I’m not sure. I haven’t read a lot of detail about it. Would pinning the blame on one man not allow the institution to avoid blame?
The institution was completely inadequate in its culture and approach to managing abusers, like most other institutions seem to have been at that time. It’s working hard to educate and change itself. Maybe he should stay and deal with the consequences. Make amends.
I’m actually more worried by the Mike Pelavachi situation because that has been happening under current safeguarding regimes. Yet wasn’t recognised and dealt with (not criminal behaviour, but still abusive).