ADVERTISEMENT

Just when you think the BoT has hit rock bottom

We've already learned over the last 6 years that they answer to no one, ever. Nobody is permitted to ask questions, and nobody really does. Nobody in state government has any control over anything that they do. In fact, nobody on earth apparently can stop them from doing anything.

These guys are Masters of the Universe. It's truly incredible. No wonder everybody wants to belong to that club, and then never wants to leave.
 
Can’t have the truther Joebots meddling.

:confused:
Nor can there be any differing opinions.
Highlander.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
They start digging. Proposed board legislation Friday will effectively silence minority dissent.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/we-as-penn-state-trustees-need-to-get-woke,1474409/


Here are the proposed amendments:
https://trustees.psu.edu/pdf/november2017agendabotBE.pdf

1085pb9.jpg


dzb4uo.jpg


2u8aqh1.jpg


91mqeq.jpg




And it looks like it was Frank Guadagnino who initiated these proposals back in September:
https://trustees.psu.edu/pdf/september2017glrpagenda.pdf

290x0kn.jpg
 
"Why are Alumni and Penn Staters (present company excluded) just becoming aware of this now?" (this has been "out there" for months)

The primary answer to that question is, of course, obvious.



A similar answer as the one to this question:

"Why - a month from now - will no one (Penn Staters nor Alumni) care?"
Actually, at this point I don't care. Gave up on this University some time ago. Where have all of the efforts by various groups lead? Nowhere. if anything, it's getting worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
It seems to me that since the passage of this change might have kept the Alimni trustees from getting access to the Freeh source materials, publically stating what was learned from that review might be an excellent thing to disclose and discuss in the public session before the vote. The disclosure of this information might prompt some of the non Alimni trustees to vote against the change (although I doubt it) or maybe the threat of a public discussion of this topic might just cause the chair to table the vote. What have the Alumni trustees got to lose? If a vote is taken, the fix is already in and the proposal will pass. Mr. Lubrano?
 
It seems to me that since the passage of this change might have kept the Alimni trustees from getting access to the Freeh source materials, publically stating what was learned from that review might be an excellent thing to disclose and discuss in the public session before the vote. The disclosure of this information might prompt some of the non Alimni trustees to vote against the change (although I doubt it) or maybe the threat of a public discussion of this topic might just cause the chair to table the vote. What have the Alumni trustees got to lose? If a vote is taken, the fix is already in and the proposal will pass. Mr. Lubrano?
This may help get Mr. @lubrano's attention.
 
Wolf?

Just another fart.

"I am aware of the problems at Penn State".

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!

aka "Varoom"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pmnylion
It has gotten significantly worse.

There are 9 Trustees elected by the Alumni (one of whom wrote the column posted above)

Wanna' see the rest of them in action? Come join me at tomorrow's Board meeting

As I wrote to an Alumni Trustee on this topic earlier:

"I hope that this outrageous and disgusting maneuver receives the PUBLIC discussion - and vociferous opposition - it deserves.

Not that it matters, but if I were responsible for opposing this atrocity, I would be coming into that discussion with a long list of relevant information requests - where access had been denied.

Information requests like - just to use a for instance:


"How many Tenured Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors are currently employed full-time by Penn State? And what is the historical data over the last 10-20 years?"

Relevant information like that - which would be mandatory data to have at hand in order to intelligently discuss items like budgets and tuition increases. [I think it would probably highlight the absurdity of the sky-rocketing tuition structure - - - and raise the questions of "Just where the F is all the money going?" - - - - but that's just me]

Of course, that would require that Trustees HAVE asked for information like that - - - and I am (sadly) wagering that our Trustees have been unanimously too damn lazy to even care to ask. And certainly too lazy to analyze and evaluate.
The legacy of lazy, disengaged, self-serving, and intellectually-questionable Trustees did not end in 2011
.

But - if a perfect world were to exist - or even just a non-completely-FUBAR one - THOSE are the types of arguments that should be brought up."

To your point, anecdotal information suggests trading tenured Profs for adjunct and contract positions (less expensive). This topic has also come up following the early retirement program offered by the university which was taken by over 500 faculty and staff. Some rankings of the University and programs are public, but by the time there is a noticeable slip, it is a lagging indicator and very difficult to change course quickly.
 
Let's put aside the outrage for a minute or two. Okay, BoT, I'll play: how many times has what you're trying to prevent happened? Once? So based on that, you want to change the by-laws?

Outrage off: Assholes!!!
 
Isn't this kind of a very very small deal? How many times has a BoT member needed to sue the BoT? I think only once.
Exactly.

UPDATE: Or in other words ...
Let's put aside the outrage for a minute or two. Okay, BoT, I'll play: how many times has what you're trying to prevent happened? Once? So based on that, you want to change the by-laws?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT