without any chance for them to be cross-examined. The summary claims that they said these things, but almost as important as what they said is exactly how they said it and exactly how they got to the point where they said it.
Without this information, I am not ready to accept this as the absolute truth. Grand jury summaries are quick to make one-sided conclusions and state them as fact.
correct, good post.
Isn't there some sort of official reporting in this type of situation - signed report, taped, etc? Apparently not, but there should be. How else to prove one person's word over another? The GJ is charging them, so I'm hopeful that these is in fact a way to prove this.
Agree. You have to realize that the grand jury indictment/report is the best-case scenario for the prosecutors. Gospel, it is not.
That being said, this whole situation is hard to even think about. Disturbing if true; disturbing if partially true; disturbing, period. And charges like this, you have to think, wouldn't be brought without pretty solid evidence. But then again, the case against, say, Rod Blagojevich was much weaker than I had anticipated it would be and under similar thinking (if they're charging, it must be damn strong, etc)
First of all, if Sandusky is guilty as he appears, he should be institutionalized for the rest of his life.
That being said, put yourself in the places of the two officials. Who are you going to trust: a grad assistant you don't really know or a coach you have known your entire tenure at PSU? It was the word of a GA against the word of a trusted friend and ally.
If a GA made an accusation like that on a Michigan coach who had been there forever, who would most of us believe? If I was in a supervisory capacity, I would require a lot more evidence than one "he said, he said" to start tearing down the character and ruining the life of someone who was a trusted emloyee for 30 years.
In retrospect, they screwed up badly, but you don't get retrospect in realtime.
a degree of flexibility. But this isn't some GA claiming the guy requested reimbursement for a dinner including alcohol, or he heard the guy was having an affair. I think the seriousness of the allegations mitigate the fact that goodwill was accrued.
simple for the fact that the 2002 "incident" was not the first time that Schultz had knowledge of Sandusky's behaviour like this with little boys.....
"Schultz told the jurors he also knew of a 1998 investigation involving sexually inappropriate behavior by Sandusky with a boy in the showers the football team used.
But despite his job overseeing campus police, he never reported the 2002 allegations to any authorities, "never sought or received a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002," the jurors wrote. "No one from the university did so."
Happens one time "might" be able to argue there was some mis-understanding involved with handling the information. Happens twice, sounds like a cover-up....
2002 wasn't the first time this had come up with Sandusky. In fact there were some accusations before 1998. The '98 incident actually sparked and investigation and there is a police report. From the outside it looks like they let Sandusky retire with a "farewell tour" year in 1999 with knowledge of that incident/accusation.
And what about JoPa? Are we to believe that he didn't know of any of the previous accusations or the investigation about his DC?
then they do a rape kit and its no longer speculation. This is the great failing at PSU. They didn't do shit. There wasn't even a file started about the 2002 incident. Worse, the GA is now a full coach. Sounds like he got rewarded for keeping his mouth shut.
How do you square your position with the apparent fact that they never even tried to determine the boy's identity?
Put yourself in their place. You're given an extremely serious accusation by a member of the football staff. Was there any reason to think he was lying? You have a choice, pass along that information to the police (as required by law), investigate the charge, or cover it up. You seem to think they took a fourth option, to simply believe someone they knew better, even though he had been investigated for child molestation before and had every reason to lie. Sounds like understandable bad judgment to you.
As I see it they had a simple choice: worry that kids were being molested on their campus or worry about the bad publicity that story would bring. If they were concerned about the possible past and future victims they would have made sure that the charges were investigated. They also would have looked for ways to better protect children on their campus.
If their concern was the school and program being subjected to bad publicity then they would have done everything just as they did. Make sure there was no investigation. Notice they didn't tell the GA that they didn't believe him. If they had he probably would have gone to the police directly. Instead they took minimal action against Sandusky and told the GA about it, hoping he wouldn't take it further.
If the facts are as they appear I find Culrey and Schultz' behavior as morally corrupt as Sandusky's. Sandusky appears to be a very sick, evil man. Curley and Schultz decided it was expedient to allow children to be molested. That's just evil.
Picture a young Brady Hoke at Michigan and he sees Bo doing something horrific (obviously not the case -- just a hypothetical). He reports it to Lloyd. What is the possibility that a young coach (or gradass) is gonna lie about a legend about something so serious? How easy is it for the legend to defend himself in disproving the lie (just produce the boy in question).
