Right. It is absolutely untrue that people were promised confidentiality. They were specifically warned otherwise.
PSU to alumni trustees--FU
- Thread starter canuckhal
- Start date
Right. It is absolutely untrue that people were promised confidentiality. They were specifically warned otherwise.
Hey CR66, do your masters not want to look into who from the exec comm/SITF leaked the CSS emails a few weeks before the freeh report?
Those leakers cant be trusted either. The old guard cant have it both ways. If they want to start pointing fingers about people leaking and threatening to kick those people off the BOT, they need to start with themselves.
Also, I wouldnt put it past the old guard to leak confidential info to the press then blame the alum trustees.
What this ridiculous filing is essentially saying is that there are two classes of trustees. One class is the "untrustworthy" alumni elected trustees and the other is the non elected trustees. That is an absurd contention. Youre either a trustee or not. If one trustee has access to info then ALL trustees should have acess.
Those leakers cant be trusted either. The old guard cant have it both ways. If they want to start pointing fingers about people leaking and threatening to kick those people off the BOT, they need to start with themselves.
Also, I wouldnt put it past the old guard to leak confidential info to the press then blame the alum trustees.
What this ridiculous filing is essentially saying is that there are two classes of trustees. One class is the "untrustworthy" alumni elected trustees and the other is the non elected trustees. That is an absurd contention. Youre either a trustee or not. If one trustee has access to info then ALL trustees should have acess.
Last edited:
This is why I take "inside information" with more than a grain of salt. I remember a couple of weeks ago the urging of patience and the promises that all of this information would become available. Just a matter of time. So much for that, I guess.
what I find kind of funny is that they claim this info doesn't relate to their fiduciary duties, but that single report that nobody has ever voted on or reviewed has cost the university over a 100 million dollars and counting plus its reputation. Maybe I need to look up the definition of fiduciary because clearly I have a different understanding of it than the ones running the university.
Also I find it ironic that they keep claiming the elected alumni are "leaking" information when if you remember way back when, their excuse for firing paterno at night was because they were afraid the info would get leaked out to the press. It must have been those pesky elected alumni back then too I guess.
Also I find it ironic that they keep claiming the elected alumni are "leaking" information when if you remember way back when, their excuse for firing paterno at night was because they were afraid the info would get leaked out to the press. It must have been those pesky elected alumni back then too I guess.
it is also funny that they say the alumni trustees are untrustworthy, saying they have examples they will share with the court (and CR66 snags that as a victory for transparency, YEAH!)
meanwhile, we have multiple PUBLIC examples of what lying sacks of crap the ruling trustees are.
yeah you gotta laugh at the dimwits sitting by the old guard.
I'm at a loss how they refer to a passed board vote that specifically says it's "consistent with its fiduciary duty and priorities" to "actively monitor" to argue they shouldn't monitor and say that it's not consistent with their fiduciary duties.
It's a contradiction.
The first board vote had to do with communications between Freeh's team, Penn State and 3rd parties (NCAA, "certain Trustees" and PA AG Office). It has nothing to do with confidential employee interviews.
Any judge is going to recognize these are horrible arguments, and if I was the judge, I'd be wondering what "certain Trustees" are trying to hide.
It's a contradiction.
The first board vote had to do with communications between Freeh's team, Penn State and 3rd parties (NCAA, "certain Trustees" and PA AG Office). It has nothing to do with confidential employee interviews.
Any judge is going to recognize these are horrible arguments, and if I was the judge, I'd be wondering what "certain Trustees" are trying to hide.
Actually, most on the BOT are proven leakers/liars and crooks ... Lubrano being the least of PSU worries.
Read it and see nothing that leaves me appreciating PSU's position. Key point I picked up on was that certain BOT were interviewed and they absolutely do not want us to know what they said. This is anything but about protecting whole pool of interviewees.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
I've always loved that.
The Board of Trustees fires Paterno.
The Board of Trustees then hired Freeh to be an independent investigator.
Freeh apparently interviews many of those same BoT members who fired Paterno and hired Freeh.
(Pause to look up "independent investigation" to make sure English still in effect.)
And we're not allowed to see which statement was attributed to which interviewee?
Think about that for a minute. Jeez, I'm sure any statement from John Surma that made it into the Freeh Report should just be accepted without any scrutiny.
None of The Fools will defend the Freeh Report.......not even Kenny Frazier......makes perfect sense that they are trying to hide its "foundation."
Yep. It's perfect if you think about it. You leave your wife. You hire a lawyer to make nasty, defamatory allegations about your wife. Then when your wife's attorney issues subpoenas for evidence to back up the defamatory allegations made by your attorney, you and your attorney claim ACP.
Defamation-for-hire: a whole new revenue stream for the legal profession.
Wow... reading the first 4 pages was like listening to my 3yo daughter whine about the walking boot she has been in for the past week. Amazing how The University simply just doesn't get it... the alumni trustees are exercising the Fiduciary Duty to ensure The University wasn't railroaded into paying damages they had no obligation to pay! How the HELL is that not 'within their rights' as Trustees?
Cruisin' - I can't believe you are this unethical... simply sad you have exposed yourself so openly. May as well toss michnittlion in with that lot as well.
Cruisin' - I can't believe you are this unethical... simply sad you have exposed yourself so openly. May as well toss michnittlion in with that lot as well.
After reading Penn State's response to the petition one of the major keys is that PSU states it has examples of where the alumni elected BOT members did leak confidential material. These will be provided to the court, but not to the public. I do not know if they have these examples or not. The rest of the arguments are weak.
1. PSU position: This information is not needed for BOT members to exercise their duties. Rebuttal: If this is true then no-one on the board needed this information. If another victim comes forward the BOT will be faced with making a decision to pay or not and if not then in going to court to prevail.
2. PSU position: These BOT members have publicly stated they will provide this information to the public Rebuttal the quotes by the alumni elected BOT members are taken out of context. They stated they seek transparency not that they will name names. The PSU position is that they will leak information, not that they have leaked information
3. PSU position: The alumni elected members of the BOT did not agree to sign confidentiality statements. Rebuttal the AEBM (alumni elected BOT Members) proposed an alternative confidentiality statement but the PSU response does not state why the proposed statement is not sufficient.
4. PSU position: PSU has examples of leaked information by AEBM. If PSU has valid examples this would make their position much stronger. Without any knowledge if they have these examples one cannot make a decision if this response will prevail. Valid examples would include knowing before hand that the information was confidential and then leaking it. What PSU told employees is that your name will not be linked to the information not that the information or knowledge would be leaked. Bob Jones said ... rather than Employees stated ...
1. PSU position: This information is not needed for BOT members to exercise their duties. Rebuttal: If this is true then no-one on the board needed this information. If another victim comes forward the BOT will be faced with making a decision to pay or not and if not then in going to court to prevail.
2. PSU position: These BOT members have publicly stated they will provide this information to the public Rebuttal the quotes by the alumni elected BOT members are taken out of context. They stated they seek transparency not that they will name names. The PSU position is that they will leak information, not that they have leaked information
3. PSU position: The alumni elected members of the BOT did not agree to sign confidentiality statements. Rebuttal the AEBM (alumni elected BOT Members) proposed an alternative confidentiality statement but the PSU response does not state why the proposed statement is not sufficient.
4. PSU position: PSU has examples of leaked information by AEBM. If PSU has valid examples this would make their position much stronger. Without any knowledge if they have these examples one cannot make a decision if this response will prevail. Valid examples would include knowing before hand that the information was confidential and then leaking it. What PSU told employees is that your name will not be linked to the information not that the information or knowledge would be leaked. Bob Jones said ... rather than Employees stated ...
