Jim -
As I am sure you are aware, I think your take on this is wrong.....so I won't try to parse words about that.
I also am sure that you are one of the many folks who has devoted a lot of time, energy, blood, sweat and tears to the right causes. If that were not the case, I wouldn't much care what you thought about this situation.
So - and I don't mean to start a pissing match - but I speak bluntly and directly (its the only way I know how to be) and I hope you know me well enough to not take it as some kind attack against you - - - but rather a outlining of the situation.
With that - at risk of offending - I will reply:
_____________
While I don't like to classify this issue as a "battle", I will use your term for consistency
The "battle" is to be proper fiduciaries for the University:
For years now - not just on July 22, 2016 - the majority of our A9 have acted as if they don't even know that THAT is the battle. And that is very discouraging.
I could go into a dissertation on those issues, but that can be for another time - - - since I have outlined numerous issues, repeatedly, in the past.
The "fight" we faced was whether to support Ira Lubert as Chairperson. Engaging in that "battle" IS NOT AN OPTION, it is a DUTY.
We (through our elected reps) are REQUIRED to engage in that battle.
In this case, this battle - selecting a Chairman - is not only a DUTY, it is either the #1 or #2 MOST important battle for any Board of governance member (the other option is the selection of the President/CEO).
That is a fact.....and no amount of "hand waving" can change that.
The "advantage" (and, again, I don't really like that term, but I'll mimic it) to be gained - or LOST - is the advantage of either being a proper steward, or not.
Failure to be a proper steward is a very, very, very, costly FAIL. It rips any shred or credibility or standing, or - if one wants to use this phrase - "moral high ground" from those who fail in that duty.
1- We, all of US, through our proxies, FAILED. Miserably.
2 - We failed in as awful a way possible.
3 - We threw full, unanimous support behind the single WORST possible option....and we KNEW what an awful decision it was - we all know that for a fact - there is no "pleading of ignorance" option here .
4 - We, through our proxies, gave unanimous support to Ira Lubert.
Those are the facts. They are incontrovertible and indelible.
From this day forward, WE, through our proxies, gave a shining stamp of approval to every action Lubert has ever undertaken on the Board, and every action he ever will take.
How awful is that?
We can try to circle-jerk around that. But that is the fact - - - and everyone - media folks, politicos, etc - now has EVERY right to hold us to that action.
Though I am sure many among us will bitch, moan, and complain to all of those entities when we are called out on it. Our bitches will be misdirected - - - the A9 established those facts for us.
We did it
It is on record
and
There is no denying it
And, once again, no amount of "hand waving" can ever change that fact.
The idea that we "put Lubert on the spot" couldn't be any more "untrue".
The idea that you put someone on the spot by having nothing but public praise expressed, and providing unanimous support via the votes....is ludicrous
(Anthony's "we will expect you to be a great leader" was nonsense....or any other "backroom-super-secret-information.....and most certainly doesn't put Lubert on anything close to "the spot")
In fact, if OUR proxies voted in the most directly violative way possibly with respect to our concerns, in the most important aspect of carrying out their fiduciary duties, and we are not even privy to "why"....then it only adds another layer to the failure - it does not excuse it.
We would be FURIOUS if the Nov 2011 Scoundrels acted even 1/2 so poorly.
Further, If we are somehow to believe that Ira Lubert - out of some sense of honor - will somehow change his spots........now that he has been given full, unanimous control....we are beyond stupid.
The three time-worn excuses of the A9...when they fail time and again to act as proper fiduciaries:
1 - "We are a minority, and we will just be out-voted anyway......so we just went along for expediencies sake"
2 - "We are working behind the scenes.....you don't know what we know"
and
3 - "It is just sooooo hard to be us"
Your post refers to the A9's use of all of these these A9 excuse chants - to some degree or another.....and we've all heard them time and again over the last 5 years.
Those excuses are DONE
If the November 11 Scoundrels used such excuses, we would be up in arms.
Hell, when they have used them - we were up in arms.....so that is not even a debatable point.
And yet, we - time and again - accept them from those folks who DIRECTLY speak for us......and that is even worse.
We need to be consistent in holding ALL fiduciaries to at least the same minimum standards.
It we do not......shame on us.
That's how I feel about it.....and I didn't (and I won't) even go through chapter and verse of how they PERSONALLY stabbed so many in the back throughout this process - - - - but I think you know those people as well as I do.
Anyway.
I wouldn't have bothered to spend these few minutes if I didn't have respect and admiration for all the work you have done.
But this situation is simply too damn important to let lie - IMO......and there are decisions we must now make.....
SO THIS IS NOT SOME ACADEMIC EXERCISE:
We need to determine if WE are going to shrug our shoulders, and let our expectations of fiduciary duty be "fungible" (that is a nice way of asking whether or not we will be hypocrites)
or
Will we DEMAND that those folks who act in our name behave appropriately - - - and, if they don't, engage in OUR duty to replace them with those who will
That is the decision WE face.
And it is a fact
And no amount of hand waving will change it.
In advance, let me say, I'm sorry.
Last edited:
