Letter to the Alum Assoc (not from me)

[bjf1984]

*****

 

[tgar]

Loud applause for that effort. Wow. Fantastic

 

[pnnylion]

Woo-hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[joeparules]

As a fellow '85 graduate all I can say is BRAVO!!!! This nails it right on the head. OUR university has become a bunch of shit-sniffers (minus the recent alumni BOTs)! Until we get more Lubranos, Dorans, Lords and fewer Fraziers, Massers, Barrons it will continue to stink!

 

[PSUEngineerx2]

Absolutely fan-f**king-tastic.

 

[kgilbert78]

I'm working on something like this--albeit shorter and without the use of vulgar (though appropriate) language. I, too, am a former Chapter President--of the Central Ohio Chapter.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I think it's a terrible letter.

In a private conversation, with people that I know and/or with whom I am comfortable, I likely would use similar expressions.

In a letter, I would never use "shit-sniffers," as a term, or describe what it was even if I worded it more politely. I also would not quote Barry's line from his speech in the public comment session of the recent BOT meeting. I said at the time, and have not changed my mind, that it was inappropriate to say that to a body that you are addressing.

Writing a letter like that may make the author feel good. Unfortunately, I doubt that those receiving it will give it much time or thought in large part due to the language it uses.

It's also unfortunate that in a letter to the PSAA leadership, the author is complaining about the BOT. IMHO, that diminishes the letter. The PSAA doesn't control the BOT, so why waste time complaining to the PSAA about the actions of the BOT, especially when the main focus of the complaint in the letter seems to be the actions of the PSAA leadership.

It's unfortunate that things have come to this. The author seems to be the type of alum that PSU needs to be fighting for it, and working with it. I think the author's frustration is shared by many alums, and many PSAA members. I just think that a better crafted, and more properly worded, letter would accomplish more in the short and the long-term with regards to those to whom it is being sent.

Tom

 

[bjf1984]

Tom - Do you really think "those receiving it" would give it serious consideration - regardless of the terminology? I tend to think not.

That being the case, that leaves the author with two choices....don't send anything at all, or at least let them know what you think about them.

I also think it is ENTIRELY appropriate that the writer references the PSU BOT. The PSU BOT is the architect of the recent AA bylaw changes....the PSU BOT is the initiator of the Co-Opting of the AA onto the BOT.....the PSU BOT is responsible for the damages that have been the genesis of the division between PSU Alums and the AA. The actions of the "PSU AA Leadership" are directed by the PSU BOT. This issue CANNOT be addressed without recognizing the BOT role.

As for my comment at the PSU BOT meeting...that was directed - as much as anything - as a plea to the legislature for help. I didn't know - up until the moment I said it - that I would use those exact terms....but I am glad I did. No other terms would be more appropriate in describing the dilemma we face.

If it caught anyone's attention....good - we need a lot more attention brought to the actions of the BOT. If it did not, then nothing was lost.

The idea that these scoundrels (and that INCLUDES the "leadership" of the PSU AA) can be reasoned with is ludicrous. How many times does Lucy need to pull away the football before Charlie Brown stops running up and falling on his ass.

This is a battle....not a discussion, not a debate, not a difference of opinions. They have made it so. The less time we spend debating, and the more energy goes into battle, the better.

You don't debate with pirates.

Just MHO.

 

[hawkeyePSU]

I think it's a terrible letter.

In a private conversation, with people that I know and/or with whom I am comfortable, I likely would use similar expressions.

In a letter, I would never use "shit-sniffers," as a term, or describe what it was even if I worded it more politely. I also would not quote Barry's line from his speech in the public comment session of the recent BOT meeting. I said at the time, and have not changed my mind, that it was inappropriate to say that to a body that you are addressing.

Writing a letter like that may make the author feel good. Unfortunately, I doubt that those receiving it will give it much time or thought in large part due to the language it uses.

It's also unfortunate that in a letter to the PSAA leadership, the author is complaining about the BOT. IMHO, that diminishes the letter. The PSAA doesn't control the BOT, so why waste time complaining to the PSAA about the actions of the BOT, especially when the main focus of the complaint in the letter seems to be the actions of the PSAA leadership.

