Cynthia Baldwin resigns
Not sure what to make of this. Is this the first of many? Was this coming w/o Sandusky? I know when I was an HR Exec. in industry, one of the first people I checked with on a controversial issue like this was our attorney. I have wondered from the start, why nobody from Penn State legal (not BSD legal) has ever been mentioned..
4 months ago
PaJoe
18 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Hmmmmmmmm.......???????
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
The release says this was always her plan
And that she was always supposed to be transitional. Maybe. Who knows? Who cares? Just get somebody a lot better.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 17, 2012 12:07 AM EST via mobile reply actions
OK, I'll speculate...
Baldwin was the University’s General Counsel. As such she likely accompanied all University employees when they went for their grand jury testimony. She heard all the questions and all the responses from everybody, and her reactions, assessments and opinions are what formed the basis for the University’s preparation for any judgements because she would have been the only constant. She opined that this was a Sandusky problem, the University had no liability, and the AG had no legal grounds to implicate the University in anything. This would make sense when you relate it to Graham’s initial statement:
The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.
With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.
The level of personalization in this response was a departure for Graham — who would normally stick to straight management 101 tactics — and would only be done if a former Supreme Court Justice is telling you that the charges are groundless. Maybe the heat was starting to point her way.
*
She wasn't there in 2002
She only got there in 2009.
I’m not sure that’s clear to everyone.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 17, 2012 12:14 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Blindsided?
I’m not a lawyer and can’t pretend to tell her how to do her job, but it just seems so counter to what I’ve come to expect from corporate lawyer-types.
Why didn’t she not for the worst? Even if she thought they were probably in the clear, she could have kept the worst case in mind.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 17, 2012 12:20 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Serious question for BSD Law
If she was sitting in on the GJ testimony, would she have been legally allowed to discuss what she heard with people who were not there and/or not being questioned? Wouldn’t that sort of thing be confidential?
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Jan 17, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
My understanding is that she would not have been allowed to attend the GJ hearing
She may have been involved in preparing Curley, Schultz, Paterno and McQueary as to what they might expect in terms of questions, but she would not have been in the room for the actual questioning. Therefore, she would have had to rely on the actual witnesses interpretation of how things went.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 17, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
In PA you are allowed to have your attorney in the room
with you while you are questioned.
Fron the AG’s website:
Unlike a federal grand jury witness, a witness before a Pennsylvania grand jury may take a lawyer into the grand jury room. While the lawyer may not pose objections to questions asked or address the jury, the witness is free to consult with counsel and obtain advice.
Link HERE
*
Another reason why my clients never want to see me in the courtroom
It means something has gone horribly wrong.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 17, 2012 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is why we need to slow down for just a minute on our fire and brimstone for the BoT
As I first noted in my fanshot (how’s that for a self righteous blog comment?) “Graham Spanier can go to hell,” the reason the board was put into a position to go off half cocked is because Graham Spanier failed to properly prepare for the firestorm that erupted once PSU executives were named in the Sandusky case. Certainly, the BoT acted in an uncoordinated way, and appeared to allow themselves to be bullied by public opinion. But these are the things that can happen if the man assigned to prepare you for a major problem drops the ball.
Now, we get the news of our GC “retiring as planned.” I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to assume that had Judge Baldwin better prepared the University for this mess, she would still hold her position. I have heard from several BSDers that she was with Curley and Schultz at least immediately before they testified. Spanier must have consulted with her on this. How does a former State Supreme Court Justice miss the risk?!?
There is still more information to come out, of course. But I will tell you that all signs are pointing to an insular, nepotistic, trust-over-talent culture at PSU. This is now two major misses in the bureaucracy; Curley/Schultz failing to act on MM’s report, and the General Council’s failure to appropriately vet what turned out to be a colossal threat. Without an aggressive culture of openness and risk management, with a clear understanding of how crisis metastasize in the media age, any organization is at serious risk of what should be an easily managed problem becoming an iceberg. Penn State proves that no organization is above this.
by SkellerDweller06 on Jan 17, 2012 6:51 AM EST reply actions
This is true
The BoT, which still should not have gone off half-cocked, was not ready. I am sure that Spanier, Schultz, Curly and Baldwin, if not more administrators discussed this issue, at least when all the employees were being called. They probably looked at it as, and I’ll guess here:
You know, we had that situation with JS back in 02 but really, nothing became of that, the same as the 98 investigation. PSU won’t doesn’t really have a dog in this fight other than the fact that JS is a professor emeritus. Nothing can be proven that can bring PSU into this situation.
