I VOTED AGAINST THE $49 MILLION LASCH EXPANSION— THIS IS THE EXPLANATION FOR MY VOTE

[Obliviax]

These are the comments I made prior to my decision to vote AGAINST the proposed $49 million Lasch Building renovations.

My fellow Trustees, I stand opposed to this resolution at this time. My reasons are twofold. The first financial while the second is more philosophical.

As Pennsylvania's only land grant university, Penn State has a broad mission of teaching, research, and public service. Our duty as university fiduciaries is, among other responsibilities, to ensure the affordable attainment of a PSU education.

No question but that athletics serves as the window through which our great University is seen by many. No doubt football occupies the largest pane. It is the engine that allows all 31 varsity sports to run.

However, as all of you know, we have a myriad of headwinds and uncertainties facing us over the next year.

First, and primarily, we have the challenge of the pandemic. Last year we lost ~$38 million in football ticket revenues not to mention the loss of gameday revenues. We filled some of that gap by allowing season ticket holders to roll their 2020 ticket purchases into 2021. Consequently, we have a large issue facing us this fall. How do we replace those revenues this year?

In addition, we seemingly lost 10% of our season ticketholder base by virtue of the way we handled the refund of 2020 season ticket purchases.

Finally, what happens if we can’t play football this fall in front of a a capacity crowd in Beaver Stadium?

Second, we don’t yet know the impact of recent image and likeness legislation on colleges and universities. What if the result of this is a drag on athletics revenues?

Finally, we seem to be deviating from our policy of philanthropic commitments in writing in hand before commencing. Instead, we intend to utilize $48.3 million of borrowings from a February 4, 2020 taxable bond offering. Moreover, does this approach not create a gender equity problem for us given our direction to the Women’s Field Hockey team?

Women’s Field Hockey would like to spend $9 million on a new venue. To date, they have received $7 million in committed gifts yet they have been told they cannot break ground without the full $9 million in hand.

Additionally, the Student Food Pantry has been told that they must raise the $250,000 required for expansion that is so desperately needed. In a time when we have homeless students living in the HUB and showering in Rec Hall, what message are we sending with this decision?

With respect to my philosophical concerns, I have heard some of you as well as University leadership refer to an arms race as it pertains to football. Let me suggest that such a race is unwinnable and frankly, in my opinion, a fools errand.

Let me remind all of you that Penn State, between 2014-2018, ranked 7th in football related expenditures, averaging almost $41 million. In 2018, the spend in football was $48 million.

Alabama was #1 at almost $60.5 million, Florida State followed at almost $50 million. Ohio State was 4th at almost $43 million while Michigan was 5th at ~$41 million. Clemson followed at just under $40 million.

Interesting to note that Notre Dame (~$39.5 million), Georgia (~$39 million) and Oklahoma (~$37 million) all spent less on football than us yet all have reached the final four.

Parenthetically, Alabama is the 143rd ranked school in the most recent US News and World Report whereas Clemson ranks 73rd.

A very wise man many of us knew liked to quote a line from the poet Robert Browning.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

In my opinion, we would be wise to delay this project.

I appreciate your vote and your conscience but have to respectfully disagree.

The football program brings in a ton of money. First, directly in terms of tickets, parking, TV and all of the other direct sources. It brings in a ton of indirect money in that it drives brand, community, and culture. If not for PSU football, PSU would be a medium-sized state school in the middle of a bunch f cow pastures.

I appreciate the walk down Mission Lane but the football program is a vital part of maintaining that mission. The revenue is self-contained and fulfilling. The massive increase in costs to educate at PSU isn't due to the football program. The program is a money maker. And it is a HUGE money maker. Why would you not continue to invest in that? The decision, to me, is like deciding to NOT invest in the product because you don't want to company to get too big. Or, it is like cutting investment in the product to increase investment in office meeting rooms.

Penn State is football. The two go together. Not investing in PSU football is not investing in PSU. Be that good or bad today, that is the position the university is in. If the football program cannot maintain, there is a who shit load of crap cuts that will have to be made and they'll make this budget item look like pocket change.

 

[Bob78]

I recall that when Lubrano and Jay Paterno ran for Board seats, many BWI posters opined that they were interested solely in restoring JVP's reputation, and would not care about the pressing fiscal issues the University faces around tuition costs and building costs, etc.
So, in this instance (although as others noted, they have been disappointingly silent on other seemingly excessive costs, such as the Dambly pocket-lining construction costs), they address the pressing fiscal issue with a nod toward other more PSU mission-focused fiscal issues, and they get a lot of flack over it.
Damned if they do, etc., it seems.

 

[Agoodnap]

So I was wondering what Barry had to say about the Lasch project and went over to his website. A quick summary would be:

1). Spending more doesn't necessarily produce a winner,
and
2). If you choose to spend, spend wisely.

Here are some of the details. If you want to read the whole blog go to: https://barryfenchak4trustee.wordpress.com/

The Board of Trustees approved another round of funding – for $50 Million (of a total cost of $106 Million for the entire project) – for renovations to that building.

A little background on the Lasch Building:

Lasch was built in 1999 (with Donations paying for the construction)
Since 2015 – $36 million have already been spent on renovations. This new chunk, of $50 million is in addition to those expenditures, with another $20 million to be approved in the coming months – – – for a total of $106 Million in total renovation expenditures.

Clemson built a new $55 Million football facility in 2017. That was AFTER winning three straight ACC Championships, two playoff appearances, and a National Championship.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

Florida is in the midst of building a new football facility, AFTER winning seven division titles, and two National Championships.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

LSU renovated their football facility, AFTER appearing in three National Championship games, winning two of them.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

Alabama renovated their football facility in 2020, AFTER appearing in seven National Championship games, winning five of them.
Is was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

The dogma that it is “Spending Piles of Money” that leads to on-field success simply doesn’t hold water.

