Is it time to give our BOT a break?

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

After all, they had no experience with fraud in their entire existence like OSU and UM have had every couple years.

I say Phuck No! These idiots were multimillionaires for the most part and money laundering political lackeys. Just because Joe gave them no cause to learn how to commit fraud regularly, is no reason to act irresponsibly under pressure.

What do you think?

 

[PSUMATT85]

After all, they had no experience with fraud in their entire existence like OSU and UM have had every couple years.

I say Phuck No! These idiots were multimillionaires for the most part and money laundering political lackeys. Just because Joe gave them no cause to learn how to commit fraud regularly, is no reason to act irresponsibly under pressure.

What do you think?

No

 

[NittPicker]

Many of our 2011 BOT had experience with sleazy dealings. Tom Corbett, Ken Frazier and the PA Vioxx settlement come to mind. But to answer the question - NO!!

 

[lein]

After all, they had no experience with fraud in their entire existence like OSU and UM have had every couple years.

I say Phuck No! These idiots were multimillionaires for the most part and money laundering political lackeys. Just because Joe gave them no cause to learn how to commit fraud regularly, is no reason to act irresponsibly under pressure.

What do you think?

So you think the Jerk from Merck had no experience handling fraud?

 

[PSJimbo]

So you think the Jerk from Merck had no experience handling fraud?

Like Barry said, WTF? No.

My response was intended for the OP. My apology.

 

[BudatPSU]

NEVER!

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

WTF?


Happy Hour on a Thursday?

Every day!

 

[marshall23]

Burning in Hell isn't punishment enough for these despicable examples of human excrement.

 

[ga.lion]

After all, they had no experience with fraud in their entire existence like OSU and UM have had every couple years.

I say Phuck No! These idiots were multimillionaires for the most part and money laundering political lackeys. Just because Joe gave them no cause to learn how to commit fraud regularly, is no reason to act irresponsibly under pressure.

What do you think?

No. IMHO most lacked the courage to defend the University which is a vital role. While a few were happy to bury Joe and perhaps they did, most were more worried about their own careers.

 

[MtNittany]

I'm torn between Multiple and Complicated Rip...

 

[Nitt1300]

no nay never

 

[garw]

NO

 

[Victor E. Bell]

A trustee stated that there was plenty of blame to go around, including the alumni.

I have gone off about this here more than once. You can't make that statement. You can't blame a million people. You can't blame a million people (or whatever it is) for your failure. You certainly can't do that and ever expect another donation.

Nobody who ever attended a football game did anything wrong. If you're a trustee, look in the mirror. Certain people had the juice to handle this and failed. Not the guy sitting in WG shelling out a ton of money watching Penn State play Eastern Jebip. The failure was not on the part of the alumni.

To this day no one knows the whole story, or ever will. Yet the alumni are, according to Penn State, the problem. What a bizarre universe of whacko-ism these people live in. No, I will not give the BOT a break, ever.

 

[bdgan]

After all, they had no experience with fraud in their entire existence like OSU and UM have had every couple years.

I say Phuck No! These idiots were multimillionaires for the most part and money laundering political lackeys. Just because Joe gave them no cause to learn how to commit fraud regularly, is no reason to act irresponsibly under pressure.

What do you think?

Absolutely not. They had an obligation to protect the interests of Penn State University and they failed miserably. Remember, our spineless BOT fired Joe after 61 years without allowing him to speak on his own behalf and without the benefit of an investigation. They wouldn't even do it to his face.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Many of our 2011 BOT had experience with sleazy dealings. Tom Corbett, Ken Frazier and the PA Vioxx settlement come to mind. But to answer the question - NO!!

I think our BOT decided to treat this like they would a corporate scandal. That is to say accept responsibility, pay what you have to to make it go away, accept that you "stock price" will go down in the short term, and then build things back up.

The problem with doing that is that stockholders of a corporation (usually) do not give a crap about the reputation of a company. All they want is for their investment to make money. No stock holders have BP clothing that they proudly wear, or personalize license plates touting their financial association with Apple. Investors buy and sell stocks (obviously) and are not loyal to any stock (unless it is making them money).

Alumni, on the other hand, can be fiercely loyal to their school. Saying "mea culpa" for something that you didn't do is wildly unacceptable in the eyes of many.

So you could make the argument that the BOT's strategy worked; PSU (both football and the university) rebounded quicker than most people thought was possible. But at what cost? The damaged reputation of both the university and figures important to the university (e.g. JVP) will never fully recover. This would be fine for a stockholder, but is unacceptable for this alumnus.

 

[DavidM]

If the OP hadn't answered with a resounding NO like everybody else in this thread, I was ready to test how many obscenities and insults I could pack into one post without getting thrown off the board. At best the trustees who allowed the University to get monstrously smeared were abject cowards and self-consumed American oligarchs, and at worst some of them were guilty of knowing about Sandusky before the news of the scandal hit the fan and covered it up by crapping on the football program and the alumni.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

After all, they had no experience with fraud in their entire existence like OSU and UM have had every couple years.

I say Phuck No! These idiots were multimillionaires for the most part and money laundering political lackeys. Just because Joe gave them no cause to learn how to commit fraud regularly, is no reason to act irresponsibly under pressure.

What do you think?

No is the correct answer