My comments from the Penn State Board of Trustees Meeting February 21, 2025
"We know the facts: we are significantly spending more than our peers."
Before I begin my comments from last week’s Penn State Board of Trustees meeting, I’d like to bring some interesting items to your attention. Please note that because I am involved in ongoing litigation with the Penn State Board of Trustees, I am out of an abundance of caution, circumspect in all my communications. This in no way means I am abrogating my duties as an alumni-elected trustee, as you will read below. My first duty is to the University, and it is my fiduciary responsibility to publicly discuss proposals put to the Board for approval that will materially impact the university, and to voice my support or opposition for these proposals.
On January 29th, Judge Marshall ruled against Penn State’s request for an order to force me to sign confidentiality agreements that we objected to. In his ruling (you can read it here), Judge Marshall says:
“The Court does not believe that it is appropriate to coerce one party into accepting a confidential agreement to which they object, and which was drafted by the other party.”
Since Penn State declined to pursue their preliminary objections, our lawsuit is now headed towards court. I will keep you posted (and you can sign up for my newsletter here).
Your support has been instrumental in making Penn State voices heard. We have raised over 85% of our goal of raising $20,000 for legal expenses on GoFundMe.com. If you have already donated, thank you. If you have the means to do so and want to see Penn State back in the hands of trustees who understand legal university governance, your donation will go to a very good cause. Whether or not you have the means to contribute, please help us spread the word among all Penn Staters in your circle. Because we are winning.
I am happy to report I have received the required 50 nominations to run for re-election to the Board of Trustees. I look forward to meeting with alumni to discuss your concerns and ideas, and to working with you for another three years bringing transformative change to Penn State. Ballots are scheduled to be emailed Monday, April 21st and alumni will have until Thursday, May 8th to vote. I will keep you posted.
Penn State President Bendapudi testified before the Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, February 20th. There was a very interesting line of questions from Representative Marla Brown (9th Legislative District).
“I’m concerned about some of the changes that the University has made recently without the input of the General Assembly or the alumni, for that matter as it relates to the selection criteria of candidates–alumni candidates–to the board of trustees.
“As you are aware, the board recently determined that the alumni trustee candidates will not be listed on the ballot unless a board subcommittee approves them. This has never been the case before. And, now only alumni that pass a test—a test established by the board and that can be changed by the board at their pleasure—can even have their name placed on the ballot.
“I’ve had a number of constituents in my district call me concerned about this move. I can tell you that people are not happy about it, and the optics on it are not good—as I’m sure you’re aware—as it looks like a conflict of interest—that the board is mainly concerned with picking and choosing the muscle in which the candidates will be serving on the board.
“So, I’m interested as to why the university needed to make this change?”
I think you might be very interested to watch the line of questioning here, as well as Dr Bendapudi’s answer.
I am grateful to the concerned citizen who have contacted their state representatives about this matter, and strongly urge all Pennsylvania residents to do the same.
My report below contains only information available to the public, including quotes from public discussions. I strongly urge you to click on the links provided to find further information you might find interesting.
The Penn State Board of Trustees met Thursday and Friday, February 20-21st, 2025 at the Eric J Barron Innovation Hub, University Park, Pennsylvania. According to the Board Secretary, all 36 trustees were in attendance.
I attended these meetings via Zoom, per directive of Board leadership, which created significant barriers to my efforts to engage in meaningful deliberations with my fellow trustees.
Prior to Friday’s full Board meeting, on Thursday, February 20th there were meetings of the Finance and Investment Committee, Audit and Risk Committee, Student Success & Research and Technology Joint Committee, Equity and Human Resources Committee, and Governance Committee. Read the full published agendas and find links to supporting materials here.
Friday, February 21st, 2025 public meeting of the full Board
Read the full published agenda here and find links to supporting materials here. When video of the meeting is available I urge you to watch it in its entirety. Especially inspiring was Dr Richard Alley’s impassioned presentation on the importance of student research towards the end of the meeting.
As a service to alumni and the public who were unable to access the live broadcast of the meeting or the recording, the following is an excerpt of the comments I prepared and the vote results for each agenda item.
Action Items 1:
These housekeeping items were voted on as a single block: approval of minutes from last meeting (November 8, 2024), approving dates for 2026 calendar year meetings, and election of new University Officer, Assistant Secretary. These items were approved of unanimously.
Action Item 2:
Proposed annual applications, renewals and other filings required by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.
This is an annual vote we take to authorize the VP of Finance to renew of liquor licenses for various locations on campus, primarily at athletic facilities.
Vote – Yea: 36 Nay: 0
Action Item 3:
Proposed Project Approval, Pollock Halls Renovation, Phase 3A at University Park, as designed by Clayco of Overland, Missouri – $92,100,000.
Majority of funding: $71.4 million from debt (borrowed), plus $14.5 million from PSU reserve funds.
Many of our peers use project planning methods that establish a pre-approved list of qualified contractors. These contractors are vetted to assure they can deliver quality work in a timely manner, their manpower capabilities, their expertise in managing large-scale jobs, that they are properly bonded and insured, etc. When detailed projects are ready to go out to bid to these pre-approved contractors, a competitive ‘low bid’ process assures the most financially prudent completion of the project.
Penn State does not do that. The process for the Pollock Halls renovation is outlined on the Office of Physical Plant Request for Letters of Interest:
“Penn State does not oblige itself to make the selection for this design-build contract based on lowest cost… our intent is to identify the design-build team that provides the best fit for our perceived need. This DB team will balance experience, service, quality, and cost.”
My comments:
Speaking for myself and, I expect, for the overwhelming majority of the Board and of the students who live on the University Park campus: updating Pollock dorms with more modern and appropriate levels of quality is a very important and appropriate mission. I am very much an advocate for the renovations of these dated facilities.
We also have a duty to make sure we are always getting the best possible bang for the buck of every Penn State expenditure.
When we consistently see, over a number of years, that we are spending significantly more on these projects than our peers and cohorts, we have a duty to address that. These projects are remarkably similar throughout the country, and we are consistently spending 20-30% more.
We should have been addressing this issue before investing a half a billion dollars in similar projects, all priced significantly higher than many of our peers.
I have been speaking to these issues for years, largely to no avail.
But, given that we can’t turn back the clock, the least we can do is to act expeditiously moving forward. We know the facts: we are significantly spending more than our peers.
Why is that? We know that among those peers, many have meaningfully different processes, and identifying, mitigating, and rectifying those differences would be a reasonable place to start.
There is never a good time to spend more for no discernible extra benefit. But, especially with the challenges faced by Penn State (and all higher education institutions) and the many strains on our budgets and student needs, the time is urgent.
Vote – Yea: 35 Nay: 1 (Fenchak)
Action Item 4:
Proposed Real Estate Divestiture – Penn State Harrisburg – Meade Heights. The University proposes to dispose of approximately 41.5-acres in Lower Swatara Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania for $19,500,000.
Vote – Yea: 36 Nay: 0
Action Item 5:
Proposed Real Estate Divestiture – College of Medicine – Hershey. The University proposes to dispose of approximately 2.765-acres in Hershey, Derry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania for $210,000.
Vote – Yea: 36 Nay: 0
Action Item 6:
Proposed Real Estate Transaction, Ground Lease at Innovation Park Blvd. and I-99. The University proposes to dispose of approximately 5 acres at I-99 and Innovation Park Blvd., College Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, via a long-term ground lease structure, for the purpose of developing a new acute care rehabilitation hospital.
The lessee will be Catalyst Healthcare, which develops properties for health care companies. The property tenant will be an acute care rehab hospital owned by PAM Health LLC. PAM Health LLC was founded and is led by Anthony Misitano, who recently donated $25 million to Penn State in conjunction with the Beaver Stadium project.
Vote – Yea: 36 Nay: 0
Keep up the good fight. I initially voted for you and will continue to do so. It is painfully obvious what they are trying to do to you but keep shining a light on this BOT and sharing with concerned alumni what they are attempting.