A) Over the last five years, Penn State’s debt has already mushroomed from $1 Billion to $4 billion – QUADRUPLING over the space of just FIVE YEARS.
B) And that is through the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year – BEFORE we see what effects COVID may have on the finances.
C) This has occurred despite the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania giving Penn State (through the GSA budget) over $1 Billion dollars of taxpayer funds – to pay for many of the Capital Projects undertaken in the last two years. Far larger gifts than to any other state-affiliated University.
D) ALL of that debt – every penny of it – is an obligation taken on by the University, and collateralized by its General Funds revenue (Tuition dollars). Penn State Athletics is NOT a legal entity responsible for repayment of that debt.

Being more “leveraged” (having more long-term debt that one is obligated to pay off) is not a “good thing” for a University. The fact is that the people who are being burdened with paying off that debt are current and future Penn State students. This, at its very core is fiduciary negligence.

Several highly-successful collegiate football programs who recently undertook new construction / renovations to their football facilities.
For context, this is the scope of the Lasch Building project: Renovation of the 89,000 square foot facility, and the addition of a new 18,000 square foot strength training room.
At $106 Million, that is a cost of $990 per square foot.

The most similar project undertaken by another football program was LSU’s. Their project is the renovation of a 112,000 square foot facility, originally built in 2005, and the addition of an 18,000 square foot strength training room.
If fact, this project is nearly identical to the Lasch Building project.
The cost? $28 Million, $215 per square foot – less than 1/4th of the cost of the Lasch Project.


Why does the Lasch project cost four times as much? This is a question that demands an answer. Perhaps there is sound logic that I'm not aware of, but it sure looks like it's worth taking a closer look.

Alabama – the bell-cow of collegiate football – their renovations cost $16 million.

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.

Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.

From the above examples it seems that our BOT should be asking some very straightforward questions regarding the cost of this project and demanding their answers before proceeding.

 

[BobPSU92]

I appreciate your vote and your conscience but have to respectfully disagree.

The football program brings in a ton of money. First, directly in terms of tickets, parking, TV and all of the other direct sources. It brings in a ton of indirect money in that it drives brand, community, and culture. If not for PSU football, PSU would be a medium-sized state school in the middle of a bunch f cow pastures.

I appreciate the walk down Mission Lane but the football program is a vital part of maintaining that mission. The revenue is self-contained and fulfilling. The massive increase in costs to educate at PSU isn't due to the football program. The program is a money maker. And it is a HUGE money maker. Why would you not continue to invest in that? The decision, to me, is like deciding to NOT invest in the product because you don't want to company to get too big. Or, it is like cutting investment in the product to increase investment in office meeting rooms.

Penn State is football. The two go together. Not investing in PSU football is not investing in PSU. Be that good or bad today, that is the position the university is in. If the football program cannot maintain, there is a who shit load of crap cuts that will have to be made and they'll make this budget item look like pocket change.

Careful. You’re starting to sound like mark emmert about lsu.

 

[Obliviax]

Careful. You’re starting to sound like mark emmert about lsu.

well, I was against it before I was for it.

 

[JoeBatters1]

I would imagine Franklin donates plenty of money to outside of football things. Just because Paterno wanted a bigger library doesn't make what Franklin donates to less.

As for Lubrano coming on here and explaining? Kind of like Jay putting out a release. Who cares. Vote how you want to vote and live with it. I personally don't care why you did or didn't do something. I just hate that part of the world we live in. Can't just get the vaccine, you MUST post yourself with a picture of the card so everyone knows you care about others.....

Just gets old.

Not sure what you’re getting at since Lubrano has been coming on this board to share his thoughts and ask for feedback since he ran for the BOT the first time after Sandusky. Him posting his thoughts here on why he voted that way he did is par for the course.

 

[Bob78]

Hopefully without being returned to the asylum for a recurring bout of schizophrenia I’m both for and against the Lasch expansion referendum. Entities should have a desire to improve themselves and take risks even in difficult economic times with an uncertain future. Otherwise stagnation often leads to failure. Based solely on the above I would have voted to pass the referendum.

However, the infusion of funds in difficult times must be matched with even more prudent fiscal management and often painful cost cutting. The present management of PSU has shown itself to be woefully inadequate in that regard. Thus I can understand why throwing more money into the pit to be squandered would upset others.

The mere fact that private donations for the project are severely lacking is quite telling. Very wealthy donors, just like the general public, don’t appreciate their money being used foolishly by incompetent individuals. I don’t believe that the economic situation caused by the pandemic is the overriding reason donations are lacking, although it is a contributing factor. Perhaps people who are concerned with recurring annual fiscal waste, no matter how much they are able to donate just feel they lack the power to correct the problem. Thus they don’t feel compelled to be complicit in its advancement. Personally that’s the way I feel, yet I still would love to see the improvements at the Lasch building occur. Hence the schizophrenic rumbling in my head, but this time I’m fairly certain that I can convince my doctors that external stupidity is the root cause of my problem.

The vast majority of us I believe just desire the best for PSU in all endeavors. Unfortunately our present senior leadership appears to be both often incompetent and devoted to a more personal self enrichment and empire building agenda. But I imagine you’ve probably heard this before from others. In any event it appears that the project will advance so be happy and don’t worry 😉.

I am right there with you. I think there have been a lot of great points made on both sides of the issue here, whether I agree or not with the viewpoint.

I want the best for PSU academics and research, for PSU football, for all of PSU athletics.... I want to believe in the mission of PSU and that we have at least some BOT members with their hearts and minds in the right place around that mission. And maybe Lubrano and Paterno picked the wrong hill to die on regarding financial sanity, but they brought the issue to light and generated a very robust discussion. Of course, while Ira/Dambly and their merry minions control things with an eye toward their own pockets, financial sanity is a land far, far away.

In my Fantasy Land of Blue and White, I would like to see us retain all varsity sports, as I believe that providing an opportunity for top-tier athletic experience for talented student-athletes is/should be part of the PSU mission. I think the financial model for doing so needs to be revisited and given a fresh perspective, as Art and others have noted. Still, there may be no better way to provide the educational experience around leadership and resilience rather than through the whole athletics experience, and that is a valuable piece of education for any generation.

It does drive a bit of a dilemma for many of us, and it is difficult to extract oneself from the emotional side of things after a lifetime of love for Dear Old State. We have become what we were accused of being by those who did not understand who we truly were in 2011. And now we are applauded for it.

 

[Zenophile]

Honestly after the way the NCAA slaughtered the program (albeit, with the board’s complicity) I don’t care what we do. If you follow all the rules and get that punishment, might as well go for the championships.

Completely understand this thinking. That said, I'm not OK with rationalizing the sacrifice of our integrity because of something an external agent did (or didn't do).

 

[PAgeologist]

So I was wondering what Barry had to say about the Lasch project and went over to his website. A quick summary would be:

1). Spending more doesn't necessarily produce a winner,
and
2). If you choose to spend, spend wisely.

Here are some of the details. If you want to read the whole blog go to: https://barryfenchak4trustee.wordpress.com/

The Board of Trustees approved another round of funding – for $50 Million (of a total cost of $106 Million for the entire project) – for renovations to that building.

A little background on the Lasch Building:

Lasch was built in 1999 (with Donations paying for the construction)
Since 2015 – $36 million have already been spent on renovations. This new chunk, of $50 million is in addition to those expenditures, with another $20 million to be approved in the coming months – – – for a total of $106 Million in total renovation expenditures.

Clemson built a new $55 Million football facility in 2017. That was AFTER winning three straight ACC Championships, two playoff appearances, and a National Championship.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

Florida is in the midst of building a new football facility, AFTER winning seven division titles, and two National Championships.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

LSU renovated their football facility, AFTER appearing in three National Championship games, winning two of them.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

Alabama renovated their football facility in 2020, AFTER appearing in seven National Championship games, winning five of them.
Is was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

The dogma that it is “Spending Piles of Money” that leads to on-field success simply doesn’t hold water.

A) Over the last five years, Penn State’s debt has already mushroomed from $1 Billion to $4 billion – QUADRUPLING over the space of just FIVE YEARS.
B) And that is through the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year – BEFORE we see what effects COVID may have on the finances.
C) This has occurred despite the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania giving Penn State (through the GSA budget) over $1 Billion dollars of taxpayer funds – to pay for many of the Capital Projects undertaken in the last two years. Far larger gifts than to any other state-affiliated University.
D) ALL of that debt – every penny of it – is an obligation taken on by the University, and collateralized by its General Funds revenue (Tuition dollars). Penn State Athletics is NOT a legal entity responsible for repayment of that debt.

Being more “leveraged” (having more long-term debt that one is obligated to pay off) is not a “good thing” for a University. The fact is that the people who are being burdened with paying off that debt are current and future Penn State students. This, at its very core is fiduciary negligence.

Several highly-successful collegiate football programs who recently undertook new construction / renovations to their football facilities.
For context, this is the scope of the Lasch Building project: Renovation of the 89,000 square foot facility, and the addition of a new 18,000 square foot strength training room.
At $106 Million, that is a cost of $990 per square foot.

The most similar project undertaken by another football program was LSU’s. Their project is the renovation of a 112,000 square foot facility, originally built in 2005, and the addition of an 18,000 square foot strength training room.
If fact, this project is nearly identical to the Lasch Building project.
The cost? $28 Million, $215 per square foot – less than 1/4th of the cost of the Lasch Project.


Why does the Lasch project cost four times as much? This is a question that demands an answer. Perhaps there is sound logic that I'm not aware of, but it sure looks like it's worth taking a closer look.

Alabama – the bell-cow of collegiate football – their renovations cost $16 million.

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.

Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.

From the above examples it seems that our BOT should be asking some very straightforward questions regarding the cost of this project and demanding their answers before proceeding.

I know in PA, projects like this and others with public funding, have to pay Prevailing Wage. This obviously increases labor costs. I'm not sure if this is true in every state. That's perhaps the legitimate reason for increased costs. The remainder, you'll probably never hear about because despite their claims, there is no transparency or accountability with the PA govt and apparently PSU as well.

 

[indynittany]

Sue the NCAA for the lost bowl revenue plus the $60 million related to the Sandusky fiasco.

 

[cvilleelkscoach]

I for one think it's great that Anthony stopped by to tell us his reasons. It appears many of you would have rather he hadn't stopped by.

I'm happy he shared his views. My problem is his hypocrisy.

 

[LDandy]

Keep up or get left behind. Its a pretty easy choice IMO. When our facilities start falling behind places like Purdue, Minnesota, NW, Iowa, and Maryland its time to address that sh*t. Its not a philosophical discussion about the place of sports in higher education. Its a simple business decision. If we want to remain a top tier program in the B1G we should probably start acting like one. Better facilities attract better recruits. Better recruits= more wins. More wins = more media attention, ticket sales, merchandise sales, donations etc. Spend money to make money, or be content with 8-4 every year and reminiscing about when we had a statue.

 

[psu00]

So I was wondering what Barry had to say about the Lasch project and went over to his website. A quick summary would be:

1). Spending more doesn't necessarily produce a winner,
and
2). If you choose to spend, spend wisely.

Here are some of the details. If you want to read the whole blog go to: https://barryfenchak4trustee.wordpress.com/

The Board of Trustees approved another round of funding – for $50 Million (of a total cost of $106 Million for the entire project) – for renovations to that building.

A little background on the Lasch Building:

Lasch was built in 1999 (with Donations paying for the construction)
Since 2015 – $36 million have already been spent on renovations. This new chunk, of $50 million is in addition to those expenditures, with another $20 million to be approved in the coming months – – – for a total of $106 Million in total renovation expenditures.

Clemson built a new $55 Million football facility in 2017. That was AFTER winning three straight ACC Championships, two playoff appearances, and a National Championship.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

Florida is in the midst of building a new football facility, AFTER winning seven division titles, and two National Championships.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

LSU renovated their football facility, AFTER appearing in three National Championship games, winning two of them.
It was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

Alabama renovated their football facility in 2020, AFTER appearing in seven National Championship games, winning five of them.
Is was NOT “spending piles of money” that led to their success.

The dogma that it is “Spending Piles of Money” that leads to on-field success simply doesn’t hold water.

A) Over the last five years, Penn State’s debt has already mushroomed from $1 Billion to $4 billion – QUADRUPLING over the space of just FIVE YEARS.
B) And that is through the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year – BEFORE we see what effects COVID may have on the finances.
C) This has occurred despite the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania giving Penn State (through the GSA budget) over $1 Billion dollars of taxpayer funds – to pay for many of the Capital Projects undertaken in the last two years. Far larger gifts than to any other state-affiliated University.
D) ALL of that debt – every penny of it – is an obligation taken on by the University, and collateralized by its General Funds revenue (Tuition dollars). Penn State Athletics is NOT a legal entity responsible for repayment of that debt.

Being more “leveraged” (having more long-term debt that one is obligated to pay off) is not a “good thing” for a University. The fact is that the people who are being burdened with paying off that debt are current and future Penn State students. This, at its very core is fiduciary negligence.

Several highly-successful collegiate football programs who recently undertook new construction / renovations to their football facilities.
For context, this is the scope of the Lasch Building project: Renovation of the 89,000 square foot facility, and the addition of a new 18,000 square foot strength training room.
At $106 Million, that is a cost of $990 per square foot.

The most similar project undertaken by another football program was LSU’s. Their project is the renovation of a 112,000 square foot facility, originally built in 2005, and the addition of an 18,000 square foot strength training room.
If fact, this project is nearly identical to the Lasch Building project.
The cost? $28 Million, $215 per square foot – less than 1/4th of the cost of the Lasch Project.


Why does the Lasch project cost four times as much? This is a question that demands an answer. Perhaps there is sound logic that I'm not aware of, but it sure looks like it's worth taking a closer look.

Alabama – the bell-cow of collegiate football – their renovations cost $16 million.

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.

Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.

From the above examples it seems that our BOT should be asking some very straightforward questions regarding the cost of this project and demanding their answers before proceeding.

This is a big issue that gets overlooked and never questioned by the press or those in Harrisburg. Why does it appear that construction costs at Penn St are so inflated compared to similar projects around the country?

It’s not just the Lasch building. There have been discussions here about other PSU building sprees also appearing to be out of whack cost wise.

 

[Sunsox]

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.

Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.

Not saying I completely disagree with your overall premise or even that the BOT as a whole is anywhere near competent, but renovations oftentimes do cost more per SF than ground up, due to having to deal with the existing conditions. The actual shell of a building is a small percentage of construction costs and the vast majority is in the finishes and mechanical/electrical systems. It is much easier to run piping, wiring, ductwork, etc. in a newly constructed building with no existing walls or ceilings in place.

 

[ram2020]

Some of this is chicken or egg. Spend through the nose, hope to attract top talent, win a lot of games....or....win with less, then spend through the nose to keep those coaches and to keep top level recruits flowing to the school. Either way, there is a little problem currently. We don't really attract top level talent currently. Top 25 school for recruits? Sure. Top 5, top 10? Not really. So either our coaches aren't getting it done, many of which seem to turn over(often for better jobs) or the school can't recruit itself anymore. Cold penn state in the middle of cow pastures ain't what it used to be to burgeoning football players. We got a new OC, maybe that spurs some excitement, throw in the facilities upgrade, maybe that helps? None if it really matters unless you do all of it.

 

[Art]

I know in PA, projects like this and others with public funding, have to pay Prevailing Wage. This obviously increases labor costs. I'm not sure if this is true in every state. That's perhaps the legitimate reason for increased costs. The remainder, you'll probably never hear about because despite their claims, there is no transparency or accountability with the PA govt and apparently PSU as well.

Gonna guess this project is not considered to be publicly funded. Tipoff: debt is coming out of a taxable bond issue.

 

[PSU2UNC]

These are the comments I made prior to my decision to vote AGAINST the proposed $49 million Lasch Building renovations.

My fellow Trustees, I stand opposed to this resolution at this time. My reasons are twofold. The first financial while the second is more philosophical.

As Pennsylvania's only land grant university, Penn State has a broad mission of teaching, research, and public service. Our duty as university fiduciaries is, among other responsibilities, to ensure the affordable attainment of a PSU education.

No question but that athletics serves as the window through which our great University is seen by many. No doubt football occupies the largest pane. It is the engine that allows all 31 varsity sports to run.

However, as all of you know, we have a myriad of headwinds and uncertainties facing us over the next year.

First, and primarily, we have the challenge of the pandemic. Last year we lost ~$38 million in football ticket revenues not to mention the loss of gameday revenues. We filled some of that gap by allowing season ticket holders to roll their 2020 ticket purchases into 2021. Consequently, we have a large issue facing us this fall. How do we replace those revenues this year?

In addition, we seemingly lost 10% of our season ticketholder base by virtue of the way we handled the refund of 2020 season ticket purchases.

Finally, what happens if we can’t play football this fall in front of a a capacity crowd in Beaver Stadium?

Second, we don’t yet know the impact of recent image and likeness legislation on colleges and universities. What if the result of this is a drag on athletics revenues?

Finally, we seem to be deviating from our policy of philanthropic commitments in writing in hand before commencing. Instead, we intend to utilize $48.3 million of borrowings from a February 4, 2020 taxable bond offering. Moreover, does this approach not create a gender equity problem for us given our direction to the Women’s Field Hockey team?

Women’s Field Hockey would like to spend $9 million on a new venue. To date, they have received $7 million in committed gifts yet they have been told they cannot break ground without the full $9 million in hand.

Additionally, the Student Food Pantry has been told that they must raise the $250,000 required for expansion that is so desperately needed. In a time when we have homeless students living in the HUB and showering in Rec Hall, what message are we sending with this decision?

With respect to my philosophical concerns, I have heard some of you as well as University leadership refer to an arms race as it pertains to football. Let me suggest that such a race is unwinnable and frankly, in my opinion, a fools errand.

Let me remind all of you that Penn State, between 2014-2018, ranked 7th in football related expenditures, averaging almost $41 million. In 2018, the spend in football was $48 million.

Alabama was #1 at almost $60.5 million, Florida State followed at almost $50 million. Ohio State was 4th at almost $43 million while Michigan was 5th at ~$41 million. Clemson followed at just under $40 million.

Interesting to note that Notre Dame (~$39.5 million), Georgia (~$39 million) and Oklahoma (~$37 million) all spent less on football than us yet all have reached the final four.

Parenthetically, Alabama is the 143rd ranked school in the most recent US News and World Report whereas Clemson ranks 73rd.

A very wise man many of us knew liked to quote a line from the poet Robert Browning.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

In my opinion, we would be wise to delay this project.

I agree with parts of this, but disagree with other parts.

1) The optics of the timing of this are bad. Even if it is prudent financially for the athletic department to do this now, it is not good timing from a PR perspective.

2) Having said that because the athletic department's budget is functionally (I believe) separate from the rest of the university's, some of the arguments don't make sense. Yes, student food security is a big issue, but that's unrelated to the athletic department. Perhaps the field hockey facilities argument holds water...I don't know enough about how sport specific revenues should be considered for sport specific debt.

I don't fault Anthony or Jay for voting against this, nor Brandon for voting for. I'm not sure how I'd vote if I had one, but I appreciate their willingness to spend their time on this and other important univeristy business.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Completely understand this thinking. That said, I'm not OK with rationalizing the sacrifice of our integrity because of something an external agent did (or didn't do).

Yeah, I get that. But when you are in a business without integrity, what is the point of having integrity?

 

[Art]

I agree with parts of this, but disagree with other parts.

1) The optics of the timing of this are bad. Even if it is prudent financially for the athletic department to do this now, it is not good timing from a PR perspective.

2) Having said that because the athletic department's budget is functionally (I believe) separate from the rest of the university's, some of the arguments don't make sense. Yes, student food security is a big issue, but that's unrelated to the athletic department. Perhaps the field hockey facilities argument holds water...I don't know enough about how sport specific revenues should be considered for sport specific debt.

I don't fault Anthony or Jay for voting against this, nor Brandon for voting for. I'm not sure how I'd vote if I had one, but I appreciate their willingness to spend their time on this and other important univeristy business.

It's going to be at least a few years before the Athletic Department is in a position to begin amortizing this debt (and we haven't heard a thing about how much it borrowed to cover the FY 2021 deficit). Don't be surprised if it's never. If so, the already high cost of a PSU education will get higher..

 

[PAgeologist]

Gonna guess this project is not considered to be publicly funded. Tipoff: debt is coming out of a taxable bond issue.

OK. I wasn't sure if it was or not.

Do you know if the baseball stadium used public funding? I know the labor on that project was all union and paid prevailing wage rates.

 

[Art]

OK. I wasn't sure if it was or not.

Do you know if the baseball stadium used public funding? I know the labor on that project was all union and paid prevailing wage rates.

Don't know. Never simple to tell anything when it comes to PSU. If I had to guess, I'd say no and as likely as not be wrong.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's going to be at least a few years before the Athletic Department is in a position to begin amortizing this debt (and we haven't heard a thing about how much it borrowed to cover the FY 2021 deficit). Don't be surprised if it's never. If so, the already high cost of a PSU education will get higher..

How would debt taken on by the athletic department have any impact of high cost of education at PSU? We are talking about two distinct and separate pots of money.

 

[roswelllion]

These are the comments I made prior to my decision to vote AGAINST the proposed $49 million Lasch Building renovations.

My fellow Trustees, I stand opposed to this resolution at this time. My reasons are twofold. The first financial while the second is more philosophical.

As Pennsylvania's only land grant university, Penn State has a broad mission of teaching, research, and public service. Our duty as university fiduciaries is, among other responsibilities, to ensure the affordable attainment of a PSU education.

No question but that athletics serves as the window through which our great University is seen by many. No doubt football occupies the largest pane. It is the engine that allows all 31 varsity sports to run.

However, as all of you know, we have a myriad of headwinds and uncertainties facing us over the next year.

First, and primarily, we have the challenge of the pandemic. Last year we lost ~$38 million in football ticket revenues not to mention the loss of gameday revenues. We filled some of that gap by allowing season ticket holders to roll their 2020 ticket purchases into 2021. Consequently, we have a large issue facing us this fall. How do we replace those revenues this year?

In addition, we seemingly lost 10% of our season ticketholder base by virtue of the way we handled the refund of 2020 season ticket purchases.

Finally, what happens if we can’t play football this fall in front of a a capacity crowd in Beaver Stadium?

Second, we don’t yet know the impact of recent image and likeness legislation on colleges and universities. What if the result of this is a drag on athletics revenues?

Finally, we seem to be deviating from our policy of philanthropic commitments in writing in hand before commencing. Instead, we intend to utilize $48.3 million of borrowings from a February 4, 2020 taxable bond offering. Moreover, does this approach not create a gender equity problem for us given our direction to the Women’s Field Hockey team?

Women’s Field Hockey would like to spend $9 million on a new venue. To date, they have received $7 million in committed gifts yet they have been told they cannot break ground without the full $9 million in hand.

Additionally, the Student Food Pantry has been told that they must raise the $250,000 required for expansion that is so desperately needed. In a time when we have homeless students living in the HUB and showering in Rec Hall, what message are we sending with this decision?

With respect to my philosophical concerns, I have heard some of you as well as University leadership refer to an arms race as it pertains to football. Let me suggest that such a race is unwinnable and frankly, in my opinion, a fools errand.

Let me remind all of you that Penn State, between 2014-2018, ranked 7th in football related expenditures, averaging almost $41 million. In 2018, the spend in football was $48 million.

Alabama was #1 at almost $60.5 million, Florida State followed at almost $50 million. Ohio State was 4th at almost $43 million while Michigan was 5th at ~$41 million. Clemson followed at just under $40 million.

Interesting to note that Notre Dame (~$39.5 million), Georgia (~$39 million) and Oklahoma (~$37 million) all spent less on football than us yet all have reached the final four.

Parenthetically, Alabama is the 143rd ranked school in the most recent US News and World Report whereas Clemson ranks 73rd.

A very wise man many of us knew liked to quote a line from the poet Robert Browning.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

In my opinion, we would be wise to delay this project.

Well first of all i have never been in Lasch so to the question of were the ronvations "needed" I have no idea. that aside I'll make 3 comments
. Our BoT and Universities in general are NOT good stewards of money so I wouldn't inclined to think they would make a good decision. However, as you point out football program is the window into all 31 sports and an ongoing revenue generating football program is vital.
. you also point out if things go wrong you can lose big money quickly. [38 million this year and 10% of season ticket holders] If a renovation helped to mitigate this it would be worth it.
. finally you mention $49 million and compare it to the recent losses. Wouldn't that $49 million get financed over 20 or so years? If so wouldn't the annual coast be closer to $3million? If that is correct a $3 million annual expense to have first class facilities seems worth it to me. [caveat, maybe they already are first class, as I said I do not know]

 

[Art]

How would debt taken on by the athletic department have any impact of high cost of education at PSU? We are talking about two distinct and separate pots of money.

The Athletic Department is not a legal entity and, thus, can't borrow on its own. That means it borrows from the University, which borrows from banks and the debt markets. If the Athletic Department can't repay the University, the University has to find another source to repay what it, the University, has borrowed. Guess what that source is?

 

[Zenophile]

Yeah, I get that. But when you are in a business without integrity, what is the point of having integrity?

The point is to ensure that We Are Penn State and Success With Honor remain synonymous during our respective lifetimes.

 

[Connorpozlee]

The point is to ensure that We Are Penn State and Success With Honor remain synonymous during our respective lifetimes.

At a certain point you become a sucker to play by a different set of rules than others are playing by. Especially when a completely different set of rules have been used try to cripple you.

 

[PAgeologist]

Don't know. Never simple to tell anything when it comes to PSU. If I had to guess, I'd say no and as likely as not be wrong.

I can't remember if the PA Department of General Services was there doing project oversight or not. If any public funding was used on a project of that size, they would be there. I've dealt with them on a few other state university projects Ive been involved with.

 

[Nitt1300]

Having thought about all this a bit further, I'm honestly of a mixed mind about it.

On the one hand, I like CJF- and I do want him to have what he needs for success, though my definition of what success looks like may not be as aggressive as his is.

On the other hand, I believe that nobody wins an arms race, particularly not those who aren't already on the top of the heap and who do not have the resources that some of their current and potential competitors do. If today's kids are so shallow (and I think that they are) that they can be turned by the next shiny thing, what's to keep the four or five richest schools from just outspending everybody else? So today's Taj Mahal will be next years trailer park anyway.

Add to that the rapidly changing landscape we are operating in and I'll not be writing any checks to support this spending- but I'm all in favor of those who see it differently writing some.

 

[Madsol]

Exactly. Bottom line is that if this renovation were to anything other than a football building Tony and Jay would STFU and vote yes. Like I said in every other thread ever posted on this board that if the Lasch plan included a provision for the statue both would have been wholeheartedly on board. Thankfully BWI is the only place/group of people who care what either of them say.

Fixed it for you.

 

[bytir]

Do you know if the baseball stadium used public funding? I know the labor on that project was all union and paid prevailing wage rates.

Didn't work on that project specifically, but the firm I work for designed that project along with others at PSU. As you said, if the state was involved and/or provided any monies towards a construction project - prevailing wage has to be used. I don't remember specifics and can not say for sure, but I believe there might have been some related infrastructure work (roads/sewer/utility) that was at least partially state funded that might have kicked the entire project into union labor.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Fixed it for you.

What can I say? Calling out Joebots and Sandusky “enthusiasts” is almost like a sport.

 

[Raffycorn]

Didn't work on that project specifically, but the firm I work for designed that project along with others at PSU. As you said, if the state was involved and/or provided any monies towards a construction project - prevailing wage has to be used. I don't remember specifics and can not say for sure, but I believe there might have been some related infrastructure work (roads/sewer/utility) that was at least partially state funded that might have kicked the entire project into union labor.

Some basic googling indicates that Ed Rendell and Jake Corman attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the ballpark. That seems like an indication to me that state funds were involved.

 

[LMTLION]

Tenets. The word is tenets. If you’re going to lecture a multimillionaire on the topic of business acumen using a tone of superiority, you might want to work on your vocabulary.

I find my error highly amusing as well - Homer Simpson level doh! But the fact remains that the ‘multimillionaire’ is very wrong on this topic. I want to help homeless students as well but the emotional ploy to connect that problem with the project decision is disturbing and shameful.

 

[TFBaum]

So you think spending $48mm on a funhouse will help PSU beat OSU? It's amazing that Oregon loses a game.

Maryland

 

[TFBaum]

Inclined to agree that the toys aren't going to make the football team a championship contender. Question though: should the surplus earned by the football program be plowed back into the program or spent on tennis teams, golf teams, gymnastics teams, jackwagon administrators, etc?

The funny thing about your response was when Pitt hit the jackpot in 76 Paterno said it would become a football factory. Where should the money go?

 

[81b&w]

Hopefully without being returned to the asylum for a recurring bout of schizophrenia I’m both for and against the Lasch expansion referendum. Entities should have a desire to improve themselves and take risks even in difficult economic times with an uncertain future. Otherwise stagnation often leads to failure. Based solely on the above I would have voted to pass the referendum.

However, the infusion of funds in difficult times must be matched with even more prudent fiscal management and often painful cost cutting. The present management of PSU has shown itself to be woefully inadequate in that regard. Thus I can understand why throwing more money into the pit to be squandered would upset others.

The mere fact that private donations for the project are severely lacking is quite telling. Very wealthy donors, just like the general public, don’t appreciate their money being used foolishly by incompetent individuals. I don’t believe that the economic situation caused by the pandemic is the overriding reason donations are lacking, although it is a contributing factor. Perhaps people who are concerned with recurring annual fiscal waste, no matter how much they are able to donate just feel they lack the power to correct the problem. Thus they don’t feel compelled to be complicit in its advancement. Personally that’s the way I feel, yet I still would love to see the improvements at the Lasch building occur. Hence the schizophrenic rumbling in my head, but this time I’m fairly certain that I can convince my doctors that external stupidity is the root cause of my problem.

The vast majority of us I believe just desire the best for PSU in all endeavors. Unfortunately our present senior leadership appears to be both often incompetent and devoted to a more personal self enrichment and empire building agenda. But I imagine you’ve probably heard this before from others. In any event it appears that the project will advance so be happy and don’t worry 😉.

That was a really good post, kudos!

 

[Thomas1945]

That was a really good post, kudos!

Thank you, I rarely rise above the imbecilic in my offerings here, but occasionally I try to submit something useful.

 

[PAgeologist]

Didn't work on that project specifically, but the firm I work for designed that project along with others at PSU. As you said, if the state was involved and/or provided any monies towards a construction project - prevailing wage has to be used. I don't remember specifics and can not say for sure, but I believe there might have been some related infrastructure work (roads/sewer/utility) that was at least partially state funded that might have kicked the entire project into union labor.

We must have worked at the same place then. I did some subgrade inspection on that project.

 

[kwg]

I did not "assert" that at all.

I will reference a January 24, 2012 PennLive report that states, "First and foremost, Paterno led by example. He and his wife have given the university more than $4 million for scholarships, endowed faculty positions and assorted building projects, most notably the library wing that bears their name."

Joe and his wife were also close friends of the Lasch family and they were instrumental in obtaining their financial support for the building that bears the family name.

The same article quotes that Paterno actively led two capital campaigns that raised over a billion dollars. The first came after the first MNC and raised over $300 million. Real money in those days.

Two months after Joe was fired he and his wife contributed $200,000 to the University, one of several annual six figure contributions Joe gave for programs and scholarships.

So if Franklin wants his edifice, he can chip in. Start with a significant contribution and lead a fund campaign as Joe did. Lead by example. It is not a novel concept. He contributes to things like Thon among others. Let him put up some cabbage here.

Donating to a library and donating to a project for the the football team you work for are two totally different things. I know you know that but because Joe had a passion for the liberal arts program and chose to support that by giving money to the library while noble doesn’t mean that James Franklin won’t do something as noble for a cause he believes in someday or for all you know hasn’t done that already. If has or chooses in the future to support something that he has a passion for that isn’t associated with the university does not make him any less a noble individual. I’m not implying that’s what your point is but it makes little sense for him to donate to the football program to prove that is is an important move that the university is willing to support.
Jams has been at Penn State for less than 10 years. Joe was an assistant for 15 years before he became head coach. He met his wife at Penn State, she is a Penn State grad, all his children ( from what I know ) graduated from Penn State, some having jobs with the university etc etc. Joe’s relationship with the Lasch family and his ability to get them to donate to the construction of the building came after he was a head coach for 30 years, in a time when the coaching carousel going from job to job wasn’t vogue and coaches were given more than 2 years to turn a program around so before you ask James Franklin to do the same the least you can do is give the man a chance to develop roots and establish him self at Penn State and the community the way Joe did. He took over a still very scarred program ( no disrespect to O’Brien and the 2012/2013 teams ) that likely will never see complete absolution, a fragmented alumni and fan base to this day and now a pandemic that hasn’t ravaged this country like anything anyone has ever dealt with in a time when our country as great as it is doesn’t have the world dominance that was present during most of Joe’s era let alone the community of State College who has thrived for years because of football now crumbling without it and I bet I’m pretty sure want this project to succeed more than most of us
All I’m saying is give the guy a break. Give him the opportunity to succeed He has done a great job so far so let him go to the gun fight with a gun instead of a knife for once.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Let's do a little different take on this. Eric the Fat makes his annual pilgrimage to Harrisburg to plead for a(n) (increased) state subsidy. Some legislator observes, "You know, President Fat One, people in Pennsylvania are hurting from this pandemic. They've lost jobs, lost their homes, in many cases lost loved ones. They're looking to us for help. But tax revenue is also down as a result of this pandemic and we're looking at a huge hole in the state budget at a time when our citizens and localities need more aid.

"I hear that you're spending nearly $50 million on a football training facility. $50million!!! And you have the temerity to ask us for an increased appropriation....."

Barron: "But we can afford it, sir."

State Representative: "You can afford it? I'm glad to hear that. Then you can afford a $50mm reduction in the state appropriation for this year."

I'm not so sure that would change the outcome.

Lawmaker acknowledges travel reimbursement error

• By Kyle Wind
• Apr 8, 2016 Updated Apr 17, 2020
• Comments

• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• SMS
• Email
• Save

JAKE DANNA STEVENS / TIMES-SHAMROCK Rep. Frank Farina, center, holds a press conference Friday outside the Lackawanna County Courthouse in Scranton.
State Rep. Frank Farina said he made a mistake when he billed the state for a $197 travel reimbursement for a trip to Penn State University during which he attended a football game.
"I am here today to acknowledge an error in judgment I made, for which I accept full responsibility," the Jessup Democrat said in a statement during a press conference at Lackawanna County Courthouse. "I intend to be diligent from this point forward about making sure my expense report is something any responsible taxpayer would understand as appropriate for the conduct of state business."

Farina was responding to a WNEP-TV report about state lawmakers accepting free tickets to Nittany Lions games. The station reported Farina was the only one it surveyed from the region that put in for a travel reimbursement for the trip — to cover mileage for his 343-mile round trip to Beaver Stadium.

"I made a faulty assumption that since Penn State is a state university, with the requisite oversight by the General Assembly, of which I am a member, that such a trip would be an acceptable reimbursement," Farina said. "Unlike most of my colleagues in the House, I have a Penn State campus in my district."
Farina said he would immediately reimburse the state for the September mileage and that he has become a co-sponsor on gift ban legislation.
Farina did not take questions after reading a statement on Friday and efforts to reach him later in the day were unsuccessful.
But he appeared to be referring to legislation proposed by state Rep. Tina Davis, D-Bucks. Her bill was in flux Friday, with the most recent version banning legislators from accepting gifts valued at more than $25 in a calendar year.

Penn State does not sell tickets to the general public for the president's box — where the college president and top college officials watch the game from — but the college estimates their value at $69 each.
"We invite every state legislator to one home football game per year, and we closely follow state laws and regulations in reporting these gifts and expenditures," the college said in a prepared statement. "We have found this to be an effective way to not only show legislators the University Park campus and the economic influence of the university and its athletics program, but to also build relationships and a better understanding of Penn State's overall impact."
Aside from watching games, what lawmakers typically do on campus varies widely, university spokesman Ben Manning said.

Many legislators also tour the campus, look at specific programs and time their visits with other events, Manning said. He was initially unable to estimate how many lawmakers typically accept the invitation.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of the good government group Common Cause Pennsylvania, wanted more information about what exactly Farina did during the trip.
"If it was purely a pleasure trip, he should not have charged the state," Kauffman said. "If he was doing genuine state business there ... then you can make the case it was state business, and he was entitled to state reimbursement."
The Citizens' Voice last year analyzed the state legislature's travel expenses, finding lawmakers spent $1.8 million on trips to attend committee hearings and conferences, research bills, meet constituents and participate in sessions in Harrisburg in 2014.

In the House, representatives sought reimbursements for the full year ranging from $40 to $29,619. The median annual total was $5,017.
Farina's travel spending totaled $9,089 following a year during which he sat on two committees that went on field trips — Tourism and Recreational Development and Game and Fisheries.
Some of his expenses included $274 on a trip with a tourism panel visiting attractions in Doylestown, including the James A. Michener Art Museum and Mercer Museum, and $377 while attending a lecture and field trip on the state's elk herd sponsored by the game committee.
Two Democratic candidates, Throop Borough Council President Thomas Lukasewicz and former state Rep. Kevin Haggerty of Dunmore, are challenging Farina in the April 26 primary for his seat in the 112th district.

Lukasewicz declined to address Farina's trip specifically beyond saying the voters will decide how important it is to them. But he said he would support a ban on all gifts to state lawmakers regardless of value.
Haggerty could not be reached for comment Friday. Haggerty's travel spending in 2014, his last year in office, totaled $4,501.
Archbald resident Ernest Lemoncelli, who is running unopposed for the Republican nomination in the race, also expressed support for a gift ban. Lemoncelli attended Farina's press conference to listen.
"I think it's the minimum he could have done to resolve it," Lemoncelli said afterward. "The biggest problem is the mindset that he has to try to get away with a $200 charge when in fact it wasn't reasonable by any means. Anyone would know that a free football game is not where you're going to learn about higher education. And he went to Penn State, so if he didn't learn about it then, I don't think one day at a game is going to help much."

Lawmaker acknowledges travel reimbursement error

State Rep. Frank Farina said he made a mistake when he billed the state for a $197 travel reimbursement for a trip to Penn State University during which he attended

www.citizensvoice.com