ncaa accuses paterno estate of trying to "rewrite history"

[ihs82]

May 12, 2014 12:58:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 12, 2014 12:41:36 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

steinbrenner controls a privately operated llc (yankee global enterprises) that owns the yankees and his authority is defined in a carefully crafted operating agreement. and the mission of the yankees is to win championships while providing fans with entertainment in order to increase revenues.

penn state has a 32 trustees that run the university based on the university charter and various by-laws. some are elected by alumni. some are appointed by the governor. some are appointed by business and agriculture leaders. all these people get together and form subcommittees that run the university. it's a clusterfuck and pa lawmakers are trying really hard to make changes to simply thing.

penn state is a non profit that receives approx 300 million annually from state appropriations www.budget.psu.edu/openbudget/primer_genfunds.aspx (notice the decrease in 2010 when a republican was elected to governor). anyway, the universities stated mission is to teach, research and provide public service. b/c so much money of penn state is subsidized via tax payers, does it make sense that one guy gets to decided how to spend 60 million dollars? especially when the item is so controversial?

when psu president rodney erickson signed the consent decree, psu legal council made the argument to the rest of the board that the bylaws were vague and found some interpretation that said he had the authority. it was never questioned again.

I understand the differences between the Yankees and Penn State. But, you asked for an organization, so I gave you one. And you may find it hard to believe, but at many publicly traded corporations one guy could make a $60 million decision all alone. Not saying it is done that way all that often, just saying that it does happen.

And FWIW, if PSU legal counsel said that Erickson had authority, that is going to be a tough hurdle in Paterno's lawsuit. And it blows a hole in the one guy simply signed off on $60 million narrative. Seems clear that the BOT had authority to enter into the Freeh agreement and accept the findings on behalf of the University. That's another tall hurdle for the lawsuit, I would think.

At the end of the day I think the Paterno family is tilting at windmills, but we'll see how it all unfolds.

if i were a shareholder for a company that gave one guy the sole authority to sign off on a 60 million dollar expenditure, i would not be a happy shareholder. i just have my doubts that it is done anywhere. but who knows, anything is possible.

if you're interested, here is psu's legal council at a bot meeting shortly after the consent decree was signed:

it can be summed up with the following:
1. the first thing mr. dunham cites is that erickson had the authority to sign it b/c the ncaa said he did. i wish i was making this up but i'm not. you can read it below.
2. documents defining how to govern the univ dont' disallow it.
3. president erickson met with two other people on the board who agreed (even though there are 32 on the board)
4. if details of the consent decree leaked, psu would face the death penalty.


MR. DUNHAM: So I want first to address the
issue of President Erickson's authority to execute the
consent decree which has been raised in various
circles. During the discussions with the NCAA during
the week leading up to the consent decree we looked
specifically at the issue of the president's legal
authority in the process for approval.
This was not an afterthought in response to
concerns raised by others. It was part of our analysis
from the beginning. We considered both common practice
and the university's legal documents. We noted first,
as in the provision that Gene Marsh has quoted, that
under the NCAA Constitution, Article 2, it provides as
follows: It is the responsibility of each member
institution to control its intercollegiate athletics
program in compliance with the rules and regulations of
the association.
The institution's president or chancellor is
responsible for the administration of all aspects of
the athletics program, including approval of the budget
and audit of all expenditures. By virtue of our
membership in the NCAA, we agree to this description of
the role and responsibility of the president and the
institutional responsibility over intercollegiate
athletics.
This provision has special significance in
this case because as noted by (recording briefly
inaudible) one of the critical issues involves the
adequacy of institutional control. We also looked at
the university's own governing documents. We did this
before the consent decree was executed by President
Erickson. Under the university's charter, bylaws and
standing orders we concluded that President Erickson
clearly had the legal authority to sign the consent
decree on behalf of the university.
The governing documents make the president
the chief executive officer with all that entails.
They grant to the president the authority for
management and control of the university, and for the
establishment of policies and procedures for the
operations of the university. The governing documents
also delegate to the president the authority to sign
agreements and contracts, which is what the consent
decree is.
Finally, these governing documents do have
certain express exceptions to what is delegated to the
president, and none of these exceptions applies to the
circumstances of the consent decree. This is further
evidence of the president's authority to accept and
sign the decree. Furthermore, the president did take
the consent decree to the chair and vice chair and to
the executive committee of the board for consultation.
The executive committee is empowered to act
on behalf of the board. The issue of authority was
discussed with the executive committee. Although no
vote was taken, the consensus of this meeting was that
the president should proceed to accept and execute the
consent decree. He did so only following the meeting
with the executive committee.
Following execution some raised the issue of
the president's authority. The board's outside counsel
gave his opinion that the president had the authority
to sign. I agree with this opinion. I have heard no
valid argument to the contrary. Some have noted that
the original plan to vote today is inconsistent with
the conclusion that the president had authority to
sign.
This is not true. The consent decree is
validly executed. It is binding on Penn State and the
NCAA, and it needs no vote by the board. Whether a
vote by the board at another time may serve other
useful governance purposes is for others to answer, but
it is not necessary to have a vote for the university
to move forward as it is required to do with compliance
with the consent decree.

...

He [Erickson] also chose to consult with the executive
committee and board leadership. If there had been a
leak of the terms there was a very real possibility
that the choice would evaporate and the university, the
board, the president, Penn State as a whole would be
left with no choice at all and would simply have the
death penalty imposed.
In these circumstances it was the
president's responsibility, after conferring with the
executive committee, to decide how best to exercise
that choice. He could discuss the choice publicly and
likely lose the ability to have a choice. We could
lose as a university the ability to decide how best to
exercise that choice, or with the unanimous consent of
the executive committee in the best interests of Penn
State he could proceed to sign, which is what President
Erickson did.

[oujour76]

May 12, 2014 13:37:23 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 12, 2014 12:58:50 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I understand the differences between the Yankees and Penn State. But, you asked for an organization, so I gave you one. And you may find it hard to believe, but at many publicly traded corporations one guy could make a $60 million decision all alone. Not saying it is done that way all that often, just saying that it does happen.

And FWIW, if PSU legal counsel said that Erickson had authority, that is going to be a tough hurdle in Paterno's lawsuit. And it blows a hole in the one guy simply signed off on $60 million narrative. Seems clear that the BOT had authority to enter into the Freeh agreement and accept the findings on behalf of the University. That's another tall hurdle for the lawsuit, I would think.

At the end of the day I think the Paterno family is tilting at windmills, but we'll see how it all unfolds.

if i were a shareholder for a company that gave one guy the sole authority to sign off on a 60 million dollar expenditure, i would not be a happy shareholder. i just have my doubts that it is done anywhere. but who knows, anything is possible.

if you're interested, here is psu's legal council at a bot meeting shortly after the consent decree was signed:

it can be summed up with the following:
1. the first thing mr. dunham cites is that erickson had the authority to sign it b/c the ncaa said he did. i wish i was making this up but i'm not. you can read it below.
2. documents defining how to govern the univ dont' disallow it.
3. president erickson met with two other people on the board who agreed (even though there are 32 on the board)
4. if details of the consent decree leaked, psu would face the death penalty.


MR. DUNHAM: So I want first to address the
issue of President Erickson's authority to execute the
consent decree which has been raised in various
circles. During the discussions with the NCAA during
the week leading up to the consent decree we looked
specifically at the issue of the president's legal
authority in the process for approval.
This was not an afterthought in response to
concerns raised by others. It was part of our analysis
from the beginning. We considered both common practice
and the university's legal documents. We noted first,
as in the provision that Gene Marsh has quoted, that
under the NCAA Constitution, Article 2, it provides as
follows: It is the responsibility of each member
institution to control its intercollegiate athletics
program in compliance with the rules and regulations of
the association.
The institution's president or chancellor is
responsible for the administration of all aspects of
the athletics program, including approval of the budget
and audit of all expenditures. By virtue of our
membership in the NCAA, we agree to this description of
the role and responsibility of the president and the
institutional responsibility over intercollegiate
athletics.
This provision has special significance in
this case because as noted by (recording briefly
inaudible) one of the critical issues involves the
adequacy of institutional control. We also looked at
the university's own governing documents. We did this
before the consent decree was executed by President
Erickson. Under the university's charter, bylaws and
standing orders we concluded that President Erickson
clearly had the legal authority to sign the consent
decree on behalf of the university.
The governing documents make the president
the chief executive officer with all that entails.
They grant to the president the authority for
management and control of the university, and for the
establishment of policies and procedures for the
operations of the university. The governing documents
also delegate to the president the authority to sign
agreements and contracts, which is what the consent
decree is.
Finally, these governing documents do have
certain express exceptions to what is delegated to the
president, and none of these exceptions applies to the
circumstances of the consent decree. This is further
evidence of the president's authority to accept and
sign the decree. Furthermore, the president did take
the consent decree to the chair and vice chair and to
the executive committee of the board for consultation.
The executive committee is empowered to act
on behalf of the board. The issue of authority was
discussed with the executive committee. Although no
vote was taken, the consensus of this meeting was that
the president should proceed to accept and execute the
consent decree. He did so only following the meeting
with the executive committee.
Following execution some raised the issue of
the president's authority. The board's outside counsel
gave his opinion that the president had the authority
to sign. I agree with this opinion. I have heard no
valid argument to the contrary. Some have noted that
the original plan to vote today is inconsistent with
the conclusion that the president had authority to
sign.
This is not true. The consent decree is
validly executed. It is binding on Penn State and the
NCAA, and it needs no vote by the board. Whether a
vote by the board at another time may serve other
useful governance purposes is for others to answer, but
it is not necessary to have a vote for the university
to move forward as it is required to do with compliance
with the consent decree.

...

He [Erickson] also chose to consult with the executive
committee and board leadership. If there had been a
leak of the terms there was a very real possibility
that the choice would evaporate and the university, the
board, the president, Penn State as a whole would be
left with no choice at all and would simply have the
death penalty imposed.
In these circumstances it was the
president's responsibility, after conferring with the
executive committee, to decide how best to exercise
that choice. He could discuss the choice publicly and
likely lose the ability to have a choice. We could
lose as a university the ability to decide how best to
exercise that choice, or with the unanimous consent of
the executive committee in the best interests of Penn
State he could proceed to sign, which is what President
Erickson did.

I get it, but all of that still just reaffirms for me that this is an internal issue more than anything else. Penn State is a big boy..they had every ability and resource to defend themselves and they chose not to do so. It looks like they considered their options (shitty options BTW) and then made their decision. If PSU counsel advised that Erickson had the authority, I would think that means pretty much game over. But, we'll see.