Alice Pope's Statement - SMSS Supports ALICE POPE for 2014 Board of Trustees

SMSS offers our support for PENN STATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CANDIDATES who assure us that they intend to stand up for the best interests of Penn State, unlike the compromised and conflicted BOT members of Nov 9, 2011. We cannot "move on" without addressing the damage done and holding accountable those who failed in their fiduciary duty to Penn State. I give you the statement of ALICE POPE, who is such a candidate.

Alice Pope is endorsed by PS4RS, Reform Members of the BOT Lubrano, Doran, Oldsey and Brown, and Franco & Dana Harris.

ALICE POPE - 2014 Candidate for Penn State Board of Trustees

I am a 3-time Penn State alumna, with bachelors (1979), masters (1983), and doctorate (1986) degrees in psychology.  I have held faculty appointments for the past 25 years in public and private universities.  The Penn State board currently has no faculty as trustees.  I will bring the perspective of a career educator who is familiar with the challenges facing higher education today, and will ensure that Penn State’s education mission is prioritized in decision-making


I ask for your support based on my record of thoughtful, principled, and constructive activism in response to the board’s errors.  I have worked effectively outside the board; now I am ready to serve Penn State as a trustee. In particular, I have:

1.  Regularly attended committee and full BOT meetings.  I have commented at meetings; have communicated with trustees to voice my opinion; I have connected with alumni who attend meetings. 

2.  Written 11 op-eds and other opinion pieces in Pennsylvania newspapers.  These works have made me a recognized voice of alumni who are concerned with promoting effective governance and with responding to the profound weaknesses of the Freeh report.  Please see my website  to read my published work.

3. Conducted research and written position papers in collaboration with other alumni in support of governance reform.  These reports have been used by our progressive PSU trustees and by state legislators to guide their efforts to make the BOT more effective, transparent, and efficient.

4.  Met with Pennsylvania senators and have formed effective working relationships with several who support PSU board reform.

5.  Used social media to lead actions.  We have generated letter-writing campaigns to PSU trustees and to state legislators in support of governance reforms.

6.  Attended hearings and press conferences in the Capitol on PSU governance reform.  I have also helped to organize attendance by PSU alumni at these events to show the strength of our numbers.

Alice Pope: Highlights of Today's Smucker Hearings

Some reflections on today’s Senate hearings (with thanks to others who have posted, and apologies that this is so long):

• We packed the hearing room, just as Anthony requested. Several mentions were made of this – Senators said they had never seen a full hearing room before! And this was the largest room they have.

• The Senators were well-informed and well-prepared. Their questions were fair and insightful. Sometimes detailed, sometimes big picture. One question was repeated several times: “Do you think that the failures with Penn State’s BOT were a result of structural problems, or personality problems?” They are trying to figure out how to address what went wrong. It was taken for granted that the BOT most definitely HAS failed.

• The Auditor General spoke fervently in support of many aspects of reform. And he said, “It would be a big mistake to leave the reforms up to the Penn State Board to do themselves.”

• Masser, Broadhurst, and Lubert testified for BOT. They did not respond intelligently to questions. They did not have good answers to why the Legal Committee did not think change in the size and composition of the Board was a priority. They had to acknowledge that the committee’s proposed changes may not be approved by the full Board. 

• Senator Folmer asked BOT: “The alumni seem very angry. Why is that? What are you doing about it?” There was a very long pause. Then Broadhurst said, “That’s a good question,” clearly unprepared to answer. Said they wanted to move forward, had done their best but were criticized for it, decisions they had to make were difficult, they are trying to be responsive. It was a weak response and everyone in the room saw that. Lubert added info about public comment session at Board meeting, visitors invited to attend and comment at committee meetings, new website with info on progress. 

• Dinniman was quite assertive in telling BOT that legislation would be required to change the Enabling Statute to accomplish some of the reforms. This apparently was news to the BOT.

• Senator Yudichak challenged BOT on process of engaging Freeh and the BOT’s failure to accept report. Challenged them on whether engagement of Freeh and use of Task Force were consistent with the Standing Orders. Said investigation was NOT independent because it was managed by Task Force.

• The BOT folks left after their turn, before Anthony Lubrano and Bob Horst spoke. Stephanie Deviney remained throughout. I thought it was a very insulting thing for them to leave Senate hearings before they were complete. It did not reflect well on them. 

• Bob Horst’s testimony about how the BOT functioned in the 1990s was chilling. He describes a power-hungry cabal of insiders. Described Hintz as “the face of the power block.” Talked about Trusteeship as a reward for big donors.

• Anthony was articulate and persuasive. Senators were clearly sympathetic to his positions. Anthony spoke repeatedly about importance of engagement for all Trustees, suggested that reducing size of BOT would support better engagement. Criticized selection process for B&I Trustees as too insular, suggested instead that deans of all the colleges each put forward two candidates to be voted on by full BOT, a more open and inclusive process that would broaden the types of people who would serve. Spoke of his concerns about the new language where BOT could vote out a Trustee who spoke openly in disagreement of BOT decisions; Senators were openly critical of this new provision. 

• Senator Folmer asked Anthony why alumni are unhappy. Anthony said most important thing was lack of fairness, no willingness to deal with that in an honest way. He said it may be too late to regain confidence of the alumni in the old BOT. Failure of leadership, political correctness motivated their actions. Anthony said we can separate fairness and due process versus protecting children – both can happen. He spoke movingly about the mission of our land grant university, where sons and daughters of farmers and coal miners have received excellent educations. We became an elite university without becoming elitist, because of Joe’s leadership.

• I spoke with Senator Corman after the hearings and he said they prefer for BOT to make changes internally but they are prepared to respond with legislation if needed. He noted that the problem with legislation is that they lose control of all the things that might get attached to a bill. We agreed that threat of legislation seems to be motivating BOT to make at least some reforms.

• Today went better than I ever could have imagined. These Senators see very clearly where the problems lie in the BOT and are committed to addressing it. Old BOT looks weak and cannot defend their actions. PSU alumni showed up in force. WE ARE on a roll! 

• Thanks to everyone who helped get us all to the hearings, those who showed up, and those who sent good thoughts from afar. There is much work remaining to be done, but we have great momentum now.

More coverage from StateCollege.com

Recap of Today's BOT Meeting (UPDATED w/Video)

by Bill Bender 

Reflections on the March 2013 Penn State Board of Trustees meeting

Lettermen speak starting at 32:30

Video streaming by Ustream

That the Penn State Board of Trustees considers itself a model of anything is bewildering, and embarrassing.

I watched my first Board proceedings today via live-stream feed, and I was crestfallen.  When I was a Penn State freshman volunteering with a local fire company, our small foundation adhered more strictly to Robert’s Rules than this esteemed institution did today, and at a time when it should be paying particular attention to doing everything right.  For an institution still teetering on the edge, the lack of direction, purpose, and situational awareness is beyond remarkable.

The Board succumbed to a dreadful briefing on the status and progress of it’s medical center, and as a result had to push its own business into a hurry-up conclusion that was undertaken as members were leaving out of pure exhaustion.  

When the Board finally did focus on the business of survival, the far from concluded Sandusky scandal, it heard from the only Trustee we can apparently place our trust in for the future of Penn State.  Anthony Lubrano shined a bright light on the issue every Penn Stater is concerned about. The room would have remained dark but for his boldness. An attempt to weigh in on Lubrano’s position, without really weighing in, was feebly offered by another alumni Board member, whose “Trustee” credentials are far from assured.  The rebuttal he received provided nothing new.

Kick the can...then the cutoff.

What is notable about this meeting was the manner in which the various Chairs managed to “kick the can down the road” at each point where issues began to come to a head, and real discussions and decisions were required.  On matters of Board structure, Board membership, governance, and of course on the Freeh report.  To those watching it is obvious what was occurring. 

Ken Frazier managed an ersatz apology for his previous day’s remarks while continuing to cling to the twisted logic he insists defends his Freeh Report.  Yes, HIS Freeh report; he owns it now as he never did before. And then a motion was raised to cut off discussion on the topic, so as to move on to other important things.  What could be more important than THIS discussion, particularly after ‘investing’ hours learning of the miracles of modern medicine?

The same cut-off happened earlier, when Trustee Lubrano raised the issue of background checks for trustees. Trustee Broadhurst ruined both his shoes kicking that can down the road before abruptly adjourning this segment of the meeting.

Novices Playing House With A World Class University

Administratively, it is clear there are no standards by which information is compiled or presented to this Board. Individual committees follow no structured information management model to convey the essential work of their committees to the Board.  Whoever stands up and gives a pitch is given whatever time they need to do so.  We saw not one instance of a chair presenting projects or issues based on metrics-based requirements, costs-benefit analysis, and the like.  There is apparently no decision brief format to frame the issues in a logical sequence the Trustees can expect, assimilate, and process in an efficient manner. 

For all the talent available on the Board, this is a group of novices playing house with a world class university. 

  

Members of this Board have made broad statements, trumpeting their impressive accomplishments in the wake of the Sandusky scandal, as they rush to implement the recommendations of a man who most of us wouldn’t ask for street directions.  

The Board spoke of progress on recommendations stemming from a report they will not accept, yet will not question or review, even as that report stands as the sole document upon which rests the soul and treasure of this university.  

Our Day, and Your Day, Is Coming

Lest we fail to say it out of timidity in the face of our accusers: this is a cover-up.  

It’s time to stop pretending it is anything but, and set motive aside for the moment.  

The gaze that Letterman Mark Battaglia cast upon trustee Suhey as he delivered his impassioned remarks should stand as both a symbol to Penn Staters, and a warning to this Board....

Our day, and your day, is coming.