There has been a great deal of consternation regarding the A9

[Mixolydian]

SIAP, here are comments by Trustee Rob Tribeck on Facebook regarding his vote for the election of Ira Lubert for Chair of the PSU BOT

By Rob Tribeck. Found in the group WE intend to vote out the Penn State Board of Trustees.

Many people have asked questions regarding the vote during the BOT meeting on Friday related to the election of the Chair. While I have seen comments from other trustees, and agree with much of what has been written, I am compelled to respond on my own behalf.

First, and foremost, I made the decision to "not abstain" to the election of Ira Lubert as Chair. Understand that, until Friday, I had been operating under the assumption that another candidate had decided to run. My decision was neither coordinated nor in response to any agreement or promise. No one offered anything to me, nor did I demand or expect anything. Rather, I made a conscious decision not to offer a meaningless (in terms of outcome) abstention in the hope that some goodwill would arise to enable me to no longer be completely marginalized and my talents for assisting Penn State ignored.

When I sought a position on the BOT, it was with the paramount goal of fulfilling a fiduciary duty to lead the University. Other stated goals included controlling escalating tuition, working to bridge the divide on the BOT, pursuing reform of the BOT and the manner in which it operates, and, of course, working the correct the wrongs associated with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

In the 12 months I have been on the BOT, I have come to realize that this last piece is, simply, impossible with the current board structure. The alumni elected trustees represent 9 of 36 voting positions. The substantial majority of the remaining positions are self-electing. In other words, we will NEVER attain a majority under the current structure.

Likewise in the 12 months on the BOT, I, along with other alumni-elected trustees, have been completely marginalized through omission from critical leadership roles or sub-committees of the board. It has also become clear that our marginalization was due, in large part, to issues surrounding our vocal objection to matters related to Jerry Sandusky and a perceived unwillingness to work with the majority on matters unrelated to the Sandusky scandal. In reflecting on this, I have become convinced that I cannot fulfill my fiduciary duty to lead the University if I am excluded from any meaningful role on the board.

As a result, I have increased my focus on efforts at board reform. The only hope in this regard is legislative in nature. As such, I, and others, have continued our efforts to pursue governance reform. I have stated, on more than one occasion, that I would step down from the BOT if every other member stepped down Fand allowed a legislative fresh start. Failing that, we need a legislative fix and I will continue my efforts in that regard. While I will confess that I am not optimistic, it truly may be our only hope at change.

Relative to the Jerry Sandusky matter, I have made it crystal clear to all involved that I will NEVER agree with, condone, approve, or accept the actions of the BOT in November 2011 and thereafter. I will also continue to fight, until I leave the board and thereafter, to right all of the wrongs committed by or permitted by the board.

In this regard, I and others have spent literally hundreds of hours on this issue - trying to understand the "why and how" related to the Freeh Report through the review of millions of pages of documents. We have worked to educate fellow board members on the shortcomings of the Freeh report and highlighted the improper conduct of Mr. Freeh. And we will continue to do so.

However, I have determined that I must compartmentalize my intense anger at the BOT for its Sandusky actions from the rest of my trustee work. The day to day operations of Penn State and the actions of the BOT from November 2011 related to Sandusky are two distinct issues. Certainly they intersect at times, but working collaboratively in the best interest of Penn State in 2016 does NOT prevent a fight to right the wrongs of 2011 and thereafter on the Sandusky issue.

In this regard, I concluded that abstaining from a vote that was already pre-determined (again there was no opposing candidate) would do nothing to help me further my goals of being an active and engaged trustee to further the educational objective of Penn State, and in fact would further marginalize me. While I don't expect miracles, I believe that it is possible that, with respect to carrying out our duties as trustees, I, along with the other alumni elected trustees, have a better chance of having the opportunity to participate substantively as we move forward.

Please understand that does not mean, under any circumstances, that I have backed away from my complaints regarding the Sandusky shortcomings, or that I will not continue to question sitting trustees at that time regarding what they knew and when. My strong feelings on that issue have not changed and will not change, and I personally made that clear to Ira Lubert. To his credit, he indicated that he understood and respected my position, and invited further discussion with me on the topic, something I did not see a single time in my first 12 months. I intend to have those discussions with him directly.

If people are upset because I did not abstain, I understand and respect their position. However, I would simply ask if not abstaining in a non-challenged vote helps me gain traction in being involved in carrying out day to day duties as a trustee, and therefore helps make Penn State a better school, shouldn't that vote be made every time?

I weighed all aspects and concluded that it should, and that I have to do everything in my power to be actively engaged. If, by taking that small step, I open the eyes of ONE current BOT member to allowing my skills to be used and/or to at least consider my positions on the Sandusky/Freeh matter, haven't we made some progress? I wish it were different. I wish there were a way that alumni elected trustees could gain some power. But under the current structure it is simply impossible. Therefore, we have to take steps one at a time to gain any ground. Standing up and screaming at every turn, especially where the outcome is predetermined, will unfortunately have no effect and will simply further marginalize us. This I cannot do. I feel an obligation to do everything I can to work for the betterment of Penn State while I am on the board while at the same time attempting to repair the damage unfairly done.

Finally, I am compelled to address a point that had surfaced in my mind reading many of the comments. There seems to be some misconception that Penn State is not the great University that it once was. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite very questionable leadership at the board level for the last 5 years, and unprecedented roadblocks (many caused by our own leaders), Penn State has not only survived but is thriving. People who want to burn down the university and its administrators are no different than the jackals in the media, Louis Freeh, or the 2011/2012 BOT who acted without facts or evidence. I would encourage every alumni to look closely at the statistics and rankings. WE ARE excelling. And there are many fantastic faculty and administrators who are responsible. So it bothers me immensely when people suggest that we cannot support the current administration simply because our president was chosen by the BOT. Certainly I do not agree with our president on all matters, including some very important issues.

However, our university is far more than a president or a BOT. And we owe it to ourselves to make it grow stronger and I personally have a duty to oversee its success. I will never waiver from that responsibility, even if it means working with people I vehemently disagree with on Sandusky matters. That doesn't mean I compromise my beliefs; rather, it means I have to work for the betterment of Penn State despite those personal feelings on another issue. That is the textbook definition of leadership, something we have sorely lacked for years.

Again, these are only my reasons and beliefs, and I do not speak for any other trustee.



LikeShow more reactions
Comment

Yikes. While I appreciate Rob's honesty and for the most part I understand his logic, that did not make me feel any better. I'm afraid it's basically over as far as the Sandusky matter. Hopefully I am reading too much into it, but it seems that the bad guys have won

 

[Zenophile]

Not to be snarky, but:

#1 - Who gives a shit?

A fair point.

#2 - If by "skin in the game", you mean having invested time, effort, blood, sweat and tears? A hell of a lot of folks have "skin in the game"
A hell of a lot of folks who I do not believe would have EVER FUBARed up the way the A9 did on July 22

I have never, and I never will, played the "look how much I have given up/ sacrificed for this cause"........as if that entitles me to some special dispensation
And, the truth is, it's been a hell of a lot.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. "Sacrificing" (or not) doesn't make your subsequent actions any more or less right or wrong

I doubt A Librano would play that card either (at least I hope not, I think more highly of him than that)

I haven't seen as much of it here on this Board as o have seen in some other venues, but the "ethical, moral, responsible" FUNGIBILTY I have seen from so many over the last few days (and really, in some aspects, over the last 5 years) is disconcerting

Wait, what happened to "Who gives a $hit?"

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

But to suggest that the basic horse trading that goes on in every legislative or non-profit is prohibited simply means that nothing will get accomplished.

Somewhat tortured argument there from you. None of us should have to add a list of disclaimers to each post just to avoid such tortured logic.

We will have to settle for disagreement on that. I am not here to debate you, nor would I even try to debate you. I have work to do today.

So, short version: It seems like you are saying we had to vote for Lubert so that two new buildings would get names....something like that. And, you know, or should know, darn well, that is not what people are concerned about in their posts here.

And, we are not trading horses. Not at all. Nor should we trade horses with scoundrels. That never ends well.

 

[Bob78]

Yikes. While I appreciate Rob's honesty and for the most part I understand his logic, that did not make me feel any better. I'm afraid it's basically over as far as the Sandusky matter. Hopefully I am reading too much into it, but it seems that the bad guys have won

I didn't get quite that much of a feeling of "it's over" from Rob. I read it as though they need to make sure they can do more than one primary thing at once, which is the platform they ran on - we want to honor JVP, etc., but we fully realize that there are other critical issues that need to be addressed to serve the school and its students and its alumni. I got that they are making those paths more distinct but not ignoring the whole destination. But, who knows for certain? I don't have complete confidence in how this all plays out to reach the destination I want, but I believe that as of right now, I don't have the whole picture from last week either. I'm likely in the minority here, at least for now and until we know more. Communication about this will be critical to keep our hearts and minds where I believe they need to be.
Just my opinion, based on feelings, not data.

 

[bwifan]

Or Ira promised positions of authority on the board for the A9.

This was my thinking as well... But Ira also is not stupid if true he will not give them too much power where they can start to control the narrative or sway public perception. He will want to have his thumb over them and all they do in those positions. But it would be a start...

 

[Western PA]

Or Ira promised positions of authority on the board for the A9.

Other than chair of the BOT, there are no trustee positions of authority. To allow Ira's ascension without any challenge or even the meekest of questions is beyond puzzling.

 

[BlueBand]

Other than chair of the BOT, there are no trustee positions of authority. To allow Ira's ascension without any challenge or even the meekest of questions is beyond puzzling.

Wrong -- committees. Look at the current breakdown.

 

[Nitt1300]

It's becoming increasingly clear that the much talked about "transparency" is something that we are never going to see out of the board. Hell, their overly restrictive rules prohibit it- and no one on the board has ever been interested in the new popular buzzword here "sacrifice" (as in sacrifice their position on the board by telling us the truth).

I suppose that many of us used to feel that PSU was "our" university. Clearly that was never the case, isn't now, and never will be.

It is "theirs" and they aren't giving that up. Only the legislature can change this, and they are no better themselves.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Humor me. Lay out the list "again." Every possible reason they might have done this.

OK Larry......you asked, and I will oblige you - out of friendship.
I told ya' it was a lot (and this probably isn't 10% of it)

So have at it with doing "lawyerly" stuff......I don't resent it - we all have our training and way of doing things.....I just say this to make it clear that I understand the motivation (ie, I am not that stupid or gullible, which - I expect - you already know....jeezus, I hope so anyway )

______________________________

I wrote this the other day outlining the "What":


As I said, the most important aspect - clearly - is WHAT they did
As REPRESENTATIVES of US......after campaigning, and asking US to entrust them with those seats:

EVERY MEMBER of the Alumni Elected Trustees expressed a vote in favor of electing IRA LUBERT to the Board Chair.

Not run against him..........
Not vociferously "oppose"....
Not "oppose quietly".....
Not even an Adam Talieferro "abstention"......
Not even a whispered "Aye"

VOTED FOR IRA LUBERT......after singing praises to him [BTW, I've got a whole blog post that lists and outlines some of the various comments and quotes......my characterization IS accurate, and I will post it for you if you would choose to bicker].

Acting on OUR authorization.

Just let that sink in for a moment.............

How much more "not right" can you get?

How long until we start to hear the same tired BS excuses?:
"We are the minority, and we couldn't stop it anyway"
"We are working behind the scenes"
and
"It is just soooooo hard"

[BTW, we now DO know the answer to the question stated above "How long until.....". The answer was Pretty Damn Quickly LOL]

Just DO YOUR JOB......or STFU and move out of the way.
________________________________



Now, "just" because they are elected representatives of OUR interests....does that mean they have to EXPLAIN every action they take? No, they don't

When they are acting in ways congruent to our clear desires and beliefs, quite frankly - it is more or less un-necessary to "explain" their actions (though righteous governance would pre-suppose that they would make every effort to maintain clear lines of communication)

But: THAT WAS NOT THE CASE ON JULY 22.
Far from it

The A9 acted in such a way as to be diametrically OPPOSED to our CLEARLY stated beliefs
I can't even imagine another action that could rival this one in its opposition to our clear and CRITICAL beliefs (ie, this wasn't some minor issue where they acted in a way different to the beliefs of the constituency)

The only action I have even been able to "conjure" that could rival this one - so far as being both SO CRITICAL and SO OPPOSITE of the constituency's beliefs....would be if the voted to abolish the rights of the Alumni to participate in the process at all (ie, to eliminate the elected seats, and allow themselves to be appointees). THAT is how bad this action was - relative to OUR beliefs.

Can you argue THAT? (rhetorical question, we know the answer)

If an elected representative (or a group thereof) is going to take an action like that - they DAMN WELL better be communicating the SHIT OUT OF IT........PRONTO!
And those communications better be thorough - detailed - and convincing.....and even then they damn well better be ready to work to remedy the situation if the constituency says "Uh....I don't think so"
Can you argue that? (Rhetorical, we know the answer)


Now, we could go into far greater detail (and I have)....."dealing" with a guy who has bamboozled the Elected Trustees in the past, the fact that Lubert didn't even need the A9 votes to ascend to the Chair, etc etc etc (I won't repost EVERYTHING here...we would break the BWI bandwidth - - - is that even a term anymore? Anyway....I digress)


______________________


As to the "Why"? The less significant issue

that question, quite frankly - raises several issues, lets take a look at three:

1 - We don't KNOW "Why" (not for sure anyway, not unless we can "Karnac the Magnificent" their minds)....and that, the fact that we don't KNOW, in and of itself, is yet ANOTHER huge fiduciary failure.

2 - I don't much care "Why".....because unless the "why" matches up with AT LEAST what I will REpost at the end of this post, down below........it ain't worth it (and I am pretty confident it falls short of the parameters outlined )

The price that was paid? - - - - the price that was EXTRACTED FORM "US" was just too damn high

Pray tell - - What was the price?
___________

As I posted previously:


If they voted "no"...or even "Talieferroed".....then maybe they DON'T incinerate every shred of credibility that they - and WE, by proxy - have worked so hard to establish, and have sacrificed so much for, over the last 5 years

The idea of ANY of the A9 - and US, by proxy - speaking out for "fiduciary responsibility", or "righteous board reform" is now laughable ......hypocritical to a level even the Scoundrels never reached

They - and US, by proxy - should rightfully be laughed out of any discussion of righteous governance ......at least unless and until we assume OUR responsibilities and place responsible fiduciaries into those seats
____________________________


Because we don't KNOW ( big fiduciary failure) we can only "conjecture" (kind of) on the "What did they get" part of the Why question......but, as I promised, I will go ahead and conjecture.....for your sake.

3 - As to "why"? Meaning what might they have "gotten" in return for their actions?
As I outlined previously - unless it is at least equal to the parameters below, it was a shitty deal.

Neither of us KNOW (well, at least I don't ), for certain, exactly what they got.....accordingly, I haven't spent much time or effort "conjecturing" - but that doesn't mean I haven't thought about it.

Given that none of us can say for sure - - - - but those of us who have watched (closely) this entire Board in action over the years - including the A9 - the reasonable list of possibilities is rather short.
And we could at least - if we chose to - venture some rather educated guesses...........so - in the spirit of obliging - lets do that:

My personal OPINION (as I stare down my glasses like Louis Freeh) would gravitate towards issues along these lines (with a bit of commentary for each):

A - Cooperation and support in "repudiating", publically, the Freeh Report

In the best case - BFD

- If the Freeh Report says/doesn't say what we think it says/doesn't say....the last thing I want is to INVITE the Scoundrels - especially Lubert - to join in the parade

- The idea of getting "clearance" to be "public" is nonsense.
If there is anything of substance to be taken from that review, and the Scoundrels/Lubert would oppose public release.....YOU TAKE 'EM TO F-ING COURT.....the only place we have ever gotten any relief in this whole deal.
Any relevant, important, impactful information - if the legitimate TRUSTEES had that information, and petitioned the Court to make that information available to the stakeholders, the citizens of the Commonwealth etc....the Court (unless it is completely corrupted) would have to agree.

And....if the Court didn't? You release it anyway, and pay the piper if it comes to that....... "LEADERSHIP"

- By NOT acting as proper stewards on July 22....the A9 have made their words (and by proxy, ours) LESS righteous and worthy or consideration - - whatever the results of the Freeh FIle review may be....... "LEADERSHIP"

So....we got that

B - Support and promises to "make right" (LOL) on the Football/JVP/Statue stuff

- BFD. Is all that stuff "wrongs that should be righted"? Yes

Do I give 1/2 cent if the Scoundrels involve themselves in some insincere apology to Sue or Replacement of the Statue or Naming of "Paterno Stadium"?

Hell, No.....Double Hell, No

If they (the Scoundrels) actually BELIEVE that is the right thing to do....great - - - and we don't have to barter our soul to get it

If they do NOT think it is the right thing to do......but do it as the result of some deal....how F-ing stupid and worthless is that?

C - Some "enhanced access" for the A9.....you know, committee seats and shit like that

- BTW, what was Ira's FIRST action as the new Chair? Go ahead.....you know it.......
Naming Al Lord to the Executive Committee.

I once swore I would NEVER use this term....but, what the hell, this has been a week of first.....can you say "Optics"? LOL

- Maybe the A9 were even promised that Lubert would support the quest for a few additional Alumni-Elected seats at the table (lets say, as a fer' instance, 12 instead of 9)

Again BFD.....
#1 - Who would trust him (rhetorical question, the answer is "only a complete idiot")

#2 - So what if he followed through? Before they lost control, the Scoundrels would just add the requisite number of new "appointee seats" ("Reform Proposal A+" is a term that comes to mind )





Now, there is another question you didn't ask.....so I won't answer it.....but its a very important question:

Whatever the A9 "got" (and we know its something, maybe something - or something(s) - similar to what I outlined....maybe not) the question, a BIG question, is WHY would they accept that trade? Whatever it may be.

We could ponder that right now - - - but we would first have to "suppose" on just what they "got"......which might still be an interesting exercise.
But, it is certainly something we will be able to ponder once we see for sure "what they got".....right?




______________________________________________

As promised earlier......here is the list I had posted of "What would it take, to justify the "deal" of "unanimousing" Lubert:


OK.......I have tried and tried to imagine ANY scenario that would justify the actions of July 22, 2016......

And - I think I came up with one:


IF, AND ONLY IF:

Ira Lubert gave sworn, videotaped testimony...during which he admitted to - and documented - his fiduciary malfeasance and various criminal acts.

And

Signed his plea agreement to accept 10-15 in the Federal Prison system, and reimbursement and punitive penalties of $2,000,000,000

And

He also supplied incontrovertible documentary evidence of scores of illegal insider deals

That Implicated Mark Dambly and others

And

In exchange for this information, Lubert asked to be named Board Chairman for a period of one week. To which the A9 complied.

After which time, he would walk out to the 50 yard line before the kickoff of Penn State's home opener....
And, one by one, every Penn Stater in attendance would walk up, and Lubert would kiss their ass - and then bend over, and allow each of them to kick him in the balls
And, when everyone was done. Lubert would turn himself over to the US Marshall for transport to a nice Federal Penitentiary - - with Dambly riding shotgun




If THAT is what went down.......I will begin issuing 1,000 "mea culpa"s a day to every member of the A9


Short of that......inexcusable

 

[BlueBand]

If there was any such evidence and it is true, let it come out. Truth in this matter is the ultimate goal.

But don't you think if Ira was privy to such information it would have already come out in one of the many filings in one of the many court cases over the past four and a half years?

Purely HYPOTHETICAL:

Let's assume there is evidence that clears Joe, and maybe even C/S/S. However, the only way to prove it is by implicating others in the university. Say, an email/paper trail that leads to others who dropped the ball, or were involved in some way. And further, let's say that those implicated in some way opened up the university to further liability in some manner. The trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to the university, not to Joe, or C/S/S. We just assume that we can correct a wrong, point the finger at the evil doers, and that other than things being drug up in the press from those who will never do a mea culpa, reputations are restored as much as can be and we're no longer a group of football over children cultists. But, and again, this is hypothetical, what if there actually is something worse that further harms the university, that is being kept under wraps.

It's a bit tin hat, I realize that. I'm not saying this is the case, not that it's even the most likely scenario. But, I don't know that we can rule it out either. That's all.

 

[BlueBand]

OK Larry......you asked, and I will oblige you - out of friendship.
I told ya' it was a lot (and this probably isn't 10% of it)

So have at it with doing "lawyerly" stuff......I don't resent it - we all have our training and way of doing things.....I just say this to make it clear that I understand the motivation (ie, I am not that stupid or gullible, which - I expect - you already know....jeezus, I hope so anyway )

______________________________

I wrote this the other day outlining the "What":


As I said, the most important aspect - clearly - is WHAT they did
As REPRESENTATIVES of US......after campaigning, and asking US to entrust them with those seats:

EVERY MEMBER of the Alumni Elected Trustees expressed a vote in favor of electing IRA LUBERT to the Board Chair.

Not run against him..........
Not vociferously "oppose"....
Not "oppose quietly".....
Not even an Adam Talieferro "abstention"......
Not even a whispered "Aye"

VOTED FOR IRA LUBERT......after singing praises to him [BTW, I've got a whole blog post that lists and outlines some of the various comments and quotes......my characterization IS accurate, and I will post it for you if you would choose to bicker].

Acting on OUR authorization.

Just let that sink in for a moment.............

How much more "not right" can you get?

How long until we start to hear the same tired BS excuses?:
"We are the minority, and we couldn't stop it anyway"
"We are working behind the scenes"
and
"It is just soooooo hard"

[BTW, we now DO know the answer to the question stated above "How long until.....". The answer was Pretty Damn Quickly LOL]

Just DO YOUR JOB......or STFU and move out of the way.
________________________________



Now, "just" because they are elected representatives of OUR interests....does that mean they have to EXPLAIN every action they take? No, they don't

When they are acting in ways congruent to our clear desires and beliefs, quite frankly - it is more or less un-necessary to "explain" their actions (though righteous governance would pre-suppose that they would make every effort to maintain clear lines of communication)

But: THAT WAS NOT THE CASE ON JULY 22.
Far from it

The A9 acted in such a way as to be diametrically OPPOSED to our CLEARLY stated beliefs
I can't even imagine another action that could rival this one in its opposition to our clear and CRITICAL beliefs (ie, this wasn't some minor issue where they acted in a way different to the beliefs of the constituency)

The only action I have even been able to "conjure" that could rival this one - so far as being both SO CRITICAL and SO OPPOSITE of the constituency's beliefs....would be if the voted to abolish the rights of the Alumni to participate in the process at all (ie, to eliminate the elected seats, and allow themselves to be appointees). THAT is how bad this action was - relative to OUR beliefs.

Can you argue THAT? (rhetorical question, we know the answer)

If an elected representative (or a group thereof) is going to take an action like that - they DAMN WELL better be communicating the SHIT OUT OF IT........PRONTO!
And those communications better be thorough - detailed - and convincing.....and even then they damn well better be ready to work to remedy the situation if the constituency says "Uh....I don't think so"
Can you argue that? (Rhetorical, we know the answer)


Now, we could go into far greater detail (and I have)....."dealing" with a guy who has bamboozled the Elected Trustees in the past, the fact that Lubert didn't even need the A9 votes to ascend to the Chair, etc etc etc (I won't repost EVERYTHING here...we would break the BWI bandwidth - - - is that even a term anymore? Anyway....I digress)


______________________


As to the "Why"? The less significant issue

that question, quite frankly - raises several issues, lets take a look at three:

1 - We don't KNOW "Why" (not for sure anyway, not unless we can "Karnac the Magnificent" their minds)....and that, the fact that we don't KNOW, in and of itself, is yet ANOTHER huge fiduciary failure.

2 - I don't much care "Why".....because unless the "why" matches up with AT LEAST what I will REpost immediately below........it ain't worth it (and I am pretty confident it falls short of the parameters outlined )

The price that was paid? - - - - the price that was EXTRACTED FORM "US" was just too damn high

Pray tell - - What was the price?
___________

As I posted previously:


If they voted "no"...or even "Talieferroed".....then maybe they DON'T incinerate every shred of credibility that they - and WE, by proxy - have worked so hard to establish, and have sacrificed so much for, over the last 5 years

The idea of ANY of the A9 - and US, by proxy - speaking out for "fiduciary responsibility", or "righteous board reform" is now laughable ......hypocritical to a level even the Scoundrels never reached

They - and US, by proxy - should rightfully be laughed out of any discussion of righteous governance ......at least unless and until we assume OUR responsibilities and place responsible fiduciaries into those seats


But, as I promised, I will go ahead and conjecture.....for your sake.

3 - As to "why"? Meaning what might they have "gotten" in return for their actions?
As I outlined previously - unless it is at least equal to the parameters below, it was a shitty deal.

Neither of us KNOW (well, at least I don't ), for certain, exactly what they got.....accordingly, I haven't spent much time or effort "conjecturing" - but that doesn't mean I haven't thought about it.

Given that none of us can say for sure - - - - but those of us who have watched (closely) this entire Board in action over the years - including the A9 - the reasonable list of possibilities is rather short.
And we could at least - if we chose to - venture some rather educated guesses...........so - in the spirit of obliging - lets do that:

My personal OPINION (as I stare down my glasses like Louis Freeh) would gravitate towards issues along these lines (with a bit of commentary for each):

A - Cooperation and support in "repudiating", publically, the Freeh Report

In the best case - BFD

- If the Freeh Report says/doesn't say what we think it says/doesn't say....the last thing I want is to INVITE the Scoundrels - especially Lubert - to join in the parade

- The idea of getting "clearance" to be "public" is nonsense. If there is anything of substance to be taken from that review, and the Scoundrels/Lubert would oppose public release.....YOU TAKE 'EM TO F-ING COURT.....the only place we have ever gotten any relief in this whole deal. Any relevant, important, impactful information - if the legitimate TRUSTEES had that information, and petitioned the Court to make that information available to the stakeholders, the citizens of the Commonwealth etc....the Court (unless it is completely corrupted) would have to agree.
And....if the Court didn't? You release it anyway, and pay the piper if it comes to that......."LEADERSHIP"

- By NOT acting as proper stewards on July 22....the A9 have made their words (and by proxy, ours) LESS righteous and worthy or consideration - - whatever the results of the Freeh FIle review may be......."LEADERSHIP"
So....we got that

B - Support and promises to "make right" (LOL) on the Football/JVP/Statue stuff

- BFD....Is all that stuff "wrongs that should be righted"? Yes

Do I give one 1/2 cent if the Scoundrels involve themselves in some insincere apology to Sue/Replacement of the Statue/Naming of "Paterno Stadium"?
Hell No.....Double Hell No

If they (the Scoundrels actually BELIEVE that is the right thing to do....great - - - and we don't have to barter our soul to get it

If they do NOT think it is the right thing to do......but do it as the result of some deal....how F-ing stupid and worthless is that?

C - Some "enhanced access" for the A9.....you know, committee seats and shit like that

- BTW, what was Ira's FIRST action as the new Chair? Go ahead.....you know it.......
Naming Al Lord to the Executive Committee.

I once swore I would NEVER use this term....but, what the hell, this has been a week of first.....can you say "Optics"? LOL

- Maybe the A9 were even promised that Lubert would support the quest for a few additional Alumni-Elected seats at the table (lets say, as a fer' instance, 12 instead of 9)

Again BFD.....#1 - Who would trust him (rhetorical question, the answer is "only a complete idiot") #2 - So what if he followed through? Before they lost control, the Scoundrels would just add the requisite number of new "appointee seats" ("Reform Proposal A+" is a term that comes to mind )





Now, there is another question you didn't ask.....so I won't answer it.....but its a very important question:

Whatever the A9 "got" (and we know its something, maybe something - or something(s) - similar to what I outlined....maybe not) the question, a BIG question, is WHY would they accept that trade? Whatever it may be.

We could ponder that right now - - - but we would first have to "suppose" on just what they "got"......which might still be an interesting exercise.
But, it is certainly something we will be able to ponder once we see for sure "what they got".....right?




______________________________________________

As promised earlier......here is the list I had posted of "What would it take, to justify the "deal" of "unanimousing" Lubert:


OK.......I have tried and tried to imagine ANY scenario that would justify the actions of July 22, 2016......

And - I think I came up with one:


IF, AND ONLY IF:

Ira Lubert gave sworn, videotaped testimony...during which he admitted to - and documented - his fiduciary malfeasance and various criminal acts.

And

Signed his plea agreement to accept 10-15 in the Federal Prison system, and reimbursement and punitive penalties of $2,000,000,000

And

He also supplied incontrovertible documentary evidence of scores of illegal insider deals

That Implicated Mark Dambly and others

And

In exchange for this information, Lubert asked to be named Board Chairman for a period of one week. To which the A9 complied.

After which time, he would walk out to the 50 yard line before the kickoff of Penn State's home opener....
And, one by one, every Penn Stater in attendance would walk up, and Lubert would kiss their ass - and then bend over, and allow each of them to kick him in the balls
And, when everyone was done. Lubert would turn himself over to the US Marshall for transport to a nice Federal Penitentiary - - with Dambly riding shotgun




If THAT is what went down.......I will begin issuing 1,000 "mea culpa"s a day to every member of the A9


Short of that......inexcusable

OMG... I think we've finally found out the true identity of "Crapstain" Reilly from the Liar Board. All we're missing is the crayon colored text.

