The Lions' Pride

Looks like the Mountain West Conference will be discussing Emmert's future.

The sec, pac12 and big ten are where?

@ScottPaterno: Having looked at Ken Frazier's "apology" it is hardly one. He was anti-Semitic when he demeaned Bill. He needs to genuinely apologized.

Thoughts on this? Anti-Semitic? His comment appeared racially driven. Any Anti-defimation members on here?

Agreed. I'm Jewish and I am missing the anti-semitism there. There is certainly a racist-edge to the comment, but I don't get the anti-semitism.

Because the BOT paid Freeh upwards of $12 million. They're not going to rebuke anything in it. At least not Frazier, Peetz, Surma and ones like them.

Posted this on twitter, the full Lettermen press conference:

StateCollege.com ‏@StateCollegecom

Watch: Penn State Lettermen Press Conference: http://ow.ly/j67kk

Yudichak Questions PSU BOT Members at Senate Committee Hearing

HARRISBURG, March 18, 2013 – - State Sen. John Yudichak (D-Luzerne/Carbon/Monroe) issued the following statement at the conclusion of today’s Senate State Government Committee public hearing that featured testimony from members of the Penn State University Board of Trustees.

“Throughout Senate Appropriations Committee budget hearings and again today at the State Government Committee hearing, I had an opportunity to question members of the Penn State Board of Trustees about the questionable actions taken before and after the Sandusky scandal. As a proud member of the Penn State family, I remain disappointed that the Board of Trustees appears more committed to ‘moving on’ than it is to fully assessing the scandal, deliberating on recommendations from all quarters, and ultimately “getting it right” for the Sandusky victims and the University.”

“I appreciate the Board members’ willingness to participate in today’s hearing and the recent work of the Board’s Committee and Governance and Long-Range Planning to advance governance reforms. However, the Governance Committee has side-stepped critical issues related to the size of the board and the selection of Building & Industry trustees. Furthermore, the proposed reform that would allow the majority of the Board to remove a trustee who speaks out against board actions is a very troubling sign that the Board of Trustees has not heard our concerns about the insular nature of board control.”

“We must continue to have open and honest conversations about the mishandling of the Sandusky scandal and the glaring missteps taken in the commission and use of the Freeh report. We need to continue to demand more answers from the Board on how they will address the shortcoming of the Freeh report, its cost to the University and the broad implications of the harsh NCAA sanctions.”

“As we move forward and discuss legislation and proposals to change the structure of board governance at Penn State University and all other state-related universities across the Commonwealth, we need to make certain that the nature and size of all boards does not again lead to an issue where the ultimate power is delegated to the university president. It has been proven time and time again that certain board structures lend themselves to failure and as we deliberate changing this structure, we must avoid those structures and ensure that all decisions made and contracts entered by all boards of governance protect the best interests of the university and its students.”

I had not heard this. How sad is it that the board is so insecure that they feel a need to vote any dissension off the board. Everyone must agree with the BS the executive committee wants or get off the bus. Fighting bull $hit

Is this going to happen - did the rule pass that they could possibly vote out somebody like Lubrano??

I believe it is part of the proposed changes to be voted on at the May meeting.

Oh, and if you are not aware, there is a serious power issue on the BOT. It is thought that all of the proposed changes will pass.

So, do we the alumni have no power to stop this?

Lubrano killed it yesterday. The Senate panel seemed really concerned with the many issues he raised. In particular, they found it very disconcerting that the BOT might attempt to institute the "Lubrano Rule," especially for members who were elected (and serve only a three year term).

For decades the PSU BOT has been a sham. The B&I positions were offered as rewards for donations or political favors, the Alumni seats were filled will people who wanted to pad their resumes and were more than happy to let the power players do all the work, and the rest of the members did next to nothing. People want to claim that Joe had too much power, but the truth is that the BOT, who has ultimate control over the university, was managed by a very small group of corporate politicians that cared more about their pensions than they ever cared about Penn State.

If it takes legislation to get changes, so be it. It would be best if they could do it themselves, but it's just not in their nature to admit anything they did wasn't right. At this point and at no point in the past was this ever about Penn State to them. It's been about themselves. Now, everything that has happened has just polarized their stance even more. Now it's an "us versus them" mentality and they will dig their heels in just out of spite like too many US politicians. We need to get these self-serving cowards out and get people who will actually follow through on their fiduciary duty to PSU in. I'm not sure anything other than a full cleaning can right this mess at this point. The Governor shouldn't "own" as many seats as he does, the B&I process needs to be MUCH more transparent. The way it stands, the B&I folks get to pick the new B&I folks so it has become a good ol' boys club and nothing more. so much corruption...