I would be this is how they felt without taking into consideration the fact that since there was no official investigation in 02 and that would leave them open to anything involving victims after that situation. If it is proven that nothing criminal happened in 02 then it will still be difficult to bring PSU into the cuplability part of the case. This case should have been a 2nd mile case all along with PSU as a minor player because the guy worked for them.
I just read.
I agree with you completely. I just don’t think G-Span/Baldwin’s ineffectiveness gives the BOT a pass. Anyone of them, or a group, could have pushed back and demanded for more preparation for the worst case scenario. As Erickson pounded into our heads last week, the BOT is the boss, not the president, and should they demand something, I would think they would get it.
As someone (aries or sublime?) pointed out last week, this "mess" we have found ourselves in is a result of a lot of common, everyday bad decisions that alone would not seem to be a big deal, but that piled on top of each other, turn into the mountain of doom. There wasn’t a moment where this whole thing could have been avoided. It was everyone collectively dropping the ball. We can’t just point the finger at one or two people.
I’m also not saying we need to clean house. I think we need to clean the system. I’m not sure anyone is doing that and that’s a problem.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
additionally
the BOT may have very limited culpability in terms of the scandal itself, but how they (and, further, the University) reacted to the outbreak of the scandal is solely their responsibility.
Fire Dan Snyder
Further, the BoT is allegedly
comprised of individuals who are leaders in their fields. Most high-level execs got to their lofty positions through a “trust but verify” approach to information: Hearing X from Person A, they reach out to B, C, D, et al. to validate. If they relied on one or two sources/advisors for something of this magnitude, then they are not capable of overseeing the sophisticated entity known as Penn State.
I think the expectations most of us have of the BoT are pretty reasonable; that makes their failures that much harder to accept.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 17, 2012 8:36 AM EST up reply actions
Definitely not saying that the BoT gets a pass...
And I certainly agree that they went off half cocked and made a rash, poorly managed decision regarding Joe. But my point is that this is the sort of thing that happens when you wake up to an angry mob outside your house, which is exactly what happened to the BoT. That’s on Spanier and his team, not on the BoT. Even the best leaders (which the BoT is not, apparently) can make mistakes when they have to move on the fly. That’s why so much of management is predicting problems before they materialize and planning to minimize them.
True managers take the most pride in two things; selecting excellent individuals to serve on their staff, and being prepared to predict and manage problems before they become crisis. Spanier failed on at least one count, and possibly both if his newly reorganized law department missed this freight train coming down the tracks.
by SkellerDweller06 on Jan 17, 2012 8:55 AM EST reply actions
Not that we believe the CDT, but
to confirm thoughts posted here and elsewehere:
Acting as the university’s attorney, Baldwin served as legal counsel for Schultz and Curley when they testified to the grand jury Jan. 12, 2011.
Story link HERE.
*
Maybe the University decided that...
…she’s not a war time consiglarie?
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
There's a lot to that
I think that’s exactly what happened.
The Godfather references explain a lot, of course.
I picture Spanier’s last conversation with Surma going a lot like this:
“Can you get me off the hook, Tom? For old times’ sake?
Can’t do it, Sally.”
Sandusky’s last conversation with Joe before Sandusky retired:
“It ain’t the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I’m smart! Not like everybody says… like dumb… I’m smart and I want respect!”
“Your father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth… but he never trusted Hyman Roth! "
That’s got nothing to do with this. I just think it’s a cool line the way he delivers it.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 17, 2012 3:29 PM EST up reply actions


























