Serious question: aside from CSS and the Paterno family, who has more personal skin in this game than Anthony?
There has been a great deal of consternation regarding the A9
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
The BoT game? PSU sports? What game? You think this is a game?
The A9 went into executive session opposed to Ira. They came out and voted for him & praised him. This proves there were deliberations and agreements made in executive session in violation of PA sunshine law. The election should actually be overturned, but the law has no teeth.
I think he is saying the opposite S^3. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, he's saying he trusts Anthony MORE than he hates the vote. IOW, he's going to continue to keep the faith with AL (e.g., there is more going on here than meets the eye; we just don't know what all is happening because we are not privy to all of the information.).
by not voting against, the 9 individuals gave the still absent PRESS additional ammo to stay absent.
by not voting against, they continue to give cover to anyone else in the room that may be contemplating voting with them.
The University, program, fans, etc. have all been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and they fed the narrative.
unless something fantastic comes down the pike in short order so folks can get their head around the vote that explains their actions, they will have lost many supporters. they took the risk, we shall see. I am no longer holding my breath.
where is Anthony Lubrano with an explanation?
by not voting against, they continue to give cover to anyone else in the room that may be contemplating voting with them.
The University, program, fans, etc. have all been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and they fed the narrative.
unless something fantastic comes down the pike in short order so folks can get their head around the vote that explains their actions, they will have lost many supporters. they took the risk, we shall see. I am no longer holding my breath.
where is Anthony Lubrano with an explanation?
It certainly seems that part of the deal is that AL stay silent on specifics. Not all that long ago Anthony was "dancing on air". This is beyond bizarre.
No doubt. Of all the other information that has come out recently, the other piece of bizarre information is the The Second Mile contractually indemnified PSU regarding their use of PSU's campus and facilities, but this information is not mentioned anywhere by Freeh or the OAG (and it does speak to who had "Safe Hold & Care" custody responsibility of these children and why PSU reported the 2001 incident as they did). This information was not raised by PSU until a month ago! Perhaps Ira is claiming that this information was never made available to him and the Settlement Committee? Perhaps the information was suppressed by Corbutt via Baldwin (the inside General Counsel brought on suspiciously, highly tied to Corbutt and a major player in much of the prosecutorial misconduct already proven in court). Maybe, Lubert is now working on the same side in regards to investigations of TSM and this PMA Insurance fiasco?
I am in this for the long haul...I am backing Lubrano. For some reason...I believe in the guy.
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.
Not to be snarky, but:
#1 - Who gives a shit?
The Trustees have a duty to all of us ( assuming "us" = Penn Staters).
If they (collectively or individually) F up - what difference does it make "how much skin they have in the game " (whatever that means)
If someone does GREAT work......is it muted, or less commendable, because they DIDN'T have "skin in the game"?
#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
Wonder whether this will come up in the OAG argument regarding the child endangerment charges they have to file in August.
I understood what he was saying
And I feel differently.......1,000,000 times over
And, AGAIN, I know there is more "going on here than meets the eye"...........more is the pity - both in terms of "what" is going on AND in terms of the fact that it is all being kept from the stakeholders of the University
"Leadership"
"Governance"
"Accountability"
Just 3 random words
Last edited:
True that
Talked about that a couple days ago
The BOT Scoundrels have ignored that law since the day it was enacted
INTERESTINGLY - you know who is always tooting his own horn, to this day, that HE WAS THE GUY WHO CRAFTED AND PASSED THAT BILL??
None other than our critical political asset - Bob Jubelirer. I shit you not
I guess you can be proud as a PEACOCK about the crowning achievement of your legislative career......and not say "boo" as a member of a governance body that violates that statute every month
It is definitely surreal.
In your opinion being the key words - PSU has been exclusively and solely responsible to-date, so how precisely could information showing TSM was PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE make it worse you bloviating, spinning, laughable @sshat? BTW, nothing beyond the indemnification has been shown that would suggest PSU was financially remunerated, but keep making up your bull$hit as you go along....
Its an easy argument to make. They are smart people who have sacrificed a lot, and who have shown themselves to be fairly good judges of their own self interest. Your premise assumes that in order to get along with the likes of Ira, because they are worried about what he and Dambly might think of them, they caved. I just do not believe that. We do not have enough data to make a final judgment about that.
To rant and rave publicly about what a skunk Ira is will not move the ball. That's their judgment. I am not in a position to deny it today. Either way, Ira is the chair.
I think the problem is that you are not clicking your heels together as you call people names. I think if you try that everything will go away, JVP will rise from the dead, and life will return as it was in 2010.
This what I know...I and the rest of us, know a heck of allot less than Demlion and the A9. I to want to storm the doors with pitchforks and figuratively hang Lubert. But here is the thing. A9 has more information and they don't need us to be all pissy about what they did. They had a reason for what they did and we have to go with it because they are working to the same end as we are. Their review of the Freeh report could be undermined by the BoT stating they were just out to hate on Lubert and skewed the facts. Maybe what they have will be enhanced by their vote. Only they know and the rest of us are just in the peanut gallery throwing rocks. The review is coming soon.
Last edited:
I think your problem is that you're a pontificating POS troll with an agenda - to sustain a clearly FALSE NARRATIVE brought about by the already proven-in-court tyranny of prosecutorial misconduct. GFY troll.
My "premise" assumes no such thing. I don't even know WHERE that came from (not only is it not my "premise", I don't even believe it to be true).....
and uttering the word "no" when a vote is taken is not - I don't think - analogous to "ranting and raving"
You are throwing out non sequiturs that ARE NOT (not even close) to what I have stated or believe
I can only assume they are honest mistakes
No blood, no foul
Dem, for me it's not so much a thought that they caved. It's more that they (really just Lubrano but I assume he speaks on behalf of the A9) lauded the leadership of Lubert.
OK, so they did not vote for Ira to suck up in your view. So, why did they do it? Because they secretly do not believe that PSU has been wronged? Because they are lying when they say they have Penn State's best interests at heart? Because they are such ineffective people they do not even KNOW what is in their or our best interests? What are the possible reasons they might do this? Lay out the whole list.
I thought about that; that is a speculative guess as well.
I am willing to give Anthony some slack. IMO, he has earned it.
Alternative theory: Ira played this hand to once again fool the A9 and further damage their remaining credibility with their constituency.
Ira made promises. The A9 swallowed those promises hook, line and sinker.
Surprise!! Ira has no intent of keeping whatever promises he made to the A9 in the secret session deal. In six months, the A9 will be left standing with nothing but recorded praises for Ira's leadership.
His belief is this betrayal will be the final straw, breaking the last bit of support for reformers and leaving Penn State to its "rightful owners," Ira, PMA and their chosen association representatives.
It's a "House of Cards" move.
Ira made promises. The A9 swallowed those promises hook, line and sinker.
Surprise!! Ira has no intent of keeping whatever promises he made to the A9 in the secret session deal. In six months, the A9 will be left standing with nothing but recorded praises for Ira's leadership.
His belief is this betrayal will be the final straw, breaking the last bit of support for reformers and leaving Penn State to its "rightful owners," Ira, PMA and their chosen association representatives.
It's a "House of Cards" move.
Last edited:
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
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
Seriously? I have not done that?
And the larger issue isn't even "why" they did, it is "what" they did.........but I've outlined both issues repeatedly and in detail
And why all the false non-sequiturs again?
WTF?
What alien invaded my friend Larry? I'm blaming the F ING Canadiens
I'm voting for Trump TWICE - 'cause I want a wall on the Canadien border too!!!!!!!!!!
OK, step back for a moment. The A9 had to know that their voting this way was essentially guaranteeing they would not be re-elected, sans any additional information coming out at some point to explain the vote. I think they're all smart enough to realize that. So, in my mind, they must have had a good reason to vote the way they did.
Didn't Lubrano post somewhere that Ira was under the gun to do certain things, with a very short time frame upon which to do them? I'm pretty sure I saw that in one of the threads.
The way I see it, assuming my first paragraph to be true, we have one of three situations:
1.) the A9 don't care about getting re-elected
2.) the A9 has enough information that points the finger at guilty parties, of which Ira probably isn't a part (aside from the settlements), which exonerates those wrongly accused and which Ira is now obligated to in some way pull back the curtain on or they will.
3.) and this won't be popular, but can't be ruled out, Ira has information that implicates C/S/S and or, yes, Joe, (or others in the program/university equally damaging) in at the least knowing more than they've said, and Ira played his hand.
I'm hoping its #2, but we can't rule out the other options either.
Edit to add - fourth possibility, as brought up in Rob's comments that have been posted in this thread -- understanding that running the university is about more than one issue, and to have an influence you can't be marginalized because of a focus on only one issue that is causing you to be marginalized. Interesting explanation he provided. And he's right... he would be ignoring his duty to the university if he pigeonholed himself on the BOT. Interesting take that I hadn't thought of.
Didn't Lubrano post somewhere that Ira was under the gun to do certain things, with a very short time frame upon which to do them? I'm pretty sure I saw that in one of the threads.
The way I see it, assuming my first paragraph to be true, we have one of three situations:
1.) the A9 don't care about getting re-elected
2.) the A9 has enough information that points the finger at guilty parties, of which Ira probably isn't a part (aside from the settlements), which exonerates those wrongly accused and which Ira is now obligated to in some way pull back the curtain on or they will.
