Evan Ceg--very shortly after Lubrano took office, and on national

[demlion]

TV, in an extremely unequivocal fashion, he BLASTED a number of good people at PSU. He released a 267-page report which the beneficiary (PSU) of all these trustees, including Lubrano, paid 8.3 million American dollars for. there are very strong fiduciary reasons for them to see ALL of the documents:

1.To assure they exist. Freeh was very statistical in his pronouncements 400+ interviews? OK lets count them. When he says what he did to get the money that is deserving of some skepticism.

2. Is there any documentation to support the conclusions he reached? Again, a trustee says, we paid 8+ million. Is the proof in the documents?

3. Has Louis Freeh committed a fraud on the University? Legit question until everyone with a stake in the outcome sees the docs.

4.What is the proof that anonymity was promised? Is it in writing?

5. What is not in the report but in the documents? Did Freeh disregard evidence that did not fit his investigation?

6.At some point a fiduciary has to keep in mind that this could go from an "investigation of the investigation" to a criminal fraud probe. Under yours and Massers plan, can the trustees call the feds if they find obvious fraud?

7. It is possible to place tags or identifiers in the database that will identify the docs as having come from this search. Thus the trustees would get caught if they broke some agreement not to reveal the info.

Sorry, if you are going to smear every PSU alum with this trash, you cannot keep it secret. they did not just investigate they broadcast the results and cited the documentation as supporting the report. Hidden support ofr a public document? Nah. Only if you trust the guy, and NOBODY trusts Louie Freeh



This post was edited on 4/20 5:04 PM by demlion

 

[NittPicker]

Re: Evan Ceg--very shortly before Lubrano took office, and on national

Originally posted by demlion:
TV, in an extremely unequivocal fashion, he BLASTED a number of good people at PSU. He released a 267-page report which the beneficiary (PSU) of all these trustees, including Lubrano, paid 8.3 million American dollars for. there are very strong fiduciary reasons for them to see ALL of the documents:

1.To assure they exist. Freeh was very statistical in his pronouncements 400+ interviews? OK lets count them. When he says what he did to get the money that is deserving of some skepticism.

2. Is there any documentation to support the conclusions he reached? Again, a trustee says, we paid 8+ million. Is the proof in the documents?

3. Has Louis Freeh committed a fraud on the University? Legit question until everyone with a stake in the outcome sees the docs.

4.What is the proof that anonymity was promised? Is it in writing?

5. What is not in the report but in the documents? Did Freeh disregard evidence that did not fit his investigation?

6.At some point a fiduciary has to keep in mind that this could go from an "investigation of the investigation" to a criminal fraud probe. Under yours and Massers plan, can the trustees call the feds if they find obvious fraud?

7. It is possible to place tags or identifiers in the database that will identify the docs as having come from this search. Thus the trustees would get caught if they broke some agreement not to reveal the info.

Sorry, if you are going to smear every PSU alum with this trash, you cannot keep it secret. they did not just investigate they broadcast the results and cited the documentation as supporting the report. Hidden support ofr a public document? Nah. Only if you trust the guy, and NOBODY trusts Louie Freeh

Freeh threw out some ridiculous statistics which very few people have questioned. 400+ interviews?? That's a joke. Notice he never said they interviewed 400 people. 10 two minute conversations with the same person was counted as ten interviews. The review of 3.5 million documents was done by a computer program searching for key words selected by Freeh. Freeh is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Art]

Regarding anonymity and public disclosure,

what is the problem with publicly disclosing information without the identity of the source. If, indeed, the Freeh team interviewed 400 people it would be difficult to trace anything back to an individual. And if there were any dispute over the accuracy of certain information would not the need to insure validity supersede that of confidentiality?

 

[demlion]

The very notion that those statistics will never be permitted to be

seen disputed by the public is alarming enough. That they be kept secret from trustees of the entity which paid the money? Unfathomable. In many ways this is the very best proof of all that Masser and the rest have no business running a 4 billion dollar org--their paternalistic sense that they are the keepers of the secret, even as against their fellow trustees.

No there is a much easier set of explanations fro why they do not want AL, and the rest to see this information--it will prove that Freeh--and they--are and have been full of sh!t about this for a long time. Either it will show the emperor has no clothes or it will show that the emperors clothes are more fitting for a cat burglar than a retired federal judge.

 

[pnnylion]

Lubrano & Co. will get what they want, one way or another.

 

[91Joe95]

Evan went off the rails a long time ago.

Its like Covey never openly questioned their duties in court because they paid for yet another ridiculous settlement. He doesn't seem to realize this is going to court and the old guard doesn't have a very good case. Yet he seems to think they walk on water.

 

[Evan Ceg]

I have to wonder, demlion, if you've actually read my posts.

I agree that all trustees should have unfettered access to Freeh's work product. I don't see how a trustee could conscientiously carry out his or her fiduciary duty to Penn State if he or she has limited access to information. My caveat is that each trustee should sign promise not to reveal the identities of Freeh's interviewees or in any way disclose which interviewee said what.

There's a reason why investigators and reporters keep their sources secret. It's so the source will speak candidly, without fear of retribution. If I were an interviewee and I had genuine disagreements with how JoePa ran the football program, I would be very reluctant to risk public disclosure of that dissent given the tender mercies of the Paterno acolytes, many of whom patrol these message boards.

I have no idea what the interviewees may have signed or been promised regarding confidentiality, I just know that it makes complete sense for Freeh/Penn State to have offered a promise of confidentiality. Barron is right to insist on protections of University faculty and staff who talked to Freeh's team.

There are several here who would like to conduct a trial by message board of each of Freeh's interviewees. That would be complete bullshit.

To return to the BoT, if trustees are expected to rubber stamp any conclusions reached by a BoT committee, then the only "full" board members are those that sit on the Executive Committee. For example, the Alumni trustees were right to dissent from the recent civil settlements because they lacked critical information about the dollar amounts and the degree of Penn State's culpability. The problem again is, Can you trust 36 BoT members to keep confidential information confidential?

I'll re-post for the 99th time: the BoT is too damn big, it needs to be restructured and downsized. The remaining 2011 trustees should have resigned long ago due to their failure to react with fiduciary concern to Spanier's and Baldwin's risk assessment of the Sandusky investigation. They made serious mistakes in 2011 and 2012, some of which could be understood given the extraordinary and unprecedented pressure they confronted, and some of which are simply not forgivable. I am reluctant to impute motivations of self-aggrandizement and personal venality to the "cabal" in the absence of hard evidence, but clearly their well is poisoned and it would be best if the BoT had a fresh start free of their legacy.

I also question the wisdom of a BoT structure predicated on constituency representation. Your goal as a BoT member should not be to deliver the goods for for Pennsylvania agricultural societies, for the Commonwealth's business interests, not even for the ever-nostalgic alumni nor for the narrow agenda of PS4RS. Your obligation should always and only be to use your individual judgment to do what's best for Penn State today and tomorrow.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I agree that all trustees should have unfettered access to Freeh's work product. I don't see how a trustee could conscientiously carry out his or her fiduciary duty to Penn State if he or she has limited access to information. My caveat is that each trustee should sign promise not to reveal the identities of Freeh's interviewees or in any way disclose which interviewee said what.

Seems like you are making a massive deal about a non-issue. From the press release the alumni-elected trustees released concerning their filing a petition in Centre Count Common Pleas Court to gain access to the Freeh Material:

"To suggest, as Chairman Masser and President Barron did yesterday in their joint statement, that we are unwilling to sign a Confidentiality Agreement is misleading and plainly untrue. We are very willing to sign an appropriate Confidentiality Agreement as the Petition filed today states."

 

[91Joe95]

I have to wonder, demlion, if you've actually read my posts.

I agree that all trustees should have unfettered access to Freeh's work product. I don't see how a trustee could conscientiously carry out his or her fiduciary duty to Penn State if he or she has limited access to information. My caveat is that each trustee should sign promise not to reveal the identities of Freeh's interviewees or in any way disclose which interviewee said what.

There's a reason why investigators and reporters keep their sources secret. It's so the source will speak candidly, without fear of retribution. If I were an interviewee and I had genuine disagreements with how JoePa ran the football program, I would be very reluctant to risk public disclosure of that dissent given the tender mercies of the Paterno acolytes, many of whom patrol these message boards.

I have no idea what the interviewees may have signed or been promised regarding confidentiality, I just know that it makes complete sense for Freeh/Penn State to have offered a promise of confidentiality. Barron is right to insist on protections of University faculty and staff who talked to Freeh's team.

There are several here who would like to conduct a trial by message board of each of Freeh's interviewees. That would be complete bullshit.

To return to the BoT, if trustees are expected to rubber stamp any conclusions reached by a BoT committee, then the only "full" board members are those that sit on the Executive Committee. For example, the Alumni trustees were right to dissent from the recent civil settlements because they lacked critical information about the dollar amounts and the degree of Penn State's culpability. The problem again is, Can you trust 36 BoT members to keep confidential information confidential?

I'll re-post for the 99th time: the BoT is too damn big, it needs to be restructured and downsized. The remaining 2011 trustees should have resigned long ago due to their failure to react with fiduciary concern to Spanier's and Baldwin's risk assessment of the Sandusky investigation. They made serious mistakes in 2011 and 2012, some of which could be understood given the extraordinary and unprecedented pressure they confronted, and some of which are simply not forgivable. I am reluctant to impute motivations of self-aggrandizement and personal venality to the "cabal" in the absence of hard evidence, but clearly their well is poisoned and it would be best if the BoT had a fresh start free of their legacy.

I also question the wisdom of a BoT structure predicated on constituency representation. Your goal as a BoT member should not be to deliver the goods for for Pennsylvania agricultural societies, for the Commonwealth's business interests, not even for the ever-nostalgic alumni nor for the narrow agenda of PS4RS. Your obligation should always and only be to use your individual judgment to do what's best for Penn State today and tomorrow.

Did or did not PSU and Freeh make it abundantly clear that he would be sharing info with the AG? Every single interviewee knew there was no such thing as anonymity/confidentiality.

 

[Evan Ceg]

Seems like you are making a massive deal about a non-issue. From the press release the alumni-elected trustees released concerning their filing a petition in Centre Count Common Pleas Court to gain access to the Freeh Material:

"To suggest, as Chairman Masser and President Barron did yesterday in their joint statement, that we are unwilling to sign a Confidentiality Agreement is misleading and plainly untrue. We are very willing to sign an appropriate Confidentiality Agreement as the Petition filed today states."

Thanks for the update, Tom. If the Alumni trustees (and the other trustees) are willing to sign such a Confidentiality Agreement, then they have pulled that rug from under Masser.

And to 91Joe95, Freeh passing information on to the PA OAG is much different that putting said information in the public media.

 

[91Joe95]

Thanks for the update, Tom. If the Alumni trustees (and the other trustees) are willing to sign such a Confidentiality Agreement, then they have pulled that rug from under Masser.

And to 91Joe95, Freeh passing information on to the PA OAG is much different that putting said information in the public media.

Actually its not. That information could easily be made public as part of a court case and or defense team access to files. Its a made up standard by the bot. Quite frankly I'm surprised you subscribe to it. Once information is shared, it becomes out of your control.

 

[Aoshiro]

Thanks for the update, Tom. If the Alumni trustees (and the other trustees) are willing to sign such a Confidentiality Agreement, then they have pulled that rug from under Masser.

And to 91Joe95, Freeh passing information on to the PA OAG is much different that putting said information in the public media.

Once AGAIN, for the UMPTEENTH time, the alumni-trustees are not talking about sharing the information in public. That is NOT the issue. Masser doesn't want the TRUSTEES to be able to see it.

So stop trolling with your red herrings.

 

[CDW3333]

Seems like you are making a massive deal about a non-issue. From the press release the alumni-elected trustees released concerning their filing a petition in Centre Count Common Pleas Court to gain access to the Freeh Material:

"To suggest, as Chairman Masser and President Barron did yesterday in their joint statement, that we are unwilling to sign a Confidentiality Agreement is misleading and plainly untrue. We are very willing to sign an appropriate Confidentiality Agreement as the Petition filed today states."

If the only issue is whether Lubrano and the other trustees will sign a confidentiality agreement, which the trustees contend they are willing to do, the trustees lawyers should've attached signed confidentiality agreements to their petition. Did they do that? It would end the controversy in a hurry.

 

[demlion]

Thanks for the update, Tom. If the Alumni trustees (and the other trustees) are willing to sign such a Confidentiality Agreement, then they have pulled that rug from under Masser.

And to 91Joe95, Freeh passing information on to the PA OAG is much different that putting said information in the public media.

The rug was never under Masser to be pulled out. They have always been willing to sign an appropriate agreement, but these jackasses want to pre-sort the documents and withhold ones they claim are 'privileged.'

 

[91Joe95]

If the only issue is whether Lubrano and the other trustees will sign a confidentiality agreement, which the trustees contend they are willing to do, the trustees lawyers should've attached signed confidentiality agreements to their petition. Did they do that? It would end the controversy in a hurry.

The confidentiality agreement the bot wants precludes the sharing of identities and/or any information that might allow the trustees to guess who they are. That's the issue, not whether info can be shared to the public. I bet you knew that though.

 

[CDW3333]

The confidentiality agreement the bot wants precludes the sharing of identities and/or any information that might allow the trustees to guess who they are. That's the issue, not whether info can be shared to the public. I bet you knew that though.

Nope, didn't know that (assuming what you say is true). If I'm the judge I tell Penn State to produce all the documents with ID redacted and then tell Lubrano, et al to come back with specific documents that they want the ID for rather than divulging that information in a wholesale manner. Then fight it out document by document.

 

[lionlurker]

All they will do is delay, delay, delay. If they keep fighting long enough they hope that Lubrano et al will either die of natural causes or for some reason no longer be a Trustee, and then this whole thing will go away.

I forget how the new term limits rule works. How long does Anthony have left?

 

[doctornick]

Nope, didn't know that (assuming what you say is true). If I'm the judge I tell Penn State to produce all the documents with ID redacted and then tell Lubrano, et al to come back with specific documents that they want the ID for rather than divulging that information in a wholesale manner. Then fight it out document by document.

What would be the justification for that? Either the Trustees should have full access or not. There's no reason for the courts to rule for a case by case basis.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I forget how the new term limits rule works. How long does Anthony have left?

Assuming that he runs for, and is elected, for 5 3-year terms, Lubrano can serve for 15 years. He and McCombie are the only alumni-elected trustees that have 15-year term limits. For trustees that started their terms on July 1, 2013 (that's when Barb Doran, Bill Oldsey, and Ted Brown started amongst the alumni-elected trustees) or later, the term limits are 12 years, so they could only serve 4 3-year terms (again, assuming they wanted to run 4 times, and were elected 4 times).

Tom