Sweet deals: Bitter tastes |

Sweet deals: Bitter tastes

If you have any remaining doubts that the “benefits” associated with “public” universities are totally out of whack, we commend for your sobering consideration the following:

• Fired California University of Pennsylvania President Angelo Armenti Jr. likely is headed to court to challenge his dismissal by the State System of Higher Education. Charges and countercharges are flying.

But what struck us in particular is the fact that Mr. Armenti says his employment contract required that he be notified six months in advance of any firing. What legal beagle in the state system signed off on that idiocy?

• Then there’s Joe Paterno’s “pension.” All manner of rationalization is being employed in defense of the late Penn State football coach’s $13.4 million pension:

“Mr. Paterno was a great guy.” “He was an institution.” “He was underpaid.” ($1 million annually is “underpaid”?) “Well, he did work for Penn State for 61 years.” “Hey, that’s the system.”

Well, “the system,” in this case, the State Employees’ Retirement System, is out of whack. And no matter how great a guy Paterno was, no matter his stature (questioned with the Jerry Sandusky scandal) and no matter the length of his service, no college football coach warrants a $13.4 million public pension.

Employment in Pennsylvania’s public and “quasi-public” universities is rife with cushy contracts filled with pay, perks and protections that mock taxpayers. It’s an obscenity that must be stopped. And if our “leaders” won’t do it, mark our words, a public that’s had more than enough will.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.