Per Rachel George of the USA Today:
The board met via conference call initially with a plan to vote to ratify the binding document signed by President Rodney Erickson in July. But the university's charter requires a 10-day notification before a public meeting in person for the board to vote.Surprise! Surprise! Surprise.
Instead, it heard explanations from Erickson as well as Gene Marsh, an attorney with experience dealing with NCAA sanctions who advised Penn State during the process. It almost unanimously voiced support for Erickson.
Hail Erickson! Hail the NCAA! . . . HELL NO!
But apparently, the Board's action (or inaction) depending on how you look at this, will not affect the appeal and possible lawsuit initiated by new Board member McCombie.
Paul Kelly of Jackson Lewis LLP, McCombie's attorney, also represents a group of eight players and one coach who are appealing only the NCAA's decision to strip Penn State of its 112 wins in that 14-year span. Kelly did not expect anything the board did Sunday to affect that appeal.As for the Freeh Report (ptooie, I spit on that report), here is a detailed analysis by Eileen Morgan you might find worth reading, unless you've already accepted it as Gospel handed down by Moses.
Saturday, McCombie agreed to suspend his appeal if the board would follow the suggestions of fellow trustee Joel Myers. On Friday, Myers emailed the board to recommend a three-step process for proceeding: Review the legal advice Penn State received before Erickson signed the consent decree with approval from the board's executive committee, but not the full board; review the Freeh Report; and review the sanctions.
"While Trustee McCombie fully supports President Erickson and his commitment to protecting the current and future interests of Penn State University, he still intends to challenge the unfair, unwarranted and unlawful actions of the NCAA and the excessive sanctions imposed," Kelly said in a statement.
The Gospel According to Freeh
CONCLUSIONOr, you can just baa, baa, baa and believe the Gospel of Freeh like all the other sheep. The choice is really up to you.
The 1998 shower incident was handled and investigated by local law enforcement and no charges were filed by the District Attorney office against Sandusky.
The 2001 shower incident was reported to Paterno who reported to his superiors, including head of University Park Police. Paterno’s superiors inform Sandusky’s foundation Second Mile (who also are responsible for the boys) and they do nothing.
There is no evidence, besides Freeh’s baseless speculations and opinions, that the top four men at PSU covered up and knowingly allowed Sandusky to molest children for 14 years.
Did the PSU officials make a grave mistake? Yes and they will probably never forgive themselves for it. Was it out of total disregard for the safety of children just to avoid publicity? No. The ‘publicity’ they speak of in the email is regarding Sandusky’s known behavior to shower with boys. It was NOT the publicity of Sandusky molesting boys, because they never knew that until 2011.
If there was a cover up, it seems to be coming from someone much higher on the food chain. However, the entire Freeh Report, from the time of the leaked email to the day he released the report, has been maliciously geared to blaming Joe.