Interesting...Scott is crushing mike m on Twitter this am
- Thread starter ritaith
- Start date
One of many great tweets from Scott this morning. He covered a lot of territory.
Scott needs to go away. He has hurt JVP more than help him.
To be fair - Old Main has done NOTHING to help. They continue to defend no one and offend no one.
So imagine your family being caught up in a national media shitstorm - by a false narrative manufactured out of Harrisburg - by state officials that lit the match - while Old Main stands by with the bellows - and you try dealing with it.
I am surprised that no one has killed themselves over this yet - many have expressed that concern to the entire BoT, Admin & PSAA in a number of emails.
Is that what this is going to take for SOMEONE in Old Main to change the narrative and start pushing back on Harrisburg? A death?
So imagine your family being caught up in a national media shitstorm - by a false narrative manufactured out of Harrisburg - by state officials that lit the match - while Old Main stands by with the bellows - and you try dealing with it.
I am surprised that no one has killed themselves over this yet - many have expressed that concern to the entire BoT, Admin & PSAA in a number of emails.
Is that what this is going to take for SOMEONE in Old Main to change the narrative and start pushing back on Harrisburg? A death?
Last edited:
The OG BoT killed Joe. Why would they care about more carnage?
It's inevitable that someone will off himself over this, before it's over. I've held this belief for a long time. These are cowards that we are dealing with here, and once the light starts to shine on them, at least one of them will take the easy way out.
“If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
og bot member trying to commit suicide:
Even effed THAT up.
Even effed THAT up.
Last edited:
You like Ziegler (so do I). Ziegler doesn't like Scott (I like Scott). Are you sure that you didn't get blocked from Scott's Twitter feed because of some pro-Ziegler things you posted?
Could you post some more of these for those of us not on Twitter. Thanks in advance.
You don't need to have a Twitter account to read them. Just click on Scott's name in 91's post and it will take you right to the Twitter feed so you can scroll down and read them all.
Yes, Scott was nailing it on Twitter. I was cheering him on from in front of my laptop!
Frustrating as that is in this specific circumstance with PSU and these Sandusky claimants, that is the accepted approach in corporate America.
As no doubt many of you have, I've been involved in a good number of these situations over the years as the HR person working with legal. Example: an employee (or ex-ee) makes some claim after being fired that his/her manager said or did this or that. We know it's at best a half-truth with major spin, and more likely just the ee parroting something they read in the paper, but we know that the time needed to invest in fighting the claim and potentially heading into a court case is very costly. We also know that the cost to settle and say goodbye to the person and the situation is far, far less, both in money and especially in time. We hold off for some period of time, showing that we have no fear of legal action (sometimes they go away), and then at some point decide that we've spent enough time on it. At that point we agree that if the person making the claim continues to pursue it, we'll establish our threshold of money to settle with a non-disclosure. It's then up to me to handle the negotiating process and do my best to come in under the ceiling, get the non-disclosure doc signed indicating no fault on the company's part, and get it out of our hair. I hate for my company to write those checks, no matter how relatively small they are, but I am always happy to see the door hit that nonsense on its butt on the way out of my (company) life!
Since the settlements were first publicized, I've been trying to explain this to people who view the payoffs as admissions of guilt. Generally, those involved in businesses and having some knowledge of how businesses operate get it, while those outside of the corporate world don't get it easily.
In that vein, I can imagine that Ira's thinking was 'this protocol is the way to go'. But with the lawsuits flying around them, I think they should have foreseen the real possibility that they would have to defend the reasons for the lack of vetting at some point. In the corporate world, once the non-disclosure is signed and the waiting period is over, it's done. We don't have to worry about lawsuits from other parties. But in the continuing saga of the lack of foresight and leadership of the OGBOT, this bizarre collection of corporate executives and big-time attorneys apparently cannot think more than one step ahead and certainly not outside of their perceived frame of reference. They seem to be tone deaf toward the institution and the stakeholders they are obliged to serve with every action they take.
Last edited:
Thank you for explaining.
I would love to see more information and some input on why, specifically, PSU legal didn't see a lot of this coming - particularly when the guys from Reed Smith sat thru the Sandusky trial.
These guys make how much an hour? They knew damned well Kline & McLaughlin's level of expertise in high profile suits - and if they didn't, well shame on them.
It just seems that there has been so much reactionary steps taken, rather than proactive steps. PSU continues to hoist its own petard & I don't know why.
Yea well....
- Either PSU didn't include a non disclosure clause or they have failed to enforce it.
- PSU seemed quick to offer up huge sums of money under the assumption that the cost would be covered by insurance.
In my company life, I've worked with Reed-Smith attys (and Pepper Hamilton attys also), and they are generally very good and have helped me plan and prepare for the various contingencies that may arise from the other party or in general. I agree that they didn't see very far ahead in these cases, although they primaily suggest and advise.... sometimes the "I know better" clients don't always heed the advice. Not smart to do that, but it happens.
Also, they had to know Shubin and his.... hmmm... let's say 'colorful' reputation in the State College area, and know that a variation or three of the facts was perhaps to be found in his bag of tricks. But seems as though he and his clients avoided much scrutiny, too, from what I understand. Again, if they thought 'we sign this deal, it's wrapped in a non-disclosure, all's well that ends well', they utilized their myopic strategery to its fullest.
You said, "In that vein, I can imagine that Ira's thinking was 'this protocol is the way to go'. ". Really? Protocol when you have an INDEMNIFICATION from the institution who is the responsible and accountable "Care & Custody" Children's Charity in regards to both the Child Participant and Charity Employee is to reverse the Contractual Indemnification you have and accept responsibility despite not having responsibility??? Bull$hit there is any company on earth that would not have invoked the Indemnification Clause on TSM -- beyond that Lubert should never have been given responsibilities for running the Settlement Process for PSU given that Lubert was CLEARLY CONFLICTED relative to TSM and was effective writing an indemnification for himself using PSU's money as he was a Board Member of TSM and provided use of his own property in Lebanon County, Green Hills, for TSM to host camps on!!!
I can't tell if you're berating me here, or agreeing with me or some combination, but....
Yep, there was and is so much wrong with the whole deal on multiple levels, and Ira seems to almost always be in the middle of all of it - COIs, poor executive-level decisions, the TSM angles, etc.
You have a good handle on all the many aspects of the agreements; I was just giving a point of view that talked to one possible mind-set given my experience.
I remember when Barb Doran explained why the alumni trustees voted for the first round of settlements. Ziegler heavily criticized her. Maybe with the benefit of hindsight he was right, but he also wasn't the one having to make that decision.
I defended Doran and the alumni trustees. For many of the reasons you listed. However, one spin on your scenario would be that you would never imagine your corporation WAS hiding something, had ulterior motives that were in conflict with what was best for the company, had personal motives to make the allegations go away, and would provide YOU with information and reassurances that turned out to be false.
The original version of this movie did include a suicide.
This is just a remake. They still are hoping somebody follows the script, imo.
"Strategery" - indeed!
Like "trickification". Part of me wonders if Ira didn't air drop himself into the "vetting" process as a way to make some coin off a non-profit with Kline. Like a twisted "Trading Places" kinda of thing. These guys are uber wealthy - but I wondered if there was some sort of thrill in seeing exactly how much they could get away with and it would all be laffed over in the end over a $1 bet.
Maybe the claims were paid in the hopes of keeping the 71 and 76 allegations out of the news. Maybe it was to protect the reputation of the University and JVP from further damage. Maybe they didn't want the headlines when the 71 and 76 "victims' were forced to sue and the media were to lambaste PSU for being insensitive to the victims and the coverup going back into the 70s.
Unfortunately the 71 and 76 allegations came to light anyway.
Unfortunately the 71 and 76 allegations came to light anyway.
Too funny, yea maybe they wanted to accept responsibility in the first place rather than invoke the TSM Indemnification they held in the first place because Ira Lubert is MASSIVELY CONFLICTED in regards to TSM and potentially liable via direct suit by TSM's insurers.
Maybe Maybe not. But the media believe them. Can you imagine if PSU had denied these "victims" and forced them to sue? The media s**tstorm would have been unbearable. And remember there are no guarantees at trial. PSU could've won, but they could've lost, too. There would have been testimony very damaging.
Its very noble to say 'deny them' and mount the steed of truth. But you have to consider - realistically - the consequences. The other side isn't going to just lay down and play dead. They would use every weapon in their arsenal, including media sentiment, to bash PSU and to drive up the value of their claim.
Who knows what other skeletons will be unearthed?
I'm going to take a stab at guessing which imbecile I have on ignore you're talking to . . . black elmo?
And therein lies the rub "But the media believe (sic) them." We all know damned well sports writers and the regular beat writers have been covering Penn State now for the past few years. They pander to an 8th grade reading comprehension level, if that.
Penn State should have tailored their messaging for such an audience. They could have calmly & rationally explained why they did what they did with the reasoning behind it in such a way not to inflame sentiment and minimize or staunch the flow of vitriol. Instead, we get yet again fluffy messaging that leaves it up for more interpretation and wild spin. Even you Blelmo Too have to admit it, so stop defending these boneheaded moves by these well paid mouthpieces out of Old Main.
Penn State Leadership continues to hoist its own petard and it's almost as if they actually enjoy blowing themselves up.
I'm going to take a stab at guessing which imbecile I have on ignore you're talking to . . . black elmo?
We've heard more from tOSU and UCLA than we have from PSU the past few days. Go figure.
it was inevitable that the 71 and 76 allegations would come to light when PSU sued PMA.
Therefore, one must conclude that the people at PSU who decided to sue PMA are either a) incredibly incompetent or b) fully intended for this information to be made public.
au contraire, Wendy. Penn State's president DID construct the perfect statement which would have made this "scandal" a thing of the past by now.
but the dumpster fire arsonists wouldn't have it and forced Spanier out.
I've opined they were poison pills for this exact reason.
How would it be any worse than the shitstorm we have now?
Let's recap, shall we?
Option 1: Defend the claims and prove falsity of allegations of prior PSU knowledge.
Option 2: Pay a bunch of money and have the allegations unveiled in forum that doesn't allow PSU to refute them.
The PSU legal team is pretty much the worst team ever assembled in the history of legal teams. Totally, effing incompetent. They have never once made the correct decision. Ever.
cmon now, you're ignoring their string of brilliant legal victories . . . hold on, I'm being informed they have lost every ruling at every turn.
dayum . . .
Sir, thank you however, massive legal/PR/media shitstorms generally do not occur in the scenario you describe with the average publically unknown employee(s). Ira and others on the BoT saw the implosion as soon as Joe was linked into this mess, did they not?
Once someone as 'famous' as Joe was tied into this fiasco, all 'standard' practices for handling these types of situations as you described were out the window.
The combination of Joe's fame + PSU's deep pockets + the media and in particular, the sports media grabbing onto this story + explosive subject matter = massive shitstorm.
If Ira or the BoT thought this could be handled like any other employee (or ex-employee) 'grievance,' then yes, they are the worst university leaders that ever existed.
I have a feeling the reason they went the way they did is because PSU did not immediately invoke the TSM Indemnification. This suggests to me that they didn't reveal to PMA that they had the indemnification, because PMA would have insisted that TSM's insurers be pulled into the settlement process and made primarily responsible for all settlements. However, TSM's insurers would have likely counter-sued the TSM Executives and Board Members (including Lubert)....and probably the State of Pennsylvania as DPW was engaged in a close "Agency Relationship" with TSM. There are very few other explanations as to why TSM has been protected by the corrupt at every turn and why we're only learning much of this at this very late date.
Similar threads
