Yudichak Proposal

[bjf1984]

Analysis of Yudichak’s Proposal:

I have, in the past, put together a rather detailed proposal for BOT reform. I believe it is a righteous, thorough proposal that would greatly improve the governance structure at Penn State. I won’t post it here (it is quite lengthy), but I do believe it is posted on this page. But the issue at hand is NOT “what is the ideal composition”.

The issue at hand is the proposal currently before the PA Senate – the Yudichak proposal, and the merits of supporting this proposal to reform our current structure.

So, let’s take a close look at where we are – and where we can be if we support this bill.

Let’s break it down piece by piece and see how things stack up. First, by looking at the STRUCTURAL changes, and then by looking at the PROCEDURAL implications:

Structural Changes:

Current Composition:

9 Elected by Alumni
6 B&I
6 Agriculture
6 Governor
3 State Department Heads
1 Student, 1 Faculty, 1 PSUAA
3 “At Large”

Proposed Composition:

12 Elected by Alumni
4 B&I
4 Agriculture
6 Governor
4 PA Senate, 4 PA House
1 Student, 1 Faculty

Now, keep in mind, the most impactful changes may not be the purely structural changes (we’ll get into the other issues below), but looking just at the structural changes:

• We add 3 Alumni Elected, and 8 total from the Legislature (11 total)
  
  
• We drop the PSUAA Seat, the 3 At Large seats, 2 each from B&I and Agriculture, and the 3 State Department Heads (11 total)
  

Without looking at the procedural details, we add 3 directly accountable seats and 8 with tangential accountability (more on that later)

We drop 5 completely unaccountable seats, along with 3 At Large seats, and the 3 Department Heads.

To discuss the net benefits, we need to now take a closer look - with an emphasis on the more impactful issues, the PROCEDURAL issues.


1 – Dropping the 5 completely unaccountable seats (PSUAA, 2 B&I, 2 Agric) is a very positive step. We are well aware of the issues with the PSUAA seat, as well as the sham process that has been in place for the B&I and Agricultural seats.

BIG “Win”

2 – Adding 3 more seats to the most accountable group (the Alumni Elected) is likewise a very positive step.

BIG “Win”

3 – The B&I and Agriculture seats are drastically reshaped, not just reduced in number. The new B&I and Agricultural seats will be filled in a completely (and hugely improved) manner. Rather than the sham processes currently in place, which led to “Business” and “Agriculture” trustees in name only (TWO pharmaceutical defense lawyers? The Chairman of Nationwide Insurance as an “Ag” Trustee?).

The new proposal will utilize a 9 member nomination committee, composed equally from the Alumni Elected group (3), the Government group (3), and a third group comprised of the Board Chair and two members chosen by the Chair (these could come from any of the members of the Board). This group will – openly – nominate B&I and Agriculture nominees (by majority vote) to then be presented for a full Board vote. This process will prevent the long-standing tradition of filling those seats in the in-bred “friends and family” method that has been so harmful in recent years.

So, the end result isn’t just REDUCING the number of these unaccountable folks, but (more importantly) putting a procedure in place that will greatly enhance the likelihood that the folks filling the remaining seats will actually be LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVES of B&I and Agriculture….and NOT family friends and cohorts.

In essence, these remaining B&I and Agric. seats become equivalent to the current At Large seats – with the caveat that the selection committee will look for candidates that fit the Business and Agriculture profile.

IMHO, a HUGE “Win”

4 – The Student and Faculty seats remain essentially as is…..with one caveat. The establishment of the Student and Faculty seats (through Reform Proposal A+) was designed with one purpose in mind – to assist the OG Trustees in their attempt to maintain Board majority control. Along those lines, the selection process for these seats was set up in such a way as to allow the control group to screen the candidates (particularly the Student candidate) to assure they would yield Trustees congruent with the wishes of the majority.

Now that the unaccountable majority is broken up (if the proposal is enacted), the new Board will be able to discuss making these processes more congruent with the stated purposes of the seats…..for example, by giving the Student Body the authority to directly select the Trustee who they would like to have representing them.

Largely a wash, but some positive implications due to the other changes.

5 – The 4 PA Senate and 4 PA House seats largely replace seats that are currently entirely unaccountable, along with the Department Head seats (which are – more or less – political seats). While this is an issue that many are having difficulties with, it is certainly a positive relative to the current structure. Here is why.

A – We know the frustration of having completely and utterly unaccountable positions on the Board. No matter how much 99% of the stakeholders may despise the presence of certain Trustees (Dandrea? Eckel?) there is currently NOTHING we can do to remove/replace them. With the Senate and House selections, we certainly do not have direct accountability [FWIW, if there is one thing I could change, it would be to establish state-wide elections, voted on by the citizens of the Commonwealth, to fill these seats. Similar to the process used by Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and others]. But, we do have at least tangential accountability, in that we have the ability to advocate with our legislators…..and express our satisfaction/dissatisfaction with them when we go to the polls (note: there is more in the works designed to make this process more effective…..stay tuned)

B – With regard to the elimination of the Department Heads (replaced with appointees from the Legislature)…..this is a net positive. In either case, the seats are filled by “political” appointees. But, in the case of the Department Heads (who may be fine individuals) the role of PSU Trustee is an ancillary – and usually unimportant – attachment to their primary role. With individuals appointed SPECIFICALLY TO FILL THE ROLE OF PSU TRUSTEE, we have a much better chance of having engaged, interested folks filling those seats.


The net result, with regard to the Board composition and Processes….is a HUGE step forward.

It is not the ideal structure I would have created. There are specific items that I would like to see changed. It is likely not the ideal structure many others would have created. But, all of us would have slightly different suggestions……which means there is NO SINGLE IDEAL structure that we could all agree on.

What we need to focus on is:

1 - Is this proposal significantly better than what we have now? ANSWER – YES

2 – Does this proposal provide for the breaking up of the Cabal’s stranglehold on the University? ANSWER – YES

3 – Maybe most importantly……can this proposal be passed through the State Assembly? ANSWER – I BELIEVE IT CAN….if we get behind it and support it.


NOTE: There are also positive "transparency" items within this proposal which go beyond the issues of BOT composition.....but that is an issue for another day

 

[ForesterGump]

If they stick with 3 year terms, it makes for some awkward elections. I'd rather see 9 Alumni, 3 Ag, and 3 B&I. It all works out to a cozy election cycle. No need to have a year where 2 instead of 1 Ag or B&I are elected.

Also, I'd rather have 3 Reps and 3 from the Senate instead of 8, for the same reason. Are the legislative seats only for Legislators or are they for anyone they want to put in there. I can see some problems with that. Those seats could be up for sale if someone wanted it to. The 6 Legislative reps would also balance the Governor's reps. I would even say that that is too much government representation given the amount of money they give to the University.

Any mention of term limits? Who appoints the faculty and student reps?

 

[bjf1984]

If they stick with 3 year terms, it makes for some awkward elections. I'd rather see 9 Alumni, 3 Ag, and 3 B&I. It all works out to a cozy election cycle. No need to have a year where 2 instead of 1 Ag or B&I are elected.

Also, I'd rather have 3 Reps and 3 from the Senate instead of 8, for the same reason. Are the legislative seats only for Legislators or are they for anyone they want to put in there. I can see some problems with that. Those seats could be up for sale if someone wanted it to. The 6 Legislative reps would also balance the Governor's reps. I would even say that that is too much government representation given the amount of money they give to the University.

Any mention of term limits? Who appoints the faculty and student reps?

Couple things FG (and the full bill can be accessed here http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...d=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0800&pn=0969):

1 - As I outlined above, the biggest changes to the B&I and Agricultural Trustees isn't so much the number going from 6 to 4, but rather that the process will do away with the sham system that is currently in place for both of those groups.....and reform it to a MUCH better system (that is actually one of the keys to the bill - IMHO)
2 - Initially, the terms will be staggered within each group.....and then many of them will convert to 4 year terms (for many of the reasons you outlined....so that there will not be any logistical inconsistencies)
3 - The legislative seats are appointments from the Legislature. If I understood your question correctly, you were wondering if the actual Trustees would be individuals who are members of the legislature......that is not the case.
The reasons why the Governor appointees remained at 6 is an interesting topic, IMHO (and I believe those reasons are very good news for Penn State), but I'd prefer not to get into that issue here.
4 - There are term limits, I believe very similar to the measures enacted last year
5 - The bill doesn't address any specific changes to the Faculty and Student Trustee processes.....but it is safe to say that those processes will either remain as is.....or - once the Cabal is broken up - will become less restrictive and more representative processes.

 

[kgilbert78]

It's interesting how the seats controlled by the Commonwealth are increasing--and I can see why--the basic thought seems to be that if the Commonwealth is providing money, it should have a say in how that is handled. So far so good.

But I'd like to see a caveat added--that the number of seats be in proportion to the percentage of the budget that the Commonwealth actually provides. In my day, it was 50%. Now, it is far less than that. If the Commonwealth is only providing, say, 10% of the budget (and it is less than that), they should only have 10% of the seats.

I realize that will never happen, but it would be fair.

 

[bjf1984]

It's interesting how the seats controlled by the Commonwealth are increasing--and I can see why--the basic thought seems to be that if the Commonwealth is providing money, it should have a say in how that is handled. So far so good.

But I'd like to see a caveat added--that the number of seats be in proportion to the percentage of the budget that the Commonwealth actually provides. In my day, it was 50%. Now, it is far less than that. If the Commonwealth is only providing, say, 10% of the budget (and it is less than that), they should only have 10% of the seats.

I realize that will never happen, but it would be fair.

Kgil -

I hear your point.....FWIW, the State Appropriation is about 5% of the TOTAL budget of PSU.

Tying the "board representation" to the proportion of operating income is - however - a bit disingenuous.

If we used that metric, the student body - which contributes, I believe, about 50% of the operating budget (tuition payments) would control 50% of the Board. I don't think you would support that proposal.

 

[kgilbert78]

Kgil -

I hear your point.....FWIW, the State Appropriation is about 5% of the TOTAL budget of PSU.

Tying the "board representation" to the proportion of operating income is - however - a bit disingenuous.

If we used that metric, the student body - which contributes, I believe, about 50% of the operating budget (tuition payments) would control 50% of the Board. I don't think you would support that proposal.

My comment was a bit TIC. However, the point is more that if the Commonwealth wants a bigger say, they should be prepared to back it with some $$.

 

[bjf1984]

My comment was a bit TIC. However, the point is more that if the Commonwealth wants a bigger say, they should be prepared to back it with some $$.

I don't disagree with you on that point.

FWIW - the new Governor (and I don't want to start an R vs D debate) has proposed a significant increase in appropriation
He also, IMHO, has shown a much greater degree of appreciation and empathy with regard to our current situation......and I believe that we will see in the coming months, he will be acting in a supportive way to aid in the cause of improving the BOT composition.

In an ideal world, I would not have the "numbers" that Yudichak proposed......but I - unfortunately - do not have Emperor powers (alas), and I do know that some of the things we see in the bill were necessary compromises to make the bill "passable".
The choice is between what we have now, and this proposal. I will take this proposal 1000 times over - and, actually, I think there is a LOT to be gained by this proposal. I was optimistic before seeing the details.....and am even more optimistic now.

I didn't even get into a discussion of the significant enhancements to "transparency" that are included in this bill. One good indicator is the degree to which the OG is furious with this new proposal, and is already fighting tooth and nail to oppose it. That should make us all inclined to support the proposal enthusiastically