Barron belongs in a snake pit of evil...he is a mistake waiting to happen. Plus, he doesn't want the truth because he can't handle the truth.
Barron Has Done Absolutely Nothing.
- Thread starter Marshall30
- Start date
I appreciate the response and the information; the fact that tuition was frozen at all was a feat that neither Erickson, Spanier nor their predecessors were able to accomplish as President, and it's one to be lauded no matter who spearheaded it, and all parties - from the Board members who you suggest pushed for it to the President - deserve praise.
I would be curious which Board members were the drivers of the proposal if you are able to share - those who pushed for it certainly deserve the thanks of every student. I would also be curious of the genesis of the freezing and plan to eventually phase out the student information technology fee, and whether that was a similar priority for the Board or if the President played an active role in its creation.
Either way, in my opinion lowering the cost of attendance for Penn State students - especially current in-state students - is the single most valuable thing that Trustees and the President can do to make an impact in the lives of Penn State students. All involved deserve praise and sincere thanks for making it happen.
Raffy, Dr. Barron deserves the credit for the technology fee freeze.
As for the in-state tuition freeze, Lord, Lubert and yours truly led the charge. I raised the issue during my pitch for Board Chair. Lubert ran with it. But Lord has been arguing for this since he joined the Board in July, 2014.
As for the in-state tuition freeze, Lord, Lubert and yours truly led the charge. I raised the issue during my pitch for Board Chair. Lubert ran with it. But Lord has been arguing for this since he joined the Board in July, 2014.
That's some interesting and, I admit, surprising information. Although I suspect we may disagree on a number of issues, I sincerely thank both the trustees who led the tuition freeze initiative and Barron for the technology fee freeze and phaseout. I would encourage Board members to continue to push for lowering the cost of attendance for current students, as it is personally my primary consideration when voting for trustees.
Raffy, I agree with you.
I want to ensure that we achieve our mission as Pennsylvania's land grant institution. We must work very hard to make a Penn State education affordable for the sons and daughters of all Pennsylvanians.
However, we cannot simply just move on as some would like. Frankly, the Freeh Report has cost Penn State far more than the $8.3 million we paid Freeh. We implemented more than 100 recommendations without verifying the veracity of Freeh's Report I might add. Many of the costs associated with those recommendations are ongoing such as the addition of new staff positions. These are costs paid for out of the General Fund.
Raffy, we likely have more in common than not. Nevertheless, I hear you.
I want to ensure that we achieve our mission as Pennsylvania's land grant institution. We must work very hard to make a Penn State education affordable for the sons and daughters of all Pennsylvanians.
However, we cannot simply just move on as some would like. Frankly, the Freeh Report has cost Penn State far more than the $8.3 million we paid Freeh. We implemented more than 100 recommendations without verifying the veracity of Freeh's Report I might add. Many of the costs associated with those recommendations are ongoing such as the addition of new staff positions. These are costs paid for out of the General Fund.
Raffy, we likely have more in common than not. Nevertheless, I hear you.
So many absolute a holes on the board. More complaining than at a divorced womens meeting. I can no longer tell who likes the university or loathes it. Seems like so many rooting for bad rather than good. The AD is bad, BOT bad, President bad, Franklin bad, OC bad. Geeze.
Nice "deflection" Raffy. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you have been exposed as a bloviator once again!
What you say is true. I am as guilty as anyone, probably more so. That being said, I assure you that I didn't start the civil war. I, like most here was a loyal soldier to this organization. I waved the flag, bought the tickets, bought the gear, sat in the weather, traveled, and bought in completely.
Then when the wolf was at the door they made us the bad guy. The alumni were made the boogeyman. I never met Sandusky, I never met any of the principals in this crap fest. Penn State mocks the alumni and thumbs their nose at loyalty and support. I don't believe a word they say and I owe them nothing.
This is one of the most positive developments I have seen in awhile. Back when Peetz stepped down and Lubert announced he was coming back on the BOT I posted that I thought this may be a different Ira Lubert who may use the new opportunity to bring a resolution to the many issues dividing the Alumni and the BOT/Administration, though that effort would take a long time. I felt that if you and Ira could somehow get on the same general page over time the old 2011 BOT members would leave and new members could be influenced by both of you working together. Ideally, you would be BOT Chair with IRA as #2 but the reverse could work too.
In my opinion, this is the best chance for the Alumni to gain the influence necessary to address the issues that hold back resolving many of our objectives. Better than the Legislature, or the AG's office, or litigation. Nothing will be more effective than two powerful BOT members from different origins coming together and taking control of the BOT to restore our history and reputation.
So I would encourage you to continue your fine efforts and to partner with IRA to the extent that he recognizes and endorses the platforms of the nine Alumni elected BOT members. This will take time and will have to be evolutionary but it can be done. I believe IRA is more pragmatic than the hardcore old line members and will be more willing to work with you. Good luck and thank you for all that you do for us.
Not entirely sure what you mean by a deflection - my original post was that for the first time in over 40 years, tuition for in-state students was frozen under Barron's presidency and leadership, based on the fact that Barron was the one who provided numerous statements to the public about the tuition freeze when it was announced - as is his job as President. With the valuable insight provided by Mr. Lubrano, I learned that the tuition freeze was spearheaded by several trustees - many of whom I did not expect would lead such a push, which I readily admitted to. I also learned that the freeze of the student technology fee was implemented by Barron. From my reading of my post, I gave everyone involved - the trustees, Barron, and anyone else - credit for taking steps to positively impact the cost of attendance for Penn State students. I don't particularly care who did it, and whether it was Trustees, Barron, or a third party - all that matters to me is that it gets done for Penn State students both now and going forward. I thanked Anthony directly, expressed my gratitude for Barron's efforts, and expressed my desire for that type of commitment going forward, regardless of who pushes for it. I'd be curious to see how I deflected anything.
LOL, nice try, but I'm no longer even annoyed by people using the term "JoeBot." It just makes me laugh, and it tells me I should not take the person who used it seriously.
I don't understand. According some of our esteemed "experts", the alumni-elected trustees only care about Joe Paterno. They say that the alumni-elected trustees can't walk and chew gum at the same time. They can't be wrong, can they?
Agree. It's like using the N word. It says more about the speaker than it does about the intended recipient.
