ADVERTISEMENT

Yudichak Unveils Board of Trustee Reform Bill for Penn State University

Should be more detailed info coming soon This still has a long way to go (remember - Jake - among others - will fight against it tooth and nail......unless we can find a way to make it "in his best interests")

Now is the time to really put the pressure on
 
This is not a good governance plan but if it breaks the OG's stranglehold then it's better than what we have
 
Too many trustees, either way, IMHO. Cut it all in half, and it could be a place to start the discussion.
 
Too many trustees, either way, IMHO. Cut it all in half, and it could be a place to start the discussion.


That's what most of us want, but not at the expense of Alumni elected seats. You know these OG JOs are going to fight anything tooth and nail that cuts into their ability to set up sweetheart deals and pork for themselves, their families and trusted friends.

Just look at Myers. I don't know if his "change of heart" regarding Joe was serious of not, but we voted his sorry ass out, and he got a no vote $50K deal to "provide services" to the University.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
This will be interesting. On the face of it, it doesn't even hint at reform. It appears to be a power grab by those who want to share in the pseudo-look-what-we've-done-for-you crowd, Pennsylvania Politburo as usual. The skeptic speaks.
 

To: Penn State Trustees, cc: alumni, Senator Yudichak

I support this legislation, which would eliminate the self-selecting and self-perpetuating Business & Industry Trustees (Karen Peetz, Kenneth Frazier, and John Surma) as well as the Agriculture Trustees (Keith Masser, Keith Eckel) whose incompetence, dishonesty, violation of the Board’s Expectations of Membership, dereliction of fiduciary duty, and subordination of Penn State’s well-being to a cover-up of their incompetence of 11/9/2011 has resulted in unprecedented harm to the University.

http://www.senatoryudichak.com/yudichak-unveils-board-of.../

To be specific, Keith Masser and Kenneth Frazier testified unwillingly in the Corman-NCAA lawsuit that the Board fired Joe Paterno not for anything he had or had not done, but to avoid the publicity of having him on the sideline. The entire Board, as of March 2012, then lied about this when it said it fired Paterno for failure of leadership. This makes every single Trustee involved, except for the honorable exception who later repudiated his actions, a liar who scapegoated a subordinate. This exposes Peetz, Frazier, Masser, Surma, Eckel, Rodney Erickson, Tom Corbett, and indeed everybody else involved as ethically capable of lying to investors, employees, customers, suppliers, clients, and other organizational stakeholders. In addition, nobody who scapegoats any subordinate, even one who pushes a broom as opposed to coaching the Nittany Lions, is fit for any position of supervisory responsibility whatsoever.

Karen Peetz’s violation of the Expectations of Membership, when she affirmed the Freeh Report’s findings, gave the NCAA the excuse it needed to impose its illegitimate sanctions. The other B&I faction members nonetheless reappointed this unqualified individual (along with Mr. Frazier), thus showing their total disregard for the well-being of the University.

The Commonwealth Court said on April 9 2014 that the Board, as led by people like Peetz and Masser, was derelict in its fiduciary duty for failing to challenge the NCAA sanctions, and for failing to adequately supervise Rodney Erickson.

State Senator Yudichak said, and quite correctly, that the Board as led by Mr. Masser was placing personal agendas ahead of a Penn State agenda. He then referred to Mr. Masser’s actions as “egregious.”
 
This should be interesting. 14 votes for Commonwealth, 10 for B & I and Agriculture, and 12 elected by the Alumni. This would give the Alumni trustees a fighting chance; would only need 7 votes from Commonwealth appointees to over ride the Musser cartel. As Artie Johnson, on Laugh In, used to say: "very interesting", "very interesting".
 
This will be interesting. On the face of it, it doesn't even hint at reform. It appears to be a power grab by those who want to share in the pseudo-look-what-we've-done-for-you crowd, Pennsylvania Politburo as usual. The skeptic speaks.
The details will make this proposal much better than you are giving it credit for......should be out in a day or two. Hang in there!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
This should be interesting. 14 votes for Commonwealth, 10 for B & I and Agriculture, and 12 elected by the Alumni. This would give the Alumni trustees a fighting chance; would only need 7 votes from Commonwealth appointees to over ride the Musser cartel. As Artie Johnson, on Laugh In, used to say: "very interesting", "very interesting".

Masshole will be gone because there won't be any Agriculture-appointed Trustees. Same for Keith "Drittsekk" Eckel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and mbahses
Thirty-six (36) trustees if I counted correctly. Ughhh. The only way 36 trustees can be fully engaged is if you have a really strong and empowered committee structure, and at least that aspect has been improved in the last couple years. However, what this 36 number implies is that the Executive Committee will remain the real power center of the BoT, and I see no discussion from Yudichak and others about the composition, appointment/election process and prerogatives of the Exec Committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Thirty-six (36) trustees if I counted correctly. Ughhh. The only way 36 trustees can be fully engaged is if you have a really strong and empowered committee structure, and at least that aspect has been improved in the last couple years. However, what this 36 number implies is that the Executive Committee will remain the real power center of the BoT, and I see no discussion from Yudichak and others about the composition, appointment/election process and prerogatives of the Exec Committee.


Did you look up "drittsekk"....we have a bunch of them on the executive comedy.
 
Tom McA, whomever else, comments?

Decorporatizing the BOT has to happen. Will it with this bill?

It's an excellent bill.

Is it perfect? No. However, it's a combination of what is best for PSU, and it addresses the complaints that the power bloc as raised about prior legislative proposals. (The 2nd point may seem minor, but it eliminates their complaints. I'm sure they'll come up with new ones, but legislators get tired of moving targets.)

It would "decorporatize" the PSU BOT.

Why would Jake fight against it?

Unlikely that he will. He may even be a backer of the bill. There have been ongoing discussions, but I haven't gotten an update from the most recent meetings.

It's likely to get worse rather than better. Expect seats to be set aside for the Ag industry, for example

That was a concern in prior proposals. I get the sense that the concerns have been addressed, so there's a possibility that no such seats will be set aside.

The details will make this proposal much better than you are giving it credit for

I guess. I've seen the details, so it's kind of hard for me to interpret the release versus what I know about the details.
 
Glad to hear that it's a great bill. Hopefully it passes. No doubt that jim carnes and the other drittsekk are mobilizing against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
It's an excellent bill.

Is it perfect? No. However, it's a combination of what is best for PSU, and it addresses the complaints that the power bloc as raised about prior legislative proposals. (The 2nd point may seem minor, but it eliminates their complaints. I'm sure they'll come up with new ones, but legislators get tired of moving targets.)

It would "decorporatize" the PSU BOT.



Unlikely that he will. He may even be a backer of the bill. There have been ongoing discussions, but I haven't gotten an update from the most recent meetings.



That was a concern in prior proposals. I get the sense that the concerns have been addressed, so there's a possibility that no such seats will be set aside.



I guess. I've seen the details, so it's kind of hard for me to interpret the release versus what I know about the details.
Is there a "happiness pursuit" in this puppy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
In regard to the Ag industry, they do have a dog in the hunt. We must remember (it is often forgotten) that Penn State is a bit more than a university--they are also responsible for all of the Ag extension offices, etc. That gives the Ag folks a valid reason for *some* representation. I still would like to see the board about half the size proposed, though.
 
It's an excellent bill.

Is it perfect? No. However, it's a combination of what is best for PSU, and it addresses the complaints that the power bloc as raised about prior legislative proposals. (The 2nd point may seem minor, but it eliminates their complaints. I'm sure they'll come up with new ones, but legislators get tired of moving targets.)

It would "decorporatize" the PSU BOT.



Unlikely that he will. He may even be a backer of the bill. There have been ongoing discussions, but I haven't gotten an update from the most recent meetings.



That was a concern in prior proposals. I get the sense that the concerns have been addressed, so there's a possibility that no such seats will be set aside.



I guess. I've seen the details, so it's kind of hard for me to interpret the release versus what I know about the details.


Thank you Tom.

Back in the day (mid 90s) it was evident to many active alums that something was wrong with our university leadership. I am delighted that the legislature is addressing the robber baron structure. Spend one weekend with university leadership and its painfully obvious these people are creeps. Legislation is long overdue. Unfortunately, it took the Sandusky scandal to get someone outside of the alumni base to pay attention to our woeful, inadequate and most likely criminally greedy leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maddog and bjf1984
Thank you Tom.

Back in the day (mid 90s) it was evident to many active alums that something was wrong with our university leadership. I am delighted that the legislature is addressing the robber baron structure. Spend one weekend with university leadership and its painfully obvious these people are creeps. Legislation is long overdue. Unfortunately, it took the Sandusky scandal to get someone outside of the alumni base to pay attention to our woeful, inadequate and most likely criminally greedy leadership.
I just want to say.......I want to "like" this post ^^^ TWICE!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbahses
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT