My Letter to the Alumni Association

[kgilbert78]

I'd appreciate comments before I send this. I may send it certified.


I recently received your mailing suggestion a donation to the Alumni Association on the occasion of Roger Williams’ retirement. It is with regret that I must respectfully decline. Five years ago, I would have gladly done so, as I’ve met Roger many times in my capacity as a former president and board member of the Central Ohio Chapter, but I am gravely concerned by recent decisions by Mr. Williams and the Alumni Council. The first is the recent push and acceptance of a Board of Trustees seat for the past president of the Alumni Association. As the Alumni Association receives funding from Penn State and its staff is paid by Penn State, this is a conflict of interest. It is at least as strong a conflict of interest as the one expressed by Mr. Williams himself about current Board of Trustees running for Alumni Council. Second are the recent changes to Alumni Council. Once, Alumni Council was composed of 30 elected members of the Alumni Association. Penn Staters trusted other Penn Staters to nominate and elect the best people for the job from among our ranks. Now Alumni Council is dominated by appointed seats—and this was only strengthened by an increase in the number of seats on Council from about 80 to over a hundred, with the new seats all appointed by the president. We are no longer allowed to nominate members for Alumni Council and all nominations will have to pass through a nominating committee, most of whom also serve on the Executive Committee. This change was made after the current Nominating Committee wrongly denied a number of members the right to run for a seat on Council, in violation of the bylaws of the Association. Now a select few, unelected members will control who can and cannot sit on Alumni Council. While alumni may still have a vote for the 30 elected members, we will have to content ourselves with the candidates the Politburo selects, much like the former Soviet Union’s “elections”. This is elitism—and Penn State was never an elitist institution. We are the place where, as Jimmy Cefalo noted “the sons of coal miners, steel mill workers, and farmers” came to school— the place where an average Pennsylvanian can come and get a great education. Alumni Council’s actions fly in the face of this. Add to this that the meetings are now closed to alumni and the standard form of governance in these United States and elsewhere in the free world, Robert’s Rules of Order, have been removed. I also communicated recently with a member of Council who was reminded at the last meeting that they had a fiduciary responsibility to the Association—but then were informed that they are not even permitted to see the minutes of other committees. How can one exercise a fiduciary responsibility without even being allowed to know what is going on? I might also note that the Freeh Report recommended a greater level of transparency in the way Penn State goes about its business, as lack of transparency was one of the factors given for Penn State’s recent woes. Does the Alumni Association not trust its own members? All of these changes fly in the face of that recommendation. I’ll also note that this has little to do with the divisive issues of the recent past. In a discussion among both foes and strong supporters of the Board of Trustees, all sides agreed that most of the recent changes were ill-advised and would contribute to poor governance. So for these reasons, I must again, respectfully, decline.



Kenneth B. Gilbert

Class of 1978

Past President and Past Board Member, Central Ohio Chapter of the Penn State Alumni Association

 

[demlion]

I'd appreciate comments before I send this. I may send it certified.


I recently received your mailing suggestion a donation to the Alumni Association on the occasion of Roger Williams’ retirement. It is with regret that I must respectfully decline. Five years ago, I would have gladly done so, as I’ve met Roger many times in my capacity as a former president and board member of the Central Ohio Chapter, but I am gravely concerned by recent decisions by Mr. Williams and the Alumni Council. The first is the recent push and acceptance of a Board of Trustees seat for the past president of the Alumni Association. As the Alumni Association receives funding from Penn State and its staff is paid by Penn State, this is a conflict of interest. It is at least as strong a conflict of interest as the one expressed by Mr. Williams himself about current Board of Trustees running for Alumni Council. Second are the recent changes to Alumni Council. Once, Alumni Council was composed of 30 elected members of the Alumni Association. Penn Staters trusted other Penn Staters to nominate and elect the best people for the job from among our ranks. Now Alumni Council is dominated by appointed seats—and this was only strengthened by an increase in the number of seats on Council from about 80 to over a hundred, with the new seats all appointed by the president. We are no longer allowed to nominate members for Alumni Council and all nominations will have to pass through a nominating committee, most of whom also serve on the Executive Committee. This change was made after the current Nominating Committee wrongly denied a number of members the right to run for a seat on Council, in violation of the bylaws of the Association. Now a select few, unelected members will control who can and cannot sit on Alumni Council. While alumni may still have a vote for the 30 elected members, we will have to content ourselves with the candidates the Politburo selects, much like the former Soviet Union’s “elections”. This is elitism—and Penn State was never an elitist institution. We are the place where, as Jimmy Cefalo noted “the sons of coal miners, steel mill workers, and farmers” came to school— the place where an average Pennsylvanian can come and get a great education. Alumni Council’s actions fly in the face of this. Add to this that the meetings are now closed to alumni and the standard form of governance in these United States and elsewhere in the free world, Robert’s Rules of Order, have been removed. I also communicated recently with a member of Council who was reminded at the last meeting that they had a fiduciary responsibility to the Association—but then were informed that they are not even permitted to see the minutes of other committees. How can one exercise a fiduciary responsibility without even being allowed to know what is going on? I might also note that the Freeh Report recommended a greater level of transparency in the way Penn State goes about its business, as lack of transparency was one of the factors given for Penn State’s recent woes. Does the Alumni Association not trust its own members? All of these changes fly in the face of that recommendation. I’ll also note that this has little to do with the divisive issues of the recent past. In a discussion among both foes and strong supporters of the Board of Trustees, all sides agreed that most of the recent changes were ill-advised and would contribute to poor governance. So for these reasons, I must again, respectfully, decline.



Kenneth B. Gilbert

Class of 1978

Past President and Past Board Member, Central Ohio Chapter of the Penn State Alumni Association

Content is fine, in fact, excellent, but you need about 5-6 paragraph breaks....

 

[bjf1984]

Send it. But more importantly:

Post it where as many Penn Staters as possible will see it.
Submit it to your local paper as a LTE.
Mail it to every member of your local AA chapter.
Send it, with a cover letter requesting support for BOT reform, to PA State Assembly members (even if you are not a PA resident).

The folks in charge of the AA aren't going to change their ways, but the more Penn Staters that are enlightened....and the more Penn Staters that withhold $$, that advocate with their legislators, etc the better.

,

 

[Class of 67]

Content is fine, in fact, excellent, but you need about 5-6 paragraph breaks....

I reached the same conclusion before seeing your reply. I believe this letter is the second posted here from a past president of an alumni chapter. Significant!

 

[kgilbert78]

Send it. But more importantly:

Post it where as many Penn Staters as possible will see it.
Submit it to your local paper as a LTE.
Mail it to every member of your local AA chapter.
Send it, with a cover letter requesting support for BOT reform, to PA State Assembly members (even if you are not a PA resident).

The folks in charge of the AA aren't going to change their ways, but the more Penn Staters that are enlightened....and the more Penn Staters that withhold $$, that advocate with their legislators, etc the better.

,

It would do me no good to send this as an LTE to my local paper. The Columbus Dispatch, after all, is the paper that compared removing Joe's statue to the toppling of Saddam's statue and earlier this year excoriated our fanbase for cheering when the wins were restored, claiming that "we haven't learned our lesson".

 

[bjf1984]

kg -

Only significant "add" that I can immediately think of is this:

Williams and the AA are concerned about a conflict of interest in allowing certain folks (Smith, Morgan, the TTEEs) to be ELIGIBLE TO BE CANDIDATES. IE - they are prohibiting Penn Staters from even being able to exercise their rights to choose - or not choose - who they want to represent them on the Council.

What the BOT has done - apparently with the vociferous support and campaigning on the part of Roger and the AA - is MANDATED that the Past-Pres of the AA be GIVEN a seat on the BOT.....whether or not Penn Staters would choose to select that person or not.

THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. It is 1000 times worse than what Morgan/Smith/Lord et al have asked for(in fact, what Morgan/Smith/et al have asked for is entirely proper). Just another PR failure on the part of all of us who DO know what is going on....and, for sure, it takes ALL of us speaking up to counter the PR snow jobs put forward by Williams (LOL). The folks at PS4RS, and a handful of others, have been speaking up - but it takes so many more.

They (Morgan/Smith/et al)only asked that the voters (Penn Staters) not be disenfranchised from the opportunity to vote for those who represent them......Williams (LOL) has advocated - and been given - an imposed MANDATE that the AA Past-Pres be AWARDED a seat.

People need to be made aware of this. THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.....and flies in the face of any principles of governance........and yet, I would wager, 99% of the Penn Staters out there do not "get it" (Hell, I will guarantee you that even among those who think they are "aware", most Penn Staters think the only folks being excluded are the Trustees - and don't even know who Morgan and Smith are....how screwed up is that? And it is our fault for not making sure the truth is out there) - not because they are too stupid to understand the difference, but because the PR campaign has been (thus far) won by the Scoundrels.

 

[kgilbert78]

Content is fine, in fact, excellent, but you need about 5-6 paragraph breaks....

Trying to keep it on one page. But I will look at it again with that suggestion in mind.

 

[bjf1984]

It would do me no good to send this as an LTE to my local paper. The Columbus Dispatch, after all, is the paper that compared removing Joe's statue to the toppling of Saddam's statue and earlier this year excoriated our fanbase for cheering when the wins were restored, claiming that "we haven't learned our lesson".

LOL Good point.......maybe the Pittsburgh/Philly/State College etc papers would be a better option. Just about all the print outlets in PA have "on-line" submission for LTEs.....use them.

 

[kgilbert78]

kg -

Only significant "add" that I can immediately think of is this:

Williams and the AA are concerned about a conflict of interest in allowing certain folks (Smith, Morgan, the TTEEs) to be ELIGIBLE TO BE CANDIDATES. IE - they are prohibiting Penn Staters from even being able to exercise their rights to choose - or not choose - who they want to represent them on the Council.

What the BOT has done - apparently with the vociferous support and campaigning on the part of Roger and the AA - is MANDATED that the Past-Pres of the AA be GIVEN a seat on the BOT.....whether or not Penn Staters would choose to select that person or not.

THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. It is 1000 times worse than what Morgan/Smith/Lord et al have asked for(in fact, what Morgan/Smith/et al have asked for is entirely proper). Just another PR failure on the part of all of us who DO know what is going on....and, for sure, it takes ALL of us speaking up to counter the PR snow jobs put forward by Williams (LOL). The folks at PS4RS, and a handful of others, have been speaking up - but it takes so many more.

They (Morgan/Smith/et al)only asked that the voters (Penn Staters) not be disenfranchised from the opportunity to vote for those who represent them......Williams (LOL) has advocated - and been given - an imposed MANDATE that the AA Past-Pres be AWARDED a seat.

People need to be made aware of this. THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.....and flies in the face of any principles of governance........and yet, I would wager, 99% of the Penn Staters out there do not "get it" (Hell, I will guarantee you that even among those who think they are "aware", most Penn Staters think the only folks being excluded are the Trustees - and don't even know who Morgan and Smith are....how screwed up is that? And it is our fault for not making sure the truth is out there) - not because they are too stupid to understand the difference, but because the PR campaign has been (thus far) won by the Scoundrels.

This letter is to the Alumni Association and is mainly about Alumni Council. As such I do not want to focus on the BOT stuff. I am building a case for the problems with the AA. And, to be honest, I *do* think that being on the BOT and Alumni Council might be a conflict of interest (though the AA ex-pres is a greater one)--though handling it in defiance of the bylaws in place at the time is my big concern. A one page letter is far more likely to have an impact than including *everything*--though I did choose to open and close my letter by saying "no soup for you".

 

[demlion]

Trying to keep it on one page. But I will look at it again with that suggestion in mind.

That is certainly a laudable goal, but that much unbroken text means a fair number of people will view it as an awful chore to read. I would also look at the idea of a truly grabbing 1st paragraph--something like: "I have a great deal of money and time to this organization in my life. I can no longer support you."

Then list your past as a financial supporter and chapter president, and the specific, recent actions which have caused you to turn away. If you feel it is sincerely in your interest to keep it to one page, then edit it for length and break it up rather than cram and jam.

I suffer from a sometimes severe, ego based inability to tolerate others' editing of my writing, while maintaining the smug confidence that I can always make YOURS better. I will take a whack at it if you want.

 

[demlion]

Trying to keep it on one page. But I will look at it again with that suggestion in mind.

That is certainly a laudable goal, but that much unbroken text means a fair number of people will view it as an awful chore to read. I would also look at the idea of a truly grabbing 1st paragraph--something like: "I have a great deal of money and time to this organization in my life. I can no longer support you."

Then list your past as a financial supporter and chapter president, and the specific, recent actions which have caused you to turn away. If you feel it is sincerely in your interest to keep it to one page, then edit it for length and break it up rather than cram and jam.

I suffer from a sometimes severe, ego based inability to tolerate others' editing of my writing, while maintaining the smug confidence that I can always make YOURS better. I will take a whack at it if you want.

 

[demlion]

Just a quick jump, but here is where I would put the para breaks:

I recently received your mailing suggestion a donation to the Alumni Association on the occasion of Roger Williams’ retirement. It is with regret that I must respectfully decline. Five years ago, I would have gladly done so, as I’ve met Roger many times in my capacity as a former president and board member of the Central Ohio Chapter, but I am gravely concerned by recent decisions by Mr. Williams and the Alumni Council.


The first is the recent push and acceptance of a Board of Trustees seat for the past president of the Alumni Association. As the Alumni Association receives funding from Penn State and its staff is paid by Penn State, this is a conflict of interest. It is at least as strong a conflict of interest as the one expressed by Mr. Williams himself about current Board of Trustees running for Alumni Council.


Second are the recent changes to Alumni Council. Once, Alumni Council was composed of 30 elected members of the Alumni Association. Penn Staters trusted other Penn Staters to nominate and elect the best people for the job from among our ranks. Now Alumni Council is dominated by appointed seats—and this was only strengthened by an increase in the number of seats on Council from about 80 to over a hundred, with the new seats all appointed by the president. We are no longer allowed to nominate members for Alumni Council and all nominations will have to pass through a nominating committee, most of whom also serve on the Executive Committee.


This change was made after the current Nominating Committee wrongly denied a number of members the right to run for a seat on Council, in violation of the bylaws of the Association. Now a select few, unelected members will control who can and cannot sit on Alumni Council. While alumni may still have a vote for the 30 elected members, we will have to content ourselves with the candidates the Politburo selects, much like the former Soviet Union’s “elections”.


This is elitism—and Penn State was never an elitist institution. We are the place where, as Jimmy Cefalo noted “the sons of coal miners, steel mill workers, and farmers” came to school— the place where an average Pennsylvanian can come and get a great education. Alumni Council’s actions fly in the face of this.


Add to this that the meetings are now closed to alumni and the standard form of governance in these United States and elsewhere in the free world, Robert’s Rules of Order, have been removed. I also communicated recently with a member of Council who was reminded at the last meeting that they had a fiduciary responsibility to the Association—but then were informed that they are not even permitted to see the minutes of other committees. How can one exercise a fiduciary responsibility without even being allowed to know what is going on?


I might also note that the Freeh Report recommended a greater level of transparency in the way Penn State goes about its business, as lack of transparency was one of the factors given for Penn State’s recent woes.


Does the Alumni Association not trust its own members? All of these changes fly in the face of that recommendation. I’ll also note that this has little to do with the divisive issues of the recent past. In a discussion among both foes and strong supporters of the Board of Trustees, all sides agreed that most of the recent changes were ill-advised and would contribute to poor governance. So for these reasons, I must again, respectfully, decline.

 

[kgilbert78]

That is certainly a laudable goal, but that much unbroken text means a fair number of people will view it as an awful chore to read. I would also look at the idea of a truly grabbing 1st paragraph--something like: "I have a great deal of money and time to this organization in my life. I can no longer support you."

Then list your past as a financial supporter and chapter president, and the specific, recent actions which have caused you to turn away. If you feel it is sincerely in your interest to keep it to one page, then edit it for length and break it up rather than cram and jam.

I suffer from a sometimes severe, ego based inability to tolerate others' editing of my writing, while maintaining the smug confidence that I can always make YOURS better. I will take a whack at it if you want.

Thanks, but I'm a technical editor IRL, so I'll take a whack at it myself.... But your suggestions are greatly appreciated. You really don't know what you have sometimes until someone else takes a look at it.The best class I ever had at PSU had was Jim Smith's English 2 at Ogontz. He taught me how to write. I am trying to stay away from an "over the top" response, as I fear those just get put in the "loony bin" file, which I am sure all organizations have. I can assure you, however, I do not feel the level of politeness to the Alumni Association that I am trying to put forth in my letter. I'm mad as h*ll. But I think politeness gives it a better chance to be read and considered. Assuming anyone is still listening. A shorter version will go to the Penn Stater as well (shorter is more likely to be published)--mostly taking out the money stuff. And I will probably post it to my chapter's Facebook page.

 

[kgilbert78]

My letter to the Penn Stater will probably start with the third paragraph. I really want to keep that one short enough for publication--if they have the guts to publish.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I recently received your mailing suggestion a donation to the Alumni Association on the occasion of Roger Williams’ retirement. It is with regret that I must respectfully decline. Five years ago, I would have gladly done so, as I’ve met Roger many times in my capacity as a former president and board member of the Central Ohio Chapter, but I am gravely concerned by recent decisions by Mr. Williams and the Alumni Council. The first is the recent push and acceptance of a Board of Trustees seat for the past president of the Alumni Association. As the Alumni Association receives funding from Penn State and its staff is paid by Penn State, this is a conflict of interest. It is at least as strong a conflict of interest as the one expressed by Mr. Williams himself about current Board of Trustees running for Alumni Council. Second are the recent changes to Alumni Council. Once, Alumni Council was composed of 30 elected members of the Alumni Association. Penn Staters trusted other Penn Staters to nominate and elect the best people for the job from among our ranks. Now Alumni Council is dominated by appointed seats—and this was only strengthened by an increase in the number of seats on Council from about 80 to over a hundred, with the new seats all appointed by the president. We are no longer allowed to nominate members for Alumni Council and all nominations will have to pass through a nominating committee, most of whom also serve on the Executive Committee. This change was made after the current Nominating Committee wrongly denied a number of members the right to run for a seat on Council, in violation of the bylaws of the Association. Now a select few, unelected members will control who can and cannot sit on Alumni Council. While alumni may still have a vote for the 30 elected members, we will have to content ourselves with the candidates the Politburo selects, much like the former Soviet Union’s “elections”. This is elitism—and Penn State was never an elitist institution. We are the place where, as Jimmy Cefalo noted “the sons of coal miners, steel mill workers, and farmers” came to school— the place where an average Pennsylvanian can come and get a great education. Alumni Council’s actions fly in the face of this. Add to this that the meetings are now closed to alumni and the standard form of governance in these United States and elsewhere in the free world, Robert’s Rules of Order, have been removed. I also communicated recently with a member of Council who was reminded at the last meeting that they had a fiduciary responsibility to the Association—but then were informed that they are not even permitted to see the minutes of other committees. How can one exercise a fiduciary responsibility without even being allowed to know what is going on? I might also note that the Freeh Report recommended a greater level of transparency in the way Penn State goes about its business, as lack of transparency was one of the factors given for Penn State’s recent woes. Does the Alumni Association not trust its own members? All of these changes fly in the face of that recommendation. I’ll also note that this has little to do with the divisive issues of the recent past. In a discussion among both foes and strong supporters of the Board of Trustees, all sides agreed that most of the recent changes were ill-advised and would contribute to poor governance. So for these reasons, I must again, respectfully, decline.

kg,

you indicate you're a writer, so I wont mess with the paragraphs, sentence structure, etc, but will comment that your letter would be improved with the use of paragraphs, and I probably would work on a few sentences.

I've changed the color to a few sections that I would change.

Your 1st point should be dropped. While the PSAA was advocating for a seat on the BOT, and will have one come July 1, I think complaining about that detracts from the letter. First, the BOT is the body that made the change, so even if the PSAA was complicit in the act, their role was secondary. Plus, complaining about the actions of the BOT to the PSAA leadership accomplishes very little other than to make your letter easier to dismiss.

The next section I highlighted either needs to be dropped, or greatly re-worked. Forget about the Freeh Report, at least for this letter. The Freeh Report was not addressing the governance of the PSAA. I agree that the operation of the PSAA should be more transparent. You can address that by itself without mentioning the Freeh Report.

The section in green needs to be reworked. The sentence about divisive issues of the recent past needs to disappear, or be totally overhauled. I think your point is that your complaints with the PSAA have nothing to do with the JS saga, or the PSU BOT's reaction to such. That's a valid point, but it gets kind of lost in the sentence, plus as much as possible you want to keep your letter on target, and not mention issues outside of the focus of your complaint. The next sentence is also somewhat confusing. I think your point is that the recent actions of the PSAA regarding governance were not well received in a recent conversation you had with both pro and anti-BOT alums. Again, forget about the BOT, as including them in any way in the letter diminishes its impact. You could mention that a number of alums discussed the changes and ..., though I'm not sure why you want to take that approach. The letter represents your views, not those of a group of people. As such, my advice would be to restrict it to your thoughts.

I didn't highlight the section about you communicating with a member of Council, though I probably should have. You could make the same point without mentioning that you spoke with a member of Council. Say that it's your understanding that Council members are not allowed to review the minutes of Council committees, and then ask how it's possible to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities without having access to the minutes of committee meetings.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[kgilbert78]

Tom: Thanks for some good advice. The first point would *not* be in any letter I send to the Penn Stater for publication and I had already been thinking about removing the Freeh report comment from that letter as well--for that, I really want make to my point in two paragraphs, if I can. You comment about the committees says what I want to say--but is less wordy and doesn't involve another person.

I do think, however, that if Penn State still thinks the Freeh report is valid, then why has the opposite approach been taken with regards to transparency?? Wish I could get that in somehow--but you may be right that it is best for another occasion.

I do still have hope that someone, somewhere at Penn State is willing to listen to a former Chapter President. But I'd not put any money on it.Still, we must say something. Or we are violating "may no act of ours bring shame"--by omission.

 

[kgilbert78]

Modified to the following. Items in blue will be removed before submission to the Penn Stater but retained for my letter to the Alumni Association. My brother has suggested I copy Barron's office on this as well.


I recently received your mailing suggestion a donation to the Alumni Association on the occasion of Roger Williams’ retirement. It is with regret that I must respectfully decline. Five years ago, I would have gladly done so, as I’ve met Roger many times in my capacity as a former president and board member of the Central Ohio Chapter, but I am gravely concerned by recent decisions by Mr. Williams and the Alumni Council.

Once, Alumni Council was composed of 30 elected members of the Alumni Association. Penn Staters trusted other Penn Staters to nominate and elect the best people for the job from among our ranks. With the recent bylaw changes, alumni are also no longer allowed to nominate members for Alumni Council and all nominations will have to pass through a nominating committee, most of whom also serve on the Executive Committee. This change was made after the current Nominating Committee wrongly denied a number of members the right to run for a seat on Council, in violation of the bylaws of the Association. Now a select few, unelected members will control who can and cannot sit on Alumni Council, which is already dominated by appointed seats. This was only strengthened by the recent bylaw change in the number of seats on Council from about 80 to over a hundred, with the new seats all appointed by the Alumni Association President. While alumni may still have a vote for the 30 elected members, we will have to content ourselves with the candidates the Politburo selects, much like the former Soviet Union’s “elections”.

This is elitism—and Penn State was never an elitist institution. We are the place where, as Jimmy Cefalo noted, “the sons of coal miners, steel mill workers, and farmers” came to school— the place where an average Pennsylvanian can come and get a great education. Alumni Council’s actions fly in the face of this.

Furthermore, these new bylaw changes have closed Alumni Council meetings to the very alumni they are serving, and the standard form of governance in these United States and elsewhere in the free world, Robert’s Rules of Order, has been removed. I also have been informed that members of Council are not permitted to see the minutes of committees they do not serve on. How then can they exercise their fiduciary responsibilities? Does the Alumni Association not trust its own members? Most of these recent changes are ill-advised and would contribute to poor governance. Recent recommendations of the Freeh Report indicated the need for a greater level of transparency in the way Penn State goes about its business. It would be wise for the Alumni Association and Alumni Council to adopt these recommendations as well. Instead, they have headed in the opposite direction. So for these reasons, I must again, respectfully, decline to donate.