Some (hopefully) relatively brief replies.... and then I'm gonna' vow to walk away...….
"Ultimately, in order to accomplish any change PSU would need the support of Harrisburg. This manifests itself in three ways:
1) If the BOT structure of overhauled (I believe it should be) that has to come from Harrisburg because the BOT itself will never vote to make itself smaller. In fact, IIRC, the last time a recommendation came (from H'burg?) that they shrink the size of the board, the made it larger(!!!!).
2) When Harrisburg controls so many seats on the board it is almost a moot point what the A9 do. You can complain about their leadership and their votes, but 9 votes cannot out vote the "Harrisburg appointees". If you cannot shrink the size of the board, you could have change if Harrisburg appointed board members who wanted change.""...…...
ULTIMATELY, yes, it is highly likely to require legislative intervention.
The question is, if it ULTIMATELY will require legislative intervention, does that mean you ("you" being the Trustees, and those that elect them) sit back and do nothing - or less-than-nothing - as if to wait for some divine intervention?
I would hope not, and I have ALWAYS said that any HOPE for legislative intervention requires - at a minimum - that SOME GROUP (the "A9" would have been the best one) stand up for, and speak out for, and support, responsible governance.
To date - that is a big fat abject "FAIL"... and, as any reasonable person would have predicted, that "FAIL" has contributed to:
Both Yudichak Bills
The DePasquale Audit
The Bernstein Proposal
etc
All falling into a bottomless pit of nothing.
It is
impossible to be a respected advocate for "Responsible Governance", and to have any positive impact for governance reform, when you (the "A9", and to a lesser degree all of "Us" Alums and Penn Staters) FAIL in your governance duties ....... just as pitifully as the Scoundrels you are hoping to "reform".
Stating the obvious - - - "We can't do it alone" - - - -does not mitigate the fact that we
do need to help and advocate.... and, to date, have done a ridiculously shitty job of doing that.
The folks down in Harrisburg - rightfully - laugh off the "A9", who SHOULD be the leaders in the advocacy for responsible governance, as just what they are.... Statue Messiahs, Self-Serving Hypocrites, and Enuchs.
"3) Without a bigger budget from Harrisburg, much of this is (IMHO) in the margins. You can complain about capital projects, but they are (in most cases) necessary. You can complain about admins salaries, but if we want to attract top talent, that's the game you have to play. We need to politically force Harrisburg to contribute to the university budget in a meaningful way. The 5% (or whatever it is now) is bull excrement.
Couple things:
Just quickly, the "5%" nonsense that PSU PR likes to spout is.... just that.... nonsense.
1) The 5% is a comparison of the General Funds appropriation to the total "PSU Budget" - - - 1/2 of that budget is the HMC (which they fold in for those purposes, even though there is obviously absolutely no reason for the State to fund HMC) - - - so, at that point, the figure is more like 10%
2) PSU also never mentions the direct subsidy vav PHEAA. I do not know that exact figure as of this year (try finding that in the spaghetti plate of PSU finances
) but it is very significant.
3) PSU also receives a large chunk of State funding under the heading of research.
All of that is direct underwriting from the Commonwealth...… Put it all together - as best one can - and you are probably looking at 25% or so "PA State Funding"... maybe a bit more.
Now, factor in the ever DECREASING opportunities for Commonwealth Citizens (the increase Out of State admissions etc), and if one were being most reasonable, a figure of 50% from the State, wrt underwriting the "PA Part" of the operations would be a more reasonable figure.
Should the Commonwealth pay even more? Should they pay less? IDK... but the 5% figure is bullshit propaganda spin at its finest
FWIW: If you add in Federal Dollars, well over 1/2 of PSU's spending is paid for by the government.
(I broke the PA and Fed stuff down in a detailed analysis last year - maybe it was early 2018.... its probably still archived on my sites)
Your contentions vav Capital Projects and Admin Costs are simply not true.
That isn't a criticism, but one would have to spend to time to follow these things with some depth - and be smart/trained enough to understand them - to know (and very few folks are going to do that)
Cap Projects:
It would not be worthwhile to go through it all here again, but spending 2, 3, 4 times reasonable market rates in construction costs is simply NOT defensible - - - - even if many of the purposes of the projects might be.
In actuality, several of the Capital Spending projects are laughable on their face (simply being utterly unnecessary), but even if one assumes they are all "needed"..... there is no defensible position for - for example - spending $500,000 PER DORMITORY ROOM in a construction project.
Yet, this happens every day at PSU (I've gone through them so many times - in great detail - that I would even bore myself to do it again..... but all that type of stuff is archived on my sites)
And anyone paying attention knows why so much is wasted/stolen.
Admin Costs.
The bulk of the Admin bloat has (practically) NOTHING to do with a need to "attract talent".
Much of the bloat is simply and completely unnecessary spending on unnecessary (and generally counter-productive) layers of bureaucracy. Not only is there no need to "attract that talent" - it is a net negative before you even pay the salaries.
Much is extravagant spending...… the arguments for "needed to attract talent" are absolutely ludicrous (if one is actually paying attention).
Again, I could go on at great length (but that info is all archived elsewhere), but just a couple for instances:
Does anyone in their right mind think that it was "necessary" to pay Barron ANOTHER $800,000 to keep him? (Putting aside, for the moment, the notion that one would WANT to keep him LOL)
Where was he going to go? When he is already the highest-compensated public university president in the entire damn nation?
How about the "Market Value" adjustments for guys like Gray, Jones, etc - who, as administrators - where ALREADY bringing in salaries higher than the average UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT throughout the nation?
Where were they gonna' go? To a "competitor"?
It's a sad, pathetic joke - - - - - and this is repeated hundreds (if not thousands) of times University-wide.
Is there any rationale for having MORE "Finance Professionals" working for PSU in an administrative capacity - then we have in the entire Smeal Business College, doing the actual Educational and Research missions of the University.
It is truly stunning - if one takes the time to research and analyze this stuff.
Anyway, thanks again for your hard work. Although we disagree on some points, you obviously care very deeply about the University (as do I) and I sincerely appreciate the time you spend on this.
I appreciate the kind words... I do.
But I remain absolutely beyond the limits of "frustrated" and "disheartened" at the utter dearth of ANYONE - - both those with a DUTY to act (the A9 etc), as well as those who I WISH would act (Alums etc) - willing to actually give responsible governance anything more than a little self-serving, feel-good lip service.
Alas. It is what it is.
