Alumni Council Seats 10 Unelected Members

[SEPATOPTEN]

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. [/QUOTE
Before I would agree or disagree I would have to hear the reasons for the changes from the Chair. Your description paints a damning picture but before I would form an opinion I would want to hear some reasons on why these things were done. This is probably not possible. The fact remains that when you control the power you can set the bylaws in many instances. Does anybody know if these questions were asked in a meeting? The way you describe the situation would give me pause but there is always another side of the story which I probably will not ever hear.

BTW - For providing the information to answer your question......you're welcome!

Thank you. Sorry for the oversight.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

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. [/QUOTE
Before I would agree or disagree I would have to hear the reasons for the changes from the Chair. Your description paints a damning picture but before I would form an opinion I would want to hear some reasons on why these things were done. This is probably not possible. The fact remains that when you control the power you can set the bylaws in many instances. Does anybody know if these questions were asked in a meeting? The way you describe the situation would give me pause but there is always another side of the story which I probably will not ever hear.

Try re-reading. I doubt it will connect with any terminal in your brain, but try.

What do you think for a nanosecond that you have anything in this mess figured out? I don't know the process and I asked somebody to explain it to me. It's epidemic to slam a guy if it looks like he does not agree with you. Ease up. Would love to hear the other side of the story on why the changes.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

Maybe the Alabama.......or Minnesota....boards would be a better fit?

I would imagine they also have posters that feel the need to degrade one with a difference of opinion. Folks like that are all over.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

I think we know what we have there.

What do you think we have here? I have responded.You know what you have in me? You have a guy that requires proof when assertions are made. Why because a man disagrees with you do people find it necessary to try to defame him or claim he is an agent of the enemy? Now on the surface those by law changes look strange and I can see why people are mad. I have in my life looked at something and said this is no good but changed my mind after hearing the other side of the story so you never know. I am a fair guy first and foremost. Also save your assertions about me. I am my own man who let's no one influence me nor do I speak for anybody nor they for me.

 

[bjf1984]

What do you think we have here? I have responded.You know what you have in me? You have a guy that requires proof when assertions are made. Why because a man disagrees with you do people find it necessary to try to defame him or claim he is an agent of the enemy? Now on the surface those by law changes look strange and I can see why people are mad. I have in my life looked at something and said this is no good but changed my mind after hearing the other side of the story so you never know. I am a fair guy first and foremost. Also save your assertions about me. I am my own man who let's no one influence me nor do I speak for anybody nor they for me.

You're welcome.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

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

kthanxbi!

You ar

You're welcome.

Look, I know all you guys love Penn St. I believe trying to change the BOT is a worthy cause and it would have been the grandest of gestures if everyone that was on the board in Nov of 2011 would have stepped down in the interest of healing. I am sure the problem with that is many probably believe they did their best under the circumstances. Keep up the good fight guys. I am not against the truth, I just wonder if anyone knows what that is.

 

[bjf1984]

You ar

Look, I know all you guys love Penn St. I believe trying to change the BOT is a worthy cause and it would have been the grandest of gestures if everyone that was on the board in Nov of 2011 would have stepped down in the interest of healing. I am sure the problem with that is many probably believe they did their best under the circumstances. Keep up the good fight guys. I am not against the truth, I just wonder if anyone knows what that is.

I think most of us would readily admit we DON'T know the underlying truths (plural). That is the crux of the issue. Many of us have ideas, concerns, hypotheses....but we don't KNOW.

There ARE indeed some things that we (if we have been paying attention) do know ARE true:

- We KNOW the folks running this University are evil Scoundrels.
- We KNOW that they have prostituted the University's soul, and squandered the University's resources to PREVENT the truth from coming to light.

Those things we KNOW (if we have been paying attention).

But the big unanswered question is "WHY"?

That is the truth that so many of us are hoping to illuminate.
Unfortunately, many others - many of them with a lot of power and resources - are working just as hard to PREVENT that illumination.

While we all have the right to choose which battles we fight......all of those working to PREVENT illumination, and to protect the evil Scoundrels, are - INDEED - enemies of the truth, and enemies of Penn State, and enemies of all of those who care about Penn State. They - possibly - are something even worse.