PSU's new lightning rods: the board, Paterno
By: Joe Holden
Updated: July 16, 2012
Dunmore, Lackawanna County- The new lightning rods of the Penn State scandal are Joe Paterno and an abundantly hands-off board of trustees. Both came under heavy fire in the investigative report flushed out by Louis Freeh.
Calls to remove Paterno's bronze statue and other honors around campus are increasing.
Critical observations of the board's actions in light of the report reveal overreaching attempts to get the message right and suppress any new head-rearing scandals. A meticulously scripted board of trustees meeting and news conference lagged all of Friday afternoon at the university's satellite campus just outside of Scranton. Members of the university's public relations staff herded members of the media around, prohibiting entrance to the so-called public meeting even though there were open seats.
A defined change in the scandal since the release of the Freeh report - it is a Penn State scandal.
The report, a punishing document of blame, pulls no punches. Joe Paterno. Tim Curley. Gary Schultz. Jerry Sanduksy. It assesses multiple missed opportunities by university officials to curb Sandusky's child sex abuse.
Friday's meeting more closely dealt with an historically less-than-interested board of trustees.
In late October, according to the report, board Chairman Steve Garban received notice an indictment of university brass was imminent. Garban, it's alleged, failed to alert his colleagues on the board. His actions, it's widely viewed, perpetuated a cycle of secrecy and concealment at Penn State. The report revealed members of Penn State's legal team attempting to barter with state prosecutors to drop the case. Meanwhile, members of the university's public relations machine throttled to keep a lid on the mushrooming scandal.
Garban refused to comment when approached Friday afternoon. He was pressed on the issues of openness and transparency. He had nothing to say. He was asked about shielding the board of trustees from important information about a multi-pronged criminal investigation storming the university's executive division. He would only answer that he had disclosed the information. He didn't exactly offer when he had opened up to board members about the investigation.
Garban continued his walk to find his car. He seemed unfazed by persistent questions about why the university offered no apologies to the victims of the scandal. Only after being pressed repeatedly did he say there were apologies, and that there had been apologies.
Calls to remove Paterno's bronze statue and other honors around campus are increasing.
Critical observations of the board's actions in light of the report reveal overreaching attempts to get the message right and suppress any new head-rearing scandals. A meticulously scripted board of trustees meeting and news conference lagged all of Friday afternoon at the university's satellite campus just outside of Scranton. Members of the university's public relations staff herded members of the media around, prohibiting entrance to the so-called public meeting even though there were open seats.
A defined change in the scandal since the release of the Freeh report - it is a Penn State scandal.
The report, a punishing document of blame, pulls no punches. Joe Paterno. Tim Curley. Gary Schultz. Jerry Sanduksy. It assesses multiple missed opportunities by university officials to curb Sandusky's child sex abuse.
Friday's meeting more closely dealt with an historically less-than-interested board of trustees.
In late October, according to the report, board Chairman Steve Garban received notice an indictment of university brass was imminent. Garban, it's alleged, failed to alert his colleagues on the board. His actions, it's widely viewed, perpetuated a cycle of secrecy and concealment at Penn State. The report revealed members of Penn State's legal team attempting to barter with state prosecutors to drop the case. Meanwhile, members of the university's public relations machine throttled to keep a lid on the mushrooming scandal.
Garban refused to comment when approached Friday afternoon. He was pressed on the issues of openness and transparency. He had nothing to say. He was asked about shielding the board of trustees from important information about a multi-pronged criminal investigation storming the university's executive division. He would only answer that he had disclosed the information. He didn't exactly offer when he had opened up to board members about the investigation.
Garban continued his walk to find his car. He seemed unfazed by persistent questions about why the university offered no apologies to the victims of the scandal. Only after being pressed repeatedly did he say there were apologies, and that there had been apologies.
