Trustee Election Ballot: Appears Upwad State Caved and Quit

[bjf1991]

This is a fight over table scraps. Given the current structure of the board and the power structure behind that, you could elect the Magnificent Seven to the board and add Chuck Norris and Captain America and you'd still have nine members who have no power and will have no impact.

The answer, if there is one, is in getting the legislature to take action. But they get paid very, very well and the same interests are in control there. You want change? Change that.

There is no question that Legislative and/or Judicial action is a necessary requirement for true meaningful, righteous reform (not to anyone who's been paying attention)



But, what do you do to promote/enhance that outcome?
That is the meaningful question.

More to the immediate point....What do we do - what actions do we take - vav the upcoming BOT Election?

An issue addressed here:

_________________________________

"There is no way that this entity, the Penn State Board of Trustees, will EVER reform itself."

We must understand, and be committed to, the responsibilities and duties of Responsible Governance.





The referenced BOT Reform Document here:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/barry-fenchak/working-proposal-for-reform-of-the-penn-state-university-board-of-trustees/1615902512052546

"Responsible Stewardship for Penn State...If that is ever going to be anything more than a catch-phrase .......it is up to us to DEMAND that it happen."

 

[Nitt1300]

There is no question that Legislative and/or Judicial action is a necessary requirement for true meaningful, righteous reform (not to anyone who's been paying attention)



But, what do you do to promote/enhance that outcome?
That is the meaningful question.

More to the immediate point....What do we do - what actions do we take - vav the upcoming BOT Election?

_________________________________

"There is no way that this entity, the Penn State Board of Trustees, will EVER reform itself."

We must understand, and be committed to, the responsibilities and duties of Responsible Governance.

View embedded media

The referenced BOT Reform Document here:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/barry-fenchak/working-proposal-for-reform-of-the-penn-state-university-board-of-trustees/1615902512052546

"Responsible Stewardship for Penn State...If that is ever going to be anything more than a catch-phrase .......it is up to us to DEMAND that it happen."

This is going to sound very pessimistic, I know. I honestly think the only real solution would be to get enough votes to turn over the entire legislature- and do that a second time in the subsequent election. Send the message that "public service" isn't a career, it's a duty. As long as the barn is full of rats, it's going to be full of rat shit. (I'd prescribe the same for Washington DC as well).

Do I think that will happen? No, far too many people are either asleep or worse- they are deluded enough to think that "their" representative isn't part of the problem. I'm not sure that can be fixed, because you can't fix stupid.

While I've crossed swords with you over how you deliver your message, the fact is that you are much more optimistic than I am. I wish I shared that optimism, but I don't.

 

[bjf1991]

This is going to sound very pessimistic, I know. I honestly think the only real solution would be to get enough votes to turn over the entire legislature- and do that a second time in the subsequent election. Send the message that "public service" isn't a career, it's a duty. As long as the barn is full of rats, it's going to be full of rat shit. (I'd prescribe the same for Washington DC as well).

Do I think that will happen? No, far too many people are either asleep or worse- they are deluded enough to think that "their" representative isn't part of the problem. I'm not sure that can be fixed, because you can't fix stupid.

While I've crossed swords with you over how you deliver your message, the fact is that you are much more optimistic than I am. I wish I shared that optimism, but I don't.

I don't know that I am that much more optimistic......as much as I am of the mindset that it only makes sense to pursue the best path to moving in the right direction - - - - even if the steps are only a small part of the way to true responsible governance.
As it relates to each issue as we face it - - such as the upcoming BOT elections.

FWIW - I have been an advocate for YEARS, that a PAC.....and it would only have to be influential enough - IMO - to affect one or two "swing" districts..... that could promote "Responsible Governance for PSU" through the State Assembly - could be a HUGE benefit.
If you look at the total budgets for most State Rep races (some not even six-figures, rarely anything near the mid-six figures) a PAC with even several hundred thousand $$$$ could move a race or two - - - - - after which, the doors to nearly every office will be open throughout the Capital.

You do that.....and - unless you have a particular Rep/Senator who is vehemently opposed to Responsible Governance (ie the Jake Cormans of the assembly), you are likely to get a very positive response from the rest.