The fact is that very powerful figures in the PSU athletic department were too cozy and too weak to go to bat for little kids who were being raped. They believed McQueary. They just didn't have the balls to do the right thing.
I am NOT going to "picture a young Brady Hoke at Michigan," or Bo, or Loyd Carr doing anything remotely like any of this.
Next hypothetical, please.
earn their benefits, while defending themselves? They should be fired for dragging their employer's name through the mud. Penn State looks like a bunch of clowns, that's the reason for the firing. Forget "court" matters, the PR hit is terrible.
Innocent until proven guily seems to be more an exception than the rule these days
This is a distinction few people seem to make anymore.
He obviously wasn't doing his job before this.
... is "after an emergency meeting of the university's board of trustees." That's when the AD and the VP for Business and Whatever "decided" to step down - AFTER the meeting with the trustees who, unlike PSU president Spanier, apparently did not offer the two men "unconditional support."
I'm reminded of AD Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. As soon as that story first broke into the news everyone wanted to disband the lacrosse team and kick out every student slightly related to the incident. After the initial story was questioned a little, we learned that the prosecuter was acting wrecklessly to achieve some sort of political gain.
I don't think this is the case here, but this is the reason I think we should wait to jump to conclusions based on the word of the prosecuter and grand jury. For all we know he may have coerced them into saying things that he could spin into charges against them, until we know more, we should give the defendents the benefit of the doubt.
inappropriate activity with a minor in a shower to the police or child services. Period.
In the Duke case, the allegations were reported, and the case investigated and later dropped.
In the Penn State case, this did not happen. It doesn't matter if you believe the GA or the AD. What the AD stated he knew to the Grand Jury was enough to require an ethical person to report it to authorities qualified to investigate. In my view, the two people who didn't report should be fired. Period.
That's like apples and orangutans.
I am sure your main point is to not rush to judgement before all the facts have come out. The Duke case is different because IIRC, Nifong wanted to use the case as political capital to run for a higher position then he currently had. Race was a huge part of that case and I am sure Nifong was none too happy to be seen as the person who took down a bunch of rich white kids who thought they were above the law. The whole thing was handled horribly by Nifong from the start and I think much of the blame of how that whole thing played out rests with him.
That whole thing was Nifong's fault. He proceeded alone and was smacked down by both the state AG and the bar association. He deserves every little piece of misery he gets for trying to prosecute that case; he's just a bad, bad human being.
In this case, you have a pattern of behavior, eight witnesses (including one respected coach who was a firsthand witness), and an internal investigation at the time that was enough to specifically ban him with little kids and revoke his locker room access. By sheer numbers alone, this case is nothing like the Duke lacrosse case, even if Sandusky is innocent.
To everyone saying wait and see since this is just a grand jury, I think there is enough initial witness testimony to at least give leave without pay to the AD and the other dude:
I agree with Genzilla that heed needs to be taken given how the Duke case went, but I think since this involves children as victims and has several witnesses that have nothing to gain by their testimony, there is a little more likelihood of these accusations being true.
What I mean is I believe the grad student reported potential abuse to JoPa and JoPa sent it up the chain of command, so there should have AT LEAST been an investigation by the university in some manner, which in turn required the officials to contact the authorities on the matter. There is enough evidence from the University's standpoint to fire the two for not fulfilling their duties as employees.
I am a pre-law student and I will naturally be a pain in the ass about these things. I would like to be given the benefit of the doubt if there's a 1% chance that I did nothing wrong until it's proven that I did in fact do what I'm being accused of. Do I think that these two men being fired would be a gross injustice, no. Do I think they are probably guilty of what they are being accused of, yes.
I'm simply arguing for the fact that what we know is only a small part of what actually happened and we might be missing key facts that discredit the prosecuter's version of things.
Although I am 99% sure they deserve to be fired, my idealistic nature forces me to focus on the 1% instead.
I think suspension with pay is the pragmatic approach. If these guys are guilty that will be fired in good time. Paying their salary for the next six months is insurance against a wrongful termination suit.
From what I've read, Pennsylvania law required that certain university officials to report abuse to law enforcement. Head football coach is presumably not on that list which is why I think Paterno did what he was supposed (legally) to do or at least what he thought he was supposed to do. I'm guessing the chain of command should have involved HR type people but going to your supervisor seems reasonable.
The thing I can't reconcile is why Sandusky was allowed to maintain a relationship with the university. It's for that reason that I think all involved, including Paterno, should resign.
UPDATE: As I'm writing this, ABC 6 in Philadelphia is reporting there was an emergency board meeting that the two men charged were asked to resign and both agreed. The report said Paterno was not discussed at the meeting.
Lawyers ............Something the world needs less of....Nothing against you Genzilla..
I'd feel comfortable putting the AD on leave based on some things which don't seem to be in dispute. Which is: that he heard something might have happened and he didn't immediately speak to the grad assistant.
I don't want someone working at my institution who hears about something like this and then sits on it for over a week before speaking to the person who made the complaint. I don't care how sketchy the second-hand report is; I don't care how it might have been soft-pedaled to him (wrestling, touching, seemed inappropriate, pussyfoot blah blah blah). You follow up on that stuff immediately, don't you? Or you're more than eligible for censure by your institution. IMO.
Joe Pa should be held accountable, and resign immediately if McQuery did in fact tell him that he saw Sandusky having anal sex with the 10 year old boy. Why? Becuase this:
"The next day, a Saturday, the grad assistant went to the home of head coach Joe Paterno and told him what he had seen. The day after that, Paterno called Penn State athletic director Tim Curley to his home to report that the grad assistant had told him he had witnessed “Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”"
If this part of the GJ report is true, Joe Pa did not accurately report what McQuery told him.
B/c of the significance of the charges, this is enough for me and should be for others, I believe. Resign already Joe. It'll only get worse.
It's entirely possible that McQuery didn't tell Paterno exactly what he saw, but did tell the Grand Jury. Which then makes a lot of things make more sense. He's got to be something like a grandparent type figure to the guy, and would you talk to anyone from that generation about anal sex? Especially if you're at the same time accusing one of his friends of raping 10 year olds if you say it? Hard to do.
grand jury have charged McQuery as well then? He was on staff at PSU and would have been under the same legal requirement to report abuse, not a watered down version of it.
The PSU board of directors should have called an emergency meeting this weekend and suspended all involved pending the outcome of the investigation.
If what is in the GJ report is true. I hope they all go to jail for the rest of their lives.
edit: Spanier should be suspended too, I mean what the hell was that statement he released? Are you kidding me?
On the news ticker on Morning Joe, it just said the PSU board had called an emergency meeting this morning. We'll see what happens.
Edit: The emergency meeting was last night.
to be fair to mcqueary...he didnt witness tht. the janitor did. mcqueart witnessed sandusky butt raping an innocent 10 yr old and ruining his innocence and his life.
Thank you for clarifying.
Paterno's contract is up after this season. My guess is that it wouldn't have been renewed before this incident, but now, the question of another year or two shouldn't even be an issue.
Considering what happened, theirs are positions which I would imagine should be effectively considered "open" now, unless PSU really wants an image problem.
is going to be fired. If they have an athletic department after this, there will not be one familiar face in it.
I wouldn't go that far. You'll see several new faces in management though (i.e., a decent round of cannings, but not a universal thrashing of the department). That's pretty clear, from what I've read.
are absolutely right. Not to relocate this to a football conversation, but keep refreshing your Penn State rivals site to see the decommits pile up in the upcoming weeks. It is going to take Penn State's athletic department longer than any of us will be around to see to recover from this. They have to accept that now, and must utilize the nuclear option ASAP. I am actually surprised that Joe Pa is going to appear at his weekly presser. I think Joe Pa may actually be in danger in public, and I am not kidding.
respect for Joe Pa...Talk about overshadowing his accomplishments...Just a bad situation all around.....
Just maybe an accusation like that would warrant more involvement than passing the information to the AD. There is no excuse for this.
we don't know what exactly the GA told Joe Pa, and how that translated into Joe Pa's head. Also, we don't know what feedback Joe Pa recevied from the AD or the VP.
