The situation at Penn State...

[bjf1984]

"Governance is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Governance becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Governance, laying its foundation on such principles as the people shall deem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governance long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that men are more disposed to suffer those evils which are tolerable, rather than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same tyrannical objectives, design to reduce them to subjugation before absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Governance, and to provide new safeguards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of this University; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to alter our form of Governance. The history of the present rulers of this University is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having as direct objective the establishment of an absolute tyranny over Penn State."

Thanks and acknowledgement to Thomas Jefferson, July 1776

 

[Cruising Route 66]

"Governance is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Governance becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Governance, laying its foundation on such principles as the people shall deem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governance long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that men are more disposed to suffer those evils which are tolerable, rather than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same tyrannical objectives, design to reduce them to subjugation before absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Governance, and to provide new safeguards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of this University; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to alter our form of Governance. The history of the present rulers of this University is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having as direct objective the establishment of an absolute tyranny over Penn State."

Thanks and acknowledgement to Thomas Jefferson, July 1776

Hey Barry Fenchak Jefferson.....Did you compose that last paragraph wearing your 18th century powdered wig and using a quill pen? I think you should discuss your governance concerns with president Keith Masser Washington at the next Board meeting. Just make sure you have permission before you step up to the podium. LOL!

 

[Evan Ceg]

Barry, are you arguing above with the prerogatives and power of the BoT or with its structure and leadership? I assume it's the latter, because boards are the ultimate authority on all college campuses and I don't see Penn State's board having a notably greater swath of governance authority than other college and university boards.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that university governance is a public democracy. Universities, especially public ones like Penn State, are certainly susceptible to public opinion, but the only democracy in governance exists within the votes of the BoT members themselves.

Now, if you're inveighing against the structure and leadership of this BoT, I'm with you.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I've indicated countless times that I'm a Rev War/early days of the US nut. In that context, allow me to comment on Barry's OP.

First, Thomas Jefferson is one of my all-time favorites. At the same time, part of what makes him so fascinating is how inconsistent he was. He was the primary author of the 2nd most important document in US history -- the Declaration of Independence. I've read more books than I can count on the writing of that document. However, it's important to keep in context that the Declaration was an explanation of why the colonies were going to war with England. It is the US Constitution (the most important document in US history) that actually addresses how our great country is to be run. Jefferson was in France during the Constitution Convention in 1787. He liked some aspects of the draft US Constitution, and strongly disliked other aspects. Lastly, while Jefferson is one of my all-time favorites, and his crafting of the Declaration was masterful, he's not someone I would quote and/or imitate when it comes to the operation and governance by the PSU BOT. As President, Jefferson routinely violated the US Constitution. He seemed to feel that as President he could enforce those parts of it that suited him, and knowingly violate those parts of it that conflicting with what he wanted to do. As a private citizen, he expressed the same views in a number of letters. If anything, Jefferson was more likely to act like Masser and Peetz, and manipulate and/or violate the PSU Charter, Bylaws, and Standing Orders as well as PA laws, whenever it suited him, than to fight for inclusive and improved governance by the PSU BOT.

Second, PSU is a huge business organization, not a body elected to govern people. As such, Barry's piece really misses the mark, in that there is really no comparison between how an organization like PSU is governed (or should be governed), and how a governmental body operates.

I think I share many of Barry's general feelings about PSU's BOT, but don't always agree with his statements or approaches toward the BOT, or in how to effect change.

Tom

 

[bjf1984]

LOL.

Penn State's BOT is a governance body. If anyone would argue to the contrary, they simply are completely out-of-touch, uneducated, or conflicted.

The passage excerpted from the Declaration discusses standards of legitimacy of a governance body....any governance body. Again, how anyone could possibly, upon consideration and review, not come to that conclusion would require an off-the-charts level of confliction or ignorance.

Jefferson (probably inspired in large part by the writings of enlightenment scholar John Locke) penned this document which has - for the most part - been accepted as one of the guiding documents with respect to the legitimacy of governance....at least in the democratic world. One would think it would be fairly obvious that the reason I referenced it here, was with respect to the legitimacy of governance currently leading Penn State.....but maybe I assumed too much.

 

[lattydaddy]

FYI - constantly posting on a message board about the same topic isn't the most effective way to get change. i know you obviously want change, but what avenues have you pursued? not trolling, just curious.

 

[bjf1984]

LOL I'd be happy to answer your question Latty. Call me when you have a couple hours to spare

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Penn State's BOT is a governance body. If anyone would argue to the contrary, they simply are completely out-of-touch, uneducated, or conflicted.

Barry, at times I'm not sure what you're arguing. Any group that governs is a governing body. The Politburo is a governing body. Should we quote Stalin for guidance on how PSU should be run?

The question is whether an elected governmental body can be used as an example, or as a comparison, of how an unelected (at least in majority) University Board of Trustees should operate.

Fortunately, I did not argue that the BOT was not a governance body, so I'll not take your comments about being "completely out-of-touch, uneducated, or conflicted" as an attack on me.

 

[bjf1984]

Unfortunately with no THREAD VIEW option it is impossible to post under the specific thread you are responding to LOL ("I blame it all on no thread view"!)

FWIW, the post I made was not a response to your post.......

That being said, if people want to respond as if the original post is not germane to some issue that was not even the issue being addressed, that certainly concerns me not.

I felt it was abundantly clear that the relevance was the discussion - in the declaration - of the illegitimacy of a governing body convened WITHOUT the authorization of the governed, and operated contrary to the best interests of the governed. In fact, I still think that is abundantly clear. Certainly can't - and shouldn't - spend all day responding to every conflicted straw-man objection from all the "usual suspects".....so I won't. Probably shouldn't have even allowed myself to be prodded to even one response....its like trying to teach a fish to climb a tree. Alas. My vice.

 

[lattydaddy]

LOL I'd be happy to answer your question Latty. Call me when you have a couple hours to spare

just sue someone and get it over with, that way we can get back to grill and WiFi recommendations instead of this garbage

 

[Evan Ceg]

I get the general tone of your original post, Barry, but its application misses.

First, the posters on this message board (with the exception perhaps of a few PSU student posters) are not governed by the BoT, so there is no relevant appeal to "the consent of the governed" as it applies to Penn State. Neither are the alumni governed by Penn State.

It doesn't appear to me that the students and faculty who are governed by Penn State are ready to revolt on behalf of the causes frequently espoused here.

Second, educational institutions are not democracies. Nor should they be.

 

[kgilbert78]

I've indicated countless times that I'm a Rev War/early days of the US nut. In that context, allow me to comment on Barry's OP.


Second, PSU is a huge business organization, not a body elected to govern people. As such, Barry's piece really misses the mark, in that there is really no comparison between how an organization like PSU is governed (or should be governed), and how a governmental body operates.

I think I share many of Barry's general feelings about PSU's BOT, but don't always agree with his statements or approaches toward the BOT, or in how to effect change.

Tom

Tom, while it may not apply to the BOT, for reasons you have articulated quite well, I think it *does* apply to Alumni Council. That body originally was a completely elected body--and always intended to be such. While it was not charged with the day to day running of the AA (nor should it have been), it also was not intended to be a "business organization" but to represent the alumni as a whole. They actually were the first folks I though about when reading the original post--not the BOT.