If I had "seven figures" (or even 6) to put towards that cause - - - - I would do it in a heartbeat.
Alas.....I don't

But.....what we all CAN do:
If we can use the bully-pulpit of the 9 elected seats we do have control over - - - to elect righteous folks who will speak out on these issues, and promote Righteous Governance - - - that would/could help a lot.
Unfortunately, to date, WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

We - largely - have shown through our actions (and our votes) that we don't give a damn about righteous governance. If I - or anyone else - can move THAT needle even a little bit, that would be a good thing.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

 

[Zenophile]

This is going to sound very pessimistic, I know. I honestly think the only real solution would be to get enough votes to turn over the entire legislature- and do that a second time in the subsequent election. Send the message that "public service" isn't a career, it's a duty. As long as the barn is full of rats, it's going to be full of rat shit. (I'd prescribe the same for Washington DC as well).

Do I think that will happen? No, far too many people are either asleep or worse- they are deluded enough to think that "their" representative isn't part of the problem. I'm not sure that can be fixed, because you can't fix stupid.

While I've crossed swords with you over how you deliver your message, the fact is that you are much more optimistic than I am. I wish I shared that optimism, but I don't.

I don't know that I am that much more optimistic......as much as I am of the mindset that it only makes sense to pursue the best path to moving in the right direction - - - - even if the steps are only a small part of the way to true responsible governance.
As it relates to each issue as we face it - - such as the upcoming BOT elections.

FWIW - I have been an advocate for YEARS, that a PAC.....and it would only have to be influential enough - IMO - to affect one or two "swing" districts..... that could promote "Responsible Governance for PSU" through the State Assembly - could be a HUGE benefit.
If you look at the total budgets for most State Rep races (some not even six-figures, rarely anything near the mid-six figures) a PAC with even several hundred thousand $$$$ could move a race or two - - - - - after which, the doors to nearly every office will be open throughout the Capital.

You do that.....and - unless you have a particular Rep/Senator who is vehemently opposed to Responsible Governance (ie the Jake Cormans of the assembly), you are likely to get a very positive response from the rest.

If I had "seven figures" (or even 6) to put towards that cause - - - - I would do it in a heartbeat.
Alas.....I don't

But.....what we all CAN do:
If we can use the bully-pulpit of the 9 elected seats we do have control over - - - to elect righteous folks who will speak out on these issues, and promote Righteous Governance - - - that would/could help a lot.
Unfortunately, to date, WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

We - largely - have shown through our actions (and our votes) that we don't give a damn about righteous governance. If I - or anyone else - can move THAT needle even a little bit, that would be a good thing.

Seems to me that a third option exists. If our elected 9 can establish & build relationships with the other 27, they may find sufficient common ground to begin changing minds.

However there are some who will only be satisfied with "all-or-nothing," and this approach rarely yields such a result.

 

[Nitt1300]

Seems to me that a third option exists. If our elected 9 can establish & build relationships with the other 27, they may find sufficient common ground to begin changing minds.

However there are some who will only be satisfied with "all-or-nothing," and this approach rarely yields such a result.

That seems reasonable- assuming that one believes that there are at least 14 others who are not beholden to the special interests that appointed them and are truly interested in the best interests of Penn State and are willing to take a stand.

I'd like to believe that, but I don't.

 

[bjf1991]

Seems to me that a third option exists. If our elected 9 can establish & build relationships with the other 27, they may find sufficient common ground to begin changing minds.

However there are some who will only be satisfied with "all-or-nothing," and this approach rarely yields such a result.

Acting - ALWAYS - in a way congruent with Responsible Governance.....ALWAYS acting congruently with one's fiduciary duty....is NOT - IMO - an "all or nothing approach" - it is a COMMITMENT to one's duties.

And the LEAST we should expect from those who ask to be entrusted with representing us.


