How were the first 6 months on the Penn State Board of Trustees:
- Thread starter PSUFTG
- Start date
Barry,
Thank you very much for your work on the board and your continued responsiveness to those interested in trustee business.
I have one comment and one question:
I read your report card, and I'm a little surprised that you say, "We can easily meet the goals of tuition reduction if we properly align our priorities." (Italics mine) Easily? Is this an oversimplification? A university that is so far out of control in terms of spending (nine figure deficit?), which you are working to try and rein in?
Which leads me to my question: Why would any trustee not be interested in responsible spending? I can see you convincing and building consensus among your alumni-elected brethren, but why would the B&I trustees be so far gone in terms of out of control spending? Is it simply that "it's other peoples money?"
Thank you very much for your work on the board and your continued responsiveness to those interested in trustee business.
I have one comment and one question:
I read your report card, and I'm a little surprised that you say, "We can easily meet the goals of tuition reduction if we properly align our priorities." (Italics mine) Easily? Is this an oversimplification? A university that is so far out of control in terms of spending (nine figure deficit?), which you are working to try and rein in?
Which leads me to my question: Why would any trustee not be interested in responsible spending? I can see you convincing and building consensus among your alumni-elected brethren, but why would the B&I trustees be so far gone in terms of out of control spending? Is it simply that "it's other peoples money?"
Thanks.
As to your first question:
A 5% tuition reduction would amount to roughly $100 million. One could EASILY locate $100 million+ of spending - that could be eliminated/reduced/redirected - without impairing in any way any of the University's missions (I have outlined some of the specifics in more detail in other writings).
I think "5%" is a very conservative estimate of what could be accomplished. In fact, I KNOW it is a conservative estimate.
As to your second question:
I would not assume that the "reasons" are the same for everyone - in fact, I expect the reasons vary quite a bit. I could only conjecture on what those reasons, in each case, might be, based on a LONG history of observation - and many, many hours of analysis over the years.
But, that would still involve an element of conjecture on my part - so I wouldn't posit those possible rationales here.
In any event, we (including me) have to do better.
I wouldn’t pat yourself on the back for being the lone no vote on the new liberal arts building. How is it going to get built? It’s sorely needed. If you’re correct in that it’s too expensive, why didn’t you convince others on the board to do something about it? Seems that you’re an outlier on this issue. Is that how you see yourself? If so, you’re not going to accomplish anything positive, you’re merely going to be a nuisance to be largely ignored. Where do you see yourself as a team builder on these issues who can actually achieve something other than shout No No No while becoming a laughing stock?
Someone's butt hurt by the mere thought of fiscal responsibility.
The same could be asked of Congress - Why would they not be interested in responsible spending? Large organizations don't always make the best decisions when it comes to appropriating funds. People get enamored with shiny projects, there is a herd mentality, they may be ignorant about their fiduciary responsibility or take it lightly.... there are a myriad of potential reasons. But it happens all too often.
Well stated. I expect your synopsis goes a long way in directing the explanation of any number of similar situations.
1. Is it not possible to vote No against the proposed Liberal Arts Building (with a price tag attached) and separately discuss with the board the possibility of a lower-cost solution?
2. Is it not possible to vote No against the proposed Liberal Arts Building (with a price tag attached) and separately propose other uses for the money that have merit.
Why must it be a vote of No to stand out and screw Liberal Arts? Maybe it’s more complicated than that.
FWIW: I was "For" a new Liberal Arts building (at least not opposed to the idea). I went through it in much more detail in a writing back at the time, but the issue was the costs relative to what we were getting.
The costs ($120 million, IIRC, plus some undefined amount to raze the existing Oswald Tower)- relative to the mission - were (and are) IMO grossly out of line.
Get unlimited access today.