bjf is correct...GAME ON you SOBS!

[PSUEngineerx2]

Pennsylvania General Assembly, Title 15

§ 5512.  Informational rights of a director.

(a)  General rule.--To the extent reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director, including those arising from service as a member of a committee of the board of directors, a director of a nonprofit corporation is entitled:

(1)  in person or by any attorney or other agent, at any reasonable time, to inspect and copy corporate books, records and documents and, in addition, to inspect, and receive information regarding, the assets, liabilities and operations of the corporation and any subsidiaries of the corporation incorporated or otherwise organized or created under the laws of this Commonwealth that are controlled directly or indirectly by the corporation; and

(2)  to demand that the corporation exercise whatever rights it may have to obtain information regarding any other subsidiaries of the corporation.

(b)  Proceedings for the enforcement of inspection by a director.--If the corporation, or an officer or agent thereof, refuses to permit an inspection or obtain or provide information sought by a director or attorney or other agent acting for the director pursuant to subsection (a) or does not reply to the request within two business days after the request has been made, the director may apply to the court for an order to compel the inspection or the obtaining or providing of the information. The court shall summarily order the corporation to permit the requested inspection or to obtain the information unless the corporation establishes that the information to be obtained by the exercise of the right is not reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director or that the director or the attorney or agent of the director is likely to use the information in a manner that would violate the duty of the director to the corporation. The order of the court may contain provisions protecting the corporation from undue burden or expense and prohibiting the director from using the information in a manner that would violate the duty of the director to the corporation.

(c)  Cross references.--See sections 107 (relating to form of records), 5508 (relating to corporate records; inspection by members) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7) (relating to right of participants to receive counsel fees).

(June 22, 2001, P.L.418, No.34, eff. 60 days)

 

2001 Amendment.  Act 34 added section 5512.

Cross References.  Section 5512 is referred to in section 5508 of this title.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=15&div=0&chpt=55&sctn=12&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress

 

[NittPicker]

Silly people. Haven't you learned that Masser & Co. and now the PSAA just make up their own rules as they go along? They won't be constrained by something so meaningless as the laws of Pennsylvania.

 

[Raffycorn]

It seems as though the primary designation is whether the trustees' access of these documents (both those that the university considers to be privileged and those considered to be non-privileged) is reasonably related to their duties. If I were to guess, the trustees will argue that their status as trustee alone makes all investigations and subsequent documents reasonably related to their duties, and the university will likely argue that because the trustees weren't on the SIC, weren't in office when the events leading to the SIC took place, and weren't in office when the SIC compiled and released the Freeh Report, that this particular request isn't reasonably related to their duties as trustee as they stand in the present. From there, I'd guess that the trustees would argue that due to ongoing litigation by victims and the Paternos that their review of the documents is reasonably related to their duties, and the university may argue that pending litigation alone isn't sufficient to reach the "reasonably related" hurdle. In any case, that's the hurdle that they'll need to meet for that statute to come into play, and I'm not sure of how a court would determine what "reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director" entails.

If a court were to determine that viewing the documents is reasonably related to the performance of their duties, subsection (b) indicates that a court order may include provisions to prevent undue harm to the university; in this case, a provision stating that the trustees may view the documents after signing a confidentiality agreement (presumably to prevent the trustees from leaking information to the public) could, in the eyes of a court, effectively balance the trustees' desire for access with the university's desire for confidentiality, all while preserving the trustees have access to documents that reasonably relate to their duties as trustee. In other words, even if the trustees are able to convince the court that they need to see the documents, they may have a more difficult time convincing a court that they need to see these documents and share them with whoever they wish.
This post was edited on 4/20 2:34 PM by Raffycorn

This post was edited on 4/20 2:36 PM by Raffycorn

 

[cvilleelkscoach]

The BOT is hanging their hat on the first statement, "To the extent reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director". Their claim is that there is no reason for them to see this material. This is where the court will make its decision.