It's unfortunate that things have come to this. The author seems to be the type of alum that PSU needs to be fighting for it, and working with it. I think the author's frustration is shared by many alums, and many PSAA members. I just think that a better crafted, and more properly worded, letter would accomplish more in the short and the long-term with regards to those to whom it is being sent.

Tom

I really respect your opinion on this Tom, but let's be honest, nicely worded, PC type of letters don't seem to be doing the trick and getting the point across to the BOT or anyone else in the PSU administration for some reason. I personally like people that show some personality and frustration with the words that they use, especially when they hold some credentials like this buy apparently does. I understand the need for a well-written, politically correct letter in most situations but sometimes you have to call a shit-sniffer or ass-kisser exactly what they are to get your point across. Let's call it a different approach that just might work.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Tom - Do you really think "those receiving it" would give it serious consideration - regardless of the terminology? I tend to think not.

Everything is relative. They may not give it individual attention, but I'm pretty sure they'd be made aware of the contents, or even see the letter, if it was more appropriately crafted. As such, I disagree with your conclusion.

That being the case, that leaves the author with two choices....don't send anything at all, or at least let them know what you think about them.

That's a straw man argument. First, I don't agree with you conclusion. Secondly, even if I did agree with you, it still would not leave only 2 choices. Third, you can let people know exactly how you feel without resorting to the language that the author did. I could list other problems with your statement, but will leave it at 3.

I also think it is ENTIRELY appropriate that the writer references the PSU BOT. The PSU BOT is the architect of the recent AA bylaw changes....the PSU BOT is the initiator of the Co-Opting of the AA onto the BOT.....the PSU BOT is responsible for the damages that have been the genesis of the division between PSU Alums and the AA. The actions of the "PSU AA Leadership" are directed by the PSU BOT. This issue CANNOT be addressed without recognizing the BOT role.

I disagree. If your complaint is with the actions of the PSAA leadership, then restrict yourself to those actions in a letter of complaint. If you have a complaint with the actions of the BOT, then send them a letter, contact your alumni-elected trustees, submit an application to address them at the public comment session of a BOT meeting, etc.

As for your depiction of what took place, I'm quite confident that it is inaccurate. The PSAA was pushing for a spot on the BOT for some time. The BOT was seeking to overcome the complaints of many by passing governance reform. The leadership of each party took advantage of the needs/wishes of the leadership of the other party to effect something that disappointed many, except for the respective leaderships. Still, the PSAA leadership doesn't control the BOT, so it's an absolute waste of time to address the actions of the BOT to the PSAA leadership. Keep the complaint on target, and focus on the actions of the PSAA leadership.

As for my comment at the PSU BOT meeting...that was directed - as much as anything - as a plea to the legislature for help. I didn't know - up until the moment I said it - that I would use those exact terms....but I am glad I did. No other terms would be more appropriate in describing the dilemma we face.

Then you were speaking at the wrong forum. If you want to make a plea to the legislature for help with the BOT composition, then address your Senator and your Representative, either privately or at a public session, and organize others to do the same. I suspect that the BOT pretty much turned off their ears and minds when you made that comment, and I doubt that it attracted the positive attention of any member of the legislature.

If it caught anyone's attention....good - we need a lot more attention brought to the actions of the BOT. If it did not, then nothing was lost.

Some that want a war may have been attracted to the comment. Beyond that, I think the attention it caught was pretty negative. If I'm correct, then something was lost.

The idea that these scoundrels (and that INCLUDES the "leadership" of the PSU AA) can be reasoned with is ludicrous. How many times does Lucy need to pull away the football before Charlie Brown stops running up and falling on his ass.

I disagree, to a degree. I think it's unlikely that a few complaint letters to the PSAA leadership will accomplish anything. In fact, even a 100 or so are unlikely to accomplish anything. Numbers in that quantity can be dismissed as the rabble of the minority, which is a common mistake that leaders make when they are advocating change that they are convinced are good but for which they have not sold the group they are leading on the need for the change. 1,000s of letters to the leadership, and then you are getting their attention. 1,000 of letters in reply to appeals for money, and you will definitely get their attention. 1,000 of such letters, and the election of a slate of candidates on Council that opposes the actions of the PSAA leadership, then you may not win the battle, but you will certainly have their attention.

This is not a Lucy situation at all. The PSAA has not been a focus of many complaints over the past several years. Last year was the only time that any real effort was mounted to get some members elected to Council that opposed the direction the PSAA leadership was moving in.

This is a battle....not a discussion, not a debate, not a difference of opinions. They have made it so. The less time we spend debating, and the more energy goes into battle, the better.

Wrong, it's all of those things. It starts as a discussion, so that opposing parties can understand each other's point of view. It continues to a debate, as different sides try to get support from the PSAA members. It is most certainly a difference of opinions. It may evolve into a battle -- the trends suggest as much -- but there are a lot of steps that need to take place before it becomes a legitimate battle. Right now, it's more of a boxing match where 1 of the boxers has two broken hands, and a broken rib. The PSAA has the power, and can do what they want. I doubt the majority of the PSAA members even know about the issues. Until 1/3 or more of the PSAA members know the issues, and agree that the PSAA leadership is wrong, it's only a battle in the minds of those, like yourself, that see many of the issues.

 

[rwdpsu]

This letter is a classless, crude, piece of trash. Why would anyone pay any attention to this type of communication? Without even considering the merit of the arguments or the issues open for discussion, this type of a letter achieves absolutely nothing and results in the recipient feeling justified to ignore the content of the letter due to the tasteless nature of the language . I always wondered why people feel that common civility and manners can be tossed out the window when writing a letter or posting an email. Would anyone engage in personal attacks and name calling in a personal conversation? I think not, and yet we feel free to do so in web site posts and emails. Simply amazing!

Note: that I've been a member of this board for 10 or so years. I use the board as an information tool, and hardly ever post. However, anyone that feels that this letter is a proper, appropriate and effective communication is misguided.

 

[TheWitchDoctor]

Penn State Alumni Association

Dear Kay and Samuel
via Open Letter

This week I received your solicitation dated April 10 seeking contributions to an endowment in the name of Roger Williams, and I immediately began laughing uncontrollably at the audacity timing of your organization soliciting funds in the name of someone who has done so much over the course of the past year to disinfranchise and marginalize the opinions, and the concerns of the university alumni.

Please indulge me while I take a few moments to relate my experience in the non-profit sector, and work that I have done in the name of Penn State and the PSAA so that you will understand just where I am coming from here. It is my experience that organizations are generally made up of two types of people - I call them "workers," and "shit-sniffers." Early in the history of organizations, there are very few shit-sniffers, as there is far too much work to be done. By definition, a shit-sniffer is a member of an organization who has become so convinced of their own value to the organization that they are no longer able to smell their own stench. I liken that to the students living in Nittany Halls during the era of the chicken coops, who became completely desensitized to the stench they were living in. As organizations become successful, they breed and attract an ever growing number of shit-sniffers of two varieties - those that are home grown from within the organization, and those from the outside who want to be associated with success. Once the level of shit-sniffers reaches a certain percentage, they begin to fill leadership roles within the organization, and that is where trouble begins.

At first, things seem fine. The organizations workers continue to carry on the important things that need to be done - they are not there for the recognition, perks, or honor, they get their rewards from service and from doing. Shit-sniffers on the other hand gravitate to meaningless levels, where they begin to work among themselves behind the scenes to consolidate, and to perpetuate their control over the organization. The stench begins to multiply, and the organization begins to stray from its path. As this happens, members begin to question direction, workers become frustrated, and shit-sniffers work even harder to tighten their grip. This is a natural progression. It happens in the smallest of organizations, right up to the largest, and indeed, on up into national and international politics. In today's world, most politicians are shit-sniffers. So are most corporate leaders.

At Penn State, our once great institution has been co-opted by a group of semi-outsider shit-sniffers. We call them the Board of Trustees. For years, the raw megalomanical desire for control these individuals posess was controlled by a huge number of workers, the Alumni of Penn State, and friends. There was no greater worker for the honor and good of Penn State than Joe Paterno. The events of 2011 gave the shit-sniffers their excuse to throw off the shackles of dedicated workers like Paterno, Graham Spanier, and Tim Curley and consolidate their power. Since that time, any glimpse of transparency has vanished from the workings of the shit-sniffers on the Board of Trustees, who conduct meetings in secret, refuse to release information that has led to Penn State's spending of millions of dollars, and the absolute refusal to listen to the requests of workers sent to the Board by the Alumni to attempt to clean up the stench. The smell is overwhelming, and as Barry Fenchak said in his address to the Board, "Penn State needs an enema." The fact is that we have a lot of shit-sniffers running this university that need to be flushed.

