A9 report out in the open

[Art]

Agreed with your conflict of interest statement. Can I ask why you are against more academics being on the Board? Obviously not all academics are well suited for this, but some certainly are AND understand how a university works better than an officer of a Fortune 500 company.

I don't want academics on a board precisely because I want people (from the outside) with different perspectives to evaluate how the university operates, how it spends its money, and what its plans are for the future. If you want to use a Fortune 500 analogy, having a board made up with a large number (pick your percentage) of academics would be akin to Exxon having its Board comprised mainly of Exxon business unit heads, except that in Exxopn's case the Board members would have far more extensive knowledge in functional disciplines that govern the organization across the board.

Since most board decisions ultimately are translated into money, when it comes to academicians....well I'll leave it right there.

 

[delcoLion]

Agreed with your conflict of interest statement. Can I ask why you are against more academics being on the Board? Obviously not all academics are well suited for this, but some certainly are AND understand how a university works better than an officer of a Fortune 500 company.

As Buckley said (paraphrasing): I'd rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phonebook than anyone from the Harvard faculty.

 

[baircub1!]

After his “donation” of $1million

So... figuring his incompetence also help lead to $300 million in costs to the University... he is $299 million in the hole...

 

[Legion of Lions]

I actually think that they followed the play book for how to handle a crisis in a business setting: namely, throw money at it, until the stock prices go back up.

What they didn't realize was that university stakeholders (students, faculty, alumni) are NOT the same as the stakeholder (shareholders) in a business. This speaks to NOT having your BOT dominated by "captains of industry", but academics and alumni (with maybe a couple of business folks for when you need to build a dorm or something).

I'm sick of those who keep saying that the BOT's handling of all this was due to incompetence and the like. FACE IT....The OG BOT was a PARTICIPANT in a collusive crime against a public institution. NO OTHER reasons are supported by FACTS.

Remember - the OAG, the PSP (Frank Noonan), Freeh, NCAA, B1G and the media ALL promoted a "Story" that made no sense! There NEVER was any reasonable linkage of anything Sandusky did (in 2001 or before) with Penn State Football and Paterno. This was and is a politically assisted theft of MILLIONS from a State University by the criminal collusion of those who participated in this "Story". How much more proof do you need?

ALL of these people need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - and yet, in the State of PA - IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!! Too much money spent on protecting the insiders, bending the laws and the corrupting the courts!

If you doubt that is is an engineered political crime - explain how - MM was not considered "credible" in a court of law (as evidenced by the jury NOT CONVICTING Sandusky on one "PSU Shower" charge because he was NOT thought to be a credible witness) and yet his "rape" testimony - one which MM himself certifiably questioned - served as the cornerstone of the "...Penn State and Joe Paterno MUST HAVE KNOWN of these crimes and COVERED UP for them for YEARS... This conflict of statements was never challenged in court, in the press or in any other legal appeals in PA courts --- and yet --- it is the cornerstone of the "Penn State Sex Scandal". There are just NO REAL FACTS TO BACK Actually, without the misconduct of PA agencies throughout this matter FOR YEARS, I do not believe Sandusky would have even been charged - Why....NOT ENOUGH REAL EVIDENCE for 10+ year old allegations. "...Known but to God..." victims are, by definition, FICTITIOUS!!

Rather than go on for pages with the unprecedented number of suspicious issues concerning leaks, evidence tampering, illegally obtained evidence and known collusion with a number of groups, my big question is WHERE IS THE FEDERAL government in all of this. By now they MUST see the potential (at VERY least) of state corruption and collusion in this case.

 

[Art]

We should also not forget the leverage that Corbett had with BOT members either in their personal, business (within the borders of PA) or BOT roles. So regardless, he had the ultimate leverage in dictating the direction of the Freeh report.

Had Spanier done an adequate job in preparing for the shitstorm, even if it never came he should have done it, he would have significantly reduced or eliminated Corbett's leverage. The advantage Corbett enjoyed was that he operated in a vacuum. The guy just ain't that bright.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I don't want academics on a board precisely because I want people (from the outside) with different perspectives to evaluate how the university operates, how it spends its money, and what its plans are for the future. If you want to use a Fortune 500 analogy, having a board made up with a large number (pick your percentage) of academics would be akin to Exxon having its Board comprised mainly of Exxon business unit heads, except that in Exxopn's case the Board members would have far more extensive knowledge in functional disciplines that govern the organization across the board.

Since most board decisions ultimately are translated into money, when it comes to academicians....well I'll leave it right there.

I agree that you want people from the outside, but that still understand Universities. So perhaps academics without PSU ties? You wouldn't want academics running Exxon because they don't know the business. Same applies.

 

[ouirpsu]

I actually think that they followed the play book for how to handle a crisis in a business setting: namely, throw money at it, until the stock prices go back up.

What they didn't realize was that university stakeholders (students, faculty, alumni) are NOT the same as the stakeholder (shareholders) in a business. This speaks to NOT having your BOT dominated by "captains of industry", but academics and alumni (with maybe a couple of business folks for when you need to build a dorm or something).

This is almost EXACTLY what I said 8 years ago! Wow...I'm moved almost enough not to bring up last night's game against Virginia. Almost.

 

[Art]

I agree that you want people from the outside, but that still understand Universities. So perhaps academics without PSU ties? You wouldn't want academics running Exxon because they don't know the business. Same applies.

What's to understand? Universities teach, they conduct research. I do neither, but if someone came to me with a proposal to spend $X to expand instruction or research I could evaluate it, certainly better than an academic.

 

[Talpsu]

I'm sick of those who keep saying that the BOT's handling of all this was due to incompetence and the like. FACE IT....The OG BOT was a PARTICIPANT in a collusive crime against a public institution. NO OTHER reasons are supported by FACTS.

Remember - the OAG, the PSP (Frank Noonan), Freeh, NCAA, B1G and the media ALL promoted a "Story" that made no sense! There NEVER was any reasonable linkage of anything Sandusky did (in 2001 or before) with Penn State Football and Paterno. This was and is a politically assisted theft of MILLIONS from a State University by the criminal collusion of those who participated in this "Story". How much more proof do you need?

ALL of these people need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - and yet, in the State of PA - IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!! Too much money spent on protecting the insiders, bending the laws and the corrupting the courts!

If you doubt that is is an engineered political crime - explain how - MM was not considered "credible" in a court of law (as evidenced by the jury NOT CONVICTING Sandusky on one "PSU Shower" charge because he was NOT thought to be a credible witness) and yet his "rape" testimony - one which MM himself certifiably questioned - served as the cornerstone of the "...Penn State and Joe Paterno MUST HAVE KNOWN of these crimes and COVERED UP for them for YEARS... This conflict of statements was never challenged in court, in the press or in any other legal appeals in PA courts --- and yet --- it is the cornerstone of the "Penn State Sex Scandal". There are just NO REAL FACTS TO BACK Actually, without the misconduct of PA agencies throughout this matter FOR YEARS, I do not believe Sandusky would have even been charged - Why....NOT ENOUGH REAL EVIDENCE for 10+ year old allegations. "...Known but to God..." victims are, by definition, FICTITIOUS!!

Rather than go on for pages with the unprecedented number of suspicious issues concerning leaks, evidence tampering, illegally obtained evidence and known collusion with a number of groups, my big question is WHERE IS THE FEDERAL government in all of this. By now they MUST see the potential (at VERY least) of state corruption and collusion in this case.

you give them too much credit. some definitetly wanted said outcome, some were in it just for the free meals, but most were idiotic sheep. Go rewatch the firing of Joe and just look at all their faces sitting in the back. Clueless morons who rubber stamped whatever a few said. Our board could not be more opposite and out of touch with the alumni and Penn State base.

 

[ouirpsu]

I agree that you want people from the outside, but that still understand Universities. So perhaps academics without PSU ties? You wouldn't want academics running Exxon because they don't know the business. Same applies.

As an academic, I take issue with your negative generalization of academics. I have served on numerous boards (nothing on par with a major university) and can say without hesitation that critical thinking, a valuable skill possessed by many if not most academics, is often lacking from most deliberative decision-making bodies.

 

[PSU2UNC]

What's to understand? Universities teach, they conduct research. I do neither, but if someone came to me with a proposal to spend $X to expand instruction or research I could evaluate it, certainly better than an academic.

Academics also administrate.

If you had no working knowledge of how university research dollars worked (most outside of academia do not) how could your properly evaluate a proposal for a new laboratory facility?

 

[PSU2UNC]

As an academic, I take issue with your negative generalization of academics. I have served on numerous boards (nothing on par with a major university) and can say without hesitation that critical thinking, a valuable skill possessed by many if not most academics, is often lacking from most deliberative decision-making bodies.

Maybe you are responding to the wrong person, but I am also an academic and I think academics are FAR better at critical thinking than anyone currently on the BOT.

 

[ouirpsu]

Maybe you are responding to the wrong person, but I am also an academic and I think academics are FAR better at critical thinking than anyone currently on the BOT.

Oh, sorry. I must have replied to you instead of who you were replying to.

 

[didier]

https://www.philly.com/news/jerry-s...&utm_source=t.co&cid=Inquirer+Twitter+Account

Contains a response from Freeh. It also has the full report...including the appendices that were mentioned.

 

[Art]

Academics also administrate.

If you had no working knowledge of how university research dollars worked (most outside of academia do not) how could your properly evaluate a proposal for a new laboratory facility?

Simple:

1) how much is this new lab going to bring in?

2) why can't the research be accommodated in existing facilities?

3) explain how each line item expenditure is essential to the research being conducted? (Oh, you don't want to do that because I'm supposed to know that? Buh-bye).

Oh, and, by the way, how is a professor of, say, romance languages in a better position to evaluate?

 

[Art]

As an academic, I take issue with your negative generalization of academics. I have served on numerous boards (nothing on par with a major university) and can say without hesitation that critical thinking, a valuable skill possessed by many if not most academics, is often lacking from most deliberative decision-making bodies.

Maybe you are responding to the wrong person, but I am also an academic and I think academics are FAR better at critical thinking than anyone currently on the BOT.

Ah, so now we know who is behind the curtain. While not an academic or a university administrator, I've dealt with them extensively. What you consider "critical thinking" is more often than not mush.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Simple:

1) how much is this new lab going to bring in? This isn't the right question to be asking. This demonstrates you don't understand how research works. And illustrates my point.

2) why can't the research be accommodated in existing facilities? If you aren't in this field, how can you possibly understand this?

3) explain how each line item expenditure is essential to the research being conducted? (Oh, you don't want to do that because I'm supposed to know that? Buh-bye). This is related to #2. Same answer.

Oh, and, by the way, how is a professor of, say, romance languages in a better position to evaluate? They aren't.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Ah, so now we know who is behind the curtain. While not an academic or a university administrator, I've dealt with them extensively. What you consider "critical thinking" is more often than not mush.

I'll put my critical thinking up against your any day, Art.

 

[ouirpsu]

Ah, so now we know who is behind the curtain. While not an academic or a university administrator, I've dealt with them extensively. What you consider "critical thinking" is more often than not mush.

I assume the academics you've dealt with are from Pitt?

 

[ouirpsu]

Simple:

1) how much is this new lab going to bring in?

2) why can't the research be accommodated in existing facilities?

3) explain how each line item expenditure is essential to the research being conducted? (Oh, you don't want to do that because I'm supposed to know that? Buh-bye).

Oh, and, by the way, how is a professor of, say, romance languages in a better position to evaluate?

I'm not even going to begin to critique this. PSU2UNC, it's all yours.

 

[BobPSU92]

https://www.philly.com/news/jerry-s...&utm_source=t.co&cid=Inquirer+Twitter+Account

Contains a response from Freeh. It also has the full report...including the appendices that were mentioned.

From the above link:

"“The deniers continue to embarrass the many thousands of outstanding Penn State students, faculty, and alumni by blindly disregarding the uncontroverted facts in favor of a misguided agenda,” Freeh said in a statement."

How adorable. Asshole.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm not even going to begin to critique this. PSU2UNC, it's all yours.

See above ;-)

 

[Art]

What are your thoughts on the necessary preparations?

Expect the worst that it will blow back onto PSU in a big way (i.e. that someone closely identified with PSU will be indicted for child abuse, that PSU knew about it, and did nothing to stop it) and mobilize resources to counter it. Instead Spanky & Co told the Board it was a big nothingburger.

 

[ouirpsu]

BTW, who calls the release of information that actually HELPS an organization “reprehensible?” That's an odd word for Dambly and Barron to use.

 

[PSU2UNC]

BTW, who calls the release of information that actually HELPS an organization “reprehensible?” That's an odd word for Dambly and Barron to use.

Yeah, transparency is terrible...SMH.

 

[Art]

Yup, there we go. Typical academic. No one is capable of understanding what you do except you and those that occupy the same rarefied climes. But the primary reason for that is that you and your ilk are incapable of of explaining or simply can't be bothered.

 

[NewEra 2014]

As an academic, I take issue with your negative generalization of academics. I have served on numerous boards (nothing on par with a major university) and can say without hesitation that critical thinking, a valuable skill possessed by many if not most academics,

In my experience, many, if not most, academics possess very poor critical thinking skills. But almost all of them believe that they possess excellent critical thinking skills.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yup, there we go. Typical academic. No one is capable of understanding what you do except you and those that occupy the same rarefied climes. But the primary reason for that is that you and your ilk are incapable of of explaining or simply can't be bothered.

I can explain it to you, but why would that be better than me (who already knows this) steering the ship?

If everyone could understand what I do, far more people would do it, and I wouldn't have had to devote 30 years of my life to learning it.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Is this correct? I think had we known what an outright hatchet job and selective hit-piece the report was going to be we would have preferred some review and comment by the BOT prior to a full release. It's like asking a question in court that you don't know the answer to - which suggests the BOT knew what was coming (and approved).

By the time the report was percolating & getting ready for release, yes, many of us thought it would be good to have it reviewed first, feared the worst, and we got even worse than that.

I mean that initially, when the investigation was announced, we, pretty much collectively, cried out that the BoT should NOT have any chance to review or edit. Initially, many of us, probably most, had some regard for Freeh.

Then this went to the opposite extreme, where the BoT were interviewed for the report, provided inputs, but didn't have a chance to review the outputs. Especially the way it was released, not on Scribd or some other system that might handle the load, but on a untested web server that could not. Followed by a grandstanding press conference an hour later when no one could have been expected to yet have intelligent questions.

Even then, that ridiculous press conference was disrupted by protestors. One a sham victim that virtually no body gives any credence to (who somehow links Reagan, Rendell, Mumia Jamal) into it. And the other demanding to know why Freeh didn't look into TSM specifically (when all of us following knew that investigating TSM was outside their charter of engagement ... indeed, the A7 review & the Paterno report also avoided investigating TSM - it wasn't what they were asked to do).

 

[NittPicker]

https://www.philly.com/news/jerry-s...&utm_source=t.co&cid=Inquirer+Twitter+Account

Contains a response from Freeh. It also has the full report...including the appendices that were mentioned.

No redactions there. I like it. I wonder why the scribd posting redacted Baldwin and Belcher on pg. 22 and pg. 23??

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

--We all knew (suspected) that the conclusions of the Freeh report were manipulated/predetermined by a group from the BOT;

--the alumni trustee review of the Freeh report methodology and conclusions supports this belief;

--a complete repudiation of the Freeh report by the PSU BOT at their meeting on 2/22 is warranted;

--failure to repudiate the report becomes a public admission that the 2011 BOT did, in fact, orchestrate the entire Freeh report fiasco, perpetuated by the current BOT.

I actually agree. Which is not a new opinion.

 

[Art]

I can explain it to you, but why would that be better than me (who already knows this) steering the ship?

If everyone could understand what I do, far more people would do it, and I wouldn't have had to devote 30 years of my life to learning it.

I see. So because you know more about a particular area you should have sole and complete control over mundane things like money to be spent. In other words, you should be given money simply because you say you need it. Why do I get a certain level of comfort in the knowledge that the world don't work that way?

 

[Zenophile]

Phony website crash document: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/99880..._mode=list&access_key=key-np10w8w6r7gyqb44pwk

 

[PSU2UNC]

I see. So because you know more about a particular area you should have sole and complete control over mundane things like money to be spent. In other words, you should be given money simply because you say you need it. Why do I get a certain level of comfort in the knowledge that the world don't work that way?

So you are claiming that it is easier for a business person to understand why PSU needs a new particle accelerator than it is for a nuclear physicist to understand a budget? OK....sure.

 

[BBrown]

In my experience, many, if not most, academics possess very poor critical thinking skills. But almost all of them believe that they possess excellent critical thinking skills.

Yea I find them a lot like Management.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Had Spanier done an adequate job in preparing for the shitstorm, even if it never came he should have done it, he would have significantly reduced or eliminated Corbett's leverage..

He also made the mistake of stacking the BOT with high wealth, low character people that were actual or potential donors

 

[Art]

So you are claiming that it is easier for a business person to understand why PSU needs a new particle accelerator than it is for a nuclear physicist to understand a budget? OK....sure.

No, a business person doesn't need to know what a particle accelerator is or how it works, just how it's being paid for. If someone shows net cash inflows from funded research that exceed the cost of equipment, expenditure is approved, end of story. If not, you got some 'splainin to do.

 

[Art]

He also made the mistake of stacking the BOT with high wealth, low character people that were actual or potential donors

Was not aware of his role in determining the composition of the Board. Such are the risks of wanting to be the smartest person in the room.

 

[PSU2UNC]

No, a business person doesn't need to know what a particle accelerator is or how it works, just how it's being paid for. If someone shows net cash inflows from funded research that exceed the cost of equipment, expenditure is approved, end of story. If not, you got some 'splainin to do.

That's not what you said earlier. You said "why can't the research be accommodated in existing facilities?" You need to understand the science to know that. Or you have to trust the people who know the science. Or, you could let the people who know the science make the decision.

I'd also suggest that a lot of large capital research expenditures are speculative ("if you build it, they will come") rather than, "Oh, here's this year's income that offsets this expenditure". But I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[lionville]

https://www.philly.com/news/jerry-s...&utm_source=t.co&cid=Inquirer+Twitter+Account

Contains a response from Freeh. It also has the full report...including the appendices that were mentioned.

Didn’t Freeh say the report was his OPINION????