"A Letter from Penn State President Eric Barron"
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Ughh..what an insufferable charlatan. Hopefully he'll be thrown out with the rest of the trash once the old guard's house of cards comes crumbling down....
He's on the wrong side of this and it will be interesting to see him try and play dumb/jump teams once the noose starts to tighten.
Apparently Barron isn't concerned or disturbed by the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS that the OG BOT squandered....what a joke of a man Barron is.
He's on the wrong side of this and it will be interesting to see him try and play dumb/jump teams once the noose starts to tighten.
Apparently Barron isn't concerned or disturbed by the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS that the OG BOT squandered....what a joke of a man Barron is.
Last edited:
How many times have we said "let's give so & so a chance only to get let down again? Look who hired this jerk? How could you have expected him to be one of us?
"I now hear regularly from students, faculty, staff and alumni expressing both concern and fatigue in seeing our own Trustees suing their University."
What a lying sack of shit this guy is. Folks, it's time for some of us to cut all ties to this joke of an institution.
Yep. I was prepared to give him a chance, and I have, but it is clear that his vision of Penn State is not mine.
Now THAT is really funny.
"First, the Bylaws do not require the University to pay for lawsuits against it, including frivolous and damaging lawsuits like the petition you filed yesterday.
As you are aware, your last lawsuit was completely unnecessary. You demanded the names and information about trustee candidates who were not selected, when confidentiality is a standard practice among non-profits to ensure that high-caliber candidates apply."
ERIC: someone should have told you that you lost that case within 24 hours. You wanted to keep the names and other info secret; they wanted you to tell them the names and other info. Regardless of the practice of other non-profits, they filed a LAWSUIT to make you tell them and Poof! you told them. This means they won and you lost. If I want something and you refuse to give it to me, and I sue you and you turn right around and give it to me, it is simply FALSE for you to say that my lawsuit was 1) frivolous; or 2) unnecessary. It sure looks like your resistance to what I wanted was both frivolous and unnecessary. When I file a lawsuit and win because you cave in right away, I WIN. YOU lose. My position is both non-frivolous and necessary. These outcomes are inherent in the definition of the words "frivolous" and "necessary."
Given your failure to grasp this (and I presume you speak for your masters when you say it), and the fact that you idiots are sitting on 4 billion dollars, please allow me to point out that the best proof that is a lawsuit is not frivolous is winning it. I am starting to see how you gave away over 50 million dollars in settlements to the victims.
Bottom line? Your refusal to provide the info was frivolous and I hope they sue you for the legal fees. ANY DOUBT THAT LINGERED THAT YOU ARE A JACKASS IS NOW RESOLVED AGAINST YOU.
So all those people who were advising us to "give Barron a chance", "he respected SuePa", "he's biding his time and waiting for the right moment".
What do you say now?
What do you say now?
I guess Barron had no problem with PSU picking up the tab for the Corman legal fees??
"Board communications to you over the past few days clearly offered to make available to you the requested materials subject only to your commitment that you would keep the information confidential."
I'd like to know exactly who these "board communications" where sent to and when. I'm pretty sure the alum elect trustees said they never received any such communications.
What is the OG BOT's deal with arguing candidates should be confidential (they said same thing with the president search if you all recall)?? Shouldn't folks be proud that they were even nominated to be a B&I trustee at PSU? What possible harm could this information bring to a person's image/rep???
"Board communications to you over the past few days clearly offered to make available to you the requested materials subject only to your commitment that you would keep the information confidential."
I'd like to know exactly who these "board communications" where sent to and when. I'm pretty sure the alum elect trustees said they never received any such communications.
What is the OG BOT's deal with arguing candidates should be confidential (they said same thing with the president search if you all recall)?? Shouldn't folks be proud that they were even nominated to be a B&I trustee at PSU? What possible harm could this information bring to a person's image/rep???
Dem - you are a grand master of thought and expression. This is classic - even better than what I thought were unbeatable gems like 'shitful' and 'suckitacious'.
As for Barron, perhaps we would have been better off with the felon.
As for Barron, perhaps we would have been better off with the felon.
As one of those people I have certainly seen all I need to see.
They keep referencing confidentiality and the alumni trustees have either not accepted or broken confidentiality. Can anyone tell me when this has occurred? It would be interesting to know when confidentiality comes into play. On the board I sit on, only in in camera sessions.
Oh isn't Masser being sued for breach of confidentiality by Spanier?
Oh isn't Masser being sued for breach of confidentiality by Spanier?