For example, if they told Paterno they have investigated the matter, and passed it onward without specifying to whom (they did pass it on to the charity but not the authorities), found it to be "horseplay" and taken administrative punitive action, he may have assummed it was taken care of sufficiently without digging into the details.
My point is, the grand jury report only contains the one line from Paterno. He did say "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy". That should have been enough for the AD to report to the police as required by the law.
Joe Pa's case is more gray to me. The AD's is black and white. And unless Campus Police / Security report to the VP of Finance, the only reason I can see that the VP was involved was to "protect" the interests of the university (i.e., clear ethical conflict). (Note: the VP's case may be muddy as well, as it is not as clear what the VP had been directly told.)
Will the University still pay their legal fees? That to me is the big question. I can't for the life of me understand why they would given what that they are being accused of and now their resignations/LOA requests this morning.
To me at least, covering their sure to be enormous legal bill will be evidence of PSU's support of these scumbags. Going broke is the least that should happen to slime that allowed child abuse to continue unabated for 9 years.
I don't know what they school will do here, but they do have a pretty large interest in the outcome of this case. If these men are found guilty it opens the door wider for a lawsuit against the school (almost a slam dunk at that point) as well as confirming the bad image of the school and the athletic department.
The less these two are convicted of, the better it is for the school both in terms of liability and image.
Here's exactly what he said:
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.
I was a little suprised to see that no one had compared the Berry and Curley charges. Since they occurred just days apart.
Berry was charged with misdemeanor assault in Columbus. The team waited until he was charged, and then promptly suspended him. I think OSU did exactly the right thing.
Curley, having been indicted by a grand jury on felony perjury charges, ought to experience the same fate. The only difference being that Curley is not an athlete, and can't be "suspended" from intercollegiate competition. Berry was not dismsissed from his team (I think that is only fair), and I am not sure that there would be grounds to discharge Curley from his employment (maybe there is, if one were to read all of his grand jury testimony, which is usually kept sealed apart from official reports and indictments) before his guilt is established. Unless Curley's own testimony (as opposed to allegations by others or charges by a prosecutor) established a firing offense. And my understanding is that it hasn't.
Curley has to be suspended, with or without pay. (With pay would be my guess. And that is what is happening right now, right?) But beyond that, it gets into presuming somebody's guilt.
Longer term, the Curley era of PSU athletics is positively done.
Now can somebody explain to me why kids who aren't from Beaver Falls PA still pledge commitments to PSU? When nobody really knows who the coach will be or what kind of program there will be in the future? Forget about sanctions or program-penalties. Forget about local kids who dreamed of playing in Happy Valley their whole lives. And forget about Joe Pa personally; I don't understand how anybody could know who the freakin' position coaches will be next year. No kid now could possibly know what kind of offense or defense he may be playing in.
protestations that Paterno did what was required. Sandusky is using your beloved schools' facilities to do this stuff and you don't ring the alarm to the high heavens? I mean, someone is assaulting a kid in Michigan's locker rooms, what would you hope Hoke did? Tell Brandon and then not worry when Brandon did nothing? Hells no.
Also, you know this guy for decades and nothing more than that one incident is reaching you? I have serious doubts. You almost have to be blind on purpose, which amounts to negligence. . . exactly the kind of negligence you would fear with an Uncle Bernie kind of arrangement of that kind.
Point me to the line where I place my money that Paterno is done this year.
Gary Moeller says "NOW you tell me that?!?!"
The acts are so far from comparable, it's unearthly. But you embarrass the University, you're going to be out conviction or no. If you think even if found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is enough to not completely color everyone involved from a PR standpoint from here on out, you're kidding yourself and putting too much weight into a legal ruling. OJ wasn't doing many commercials after he was proven innocent.
And you can say all you want about the Duke case, but that's more a situation of they shouldn't be wrongfully prosecuted for something they didnt' do....but probably still deserved to be punished for actions embarrassing the whole school and program.
All these contracts have morals clauses....and it usually isn't dependent on conviction. I mean, if you don't smartly come to some terms of dismissal, and you want to sue over it, great....but I'm not sure how it's going to look in a court of law when they start digging up the sordid details again and making them even more public. So if you're planning on living off that hope, you better be sure you're 100% innocent of doing and knowing NOTHING. If I'm the University, I'm willing to take that chance, and gamble on any cost, to do damage control now.