There has been a great deal of consternation regarding the A9

[jubaaltman]

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.

What a turd Surma is and was.

 

[demlion]

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.






WTF is going on.


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

So what does it mean to say that it is a "fiduciary failure," to not tell us? Those are your words. I did not make them up. If that is not what you meant why did you say it?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

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

Same. If we're going to have our elected reps disengage from the main purpose we elected them for, I'd rather elect more qualified folks to work on other university business if that's all they're going to do. Hope Pratima Gatehouse runs again next year.

 

[Bobpsu]

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?

0.05

 

[Misder2]

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

It certainly can be, and was

 

[StinkStankStunk]

So what does it mean to say that it is a "fiduciary failure," to not tell us? Those are your words. I did not make them up. If that is not what you meant why did you say it?

I made it CRYSTAL CLEAR what I meant.

Can you f&cking read:

Here is EXACTLY what I said - after you ASKED:
______________

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)


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)

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"
___________________

God Lord man.....quite being such a douchebag, circle-jerker

As I said in my original reply:

"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 "

But I sure as hell didn't expect THIS......from YOU

This bullshit would do GTASCA proud.

Until you're finished with the circle-jerking idiocy....I'm done. And disappointed. Stunningly so.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Dem,

I don't personally know you as others on this board appear to but I do know your actions over the last almost 5 years so I do not doubt that your basic goals are the same as mine.

I too have thought about the A9 vote extensively over the last ~4 days and I still cannot, for the life of me, understand.

For months, Anthony 'destroyed' Lubert on this board. I would search for his posts nearly daily and read with delight what his latest 'hammer' was against Ira. There was no ambiguity in his words.

Anthony set-up huge expectations for me and hundreds, if not thousands, of others based on those numerous posts. HE set-up those expectations, not us.

If there was any doubt whatsoever in his own mind that he was not going to raise absolute hell during this vote, then don't effing lead us to believe for months that you are!

So here we are, 4 days later, and I'm STILL pissed off. Not surprising I suppose... what's 4 days compared to someone amping me up for months?

Even if we give the A9 every benefit of the doubt, your post illustrates that they do not have a coherent strategy for success.

 

[psu00]

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...

This ^^^^. I assume he promised to involve them more (it has been embarrassing how they've been sidelined by the old guard). That said, allowing a token alumni rep or 2 on a committee is not a big deal. They will never be appointed in any number that would allow them to control the narrative or decisions. Instead of 25-9 full BoT votes it will be a smaller 6-1 (or whatever) vote at the committee level.

The other thing about Tribek's comments that hit me was that he saw his choice as either voting for Lubert or abstaining. It looks like voting 'no' wasn't even a consideration.

While I appreciate his explanation, most of it was rationalizing. It appears principle is lost. All with (apparent) promises to be more inclusive....with superficial changes without real substance. It looks like rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The A9 will just now have some better seats on the sinking ship.

The fact remains, the A9 voted FOR Lubert who they had just spent weeks/ months saying was inappropriate, failed badly in his fiduciary responsibility and was basically unfit for office.

 

[lionlurker]

It just seems......odd. There's got to be more to the story than merely acquiescing in return for inconsequential committee positions.

 

[bwifan]

It just seems......odd. There's got to be more to the story than merely acquiescing in return for inconsequential committee positions.

Yes it does. Although it does open the door some for additional light to shine in and have more say. IMHO Ira has a backup plan now that he is in charge if he see's a runaway train coming down the tracks he will quickly shift that backup plan into action and I would bet he has something set up that a number of the OGBOT would take the fall for it all. Ira is not going to go down in flames for this short of a truly smoking gun, either with 2nd mile or conspiring to hang this all on Joe and C/S/S.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

This ^^^^. I assume he promised to involve them more (it has been embarrassing how they've been sidelined by the old guard). That said, allowing a token alumni rep or 2 on a committee is not a big deal. They will never be appointed in any number that would allow them to control the narrative or decisions. Instead of 25-9 full BoT votes it will be a smaller 6-1 (or whatever) vote at the committee level.

The other thing about Tribek's comments that hit me was that he saw his choice as either voting for Lubert or abstaining. It looks like voting 'no' wasn't even a consideration.

While I appreciate his explanation, most of it was rationalizing. It appears principle is lost. All with (apparent) promises to be more inclusive....with superficial changes without real substance. It looks like rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The A9 will just now have some better seats on the sinking ship.

