The review itself was not. Making the results public is another matter.
Lubrano not running for reelection
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
Which is why we are where we are .... PSU is the all time honey pot that they cannot keep their fingers out of.
Isn't that (first 5 words) the same thing Lubrano said to Ira Lubert?
I don't know.
I do know that there are few who have done as much over the course of the past 6+ years as Anthony Lubrano has in the pursuit of exposing the lies of Louis Freeh (as they relate to Penn State).
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Same (except my kids) - unless my son turns out to be a five star football prospect and/or my daughter a national volleyball recruit....
I never said it was a cure, and I will continue to vote for those most fully supported by this BWI message board, but I now feel it's like fighting the damn windmill!Penn State receives governmentally-supported $$$$$$$ (either state or federal) well in excess of $2,000,000,000 ($2 BILLION) per year.
Add to that, $1,900,000,000 ($1.9 BILLION) per year in tuition revenue.
So, good luck with that
FWIW, I fully support "withholding funding", but that - in and of itself - ain't going to have 1/100th of the impact that one righteous voice on the Board of Trustees could have.
Thank you, Anthony, for your efforts on he behalf of the alumni. This guy doesn't blame you for getting out of this farce of governance. I cannot begin to imagine the hours and dollars invested by you (and yours) in an effort to make things better.
Lubrano’s support for Lubert has never made any sense to me. I still don’t get it.
Last edited:
C'mon now, Norm. We both know that review was conducted as we have friends in common who worked on the project.
The PR battle is long lost.
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...-trustees-board-sandusky/stories/201802260116
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...-trustees-board-sandusky/stories/201802260116
Given what I do know, I'm comfortable claiming that the review of the Freeh materials was conducted. No more, no less.I really don't know to what degree a "review" was or wasn't done.
I really don't, and I doubt that anyone really does know.
If I had to guess (and it would be just a guess) I would expect that whatever "review" was undertaken, it was 99% focused on one subject area.
(Given some of the folks involved, my vision of the review is something akin to a troop of monkeys humping a football.
Anthony Lubrano, Ted Brown, Barbara Doran, Robert Jubelirer, Ryan McCombie, William Oldsey, and Alice Pope...... who among those do you have faith in to undertake such a task? If you name more than 2 of them, I'd think you might be kidding me)
But regardless - and as I said, I don't know - because "If a tree falls in the woods........"
What we do know:
If anyone fairly looks back at what transpired from November 2015 (when they were granted access) to date:
All that was accomplished by the Plaintiff Trustees gaining access to the "Freeh File", was to take the pressure OFF of the Scoundrels (since they could no longer have folks pressuring them to make some statement, or take any action - - - - because that task was taken on by the Plaintiff Trustees, who subsequently did absolutely zero with it).
That is a net-net result of less than zero.
One has to wonder - at least a little bit - if that wasn't their goal all along..... to gain political capital from among their "supporters", while providing absolutely zero with regard to "uncovering the truth".
I couldn't say for sure - I can't read their minds - but if one takes a fair and detached look at the actions and results, it has to at least be considered.
IMO
I'm equally comfortable in sharing my frustration at the lack of a "business end" to that review.
Not so.
Bill Mazeroski. Ted Williams. Roger Maris. Reggie Jackson.
TRACE. MCSORLEY.
Incorrect. The review and the report took longer than anticipated, which has frustrated those involved in it, as well as those that were looking forward to reading the results
It appears that you are clueless
Ah, so now the truth comes out. Most people, when involved in a discussion about a subject to which they don't know the facts, will either a) not engage in the conversation, or b) offer an opinion, but make it clear that they don't know the facts, and that their thoughts are just their guesses. For some reason you elected to pontificate as though you knew the facts, and then when challenged on your statement you backtracked and offered that which would have been a more appropriate response in your earlier reply.
In response to your second reply:
1. "... to what degree a "review" was or wasn't done. I really don't, and I doubt that anyone really does know."
- you would be incorrect there
2. "If I had to guess (and it would be just a guess) I would expect that whatever "review" was undertaken, it was 99% focused on one subject area."
- and you would be incorrect there, as well
It should be explicitly stated that anything that is said here about any review is just that person's opinion. It has become abundantly clear over the last 5 years that there are no true insiders.
There may be a handful, but we're not going to be hearing from them.
Ah, memories of Tijuana. Anyone trying to convince me that this isn't an authentic donkey didn't drink enough tequila.
I think it was a case of "negotiated switcheroo". Lubert made claims to the A9 that "things would be different" if they supported him and that they would get a louder, more influential voice at the table. It turns out they were lied to.
Lying comes so easy to the likes of Lubert and Dambly that it's not a big deal to them even when caught.
If you say so
Any "review" wherein the grand total of all information garnered, shared, discussed, or disseminated is = 0.00, is not a review.
Just like an Ass, painted in black and white stripes, ain't a Zebra. No matter how dearly one wants to believe it is.
______________________________
"Measure Twice, Cut Once..... The Shit Storm is coming..... Some will look better, some worse....."
And then - after six years of tugging - "POOF"!
Gone - vaporized - like Keyser Soze, into the ether (or a "fart in the wind", if one prefers)
Barry, until now, I have refrained from publicly deriding you. But you crossed the line today.
You are like most candy asses I’ve met over the years. All horse and no cattle. You saw me on Thursday. In fact you sat within 5 feet of me. Why not address your concerns with me face to face? The answer is quite simple. You are without testicles.
You attack without verified intelligience which is very dangerous.
To the majority of you on this Board, thank you.
After six years of insanity I decided a different approach is needed.
I’m not leaving you...just the BOT.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
PennLive's article about Lubrano deciding not to run is pretty good, and can be accessed at THIS LINK
Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Rocket RichardNot so.
Bill Mazeroski. Ted Williams. Roger Maris. Reggie Jackson.
Lubrano is in a no-win situation regarding his statements about Lubert at the July 2016 (I think that's the year) BOT meeting. His comments were in response to something that Lubert said at the executive session BOT meeting held earlier that day. By BOT rule, nothing discussed in executive session can be disclosed by trustees As such, Lubrano can't disclose what Lubert said. So he's left unable to provide any context to his statement.
PPB's guess on what took place may be correct, though my suspicion is it's not.
Tom,
You are usually measured in what you say, but really how can anybody think the review of the Freeh report was anything but a nothing burger? Good gracious we fought WWII in a shorter period of time.
Having read Anthony's response below it sounds like storminnorm must be Barry and your frustration with him may have prompted your post.
Anthony,
I appreciate your attempts and wish you the best of luck. Reading this thread just reminds me how disappointed I have been you made so little progress, and how bitter this has left me toward PSU.
As I have said in other threads, i have become what so many critics accused us of early on, I only care about football, women's volleyball, wrestling, and a little about Bball. I once was a lifetime Alumni Association member, now i could care less. It truly is a shame and not what Joe would expect of us but I am not as big a person as he was.
Anyone that doesn't question the legitimacy of the Freeh Report review after all of this time is either naive or delusional. Seriously, how long are we going to fall for this "more information to come", or "I'm not at liberty to say" BS? Why then, even go through the process if no results were to be shared? It has truly become laughable at this point. That said, I think Barry is wasting his time worrying about the BOT. It's a rigged game and that's not changing, probably ever. And for that reason, ditto to what roswellllion posted.
Tom and Lubrano’s comments above are pretty telling. Thank you for your direct and well communicated reponses. Barry on the BOT would be an embarrassment to the University, and by association to many of us alumni who wish to see positive change, not vulgar headline seeking rants. Fortunately there are many more highly qualified candidates running.
This University is an embarrassment to itself.
Nobody could possibly embarrass the university more than the people in charge have already done. I cannot imagine a lower form of life than them.
Wow, I just wonder what you think Peetz, Erickson, Frazer, Masser, Lubert, and especially Dambly are to this University? I'll give you a hint...they are pure evil. Evil people need to be addressed a bit differently than the rest of the population. They rarely sit around singing Kumbaya and if you are invited into the love circle it's either to make an offering or pick your pockets. Promises are always made in secret and they attack seemingly unprovoked.
So, I'd like an answer to my question. Were Peetz, Erickson, Frazer, Masser, Lubert, and Dambly an embarrassment or not? Did you think they are good for the University? Do you think the A9 have accomplished anything, and I do mean anything? If so, what?
Get your head out of the sand and look around. The same old isn't working here...and against evil the same old never had a chance.
What we really need is an overhaul of the BOT system by the legislature. But it seems no governor of member of the legislature is interested in pushing this agenda. It would take a political lobby (legally) and money, to convince a candidate to campaign on it and take this on. As I served on a corporate board with a colleague who was a member of the Corporation Board of Harvard, I decided to see what Harvard does thinking that best practices are often in place at the best organizations. I was amazed to find that they actually have 2 different boards, one large and one small, and presumably a hierarchy of governance responsibilities which goes back several hundred years. It sounds like a horrifically expensive and inefficient organizational mess. But hey, it’s Harvard, and I guess it works for them.
Here is what I read about it. I’m not espousing it, but maybe it would be politically easier to just add another small, say 10 member, majority elected Board of Governance to sit above the BOT. I’m just looking for a practical political solution to our longstanding problem of having such a small voice on the current BOT. Anyway, it’s interesting reading, but not something I am suggesting we do at PSU, but it is an example of one type of reform.
Harvard’s leadership is responsible for the strategic vision for the University.
President Drew Gilpin Faust leads Harvard, and is the 28th President of the University. President Faust is the Lincoln Professor of History in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
The Office of the Provost, led by Provost Alan M. Garber, fosters collaboration across the University and manages changes in policies and practices that affect the academic life of the university as a whole. The Schools are led by officers and deans, who are responsible for Harvard’s academic programs and curricula.
Governance
By charter, Harvard has two governing boards—the President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Corporation) and the Board of Overseers. The basic architecture of the two-board system is defined by the University’s charter, which is reflected in a series of documents dating to the mid-seventeenth century. Through their complementary efforts, the two boards perform the essential roles ordinarily associated with a board of trustees, while helping to shape the University’s agenda, inquiring into the quality and progress of its activities, and assuring that Harvard remains true to its mission.
Chartered in 1650, the Corporation exercises fiduciary responsibility with regard to the University’s academic, financial, and physical resources and overall well-being. It consists of the President, the Treasurer, and other members known as Fellows. The Corporation is in the process of expanding from seven to thirteen members and elaborating its committee structure, in light of reforms adopted by the governing boards in December 2010. The Corporation engages with both questions of long-range strategy, policy, and planning as well as transactional matters of unusual consequence. It serves as a confidential sounding board for the President on matters of importance; meets with deans, vice presidents, and others from time to time to discuss a wide array of programs and plans; and is responsible for approving the University’s budgets, major capital projects, endowment spending, tuition charges, and other matters.
The Board of Overseers is the larger of the two boards, comprising thirty elected members as well as the President and the Treasurer of the University, who serve ex officio. Members are elected by Harvard degree holders other than Corporation members and University officers. Typically, five new Overseers are elected each year to staggered six-year terms, from a slate of eight or more nominees. Drawing on the wide-ranging experience and expertise of its members, the Board exerts broad influence over the University’s strategic directions, provides counsel to the University leadership on priorities and plans, and has the power of consent to certain actions of the Corporation. The Board’s chief functions include superintendence of the visitation process, the principal mechanism for periodic external review of the quality and direction of the University’s schools, departments, and selected other programs and activities. The Board carries out this responsibility largely through the operation of more than fifty visiting committees, whose work is overseen by and reported to the Board.
Here is what I read about it. I’m not espousing it, but maybe it would be politically easier to just add another small, say 10 member, majority elected Board of Governance to sit above the BOT. I’m just looking for a practical political solution to our longstanding problem of having such a small voice on the current BOT. Anyway, it’s interesting reading, but not something I am suggesting we do at PSU, but it is an example of one type of reform.
Harvard’s leadership is responsible for the strategic vision for the University.
President Drew Gilpin Faust leads Harvard, and is the 28th President of the University. President Faust is the Lincoln Professor of History in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
The Office of the Provost, led by Provost Alan M. Garber, fosters collaboration across the University and manages changes in policies and practices that affect the academic life of the university as a whole. The Schools are led by officers and deans, who are responsible for Harvard’s academic programs and curricula.
Governance
By charter, Harvard has two governing boards—the President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the Corporation) and the Board of Overseers. The basic architecture of the two-board system is defined by the University’s charter, which is reflected in a series of documents dating to the mid-seventeenth century. Through their complementary efforts, the two boards perform the essential roles ordinarily associated with a board of trustees, while helping to shape the University’s agenda, inquiring into the quality and progress of its activities, and assuring that Harvard remains true to its mission.
Chartered in 1650, the Corporation exercises fiduciary responsibility with regard to the University’s academic, financial, and physical resources and overall well-being. It consists of the President, the Treasurer, and other members known as Fellows. The Corporation is in the process of expanding from seven to thirteen members and elaborating its committee structure, in light of reforms adopted by the governing boards in December 2010. The Corporation engages with both questions of long-range strategy, policy, and planning as well as transactional matters of unusual consequence. It serves as a confidential sounding board for the President on matters of importance; meets with deans, vice presidents, and others from time to time to discuss a wide array of programs and plans; and is responsible for approving the University’s budgets, major capital projects, endowment spending, tuition charges, and other matters.
The Board of Overseers is the larger of the two boards, comprising thirty elected members as well as the President and the Treasurer of the University, who serve ex officio. Members are elected by Harvard degree holders other than Corporation members and University officers. Typically, five new Overseers are elected each year to staggered six-year terms, from a slate of eight or more nominees. Drawing on the wide-ranging experience and expertise of its members, the Board exerts broad influence over the University’s strategic directions, provides counsel to the University leadership on priorities and plans, and has the power of consent to certain actions of the Corporation. The Board’s chief functions include superintendence of the visitation process, the principal mechanism for periodic external review of the quality and direction of the University’s schools, departments, and selected other programs and activities. The Board carries out this responsibility largely through the operation of more than fifty visiting committees, whose work is overseen by and reported to the Board.
I think they are horrible - what gave you the impression I didn’t? I never said otherwise. I never mentioned any of the old guard BOT at all. Try reading my post more carefully.
The A 9 don’t have enough votes to be effective.
Last edited:
Your statement needs an minor edit, as most PSUers I have met are not an embarrassment. I'm sure you meant this. I'm just helping you keep the story straight so that there is nothing misconstrued.
The alleged leadership of this university is an embarrassment to itself.
Anthony, thanks for all your time and effort. I believe you did your best in a very difficult situation. I hope someday you or other members of the board will be able to tell us the whole story.
I read your post very carefully. You don't want to put someone on the board that you think could be an embarrassment yet you agree that the entire leadership of the board is an embarrassment. Ok, I get. You
want to send in another yes man to maintain the perfect "yes" vote that they are so proud of?
Hint, the A9 being ineffective had very little to do with the number of votes they had.
Similar threads
