"A person who, in the course of
employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into
contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting
procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on
the basis of medical, professional or other training and
experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance
or training of that person or of an agency, institution,
organization or other entity with which that person is
affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by
an individual who is not a perpetrator."
Paterno qualifies under this rule. A child under the care of an agency affiliated with a program he supervised was abused, in his own facilities no less. Paterno was even part of the negotiations that gave Sandusky this access to kids. Sandusky routinely did joint programs with the Penn State football program even though he was a retired coach, which is why he had an office in the building. The abuse was made known to Paterno by an eye witness. I fail to see how the AD and VP are to have perjured themselves and held legally responsible when Paterno is not. If anything the AD and VP worked for Paterno, not the other way around. People are acting as if Paterno was some paper pushing bureaucrat at Penn State. As his students and alumni frequently insist - he is Penn State.
And by report - the law has this in mind, which was not done.
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/domestic-relations/00.063.013.000.html