Now we may return to our regularly scheduled bitchfest.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. This rope-a-dope strategy doesn't work in the real world.
Aug 2012 another nearly unanimous fall in line vote to accept the consent decree (Lubrano the only no vote would later be vindicated when the NCAA dropped the sanctions).
July 2013 everyone falls in & line & the BoT vote unanimously for the "victims" settlements. (Lubrano would later lement this vote which he'd been warned not to approve).
Sept 2014 all BoT but Lubrano fall in line again & vote for restructuring the BoT. This essentially rigs the system so that now the alumni votes are basically worthless so all they have left is standing on principal.
But it's too late now anyway. The court of public opinion has reached their verdict. All the appeals have failed. We are locked up in a false narrative & they threw away the key. You can shred the Freeh Report for the lies it tells & it won't matter. The history books will never be righted. They will print the legend. There is only finding the truth for the sake of us knowing it & standing on our principal. This is the legacy we carry & the legacy Joe left us. We are Joe...we were Penn State.

1) So Lubrano has shown the Cajones to stand up in the past and seems to be a "fool me once; shame on you, fool me twice; shame on me" kind of guy yet he deserves this steaming, heaping pile of criticism without some benefit of the doubt?
2) The impact of this particular vote on public perception of the Sandusky scandal is totally negligible.
3) How can all appeals have failed when a number of trials haven't even taken place?
I am frustrated but I refuse to say it's over.

 

[Bobpsu]

1) So Lubrano has shown the Cajones to stand up in the past and seems to be a "fool me once; shame on you, fool me twice; shame on me" kind of guy yet he deserves this steaming, heaping pile of criticism without some benefit of the doubt?
2) The impact of this particular vote on public perception of the Sandusky scandal is totally negligible.
3) How can all appeals have failed when a number of trials haven't even taken place?
I am frustrated but I refuse to say it's over.

Just ran out of benefit of the doubt!

 

[StinkStankStunk]

OMG... I think we've finally found out the true identity of "Crapstain" Reilly from the Liar Board. All we're missing is the crayon colored text.

Now we may return to our regularly scheduled bitchfest.

Go back to the kids table Junior

Or suck on a tailpipe

Whichever you prefer

 

[demlion]

Somewhat tortured argument there from you. None of us should have to add a list of disclaimers to each post just to avoid such tortured logic.

We will have to settle for disagreement on that. I am not here to debate you, nor would I even try to debate you. I have work to do today.

So, short version: It seems like you are saying we had to vote for Lubert so that two new buildings would get names....something like that. And, you know, or should know, darn well, that is not what people are concerned about in their posts here.

And, we are not trading horses. Not at all. Nor should we trade horses with scoundrels. That never ends well.

No, I am saying I DO NOT KNOW AT ALL what happened and neither do you. I am also saying that there is no way that I expect the elected trustees to tell me every reason they had for every single vote they took.

The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act involved a great deal of horse trading. Any worthwhile piece of legislation that every passes involves horse trading. If that makes you squeamish, look away.

But we cannot pretend it does not happen.

 

[crm114psu]

"People who want to burn down the university and its administrators are no different than the jackals in the media, Louis Freeh, or the 2011/2012 BOT who acted without facts or evidence."

Sounds like Rob knows what his priorities are, good for him.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Purely HYPOTHETICAL:

Let's assume there is evidence that clears Joe, and maybe even C/S/S. However, the only way to prove it is by implicating others in the university. Say, an email/paper trail that leads to others who dropped the ball, or were involved in some way. And further, let's say that those implicated in some way opened up the university to further liability in some manner. The trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to the university, not to Joe, or C/S/S. We just assume that we can correct a wrong, point the finger at the evil doers, and that other than things being drug up in the press from those who will never do a mea culpa, reputations are restored as much as can be and we're no longer a group of football over children cultists. But, and again, this is hypothetical, what if there actually is something worse that further harms the university, that is being kept under wraps.

It's a bit tin hat, I realize that. I'm not saying this is the case, not that it's even the most likely scenario. But, I don't know that we can rule it out either. That's all.

Serious question, if the truth implicates members of the BOT in wrong doing doesn't the university need to know that so as to purge the university/BOT of these irresponsible parties?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

No, I am saying I DO NOT KNOW AT ALL what happened and neither do you. I am also saying that there is no way that I expect the elected trustees to tell me every reason they had for every single vote they took.

The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act involved a great deal of horse trading. Any worthwhile piece of legislation that every passes involves horse trading. If that makes you squeamish, look away.

But we cannot pretend it does not happen.

Why all the false arguments? Today is making me even more disconcerted than I was the last few days

No one - I don't think, not that I've seen - has EVER said "the trustees have to tell us every reason for every vote"...........

But - maybe - when their constituents - in great numbers and in (near?) unanimity say, loudly:

"Please, Please oppose this. This is revolting"

And the reps then act in the exact OPPOSITE WAY. Hell, act in the exact opposite way WITH a good does of relish added on

Ya' think maybe THAT MERITS A F$CKING REASON?



.Jeezus H, Dem.....WTF is going on here?

Something is rocking my world - even more than on Friday

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Just ran out of benefit of the doubt!

On a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being "complete benefit of the doubt" and 0 being "just run out...", where were you the moment before the vote took place?

 

[crm114psu]

Why all the false arguments? Today is making me even more disconcerted than I was the last few days

No one - I don't think, not that I've seen - has EVER said "the trustees have to tell us every reason for every vote"...........

But - maybe - when their constituents - in great numbers and in (near?) unanimity say, loudly:

"Please, Please oppose this. This is revolting"

And the reps then act in the exact OPPOSITE WAY. Hell, act in the exact opposite way WITH a good does of relish added on

Ya' think maybe THAT MERITS A F$CKING REASON?



.Jeezus H, Dem.....WTF is going on here?

Something is rocking my world - even more than on Friday

Sounds like he's not buying what you are selling, Stinky. Kinda sucks the big one, eh?

 

[didier]

Has Anthony posted here since the vote?

 

[Misder2]

Has Anthony posted here since the vote?

Yes, in this thread somewhere I believe.

 

[Zenophile]

Why all the false arguments? Today is making me even more disconcerted than I was the last few days

No one - I don't think, not that I've seen - has EVER said "the trustees have to tell us every reason for every vote"...........

But - maybe - when their constituents - in great numbers and in (near?) unanimity say, loudly:

"Please, Please oppose this. This is revolting"

And the reps then act in the exact OPPOSITE WAY. Hell, act in the exact opposite way WITH a good does of relish added on

Ya' think maybe THAT MERITS A F$CKING REASON?



.Jeezus H, Dem.....WTF is going on here?

Something is rocking my world - even more than on Friday

Something happened on Friday that changed the minds of the A9. I don't know what that something is, and I'm OK with not knowing for now. So apparently is Dem.

I'm also OK with playing wait-&-see for now. Apparently so is Dem.

It's not hard.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

IMHO, this is actually worse for PSU (and potentially C/S/S). It clearly shows that PSU had a contractual relationship w TSM and thereby was aware that children were being brought onto campus on a regular basis. Not only were they aware, PSU was being compensated for it. By entering into this formal arrangement, PSU assumes an additional obligation to ensure the safety of these children. Not an EXCLUSIVE duty, mind you, but with this arrangement PSU now owes a higher duty of care to the children. This information, if true, helps to connect a few of the dots.

It is so tempting to use the "Ignore" function with you but, the ability to peek into the -6 Sigma region of the Bell Curve from time to time is just too good to ignore!

 

[bwifan]

Has Anthony posted here since the vote?

yes

 

[bwifan]

Something happened on Friday that changed the minds of the A9. I don't know what that something is, and I'm OK with not knowing for now. So apparently is Dem.

I'm also OK with playing wait-&-see for now. Apparently so is Dem.

It's not hard.

Knowing the way Ira operates he is probably orchestrating behind the scenes a set up for a public lynching of certain members of the OGBOT to take the fall since he now has what he wants which is being head of the board.

 

[BlueBand]

Serious question, if the truth implicates members of the BOT in wrong doing doesn't the university need to know that so as to purge the university/BOT of these irresponsible parties?

The BOT needs to know, and they need to do the purging. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the public at large needs to know IF it opens the university up to more liability.

If there's no liability issue, I'm all for a public flogging, so to speak.

Also, you're assuming it's someone or persons on the BOT. It could be a person or persons in the legal department, or police force, etc.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Serious question, if the truth implicates members of the BOT in wrong doing doesn't the university need to know that so as to purge the university/BOT of these irresponsible parties?

The OAG of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over such breaches of Fiduciary Obligation at a NPO, so yes, if a Fiduciary came into contact with such information, they would have a legal (and ethical) obligation to pass the information to the OAG.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Wrong -- committees. Look at the current breakdown.

IIRC....the Alumni Trustees - all of them - have ONE chair, the "Outreach Chair" - - - the place Boards put the imbeciles and incompetent relatives of the Boss.....or, in the PSU BOT case, one of the dissidents.

Ya' know.....that would be a good spot for you BlueBand!!

(though I assume Uncle Ira will give them a couple more for being "good boys")

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Has Anthony posted here since the vote?

Yes! You can search by poster name using the icon that looks like a magnifying glass in the upper right of the window. As they say: "Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for life". Here is the link to AL's post. https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/bot-unanimous-vote.129820/#post-2039377

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Sounds like he's not buying what you are selling, Stinky. Kinda sucks the big one, eh?

# 1 - I ain't selling nuthin'

#2 - .....Uh.......well.......yeah, right.......You would be "#2".

 

[Sharkies]

Knowing the way Ira operates he is probably orchestrating behind the scenes a set up for a public lynching of certain members of the OGBOT to take the fall since he now has what he wants which is being head of the board.

I'd probably take that trade if it meant a certain Surma, Peetz and Frazier would have to do a perp walk, but alas, I doubt its in the cards.

 

[Misder2]

The BOT needs to know, and they need to do the purging. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the public at large needs to know IF it opens the university up to more liability.

If there's no liability issue, I'm all for a public flogging, so to speak.

Also, you're assuming it's someone or persons on the BOT. It could be a person or persons in the legal department, or police force, etc.

That's pretty much what got us here

 

[demlion]

Why all the false arguments? Today is making me even more disconcerted than I was the last few days

No one - I don't think, not that I've seen - has EVER said "the trustees have to tell us every reason for every vote"...........

But - maybe - when their constituents - in great numbers and in (near?) unanimity say, loudly:

"Please, Please oppose this. This is revolting"

And the reps then act in the exact OPPOSITE WAY. Hell, act in the exact opposite way WITH a good does of relish added on

Ya' think maybe THAT MERITS A F$CKING REASON?



.Jeezus H, Dem.....WTF is going on here?

Something is rocking my world - even more than on Friday

Why all the false arguments? Today is making me even more disconcerted than I was the last few days

No one - I don't think, not that I've seen - has EVER said "the trustees have to tell us every reason for every vote"...........

But - maybe - when their constituents - in great numbers and in (near?) unanimity say, loudly:

"Please, Please oppose this. This is revolting"

And the reps then act in the exact OPPOSITE WAY. Hell, act in the exact opposite way WITH a good does of relish added on

Ya' think maybe THAT MERITS A F$CKING REASON?



.Jeezus H, Dem.....WTF is going on here?

Something is rocking my world - even more than on Friday

Here is what 10kMarbles said:
"If they are withholding information from us, for any reason, then they are not acting properly as our elected representatives to the BOT. It is as simple as that.

When they ran as our representatives, imho, they abrogated their right to withhold info from us, regardless of what it is, and regardless of any standing rules. Their first action should have been to make it clear to the rest of the BOT that, as elected Trustees, they have obligations which supersede the standing rules."

Here is what YOU said:
"1 - We don't KNOW "Why" (not for sure anyway, not unless we can "Karnac the Magnificent" their minds)....and that, the fact that we don't KNOW, in and of itself, is yet ANOTHER huge fiduciary failure.

Both of these comments seem to take it as a given that the elected trustees have a duty (legal, fiduciary, or otherwise) to tell us every thing they do and every thought that is in their heads when they do it. They have no such duty. Might your disappointment about this cause you to vote against them? Sure, but that does not make your wish their command. And it does not impose a fiduciary duty upon them to tell you about every discussion they have as they attempt to achieve the things they are attempting to achieve. Calling it a legal or fiduciary duty does not make it so.

I could end up being as unhappy about this as anyone here, but I am not going to criticize based upon facts I am assuming without evidence. I am hopeful that the picture will be cleared up, but I cannot and will not say that they abrogated their right to keep anything private merely by being elected, and I will not subscribe to the hyperbolic fiction that the failure to keep me informed at every step is a breach of fiduciary duty.

 

[didier]

Yes! You can search by poster name using the icon that looks like a magnifying glass in the upper right of the window. As they say: "Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for life". Here is the link to AL's post. https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/bot-unanimous-vote.129820/#post-2039377

Thanks!

 

[fairgambit]

Something happened on Friday that changed the minds of the A9. I don't know what that something is, and I'm OK with not knowing for now. So apparently is Dem.

I'm also OK with playing wait-&-see for now. Apparently so is Dem.

It's not hard.

I agree with all but your last line. I think it is hard. It's very hard. For 5 years most of us have faced a continuing drumbeat of bad news by holding onto hope. After Friday hope seems in short supply. I am not giving up, but I no longer see a good outcome in any of this. We face very long odds against a corrupt enemy who is better organized, financed, and generally willing to act without honor. We may win a skirmish or two before it is all over, but I think most here realize that, short of Divine intervention, the war is lost.

 

[BlueBand]

That's pretty much what got us here

Not exactly. Quietly cleaning up something is not the same as being complicit in hoisting blame on innocent people.

 

[lionlurker]

I think we are frustrated because it sure looks like something changed in the last week or so, and we just don't know what it is. I'm still giving Anthony the benefit of the doubt, but I can see why some are discouraged.

 

[Sharkies]

We may win a skirmish or two before it is all over, but I think most here realize that, short of Divine intervention, the war is lost.

Yep, and it now seems clear to me we lost it in Nov. 2011. Lest we forget -- from the NYTimes..

If it comes to it, we may need you,” Surma told Erickson.

Erickson simply replied, “O.K.”

Spanier’s inquiry about the board’s support set the agenda for what would be a conference call among trustees at 7 p.m. The call lasted two to three hours. Surma chaired the discussion and told the trustees that Erickson could be an alternative to Spanier.

That Erickson, who was widely respected by the trustees for his broad understanding of the university, said he would be willing to replace Spanier gave the trustees confidence about firing Spanier. But the trustees still had to make a final decision on Paterno. The seriousness of the task was not lost on the board members, and it was decided that the board would meet in person the next night.

“I’d like everyone to come together tomorrow and look people in the eyes,” Lubert recalled saying during the call.

...

The trustees first discussed Spanier’s status. The trustees said that they sensed there was a consensus about Spanier’s future as the president. Earlier, Spanier had tried to submit his resignation, but Garban and Surma did not accept it. Garban told Spanier that the board felt it needed to deal with the matter itself. So, instead, the trustees paged through Spanier’s contract, and then decided to fire him. They named Erickson the interim president.

Then the trustees decided the fate of Paterno, who had come to Penn State as a young assistant coach in 1950 and who had helped build it into a national university, to which he donated more than $4 million. The 13 trustees interviewed Wednesday said that Paterno did not reach out to them before the Nov. 9 board meeting, and some said that it would not have mattered, because they did not believe that he could say anything to save his job.

...

Shortly before 10 p.m., Fran Ganter, the associate athletic director for football, delivered an envelope to Paterno’s home, just off Penn State’s campus. Inside the envelope was a telephone number. Paterno called the number, and Garban answered. Then he passed the telephone to Surma, who was seated next to him. Surma asked if Paterno could hear him O.K. Paterno said that he could. Then Surma told Paterno of the trustees’ decision. “The board of trustees has determined effective immediately you are no longer the football coach,” Surma recalled saying.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Both of these comments seem to take it as a given that the elected trustees have a duty (legal, fiduciary, or otherwise) to tell us every thing they do and every thought that is in their heads when they do it. They have no such duty. .

Oh...Jeezus H Christ Dem....It does not.

"Both of these comments seem to take it as a given that the elected trustees have a duty (legal, fiduciary, or otherwise) to tell us every thing they do and every thought that is in their heads when they do it. They have no such duty."

You asked me to share my thoughts earlier....and here is what I said...verbatim:

"Now, "just" because they are elected representatives of OUR interests....does that mean they have to EXPLAIN every action they take? No, they don't

When they are acting in ways congruent to our clear desires and beliefs, quite frankly - it is more or less un-necessary to "explain" their actions (though righteous governance would pre-suppose that they would make every effort to maintain clear lines of communication)"

After You asked....and I obliged...did you even READ THE F&CKING POST!!!

I said it, BEFORE you said it, and now you are CLAIMING that my position is just the opposite.

Quite being such a f&cking douchebag - - - I swear to God, I sounds like trying to deal with one of the CR/GTASCA circle-jerks....you're not that stupid (not stupid at all)....this is very disconcerting.



Every time you - of all people - go to such great lengths to intentionally distort and obfuscate.......it only serves to add to the level of uncomfortable concern.


WTF is going on.


I swear to God - I HOPE you have been mind-melded.