Merck Tries To Control Frazier’s Racist Comments


On the morning of March 17, 2013 – before Frazier’s apology had run in the CDT – a user with the screen name “BroadSt Bully” restored a paragraph that had been deleted 2 days before describing Frazier’s role in hiring Louis Freeh and firing Joe Paterno.  BroadSt Bully also added a paragraph about the racially insensitive comment made by Frazier 3 days earlier:
On March 14, 2013, at a sub-committee meeting of the Penn State Board of Trustees, Frazier uttered a racist and bigoted remark at a candidate running for the Board of Trustees who criticized the Freeh narrative.
BroadSt Bully also removed the qualifier “blue ribbon” which described the Special Investigative Task Force (“commission”).  12 hours later, a user identified only by his IP address 67.165.19.29 removed both of those paragraphs.  This IP address traces back to a Comcast user in Doylestown, PA.  3 hours later, a user in the Netherlands (possibly an administrator) restored the paragraphs with the qualifying edit note:
“The previous edit deleted balancing material that provides criticism of the figure in question. Wikipedia articles are not “fluff pieces” that say only positive things”
 Approximately 14 hours later (11:54 18 March 2013), the previous user once again deleted these 2 paragraphs.  40 minutes later, they were restored by an admin in Connecticut.

Merck Corporate Works on the Cover-up

 An hour later a user identified by the IP address 155.91.28.231 once again removed those paragraphs.  However, this IP address traced back to a corporate ISP:  Merck.
General IP Information
Top of Form
IP:
155.91.28.231
Decimal:
2606439655
Hostname:
155.91.28.231
ISP:
Organization:
Merck and Co.
Services:
Type:
Assignment:
Blacklist:
Bottom of Form
Geolocation Information
Country:
United States <!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>
State/Region:
New Jersey
City:
Old Bridge
Latitude:
40.3958  (40° 23′ 44.88″ N)
Longitude:
-74.3255  (74° 19′ 31.80″ W)
Area Code:
732
Postal Code:
08857
And then the internet sparks began to fly.  Over the next 3 hours, users would attempt to restore those 2 paragraphs, only to be deleted within minutes by the Merck user. 
At 14:03 user “Cornmd” restores the 2 paragraphs.  14:15 the Merck IP address deletes them.
 At 14:16 user “Ubiquity” restores the 2 paragraphs.  14:21 the Merck IP address deletes them. 
 At 14:22 user “BroadSt Bully” restores the 2 paragraphs.  14:22 the Merck IP address deletes them. 
 User “Arctic Kangaroo” tries to restore the paragraphs and within minutes, the Merck IP address deletes them.  Arctic Kangaroo restores the content at 14:25, at which point the content is temporarily removed for discussion by “Edgar181” at 14:31.
 At 14:39 BroadSt Bully restores the content with the edit note:  “Re-added sourced material. User’s IP address traces to Merck, who is Frazier’s employer”
At 14:57 BroadSt Bully adds titles to the 2 paragraphs “Jerry Sandusky sex scandal” and “Racially insensitive outburst.”
At 15:30 the Merck user deletes themOver the next 2 hours, the Merck user makes 5 more attempts to delete content, and add flattering career highlights for Ken Frazier, until an admin warns him that he is violating 4 different Wikipedia terms of service.  Five minutes later, the Wikipedia admins lock down edits of the Wikipedia page. Two hours later, the Merck user is blocked for one month from editing ANY web pages. 
This was not the first time this user was blocked by Wikipedia.  Here is the discipline history of 155.91.28.231 which warranted the one month penalty for “disruptive editing”:
 21:53, 18 March 2013 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) blocked 155.91.28.231 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Disruptive editing)
  22:21, 10 July 2012 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked 155.91.28.231 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Copyright violations)
  20:11, 7 November 2008 RoySmith (talk | contribs) blocked 155.91.28.231 (talk) (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated reversion of text to Yak shaving contrary to prior AFD decision)
  22:13, 25 January 2006 Hall Monitor (talk | contribs) blocked 155.91.28.231 (talk) with an expiry time of 48 hours (massive content removal)
  21:00, 1 December 2005 Brian0918 (talk | contribs) blocked 155.91.28.231 (talk) with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalisms)

Previous edit on Freeh Report entry on Frazier’s wiki page

Interesting to note Ken Frazier’s Wikipedia page had a previous edit disputed.
 On October 21, 2012, a user named “Callancc” described the Freeh report as being accepted “without review, but was reported to be riddled with conjecture, research with gaping holes, and unsubstantiated conclusions.”  It was revised on November 5, 2012 by an IP address from Boston University to say the Freeh report was accepted “and used as the basis for the NCAA sanctions against Penn State.” With the edit note:
“The last sentence was ridiculously partisan, clearly there only to attempt to discredit the Freeh report which was widely seen as fair and thoroughly done.”)
The Merck user created an account on Wikipedia on October 10, 2005 and spent most of his early time updating the Wikipedia pages of Ann Coulter and Ron Dellums (a long time member of the House of Representatives from California, who became the Mayor of Oakland in 2007).

Controlling the PSU Narrative

Ken Frazier’s comments to Bill Cluck had been widely  but they never reached a global audience until they were posted in Wikipedia.
There is a dogged determination from this Merck user to remove this content from Wikipedia.  In addition, the Merck IT team has been hard at work over the weekend to bury any negative articles circulating about Frazier on the internet and pumping up his bio and other positive articles as they appear in google searches.  Once again, it appears that Frazier is trying to control the narrative by controlling the information available to the public.
Which begs the question, what audience is he really trying to control?
Posted by at 8:20 AM

Questionable Governance Reforms for Penn State Board of Trustees


The board is considering a change to its standing orders that would allow for the removal of a trustee who violates his or her fiduciary duty or the expectations of board membership.

For instance, board members will be expected to support board decisions and not speak out against them. They will be prohibited from acting on his or her own behalf. And they will need to fulfill their donation pledges to Penn State on a timely basis.

When Lubrano heard on Friday the proposed changes, which originated in a governance committee, he asked if these were being dubbed the “Lubrano rule.”

Trustee Linda Strumpf appeared to give Lubrano a cross look, and she mouthed something at the same time as her gesture, but it was not clear what it was.

Lubrano said he wanted all the trustees held to the same standards.

Lubrano also brought up the idea of requiring trustees to go through criminal background checks, something the university implemented as one of Louis Freeh’s 119 recommendations.

The governance reforms were brought up during Friday’s board meeting for a fuller discussion by all 32 trustees. Lubrano was the only one who made comments.

James Broadhurst, the governance committee chairman, will head to Harrisburg on Monday to testify before a Senate committee hearing about the reforms.

Lettermen Plan to “ROAST” the Board of Trustees


Some 30 Penn State lettermen are planning to roast the university’s board of trustees at their meeting Friday afternoon in Hershey.

The lettermen have registered to speak during the public comment period during the meeting, and they plan to hold a press conference after the meeting.

“We want to look the trustees in the eyes and tell them that their actions over the last 16 months have brought great harm upon Penn State, our beloved program and the innocent players and coaches who now occupy our locker room,” Brian Masella, a tight end and punter from 1971 to 1975, said in a statement.

The meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. in Room 302 of the University Fitness and Conference Center at Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center.

The players hope to secure all 10 slots during the public comment session in the hope of persuading the trustees to reconsider the conclusions of the Freeh report and the unprecedented NCAA sanctions.

The board just began offering a public comment period this academic year, and university spokesman David La Torre said the “(b)oard looks forward to hearing from all parties who will speak.”

“Now that Sue Paterno has come forward with the exceptional and thorough work of Gov. Dick Thornburgh, FBI expert Jim Clemente and attorney Wick Sollers, we stand united with her and her family in decrying the absurd conclusions of Louis Freeh,” the players said in a news release. “He didn’t know Joe.

“We knew Joe.”

The players’ statement said the trustees should have had the courage to speak to Paterno in November 2011 before forcing him out as the coach.

Trustee and former Nittany Lion lettermen Paul Suhey disputed that Paterno was fired and said the coach was “retired three weeks early.”

Suhey said the board regrets that it was carried out by a phone call.

“People are still so hurt by that, and you know, damn it, we screwed it up,” Suhey said.

The terms are up this year for Suhey and fellow alumni trustee Stephanie Deviney, who are facing a hostile environment for re-election.

Shame on Paul Suhey and Stephanie Deviney


Penn State trustee Paul Suhey admits relieving Joe Paterno of his head coaching duties in November 2011 over a late-night phone call was not the right tact. Stephanie Deviney, another trustee, is certain the whole board feels that way.“We apologize, we screwed it up as far as how we delivered the message,” Suhey said Friday in an interview. “Our decision, we’re not going to go back on. But we messed that up big time.“People are still so hurt by that, and you know, damn it, we screwed it up.”The Paterno decision will go down in the annals as the trigger of when Penn State alumni and diehard fans turned against the board, and the anger has not relented. They email the trustees, write letters — even call them out in advertisements in this newspaper. But, four trustees, in an interview with the Centre Daily Timeseditorial board, said they are committed to turning the corner, opening up and building on the progress the university has already seen in responding in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky abuse scandal. The trustees — Suhey, Deviney, board Chairman Keith Masser and Paul Silvis — said they hope the university community will meet them in the middle as part of moving forward.

Editor note:  It took them a year and a half to say this?? Shame, shame, shame on them.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/03/10/3532643/penn-state-trustees-were-trying.html#storylink=cpy

for more information on John Surma‘s role in destroying Joe Paterno, go to:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-931816

Penn State’s cost for the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal has exceeded $27 million.


CDT staff reports

According to a university news release, Penn State has spent $27,663,423 for legal fees, consultants and public relations firms associated with the Sandusky case. That total is from Nov. 30, 2012, the most recent figures available.

Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant coach who was convicted June 22 on 45 counts of child sex abuse, is serving 30 to 60 years in state prison.

The university updates its costs each month. The  previous amount was almost $21 million. Some of the fees and costs set forth below are expected to be reimbursed under the Penn State’s insurance policies, the university said.

Among the costs are $13 million for an internal investigation and communications, which included Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan/Pepper Hamilton; Daniel J. Edelman; The Academy Group; KPMG; Ketchum; Reed Smith; Kekst and Co.; Domus Inc.; and TAI.

The university’s legal services and defense spending was $7.4 million.

Those costs included payments to Saul Ewing; Duane Morris; Lanny J. Davis and Associates; Jenner & Block; ML Strategies; Lee, Green & Reiter; McQuaide Blasko; Document Technologies; White and Williams; and Feinberg Rozen.

Among the legal services is $1.3 million for external investigations; $3.9 million for indemnified persons’ legal defense; and $1.8 million for “other institutional expenses.”

The university said that it takes 40-45 days before the university receives invoices for a specific month.

Be Involved! Participate in Electing Three More Trustees!


PSU Board of Trustees

I would appreciate your support! 

       june 20 2010 226  
A Note from Myke

Dear Fellow PSU Alumni,

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to be a part of this year’s board of trustee elections.   Many challenges lie ahead in these economic times, including slashes in funding from the state which results in higher tuition costs for the next generation.  Navigating a path through what is necessary and in the best interests of the state, it’s citizens, and the university is of utmost importance.  Economic concerns as well as serving as a moral standard bearer and educational example and leader for the local, state, and national communities all must be top priorities.  Being Penn State Proud is more than a slogan–it is a tradition and responsibility we all uphold.  When we say “We Are Penn State”–we speak as acommunity who stands as one voice.
The Alumni Office at Penn State has sent you a link to place a name in nomination for election to the board.   If you are not a member of the Alumni Association or a contributor to the Penn State Fund, you must request a ballot by sending your full name, year of graduation, major, address and current email, so that the alumni office can verify your eligibility to vote.  You can send that information to bot@psu.edu and they will send you an email letting you know that you are verified as bona fide PSU graduate.  Please share this information with other PSU graduates you know.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at PennStateMyke@aol.com.
Thanks you in advance for being involved.
In support of the Blue and White,
Myke Atwater Triebold PSU, class of ’72 (B.S., Health & P.E) & ’82 (A.T.,C, Sports Medicine)

I am asking for your help in placing my name in nomination for the 2013 election!

Penn State Board of Trustees: Myke Promises To Give Her Blood, Sweat and Tears To Alma Mater


by    , www.statecollege.com  on March 26, 2012 10:25 AM

As an undergraduate at Penn State, Myke Triebold served as the original campus coordinator for the American Red Cross blood donation services. Under her leadership, she said, a once-defunct student organization increased its annual bloodmobile donations to 4,700 units a year from 400. The third-generation Penn Stater would go on to teach at the university and live in the State College area for 22 years.

“Penn State is in my blood,” she said. Now, Triebold is prepared to give her blood – sweat and tears, too – as a member of the Board of Trustees.

Currently a real-estate consultant in the Florida panhandle, Triebold said the decision to run for the board was an awakening, forcing her to ask herself how she could step up to the plate and make a difference. There’s no limit to issues she’d tackle: From improving student life to fixing current bylaws to dealing with the fallout from November, Triebold said she has the ability to best serve Penn State.

It has been troubling to watch a board that seems so closed off and what seems to be the lack of ability by members to speak freely, she said – comparable to a secret society.

“The recent events have pointed out to me that the university has a broken and outdated system that has consolidated power in a few that clearly has not always acted in the best interests of the entire university,” she said. “November ripped a scab off. Those who love Penn State are bleeding.”

Things need to change, she said, and that starts with a more transparent Board of Trustees. Triebold said she sat and watched in disbelief when no one else spoke up to explain the decision or answer questions on that fateful night in November.

“I would have been standing on the steps of Old Main handing out leaflets. Maybe I’d be fired, but by George, they’d know what happened. Bylaws be damned,” she said. “I’ve stood up to employers before, and it cost me two jobs. I’ve done that twice in my life, and I’m not afraid to do it again.”

One conversation Triebold says the board shouldn’t even entertain is the buzz suggesting Penn State go private, now that the governor has proposed deep cuts to funding – attempting to slice the university’s nearly in half. More responsible spending decisions can be made, she said, rather than hasty decisions.

“Penn State going private is just wrong. There’s no justification for it at all,” Triebold said. “We are the land-grant university – and that’s it.”

As former health-education instructor and gymnastics athletic trainer at Penn State and the wife of Buzz Triebold, Penn State’s director of environmental health and safety, Triebold realizes the importance of higher education and time spent at Penn State for the students. More emphasis needs to be placed on finding a way to offer students the highest-quality education at the lowest price, she said.

Her sticking point is change, and Triebold says she stands out where it matters to make a difference.

“I think we have enough lawyers and company presidents,” she said. “I want to be a representative voice on the board for the average person who has pride in the past, present and future of Penn State.”

Penn State should remain Land Grant, not Private


I am in complete, unequivocal, unwaivering support of Penn State remaining the land grant institution that it began as.  Penn State has a responsibility to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (who,by the way, provided the funds over the years to create and maintain the school) to remain as their one and only land grant school.  History, tradition and responsibility count.  I take great pride in the fact that I went to MY state university–and will fight vehemently to maintain that status as the prime educator for the taxpayers of Pennsylvania

Unfortunately, the current board seems to be looking for ways to destroy that status.  No wonder the state legislature is questioning whether we are THE state university or a private institution.  Now I know why they keep cutting funding to us–if the board is questioning our status why should Harrisburg not question it, and cut our funds accordingly–they must be thinking-okay, if they want to be private, go for it.  It seems as though the board just wants to be private so they can keep secrets from the citizens and taxpayers of the Commonwealth.

I am outraged that the board has gotten us all into this position!  If elected as a trustee, I will devote my time to exploring how we got here and how to change it so Penn State is no longer the most expensive State University in the country (a dubious distinction)!

Penn State alum’s baseball status at issue in trustee bid


March 09, 2012|By Susan Snyder, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Anthony Lubrano, who has been waging a high-profile campaign for an alumni seat on the Pennsylvania State University board of trustees, has been featured for years in the school’s baseball media guide as a four-time letter-winner from 1979 to 1982. And his application for trustee describes him as a “varsity baseball player at his alma mater.”

The problem is that Lubrano, 51, a major donor whose name is on Penn State’s baseball complex, acknowledges that he neither lettered nor played in an official game. He said in an interview Friday that he was only on the equivalent of the “practice squad.”

Hurdle rises for in-state students as colleges court out-of-staters


By Debra Erdley8:51 a.m. EST, March 4, 2012

March 04–With less state money coming in, Penn State and the University of Pittsburgh are bolstering their budgets by enrolling out-of-state students who pay higher tuition.

School records show the ratio of out-of-state freshmen at the universities‘ main campuses increased over the past decade, from 37 percent to 40 percent at Penn State and from 17 percent to 35 percent at Pitt. That coincides with a 27 percent reduction in subsidies for Pennsylvania‘s four state-related universities — Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln — since 2001-02.

Out-of-state students pay full tuition and fees; the state subsidizes resident tuition at the schools.

The difference, according to forms the universities submit to theU.S. Department of Education, is stunning: $24,680 a year for out-of-state undergraduate tuition at Pitt, compared to $15,272 for Pennsylvania residents; at Penn State, $27,206 for out-of-state students, compared to $15,124 for residents.

 

Source:  Allentown Morning Call