ADVERTISEMENT

Why is Jay Paterno Voting against Lasch improvements?

WPB_lion

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2001
1,555
1,016
1
Perhaps this is old news but it is news to me. According to the article linked below, Jay Paterno is one of 6 Trustees who voted against improvements to the Lasch building. I would think he would be one of the Trustees advocating support for the football program that his father built. IMO, it really comes off poorly to be one of the few trustees voting against improvements that are required to enable Franklin to compete for a national championship in today's college football world.

https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Penn-State-AD-James-Franklin-knows-hes-wanted-here-Sandy-Barbour-173359865/?utm_source=247Sports%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=211018_012933_PennStateNittanyLions&utm_content=Link&eid=a310ce6c7f7d4b28b5c1531365e252901d0a386b5afb39a0e443c8d087bbfb6d
 
Perhaps this is old news but it is news to me. According to the article linked below, Jay Paterno is one of 6 Trustees who voted against improvements to the Lasch building. I would think he would be one of the Trustees advocating support for the football program that his father built. IMO, it really comes off poorly to be one of the few trustees voting against improvements that are required to enable Franklin to compete for a national championship in today's college football world.

https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Penn-State-AD-James-Franklin-knows-hes-wanted-here-Sandy-Barbour-173359865/?utm_source=247Sports%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=211018_012933_PennStateNittanyLions&utm_content=Link&eid=a310ce6c7f7d4b28b5c1531365e252901d0a386b5afb39a0e443c8d087bbfb6d
Old news. He and Lubrano didn’t think it was wise to spend the money during a pandemic. It passed so I don’t really hold it against them.
 
It's odd that people don't want to invest in the program....very odd. OB and JF have to fight for every GD cent for their staffs and every little thing is a begging contest. Winning championships is good for business....not trying isn't.
 
Perhaps this is old news but it is news to me. According to the article linked below, Jay Paterno is one of 6 Trustees who voted against improvements to the Lasch building. I would think he would be one of the Trustees advocating support for the football program that his father built. IMO, it really comes off poorly to be one of the few trustees voting against improvements that are required to enable Franklin to compete for a national championship in today's college football world.

https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Penn-State-AD-James-Franklin-knows-hes-wanted-here-Sandy-Barbour-173359865/?utm_source=247Sports%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=211018_012933_PennStateNittanyLions&utm_content=Link&eid=a310ce6c7f7d4b28b5c1531365e252901d0a386b5afb39a0e443c8d087bbfb6d

A. Because it's not abundantly clear how the Athletic Department is going to pay off the debt it's accumulating. FYI, recent Lasch renovations rang up a $35mm tab (IIRC), and there is a third phase which will bring the total into the $100mm neighborhood.

B. These renovations are "required?" Says who? James Franklin? How much of his money is he kicking in if he doesn't win a national championship.

C. Brennan is a little pissant.
 
It's odd that people don't want to invest in the program....very odd. OB and JF have to fight for every GD cent for their staffs and every little thing is a begging contest. Winning championships is good for business....not trying isn't.

Investing in the program is fine. Problem is that's not exactly what's happening here. Try to figure it out.
 
Perhaps this is old news but it is news to me. According to the article linked below, Jay Paterno is one of 6 Trustees who voted against improvements to the Lasch building. I would think he would be one of the Trustees advocating support for the football program that his father built. IMO, it really comes off poorly to be one of the few trustees voting against improvements that are required to enable Franklin to compete for a national championship in today's college football world.

https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Penn-State-AD-James-Franklin-knows-hes-wanted-here-Sandy-Barbour-173359865/?utm_source=247Sports%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=211018_012933_PennStateNittanyLions&utm_content=Link&eid=a310ce6c7f7d4b28b5c1531365e252901d0a386b5afb39a0e443c8d087bbfb6d

Yeah, he and others had *reasons* why they voted against it. Could be posturing since he likely knew it would pass anyway. Still, here's his reasoning via his webpage:

February 19, 2021 --WE ARE--A Statement on the Lasch Building Vote Today

This afternoon I will be voting against the resolution for the Lasch building. This decision was not made lightly. The next few paragraphs are to explain this vote.

We are Penn State….”WE” is the best of all pronouns.

For many years WE ARE Penn State has identified us and drawn us together. Certainly Saturday afternoon or Saturday night football games see us united in chanting WE ARE. That cheer echoes far beyond the stadium confines and is part of the everyday lives for all who love this place.


No one denies that.



But in these challenging times WE must realize this: WE must bind all elements of this University in common cause.



Over the past year our administration and our Board have asked our University to make difficult sacrifices. Employees have been furloughed, academic budgets have been cut. Salaries have been frozen or slashed. Maintenance on buildings has been postponed, and proposed academic building projects have been put on hold.



Now we are being asked to borrow and allocate $48 million to make additions to a football building that has already undergone $36 million in renovations that included the desired recruiting updates—a new lobby, locker room, player lounge and academic support center.



And by the time the next phase is done we will have spent $105 million on this building. Some have advocated spending even more.



At the same time WE have students sleeping in the Hub at night, we have students who are hungry. We battle to make Penn State more affordable. We have a moral obligation to do that.



How do we look the people we are asking to make sacrifices in the eye and then borrow and spend this money?



Yes borrowing money is cheap now, but it is not free. Yes we can characterize this as an investment in the future. Yes other schools are spending a lot, but we are has always meant we lead on our own better path.



Around the country there is universal agreement that the future foundation of the amateur college athletics model is at best uncertain. Others would argue that it is ending.



Yes borrowing money is an investment. But right now we lack the certainty of what our revenues will be in the next ten months, let alone what we face with potential changes in college athletics across the country. The future revenue model to repay this money is shrouded in an uncertain fog.



We also have investments to make in Beaver Stadium that will likely involve more staggering numbers.



Many of us objected to spending on other non-student-centered projects like the proposed art museum and the eight-figure price tag for the private elevator for the president’s football suite.



When times are tough, we should remind ourselves that WE all must be patient, we must all pay a price in the short-term to benefit all of us over the long-term.



A year from now we can emerge from both Covid and the daunting changes in college athletics—better standing able to see the far horizon.



The actions we’ve taken this past year for this University have been difficult; more difficult challenges await us.



As members of this board, we have an obligation to this University that lasts long beyond our lifetimes.



There will be a time when our eyes will no longer be open to see the next day’s dawn—but there will be future students and faculty whose destiny will be shaped by what we do now.



With that as our guidance, we would do well to postpone this project to gauge the entire scope of needs we have in athletics --and more importantly the scope of needs across the academic and research mission that is the very reason for our existence as an institution.



And to end on one last point.



The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is our home, it is our partner and it is where we draw our strength. People across this commonwealth have lost jobs, people are standing in lines at food banks and can’t pay their rent.



So we must remind ourselves of this fact:



WE ARE does not end at our campus boundary.



Our own television ad states



“Dear Pennsylvania,



Wherever you are



We are with you.



Always.



We are Penn State.”



Today’s vote will signal to our students, faculty, staff and the people of Pennsylvania if we are truly with you…always.
 
Yeah, he and others had *reasons* why they voted against it. Could be posturing since he likely knew it would pass anyway. Still, here's his reasoning via his webpage:

February 19, 2021 --WE ARE--A Statement on the Lasch Building Vote Today

This afternoon I will be voting against the resolution for the Lasch building. This decision was not made lightly. The next few paragraphs are to explain this vote.

We are Penn State….”WE” is the best of all pronouns.

For many years WE ARE Penn State has identified us and drawn us together. Certainly Saturday afternoon or Saturday night football games see us united in chanting WE ARE. That cheer echoes far beyond the stadium confines and is part of the everyday lives for all who love this place.


No one denies that.



But in these challenging times WE must realize this: WE must bind all elements of this University in common cause.



Over the past year our administration and our Board have asked our University to make difficult sacrifices. Employees have been furloughed, academic budgets have been cut. Salaries have been frozen or slashed. Maintenance on buildings has been postponed, and proposed academic building projects have been put on hold.



Now we are being asked to borrow and allocate $48 million to make additions to a football building that has already undergone $36 million in renovations that included the desired recruiting updates—a new lobby, locker room, player lounge and academic support center.



And by the time the next phase is done we will have spent $105 million on this building. Some have advocated spending even more.



At the same time WE have students sleeping in the Hub at night, we have students who are hungry. We battle to make Penn State more affordable. We have a moral obligation to do that.



How do we look the people we are asking to make sacrifices in the eye and then borrow and spend this money?



Yes borrowing money is cheap now, but it is not free. Yes we can characterize this as an investment in the future. Yes other schools are spending a lot, but we are has always meant we lead on our own better path.



