Interesting that the idea mentioned early on is to attract "better candidates", which could be deemed a slap at some people who have been elected and are currently serving. (define better? Those who agree and don't voice different opinions out loud to the great unwashed?)
Then it switched to the vetting process, by a select committee, allowing some candidates who have gathered enough signatures to be summarily voted off the island before the Alumni at large get a chance to vote for them.
Then we heard about the need for highly qualified people who understand the challenges and complexities of running a huge (soon to be $10B) enterprise, which I totally agree with, but which also knocks out a number of former athletes who get in on name recognition (Nassib, Kreiger, e.g.)
The unsaid, but implied take away for me, is to tell the alumni they have a say via a democratic vote, but not necessarily for the entire slate of candidates who garnered enough signatures to be considered by the alumni as a whole. Those in charge get to select a slate of alumni candidates who think and vote like them, and the voting alumni either like it or don't bother voting. Soon enough, we would see a couple thousand votes cast in total, rather than the already relatively small number of a 10-15,000. But the Stepford candidates would be elected, and that will be for the betterment of us all, apparently.
The most cringe-worthy moment, imo... 'Barry, put yourself on mute and don't speak until I call on you'. Goodness. They want no dissenting thoughts or opinions unless it's within a deviation of about 3 millimeters from what they want. Barry was practically begging for a thorough discussion of key points, and was told it already happened, take our word for it.
www.psu.edu