And that brings me to the Alumni Association

For years, I had the honor of serving the Penn State Alumni Association, as a member, leader, and president of the Atlanta Chapter (at the time known as the Penn State Club of Georgia). With the help of a dedicated group of hard workers, we were able to turn what had been a small, segregated group of alumni into one of the strongest chapters in the association, and one of the first to establish an endowed scholarship fund (now the George Sinko Memorial Scholarship). We served an alumni association blessed with fantastic leadership which listened and worked with the alumni to make Penn State a better place, and to serve the needs of the alumni. I specifically cite Char Myers, one of the administrators at University Park, who was always open and ready to help with anything needed to make the chapters work easier, and Francis X. O'Brien, who served as our chapter's regional director. I also cite Bill Rothwell who was Executive Director at the time for his open door policy, and his tireless efforts on behalf of Penn State. These individuals represented the best in the worker culture that made Penn State and the PSAA great organizations. My love for Penn State was so strong, and so evident at the time that at the rehearsal dinner for my wedding, my Father in Law to be stated, "I feel like I'm not losing a daughter, but gaining a university."

Today, despite numbers, the PSAA is not representative of the desires of the membership. Instead of listening to legitimate concerns in a fair and valid debate, under Mr. Williams, and Ms Salvino, the association is engaged in shit-sniffer behavior of the highest order. From the self-serving move to place the outgoing PSAA president on the Board of Trustees, to the most recently approved changes to the bylaws, designed to perpetuate control of the organization with a hand-picked few, the association has demonstrated its disdain for the will of the alumni. Closing meetings to the public? Apparently you just want to control the stench.

Over the past three years, the PSAA has on two different occasions distributed surveys of alumni opinion which asked questions about how the alumni feel about PSU's leadership. Despite overwhelming dissatisfaction with the performance of the PSU Board of Trustees, the alumni association has remained silent, ignoring the desires and concerns of the membership, and claiming, falsely, that the association is independent of the University.

And within a week of making the biggest changes to marginalize the voice of the alumni in the history of the organization, you have the audacity to send out a solicitation for money? You have demonstrated to all of us just how out of touch you are. Keep on sniffing. It's my hope that someday soon, someone will arrive with a big can of disinfectant to sanitize the whole place. Then perhaps I'll be able to find again the love for Penn State that once filled my heart, but no more.

For the restoration of glory,

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX '85

Yeah. This will work. Brother. Can't you people relax for gods sake?

 

[pmjoe]

I basically agree with Tom. I've seen a number of letters related to the recent Alumni Association actions that waste a bunch of time trying to tie this to the BOT. For the greater audience, those loose ties are lost because the vast majority of people aren't paying attention to what is going on in detail.

From a pure democracy standpoint, what the Alumni Association leadership has done here is shocking and appalling. They have basically said that an elite few should pick and choose which council candidates should appear on the ballot for Alumni Association members to vote for. This is a simple concept to explain to the masses. If one wants to get into more detail, how appointments and perpetuation of certain members in leadership has gotten out of control is another topic.

Democracy for Association members is what is under attack here. Tying this to Joe, the BOT, etc. is a distraction.

We need a simple message here, one that can resonate with thousands of alumni.

 

[Aoshiro]

I agree with Tom and I'd also add that the letter is way too long, which guarantees that it won't be read.

 

[PSU73]

When I read the letter I thought the salty language would lose the audience, but I refrained from responding. Some early comments gave support, but where then followed by an opposite reaction. The truth is, I frequently am out somewhere now when I hear people speaking and the word fxxx is part of the conversation like an everyday word. Not just males, but females as well. This is in public places e.g. at the grocery store, a public event like the 4th of July, etc. To those people it is everyday. When I see really young kids nearby I try to give a wry look to those talking, but that is usually ignored. I guess I'm too old, but it turns me off. I have two kids who are in their early 30's. I suspect they and/or their friends have grown up in an environment where such talk is commonplace. They don't speak around me using salty language however.
I guess my point is, certain words have worked their way into the language such that they don't have the same shock value that they used to (to certain age groups anyway). I don't think it is ever wise to put in writing crude words, but I have to think it isn't quite as offensive to some as it once was. HOWEVER, the key is how the language is used here. To use the word unattached to the person you are addressing is one thing; but, to associate that word with the person you addressing is going to lose them. While the writer gave an example and referred to sxxx-sniffers in it, he went on to basically associate his example to those he was addressing, thereby in effect called them the same.
I do think his letter would have been extremely effective without the need to use the word sxxx.

This also makes me wonder (maybe I'll do a poll to see how that works on this new format) if the word fxxx is now more or less offensive when used in conversation versus the word sxxx. Perhaps sxxx is more offensive today. It conjures up immediately an image, not so the other.

I'm old school. Always was, always will be.

 

[bjf1984]

We probably disagree by about 179 degrees on these issues.....but this is your board, and it wouldn't be appropriate (or fruitful) to get into a point by point debate.

I expect there are many more issues where we are largely of common mind....and I'll leave it at that.

Besides, there are more pressing issues at hand.....like "What happened to threadview!!!???"

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Vulgarity and cursing never win anyone over.

 

[bjf1984]

The majority of folks - and I'm talking the majority of PENN STATERS, not the public at large - are not even aware of most of the shenanigans that have been pulled by the Scoundrels. Largely because of that, most folks - and, again, I am talking about PENN STATERS, not the public at large - wouldn't so much as take the time to make a phone call to act against these Scoundrels. That is the sad truth. The cohort we see here on the message boards, and similar places, are representative of the MOST ENGAGED demographic.....and even at places like this a good portion of the folks wouldn't take 2 hours out of their day to actually take action....among Penn Staters at large, the situations we face are complete non-issues, or at least no more than an occasional passing thought.

As I said before, and for a long time, this is a battle - not a debate. Unless and until PENN STATERS are sufficiently motivated to actually get off their butts and act and advocate for Penn State, we are in trouble. We are still - 4 years into this mess - at that stage of the battle.......the battle to "raise an army", the battle to make Penn Staters engaged enough to act. That is a shame. With such a righteous cause, we should be well past that point. One of the reasons we are not is that so many of the folks who DO have awareness of the actions of the Scoundrels have espoused the "wait and see", "act with decorum", "politically correct" crapola. That is fine, once everyone is aware and engaged.....but until then, someone (as many people as possible) need to sound the alarm, raise a ruckus, shout from the mountaintops, until the awareness is reached and engagement is attained. Folks in certain positions (such as the elected trustees) are expected to - and should - comport themselves according to certain standards. They are in positions whereby they have access to other avenues to affect change.....and even then, one of the roles of any Board of Governance is to provide a means of communication regarding the issues facing the entity/and the concerns of the stakeholders.

The potential benefit of the letter writing, LTE, Public Comment etc by "folks" is not to sway or convert the scoundrels (that is an incredibly naïve idea - given the clear motivations of those who are insistent on prostituting those things we claim to hold dear)....it is to inform and energize Penn Staters....and we have fallen - to date - well behind the mark. Some of that seems to be moving in the right direction. The recent actions by the elected trustees against Masser and Barron are a HUGE step in the right direction. The impact of Penn Staters in the recent Governor's election was a positive step. There ARE things to build on.....but if Penn Staters had been as engaged as they should be, we would not be 4 years into this mess and STILL without Board of Trustees reform....STILL waiting for the majority of Penn Staters to even recognize the actions of Scoundrels like the BOT, Barron, and Williams...STILL failing to recognize the deception of the likes of Corman (among other things).

We need to know what GD battle we are fighting, and recognize it and act accordingly, if we have any chance of winning.

You "play nice" in a battle like this.....you get fed a steaming plate of crap and get your ass handed to you on the way out. You get Michael Dukakis'ed.

So there it is. It's time to wake up.