 

[doctornick]

Originally posted by Raffycorn:
It seems as though the primary designation is whether the trustees' access of these documents (both those that the university considers to be privileged and those considered to be non-privileged) is reasonably related to their duties. If I were to guess, the trustees will argue that their status as trustee alone makes all investigations and subsequent documents reasonably related to their duties, and the university will likely argue that because the trustees weren't on the SIC, weren't in office when the events leading to the SIC took place, and weren't in office when the SIC compiled and released the Freeh Report, that this particular request isn't reasonably related to their duties as trustee as they stand in the present. From there, I'd guess that the trustees would argue that due to ongoing litigation by victims and the Paternos that their review of the documents is reasonably related to their duties, and the university may argue that pending litigation alone isn't sufficient to reach the "reasonably related" hurdle. In any case, that's the hurdle that they'll need to meet for that statute to come into play, and I'm not sure of how a court would determine what "reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director" entails.

Just a quibble, but Lubrano and the first group of post-scandal elected trustees were in office when the Freeh Report was compiled and released.

 

[Raffycorn]

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by Raffycorn:
It seems as though the primary designation is whether the trustees' access of these documents (both those that the university considers to be privileged and those considered to be non-privileged) is reasonably related to their duties. If I were to guess, the trustees will argue that their status as trustee alone makes all investigations and subsequent documents reasonably related to their duties, and the university will likely argue that because the trustees weren't on the SIC, weren't in office when the events leading to the SIC took place, and weren't in office when the SIC compiled and released the Freeh Report, that this particular request isn't reasonably related to their duties as trustee as they stand in the present. From there, I'd guess that the trustees would argue that due to ongoing litigation by victims and the Paternos that their review of the documents is reasonably related to their duties, and the university may argue that pending litigation alone isn't sufficient to reach the "reasonably related" hurdle. In any case, that's the hurdle that they'll need to meet for that statute to come into play, and I'm not sure of how a court would determine what "reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director" entails.

Just a quibble, but Lubrano and the first group of post-scandal elected trustees were in office when the Freeh Report was compiled and released.

That's fair, but the university could conceivably use such an argument to cut down on the access to trustees not in that group.

 

[jjsocrates]

Originally posted by Raffycorn:

Originally posted by doctornick:
Just a quibble, but Lubrano and the first group of post-scandal elected trustees were in office when the Freeh Report was compiled and released.

That's fair, but the university could conceivably use such an argument to cut down on the access to trustees not in that group.

I can't think of a single good reason why that would be a legitimate excuse not to grant access to ANY Trustee. You can't simply BURY things, then expect Trustees to forget about it, and oh, btw, please just rubber stamp all of these legal settlements.

 

[Raffycorn]

Originally posted by jjsocrates:

I can't think of a single good reason why that would be a legitimate excuse not to grant access to ANY Trustee. You can't simply BURY things, then expect Trustees to forget about it, and oh, btw, please just rubber stamp all of these legal settlements.

I agree with you in that I think it would be a difficult argument for the university to use, but if I were to guess it might be one they'll make. I think the much bigger hurdle for the trustees is to demonstrate that not only are they entitled access to the documents, but that they're entitled access to the documents without any provisions made to maintain the university's desired confidentiality. As I said before, it's one thing to say that we need access to properly do our duties when it comes to voting on settlements and similar decisions, but it's another thing to say that we need access for those reasons and not be required to sign a confidentiality agreement, because signing such an agreement wouldn't conceivably interfere with their need for access to make better-informed decisions as trustee.

 

[bjf1984]

No doubt Raffy.....


that was the primary reason (or at least one of the two primary reasons) for the "Special Meeting Cramdown" on April 9th.

No doubt that will be their defense......which I am delighted with. That is their only defense, and it is so incredibly weak that even a "Hoover" couldn't let it stand.

 

[Evan Ceg]

I'll predict that the court choose the middle ground and find that the trustees are entitled, as a matter of fiduciary duty, to see the documentation in question, but that they may not share content with the general public.

Nowhere is university governance designed as a plebiscitary democracy for the public at large. Penn State is under no statutory pressure to ask you and me what we think, other than through the process of electing Alumni trustees. Of course, as a market-sensitive institution, it would be bad business to long ignore the majority opinion of a major constituency, but it's up to the BoT and the Administration to run the university, not the alumni nor any co-hort of the general public. I doubt that the court will see a reason why the public should be informed of any findings or conclusions growing from the documentation.





This post was edited on 4/20 3:03 PM by Evan Ceg

 

[bjf1984]

That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

you would have been aware of that Evan?

That is such a weak, inane strawman argument....I am shocked to see it repeated on this board (by anyone other than CR/Ak2/or CDW anyway).

The framing of this - by the scoundrels and Barron - as if the trustees wanted to publish and broadcast this information, was such a crock of crap. I can't believe anyone following this would have ever been so misguided as to think that was what the trustees were after.

Pure garbage......I would have thought you would have known better.



My apologies if your post was TIC....and flew over my head.
This post was edited on 4/20 3:29 PM by bjf1984

 

[Evan Ceg]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

My bottom line, Barry, is this: a trustee should be able to see any Freeh Report documentation insofar as it affects his or her ability to discharge his or her fiduciary duty as a trustee. However, I am completely opposed to any public release of which interviewee said what. On that point, Barron is right.

I see no reason why the Alumni trustees (or other trustees) would not agree to sign off on protecting the identity of the interviewees. If they do that, then do we even have an issue?


This post was edited on 4/20 3:55 PM by Evan Ceg

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

Have they been asked to sign such an agreement and refused to do so?

 

[lionlurker]

Evan, would you be happy if your reputation was destroyed

by people would forever remain unknown, with no chance of a rebuttal? Would you want your dad, or your child, slandered under these conditions?

You know, this is the United States of America. Not the USSR. Why should anyone expect to testify in such a way that an individual gets destroyed, and never ever have to worry that whatever they said should ever even be fact-checked?

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

 

[Raffycorn]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

The letter from the firm representing the university makes reference to Lubrano and Oldsey's "ongoing refusal to review the millions of non-privileged Source Materials that the University would make available to them if they signed a confidentiality agreement." Now, I can see two avenues that would result in a refusal to view non-privileged documents without signing a waiver by Lubrano and Oldsey: (1) they issued a blanket refusal due to the university's designation of privileged and non-privileged documents, or (2) they have an issue with signing a confidentiality waiver.

 

[Aoshiro]

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:
I'll predict that the court choose the middle ground and find that the trustees are entitled, as a matter of fiduciary duty, to see the documentation in question, but that they may not share content with the general public.

That isn't really "middle ground." That's just what the alumni-elected trustees are asking for. They in fact have not asked to publicly share it (at least at this point). That's why the bleating about "confidentiality" is so absurd. It's not a violation of confidentiality to share it with the institution's fiduciaries.

 

[pnnylion]

Confidentiality can be waived, everyone was informed of that, the BoT is simply trying to hide their misdeeds.

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:

I see no reason why the Alumni trustees (or other trustees) would not agree to sign off on protecting the identity of the interviewees. If they do that, then do we even have an issue?

You are misrepresenting what they are being asked to sign.

They are being told that they can look at the materials, but only after names of the interviewees are redacted. That would make it completely impossible to make any judgement about whether Freeh's "conclusions" are supported by the information he collected.

I doubt that the interviewees were ever actually promised confidentiality, and it is even more absurd to claim that they were promised anonymity.

This post was edited on 4/20 4:15 PM by Aoshiro

 

[bjf1984]

Evan - seriously, have you even been following this issue?


No one on the Board has asked in any way, shape, or form for the information to be made "public".

What Dunham.....er, uh....I mean Barron asked for was that the Trustees agree to a deal to only see redacted and "non-priviledged" documents.......which, even the village idiot knows, would be completely worthless.

There is no reason whatsoever for the Trustees not to see the full, complete, un-redacted file. Further, there is no way on God's green Earth that ANY trustee could claim to be carrying out their fiduciary duty as they spend $100's of millions of Penn State's resources without reviewing those documents.
Every one of the folks who voted "YES" on the most recent squandering of University resources should - if there is any justice - someday be facing personal liability claims.

I assumed, with your earlier post, that you might have been commenting TIC....but it appears you are serious in putting forward this straw man garbage spewed by Dunham....er, uh....I mean Barron and Masser.

It just isn't so.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Re: Evan - seriously, have you even been following this issue?

Largely agree with your points about why the trustees should see all the requested information. So, then, the way to win this battle is to eliminate the pretense (so you claim, but I think it's legit) of Barron's concern by having the Alumni trustees pre-emptively offer to sign off on the protection of the interviewees.

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: Evan - seriously, have you even been following this issue?

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:
Largely agree with your points about why the trustees should see all the requested information. So, then, the way to win this battle is to eliminate the pretense (so you claim, but I think it's legit) of Barron's concern by having the Alumni trustees pre-emptively offer to sign off on the protection of the interviewees.

Again, that will not satisfy Masser because that's not what he's demanding.

 

[pnnylion]

The only ones Upjohn and confidentiality regard are Penn State employees and or students. Upjohn doesn't have shit to do with victims.

 

[Raffycorn]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

Originally posted by Aoshiro:

You are misrepresenting what they are being asked to sign.

They are being told that they can look at the materials, but only after names of the interviewees are redacted. That would make it completely impossible to make any judgement about whether Freeh's "conclusions" are supported by the information he collected.

I doubt that the interviewees were ever actually promised confidentiality, and it is even more absurd to claim that they were promised anonymity.

This post was edited on 4/20 4:15 PM by Aoshiro

Genuinely curious, Aoshiro - how would reacting the names of the individuals interviewed make it impossible to determine whether the conclusions Freeh came to were supported by the information he collected? If I'm not misunderstanding you, isn't the content that Freeh relied upon the substantive content of the interviews? And, if so, why does the presence of the names matter - unless you're arguing that Freeh relied upon certain individuals' interviews moreso than others based on their title? And even if so, I would think that some sort of compromise could be reached where the names are redacted but information is provided to provide context as to the interviewee ("Senior Athletic Department employee" vs. the actual name, etc.)

 

[Evan Ceg]

Re: Evan - seriously, have you even been following this issue?

Originally posted by Aoshiro:

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:
Largely agree with your points about why the trustees should see all the requested information. So, then, the way to win this battle is to eliminate the pretense (so you claim, but I think it's legit) of Barron's concern by having the Alumni trustees pre-emptively offer to sign off on the protection of the interviewees.

Again, that will not satisfy Masser because that's not what he's demanding.

I do understand that, but if you protect the identity of the interviewees, you largely vacate any legitimacy of Masser's argument. Of course, as we've seen, Masser doesn't believe he needs to publicly offer much rationale for his decisions, but why not steal from him any reasonable pretext for this decision?

 

[jjsocrates]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

Originally posted by Raffycorn:
Genuinely curious, Aoshiro - how would reacting the names of the individuals interviewed make it impossible to determine whether the conclusions Freeh came to were supported by the information he collected? If I'm not misunderstanding you, isn't the content that Freeh relied upon the substantive content of the interviews? And, if so, why does the presence of the names matter - unless you're arguing that Freeh relied upon certain individuals' interviews moreso than others based on their title? And even if so, I would think that some sort of compromise could be reached where the names are redacted but information is provided to provide context as to the interviewee ("Senior Athletic Department employee" vs. the actual name, etc.)

Easy. Let's say ALL of the negative comments about Paterno came from Vicky Triponey and John Surma, and the remaining 98% of the interviews contained nothing but glowing reviews about Paterno. I'd certainly like to be able to put the negative comments in the PROPER CONTEXT (haha - the one thing that small minds can't seem to do). If someone has an axe to grind with the Athletic Department, I'd like to be able to match those people up with their comments. After all, in our legal system, you are allowed to face your accuser and anonymous testimony is not allowed.

 

[colt21]

Originally posted by cvilleelkscoach:
The BOT is hanging their hat on the first statement, "To the extent reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director". Their claim is that there is no reason for them to see this material. This is where the court will make its decision.

I get that they will argue that ....but.....that would be and should be a lost cause on their part.

There is NO WAY anything they have been asked to VOTE on could be construed as anything less than 'reasonably related to the performance of their duties.....".!!!!


Then again, we are in PA and I wouldn't put it past someone in this lame state to try and make such an argument

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....

Originally posted by Raffycorn:

Originally posted by Aoshiro:

You are misrepresenting what they are being asked to sign.

They are being told that they can look at the materials, but only after names of the interviewees are redacted. That would make it completely impossible to make any judgement about whether Freeh's "conclusions" are supported by the information he collected.

I doubt that the interviewees were ever actually promised confidentiality, and it is even more absurd to claim that they were promised anonymity.

This post was edited on 4/20 4:15 PM by Aoshiro

Genuinely curious, Aoshiro - how would reacting the names of the individuals interviewed make it impossible to determine whether the conclusions Freeh came to were supported by the information he collected? If I'm not misunderstanding you, isn't the content that Freeh relied upon the substantive content of the interviews? And, if so, why does the presence of the names matter - unless you're arguing that Freeh relied upon certain individuals' interviews moreso than others based on their title? And even if so, I would think that some sort of compromise could be reached where the names are redacted but information is provided to provide context as to the interviewee ("Senior Athletic Department employee" vs. the actual name, etc.)

A person's position in an organization would most certainly affect their credibility when speaking about certain issues.

For example, should a janitor's opinion about a legal issue be given the same weight as an attorney's?

If an individual had some kind of personal axe to grind, should his condemnation of someone be given the same weight as someone who doesn't have a personal interest?

It's ridiculous to claim that the names of the interviewees are irrelevant.

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: Evan - seriously, have you even been following this issue?

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:

Originally posted by Aoshiro:

Originally posted by Evan Ceg:
Largely agree with your points about why the trustees should see all the requested information. So, then, the way to win this battle is to eliminate the pretense (so you claim, but I think it's legit) of Barron's concern by having the Alumni trustees pre-emptively offer to sign off on the protection of the interviewees.

Again, that will not satisfy Masser because that's not what he's demanding.

I do understand that, but if you protect the identity of the interviewees, you largely vacate any legitimacy of Masser's argument. Of course, as we've seen, Masser doesn't believe he needs to publicly offer much rationale for his decisions, but why not steal from him any reasonable pretext for this decision?

If you hide the identities of the interviewees, you make any review of the interviews worthless. Which is precisely what Masser intends.

 

[ForesterGump]

Why can't they simply replace a name with a code. John Doe would always appear as Int486, for example. That way you would know the context came from a single source. I guess you could also have in the code whether it was an employee or student and a little more info. That way, identity is shielded.

 

[mhentz]

Originally posted by Raffycorn:
It seems as though the primary designation is whether the trustees' access of these documents (both those that the university considers to be privileged and those considered to be non-privileged) is reasonably related to their duties. If I were to guess, the trustees will argue that their status as trustee alone makes all investigations and subsequent documents reasonably related to their duties, and the university will likely argue that because the trustees weren't on the SIC, weren't in office when the events leading to the SIC took place, and weren't in office when the SIC compiled and released the Freeh Report, that this particular request isn't reasonably related to their duties as trustee as they stand in the present. From there, I'd guess that the trustees would argue that due to ongoing litigation by victims and the Paternos that their review of the documents is reasonably related to their duties, and the university may argue that pending litigation alone isn't sufficient to reach the "reasonably related" hurdle. In any case, that's the hurdle that they'll need to meet for that statute to come into play, and I'm not sure of how a court would determine what "reasonably related to the performance of the duties of the director" entails.

If a court were to determine that viewing the documents is reasonably related to the performance of their duties, subsection (b) indicates that a court order may include provisions to prevent undue harm to the university; in this case, a provision stating that the trustees may view the documents after signing a confidentiality agreement (presumably to prevent the trustees from leaking information to the public) could, in the eyes of a court, effectively balance the trustees' desire for access with the university's desire for confidentiality, all while preserving the trustees have access to documents that reasonably relate to their duties as trustee. In other words, even if the trustees are able to convince the court that they need to see the documents, they may have a more difficult time convincing a court that they need to see these documents and share them with whoever they wish.
This post was edited on 4/20 2:34 PM by Raffycorn

This post was edited on 4/20 2:36 PM by Raffycorn

you could see in the alumni-trustees' comments in opposition to the vote two weeks ago to allocate even more of PSU's cash for the most recent settlements where this was going. The fact that a second round of settlements was required to be negotiated is proof that the trustees' fiduciary obligations with regard to the Sandusky scandal did not end with the 60 million dollars for the first round of settlements and the fact that one of the suits being settled was brought in the meantime since the first round of settlements is further proof that the trustees' fiduciary obligations with regard to the Sandusky scandal might still not be concluded with the second round of settlements. With the current stance of PSU and the majority of it's board, as long as there is the potential for yet more litigants to come forward claiming they were abused by Sandusky at some point post 2001 then there is the potential for the trustees' to be forced to make fiduciary decisions concerning millions of dollars in settlements and with PSU's decision to bar them from reviewing the Freeh documents they'll be forced to make those decisions in the blind. In short, PSU is on the hook to and at the mercy of anyone who was a minor during the years that PSU has accepted culpability and who can show even the slightest relationship to Sandusky during that time and PSU will be on that hook for many years to come To that end, the university's arguments that it's over and there are no more fiduciary responsibilities with regard to the Freeh Report are hollow and baseless. They will lose this suit.

Your final point is perhaps your most salient. The trustees do not need to share what they find in the Freeh documents in order to know how to responsibly care for PSU's trust should any further settlement votes arise. That a judge will rule that the alumni trustees have the right to review the documentation but may not disclose what they review is a distinct possibility. That doesn't mean that will be the end and that we will never see that material. Should the alumni trustees review the documentation and find the material sufficiently appalling they might find themselves forced to sue the trustees who hired Freeh (looking at you Frazier and Tomalis) and any others who knew what he was up to (looking at you Auntie Karen, Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Tomato Head, Fraudney, etc) for failing their own fiduciary duty to PSU and should that occur the Freeh documentation will certainly be considered discoverable material in that suit. We already know where this begins. I just gave you a hint where it all ends.

 

[pnnylion]

There is no confidentiality short of HIPPA and a few other Federal concerns. This BoT is out of control, has been, and consists of the worst scoundrels I can think of.

 

[Bobpsu]

Re: That is all that has been asked for....I would have thought....


You are misrepresenting what they are being asked to sign.

They are being told that they can look at the materials, but only after names of the interviewees are redacted. That would make it completely impossible to make any judgement about whether Freeh's "conclusions" are supported by the information he collected.

I doubt that the interviewees were ever actually promised confidentiality, and it is even more absurd to claim that they were promised anonymity.

This post was edited on 4/20 4:15 PM by Aoshiro

What is wrong with the interviewees coming out and make a statement? No guts?

 

[91Joe95]

What is wrong with the interviewees coming out and make a statement? No guts?

They could be fired. Have you even been paying attention these last few years?

 

[Bobpsu]

They could be fired. Have you even been paying attention these last few years?

Unlikely !

 

[bmusser24]

I'm still wondering why some trustees have access but not others.

 

[91Joe95]

Unlikely !

I know we've had our differences, but that's pretty funny.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

No doubt Raffy.....


that was the primary reason (or at least one of the two primary reasons) for the "Special Meeting Cramdown" on April 9th.

No doubt that will be their defense......which I am delighted with. That is their only defense, and it is so incredibly weak that even a "Hoover" couldn't let it stand.

Considering Freeh is party to a lawsuit by Spanier, Freeh could assert ownership of the materials and the protections afforded by the work product doctrine and ACP. Are you still delighted?

 

[91Joe95]

Considering Freeh is party to a lawsuit by Spanier, Freeh could assert ownership of the materials and the protections afforded by the work product doctrine and ACP. Are you still delighted?

So now he's his own attorney, and he already shared his materials with the client who paid him and contractually owns the materials?

 

[Aoshiro]

Considering Freeh is party to a lawsuit by Spanier, Freeh could assert ownership of the materials and the protections afforded by the work product doctrine and ACP.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

No.

 

[PennSt8er]

Evan - seriously, have you even been following this issue?


No one on the Board has asked in any way, shape, or form for the information to be made "public".

What Dunham.....er, uh....I mean Barron asked for was that the Trustees agree to a deal to only see redacted and "non-priviledged" documents.......which, even the village idiot knows, would be completely worthless.

There is no reason whatsoever for the Trustees not to see the full, complete, un-redacted file. Further, there is no way on God's green Earth that ANY trustee could claim to be carrying out their fiduciary duty as they spend $100's of millions of Penn State's resources without reviewing those documents.
Every one of the folks who voted "YES" on the most recent squandering of University resources should - if there is any justice - someday be facing personal liability claims.

I assumed, with your earlier post, that you might have been commenting TIC....but it appears you are serious in putting forward this straw man garbage spewed by Dunham....er, uh....I mean Barron and Masser.

It just isn't so.

This. Bjf is spot on