BOT unanimous vote

[Connorpozlee]

Opting to vote for Ira and hoping he earns that vote after the fact is not much different than the board sheep that voted to fire Paterno and subsequently accept the Freeh report hoping that the board leadership was making the right decisions.
Anthony, you have come on this message board and repeatedly cut down Ira Lubert with hypothetical questions/statements. Then you not only voted for him to gain even more power on the board than he already had, but praised him publicly. It doesn't add up.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

And I thought I. WAS. OUTRAGED.

Given the actions of yesterday - - - my response here was disproportionately tame, relative to the actions of the A9

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I'm not naive enough to assume the A9 traded their vote for nothing, but the optics are hideous.

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

 

[lionville]

First, I am sorry for not posting last night.

Second, I want all of you to know that I understand, better than most, your disappointment and frustration.

Third, I know you would like to understand the thinking that supported our decision to vote as we did. So I will try to explain this to you.

The process for the election of Chair and Vice Chair provides for an opportunity during the Executive Session, in this case yesterday morning, for the candidates to make remarks and for the Board to ask questions of those candidates. This in fact what happened. The issues raised by many on this Board were raised and discussed. The

We know we are elected by the alumni and we make decisions based on what we believe is in the best interests of OUR school, always considering the impact of these decisions on the alumni.

That brings me to our decision in the elections yesterday.

We have much work to finish. My fervent belief is that our decision yesterday got us closer to the completion of that work. We'll know soon enough.

As I told Ira, now he has to earn it.

For some of you, my explanation will not suffice. I know some of you feel your elected Trustees failed you. I am truly sorry if that's the case.

For the past 4 1/2 years I have spend more time on Penn State working to correct what I feel is a false narrative than anything else in my life. I know many of you have been working equally hard. So I do feel your pain.

I told you from the outset that OUR strength is in OUR numbers and that the tortoise won the race.

Please don't give up. Some think they can divide and conquer the alumni. Let's prove them wrong.

With all due respect, you're going to have to provide us more. I assume the key lies in your comment about "making decisions in the best interest for OUR school ". To me that sounds like you're no longer representing the people who elected you to the board and THEIR interests with respect to the school. JMHO

 

[Kiber]

^^^^^^ exactly ^^^^^^

Cronyism at it's greatest. Look up the definition of cronyism in the dictionary and the definition is simply "Penn State BOT".

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Opting to vote for Ira and hoping he earns that vote after the fact is not much different than the board sheep that voted to fire Paterno and subsequently accept the Freeh report

Yes, it is different

It is far worse

Those guys in 2011 - most of them anyway - had never come to us and said:
"Trust us. We are here to carry the fight on your behalf.......Support us, we are your voice"

THOSE Scoundrels never collected our passion, our energy, our time effort blood sweat and tears - as if they were taking up a scrap metal collection - and then smelted it all down, and turned it into a dagger, and stabbed us is the back with it

 

[Connorpozlee]

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

We've been revisiting things 6 months or a year from now for 4 years and 8 months. It's all such nonsense.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

Laugh? Or Cry?

 

[Nitt1300]

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

You're probably right Tom, but if they don't they are going to lose some support- at least they will lose mine. The total lack of transparency has grown beyond stale.

 

[BobPSU92]

Yes, it is different

It is far worse

Those guys in 2011 - most of them anyway - had never come to us and said:
"Trust us. We are here to carry the fight on your behalf.......Support us, we are your voice"

THOSE Scoundrels never collected our passion, our energy, our time effort blood sweat and tears - as if they were taking up a scrap metal collection - and then smelted it all down, and turned it into a dagger, and stabbed us is the back with it

 

[nits74]

First, I am sorry for not posting last night.

Second, I want all of you to know that I understand, better than most, your disappointment and frustration.

Third, I know you would like to understand the thinking that supported our decision to vote as we did. So I will try to explain this to you.

The process for the election of Chair and Vice Chair provides for an opportunity during the Executive Session, in this case yesterday morning, for the candidates to make remarks and for the Board to ask questions of those candidates. This in fact what happened. The issues raised by many on this Board were raised and discussed. The

We know we are elected by the alumni and we make decisions based on what we believe is in the best interests of OUR school, always considering the impact of these decisions on the alumni.

That brings me to our decision in the elections yesterday.

We have much work to finish. My fervent belief is that our decision yesterday got us closer to the completion of that work. We'll know soon enough.

As I told Ira, now he has to earn it.

For some of you, my explanation will not suffice. I know some of you feel your elected Trustees failed you. I am truly sorry if that's the case.

For the past 4 1/2 years I have spend more time on Penn State working to correct what I feel is a false narrative than anything else in my life. I know many of you have been working equally hard. So I do feel your pain.

I told you from the outset that OUR strength is in OUR numbers and that the tortoise won the race.

Please don't give up. Some think they can divide and conquer the alumni. Let's prove them wrong.

Please, don't insult our intelligence. Add to this Tom asking us to give it another year or so to see what happens. Some will rejoice, but this is my last post on this board.

 

[YYZ86]

I rarely if ever post on the scandal threads. But I always read them. I try my best in life not to judge others, but this one is tough. The main thing "in the interest of our school" is the BOT members involved in this need to be gone. For me its not conspiracy theories, revenge, etc., it is the simple fact of incompetence. I wish the elected trustees the best in their endeavors, but I don't see any way I could have done that yesterday. If they honor JVP, put the statue back up, change the narrative, etc., they are still on the BOT. I have felt this was their plan all along. They just didn't think it would take this long. Unless part of the agreement was for all of them to resign once these other good things are done, it is not enough. They damaged too many good people to stay even if they did it for the right reasons. They should all resign.

 

[Bobpsu]

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

Tired of waiting....are you ? Lets just wait another 20 years...I will be dead by then. "What difference at this point does it make?"

 

[AWS1022]

I mean, what do you all expect? The A9 have zero leverage and will never have any leverage which is why all this fighting is nothing more than a waste of time. How about focusing efforts into the future of the University instead?

Good thing nobody told someone like Martin Luther King that he had zero leverage and will never have any so just give up. It's not about making immediate change, it's about making a statement. Lubert was going to win anyhow so why not give a vote of dissent to let everyone know this is not okay? Like I've always told my kids, there's never a right time to do the wrong thing and there's never a wrong time to do the right thing.

 

[wensilver]

Well - seeing that some stooge from Old Main is probably lurking here and will run off as the Messenger from the 8th Grade Girls Lunch Table to the Queen Bee, and that Ira Lubert is now chair - I am offering up my suggestion in an Open Letter.

I am in hopes that Chair Lubert sees it. (taps on screen - hellooooooo?)

 

[artsandletters]

I mean, what do you all expect? The A9 have zero leverage and will never have any leverage which is why all this fighting is nothing more than a waste of time. How about focusing efforts into the future of the University instead?

How about a person whose daughter or son has been raped?

'Well, honey, it happened but no sense in doing anything about it. Tomorrow is another day. We can always go back to Tara.'

 

[artsandletters]

Well - seeing that some stooge from Old Main is probably lurking here and will run off as the Messenger from the 8th Grade Girls Lunch Table to the Queen Bee, and that Ira Lubert is now chair - I am offering up my suggestion in an Open Letter.

I am in hopes that Chair Lubert sees it. (taps on screen - hellooooooo?)

View embedded media

Wendy, on that occasion didn't Lubert also tell you that Joe and CSS 'knew' about JS and had to go?

 

[wensilver]

Indeed he did.

Which begs the question - if Spanier "knew" - then surely Lubert "knew".

It was just smoke and I knew it.

 

[AWS1022]

How about a person whose daughter or son has been raped?

'Well, honey, it happened but no sense in doing anything about it. Tomorrow is another day. We can always go back to Tara.'

And then your daughter starts dating the guy she accused of doing it...what does that do to her credibility and how will others feel about her accusations?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

Agree with your analysis Tom. Honestly, I'm looking at it in reverse - why would Lubert negotiate with the A9 when he doesn't need, or expect, their vote to be elected Chair? I don't think the answer is that the A9 cut some kind of deal with Lubert - why would Lubert do that, he didn't need their vote in the first place? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever on either side of the equation.

The only thing I can think of is that the A9 did question Lubert on apparent COIs behind closed doors and Lubert denied all of them on the record. Wouldn't intentionally misleading the Board regarding such material information prior to a Board vote be a further clear breach of Fiduciary Obligation? Maybe the A9 have some information that we do not have regarding investigations related to PSU's Board & Governance Structure (e.g., what's going on in regards to Hershey Trust Governance) and they are simply letting Lubert dig his own grave deeper.

 

[chizco]

We have much work to finish. My fervent belief is that our decision yesterday got us closer to the completion of that work.

Anthony, what is the exact nature of that "work"? What is your mission/goal personally and that of the A9 collectively?

And what, pray tell, did the Almighty Ira do that has you doing back flips about his "leadership" skills? Did he stop payment on any of the outrageous settlement checks? (Except, of course, any of those involving his business associates, including but not limited to a certain Tom Kline)

 

[StinkStankStunk]

The only thing I can think of is that the A9 did question Lubert on apparent COIs behind closed doors and Lubert denied all of them on the record. Wouldn't intentionally misleading the Board regarding such material information prior to a Board vote be a further clear breach of Fiduciary Obligation? Maybe the A9 have some information that we do not have regarding investigations related to PSU's Board & Governance Structure (e.g., what's going on in regards to Hershey Trust Governance) and they are simply letting Lubert dig his own grave deeper.

Well.......OK.......except.....

THERE IS NO F&CKING RECORD.

They didn't "allow Lubert to dig his grave" (which, conceivably they might have accomplished by openly opposing him in public session)............

The only "record" is that 100% of the Board approved of Lubert.........hell, they not only approved - they sang GD hosannas of praise.


THAT is now the record.....forever.

Thank you:
Lord
Brown
Oldsey
Pope
Doran
Lubrano
Tribeck
Jubelirer
and
McCombie

Good Lord.

 

[WeR0206]

What I don't get is how could Lubert be given time to earn it, hasn't he already unearned it??

His ridiculous star chamber approved settlements without BASIC vetting, never invoked the indemnity TSM provided in their contracts with psu, and paid 14 claims outside the SOL.

Lubert has also been a big promoter of the freeh narrative. How in the world did lubert absolve all of the above concerns in one little exec sesh powwow?? A powwow in which we of course weren't privy to. These discussions need to happen in the OPEN. I'm beyond sick of these closed door sessions.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Well.......OK.......except.....

THERE IS NO F&CKING RECORD.

They didn't "allow Lubert to dig his grave" (which, conceivably they might have accomplished by openly opposing him in public session)............

The only "record" is that 100% of the Board approved of Lubert.........hell, they not only approved - they sang GD hosannas of praise.


THAT is now the record.....forever.

Thank you:
Lord
Brown
Oldsey
Pope
Doran
Lubrano
Tribeck
Jubelirer
and
McCombie

Good Lord.

I think AL referenced a non-public meeting (i.e., "behind closed doors") prior to vote. Could be wrong about that, but I though Anthony referenced such a meeting.

 

[Western PA]

I think you're on point here. I'll switch the order of your comments.

The optics are not good, especially for those that are so tired of what we've seen from the BOT since Nov. 2011.

That said, keep in mind that the 9 alumni elected trustees have to deal with this nonsense every single day, and still get up the next day and figure out ways to battle, while being in the minority (even more so due to the restructuring of the BOT that Masser created in Dec. 2014). They have been treated like garbage by the BOT leadership, and other trustees.

If after everything the alumni elected trustees have put up with during their time on the Board, they elected to vote in mass for Lubert for Chair, you don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that they had thought it out, and had a reason for doing so. The idea that they simply got played is rather silly, IMHO.

Could they come to regret their votes? Perhaps. Only time will tell. Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Lets revisit this in 6 months, or a year, and see where things are. A number of events are likely to take place in those intervals that should offer some glimmer of why the alumni elected trustees voted as they did. I think they've earned that, at a minimum.

Tom,
Anthony went from on this board laying out cases for Ira's conflict of interest and breach of fudiciary responsibilities to not only voting for him but praising his leadership at the BOT meeting in a matter of days or weeks. Serious charges and then a quick mind-blowing retreat with no explanation offered, just more of "we got this."
That cannot be ignored today or in six months.
The quickly evaporating trust in the Alumni9 will be nonexistent in six months.

 

[getmyjive11]

How about a person whose daughter or son has been raped?

'Well, honey, it happened but no sense in doing anything about it. Tomorrow is another day. We can always go back to Tara.'

Stop being stupid. What an appalling analogy.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I think AL referenced a non-public meeting (i.e., "behind closed doors") prior to vote. Could be wrong about that, but I though Anthony referenced such a meeting.

Yes, he did.......and there is NO RECORD of those

What are they gonna' do? Come back a year from now and say "Lubert whispered X in our ear?"
When THEY (the A9) are ALL ON THE PUBLIC RECORD as praising and exulting and approving him into the highest possible position of authority?

Good Lord.

The first three compromised themselves (McCombie Lubrano and Taliferro) when they went on record with their approval of the victim payouts 3 years ago.
Long story there, and I don't want to rehash the entire ordeal...suffice to say Lubrano mea culpa-ed way back when (applause)....McCombie was compromised BEFORE that vote....and Tali was never anything but a status-climber/sheeple anyway


This IS FAR worse.
Lubert has now compromised and conflicted the entire lot of them....in addition to "our guys" selling us down the river for something EVEN LESS meaningful than "409"



Maybe we've been humped up the butt so much, that we cant even feel it when another 10 inch dildo is crammed up our behinds.

 

[drblue1977]

Some concepts that no longer exists at PSU now include the following: honor, fiduciary duty, COI and voting on principle. To Lubrano and the A9 group.........I don' get you! Please step down as you were all.........stepped over again with nary a wimper of discent.

Paging Sen. Yudichak..........please dissolve the current charter and start over with a new cast of characters. It is frightning that the legislature in Harrisburg is the last hope for change on the BOT with their multiple failures of overseeing the OAG, CYS, DPW all the while neglecting their job of updating the corporate charter of the state-related universities of Pennsylvania.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Tom,
Anthony went from on this board laying out cases for Ira's conflict of interest and breach of fudiciary responsibilities to not only voting for him but praising his leadership at the BOT meeting in a matter of days or weeks. Serious charges and then a quick mind-blowing retreat with no explanation offered, just more of "we got this."
That cannot be ignored today or in six months.
The quickly evaporating trust in the Alumni9 will be nonexistent in six months.

I do feel bad - to a degree - for Anthony.

Most of the rest of the traitorous bastards don't ever speak publically at all......so the one or two that do (Anthony, and to a lesser degree Pope) are stuck taking all of the VERY well deserved flack
BUT:
We will never hear from the truly compromised and conflicted Scoundrels (the "McCombie"s) as they sit back, have a F-ing Bourbon with their "pals", and ponder their magnificence

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Barry, once again, I propose that if you are truly this upset over what transpired yesterday, it's time to seriously reevaluate your priorities in life.

By the way:

I told you so.

 

[WeR0206]

FYI, Lubrano's response on facebook to a question of why he should trust Lubert now when he misled him before:

"Fair question. Calculated risk. The window is very small."
============================
What "window" could he be talking about??

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Yes, he did.......and there is NO RECORD of those

What are they gonna' do? Come back a year from now and say "Lubert whispered X in our ear?"
When THEY (the A9) are ALL ON THE PUBLIC RECORD as praising and exulting and approving him into the highest possible position of authority?

Good Lord.

The first three compromised themselves (McCombie Lubrano and Taliferro) when they went on record with their approval of the victim payouts 3 years ago.
Long story there, and I don't want to rehash the entire ordeal...suffice to say Lubrano mea culpa-ed way back when (applause)....McCombie was compromised BEFORE that vote....and Tali was never anything but a status-climber/sheeple anyway


This IS FAR worse.
Lubert has now compromised and conflicted the entire lot of them....in addition to "our guys" selling us down the river for something EVEN LESS meaningful than "409"



Maybe we've been humped up the butt so much, that we cant even feel it when another 10 inch dildo is crammed up our behinds.

Just because it is not part of the "public record" (i.e., part of public portion of meeting) does not mean that they do not keep Board Minutes. Most Boards require that minutes be taken if Board is officially in session. Again, maybe you're right, they don't memoralize what was discussed (i.e., "on the record"), but that would be a somewhat unusual policy, but I admit I have no way of knowing if that is the case or not.

Also, I think you are missing the point - if the A9 asked Lubert the correct questions and he intentionally lied to them regarding material, pertinent information, that would be a serious breach of legal Fiduciary Obligation as it would cause them to vote in a manner that they might otherwise not have cast their vote.

 

[chizco]

Well - seeing that some stooge from Old Main is probably lurking here and will run off as the Messenger from the 8th Grade Girls Lunch Table to the Queen Bee, and that Ira Lubert is now chair - I am offering up my suggestion in an Open Letter.

I am in hopes that Chair Lubert sees it. (taps on screen - hellooooooo?)

View embedded media

Well - seeing that some stooge from Old Main is probably lurking here and will run off as the Messenger from the 8th Grade Girls Lunch Table to the Queen Bee, and that Ira Lubert is now chair - I am offering up my suggestion in an Open Letter.

I am in hopes that Chair Lubert sees it. (taps on screen - hellooooooo?)

View embedded media

Masser has some more free time now. He was a horrible Chair, but he'd probably make a great message board monitor.

 

[Chris92]

Agree with your analysis Tom. Honestly, I'm looking at it in reverse - why would Lubert negotiate with the A9 when he doesn't need, or expect, their vote to be elected Chair? I don't think the answer is that the A9 cut some kind of deal with Lubert - why would Lubert do that, he didn't need their vote in the first place? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever on either side of the equation.

The only thing I can think of is that the A9 did question Lubert on apparent COIs behind closed doors and Lubert denied all of them on the record. Wouldn't intentionally misleading the Board regarding such material information prior to a Board vote be a further clear breach of Fiduciary Obligation? Maybe the A9 have some information that we do not have regarding investigations related to PSU's Board & Governance Structure (e.g., what's going on in regards to Hershey Trust Governance) and they are simply letting Lubert dig his own grave deeper.

Isn't there also the possibility the A9 were discussing their Freeh source findings in Executive session? That scenario would also explain why Lubrano and the others can't say much. I think we're all giving up hope too soon.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Will they disclose the details of why they voted as they did? I'd be stunned if they did.

Stunned - really? Hasn't one of the primary criticisms of psu been the lack of transparency? Several of the alumni trustees do not hesitate to post on this board and share their thoughts but they apparently won't now explain why they supported Lubert? By the way, your post got a "like" by CR666 which should tell you much about your post.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Good thing nobody told someone like Martin Luther King that he had zero leverage and will never have any so just give up. It's not about making immediate change, it's about making a statement. Lubert was going to win anyhow so why not give a vote of dissent to let everyone know this is not okay? Like I've always told my kids, there's never a right time to do the wrong thing and there's never a wrong time to do the right thing.

That is a good point, but the wrong analogy. Voting for Lubert was the wrong thing - period. The A9 can't leverage lunch options at these meetings - why the hell would Lubert give them *anything* - when he doesn't have to depend or rely on them for anything - when he doesn't have to?

Maybe the A9 feel any gesture is worth it if there's even the slightest hope it may pay off down the road. But they can't be that gullible after nearly 5 years,
can they?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Just because it is not part of the "public record" (i.e., part of public portion of meeting) does not mean that they do not keep Board Minutes. Most Boards require that minutes be taken if Board is officially in session. Again, maybe you're right, they don't memoralize what was discussed (i.e., "on the record"), but that would be a somewhat unusual policy, but I admit I have no way of knowing if that is the case or not.

Also, I think you are missing the point - if the A9 asked Lubert the correct questions and he intentionally lied to them regarding material, pertinent information, that would be a serious breach of legal Fiduciary Obligation as it would cause them to vote in a manner that they might otherwise not have cast their vote.

It NEVER happened.

Forget about it.....I'm not one who should be telling anyone to stop beating a dead horse ....and we are ALL desperate to search for some "explanation" - - - but if it didn't happen on the record (and it didn't) it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

We were sold out in order to preserve some half-assed vision that the A9 were a unified bloc.
I can even - maybe - buy that some of the A9 folks on the Board honestly thought it was "for our own good" (that is an idiotic contention, and would only be supported by idiots....but I could be persuaded that it may have been the case for SOME of them)

But....the pure unmistakable truth is....we were sold out - again - to try to prevent us from realizing we had already been sold out.
How pathetic is that?

We can perform all the convoluted illogical gymnastics we want.....but it is what it is.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

It NEVER happened.

Forget about it.....I'm not one who should be telling anyone to stop beating a dead horse ....and we are ALL desperate to search for some "explanation" - - - but if it didn't happen on the record (and it didn't) it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

We were sold out in order to preserve some half-assed vision that the A9 were a unified bloc.
I can even - maybe - buy that some of the A9 folks on the Board honestly thought it was "for our own good" (that is an idiotic contention, and would only be supported by idiots....but I could be persuaded that it may have been the case for SOME of them)

But....the pure unmistakable truth is....we were sold out - again - to try to prevent us from realizing we had already been sold out.
How pathetic is that?

We can perform all the convoluted illogical gymnastics we want.....but it is what it is.

What "didn't happen!"? How do you know what they did or didn't discuss in "Executive Session"? Or are you saying "Executive Sessions" (so named by the PA Sunshine Law) don't count as meetings on the record? If the latter, I do not believe you are correct HIT THE LINK and refer to definition of "Executive Session".

 

[StinkStankStunk]

What "didn't happen!"? How do you know what they did or didn't discuss in "Executive Session"? Or are you saying "Executive Sessions" (so named by the PA Sunshine Law) don't count as meetings on the record? If the latter, I do not believe you are correct HIT THE LINK and refer to definition of "Executive Session".

That is EXACTLY what I am saying.

The PSU BOT has ignored the "Sunshine Act" for decades.......I would assume you know that better than most

It isn't even a subject for debate anymore.