Report on PSU BOT Committee Meetings:

[PSUFTG2]

From the meetings the week of 1/15/24:

My comments from the Penn State Board of Trustees Committee Meetings January 18, 2024 – BARRY FENCHAK


There are, of course, limitations on some of the information I can share. Suffice to say, there is some very, very bad activity going on with the Governance Committee, along with some other disconcerting topics, IMO.

There will be another Board meeting this week (Monday afternoon) - but it will be closed off to the public (For reasons I do not know. Keep in mind, PSU is currently the defendant in a lawsuit in Centre County Court that concerns the illegal convening of secret meetings).
The next full Board meetings are then scheduled for mid-February - which should be a set of meetings densely packed with heavy topics. I will try and preview some of them when agendas are published - assuming agendas are provided by Board leadership (that has become a concern in recent weeks).

 

[GrimReaper]

From the meetings the week of 1/15/24:

My comments from the Penn State Board of Trustees Committee Meetings January 18, 2024 – BARRY FENCHAK


There are, of course, limitations on some of the information I can share. Suffice to say, there is some very, very bad activity going on with the Governance Committee, along with some other disconcerting topics, IMO.

There will be another Board meeting this week (Monday afternoon) - but it will be closed off to the public (For reasons I do not know. Keep in mind, PSU is currently the defendant in a lawsuit in Centre County Court that concerns the illegal convening of secret meetings).
The next full Board meetings are then scheduled for mid-February - which should be a set of meetings densely packed with heavy topics. I will try and preview some of them when agendas are published - assuming agendas are provided by Board leadership (that has become a concern in recent weeks).

So what is Julie Anna Potts's, hereinafter referred to as Ms. Meat, connection to PSU that causes her to be appointed a Trustee?

 

[PSUFTG2]

So what is Julie Anna Potts's, hereinafter referred to as Ms. Meat, connection to PSU that causes her to be appointed a Trustee?

Well:

There are 21 non-elected spots on the Board - like Potts'.

Of those 21 non-elected spots:
The folks in those seats - and the folks who preceded them in those seats - 20 of the 21 voted nothing but "Aye" to every single proposal ever placed before them by Administration or by Board leadership. Ever. Ever. Ever.

1 of those folks, once voted "No". Once (that was to a tuition increase a couple years back)

So... as to your question?
It would appear that the only qualifications desired by Board Leadership are:

1) Reflexively vote "Aye" to each and every proposal placed in front of them. Without exception, without question.

2) Be as disengaged as possible.

Based on current and historical composition, I have trouble identifying any other traits desired by Board Leadership.

 

[nittanyfan333]

are these non-elected positions lifetime appointments? i.e. is there any hope moving forward?

 

[PSUFTG2]

are these non-elected positions lifetime appointments? i.e. is there any hope moving forward?

Term limits = 12 years. Generally, most come up for "re-appointment" every three years - which is usually a rubber stamp unless someone decides to step down voluntarily.

TTBOMK, I am the only one who has voted "No" on any of the re-appointments (including for Board Chair Schuyler, who's most recent re-appointment was last year) . I don't recall the last time - other than my votes - when any re-appointments were not unanimous (but I'd have to check the longer-term records)
That is NOT "best practices" governance. Obviously.

 

[nittanyfan333]

also, admittedly I don't follow academic standards or requirements since I ain't no college boy (well, I DID get my degree over 7 years between deployments from the Yale of the internet, American Military University) however this was a bit of a shock for me. Is this standard practice amongst multiple universities?

During the meeting, I raised an important issue regarding Penn State’s ongoing commitment to not requiring the submission of aptitude test scores (SATs, ACTs) in the admission process.

 

[PSU Mike]

Term limits = 12 years. Generally, most come up for "re-appointment" every three years - which is usually a rubber stamp unless someone decides to step down voluntarily.

TTBOMK, I am the only one who has voted "No" on any of the re-appointments (including for Board Chair Schuyler, who's most recent re-appointment was last year) . I don't recall the last time - other than my votes - when any re-appointments were not unanimous (but I'd have to check the longer-term records)
That is NOT "best practices" governance. Obviously.

Sounds like a basis for behavioral guidelines for Trustees …

 

[PSUFTG2]

also, admittedly I don't follow academic standards or requirements since I ain't no college boy (well, I DID get my degree over 7 years between deployments from the Yale of the internet, American Military University) however this was a bit of a shock for me. Is this standard practice amongst multiple universities?

It is no longer unusual - though there has been recent blowback, and some universities are starting to reverse course.

It all started at the "elites" (Ivies and what not) - generally prefaced by them taking the position that standardized tests were "racist".
The elites don't really need standardized tests - they have relatively small admissions numbers, and get 10 high quality applicants (all of whom have the intellectual ability to succeed) for every available space - and can take on very granular and thorough processes to evaluate each one w/o standardized tests as part of the portfolio.

Then some from the next level - the "flagship publics" - jumped on board (The folks who are PSU's cohorts). They, of course, process tens of thousands of applicants, and accept many thousands per year - and no way on God's Green Earth can robustly evaluate all of those applicants (ie, they NEED to look at standardized tests to have any chance to evaluate success characteristics). But they didn't care.
Then came the COVID year (during which there was a very real issue with kids being able to take standardized tests - since everything was "shut down") and many more joined the parade then (the class coming in for 2020-21). It was generally sold as a "temporary adjustment".... but many have kept it in place (including PSU).
I listed the various reasons why they did that on another thread, so I won't go back over that stuff here.

Then you have the lower level schools - many of whom basically "accept" everyone who applies. Obviously, if that is where they are at, no need for them to have evaluation parameters either.

 

[nittanyfan333]

It is no longer unusual - though there has been recent blowback, and some universities are starting to reverse course.

It all started at the "elites" (Ivies and what not) - generally prefaced by them taking the position that standardized tests were "racist".
The elites don't really need standardized tests - they have relatively small admissions numbers, and get 10 high quality applicants (all of whom have the intellectual ability to succeed) for every available space - and can take on very granular and thorough processes to evaluate each one w/o standardized tests as part of the portfolio.

Then some from the next level - the "flagship publics" - jumped on board (The folks who are PSU's cohorts). They, of course, process tens of thousands of applicants, and accept many thousands per year - and no way on God's Green Earth can robustly evaluate all of those applicants (ie, they NEED to look at standardized tests to have any chance to evaluate success characteristics). But they didn't care.
Then came the COVID year (during which there was a very real issue with kids being able to take standardized tests - since everything was "shut down") and many more joined the parade then (the class coming in for 2020-21). It was generally sold as a "temporary adjustment".... but many have kept it in place (including PSU).
I listed the various reasons why they did that on another thread, so I won't go back over that stuff here.

Then you have the lower level schools - many of whom basically "accept" everyone who applies. Obviously, if that is where they are at, no need for them to have evaluation parameters either.

i.e. the continued devaluation of a college degree.

Thanks Barry.

 

[LionsMD]

From the meetings the week of 1/15/24:

My comments from the Penn State Board of Trustees Committee Meetings January 18, 2024 – BARRY FENCHAK


There are, of course, limitations on some of the information I can share. Suffice to say, there is some very, very bad activity going on with the Governance Committee, along with some other disconcerting topics, IMO.

There will be another Board meeting this week (Monday afternoon) - but it will be closed off to the public (For reasons I do not know. Keep in mind, PSU is currently the defendant in a lawsuit in Centre County Court that concerns the illegal convening of secret meetings).
The next full Board meetings are then scheduled for mid-February - which should be a set of meetings densely packed with heavy topics. I will try and preview some of them when agendas are published - assuming agendas are provided by Board leadership (that has become a concern in recent weeks).

Is this “very, very bad activity” capable of being on the front page of the Wall Street Journal or the type of activity that only Penn Staters question and cringe?

 

[Midnighter]

From the meetings the week of 1/15/24:

My comments from the Penn State Board of Trustees Committee Meetings January 18, 2024 – BARRY FENCHAK


There are, of course, limitations on some of the information I can share. Suffice to say, there is some very, very bad activity going on with the Governance Committee, along with some other disconcerting topics, IMO.

