OT: Jay and Sue Paterno endorse Oldsey, Brown, Doran

[simons96]

“I am supporting Bill Oldsey, Barbara Doran and Ted Brown. While important accomplishments have been achieved, there is more that needs to be done. Their experience, leadership and commitment to Penn State’s future are why I urge others to vote for them as well.”
– Sue Paterno

“We urge all alumni to re-elect the incumbent Alumni Trustees Bill Oldsey, Barbara Doran and Ted Brown.

“Over the past 4 ½ years it has become increasingly evident that our great University needed to make dramatic changes in governance. The Board of Trustees needed to face the fact that only true reform could help Penn State meet the challenges that we face in the future.

“Despite entrenched forces who would rather ‘window dress’ in the spirit of just getting along, we have seen the election of 9 alumni Trustees who have fought to push badly-needed reforms of an antiquated Board governance structure responsible for lasting damage to Penn State in a number of areas.

“Others have stated that they are willing to work with ‘all trustees,’ implying that the incumbents have not been willing to do so. Bill Oldsey, Barbara Doran and Ted Brown have always been willing to work with all trustees. But we must understand there can be no giving in on Penn State’s values—integrity, honesty, transparency, fiscal responsibility and fairness.

“This election is too important. It is no time to change horses in mid-stream. Rather, it is time for the principled leadership team of Oldsey, Doran and Brown to be re-elected.”
- Jay Paterno

 

[Nitt1300]

this was a good reminder for me- I finally got around to asking for my ballot

 

[Chickenman Testa]

I wonder who Marsh Creek is voting for?

Oh, wait ...

 

[91Joe95]

Poor Dan.

 

[Nitt1300]

My vote is in.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

“I am supporting Bill Oldsey, Barbara Doran and Ted Brown. While important accomplishments have been achieved, there is more that needs to be done. Their experience, leadership and commitment to Penn State’s future are why I urge others to vote for them as well.”
– Sue Paterno

“We urge all alumni to re-elect the incumbent Alumni Trustees Bill Oldsey, Barbara Doran and Ted Brown.

“Over the past 4 ½ years it has become increasingly evident that our great University needed to make dramatic changes in governance. The Board of Trustees needed to face the fact that only true reform could help Penn State meet the challenges that we face in the future.

“Despite entrenched forces who would rather ‘window dress’ in the spirit of just getting along, we have seen the election of 9 alumni Trustees who have fought to push badly-needed reforms of an antiquated Board governance structure responsible for lasting damage to Penn State in a number of areas.

“Others have stated that they are willing to work with ‘all trustees,’ implying that the incumbents have not been willing to do so. Bill Oldsey, Barbara Doran and Ted Brown have always been willing to work with all trustees. But we must understand there can be no giving in on Penn State’s values—integrity, honesty, transparency, fiscal responsibility and fairness.

“This election is too important. It is no time to change horses in mid-stream. Rather, it is time for the principled leadership team of Oldsey, Doran and Brown to be re-elected.”
- Jay Paterno

Is there any doubt those three will win? I can't imagine a scenario where they don't. PS4RS owns this election.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I wonder who Marsh Creek is voting for?

Oh, wait ...

Pat Devlin?

 

[simons96]

Is there any doubt those three will win? I can't imagine a scenario where they don't. PS4RS owns this election.

yeah but still . . . not to harp on Cocco (and by extension Adam T) . . . but it seems odd that when they say they need to work with ALL trustees, they don't seem very keen on the PS4RS supported ones.

 

[Marshall30]

I wonder who Marsh Creek is voting for?

Oh, wait ...

A Penn Live turd? Like JJ or mbe or "SkunkBare". Pieces of shit.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Is there any doubt those three will win? I can't imagine a scenario where they don't. PS4RS owns this election.

Yes

I expect they would be the betting line favorites (is there a book anywhere taking money on the elections? )........but this is not a forgone conclusion - IMO

 

[Nitt1300]

It's sad that this is in a way fighting over scraps. The only way to wrest away control of the board is to change it's composition. With the legislature standing in the way, how does that happen?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

It's sad that this is in a way fighting over scraps. The only way to wrest away control of the board is to change it's composition. With the legislature standing in the way, how does that happen?

It needs to start with this:

04/12/15

"I assume a lot of folks here have seen the BTN show on the 1986 PSU football team (it was just on again last night).

If you did, you heard about Paterno calling out the squad from 1984, telling the upperclassmen that they needed a kick in the ass, and needed to stop "behaving like babies" (His words) and start playing like winners.

I am sure that wasn't an easy thing to say.....and an even tougher thing to hear. But it needed to be said - - - and the boys had to either buckle... down and gear up - or someone else was going to need to step in and take over the lead.

Some stepped up, some stepped aside (and made room for those who were ready to kick some ass).

The squad went on to win 23 of 24 games, and a National Championship.

We have a team right now that needs to either "gear up".....or make room for those who will. Lubrano has clearly "geared up" - - - let's hope we witness a lot more of that moving forward. If not, we all need to find those who will.

___________________________

"FWIW - - - just one guy's opinion - - - we start by looking at our existing "A9", and making it very clear to the existing team that the expectations are higher.
Do everything we can to support them.....and hope and expect them to pick up the pace (become MUCH stronger advocates). If not - and that is a bridge we only have to cross if we come to it - WE need to behave much more critically and intelligently in OUR choices.

WE need to make sure we do not fall into the same malaise that we have been fighting against for 5 years. I've written about it before - though I am sure some don't process it: This is NOT about having "bad" people - or people who are not working VERY hard for the cause - on the BOT. It is about this "being a brutally tough task" - and the need to, fairly or not, demand more.
Quite frankly, WE did miss an opportunity with our "primary" this year - - - that doesn't mean we shouldn't turn out to elect the 3 endorsed candidates, who are all good and honorable people. We ABSOLUTELY should. But we also need to be willing to do what Paterno did in 1984 - - - make tough critical decisions to make sure we are doing the BEST we can do, be willing to let folks know that they can do more and need to do more.....and not shooting ourselves in the foot by doing the "gracious" thing."

 

[StinkStankStunk]

It's sad that this is in a way fighting over scraps. The only way to wrest away control of the board is to change it's composition. With the legislature standing in the way, how does that happen?

And this:

___________________________

"As of today, the agenda for the next BOT meeting (May 5-6) is not yet posted - - - http://www.psu.edu/trustees/meetings.html.

As is usually the case, we can probably assume there will be at least one significant "Capital Project" presented for the normal rubber-stamp approval.

The last few meetings included approximately $250 Million of largely "non-mission critical" project approvals.

We all know that these projects were going to be crammed through by the OG - regardless of anything the "A9" and the Governor's TTEEs might have said.

But how hard would it be - and how much more appropriate would it have been - to have stood up and said something along the lines of (this is OTTOMH, and I am sure it could be streamlined into a much more concise and impactful statement - but just outlining the basic thoughts):
_____________

"The University's Management has made it clear that we are facing significant financial and budgetary issues......issues that impact our ability to achieve the short term and long term missions of the University [interject things like Barron's claims that "at risk student" support funding is at risk].

Today we are deliberating the approval of $XXX Million of additional capital spending.

- - - The large majority of the TTEEs who are about to vote on approval of this spending have no idea what even the basic specifications are for these projects.
- - - The large majority of the TTEEs who are about to vote on approval of this spending have no idea what the appropriate market costs of these projects should be.

Voting to approve the dispersal of these funds - without a full and thorough consideration of these parameters - is fiduciarily negligent, and is an exercise in poor governance.

As such, I cannot vote to approve these projects without first asking for, receiving, and studying such basic information as:

- Full Project Specifications
- Comparisons to Industry Standards for Similar Construction
- Alternative Strategies for Achieving the desired end-goals of the Projects

Even a cursory review of the planned projects raises serious issues with respect to the finacial efficiency and the mission efficacy of the proposals

It is incumbent upon EACH AND EVERY TTEE to critically examine these requests. To lend their expertise and experience to the process, and to NOT move forward with a "rubber-stamp, good-faith" approval until we have expended all reasonable efforts to insure ourselves - and the stakeholders of the University - that we are moving forward in the most judicious and financially responsible manner."
_______________

Any TTEE (Scoundrel, Puppet, or Sycophant) "disapproving" of such a statement should be questioned and exposed as NOT being fully informed of the parameters outlined (which would be easy enough to do)......and the case then would be clearly made as to just WHO is performing their duties as Stewards for the University - - - and WHO is not.

Obviously, this is but one area, used as an example, of an issue that should allow us to define the agenda of the accountable stewards - - - vs the non-accountable "stewards"........the Heroes vs the Zeroes.

 

[Aoshiro]

It's sad that this is in a way fighting over scraps. The only way to wrest away control of the board is to change it's composition. With the legislature standing in the way, how does that happen?

If you live in PA you need to convey your displeasure to your congresscritters over and over again.

 

[Nitt1300]

If you live in PA you need to convey your displeasure to your congresscritters over and over again.

If I lived in PA, the first question I'd have for anybody running for the house or senate in PA would be about reforming the BOT.