Did the PSU Board of Trustees plan the consent decree in advance?

As we approach what could be a banner day in the saga of the Jerry Sandusky scandal I came across an email in Ryan Bagwells document database that caught my eye. As most of us know the Freeh Report was released on July 12, 2012 and the NCAA sanctions came down on July 23, 2012. In the interim reports began to slowly trickle out about impending doom via several outlets. You can see an example here via ESPN on July 17, 2012. Other examples of contemporary stories are here, here, and here.

Tellingly in the ESPN article is this statement:

Emmert also said that he expects to hear back from Penn State "within weeks" regarding questions the NCAA has issued about the case, including the issue of institutional control. He consistently has maintained that the NCAA will not determine whether violations occurred until receiving the school's response.

Notice the timing there. "Within weeks" and "until receiving a response" were used by Emmert. Yet 6 short days later came the most destructive sanctions in the history of NCAA sports. In the interim PSU released no official letter, report, or review of the Freeh Report to determine it's reliability on the issues. However take a look at the email I linked to. The email is marked "high" importance and asks all voting members of the PSUBoT for a briefing call no later than that day, and included a story on the Duke Lacrosse scandal and the public relations of such situations.

Here is a screen capture of the most important parts, my emphasis added.

Now many know that at the time the discussion at PSU had started to center around Joe Paterno's statue at Beaver Stadium. Calls had begun to remove the statue after Louis Freeh made his defamatory and laughable conclusions in his report. Just three days after this briefing call the statue was removed, and the very next day the NCAA hammered PSU with unprecedented sanctions. 

What is curious is the need for a briefing call for all voting members rather than just the executive committee, or any briefing at all. The statement released by PSU clearly states that Rodney Erickson made the determination on his own about the statue. 

I now believe that, contrary to its original intention, Coach Paterno’s statue has become a source of division and an obstacle to healing in our University and beyond. For that reason, I have decided that it is in the best interest of our university and public safety to remove the statue and store it in a secure location.

So what was this briefing call for? Why did they need all voting members? Rodney Erickson and the board claimed they did not need the board to vote on the sanctions so why did they need to include voting members for removing a statue? Ron Tomalis inquires in a further email asking if it is about the statue, and that since there is no vote it won't be covered by the Sunshine act. But why? No vote need be taken, and why include the article on Duke?

When you put it in the bigger picture I have to wonder what was going on here. The NCAA has explicitly stated they might take weeks to respond, and can do so formally as a response to the letter of notice sent at the outset of the Sandusky scandal in 2011. This was the normal procedure for an NCAA investigation, and it could have dragged on for years. Yet just four short days later Erickson signed away PSU's rights in the worst deal ever recorded in NCAA history. Why? What was discussed on this briefing call? Since no vote was taken there was no recording made. Was caving to the NCAA considered and discussed to appease the media and drive PR to "position itself on the right side of history"(based on a precedent from a case that did not turn out as reported as well)? One has to wonder. One also has to wonder how the PSUBoT keep ending up on the wrong side of history.