Auditor general recommends changes for Penn State's board of trustees
STATE COLLEGE — Penn State trustees said they'll weigh the state auditor general's recommendations that the university's governing structure be changed upon the child molestation scandal involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Trustees began two days of regularly scheduled meetings on Thursday. Auditor General Jack Wagner's recommendations, released Wednesday, included the removal of the university president as a voting trustee.
Trustee James Broadhurst said leaders spoke briefly with Wagner by phone before he released his report.
“There's obviously a lot more information there,” he said. “A lot more we need to address and talk about.”
Wagner, in his conversation with trustees, highlighted several points, including taking away the vote of the university president, Broadhurst said. The other main points, as Broadhurst relayed to a trustees committee meeting, were to make the governor a nonvoting member, increase the number needed for a voting quorum from 13 to a majority of members and fully extend the Right-to-Know Law to Penn State and the other three state-related institutions of Lincoln, Pitt and Temple.
Wagner told reporters his suggested changes might not have prevented what occurred with Sandusky. Still, Wagner called for “real and substantive reform.”
Sandusky was convicted of sexually abusing 10 boys. He's serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence.Criminal charges are pending against the university's then-president, Graham Spanier, and other former high-ranking university officials accused of helping to cover up abuse complaints.
Trustees chairwoman Karen Peetz said the board is awaiting recommendations from the Faculty Senate.
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 â 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.