Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK THT... what do you think this means? You seem to be able to see over the horizon on this stuff.
The "oracle" in me predicts the following:
- A9 gives glittering generalities about source material, states that the Freeh Report was BS
- No one says anything else, and no board action is taken
- This will be news for 30 seconds in local PSU newspapers
- The BWI/McAndrew Board will get riled up about "changing the false narrative" and how the public just needs more information. And they get bent out of how the meeting is portrayed in the Patriot-News.
- In reality, nothing will change. After the meeting, I will make a post pointing out the fact that no one cares. I will then be summarily attacked by JoeBots.
One of the tweets in the link might answer some of your questions ... "There's a rush to get this investigation of the Freeh report out, before Lubrano and McCombie (two Freeh critics) end their terms July 1."what? Why? Now? what's changed?
- In reality, nothing will change. After the meeting, I will make a post pointing out the fact that no one cares. I will then be summarily attacked by JoeBots.
What makes anyone think the "OGBOT" called for or supports this meeting?
Doesn't anyone remember how these things work?
The likely veracity of your post aside, you shouldn't be summarily attacked. No, for using the word JoeBot here, you should be summarily executed. It is a wholely unnecessary term that you are using merely to inflame the masses and throw sideways shade at Joe.
If you ever get hit by a truck, please make sure someone in your family posts it here and lets us know.
LOL
JoeBot is a 4-letter word. Got it. Thanks for proving my point.
I’d be almost certain that the alumni trustees consider the Freeh Report to be a matter that brought reputational harm to the university. As such, their report on the report is also a matter of reputational harm to the university.The phrasing about a 'matter of reputational harm to the university' is curious, though. Phrased that way, it makes it seem that whatever is to be discussed is harmful to PSU. That might be the OGBOT spin. Or, it might be something new (doubtful).
If it is the Freeh review results, it is more likely (but not certain) that the reputational harm is more toward individuals than the U as a whole.
Whatevs, Friday could be interesting, or could be yet another nothing burger in a long string of nothing burger picnics. I'm cynical anymore.... pass the empty salt shaker for me to make my nothing burger even more tasteless. But please let my cynicism be completely unfounded!
I want to avoid the rush and start attacking you now:
Get bent!
Well, you do make some good points, but then ruin it with your hackneyed JoeBots reference. Dale Carnegie anyone?The "oracle" in me predicts the following:
- A9 gives glittering generalities about source material, states that the Freeh Report was BS
- No one says anything else, and no board action is taken
- This will be news for 30 seconds in local PSU newspapers
- The BWI/McAndrew Board will get riled up about "changing the false narrative" and how the public just needs more information. And they get bent out of how the meeting is portrayed in the Patriot-News.
- In reality, nothing will change. After the meeting, I will make a post pointing out the fact that no one cares. I will then be summarily attacked by JoeBots.
One of the tweets in the link might answer some of your questions ... "There's a rush to get this investigation of the Freeh report out, before Lubrano and McCombie (two Freeh critics) end their terms July 1."
Love that song. Reminds me of a fun time in my life!!!
You've always struck me as a militant pessimistI think we're finally seeing the fruits of the Freeh Report review
Can you remind us the procedure for calling a meeting? Why are members allowed to essentially boycott?I probably shouldn't bother (and I will ignore it after this), but - for folks who might be mislead by the TWITTER headlines:
This "meeting" is not being called for by the OGBOT (in fact, it is likely just the A9, and maybe Capretto and Deligatti)….. and I would be shocked if any of the others even attended (that way there will not be a quorum, and the content of the "meeting" never even officially happens).
As such - trying to "read tea leaves" wrt "what it means" wrt a change in the OGBOT landscape, is idiotic. It don't mean dick (aside from No Cattle's last chance to square dance).
Let’s not forget that they’ll likely authorize finding more victims and allocatemore money to pay them. Or maybe just give Barron a raiseThe "oracle" in me predicts the following:
- A9 gives glittering generalities about source material, states that the Freeh Report was BS
- No one says anything else, and no board action is taken
- This will be news for 30 seconds in local PSU newspapers
- The BWI/McAndrew Board will get riled up about "changing the false narrative" and how the public just needs more information. And they get bent out of how the meeting is portrayed in the Patriot-News.
- In reality, nothing will change. After the meeting, I will make a post pointing out the fact that no one cares. I will then be summarily attacked by JoeBots.
Take that F'n hat off and expose yourself Storm'n
The world has changed and they are finally ready to start a new narrative:Heart warming to see the BOT suddenly become concerned with the reputation of "the university."
Thanks for the info. So I guess this speaks to the need to for a smaller board (or at least a board where there is more balance between appointed and elected trustees). But we already knew that.Anyone (on the Board) can call for a meeting.
Anyone can choose to either show up... or not.
If less than 1/2 show up, there is no quorum, and no University business (or votes) can take place.
For 6 years - no one on the Board (including the elected folk) ever stood up to oppose this (or any of dozens of other) FUBARs of governance. They simply didn't care (or were too lazy.... or both).
In the meantime, they have had at least 18 fully attended public meetings (more like 50-100, if you include public committee meetings) - with quorums present - within which to raise and discuss their concerns.... On the record.
They have chosen not to.
So, the better question might be "Why have they never utilized those opportunities? To discuss this or any other topic of University Governance?"
Alas.
F Them.
FWIW - Anyone here (on this Board) has had the opportunity to hear about "what they did or didn't find" wrt the cluster-hump called the "Freeh File Review".
That information has been - for whatever reasons - banned from this site. (FWIW, it is well past the expiration date for any of it to matter, aside from a purely informational issue for the few folks who still give a damn - - - - - if there ever was a time when it would have mattered).
The assigned task was the equivalent of having the Benny Hill cast evaluate the works of Schrodinger and Einstein.
C'est La Vie.
Not my Monkey. Not my Circus.
I think we're finally seeing the fruits of the Freeh Report review
I know Sandusky loved boys but slurs are not appropriate.