ADVERTISEMENT

Latest in Paterno v NCAA

Don't know if anyone has said it yet, but sooner or later you are going to have to accept that A9 is simply restricted from what they can share. I'm grateful when they do and also wish we could know everything with complete transparency , but right now we just can't.
I'm less concerned about "what they share" than I am "what they do" (or, more often, "what they don't do") wrt the fundemental responsibilities of proper stewardship

Those issues - what they do or don't do wrt their governance responsibilities - are outside the realm of being excused by the:

A9 Excuse Hymnal....
Section 2......
Subsection "You don't know what we know"

Please don't go down that false argument road with me.......nothing pisses me off more

I know many folks (I make no assumptions as to whether you - personally - are amongst that demographic) are more than happy to throw accountable, righteous governance under the bus - - - so long as they recieve alibis and lullabies wrt the things they place a higher priority on. I am not
 
If there wasn't a deal Tom, then why the praise for Lubert and the sudden silence? He went from insinuating some pretty damning things about Lubert to praising him. What happened?

You really are over thinking some aspects of this, and not doing much thinking about other aspects.

To the later, "what happened" took place on Friday morning at the July BOT meeting, when the BOT was in executive session. Trustees are not allowed to publicly disclose what they discuss in executive session, unless they agree to do so and bring it up in a public session. Their discussions around the BOT leadership elections were not raised in the public session. As such, you can demand to know what was discussed, or what took place, until you are blue in the face, but even trustees that would like to provide you with this information would have to break BOT rules to do so.

To the former, you seem convinced that some type of brokered deal took place. I've informed you that you are mistaken, and gave you an indication as to a poster that is on the right track.
 
I'm less concerned about "what they share" than I am "what they do" (or, more often, "what they don't do") wrt the fundemental responsibilities of proper stewardship

Those issues - what they do or don't do wrt their governance responsibilities - are outside the realm of being excused by the:

A9 Excuse Hymnal....
Section 2......
Subsection "You don't know what we know"

Please don't go down that false argument road with me.......nothing pisses me off more

I know many folks (I make no assumptions as to whether you - personally - are amongst that demographic) are more than happy to throw accountable, righteous governance under the bus - - - so long as they recieve alibis and lullabies wrt the things they place a higher priority on. I am not
Not really, I want to hear a full accounting, but am willing to wait until it's safe for them to do so. If it never materializes, then that's a horse of a different color.
 
Please don't include the majority in your "we" category. I don't know many who have lauded Lubert, do you? We have yet to find out what Anthony actually meant because it happened in Exec Comm.

34-0

Majority? Does "unanimity" presuppose "majority"? No kinda' figured it did :)

Next? Or do excuse THAT with recitations from the Excuse Hymnal Section 2 (aka "You don't know what we know") as well?
 
You really are over thinking some aspects of this, and not doing much thinking about other aspects.

To the later, "what happened" took place on Friday morning at the July BOT meeting, when the BOT was in executive session. Trustees are not allowed to publicly disclose what they discuss in executive session, unless they agree to do so and bring it up in a public session. Their discussions around the BOT leadership elections were not raised in the public session. As such, you can demand to know what was discussed, or what took place, until you are blue in the face, but even trustees that would like to provide you with this information would have to break BOT rules to do so.

To the former, you seem convinced that some type of brokered deal took place. I've informed you that you are mistaken, and gave you an indication as to a poster that is on the right track.
We seem to be on the same page here, along with a core of others. Wish there were more that would just "wait a minute".
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
34-0

Majority? Does "unanimity" presuppose "majority"? No kinda' figured it did :)

Next? Or do excuse THAT with recitations from the Excuse Hymnal Section 2 (aka "You don't know what we know") as well?
Might want to re-read the OP's sentence for context: "While WE lauded him." Did you see any "WE's" on here lauding Lubert? If so, were they a majority? ;)
 
Not really, I want to hear a full accounting, but am willing to wait until it's safe for them to do so. If it never materializes, then that's a horse of a different color.
Once again.......you are arguing with yourself - which is fine, but it pisses me off that you keep trying to put me on the counter-point side of YOUR argument

At what point was it "not safe" for them to say NO when the vote was taken for Lubert?
My issue is with WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, and WHAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE
I know "what they did".......and I know what they have and have not been doing for years

That has nothing to do with whether or not they want to / don't want to / don't feel safe "talking about it"......that's a completely different issue


If you want to have some other debate, fine - but don't have it with me

Don't do that......it ain't that hard to understand
 
Might want to re-read the OP's sentence for context: "While WE lauded him." Did you see any "WE's" on here lauding Lubert? If so, were they a majority? ;)
Uh......maybe you should "re-read"?
It is abundantly - not to mention logically - clear who the poster was referring to

:)
 
Uh......maybe you should "re-read"?
It is abundantly - not to mention logically - clear who the poster was referring to

:)
Never thought of A.L. as a "we" and I'm sure most others don't either... To date, IIRC A.L is the only one who made a comment that needs explaining.
 
Are you referring to the central A/C or the pervasive red font responses?

I just meant it was nice someone else was addressing Zippy's hobby of harassing women on twitter with fake accounts.

He must get tired of flagging just MY posts when I bring it up

but yes, his annoying red fonts and central A/C are the marks of a man of his pedigree
 
I just meant it was nice someone else was addressing Zippy's hobby of harassing women on twitter with fake accounts.

He must get tired of flagging just MY posts when I bring it up

but yes, his annoying red fonts and central A/C are the marks of a man of his pedigree
I'm glad, too. If I bring it up the usual "You're just overreacting because you're a female" garbage occurs, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Thank you!
 
Please don't include the majority in your "we" category. I don't know many who have lauded Lubert, do you? We have yet to find out what Anthony actually meant because it happened in Exec Comm.
The "we" I am pointing to is Lubrano, who represents the alums and lauded the leadership of Lubert.
 
You really are over thinking some aspects of this, and not doing much thinking about other aspects.

To the later, "what happened" took place on Friday morning at the July BOT meeting, when the BOT was in executive session. Trustees are not allowed to publicly disclose what they discuss in executive session, unless they agree to do so and bring it up in a public session. Their discussions around the BOT leadership elections were not raised in the public session. As such, you can demand to know what was discussed, or what took place, until you are blue in the face, but even trustees that would like to provide you with this information would have to break BOT rules to do so.

To the former, you seem convinced that some type of brokered deal took place. I've informed you that you are mistaken, and gave you an indication as to a poster that is on the right track.
in all honesty Tom, throughout this entire saga you have been full of things that aren't and things you know but cannot disclose but have been pretty barren on any factual knowledge on this board.
You say I can demand to know what was discussed in the executive session until I am blue in the face, yet I have never asked for that. I have surmised that some sort of a deal must have been stroke because I can't think of another reason Lubrano would publicly laud the leadership of the man he has been "hypothesizing" to be a pretty dispicable man. You seem to know what has gone on. Anthony can't disclose it because it was done in executive session. Fair enough. Why don't you let us in on it? Some sort of a hint, a clue, a flat out statement of fact. Something.
At the end of the day, I may have just hit my breaking point with this whole thing so my trust in people doing what is right in this thing may be shot.
 
in all honesty Tom, throughout this entire saga you have been full of things that aren't and things you know but cannot disclose but have been pretty barren on any factual knowledge on this board.

lol, that's a pretty selective memory on your part. there are things that are still in litigation that I can't disclose. it's been that way for far longer than I expected, but I don't control the judicial schedules. Excluding things that I can't disclose, I've been rather forthcoming with a lot of details, or when I can't be that direct, at least guiding folks in the proper direction.

You say I can demand to know what was discussed in the executive session until I am blue in the face, yet I have never asked for that.

I don't think we're going to find agreement here.

I have surmised that some sort of a deal must have been stroke because I can't think of another reason Lubrano would publicly laud the leadership of the man he has been "hypothesizing" to be a pretty dispicable man. You seem to know what has gone on. Anthony can't disclose it because it was done in executive session. Fair enough. Why don't you let us in on it? Some sort of a hint, a clue, a flat out statement of fact. Something.

So the individual who surmised something that I've indicated is incorrect also a) doesn't seem to understand why I can't disclose more than I have, and b) doesn't seem to realize that I've provided a hint. Imagine that.

At the end of the day, I may have just hit my breaking point with this whole thing so my trust in people doing what is right in this thing may be shot.

Nobody that I know that is on the inside of various aspects of this issue expected things to take as long as they have. It has caused frustration for quite a few people. I get that, and have a lot of sympathy for folks that feel they are at or near their breaking point.

As frustrated as fans may be, try for a minute to imagine the members of the Paterno family, or C/S/S and their families. While many of them do have times where it's tough to believe that their respective aspects of the issue have not yet been resolved, for the most part they are more than happy to wait out the process. It seems to be a combination of a) not having any control over the process, and b) a supreme belief that at the end of it they will be vindicated.

Their confidence, and their approach to things, is good enough for me, and helps me to be patient.

Hope that helps.
 
How about this Tom. In a Lubranoesque way, how about a hypothetical question as to why Anthony would have publicly praised Lubert in the process of voting for him as chairman of the board?
 
lol, that's a pretty selective memory on your part. there are things that are still in litigation that I can't disclose. it's been that way for far longer than I expected, but I don't control the judicial schedules. Excluding things that I can't disclose, I've been rather forthcoming with a lot of details, or when I can't be that direct, at least guiding folks in the proper direction.



I don't think we're going to find agreement here.



So those individual who surmised something that I've indicated is incorrect also a) doesn't seem to understand why I can't disclose more than I have, and b) doesn't seem to realize that I've provided a hint. Imagine that.



Nobody that I know that is on the inside of various aspects of this issue expected things to take as long as they have. It has caused frustration for quite a few people. I get that, and have a lot of sympathy for folks that feel they are at or near their breaking point.

