Gov. Corbett's handling of the Sandusky case

[Twindad]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/pennsylvanias_attorney_general.html
I wonder if this is how the outcome of her investigation into Corbett's handling of the Sandusky case will play out.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Except Victim 1, you can rule out any delays with the other victims; the AG's Office didn't know about the rest.

The sole question if there was any attempt to delay filing on Victim 1. My guess is, there was not.

 

[nittanylioness234]

The NCAA's motion to dismiss the Corbett lawsuit will be heard Monday:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/05/after_long_wait_the_fight_agai.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Kane has said that there is no timetable for the investigation of the the speed of the investigation:

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/05/17/3620224/ag-kane-no-timetable-for-sandusky.html

I can only note the irony.

 

[nittanylioness234]

A recap, from the NCAA point-of-view, of the 2 PSU-related lawsuits:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/July/Penn+State+Decision

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Corbett suit just tossed -FOX

Adding link: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/06/05/3642151/penn-state-trustees-hope-sanctions.html

 

[Reader]

Corbett suit just tossed -FOX

Adding link: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/06/05/3642151/penn-state-trustees-hope-sanctions.html

One down.....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

One down.....

The Corman suit might have a better shot, but it doesn't remove the sanctions. It becomes a question of the state interfering with a contract.

 

[Twindad]

I think Corman was just providing political CYA and I don't believe it will go anywhere either. Meanwhile the cost to the taxpayer goes up.
They may have more success with the current push to lessen the sanctions due to good behavior.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think Corman was just providing political CYA and I don't believe it will go anywhere either. Meanwhile the cost to the taxpayer goes up.
They may have more success with the current push to lessen the sanctions due to good behavior.

Corman really didn't need CYA, but he wants the money spent in state (and I don't blame him). His suit is over taking the money out of state, not lessening the sanctions.

 

[nittanylioness234]

I think Corman was just providing political CYA and I don't believe it will go anywhere either. Meanwhile the cost to the taxpayer goes up.
They may have more success with the current push to lessen the sanctions due to good behavior.

Doubtful, with 5 trustees party to the Paterno lawsuit...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Corbett suit called "one of the dumbest lawsuits ever filed." http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefo...feinstein_says_tom_corbet.html#incart_m-rpt-1

It also lumps the Paterno suit into that.

 

[nittanylioness234]

A different opinion on the outcome of the Corbett vs NCAA decision:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede...strict-courts-ruling-in-penn-state-was-wrong/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A different opinion on the outcome of the Corbett vs NCAA decision:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede...strict-courts-ruling-in-penn-state-was-wrong/

He might be right on the first point, but is dead wrong on the second. Emmert never had the authority to order the death penalty, so their could not have been any realistic coercion. Even the Executive Board could not have instituted it.

 

[Rlaub44]

He might be right on the first point, but is dead wrong on the second. Emmert never had the authority to order the death penalty, so their could not have been any realistic coercion. Even the Executive Board could not have instituted it.

As you well know, JJ, there is still a great deal of disagreement about that:

If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday afternoon.

In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years.

Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty because of Penn State's leaders' roles in covering up the child sexual abuse of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

"Well, that's a pretty tough number to swallow," Erickson said he recalled thinking when told of the four-year possibility by Emmert. "It's unprecedented. It's a blow to the gut; there's no doubt about that ... I couldn't agree to that at all."
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

How do we know Emmert didn't have the authority to institute the "Death Penalty"? The NCAA admits that they went far outside of their usual process in this situation, so there is no reason to believe that Emmert couldn't have likewise departed from the usual process in determining a punishment.

From the above article:
"The Board finds the punitive sanctions difficult and the process with the NCAA unfortunate," the board said in a statement. "But as we understand it, the alternatives were worse as confirmed by NCAA President Mark Emmert's recent statement that Penn State was likely facing a multi-year death sentence. The University and Board resolve to move forward together to recognize the historical excellence in Penn State's academic and athletic programs."

Regardless of whether or not the court's decision was correct, it is certainly fair to assert that the University was led to believe that the DP was an almost certainty unless Erickson agreed to the Consent Decree. To me, that certainly sounds like coercion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

As you well know, JJ, there is still a great deal of disagreement about that:

If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday afternoon.

In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years.



Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty because of Penn State's leaders' roles in covering up the child sexual abuse of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

"Well, that's a pretty tough number to swallow," Erickson said he recalled thinking when told of the four-year possibility by Emmert. "It's unprecedented. It's a blow to the gut; there's no doubt about that ... I couldn't agree to that at all."
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

"Faced" not "imposed." Yes, the case would have gone to Infractions Committee and yes, that committee could have imposed the death penalty. That is like saying, to someone charged with murder, "You will be facing the death penalty." Of course, the person charged, would be facing it, if convicted and if the jury would so find.

How do we know Emmert didn't have the authority to institute the "Death Penalty"? The NCAA admits that they went far outside of their usual process in this situation, so there is no reason to believe that Emmert couldn't have likewise departed from the usual process in determining a punishment.

Well, because PSU would have immediately suited to enforce the NCAA rules, requiring a hearing before the Infraction Committee (IC). And PSU would have won, possibly with me leading the charge. Now, would the IC have imposed the death penalty? Possible, or possibly sanctions that would have been worse.

Regardless of whether or not the court's decision was correct, it is certainly fair to assert that the University was led to believe that the DP was an almost certainty unless Erickson agreed to the Consent Decree. To me, that certainly sounds like coercion.

Well, that is coercion, any more than a murderer saying, "I'll save you the trouble of a trial, and numerous appeals, if you don't ask for the death penalty." The rules the NCAA has adopted and that cover this, permit it to go to the accused and offer to resolve it without a trial.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The key language is here:

"Penn State expressly agrees not to challenge the consehnt decree and waicves any claim to further process, including, without limitation, any right to a determination of violations by the NCAA Committee on Infractions, any appeal under NCAA rules, and ay judicial process related to the subject matter of this Consent Decree."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

BBM

PSU, had it not accepted the consent decree, would have had every right to demand no sanctions until and unless the CI found violations, and any penalty was appealed. Had Emmert tried it, they would have been ignored.

 

[Rlaub44]

The key language is here:

"Penn State expressly agrees not to challenge the consehnt decree and waicves any claim to further process, including, without limitation, any right to a determination of violations by the NCAA Committee on Infractions, any appeal under NCAA rules, and ay judicial process related to the subject matter of this Consent Decree."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

BBM

PSU, had it not accepted the consent decree, would have had every right to demand no sanctions until and unless the CI found violations, and any penalty was appealed. Had Emmert tried it, they would have been ignored.

Makes Erickson's actions, taken without consulting any of the trustees, even more outrageous in my eyes.

The problem I see is that you are asserting that Emmert had no authority to threaten the DP; but if Erickson believed that Emmert could actually follow through with his threats, he may have understandably thought he had no other choice at the time but to sign the consent decree.

As we know, PSU voluntarily belongs to the NCAA, and just as the NCAA didn't need to conduct their own investigation in this case, there is no guarantee that they would have followed previous precedent in assigning consequences. In fact, Emmert as much as admitted that this case was unlike any other, and therefore would be dealt with differently than any other.

Of course, had Erickson not chosen to be the sole decision-maker, things may have been different; but looking at how quickly the board leadership backed him, the outcome would likely have been the same.

I also don't know that the language you cited above guaranteed Penn State to such a "determination of NCAA violations". That is why Emmert likes to hide behind the "institutional control" mantra. The crimes that were committed were not NCAA violations, so waiting for such a determination was unlikely to change anything. The language prohibiting PSU from seeking such a determination just protects the NCAA from PSU's possible "buyer's remorse". Another reason why it seems Emmert used the death penalty threat to get the consent decree pushed through quickly.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Makes Erickson's actions, taken without consulting any of the trustees, even more outrageous in my eyes.

The problem I see is that you are asserting that Emmert had no authority to threaten the DP; but if Erickson believed that Emmert could actually follow through with his threats, he may have understandably thought he had no other choice at the time but to sign the consent decree.

Erickson would have had to be not only a complete moron, but illiterate, to believe that. Further, there were people he could have contacted to ask for an opinion, and he was no doubt aware of other disciplinary action. Neither Erickson nor the BoT really wanted it to go to the CI.

As we know, PSU voluntarily belongs to the NCAA, and just as the NCAA didn't need to conduct their own investigation in this case, there is no guarantee that they would have followed previous precedent in assigning consequences. In fact, Emmert as much as admitted that this case was unlike any other, and therefore would be dealt with differently than any other.

Of course, had Erickson not chosen to be the sole decision-maker, things may have been different; but looking at how quickly the board leadership backed him, the outcome would likely have been the same.

Erickson was designated as the "sole decision-maker" by the BoT. They did not want to make the decision and did not want this to go to the CI.

I also don't know that the language you cited above guaranteed Penn State to such a "determination of NCAA violations".

That language doesn't. They NCAA Bylaws do.

That is why Emmert likes to hide behind the "institutional control" mantra. The crimes that were committed were not NCAA violations, so waiting for such a determination was unlikely to change anything.

They were violations of the NCAA rules, but broadly so. The NCAA could do what it did, and much more, under its rules. The actually had more grounds that they could have use.

The language prohibiting PSU from seeking such a determination just protects the NCAA from PSU's possible "buyer's remorse". Another reason why it seems Emmert used the death penalty threat to get the consent decree pushed through quickly.

That would happen with any well drafted consent decree.

 

[Rlaub44]

Erickson would have had to be not only a complete moron, but illiterate, to believe that. Further, there were people he could have contacted to ask for an opinion, and he was no doubt aware of other disciplinary action. Neither Erickson nor the BoT really wanted it to go to the CI.

Erickson was designated as the "sole decision-maker" by the BoT. They did not want to make the decision and did not want this to go to the CI.

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.

That language doesn't. They NCAA Bylaws do.

They were violations of the NCAA rules, but broadly so. The NCAA could do what it did, and much more, under its rules. The actually had more grounds that they could have use.

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.

That would happen with any well drafted consent decree.

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.