"By the time someone gets
here in 2014, it will be just a distant memory,” said Board of Trustees
Chairperson Karen Peetz.
I’ve been counting and this
week marked the 27th time that my Penn State pride has made me the recipient of
a Jerry Sandusky remark. In a meeting with a number of health care
professionals, I mentioned that I used to work at Hershey Medical Center. A physician
said “Oh, Penn State.” I said, “Yes, I also did my undergraduate work there.”
He said, “Did you know Jerry Sandusky?”
Everyone laughed – well,
everyone except me.
So, Karen Peetz – that “moving
on” and “distant memory” thing?
Not working so well outside
your Ivory Tower.
At the Board of Trustees
meeting on November 16, 2012, engaged alumni, some of them representing 15,000
other engaged alumni and supporters, asked specific questions regarding Board
actions. Their comments made it clear that a significant rift remains between
the Board and a substantial portion of the Alumni. Despite entreaties to move
on and lip service to transparency, actual Board behaviors appear designed to
confuse the alumni, students and the general public and to obfuscate/deny the
truth.
Consider the following:
1. When a vote was
necessary, Board resolutions were called by number, not a title or verbal
description. The content of the resolution exists in agenda books not available
to those in attendance at the meeting. How does a secret resolution satisfy the
definition of transparency?
2. In August 2012, the
Board established a public comment section of their meeting. Questions were
submitted in advance so that answers could be prepared. At the September 2012
meeting, a non-scripted response “We did not read the entire Freeh report”
resulted in negative publicity.
Well, that’s what happens when
you go off script.
The truth sometimes slips out.
3. Questions were again
invited for the November 2012 meeting and after submitting questions in good
faith; rules were changed on meeting day and the Board refused to answer the
invited questions. The Chair responded with an insincere and condescending “thank
you”. Think about the optics of this decision. People are invited to submit
questions, people travel to ask the questions and then they are refused an
answer.
The cavalier decision-making
and the insincere and condescending
“thank yous” are behaviors characteristic of
despots, not leaders.
4. When later questioned
about the concerns raised at the meeting, the board chair replied, “That’s very
disappointing. I would expect alumni to get behind the university when it needs
them the most.”
Where was the Board of
Trustees when the University needed them the most? Did they get behind the
University? No. They were holding secret meetings, “losing”
meeting minutes, structuring events to assure plausible deniability, and
labeling people with legitimate questions “a bunch of anarchists”.
Let’s say it clearly –
alumni are behind the University. Many alumni are not behind a Board of
Trustees who act with callous disregard for University regulations, refuse to
answer questions that it invites on its webpage, try to control the narrative
by denigrating the concerns of the nation’s largest and most loyal alumni, and
act dismissively of people raising legitimate issues - including the dismissal
of recommendations from the State Auditor General by trustee Carl Shaffer who
said “This is our university — this university is unique in a lot of ways from
other universities. I think it’s up to this board to decide how we’re going to
take this university forward.”
This Board’s arrogance and
tone-deafness is mind-boggling.
The phrase “Ivory Tower” is defined as a state of sheltered and
unworldly intellectual isolation. The term is usually applied to university
faculty. However, if there is an Ivory Tower at University Park, it is
inhabited by a Board of Trustees who engages in callous and condescending
behaviors while displaying an elitist “we know better than you” attitude.
Perhaps too many years in corporate businesses have built up ivory walls so
insular that the Board has forgotten a University’s purpose. A University is a
place of ideas – lots of ideas, different ideas and the right to challenge
ideas. A University is a place for free thought and diverse thought. Imposing
dogmatism, requiring adherence to groupthink, and squashing dissent is the
antithesis of a University. It is far more representative of a dictatorship
under siege.
Only when this siege mentality
is replaced by thoughtful, collegial and transparent discussion, will this
University “move on.”
Originally published Nov. 23, 2012
PS4RS.org
The Board is not being tone-deaf, it is lying and being blatantly obstructive to cover-up their previous actions. Certain members of the Board, along with help from the Governor, are the ones that commissioned the Freeh report and provided Freeh with the narrative the report was suppose to follow. They will never question it because it says exactly what they wanted it to say and blames the people they wanted to blame. But they know there are holes in it and are trying to get people to ignore them.
ReplyDeleteTheir behavior now just reflects their desire to stop people from looking into their previous actions. By saying "move on" and "get behind the university" they are just saying stop looking into what we did.
These are people that run large companies, they are not stupid and not ignorant of peoples' complaints. They are corrupt and lying so they don't get caught, just like other business people and politicians.
Outstanding! It's about time that they are made accountable. Why has everyone passed on their arrogant attitude toward the questions that they have continued to avoid? It's amazing to me that the major newspapers, sportscasters, reporters etc have let them pass on the real questions that could bring the real story to the forefront.
ReplyDelete