Speaking of BOT elections...

[Nitt1300]

Has anyone heard anything from Brandon Short?

 

[PearlSUJam]

Has anyone heard anything from Brandon Short?

Who?

 

[BBrown]

Who?

Seems like a good guy but I am NOT voting for anymore football players.

 

[LioninNC]

Once the election occurs, we never hear anything from anyone, regardless of how much the candidate promises to communicate during the election cycle. If there were any viable candidates other than the 3 incumbents, they would get my vote for this reason alone.

Anthony Lubrano was the only alumni trustee to ever post here after being elected. Thank you Anthony.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Anthony Lubrano was the only alumni trustee to ever post here after being elected. Thank you Anthony.

that's actually incorrect. Lubrano was the alumni-elelclted trustee that most frequently posted on this board about BOT issues. There's one other alumni-elected trustee that has posted as frequently as Lubrano, though the majority of his posts have been non-BOT related. Other alumni-elected trustees have posted on this board, though most of them find that it's a challenge to post as much as they had hoped to/planned to.

The alumni-elected trustees face a very challenging situation. First off, they get treated like crap by the BOT leadership. Second, they don't have the votes to effect major changes. As such, most of their influence takes place in the executive session discussions, where they can make a case against certain proposals, or at least to modify certain proposals. However, because these conversations take place in executive session, they are bound to keep such discussions private, and thus can't speak about them (whether they are successes for them, or frustrating failures for them). Third, this message board is monitored for the BOT, which can cause problems for trustees if they elect to post about issues (even those that take place in public sessions). Lubrano's posts were educational for alumni, but they also caused Anthony a lot of problems on the BOT.

 

[PSU2UNC]

that's actually incorrect. Lubrano was the alumni-elelclted trustee that most frequently posted on this board about BOT issues. There's one other alumni-elected trustee that has posted as frequently as Lubrano, though the majority of his posts have been non-BOT related. Other alumni-elected trustees have posted on this board, though most of them find that it's a challenge to post as much as they had hoped to/planned to.

The alumni-elected trustees face a very challenging situation. First off, they get treated like crap by the BOT leadership. Second, they don't have the votes to effect major changes. As such, most of their influence takes place in the executive session discussions, where they can make a case against certain proposals, or at least to modify certain proposals. However, because these conversations take place in executive session, they are bound to keep such discussions private, and thus can't speak about them (whether they are successes for them, or frustrating failures for them). Third, this message board is monitored for the BOT, which can cause problems for trustees if they elect to post about issues (even those that take place in public sessions). Lubrano's posts were educational for alumni, but they also caused Anthony a lot of problems on the BOT.

Thanks Tom.

Just curious (and I'm not advocating this), but if a trustee set up an anonymous account and posted details about private executive sessions, what would the BOT likely do?

I mean, they aren't breaking the law, so they couldn't subpoena the IP address. And they couldn't punish an A9 if they didn't know which one it was.

Right??

 

[Art]

Thanks Tom.

Just curious (and I'm not advocating this), but if a trustee set up an anonymous account and posted details about private executive sessions, what would the BOT likely do?

I mean, they aren't breaking the law, so they couldn't subpoena the IP address. And they couldn't punish an A9 if they didn't know which one it was.

Right??

The information posted is the giveaway and there is no due process within the BoT.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The information posted is the giveaway and there is no due process within the BoT.

But how would it be a giveaway?

All A9 should be at each executive session, right? So how would they know which one was leaking the info?

I'm pretty sure if the BOT tried to "kick out" all A9 (not even sure if that is possible within the bylaws) they wouldn't get away with that.

 

[delcoLion]

But how would it be a giveaway?

All A9 should be at each executive session, right? So how would they know which one was leaking the info?

I'm pretty sure if the BOT tried to "kick out" all A9 (not even sure if that is possible within the bylaws) they wouldn't get away with that.

Would it matter? They own the place.

 

[Art]

But how would it be a giveaway?

All A9 should be at each executive session, right? So how would they know which one was leaking the info?

I'm pretty sure if the BOT tried to "kick out" all A9 (not even sure if that is possible within the bylaws) they wouldn't get away with that.

All of the A9 could be at the session, but not necessarily. That begins to narrow it down.

Then pick out the leading voice of dissension and sanction that person. Chances are pretty good they'll get it right. Could someone else have posted? Sure, but as I wrote earlier there is no due process on the BoT.

 

[LioninNC]

that's actually incorrect. Lubrano was the alumni-elelclted trustee that most frequently posted on this board about BOT issues. There's one other alumni-elected trustee that has posted as frequently as Lubrano, though the majority of his posts have been non-BOT related. Other alumni-elected trustees have posted on this board, though most of them find that it's a challenge to post as much as they had hoped to/planned to.

The alumni-elected trustees face a very challenging situation. First off, they get treated like crap by the BOT leadership. Second, they don't have the votes to effect major changes. As such, most of their influence takes place in the executive session discussions, where they can make a case against certain proposals, or at least to modify certain proposals. However, because these conversations take place in executive session, they are bound to keep such discussions private, and thus can't speak about them (whether they are successes for them, or frustrating failures for them). Third, this message board is monitored for the BOT, which can cause problems for trustees if they elect to post about issues (even those that take place in public sessions). Lubrano's posts were educational for alumni, but they also caused Anthony a lot of problems on the BOT.

Thank you for the clarification. While I agree that others do post from time to time, there is virtually no information disseminated about issues/votes that are brought before the board. There doesn't appear to be any other web sites/forums where this information is provided either. As an alumni voter, I have no visibility in how I am being represented and whether my incumbent BOT members are having any influence or not.

How do I evaluate whether they are the right candidate to receive my vote as an incumbent if I have no information on whether they have been advocating for my views and positions during their term. Franky I'd vote in a heartbeat for a candidate who was willing to take the heat and communicate what was really going on in some of these meetings on some of the issues i care about.

 

[Art]

Thank you for the clarification. While I agree that others do post from time to time, there is virtually no information disseminated about issues/votes that are brought before the board. There doesn't appear to be any other web sites/forums where this information is provided either. As an alumni voter, I have no visibility in how I am being represented and whether my incumbent BOT members are having any influence or not.

How do I evaluate whether they are the right candidate to receive my vote as an incumbent if I have no information on whether they have been advocating for my views and positions during their term. Franky I'd vote in a heartbeat for a candidate who was willing to take the heat and communicate what was really going on in some of these meetings on some of the issues i care about.

"Openness." ------Hot Rod Erickson.

 

[Achowalogan]

Once the election occurs, we never hear anything from anyone, regardless of how much the candidate promises to communicate during the election cycle. If there were any viable candidates other than the 3 incumbents, they would get my vote for this reason alone.

Anthony Lubrano was the only alumni trustee to ever post here after being elected. Thank you Anthony.

I believe Alice Pope has posted here also....

 

[The Spin Meister]

Back to the OP. Short promised to look into the stolen elections in the 90s and how the BoT illegally changed the bylaws in 2002. Never heard from him again.

 

[The Spin Meister]

He has no more idea what went down than you - or any other poster on the board - does.
(In many cases, I would presume, less)

Actually, I know way more then he does cause he never asked anyone, never looked into it, never did anything.

What do you have to share? Any links?

 

[Achowalogan]

Usually, conincidentally, the appearances occur once every three years

BTW, 2 members of my family did nominate you Stormingnorm....

 

[Pennoyer]

But how would it be a giveaway?

All A9 should be at each executive session, right? So how would they know which one was leaking the info?

I'm pretty sure if the BOT tried to "kick out" all A9 (not even sure if that is possible within the bylaws) they wouldn't get away with that.

No. But the majority might call them before a star chamber and use the disclosure of such information as a basis to keep even more information from those they believe are the source of the leak. Hypothetically of course.

 

[Nitt1300]

So "no" seems to be the consensus.

 

[bwifan]

"Openness." ------Hot Rod Erickson.

Indeed Art.... We all benefit from the BOT new "openness" and "transparency"... Who knows maybe Barron will start to share some onion dip.... wait nevermind...