Board reform? Or board manipulation and control?
Later this fall, the “leadership” of the Penn State board of trustees will be cramming down the A+ board reform proposal (hereinafter referred to by the more appropriate moniker of F- board manipulation and control proposal).
Fearing the impending ouster of Tom Corbett from the governor’s office, the board’s leaders know that — barring this cram down — they will lose their majority control of the board.
With the current structure in place, the leaders know they will gradually see Corbett’s proxies removed from the governor-appointed seats as Tom Wolf fills those seats (presumably with trustees who actually seek to serve the university’s interests).
Nine elected trustees plus the nine voting seats held by governor appointees eventually will result in the board leaders holding control of only 12 of 30 voting seats.
This fear led to the leaders’ attempts to reduce the number of elected trustees through the proposal put forward by Richard Dandrea.
After failing in that attempt, the board resorted to plan F-, eliminating voting privileges for three of the governor appointments, while adding six leadership-appointed sycophants to the board and allowing them to maintain control of 18 of 33 voting seats on the “new” board.
Are Penn Staters that naïve? That gullible? That disinterested? At what point do Penn Staters stand up and demand an end to this?