ADVERTISEMENT

Alumni Trustees continue to press for truth re: B&I process

simons96

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2013
10,119
6,858
1
Plano, TX
LINK

“Again, Mr. Masser attempts to create separate classes of Trustees — a preferred class (which includes Mr. Masser) with superior access to corporate information and a second inferior class without access ...” attorney Donna Walsh wrote in her filing. “Such disparate treatment cannot be squared with the rights and duties in the Nonprofit Corporation Law.”
 
While we are at it, the Executive Committee nonsense should be exposed as well.

The Operation of the Executive Committee should confirm to the goals of providing an expeditious means to conduct extraordinary business in a timely fashion, not to exclude Board members from the deliberation and decision making process.

According to University BOT Bylaws (Section 3.02): “The purpose of the executive committee shall be to transact all necessary business as may arise in the intervals between regular meetings of the Board of Trustees; it being understood that action by the Executive Committee would not be expected to be taken except in extraordinary circumstances. Notice of any action by the Executive Committee shall be provided to the Board of Trustees at its next regular meeting”.

While one might see the prudence of planning for the necessity of BOT action – in extraordinary circumstances – in a manner more timely than through the regularly scheduled bi-monthly meetings, it certainly isn’t (or should not be) an excuse to exclude ANY member of the BOT from involvement in the operation and execution of BOT duties.

Given the technological resources available to all Trustees, it is highly likely that the majority of Trustees would typically be available to engage in such meetings, even when the need exists to convene the meetings on short notice. As such, and given the fiduciary benefits of including as many Trustees as possible – especially in times of “extraordinary circumstances” -no Trustees should be summarily excluded from any extraordinary meetings of the Executive Committee.

Therefore, in accordance with good governance practices, Sections b and d, of Bylaw 3.02 should be amended as follows (amendments in ALL CAPS):

Section 3.02 Executive Committee.

(b) Meetings of the Executive Committee. Meetings of the executive committee may be called by the Chair of the Board of Trustees or by any three (3) members of the Executive Committee. No action may be taken by the Executive Committee without the affirmative vote of: at least seven (7) members of the Executive Committee, AND BY NO FEWER THAN THE SIMPLE MAJORITY OF ALL VOTING TRUSTEES PRESENT – EITHER IN PERSON OR VIA OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION – AT THE MEETING.

(d) Notice of Meetings of the Executive Committee. Notice of the time and place of all meetings of the executive committee shall be given in the same manner as for meetings of the Board of Trustees, INCLUDING PROVIDING NOTICE TO ALL VOTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS, ALL TRUSTEES SHALL PROVIDE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICE, AND THAT OFFICE SHALL MAINTAIN ON FILE, ALL CONTACT NUMBERS REGULARLY USED BY EACH TRUSTEE.
 
LINK

“Again, Mr. Masser attempts to create separate classes of Trustees — a preferred class (which includes Mr. Masser) with superior access to corporate information and a second inferior class without access ...” attorney Donna Walsh wrote in her filing. “Such disparate treatment cannot be squared with the rights and duties in the Nonprofit Corporation Law.”

This issue pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with PSU governance in a nut shell. Thanks for fighting, Anthony...and you'll be pleasantly suprised by that new bulldog, Mr. Tribeck who'll be helping you out.
 
LINK

“Again, Mr. Masser attempts to create separate classes of Trustees — a preferred class (which includes Mr. Masser) with superior access to corporate information and a second inferior class without access ...” attorney Donna Walsh wrote in her filing. “Such disparate treatment cannot be squared with the rights and duties in the Nonprofit Corporation Law.”

No doubt cr66 will educate Ms. Walsh that some of the trustees have pedigree and some don't. You know, the upper crust versus the great unwashed.
 
Good. Now, the important part:

If we have more "Dick Dandreas" on the list (ie, folks with no discernable value to add....selected only due to their personal and professional ties to existing "scoundrels") lets hope that our elected representatives do not join the Unanimous Approval cavalcade.....instead, choosing to utilize this opportunity to highlight the inanity of the process.

This is CRUCIAL.
Otherwise, what was the point of filing suit to access the information?
 
Our request includes the nomination materials for the newly created At-Large Trustees.

It's my understanding that all Board members are given sufficient information to make a reasonable voting judgement about the people recommended by the Business and Industry and At-Large trustee selection committees. Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?
 
It's my understanding that all Board members are given sufficient information to make a reasonable voting judgement about the people recommended by the Business and Industry and At-Large trustee selection committees. Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?
Just a guess, but they don't trust your buddies. Knowing about others in the larger field lets them decide whether THEY think that one of those others might be better qualified, and THAT, regardless of whether they can do anything about it, is ample reason to vote against the hosebags your buddies propped up there.
 
keep pretending like you matter CR66. If you did you wouldn't be such a coward about your identity.

some of us know who he is and his connection to Kenny. I find his posts entertaining, especially after the ass whuppin his Upward State project took. you have to admire his tenacity, If I had spent that much money to look like a complete idiot, I would have shut up and found something more productive to do with my time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
It's my understanding that all Board members are given sufficient information to make a reasonable voting judgement about the people recommended by the Business and Industry and At-Large trustee selection committees. Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?

Sheep!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
It's my understanding that all Board members are given sufficient information to make a reasonable voting judgement about the people recommended by the Business and Industry and At-Large trustee selection committees. Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?
It's your understanding?? Maybe the problem is you have too much belief in your friends. I can hear Masser & Co. now. "Hey, we told Lubrano and those other rabble rousers all they need to know to make their decision. Why don't they just vote the way we tell them to??" The problem with all that is Masser making the decision about what is important and what isn't. Informed decisions can't be made when the chairman is withholding information which is pertinent when the chairman himself is too inept and/or corrupt to decide what is pertinent and what isn't.
 
the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?

I think that is because the majority trustees are all unethical scumbags. I think the majority of the alumni do not trust the majority of trustees. Why do you think that is? (Since you seem sort of clueless, ill help you out. It has something to do with hiring Freeh and pissing away around 100 million dollars.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
"I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?" CR66

Well, 80% of Penn Staters (you know...that small, dissident group) don't trust the scoundrels pirating the BOT........Why do you think that is?

LOL


 
Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

No. Without knowing the entire field of candidates it is impossible to know whether the committee chose the best-qualified candidates, as opposed to--for example--the candidates with whom they have personal or professional ties.
 
It's my understanding that all Board members are given sufficient information to make a reasonable voting judgement about the people recommended by the Business and Industry and At-Large trustee selection committees. Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?

I have to be honest, when people use the words "It's my understanding" they typically mean they really don't have anything factual - more of just a "feeling" that allows them to support or start their argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists.

Probably because they want to know if the most qualified people in the pool are being moved forward or if the finalists are chosen based on an agenda. Take Mr. Dandrea, for example. It is hard to argue that a lawyer is a good representative and reflection of 'business and industry.' We all know why he is a trustee.
 
It's my understanding that all Board members are given sufficient information to make a reasonable voting judgement about the people recommended by the Business and Industry and At-Large trustee selection committees. Accordingly, please help me understand why knowing about others from the larger field not selected as finalists would have any bearing on your voting decision considering it is the selection committee members as promulgated by the standing orders who ultimately decide on the finalists. Seems to me that you are provided sufficient background information on the finalists to make an informed vote. No?

I find it curious that except for you and your small dissident group, the majority of trustees don't find the lack of knowledge about non finalists being an impediment for voting for or against the recommended candidates. Why do you think that is?
Dscf0028.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT