The b*stards running our beloved university are a f'ing joke.
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/Response_Letter.pdf
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/Response_Letter.pdf
Statement from Barron and Masser.
- Thread starter PSUEngineerx2
- Start date
I think this may be the key passage....
in that response. It outlines - IMHO - the University's strategy in defending the impending lawsuit:
"President Barron and Board leadership do not agree that you have a right or duty to review the Source Materials in order to fulfill your fiduciary duties as trustees. There is no matter pending before the Board for which a review of the Source Materials is relevant."
In other words:
"On April 9th we crammed-down the proposal that excludes the Trustees from the "pay off the Jerry Sandusky victims with ever growing piles of cash" decision (even though, months earlier, we ignored your pleas to access and review the Freeh file - a mandatory step in order to carry out the Board's fiduciary duties).....so now, you don't have any "need" to review the documents".
The bass-ackward circular illogic of the statement would be evident to a member of a junior high debate club....and yet, this is the best that the multi-million dollar legal experts hired by Dunham, Dandrea, Frazier and Eckel could come up with.
Makes you wonder what they put in the water at "Lawyer School". Is there ANYTHING too outrageous, too inane, too unscrupulous that some lawyer won't sign off on it - so long as you pay them enough money? Is there a medical procedure that removes the soul - one that most of these corporate lawyers have performed? How else do they sleep nights?
Joseph O'Dea - the circus clown at "Saul Ewing" who signed his name to that tripe (the soul-less prostitute that he is) must have missed that day in class when that whole "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" stuff was discussed.
Maybe Joe skipped class that day so that he could attend the "Make Gobs of Money: Get a law degree and sell your soul" Seminar.
Tell me that douchebag doesn't look like the epitome of a soul-less twit.
Rot in Hell, Joe....you and all of your scumbag colleagues.
I know 99+% of the world doesn't devote 5 minutes of time to understanding what is going on at PSU.....but I cannot believe that ANYONE who engages at all (aside from the few sycophants we see on the board from time to time) can look at all the "stuff" these scoundrels try to pull, and not come to one obvious conclusion....."They are hiding something that - if exposed - would absolutely skin their hides".
Sorry....got on my soapbox a bit.
This post was edited on 4/20 12:40 AM by bjf1984
in that response. It outlines - IMHO - the University's strategy in defending the impending lawsuit:
"President Barron and Board leadership do not agree that you have a right or duty to review the Source Materials in order to fulfill your fiduciary duties as trustees. There is no matter pending before the Board for which a review of the Source Materials is relevant."
In other words:
"On April 9th we crammed-down the proposal that excludes the Trustees from the "pay off the Jerry Sandusky victims with ever growing piles of cash" decision (even though, months earlier, we ignored your pleas to access and review the Freeh file - a mandatory step in order to carry out the Board's fiduciary duties).....so now, you don't have any "need" to review the documents".
The bass-ackward circular illogic of the statement would be evident to a member of a junior high debate club....and yet, this is the best that the multi-million dollar legal experts hired by Dunham, Dandrea, Frazier and Eckel could come up with.
Makes you wonder what they put in the water at "Lawyer School". Is there ANYTHING too outrageous, too inane, too unscrupulous that some lawyer won't sign off on it - so long as you pay them enough money? Is there a medical procedure that removes the soul - one that most of these corporate lawyers have performed? How else do they sleep nights?
Joseph O'Dea - the circus clown at "Saul Ewing" who signed his name to that tripe (the soul-less prostitute that he is) must have missed that day in class when that whole "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" stuff was discussed.
Maybe Joe skipped class that day so that he could attend the "Make Gobs of Money: Get a law degree and sell your soul" Seminar.
Tell me that douchebag doesn't look like the epitome of a soul-less twit.
Rot in Hell, Joe....you and all of your scumbag colleagues.
I know 99+% of the world doesn't devote 5 minutes of time to understanding what is going on at PSU.....but I cannot believe that ANYONE who engages at all (aside from the few sycophants we see on the board from time to time) can look at all the "stuff" these scoundrels try to pull, and not come to one obvious conclusion....."They are hiding something that - if exposed - would absolutely skin their hides".
Sorry....got on my soapbox a bit.