3.) and this won't be popular, but can't be ruled out, Ira has information that implicates C/S/S and or, yes, Joe, (or others in the program/university equally damaging) in at the least knowing more than they've said, and Ira played his hand.
I'm hoping its #2, but we can't rule out the other options either.
Edit to add - fourth possibility, as brought up in Rob's comments that have been posted in this thread -- understanding that running the university is about more than one issue, and to have an influence you can't be marginalized because of a focus on only one issue that is causing you to be marginalized. Interesting explanation he provided. And he's right... he would be ignoring his duty to the university if he pigeonholed himself on the BOT. Interesting take that I hadn't thought of.
Last edited:
Humor me. Lay out the list "again." Every possible reason they might have done this.
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?
A vote for goodwill. WE'VE SEEN HOW THIS WORKS ALREADY!!!
We were sold down the river. He should have kept his mouth shut, otherwise, I would have held out the slightest hope that Dem was right..
I'll be happy to - I'm sure I can cut and paste from any number of the places I have listed them in the last few days
But you're making another false argument - or trying to place a false argument into my mouth
The issue is far more WHAT they did, rather than WHY they might have done it ( as I JUST stated a few minutes ago).....so don't try to claim a false position on my behalf
But - for you
- I will go gather up that stuff - from BOTH aspects. - and repost it (at the risk of further boring others ) as soon as I am on my "puter rather than my phone
Pretty sure I know what they did--they failed to abstain as a pretty unsavory guy became Chair of the BOT. I guy who would have become chair whether they abstained or not.I'll be happy to - I'm sure I can cut and paste from any number of the places I have listed them in the last few days
But you're making another false argument - or trying to place a false argument into my mouth
The issue is far more WHAT they did, rather than WHY they might have done it ( as I JUST stated a few minutes ago).....so don't try to claim a false position on my behalf
But - for you
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.
Instead, they are acting like teenagers who have been elected to student council and who now must protect their place among the kool kids. Pretty pathetic. Typical. Etc.
These postings from some elected Trustees are just sad specimens of tortured rationale. Would not pass muster in most college level writing courses, speech classes, etc. But, they don't have to write to that level. They only have to write to the level of the average anonymous internet poster.
I don't know that they are withholding information. It is entirely possible that they are simply manipulative people engaged in more manipulation of us. Or, maybe, authoritarian people getting their authoritarianism on.
As if we should get back to tending to our cotton-picking chores..........
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.
Instead, they are acting like teenagers who have been elected to student council and who now must protect their place among the kool kids. Pretty pathetic. Typical. Etc.
These postings from some elected Trustees are just sad specimens of tortured rationale. Would not pass muster in most college level writing courses, speech classes, etc. But, they don't have to write to that level. They only have to write to the level of the average anonymous internet poster.
I don't know that they are withholding information. It is entirely possible that they are simply manipulative people engaged in more manipulation of us. Or, maybe, authoritarian people getting their authoritarianism on.
As if we should get back to tending to our cotton-picking chores..........
Last edited:
I'm going to wait to see if solid, logical reasons are brought to light regarding the voting and what seems to be an abrupt turn from our expectations. I'm confused and disappointed, but I'm working to remain patient based on previous statements, even cryptic as they sometimes have been.
My concern is that if we who have backed the A9 since the 2012 elections now turn our back on them and therefore turn on PS4RS, we will see 3 Dan Coccos elected each year until we are out of the picture completely. UpYoursState will jump on this and we have all but written their campaign for them for at least the 2017 BOT election.
Anthony, Barb, Alice.... you know that effective, honest communication is a huge part of keeping people engaged. Share what you can about what happened last week, and if you cannot share information (ridiculous as that is), please tell us the reasons and thought processes and do all you can to re-engage the troops. Rob spoke for himself in his message. I understand some of his point of view, not all of it.
Still, I'm willing to be process-based rather than (shorter-term) outcome based and believe the process will lead us to the outcomes we need to realize. I hope that is not naive on my part.
But Sept. 17 is looking like it is going to come and go without an official peep about JVP, and that is infuriating.
Actually there are lots of things that the laws of PA and federal laws prohibit them from telling us, as you must know. Personnel stuff, HIPPAA -protected material, lots of things. You are surely not saying they must break the law to represent you, right?
Suppose someone told a Trustee they would vote a certain way if the Trustee did this or that on a certain vote. A quiet vote trade on the floor of the legislative body. Often done in secret so nobody has to explain it to their side, but the absolutely most common way things get done. No law prohibits revealing it, but you kill the deal if you reveal it. Are you really saying that under no circumstances any such deal could be made?
Let me be very clear--I don't have any idea whether any such deal was cut, and I have no evidence whatever that one was. Tribeck flatly denies it.
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.
