Knowledgeable critics such as state senator John Yudichak and former state auditor general Jack Wagner have called for a reduction in the size of Penn State’s board of trustees in order to improve the board’s functioning and accountability.
Unfortunately, the board’s governance committee recently approved a much different approach and forwarded it to the full board for consideration.
The paradoxically-named “A+ Plan,” which was sprung on the committee at the last minute, actually increased the board from 30 to 33 voting members: nine elected alumni, six gubernatorial appointments, six business and industry members, six agriculture representatives, three at-large positions, one student, one faculty member, and a Penn State Alumni Association (PSAA) representative.
I reluctantly voted for it to avoid passage of another proposal that would have slashed the elected alumni trustees to six while leaving other blocs intact.
Three academic experts are speaking out against this plan. According to a forthcoming article by Professors Dave Ketchen, Chuck Snow, and newly-elected trustee Alice Pope, adopting the A+ Plan would not only violate best practices by making the board larger, it promises to create a new conflict of interest.
Structurally, the PSAA appears on the university’s organization chart – it reports to the Department of Development and Alumni Relations which in turn reports to the university’s president. In essence, the A+ Plan would allocate a board seat to represent a division of the university, thereby allowing that division to participate in the oversight of itself – a clear conflict of interest.
In the past, alumni association presidents have run in — and won — alumni elections, which is the most open and democratic process we have to select trustees. It is unclear why PSAA leaders now believe they should be entitled to a board seat rather than standing for election as other interested alumni do.
What should be the board’s size and composition? The professors suggest a 19-member board that closely parallels my proposal:
- “Two members appointed by the governor. This reflects that state support has accounted for roughly 10% of Penn State’s budget in recent years.”
- “Seven members elected by alumni.”
- “Eight members appointed by the board. To ensure that a wide diversity of candidates and skill sets are considered, nominations would be offered to the board by the deans of each college within the university as well as board members. Expanding the range of expertise beyond agriculture and business/industry to include areas such as technology, science, and education would provide greater flexibility to meet the ongoing challenges facing higher education.
- “One member who is a student. Unlike the past, however, the university’s students should select their own trustee, thereby giving them a direct voice in governance and removing state politics from the process.”
- “One member who serves on Penn State’s faculty. This would ensure that an educator’s perspective is a part of the board’s decision making as well as providing the professorate with a stronger sense of shared governance.”
In short, Professors Ketchen, Snow, and Pope have given the A+ Plan an “F”. One problem among many with the A+ Plan is that the inclusion of six agriculture trustees does not match with today’s conditions. Only 3.6% of students currently study agricultural science today, yet ag trustees currently make up 20% of the board’s 30 voting members.
Penn State has evolved into a complex, multi-faceted modern university since our founding as “Farmers’ High School” in 1855, and our board composition should reflect that reality.
Let’s allow reason and best practices, not politics and self-interest, be our guides. Let’s give Penn State the world-class governance that it deserves.
Barbara Doran
Penn State Board of Trustees Member
