Posts filed under ‘Sandusky scandal’
In a busy and often contentious five-hour meeting Friday afternoon at the Penn Stater Hotel, the Board of Trustees ended months of heated debate by adopting a proposal to expand the board’s membership to 36 voting members. The board also voted to postpone action on a proposal to join a lawsuit against the NCAA—news that was tempered Saturday by the announcement that President Eric Barron will personally conduct a review of the Freeh Report.
The governance changes passed on a 16-9 vote, with the nine alumni-elected trustees voting against expanding the board. Under the approved proposal, the board will now include 38 trustees, 36 of whom will have voting rights. The new additions will include a student trustee, an academic trustee nominated by the Faculty Senate, and the immediate past president of the Alumni Association. In addition, there will be three at-large trustees elected by the board. All new trustees will begin their terms in July 2015.
Opponents of the board argued that a larger board would be too complex to function efficiently. Alumni trustee Al Lord ’67 was representative of his fellow elected board members when he said, “I find it hard to believe that a 30 to 40 member board will be effective. That certainly has not been the case.” The addition of the Alumni Association seat was particularly contentious for some, with Alice Pope ’79, ’83g, ’86g among those arguing that the seat created a potential conflict of interest. Alumni trustee Anthony Lubrano ’82 also argued the board should heed the request of state senators Jake Corman ’93 and John Yudichak ’93, ’04g to hold off on reforming the board until the recently elected gubernatorial administration was in office.
The majority cited the board makeup of peer institutions, some of which have dozens more members than Penn State’s, as proof that there was nothing inherently problematic in increasing the membership. Business and industry trustee Rick Dandrea ’77 said, “I think our board functions well on a wide range of issues. We have disagreements on a very few important issues. On this issue, our board function is not what it should be because we have a majority and minority agenda. I don’t think it has anything to do with size.”
After the vote, board chair Keith Masser ’73 called the expanded board “a more comprehensive reflection of the Penn State community.”
Given the established voting lines on the board, it was the expected outcome from a long and increasingly tense afternoon session. Citing threats made toward some board members, the university increased security for the meeting; visitors passed through a metal detector, and as many as two dozen officers from the State College and Penn State police departments were visible in the conference room, in the hallway outside, and outside the hotel entrances. Masser opened the meeting with a reference to outbursts at the board’s Oct. 28 special meeting, when three audience members were removed from the room, and reminded the standing-room crowd that “members of the public are here as observers, not as participants.”
Some of those observers got their chance to participate at the public comment segment, and about half of the 10 listed speakers used their time to upbraid the appointed trustees involved in the dismissal of Joe Paterno and the acceptance of the Freeh Report. That session followed a proposal from Lubrano that Penn State join Sen. Corman’s lawsuit against the NCAA. That proposal, inspired by the release of emails last week highlighting apparent conflicts in the NCAA’s handling of sanctions in the wake of the Freeh Report, was voted down, 14-10, but not before alumni trustee Bob Jubelirer ’59, ’62g argued that “with all that’s going on, to kick it down the road to January, I think we’re making a terrible, terrible mistake.” Gubernatorial appointee Kathleen Casey ’88 countered that the board would be better served by having more time to consider the resolution and revisit it at the next scheduled meeting in January.
On Saturday, President Barron added an unexpected twist with the announcement that he would “conduct a thorough review of the Freeh Report and supporting materials produced during the course of the investigation.” Barron’s statement offered no timetable for the review, but noted that he “assured the board I would move with all deliberate speed.”
Barron’s scheduled address Friday focused on student engagement, a topic he addressed last week in an open forum with students at the Hintz Family Alumni Center. Barron highlighted the many reasons that more engaged students—those who study abroad, intern, take leadership roles, and have the opportunity for one-on-one engagement with faculty—have better GPAs and make stronger candidates for internships and jobs. His proposals for improving the environment for student engagement ranged from the creation of an engaged student medal to greater funding for international experiences. He noted, “Just going in and out of class is no way to go through this university.”
Executive VP and Provost Nicholas Jones address trends in faculty makeup, particularly the decades-long rise in non-tenure-track faculty. While acknowledging concerns about about the decline in tenure-track professors, Jones highlighted a number of non-track instructors whose work has been honored for teaching and research awards.
University scholarship was also highlighted Friday, with presentations from Schreyer Honors College Dean Chris Brady, Eberly College of Science Dean Daniel Larson (highlighting the Millennium Scholars Program) and Susan Welch, dean of the College of the Liberal Arts. Welch focused on the Paterno Fellows program, and her presentation included clips from a 2009 video of Joe and Sue Paterno ’62 explaining their inspiration for the program they endowed.
You can find information on additional items from Friday’s agenda here.
Ryan Jones, senior editor
Two very different cinematic responses to the Sandusky Scandal will premiere this weekend at the State Theatre in downtown State College.
Friday night sees the debut of Happy Valley, a documentary from director Amir Bar-Lev billed as “the story behind the Penn State scandal.” Best known for his films My Kid Could Paint That and The Tillman Story, Bar-Lev filmed in and around State College for a year following Jerry Sandusky’s arrest; the end result is an attempt to explore the scandal’s aftermath, and the climate that allowed it to happen in the first place. Sue ’62, Jay ’91 and Scott Paterno ’97, ’00g were all interviewed and feature prominently in the film, which will be available through iTunes, Amazon Instant, Google Play and other digital platforms on Nov. 21.
The People’s Joe debuts Saturday evening, and as the title implies, its focus is the life and legacy of Joe Paterno. It’s the third post-scandal documentary from the State College-based Porterfield Group, which also produced The Joe We Know and 365 Days: A Year in Happy Valley. The film traces Paterno’s life from his Brooklyn childhood to his decades at Penn State through archival footage and interviews with former players, fans, and friends. DVDs of the film are available to purchase at peoplesjoe.com.
Ryan Jones, senior editor
In a contentious 90-minute special meeting Tuesday, the Board of Trustees voted down a proposal to formally examine the findings of the Freeh Report, voting instead to maintain its current stance of waiting until legal proceedings related to the Sandusky scandal run their course.
Alumni trustee Al Lord ’67 presented the initial resolution, which proposed the creation of an ad hoc committee to “examine the Freeh Report, meet with Freeh and his investigative team, review the full set of undisclosed communications and report its findings to the full board.” That resolution was defeated by a 17-9 vote, with Lord and the other eight alumni-elected trustees the only “yes” votes. A second resolution, presented by gubernatorial appointee and board vice chair Kathleen Casey ’88, proposed that the board “continue to actively monitor the discovery and factual investigations … and, upon conclusion of such proceedings, shall determine whether any action is appropriate and in the best interest of Penn State.” That resolution passed 17-8, with alumni trustee Adam Taliaferro ’05 abstaining.
It was Lord, during discussion of the second resolution, who asked Casey to clarify whether the action in her proposal (written in collaboration with Ken Frazier ’73) was simply to “continue.” When Casey said yes, Lord replied, “Continue to do what we’re doing? Resolutions should do something. This is ‘continue to do nothing.’” It was an exchange that got to the heart of the divide among the board’s members: The alumni trustees remain committed to repudiating the most damning findings of the Freeh Report, while the majority of board members argue that any such action is at best premature.
Lord introduced the amended resolution, first proposed in July, by acknowledging other issues that demand the board’s attention. “I wish that instead of talking about being pleased with only increasing tuition two or three percent, we were talking about decreasing tuition,” he said. “But what needs immediate attention is the Freeh Report… My feeling is that the consequences of the Freeh Report and the NCAA consent decree live on.” He cited comments and signs encountered by Penn State fans at the Rutgers football game last month as proof that the damage to the university’s reputation remains unchecked. “When I saw those signs, it occurred to me how far we’ve fallen, or how other people think we’ve fallen, because we don’t stand up for ourselves. I’m bothered by how meekly we react. Generally speaking, we don’t react at all … there’s a sense of ‘Suck it up, we deserve it.’ We don’t deserve it.”
The four-person ad hoc committee proposed in Lord’s resolution would have included Lord, fellow alumni trustee Anthony Lubrano ’82, and two members appointed by board chair Keith Masser ’73. The alumni trustees were unanimous in their support: Ted Brown ’68 argued that any trustee who said they’d be willing to defend the university’s reputation in a one-on-one conversation was obligated to support the proposal, while Bob Jubelirer ’59, ’62g disputed the need to wait on the legal outcomes: “There is no downside, none at all, if we review the Freeh Report.”
Counterarguments came from Keith Eckel, an elected agricultural trustee, who cited strong applicant numbers and an upgraded credit rating as signs of the university’s health, and argued that the board’s responsibility was to “our students and our constituents. I urge the defeat of this resolution and the moving forward of the university, and the continued observation of the results of the trials that are ongoing, and because of which we cannot make any decision today.” That response brought an isolated “boo” from someone in the audience of roughly 100 people, many of whom applauded points made by the various alumni trustees. An otherwise tame exchange between the business and industry-elected trustee Rick Dandrea ’77 (an attorney who argued the wait-and-see approach on the ongoing court cases) and alumni trustee Ryan McCombie ’70 led to a more strident response from the crowd; two audience members were escorted out of the meeting after loud outbursts, prompting Masser to slam his gavel at the podium, while Lord turned toward the crowd and made a “time out” signal to try to quiet things down.
When order was restored, McCombie finished his point: “We accepted a scarlet letter that said we are a ‘football culture,’ when everyone knows we aren’t a football culture. I refuse to accept that letter; I don’t think the university should, either.”
After a bit more back and forth between the two sides—and the removal of one more audience member after an extended outburst—the trustees voted, with the the “nays” carrying the day. That was followed by the introduction of Casey’s resolution, a brief back-and-forth about when the board members had initially received it (the proposal was sent out electronically last Friday), and objections from Lord, Lubrano, and Bill Oldsey ’76 about the proposal’s wording. Taking issue with the final paragraph of Casey’s proposal, Oldsey noted, “It says ‘consistent with fiduciary duty’ … and then it says we’re going to wait and see. Unless I missed the last two hours, there is a lot of disagreement on the board about our fiduciary duty.”
That disagreement doesn’t figure to change anytime soon. A quick vote to table the proposal until a later date was shot down along the expected lines—the nine alumni trustees once again voted together—before the actual vote on the Casey/Frazier “wait and see” resolution. It passed.
Ryan Jones, senior editor
Yesterday’s board-reform recommendation by the Board of Trustees’s governance committee is playing to mixed reviews so far.
The most prominent critic appears to be state senator John Yudichak ’93, ’04g, who quickly issued a statement suggesting that the committee violated state law with its recommendation. His concern apparently is with the removal of voting privileges for the three members of the governor’s cabinet who serve as trustees: “The public members of the board of trustees and the voting privileges they have are decided by statute, not by a committee of non-lawmakers,” according to his statement.
Yudichak is the main sponsor of Senate Bill 1240, which would cut the size of the board from 30 voting members to 23. The proposal approved in the governance committee yesterday, by contrast, would increase the number of voting members to 33. Mark Dent of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette talked with Yudichak yesterday and has a bit more on the senator’s objections here.
The governance committee also heard criticism during the public-comment portion of its meeting yesterday from alumnus Jeff Goldsmith ’82, who ran unsuccessfully for the board in 2013 and who has since formed a group called Penn State Board Watch. Goldsmith expressed “extreme disappointment in how the committee has handled public input into this process,” pointing out that while comment has been allowed at some sessions, there’ve been severeal committee breakout sessions that took place in private.
A few other notes from yesterday’s meeting:
Ted Brown’s Proposal E. While much of the debate has been about whether to keep the nine alumni-elected slots on the board or reduce that number to six, trustee Ted Brown ’68 put forward a proposal to increase the number to 12. He points out that alumni trustees (three, to be exact) were first added to the board in 1875, at a time when Penn State had about 1,400 living alumni. Thirty years later, in 1905, Penn State had about 9,400 alumni, and the number of alumni trustees increased to nine. Today, 109 years later, Penn State has more than 600,000 alumni, but still only nine alumni trustees. “In less than 20 years there will be about 1 million [living alumni],” according to the rationale statement in Brown’s proposal. “At that rate we should have 540 alumni-elected Trustees. This proposal advocates only an increase of three.”
Brown’s proposal never made it to a vote. After the meeting, he told the committee, “I have to say that I am not happy with what you’ve passed, but my view is that probably nobody is. … I am happy we reached a compromise that protects all constituencies.” He added that if the full board tries again to reduce the number of alumni-elected seats, he’ll again pursue his 12-seat proposal.
Board size. The proposal passed yesterday would increase the size of the Board of Trustees (including both voting and non-voting members) from 32 to 38. Penn State already has the largest board in the Big Ten, but a Penn State news release points out that even with the proposed change, the university’s board would still be the smallest of the commonwealth’s state-related universities.
One argument in favor of a larger board comes from those who point out that the board has a large number of committees and subcommittees; with a smaller board, they say, it would be hard to populate those committees without stretching members too thin. “I’ve changed my view on board size since I got here,” Dan Mead ’75, ’77g, a new trustee who serves on the governance committee, said in yesterday’s meeting. “I used to think 12 to 14 would be enough. But I didn’t have the appreciation of the committee structure.”
Lubrano v. Dandrea. The most pointed exchanges of yesterday’s meeting, as was also the case in the August meeting, were those between committee vice-chair Rick Dandrea ’77 and committee member Anthony Lubrano ’82. Dandrea supported the original Proposal A, which would have reduced the number of alumni-elected trustees from nine to six; Lubrano opposed that. Dandrea argued that, even with six alumni trustees, Penn State would have greater alumni representation on its board than most of the peer schools that consultant Holly Gregory studied. “By the standard of our database, that is still a robust representation—exceptionally large, compared to most other schools.” Lubrano responded: “I would argue, how many other schools have 600,000—and growing—alumni?”
Dandrea, a trustee elected to the board by its business and industry members, also maintained that a relatively tiny percentage of Penn State alumni show interest in the elections. “With execption of the post-Sandusky-scandal years,” he said, “only 2.5 to 5% of alumni voted in elections. Your marketing firm or whatever tells you to cite 600,000 alumni, but ….” He pointed out that the top vote-getter in the 2014 alumni election, Alice Pope ’79, ’83g, ’86g, garnered 10,000 votes, a small fraction of those eligible to vote. Lubrano’s response: “So how many people voted to put you on the board, sir? Five. … Ours is far more democratic than yours will ever be.” At that point, committee chair Keith Eckel stepped in, saying, “I expect us all to be civil,” and the conversation moved on.
Risk management. There’s one component of board reform that came not from the governance committee, but from the committee on audit and risk. That committee is looking at the possibility of creating a subcommittee devoted entirely to “risk structure,” a concept that has to do with assessing and being prepared for various kinds of risks to an organization. (Some say the Sandusky scandal offers a classic case study in failures of risk management.) The idea has been championed in part by board member Ted Brown, who deals with risk management in his professional life—he owns a consulting firm that’s focused on the topic—and who is one of the alumni trustees elected to the board in the wake of the scandal. The audit and risk committee will report on its discussions on the subject at the full board meeting this afternoon.
Tina Hay, editor
After more than a year of discussion and debate, the governance and long-range planning committee of Penn State’s Board of Trustees agreed on a compromise proposal for board reform today, preserving all nine of the current alumni-elected seats while adding seats for a student representative, a faculty representative, and a representative of the Alumni Association.
The committee’s endorsement of the so-called “Proposal A+,” approved on a 7-1 vote, also adds three at-large seats to be selected by the board. The idea behind those seats is to add expertise in areas the board might otherwise be lacking. In all, the Board of Trustees would grow from its current 32 members (30 voting, 2 non-voting) to 38 total members, of whom 33 could vote.
The proposal will go before the full board for a vote at its November meeting. It represents the most significant expansion of the board since 1905.
Today’s vote came at the end of a three-hour meeting that was at times heated, but committee chair Keith Eckel praised the ultimate recommendation as “a very good compromise.” Only Anthony Lubrano ’82 voted against it.
In a four-hour meeting in August, the committee had debated three proposals—dubbed Proposals A, B, and C—for restructuring the board. (There’s an excellent summary of that meeting by Lori Shontz ’91, ’13g here, and a chart comparing the original three proposals can be downloaded from the Trustees’ website.) This morning, committee vice chair Rick Dandrea ’77 made a motion that the committee adopt Proposal A, which would have reduced the number of alumni-elected trustees from nine to six and added seats for a student, a faculty member, and the immediate past president of the Alumni Association.
The reduction in the number of alumni-elected trustees, as well as the addition of an Alumni Association rep, proved to be Proposal A’s most controversial parts. On the former point, trustee Dandrea cited data that alumni-elected trustees are the exception, rather than the rule, in university governance: “[Board consultant] Holly Gregory looked at 36 peer institutions, including other Big 10 schools, state-related schools, private and public land grant institutions, plus schools like Stanford and Carnegie Mellon,” he said. “It’s a rich database. And 33 of those 36 have zero alumni-elected trustees.”
But Lubrano argued, as he did at the August meeting, that there’s another agenda behind the proposal. “I’m struck by the fact that the interest in reducing the number of alumni-elected trustees comes after three years of contentious elections,” he said. “… In my mind, this is about reducing the influence of the alumni-elected trustees and limiting dissent.”
Meanwhile, there also was talk of a new proposal, Proposal D, which got very little discussion in this morning’s meeting, and a Proposal E, advanced by trustee Ted Brown ’68. Brown’s proposal would actually increase the number of alumni-elected seats, from nine to 12. You can see Proposals A through E here.
It was trustee chair Keith Masser ’73, an ex-officio member, who put forward the compromise plan that eventually passed—he called it Proposal A+. Here are its chief elements:
—Five ex-officio members who cannot vote: the governor, the university president, and three state cabinet secretaries (agriculture, education, and conservation and natural resources). On the current board, the cabinet secretaries have voting privileges; that would end under this proposal.
—Nine alumni-elected trustees, the same as are on the board now.
—Six trustees elected by business and industry members of the board, six elected by agricultural societies, and six appointed by the governor. These are all unchanged from the current board composition.
—Six new members, as follows: a student trustee, nominated by a student selection group and elected by the board; an academic trustee, nominated by the Faculty Senate and elected by the board; the immediate past president of the Alumni Association; and three at-large members, appointed by the board.
The at-large members are an idea borrowed from Proposal C, authored by trustee Barbara Doran ’75, who originally proposed eight such members.
When talk of board reform first emerged in the wake of the Sandusky scandal, it’s probably fair to say that most people envisioned the board shrinking in size, not getting larger. But Keith Eckel, chair of the governance committee, said at the beginning of today’s meeting that there’s been less focus on the board’s size lately than there had been at the outset. “I do not hear from most constituencies that there is an absolute need to reduce the size of the board,” he said. “There are still feelings in that direction, but board size does not seem to be the issue. Board composition, I would say, is a significant concern.”
In a similar vein, Dandrea, the committee co-chair, hinted that some in state government are primarily interested in seeing the divisions on the board heal. Dandrea said that a unanimous vote on a recommendation would be better than “a contested vote.”
Midway through this morning’s meeting, with Dandrea’s motion to approve Proposal A still on the floor, the committee adjourned for what was announced as a 10-minute break. The meeting didn’t reconvene until more than a half hour later, and once it did, Dandrea announced a change in plans. “We’ve had some further discussions during the break,” he said, “and we’ve received some additional input, and what comes through is a desire to try to compromise—to avoid division and potential litigation.” With that, he removed his motion and instead moved that the committee approve Keith Masser’s compromise proposal (Proposal A+). After about 20 minutes of discussion, the committee did just that.
Tina Hay, editor
Board of Trustees Report: Barron Addresses Affordability of College; Lord Wants Freeh Report ‘Finished’
The Board of Trustees meeting began with what seemed, at times, like a graduate-level seminar in finance and statistics. President Eric Barron, addressing the board for the first time, dispensed with the usual presidential address highlighting various accomplishments of students and faculty and instead presented a 25-minute talk about the issues of access and affordability in higher education, complete with 22 pages of bar graphs, scatter charts, financial data, and bulleted lists of potential ways to make a Penn State education more affordable.
When I profiled Barron for our May/June issue, he told me he liked data. Click here for a PDF of his presentation today—you’ll see he may have understated his love of data.
More than three hours later, the meeting ended with a surprise resolution introduced by newly elected alumni trustee Al Lord ’67, who called for a roll call vote on “finishing” the Freeh report. Lord contends that the report is incomplete because Freeh did not talk to seven key people and because the truth of whether Penn State officials were aware of Jerry Sandusky’s crimes is still unknown.
“I want the board to agree that we’re not done. That’s all,” Lord said after the meeting. “It’s very simple—that we’re not finished. There are a lot of people that complain there’s misinformation in the report. I don’t know. I do know it’s not finished.”
Discussion was suspended because Penn State general counsel Stephen Dunham advised that it would need, for privacy reasons, to take place in executive session. Lord said the board had decided to have the discussion at its next meeting in September, and then the board briefly debated whether it needed to table the resolution to assure that the meeting did not end with a resolution on the floor. Although newly elected alumni trustee Robert Jubelirer ’59, ’62g said he believed the motion was tabled with the intent of killing it, board chair Keith Masser ’73 Eng said it was merely a formality. The motion was tabled.
It’s a lot to digest. So here are some of the details on both:
Barron’s report: He identified six major areas of emphasis for the university: excellence, student engagement, economic development and student career success, diversity and demographics, access and affordability, and technology and curriculum delivery.
Barron spoke in intricate detail about what he called Penn State’s “evolution into a tuition-driven university,” and showed a chart that made clear how few state budget dollars Penn State gets in comparison with the other Big Ten universities. He broke down how students pay for college and provided a table that showed how family income affects graduation rates: For every additional $10,000 in family income, a student’s chance of graduating rises 6 percent.
He discussed the rising level of debt college students face—66 percent of students graduate with some debt, and the average debt has grown from $20,000 to $35,429 in the past decade. Worse, Barron said, some students don’t have enough money to finish, so they are saddled with debt but don’t have a college degree. (This topic was fleshed out in a recent study by the Brookings Institutions, written about here by the New York Times.)
Barron said the university must focus on helping students to graduate in four years; an extra year of college, he said, is the “biggest tuition increase.” Among the ideas he floated: emphasizing the summer semester, possibly through “online summers” with reduced tuition for students with financial need or a “cost-contained” summer on campus, once the university could determine the break-even point for expenses.
He also said that he’d like Penn State to raise money to cover the “unmet need” many students have in paying for college after loans, scholarships, and grants. He noted that those students work to make up the money, and that extra time on the job can cause difficulties in the classroom. He would like to find a way that students don’t need to work more than 20 hours a week—he calculated that would cost the university $25 million for all in-state students at Penn State. He called it the Penn State Promise.
“Some of these things won’t work,” he said. “I’m talking a little bit out loud—let’s get strategic, let’s focus on these things.”
Several of the trustees praised the report, and Barron indicated he would tackle the other five issues in upcoming meetings.
Lord’s resolution: Generally, the way Penn State’s board has worked is that resolutions come up through the committees. Lord introduced this resolution, however, to the full board.
He said the trustees haven’t done anything with the Freeh report—except to fulfill the recommendations Freeh made and hand the report over to the NCAA, which in turn used the findings to impose sanctions. “By virtue of the fact that we didn’t reject it, the board tells me that they didn’t accept it,” he said. “To me, the absence of a rejection is acceptance.”
He said that “everyone has been sitting on their hands” waiting for the criminal trial of Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz ’71, ’75g, and Tim Curley ’76, ’78g. “I’m afraid that case is going to be dismissed,” he said, “and it’ll be ‘Penn State got out of it because of a technicality.’ I want the truth. I am hopeful of where it leads. I have very strong beliefs of where it will lead. But if any of those guys were guilty, then they belong in jail.”
Lord said he would be happy to provide specifics of incomplete parts of Freeh’s report, but he wanted to refresh his memory of the details before he did so. “I’m sort of brain dead after that mind-numbing conversation all afternoon,” he said.
Freeh did not have subpoena power; in his report, he indicated that was why he did not speak to the primary figures in the Sandusky scandal, among them Schultz, Curley, Joe Paterno, and Mike McQueary ’97. (Spanier did meet with Freeh’s investigators.) Said Lord: “Louis Freeh would tell you that, Look, I couldn’t talk to this guy because he’s part of a criminal investigation. But you’re talking about seven people, the seven key people who know what happened or as much as anybody knows about what happened—he never talked to anybody. I understand that some of them have claimed privilege because they’re in a criminal case, but that means [Freeh is] not finished.”
As if all that weren’t enough, here are a few additional—shorter—items from the meeting:
—Masser ran unopposed for chair and will serve for another year. Kathleen Casey ’88, a gubernatorial appointee, defeated Bill Oldsey ’76, an alumni-elected trustee, for the vice chair position. As usual, vote totals were not announced.
—Casey’s election as vice chair opened up an at-large position on the executive board, and the trustees voted to fill the spot with Ryan McCombie ’70. He is the first of the alumni trustees elected post-Sandusky scandal to be appointed to the executive committee.
—The board granted emeritus trustee status to Samuel Hayes and Paul Suhey ’79, with all nine alumni trustees abstaining. Anthony Lubrano ’82 suggested again that emeritus trustee status be delayed until governance reform is enacted.
—The board approved a $4.6 billion budget for 2014-15 with a tuition increase of 2.99 percent for University Park and increases ranging from zero to 2.4 percent for other campuses.
Lori Shontz, senior editor
Jennie Noll, director of Penn State’s Network on Child Protection and Well-Being, had just asked if anyone in the audience knew how many children in the United States were affected each year by abuse. Not one person raised a hand.
Noll revealed the answer: nearly 2 million. Silence again.
“How come we don’t know that?” asked Noll. “How come everyone doesn’t know that?”
That difficult question was the focus of last night’s panel discussion, “Making a Difference, Every Day… Preventing Child Abuse Begins With You.” At the event, sponsored in part by the Alumni Association, keynote speaker James Hmurovich, CEO and president of Prevent Child Abuse America, led an honest, emotional discussion about the issues of child abuse, neglect, and maltreatment — and the ways communities can keep kids safe. Some highlights from Hmurovich’s address:
-Because of his background in the Indiana Department of Corrections, Hmurovich became aware of the strong link between child abuse and juvenile delinquency. When he learned that 63 percent of the girls and boys in the Indiana juvenile correction system had been abused as children, “I started to put together the puzzle pieces,” he says.
-In his work with the Child Welfare Department, Hmurovich recalls talking with women who were able to successfully get off welfare. In describing how they did it, he says, their stories all began with the same phrase: “Someone took the time to …” Hmurovich’s takeway: It’s up to us, individually and as a community, to “create a norm of caring.”
-Hmurovich says federal legislators must create public policy and provide tools for parents and caregivers to ensure healthy childhood development, he says. “Our public policy in the U.S. isn’t exactly where it should be.”
Later in the evening, as part of the panel discussion, Montgomery County assistant district attorney and Alumni Association vice president Kevin Steele ’92g talked about the importance of child advocacy centers, like the ones he’s helped establish throughout Pennsylvania with non-profit group Mission Kids. Because these centers employ “investigative teams” of experts to interview children after abuse, victims aren’t forced to retell their stories to multiple people during the legal process — an experience that’s often painful, he says. The goal of Mission Kids and programs like it, explained Steele, is not only to achieve justice, but to promote healing for victims of abuse.
Steele also encouraged students in the audience to stay involved with child abuse prevention programs even after graduation, explaining that many PSAA chapters are active with child protection organizations around the country.
At the end of the evening, guests were invited to take blue pinwheels — a symbol, explained Hmurovich, of “every child’s right to a happy, healthy childhood.”
Mary Murphy, associate editor