Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Should be more detailed info coming soon This still has a long way to go (remember - Jake - among others - will fight against it tooth and nail......unless we can find a way to make it "in his best interests")
LOL Don't get me started.Why would Jake fight against it?
This is not a good governance plan but if it breaks the OG's stranglehold then it's better than what we have
It has a way to go before the final form. Ugh, I just poisoned my self with bug spray. Can't stop sneezing.
It's likely to get worse rather than better. Expect seats to be set aside for the Ag industry, for example
Too many trustees, either way, IMHO. Cut it all in half, and it could be a place to start the discussion.
The details will make this proposal much better than you are giving it credit for......should be out in a day or two. Hang in there!This will be interesting. On the face of it, it doesn't even hint at reform. It appears to be a power grab by those who want to share in the pseudo-look-what-we've-done-for-you crowd, Pennsylvania Politburo as usual. The skeptic speaks.
This should be interesting. 14 votes for Commonwealth, 10 for B & I and Agriculture, and 12 elected by the Alumni. This would give the Alumni trustees a fighting chance; would only need 7 votes from Commonwealth appointees to over ride the Musser cartel. As Artie Johnson, on Laugh In, used to say: "very interesting", "very interesting".
Masshole will be gone because there won't be any Agriculture-appointed Trustees. Same for Keith "Drittsekk" Eckel.
Thirty-six (36) trustees if I counted correctly. Ughhh. The only way 36 trustees can be fully engaged is if you have a really strong and empowered committee structure, and at least that aspect has been improved in the last couple years. However, what this 36 number implies is that the Executive Committee will remain the real power center of the BoT, and I see no discussion from Yudichak and others about the composition, appointment/election process and prerogatives of the Exec Committee.
Tom McA, whomever else, comments?
Decorporatizing the BOT has to happen. Will it with this bill?
Why would Jake fight against it?
It's likely to get worse rather than better. Expect seats to be set aside for the Ag industry, for example
The details will make this proposal much better than you are giving it credit for
Is there a "happiness pursuit" in this puppy?It's an excellent bill.
Is it perfect? No. However, it's a combination of what is best for PSU, and it addresses the complaints that the power bloc as raised about prior legislative proposals. (The 2nd point may seem minor, but it eliminates their complaints. I'm sure they'll come up with new ones, but legislators get tired of moving targets.)
It would "decorporatize" the PSU BOT.
Unlikely that he will. He may even be a backer of the bill. There have been ongoing discussions, but I haven't gotten an update from the most recent meetings.
That was a concern in prior proposals. I get the sense that the concerns have been addressed, so there's a possibility that no such seats will be set aside.
I guess. I've seen the details, so it's kind of hard for me to interpret the release versus what I know about the details.
Is there a "happiness pursuit" in this puppy?
Please spray some on CR66 while you're at it!It has a way to go before the final form. Ugh, I just poisoned my self with bug spray. Can't stop sneezing.
It's an excellent bill.
Is it perfect? No. However, it's a combination of what is best for PSU, and it addresses the complaints that the power bloc as raised about prior legislative proposals. (The 2nd point may seem minor, but it eliminates their complaints. I'm sure they'll come up with new ones, but legislators get tired of moving targets.)
It would "decorporatize" the PSU BOT.
Unlikely that he will. He may even be a backer of the bill. There have been ongoing discussions, but I haven't gotten an update from the most recent meetings.
That was a concern in prior proposals. I get the sense that the concerns have been addressed, so there's a possibility that no such seats will be set aside.
I guess. I've seen the details, so it's kind of hard for me to interpret the release versus what I know about the details.
I just want to say.......I want to "like" this post ^^^ TWICE!!Thank you Tom.
Back in the day (mid 90s) it was evident to many active alums that something was wrong with our university leadership. I am delighted that the legislature is addressing the robber baron structure. Spend one weekend with university leadership and its painfully obvious these people are creeps. Legislation is long overdue. Unfortunately, it took the Sandusky scandal to get someone outside of the alumni base to pay attention to our woeful, inadequate and most likely criminally greedy leadership.