There will be another Board meeting this week (Monday afternoon) - but it will be closed off to the public (For reasons I do not know. Keep in mind, PSU is currently the defendant in a lawsuit in Centre County Court that concerns the illegal convening of secret meetings).
The next full Board meetings are then scheduled for mid-February - which should be a set of meetings densely packed with heavy topics. I will try and preview some of them when agendas are published - assuming agendas are provided by Board leadership (that has become a concern in recent weeks).

Are you on any committees Barry?

 

[PSUFTG2]

Are you on any committees Barry?

Every trustee is on multiple committees - usually 3 or 4.
Except for me I have always been on just one (a committee which has never had a single "action item" on its agenda - at least as far back as I have seen).

EDIT: Terry Pegula might also be on just one committee.... of course, he has only been to 3 meetings, IIRC, in his 6 or 7 years on the Board

 

[StamfordBridgeVikingatLeftOffensiveTackle]

Every trustee is on multiple committees - usually 3 or 4.
Except for me I have always been on just one (a committee which has never had a single "action item" on its agenda - at least as far back as I have seen).

EDIT: Terry Pegula might also be on just one committee.... of course, he has only been to 3 meetings, IIRC, in his 6 or 7 years on the Board

That doesn't sound intentional to me, and I don't think that the continual references to the "Comprehensive Code of Conduct" are directed at you either.

 

[Midnighter]

Every trustee is on multiple committees - usually 3 or 4.
Except for me I have always been on just one (a committee which has never had a single "action item" on its agenda - at least as far back as I have seen).

EDIT: Terry Pegula might also be on just one committee.... of course, he has only been to 3 meetings, IIRC, in his 6 or 7 years on the Board

What is your committee?

 

[Metal Mike]

My understanding of how the BOT is configured. In the past several members of the BOT were elected by professional organizations. These Business and Industry Members were elected like the AG Members are currently elected. Some time in the past this changed. When Business and Industry Members left the board they nominated people to replace them. Then the Board voted and if approved the nominees became members. As I remember the American Society of Metals (ASM) was one of the professional organizations that elected members to the board. Since the Metal industry is not as important to Pennsylvania as it used to be ASM and other organizations lost this ability to appoint members. I believe this lead to the current board who appoint "friends" to the board. I think this is a major problem.

 

[BobPSU92]

Every trustee is on multiple committees - usually 3 or 4.
Except for me I have always been on just one (a committee which has never had a single "action item" on its agenda - at least as far back as I have seen).

EDIT: Terry Pegula might also be on just one committee.... of course, he has only been to 3 meetings, IIRC, in his 6 or 7 years on the Board

That doesn't sound intentional to me, and I don't think that the continual references to the "Comprehensive Code of Conduct" are directed at you either.

I’m sure it’s all just a misunderstanding.

 

[PSUFTG2]

My understanding of how the BOT is configured. In the past several members of the BOT were elected by professional organizations. These Business and Industry Members were elected like the AG Members are currently elected. Some time in the past this changed. When Business and Industry Members left the board they nominated people to replace them. Then the Board voted and if approved the nominees became members. As I remember the American Society of Metals (ASM) was one of the professional organizations that elected members to the board. Since the Metal industry is not as important to Pennsylvania as it used to be ASM and other organizations lost this ability to appoint members. I believe this lead to the current board who appoint "friends" to the board. I think this is a major problem.

Your recollections are correct.

I believe your concerns are well-placed as well.

 

[PSUFTG2]

What is your committee?

Academic Affairs.

The Chair of that Committee is Steve Wagman (Alum TTEE - up for re-election this year).
I don't recall a single action item ever being placed on the AA committee. It has been primarily (IMO) a series of Dog-and-Ponies. My suggestions/concerns vav actionable items - and having them placed on the agenda - have, thus far, been left unaddressed.

 

[BobPSU92]

Academic Affairs.

The Chair of that Committee is Steve Wagman (Alum TTEE - up for re-election this year).
I don't recall a single action item ever being placed on the AA committee. It has been primarily (IMO) a series of Dog-and-Ponies. My suggestions/concerns vav actionable items - and having them placed on the agenda - have, thus far, been left unaddressed.

