Posts tagged ‘Anthony Lubrano’
Three Questions for the Trustee Candidates
Back in 2012, when a record 86 alumni were running for a seat on the Penn State Board of Trustees in the wake of the Sandusky scandal, we introduced a project designed to help voters sort through all those candidates. We patterned it after the voters’ guides that the League of Women Voters pioneered, and we called it “Three Questions for the Candidates.”
We’ve continued the project every year since then, even as the number of candidates has declined: 39 alumni running for a seat in 2013 and 31 last year. This year saw an even more dramatic drop, and in fact the race is essentially uncontested: Only three candidates are running for the three available alumni-elected seats.
We talked about it in-house, and decided that even with three unopposed candidates, the project is still worth doing. Alumni still need to know where their trustees, or potential trustees, stand on the issues. So we invited Anthony Lubrano, Ryan McCombie, and Robert Tribeck to answer this year’s three questions.
Tribeck sent us his answers, and you’ll see them on our site. McCombie responded that he wouldn’t be in a position to participate: “I am on travel until Easter Sunday with only my IPad to compose on and little thoughtful time,” he replied. “I don’t believe I will be able to frame these questions worthy of your publication and editor’s eye satisfactorily in time. I’m afraid you are going to do this without me this year. Sorry.” Lubrano didn’t respond at all.
Still, we’ve assembled the site, including not only Tribeck’s responses but also links to all three candidates’ bios and official position statements on the trustees’ website. Information on election dates and eligibility is on the site as well. We hope that you’ll check it out—and that you’ll vote.
Tina Hay, editor
NCAA Sanctions Repealed, Paterno’s Wins Restored
Keith Masser ’73 stuck to the script when he opened the Penn State Board of Trustees meeting today, saying he had some good news to report: that Penn State’s World Campus scored a No. 1 ranking in the U.S. News rankings of online programs.
But a few moments later, President Eric Barron took the podium and announced the day’s truly big news: that Penn State, the NCAA, and state officials had reached a tentative agreement to roll back the sanctions against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. And not long after that, the trustees voted unanimously to approve the agreement.
The NCAA issued a news release spelling out the terms of the agreement, the major points being that (1) 112 vacated wins—111 belonging to Joe Paterno, and one to Tom Bradley ’78—are restored (or, to quote a tweet by Charles Thompson of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, “And move over Bobby Bowden!”), and (2) the $60 million in fine money stays in Pennsylvania.
But State Sen. Jake Corman ’93, in a Harrisburg news conference, was more blunt: “The consent decree is hereby repealed,” he said, and “all remaining sanctions against Penn State are voided.” You can read a news release from Corman’s office here.
The trustees’ vote on the settlement was quick, with no discussion or debate before the roll-call vote, and the vote was unanimous.
Trustee Anthony Lubrano, who invited reporters to an impromptu news conference in the hallway outside the meeting—while the meeting was still in progress, with President Barron giving a report—said that the agreement isn’t perfect, but is still a win overall.
A point of contention with some in the Penn State community had been the possibility that, in order to see a rollback of the sanctions, the university would have to acknowledge that the NCAA had the right to impose the sanctions in the first place. The wording of the agreement appears to be very carefully phrased in that regard; it says that “Penn State acknowledges the NCAA’s legitimate and good faith interest and concern regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter.”
The restoration of Paterno’s wins has already prompted calls to return the Paterno statue to its spot outside Beaver Stadium. Corman, asked about it at his news conference, said it’s a decision for Penn State to make, but added, “In my personal opinion,” it should be put back. Lubrano also called for the university to return the Paterno statue, suggesting Homecoming might be a good target date.
The Paterno family issued a statement calling today “a great victory for everyone who has fought for the truth in the Sandusky tragedy.” The advocacy group Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship was less pleased, thanking Sen. Corman and state Treasurer Rob McCord but adding, “Unfortunately, we cannot support an agreement that does not require the NCAA to acknowledge its wrongdoing.”
Penn State has posted a news release about today’s settlement announcement, with comments from President Barron and Chair Masser. Barron, Masser, and attorney Frank Guadagnino ’78 will speak with the media after today’s meeting.
Tina Hay, editor
Trustees Vote Against Examining the Freeh Report
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
Oldsey Added to Trustee Presidential Selection Council
Bill Oldsey will join the Trustee Presidential Selection Council.
As far as Bill Oldsey ’76 was concerned, the reason he was added to the Trustee Presidential Selection Council was simple. “Some thought I might be able to add value to the process,” he said. “This is all about getting a world-class leader for this university, and I am proud and pleased to do anything I can to help contribute to that.”
The surprise announcement of Oldsey’s appointment, which kicked off Friday’s Board of Trustees meeting, followed what seemed to be several weeks of discussion about the composition of the selection council. Anthony Lubrano ’82 had complained publicly about the fact that only one trustee elected by alumni was on the council, and a good part of Thursday’s meeting of the governance and long-range planning committee was devoted to the presidential search process.