This post was edited on 4/20 12:40 AM by bjf1984
Dr. Barron and Mr. Masser,
I must strenuously object to your ludicrous position that BOT members are not allowed to review documents that were produced for the BOT. How can you claim Attorney Client Privilege when the 7 people are members of the client, the BOT? Those seven members are the client, and to an extent, they have higher standing as the client than Dr. Barron since you are no longer a voting member of the BOT.
This is not only ludicrous, it is uncivil, to remind you of the dictate that you, Dr. Barron have commanded the two sides to cease being. If you want us to be civil you need to lead in a civil way instead of conducting illegitimate maneuvers to potentially conceal acts that may require correction. Innate in each BOT's responsibility is the need for information so that they can defend the University from others who may cause it harm from outside the University or from within. It is similar to the oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Each BOT member can and should bring issues in front of the board. That is their duty. To suggest that Board members only have the right to information regarding issues that are in front of the board is outrageous. For instance, If a board member or heard of or saw a sexual predator molesting a child on campus should that BOT member not bring that to the Board? Should that member not be able to ask for all of the information regarding that predator that has been gathered to date?
Why are you attempting to curtail or prevent the responsibility of individual board members from acting on their fiduciary requirements as members. Isn't this exactly contrary to what the responsibility of each board member AND [/I]a requirement of the Freeh recommendations that shows the need for the administration of the university to be open and less insular regarding essentially harmful practices? Isn't this the type of act that prevented a larger vetting of the Sandusky problems that if brought to light may have ended his victimization of boys?
Where is the transparency? It is understandable that Some issues may be ACP but that is to the public but not within the board itself.
I am ashamed of your response and I hope that you realize that you should be as well. After all you have a doctorate degree and you should know better. You need to apologize, in a civil and public fashion for your highly inappropriate stance that you callously and sheepishly stated through an attorney and then apologize to all of the alumni, faculty and students for your uncivil behavior.
With Civility,
Nicholas G. Nemeth, PSU 80 AE
I must strenuously object to your ludicrous position that BOT members are not allowed to review documents that were produced for the BOT. How can you claim Attorney Client Privilege when the 7 people are members of the client, the BOT? Those seven members are the client, and to an extent, they have higher standing as the client than Dr. Barron since you are no longer a voting member of the BOT.
This is not only ludicrous, it is uncivil, to remind you of the dictate that you, Dr. Barron have commanded the two sides to cease being. If you want us to be civil you need to lead in a civil way instead of conducting illegitimate maneuvers to potentially conceal acts that may require correction. Innate in each BOT's responsibility is the need for information so that they can defend the University from others who may cause it harm from outside the University or from within. It is similar to the oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Each BOT member can and should bring issues in front of the board. That is their duty. To suggest that Board members only have the right to information regarding issues that are in front of the board is outrageous. For instance, If a board member or heard of or saw a sexual predator molesting a child on campus should that BOT member not bring that to the Board? Should that member not be able to ask for all of the information regarding that predator that has been gathered to date?
Why are you attempting to curtail or prevent the responsibility of individual board members from acting on their fiduciary requirements as members. Isn't this exactly contrary to what the responsibility of each board member AND [/I]a requirement of the Freeh recommendations that shows the need for the administration of the university to be open and less insular regarding essentially harmful practices? Isn't this the type of act that prevented a larger vetting of the Sandusky problems that if brought to light may have ended his victimization of boys?
Where is the transparency? It is understandable that Some issues may be ACP but that is to the public but not within the board itself.
I am ashamed of your response and I hope that you realize that you should be as well. After all you have a doctorate degree and you should know better. You need to apologize, in a civil and public fashion for your highly inappropriate stance that you callously and sheepishly stated through an attorney and then apologize to all of the alumni, faculty and students for your uncivil behavior.
With Civility,
Nicholas G. Nemeth, PSU 80 AE
I like the sentence where he says he is too work with them on a compromise and then in the next paragraph tells them to sign the confidentiality agreement and scolds Lubrano and Oldsey. He is some negotiator trying to come to a resolution. I guess his coming to a compromise is take it or leave it children. Extremely insulting letter.
Yes. Haven't heard a lot of folks.....
telling me I was wrong and unfair with respect to Barron (like I heard over and over again back in 2014
).
