PS4RS Memo to the PSU BOT on Chairman Election.

[StinkStankStunk]

I simply wanted everyone to know that Dr. Capretto is very competent and would represent us well. He is a friend of this university.

Granted.

I've got nothing against Capretto....and you are not the first person to relay to me wrt his loyalties - - - - and I don't question your sincerity.

That doesn't mean he is a decent choice as a Trustee - - and CERTAINLY doesn't mean he is not a good choice..........the proof will be in his actions on the BOT.
Thus far, he has only had a couple months, and he never "campaigned" for a spot - which would have allowed us to find out something about him - so it would be premature to make too strong a case either way (from what I have seen so far, I am certainly not "down" on him.....but his public contributions and impact have thus far been, as expected, minimal)

As I said, nothing against Capretto as a person - but if a newly appointed Gov selection, ANY newly appointed Gov selection, is the best option we got:


"We Are....F&cked" . . . .like a Hooker in a Navy Town

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Unfortunately Wolf isn't going to change the dynamic of the BOT. The only thing that will change that is the time and the eventual turnover due to aging of the OGBOT and their eventual deaths due to natural causes. Short of that, this is what we are stuck with for a long time

Appreciate the sentiment.....and no one has an obligation to follow this under a microscope....but that simply isn't the case.

I won't revisit all the details, but suffice to say: The more time passes the more likely it is that the Governance FUBAR (the Scoundrels etc) remains as it has been for the last decades.......if not worse.

Even more passage of time (and old folks dying off and what not) is NOT an ally. It is an enemy wrt governance issues.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Joe was opposed to these and other 'benefits' given to Jer but was overruled. What does that tell you?

That is a question of significant import - I believe - JDK.

I am not sure where all of the answers may lead....but an interesting point to ponder.

 

[Michael.Felli]

To: Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees
From: Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship
c.c: Governor Tom Wolf; Auditor General Eugene DePasquale; Solicitor General Bruce Castor
Date: July 19, 2016
Re: Chairman Election

The leadership of Penn State has been under intense national scrutiny for nearly five full years. Rumors, accusations and unsupported conclusions -- but very few proven facts -- have divided our community and unfairly damaged the reputation of our fine university.

While Penn State’s liability remains unclear, one fact is indisputable: Jerry Sandusky used The Second Mile to gain access to every single one of his accusers. Just last week, that fact was reinforced in every claimant’s deposition related to the PMA Insurance case. Furthermore, the PA Solicitor General has undertaken a review of the activities and liability of The Second Mile. And, in a separate filing, Penn State indicated it plans to seek settlement funds from The Second Mile, asserting it was in a position to stop and prevent Sandusky from abusing children and negligently failed to do so.

The noose is tightening around The Second Mile… and with very good reason.

So, then, in evaluating candidates for the next Chairman of the Penn State Board of Trustees, we make this obvious -- but emphatic -- appeal: Please disqualify Ira Lubert, the candidate with deep, far-reaching and questionable ties to The Second Mile.

• Mr. Lubert previously served as a Director of The Second Mile from 2005 to 2008.
• Mr. Lubert has a track record of significant donations to The Second Mile, including in-kind usage of his own Green Hills Camp facility in Reading, PA.
• Mr. Lubert left the Penn State board after serving from 1997-2000 and returned as a Governor’s appointee in 2007-2014. During that time, he presided over the initial round of settlement claims worth $60 million. He then returned to the board in 2015 as a Business and Industry trustee.
• Despite a clear conflict of interest, Mr. Lubert served as chair of the Legal Subcommittee that oversaw the settlements that Penn State disbursed to claimants against Jerry Sandusky. This committee failed to coordinate with Penn State’s insurer, yet another error that is causing further financial and reputational damage to Penn State. Furthermore, this committee has failed to adequately pursue claims against The Second Mile, the organization that was truly responsible for Sandusky’s interactions with children.

Electing a Penn State Board Chairman so closely connected to The Second Mile will certainly NOT move Penn State forward. Rather, it will severely set us back and only raise more questions that threaten to even further compromise the integrity of Penn State and its leadership.

Instead, we urge you to consider supporting Governor’s Appointee Dr. Robert Capretto as 2016-2017 Chairman. Dr. Capretto is eminently qualified, engaged and poised to lead. Moreover, through his words and actions, he has already demonstrated his ability to unify, not just the Board of Trustees, but the many loyal stakeholders of Penn State. That quality in a Chairman is not only essential; it is long overdue.


Thank you for your consideration.

We can't hire anyone as head coach that has played or coached under Paterno. But, we can have a chairman of the board that was once director of the 2nd Mile - Sandusky's playground for child abuse.

