Trustee Kay Salvino: “The Alumni Assoc is not in the business of getting students scholarships."

[Fizz1]

So, I've been traveling the last two days and only now can catch up and contribute to this discussion. I was at the Council meeting last week and let me say that Mary's report is accurate. My frustration is that I go to these meetings and spend so much time listening and only minimal time actually working or contributing - you all remember my pie chart from last year. I took some grief for that chart but it was all true. I really wanted to work for all of you but the opportunities are so limited.

I fly from Florida and I easily spent over $1000 in airfare, rental car and hotel room for each of these meetings. I knew that I would have to pay these costs when I requested to be on the ballot. It is not the cost. It is the passive nature of the meetings that is frustrating. We don't WORK, we just sit (well, I answer email because some times the listening drives me nuts). Most of the work is done by the Executive Committee (at other times) and seems purposely to occur in venues that limit discussion. Let me give you an example. Up until now there was always a room block at the Nittany Lion Inn and the Penn Stater, where we could reassured of getting rooms. Now suddenly the block has disappeared and we, as individuals, have to scramble for rooms. I don't blame the Alumni Association for there not being a block. However, when it happened, several people asked if we could discuss it at the next meeting so that we might think about alternative times for the meeting. Non-football weekends or perhaps a football weekend that was not Ohio State. I assumed we would discuss this. INSTEAD, we are told that we should respond to an online survey about it. Well, an online survey does not allow discussion amongst the members. I simply allows us to put in our ideas. But why would we not discuss this as a group - allowing us to discuss it as a group and perhaps learn why other people feel the way that they do. WHEN DID A UNIVERSITY BECOME A PLACE THAT MUFFLES DISCUSSION? (sorry for the shouting but I am frustrated). There are so many actions by the leadership that are designed to negate or minimize the input of Council members.

Last year, I was appointed to the Nominations committee. As those of you who know me might guess, I was upset that the Past President (who is a BOT member) was still on the committee - yes, this was Kay. I raised my concern as I believe that it is a conflict of interest. No response by anyone. AFTER nominations were submitted, the nominations committee was told that we had to develop criteria by which to judge people. When I suggested in an email that I looked forward to a vigorous discussion, I immediately got a call from Kevin Steele who told me that "I better not go into the meeting ready to fight." See - no discussion is allowed. When I did suggest in the meeting that devising the criteria AFTER the applications were closed was not fair to those who applied - no one would respond. How could we judge whether people who submitted an application met "criteria" that we had not yet established? But that's what happened. People were judged based on "secret"criteria. Now, there is a new Nominations committee (of course I was not invited back) and the criteria are supposed to be on the website now so people will know. So perhaps fairer this year - but still think about this - It is now HARDER to get on the ballot for Alumni Council (where council members are allowed to do nothing) than it is for the Board of Trustees? How backwards is this and to what end?

The bottom line is that these meetings are only for show. We all eat well, we typically sing the Alma Mater, there is a banquet to give awards to individuals and chapters,and there is the opportunity to go to a football game or the Blue White game. But as for the opportunity to contribute to the leadership of the AA, unless you are willing to spout the party line, the best that will happen is that you will leave with a lovely parting gift - and in my case, resentment that I wasted time NOT representing all of you.

Deb, THANK YOU for all of your efforts and for reporting back so that we are informed. Thank you as well to Jim and MaryQBA for their efforts and also providing updates. One can only imagine trying what it is like to try do to the right thing in this meeting and be so actively undermined. It is a shame. Know the efforts of you, Jim and Mary are greatly appreciated. I wouldn't blame you if you opted out, but sincerely hope you don't.

 

[PSUMATT85]

So, I've been traveling the last two days and only now can catch up and contribute to this discussion. I was at the Council meeting last week and let me say that Mary's report is accurate. My frustration is that I go to these meetings and spend so much time listening and only minimal time actually working or contributing - you all remember my pie chart from last year. I took some grief for that chart but it was all true. I really wanted to work for all of you but the opportunities are so limited.

I fly from Florida and I easily spent over $1000 in airfare, rental car and hotel room for each of these meetings. I knew that I would have to pay these costs when I requested to be on the ballot. It is not the cost. It is the passive nature of the meetings that is frustrating. We don't WORK, we just sit (well, I answer email because some times the listening drives me nuts). Most of the work is done by the Executive Committee (at other times) and seems purposely to occur in venues that limit discussion. Let me give you an example. Up until now there was always a room block at the Nittany Lion Inn and the Penn Stater, where we could reassured of getting rooms. Now suddenly the block has disappeared and we, as individuals, have to scramble for rooms. I don't blame the Alumni Association for there not being a block. However, when it happened, several people asked if we could discuss it at the next meeting so that we might think about alternative times for the meeting. Non-football weekends or perhaps a football weekend that was not Ohio State. I assumed we would discuss this. INSTEAD, we are told that we should respond to an online survey about it. Well, an online survey does not allow discussion amongst the members. I simply allows us to put in our ideas. But why would we not discuss this as a group - allowing us to discuss it as a group and perhaps learn why other people feel the way that they do. WHEN DID A UNIVERSITY BECOME A PLACE THAT MUFFLES DISCUSSION? (sorry for the shouting but I am frustrated). There are so many actions by the leadership that are designed to negate or minimize the input of Council members.

Last year, I was appointed to the Nominations committee. As those of you who know me might guess, I was upset that the Past President (who is a BOT member) was still on the committee - yes, this was Kay. I raised my concern as I believe that it is a conflict of interest. No response by anyone. AFTER nominations were submitted, the nominations committee was told that we had to develop criteria by which to judge people. When I suggested in an email that I looked forward to a vigorous discussion, I immediately got a call from Kevin Steele who told me that "I better not go into the meeting ready to fight." See - no discussion is allowed. When I did suggest in the meeting that devising the criteria AFTER the applications were closed was not fair to those who applied - no one would respond. How could we judge whether people who submitted an application met "criteria" that we had not yet established? But that's what happened. People were judged based on "secret"criteria. Now, there is a new Nominations committee (of course I was not invited back) and the criteria are supposed to be on the website now so people will know. So perhaps fairer this year - but still think about this - It is now HARDER to get on the ballot for Alumni Council (where council members are allowed to do nothing) than it is for the Board of Trustees? How backwards is this and to what end?

The bottom line is that these meetings are only for show. We all eat well, we typically sing the Alma Mater, there is a banquet to give awards to individuals and chapters,and there is the opportunity to go to a football game or the Blue White game. But as for the opportunity to contribute to the leadership of the AA, unless you are willing to spout the party line, the best that will happen is that you will leave with a lovely parting gift - and in my case, resentment that I wasted time NOT representing all of you.

Appears the objective is to ignore loyal stakeholders long enough to make them no longer care.

May no act

 

[kgilbert78]

Appears the objective is to ignore loyal stakeholders long enough to make them no longer care.

May no act

I guess their thought is that if they don't act there can be no shame.

For shame.

 

[tk819]

I have been traveling also. I don't have much to add other than to agree that not much happens during the Alumni Council general sessions. No decisions are made and no votes are taken. On the hand, Committee meetings are worthwhile. The PSAA staff are terrific and the meetings are informative and do provide a rare opportunity for our minority voices to be heard and on occasion to affect decisions. So that is why I continue to stay involved.

The endlessly recurring theme over the two days was the need for outreach to diverse groups and young alums -- the "All In" campaign. As Laurie Stanell pointed out during one of the general sessions, the goals of inclusion and diversity are certainly worthwhile, but it is important not to forget the core of the alumni base. There was very little discussion about the needs or concerns of non-"under-represented", "old" alums. They risk losing more members than can be replaced with their diversity initiatives.

The election process is a joke. We had no say in the nomination of the next Vice President/President/Past President/Trustee. One person was nominated and will be crowned in the spring. There will be no challenger. He will hold a position of power for the next 8 years. We had no say, you had no say. Regardless of his credentials (which are solid), it should not be called an election, and he represents no one but the current power structure.

It cannot be said enough: The Alumni Council is an advisory board, not a governing board. And even the advisory role is ineffective if defined as having a real impact on important decisions.

 

[91Joe95]

So, I've been traveling the last two days and only now can catch up and contribute to this discussion. I was at the Council meeting last week and let me say that Mary's report is accurate. My frustration is that I go to these meetings and spend so much time listening and only minimal time actually working or contributing - you all remember my pie chart from last year. I took some grief for that chart but it was all true. I really wanted to work for all of you but the opportunities are so limited.

I fly from Florida and I easily spent over $1000 in airfare, rental car and hotel room for each of these meetings. I knew that I would have to pay these costs when I requested to be on the ballot. It is not the cost. It is the passive nature of the meetings that is frustrating. We don't WORK, we just sit (well, I answer email because some times the listening drives me nuts). Most of the work is done by the Executive Committee (at other times) and seems purposely to occur in venues that limit discussion. Let me give you an example. Up until now there was always a room block at the Nittany Lion Inn and the Penn Stater, where we could reassured of getting rooms. Now suddenly the block has disappeared and we, as individuals, have to scramble for rooms. I don't blame the Alumni Association for there not being a block. However, when it happened, several people asked if we could discuss it at the next meeting so that we might think about alternative times for the meeting. Non-football weekends or perhaps a football weekend that was not Ohio State. I assumed we would discuss this. INSTEAD, we are told that we should respond to an online survey about it. Well, an online survey does not allow discussion amongst the members. I simply allows us to put in our ideas. But why would we not discuss this as a group - allowing us to discuss it as a group and perhaps learn why other people feel the way that they do. WHEN DID A UNIVERSITY BECOME A PLACE THAT MUFFLES DISCUSSION? (sorry for the shouting but I am frustrated). There are so many actions by the leadership that are designed to negate or minimize the input of Council members.

Last year, I was appointed to the Nominations committee. As those of you who know me might guess, I was upset that the Past President (who is a BOT member) was still on the committee - yes, this was Kay. I raised my concern as I believe that it is a conflict of interest. No response by anyone. AFTER nominations were submitted, the nominations committee was told that we had to develop criteria by which to judge people. When I suggested in an email that I looked forward to a vigorous discussion, I immediately got a call from Kevin Steele who told me that "I better not go into the meeting ready to fight." See - no discussion is allowed. When I did suggest in the meeting that devising the criteria AFTER the applications were closed was not fair to those who applied - no one would respond. How could we judge whether people who submitted an application met "criteria" that we had not yet established? But that's what happened. People were judged based on "secret"criteria. Now, there is a new Nominations committee (of course I was not invited back) and the criteria are supposed to be on the website now so people will know. So perhaps fairer this year - but still think about this - It is now HARDER to get on the ballot for Alumni Council (where council members are allowed to do nothing) than it is for the Board of Trustees? How backwards is this and to what end?

The bottom line is that these meetings are only for show. We all eat well, we typically sing the Alma Mater, there is a banquet to give awards to individuals and chapters,and there is the opportunity to go to a football game or the Blue White game. But as for the opportunity to contribute to the leadership of the AA, unless you are willing to spout the party line, the best that will happen is that you will leave with a lovely parting gift - and in my case, resentment that I wasted time NOT representing all of you.

There really is no saving this organization. Good people can only do so much in a bad structure of an organization, but when bad people and a bad structure collide, the organization becomes beyond repair.

 

[bjf1991]

So, I've been traveling the last two days and only now can catch up and contribute to this discussion. I was at the Council meeting last week and let me say that Mary's report is accurate. My frustration is that I go to these meetings and spend so much time listening and only minimal time actually working or contributing - you all remember my pie chart from last year. I took some grief for that chart but it was all true. I really wanted to work for all of you but the opportunities are so limited.

I fly from Florida and I easily spent over $1000 in airfare, rental car and hotel room for each of these meetings. I knew that I would have to pay these costs when I requested to be on the ballot. It is not the cost. It is the passive nature of the meetings that is frustrating. We don't WORK, we just sit (well, I answer email because some times the listening drives me nuts). Most of the work is done by the Executive Committee (at other times) and seems purposely to occur in venues that limit discussion. Let me give you an example. Up until now there was always a room block at the Nittany Lion Inn and the Penn Stater, where we could reassured of getting rooms. Now suddenly the block has disappeared and we, as individuals, have to scramble for rooms. I don't blame the Alumni Association for there not being a block. However, when it happened, several people asked if we could discuss it at the next meeting so that we might think about alternative times for the meeting. Non-football weekends or perhaps a football weekend that was not Ohio State. I assumed we would discuss this. INSTEAD, we are told that we should respond to an online survey about it. Well, an online survey does not allow discussion amongst the members. I simply allows us to put in our ideas. But why would we not discuss this as a group - allowing us to discuss it as a group and perhaps learn why other people feel the way that they do. WHEN DID A UNIVERSITY BECOME A PLACE THAT MUFFLES DISCUSSION? (sorry for the shouting but I am frustrated). There are so many actions by the leadership that are designed to negate or minimize the input of Council members.

Last year, I was appointed to the Nominations committee. As those of you who know me might guess, I was upset that the Past President (who is a BOT member) was still on the committee - yes, this was Kay. I raised my concern as I believe that it is a conflict of interest. No response by anyone. AFTER nominations were submitted, the nominations committee was told that we had to develop criteria by which to judge people. When I suggested in an email that I looked forward to a vigorous discussion, I immediately got a call from Kevin Steele who told me that "I better not go into the meeting ready to fight." See - no discussion is allowed. When I did suggest in the meeting that devising the criteria AFTER the applications were closed was not fair to those who applied - no one would respond. How could we judge whether people who submitted an application met "criteria" that we had not yet established? But that's what happened. People were judged based on "secret"criteria. Now, there is a new Nominations committee (of course I was not invited back) and the criteria are supposed to be on the website now so people will know. So perhaps fairer this year - but still think about this - It is now HARDER to get on the ballot for Alumni Council (where council members are allowed to do nothing) than it is for the Board of Trustees? How backwards is this and to what end?

The bottom line is that these meetings are only for show. We all eat well, we typically sing the Alma Mater, there is a banquet to give awards to individuals and chapters,and there is the opportunity to go to a football game or the Blue White game. But as for the opportunity to contribute to the leadership of the AA, unless you are willing to spout the party line, the best that will happen is that you will leave with a lovely parting gift - and in my case, resentment that I wasted time NOT representing all of you.

TY Deb

You are clearly one of the best ........and I am certainly not speaking only for myself, when I say that your efforts are appreciated

 

[bwifan]

I have been traveling also. I don't have much to add other than to agree that not much happens during the Alumni Council general sessions. No decisions are made and no votes are taken. On the hand, Committee meetings are worthwhile. The PSAA staff are terrific and the meetings are informative and do provide a rare opportunity for our minority voices to be heard and on occasion to affect decisions. So that is why I continue to stay involved.

The endlessly recurring theme over the two days was the need for outreach to diverse groups and young alums -- the "All In" campaign. As Laurie Stanell pointed out during one of the general sessions, the goals of inclusion and diversity are certainly worthwhile, but it is important not to forget the core of the alumni base. There was very little discussion about the needs or concerns of non-"under-represented", "old" alums. They risk losing more members than can be replaced with their diversity initiatives.

The election process is a joke. We had no say in the nomination of the next Vice President/President/Past President/Trustee. One person was nominated and will be crowned in the spring. There will be no challenger. He will hold a position of power for the next 8 years. We had no say, you had no say. Regardless of his credentials (which are solid), it should not be called an election, and he represents no one but the current power structure.

It cannot be said enough: The Alumni Council is an advisory board, not a governing board. And even the advisory role is ineffective if defined as having a real impact on important decisions.

Is run like a dictatorship... The beatings will continue until morale improves

 

[chrisrn1965]

There really is no saving this organization. Good people can only do so much in a bad structure of an organization, but when bad people and a bad structure collide, the organization becomes beyond repair.

Unfortunately I agree. I appreciate the efforts of the PSAA for all reps who post here but I am planning on letting my AA membership lapse. I think the only thing that the power structure understands is withholding dues. Based on the drop in membership it appears others feel the same way. We really need an independent alumni association.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Having read posts from several AA Council members I have to ask:

1. Why would you remain on the Council if you believe your input is really not valued, or even welcome? (That certainly seems to be what you are saying.)

2. A 99 member Council? LOL, Penn State seems to specialize in having ginormous governing and advisory bodies. Given that the primary mission for the AA Council members appears to be raising funds, I can somewhat understand why the credo is "the more the merrier." More Council members out there raising funds presumably means more funds raised. But I am not sure that I would want to be spending my time and energy raising funds in the name of a group that makes no bones about telling me that I will have input into its agenda or governance.

3. There must be other PSU affiliated groups more worth of support than the AA. What about PS4RS? (I don't know, I'm just asking.)

 

[jhsmith409]

Having read posts from several AA Council members I have to ask:

1. Why would you remain on the Council if you believe your input is really not valued, or even welcome? (That certainly seems to be what you are saying.)

2. A 99 member Council? LOL, Penn State seems to specialize in having ginormous governing and advisory bodies. Given that the primary mission for the AA Council members appears to be raising funds, I can somewhat understand why the credo is "the more the merrier." More Council members out there raising funds presumably means more funds raised. But I am not sure that I would want to be spending my time and energy raising funds in the name of a group that makes no bones about telling me that I will have input into its agenda or governance.

3. There must be other PSU affiliated groups more worth of support than the AA. What about PS4RS? (I don't know, I'm just asking.)

1. "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. Martin Luther King, Jr."

2. 12 members would be more effective at governance. I am happy to step aside if 86 of my colleagues volunteer to do the same.

3. If you would like to help support governance reform look at PS4RS. If you would like to support student scholarships and education look at PS4RS Legacy Initiative which is separate from PS4RS. www.ps4rslegacyinitiative.org . Finally, Many local alumni chapters are worthwhile organizations separate from PSAA itself.