As frustrated as fans may be, try for a minute to imagine the members of the Paterno family, or C/S/S and their families. While many of them do have times where it's tough to believe that their respective aspects of the issue have not yet been resolved, for the most part they are more than happy to wait out the process. It seems to be a combination of a) not having any control over the process, and b) a supreme belief that at the end of it they will be vindicated.

Their confidence, and their approach to things, is good enough for me, and helps me to be patient.

Hope that helps.

While everything on this entire fiasco has moved at the speed of a glacier:

A - It would be the upset of the century if CSS do not eventually "walk away". Whether that is right, wrong, proper, took too damn long or whatever.......that will almost certainly happen
That has ALWAYS been a near certainty - it was just a matter of when

B - The Freeh report will be exposed - to anyone with an IQ over 80, who is paying attention - as a complete piece of crap (that was the single MOST INEVITABLE outcome in this entire scenario)
Now - how many are (or will be) paying attention? That's a good question, and the number is probably very few ( and fewer and fewer each time those who are likely to be the "exposers" fail in their duties)

C - To the degree possible, JVP/PSU Football will be "vindicated"......whatever that may be worth at this point
I expect it means a good bit to the individuals involved (former ball players, the Paterno Family, etc).......and it should.
This has also always been an inevitability - - - though I think most folks are surprised (as am I) that it has taken soooooo long


All that stuff is easy to be "patient" for........because there has never been any legit risk that those things wouldn't happen



Now, legitimate responsible governance for Penn State?
Rooting out the true core of "corruption within"?

Those items have always been far less certain......

and less and less certain as we have moved along, and found - repeatedly - that the number of folks who prioritize those concerns is incredibly small.....

and the number of folks who are willing to throw those issues "under the bus", so long as it serves their own interests, is a lot larger than we would have hoped......

and certainly includes a lot more folks than the 11/11 BOT, Corbett and all those Scoundrels
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Waiting for the truth is not the issue. Coming on here talking about Lubert and insinuating some pretty damning things through "hypotheticals" then praising him is a WWEesque turn of events. Without an apparent reason. Tom wants to say that's it's not some brokered deal. Fine. Then what is it? Because that is the only conceivable reason I can think of.

How about this Tom. In a Lubranoesque way, how about a hypothetical question as to why Anthony would have publicly praised Lubert in the process of voting for him as chairman of the board?
What if..............in executive session Ira acknowledged or admitted that grave mistakes had been committed by OGBOT. He expressed a desire to make amends where possible or conceivable and asked for the opportunity to move forward in this endeavor with unanimous support. Since he was going to be chair anyway, what did the A9 have to lose by taking him at his word?
 
Why would anybody take Ira at his word? Of the remaining OG, he is the one who stands to lose the most personally and professionally. He has consistently protected his own interests. Do you really think he would protect the interests of PSU over his own?
Ira thinks he owns the university, able to approve millions for unvetted settlements or work inside deals favorable to his investment firm.
Nobody challenges him. He is the King. Lubrano and the others bowed down and kissed his ring last month.
What has Ira ever done to indicate anybody with any sense should trust him?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Since he was going to be chair anyway, what did the A9 have to lose by taking him at his word?
Everything......and that has been outlined numerous times

[Assuming, of course, the scenario you outlined - - - which I don't expect to be the case, but just to address that possibility]



What was there to gain?

Nothing

If Ira proposed that his "change of heart" was predicated on receiving some BS "third-world-dictator" unanimous vote - then what is his "word" worth? Are we really that stupid?

Again, assuming your scenario - he either had "a change of heart", or he didn't
He most certainly DID NOT have a "conditional change of heart" - - there is no such thing, EVER

Alas
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
What if..............in executive session Ira acknowledged or admitted that grave mistakes had been committed by OGBOT. He expressed a desire to make amends where possible or conceivable and asked for the opportunity to move forward in this endeavor with unanimous support. Since he was going to be chair anyway, what did the A9 have to lose by taking him at his word?

The A9 could have voted for him without praising him.

"I want to commend you for this morning's discussion. I thought you demonstrated great leadership and confidence," Lubrano said. "It is unfortunate that we only got to hear it in executive session."

Great leadership. This after he he had been calling him out on here. Absolutely doesn't make sense. Nobody has provided a reasonable explanation for why he praised him in public.
In spite of what Tom thinks, I am not asking for privileged information. I am asking for even a plausible reason why this man suddenly became worthy of being referred to as an individual who demonstrated "great leadership." All we get is "I can't share that with you right now." That's fine. How about a hypothetical question that might lead to an answer, much in the same way we were asked hypothetical questions regarding this great leader via information gathered from documents that were not supposed to discussed publicly?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Why would anybody take Ira at his word? Of the remaining OG, he is the one who stands to lose the most personally and professionally. He has consistently protected his own interests. Do you really think he would protect the interests of PSU over his own?
Ira thinks he owns the university, able to approve millions for unvetted settlements or work inside deals favorable to his investment firm.
Nobody challenges him. He is the King. Lubrano and the others bowed down and kissed his ring last month.
What has Ira ever done to indicate anybody with any sense should trust him?


I have no idea what was said to convert the A9. I have no idea if a deal was or wasn't made. Anthony Lubrano seemed to indicate there was some change with Ira's behavior but it was now a matter of seeing actions follow his words (paraphrasing). What bothers me is why should we believe Lubert has suddenly changed? He's had a long track record of just the opposite.

I also get people's suspicion (or unease) with buying into this sudden reversal by the A9 when all of this 'game changing discussion' with Lubert was conveniently held in the secrecy of executive session. It's the usual Penn State "transparency" and "openness" we've all become far too familiar with the past 5 years.

Time will tell when we look back months from now and realize either what a great success this was (albeit shaky on the PR front with the alumni) or what a mistake it was with the A9 wishing they could change their vote again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
The A9 could have voted for him without praising him.

"I want to commend you for this morning's discussion. I thought you demonstrated great leadership and confidence," Lubrano said. "It is unfortunate that we only got to hear it in executive session."

Great leadership. This after he he had been calling him out on here. Absolutely doesn't make sense. Nobody has provided a reasonable explanation for why he praised him in public.
In spite of what Tom thinks, I am not asking for privileged information. I am asking for even a plausible reason why this man suddenly became worthy of being referred to as an individual who demonstrated "great leadership." All we get is "I can't share that with you right now." That's fine. How about a hypothetical question that might lead to an answer, much in the same way we were asked hypothetical questions regarding this great leader via information gathered from documents that were not supposed to discussed publicly?
I could very well be mistaken. I translate the comment about great leadership to be specific to what Ira demonstrated on that specific morning in executive session. Since I was not privy to that, of course I can't comment. I don't think AL's "slap on the back" was in any way intended to be attributed to anything except that specific point in time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bytir
I could very well be mistaken. I translate the comment about great leadership to be specific to what Ira demonstrated on that specific morning in executive session. Since I was not privy to that, of course I can't comment. I don't think AL's "slap on the back" was in any way intended to be attributed to anything except that specific point in time.

Agreed, without knowing precisely what act, or what statement(s), AL was referring to from the Executive Session, it is difficult to comment upon. He is clearly refering to IL's actions during that morning's ES, what precisely he is referring to is impossible to know.
 
Nobody that I know that is on the inside of various aspects of this issue expected things to take as long as they have. It has caused frustration for quite a few people. I get that, and have a lot of sympathy for folks that feel they are at or near their breaking point.

My worry on this is what happens if the whole thing on exposing Freeh gets dragged out so long that statutes of limitations on certain planned lawsuits come into play?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgar
My worry on this is what happens if the whole thing on exposing Freeh gets dragged out so long that statutes of limitations on certain planned lawsuits come into play?
as well as people dying?
 
Agreed, without knowing precisely what act, or what statement(s), AL was referring to from the Executive Session, it is difficult to comment upon. He is clearly refering to IL's actions during that morning's ES, what precisely he is referring to is impossible to know.

That's fine. Again, he posted several "hypothetical" questions on this board focusing on Lubert in a very negative light. One meeting goes well and suddenly he is singing his praises to the press? Just doesn't make sense.
 
That's fine. Again, he posted several "hypothetical" questions on this board focusing on Lubert in a very negative light. One meeting goes well and suddenly he is singing his praises to the press? Just doesn't make sense.

Just speculating, but perhaps they share a common enemy to the truth. The following comments on Junker (board chair in 1998) and Hintz (board chair in 2001) come to mind.

In a rather ironic twist, Ira Lubert served three years from 1997-2000 as a Trustee elected by the "Industrial Societies." This process was controlled by PMA not unlike the control exerted by the Farm Bureau in the election of Trustees by the Agricultural Societies.

This story illuminates the relationship:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_a5b37c28-faa9-528d-92f7-321a5a437d0e.html

In 2000, Fred Anton, President and CEO of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association (PMA) and Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Company, wanted to replace Ira. He turned to Ted Junker, then Board Chair, to do the dirty work. Needless to say, Ira was infuriated. Consequently, Ira made known his intentions to remove Penn State from his will. That led to Joe Paterno inviting Ira to attend Super Bowl XXXV at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, FL as Joe's guest on January 28, 2001. Along with Tim Curley, they flew with Ira on his plane but Joe paid for the tickets out of his pocket.

Ira was subsequently appointed to the Board by former Gov Ed Rendell and re-appointed by former Gov Tom Corbett.

In 2002, then Board Chair Ed Hintz, a Trustee "elected" by Industrial Societies, appointed Cynthia Baldwin, then Board Vice-Chair, to chair an Ad Hoc Committee to study and recommend changes to the election process of the Industrial Societies. The result of this effort was to take this process "in house" and refer to this group as Business and Industry Trustees. Of course, some of Penn State's largest donors are from this group.

Here's a link to information on the 2002 election:

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2002/bot18jan02officers.html

So here we are, in litigation with PMA.

And some comments on Hintz, the anchorman so-to-speak of Feckless series.