The trustees had originally hoped to vote on a successor to Rod Erickson around this time, but the board’s apparent finalist turned out to have padded his compensation at SUNY’s Upstate Medical School. Board chair Keith Masser ’73 said adding an additional member to the selection council had been discussed “since we’ve re-set the process, kind of.” He cited the need to reflect the latest additions to the board, who joined after the selection council had been chosen, and he said the specific decision was made because of Oldsey’s “unique experience.”
Oldsey was elected to the board by alumni in 2013 (he also ran in 2012), and he was endorsed by Penn Staters For Responsible Stewardship, which has been highly critical of the board’s handling of the Sandusky scandal and more recently of the presidential search process.
He also is one of the few members of the board with a strong background in higher education; Oldsey has worked in educational publishing for 30 years, and his parents were, as he put it, “both academicians.” Said Oldsey, “That’s one of the things I think that made me an interesting candidate when I ran last year.”
Only one other trustee, Marianne Ellis Alexander ’62, has significant experience in higher education; she spent 15 years as executive director and president of the Public Leadership Education Network. (The university president, of course, has higher education experience, but that’s no longer a voting position.)
Oldsey said he believes strongly that any updates about the presidential search need to come from Masser to eliminate the “possibility of problematic communication” when someone else speaks.
“It should also be noted that there are some really extraordinary people on this selection council that would have made good decisions with or without me,” he said. “But I’m very pleased to be able to do this. I would run through a brick wall for this place to get the right leader, and that’s what this is about.”
Other notes from the Board of Trustees meeting:
Student Anthony Panichelli addresses the board during the public comment session.
—More than half of the speakers during the public comment session were students, who brought up weighty issues affecting students: representation on the Board of Trustees, the effect the Affordable Care Act may have on students by reducing work hours, and student loans. The hottest topic was advocating for a permanent student trustee. The board has included a student since 1973, when then-Gov. Milton Shapp appointed a student, and governors have continued that tradition.
But it is only a tradition. Student government representatives want to guarantee a seat, and they want that trustee to not be appointed by the governor, but chosen by students. Anthony Panichelli, a representative of the University Park Undergraduate Association, told the board that here should “never ever be a question again that there will be proper student representation.”
—The board made two changes to its bylaws: The annual meeting, when trustees choose their officers and take care of “other organizational business,” will now be in July. The annual meeting was previously in January, which did not match up with when new members join the board, which is July. It also added a seventh standing committee, the compensation committee.
As I’ve written in previous posts, this committee would help to determine salaries for several tiers of university officials, ranging from the president (its primary purpose) down through top vice presidents, the athletic director, and even some highly paid coaches.
After speaking with Frank Guadagnino ’78, an outside attorney hired by Penn State to consult on governance issues, I wrote this in September: The trustees have historically had an ad-hoc group called the compensation council, consisting of the chair, vice chair, immediate past chair, and chair of the finance and business committee. This group essentially approves compensation that is decided upon during the negotiation process, and it brings the president’s compensation before the board for approval. A review by Susan Basso, vice president for human resources, indicated the need for a more formal and structured process, so the governance committee has proposed the formation of a standing committee on compensation.
—Joel Myers ’61, ’63g, ’71g, chair of the outreach committee, announced three changes to the public comment session that will be made after suggestions from alumna Alice Pope ’79, ’83g, ’86g: (1) people will be encouraged to direct questions to committee chairs, who will answer “respectful” queries or pass them on to the appropriate department, (2) a large digital clock will be used to time the three-minute each speaker gets a public comment, preventing the one-minute warning that Pope said may distract speakers, and (3) the possibility of increasing the 48-hour notice that speakers selected for public comment get to 72 hours or more, making the process easier on speakers from out of town.
Lori Shontz, senior editor
Governance Committee Debates Presidential Search
Trustee Keith Eckel (Penn Stater file photo)
When the agenda for Board of Trustees’ governance and long-range planning meeting on Thursday moved to new business, Anthony Lubrano ’82 was ready with his issue. He’s already been on record criticizing the search process for Penn State’s new president, saying the Trustee Presidential Selection Council does not include enough trustees who represent alumni.
This time, Lubrano proposed having a discussion about the issue, possibly as a prelude toward changing the makeup of the selection council, which interviews finalists for the position. He said that the full board should be able to meet with the finalists before voting, rather than relying on the 13-member selection council to make a recommendation for the entire board.
Governance chair Keith Eckel, a member of the selection council, said he had no problems with the process, which is the same as has been used for previous Penn State presidential searches. (Refresher: The Presidential Search and Screen Committee, composed mostly of faculty, students, and alumni, did the initial work in conjunction with executive search firm Isaacson Miller and recommended finalists to the Trustee Presidential Selection Council, which then recommends a candidate to the full board.) Said Eckel: “The process works.”
Trustee Anthony Lubrano (Penn Stater file photo)
Responded Lubrano: “It’s a valid concern. You say to 18 members of the board: ‘Here’s a person, you can vote up or down.’ This is the most important role we play as trustees, and now you’re saying to trust us. Trust us.”
That exchange kicked the discussion to a broader level, touching on not only how the presidential search works, but how the board itself works.
First, trustee Carl Shaffer asked Lubrano why he hadn’t raised these concerns when the board passed a resolution establishing the search process in November 2012; Lubrano said he had, privately, and that at the time, the composition of the selection council wasn’t known. Only later, Lubrano said, did it become clear that selection council had only one member who was elected to the board by alumni: Marianne Ellis Alexander ’62.
This prompted a forceful response from Eckel:
“When I see the committee and the board, I see a member of the Board of Trustees. I don’t see someone elected by the ag society. I don’t see someone elected by the alumni. I don’t see somebody from business and industry. I see trustees. All equal in their ability and right to serve …”
Vice chair Paul Silvis ’06g, a guest at the committee meeting, interjected: “And passion to serve, too.”
Eckel agreed, then continued, referencing not only the selection council, but the board’s six standing committees, and the seventh standing committee to be voted on Friday, the compensation committee. “I have absolute confidence in the selection process where we put people on committees,” he said. “I serve on two committees (governance and legal), and tomorrow we will hear reports from four others, soon to be five others. I have confidence in the work of those individuals. … You have to have confidence in the people you’re working with.”
Said Lubrano: “I think the confidence has been eroded over the last two years pretty significantly. To not acknowledge that is to put your head in the sand.”
In the end, Lubrano declined to introduce a motion that would change the makeup of the selection council, which is continuing its work after its reported top choice, the president of SUNY’s Upstate Medical School, was found to have been padding his salary.
Eckel then opened the meeting, as has become his custom since becoming the chair of the committee in July, with a chance for the public to comment. The first speaker was trustee emeritus Ted Junker ’60, who said he’d served on the committees that chose both Joab Thomas and Graham Spanier, and he addressed another comment of Lubrano, about socializing with the spouse of the presidential finalists. The committee did meet with Thomas and his wife, Marly, but did not meet with Spanier’s wife, Sandra ’76g, ’81g.
The next to speak was Alice Pope ’79, ’83g, ’86g, who called herself disappointed in the discussion.
“I think it is reality for us to acknowledge that there are differences of opinions on the board and that they reflect differences of opinions within the community,” she said. “The hiring of the president really requires genuine consensus. We want the next president to succeed. This is really important, opening up a new era at Penn State. We want to form and create the next Penn State out of the ashes of what’s happened here. You proceed without the opinions of the trustees who disagree with the majority, just because they’re the minority. Minorities are important.”
Pope added that just because the process worked in the past doesn’t mean that it has to be used now, and said that as a university professor herself, she knows that some universities have found ways to open the presidential search process more. “Even if you don’t want to be open with the entire community,” she said, “you need to be open to the whole board.”
Eckel stressed that trustees are not disenfranchised—everyone gets a vote on the new president. “And the idea that minorities were excluded from the process is wrong. They were part of the vote that approved the resolutions saying a candidate will be presented to the full board.”
Said Lubrano: “Today, that vote would be very different.”
The meeting was jam-packed with discussion on weighty issues, one of which I’ve already written about (potential changes to the election of alumni trustees) and others of which I’ll explore in later blogs and the magazine. Here are a couple of additional noteworthy items:
—Eckel announced the hiring of Holly Gregory as its consultant to help the board think through additional changes in its governance structure.
—Silvis reported on a meeting that he and Eckel had with state senators John Yudichak ’93, ’04g and Jake Corman ’93, who say they will introduce a bill to reform the Board of Trustees. Silvis said the words “patience” and “participation” came up frequently, and he said the legislators don’t want this to be a confrontational process, but one in which the legislature works with the board. He explained the mindset this way: “Measure twice, measure 10 times, cut once. Because the changes we make in governance are going to be with us for 25 years or longer.”
The presentation prompted Shaffer to ask how much jurisdiction the Pennsylvania state legislature has over the board: “How far can this go? Can they pass a law about our budget? I’m a little concerned about the slippery slope.”
University counsel Stephen Dunham described the relationship between the legislature and the four state-related universities, Penn State among them, as “complicated and unique.” He said he couldn’t answer Shaffer’s question in the abstract: “The lawyer’s proper answer is, it depends on the facts. What area it is, how extensive it is, the history, the charter, the non-profit law. There are lots of issues to look at.”
—Members of the committee met with students who are interested in governance issues and who made a case for a designated student trustee, a case that Eckel called impressive. Eckel also noted that faculty and the Alumni Association would like to have designated seats on the board.
—Liz Grove ’84 asked the committee why the conflict-of-interest statements, which the board voted into its bylaws at its May meeting, are not yet public. Frank Guadagnino ’78, a Reed Smith attorney hired by Penn State to consult on governance issues, said the board office distributed two questionnaires to the trustees, one which is the equivalent of the IRS Form 990, the other to disclose “actual and potential” conflicts of interests. He said they’ve received all but two forms, and that the goal is to make information public on the university’s website by the end of the year.
Lori Shontz, senior editor
