When Penn State University administrators gather for formal meetings, they tend to spend only part of their time discussing their views or asking questions before a vote, if at all.

A Spotlight PA analysis of full public board meetings since 2019 found that on average, the Penn State Board of Trustees spends 7.6% of its meetings deliberating university affairs. The data also shows that nearly two-thirds of trustee discussions focused on athletics or internal board operations.

Other items considered by the board of trustees — such as the university’s $9.9 billion budget, strategic plan and construction projects — were often adopted with little or no discussion.

A board that repeatedly votes yes without asking substantive questions “is not a well-functioning board” and is not meeting its obligations, said Framroze Virjee, president of the Association of Boards. administration of universities and colleges.

Board members should support a decision when it passes, he said, but robust dialogue should take place before the vote.

“You shouldn’t just accept whatever administrative leadership brings as a potential action – whether it’s a budget audit, a new construction project, a merger or whatever. You watch and do your homework, read, explore, investigate and ask questions,” Virjee said. “Be curious, I would even say, with a certain level of skepticism, because it’s a healthy, healthy skepticism.”

For this analysis, Spotlight PA reviewed meeting recordings and minutes of Penn State’s 36 board members between 2019 and 2024 to track the total amount of discussion related to a vote.

The newsroom shared its findings and methodology with Penn State’s Office of Strategic Communications and requested an interview with board leadership. The university did not respond.

Athletics and Operations

In May, Alvin de Levie, then an alumni-elected trustee, was the first to speak at the full board’s special meeting to approve an amount of up to

$700 million renovation plan for Beaver Stadium. However, seconds into his comments, an argument began with the board chair over whether trustees had enough time to consider the measure.

“This session is not meant to be a debate of points or counterpoints,” said Matthew Schuyler, president of the board at the time.

De Levie later said: “I don’t know yet how I’m going to vote because I want to deliberate. And frankly, we are not given the opportunity to do so.”

The special meeting, which featured about 40 minutes of discussion before the vote, was an exception from other board meetings.

Spotlight PA’s analysis found that between 2019 and 2024, the entire Penn State Board of Trustees met for nearly 49 hours and spent about 3 hours and 43 minutes, or 7.6 percent. , of this time deliberating on university affairs before a vote. In most meetings, the discussion lasts only a few minutes, if at all.

But the May meeting was emblematic of another trend for the board. In recent years, Penn State trustees’ public deliberations have focused heavily on two topics: changes to the board’s bylaws – including how trustees obtain or retain a seat – and proposals related to the athletics, including the renovation of the stadium, the sale of alcohol at sporting events, and the renovation of a football building.

These two topics accounted for nearly 143 minutes, or 64%, of the board’s public deliberations since January 2019, according to Spotlight PA’s analysis.

Public deliberations on other topics have been more discreet. In the three years leading up to 2022 — when Penn State revealed a budget shortfall of more than $150 million in the previous fiscal year and implemented a partial hiring freeze — administrators discussed the state’s budget university for approximately 12 minutes, including 11 in July 2021. (The university budget was approved annually.)

Among its Big Ten peers, Penn State’s governing body isn’t necessarily an outlier. Journalists who cover other universities told Spotlight PA that discussions of key issues, or at least substantial disagreements among board members, rarely occur in public.

Board leaders should encourage public debate, especially if such dialogue is not taking place, said Virjee, whose association guides university boards. Leaders should let proponents of a proposal discuss their views and explore weak points. Boards should also explore alternatives and discuss why those proposals are not as strong or a good fit for the university, he said.

“It’s part of good governance to actually promote scrutiny of the work being done,” Virjee said. A true leader, he continued, “is not afraid to have his work reviewed and does not take offense…if the original proposal is changed.”

Transparency issues

For years, members of the Penn State community have criticized the board of trustees for its lack of transparency and open dialogue.

In 2013, amid the fallout from the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, a Penn State University Faculty Senate committee noted that the university’s board of trustees rarely held “public discussions vigorous on complex or controversial issues.

A year later, during a failed campaign for an alumni-elected seat on the board, Schuyler said trustees needed to be “much more transparent” to students, employees and the public.

“We do this through open meetings and real dialogue with the entire university community,” Schuyler told the Center Daily Times at the time.

But with Schuyler as chair, board leadership requested that trustees ask questions in a private session so the May 2023 public meeting could happen more quickly, according to internal communications. When an administrator brought up university spending during the public meeting, Schuyler responded, “Thank you for coming to life in our public sessions and not mentioning these things in our three previous sessions to discuss these issues . »

In recent years, the university’s board of trustees has regularly held private discussions that media law experts say could run afoul of Pennsylvania’s open meetings law, which requires governing bodies like that of Penn State to conduct certain affairs in public.

Earlier this year, Spotlight PA revealed that the board held private meetings to discuss whether to name the football field at Beaver Stadium after former coach Joe Paterno.

Anthony Lubrano, a former elected trustee who initiated the naming effort, proposed and then canceled the naming idea at the February board meeting. A month later, board leadership reprimanded Lubrano for creating a “public spectacle” and sharing “confidential information.” Instead, Schuyler and David Kleppinger, then vice chairman of the board, suggested that Lubrano should have kept the matter out of the public eye.

Lubrano faces removal from the board because of his proposal and his public statements in the weeks since, according to court records. The trustee argued that the board’s action was retaliatory. A court ruling determining who should pay legal fees has so far blocked the board’s action on Lubrano’s dismissal.

Spotlight PA, in partnership with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, sued the administrators in December for alleged violations of the Sunshine Act. The suit — which was amended to include other alleged violations following the February and May board meetings — contends that the directors illegally conducted public business in private.

In its legal response to the allegations, the university said the lawsuit included “vague and unsupported allegations and baseless conclusions of law.” The university says it is following the law. The case is pending in Center County Common Pleas Court.

Penn State board leaders suggested they would change their operations to allow for greater dialogue. In October, a committee of senior university officials held its first public meeting in 13 years. The change, Schuyler said at the meeting, was intended to improve board effectiveness and increase discussion among directors at meetings.

A week later, at the November board meeting, which lasted 96 minutes, trustees deliberated for just over two minutes.