Lubrano

[JoeDidntKnow]

My question has been why the need for unanimity? If the A9 wan't needed to make Lubert the chief, there was no need to make it unanimous. It went from being an election to being a coronation.

The alumni haven't been treated all that well by the BOT. When the Sandusky thing went down, it opened our eyes and showed us how the BOT operated. There was a large amount of dissent. It was evident that the only way we would have any voice of dissent on BOT operations was to elect representatives that reflected that. So, we elected the A9. It took us 3 years until we had what we thought was the representation that we wanted on the BOT. We knew we couldn't control the BOT, but we could make our presence felt. The unanimous vote for Lubert silenced that voice.

The BOT promised us transparency. As things unfolded, we found that that was a hollow promise. We had always hoped that the A9 would give us some transparency. Instead, the explanation for the vote came back with that we had to wait. Good things were coming, but they couldn't tell us about it, and that the vote for Lubert was necessary. The A9 has morphed into the BOT. In the process, a lot of trust in the A9 has gone out the window.

So, we're left to do what we have to, and that is to turn off the funding spigots. It may not be much, but individually people aren't reaching as deeply into their pockets. The BOT has pretty well turned their backs on the alumni, and they are reacting accordingly. The only way to get anybody's attention is through money.

My hope is that the A9 will prove me wrong. So far, they have not held up to my meager expectations. When they do, I'll change my opinion. I'm hoping that they don't think a reworking of Beaver stadium is what is going to satisfy the dissent. This isn't about football.

Your great grandmother may have used the vinegar/honey analogy, but we're not catching flies. It's more like being tired of being treated like mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed a bunch of crap.

Exactly and Lubrano was basically calling Lubert the devil months leading up to that election. Calling out how Lubert long wanted to seize control over the football program just as he had over the wrestling program and how Lubert was unethical and unfit to serve in the position. Are we just to forget about that now and go along with the current approach? Seems very misguided and somewhat two faced.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

I have noticed Zippys lack of posting as well. He has been awful quiet with his normal babbling and rambling.... Black Elmo has virtually disappeared. 1 might even reason to think with all the Zipsters "connections" maybe he has heard some bad news for his OGBOT boys is coming....

His A/C went out and he's been feverishly trying to buy a new window unit.

 

[lionlurker]

I have noticed Zippys lack of posting as well. He has been awful quiet with his normal babbling and rambling.... Black Elmo has virtually disappeared. 1 might even reason to think with all the Zipsters "connections" maybe he has heard some bad news for his OGBOT boys is coming....

I am as frustrated as anyone, but is it possible that Anthony is the one who heard something about bad news?

I am at a loss to explain how our A9 seemingly have filed into line.

 

[lionlurker]

I lost you there chief?

He suggested that he had inside info that last week's events would be more "comprehensive".

Screw him. We were played once again.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I want to know what the terms of the "settlement" were between PSU and PMA. The trustees know the details.

I'm guessing PSU basically said "thanks for helping us throw Paterno under the bus again, we'll pick up the tab and just raise tuition again"

As ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS as the thought is:

I would NOT automatically assume that the majority of the Trustees know the terms of the settlement

That is just how utterly FUBAR the entire governance situation is here at PSU

In fact, if you asked one of them ( the Trusteees):

"Are you familiar with the settlement terms in the PMA v PSU suit?" (NOTE: not asking what the terms ARE, just asking if they know what the terms are)

My guess is they (most of them anyway) would tell you they couldn't answer THAT question due to confidentiality concerns

And most of them - particularly the sheeple (all the non-elected phallics who are not part of the inner circle) would probably (certainly?) contend that it is not even important or relevant that they should know



As much as it has talked about over the last 5 years - - - I still don't think the average Penn Stater has any appreciation at all for just how monumentally F$cked Up this whole situation is

Even most of "us" have no F$cking idea as to the depths of the FUBAR

 

[interrobang]

"
Trustees were apparently briefed on the proposed settlement - referenced in documents filed in Philadelphia courts Thursday - in executive session during their regular September meeting last week.

The board did not take any public action on the case at that time.

But reached Friday evening, after word of the deal was made public, Trustee Al Lord said he believed the outcome was "a reasonable settlement... Settlement means compromise, but it was a pretty benign compromise" on Penn State's part, Lord said.

He too, declined to discuss details."

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

He suggested that he had inside info that last week's events would be more "comprehensive".

Screw him. We were played once again.

And Simons96 has either been banned or gone way dark ever since his promise to be Deepthroat Part Deux. After posting that he was sitting on inside info magically dumped into his lap. And has anyone heard from our favorite house painter, Frank Sheeran?

 

[billyberoux]

I follow these threads because of my interest in the corrupt workings of our state government. Many on this board and in the PSU community take credit for the election of Kane as AG. I've been curious for quite a while now as to why this voting strength isn't utilized to gain access to everything else being kept secret.

 

[tomfleet]

I follow these threads because of my interest in the corrupt workings of our state government. Many on this board and in the PSU community take credit for the election of Kane as AG. I've been curious for quite a while now as to why this voting strength isn't utilized to gain access to everything else being kept secret.

Bump.

 

[demlion]

The best example of people changing their minds without saying so is Iraq. 15 years ago it was a slam dunk. Now, to hear them talk, it was a terrible mistake.

 

[francofan]

The best example of people changing their minds without saying so is Iraq. 15 years ago it was a slam dunk. Now, to hear them talk, it was a terrible mistake.

I sure hope we can to the bottom of the truth in this saga in less than 15 years.

 

[NittPicker]

I sure hope we can to the bottom of the truth in this saga in less than 15 years.

Being a cynic, I'll take the over on that.

 

[billyberoux]

The strength of "machine" party politics is preventing it.

IMO, both sides are equally corrupt and so neither side is interested real reform. They are content with scoring scandal points when they can. The status quo is maintained.

I respectfully disagree. I'll use Jake Corman as an example - only an example. Make it clear that if he doesn't actively and publicly support and work for the release of information that he'll not win his next term. This same pressure can be applied to every politician in the state, including the governor in approx 4 years. This is OUR state, and its also OUR state university, and I'm tired of the associated corruption and secrets.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

"
Trustees were apparently briefed on the proposed settlement - referenced in documents filed in Philadelphia courts Thursday - in executive session during their regular September meeting last week.

The board did not take any public action on the case at that time.

But reached Friday evening, after word of the deal was made public, Trustee Al Lord said he believed the outcome was "a reasonable settlement... Settlement means compromise, but it was a pretty benign compromise" on Penn State's part, Lord said.

He too, declined to discuss details."

Well then ........F$ck him too

 

[psu00]

"
Trustees were apparently briefed on the proposed settlement - referenced in documents filed in Philadelphia courts Thursday - in executive session during their regular September meeting last week.

The board did not take any public action on the case at that time.

But reached Friday evening, after word of the deal was made public, Trustee Al Lord said he believed the outcome was "a reasonable settlement... Settlement means compromise, but it was a pretty benign compromise" on Penn State's part, Lord said.

He too, declined to discuss details."

This is the problem (the general MO of the BoT)-

Everything is discussed in executive session. Nothing is made public. The BoT NEVER takes a public stand on anything.

They were warned early on that their strategy would fail. They ignored this. They said they would recover this money (when it was very clear early on that they would not). They lied.

They've wasted millions of $$ (all while begging the state for an additional $25 million) and now just move on like nothing happened.

The fallout of such poor decision making and lack of fiduciary responsibility?-

No discussion.

No accountability.

No one takes responsibility for poor decisions and failed actions.

No one is ever reprimanded, sanctioned, removed from power, or replaced after horrible decisions (costing the university millions of $$$$).