And people here think I've got issues.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

We can't hire anyone as head coach that has played or coached under Paterno. But, we can have a chairman of the board that was once director of the 2nd Mile - Sandusky's playground for child abuse.

And people here think I've got issues.

LMAO

Its a rarity, but Felli, that was a doozy!!!

 

[LafayetteBear]

Joe's old notes certainly indicate that - for whatever reason - he was opposed to allowing JS to have such benefits

It would be impossible to post-facto read his mind as to just what generated those concerns.....but I think it is undeniable (except to the circle-jerkers) that Joe was "not in favor".
FWIW

Joe's old notes? Hope they've been preserved, then. Or that there is some other reliable evidence of this, since all Ive seen is posts asserting it.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Joe's old notes? Hope they've been preserved, then. Or that there is some other reliable evidence of this, since all Ive seen is posts asserting it.

I know they have been presented somewhere - so I gotta' figure they live on the interwebs somewhere.

Best bet is to put out the Bat Signal for JimmyW

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Joe's old notes? Hope they've been preserved, then. Or that there is some other reliable evidence of this, since all Ive seen is posts asserting it.

Joe took copious notes for every meeting. Those things will tell a lot if found

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

We can't hire anyone as head coach that has played or coached under Paterno. But, we can have a chairman of the board that was once director of the 2nd Mile - Sandusky's playground for child abuse.

And people here think I've got issues.

Not just current Vice-Chair and up for the Chairman spot, but also the party who led the "Settlement Process" for PSU and doled out PSU's resources and assets to protect himself rather than invoke TSM's Indemnification of PSU and require veracity on all claims.

 

[Aoshiro]

Because he straightened your daughter's teeth? Because he played for Paterno?

9 Seats on the BOT.....a year to prepare......and we can't even muster up a candidate to position opposite Lubert and Dambly?

Oh FFS. Aside for the other alumni-elected trustees, precisely which trustees are ever going to vote for one of the alumni 9.
Go ahead. Go through the list of the trustees. Tell us which votes they could possibly get. Make a list.

 

[Aoshiro]

I've previously seen a post or two that indicated Joe attempted to have Sandusky's on campus office and/or keys to the athletic facilities taken away some time after 2001, but that Joe's request was refused, with Joe apparently being told that Sandusky was to be accorded the same benefits as emeritus professors, and that included those amenities. Is this correct?

I'm not sure that's correct. I don't remember seeing anything documenting that.
There are some notes in Joe's handwriting from time time of Jerry's retirement negotiations (1997 or 1998, I think). In those notes Joe clearly wrote that he did not want Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids into the football facilities.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Oh FFS. Aside for the other alumni-elected trustees, precisely which trustees are ever going to vote for one of the alumni 9.
Go ahead. Go through the list of the trustees. Tell us which votes they could possibly get. Make a list.

True - the Alumni-elected Trustees have done a nice job in unifying themselves into a "voting block", maximizing their power, but it pales in comparison to the voting block controlled by the corrupt OG BOT. The general BOT does not nominate the Chair and Vice-Chair candidates - the Executive Committee of the BOT does that and they only nominate one candidate for each position, so honestly, it is impossible for the Alumni-elected Trustees to propose or nominate anyone.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Oh FFS. Aside for the other alumni-elected trustees, precisely which trustees are ever going to vote for one of the alumni 9.
Go ahead. Go through the list of the trustees. Tell us which votes they could possibly get. Make a list.

Oh FFS (squared).....could you be any further from the point?

This isn't about getting someone elected - that aint gonna' happen.

And a chief reason (or, at least, a contributing factor) why that is still an unrealistic pipedream is the fiduciary failure of the elected TTEE block.

You think your are making an argument - - - - and you don't even understand the question (FFS LOL).


______________________


As a group....the A9 have failed as fiduciaries. Plain and simple. That doesn't mean each and every one has failed, that doesn't mean they have failed on every issue...but, as a group, if it were not for the obvious comparison to the Scoundrels, their fiduciary failings would be seen as GINORMOUS.

It is what it is.

Sure the deck is stacked.

We need to no longer accept that as an excuse for failure to act.
EVERY legislative or governance body has a Majority/Minority relationship (well, nearly every one).....I can't imagine any scenario where that provides carte blanche for the minority to abdicate.
Most would feel - certainly anyone who studies governance issues - that being "in the minority" places a FAR GREATER responsibility on those folks to speak out (the "majority" doesn't have to - they can simply impose).

On 90% of the significant governance issues - I do think we would all agree, if we are being observant and honest, - we see ZERO ( or near zero) opposition voiced.


Should we begin a list of the governance malfeasances upon which we have heard squat from our representatives?
It would be a very long list....alas



Simple request for those we elect into a governance role (on the PSU BOT or elsewhere)........DO.......YOUR.....JOB

 

[StinkStankStunk]

True - the Alumni-elected Trustees have done a nice job in unifying themselves into a "voting block", maximizing their power, but it pales in comparison to the voting block controlled by the corrupt OG BOT. The general BOT does not nominate the Chair and Vice-Chair candidates - the Executive Committee of the BOT does that and they only nominate one candidate for each position, so honestly, it is impossible for the Alumni-elected Trustees to propose or nominate anyone.

Well you are off on a couple things - but that really isn't important, so I won't go into great detail (suffice to say, one item is that nominations are through the Exec Committee - - - wrt the Chair/Vice-Chair that is not the case - they are taken from among any of the TTEE panel......again, not that that makes any significant difference in this case)

But the point is the point - - - - and it ain't "this election" as much as it is the failure to take on their fiduciary responsibilities in all but a VERY small handful of cases - from among the Tsunami of issues (as I outlined in my reply to AO above...so I wont go back over it all)
Usually those issues that were undertaken were Football/Freeh/JVP/409 related......and even a few of those were screwed over like a $5 hooker

It is what it is

We (many of us, anyway) deserve better

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Joe took copious notes for every meeting. Those things will tell a lot if found

I don't think they are "lost" (though I don't have them sitting in my desk drawer )

 

[Aoshiro]

Oh FFS (squared).....could you be any further from the point?

This isn't about getting someone elected - that aint gonna' happen.

And a chief reason (or, at least, a contributing factor) why that is still an unrealistic pipedream is the fiduciary failure of the elected TTEE block.

You think your are making an argument - - - - and you don't even understand the question (FFS LOL).


______________________


As a group....the A9 have failed as fiduciaries. Plain and simple. That doesn't mean each and every one has failed, that doesn't mean they have failed on every issue...but, as a group, if it were not for the obvious comparison to the Scoundrels, their fiduciary failings would be seen as GINORMOUS.

It is what it is.

Sure the deck is stacked.

We need to no longer accept that as an excuse for failure to act.
EVERY legislative or governance body has a Majority/Minority relationship (well, nearly every one).....I can't imagine any scenario where that provides carte blanche for the minority to abdicate.
Most would feel - certainly anyone who studies governance issues - that being "in the minority" places a FAR GREATER responsibility on those folks to speak out (the "majority" doesn't have to - they can simply impose).

On 90% of the significant governance issues - I do think we would all agree, if we are being observant and honest, - we see ZERO ( or near zero) opposition voiced.


Should we begin a list of the governance malfeasances upon which we have heard squat from our representatives?
It would be a very long list....alas



Simple request for those we elect into a governance role (on the PSU BOT or elsewhere)........DO.......YOUR.....JOB

1. It is about getting someone other than Lubert elected. Duh.

2. The idea that the minority 9 alumni-elected trustees have "abdicated" their duties because they can't get anything the majority that was stacked when they pushed through the reformulation of the board is idiotic. What do you want them to do? Show up at the meeting with shotguns?

 

[BOSCO2]

What would you do if you had personal knowledge about Lubert attempting to have a naked roommate/friend have unwanted sex with a coed around 1969 (friend was standout PSU athlete) while Lubert watched? Where would you go with information???

28

The answer is obvious, Joe Paterno.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Oh FFS (squared).....could you be any further from the point?

This isn't about getting someone elected - that aint gonna' happen.

And a chief reason (or, at least, a contributing factor) why that is still an unrealistic pipedream is the fiduciary failure of the elected TTEE block.

You think your are making an argument - - - - and you don't even understand the question (FFS LOL).


______________________


As a group....the A9 have failed as fiduciaries. Plain and simple. That doesn't mean each and every one has failed, that doesn't mean they have failed on every issue...but, as a group, if it were not for the obvious comparison to the Scoundrels, their fiduciary failings would be seen as GINORMOUS.

It is what it is.

Sure the deck is stacked.

We need to no longer accept that as an excuse for failure to act.
EVERY legislative or governance body has a Majority/Minority relationship (well, nearly every one).....I can't imagine any scenario where that provides carte blanche for the minority to abdicate.
Most would feel - certainly anyone who studies governance issues - that being "in the minority" places a FAR GREATER responsibility on those folks to speak out (the "majority" doesn't have to - they can simply impose).

On 90% of the significant governance issues - I do think we would all agree, if we are being observant and honest, - we see ZERO ( or near zero) opposition voiced.


Should we begin a list of the governance malfeasances upon which we have heard squat from our representatives?
It would be a very long list....alas



Simple request for those we elect into a governance role (on the PSU BOT or elsewhere)........DO.......YOUR.....JOB

Well, it's also clearly a failure of the PA Government - especially the OAG and Legislature - as they have let the Governance Structure set up in the Charter to be abused without doing anything to attempt to correct the "source" of the abuses or bring the perpetrators that have caused so much damage to the BENEFICIAL OWNERS to justice. The Governance Structure of the State-Founded Flagship University is in complete crisis and everybody in Harrisburg who is responsible for protecting the general public is doing their best "And Nero fiddled while Rome burned".

 

[StinkStankStunk]

1. It is about getting someone other than Lubert elected. Duh.

?

No.....it's not, that issue is just a symptom. Duh

If you are going to "reply" to my post.....
At least read it first.....

If you are going to read it - make sure you are smart enough to understand it

If not.........STFU

Please.

 

[tgar]

it must suck for these jerks that " Move on " and " distant memory" didn't work. same pack of hyenas thought they would get reimbursed because, well just because of their pedigree. what a bunch of losers.

does anybody get the feeling one or two of them may be boxing themselves into a real predicament?

 

[lionlurker]

It would be interesting if say, Lubrano/Schultz/Tribeck and others examining the Freeh source materials were dropping certain hints to people like MariBeth Schmidt over at PS4RS. Coordinated attacks are always the best.

You do wonder. Information is power.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Well, it's also clearly a failure of the PA Government - especially the OAG and Legislature - as they have let the Governance Structure set up in the Charter to be abused without doing anything to attempt to correct the "source" of the abuses or bring the perpetrators that have caused so much damage to the BENEFICIAL OWNERS to justice. The Governance Structure of the State-Founded Flagship University is in complete crisis and everybody in Harrisburg who is responsible for protecting the general public is doing their best "And Nero fiddled while Rome burned".

Absolutely 100%, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt true


Unfortunately those c$cks&ckers aren't elected by PSU Alums (exclusively)
All Pennsylvanians ought to be banging on the doors of those folks, but the truth is those folks don't spend 1% of their time on PSU issues, and their constituents - aside from a small minority - don't have any significant interest in PSU governance

On the other hand: WE DO, as Penn Staters, have 100% control over who we put in those seats, and the folks in those seats should be dedicating 100% of their "trustee time" to issues of importance to Penn State and Penn Staters
THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR ATTENTION ON....that is what we control, and that is where the governance function - in its primacy - lies

 

[Judge Smails]

Lubert is the biggest dirtball of them all. Surma and Frazier are tied for 2nd. The turd Roidney Erickson is up there as well.

Tom Corbett deserves no lower than 1a.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

At the very least, I believe this is a calculated move to shine the spotlight on Lubert. If I were to guess, this is only the first such move of this kind. There's a game plan in place.

I think it's so interesting that Lubert, himself, is about to become chair of the executive committee. It's not obvious why he'd seek such a high profile at this time. As I said in another thread, I think he's doing this because nobody else is willing, given what's coming, with the Paterno suit and the CSS trial/nontrial. It would make a lot more sense for Dandrea to take this position.

Methinks Mr. Lubert is feeling the heat these days.

Never more have I hoped that you are accurate with your analysis and, you have brought some excellent insights to this clusterfu@# for a while.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

According to MSM, Sara Ganim, Sally Jenkins and OGBOT, I would have reported it to JVP years ago.

Well, we could have a seance and tell him. But then, would he still be responsible for whatever happened in 1969?

 

[LafayetteBear]

I'm not sure that's correct. I don't remember seeing anything documenting that.
There are some notes in Joe's handwriting from time time of Jerry's retirement negotiations (1997 or 1998, I think). In those notes Joe clearly wrote that he did not want Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids into the football facilities.

Well, your answer largely explains why I was asking. So much information is presented over the course of time in these threads, but confirming or documenting it is sometimes problematic.

 

[Fac]

What would you do if you had personal knowledge about Lubert attempting to have a naked roommate/friend have unwanted sex with a coed around 1969 (friend was standout PSU athlete) while Lubert watched? Where would you go with information???

28

JoePa

 

[kgilbert78]

I'm not sure that's correct. I don't remember seeing anything documenting that.
There are some notes in Joe's handwriting from time time of Jerry's retirement negotiations (1997 or 1998, I think). In those notes Joe clearly wrote that he did not want Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids into the football facilities.

There's one *in* the Freeh report....

 

[jubaaltman]

Paterno did not want TSM kids in Lasch because of the possibility of injury. That's a fact and in his notes.

 

[PSUSignore]

Paterno did not want TSM kids in Lasch because of the possibility of injury. That's a fact and in his notes.

To be factual, I believe the notes were very brief and it just indicated he didn't want kids there. The reason behind it wasn't in the notes. One could assume your reasoning is true, it's rational. Those on the "Joe knew" bandwagon will say the reason was because Joe knew Jerry was molesting kids. If you believe that narrative, it's also a rational reason. But factually, we don't know the reason, all we know is that Joe expressed some interest in not having kids there.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

To be factual, I believe the notes were very brief and it just indicated he didn't want kids there. The reason behind it wasn't in the notes. One could assume your reasoning is true, it's rational. Those on the "Joe knew" bandwagon will say the reason was because Joe knew Jerry was molesting kids. If you believe that narrative, it's also a rational reason. But factually, we don't know the reason, all we know is that Joe expressed some interest in not having kids there.

Wasn't it something to the effect that there was a line in Sandusky's retirement package that would allow his TSM kids to use the facilities and Joe had handwritten "No-- liability."

Of course, the haters all took that to mean that Joe was telling Jerry to molest his kids somewhere other than Penn State and he'd be fine with it.

 

[jubaaltman]

Wasn't it something to the effect that there was a line in Sandusky's retirement package that would allow his TSM kids to use the facilities and Joe had handwritten "No-- liability."

Of course, the haters all took that to mean that Joe was telling Jerry to molest his kids somewhere other than Penn State and he'd be fine with it.

That's a fact.

 

[LafayetteBear]

To be factual, I believe the notes were very brief and it just indicated he didn't want kids there. The reason behind it wasn't in the notes. One could assume your reasoning is true, it's rational. Those on the "Joe knew" bandwagon will say the reason was because Joe knew Jerry was molesting kids. If you believe that narrative, it's also a rational reason. But factually, we don't know the reason, all we know is that Joe expressed some interest in not having kids there.

Interesting take. But it would be just as easy to infer that, although he had no specific knowledge of any abuse, Joe had heard enough (e.g., "Jerry likes to engage in horseplay with kids.") to conclude that Jerry was a bit creepy, and wanted him entirely out of the PSU picture. Too bad his notes apparently don't address the issue.

 

[PSUSignore]

Wasn't it something to the effect that there was a line in Sandusky's retirement package that would allow his TSM kids to use the facilities and Joe had handwritten "No-- liability."

Of course, the haters all took that to mean that Joe was telling Jerry to molest his kids somewhere other than Penn State and he'd be fine with it.

I couldn't remember the exact wording, and didn't have time to look it up. But my point remains the same with a note that simply says "liability." Some will argue this means injury liability, others will argue it meant molestation liability. The note doesn't explain the rationale so both sides will likely use the one that fits their beliefs.

 

[NittPicker]

I couldn't remember the exact wording, and didn't have time to look it up. But my point remains the same with a note that simply says "liability." Some will argue this means injury liability, others will argue it meant molestation liability. The note doesn't explain the rationale so both sides will likely use the one that fits their beliefs.

No doubt people will spin Joe's notes to fit the narrative they want to be true. When 99.9% of people hear the word "liability" they take it to mean liability regarding personal injury or damage to property. It's absurd to think Joe was thinking of liability regarding any crimes Sandusky might commit but that's the type of garbage people want to be true. Thanks BoT.

 

[jubaaltman]

No doubt people will spin Joe's notes to fit the narrative they want to be true. When 99.9% of people hear the word "liability" they take it to mean liability regarding personal injury or damage to property. It's absurd to think Joe was thinking of liability regarding any crimes Sandusky might commit but that's the type of garbage people want to be true. Thanks BoT.

The liability was for injury. Only an asshole thinks it was for sex assaults.

Stupid.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Well that's all just part of that well-orchestrated coverup they pulled off for 40 years. Joe handwriting notes about the liability of Jerry molesting kids that would be seen by how many people involved in typing, copying, approving, etc. Sandusky's retirement package? Pretty soon the number of people involved in this coverup will start catching up to the number of burgers McDonald's serves.

 

[jubaaltman]

Well that's all just part of that well-orchestrated coverup they pulled off for 40 years. Joe handwriting notes about the liability of Jerry molesting kids that would be seen by how many people involved in typing, copying, approving, etc. Sandusky's retirement package? Pretty soon the number of people involved in this coverup will start catching up to the number of burgers McDonald's serves.

Maybe Jer jammed a burger up some kid's ass!