While the idea of "common ground" is a worthy step, on an intermediate-term day to day basis (and, at that, there has been precious little headway in that regard over the last 5 years) ........
It does nothing to deal with the fundamental, systemic issues ........
That have always prevented, and will always prevent, responsible governance (the issues that have placed us where we are today, and where we were in November 2011)


Further - and more importantly:

While "finding common ground" may be an admirable goal......if by "finding common ground" we see what we have seen:

Namely, elected Trustees acting more-and-more like the Scoundrels, with respect to the big governance issues - like Accountability, Communication, Engagement, stuff like the "34-0" (as but one example) - - then THAT is a "common ground" that does nothing but damage.

That kind of "common ground" is nothing but a Fiduciary Failure.....and we do not need more of that.....
There is ZERO benefit in "trading" responsible governance, and fiduciary responsibilities......in order to build "common ground" with a pack of Pirates.

I do fear that - assuming the right trade chips are put on the table - we have SEVERAL members of the existing "A9" who would trade "fiduciary responsibilities" in a heart beat. And recent history supports that notion.

We - all of us as a group, and CERTAINLY the A9 - have largely been, from the standpoint of Responsible Governance, been floundering around....absolutely lost.....for five years.
We behave like folks who have NO COMMITMENT to our responsibilities (and maybe don't even understand what those responsibilities are). If we don't adopt and understand a commitment to fiduciary responsibility....and the sooner the better.....we are f&cked.

 

[Zenophile]

Acting - ALWAYS - in a way congruent with Responsible Governance.....ALWAYS acting congruently with one's fiduciary duty....is NOT - IMO - an "all or nothing approach" - it is a COMMITMENT to one's duties.
And the LEAST we should expect from those who ask to be entrusted with representing us.


While the idea of "common ground" is a worthy step, on an intermediate-term day to day basis (and, at that, there has been precious little headway in that regard over the last 5 years) it does nothing to deal with the fundamental, systemic issues - - - - -
that have always, and will always prevent responsible governance (the issues that have placed us where we are today, and were we were in November 2011)


Further - and more importantly:

While "finding common ground" may be an admirable goal......if by "finding common ground" we see what we have seen:

Namely, elected Trustees acting more-and-more like the Scoundrels, with respect to the big governance issues - like Accountability, Communication, Engagement, stuff like the "34-0" (as but one example) - - then THAT is a "common ground" that does nothing but damage.

That kind of "common ground" is nothing but a Fiduciary Failure.....and we do not need more of that.....
There is ZERO benefit in "trading" responsible governance, and fiduciary responsibilities......in order to build "common ground" with a pack of Pirates.

I do fear that - assuming the right trade chips are put on the table - we have SEVERAL members of the existing "A9" who would trade "fiduciary responsibilities" in a heart beat. And recent history supports that notion.

It's been my experience that, with few exceptions, absolutes are rare and nuance abounds.

 

[bjf1991]

It's been my experience that, with few exceptions, absolutes are rare and nuance abounds.

There is ZERO nuance to the necessary commitment to act as Responsible Stewards.....If one ever hopes to achieve Responsible Governance.

Just as there is ZERO nuance to the necessary commitment to inhale and exhale on occasion.....if one hopes to continue living.

To your earlier point.....There is nothing incongruent with acting as Responsible Stewards, and trying to find "common ground". There are plenty of actions that reasonable people might debate - as to whether or not they are congruent with "fiduciary duties" (I'd LOVE to hear an argument put forward to defend "34-0" )
But, there is something fundamentally "beyond FUBAR" to think that building "common ground" through violating - or ignoring - our fiduciary duties, is a good thing

In that regard: "nuance" = bullshit


A commitment to - and an understand of - duties and responsibilities of Responsible Stewardship, is an ABSOLUTE requirement ........it is stunning that - after all that has transpired - anyone concerned with PSU governance would not recognize that.

 

[NittPicker]

Seems to me that a third option exists. If our elected 9 can establish & build relationships with the other 27, they may find sufficient common ground to begin changing minds.

However there are some who will only be satisfied with "all-or-nothing," and this approach rarely yields such a result.

