Somewhat off topic, but related to the Franklin news

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
There have been no meetings of the Penn State Board of Trustees for several weeks - and they have never met to discuss the Franklin contract terms, or even discussed the Franklin contract proposal at any meeting of the Board. Ever.
Is anyone concerned or puzzled by the fact that the Penn State Board of Trustees has not approved the Franklin contract - or even met to discuss it or vote on it - and yet the contract is being treated as a done deal.

To date, only five Trustees, the members of the Compensation Committee have even met to discuss it, as Trustees (I expect there have been some unofficial conversations, for sure). There are 33 other members of the Board, who have not even met, let alone voted to approve of the contract.
 

PSUJam

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
7,763
12,693
113
There have been no meetings of the Penn State Board of Trustees for several weeks - and they have never met to discuss the Franklin contract terms, or even discussed the Franklin contract proposal at any meeting of the Board. Ever.
Is anyone concerned or puzzled by the fact that the Penn State Board of Trustees has not approved the Franklin contract - or even met to discuss it or vote on it - and yet the contract is being treated as a done deal.

To date, only five Trustees, the members of the Compensation Committee have even met to discuss it, as Trustees (I expect there have been some unofficial conversations, for sure). There are 33 other members of the Board, who have not even met, let alone voted to approve of the contract.
At what point are you going to come off the rails Barry?
 

Thorndike2021

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
445
927
93
What CF said.

This is true of most BOTs that I've been associated with. A committee is responsible for doing the work, they then make a recommendation, and the BOT ratifies it with a vote.

BAU. Nothing to see here.
 

BobPSU92

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
13,531
20,854
113
There have been no meetings of the Penn State Board of Trustees for several weeks - and they have never met to discuss the Franklin contract terms, or even discussed the Franklin contract proposal at any meeting of the Board. Ever.
Is anyone concerned or puzzled by the fact that the Penn State Board of Trustees has not approved the Franklin contract - or even met to discuss it or vote on it - and yet the contract is being treated as a done deal.

To date, only five Trustees, the members of the Compensation Committee have even met to discuss it, as Trustees (I expect there have been some unofficial conversations, for sure). There are 33 other members of the Board, who have not even met, let alone voted to approve of the contract.

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

NittPicker

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
2,945
6,064
113
Since 2011 I haven't been a fan of how the BoT operates but it's not as though the head football coach is a run of the mill employee at any university. Things move fast when it comes to coaching contracts/vacancies. It seems some of you feel trustee meetings should include congressional style hearings to approve a deal for the football coach.

Again, I feel the BoT is largely a dysfunctional group. However, if certain members are authorized to negotiate and approve a football HC contract, I'll bite the bullet and not complain. It's not the type of thing which can be left hanging until the full board gets around to it at the next meeting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarasotan

LionJim

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
8,178
11,110
113
What CF said.

This is true of most BOTs that I've been associated with. A committee is responsible for doing the work, they then make a recommendation, and the BOT ratifies it with a vote.

BAU. Nothing to see here.
This is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bertrand

psuro

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
6,110
13,616
113
Perhaps the BoT met in Executive Session to discuss employee salaries - the Executive Sessions are generally held out of public view.
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
Perhaps the BoT met in Executive Session to discuss employee salaries - the Executive Sessions are generally held out of public view.
The Compensation Committe - 5 of the 38 Trustees - did, indeed, meet in executive session (even when the Board, or a Committe of the Board, meets in "executive session", that meeting has to be announced, and minutes taken).
The contract has never been discussed or voted on by the Board at large, or a record of such results provided. That is without question.
Will it be? I don't know, but it doesn't look like it - they seem to be proceeding as if it is a done deal. That, not having the Board approve, has, to the best of my knowledge, never happened with regard to such matters (it certainly hasn't happened in the last 10-20 years or more) - including Franklin's previous contracts (or contracts for the President, AD, and others). Certainly, the dollar value of the contract far exceeds the limits for what Penn State's bylaws indicate would require Board approval.

So - why hasn't that happened? The Compensation Committe meeting - and many others - took place via ZOOM, or whatever product Penn State uses. Certainly, a quorum of the full Board could have been pulled together as well.
Maybe they will meet today, or shortly, and have a meeting, have a robust discussion, and vote unanimously to approve the contract - as they typically do (minus any robust discussion, of course). What if even one Trustee had a suggestion, comment, or idea that would have improved the contract proposal? Theoretically, what if a majority of the Trustees did not approve of the contract? (Yes, I know that is highly unlikely, given the make up of the Penn State Board - but when you deliberately avoid having such a meeting, assuming that is what happens, that does at least raise an eyebrow, doesn't it?)

Isn't anyone the least bit curious or disconcerted that has not happened - and doesn't appear to be in the works?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psu00 and Bison13

Got GSPs

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
6,820
8,607
113
I thought the BOT did meet yesterday afternoon. What am I missing?
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
I thought the BOT did meet yesterday afternoon. What am I missing?
The Board last convened on November 12th. Franklin's contract extension was not an item for discussion or approval at that meeting (or at any prior meeting)
 

BobPSU92

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
13,531
20,854
113
Exactly Bob, I am sure the Board will show and discuss all the steps as they are all about transparency like they told us they would be....

Of course! The bot loves us (and people who smell like us).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bwifan

Got GSPs

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
6,820
8,607
113
The Board last convened on November 12th. Franklin's contract extension was not an item for discussion or approval at that meeting (or at any prior meeting)
No, I’m pretty sure there was a meeting yesterday to specifically review and approve Franklins contract.
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
No, I’m pretty sure there was a meeting yesterday to specifically review and approve Franklins contract.
Nope. Just the Compensation Committee, as I mentioned several times. No vote. No approval.
 

PSUForever

Member
Nov 6, 2021
166
128
43
This is all a done deal obviously, get over it. It doesn't get to the point of making a major headline on ESPN to then be a nevermind we forgot to get the approval of other people.
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
This is all a done deal obviously, get over it. It doesn't get to the point of making a major headline on ESPN to then be a nevermind we forgot to get the approval of other people.
Oh, I have very little doubt that it is not a "done deal", never did.

But, obviously, any righteous Penn Stater would certainly be very, very disconcerted that an $85 Million obligation would not be subjected to Board approval - when procedures (and common sense) call for that approval. The issues here are twofold - and very important, even more so if, as you suggest and I agree, it is a "done deal":

1) The blatant bypassing of proper governance with regard to such an expenditure
2) The obvious question of why was the governance/approval process usurped for THIS particular contract? Such contracts, and such approvals, are frequent and simple procedures - including Franklin's previous contracts, President's contracts, Sandy Barbour's contracts, other University Administrator's contracts, etc etc etc etc. Why was the process short circuited for this, and only this, contract?

That is a huge pair of issues.
 

PSU73

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
474
807
93
TIC. :) I guess the wishin' and hopin' isn't over yet, based on this:

“We are excited to have James Franklin lead our football program for a long time,” Barbour said in the release. “We will continue our collective efforts to constantly improve in all aspects of our program. We have made, and will need to continue to make, significant investment in our football program because we believe we have a very bright future under James."
 

marshall23

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
2,763
3,957
113
At what point are you going to come off the rails Barry?
This sounds like Trump begging for a recount.
Administration 101, you don't put anything on the agenda for a vote (unless you have done your homework and know you have your ducks in a line.) But nice try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bertrand

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
I think you are being obtuse. The people who needed to meet, did meet

This sounds like Trump begging for a recount.
Administration 101, you don't put anything on the agenda for a vote (unless you have done your homework and know you have your ducks in a line.) But nice try.
Are you saying they didn't put the contract up for a vote because it wouldn't have passed? I would be surprised if that were the case, but there must be some reason, obviously.
 

BobPSU92

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
13,531
20,854
113
Are you saying they didn't put the contract up for a vote because it wouldn't have passed? I would be surprised if that were the case, but there must be some reason, obviously.

Ballots were distributed to all trustees.

“Do you approve the contract extension for James Franklin as head football coach at Penn State?”

483E28E2-8ADE-456E-97BC-C7F6E0F20931.png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: PSU73 and Psu00

PSU73

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
474
807
93
…the instructions probably said “you can vote more than once” (if you want to keep your appointed position!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 84lion

marshall23

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
2,763
3,957
113
Are you saying they didn't put the contract up for a vote because it wouldn't have passed? I would be surprised if that were the case, but there must be some reason, obviously.
Saying the precise opp
Are you saying they didn't put the contract up for a vote because it wouldn't have passed? I would be surprised if that were the case, but there must be some reason, obviously.
Saying precisely the opposite. The contract was "approved " before a formal vote took place. You don't spend weeks hammering out an agreement that won't be supported by the powers that be.
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,370
2,045
113
Saying the precise opp

Saying precisely the opposite. The contract was "approved " before a formal vote took place. You don't spend weeks hammering out an agreement that won't be supported by the powers that be.
So, and maybe I was not being clear enough, because this seems like a simple enough question to me - Why didn't the Board vote to approve the contract?Knowing, of course, that Board procedures call for such a vote, and every other such contract has gone through the required approval/voting process? Did they just forget this time - and no one noticed? I don't think so.
To be clear, the contract was not "approved before a formal vote took place" - No vote ever took place, at least not as of yet, nor can any such contract be "approved" without a vote. So, the contract was never, at least not until this point, "approved". Period. That is not semantics. The importance of that is prima facie, I really don't have anything else I can add.

Just to be clear, I believe there is little to no chance that the contract won't be paid. That is not the contention.
 
Last edited: