The Lions' Pride

Bottomline is we're stuck. Unless the PA legislature changes the composition of the board. Frazier, Peetz, Masser, Silvis, Surma, and co... are in charge. So things aren't going to change. Sadly this BOT willingly and callously destroyed our reputation.

Of course Frazier is taking that stance. He has no other option, and these comments should be expected.

Will be interesting to find out what zeiglar has up his sleeve.

I was asked recently on another message board about my thoughts involving the alumni bloc of trustees effecting change. This is what I told him--

I’m a sucker for optimism, so I'll begin by admitting that. A reasonably intelligent person can't go into teaching without the belief that positive things can be achieved--that one can make a difference in the lives of (in my case) teenagers.

Here's how I see the prospects for improvement in the power dynamics of the BOT. Right now there are probably three trustees on the side of the alumni--and the best interests of the University. The last three voted in. Mr. Lubrano is a rock star: he's willing to really put himself out there, and seems to have excellent "political" instincts. McCombie and Taliaferro are basically with him, but are clearly not comfortable with a public role. Anthony needs other trustees willing to step up and speak with him--either literally with him or in similar ways. By himself, he can be dismissed by our adversaries as a lone firebrand representing a small minority of disgruntled alums (which is garbage, but that's what can been said). If other trustees are willing to stand with him--and in a couple of cases SPEAK about the issues as he has done--he won't be so easily dismissed. Nor will the alumni perspective on what this BOT has done, and failed to do.

If we can get three strong candidates in this election, we will have six on our side, and they can begin to work in concert to encourage those on the board who have defaulted to the Business and Industry power bloc to consider an alternative. How did letting the B & I folks have their way work out for Penn State? We can begin with that, and if three more strong candidates are elected in 2014, we will have NINE to work with. We don't need another Lubrano to accomplish positive change on the BOT--and there may not be another one available anyway. However, we need people who are unafraid to present a public face, and have the energy and time to be advocates for the University. www.facebook.com/DavidMullaly4PSUTrustee

NOTE: We are still encouraging Penn Staters who care about reforming the Penn State Board of Trustees to consider attending the PA Senate hearing next Monday morning at 10:30. Jim Broadhurst--one of the trustees who most deserves to be ousted--will be providing the power bloc's view of the changes they'd like to see, and Anthony Lubrano will be addressing the same issue later in the hearing. If you have questions, let me know.

Well that sucks.

EDIT: Maybe not.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/03/penn_states_governance_and_boa.html

*Attachement link not working.

That would certainly help explain Frazier's comments today.....re-writing the the purpose of the Freeh report. (From finding out what happened, who, and how the system failed) --- to a story only focused on structural reform....no need to know the truth.

Frazier is basically saying that it does not matter who or how the system failed....only that we need to implement the reco's.

I counter this claim by saying, "without the truth, we cannot move on with reforms that protect children & limit the likelihood of this happening in the future."

Unless you know who, how, and what broke......how can you possibly 'solve' the problem?

It's all about cya. Hell his company killed a lot of people and they covered it up. He's a master at the cover up. That's why he hired his friend/colleague Louis Freeh in the first place.

No, he does not have PSUs best interest in mind and is an asshat.

Apparently he went off on a rant after the media left. Pulled out the race card while he was at it.

https://twitter.com/mikedawsoncdt/status/312339042186448896

Follow this guy's tweets.. He has the exchange.

Yes, too many different events/topics to combine them all in one thread (although I understand why the approach was tried).

I posted this in the trock thread a couple of minutes ago:

The fact that we have strong opinions from those in favor of one thread and those strongly against it is the reason why this board is great -- differing opinions, both supported well.

Like I said in the original thread, the idea is to not clutter up the board. Let's try "opening it up" so that we can talk about more specific topics (I'll keep the all-purpose thread pinned for now), but if it gets to the point where we're looking at a half-dozen different threads per day on essentially the same thing, the locks will come back.

Use your judgement; if you're about to start a new thread or post an article, ask yourself if it really needs to be separate or can be folded into one of the others.

In summation -- we're removing the "one thread" limit, but will return to it if we have to. PM me with questions or to discuss either side further.

Audio of the Frazier meltdown.

And I thought he was an ahole before this came out, lol. Everything this guy says is ridiculous.