NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?

[nittanylioness234]

Respectfully snipped.

If there was, again, the responsibility lies with LE and the DA to control an offender, not the criminal's employer. We also have no reason to believe that the NCAA was privy to any secret information outside of the Freeh Report.

But we know the Freeh group was also in contact with the Attorney General's office, so some information, at least generalities, may have been passed among the 3 groups.

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully snipped.



It depends what, if anything, that contact was.

If there was no contact, or the contact was that there was that Sandusky does not have a problem, that would not be an issue. The DA's Office and DPW were, in theory, the "experts."

If there was contact with the DA's that was that they wouldn't prosecute Sandusky, "if he received help for the problem," that would be a different matter.

First, it would be one the "experts" saying that there was a problem. Second, were they saying, in effect, that PSU should handle 1998 in-house. With either of these PSU officials would know that there was an existing problem when the 2001 incident happened.

1998 does loom large in that regard.

I agree that PSU's knowledge of 98 weighs heavily on their actions in 2001, but I still have trouble with the concept that the DA would hold Penn State accountable to "make" a grown man seek treatment, or else PSU, not Sandusky, would be in trouble. What leverage would Penn State have to force Sandusky besides losing his job, which he left the following year anyway?

If Gricar, Ralston, and Schreffler felt Sandusky had a problem, it would be incumbent on them to meet with the individual himself, and offer the "either you get help, or we will x, y, z" speech. Had that happened, it should have come out at trial.

I would still view the lack of action following any potential meeting with Ganter or others as a failing of the DA/LE, not PSU. And again, unless Emmert is lying about what information they considered in developing the sanctions, they know no more about possible additional contacts than we do.

And in fairness, what could PSU have done in 98 that would have appeared suitable to the NCAA - reported to LE? LE knew before the school did. Called ChildLine? Again, had already occurred. Fired Sandusky? That should have been the Second Mile's place, as they were his access to the victims, while PSU only gave him access to a location. Without PSU, he would have continued to victimize kids in his basement, the public pool, or any of the places other pedophiles operate.

There is no rational defense of Emmert's statement regarding 1998.

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully snipped.

If there was, again, the responsibility lies with LE and the DA to control an offender, not the criminal's employer. We also have no reason to believe that the NCAA was privy to any secret information outside of the Freeh Report.

But we know the Freeh group was also in contact with the Attorney General's office, so some information, at least generalities, may have been passed among the 3 groups.

That did happen between Freeh and the AG, but the NCAA stated in the Consent Decree:
"Therefore, without further investigation or response, the findings of the Criminal Jury and the Freeh Report establish a factual basis from which the NCAA concludes that Penn State breached the standards expected by and articulated in the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws."

We are now taking speculation to a second power - we don't know if there were any additional contacts in 1998 regarding Sandusky or what would have been said, and now we are speculating that the NCAA may have known about this meeting that may have occurred.

I think it is "more reasonable to conclude" (as Freeh was fond of saying) that the NCAA overreacted to make a strong statement, and as we have seen from numerous comment sections on PennLive and the CDT, if you question or disagree with the sanctions, you "support" child abuse, so the NCAA didn't expect to be challenged on anything, much less the legitimacy of using 1998 as the starting date for the punishments.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I agree that PSU's knowledge of 98 weighs heavily on their actions in 2001, but I still have trouble with the concept that the DA would hold Penn State accountable to "make" a grown man seek treatment, or else PSU, not Sandusky, would be in trouble. What leverage would Penn State have to force Sandusky besides losing his job, which he left the following year anyway?

If Gricar, Ralston, and Schreffler felt Sandusky had a problem, it would be incumbent on them to meet with the individual himself, and offer the "either you get help, or we will x, y, z" speech. Had that happened, it should have come out at trial.

Maybe not, if the decision was to go to PSU. He could lose his job, lose access to the facilities, and be destroyed in the community. There was leverage.

I would still view the lack of action following any potential meeting with Ganter or others as a failing of the DA/LE, not PSU. And again, unless Emmert is lying about what information they considered in developing the sanctions, they know no more about possible additional contacts than we do.

There would be no absolution for LE in this, but PSU would still have known about it, and did nothing.

And in fairness, what could PSU have done in 98 that would have appeared suitable to the NCAA - reported to LE? LE knew before the school did. Called ChildLine? Again, had already occurred. Fired Sandusky? That should have been the Second Mile's place, as they were his access to the victims, while PSU only gave him access to a location. Without PSU, he would have continued to victimize kids in his basement, the public pool, or any of the places other pedophiles operate.

There is no rational defense of Emmert's statement regarding 1998.

Fired Sandusky would be one. Removing his access to the facilities is another. There would also be a question of there was any pressure on LE by PSU.

We have a lot of unknowns.

 

[Rlaub44]

We have a lot of unknowns.

Respectfully snipped:
Yes, there are many unknowns - the biggest one, overriding everything else, is this speculation about additional contacts between the sides in 1998. If there is nothing to that, the rest of this is utterly moot.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:
Yes, there are many unknowns - the biggest one, overriding everything else, is this speculation about additional contacts between the sides in 1998. If there is nothing to that, the rest of this is utterly moot.

I agree with you, but there are public suggestions of additional contact.

 

[Rlaub44]

I agree with you, but there are public suggestions of additional contact.

Besides Ganim's report of Sloane finding that cryptic message on the Dictaphone about a meeting in October at the football building with Ganter, Gricar, Schreffler and Ralston, are there other reports you are aware of?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Besides Ganim's report of Sloane finding that cryptic message on the Dictaphone about a meeting in October at the football building with Ganter, Gricar, Schreffler and Ralston, are there other reports you are aware of?

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[nittanylioness234]

That's certainly cryptic!

 

[Reader]

It seems to me the Freeh report on which the NCAA based the sanctions beginning in 1998, gives several reasons for this. I went back and picked a few, not all, of the quotes that specifically cited the individual and institutional failings most likely used. I believe the sanctions of Paterno's wins was part of holding the entire group of administrators and the institution itself responsible for all their failings, including those of the BOT. I know most here have read all of this before and it may be redundant, however, it needs to be emphasized that 1998 as a starting point for the NCAA did have legitimate reasons.

Page 39:
While no information indicates University leaders interfered with the investigation, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley were kept informed of the investigation. ........

Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct on May 3, 1998 in the Lasch Building. Despite their knowledge of the criminal investigation of Sandusky, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley took no action to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State facilities or took any measures to protect children on their campuses.

Spanier and Schultz failed to report the 1998 investigation to the Board of Trustees. Sandusky was convicted of several assaults that occurred after the 1998 incident. Some of these sexual assaults against young boys might have been prevented had Sandusky been prohibited from bringing minors to University facilities and University football bowl games.

****
Pages 50, 51:
Harmon's [PSU/LE] message to Schultz did not mention that Sandusky was told not to shower with children. ........

Schultz's message to Curley and Spanier also did not mention that Sandusky was advised not to shower with children. Neither Harmon nor Schultz's emails set forth, or suggest, that they planned to discuss the incident with Sandusky, to review or monitor his use of University facilities, to discuss his role at the Second Mile and his involvement in Second Mile overnight programs operated in Penn State facilities, or to consider the propriety of a continuing connection between Penn State and the Second Mile. There also is no mention of whether Sandusky should receive counseling.l

Further, the emails do not indicate that any officials attempted to determine whether Sandusky's conduct violated existing University policy or was reportable under The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. ? 1092(f) ("Clery Act"). The emails also do not indicate if any person responsible for Penn State's risk management examined Sandusky's conduct. A risk management review might have resulted in the University providing contractual notice to its insurers about the incident, imposition of a general ban on the presence of children in the Lasch Building, or other limitations on Sandusky's activities.m

After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. 166 Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew "everything that was going on." 167 As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of his football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky.

Nothing in the record indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley spoke directly with Sandusky about the allegation, monitored his activities, contacted the Office of Human Resources for guidance, or took, or documented, any personnel actions concerning this incident in any official University file. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that no effort was made to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State.........

[In 2001] For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among these connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities." A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G (Control Number JVP000027). l

*****
Page 101:
A. The Board's Failure of Oversight and Reasonable Inquiry in 1998 and 2001

In 1998 and 2001, the Penn State Board failed to exercise its oversight functions. In that time, the Board did not have regular reporting procedures or committee structures in place to ensure disclosure to the Board of major risks.
Because the Board did not demand regular reporting of these risks, Spanier and other senior University officials in this period did not bring up the Sandusky investigations. For example, the Board met in May 1998 and March 2001, but was not advised by Spanier regarding the Sandusky incidents.

While Spanier failed to disclose these facts, the Board has a continuing obligation to require information about such an important matters.......
Some Trustees reported that their meetings felt "scripted" or that they were "rubber stamping" major decisions already made by Spanier and a smaller group of Trustees."565 Sometimes Trustees learned of the President's decisions in public meetings where there were no questions or discussions.566

****
Page 108 and 109:
B. "Collaborative Relationship" Between Penn State and Second Mile

An article posted on the University's website on July 1, 1999 announced Sandusky's retirement. In this article, Curley stated that Sandusky is "the founder of Second Mile ... [and] will continue to offer his services on a volunteer basis to the athletic department's Lifeskills and Outreach programs."616

In the same announcement, Paterno praised Sandusky for his contributions to the University's football program and stated that Sandusky was "... a person of great character and integrity.".......

In Sandusky's retirement agreement with the University, both parties agreed to "work collaboratively" in community outreach programs such as the Second Mile.619 The collaboration took several forms. Penn State football staff and players helped Sandusky with annual Second Mile Golf Tournaments held at the Penn State golf course(s) from 2003 to 2011.620

Each year the Second Mile distributed playing cards that displayed both Penn State and Second Mile logos and contained images of Penn State football players, coaches and other student-athletes. A number of the University's football players and other student-athletes routinely volunteered for Second Mile youth programs.

In addition, in February 2009, Schultz contacted a bank on behalf of Sandusky and the Second Mile. Schultz advised the bank "the Second Mile is raising funds to support an expansion of their facilities here in State College.... Would you be agreeable to meet with Jerry Sandusky ... and me? They are really good people and this is a great cause related to kids."621 Bank officials agreed to meet with Sandusky.622

The University's visible support of the Second Mile provided Sandusky with numerous opportunities to bring young boys to campus and to interact with them through various camps and activities. C. Second Mile Camps on Penn State Campuses Between 1999 and 2008, the Second Mile operated six one-week long summer youth camps at the University Park campus as well as at other non-University locations. 108

Sandusky operated numerous summer youth camps at various Commonwealth campuses through Second Mile and his own corporation, Sandusky and Associates.623 At the University Park campus, camp activities were held at various locations including classrooms, an outdoor swimming pool, athletic fields and football facilities.624 Sandusky frequently visited the boys' camps during the swimming pool activity in the afternoon, and the night sessions, which were usually held in one of the football meeting rooms. 625

Second Mile also offered a "Friend Program," a mentorship program that matched a college volunteer with an at-risk elementary student.626 The Friend Program events took place in Blair, Centre, Clinton and Lancaster counties as well as in the Lehigh Valley and other locations in Pennsylvania. The Friend Program events included picnics, holiday parties, swimming and bowling. 627

Sandusky sometimes participated in the Friend Program at the Altoona campus. When he did, Sandusky often arrived accompanied by a boy from Second Mile who was not part of the invited group.628 According to a Director of Programs for Second Mile, the last time he saw Sandusky participate in any Second Mile activities was in 2008.629 109

****
Page 127:
CHAPTER 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE, ADMINISTRATION, AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN UNIVERSITY FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

The failure of President Graham B. Spanier ("Spanier"), Senior Vice President - Finance and Business ("SVP-FB") Gary C. Schultz ("Schultz"), Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno ("Paterno") and Athletic Director ("AD") Timothy M. Curley ("Curley") to protect children by allowing Gerald A. Sandusky ("Sandusky") unrestricted and uncontrolled access to Pennsylvania State University ("Penn State" or "University") facilities reveals numerous individual failings, but it also reveals weaknesses of the University's culture, governance, administration, compliance policies and procedures for protecting children.

It is critical for institutions and organizations that provide programs and facilities for children to institute and adhere to practices that have been found to be effective in reducing the risk of abuse. Equally important is the need for the leaders of those institutions and organizations to govern in ways that reflect the ethics and values of those entities.

 

[Rlaub44]

It seems to me the Freeh report on which the NCAA based the sanctions beginning in 1998, gives several reasons for this. I went back and picked a few, not all, of the quotes that specifically cited the individual and institutional failings most likely used. I believe the sanctions of Paterno's wins was part of holding the entire group of administrators and the institution itself responsible for all their failings, including those of the BOT. I know most here have read all of this before and it may be redundant, however, it needs to be emphasized that 1998 as a starting point for the NCAA did have legitimate reasons.

Snipped for length:

Thank you for taking the time to research this. Of the passages you provided, I feel that a few don't apply except in hindsight.

For example, the Clery Act is to report crimes committed on campus, but as we all know, the DA determined in 1998 that no charges would be filed; so in the eyes of the law, no crime was deemed to have occurred. PSU administrators had no reason to believe Gricar was wrong in his determination, so they had no reason (at that time) to file a Clery Report.

Also, the limited information they were given indicated that the situation was simply an error in judgment by Sandusky, who was cleared by the DA and DPW, so again, without our current knowledge to guide them, it is hard to fault the University for not limiting his access to facilities based on him having been "exonerated" at the time.

The sections concerning the University leaders' treatment of Sandusky at and after his retirement, again, assumes knowledge of his character that at the time, nobody had. At that time, he was still St. Jerry to most of the community for the work he did with at-risk youths, and the administrators and Paterno couldn't have known that the 98 investigation that showed poor judgment missed the true nature of his evil intentions, despite the inferences in Freeh that Paterno knew everything.

The one thing that I agree should have been done at that time was notification of the BOT. As JJ has pointed out based on the way the board was structured at the time, the only person who could have done that was Spanier, and apparently he liked to closely control the flow of information to the board. That is a governance issue, but not related to athletic competition (the realm of the NCAA).

 

[Reader]

Snipped for length:

Thank you for taking the time to research this. Of the passages you provided, I feel that a few don't apply except in hindsight.

For example, the Clery Act is to report crimes committed on campus, but as we all know, the DA determined in 1998 that no charges would be filed; so in the eyes of the law, no crime was deemed to have occurred. PSU administrators had no reason to believe Gricar was wrong in his determination, so they had no reason (at that time) to file a Clery Report.

Also, the limited information they were given indicated that the situation was simply an error in judgment by Sandusky, who was cleared by the DA and DPW, so again, without our current knowledge to guide them, it is hard to fault the University for not limiting his access to facilities based on him having been "exonerated" at the time.

The sections concerning the University leaders' treatment of Sandusky at and after his retirement, again, assumes knowledge of his character that at the time, nobody had. At that time, he was still St. Jerry to most of the community for the work he did with at-risk youths, and the administrators and Paterno couldn't have known that the 98 investigation that showed poor judgment missed the true nature of his evil intentions, despite the inferences in Freeh that Paterno knew everything.

The one thing that I agree should have been done at that time was notification of the BOT. As JJ has pointed out based on the way the board was structured at the time, the only person who could have done that was Spanier, and apparently he liked to closely control the flow of information to the board. That is a governance issue, but not related to athletic competition (the realm of the NCAA).

What you say may be true as far as hindsight for the knowledge at the time, however, this is concerning what the NCAA used as a bases for beginning their sanctions with 1998. They used the Freeh report and from the comments of Emmert and quotes from the consent agreement, these items seem to me to be some of the 'failures' included in their decision.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In relation to the Clery Act, I think PSU (or any school) had an obligation to report the incident under that act, even if there were no charges.

Now, that said, it was a University wide problem, not a football or Athletic Department problem.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

The one thing that I agree should have been done at that time was notification of the BOT. As JJ has pointed out based on the way the board was structured at the time, the only person who could have done that was Spanier, and apparently he liked to closely control the flow of information to the board. That is a governance issue, but not related to athletic competition (the realm of the NCAA).

I do agree that the structure and inordinate about of control the president exercised was a problem. That is a matter of administrative control, because the BoT established that rule. It entered into the NCAA sphere were the incident involved a then employee of the football program, and the athletic director.

Here, you have a president for suppressing evidence going to the Board, and the Board for authorizing it to happen.

 

[Rlaub44]

In relation to the Clery Act, I think PSU (or any school) had an obligation to report the incident under that act, even if there were no charges.

Now, that said, it was a University wide problem, not a football or Athletic Department problem.

Pg 33-34 of this link covers what "reported offenses" must be counted under Clery, whether charged or not.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf

We may think what occurred was a sex offense, but the police report, under Incident/Offense, used the classification "Administrative Information", so it was never given an offense title to classify/count under Clery.

 

[Rlaub44]

What you say may be true as far as hindsight for the knowledge at the time, however, this is concerning what the NCAA used as a bases for beginning their sanctions with 1998. They used the Freeh report and from the comments of Emmert and quotes from the consent agreement, these items seem to me to be some of the 'failures' included in their decision.

You are correct, Reader, and the unfortunate truth is that by accepting the Freeh Report without rebuttal or correction, the Board accepted by default all of the things Freeh identified as failings, some which were inaccurate, IMO. That opened the door for the NCAA to use those accepted failings in setting the sanctions.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Pg 33-34 of this link covers what "reported offenses" must be counted under Clery, whether charged or not.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf

We may think what occurred was a sex offense, but the police report, under Incident/Offense, used the classification "Administrative Information", so it was never given an offense title to classify/count under Clery.

Yes, and it should not have been. That is part of the problem. Now that was not Paterno's doing, but it was a problem of the PSU administration, a lack of administrative control.

We can look at FSU's Bobby Bowden. There were sanctions which included a vacation of some of his wins; he was never involved nor had knowledge of the violations.

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully snipped.



I do agree that the structure and inordinate about of control the president exercised was a problem. That is a matter of administrative control, because the BoT established that rule. It entered into the NCAA sphere were the incident involved a then employee of the football program, and the athletic director.

Here, you have a president for suppressing evidence going to the Board, and the Board for authorizing it to happen.

The employee was also a faculty member in the Department of Physical Education, and at the time of the incident, he was not acting in either capacity, but as a representative of the Second Mile organization.

Yes, Spanier should probably have alerted the board to the police report, but in thinking more about it, it becomes entwined with the DPW investigation, which is a confidential matter and may not be shared with others unless the matter is adjudicated and is classified as founded. If the employee were truly innocent, the law is written to protect that person from repercussions of a false allegation. In this case, it protected a guilty person, but that is not the fault of PSU, and certainly did not provide enough competitive advantage to the football program to warrant a forfeiture of all of their wins for that 4-year period. Again, IMO.

 

[Rlaub44]

Yes, and it should not have been. That is part of the problem. Now that was not Paterno's doing, but it was a problem of the PSU administration, a lack of administrative control.

No, Harmon indicated he made that decision to keep the file out of public record. The University Police, as you know, are a fully-functioning police department, and while they reported to Schultz during his tenure, there has never been a suggestion that he or any University administrator had control over the investigative decisions made by the department.

Certainly, I don't think any police chief runs those day-to-day decisions by the VP of Finance and Business for approval. :twocents:

 

[Rlaub44]

We can look at FSU's Bobby Bowden. There were sanctions which included a vacation of some of his wins; he was never involved nor had knowledge of the violations.

The use of ineligible players due to academic fraud is a clear example of an athletic program gaining a competitive advantage due to a traditional NCAA violation. I don't think the two cases are comparable, other than the fact that the violation wasn't committed by either coach.