ADVERTISEMENT

Alumni Council Seats 10 Unelected Members

CR, I cannot imagine parents that were so terrible at raising children than yours were. They simply should not have been allowed to procreate. It was a biologic tragedy.

Did they fail so miserably at everything they did, or just parenthood? It's hard to imagine that they could do one thing so poorly, and not suck at everything else they did, as well.
 
We all have jobs, lives and families. We were asleep at the wheel, and allowed this to happen. No one was paying attention assuming all was well, when it wasn't. PS4RS jumped on it at first opportunity. The warning signs were there, no one opened their mouth.
If you saw the warning signs why didn't you tell somebody.
(this is an abbreviated version of Deb Biedel's FB post)

Alumni Association Leadership adds 10 seats to Alumni Council with the following 10 appointees:

Wendy E. Braund - on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Darryl E. Bundrige – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Meeten V. Doshi – not on ballot.
Anand Ganjam - not on ballot.
Shawn M. Hinkle – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Nuria A. Rodriguez Padro – not on ballot.
Kerrilaine Clark Prunella – not on ballot.
Gregory J. Sam – not on ballot.
Roxanne C. Shiels – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
David W. Ulmer – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.

do your own research and draw your own conclusions . . . must be nice to lose an election and still win a seat (AHEM UPWARD STATE!)
Did the people that won the elections take their seats? That would be the only way there could be a problem, right? . If what they did is OK in the bylaws than I don't see why there is a problem.
 
If you saw the warning signs why didn't you tell somebody.

Did the people that won the elections take their seats? That would be the only way there could be a problem, right? . If what they did is OK in the bylaws than I don't see why there is a problem.


Try re-reading. I doubt it will connect with any terminal in your brain, but try.
 
If you saw the warning signs why didn't you tell somebody.

Did the people that won the elections take their seats? That would be the only way there could be a problem, right? . If what they did is OK in the bylaws than I don't see why there is a problem.

"If what they did is OK in the bylaws than I don't see why there is a problem"

Not sure if you are just pulling someone's chain.....or if you haven't been paying attention.

I'm going to figure it is "just pulling someone's chain".

:)
 
CR, I cannot imagine parents that were so terrible at raising children than yours were. They simply should not have been allowed to procreate. It was a biologic tragedy.

Did they fail so miserably at everything they did, or just parenthood? It's hard to imagine that they could do one thing so poorly, and not suck at everything else they did, as well.
Dude its one thing to mess with a guy, but his parents? I never try to degrade a guy because he has a difference in opinion with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kgilbert78
"If what they did is OK in the bylaws than I don't see why there is a problem"

Not sure if you are just pulling someone's chain.....or if you haven't been paying attention.

I'm going to figure it is "just pulling someone's chain".

:)


+1000
 
"If what they did is OK in the bylaws than I don't see why there is a problem"

Not sure if you are just pulling someone's chain.....or if you haven't been paying attention.

I'm going to figure it is "just pulling someone's chain".

:)
No I asked a question that I don't know the answer to. Did the people that won the elections take the seats that they won via election? Please educate me on the process. Is the Chair doing something against the bylaws? Are there open seats that are filled by the Chair or did they bypass people that were elected to those positions? I did ask about them breaking the bylaws in my original reply.
 
Where he came from is part and parcel to what he has become. They screwed up.
Plenty of parents in this country do a great job only to have a bad egg give them heart ache. I am not saying 66 is bad. Just making an observation. You know nothing about his parents.I know it's just a way to hurt the guy and not based in any knowledge you have of his childhood. I just don't like people defaming folks because they have a major difference of opinion. I find it a weak way to argue a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bamasota
I know it's just a way to hurt the guy and not based in any knowledge you have of his childhood. I just don't like people defaming folks because they have a major difference of opinion. I find it a weak way to argue a point.

Unfortunately that occurs way to often in discussions here.
 
No I asked a question that I don't know the answer to. Did the people that won the elections take the seats that they won via election? Please educate me on the process. Is the Chair doing something against the bylaws? Are there open seats that are filled by the Chair or did they bypass people that were elected to those positions? I did ask about them breaking the bylaws in my original reply.
Giving the benefit of the doubt:

Just as with the PSU BOT.....you never have to "break the bylaws" - you just change them - when you have majority control AND you are willing to just re-write the rules whenever necessary to suit your purposes. Right in line with the PSU BOT "A+ Reform Proposal", the PSU AA followed suit with their "Bylaw Restructuring" back in March/April (sometime around then)

It was discussed at length on this (and other) boards.....but maybe it wasn't on your radar.

FYI....Here is a brief synopsis from a LTE (penned by Yours Truly) to the CDT at the time:

" The PSU Alumni Association recently made the following changes to its Bylaws (relevant Bylaw Section noted):

Added twenty-one appointed seats to Alumni Council – and gave the President and his/her proxies the authority to add/delete positions on the Council at their sole discretion. None of these positions are voted on by the membership. (Article 2, Section 1(a))

The elected members of the Alumni Council are no longer able to compel a meeting of Council, and Alumni are not permitted to attend meetings of THEIR association (Article 4 Section 1(b) and (f))

The President (either directly or through his/her proxies) is given complete authority to: determine who is permitted on the ballot for election to the general Council, who is permitted to run for an Officer position on the Council, and the ability to terminate any member who he/she feels is not conforming to the party line (Article V Section 2 and Section 4(a), and Article 7 Section 3)

Added the Immediate Past President to Council Officers. This addition is made on the heels of the Immediate Past President being mandated as a member of the PSU BOT. The reason for EXCLUDING BOT members from even being considered as CANDIDATES for election to the general Council, was the concern of “undue influence”. Why in the world would a sitting member of the BOT be ADDED to the Officers of the Council? (Article 2 Section 3)

Before giving even $0.02 to the PSU AA, please consider whether you wish to give to an organization which completely excludes you from its governance. Instead, re-direct your contributions by giving to a PSU student in your hometown….to help them meet their tuition expenses."

So, now you have the facts.....so moving forward either you agree with those actions or not. We know there is no "ignorance of the situation" option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Plenty of parents in this country do a great job only to have a bad egg give them heart ache. I am not saying 66 is bad. Just making an observation. You know nothing about his parents.I know it's just a way to hurt the guy and not based in any knowledge you have of his childhood. I just don't like people defaming folks because they have a major difference of opinion. I find it a weak way to argue a point.

A difference of opinion? He states we are all chattel, and he has a pedigree that places himself way above the rest of us. He clearly believes that he is better than us, knows more than us, is more worthy of breathing oxygen than us. In the vernacular, he strongly lives with the delusion that his shit doesn't stink, and ours does.

He laughs at us, lies to us, and gets erections when he thinks about what happened to Joe. He can't wait to see CSS found guilty of something, even though this would tarnish the university even more. He doesn't care about that. All he cares about is himself, and how he thinks the world views him. I'm quite sure the people around him aren't as nearly as impressed with him as he is with himself, but that is besides the point.

Sorry, but it's not easy to produce someone as vile as him. Whoever created the likes of him owes the rest of us an apology.
 
I have nothing but contempt for Frazier and the BoT, but to deny we allowed this to happen is a bunch of crap. If I'm "Frazier" then you must be Peetz and can't comprehend what you read.
What
Maybe the Alabama.......or Minnesota....boards would be a better fit?
Maybe the Alabama.......or Minnesota....boards would be a better fit?
Maybe the Alabama.......or Minnesota....boards would be a better fit?
No. That tactic is all over the world. If you can prove assertions than you don't need to defame anyone.
 
A difference of opinion? He states we are all chattel, and he has a pedigree that places himself way above the rest of us. He clearly believes that he is better than us, knows more than us, is more worthy of breathing oxygen than us. In the vernacular, he strongly lives with the delusion that his shit doesn't stink, and ours does.

He laughs at us, lies to us, and gets erections when he thinks about what happened to Joe. He can't wait to see CSS found guilty of something, even though this would tarnish the university even more. He doesn't care about that. All he cares about is himself, and how he thinks the world views him. I'm quite sure the people around him aren't as nearly as impressed with him as he is with himself, but that is besides the point.

Sorry, but it's not easy to produce someone as vile as him. Whoever created the likes of him owes the rest of us an apology.
So what are his views? He believes that Joe screwed up? Many people in this country think that. I myself think there is little doubt that the 3 administrators screwed up. I imagine he agrees with me on that. You are saying he revels in the demise of Joe Paterno? Why do you say that? Look, there is not a person alive that could piece this thing together and tell you what actually happened or for that matter what was in that persons heart when they made the tough decisions that had to be made after the university was left vulnerable due to the administrators negligence. Those three guys in their own e mails to each other said that this could come back to bite them later. They screwed up more than anybody. I find the unsubstantiated assertions about people connected with this thing to be unbelievable. I believe nothing until I see proof. Because the President or the AD does not do exactly what you want when assuming the job they are no good. Here is where I stand. If CSS are guilty than so be it. If they are innocent than so be it also. What I won't do is root for the verdict that fits my agenda. I am rooting for justice.None of these discussions should ever come with name calling and defamation from 66 or anybody that has a difference of opinion with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bamasota
So what are his views? He believes that Joe screwed up? Many people in this country think that. I myself think there is little doubt that the 3 administrators screwed up. I imagine he agrees with me on that. You are saying he revels in the demise of Joe Paterno? Why do you say that? Look, there is not a person alive that could piece this thing together and tell you what actually happened or for that matter what was in that persons heart when they made the tough decisions that had to be made after the university was left vulnerable due to the administrators negligence. Those three guys in their own e mails to each other said that this could come back to bite them later. They screwed up more than anybody. I find the unsubstantiated assertions about people connected with this thing to be unbelievable. I believe nothing until I see proof. Because the President or the AD does not do exactly what you want when assuming the job they are no good. Here is where I stand. If CSS are guilty than so be it. If they are innocent than so be it also. What I won't do is root for the verdict that fits my agenda. I am rooting for justice.None of these discussions should ever come with name calling and defamation from 66 or anybody that has a difference of opinion with him.
You're welcome.
 
So what are his views? He believes that Joe screwed up? Many people in this country think that. I myself think there is little doubt that the 3 administrators screwed up. I imagine he agrees with me on that. You are saying he revels in the demise of Joe Paterno? Why do you say that? Look, there is not a person alive that could piece this thing together and tell you what actually happened or for that matter what was in that persons heart when they made the tough decisions that had to be made after the university was left vulnerable due to the administrators negligence. Those three guys in their own e mails to each other said that this could come back to bite them later. They screwed up more than anybody. I find the unsubstantiated assertions about people connected with this thing to be unbelievable. I believe nothing until I see proof. Because the President or the AD does not do exactly what you want when assuming the job they are no good. Here is where I stand. If CSS are guilty than so be it. If they are innocent than so be it also. What I won't do is root for the verdict that fits my agenda. I am rooting for justice.None of these discussions should ever come with name calling and defamation from 66 or anybody that has a difference of opinion with him.

please learn what words mean in English, then come back and correct this statement

kthanxbi!
 
I cannot think of another body in the history of elected bodies that appoints losers of the elections to it.

kind of makes the entire point of an election moot. but Masser and his ilk know this.
 
(this is an abbreviated version of Deb Biedel's FB post)

Alumni Association Leadership adds 10 seats to Alumni Council with the following 10 appointees:

Wendy E. Braund - on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Darryl E. Bundrige – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Meeten V. Doshi – not on ballot.
Anand Ganjam - not on ballot.
Shawn M. Hinkle – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Nuria A. Rodriguez Padro – not on ballot.
Kerrilaine Clark Prunella – not on ballot.
Gregory J. Sam – not on ballot.
Roxanne C. Shiels – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
David W. Ulmer – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.

do your own research and draw your own conclusions . . . must be nice to lose an election and still win a seat (AHEM UPWARD STATE!)


Hence my response to PSAA's recent request for a Sustaining Life Member donation.


To: Penn State Alumni Association

cc: alumni networking


I received the Alumni Association's appeal for a gift to the Sustaining Life Member Program in yesterday's mail. The Alumni Association seems to have forgotten very quickly its actions during the past few years that disqualify it from any further support for the foreseeable future.


(1) The Web page on which Roger Williams expresses support for the Board of Trustees is still online at http://alumni.psu.edu/news/2011/statement-from-the-penn-state-alumni-association. I know it was posted before the Board disgraced the University on November 9, but its continued presence implies PSAA's support for the current Board as controlled by Keith Masser.


(2) Former PSAA President Tom Hollander publicly attacked alumni-elected Trustees (during the comment period at a Board meeting) for performing their fiduciary duty by supporting a lawsuit against the NCAA.


(3) Upward State, a shill organization for Keith Masser and his cronies, was supported by three PSAA Past Presidents. Jim Carnes is, in fact, one of the group's founders. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/article_a86fed96-a41b-11e3-93ee-0017a43b2370.html This organization also attacked Trustees for suing Penn State (as a legal formality necessary to attack the NCAA), thus showing clearly that its' leaders relationship with the Masser faction came first, and the well-being of Penn State a distant second. Upward State finally dried up and blew away in the wind, but Masser & Co. rewarded some of its leaders nonetheless. It is particularly telling that the Masser faction added two Upward State people (Matt Schuyler was an Upward State Trustee candidate whom the alumni rejected soundly in 2014) to the Board this year.


(4) PSAA attempted to keep off the 2015 ballot the names of two candidates for whom I, and the necessary number of other alumni, took the time to sign petitions. The Republican Party, of which I am a member, similarly kept Bob Guzzardi off the primary ballot in 2014, and told me when I complained that Tom Corbett was going to be our party's candidate. I replied that my party could therefore go to Hell in November as far as the gubernatorial contest was concerned, and I voted for Tom Wolf. If PSAA's controlling clique is going to exclude from the ballot people for whom I signed petitions, PSAA can similarly go to Hell when it comes to me with its hand out for money. In fact, had I not paid for a Life Membership long ago, I would quit my membership by discontinuing my dues payments. As matters stand, I at least get the magazine every couple of months.


(5) A posting in BWI Rivals shows unequivocally that the Penn State Alumni Association is now governed ("led" would be the wrong word) by an out of control, unaccountable cabal of self-serving insiders whose primary agenda is to network and feel important rather than serving the Association's stakeholders. This cabal has just expressed its open contempt for the Association's dues-paying members as follows. "One of the bylaws changes against which I argued most vehemently was the removal of nomination to Alumni Council by 50 valid signatures. The language of the previous bylaws (prior to April 17, 2015) did not indicate that nominations accompanied by signed petitions of 50 alumni association members were subject to review and approval of the nominations committee. Indeed, the bylaws language indicated that these are two independent processes. That has all changed now. Nomination by petition from active alumni members has been eliminated, as has nominations from the floor of council. You can now self-nominate or be nominated by the Nominations Committee. This bylaws change (next paragraph, additions are noted in CAPS) will allow the Nominations Committee to review, and have the final decision, regarding all nominations to Council."


The removal of the petition nomination process is an obvious reaction to the successful petitions of Board of Trustees critics Elizabeth Morgan and Jim Smith. If PSAA's governing cabal thinks hundreds of thousands of Penn State graduates are too stupid to recognize this, PSAA has been drinking too much of Keith Masser's Kool-Aid and Karen Peetz's soma (the don't worry, be happy drug from Brave New World). This is a flat-out declaration of war by the Association's so-called leaders on the dues-paying members. PSAA cannot slap me in the face and treat me as an enemy one day, and hold its hand out to me for money the next.


Until such time as the PSAA returns to its original mission of being an alumni association rather than a shill for Keith Masser, Keith Eckel, Kenneth Frazier, and the other dysfunctional Board leaders who are trying to cover up their own incompetence, dishonesty, and dereliction of fiduciary duty (the latter is the takeaway from the Commonwealth Court's decision of April 9 2014) at Penn State's expense, I encourage fellow alumni to seek alternate channels for involvement in Penn State. Donations can be sent directly to selected activities, scholarships, and so on rather than through PSAA.


William A. Levinson, B.S. '78
 
Yeah, there's no way I could send my kid there (unless she's an athlete on scholarship for volleyball).

Fortunately for you, it's a number of years before she's heading off to college. By then, it's likely that the performance of the BOT leadership and the PSAA leadership will be greatly improved. If not, a decrease in applications from alum's offspring will be the least of PSU's problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Fortunately for you, it's a number of years before she's heading off to college. By then, it's likely that the performance of the BOT leadership and the PSAA leadership will be greatly improved. If not, a decrease in applications from alum's offspring will be the least of PSU's problems.

My niece was somewhat favorable to PSU during her college search. I did not push PSU at all (partly because she did say that she preferred a smaller school). She'll be at Rochester Institute of Technology this fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Those three guys in their own e mails to each other said that this could come back to bite them later.

Those emails don't contradict anything they told the grand jury. They don't say anything about receiving a report about a child being sexually molested, and they certainly don't say anything about a plan to cover anything up. Remember, they never denied that they received some kind of report from McQueary. What's in dispute is what McQueary told them, and those emails don't say a word about that.
 
I respect anyone that puts their name forward and runs for a volunteer position.

I do have a problem with the Alumni Council officers appointing individuals that lost in the Alumni Council election to the newly created 10 appointed positions. Call it what you want, but it's basically the officers saying to their membership, "we've heard you, but we disagree with you." Actions like that cause people to lose faith in leadership, and to stop voting. Perhaps that's what the officers are trying to achieve, though I can't imagine why any officers would want that as their legacy.

Anyway, here are the newly appointed members of Alumni Council that lost in the recent election.

1. Shawn Hinkle - he was seeking another term on Alumni Council, but finished 20th in the recent election
2. David Ulmer - he was seeking another term on Alumni Council, but finished 19th in the recent election
3. Roxanne Shiels - she was seeking another term on Alumni Council, but finished 17th in the recent elections
4. Wendy Braund - she was seeking another term on Alumni Council, but finished 16th in the recent elections
5. Darryl Bundridge - he was seeking his 3rd term on Alumni Council, but finished 14th in the recent elections

If you click on the hyperlinks of each name, you can read about them. They each have impressive records of service to PSU, and to the Alumni Association. Again, I have nothing against any of them, and honor them for all they've given to PSU. My issue is with the Alumni Association officers that pushed for the bylaws change that added the 10 additional seats, decided to fill them (if I recall correctly, it was up to the officers whether they would add the additional seats), and then would fill 5 of the 10 with candidates that did not win election in a vote open to all AA members.
 
I don't exactly know why folk who are neither a PSU alum nor a PSU student (e.g., possible future-alum) would care about who is on the PSAA Alumni Council --- given that non-alums have no say in the matter --- but fair enough to see some of their opinions.
 
I don't exactly know why folk who are neither a PSU alum nor a PSU student (e.g., possible future-alum) would care about who is on the PSAA Alumni Council --- given that non-alums have no say in the matter --- but fair enough to see some of their opinions.
Really? C'mon Mich......for a while there you were really trying.
 
Really? C'mon Mich......for a while there you were really trying.

The truth is the truth. If 99% of this board's regular posters had come on here and advocated the election of some people to the PSAA, would those posts be pinned?
 
(this is an abbreviated version of Deb Biedel's FB post)

Alumni Association Leadership adds 10 seats to Alumni Council with the following 10 appointees:

Wendy E. Braund - on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Darryl E. Bundrige – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Meeten V. Doshi – not on ballot.
Anand Ganjam - not on ballot.
Shawn M. Hinkle – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
Nuria A. Rodriguez Padro – not on ballot.
Kerrilaine Clark Prunella – not on ballot.
Gregory J. Sam – not on ballot.
Roxanne C. Shiels – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.
David W. Ulmer – on 2015 ballot. Not elected.

do your own research and draw your own conclusions . . . must be nice to lose an election and still win a seat (AHEM UPWARD STATE!)


I love how 5 of the 10 were on the ballot and lost yet the alumni council picked them for their 10 spots. Makes you wonder why we even have elections at all???

Add to that, IIRC the highest vote getter who just missed being elected by alumni (#11) was NOT picked by the alumni council for the at large bids. They picked 5 who got fewer votes and skipped him. Of course he was a PS4RS endorsed candidate so no surprise there. Someone at the alumni council should have to explain these picks.
 
I love how 5 of the 10 were on the ballot and lost yet the alumni council picked them for their 10 spots. Makes you wonder why we even have elections at all???

Add to that, IIRC the highest vote getter who just missed being elected by alumni (#11) was NOT picked by the alumni council for the at large bids. They picked 5 who got fewer votes and skipped him. Of course he was a PS4RS endorsed candidate so no surprise there. Someone at the alumni council should have to explain these picks.
That was the point of the bylaw changes. They don't have to anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
I love how 5 of the 10 were on the ballot and lost yet the alumni council picked them for their 10 spots. Makes you wonder why we even have elections at all???

Add to that, IIRC the highest vote getter who just missed being elected by alumni (#11) was NOT picked by the alumni council for the at large bids. They picked 5 who got fewer votes and skipped him. Of course he was a PS4RS endorsed candidate so no surprise there. Someone at the alumni council should have to explain these picks.

#11 was Bill Cluck
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbahses
That was the point of the bylaw changes. They don't have to anymore.

it is pretty "transparent" that the bylaw change was specifically made to counter this slate. much how the proposed BoT changes were made for the same purpose. the alumni pose a clear and present danger to the power elite.
 
Yep. I think it's sad that the same people who criticize others for their "blind faith" in Paterno, seem to show the same "faith" in the Leaders at Penn State and the leaders of the AA.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT