Falce article in CDT wrt "Yudichak Proposal"...
- Thread starter bjf1984
- Start date
36 trustees is too many. I also don't believe that Yudichak's proposal would truly result in three equal groups. The alumni-elected trustees would still be outnumbered 24-12. I still see the other two groups of trustees having their cliques and replacing outgoing trustees with new like-minded trustees as they do now. I just don't see Yudichak's proposal mitigating the issues currently plaguing the bot.
The other question is whether Wolf sees the issues with the bot and is committed to fixing them. I'd like to know where Wolf stands on this issue.
The other question is whether Wolf sees the issues with the bot and is committed to fixing them. I'd like to know where Wolf stands on this issue.
Only in Pennsylvania (it seems).....
do we seem incapable of addressing problems by doing anything other than putting a new wrapping on the same failed paradigm.
The problems with the current BOT - clearly - are:
- Factionalization, various groups battling for control - rather than working together for the good of the University
- Lack of accountability. BOT members who sit in governance over the University - but who are utterly unaccountable to the stakeholders (remember that whole "taxation without representation thing"?).
- Too large, members become disengaged, and true control lies in the hands of an unauthorized minority
So.....for 3 1/2 f&cking years!!!!!!.....we see proposal after proposal taking the same systemically failed paradigm, wrapping it up in a different bow, and calling it reform.
How about we propose a solution which at least has a CHANCE to address ANY of the underlying problems?????????
It is mind-numbing.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1406825992960200&id=100008984370997
This post was edited on 3/13 8:25 AM by bjf1984
This post was edited on 3/13 8:56 AM by bjf1984
do we seem incapable of addressing problems by doing anything other than putting a new wrapping on the same failed paradigm.
The problems with the current BOT - clearly - are:
- Factionalization, various groups battling for control - rather than working together for the good of the University
- Lack of accountability. BOT members who sit in governance over the University - but who are utterly unaccountable to the stakeholders (remember that whole "taxation without representation thing"?).
- Too large, members become disengaged, and true control lies in the hands of an unauthorized minority
So.....for 3 1/2 f&cking years!!!!!!.....we see proposal after proposal taking the same systemically failed paradigm, wrapping it up in a different bow, and calling it reform.
How about we propose a solution which at least has a CHANCE to address ANY of the underlying problems?????????
It is mind-numbing.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1406825992960200&id=100008984370997
This post was edited on 3/13 8:25 AM by bjf1984
This post was edited on 3/13 8:56 AM by bjf1984
This is really the crux of the matter. Alumni trustees still get outvoted and there is no apparent accountability for any trustees other than the alumni. IIRC Michigan has 8 to 10 trustees who are all elected state wide every few years. Small and functional where a tiny group can not take over like the PSU executive committee. Accountable at election. Imagine that.
The problem is the people making the recommendations are state government lifers in PA so they're not used to cutting things. They just make them bigger and put a nice tidy ribbon on it to pass it off as new. There is absolutely no reason that the government should have 12 representatives including people nominated by the speaker of the house and president of the Senate as well as the governor. Talk about a power grab.
The 12 agriculture and board and industry trustees are apparently still a problem. How are they decided? Are they elected? Again, no accountability from what I've seen so far. And just as important, can we finally get away from the governance of the 1800s and realize that business & industry and agriculture don't deserve special reserved spots on the Board of Trustees? Why not education? Philosophy? Medicine? Law? I hate to say this but Michigan appears to have the best model IMO.
The problem is the people making the recommendations are state government lifers in PA so they're not used to cutting things. They just make them bigger and put a nice tidy ribbon on it to pass it off as new. There is absolutely no reason that the government should have 12 representatives including people nominated by the speaker of the house and president of the Senate as well as the governor. Talk about a power grab.
The 12 agriculture and board and industry trustees are apparently still a problem. How are they decided? Are they elected? Again, no accountability from what I've seen so far. And just as important, can we finally get away from the governance of the 1800s and realize that business & industry and agriculture don't deserve special reserved spots on the Board of Trustees? Why not education? Philosophy? Medicine? Law? I hate to say this but Michigan appears to have the best model IMO.
Actually, despite that stellar report from......
Holly Gregory - the "governance expert"......
[/URL]
You remember her....the one who practically broke down in tears when asked a few simple questions by the elected trustees.
The most common structure among our peer group in the B1G, is an 8 member board - all of whom are selected in statewide elections (Michigan, Nebraska, and Michigan State all follow that template). The others - they are all over the map.
Funny that we didn't hear one word along these lines from our "impartial consultant".
That being said:
"It should also be noted that "Benchmarking" is by definition a failed process with regard to determining proper stakeholder enfranchisement. Unless the question is "How do other organizations function?", benchmarking does not provide any answers.
On the other hand, benchmarking is often used as a disingenuous tool to support a preconceived position (ala hiring "governance expert" Holly Gregory). It would be easy enough, with a few hours' time and access to the internet, to compose a "benchmark" or a profile of stakeholder enfranchisement among various organizations ..and structure that composition to support any position we might wish to defend.
For example, the most common enfranchisement structure among Big Ten institutions is as follows: An eight member Board, all of whom are selected through a democratic statewide election. This is the process in place at Michigan, Michigan State, and Nebraska. That being said, it also shows that eight other Big Ten institutions - ten, if we consider Rutgers and Maryland - have different processes. What we should see, is a tremendously divergent spectrum. In and of itself, this would be reason enough to reject benchmarking as anything other than an academic exercise.
The question we face is not "How do other organizations function?", but rather, "How do we implement a proper governance structure for the Pennsylvania State University?"[/I]
Holly Gregory - the "governance expert"......
You remember her....the one who practically broke down in tears when asked a few simple questions by the elected trustees.
The most common structure among our peer group in the B1G, is an 8 member board - all of whom are selected in statewide elections (Michigan, Nebraska, and Michigan State all follow that template). The others - they are all over the map.
Funny that we didn't hear one word along these lines from our "impartial consultant".
That being said:
"It should also be noted that "Benchmarking" is by definition a failed process with regard to determining proper stakeholder enfranchisement. Unless the question is "How do other organizations function?", benchmarking does not provide any answers.
On the other hand, benchmarking is often used as a disingenuous tool to support a preconceived position (ala hiring "governance expert" Holly Gregory). It would be easy enough, with a few hours' time and access to the internet, to compose a "benchmark" or a profile of stakeholder enfranchisement among various organizations ..and structure that composition to support any position we might wish to defend.
For example, the most common enfranchisement structure among Big Ten institutions is as follows: An eight member Board, all of whom are selected through a democratic statewide election. This is the process in place at Michigan, Michigan State, and Nebraska. That being said, it also shows that eight other Big Ten institutions - ten, if we consider Rutgers and Maryland - have different processes. What we should see, is a tremendously divergent spectrum. In and of itself, this would be reason enough to reject benchmarking as anything other than an academic exercise.
The question we face is not "How do other organizations function?", but rather, "How do we implement a proper governance structure for the Pennsylvania State University?"[/I]
Re: How would the at-large positions be determined?
As of yet - to the best of my knowledge - Yudichak hasn't said.
I have contacted his office - but haven't heard anything back yet.
Now - certainly Yudichak's proposal is "better" than what we have now.....but the idea of 12 seats that have no accountability to the stakeholders of the University is bad news. Structurally, it likely won't be as bad as the self-perpetuating, done in complete secrecy, process for the B&I trustees - but, systemically, it creates the same types of problems.
We shall see
As of yet - to the best of my knowledge - Yudichak hasn't said.
I have contacted his office - but haven't heard anything back yet.
Now - certainly Yudichak's proposal is "better" than what we have now.....but the idea of 12 seats that have no accountability to the stakeholders of the University is bad news. Structurally, it likely won't be as bad as the self-perpetuating, done in complete secrecy, process for the B&I trustees - but, systemically, it creates the same types of problems.
We shall see
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Basketball Penn State vs UMBC: Preview, how to watch, and more- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
Football Three keys to victory for Penn State against Washington
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley