Debacle at Penn State: Lesson learned?
Arrrrggggh! Don't you just hate when this happens?:
You conduct a less-than-transparent search for the new president of your scandal-ridden university, you keep things “in-in-house,” not even sharing details with those members of your board of trustees not on the chummy-chummy-chum search committee, and, as you're just about ready to make a big splash with a pro-forma vote for the “new guy” and make a public announcement, it turns out he's an alleged pay-padder.
That's the embarrassing situation in which Penn State University finds itself.
David R. Smith, president of Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, N.Y. (part of the State University of New York system, or SUNY), appears to have been poised to become Happy Valley's happy solution to begin putting the Jerry Sandusky sexual molestation scandal behind it. But, and apparently at the last moment, a search firm that works for both SUNY and Penn State raised a giant red flag, reports the Albany Times Union:
Mr. Smith, without SUNY approval, was discovered to have accepted outside compensation of nearly $350,000. It has placed him on leave, there's talk of him making “substantial repayments” and “disciplinary action” and Penn State appears to have shouted “Next!” — though behind closed doors and likely in a soundproof bunker.
That is, Penn State's not commenting on the debacle.
Perhaps this will force Penn State to engage in a truly transparent search process?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Chicken Littles can’t cluck away climate facts
- Harrisburg escapades: Come clean
- The IRS scandal: Do the Lois Lerner emails still exist?