And finally, our anchor man…Edward Hintz. The back of Ed Hintz’s bubble gum card is perhaps the most crowded of any of the trustees. Hintz was elected to the board in 1994 as a business and industry trustee, serving until 2015. He was the chair from 2001 to 2003, and served on the executive committee for much/most of his time on the board. He has also served on boards for The Hershey Medical Center and the Corporation for Penn State, and on the 1995 and 2013 presidential search committees. All plum positions. The initial focus of this piece will be on his 2001-2003 term as board chair. Here, former Penn State trustee Bob Horst describes the co-opting of the six business and industry board seats in 2002:

“In 2002, then board chairman Edward Hintz, Jr. (an industrial trustee) appointed a committee to study and recommend changes to the process for electing industrial trustees. The outcome of the study was a name change to ‘business and industry’ trustees, and the election was eliminated. Not surprisingly, some are the largest financial contributors reported by the university. As Horst noted, the ‘stealth maneuver’ would henceforth eliminate outside elections altogether and move control to the business and industry trustees themselves, as they would control three of the five positions on the selection committee. Thus, not only would a small ‘power’ group of trustees control governance of the university, effectively there would be no way to remove or replace them.” (pennlive.com, updated 12/8/11)

Ray Blehar has said, “The so-called 33rd Trustee was Frederick Anton of the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association (PMA). PMA rigged the BOT mechanical and engineering elections for decades -- up until the point the Hintz and [now emeritus trustee Edward “Ted”] Junker revised the charter and came up with the insular selection process for the newly named Business and Industry Trustees.”

In an earlier installment, we learned that the six Ag society seats might have been fixed for years. For certain, the corruption in the B&I process has become institutionalized. In both cases, parties outside of the university have been involved in the hostile takeovers. You think the PMA/B&I group hijacked those positions so Karen Peetz could one day run the show, or that the Ag Societies commandeered theirs out of everlasting reverence for Keith Masser? At the top…who really controls these 12 positions?

The Ag seats are said to funnel up through Pennsylvania Farm Bureau and its former president and former PSU trustee Keith Eckel. Beyond the Penn State board, Eckel is connected to Corbett through service on his chosen gubernatorial transition team. Both bear the same “appearance of impropriety” outlined in our examination of Corbett. These six seats certainly appear to be under the control of the type of “network” we discussed in the last installment.

If possible, B&I connections are even more troubling. On paper, the Penn State board has been tied most strongly to The Second Mile…for many years…through the Business and Industry trustees, the group that has effectively seized control of the university. Long-time B&I trustee Lloyd Huck was a major ($23,000+, with further estate provisions) contributor to TSM, and his wife Dottie served on TSM’s board); William Schreyer’s daughter DrueAnne served on TSM’s board; L. J. Rowell, Jr. served on both Penn State and TSM boards, and was a TSM contributor; Ted Junker, involved in the 2002 B&I coup, and Quentin Wood were four-figure contributors, as were 11/5/11 trustees Linda Strumpf and James Broadhurst. In addition to his $12,000+ contribution to TSM, Ken Frazier shepherded the Freeh fraud, and…did there seem to you to be an air of desperation in his desire to “move on”? Though Ira Lubert, whose ties to TSM have been well-documented, was a governor-appointed trustee at 11/5/11, he’s now been adopted by the B&I group. This is just what we know at a glance. The control of these six seats, and indeed, the university, was gained and has been maintained dishonestly. The group responsible for that would appear to be heavily invested in the protection of The Second Mile, in need of that protection, or both. (Not a single 11/5/11 Ag trustee appeared on TSM’s donor list between 2005 and 2010. Of the 11/5/11 governor-appointed trustees, only Paul Silvis did. Lubert was a board member.)

If we consider the protection of The Second Mile to be within the scope of these outside parties, and that a trustee owes an allegiance to his/her sponsor, a picture comes into focus. Constructing a “path of influence” from the 32 11/5/11 trustees upward:

CORBETT – directly connected to the NETWORK.
GREIG, TOMALIS, ALLAN – connected to the NETWORK as appointees of Corbett.
KHOURY – connected to NETWORK as appointee of Corbett.
CLEMENS, DAMBLY, SILVIS, DI BERARDINIS – appointed to at least one term by Rendell, subject to future confirmation by Corbett; thus connected to NETWORK.
LUBERT – connected to NETWORK several ways: appointment by Rendell; connection to Rendell through casino licensing; direct close connections to The Second Mile; now a B&I trustee.
JOYNER – connected upward through Lubert to NETWORK; Lubert surrogate.
GARBAN – connected to NETWORK through TSM tie (son Drew, long-time TSM director).
ECKEL, HAYES, HETHERINGTON, MASSER, SHAFFER, HUBER – connected to NETWORK through corrupt election process controlled by Eckel/PFB; Eckel connection to Corbett, and “appearance of impropriety.”
BROADHURST, FRAZIER, HINTZ, PEETZ, STRUMPF, SURMA connected to NETWORK through B&I group’s close connections to TSM; with Frazier and Surma, both former board chairs having close personal connections to TSM.

That’s 24 of the 32 November 5, 2011 voting trustees who can plausibly be tied to such influence, directly or indirectly. I’ve asked myself “Why would every one of those trustees care so much about protecting The Second Mile, no matter what it costs the university? Why did PSU join the Corman lawsuit…on the NCAA’s side…against its own best interest? They can’t all be “bad guys,” can they? Aren’t there any honest trustees who would vote to do the ‘right’ thing, and if others hang…so be it? Why does my belly button look like this?”(Good research knows no bounds.) It just didn’t make sense. How do 32 trustees independently, and often uninformed, consistently make one baffling, terrible decision after another? But when I viewed it another way, it made perfect sense: What if they are not in their seats to serve Penn State? What if they are agents of their sponsors? At least a circumstantial case can be made that the ultimate “sponsor” for the six Ag society seats, the six B&I seats and the ten (at 11/5/11) governor-controlled seats is an outside network…or maybe two or three smaller networks that seem to work remarkably well together. That’s 22…a majority…a majority that included the most powerful: the B&I seats, which controlled the chair, which controlled committee chairs and appointments, which control the university.

Even after voting power was taken away from the governor, the Old Guard still had 21 of the 30 votes in their pocket. Then Tom Wolf defeated Corbett in 2014. Did things get a little “iffy”? I know little or nothing about Tom Wolf’s background or any ties with any network. But I’m not bad at math. With the nine votes Wolf would control by the end of his term, do things get interesting for the Old Guard if Wolf’s appointees and the nine alumni trustees agree to “play nice”? No doubt totally unrelated…within 10 days of the election, the OGBOT had created four new positions that they would control. Mark Dambly was just elected vice-chairman of the BOT by a reported vote of 20-14. A breakdown was not provided, but we can be reasonably sure the “20” included the 12 locked down B&I and Ag votes, the four new votes under OGBOT control, and three holdover governor appointees (Benson, Silvis and Dambly). Without those four new votes, that’s 16-14…uncomfortably close. By the time Wolf has all six of his direct appointees in place, an 18-16 governor/alumni coalition could be created. This would give the existing power bloc until 2017 (if it hasn’t happened already) to convince, corrupt, compromise, and/or intimidate 1) one governor; 2) two or more voting members; and/or 3) the process. Unless you think they’d risk ceding control and power quietly.


So…this wraps it up, guys. 32 up, 32 down. Within a few days after reading the Freeh Report, I embarked on a personal mission, without bias, to try to find the truth. Full disclosure: I met Graham Spanier once in a casual setting. He was gracious. I met Joe Paterno once. He was gracious. I probably reffed Tim Curley in an intramural football game…no opinion of him one way or the other endured. I’ve rooted for Ira Lubert on a wrestling mat, Paul Suhey on a football field, and Dave Joyner on both. They were all the “good guys” to me. After five years of homework?…yes, I have some opinions now. As a final bit of research for this series, I reread a passage in Joe Posnanski’s book “Paterno.” On the morning of November 8, 2011, Paterno family consultant Dan McGinn came to the Paterno residence. Posnanski wrote:

“This is when McGinn learned just how far Paterno’s reputation and influence had fallen. He asked [former Penn State football branding director Guido] D’Elia for the name of one person on the Penn State Board of Trustees, just one, whom they could reach out to, to negotiate a gracious ending. D’Elia shook his head. ‘One person on the board, that’s all we need,’ McGinn said. D’Elia shook his head again. ‘It began in 2004,’ he whispered, referring to Paterno’s clash with Spanier. ‘The board started to turn. We don’t have anybody on the board now.’”

It occurred to me: Every single one of these 32 spotlighted trustees (sub Erickson for Spanier) lined up solidly against Joe? If you’re looking to create a defense for Joe Paterno, there’s your closing argument.


I will leave you with two thoughts:


1. The names matter.

In “Paterno Legacy: Enduring Lessons from the Life and Death of My Father,” Jay Paterno wrote, “They announced a unanimous vote. Unanimous. Not one of the trustees voted for my father. Not a one? Then it hit me. It was about the anonymity in unanimity.”

Whatever their motivation, each of these 32 trustees committed to an expensive path that cast an everlasting stain upon Penn State University. Each had a personal choice. Each made hash of it. “Hey, 32…I’ve got your moral obligation right here: Fess up. Apologize. Step down. Atone.” Only one took as many as three of those four steps. Lubert, Peetz, Frazier, Garban, Myers, Silvis, Tomalis, Suhey, Joyner, Deviney, Eckel, Masser, Riley, Dambly, Broadhurst, Strumpf, Clemens, Arnelle, Jones, Alexander, Huber, DiBerardinis, Shaffer, Greig, Hayes, Khoury, Hetherington, Allan, Erickson, Surma, Corbett, Hintz. Never forget.


2. The names don’t matter.

As long as control of the university rests in dirty hands, one trustee is the same as another. Surma out; Dandrea in. Same guy, different name. Let me know the next time an Ag or B&I trustee defies the Network line. I won’t bother to wait up.


Oh…there is one last item I’d like to address on my way out the door:

In response to an earlier installment, LafayetteBear took exception to characterization of these trustees as “feckless”:


My issue with your use of the term [feckless] is that, while it applies, I do not think it is strong enough. IMO, the word suggests irresponsibility and incompetence rather than malign character and sociopathic disposition, which are qualities a lot of these Trustees have displayed. A more damning adjective would seem appropriate for them. And for the method of their selection.

Hmmm…you know…when you look at it that way….

If only I had a “do over.”

But I don’t. Somebody lock up for me?


SR/BHF

And while it should be common knowledge that Hintz was among those that were at the 11/9/2011 board meeting, so too was emeritus trustee Junker.

Trustees defend Corbett, Junker says Paterno kicked sand in our faces
4/6/2012
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/559635/Trustees-defend-Corbett.html?nav=742

The fallout from the Jerry Sandusky scandal has produced new accusations that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett was the most instrumental of Penn State's 32-member Board of Trustees in orchestrating the firing of legendary football coach

Joe Paterno.

In an extensive article published earlier this week, ESPN's Outside the Lines, the network's investigative program, reported that Corbett pushed the board toward its controversial decision on Nov. 9, 2011 that fractured the Penn State community.

Corbett and some trustees deny the allegation.

Edward Junker, an emeritus trustee and retired vice chairman of PNC Bank Corp., read the ESPN article for a second time on Thursday and said he was "very disappointed, to say the least."

"There are a lot of misquotes and false conclusions," Junker told the Mirror. "That Corbett orchestrated this whole thing is totally inaccurate. "Corbett was just another participant in the conversations and he participated less than most board members," Junker added. "His presence was never intimidating. I don't think he forced ideas on any trustee."


Alumni-elected board member David Jones, retired assistant managing editor of the New York Times, agreed.

"I had no idea what [Corbett's] views were on [Graham] Spanier or Paterno, except for his brief remark that has been reported [to remember the children]. His views had no influence on my vote," Jones said.

Junker didn't have a vote, and so his dynamic quotes should not have been included for the ESPN story, said vice chairman of the Board of Trustees Keith Masser.


"Emeritus trustees were there for sure and were part of discussions, but they had no vote," Masser said. "They were voicing their opinions."

Junker's quote was his response to Paterno's statement in November that he intended to retire at the end of the season.

"This is a tragedy," Paterno said then. "It is one of the great sorrows of my life. I wish I had done more."

Paterno then said he would step down and that the board had more important things to attend to than worrying about his future.

"He kicked sand in our faces," Junker told ESPN. "After he made that statement, it certainly sealed the deal as far as trustees were concerned."

Junker's comment quote harkened back to the beginning of the ESPN story which described a long power struggle between the board and Paterno, who kept delaying his retirement and wanted to pick his successor, ESPN said.

But asked whether he thought the power struggle influenced the board's decision to oust Paterno, Junker said, "That would be pure speculation."

Masser said the voting members' reasoning for removing Paterno has been made public, most recently, in last month's statement of Paterno's perceived lack of leadership when he was informed of Sandusky's alleged inappropriate behavior in 2002.

Masser also wants to know the six trustees the article quotes Paterno's lawyer Wick Sollers as saying were contacted to listen to Paterno's side of the story but did not respond.

"I wasn't contacted, and I know [former vice chairman] John Surma and [former chairman] Steve Garban weren't contacted," Masser said.

The article said the Paterno family has yet to be paid $4.5 million owed from Paterno's last contract. Masser told the Mirror that Paterno's family will be paid.

"There are no negotiations or discussions," Masser said. "His contract is being honored."

But perhaps Masser's biggest compaint with the ESPN story was Corbett's alleged leadership role in firing Paterno.

Since becoming governor in January of 2011, Corbett is awarded an honorary seat on Penn State's board. Most governors do not routinely attend the board meetings, and Corbett missed the first four since he was elected.

But his staff booked rooms in State College for the fifth meeting, scheduled for Nov. 11, and, according to ESPN, Corbett "lobbied for the ouster" of Paterno and school president Spanier that week in the wake of sexual-assault charges against Sandusky, a longtime PSU assistant coach.

Corbett not only was successful in urging the dismissals, he bragged about it, according to one Penn State fan who spoke with Corbett and considers him a friend.

Bob Capretto, a 65-year-old former Penn State player who admittedly "loves Joe Paterno," told ESPN that he asked Corbett, "Who told the board to fire Joe and fire Spanier?"

"And the governor said, 'I told them to do it,'" Capretto said. "He was proud of it. I told him, 'You don't realize what you have created here. The damage to Penn State is enormous.'"

ESPN quoted several trustees and a senior faculty member off the record as supporting allegations that Corbett drove the firing.

Corbett refused to be interviewed for the article but issued a statement Wednesday night disputing its contents.

"ESPN's report from the grassy knoll merely adds another chapter to the growing list of conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandusky case," Kevin Harley, a spokesman for the governor, said. "It is a disappointment to read something so long, filled with so many errors, that offers so little by way of new or even real fact.

