“Board of Trustees set to meet Sept. 22-23”
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Why can't the other alumni trustees back Barry instead of just sitting there wringing their hands @Lubrano???
If Barry was better at what he did, other Board members would take his side. A decent board member builds consensus rather than enemies. He (or she) convinces rather than confronts. But Barry will never do that. He’s incapable of reasonable compromise or negotiation. He will never have a vote go his way. He’s an irritant, not a catalyst for positive change. Wake me when it’s over. I’m going back to sleep.
Last edited:
A "decent" board is comprised of members that attempt to raise the university to a higher level (this one is not}. They are just on it for the benefits. What have they done since they let Joe, Graham, Gary and Tim go? Increase tuition, ask the the state for more money, decrease admissions, lower PSU's USN rankings, lower Learfield sports rankings
I guess you are happy that the other 8 trustees were able to compromise and negotiate so much that they agreed, and have continually agreed to vote unanimously. Do you have the ability to understand what changing 12 years of nodding yes may take to order to have a positive impact? You've probably never been in the ring yet somehow you know to shift an ingrained culture?
Admit it, Barry has done more in his 4 month tenure than the other trustees have done in years and years of tenure.
And to think that Barry has a Chemical Engineering degree. He must have at least tolerated catalysis at one time.
Last edited:
I agree. If Barry has been able to at least change the needle a bit, That is great! I'm in your camp, believe it or not.
I don’t defend the current board or it’s practices and I believe a lot of change is needed. But Barry will not be successful in accomplishing that change since he is an alienating factor. I wish it was otherwise. He may pander to his message board muscle bound minds here but that doesn’t accomplish anything except in their own superficial perception. Organizational Dynamics 101
That person sounds like a failure who blames others for his failures. That person needs to learn how to deal with people and get his point across.
Maybe rather then wait until the board meeting to object to the budget, he would have been better meeting with each of the board members one on one informally, over coffee or lunch perhaps, to discuss the issue, in order to see if some common ground could be reached whereby a different outcome could have been achieved. He might know how to work with numbers but he doesn’t know how to work with people. Perhaps through discussions some ideas might have emerged that some group of members might have supported that would have lended itself to a more realistic resolution to the budget problem then a simple yes or no vote at the meeting. Maybe some of the other members might have had some ideas that would have emerged through discussions that Barry could have initiated prior to the full board meeting if he had just reached out in a respectful way. Decisions are rarely made at these meetings. Things of importance are decided well in advance and that’s where the real important discussions should be taking place. If he could demonstrate that he represented some consensus of a group of board members with whom he was working productively, the chair would not be so quick to “cut him off” as he alleges. But Barry was late to the table and he didn’t even know it.
Last edited:
No matter how you look at it, friendships can develop between board members throughout their time together, and topics that affect their work are bound to come up during conversations. That said, board members should keep in mind the fact that they are not allowed to meet informally to discuss board issues.
Also, members should be aware that even informal meetings may be considered full board meetings under the Open Meetings Act. Those organizations that are not covered by this law are, in turn, subject to the requirements of special regulatory agencies following the procedures for meetings open to the public. Brown Act (Government Code 54950-54963)
Thank You.
Let me just say, there is a lot that I know I can and will do better - every day should be an opportunity to be better - but I have always, and will always, focus every day on fulfilling the fiduciary role in the best way available to provide the most responsible governance to Penn State, for the benefit of Penn State's stakeholders. Without exception.
I am neither naive nor obtuse to the challenges.
And you sound like a bitter doucebag
Wow. Read your 2nd sentence while looking in a mirror.
I don't think you understand the term "bitter." Nothing bitter about what I said. Oddly enough, the whole "yay Barry!" movement is borne out of unfettered bitterness causing folks to act unreasonably.
OK, I did. Now what? Did I not get my point across? Of course I did. This whole "let's get behind Barry" thing is silly. His supporters don't really want or expect change ... they just want someone to yell at the BOT ... mostly because of JoePa (the rest is a red herring). They know he's not cut out to be an agent of change ... they just want to scream at people by proxy.
you miss the entire point- the game is fixed
nobody is going to have any impact on the BOT from the inside
If only psu had a decent board. What did Neeli say they caused and are causing - a structural and systemic deficit?
What Mark Twain once advised applies here. So, I'm out.
Don't know what Dr. Bendapudi said, but the BoT didn't "cause" the deficit. That is on the prior administration(s). What the board didn't do was exercise sufficient diligence and oversight to allow it to happen. Keep in mind that the proposals, with the exception of those regarding internal board operations, on which the board votes originate with the administration
Have no fear. They're paying some guy $1 million for one year to consult with the new prez to straighten all that out and right the wrongs of the previous admin.
Last edited:
I'd pay money to sit in on meetings between the two.
Wonder if anyone told Dr. Bendapudi of the financial difficulties she'd be inheriting if she took the PSU job.
The great wealth of information available on the internet holds both great promise for the inquisitive and great peril for the unwary. This comment is the epitome of the latter. The Brown Act is a California law that has nothing to do with Pennsylvania or Penn State. Pennsyvlania compiles its legislative acts differently from California and does not have a compilation called Government Code the way California does.
Pennsylvania does have an "open meetings act" but its name is Sunshine Act and it can be found at 65 Pa.C.S. §701 et seq.
Penn State is an "agency" (§703) within the meaning of the Sunshine Act, and the Board of Trustees is indeed subject to its requirements. However, the Sunshine Act's openness/transparency requirements apply only to meetings where a quorum participates (§§703, 704), whether it's a quorum of a committee of the Board or a quorum of the entire Board.
I've looked at the Board's Bylaws and Standing Orders and didn't see anything confirming what you said, but perhaps I'm missing something. So, I have to ask you: what's the basis for your statement that "they are not allowed to meet informally to discuss board issues"?
So, you think it's a good idea for board members to officially meet one on one to discuss PSU board issues without a quorum present? Nice!! And what's wrong with the PSU's BOT? And why are they bleeding money like water. I'm so glad I stopped donating money years ago.
Last edited:
Even ignoring that they hired the administration personnel, the board approved the spending. Where the spending proposals originate is immaterial, the board has final say - if they don't like something they can say no.
Or ignore all of that and just ask for more money from the state of PA (and its taxpayers) and raise tuition again and again
Your response to my question is an absurd non sequitur followed by a string of red herrings.
I'll chalk up that fallacious non-response to you completely fabricating the statement I asked you about.
Word to the wise: graduates of Google Search School of Law are rarely able to post anything remotely accurate, informative, or useful to their intended audience regarding the legal landscape of any given issue.
So back to my question to you: "So, you think it's a good idea for board members to meet one on one to discuss PSU board issues without a quorum present?" And why are they bleeding money like water?
Since you provided your own answer to yourself, it wasn't a question. It was an assertion masquerading as a question that was simultaneously a non sequitur based on my previous post and a straw man.
When you find yourself flailing in a hole you've dug with falsehoods and logical fallacies, it's best to stop digging.
Your desperation to change the subject away from your risible claim that a California law applies to Penn State trustees is palpable. I'm embarrassed for you.
Just take this as the teachable moment that it is about the danger of search engines and the foolishness of pontificating on subjects about which you have no earthly clue, and move on with your life.
So back to my question to you: "So, you think it's a good idea for board members to meet one on one to discuss PSU board issues without a quorum present?" And why are they bleeding money like water?
Great knowledge can be an avenue to arrogance and an unflattering sense of superiority.
True, but they are disinclined to take any action in contra-position to the administration unless there is an overwhelming reason to so so and with this board a $200mm deficit is not overwhelming. Most members view their service as a socilal opportunity. Most of those that don't tend to be narrowly focused. Until the method of selection is completely overhauled, nothing will change.
SOP for college boards of trustees, in general.
Get unlimited access today.