<p>MOWC, thanks for the explanation #7987. It makes sense now. No point in wasting keystrokes on facts then. ;)</p>
<p>When someone is “out there” or clearly has an agenda, I find it helpful to look at prior posts to try to understand from where the poster might be coming. In this case, I don’t think she is a PSU parent, but her kids did apply there as a safety school. Maybe she is a grad???</p>
<p>I encourage others to look at my previous posts. Please, look at the “attack” to which MOWC is referring. I can’t say that I understand where this poster is coming from but I find a small window into what she is about. I am a PSU grad. How did you miss that in your research? What is YOUR agenda MOWC? You’re not an alumni or a PSU parent. Bet you couldn’t quit laughing while typing that bike lock post.</p>
<p>ljrfrm–thanks for your sensible and sensitive post. and thank you for doing such important work, I can imagine how incredibly frustrating it must be to deal with the denial on a regular basis.</p>
<p>You know, I don’t know how the federal lawsuit would work, but it’s an interesting question. Since the University has accepted the sanctions could they just follow the sanctions? The University is not part of the appeal/or the potential lawsuit…so I wonder what would happen.</p>
<p>I believe when other schools appealled NCAA actions, the sanctions stayed in place while the appeal process was on going.</p>
<p>This thread is getting weird.</p>
<p>An interesting side note, McCombie, the Navy Seal, “original” bio, (someone cached and took a screen shot), touted his involvement with Second Mile Charity. Now it is nowhere to be found. But I guess like everything else people can’t hide things on the internet, it is there for infinity.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Football: What the Trustee’s Lawsuit Could Mean for Program | Bleacher Report](<a href=“Penn State Football: What the Trustee's Lawsuit Could Mean for Program | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report”>Penn State Football: What the Trustee's Lawsuit Could Mean for Program | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a feeling the net result of all these lawsuits is that Penn State will get the death penalty after all. It reminds me of Paterno’s challenge to the board of trustees, which basically forced them to fire him in order to exert their authority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. Those were basically my own thoughts on the matter, but I didn’t know that there was already legal precedent. Thanks for looking that up.</p>
<p>What can be said? May 2007…</p>
<p>May 2007. Jerry Sandusky Commencement speaker for College of Health and Human development</p>
<p>– 3 p.m.: The College of Health and Human Development commencement ceremony in the Bryce Jordan Center. Jerry Sandusky, founder of The Second Mile, will speak.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Live - Reminder: Penn State to hold commencement ceremonies May 18-20](<a href=“http://live.psu.edu/story/24106]Penn”>http://live.psu.edu/story/24106)</p>
<p>samiamy–what can be said is right! when is Spanier going to be indicted? oh but wait, he had no idea that what McQueary reported was um, “sexual”, right???</p>
<p>samiamy
Thank you for the legal information. It makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>Having paid for and commissioned their own independant investigation into lack of institutional control, prompted by the fact that they no longer trusted Spanier or PSU legal counsel or the former BOT president to tell the truth…having done all that, and agreed to allow the current President to deal with the NCAA on the University’s behalf…having agreed to the report and sanctions and having accepted the report…the BOT is now going to officially have a phone meeting to officially be okay with it all. </p>
<p>[State</a> College, PA - Board of Trustees Holding Special Meeting Sunday to Consider Ratification of NCAA Consent Decree](<a href=“http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/board-of-trustees-holding-special-meeting-sunday-to-consider-ratification-of-ncaa-consent-decree-1109501/]State”>http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/board-of-trustees-holding-special-meeting-sunday-to-consider-ratification-of-ncaa-consent-decree-1109501/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, he somehow knew that the university was vulnerable. Weird.</p>
<p>^yes, so funny how he can hold those two opposing thoughts in his head, huh?</p>
<p>Greenbutton–yes, that is pretty odd…but maybe I’m having a dense moment, but what does exactly do they mean by;</p>
<p>“The sole purpose of the special meeting is to consider ratification of the binding consent decree imposed by the NCAA and accepted by the University.”</p>
<p>are they going to ratify it or are they meeting to simply “consider” ratification, as the sentence above from you link states. seems choice of words is very important when it comes to those at Penn State administration doesn’t it??</p>
<p>the copy of the decree</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State conclusions - NCAA.com](<a href=“http://www.ncaa.com/content/penn-state-conclusions]Penn”>http://www.ncaa.com/content/penn-state-conclusions)</p>
<p>Well, they had to have a legal meeting on all of this so nice to see they are going about it.
It has had to be difficult to get the BoT together (Summer, all have normal jobs etc.) so I guess an open call-in passes all the rules for an official mtg.</p>
<p>Its only Aug 9th and the sanctions were handed down about july 23th? so I think this is pretty good.</p>
<p>it is what they should do. In fact with today’s technology, no need to “meet” I live 300 miles away from my current employer. We have monthly meetings. We have people all 50 states, we have “face time” via webex.</p>
<p>We can sign loans on line, they can sign the decree or whatever on line.</p>
<p>yes, it’s what they should do, but why are they saying it is to CONSIDER ratification of the binding decree? doesn’t that sound like a mixed message?</p>
<p>Legal meetings of boards have all sorts of rules. They have to be advertised at least a week in advance, the public has to be able to be there etc.</p>
<p>I would expect that they would have to allow discussion prior to the actual vote in order for a vote to be done legally.</p>
<p>This is all pretty fogy stuff for me…maybe someone with current regulations knowledge can chime in.</p>