"The fact remains that Jerry Sandusky is charged with serious crimes of sexually abusing children, and that the evidence against him is overwhelming," Harley said.

ESPN also reported about a rift between Corbett and Spanier. Outside the Lines said Corbett did not appreciate Spanier spending time in the PSU president's box during the 2010 football season with Dan Onorato, a Democrat who was running for governor against Corbett.

Spanier told colleagues he was perplexed by Corbett's reaction, saying Onorato had not been his guest, and he had gone out of his way not to play favorites, ESPN reported.

After resigning as attorney general, Corbett was sworn in as governor on Jan. 18, 2011. Two months later, Corbett proposed cutting $182 million of state funding for Penn State, a 52.4 percent cut from the previous year's total.

Though the vote to remove Paterno was unanimous, ESPN reported that longtime trustee Mimi Coppersmith - an emeritus trustee with no vote - cautioned the board, "Coach Paterno is revered in State College."

Surma responded by saying, "We're not going to drink the Kool-Aid," and made the termination announcement an hour later.

Masser said he doesn't think Surma said that. It was the governor who spoke after Coppersmith, he said.

"I'm not denying it, but I didn't hear it," Masser said. "It's hard for me to pin that phrase to him. It's not something I can picture him saying."

But asked whether Corbett being the only one to speak after Coppersmith could be taken as his having significant influence over the board, Masser paused.

"Taken out of context, it does."

Neil Rudel contributed to this report.
 
That's fine. Again, he posted several "hypothetical" questions on this board focusing on Lubert in a very negative light. One meeting goes well and suddenly he is singing his praises to the press? Just doesn't make sense.
Well, let me say that from all accounts Adolf Hitler was devoted, kind and truly loved his mother. Am I now a Nazi? Have I condoned genocide?
AL commended Ira on his leadership in ONE meeting. Therefore, he must be a sellout?
 
Well, let me say that from all accounts Adolf Hitler was devoted, kind and truly loved his mother. Am I now a Nazi? Have I condoned genocide?
AL commended Ira on his leadership in ONE meeting. Therefore, he must be a sellout?
Exactly. Overreaction to one phrase, by one person, that has yet to be explained. I'm chalking it up to the natives are restless syndrome. By that I mean this has taken a long time and people are anxious for some good news.

Why can't some people see that A9 cought have put up a big stink about Ira and he still would have been elected, so why not wait and see if they have a bigger fish they are saving that fight for?
 
Exactly. Overreaction to one phrase, by one person, that has yet to be explained. I'm chalking it up to the natives are restless syndrome. By that I mean this has taken a long time and people are anxious for some good news.

Why can't some people see that A9 cought have put up a big stink about Ira and he still would have been elected, so why not wait and see if they have a bigger fish they are saving that fight for?
I guess the source of my confusion is that I don't see a connection. You seem to imply that people have a finite amount of conviction and if they "use it up" in one place, they can't have it later. While I don't see why the A9 couldn't simply not support Ira AND still fight the good fight going forward, I'll be patient and hope for the best.
 
Well, let me say that from all accounts Adolf Hitler was devoted, kind and truly loved his mother. Am I now a Nazi? Have I condoned genocide?
AL commended Ira on his leadership in ONE meeting. Therefore, he must be a sellout?
The Hitler analogy is from way out in left field.

The 'one meeting must be a sellout' is reasonable and makes your point -- that AL deserves some space.:)
 
I guess the source of my confusion is that I don't see a connection. You seem to imply that people have a finite amount of conviction and if they "use it up" in one place, they can't have it later. While I don't see why the A9 couldn't simply not support Ira AND still fight the good fight going forward, I'll be patient and hope for the best.

Again, maybe Lubert provided information that demonstrated he wasn't, and shouldn't be the prime target, of corruption on 11/11 BOT and that he wished to bring the real culprits to justice as well..... (i.e., allying himself with the A9 against the real enemy).
 
The Hitler analogy is from way out in left field.

The 'one meeting must be a sellout' is reasonable and makes your point -- that AL deserves some space.:)
I guess it only makes sense to me:oops: I was merely trying to illustrate that saying something complementary about someone......does not mean you condone everything they may have done in their life. What we have here, is a difference in opinion, among
people who share a common goal. We all want to get to the truth and see justice done. We are impatient, just in varying degrees.
 
Well, let me say that from all accounts Adolf Hitler was devoted, kind and truly loved his mother. Am I now a Nazi? Have I condoned genocide?
AL commended Ira on his leadership in ONE meeting. Therefore, he must be a sellout?
That's a major leap. You will not find one post where I have called Lubrano a sellout. I have asked -repeatedly- why he made the positive comments. He had to know that by doing so he would completely baffle the majority of his supporters. I just want to know why.
For the record, I don't think Anthony is a sellout. I certainly think he has provided many people the opportunity to call him so by voting for, then verbally praising, Ira Lubert as chairperson. I would just like to know what caused him to take such a position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT