Serious question: aside from CSS and the Paterno family, who has more personal skin in this game than Anthony?Yes. 1,000,000 times (and I admire a lot of what Lubrano has done)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Serious question: aside from CSS and the Paterno family, who has more personal skin in this game than Anthony?Yes. 1,000,000 times (and I admire a lot of what Lubrano has done)
Serious question: aside from CSS and the Paterno family, who has more personal skin in this game than Anthony?
Yes. 1,000,000 times (and I admire a lot of what Lubrano has done)
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?
The BoT game? PSU sports? What game? You think this is a game?
It certainly seems that part of the deal is that AL stay silent on specifics. 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?
Not to be snarky, but:Serious question: aside from CSS and the Paterno family, who has more personal skin in this game than Anthony?
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.
STFUIMHO, 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.
I understood what he was sayingI 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.).
True thatThe 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.
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.
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.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
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....
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.
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.
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).....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.
To rant and rave publicly about what a skunk Ira is will not move the ball. .
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.
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.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
I thought about that; that is a speculative guess as well.They voted the way they did because they were clued on what actually happened.
IMHO the bottom line in this is pretty simple: do I hate the vote for Lubert more than I trust Lubrano.
And -- for me -- that answer is an easy no.
Seriously? I have not done that?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.
NoThey voted the way they did because they were clued on what actually happened.
Humor me. Lay out the list "again." Every possible reason they might have done this.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!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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 daysHumor me. Lay out the list "again." Every possible reason they might have done this.
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 - 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
Or Ira promised positions of authority on the board for the A9.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.
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.
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.
As if we should get back to tending to our cotton-picking chores..........