The fact remains, the A9 voted FOR Lubert who they had just spent weeks/ months saying was inappropriate, failed badly in his fiduciary responsibility and was basically unfit for office.

On the heels of a very well written, scathing piece by PS4RS that very strongly suggested Lubert isn't fit to chair a pizza party. Ouch.

 

[psu00]

It just seems......odd. There's got to be more to the story than merely acquiescing in return for inconsequential committee positions.

I agree, but (from what I've seen) there's been totally vague "non explanation" explanations from the A9 so far. Tribeck's comments have been the most extensive I've seen and they appear to suggest the A9 caved for some vague promise of future inclusion. Time will tell if there's something we don't know but from what's public now- I'm just shaking my head. IMO it's now over. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I agree, but (from what I've seen) there's been totally vague "non explanation" explanations from the A9 so far. Tribeck's comments have been the most extensive I've seen and they appear to suggest the A9 caved for some vague promise of future inclusion. Time will tell if there's something we don't know but from what's public now- I'm just shaking my head. IMO it's now over. I hope I'm wrong.

Smacks of a new level of hopelessness. They're now setting sights on smaller, more realistic goals and more inclusion.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Yes it does. Although it does open the door some for additional light to shine in and have more say. IMHO Ira has a backup plan now that he is in charge if he see's a runaway train coming down the tracks he will quickly shift that backup plan into action and I would bet he has something set up that a number of the OGBOT would take the fall for it all. Ira is not going to go down in flames for this short of a truly smoking gun, either with 2nd mile or conspiring to hang this all on Joe and C/S/S.

He doesn't need a damn "backup plan"


He already has a GIGANTIC "frontdown plan" (the opposite of a "backup"?)

He was just coronated to be the Head Poo-Bah - - - my unanimous declaration.......and he has control over a large majority of the votes - mostly from dick-less sycophants.

And now - - - - his one "opposition concern"? - - - he got them to bend over like a bunch of $5.00 navy town hookers, and thrown away any credibility that they (or their constituents) might have had


"Back up plan? Back up plan? I don't need no stinking backup plan?"



"You're mine, bitches!"

 

[ForesterGump]

Future inclusion will not bring about legislative reform. Seems that voting for was counter to Tribeck's goal of reform.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Future inclusion will not bring about legislative reform. Seems that voting for was counter to Tribeck's goal of reform.

But now they - the A9 individuals - may be more "included" (while it lasts)

How nice

 

[Sharkies]

I found my computer and was able to go back through all those "hypotheticals" I alluded to -- @PSUEngineerx2 is right.. we were either being lead on ... or we got sold down the river.. I'm not sure which is worse.

Here's another email from that RTK request. I'll let you interpret.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxbmf0m4n1pnr0c/Tomalis Emails-- Surma, Frazier, Tomalis Freeh Report 7-12-12.pdf?dl=0

The new members, McCombie and me in particular, did not receive the report "well" as described by Tomalis. I guess that was wishful thinking on his part.

We did not, however, do much more than listen given we had not yet had the time to review it.

I will always remember July 12, 2012 because that meeting was my first as a Trustee. I can vivdly recall walking into the conference room after Freeh's press conference and having Ira Lubert ask "So now what do you think of your guys?"

I am exhausted. And I know the last two days news cycles have posed new challenges. That's the bad news.

Here's the good news. The allegations are unsubstantiated and without veracity.

Look at this as though we were driving for a score when our QB took a sack.
We get up, reset and punch it in.

We are getting very, very close folks.

Keep the faith.

To be clear, the release of this information appears not to be a coincidence. And it appears to be related to efforts of some to undermine the efforts of others.

This information will be public in time and at that time all of you will see. At that time I am confident that you will conclude as have I that these claims, all of them, are totally uncorroborated, unsubstantiated and without merit.

Penn State's decisions with respect to these claims, however, are questionable at best, again in my view.

By the way, the Legal Subcommittee at the time of these decisions was chaired by Ira Lubert.

Has anyone done research on Tom Kline and his possible relationship with any members of the Board of Trustees?

Didn't Mr. Kline recently make a gift to Drexel that resulted in the naming of a building after him? Do we know of any Trustees that have recently been honored by Drexel?

Refresh my memory. Who Chaired the Legal Subcommittee when the first round of settlements were made?

For what it's worth, Ira Lubert does not appreciate any of my references to him here.

How many of you feel sorry for him?