BoT members, including the A9, think its all 'reasonable' with no dissent.

On to cocktail hour.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

This is the problem (the general MO of the BoT)-

Everything is discussed in executive session. Nothing is made public. The BoT NEVER takes a public stand on anything.

They've wasted millions of $$$$ (all while begging the state for an extra $25 million) and now just move on like nothing happened.

No discussion.

No accountability.

No one takes responsibility for poor decisions and failed actions.

No one is ever reprimanded, sanctioned, removed from power, or replaced after horrible decisions (costing the university millions of $$$$).

On to cocktail hour.

And "our guys" sound more and more like "their guys" every day

 

[billyberoux]

Jake is playing a double game. As evidenced by his abrupt settlement at the very moment he had the NCAA on the ropes...Why?

With Kane's election still fresh in the memories, taking out whoever is up next would have them all worried. Taking them off the tit is the absolute best way to get those next up to give us what we want, or at least work towards it.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I respectfully disagree. I'll use Jake Corman as an example - only an example. Make it clear that if he doesn't actively and publicly support and work for the release of information that he'll not win his next term. This same pressure can be applied to every politician in the state, including the governor in approx 4 years. This is OUR state, and its also OUR state university, and I'm tired of the associated corruption and secrets.

That sound good on a philosophical level, but how realistic is it?

In 2014, Corman ran unopposed

In 2010, Corman defeated his opponent, garnering 69.4% of the vote

In 2006, Corman defeated his opponents, garnering 56% of the vote

In 2002, Corman had only a minor party opponent, and garnered 92% of the vote

In 1998, Corman won his first race for PA Senate, and as such succeeded his father, Doyle Corman, who had held the seat for 21 years.

If you're a potential candidate, and you decide to spend a year or more of your life running for office, as well as a substantial sum of money, do you think the PA 34th Senatorial District looks like a place where you have a good shot at winning? If so, then I would question your analytical skills.

 

[billyberoux]

That sound good on a philosophical level, but how realistic is it?

In 2014, Corman ran unopposed

In 2010, Corman defeated his opponent, garnering 69.4% of the vote

In 2006, Corman defeated his opponents, garnering 56% of the vote

In 2002, Corman had only a minor party opponent, and garnered 92% of the vote

In 1998, Corman won his first race for PA Senate, and as such succeeded his father, Doyle Corman, who had held the seat for 21 years.

If you're a potential candidate, and you decide to spend a year or more of your life running for office, as well as a substantial sum of money, do you think the PA 34th Senatorial District looks like a place where you have a good shot at winning? If so, then I would question your analytical skills.

Tom, first off, that's exactly why I said I was using Corman as an example only. Having said that, wasn't Kane the first ever Dem to be elected AG? And the PS community takes ownership of that. In 2010 Corman won appoximately 10k to 3k in votes, so there would need to be about 3600 votes swayed, IF you could find someone to oppose him. But again, the PS community has the AG pelt to display going into it, so I'm thinking there's something substantial to lure an opponent. You sound like you'd rather not even try.

 

[Agoodnap]

That sound good on a philosophical level, but how realistic is it?

In 2014, Corman ran unopposed

In 2010, Corman defeated his opponent, garnering 69.4% of the vote

In 2006, Corman defeated his opponents, garnering 56% of the vote

In 2002, Corman had only a minor party opponent, and garnered 92% of the vote

In 1998, Corman won his first race for PA Senate, and as such succeeded his father, Doyle Corman, who had held the seat for 21 years.

If you're a potential candidate, and you decide to spend a year or more of your life running for office, as well as a substantial sum of money, do you think the PA 34th Senatorial District looks like a place where you have a good shot at winning? If so, then I would question your analytical skills.

The only chance would be student votes but unfortunately students only vote in years that have a Presidential election. In those years Centre County turns Blue and the other three years it is Red.

 

[heb65]

I am as frustrated as anyone, but is it possible that Anthony is the one who heard something about bad news?

I am at a loss to explain how our A9 seemingly have filed into line.

 

[heb65]

I am as frustrated as anyone, but is it possible that Anthony is the one who heard something about bad news?

I am at a loss to explain how our A9 seemingly have filed into line.

Did the A9 trade their Ira Lubert vote to allow Penn State to let the Lettermen's event be on campus?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Did the A9 trade their Ira Lubert vote to allow Penn State to let the Lettermen's event be on campus?

No

 

[kgilbert78]

"
Trustees were apparently briefed on the proposed settlement - referenced in documents filed in Philadelphia courts Thursday - in executive session during their regular September meeting last week.

The board did not take any public action on the case at that time.

But reached Friday evening, after word of the deal was made public, Trustee Al Lord said he believed the outcome was "a reasonable settlement... Settlement means compromise, but it was a pretty benign compromise" on Penn State's part, Lord said.

He too, declined to discuss details."

That means Penn State got money--and probably a fairly large sum. IMHO.

 

[interrobang]

That means Penn State got money--and probably a fairly large sum. IMHO.

Why would PMA do that? I think Penn State just ended it since they got out of it what they wanted.

 

[Aoshiro]

Jake is playing a double game. As evidenced by his abrupt settlement at the very moment he had the NCAA on the ropes...Why?

Maybe because he was a member of The Second Mile board?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

That means Penn State got money--and probably a fairly large sum. IMHO.

LMAO.......

Not to worry though, Bob " Mr Sunshine Law" Jubelirer is all over it.

 

[kgilbert78]

Why would PMA do that? I think Penn State just ended it since they got out of it what they wanted.

Because PMA were going to lose on some of those in court? My guess is it was a let's be real moment. "We'll pay these if you cover the ones over there". Saves heavy lawyer fees, where no one wins. Otherwise Lord would not have said what he said. He's not dumb, folks.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Tom, first off, that's exactly why I said I was using Corman as an example only. Having said that, wasn't Kane the first ever Dem to be elected AG? And the PS community takes ownership of that. In 2010 Corman won appoximately 10k to 3k in votes, so there would need to be about 3600 votes swayed, IF you could find someone to oppose him. But again, the PS community has the AG pelt to display going into it, so I'm thinking there's something substantial to lure an opponent. You sound like you'd rather not even try.

I'm trying to avoid D/R, as that will quickly lead to the thread being deep sixed.

The PSU community contributed to Kane's election, but I would not state that they take ownership of it. Elections can rarely be that narrowly defined.

On a statewide level, PSU alums can collectively have an impact. On local elections, which all PA Senate and PA House races are, it's much harder for PSU alums to have an impact. The PA 34th Senatorial District is a bit of an outlier on that scale, in that its territory includes PSU.

That said, it's pretty hard to unseat someone that is in either legislative body's leadership unless there is a scandal that focuses the anger/frustration of the voters on that leader. I'm not aware of anything that rises to that level that could cost Corman his seat.

Without any such scandal, legislative elections largely become referendums on the incumbent. I don't agree with all of Corman's actions, but by and large he's been a good representative of his area.

So based on this, I again ask you if you think a legitimate challenger would invest their time and money in taking on Corman.

It's not a question of whether or not I want to try. I don't live in Corman's district, so I'm simply looking at this as an outsider and evaluating the likelihood of someone unseating Corman.

Since you used Corman as just an example, I'd extrapolate a lot of what I stated in these 2 posts concerning any other legislative incumbents in PA.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Because PMA were going to lose on some of those in court? My guess is it was a let's be real moment. "We'll pay these if you cover the ones over there". Saves heavy lawyer fees, where no one wins. Otherwise Lord would not have said what he said. He's not dumb, folks.

The way this all played out was - amazingly enough - predicted YEARS ago (who was that guy )

And, of course, a key parameter was the assumption that:

"There's (more than) one born every day......."