Gov. Corbett's handling of the Sandusky case

[J. J. in Phila]

These two statements are partially correct, in that the small clique that ran the BOT wanted Erickson to put it to sleep quickly. We have noted before that some of the Trustees (most notably Lubrano) were incensed at not having a voice in the matter, and the article I linked to earlier indicated that the Trustees thought Erickson was simply replying to the NCAA's inquiry, and were essentially surprised that the decree was a done deal.

The BoT granted Erickson the authority, quite broadly, in a standing rule. The BoT could have instructed Erickson to bring any proposed agreement back to the Bot, under the standing rule.

If you have seen those NCAA violations delineated anywhere, I would welcome a link. As far as the NCAA bylaws, numerous articles, even those supporting the sanctions, agree that the NCAA didn't follow their own bylaws or precedents in this case. That was one of the avenues that some legal pundits felt that Corbett or the Paterno's could have pointed out in their lawsuits that may have been successful.

Here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

The bylaws are quite broad and there was one additional from Robert's, that they could have used "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization."

Absolutely true, which is why Erickson was wrong to accept the decree on his own, without having an attorney and the board review it to suggest compromised wording. A decree such as that is always written to solely favor the side offering it, understandably, but as you indicated earlier, Penn State did not have to accept it at first blush; unless Erickson truly believed the only choices were 1. sign now, or 2. four-year Death Penalty.

Erickson had to know, even by reading the consent decree that Emmert didn't have the authority to do anything, individually. Nobody wanted this to go to the CI, who probably would have disrupted the program for a few years. Signing ended the uncertainty.

 

[Rlaub44]

The BoT granted Erickson the authority, quite broadly, in a standing rule. The BoT could have instructed Erickson to bring any proposed agreement back to the Bot, under the standing rule.

Could have and should have. Likewise, it would have been responsible governance for Erickson to consult with the board on a matter that would change the future of the University so drastically.

Here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

The bylaws are quite broad and there was one additional from Robert's, that they could have used "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization."

Thanks. I reviewed the bylaws referred to in the document, and broad is an understatement. It is easy to see how some of them were intended to deal with boosters and sports agents, but are being bastardized in this matter to attempt to cover the Sandusky situation. It is a stretch, in my opinion.

Erickson had to know, even by reading the consent decree that Emmert didn't have the authority to do anything, individually. Nobody wanted this to go to the CI, who probably would have disrupted the program for a few years. Signing ended the uncertainty.

Emmert was given the authority by the executive committee to present the consent decree; there is no way Erickson could have known that he didn't also have the authority to implement a Plan B, as it were. Just as Erickson represented the interests of the University, Emmert spoke for the NCAA, and when he said failure to sign would likely mean a 4 year suspension of play, there was no reason to question his ability to back it up.

On an unrelated note, I found this line from the decree ironic:
"Moreover, the NCAA recognizes that in this instance no student-athlete is responsible for these events, and therefore, the NCAA has fashioned its sanctions in consideration of the potential impact on all student-athletes." Like by removing 20 athletic scholarships so that twenty fewer student-athletes can have their education paid for.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:

Could have and should have. Likewise, it would have been responsible governance for Erickson to consult with the board on a matter that would change the future of the University so drastically.

The standing orders said he didn't.

Thanks. I reviewed the bylaws referred to in the document, and broad is an understatement. It is easy to see how some of them were intended to deal with boosters and sports agents, but are being bastardized in this matter to attempt to cover the Sandusky situation. It is a stretch, in my opinion.

Almost all bylaws are like that. Robert, which could have been used in this case, would permit a charge of "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization," or conduct that "disturbs its well-being (p. 662, ll 13-14)." Broad, but permissible.

Emmert was given the authority by the executive committee to present the consent decree; there is no way Erickson could have known that he didn't also have the authority to implement a Plan B, as it were. Just as Erickson represented the interests of the University, Emmert spoke for the NCAA, and when he said failure to sign would likely mean a 4 year suspension of play, there was no reason to question his ability to back it up.

Yes he did, by:

A. Reading the consent decree.

B. Reading the NCAA Bylaws. They do not permit the NCAA Board to exercise that power.

As I pointed out a while ago, there are both alumni and non-alumni experts that could have advised him on the procedure, if he had any questions. The president of the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians is an alumnus, according to the Penn Stater. If he couldn't have done it, I'm sure he knew someone who could, even on short notice.

 

[nittanylioness234]

It appears Emmert had Erickson convinced, rightly or wrongly, that not to sign would have meant even greater sanctions, and that enough university presidents supported a 4-year death penalty, along with other sanctions:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It appears Emmert had Erickson convinced, rightly or wrongly, that not to sign would have meant even greater sanctions, and that enough university presidents supported a 4-year death penalty, along with other sanctions:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

Well, had the university president's tried that, they would have lost in court, badly. Ironically, that has been litigated in the lower courts in PA, and one alumnus was the attorney for it.