If only it were that easy. I don't doubt the A9 have been trying to do just that but the non-A9 appear to be the people with the "all or nothing attitude". It's their way or the highway and they'll belittle anyone who dares challenge them. Look back at Frazier's "people who look like you" comment. Or more recently, Lubert's comment to Lubrano about not being present for the entire meeting as if Anthony was out having a few beers at the Rathskeller. Or the A9 not being appointed to the executive committee until very recently. The non-A9 have no incentive to engage the A9.

 

[Stufftodo]

Laughable. You are REALLY afraid of Jay, aren't you, STD? Wow. This will be great.fun.

No, accurate, and something similar did prevent Lord from voting on some things (correctly, I may add).

 

[Stufftodo]

Seems to me that a third option exists. If our elected 9 can establish & build relationships with the other 27, they may find sufficient common ground to begin changing minds.

However there are some who will only be satisfied with "all-or-nothing," and this approach rarely yields such a result.

You actually made some sense. The problem will be if the "elected 9" will also face the reality of the situation. Some will; some won't.

 

[Zenophile]

You actually made some sense. The problem will be if the "elected 9" will also face the reality of the situation. Some will; some won't.

You're simply the other side of the "all or nothing" coin.

 

[bjf1991]

You're simply the other side of the "all or nothing" coin.

Or...... just the "nothing" side

 

[Stufftodo]

You're simply the other side of the "all or nothing" coin.

No, but I am not living in denial.

I have a wait and see position on a lot of these things. Some, like the suit, will clear up with time. It just wouldn't clear up before Jay is seated, if he wins.

The Board will still be there next year.

The problem is that, should there be something where the alumni trustees might have common ground with some other Board members, they may lose a vote because Jay couldn't vote.

 

[bjf1991]

The problem is that, should there be something where the alumni trustees might have common ground with some other Board members, they may lose a vote because Jay couldn't vote.

Your "sincere" concerns...........
as intellectually retarded as they may be ........
are duly noted.

 

[Stufftodo]

Your "sincere" concerns...........
as intellectually retarded as they may be ........
are duly noted.

Well, since it is something you would be more likely to support that I would, keep laughing.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

I think under the current policy, the B&I member could not be involved in the decision making. Nor could he see documents related the transaction that Penn State might have.



Right now, as no one involved with Accu-Weather is on the Board. If Meyers was still on the Board, it would create the same problem.

For Jay, the problems are that it can limit his access to documents (or he could be removed if he doesn't) and that it could prevent him from voting on things in the future, on things that most of the people here care about.

As another example, Spanier is likely to be a witness in the Paterno vs. NCAA suit (assuming he is acquitted). Anything that would touch on Spanier, e.g. a motion to pay Spanier's legal bills, would create a conflict of interest.

The problem is, in most other cases, if one member has to abstain, it doesn't effect the result. Most everyone else votes in favor. In cases where Jay would have to abstain, the result is usually not unanimous. It is saying, in effect, on these issues, instead of 9 alumni members supporting proposal, it becomes 8 alumni members supporting this with Jay abstaining.

She. Not he. She. You know very f***king well I was referring to Karen Peetz/ Mellon Bank and Toll Brothers. Considering you claim to know how many of toilet paper each person involved in any of these proceedings uses per trip to the can, it's ludicrous you get all coy and pretend not to know what I'm referring to.

And just because Karen excuses herself at a meeting and goes to rearrange her pearls or see what variety of Lance crackers they have on the table in the break room doesn't eliminate a conflict of interest. It's no secret these bastards hand pick each other and their successors and reward each other with all kinds of goodies from The Price Is Right showcase. This goes for the B&I cabal as well as the Ag trustees with their "alleged" elections. And now it's expanded with the newest version of Crony Governance with the addition of Schuyler, Han, and Salvino. They're all there to fluff each other's packages.

 

[Stufftodo]

You still cannot list al those supposed "relationships" I have, can you?

She. Not he. She. You know very f***king well I was referring to Karen Peetz/ Mellon Bank and Toll Brothers. Considering you claim to know how many of toilet paper each person involved in any of these proceedings uses per trip to the can, it's ludicrous you get all coy and pretend not to know what I'm referring to.

No, I don't know "f***king well" what you were referring to.

Why don't you give me the details because Toll Brother adds a new element.

And just because Karen excuses herself at a meeting and goes to rearrange her pearls or see what variety of Lance crackers they have on the table in the break room doesn't eliminate a conflict of interest.

Yes, it does. The conflict occurs only for an individual having involvement in the decisions. It is eliminated once the person recuses himself there is no conflict of interest.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

You still cannot list al those supposed "relationships" I have, can you?



No, I don't know "f***king well" what you were referring to.

Why don't you give me the details because Toll Brother adds a new element.



Yes, it does. The conflict occurs only for an individual having involvement in the decisions. It is eliminated once the person recuses himself there is no conflict of interest.

I would tell you Google is your friend. But I don't think even Google wants to be friends with a d!ck like you.

But I'll be a really nice guy and include an excerpt from an article by Reuters. Think they might be a reputable source of news?



On May 4, Peetz participated in a board of trustees committee meeting that discussed selling 40 acres of Penn State land to Toll Brothers for $13.5 million, according to the meeting's minutes. BNY Mellon's Boston Company Asset Management was Toll Brothers' seventh largest shareholder in the first quarter, according to U.S. regulatory filings and Thomson Reuters data.

Meeting minutes reveal no discussion about BNY Mellon's interest in Toll Brothers stock. The Committee on Finance, Business and Capital Planning, of which Peetz is a member, recommended that Penn State's board approve the deal, picking Toll Brothers over two other bidders, according to Penn State officials and published meeting minutes.

Ethics and corporate governance experts said Peetz missed a chance to at least set a higher standard for the board when she did not remove herself from discussions.

"Absolutely that was a problem," said Michael Boylan, an ethics and philosophy professor at Marymount University. "She should have disclosed the relationship and recused herself."

 

[Stufftodo]

On May 4, Peetz participated in a board of trustees committee meeting that discussed selling 40 acres of Penn State land to Toll Brothers for $13.5 million, according to the meeting's minutes. BNY Mellon's Boston Company Asset Management was Toll Brothers' seventh largest shareholder in the first quarter, according to U.S. regulatory filings and Thomson Reuters data.

I think she should have recused herself, under the current rules. However, the conflict of interest clause in the bylaws was not adopted in 2012, so it may not have been a violation.

Edit:
Unless the BNY own 10% or more of Toll Brothers, it would not be a clear violation of the current rules. It could be considered a violation if Toll Brothers owned more than 10% of BNY, but not but it would be a debatable point.

It would also be a question of if Peetz knew that this other division was doing.

And you still have not bn able to identify the "relationships" I supposedly have.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

It's amazing how much you crawl and grovel to excuse away the unethical and possibly illegal behavior by the BOTs and other pols you suck up to. You really believe these captains of billion dollar industries don't know what's going on in the companies they run? Even if Peetz recused herself, you don't think there's an implicit agreement between all these parasites that hand pick each other to help out each other and their businesses?

The B&I trustees are like Oprah when it comes to themselves and each other-- here's a no-bi contract for you! And one for you! And one for you!!!

You keep asking about these relationships-- yet i told you you're supposed to reveal how you came to know all these things you claim to know. If you get to hold off on your big reveal for weeks, so do I. But I'll give you one. Poppy Miller. You and "she" or at least her page are Facebook friends, even though it appears just to be a site filled with photos of her. Kind of creepy actually. Do you use that to rub off the occasional one?

 

[Stufftodo]

It's amazing how much you crawl and grovel to excuse away the unethical and possibly illegal behavior by the BOTs and other pols you suck up to. You really believe these captains of billion dollar industries don't know what's going on in the companies they run? Even if Peetz recused herself, you don't think there's an implicit agreement between all these parasites that hand pick each other to help out each other and their businesses?

Recusal is all that is ever needed. What people who don't profit from it do is not unethical. You have come up with a bizarre theory that if someone clearly will not profit from a contract, and that their family and friends will not contract with it, it is a conflict of interest. That is almost the textbook definition of what is not a conflict of interest.

You keep asking about these relationships-- yet i told you you're supposed to reveal how you came to know all these things you claim to know. If you get to hold off on your big reveal for weeks, so do I. But I'll give you one. Poppy Miller. You and "she" or at least her page are Facebook friends, even though it appears just to be a site filled with photos of her. Kind of creepy actually.

