Penn State trustees permanently remove Barry Fenchak from the board
A Penn State trustee has been removed from his seat on the board, likely a first in the university’s history.
The Penn State board of trustees voted 30-4 to remove Barry Fenchak, one of nine trustees elected by university alumni, from the board during a special meeting Monday. His three-year term expires June 30 and he did not win reelection in the recent trustee election.
Trustees who voted against the measure were Fenchak, Anthony Lubrano, Ted Brown and Jay Paterno, who said the move sends a “chilling message to future boards.” Those who voted in favor cited Fenchak’s misconduct allegation, which trustee Kelley Lynch said he took no responsibility or remorse for.
Trustee bylaws, which were updated last July, state if a trustee is removed from the board, they will be permanently ineligible to run for election or serve again as a trustee. Removing a member requires two-thirds of the trustees present at the meeting voting in the affirmative.
The trustees previously tried to remove Fenchak from the board in September because of an incident that occurred after the board’s July 2024 meeting. Fenchak loosely repeated a quote to a woman staff member from the PG-rated movie “A League of Their Own” in which Tom Hanks’ character told a baseball umpire he looked like a “penis with a little hat on.” The board referenced the same incident during Monday’s meeting as reason to remove him.
Lynch said she can likely speak for many women around her age who have had to deal with “boys will be boys” comments and actions, or worse, early in their careers. They often had no choice but to get over it, she said.
“How women felt or were treated in the workplace was rarely considered a priority. But this is now 2025, this isn’t the ‘90s, it’s not the ‘80s or even earlier. When someone finds the courage to file a complaint, especially against the person in a significantly more powerful position, it is our duty to take it seriously,” Lynch said.
And that’s what the university did, she said. A full investigation was conducted, including interviews with the employee, other workers who witnessed the incident and Fenchak.
The employee requested not to work meetings where Fenchak would be present, Lynch said, a sign of how affected she was by the incident. Fenchak’s response was “textbook non-apology,” she said.
“His lack of genuine remorse and unwillingness to take responsibility, along with his complete failure to recognize the power dynamic at play, is what concerns me,” Lynch said. “...My issue is how he responded when confronted with the harm he caused. How can we trust that this won’t happen again when he took no responsibility, showed little to no recognition or remorse for the impact of his words and actions?”
Trustees who voted against the measure said while they thought Fenchak’s comment was inappropriate, they did not think it was severe enough to remove him from the board. Some also worried about the precedent it would set.
Lubrano questioned if the board was being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest by considering “the most serious sanction of all” and referenced a number of other cases of trustees — who he did not name — allegedly violating the same standards and not facing any consequences.
He also warned the board that removing Fenchak as trustee would likely lead to costly litigation and be a distraction.
“My fellow trustees, mark my words. Your decision to remove Trustee Fenchak will come back to haunt this university,” Lubrano said.
During the meeting Fenchak echoed Lubrano’s reference to other trustees allegedly violating standards with no repercussions, going as far as saying a current trustee has repeatedly verbally and physically threatened other trustees to the point of needing to be physically restrained.
“Even when other trustees submitted written concerns to board leadership, expressing fear for their safety and requesting additional security of board functions, no action was taken,” Fenchak said.
He maintained that he is being retaliated against for asking for access to information, questioning things and expecting thorough deliberation of important decisions.
“That said, I expect the board leadership does feel that I pose a threat. A threat to a board culture of secretive rubber stamp governance, a threat to the culture of providing unanimous support for all leadership proposals no matter how damaging some of those proposals may be to the university. Indeed, board leadership is probably justified in holding that fear,” Fenchak said.
Paterno said Fenchak’s comments to the woman staffer were offensive and not OK. He also acknowledged Fenchak has been a target since he was elected and Monday’s vote borders on “petty” as his term expires in two weeks and a subcommittee can keep him off of the board in the future.
“Him being on this board is not going to happen in the future. We all know that. But what we want to do today is make sure he can never run again. That sends a very chilling message to future boards and future people,” he said.
A Penn State spokesperson previously told the CDT the Strategic Communications office was not aware of any previous instances of this type of action being taken against a trustee.
Lawsuits, trustee election and more
A board subcommittee previously found the incident to be a code of conduct violation and unanimously recommended his removal. The issue went to court in October as part of a lawsuit Fenchak filed against the board, in which he said he cannot fulfill his duty as trustee because the university’s decision-makers have been unwilling to provide detailed financial information.
The judge blocked the board from removing him as trustee a day before the vote was scheduled, finding Fenchak had provided “uncontradicted evidence of a broad pattern of retaliatory behavior” by the board.
Months later, Fenchak submitted materials and garnered enough signatures to appear on the trustee election ballot to run for a second term, but the board ruled he was unqualified and ineligible to appear on the ballot — a decision a judge upheld in May. He ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign.
The board was able to remove Fenchak from his seat on the board Monday because the judge, Brian Marshall, lifted his preliminary injunction on removing him last month, after finding the basis for it had since become moot.
Marshall granted the injunction in the fall after Fenchak showed the board was trying to remove him in retaliation for his repeated requests for detailed financial information. But in the seven months since, Fenchak was given 510 pages of information related to his request. He can no longer claim he is subject to removal from the board because of those specific requests, Marshall wrote in his ruling.
Fenchak’s next court appearance is scheduled for July 30.
Reporter Bret Pallotto contributed to this report.
This story was originally published June 16, 2025 at 3:36 PM.