In all fairness, I would NOT have wanted to see this case go to the CI and have it appealed. A. it would have drawn it out a lot more. B. I would suspect that there would have been at least one year of no football at PSU.

Freeh, as an internal investigation, was completely admissible. Even if PSU objected on the grounds that some of it was anonymous, there was enough that wasn't that would kill PSU. Then there would be the problem of Spanier and Curley's. Their failure to testify would be used against PSU. Maybe the CI couldn't show motive, but, even in a criminal case, you don't have to.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Is there a link to the litigation you mention? And I would not have liked to see the sanctions postponed into the future. I'd rather just get them over with, and deal with the situation as best, and as rapidly, as possible.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Is there a link to the litigation you mention? And I would not have liked to see the sanctions postponed into the future. I'd rather just get them over with, and deal with the situation as best, and as rapidly, as possible.

The case was Carrier v Shear decided on May 31, 1972.

"By specifically incorporating the procedure set forth in Roberts Rules of Order (Revised), the bylaws of the YRP provide a proper and complete method for the removal of the chairman under appropriate circumstances. There is no allegation in the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs nor was there any testimony to support a finding that such procedures had been instituted at any time up to the present. The court of equity will not interfere in the operations of a private nonprofit corporation when the procedures prescribed by the bylaws of that corporation have not been either attempted or followed to a conclusion. It is a basic maxim of equity that a court of equity will not take jurisdiction unless it is shown that plaintiffs have exhausted their legal remedies, which remedies in this instant situation have not yet even been instituted let alone exhausted."

http://www.leagle.com/decision-resu...DampC2d631_1576.xml/docbase/CSLWAR1-1950-1985

BBM


It dealt with the attempt to remove an officer, but the principle has been established that the organization must follow its own disciplinary action. One of the attorneys that argued for the winning side was Robert C. Jubelirer, BA, '59, JD, '62.

The principle is actually very well known in circles of attorney's deal with disciplinary actions in private organization. Admittedly, it is a incredibly small circle. I can give you the names of about 5 attorneys in PA that I know might even handled these types of cases. For at least one, he will consult with a parliamentarian first.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

PSU's attorney is trying to work something out.

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/06/12/3650450/penn-state-attorney-lawsuits-involving.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane is being quiet about the probe: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...ney_general_kane_stays_mu.html#incart_m-rpt-2

She indicated, however, that there was limited use of subpoenas. That might indicate that there was nothing of a criminal nature. Also, there have been no leaks, which is an indication that there is nothing to leak.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Corbett will not appeal the dismissal of the suit: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/07/08/3681575/pa-wont-appeal-rejection-of-suit.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

the cost of Corbett's failed suit: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...yers_paying_the_price_for.html#incart_m-rpt-1

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane is getting some blow back on the slowness of her investigation of Corbett's/Kelly's investigation and no disclosed efforts to investigate TSM.

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/03/3719785/our-view-attorney-general-kathleen.html

It is telling, because the CDT is Democratic leaning and endorsed her in 2012.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Article on why school officials in Clinton County were not charged by Corbett/Kelly: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...arges_against_school_offi.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Bottom line is, they reported it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane still has no progress to report: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/02/05/4019772/attorney-general-kane-jerry-sandusky.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane is coming under increased fire for her progress on the investigation of the investigation: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in..._of_jerry_sandusky_case_i.html#incart_m-rpt-1

The P-N is a Democratic leaning newspaper.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

ESPN story: http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand

It reports that a man named Chris Houser was the source of the anonymous e-mail to Parks Miller that tipped off the AG about Sandusky. He did it on 11/3/10.

This supports the claims made by Corbett.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The elected AG doing the "investigation of the investigation," Kane, is now in deep political trouble: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/03/kathleen_kane_sting_charges_se.html

I've been involved PA politics or following it since the early 1980's, and this has been the fastest moving scandal I've seen.

Kane is a Democrat and Corbett a Republican, so the "I of the I" did have to overcome charges of partisanship in the first place. This brings them front and center, and greatly limits it value.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What would government be without without leaks?

Inquirer is reporting that the "investigation of the investigation" has concluded that Corbett did not delay the investigation.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/politics/?wss=/philly/news/politics&id=262229091&

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The comments on Kane are absolutely brutal.

 

[BigCat]

What would government be without without leaks?

Inquirer is reporting that the "investigation of the investigation" has concluded that Corbett did not delay the investigation.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/politics/?wss=/philly/news/politics&id=262229091&

The results couldn't be any worse for the Joebots: Corbett cleared by a political rival.

If they had voted for a Republican AG, they could always hold on to the belief that Corbett's actions were covered up.