My limited understanding is that whistleblower protections apply to internal reporting and reporting to appropriate government agencies. There’s limited to no protection for airing negative opinions directly to the public, correct?How is that different from any non-disparagement clause? I work under those agreements all the time. They basically prevent one party from talking crap about another party, with certain legally protected carveouts.
Correct. Any disclosures required by law are protected, but malicious statements about the other party are not. The consequences for such are usually described in the agreement (typically termination and perhaps legal action).My limited understanding is that whistleblower protections apply to internal reporting and reporting to appropriate government agencies. There’s limited to no protection for airing negative opinions directly to the public, correct?
Private organizations can impose such clauses. When the government or its agencies do, it becomes a First Amendment question.How is that different from any non-disparagement clause? I work under those agreements all the time. They basically prevent one party from talking crap about another party, with certain legally protected carveouts.
None of that has anything at all to do with any issues in the pending litigation, just to be clear.Correct. Any disclosures required by law are protected, but malicious statements about the other party are not. The consequences for such are usually described in the agreement (typically termination and perhaps legal action).
Anybody catch the drama at Michigan State? President left for Clemson after MSU tried to increase his salary substantially. He said the BOT was the issue and left for less.
Anybody catch the drama at Michigan State? President left for Clemson after MSU tried to increase his salary substantially. He said the BOT was the issue and left for less.
”But a 5-3 majority on the board voted in a special May 17 meeting to approve the salary hike as well as a revised code of ethics and conduct aimed at creating unity.”
Eight trustees.![]()
Is the Penn State BOT an agency of the PA state government?Private organizations can impose such clauses. When the government or its agencies do, it becomes a First Amendment question.
Another raise for Neeli seems to be warranted. She’s there.
![]()
That is what efficiency looks like. If there were more the vote may have failed. Why bring in all that dead weight?
”But a 5-3 majority on the board voted in a special May 17 meeting to approve the salary hike as well as a revised code of ethics and conduct aimed at creating unity.”
Eight trustees.![]()
No, of course not.Is the Penn State BOT an agency of the PA state government?
That is what efficiency looks like. If there were more the vote may have failed. Why bring in all that dead weight?
It is inseparable from PSU, which may or may not be, depending on who you ask, day of the week. Courts will decide in this case.Is the Penn State BOT an agency of the PA state government?
Thank you, Dr. Bendapudi. Just remember that the next time you ask Harrisburg for money.No, of course not.
Not that she hasn't already tried.Dr Neeli doesn’t really care about Harrisburg. She’ll be long gone or either on her way out with bags packed shortly before PSU realizes it’s in a financial crisis
View attachment 1305117
How about a little extra cash for Rod Erickson too! Why would anyone donate to this mismanagement. At least Pat Kraft is still there!