Spanier's pay shameful
Just as it seems that there can be no more shocking news to emanate from Penn State University than that which has emerged over the past two years, the public is hit with the bombshell that disgraced former PSU President Graham Spanier was the highest-paid college president in the United States within his last year of service, making off with a stunning $2.9 million compensation package, this provided by an institution that has sought to keep the public in the dark about all significant expenditures.
A university that can afford to pay a king's ransom such as this is one that is not in need of public money or deserving of its tax exemption, and an individual who could abscond with student tuition and taxpayer dollars to the tune of $2.9 million is one whose character and integrity are nil. The payday for Spanier is all the more unseemly in light of the panoply of criminal charges of which he stands accused and the very real possibility that he allowed a child rapist to operate unfettered so the school and its exalted football program would not suffer any adverse publicity.
Graham Spanier has provided another striking example to demonstrate that one need not work in the private sector to become fabulously wealthy. He and those who agreed to provide him with compensation that is about seventy times the average weekly wage in Pennsylvania should be ashamed.
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- EPA not the problem
- Law applies to drillers, too
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- Speak up on illegals
- Quarantine quandary
- The real big spenders
- Can’t go it alone
- Gruber, then & now I
- Voting insanity
- Election in review I
- Enforce immigration laws