So, assuming that Poppy Miller is Stacey Miller, and assuming that I am friend with her, she is not the one involved in the prosecution of CSS or Sandusky.

Now, assuming this is all correct how would this affect my being cross examined?

I know a lot of people.

Do you use that to rub off the occasional one?

My tastes run more to the dark side.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Recusal is all that is ever needed. What people who don't profit from it do is not unethical. You have come up with a bizarre theory that if someone clearly will not profit from a contract, and that their family and friends will not contract with it, it is a conflict of interest. That is almost the textbook definition of what is not a conflict of interest.



So, assuming that Poppy Miller is Stacey Miller, and assuming that I am friend with her, she is not the one involved in the prosecution of CSS or Sandusky.

Now, assuming this is all correct how would this affect my being cross examined?

I know a lot of people.




My tastes run more to the dark side.

Well if you don't get that Toll Brothers makes lots of money by building and renting/selling student housing units, which makes their stock go up, which in turn makes BONY stock go up because they're the 7th largest stockholder in Toll Brothers, which in turn makes Karen Peetz more wealthy because she owns shitloads of company stock, and gets paid bonuses based on the performance of the stock-- you're beyond any help.

Maybe there's no conflict of interest-- which is based on a rule that the people engaged in such practices define for themselves, which basically makes them worthless-- but it's unethical behavior. And that bothers you less than Jay Paterno getting a seat on the board. You are a major douchebag.

And as far as your last comment goes, if you think Cindy Baldwin is hot, well, there's no accounting for some people's tastes.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Well if you don't get that Toll Brothers makes lots of money by building and renting/selling student housing units, which makes their stock go up, which in turn makes BONY stock go up because they're the 7th largest stockholder in Toll Brothers, which in turn makes Karen Peetz more wealthy because she owns shitloads on company stock, and gets paid bonuses based on the performance of the stock-- you're beyond any help.

Maybe there's no conflict of interest-- which is based on a rule that the people engaged in such practices define for themselves, which basically makes them worthless-- but it's unethical behavior. And that bothers you less than Jay Paterno getting a seat on the board. You are a major douchebag.

And as far as your last comment goes, if you think Cindy Baldwin is hot, well, there's no accounting for some people's tastes.

 

[Stufftodo]

Well if you don't get that Toll Brothers makes lots of money by building and renting/selling student housing units, which makes their stock go up, which in turn makes BONY stock go up because they're the 7th largest stockholder in Toll Brothers, which in turn makes Karen Peetz more wealthy because she owns shitloads on company stock, and gets paid bonuses based on the performance of the stock-- you're beyond any help.

Even under the current rules, BNY would have to own 10% of Toll Brothers, and Peetz would probably have to own 10% of BNY. Further, she'd have to know BNY owned at least 10% of BNY.

Maybe there's no conflict of interest-- which is based on a rule that the people engaged in such practices define for themselves, which basically makes them worthless-- but it's unethical behavior. And that bothers you less than Jay Paterno getting a seat on the board. You are a major douchebag.

The rules the Board currently has are extremely strict, as COI goes. The problem is that as long as suit is pending, Jay walks right into a conflict of interest, primarily on issues you would care about.

Like I said, the Board will be there next year. The suit may not be.

And as far as your last comment goes, if you think Cindy Baldwin is hot, well, there's no accounting for some people's tastes.

Baldwin is not the only woman of color on the planet, is she. BTW, Miller is much better lawyer.

 

[PennSt8er]

The NCAA suit. Despite not being a party, the Paternos are requesting documents from Penn State. Penn State is fighting that request.

Jay could not be involved with anything relating to it.

Now, if the suit would go away or not involve Penn State, that would be a different story.

This board clearly doesn't give a shit about conflicts of interest. They violate that concept regularly.

 

[Stufftodo]

This board clearly doesn't give a shit about conflicts of interest. They violate that concept regularly.

Please give some examples. So far, we have one claim that doesn't violate the COI clause, even the stricter one in effect today.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

You absolutely don't get it, do you Seward Boy? Are you that dense or that much of an asskisser of the BOT to sit here and argue that the Toll Brothers/BONY/Peetz/Penn State case isn't a conflict of interest, simply because Peetz and her cronies wrote a rule to define it as such?

What would happen if BNY owned 10% of Toll Brothers and Peetz owned 10% of Mellon Bank? Or if any trustee ended up owning a large enough interest in any company that would create a conflict of interest? With 100% certainty, I'd say the Executive Committee with come up with a rule change redefining the terms of "conflict of interest," hand it to their puppet morons Huber, Salvino, and Schuyler, who with the other lemmings would not their heads and vote for whatever Dickie Dandrea tells them they must do.

Ethics and governance experts from across the country say it was a conflict of interest, but parliamentarian Jonathan Jacobs, last seen writing bylaws for some senior citizens group in North Philly in between licking the shit off of the soles of Mark Dambly's shoes, says it wasn't, so I guess it wasn't.

 

[Stufftodo]

You absolutely don't get it, do you Seward Boy? Are you that dense or that much of an asskisser of the BOT to sit here and argue that the Toll Brothers/BONY/Peetz/Penn State case isn't a conflict of interest, simply because Peetz and her cronies wrote a rule to define it as such?

What would happen if BNY owned 10% of Toll Brothers and Peetz owned 10% of Mellon Bank? Or if any trustee ended up owning a large enough interest in any company that would create a conflict of interest? With 100% certainty, I'd say the Executive Committee with come up with a rule change redefining the terms of "conflict of interest," hand it to their puppet morons Huber, Salvino, and Schuyler, who with the other lemmings would not their heads and vote for whatever Dickie Dandrea tells them they must do.

The only place where you will find conflict of interest rules are in the rules the group adopts. Your definition of a conflict of interest is "I don't like it. Therefore because I don't like it, it must me wrong"

Currently, the best thing that she could do, if she was still there, is voluntarily recuse herself. I'd advise he to do that.

However, once her involvement in the decision ends, why is that a conflict of interest.

Ethics and governance experts from across the country say it was a conflict of interest, but parliamentarian Jonathan Jacobs, last seen writing bylaws for some senior citizens group in North Philly in between licking the shit off of the soles of Mark Dambly's shoes, says it wasn't, so I guess it wasn't.

Well, as usual you are wrong again.

Please point out these experts, as it would apply to the current COI rules.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

The only place where you will find conflict of interest rules are in the rules the group adopts. Your definition of a conflict of interest is "I don't like it. Therefore because I don't like it, it must me wrong"

Currently, the best thing that she could do, if she was still there, is voluntarily recuse herself. I'd advise he to do that.

However, once her involvement in the decision ends, why is that a conflict of interest.



Well, as usual you are wrong again.

Please point out these experts, as it would apply to the current COI rules.

Your first paragraph is a verbatim summary of why you don't think Jay Paterno should be on the BOT.

One thing you are right on is that a group like the BOT can make up its own rules and definitions. Doesn't mean they are right. Sounds like what you're saying is that the BOT passed a rule saying each trustee can directly profit from PSU up to 10% of the value of the business you represent. It's like them saying you can rob Penn State of $9,999,999, but if you get that extra dollar, we'll have to revise the rule.

There was an expert on ethics and governance who's actually a professor of ethics and philosophy quoted in the section of the story I posted who said it was a conflict of interest. Now I know he's no Johnny Jacobs, and he probably thanks God for that every day.

And I will admit I was wrong where you pointed it out. You lick the shit off of the bottom of Mark Dambly's flip flops, not his shoes.

 

[Stufftodo]

Your first paragraph is a verbatim summary of why you don't think Jay Paterno should be on the BOT.

Under the rules, he would have to recuse himself, on issues that you care about. Now, that should be something that any potential voters should know.

I will also note that once the suit is resolved, there would be no conflict of interest.

One thing you are right on is that a group like the BOT can make up its own rules and definitions. Doesn't mean they are right.

Notice that I don't use words like "right" or "moral." Yes, the Board gets to establish their own rules. You fill find that most groups get to do that.

Sounds like what you're saying is that the BOT passed a rule saying each trustee can directly profit from PSU up to 10% of the value of the business you represent. It's like them saying you can rob Penn State of $9,999,999, but if you get that extra dollar, we'll have to revise the rule.[/quopte]

No, I'm saying that that the Trustee would have to own 10% of the business. It a Trustee owns 100 shares of stock in a corporation with 1,000,000 shares, that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. He could vote on a contract for $10,000,000 with that company. If the same Trustee was one half owner in a business that had a $10,000 contract with Penn State, he couldn't vote on it and would have to recuse himself. The amount of the contract has nothing to do with a conflict of interest.

There was an expert on ethics and governance who's actually a professor of ethics and philosophy quoted in the section of the story I posted who said it was a conflict of interest. Now I know he's no Johnny Jacobs, and he probably thanks God for that every day.

Ethics are not part of the rules. What someone thinks is "wrong" does not mean that it violates the rules. He may like the new rules.

And I will admit I was wrong where you pointed it out. You lick the shit off of the bottom of Mark Dambly's flip flops, not his shoes.

Is this more of you "relationships" claim?

 

[bjf1991]

Under the rules, he would have to recuse himself, on issues that you care about. Now, that should be something that any potential voters should know.

I will also note that once the suit is resolved, there would be no conflict of interest.



Notice that I don't use words like "right" or "moral." Yes, the Board gets to establish their own rules. You fill find that most groups get to do that.

A - No, he wouldn't

B - Who cares?

C - You're an incredible ass-clown......and for the life of me, I can't imagine one reason why the folks who moderate this board EVER allowed you to spew your idiotic crap all over this board.

 

[Stufftodo]

A - No, he wouldn't

Yes, he would

B - Who cares?

Anyone who claims that they want the truth out. It would be one less vote for anything touching on the CSS case.

C - You're an incredible ass-clown......and for the life of me, I can't imagine one reason why the folks who moderate this board EVER allowed you to spew your idiotic crap all over this board.

Because your imagination and intelligence went away with your hair. I actually cited the rule that creates the problem.

You think that people with different viewpoints, viewpoints that disagree with your babbling, shouldn't be heard.

You are one of the reasons people still make Penn State jokes about this. You are a Penn State joke, at this point.

 

[Nitt1300]

A - No, he wouldn't

B - Who cares?

C - You're an incredible ass-clown......and for the life of me, I can't imagine one reason why the folks who moderate this board EVER allowed you to spew your idiotic crap all over this board.

this board is moderated?

 

[Stufftodo]

this board is moderated?

Well, we do have some folks that it should be censored. Oh, wait, that was you.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/we-need-a-new-type-of-ignore-feature.168099/

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Jay is going to get elected. That must unnerve this unrepentant haters like STD.

 

[BobPSU92]

Jay is going to get elected. That must unnerve this unrepentant haters like STD.

It will be great when Jay starts attending bot meetings.

"Can I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

 

[bjf1991]

Maybe folks should hold on for a moment or two......until they have the opportunity to hear and evaluate just where JP stands on University governance issues...... or discuss what his agenda/plans are?

Or not .......

After all, electing folks who have outlined no positions, no agendas, and no indication that they even UNDERSTAND, let alone have any COMMITMENT to, Responsible Governance for the University - - - has worked so well thus far.

ELECTED BY ALUMNI

EDWARD "TED" B. BROWN, III (2019)


BARBARA L. DORAN (2019)



ROBERT C. JUBELIRER (2017)


ALBERT L. LORD (2017)


ANTHONY P. LUBRANO (2018)


RYAN J. McCOMBIE (2018)


WILLIAM F. OLDSEY (2019)


ALICE W. POPE (2017)


ROBERT J. TRIBECK (2018)

 

[Stufftodo]

Jay is going to get elected. That must unnerve this unrepentant haters like STD.

Who is a supposed hater? I'm saying that there is currently a problem, but it might not be there next year. The suit goes away, the conflict goes away.

I'm also saying that, on issues that you profess to care about, electing Jay Paterno means, you lose a vote.