Last edited:
Through his chastisement of duly elected alumni trustees, President Barron has shown frivolous and damaging behavior against all Penn State Alumni.
Dear Eric -
If I want to hear from an asshole....I'll fart.
In the meantime, why don't you sit back, relax, have a drink, and slip into something comfortable.....like a coma.
With Warmest Regards,
Your BFF,
Barry
Let's show Barron how large numbers of alums feel. He chooses to be selective to only those agreeing with him. I've already written a response to his letter. We need to flood him with pro-alum trustee correspondence.
I agree. It may not make a difference, but at least he'll know there are those who stand in opposition.
I don't know what you folks want from this guy. He's well on his way to earning us the reputation we've had since 2011.
Guys seriously drop it. He's doing the best he can under ridiculous circumstances. He's defending his university. Don't be so quick to judge him, you may even be pleasantly surprised.
I've already judged him, and not that quickly. He needs to go away. He is an abysmal failure, not only as the president of this institution, but as an academician and as a person, in general. He is highly flawed, terribly overwhelmed, and he has no sense of right or wrong. In short, he was just what we all thought he would be: a purchased mouthpiece for Peetz, Surma, and company.
He is a miserable failure.
He is a miserable failure.
Defending his university against what exactly? Lawsuits to promote transparency? Lawsuits shouldn't be needed to get at this information. Barron needs to broker peace instead of taking sides. I do find it strange that people suing University want University to pay for it. If they have a case and win, then yes University is in wrong and should have to pay. Otherwise no.
What a farce - was no problem paying Corman's legal fees. wasting money on Louis Freeh's work of fiction, George Mitchell's extortion of millions of dollars for his do-nothing job as "integrity monitor," huge payouts to some alleged victims who were never vetted, Rodney Erickson's hunormous pension, Dave Joiner's ongoing big bucks reward for royally messing up the Athletic Department and the biggest waste of all - Barron's 7-figure salary.
With all due respect to demlion, this post has to be the thread winner. Well done.
So there you have it: resolved. Guess Barron's letter wasn't needed after all. Must have been a shot across the bow.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/penn_state_trustees_reach_comp.html
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/penn_state_trustees_reach_comp.html
I wouldn't put it past the OG trustees to leak some of this "confidential" info to the press then blame it on the alum trustees and use that as an excuse to not share unredacted freeh source files with them.
These frivolous lawsuits that have clogged up our university for over 3 years now. How about we focus on providing students the best education they can possibly receive, seeing that that's ya know our mission...
That's a great idea Latty.....maybe we should start by TERMINATING the prostitution of the University. The utilization of University resources to abet the cover up the malfeasance of our OG BOT members and their associates. Maybe the $200 million or more that have been squandered in this fiasco so far could be put to a better use.......like say, funding the educational mission? The only ones OPPOSING the flushing of these hundreds of millions of dollars of University resources are the people you are criticizing.....and calling "frivolous".
Rather than demonizing those who are fighting against great odds to remove some of the cancers that are draining the University, maybe you ought to jump in and support the effort.....if what you stand for is returning the focus to the mission of the University, rather than the self-serving squandering of its resources.
But maybe that is not what you are really "standing for"?
I think you were missing the TIC nature of my posts. Random question though Barry --- how many hours per week would you say you spend on the Sandusky scandal and its aftermath? Reading about it, advocating, posting, etc. Just curious.
LOL Really? I even replied to your first post with:
"This has to be TIC.....doesn't it?"
If so, you did a good job of it
In answer to your question: First, I should say - for me - it is not so much the "Sandusky Scandal" as it is the "Penn State Leadership Scandal". In many ways, Sandusky was the ignition point, but in the grand scheme of things, no matter how vile Sandusky's activities may have been - they were the actions of one man.....they are a "pimple on an elephant's ass" relative to what Penn State's "Leaders" have been doing for so long.
In one way or another - depending on just how you define certain things.......would have to be at least in excess of 15 hours or so (maybe quite a bit more).
Which could be (and maybe is) a bit insane. But my ties to PSU go back beyond myself. The reasons I try to do what I can to rid PSU of these cancers.....or to at least support those who are in a position to succeed in that effort, goes beyond myself. It is something I owe, IMHO. And I can't NOT do it. So I do.
Last edited:
Dear President Barron,
cc: Penn State Trustees, alumni networking
I read your letter at http://news.psu.edu/story/356242/2015/05/05/administration/letter-penn-state-president-eric-barron. While I do not have enough information to respond to your assertion that the alumni Trustees’ lawsuit to compel disclosure of the identities of Business & Industry Trustee candidates was unnecessary, your remark about “confidentiality is a standard practice among non-profits to ensure that high-caliber candidates apply” is a sick joke given the nature of the candidates who were appointed during the past several years.
(1) The B&I faction reappointed Karen Peetz, whose incompetence and violation of the Board’s Standing Orders (more about this below in light of your remark about “expectations of membership”) gave the NCAA an excuse to levy its illegitimate sanctions against Penn State. Peetz’s (more likely than not) defamation of Graham Spanier resulted in a well-justified libel suit against Penn State. Mr. Masser’s and Mr. Frazier’s deposition in the Corman-NCAA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Peetz not only scapegoated Joe Paterno in November 2011 but then, along with the rest of her Board colleagues, lied about it in March 2012 when the Board said Paterno was fired for failure of leadership. Somebody who lies to and on behalf of an organization to which she owes a fiduciary duty is ethically capable of lying to her stockholders, employees, customers, and suppliers, and nobody who scapegoats any employee is fit for any position of supervisory responsibility. I hope this is not your perception of a “high caliber candidate.”
(2) The B&I faction reappointed Kenneth Frazier, who also exposed Penn State to a lawsuit with his remarks about Graham Spanier, and lectured an alumnus in Sharptonese (the kind of language used by Al Sharpton to describe people whose skin color differs from his own) in March 2013. Frazier, like Peetz, scapegoated Joe Paterno and then lied about the circumstances to and on behalf of the organization to which he owed a fiduciary duty.
(3) The B&I faction’s other recent appointees all supported the Board’s willful dereliction of fiduciary duty in failing to contest the NCAA sanctions (the opinion of the Commonwealth Court in April 2014) and subordination of Penn State’s interests to personal agendas as opined by State Senator John Yudichak.
You then go on to say,
“Second, as President, I am very concerned about your approach to confidentiality and to your fiduciary responsibilities. We have a growing number of failures to abide by the Board’s Expectations of Membership, even when the potential for serious financial harm to the University is evident.” Now I need to be very blunt with you about the Expectations of Membership, and your responsibility as a leader to support uniform standards of behavior.
(1) When Karen Peetz violated the Expectations of Membership by affirming the Freeh Report on behalf of the Board of Trustees, but without a vote by said Board, your voice was conspicuously absent despite the financial harm Ms. Peetz caused the University. I know you were not then President of Penn State, but you remained silent about this after you took office.
(2) When one of your subordinates lied to the Legislature (doubtlessly per direction of one or more Trustees in violation of the Expectations of Membership) about the Board opposing certain legislation, your voice was conspicuously absent.
(3) When one or more Trustees misused Penn State communication resources to intimidate and defame alumni Trustees with false public accusations of conflicts of interest, your voice was conspicuously absent. (Again, I recognize that you took office later, but I cannot identify any corrective action you took with regard to this misuse not only of Penn State communication resources, but also Penn State’s name.)
(4) When Paul Suhey directed Rodney Erickson to remove the Paterno statue, your voice was conspicuously absent after you became President.
(5) When Keith Masser and his faction paid out Penn State money to Sandusky victims in whose injuries Penn State played no apparent role, your voice was conspicuously absent.
(6) When Keith Masser and his faction sabotaged efforts to overturn the illegitimate NCAA sanctions, thus placing a cover-up of their own dishonesty and incompetence ahead of the financial interests of Penn State, your voice was conspicuously absent.
Nobody heard what you had to say about those failures to abide by the expectations of membership regardless of financial harm to Penn State, so I do not see why I or any other member of the alumni community should hear what you have to say on that issue now.
I encourage you seriously to think about your actions as a leader, because you are rapidly losing credibility. Your presentation on how to reduce college costs (July 2014 Board meeting) impressed me very favorably, and I even contacted my state representative, with whom I have a very good working relationship, on how to apply your ideas to the public school system so people could finish with associate’s degrees at age 18. Then, however, you tried to impress the students by joining them with the “hands up” demonstration without apparently realizing that you were implying that a law enforcement officer shot a suspect who had put up his hands. I know this was not your intention, but you clearly did not think it through. Your letter of May 5 demolishes your credibility because of your failure to similarly criticize far worse breaches of the Expectations of Membership by the Board’s controlling majority.
Penn State deserved a lot better from Rodney Erickson, but he deserved better from Karen Peetz, Kenneth Frazier, Keith Eckel, and Keith Masser. Please do not let the remaining 11/9/2011 holdovers do to your Presidency what they did to Rodney Erickson’s.
Regards,
William A. Levinson, B.S. ‘78