Around the country there is universal agreement that the future foundation of the amateur college athletics model is at best uncertain. Others would argue that it is ending.



Yes borrowing money is an investment. But right now we lack the certainty of what our revenues will be in the next ten months, let alone what we face with potential changes in college athletics across the country. The future revenue model to repay this money is shrouded in an uncertain fog.



We also have investments to make in Beaver Stadium that will likely involve more staggering numbers.



Many of us objected to spending on other non-student-centered projects like the proposed art museum and the eight-figure price tag for the private elevator for the president’s football suite.



When times are tough, we should remind ourselves that WE all must be patient, we must all pay a price in the short-term to benefit all of us over the long-term.



A year from now we can emerge from both Covid and the daunting changes in college athletics—better standing able to see the far horizon.



The actions we’ve taken this past year for this University have been difficult; more difficult challenges await us.



As members of this board, we have an obligation to this University that lasts long beyond our lifetimes.



There will be a time when our eyes will no longer be open to see the next day’s dawn—but there will be future students and faculty whose destiny will be shaped by what we do now.



With that as our guidance, we would do well to postpone this project to gauge the entire scope of needs we have in athletics --and more importantly the scope of needs across the academic and research mission that is the very reason for our existence as an institution.



And to end on one last point.



The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is our home, it is our partner and it is where we draw our strength. People across this commonwealth have lost jobs, people are standing in lines at food banks and can’t pay their rent.



So we must remind ourselves of this fact:



WE ARE does not end at our campus boundary.



Our own television ad states



“Dear Pennsylvania,



Wherever you are



We are with you.



Always.



We are Penn State.”



Today’s vote will signal to our students, faculty, staff and the people of Pennsylvania if we are truly with you…always.
Hmmm, not bad for a FOG.
 
If James Franklin thinks improvements are necessary, Jay Paterno is a Trustee who should be supporting the football coach.

No. Trustees have a fiduciary obligation to the University, not to rubber stamp anything the administration or a football coach want. BTW, did Franklin appear before the Board to make a case for the expenditure?
 
No. Trustees have a fiduciary obligation to the University, not to rubber stamp anything the administration or a football coach want. BTW, did Franklin appear before the Board to make a case for the expenditure?
I understand the fiduciary obligations. Lets be clear, Jay Paterno is on the board because of Joe Paterno and the football program that Joe Paterno built. Those who voted him on the Board expect him to support the Football program. At PSU, the success of the football program is extremely important to the University and the economy of State College. 80% of the Trustees (who all owe fiduciary obligations to the university) support the improvements. For Jay Paterno to be in the minority of a vote to allocate money to the football program is a very bad look for Jay Paterno in my opinion.

I have no idea whether Franklin advocated for the improvements. If Franklin was against the improvements and wanted the money spent elsewhere, then I have to believe the improvements would not have passed.
 
I understand the fiduciary obligations. Lets be clear, Jay Paterno is on the board because of Joe Paterno and the football program that Joe Paterno built. Those who voted him on the Board expect him to support the Football program. At PSU, the success of the football program is extremely important to the University and the economy of State College. 80% of the Trustees (who all owe fiduciary obligations to the university) support the improvements. For Jay Paterno to be in the minority of a vote to allocate money to the football program is a very bad look for Jay Paterno in my opinion.

I have no idea whether Franklin advocated for the improvements. If Franklin was against the improvements and wanted the money spent elsewhere, then I have to believe the improvements would not have passed.

So all of the people who voted for Jay expect him to blindly support the "football program?" Didn't know that PSU specialized in graduating lemmings.

Yes, the football program is important to PSU. But this vote wasn't for an investment in the football program. This vote was to pay for more than two dozen sports that can't earn their keep and a grossly bloated Athletic Department administration, an administration that can whittle a $53mm football surplus down to a $7mm overall surplus (in a good year) before you blink. The trustees who voted for the "investment" can't see that, so why should you be expected to.
 
Like most issues, there is nuance that can't be boiled down into "right or wrong." Franklin has been tasked with operating a football program that thrives on the field. Of course he will(and should) want any resource or commitment that gets him to that end. If he didn't, why would he want to coach here, seriously? Jay has a responsibility to the financial vitality of the University for years to come, not merely the football program. He has a responsibility for fiscal stewardship that impacts the entirety of the university and as he stated, that is a tough proposition as the school becomes less and less affordable and they are furloughing teachers and academic projects. Both are trying to do what is right for their particular departments. You see this everywhere and business and life. That said, and I have constantly belabored the point, I don't particularly understand why Penn State enacts "half-measures" when it comes to football. Either commit everything you need to promoting a championship football team(coaching salaries, facilities, NIL opportunities, dare I say....relaxed academic standards) OR don't pay a top 10 coach $6M a year while providing average support/resources around him? I think we have conflated "success with honor" with being great at all things(wonderful academic institution with perennial championship football) as though those virtues can really coexist in the current College football environment. News flash, they can't. You have to be willing to cheat, steal, cut other sports, steroids, pay players, get rid of non revenue producing sports etc. Name the last champion that was a paragon of "Success with Honor?" If Franklin ever does leave, it will be because he did not feel FULL commitment from the university to produce a championship level football team. And look, we don't have to have a championship level football team, but if you don't want all the expenses and that come with that, then you need to be okay with average coaching, 8-9 win seasons. The top 10-15 coaches want to go to places that are ALL IN on winning. You want to know why it is even rumored that Franklin could go to an LSU or USC? Because there is no doubt those places will provide everything possible to win a championship.
 
No. Trustees have a fiduciary obligation to the University, not to rubber stamp anything the administration or a football coach want. BTW, did Franklin appear before the Board to make a case for the expenditure?
So Jay chose the Lasch building to finally take a stand? He didn't make a peep when millions of dollars were over spent on dorms, art museums, land purchases, etc. I don't have a problem with a trustee taking a stand. I do have an issue when they are not consistent. That defines Jay's position.
 
It'd be nice to have gold plated facilities that would make every recruit want to come here....but playing the long game here, to the extent power house programs used debt to finance these expansions, what is the path to paying it off?
 
So all of the people who voted for Jay expect him to blindly support the "football program?" Didn't know that PSU specialized in graduating lemmings.
I voted for Jay…and I support his decision to vote against this expansion if he feels it’s in the best interest of the University…I didn’t vote for Jay so that he would simply rubber stamp all football related proposals.
 
So Jay chose the Lasch building to finally take a stand? He didn't make a peep when millions of dollars were over spent on dorms, art museums, land purchases, etc. I don't have a problem with a trustee taking a stand. I do have an issue when they are not consistent. That defines Jay's position.

So in the interest of maintaining consistency, pissing money away is sufficient reason to piss more money away. Youll never meet a university administrator who won't support that.

Frankly, I don't care about Jay. It was a bad decision.
 
It's old news but this message board can make my head spin sometimes. Two conflicting trains of thought...

A) The BoT provides no meaningful oversight for finances involving construction projects. It simply says "OK" to whatever the evil cabal proposes.

B) BoT members are criticized for attempting to provide oversight for finances involving constructions projects. 🤷‍♂️

I'm all for supporting the football program but barring a huge private gift which makes it possible, a football construction project shouldn't be rubber stamped simply because it's for football.
 
It'd be nice to have gold plated facilities that would make every recruit want to come here....but playing the long game here, to the extent power house programs used debt to finance these expansions, what is the path to paying it off?

Two main ways: 1) they can raise money through contributions (see Northwestern); 2) athletic department (read: football) surpluses. Or there is the Ms. Excellence way: put your university (Cal) in hock for 100 years.
 
It's old news but this message board can make my head spin sometimes. Two conflicting trains of thought...

A) The BoT provides no meaningful oversight for finances involving construction projects. It simply says "OK" to whatever the evil cabal proposes.

B) BoT members are criticized for attempting to provide oversight for finances involving constructions projects. 🤷‍♂️

I'm all for supporting the football program but barring a huge private gift which makes it possible, a football construction project shouldn't be rubber stamped simply because it's for football.

Here's another way. Put football into its own silo. Whatever surpluses it generates get plowed back into the football program. Then put all of the money-losers and unnecessary (to football) administrators into another pot and let the University decide if and how it will pay for them. (We'll leave men's basketball out of the discussion for the time being).

Do that and we ain't having this discussion.
 
Here's another way. Put football into its own silo. Whatever surpluses it generates get plowed back into the football program. Then put all of the money-losers and unnecessary (to football) administrators into another pot and let the University decide if and how it will pay for them. (We'll leave men's basketball out of the discussion for the time being).

Do that and we ain't having this discussion.

Smart idea, genuinely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WyomingLion
Here's another way. Put football into its own silo. Whatever surpluses it generates get plowed back into the football program. Then put all of the money-losers and unnecessary (to football) administrators into another pot and let the University decide if and how it will pay for them. (We'll leave men's basketball out of the discussion for the time being).

Do that and we ain't having this discussion.
that works- but is it permissible under current statutes?
 
So Jay chose the Lasch building to finally take a stand? He didn't make a peep when millions of dollars were over spent on dorms, art museums, land purchases, etc. I don't have a problem with a trustee taking a stand. I do have an issue when they are not consistent. That defines Jay's position.

proposed art museum and the eight-figure price tag for the private elevator for the president’s football suite.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: PSUfiji
I understand the fiduciary obligations. Lets be clear, Jay Paterno is on the board because of Joe Paterno and the football program that Joe Paterno built. Those who voted him on the Board expect him to support the Football program. At PSU, the success of the football program is extremely important to the University and the economy of State College. 80% of the Trustees (who all owe fiduciary obligations to the university) support the improvements. For Jay Paterno to be in the minority of a vote to allocate money to the football program is a very bad look for Jay Paterno in my opinion.

I have no idea whether Franklin advocated for the improvements. If Franklin was against the improvements and wanted the money spent elsewhere, then I have to believe the improvements would not have passed.
Jay is on the board because of his last name and little else.
 
So in the interest of maintaining consistency, pissing money away is sufficient reason to piss more money away. Youll never meet a university administrator who won't support that.

Frankly, I don't care about Jay. It was a bad decision.
In your opinion. I disagree with you. I am in that building a few times a year. It needs the upgrades.
 
Hmmm, not bad for a FOG.
Just a couple of observations.
. Is college football a never ending arms race? yes However when this was being discussed I looked up the top 25 football facilities in the country. We weren't listed. Not top 10 top 25. As our Pres would say c'mon man. Aren't we in the top 5 in annual football revenue?
. "We have kids sleeping on the floor and students going hungry" seriously? Anyone who thinks by not doing a renovation will cure the other issues he mentions is dreaming.
our national ranking is dropping each year and I think we have the highest public tuition in the country [or damn close] About the only thing that can pay for itself is the football program
 
In your opinion. I disagree with you. I am in that building a few times a year. It needs the upgrades.

I'm not opining on whether the building needs upgrades. I don't like the way it's being paid for. And if things keep going in the same direction, it won't be long before we're discussing, like ASWP and Rutgers do every year, how much the University's subsidy of the Athletic Department is.
 
Like most issues, there is nuance that can't be boiled down into "right or wrong." Franklin has been tasked with operating a football program that thrives on the field. Of course he will(and should) want any resource or commitment that gets him to that end. If he didn't, why would he want to coach here, seriously? Jay has a responsibility to the financial vitality of the University for years to come, not merely the football program. He has a responsibility for fiscal stewardship that impacts the entirety of the university and as he stated, that is a tough proposition as the school becomes less and less affordable and they are furloughing teachers and academic projects. Both are trying to do what is right for their particular departments. You see this everywhere and business and life. That said, and I have constantly belabored the point, I don't particularly understand why Penn State enacts "half-measures" when it comes to football. Either commit everything you need to promoting a championship football team(coaching salaries, facilities, NIL opportunities, dare I say....relaxed academic standards) OR don't pay a top 10 coach $6M a year while providing average support/resources around him? I think we have conflated "success with honor" with being great at all things(wonderful academic institution with perennial championship football) as though those virtues can really coexist in the current College football environment. News flash, they can't. You have to be willing to cheat, steal, cut other sports, steroids, pay players, get rid of non revenue producing sports etc. Name the last champion that was a paragon of "Success with Honor?" If Franklin ever does leave, it will be because he did not feel FULL commitment from the university to produce a championship level football team. And look, we don't have to have a championship level football team, but if you don't want all the expenses and that come with that, then you need to be okay with average coaching, 8-9 win seasons. The top 10-15 coaches want to go to places that are ALL IN on winning. You want to know why it is even rumored that Franklin could go to an LSU or USC? Because there is no doubt those places will provide everything possible to win a championship.

When you pay a top ten coaching salary, you should be serious about football. Then again, Stanford does and seems like they DGAF either way.
 
No. Trustees have a fiduciary obligation to the University, not to rubber stamp anything the administration or a football coach want. BTW, did Franklin appear before the Board to make a case for the expenditure?

Sandy laughs at fiduciary obligation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan
ADVERTISEMENT