ADVERTISEMENT

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

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




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."


Oh, I dunno. Given the larger holes in PA's budget going forward, I think that Harrisburg will be less inclined to be generous. Regardless, this episode will provide someone an opportunity to grab a headline. So whether this was a good or bad decision, it was tone deaf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PearlSUJam
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?
Appreciate the legal aspect of it, but on the ledger sheet they are kept separate.

And there is ZERO reason to think the athletic department won't be able to pay it back.
 
Oh, I dunno. Given the larger holes in PA's budget going forward, I think that Harrisburg will be less inclined to be generous. Regardless, this episode will provide someone an opportunity to grab a headline. So whether this was a good or bad decision, it was tone deaf.
Serious question Art. It's well know that Joe was a great fundraiser. Is that a part of coaching anymore or is that a thing of the past and left up to ADs?
 
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.

Give him a break? He has leveraged a salary and benefits package of over $6.5 million. With that comes accountability, at least in those who are not fan boys.

7 years? Not enough time? I don’t know even where to begin with that? Who among us gets 7 years to get his act together? Who in sports?

Great job? Falling further behind tOSU each of the past four years? A losing season, with no wins against teams with a winning record. By his own admission falling short in recruiting. We have different opinions of what a “great” job entails.
 
Appreciate the legal aspect of it, but on the ledger sheet they are kept separate.

And there is ZERO reason to think the athletic department won't be able to pay it back.

Really? How much is the Athletic Department borrowing to cover this year's deficit? That has to be repaid back as well.

But the Athletic Department is a free-cash generating juggernaut. Here are its pre-pandemic surpluses going back five years:

2019 $4mm
2018 $10mm
2017 $5mm
2016 $2.9mm
2015 $3.5mm

Those are all before any comp increases for Barbour, Franklin & staff, and who knows what they'll pay for a new basketball coach.

I'm disinclined to underestimate Barbour's ability to fritter away money at a high rate.

"Ledger sheet" aside, if the Athletic Department can't repay the money, the University is on the hook.
 
Give him a break? He has leveraged a salary and benefits package of over $6.5 million. With that comes accountability, at least in those who are not fan boys.

7 years? Not enough time? I don’t know even where to begin with that? Who among us gets 7 years to get his act together? Who in sports?

Great job? Falling further behind tOSU each of the past four years? A losing season, with no wins against teams with a winning record. By his own admission falling short in recruiting. We have different opinions of what a “great” job entails.

Yeah, but what does your daughter think? 🙂
 
Really? How much is the Athletic Department borrowing to cover this year's deficit? That has to be repaid back as well.

But the Athletic Department is a free-cash generating juggernaut. Here are its pre-pandemic surpluses going back five years:

2019 $4mm
2018 $10mm
2017 $5mm
2016 $2.9mm
2015 $3.5mm

Those are all before any comp increases for Barbour, Franklin & staff, and who knows what they'll pay for a new basketball coach.

I'm disinclined to underestimate Barbour's ability to fritter away money at a high rate.

"Ledger sheet" aside, if the Athletic Department can't repay the money, the University is on the hook.

Jay and Lubrano will want the coach from Penn State DuBois because they will be worried about the cost of someone else.
 
Yeah, but what does your daughter think? 🙂

Her opinion? She is less kind than me and since going to Cali for school she talks like a truck driver. Let’s put it this way, she thinks he tends to be a bit disengenuous.

You should ask what my son thinks. He makes a mean ham sandwich.
 
Really? How much is the Athletic Department borrowing to cover this year's deficit? That has to be repaid back as well.

But the Athletic Department is a free-cash generating juggernaut. Here are its pre-pandemic surpluses going back five years:

2019 $4mm
2018 $10mm
2017 $5mm
2016 $2.9mm
2015 $3.5mm

Those are all before any comp increases for Barbour, Franklin & staff, and who knows what they'll pay for a new basketball coach.

I'm disinclined to underestimate Barbour's ability to fritter away money at a high rate.

"Ledger sheet" aside, if the Athletic Department can't repay the money, the University is on the hook.

Hey, every dollar has two sides. That means you can spend it twice. At least my wife thinks so. She is a Democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: green2623
When Franklin bolts you can blame that on Jay and Tony, too.

Not really. But it will be in the mind of the next coach that people on the BOT are still hanging on the what Joe Paterno did. Maybe a little of what BOB was saying was true?
 
Serious question Art. It's well know that Joe was a great fundraiser. Is that a part of coaching anymore or is that a thing of the past and left up to ADs?


You ask as though Sandy needs help.
 
Last edited:
Not really. But it will be in the mind of the next coach that people on the BOT are still hanging on the what Joe Paterno did. Maybe a little of what BOB was saying was true?

Then said coach wouldn't be very bright.

O'Brien's case was different.
 
Really? How much is the Athletic Department borrowing to cover this year's deficit? That has to be repaid back as well.

But the Athletic Department is a free-cash generating juggernaut. Here are its pre-pandemic surpluses going back five years:

2019 $4mm
2018 $10mm
2017 $5mm
2016 $2.9mm
2015 $3.5mm

Those are all before any comp increases for Barbour, Franklin & staff, and who knows what they'll pay for a new basketball coach.

I'm disinclined to underestimate Barbour's ability to fritter away money at a high rate.

"Ledger sheet" aside, if the Athletic Department can't repay the money, the University is on the hook.
Yes, really. You cannot operate a public university at a profit. You have to spend the money so that incoming cash = outgoing cash. Since the athletic budget is functionally separate from the university, AND the athletic department brings in surpluses (as you point out above), it needs to be spent on something. Or they could purposefully bring in less money (e.g. charge less for season tickets). I don't think anyone would honestly advocate for the latter (unless they think they haven't maximized income with the current price structure).

So as I said above, I think the timing of this decision/announcement is bad optics. But I think the AD can afford to spend the money.
 
You cannot operate a public university at a profit. You have to spend the money so that incoming cash = outgoing cash.

You are wrong. Not-for/profit does not mean having revenues over expenses is wrong.

How else do you build appropriate reserves, make investments in plant and equipment, and hire good staff?
 
Yes, really. You cannot operate a public university at a profit. You have to spend the money so that incoming cash = outgoing cash. Since the athletic budget is functionally separate from the university, AND the athletic department brings in surpluses (as you point out above), it needs to be spent on something. Or they could purposefully bring in less money (e.g. charge less for season tickets). I don't think anyone would honestly advocate for the latter (unless they think they haven't maximized income with the current price structure).

So as I said above, I think the timing of this decision/announcement is bad optics. But I think the AD can afford to spend the money.

Are you saying that a not-for-profit cannot generate a surplus or has to spend it, immediately, if not sooner? That's horseshit.

While we're at it, can, say Harvard or Stanford, both "private" universities, operate "at a profit?"
 
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.
You can see the floorplans for the proposed renovations online. I'm not really seeing anything too extravagant or indicative of any kind of obscene arms race. They're basically just constructing a new wing on the north end of the building (where part of the parking lot is now) and constructing a new, larger strength and conditioning training facility. The current facility is on the smaller side, doesn't have enough room for a separate turf speed/agility area, and was constructed in 1998 for a totally different strength and conditioning program and equipment. They did a good job of modifying the old space to fit current practices, but you can see from the renderings that the new S&C area looks much more in line with what you're seeing at other P5 schools. In the old weight room area, they're repurposing most of that space to build a much larger sports medicine suite.

The players lounge used to be in the back of the building, but they've moved that to a different location, in the front of the building right off the locker room. In its place, in the back of the building they're constructing a new lobby area with offices for the various operations people, and putting in space for the program that they have planned to help players for "life after football" - career development, personal finance, etc. - and they're knocking out a wall to provide a direct connection to the former ice arena that's now the student-athlete advising/tutoring center.

Honestly, all of the things that they have proposed have a direct nexus to actual player development - I don't see bells and whistles like lazy rivers, fun slides, putt-putt courses, stuff like that. The closest thing that I see to it is a small addition on the south side of the building that will be a new QB meeting room and "QB lab" - whatever that means, but my guess is something like a golf simulator but for...quarterbacking?

But overall, stuff like "larger weight room that is actually built to be used the way Dwight Galt uses it and not the way John Thomas used it," "larger and more equipped sports medicine area," and "more space for employees that help football players develop into successful adults after their careers" doesn't sound extravagant. They already did the locker room, players lounge, and meeting rooms/coaches offices, so those aren't really going to be touched or re-did in this project.

I'm not sure how the dollar figures work out the way that they do - and I think that's a legitimate question - but I don't think it's fair to suggest that we're participating in an arms race. It all seems very "functional," rather than "bells and whistles" to be honest.
 
You can see the floorplans for the proposed renovations online. I'm not really seeing anything too extravagant or indicative of any kind of obscene arms race. They're basically just constructing a new wing on the north end of the building (where part of the parking lot is now) and constructing a new, larger strength and conditioning training facility. The current facility is on the smaller side, doesn't have enough room for a separate turf speed/agility area, and was constructed in 1998 for a totally different strength and conditioning program and equipment. They did a good job of modifying the old space to fit current practices, but you can see from the renderings that the new S&C area looks much more in line with what you're seeing at other P5 schools. In the old weight room area, they're repurposing most of that space to build a much larger sports medicine suite.

The players lounge used to be in the back of the building, but they've moved that to a different location, in the front of the building right off the locker room. In its place, in the back of the building they're constructing a new lobby area with offices for the various operations people, and putting in space for the program that they have planned to help players for "life after football" - career development, personal finance, etc. - and they're knocking out a wall to provide a direct connection to the former ice arena that's now the student-athlete advising/tutoring center.

Honestly, all of the things that they have proposed have a direct nexus to actual player development - I don't see bells and whistles like lazy rivers, fun slides, putt-putt courses, stuff like that. The closest thing that I see to it is a small addition on the south side of the building that will be a new QB meeting room and "QB lab" - whatever that means, but my guess is something like a golf simulator but for...quarterbacking?

But overall, stuff like "larger weight room that is actually built to be used the way Dwight Galt uses it and not the way John Thomas used it," "larger and more equipped sports medicine area," and "more space for employees that help football players develop into successful adults after their careers" doesn't sound extravagant. They already did the locker room, players lounge, and meeting rooms/coaches offices, so those aren't really going to be touched or re-did in this project.

I'm not sure how the dollar figures work out the way that they do - and I think that's a legitimate question - but I don't think it's fair to suggest that we're participating in an arms race. It all seems very "functional," rather than "bells and whistles" to be honest.

When a school is spending $105mm on a football training facility, it's in the "arms race," like it or not. Not everyone spends it on foolishness like Clemson. Don't think you'll find a mini-golf course at Northwestern
 
Are you saying that a not-for-profit cannot generate a surplus or has to spend it, immediately, if not sooner? That's horseshit.

While we're at it, can, say Harvard or Stanford, both "private" universities, operate "at a profit?"
Not immediately, no. But you cannot just stack cash in a vault somewhere and be considered a non-profit.
 
You are wrong. Not-for/profit does not mean having revenues over expenses is wrong.

How else do you build appropriate reserves, make investments in plant and equipment, and hire good staff?
The latter two are expenditures which count against your bottom line.

Non-profits are allowed to have reserves, but I do not believe they can build up "infinite" reserves. If I have time later, I will look into the exact laws that govern this.
 
Not immediately, no. But you cannot just stack cash in a vault somewhere and be considered a non-profit.

Actually, a not-for-profit can, indefinitely. Almost certainly not the wisest thing to do, but it isn't a violation of any statute.
 
It’s an uncomfortable position to be in. No one ever wins an arms race because it’s never ending and ever more expensive. However if you are not in the race those that are will eventually drop what they’ve been developing on you.
 
I was referring to Northwestern's facilities project, you stupid ass. And they sure as hell are part of the arm's race.
If that's what you are referring to then your writing style is even worse than your people skills.
 
It’s an uncomfortable position to be in. No one ever wins an arms race because it’s never ending and ever more expensive. However if you are not in the race those that are will eventually drop what they’ve been developing on you.

Not quite that cut and dry. Clemson spent $55mm on the Reeves Complex. When all is said and done, PSU will spend $105mm on the Lasch renovation. Advantage who?
 
If that's what you are referring to then your writing style is even worse than your people skills.

I wrote in response to Raffycorn's post. Gonna guess that he understood what I meant.

As for my people skills, I deploy them to accomplish a desired goal. Get that, you stupid piece of shit!?!
 
The latter two are expenditures which count against your bottom line.

Non-profits are allowed to have reserves, but I do not believe they can build up "infinite" reserves. If I have time later, I will look into the exact laws that govern this.

Oh Lord, forgive him.
 
I wrote in response to Raffycorn's post. Gonna guess that he understood what I meant.

As for my people skills, I deploy them to accomplish a desired goal. Get that, you stupid piece of shit!?!

Come on, you are a softy compared to days past.
 
Not quite that cut and dry. Clemson spent $55mm on the Reeves Complex. When all is said and done, PSU will spend $105mm on the Lasch renovation. Advantage who?
You’re describing a more effective utilization of monetary resources, and I agree with you. I merely stated that there maybe severe repercussions if one is not in the race. Now foolishly wasting those resources as you often comment is another road to disaster. They both lead to calamity that only effective leadership may rectify.
 
Not quite that cut and dry. Clemson spent $55mm on the Reeves Complex. When all is said and done, PSU will spend $105mm on the Lasch renovation. Advantage who?


Advantage: PSU. 105 > 55

LionJim can confirm my MATHS. o_O . Anyway, we win because we spent more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas1945
Advantage: PSU. 105 > 55

LionJim can confirm my MATHS. o_O . Anyway, we win because we spent more.
Don’t take your foot off the gas pedal and celebrate yet. With our propensity to spend money we may well exceed the $105 million. That may provide us with a more stupendous victory. Remember style points matter.
 
Go **** yourself. I rarely run across someone whose bravado and asshattery is so out of line with their actual knowledge and usefulness to society.

So you shave without looking in the mirror. Good for you.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT