Why This Alumni Council Election Matters

[debbeidel4alumnicouncil]

The recent changes in the bylaws remove power not only from Alumni Council members but also from you, as members of the Alumni Association. The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot. Before, there were alternative pathways, meaning that if one was not approved by the Nominations Committee, one could get “approved” by 50 other association members and still be on the ballot. Now that is gone and you have to first past a litmus test in order to be allowed to volunteer to help govern the association of which you are a dues-paying member.

There is also a provision that by a majority vote of the Executive Board (composed of approximately 18 people), the number of council seats can be increased or decreased. After the contentiousness of this election, which resulted in two lawsuits filed by alumni against the alumni association, I would not be surprised to find that a decision is made that this general alumni election is “too expensive” or “too political” or something like that. I believe this is especially likely if the election results in more people who are willing to question the status quo.

I know that this is an uphill battle. They can try to ignore me at Council meetings. But they cannot ignore a large voter turnout. Elections have consequences. If this is the last one, let’s make it count

 

[martypsu]

The recent changes in the bylaws remove power not only from Alumni Council members but also from you, as members of the Alumni Association. The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot. Before, there were alternative pathways, meaning that if one was not approved by the Nominations Committee, one could get “approved” by 50 other association members and still be on the ballot. Now that is gone and you have to first past a litmus test in order to be allowed to volunteer to help govern the association of which you are a dues-paying member.

There is also a provision that by a majority vote of the Executive Board (composed of approximately 18 people), the number of council seats can be increased or decreased. After the contentiousness of this election, which resulted in two lawsuits filed by alumni against the alumni association, I would not be surprised to find that a decision is made that this general alumni election is “too expensive” or “too political” or something like that. I believe this is especially likely if the election results in more people who are willing to question the status quo.

I know that this is an uphill battle. They can try to ignore me at Council meetings. But they cannot ignore a large voter turnout. Elections have consequences. If this is the last one, let’s make it count

 

[martypsu]

Support Deb and vote for the whole Paterno group

 

[Class of 67]

The recent changes in the bylaws remove power not only from Alumni Council members but also from you, as members of the Alumni Association. The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot. Before, there were alternative pathways, meaning that if one was not approved by the Nominations Committee, one could get “approved” by 50 other association members and still be on the ballot. Now that is gone and you have to first past a litmus test in order to be allowed to volunteer to help govern the association of which you are a dues-paying member.

There is also a provision that by a majority vote of the Executive Board (composed of approximately 18 people), the number of council seats can be increased or decreased. After the contentiousness of this election, which resulted in two lawsuits filed by alumni against the alumni association, I would not be surprised to find that a decision is made that this general alumni election is “too expensive” or “too political” or something like that. I believe this is especially likely if the election results in more people who are willing to question the status quo.

I know that this is an uphill battle. They can try to ignore me at Council meetings. But they cannot ignore a large voter turnout. Elections have consequences. If this is the last one, let’s make it count

I voted and hope, too, that the turnout is the largest ever. This indeed is important to send a message. We now know that the Council has been run like a dictatorship like the BOT. Make your voice heard. Support those who are doing the fighting on our behalf.

 

[Fizz1]

Thank you, Deb, for sharing information on this board. Between what you describe with the recent Alumni Council by-law changes, and my bad gut feeling that the BOT will use the newly added Penn State Alumni Association past president voting seat on the BOT as logic to ultimately 9 eliminate alumni elected trustees (speculation only here...), hope for alumni having a voice is disappearing. Current BOT governance reform legislation has a chance, but only if Senator Jake Corman supports it. I believe that's a long shot unless he fears a "no" vote may cost him an election.

 

[pmjoe]

The recent changes in the bylaws remove power not only from Alumni Council members but also from you, as members of the Alumni Association. The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot. Before, there were alternative pathways, meaning that if one was not approved by the Nominations Committee, one could get “approved” by 50 other association members and still be on the ballot. Now that is gone and you have to first past a litmus test in order to be allowed to volunteer to help govern the association of which you are a dues-paying member.

Not to get picky on your post Deb but the original purpose of the Nominating Committee was never to "approve" candidates - it's very clear from the old bylaws (prior to their recent corruption) that the Nominating Committee's sole purpose was to make sure there were enough candidates.

How the Association's so-called leadership corrupted the task of making sure there were enough candidates on the ballot into a personal litmus test for candidates is reprehensible.

 

[Mary QBA]

PMJoe, that was my understanding as well. I would add that a nominating committee should vet candidates to the extent that they are actually members of an organization - in fact, Kevin Barron testified in court that to his knowledge, the PSAA Nominating Committee has only ever rejected one candidate on the grounds they weren't a member.

 

[tk819]

The acquisition of the trustee seat for AC past president was a game changer for me. No longer can the PSAA claim to be nothing more than a service organization devoted to connecting alums to the university via activities and special offers. They can no longer claim they must remain neutral on policy and governance issues of deep concern to a large segment of alums. The appointed trustee seat brings with it accountability and responsibility to the people they are representing. Alums should have more say in how the AC president/trustee is selected and a better vehicle to make sure that person understands where the majority stands on key issues. Otherwise, that person cannot properly fill their role as an independent trustee free of allegiance to the administration.

The re-interpretation of election procedures which effectively kept qualified but dissident candidates off the ballot and the incredible overreach in the new bylaws make me very concerned about an even closer alignment with the old guard in the future. The net effect is a muting of alternative voices and the concentration of power in an entrenched inner circle. If that was not the intent of the changes, what was?

Toni Knoll

 

[demlion]

The acquisition of the trustee seat for AC past president was a game changer for me. No longer can the PSAA claim to be nothing more than a service organization devoted to connecting alums to the university via activities and special offers. They can no longer claim they must remain neutral on policy and governance issues of deep concern to a large segment of alums. The appointed trustee seat brings with it accountability and responsibility to the people they are representing. Alums should have more say in how the AC president/trustee is selected and a better vehicle to make sure that person understands where the majority stands on key issues. Otherwise, that person cannot properly fill their role as an independent trustee free of allegiance to the administration.

The re-interpretation of election procedures which effectively kept qualified but dissident candidates off the ballot and the incredible overreach in the new bylaws make me very concerned about an even closer alignment with the old guard in the future. The net effect is a muting of alternative voices and the concentration of power in an entrenched inner circle. If that was not the intent of the changes, what was?

Toni Knoll

Toni, I think you are correct. Our friends who majored in Political Science recognize this as the sort of move made by a government which is moving toward totalitarianism and despotism. There is a reason why we have to sue PSU and the PSAA. They are simply and completely more and more unresponsive to democratic processes. Its a private club, and you can be denied membership at any time for no reason at all. Everything they do is hidden. We tolerated that for a lot longer than we should have and Sandusky was the result.

This is why decent people say, "Either this changes, or I am finished with PSU." If Eric Barron wants to yell at ME for being so negative, I can send him my phone number or Skype address. I have a few things to say in a loud voice to him as well. The asshat.

 

[BobPSU92]

Support Deb and vote for the whole Paterno group

I did that yesterday.

 

[debbeidel4alumnicouncil]

Not to get picky on your post Deb but the original purpose of the Nominating Committee was never to "approve" candidates - it's very clear from the old bylaws (prior to their recent corruption) that the Nominating Committee's sole purpose was to make sure there were enough candidates.

How the Association's so-called leadership corrupted the task of making sure there were enough candidates on the ballot into a personal litmus test for candidates is reprehensible.

You are correct about the original purpose, but they have now been representing themselves as "always having done this... "(vetting candidates). The slippery slope continues.

 

[tk819]

Toni, I think you are correct. Our friends who majored in Political Science recognize this as the sort of move made by a government which is moving toward totalitarianism and despotism. There is a reason why we have to sue PSU and the PSAA. They are simply and completely more and more unresponsive to democratic processes. Its a private club, and you can be denied membership at any time for no reason at all. Everything they do is hidden. We tolerated that for a lot longer than we should have and Sandusky was the result.

This is why decent people say, "Either this changes, or I am finished with PSU." If Eric Barron wants to yell at ME for being so negative, I can send him my phone number or Skype address. I have a few things to say in a loud voice to him as well. The asshat.

Barron must only be listening to those who have assured him the dissidents are an insignificant minority and can be ignored without real consequence. We need to prove that wrong.

 

[psu00]

I did that yesterday.

Perfect. Everyone needs to vote and spread the word to your psu contacts on Twitter/ Facebook / email.

 

[mbahses]

Barron must only be listening to those who have assured him the dissidents are an insignificant minority and can be ignored without real consequence. We need to prove that wrong.

No, Barron knows better. He's following orders. A leader he is not.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

A reminder on this. Let's not allow the early enthusiasm to erode.

Step 1 is for all AA members to make sure that they have a ballot, and to vote
Step 2 is for all AA members to contact their fellow AA members, and inform them of the issues, as well as the PSAAforAll slate of candidates

There are no instant panaceas here. However, with the above actions, a process can be started that will likely effect some positive changes.

 

[kgilbert78]

A reminder on this. Let's not allow the early enthusiasm to erode.

Step 1 is for all AA members to make sure that they have a ballot, and to vote
Step 2 is for all AA members to contact their fellow AA members, and inform them of the issues, as well as the PSAAforAll slate of candidates

There are no instant panaceas here. However, with the above actions, a process can be started that will likely effect some positive changes.

I hope so. But the supermajority the other side has is daunting. Still, we must stand up and be counted and heard.

 

[psu1969a]

The recent changes in the bylaws remove power not only from Alumni Council members but also from you, as members of the Alumni Association. The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot. Before, there were alternative pathways, meaning that if one was not approved by the Nominations Committee, one could get “approved” by 50 other association members and still be on the ballot. Now that is gone and you have to first past a litmus test in order to be allowed to volunteer to help govern the association of which you are a dues-paying member.

There is also a provision that by a majority vote of the Executive Board (composed of approximately 18 people), the number of council seats can be increased or decreased. After the contentiousness of this election, which resulted in two lawsuits filed by alumni against the alumni association, I would not be surprised to find that a decision is made that this general alumni election is “too expensive” or “too political” or something like that. I believe this is especially likely if the election results in more people who are willing to question the status quo.

I know that this is an uphill battle. They can try to ignore me at Council meetings. But they cannot ignore a large voter turnout. Elections have consequences. If this is the last one, let’s make it count

I will be voting, but I have asked via email for ability to enter write-in candidates via online or paper ballot. Have not received a response.

 

[simons96]

again, thanks for your service, Deb.

pretty amazing to read some of the conversation on the original Penn State Alumni page with some of the candidates.

some who support the old guard seem to think the alumni, and the alumni association, are 2 separate groups of people.

**rolls eyes**

 

[Roar More]

A reminder on this. Let's not allow the early enthusiasm to erode.

Step 1 is for all AA members to make sure that they have a ballot, and to vote
Step 2 is for all AA members to contact their fellow AA members, and inform them of the issues, as well as the PSAAforAll slate of candidates

There are no instant panaceas here. However, with the above actions, a process can be started that will likely effect some positive changes.

Once again, the powers that me in University Park have not sent a ballot to me. First it was for the BoT election, now this. How do I get one?

 

[tk819]

Once again, the powers that me in University Park have not sent a ballot to me. First it was for the BoT election, now this. How do I get one?

Call Votenet @ 866-307-0041 and/or the PSAA @ 800-548-5466

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot.

There is also a provision that by a majority vote of the Executive Board (composed of approximately 18 people), the number of council seats can be increased or decreased. t

Deb,

I've searched in earnest trying to find a listing if the Alumni Council reps who sit on the Nominations and Screeening Committees (if they are somehow different) and haven't found a thing. Is this confidential information or can you somehow safely share a listing of committee members, and most importantly the Chairpersons, I would be interested and appreciative, but don't do it if it will get you in trouble.

I find it appalling that thebPSUAA website does not list committee affiliations on their website. The only way we're going to change things is to know specifically who these people are.

 

[Mary QBA]

I have a list up on my personal blog: https://electionpsaa.wordpress.com/alumni-council-members/
Nominating committee and their contact information is at the top. The contact information I pulled together from various places across the PSAA website.

I tried to contact all of them after they didn't put Jay Paterno on the Alumni Council ballot (poor guy, it turns out he didn't demonstrated active involvement in the Alumni Association), and got a nice note back from Roger Williams thanking me for my interest.

It's really, really easy for an organization to provide email addresses for it's members, with redirects to any email address they like. Security can be laid on to trace messages if that becomes a problem. The Alumni Association is has a lot of technical expertise, and I think has chosen not to do this.

 

[lauriestanell4alumnicouncil]

Barron must only be listening to those who have assured him the dissidents are an insignificant minority and can be ignored without real consequence. We need to prove that wrong.

It will not stop us even as they( thebuniversiu, and PSAA) continue this strangle hold on us.. We will continue to fight on I order to return our university to its' alumni. Without the alumni, there would be no PSAA!

 

[psu00]

The recent changes in the bylaws remove power not only from Alumni Council members but also from you, as members of the Alumni Association. The recent change in the nominations process means that a faction of Alumni Council now has the final say about who gets on the ballot. Before, there were alternative pathways, meaning that if one was not approved by the Nominations Committee, one could get “approved” by 50 other association members and still be on the ballot. Now that is gone and you have to first past a litmus test in order to be allowed to volunteer to help govern the association of which you are a dues-paying member.

There is also a provision that by a majority vote of the Executive Board (composed of approximately 18 people), the number of council seats can be increased or decreased. After the contentiousness of this election, which resulted in two lawsuits filed by alumni against the alumni association, I would not be surprised to find that a decision is made that this general alumni election is “too expensive” or “too political” or something like that. I believe this is especially likely if the election results in more people who are willing to question the status quo.

I know that this is an uphill battle. They can try to ignore me at Council meetings. But they cannot ignore a large voter turnout. Elections have consequences. If this is the last one, let’s make it count

Keep at it Deb and keep urging all PSU alumni (in whatever sites/ individual alumni groups etc) to vote.