I assumed everyone had seen that- not that he actually SAID anything in that post- since then, not a word in response to the many questions and comments that have been posed.
There has been a great deal of consternation regarding the A9
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
True. Just putting it out there, there are always things that people miss as this board turns over pretty rapidly.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
My concern isn't really with the Paterno's - their names aren't on my degree.
Elmo: You have made some good points, but you are incorrect in opining that PSU's receipt of an indemnity from TSM somehow imposed on PSU a higher duty of care to Sandusky's victims or the other TSM visitors.
For one, as harsh as it may sound to say it, PSU's legal duty to these kids was extremely minimal. TSM organized and operated these events. TSM invited the kids. Sandusky worked for TSM. TSM clearly had a legal duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure their safety. It's no surprise that PSU, as owner of the property where some TSM events took place, was sued. The property owner ALWAYS gets sued. But PSU's legal duty to these kids was certainly much more attenuated, since PSU did not organize or operate the events, nor did it employ the folks who ran the TSM events.
It seems obvious at this point that the generous and unvetted settlements PSU made with the 32 Sandusky claimants were motivated, as much as anything, by a desire to mitigate the storm of negative publicity enveloping the University. Not by the existence or recognition of some elevated legal duty to the claimants.
Moreover, if I owned real property and contracted with you to allow you permission to occupy or use my property (whether as a tenant, a licensee, or in some other legal capacity), it would absolutely be standard legal procedure for me to insist that you indemnify me for any and all claims or damages that might arise from the use or occupancy of my property by you or your guests. It would be shocking (and legal malpractice on the part of PSU's attorneys) if PSU had NOT gotten such an indemnity from TSM. Neither demanding nor receiving such an indemnity imposes any higher legal duty on the property owner than it would have had without the indemnity.
Perhaps you were arguing, somewhat indirectly, that the fact PSU insisted on getting an indemnity from TSM is evidence that PSU was aware of (or had constructive notice of) Sandusky's predatory nature. While that may seem like a decent argument at first blush, the plain fact is that property owners uniformly ask for such an indemnity in situations like this, so that argument would not carry water in court.
Well stated. Been harping on this for years in one way or another. The Paternos have the resources to fight their own fight and that's all well and good. It was never about that for me. I rattled off many a gin-induced tirade about Joe in a dark post-game parking lot after wins and losses alike. Some here may have heard some. I don't know what level of sinner or saint individuals are in this. PSU though, that's a different matter.
You can't call your children all bastards and then expect them to come back with a bottle of wine at Christmas.
LOL. You just did, Rob. (Francofan: thanks for providing a copy of Rob Tribeck's letter.)
Incidentally, although Tribeck took pains to note that he spoke for himself, it concerns me greatly to see him say that he decided to vote for Lubert without getting any concessions, and purely in the hope that it would generate some goodwill. I am concerned because Tribeck presumably would have been privy to any concessions deal that was either concluded or discussed. His statement suggests to me that there was no such deal. I sure hope that is not the case.
Last edited:
On this I cannot agree. Sandusky at no point 'worked' for TSM. Sandusky at no point reported to anyone at TSM. Sandusky founded TSM. Sandusky was TSM. And that is the crux of the problem as well as how tightly integrated TSM and PSU were on so many levels.
Honestly think that many are missing the massive contradiction of PSU's AD's statements in regards to "negative recruiting" at B1G Media Days earlier today as highlighted on the homepage of this website. Ditto the initial comment of PSU's President a couple months ago in regards to PSU's lawsuit against PMA when the media first started putting out provably false information as "fact" relative to unsubtantiated claims leveled at both PSU and about coaches within its Football Program.
PSU, and therefore PSU's now Chair of the Board who presided over this mess, cannot have it "both ways" - PSU can't exortiate others for making irresponsible and libelous claims if they are unwilling to vociferously speak out against them and demonstrate precisely why the claims of the media and these parties are irresponsible and potentially tortuous. Lubert has a real problem if you ask me, some of the biggest and harshest critics of the irresponsible way the Settlement Process has been handled - especially relative to it being handled in the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of PSU's, and PSU's Beneficial Owners, "best interests" - are Senior Executives of PSU including both the President and Athletic Director! This is now a tight-rope that Lubert cannot continue to walk imho, especially with the OAG taking a fresh look at TSM in regards to what institution(s) were primarily responsible for what transpired here and the Auditor General looking into why the State was ready to fund a $3 million grant in mid-2011 (Corbutt's explanation doesn't wash as both TSM & Sandusky were aware he was under investigation relative to V1's CSA Complaint since late-2008! Beyond that, Corbutt could have rejected the application, there had to be many more apps than govt-funding, without even commenting on it! Corbutt's explanation is patently absurd & ridiculous.
The A9 may have Lubert in a "pickle in the middle" situation and may now be able to force him to publicly state his position on these important matters rather than continuing to speak out of both sides of his mouth on the issues!
PSU, and therefore PSU's now Chair of the Board who presided over this mess, cannot have it "both ways" - PSU can't exortiate others for making irresponsible and libelous claims if they are unwilling to vociferously speak out against them and demonstrate precisely why the claims of the media and these parties are irresponsible and potentially tortuous. Lubert has a real problem if you ask me, some of the biggest and harshest critics of the irresponsible way the Settlement Process has been handled - especially relative to it being handled in the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of PSU's, and PSU's Beneficial Owners, "best interests" - are Senior Executives of PSU including both the President and Athletic Director! This is now a tight-rope that Lubert cannot continue to walk imho, especially with the OAG taking a fresh look at TSM in regards to what institution(s) were primarily responsible for what transpired here and the Auditor General looking into why the State was ready to fund a $3 million grant in mid-2011 (Corbutt's explanation doesn't wash as both TSM & Sandusky were aware he was under investigation relative to V1's CSA Complaint since late-2008! Beyond that, Corbutt could have rejected the application, there had to be many more apps than govt-funding, without even commenting on it! Corbutt's explanation is patently absurd & ridiculous.
The A9 may have Lubert in a "pickle in the middle" situation and may now be able to force him to publicly state his position on these important matters rather than continuing to speak out of both sides of his mouth on the issues!
crm: I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that Rob Tribeck has taken the position that the other, largely day to day responsibilities that the Board of Trustees have are so important and so paramount that: (1) they require a cohesive and harmonious group of Trustees, and (2) the only way to obtain that cohesion is for the A9 to knuckle under to the OGBOT and "move on."
I am not convinced of any of those premises.
1. How is it that the other day to day responsibilities of Trustees are somehow more important than getting to the bottom of and resolving a scandal that has divided - and continues to divide - the Penn State community, and that has cost - and continues to cost - Penn State millions of dollars and precious goodwill?
2. I dispute the notion that a governing board can function only if there is absolute cohesion and uniformity of opinion among the members of that board.
3. I further dispute the notion that taking a principled stand should bow to the goal of cohesion, or that making concessions to people who have already proved their lack of honesty and good faith is likely to prompt introspection or a change of heart on their part, much less a meaningful display of goodwill.
4. I do not believe the desire to hold the OGBOT scoundrels accountable for their misdeeds can fairly be characterized as "burning down the university," or that the conduct of people who have that desire is in any way comparable to the conduct of the OGBOT scoundrels.
I don't dispute that Sandusky may have "run" TSM. But his precise place on TSM's organization chart makes little difference with respect to my point that he was working on behalf of TSM rather than PSU. Sandusky was not an employee of PSU, but of TSM. He may have incorporated TSM and served as its President, but he was an employee of TSM rather than PSU.. Hence, the legal duty to monitor his conduct and take reasonable precautions to safeguard TSM's guests from his predations rested much more strongly on TSM than on PSU.
It's clear that the Alumni elected trustees are as useless as a mesh rubber. That's not a knock on any individual one personally, but as Mr. Tribeck reminded us, it's just the way it's set up. I get it now, they're tilting at windmills but that being said they should all just resign (the ones we voted in). The jig is up. I think a mass resignation by all of them would speak to some people in Harrisburg. Let the power brokers flesh out the vacant seats with their own bag men, cheerleaders and yes-men. It's not like it matters one way or the other. Put more toadies in and in fact, expand the board to about a dozen more seats. That way the in-laws and cousins can get a danish or two also.
I guess we lost. We're now all bickering with each other.
Nah, just think... what could have been, what a statement. They unanimously vote Lubert as exalted ruler and then resign en masse. That could not have been ignored in the papers. Then, unencumbered by any fake promise, horse trader deal or "fealty" to PSU they could have gone to the microphones at the papers and said what's on their minds instead of personal blogs, tweets, and all this other nonsense. THAT would have been a move. Fill the seats now, let's see how they do it. That would have been a guerilla move of epic style.
And would have immediately lost access to all the Freeh documents they're still combing through. Yeah, real smart move. That'll show'em.
I haven't seen where the access to the Freeh documents means jack at this stage. I suppose you may be proven right sometime down the road but there is no cause for optimism at this stage. One thing for sure, it would have had the papers wetting themselves to get stories from the A9 and they would have the chance to sing like Marilyn McCoo.
"Every battle is won or lost before it's ever fought."
LOL. The person who posts here as Lubrano. Is it him? We're ripe for every troll on planet Earth and a few others. This is provable fact. We believe anything.
Victor, we're on the same page. The next time I have lunch with Rick Neuhisel at the Corner Room, you're invited.
Or is The Tavern that he prefers? I forget.
Or is The Tavern that he prefers? I forget.
I'm buying. I just ran off a bunch of $6 bills in the Hammond basement.
The fundamental problem is this . When you clearly articulate that the candidate for BOT chair has sold out the university, squandered precious resources through either incompetence, illicit reasons, or personal gain, and has been part of the problem for many years, one cannot vote for that person no matter what they promise. Their track record precludes it. I still trust Anthony to a point, but he needs to answer to that, just like Ira needs to answer for his misdeeds, as stated by the A9. Maybe I am cynical, but I cannot come up with a scenario where I can look at the settlement process, and say Ira got it right. The lack of clear answers from Anthony, and Rod I have read only make me feel worse.
That's what saddens me about the whole topic
Beyond that, Sandusky absolutely did work for TSM and he did not unilaterally "run TSM" - he was one of many on the all-powerful Executive Board and he was the most powerful "Control Person" via his Charter-Granted "Founder Status", but he was in no way the ONLY listed "Control Person" in the regulatory-filed docs....not even close. TSM had a governance structure with multiple Boards and the "Statewide Board of Directors" over top of all of them and the "Executive Committee" of the Statewide Board being the most powerful "Control Persons" (and Sandusky with his Founder Status being most powerful of that group). But Sandusky was not the sole "Control Person" - that is not even remotely close to accurate. Nor was Sandusky primarily responsible for regulatory-filed "Daily Operations" (e.g., Chief Operating Officer) or the filing of Daily Operating Policies & Procedures - this would have all fallen under the CEO & #2 Executive, Jack Raykovitz and his wife, Catherine Genovese....and this would have included SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY (including adherence to regulatory-filed Daily Operating Policies & Procedures for all TSM Counsellors with access to TSM child participants). Additionally, Sandusky acted as an active Counsellor in multiple programs at TSM including DPW-filed programs via Clinton County CYS Office registered programs in the case of V1 and the Centre County CYS Registered "Friends Fitness Program" in the case of both V6 (1998) and V2 (2001) and would have been subject to CEO Raykovitz's Daily Operating Policies & Procedures....and Raykovitz would have been responsible for supervising Sandusky's TSM Counsellor activities for adhearance to the regulatory-filed Daily Operating Policies & Procedures!
Complete balderdash that TSM was not primarily responsible for SUPERVISING Sandusky's interaction with children via being provided under TSM administered programs - complete bull$hit. It would be like saying that PSU, and not DPW/CYS, is primarily responsible for one of his Adopted or Foster Children that he brought on Campus! Bull$hit, Sandusky would be permitted to bring Adopted or Foster Children on campus - children that he was granted custody rights (either temporary or permanent) by the State of Pennsylvania. It would be nonsensical to claim that PSU has more responsibility than DPW/CYS for monitoring and regulating Sandusky's behavior with such children when they are on PSU property - a simply absurd, nonsensical and baseless claim just as making a similar claim relative to TSM-aministered programs via DPW/CYS would be!
Last edited:
1) I wasn't criticizing Lubrano personally I'm criticizing his decision.
2) The public perception is already cemented.
3) The appeals in regards to the court of public opinion.
I am confident the Freeh Report will be exposed even more so as the fraud it is & that the PSU3 will win in court. I doubt the lawsuits will pan out except for Spanier's. Sandusky will die in prison. Regardless the public are still slaves to the media & the media will never change their false narrative. At least not for another 50yrs. I wish every day I'll be proven wrong on this PSU thing.
.
Have you considered that if Penn State was in fact compensated by TSM for access to their facilities, that Penn State may have been subject to the duty owed to a business invitee? I know you are aware that there is no higher duty to a third party on ones property than that owed to a business invitee.
Have you considered that if Penn State was in fact compensated by TSM for access to their facilities, that Penn State may have been subject to the duty owed to a business invitee? I know you are aware that there is no higher duty to a third party on ones property than that owed to a business invitee.
Not sure this is true - the A9 are not "judge, jury & executioner" in regards to the ALLEGATIONS you raise. We have no idea what answers Lubert provided to these very serious issues during Executive Session - maybe he was able to present information to at least raise plausible deniability on all of the concerns (maybe he wasn't told of TSM's Indemnification of PSU for instance). In any event, this is but one of many, many, many important issues facing The University at the present time (Governance Reform is a hugely important topic facing The Universy currently and this cannot be accomplished without engaging the Pennsylvania Government, including the OAG & Legislature - the Board is not permitted to "materially" alter the Charter - only Legislature can do that....the Board can engage the OAG and Legislature on this topic including Fiduciary Obligation, COIs, Sunshine Laws - e.g., transparency, Governance, etc..., but they can't unilaterally materially change the Charter without violating PA Law which would be a no-no. Etc....). In any event, they can't simply choose to be obstructionist on everything otherwise they are providing a perfect excuse for OG and new Chair to exclude them from committees in the interest of getting The University's business done (e.g., OG can say that they are only interested in preventing all business from being conducted and this is not in the best interest of The University so they have been marginalized in the interests of getting things done...).
At the end of the day, they can raise issues and to the extent that Lubert provides meaningful answers, they cannot exclusively focus on that one issue. They can also make the OAG aware of their concerns surrounding these issues, but at the end of the day it is the OAG's responsibility to investigate if they believe it rises to "materiality" - it is not the A9's purview to investigate or prosecute, let alone act as Judge, Jury & Executioner on the matter. They apparently have raised their concerns....asked for answers....etc., now they must let it run its legal course through PA Law via the Founding Charter - they would not be fulfilling their own obligations if they simply became obstructionist on this one matter (which they have no absolute tangible proof of) to the exclusion of every other important matter currently facing The University.
Last edited:
Would assume that the the A9 could petition the OAG as a group with their concerns even if they disclosed information learned through non-public documents such as Freeh Documents to the extent that the information would seem to prove a clear violation of Fiduciary Obligation or illegal activity - would have to believe their Fiduciary Duty to the "Beneficial Owner" supersedes all else and therefore reporting their concerns to OAG, who has purview over NPOs (especially NPOs founded by the State and owned by the Public via "Beneficial Interest" - e.g., "Public NPOs", not "Private NPOs"), would not be prosecutable since the OAG would keep such information confidential. Because PSU was Founded by the State via a direct Act of the Legislature, it is subject to PA Sunshine Laws applicable to Public entities and quasi-agencies.....and because the Trustees highest obligation is to the Beneficial Owners (e.g., the general public), they would have an obligation to "whistleblow" (e.g., "mutiny") I believe (again, they would have to have a reasonable belief that the information was damning though I believe).
Good comeback. It's a fact that you can't dispute. That joke of a group is all over anyone else when they go against their views, but when the A$$9 do it, we hear nothing but excuses.
"PS4RS+JoePa" have proven that Paterno is the only thing they care about.
Huh? What? So your theory is that the A9 (the candidates supported by PS4RS) didn't abstain as group in public opposition to Lubert because the only thing they care about is Paterno? IOW, they voted unanimously for Lubert because "the only thing they care about is Paterno"??? BLMFAO (as in beyond laughing my f'ing tail off). Clearly you're not the brightest bulb on the tree.....let's just leave it at that.
As worthless as an alumni seat on the board is, just bail. You are all wealthy people with a lot on the line. Just hang it up. I wouldn't have come half this far to defend a place that has a power structure in place that is impossible to tumble and is occupied by undesirables seeking to jam me for my views. I applaud your efforts.
Last edited:
what happened to all those "bombshell" posters? The Frank Sheeran and others who promised something BIG was coming...great news was on the way. Guess everyone was just lying to get attention. Pretty sad.
It WAS great news.......... For Lubert and the Scoundrels
Could you imagine any Bigger or Better news for them?
Well I think Sheeran was probably McAndrew given his musical taste and since he hasn't had much to say in either guise, that should tell you that it's pretty much time to stir the coals and call it a night. I hesitated to proffer my opinion on Frank S, lest he stop posting but really, what difference does it make, and I could be wrong anyway.
And if I'm banned, that's cool. Most of the board probably has me on ignore anyway.
