I know there was another thread about the Town Hall meetings. I was hoping we could use this one to put together questions to ask Erickson. After the jump is my start at it. Aurabass had some questions as well. I'll include those after the jump as well. My thinking is that we should coordinate to some degree.
Even though he'll likely dodge a lot of this, I still would like to convey the idea that we're displeased and are NOT going away.
Also, I'll be at the King of Prussia one for those who are attending. Feel free to message me and we can meet up once there.
Over the past months, we have heard how administrators knew of the allegations against Sandusky. Was any of this information communicated to the Board of Trustees in 1998 or 2002? If not, why were they not informed? If the Board was informed of this, why was there no proactive action taken from them?
Once the allegations were known in March by University officials, why was a plan not formulated both by the President and the Board to respond in the event of a majorly negative outcome?
After the charges were filed, there was a poor statement from President Spanier and no communication from the Board of Trustees. Why was there no information being released from these officials? Especially once the media narrative became increasingly hostile towards Penn State, why was there not an attempt to "get out in front of" the narrative being portrayed of Penn State?
Are there any plans to alter the structure of power in the University to reduce the independence of the President?
Are you, President Erickson, willing to advocate and lead the charge to alter the governance structure in the University to be more open and shared? Specifically, are you willing to return to a shared power structure between the Faculty Senate, Student Government and the Board of Trustees?
Are you, President Erickson, willing to advocate and lead the charge in significantly altering Standing Order IX of the Board of Trustees to produce a more transparent and accountable Board and Presidency?
Which of these statements do you most agree with:
1) The issues we now face are solely the result of the inaction of certain individuals who are connected with the ongoing legal case
2) The issues we now face are a result of the inactions of certain individuals combined with an unaccountable President and hands off Board of Trustees
Do you agree with the sentiment that we have always been a world class educational institution? Why or why not?
Which of these statements do you most agree with:
1) Penn State's focus has traditionally been on football and not really academic accomplishments.
2) Penn State has always had a good balance between athletics and academics, evidenced by it's research rankings, academic rankings and accomplishments of student athletes.
Over the past few months there have been numerous statements coming from Penn State that fall in the realm of an apology. Certainly, there aspects where Penn State needs to own up to a responsibility. However, there are many aspects where blame is being needlessly placed on Penn State. Given the constant negative media that is coming out, at what point in time do we defend our image against the wrongful accusations?
Is it your feeling that this issue is related to the football program or that there are individuals associated with football (Mike McQuery and Joe Paterno specifically) that were involved and this is a Penn State issue?
Do you feel that the response from Penn State has been appropriate or do you feel that the response, including the firing of Joe Paterno, has fed into the negative media narrative and invited additional unwanted negative press?
Please provide an update on the progress of the Investigative Committee that was formed.
How are we progressing with the investigations from the NCAA, Big Ten and U.S. Department of Education? How vigorously will we be defending ourselves or appealing if the response from the NCAA and Big Ten becomes unfavorable to Penn State?
1) Did the BOT make their decision on Joe Paterno based on the LIE (that Mike McQueary SAW ANAL INTERCOURSE) in the Grand Jury Presentment and the media frenzy that and the Attorney General’s press release ignited? Or was the BOT privy to some information not in the public view provided by the Attorney General who crafted both the misleading Press Release and Grand Jury Presentment Lie?
1a) Is the President aware that MM’s father and his associate Medical Doctors John McQueary and Jonathan Dranov advised Mike not to go to police about his suspicion based on 3 slaps and two 1 or 2 second glances?
1b) Is the President aware that the alleged Victim 2 that got Paterno and PSU into this mess is as yet unidentified by the prosecution and the defense has publicly stated he is known to them and will testify he was not being molested that night?
2) Was the Board of Trustee’s aware that Gov Corbett who was Attorney General when the investigation began – took $25,000 from Second Mile and thousands more from Second Mile Board members? How many members of the BOT contributed to his campaign?
2b)Don’t you find it curious that Second Mile and it’s board and exec director were not held accountable for their inaction in observing, questioning, or curbing the activities of their founder and leader Jerry Sandusky? And why has not the AG gone after them with the same misleading zeal with which she attacked Paterno and Penn State?
3) In hindsight after you have read the Perjury Hearing Testimony and you understand the very limited nature of Mike McQueary’s very brief glances and suspicions and you now know the Grand Jury Presentment and AG’s press release was so obviously misleading – do you think the BOT would have acted so precipitously in firing a man who provided such great service to the university you and they are chosen and honored to represent ?