That being said, the Bloviator has been working double-time lately to show just how beholden he is to the scoundrels....and it is a POSITIVE that people (those who are paying attention, anyway) now know just what we have there in the President's Office.....the first step to positive change is the recognition of the problem.
In the overall scheme of things, Barron is small potatoes......the undeniable truth is that SOME spineless, unprincipled whore was going to plop his butt down in that chair, collect his $6 million, and posture for his masters.....it just so happens that Barron is the spineless, unprincipled whore that we got. That doesn't mean I wouldn't celebrate the day when - after this cabal is broken up - Barron is summarily dismissed.
But, he's just another toady.
This post was edited on 4/20 8:51 AM by bjf1984
telling me I was wrong and unfair with respect to Barron (like I heard over and over again back in 2014
That being said, the Bloviator has been working double-time lately to show just how beholden he is to the scoundrels....and it is a POSITIVE that people (those who are paying attention, anyway) now know just what we have there in the President's Office.....the first step to positive change is the recognition of the problem.
In the overall scheme of things, Barron is small potatoes......the undeniable truth is that SOME spineless, unprincipled whore was going to plop his butt down in that chair, collect his $6 million, and posture for his masters.....it just so happens that Barron is the spineless, unprincipled whore that we got. That doesn't mean I wouldn't celebrate the day when - after this cabal is broken up - Barron is summarily dismissed.
But, he's just another toady.
This post was edited on 4/20 8:51 AM by bjf1984
And I know folks that keeps just wait, you can trust him. We've waited and he has shown what he is I believe. A BOT puppet.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I think there was a typo. The BOT power block take their 'fidouchery' responsibilities seriously not their fiduciary ones.
I don't think there's a humble cell let alone bone in the lot. I include Dr. Barron in this group. He's been quite a fence sitter, swinging his legs from one side to the other as it suits him.
Here's hoping they go down together.
I don't think there's a humble cell let alone bone in the lot. I include Dr. Barron in this group. He's been quite a fence sitter, swinging his legs from one side to the other as it suits him.
Here's hoping they go down together.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
I think that you are correct. They may actually be thrown off the BOT for that though. I think or hope that there is a better way. The BOT has a charter from the state. Hopefully there is a mechanism to make an appeal to the state that works to alarm the state into action for situations where the charter is being violated. In this case the violation is the barring alumni members by the executive committee from exercising their fiduciary. They may work faster than going through the courts and may not get them thrown off because they may be protected by the whistle blower concept.
I hope that works and I hope that AL is reading this. We are with you and the other 8 alumni elected BOT members.
Go get em!
The simple fact (I know you aren't fond of those, especially when they don't support your BOT buddies' agenda) is that the BOT in its entirety has been called on repeatedly to make decisions based on the Freeh "investigation". To not allow the BOT access to the documents is ludicrous at best. If there was nothing to hide, then they would allow access - plain and simple. The only thing you got right in your post was "sorry", as you are the sorriest individual I've ever seen on a message board.
LOL Right on cue
".....but I cannot believe that ANYONE who engages at all (aside from the few sycophants we see on the board from time to time) can look at all the "stuff" these scoundrels try to pull, and not come to one obvious conclusion....."They are hiding something that - if exposed - would absolutely skin their hides"."
So...douchenozzle...who paid for that indictment...er, uh...I mean report - was it Kenny and the boys who ponied up the $8 million?
LMAO
Even you used to be able to do better than that CR. I feel for you brother...the boys ain't giving you much to work with anymore.
".....but I cannot believe that ANYONE who engages at all (aside from the few sycophants we see on the board from time to time) can look at all the "stuff" these scoundrels try to pull, and not come to one obvious conclusion....."They are hiding something that - if exposed - would absolutely skin their hides"."
So...douchenozzle...who paid for that indictment...er, uh...I mean report - was it Kenny and the boys who ponied up the $8 million?
LMAO
Even you used to be able to do better than that CR. I feel for you brother...the boys ain't giving you much to work with anymore.
Funny how he pops up in such a predictable fashion.
The C woman gives him a job to do, and by God, he does it.
The C woman gives him a job to do, and by God, he does it.
Did the "Politburo" pay for it? Unless they funded it out of their own pockets, isn't the ultimate client the entity that delegated the task (full BoT) and authorized the $8M check? The "Politburo" was acting as an agent of the BoT.Originally posted by appleknocker:
Now I know who the members of the Politburo are.
From what I've read, the main sticking point for Lubrano and the other alum trustees is that they want to see ALL freeh report source files, not just the non-privileged ones (aka the files the BOT cabal knows won't hurt them).
It's an absolutely ABSURD argument that a subset of the BOT (the SITF members) are allowed to have access to "privileged" freeh report source files while the BOT at large isn't allowed.
ALL members of the BOT should have access to ALL info ALL the time. Otherwise they can't perform their fiduciary duties. ESPECIALLY when this report and it's source files are the foundation for 100's of millions of dollars taken out of PSU's coffers. It's really that simple and it's why the argument from the BOT cabal falls flat on its face.
There' no way to defend limiting info that your BOT has access to.
Can't wait to finally purge our beloved school of the cancer that is the OG trustees.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
PSU paid because they were going to get their asses sued by the victims which might have cost the university considerably more than what was possible with an out of court settlement. Would have preferred PSU litigate every case and run the risk of a jury awarding several times the amount PSU was offering to each prospective plaintiff?
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire. Maybe the Alum's should pool our money together (say 4-6m) and determine what outcome we all would like to see regarding the BOT powerblock. Take that money and agenda and hire Louis Freeh to execute and "exhaustive" investigation and produce the "agree upon" results for all to see. I don't want to give Louis any more money, of course, but that would be interesting.
Sorry but FSS was hired to act as counsel, conduct an investigation, and produce a report for the Special Investigative Task Force (mssrs Frazier, Tomalis, Arnelle, Bluford, Dambly, Eckel, Hagan, Hughes, and Peetz ) not the BOT's or PSU. FSS acted under the sole direction of the SITF not the BOT's or PSU and it is the SITF that has the discretion for the release of FSS work product information. Accordingly, your letter probably should have been addressed to the SITF members rather than President Barron or Keith Masser.
CR66 - that is just bull and you know it man
are you back to your old tricks!!
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Al Lord is paying for Spanier's defense. Who is legal counsel representing, Spanier or Lord?Originally posted by tk819:
Did the "Politburo" pay for it? Unless they funded it out of their own pockets, isn't the ultimate client the entity that delegated the task (full BoT) and authorized the $8M check? The "Politburo" was acting as an agent of the BoT.Originally posted by appleknocker:
Now I know who the members of the Politburo are.
LMAO.....the gift that keeps on giving.
CR: "Trust us. We know better than you."
(of course, that is because we are not going to give anyone else access to the fairy tale we concocted......but WE know what's best for you)
CR: "Although the facts are crystal clear that we saved the University....we would rather pay hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them hidden....rather than allow those facts to vindicate us"
Time to go back for some new talking points, CR.
_______________________________________________________________
"But, but, but....if you only knew me, you would love me." CR66
CR: "Trust us. We know better than you."
(of course, that is because we are not going to give anyone else access to the fairy tale we concocted......but WE know what's best for you)
CR: "Although the facts are crystal clear that we saved the University....we would rather pay hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them hidden....rather than allow those facts to vindicate us"
Time to go back for some new talking points, CR.
_______________________________________________________________
"But, but, but....if you only knew me, you would love me." CR66
I'm not worried by 'why PSU Paid' or even the argument of whether they should have or not. Paying might well be the right thing to do. What it is that you CANNOT do - is to set up a separate cabal within a board to withhold information from other members and then ask them to just blindly vote on them at meetings
His question was if the SITF was the client of freeh why did "PSU" pay the 8 million for the freeh report instead of members of the SITF? Good job avoiding the question though!
Also, the lawsuits PSU settled on were BASED ON THE FREEH REPORT. Therefore, before voting on ANY settlements, NCAA sanctions,etc. which were based on the freeh report, ALL trustees should have been given access to ALL freeh report source files so they could be FULLY informed before making a vote.
That NEVER happened and the trustees are STILL not being granted access to both the privileged and non privileged freeh source files.
Keep spinnin away tho...you must be getting quite dizzy these days..
