Simple Question, No Answer - Why Was Gary Schultz Involved?

Give everybody a chance to wake up!

I dont buy that.

If anything you would think that check would come from Sandusky or his charity.

But the idea at all so is dispicable I threw up in my mouth a little bit just reading it.

I have a new signature line now!

First, “right to the top” are the only people that were his superiors. More to the point, “right to the top” would be the University president.

Second, if you want to bury something AND you are as “all powerful” as people like to think Joe was, then the best way to bury something is to stop it with you.

Third, given Schultz’s position, what real motivation does he have to bury it? Even if the scandal was horrible for PSU’s finances, he likely keeps his job if he reports this. Unless I’m mistaken, we aren’t talking about a regular corporation here where someone like Schultz might have millions and millions of dollars in personal stocks linked to how successfully the company performs.

because I’m looking at the flipside (that Curley involved him) and I’m thinking that if I saw that as Joe or MM, that I would take that as a sign that Curley was taking things quite seriously. Certainly both Joe and MM knew that Schultz had been involved (one way or the other), which both Joe and MM probably took as an escalation of the issue to the highest and most appropriate level.

As long as both Joe and MM trusted these people to do their job, then reporting to Schultz is the best you can do (once MM failed to call the cops immediately). I’m 100% convinced of this after the testimony by Harmon and the number of interactions he clearly had with Schultz on a regular basis. Schultz didn’t have a badge or law enforcement training, but as another poster said, neither does a mayor… and a mayor should have the power and duty to start an investigation into something this serious.

The problem is, the mayor also has the ability to determine that there is nothing that can be done AND enough authority to make others believe the right thing had been done.

If Schultz tells Joe, “we looked into it and this is what we decided we could do given the evidence we have,” then Joe is going to accept that since he didn’t witness the crime (and it still isn’t clear that Joe accepted it happily). Why MM wasn’t more insistent as the eyewitness, we’ll never know… but quite possibly because he thought he had exhausted his best options for having this handled too, even if he didn’t agree with the handling.

I believe I saw it reported by Sarah Ganim.

If that is true, than it shows how Schultz was in a position to tell the police to start an investigation, even if Schultz himself is not a police officer.

This is the worst strawman of all. Nobody has claimed Schultz couldn’t have started an investigation. What people have said is that Schultz was the wrong guy to go to because he could decide NOT to start an investigation but say he did to protect the university’s public image. Which is, apparently, what happened.

Paterno asked for Schultz to be involved.

Schultz was brought in by Curley, in my belief

If you always disclose when something is “in [your] belief” or arrived at as the result of an inference that you’ve drawn, it would be much easier for you to engage on the same page as others. When you are always accusing others of using strawmen and others are always accusing you of the same, there can clearly be better communication.

Now in this case, your belief is refuted by Curley’s testimony that Paterno brought Schultz in. But in other situations, presenting your opinions more forthrightly might actually provide a point of DISCUSSION instead of ARGUMENT.

I’ve never seen a definitive answer as to whether it’s a ‘going to the police is a fire-able offense’ type of state.

I may be exaggerating the number of times.

There is absolutely no requirement that you ONLY tell your boss of an accusation of a crime like this. And, by the way, they CAN fire you for almost anything, including this, but also if they don’t like the color of your shirt one day.

I don’t buy that chain of command malarky either. I do believe in calling the police or 911 if I have just witnessed, without a doubt, a crime.

If I’m less than positive I may reflect on the situation before deciding what to do.

had 5 stars!

lower body though…. jeeez.

but can’t rite so gud

But you get the point.

so you might want to ask the admins…

He covered all bases by inviting Schultz, hoping one of those hats Schultz wore would come into play. Should someone else have done more, in hindsight that easily answered but when Schultz is the only one who knew of both cases, 02 and 98, then how are others supposed to judge his inactivity. I just can’t figure out what the hell Schultz was thinking.

Joe had the power to keep anyone from entering the Lasch Bldg.

Rumors are that he was told he DIDN’T have the power. Also, I wonder if the security around the building is the same in off-hours, and during breaks, when the student athletes aren’t there? So, if it would truly be fully enforceable even if he was banned?

The quote is

“With the benefit of hindsite I wish I had done more”

The incomplete and incorrect quoting here seems on the outside as no big deal… but in reality the two have completely different meanings.

And I understand and appreciate the points that you make on the overall situation.

However, Joe is my horse here. There are a numerous threads on this board to debate the moral or legal obligations of everyone else involved.

This particular post is about Joe. Father figure to 600,000 or so PSU alumni. The guy that in a recent Mike Lupica piece of shit article that has a poll attached to it in which Joe Paterno is blamed by 51 percent of the people who voted as being the most at fault in this situation.

I want to know what Joe was thinking and why he involved Schultz. I want to put together the pieces the most rational way and come up with answers.

A report to CYS can/should be made when there is reasonable cause to suspect abuse was taking place. This also includes “imminent risk”, which as part of its definition includes cases where abuse may have been about to occur, but was stopped due to some reason (in this case, the realization that someone else had entered the locker room area).

Since Pennsylvania allows for chain-of-command reporting, MM (and JoePa) fulfilled any legal requirement by going to a supervisor. However, a report still could/should have been made to CYS, who would have then determined how and to what extent the case should be investigated.