Travel & Destinations Social Media PR: Advanced Practices in Digital, Social and Mobile Marketing - 05/31/13
view counter

July 27, 2012

Penn State Keeps Fighting Back: School’s Board of Trustees Reportedly Angry With President’s Acceptance of NCAA Sanctions Without Their Approval — Board Ultimately Calls Punishment “Unfortunate,” But Better Than the Expected “Death Penalty”

The Penn State Board of Trustees gathered Wednesday afternoon to discuss whether school president Rodney Erickson had the authority to agree to unprecedented NCAA sanctions against the football program without first getting the board's approval, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting.

The trustees and Erickson assembled in a meeting room on the first floor of a hotel in the city of State College, home to Penn State's main campus. Reporters were kept out. According to an anonymous source, the trustees were to confront Erickson over his acceptance of NCAA sanctions that will cost Penn State tens of millions of dollars and likely cripple its football team for years to come. Some trustees have expressed concern that Erickson violated a board rule that says the board must authorize the signing of contracts, legal documents, and other obligations." Penn State spokesman David La Torre said Wednesday that Erickson had authority to act without the approval of the full board. La Torre also said the potential for a multiyear death penalty" was floated during discussions between Erickson and NCAA officials before Penn State was hit this wewek with a $60 million fine, a four-year bowl game ban, reduced football scholarships and the forfeiture of 112 wins. Erickson has said he had no choice but to accept the NCAA sanctions because the governing body could have shut down the football program altogether. The potential for a four-year ban, first reported by ESPN, showed just how high the stakes were — and the school trustees, after meeting with Erickson, issued a statement calling the NCAA punishment unfortunate" but better than the alternative — the so-called death penalty."

NCAA president Mark Emmert said this week that if a total football ban had been imposed, other penalties would have accompanied it. If the death penalty were to be imposed, I'm quite sure that the executive committee and I … would not have agreed to just the death penalty. It would have included other penalties as well," Emmert said as the sanctions were unveiled, reports the news release by AP writer Mark Scolforo.

Many alumni and some trustees were incensed over the unprecedented NCAA penalty — which likely will cripple Penn State's football team for years to come — and Penn State's quick acceptance of it. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Wednesday that Gov. Tom Corbett said the penalties go well beyond" those responsible for the handling of the child sex abuse allegations, and he's concerned about the impact on current students who are bearing the brunt" of the sanctions, according to the release.

Comments

It just doesn't get any

It just doesn't get any better at Penn State, does it?

They hid the truth to "avoid bad publicity," and now board members think publicly criticizing and second guessing the president THEY appointed is going to HELP?

They have had numerous major PR agencies on board -- not sure who is suffering through it now and hope they are well paid --but clearly these arrogant trustees have learned NOTHING.

They went into a private meeting, despite state open meetings laws.

Board members publicly, to the media, attacked the president.

There were questions raised about his authority. WHY wasn't all of that sorted out well in advance of the NCAA ruling. Didn't they know it was coming?

The president said he consulted the Board chair, who obviously doesn't communicate with her own board members.

They've had months to get their act together, as a board, and learn how to manage crisis communications and yet at every single step -- from the initial debacle, through Board members going to the NY Times and whining about how they were being abused, to the lack of cohesiveness in acceptance of the Freeh report and now to the fumbling "who's in charge" debacle over the NCAA sanctions . . . . they bungle it every time.

Iniitally one could excuse the in-house PR team and say "they didn't know." Or one could say of the first agencies brought on board -- no one was listening.

At this point, the staff and agencies should be a well-oiled machine, and if the board is being given bad advice (or no advice, left to fumble their way alone), then PR team needs to go, along with the agency.

IF the PR team and agencies are giving good advice and being ignored -- why on earth don't they walk out and let the board and the president swim in their own swamp?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.
Bulldog Reporter's Media Pro | Free 7-Day Trial