PSU BOT Alumni Elections Slate:
- Thread starter PSUFTG
- Start date
"All gave some, some gave all" is another saying
but sadly, many have given nothing at all
Isn’t that the point of a large and diverse BOT? To sort of represent and promote different interests and ideas? That said, for about four to five straight years we voted folks in whose primary platform was to redeem Joe Paterno (not saying this isn’t worthwhile). I personally don’t think transparency, inclusion, diversity, and promoting climate resiliency are at odds with running a university, but opinions vary.
That Harvard stopped investing in fossil fuels seems like a big win for the group (assuming they had much of anything to do with it). I don’t know what a similar effect would be at Penn State but something similar would be good with me. Again, Penn State isn’t Harvard….
I believe the point of a large bot is to have a power bloc that controls everything while appearing to value all points of view.
As for diversity, there’s functional diversity and appearance diversity. Not calling you out, but many people seem to think that appearance diversity will lead to functional diversity. That obviously is not true, but that doesn’t really matter because functional is in the eye of the beholder and doing things right is hard and a lot of work. Appearance diversity is easy to “measure” and makes some people feel good about themselves.
Don’t disagree - but, with a group like this, do you think ‘appearance’ diversity will cut it? I mean, wanting this stuff and implementing it in any kind of meaningful way are two very different ambitions. I’m just saying I don’t mind the effort.
To put it bluntly, I feel appearance diversity, which is what many are driving at in the name of diversity of ideas, skills, etc., is bullsh|t. Checking a diversity box by focusing on appearances in no way guarantees that an organization will be better. It will just look different. Sadly, for many, that’s enough.
I’m not sure you can guarantee ‘any’ decision, program, board, committee, policy, etc. will make a university better. Right now they do whatever they want and if the goal is to make Penn State ‘better’ they’re failing. Are they making money and adding to their coffers? Absolutely. To DavidM’s point - it doesn’t matter much anyway because as you noted, 9 elected trustees can’t do anything without support from the rest of the board because they have no leverage. We’ve mostly elected antagonistic trustees with a single agenda. Even Barry - who I think is great and got my vote - has an agenda (but at least it’s worthwhile). Do we want to keep doing this?
The problem is that PSU has one overarching priority: erasing the perennial nine-figure budget deficits. Otherwise, yinz're fu@ked. Haven't seen much progress made or any candidates articulating anything more than lip-service.
Is anyone - on the BoT - actively working to erase it? Other than Barry?
Not that I can tell. I've seen almost no indication that the folks driving the bus have any sense of direction. Maybe they can hold a seance and summon the ghost of Ned Litchfield.
I don't think it is necessarily a question of what is or isn't popular with whatever demographic (lets face it, whatever issue one brings up is going to have is supporters or detractors - in most cases some of each will be very ardent).At least they have a platform - I know DEI/inclusion/LGBTQ+ rights and climate resilience (among other initiatives they support) aren't popular here and it's unlikely they'll be able to move the needle on any of it anyway, but at least you know what you have with them (and none are part of any NIL efforts as far as I can tell). That said, Short supports one candidate who is not part of the PS Forward slate so you can vote for him without much heartburn...
I think kg hit the situation regarding the Boarding School folks and University Boards pretty square.
Last edited:
Don't know if you are referring to Yale. It hasn't eliminated alumni-elected trustees, but rather the ability to get on the ballot by petition (candidates are selected by a nominating committee). But, yes, the reason of The Yale Corporation to effect that change was to weed out candidates who focued entirely on their single issue at the expense of their fiduciary responsibility.
Not at odds with, necessarily--but perhaps they shouldn't be the primary focus. I'm also not sure that "one size fits all" as seems to be the case with the proposals of this group. They are running as a bloc, and they are running the exact same platform in all of the universities they are attempting to influence.
Well, they’re cross/cutting issues that aren’t university specific and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anything like this coordinated across universities. Still, we voted in nine straight members with the exact same agenda, so not totally unusual.
It wasn't a national agenda and many of their points did have to do with the governance and finances of the university. It's not the bloc voting I'm objecting to. I just want trustees who are looking out for the interests of the university first.
I decided that the best way to see who really cares about doing the job is to see who showed up for BOT meetings when they didn't have to. You don't understand the dynamics until you actually have to sit through one of those torture sessions.
I tried to find emails for the Penn State Forward candidates but there's just one general email so I sent the question to that. The question, paraphrased: how many BOT meetings have your candidates attended since they graduated (and if they attended while students count those too). Here's the answer:
"Since graduating, Melinda, Uma, and Ali have supported the University community in myriad ways: Melinda mentors and advises Penn State Law and the Department of Political Science students. Uma serves on Smeal's Sustainability Advisory Council and has partnered with Schreyer staff and Smeal student organizations. Ali has stayed connected to Penn State Athletics, particularly the women's soccer team, and returns to Happy Valley regularly to speak with students.
They've been attending meetings virtually for around a year, but their work preparing to run for the Board transcends attending meetings. While they've been active members of the Penn State community since graduating, they've heard from students, staff, faculty, and alumni about the need for high-level support for democratic decision-making, climate-related education and research, support for athletes, and more. Beyond that, they've been speaking with former and current trustees and digging through institutional archives (including past Board meeting recordings) to work with our policy lead, Taran Samarth '23, to construct the 2023 policy platform. Through this, they've built coalitions and connections across the University—they're ready to leverage these to initiate institutional change if elected!
Nora"
Nora is The Boarding School's point person for Penn State and she's the candidates handler.
I tried to find emails for the Penn State Forward candidates but there's just one general email so I sent the question to that. The question, paraphrased: how many BOT meetings have your candidates attended since they graduated (and if they attended while students count those too). Here's the answer:
"Since graduating, Melinda, Uma, and Ali have supported the University community in myriad ways: Melinda mentors and advises Penn State Law and the Department of Political Science students. Uma serves on Smeal's Sustainability Advisory Council and has partnered with Schreyer staff and Smeal student organizations. Ali has stayed connected to Penn State Athletics, particularly the women's soccer team, and returns to Happy Valley regularly to speak with students.
They've been attending meetings virtually for around a year, but their work preparing to run for the Board transcends attending meetings. While they've been active members of the Penn State community since graduating, they've heard from students, staff, faculty, and alumni about the need for high-level support for democratic decision-making, climate-related education and research, support for athletes, and more. Beyond that, they've been speaking with former and current trustees and digging through institutional archives (including past Board meeting recordings) to work with our policy lead, Taran Samarth '23, to construct the 2023 policy platform. Through this, they've built coalitions and connections across the University—they're ready to leverage these to initiate institutional change if elected!
Nora"
Nora is The Boarding School's point person for Penn State and she's the candidates handler.
Their work "transcends meeting!?!?" Honestly, a response that none of the candidates attended BoT meetings is understandable. The supercilious response you received is disqualifying.
Consider the upside of Jay and Lubrano not being re-elected. They'll have more time to raise money for NIL.What’a the definition of insanity?
Happy voting!
You left out "they've built coalitions and connections across the University—they're ready to leverage these to initiate institutional change if elected!". I like ranch dressing on my word salad, thanks. Is there a woke-speak Scrabble I'm not aware of?
And yup, totally disqualifying.
How many votes do these "coalitions" and "connections" have on the BoT?
Don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Total word salad. But what’s so “woke” about this slate of candidates?
Last edited:
Mauti has ~ 25,000 Twitter followers.
Jay has ~ 48,000 followers.
Pope and Lubrano don’t have accounts as far as I can tell.
Krieger has ~ 830,000 followers.
Jay has ~ 48,000 followers.
Pope and Lubrano don’t have accounts as far as I can tell.
Krieger has ~ 830,000 followers.
Good.
Folks should also check their SPAM (it often goes there)
As for myself, once again - no ballot.
For folks like myself, who don't receive a ballot... go here to request one:
2023 Alumni Trustee Election Ballot Request (office.com)
You may also find - if you did receive a ballot, that the link to vote is broken.
In that case, these instructions are supposed to work:
Office of the Board of Trustees | (psu.edu)
I know, I know. Alas.
Wow - can’t believe someone made that.
Voted and got the receipt - you guys are gonna love having @BobPSU92 on the board!
There is a significant portion of our society that feels that no matter how inane your "take" may be - even if it is 180 degrees from anything resembling truth or intelligent reason - the key is to say it often enough, loud enough, and in the most simplistic way possible (the dumber the better), and you can control the masses.
It is what it is.
Alas.
Bob is having afternoon tea service at meetings - not globs of onion dip! You’re welcome.
