In my opinion, that is the wrong way to look at this. Sandusky being in the Lasch Building makes no difference if he isn't bringing kids in to molest. Even banned from Lasch, he would have certainly continued his activities. Perhaps it wouldn't have been PSU's problem, but then you would have people arguing that this was like the Catholic Church, where they just reassigned him to make the situation somebody else's problem.
Sandusky's status was dependent upon his association with Penn State. He used that status to "groom" -- basically another word for "seduce" -- boys. In 98 and 99, Sandusky was "wining and dining" boys in Texas and Florida, thanks to his position as the defensive coordinator at Penn State. Without that association, he was reduced to the status of a creepy old man who was driving out to Clinton County to find prey. Correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to recall that he was still using the promise of attending PSU football games as a reason to continue contact with victim 1. He's a rather pathetic figure by 2008.
Sandusky was still an assistant coach, and his job required him to use the football facilities. They first would have had to fire him, on the basis that he had been investigated and cleared, which would have been a very difficult position to justify. Certainly they could have, but as I have argued before, maybe they believed the word of the police, DPW, and DA that this was not a criminal act, but just poor judgement.
People get fired for a lot less all the time. As you suggest, at the very least, he displayed very poor judgement. I'm sure he would have simply resigned rather than force Penn State to fire him.
In 1998, it made sense to give him the benefit of the doubt. In 2013, we now know that there was a whole lot more to the story, but we can't now pretend that Paterno and Curley knew what we know, or that they knew more than Gricar, Lauro, and the rest, who basically decided no punishment was warranted.
Gricar and Lauro decided no criminal charges are warranted, which is not to say they didn't believe that some form of punishment, probation, and/or treatment was merited. They may have even believed termination was warranted, but they did not have that option. Again, we don't know what the October meeting was about for certain, perhaps Gricar did issue a warning.
Perhaps, but I still think they had no reason to suspect the experts were wrong until 2001. After McQueary's report is when they had to admit Sandusky had a problem, and when somebody should have reported him.
Once Lauro closed his investigation and determined the matter was "unfounded", he has no ability to be involved unless a new report of suspected abuse is made, or if the child's case was accepted under General Protective Services, which allows CYS to follow-up and coordinate services for children in cases where Child Protective Services isn't warranted due to no finding of abuse. GPS does not happen often, in my experience.
You might be right on that one. In fairness to the experts, however, no one came to them and said they witnessed a child being sexually assaulted.