Now ask yourselves why would someone intimately involved in the process of selection of the University President not make a priority to attend the meeting, by phone, to make an affirmative vote to confirm the selection? After all, this is the greatest responsibility a Trustee has-- the hiring of the President.

The absent individuals were not sick, by the way.

Time for the super sleuths to get back to work.

Look into the development of Innovation Park. Pay close attention to the developer.

Have at it.

Want some more homework?

Take a look at the BOT Minutes from March, 2008. Look carefully at the Committee on Finance resolutions that day.

In a rather ironic twist, Ira Lubert served three years from 1997-2000 as a Trustee elected by the "Industrial Societies." This process was controlled by PMA not unlike the control exerted by the Farm Bureau in the election of Trustees by the Agricultural Societies.

This story illuminates the relationship:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_a5b37c28-faa9-528d-92f7-321a5a437d0e.html

In 2000, Fred Anton, President and CEO of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association (PMA) and Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Company, wanted to replace Ira. He turned to Ted Junker, then Board Chair, to do the dirty work. Needless to say, Ira was infuriated. Consequently, Ira made known his intentions to remove Penn State from his will. That led to Joe Paterno inviting Ira to attend Super Bowl XXXV at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, FL as Joe's guest on January 28, 2001. Along with Tim Curley, they flew with Ira on his plane but Joe paid for the tickets out of his pocket.

Ira was subsequently appointed to the Board by former Gov Ed Rendell and re-appointed by former Gov Tom Corbett.

In 2002, then Board Chair Ed Hintz, a Trustee "elected" by Industrial Societies, appointed Cynthia Baldwin, then Board Vice-Chair, to chair an Ad Hoc Committee to study and recommend changes to the election process of the Industrial Societies. The result of this effort was to take this process "in house" and refer to this group as Business and Industry Trustees. Of course, some of Penn State's largest donors are from this group.

Here's a link to information on the 2002 election:

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2002/bot18jan02officers.html

So here we are, in litigation with PMA.

 

[coveydidnt]

The A9 must have had this vote planned in advance or they wouldn't all have acted in concert.

They could have shared that plan then in advance.

Transparancy shamparency

 

[Sharkies]

That being said, I don't think we were being lead on at all -- quite the opposite really... I just think we once again got "IRA'd" and I wish Lubrano could at least come back to the Board to admit it.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

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?

I'd actually be more pissed if this turned out to be true than I am about who they voted to be captain of the Titanic. If they voted for Lubert because they were threatened that the trustees would expose more crap, then they are complicit in continuing to cover up for the actions/inactions at Penn State, regardless who is implicated, living or dead. Either way, we're at the 1/16th pole here in the deep stretch and we just had the jockey fall off.

 

[lionlurker]

I'm not buying the bullshit about more bad news. That always get thrown out to us, and there never is any. And I'm positive it would have been leaked out, had it existed. Just like the stuff that leaked out, that didn't exist to begin with.

And regardless, Ira is still a bad president, period. No big helping of bad Paterno news will ever change that.

 

[bwifan]

I'd actually be more pissed if this turned out to be true than I am about who they voted to be captain of the Titanic. If they voted for Lubert because they were threatened that the trustees would expose more crap, then they are complicit in continuing to cover up for the actions/inactions at Penn State, regardless who is implicated, living or dead. Either way, we're at the 1/16th pole here in the deep stretch and we just had the jockey fall off.

As many of us on here have said we cannot begin to heal and move on until ALL the facts come out regardless of where they lead.(Granted it's a big IF to get all the facts out) If it leads to people we know and care about doing bad things or covering them up then so be it. But air all the dirty laundry and get it all out regardless of where it leads. I and so many others are just so sick of allegations/accusations/innuendo's/etc... let's get all the dirty laundry out and let the chips fall where they may regardless of where it leads.

 

[Western PA]

And where be the usual post-BOT meeting commentary fromPS4RS? That group endorsed all of the A9. Wonder what the collective thoughts are in that group, now four days later.

Seems to me the approach to all matter Ira they endorsed and what they now have in hand is something quite different.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I'd actually be more pissed if this turned out to be true than I am about who they voted to be captain of the Titanic. If they voted for Lubert because they were threatened that the trustees would expose more crap, then they are complicit in continuing to cover up for the actions/inactions at Penn State, regardless who is implicated, living or dead. Either way, we're at the 1/16th pole here in the deep stretch and we just had the jockey fall off.

Nope

 

[StinkStankStunk]

And where be the usual post-BOT meeting commentary fromPS4RS? That group endorsed all of the A9. Wonder what the collective thoughts are in that group, now four days later.

Seems to me the approach to all matter Ira they endorsed and what they now have in hand is something quite different.

They issued a statement......If I find it quick I'll post it

Their membership, and leadership (which is kinda the same thing) were every bit as shocked (at least) as everyone here.

 

[21Guns]

They issued a statement......If I find it quick I'll post it

Their membership, and leadership (which is kinda the same thing) were every bit as shocked (at least) as everyone here.

I know..."feckless", isn't it?

Never change, unless you are trying to speak at a BoT meeting, then wear a disguise, since you're banned.

 

[demlion]

I'd actually be more pissed if this turned out to be true than I am about who they voted to be captain of the Titanic. If they voted for Lubert because they were threatened that the trustees would expose more crap, then they are complicit in continuing to cover up for the actions/inactions at Penn State, regardless who is implicated, living or dead. Either way, we're at the 1/16th pole here in the deep stretch and we just had the jockey fall off.

If I thought for a minute there was any way this was a foil to cover anything up, I'd be right there with you.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Me thinks Lubrano was told to stay off this site...

 

[jerseylion109]

Me thinks Lubrano was told to stay off this site...

Probably...has he said a word since?

 

[Nitt1300]

Probably...has he said a word since?

not one

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

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.

Because as they get deeper into this they are all coming to the realization that there really is no way to "win". There is no path to victory. Call it resignation or acceptance of the situation they find themselves in. It's the same thing either way

 

[psu00]

Me thinks Lubrano was told to stay off this site...

Maybe. I think, after seeing the reaction post Lubert vote, he knows he can't say much to calm the waters (and, in fairness, may not be able to discuss much detail due to the 'executive session' nonsense) so he's letting things settle for a while.

The damage is done and I have a feeling in a few months, when the A9 realize they've gained nothing in Lubert's shell game of promises, that he'll be back here again saying he regrets that vote.

 

[Nitt1300]

I never bought into PS4RS, mostly because I've never liked the idea of yet another special group of alumni acting like they know best for the rest of us. I've usually voted for the same candidates for BOT but have done a couple of write ins as well.

I find myself wondering if we might have been better off with some independently elected members rather than relying on the litmus test that PS4RS applied. Frankly, I don't see how that could have been any worse.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I never bought into PS4RS, mostly because I've never liked the idea of yet another special group of alumni acting like they know best for the rest of us. I've usually voted for the same candidates for BOT but have done a couple of write ins as well.

I find myself wondering if we might have been better off with some independently elected members rather than relying on the litmus test that PS4RS applied. Frankly, I don't see how that could have been any worse.

I think we probably had unrealistic expectations with regard to what *any* A9 bloc could accomplish WRT Sandusky, Freeh, Joe, etc. Now that I think about it - pretty pointless to be on the board and vote 'no' every chance you get. I mean, it makes a statement, and it's one that needs to be made IMO, but if that's all we can get - why bother at all?

 

[psu1969a]

trustees expressed here. I do not have any inside information to add to the decided lack of inside information we have gotten from Rob Tribeck's and Alice Pope's and Anthony Lubrano's posts here and on social media. (I will say they have likely told us all they are at liberty to say.)

What I have had is some time. Time while on vacation last week during which I fried my laptop by spilling a full 16 oz mug of coffee on it (cream, two Splendas), meaning therefore time during which I was essentially silent. I was silent because, when your fingers resemble two matched packs of Johnsonville Bratwurst, you cant type worth spit on a cell phone. Time to read and think and be unable to join in. So here is what I've got.

We all, whether fairly or not, had fairly high expectations going in to the election of Ira Lubert as Chair. Not expectations of winning, because 9 is not and will never be a majority on the PSU Board.

Expectations of what, then? That someone would call Ira out for his various conflicts of interest both predating the Sandusky case and since it first broke. Some of us I am sure dreamed of a weeping Ira Lubert, broken-hearted and sick at the notion that we all do not worship him, being led from the meeting hall in either handcuffs or a straitjacket, sobbing "I KNEW it was a mistake to screw Joe! I told Frazier and Surma not to do it!"

Well...it is fun to imagine, but perhaps just a wee bit outside the realm of possibility. We want to win, not just play for advantage in the future. We want to go for it on fourth down, not punt every time, right?

Well, I am pretty sure from what I know of them the A9 largely feel the same way. They have a bigger problem than us, though. They cannot afford to gamble and lose. They have to play the short field.

Information is being gathered from a variety of sources--the trustees are reviewing the Freeh docs, the OAG has showed a renewed interest in the 2d Mile. Those reviews should be done in a few months. Ira has to know those reviews are going forward. Moreover, these ancient civil suits have to be tried at some point, and the CSS cases have to end.

Masser is a dullard. He was never going to have the foresight to prepare the University to face what this new round of stuff they hid since '11 (and before) will mean when it comes out, but Ira, while he may be evil, is not stupid.

Remember that our A9 are Legislators, not executives. Remember also that they have put a lot of themselves into this for a very long time, and all the ones I know are pretty adept at not being fools on the subject of wasting their time on pipe dreams. Let's give them a chance to work it. Ira was going to be chair whatever they did. If there is anything to be gained by not spilling blood during this election, they would be more likely than you or me to know it.

It isn't like you got misled while the A9 kept a bunch of insiders informed--Maribeth Roman Schmidt was just as shocked as anyone here, and she personally has worked harder than any ten of us to get these people in place to have the chance to make this decision. Let's have a little faith. What are we going to do except watch and wait, anyhow?

We are no worse off than we would have been had they tied up the meeting thru procedural maneuvers then lost the vote 24-9 or whatever, and we may find that at the right moment, the chair will go for us. Lubert, distasteful as you may find him, is being given a chance to be The Man Who Saved Penn State. I think he just might be self-interested enough to take it.

I appreciate your comments but I do not believe that Lubert/Dambly et al will suddenly change their stripes. They are megalomaniacs.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

0.05

Got it Bob. I was cruising along at around an 85.38725 before the vote. So for me to be "just ran out" would imply a bi-polar mood swing based on a singular event. That was the point I was trying to make but you were already running on fumes so I can't offer to pass the lithium. Got any?

 

[crm114psu]

I think we probably had unrealistic expectations with regard to what *any* A9 bloc could accomplish WRT Sandusky, Freeh, Joe, etc. Now that I think about it - pretty pointless to be on the board and vote 'no' every chance you get. I mean, it makes a statement, and it's one that needs to be made IMO, but if that's all we can get - why bother at all?

If you were thinking that some BOT public apologies or midfield ceremony where they all lined up to kiss Sue's ass was going to happen then yes, you definitely had unrealistic expectations. It isn't going to happen regardless of who is elected to the A9 slots.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

not one

This isn't correct, he posted Saturday morning about 25 down on P1 of the linked thread...

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/bot-unanimous-vote.129820/

 

[psu00]

I think we probably had unrealistic expectations with regard to what *any* A9 bloc could accomplish WRT Sandusky, Freeh, Joe, etc. Now that I think about it - pretty pointless to be on the board and vote 'no' every chance you get. I mean, it makes a statement, and it's one that needs to be made IMO, but if that's all we can get - why bother at all?

I have a slightly different twist. I don't think the A9 need to always vote no just to vote no but there were certain votes where they needed to- honoring Erickson, settlements (without knowing details), and Lubert.

The bottom line is that the governance on the BoT is beyond dysfunctional and it is nothing short of rigged to make sure the B&I trustees (and some Ag) run the show......and will always run the show. So no matter what Lubert promised the A9, or whatever deals he cuts in the future, it's all smoke and mirrors. It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Problem is that the chances that the legislature and governor will act now (slim to begin with) are now closer to 0. The A9 vote showed total support for Lubert and how things are done.

Frankly the A9 should be reaching out to ALL alumni (and legislators/ governor)- detailing how they've been treated, silenced (Lubrano rule/ executive session etc), prevented from taking part in the major committees, the rigging of the BoT numbers once Corbett was seen to be losing so they wouldn't lose power with new governor appointees, the mismanagement of PSU finances (a key point given PSU state funding issues), the lack of fiduciary responsibility in vetting claims, etc.

They should be making a strong case to the governor and every legislator on BoT structural reform to make it more democratic. Until that's fixed- Lubert's empty promises mean nothing. And the A9 just cut themselves off at the knees voting unanimously for the 1 person they could really use to get traction with the legislature over inappropriate behavior at the PSU BoT. Instead they endorsed him unanimously......with praise.

 

[demlion]

I appreciate your comments but I do not believe that Lubert/Dambly et al will suddenly change their stripes. They are megalomaniacs.

I neve tr said I thought anyone could or would work with Dambly.