Their affairs are academic.

 

[JohnJumba]

Is this “very, very bad activity” capable of being on the front page of the Wall Street Journal or the type of activity that only Penn Staters question and cringe?

The BoT has been a disgrace for a long time.

 

[PSUFTG2]

Despite laudatory statements about PSU's current fundraising excellence, the actual facts state something quite different.

Regardless of how well it may be received, the truth should still be presented.

Simply having the opportunity to be exposed to the truth is no sure-fire antidote to voluminous levels of gaslighting and propaganda emanating from PSU - but without the truth there is little hope. Important? Absolutely, especially as such information (or, lacking real information, propaganda) is used to skew decisions made, and the supposed decision makers are exposed to more propaganda and gaslighting than any other group.

Recently Completed Capital Campaigns (Philanthropy)
Big Ten Universities: The Truth (with links to the various campaign reports)

Penn State: $367 Million per Year: 9th of 11 recent campaigns, despite Penn State having the largest enrollment and largest alumni base of any Big Ten University

 

[Achowalogan]

Despite laudatory statements about PSU's current fundraising excellence, the actual facts state something quite different.

Regardless of how well it may be received, the truth should still be presented.

Simply having the opportunity to be exposed to the truth is no sure-fire antidote to voluminous levels of gaslighting and propaganda emanating from PSU - but without the truth there is little hope. Important? Absolutely, especially as such information (or, lacking real information, propaganda) is used to skew decisions made, and the supposed decision makers are exposed to more propaganda and gaslighting than any other group.

Recently Completed Capital Campaigns (Philanthropy)
Big Ten Universities: The Truth (with links to the various campaign reports)

Penn State: $367 Million per Year: 9th of 11 recent campaigns, despite Penn State having the largest enrollment and largest alumni base of any Big Ten University

View attachment 520278

Hard to raise funds from alums who were alienated and enlightened on 11.9/11

 

[PSUFTG2]

Details and Links to Reports for Recent Big Ten Capital Campaigns:

Penn State:

University concludes ‘A Greater Penn State,’ breaks annual and campaign records | Penn State University (psu.edu)

Michigan:

U-Michigan raises $5B, shattering records for public universities | University of Michigan News (umich.edu)

Indiana:

Bicentennial Campaign: Indiana University Foundation: Indiana University (iu.edu)

IU shatters fundraising campaign goal, raises nearly $3.9 billion to support students, state: IU News

Illinois:

With Illinois: The Campaign for Illinois – Celebrating impact of our donors, alumni, and friends.

Wisconsin:

All Ways Forward campaign – University of Wisconsin–Madison

Ohio State:

But for Ohio State Campaign tops $3 billion (osu.edu)

Maryland:

University of Maryland Launches $1.5 Billion Campaign | UMD Right Now

Minnesota:

Driven: The University of Minnesota Campaign surpasses $3 billion | University of Minnesota (umn.edu)

Rising to the moment • Discovery (umn.edu)

Purdue:

Purdue University – Ever True: The Campaign for Purdue University

Michigan State:

MSU ends latest fundraising campaign with $1.83 billion raised (lansingstatejournal.com)

Iowa:

University of Iowa fundraising campaign brings in $1.975 billion | KGAN (cbs2iowa.com)

Rutgers has not had any recently completed campaigns (TMK).
Nebraska is in the midst of a $3 Billion (goal) campaign. Currently averaging over $700 Million raised per year

 

[PSUFTG2]

Hard to raise funds from alums who were alienated and enlightened on 11.9/11

And yet, PSU Trustees are propagandized and gaslighted about how PSU Fundraising is absolutely knocking it out of the park - and couldn't be better. (They are a very "welcoming receptor" audience. of course - it is the path of least work)

All done, of course, in order to have the rubber-stamping commence vav the requisite Board actions. It is what it is.

Once in a while I make a mistake. The mistake of thinking that the esteem I have for the Board (as a whole) could not sink any lower. Incredibly, I find that each time I ponder that possibility, I am proven wrong. Alas.