Penn State Board of Trustees Meeting - PM Session (Jan. 20, 2012)


Uploaded by wpsu on 20.01.2012

Transcript:
>> Chairman Garban: Welcome back.
We'll now proceed with the balance of our meeting.
And ordinarily, we'd start with our standing committees,
but I'm going to first call on Ken Frazier for an update
on the activities of the Special Investigations Task Force.
You'll remember this force --
this group was formed in the November meetings and Ken
so graciously agreed to chair it.
And we couldn't be more fortunate to have a person
like Ken chairing it and likewise, Ron Tumulus as agreed,
has been vice chairing this group.
And both of them are highly competent to do so.
Ken, can you please come up forward?
>> Ken Frazier: Thank you Mr. Chairman and good afternoon.
The shocking details contained in the grand jury report
that came to light in November 2011 rightfully elicited tense
emotions among the Penn State community, the nation
and the world, including rage, disbelief
and overwhelming sadness.
The allegations of unspeakable crimes
against helpless children are extraordinarily serious
and have affected all of us profoundly.
It may take years, Mr. Chairman, to fully come to terms
with this tragedy, but one element in doing so is
to understand how the alleged acts could have happened here
at Penn State where the breakdowns occurred.
Who knew what, when, and what changes we can make going
forward to prevent such anguish.
To assist in finding answers to such questions,
the Special Investigations Task Force of the Board
of Trustees announced on November 21st,
2011 that it has retained Judge Louis Freeh and his firm
to conduct an independent external investigation.
Judge Freeh, a former FBI Director and Federal Judge,
has unimpeachable credentials and unparalleled experience
in law and criminal justice.
His mandate clear.
He and his team have been tasked
to investigate this matter fully, fairly and completely.
They've been directed to show no favoritism toward any party,
including the administration and every member
of the board of trustees itself.
The task force has assured Judge Freeh total independence
so that this mandate can be fulfilled.
Indeed, that assurance was the main condition
of Judge Freeh's engagement.
The investigation is well underway.
Judge Freeh has assembled an impressive team
of former law enforcement officers, lawyers,
including former prosecutors with many decades
of experience conducting sensitive investigations.
They have established an office right here on campus
and are fully engaged in reviewing documents,
conducting interviews and pursuing leads.
This investigation is being conducted in parallel with,
but independent of several other active investigations
by agencies and governmental authorities
and will not interview with such investigations.
In addition to working to uncover what occurred
in the past, Judge Freeh and his team are thoroughly studying,
reviewing and testing all of the universities policies,
procedures, compliance and internal controls relating
to the identifying and reporting
of such sex crimes for misconduct.
This examination includes, among other things, any failures
or gaps in the university's control environment,
compliance programs, and cultures
which may have enabled the alleged misconduct to occur,
go undetected and not be reported
or addressed promptly and properly.
In this regard, Judge Freeh just last evening,
made some initial recommendations
for improving organizational structures and protocols
that the board is reviewing.
We requested these interim recommendations
because the board did not want to wait for the work
to be completed to learn about changes
that we can consider now.
The board is in full agreement with, and committed
to implementing the interim recommendations,
which fall into five main categories.
Number one, strengthening policies
for programs involving minors, including, providing more clear
and specific guidance to staff and others who interact
with children, including enhanced background checks
and abuse aware training.
Two, prompt reporting of incidents of abuse
and sexual misconduct, including,
enhancing the visibility of the office of internal audits,
ethics hotline and providing training on the importance
of reporting misconduct and the university's no
retaliation policy.
Three, compliance with the Clery Act's training
and reporting requirements, including, updating
and providing training to university personnel
with Clery Act compliance responsibilities,
utilizing outside experts on Clery Act obligations
to provide this training.
Beginning with the athletic department
and other campus security authorities
for administrative reforms including defining the role of
and hiring and appointing a chief compliance
and ethics officer, which President Ericson referred
to this morning as an activity already underway.
That person would have a direct reporting relationship
to a committee of the board of trustees for more coordinated
and complete response to all compliance matters.
Among other duties,
the compliance office will be responsible for the Department
of Education compliance, including the Clery Act.
And then finally, athletic department security
arrangements, including developing a procedure to ensure
that the university immediately retrieve keys, access cards
and all other university property from individuals
who are not formally associated with the university
or who are no longer formerly associated with the university.
Further, during discussions with Judge Freeh, it became clear
that there are some longer term changes that we, as a board,
must make sooner, rather than later.
One, being a creation of a Folsom Compliance Program,
which includes board oversight through a compliance committee.
That committee would have oversight responsibility
for all regulatory obligations, including the Clery Act
and the chief ethics
and compliance officer would have direct reporting line
to that committee.
The board is fully committee in undertaking this responsibility.
At the conclusion of Judge Freeh's work, the full findings
and recommendations will be made publicly.
Those findings will address failures that occurred
in the reporting process, the cause for those failures,
who had knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse
and how those allegations were handled by the trustees,
Penn State administrators, coaches and other staff.
We understand that the answers cannot come quickly enough
for all concerned.
And I assure that Judge Freeh and his team are moving
as expeditiously as possible,
but we will not sacrifice thoroughness
and completeness for expediency.
We have, therefore, imposed no artificial timetables
onto this vital work.
While, as I have stated it, it would be desirable
to have this investigation completed by the end
of the current academic year,
I expected it will take a little longer than that.
Perhaps, until the beginning of the next academic year.
Timing will be dictated by how long it takes
to complete a thorough investigation.
I wish there was a faster path
to satisfactory answers for everyone.
I am confident, however, that the investigation
and the legal processes will provide many factual answers.
But I also believe that there is a vast difference
between answering questions and reaching emotional closure
from such a heart-wrenching tragedy.
That, will undoubtedly, take much longer.
For now, let me just say on behalf of the Board of Trustees
of Penn State University that the victims are at the forefront
of our thoughts each day and that we sincerely hope
that our work can contribute
to breaking the silence surrounding sexual violence
that has appeared to allow evil to prevail
in far too many instances in our society.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
>> Chairman: Thank you again, Ken and thank you again
for your leadership in this most important area.
As Ken has mentioned, there have been interim recommendations
regarding future areas of focus.
Those recommendations have been incorporated
into the resolutions that have been distributed to you
and are now being projected on the screens.
The resolutions reflect the board's recommendations,
that the university focus its efforts on five areas:
(1) strengthening the university policies
for programs involving minors; (2) prompt reporting
of incidents of abuse and sexual misconduct; (4) compliance
with the Clery Act's training and reporting requirements;
(5) administrative reforms and security at athletic facilities.
As Ken has mentioned, we have received regular updates
with respect to the efforts associated with these reviews.
May I have a motion for approval.
So moved. Second?
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Any discussion?
All those in favor, please indicate by saying Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Opposed?
The motion carries.
Again, Ken, this is the first step that --
we can't thank you and Ron enough for bringing forward,
as we move forward trying to deal with this issue.
Thank you.
We'll now proceed with our agenda and we will continue
by having the reports of the standing committees.
I would like to call on Chair Mike DiBerardinis for a report
from the Committee on Campus Environment.
>> Mike DiBerardinis: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I would like to note that a quorum of the committee is
in attendance at this time and I will not call the roll.
There were no actions for the committee to consider.
However, the Campus Environment Committee benefitted
from an engaging and thoughtful discussion led
by Vice President Sims and including a representative panel
of university constituents.
Lexie Belculfine, the editor of the Daily Collegian; Dan Hagen,
chair of the Faculty Senate; and Ginny Hosterman,
chair of the Staff Advisory Council,
offered overview remarks regarding the recent events
and the board's response to that.
The panel members were able to effectively convey a sense
of reactions, mood and questions and concerns of students,
faculty and staff of the university.
And they responded to specific questions and observations
from the trustees present.
It was a healthy and helpful dialogue
and after our discussion, it was the sense of the committee
that we would actively review how we can communicate
and connect and engage with faculty, students and staff,
and the committee would look into building processes
and forums to better share information and seek advice
from our important campus constituencies.
In addition, Vice President Sims also shared referencing recent
events involving Thon the world's largest student run
philanthropy, which benefits treatment and cancer --
treatment and research on pediatric cancer.
The tragic death of student,
Courtney O'Bryan during a canning trip last semester
brought forth abundant concern about the safety
of some fundraising practices.
Parents and students alike, shared those concerns
with both student leaders of Thon
and the university administration
and the Thon leadership deliberately
and carefully worked on an appropriate response.
Last week, Thon initiated mandatory safety training
sessions for all canning participants.
These sessions involve thousands of students, all of whom,
heard critically important information
about Thon's expectation for protocols
and practices related to canning.
Thon also engaged discussions
with the Inner Fraternity Council
and the Pan/Hellenic Council,
as well as other key student organizations
with an eye toward restoring the spirit of true volunteerism
to canning activities
and avoiding compulsory participation
of students in these activities.
Perhaps, most notably, Thon has adopted a commitment to err
on the side of caution when evaluating weather conditions
and deciding whether to proceed with its canning weekends.
Just yesterday, as this weekend's activities were
about to commence, Thon concluded
after much deliberation with professional forecasters
that it would cancel planned canning sessions.
In short, the safety of thousands of Penn State students
who commit their time and energy
to this wonderful cause presents --
represents precedence of all other considerations.
As Vice President Sims thought, it was important
to note Thon's careful and responsible action in light
of all that has transpired in recent month.
Mr. Chairperson, that concludes my report.
>> Mr. Chair: Thank you Mike.
Any questions of Mike or Damon?
Okay, next I'd like to call on Chair Ken Frazier for a report
from the Committee on Educational Policy.
>> Ken Frazier: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to note that a quorum of this committee is
in attendance at this time and also, I will not call the roll.
Since the occasion of our last meeting, we had an opportunity
to learn more about intercollegiate athletes.
I know that my esteemed predecessor, Dr. Joyner,
our Athletic Director, reported this morning,
and I want to congratulate him on the comprehensiveness
and the transparency of his report.
But our committee's focus was focused on oversight activities
by the University Faculty Senate, as well as,
the NCAA faculty representative.
Compliance activities and reporting
and support services available for our student athletics.
We had a terrific meeting this morning.
We heard a lot of very good, confirming information
about how well our athletic program is function
in the context of our athletic aspirations as a company.
But I'd just like to share a few of the data
that we heard this morning.
First, Penn State student athletes earned an 88%
graduation success rate
as of the most recent data in the fall of 2011.
Penn State's African American student athletes earned a
graduation success rate of 87%.
Penn State has 24 of its 29 varsity team earn a four year
academic progress rate,
at or above the Division I level for all sports.
Overall, Penn State has had 172 academic All-Americans
and 3,784 academic All Big 10 Conference honorees.
Given the unfolding conversation around the country and elsewhere
about the integration of athletics and academics,
I think these are very encouraging data for us indeed.
We also received information
in the agenda regarding undergraduate
and graduate programs.
Additionally, information was included
in the agenda regarding President Erickson 's
recommendation for the approval of his appointment of David Gray
as Senior Vice President for Finance and Business.
I would like to now call on President Erickson
to speak to that appointment.
>> Rodney Erickson: Thank you Ken.
Before I recommend for your approval, the appointment
of David Gray as senior vice president for our finance
and business, I want to extend a warm welcome to David
and his wife, Margaret, who are with us here today.
Please stand and be recognized.
[ Applause ]
>> Rodney Erickson: I promised I'd get him a blue
and white tie soon.
[laughter] Both David
and Margaret are active Penn State alumni
and they have been strong advocates for higher education.
David and I served together on the Board of Directors
of the Pennsylvania Technology Investment Authority more
than a decade ago.
And I can still recall his passion and commitment
to creating greater opportunities for the well-being
of citizens of Pennsylvania.
David comes to us after serving 11 years at the University
of Massachusetts, where he was the chief financial
and administrative officer.
Among his many accomplishments at the University
of Massachusetts, David provided the leadership
and executive direction
to the university's five campuses online
learning initiative.
He's also credited with provide astute financial leadership
and bringing greater efficiencies to the financial
and administrative functions of the university.
Prior to joining the University of Massachusetts,
David spent 17 years with the Pennsylvania State System
of Higher Education, where he led efforts
in information technology and financial management.
In addition, David previously served
on the House Education Committee Republican Research Staff
for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and was a member
of the governor's Office of Budget and Management
for the New Jersey Department of the Treasury.
David earned his bachelor's degree in political science
from Penn State in 1977 and a master
of public administration degree from Penn State in 1979.
I believe David Gray is exceptionally well-qualified
to be Penn State's Senior Vice President for Finance
and Business, effective February 6, 2012.
He brings a breath of financial and operating experience,
as well as information technology experience
and I am confident he will help move our finance
and business unit forward through greater efficiencies,
effective management of resources and accountability.
I highly recommend his appointment.
Thank you.
>> Ken Frazier: Thank you President Erickson
for those remarks.
David has been with us over the past couple of days
and we look forward to the opportunity to work with him
for the future of Penn State.
A resolution for approval
of this critical administrative appointment was included
in the agenda and I will now entertain a motion
from the Committee on Educational Policy...
>> So moved [inaudible] so moved.
>> Second.
>> Ken Frazier: All in favor.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Ken Frazier: Opposed?
Thank you, the motion is carried.
Mr. Chairman, there being no other items
that come before this committee
on educational policy, we are adjourned.
We recommend the adoption of the resolution that you're going
to project on the screen.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you, Ken.
And as a reminder to you, the full board is now in session
and we'll take it just a moment to review it.
You've seen it just moments ago, but...
May I have a motion for approval.
>> So moved.
>> Chairman Garban: Second?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Chairman Garban: Any discussion.
All those in favor, please indicate by saying Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
The motion is carried.
Before we continue, I'd like to call on David Gray
to come forward now and make a few remarks, if he would.
David.
>> David Gray: Thank you, Chairman Garban,
President Erickson and members of the Board of Trustees.
I am deeply honored by your appointment of me
as senior vice president for finance
and business and treasurer.
We've already met my wife, Margaret.
I'm so glad she's here with me.
We met here in graduate school, right here at Penn State.
And I'm deeply pleased that she's here with me.
When the prospect of this position was first presented
to me in early September, I was immediately interested.
My status as an alumnus, however, took a back seat
to the fact that the position itself represented a stellar
opportunity to take on a meaningful executive role
at a premier public research university.
Virtually, my entire professional career has been
built around exactly that and abiding belief in the value
and mission of public higher education.
As a product of that system, I have always been committed
to its well-being and its advancement.
And in particular, the contributions
of our land grant research universities to the economic
and social development of our states
and nation are incontestable.
Though the unique and recent challenges
that confront Penn State have been the object
of much attention.
They are overshadowed, in my mind, by both the legacy
and potential of this university.
It is that rich history and enormous potential
that drew my interests in serving here.
I have been privileged to serve
in three different executive roles over the past 11
and a half years at the University of Massachusetts.
I will draw heavily upon that experience
in confronting the many common challenges
and issues facing Penn State and all
of our nation's land grant research universities.
At the same time that we must advocate more effectively
for state and federal support,
we must also demonstrate great stewardship and accountability
for the resources that are entrusted to us.
At U Mass, working with key trustees, I led an initiative
over the past two years
to improve administrative efficiency and effectiveness.
I look forward to joining with my new colleagues at Penn State
to drive forward with similar efforts here.
Stretching and maximizing our resources must be a hallmark
of all that we do.
I am impressed by Penn State's efforts in such key initiatives
as fostering diversity and inclusion
and promoting environmental stewardship.
We will continue to commit ourselves
to progress on those key fronts.
I recognize also, that the foundation
for our progress must be grounded in trust,
honesty and integrity.
Everything that I do in service to Penn State will be undertaken
with those fundamental principles in mind.
And I will not lose sight of the fact that we are here first
and foremost to serve our students and advance our mission
of teaching, research and service.
Last, let me say how impressed I am by the caliber
and the quality of the people serving
in leadership roles here at Penn State.
It is the caliber and commitment of its leaders that drew me here
and it is they who will move Penn State forward.
I look forward, with great enthusiasm to joining that team
and thank you again for this opportunity to serve.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you, David.
[ Applause ]
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you, David.
We look forward to the days ahead and years ahead.
I'd next like to call on Chair Linda Strumpf for her report
on the Committee for Finance and Physical Plant.
>> Linda Strumpf: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will note that a quorum of the committee is in session.
Since our last meeting, the committee received a briefing
on university data centers
and how Penn State will approach the increasing needs we have
for increasing security and quantity of data
that the university will need in the future.
Secondarily, we received a briefing
on proposed renovations to Old Main.
And you'll be hearing more about that in future meetings.
There are several items for information or action
by the committee at this time, if you turn to your agenda.
Agenda item one within regard to the consent agenda,
which is shown in Appendix II.
May I please have a motion to approve action items O and P
in the consent agenda?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: A motion.
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: Second.
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: All in favor?
Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Thank you.
Agenda item two seeks authorization to engage Deloitte
and Touche to perform the audit of the university's accounts
for the year ending June 30, 2012, as recommended
by the audit committee.
May I please have a motion to approve Agenda item two?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: Second?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: All in favor?
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Thank you.
Agenda item three is a proposal for an appointment
of an architect for the future phases
of the Arboretum at University Park.
And at this time, I would like to call
on Ford Stryker to present this item.
Ford.
>> Ford Stryker: Good afternoon and thank you, Linda.
The Arboretum at Penn State, located at the intersection
of Park Avenue and Bigler Road, is the facility
that is dedicated to the conversation and stewardship
of the landscape and supports corresponding research
and outreach programs.
A master plan for the Arboretum was approved by the Board
of Trustees in 1999 as part
of the University Park Campus Master Plan.
In 2006, the master plan for the Arboretum was updated
and refined to create the HO Smith Botanic Gardens.
The first phase of development was formerly opened
in April of 2010.
Future phases of the master plan may include an education center,
a conservatory, a planetarium, as well as a wide range
of formal, informal and demonstration gardens.
For example, we are currently working on the design
of the new children's garden.
To develop future phases of the Arboretum,
detailed feasibility studies, to include programming,
schematic design and fund raising materials are required.
In order to maintain consistent and, or cohesive designs,
the university intends to appoint a highly qualified
and experienced design team
to accomplish the feasibility studies
and subsequent designs are funded.
The subcommittee on architect engineer selection
who recommends the appointment of Gunn Partnership,
as architect for the Arboretum at University Park.
The following slides show examples of their previous work.
The first example, is the Fannie Cox Center
at the Friends Central School in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
And this, is the Cleveland Botanical Garden in Ohio.
The subcommittee on architect engineer selection recommends
the appointment of Gunn Partnership.
Thank you.
>> Linda Strumpf: Any questions?
But I think it's important to know, this is just a study
and proposal and it's -- I don't know whether we talked
about the cost of this.
You want to say something about the costs?
[inaudible]
>> Ford Stryker: Sure.
The initial assignment that Gunn will have is to do a study
to look into the feasibility of the conservatory,
the planetarium and the visitor's center.
The cost of the study is about $200,000 dollars.
Now, we will then use that information to go out
and solicit donations with the hope that we can raise the money
to build one or all of those facilities.
And then, if we do raise the money,
then Gunn would be the architect
to design it -- the actual building.
>> Linda Strumpf: I just wanted you to know, you're not voting
on building the, these facilities yet.
Okay, well, the Committee on Finance
and Physical Plant recommend adoption of the resolution
as shown on the screen.
There it is.
May I have a motion?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: Second?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: Great.
All in favor?
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Motion carries.
The next four items are proposals
for appointment of an architect.
Due to the special nature of these projects,
the interview process was conducted
by the office of physical plant.
Again, I'd like to call on Ford Stryker to present these items.
>> Ford Stryker: Okay.
Again, thank you.
So to begin North and South Freer are buildings located
in the core of campus between Curtin and Pollock Roads.
Stantec Incorporated designed renovations to North Freer,
which were completed in 2009
and these renovations turned out very well.
When the South Freer perimeter heat systems
and third floor were to be renovated last year,
Stantec was engaged to complete the design of these renovations,
because of their knowledge of the building.
Moving forward, we now plan
to renovate the fourth floor this year
to upgrade the research space for the biology and biochemistry
and molecular biology departments.
Long-range, the first, second and ground floors will also need
to be renovated to improve classrooms
and laboratories there.
So consequently, we would like to appoint Stantec
as the architect for all of the renovation work in South Freer.
These are images of the North Freer renovation designed
by Stantec.
The subcommittee on architect engineer selection recommends
the appointment of Stantec Incorporated of Endicott,
New York is architect for the design
of the South Freer renovations at University Park.
The next architect appointment is
for the West Campus Chilled Water Plant.
The West Campus Chilled Water Plant is located near the
Leonard Building, west of Atherton Street.
In March of 2011, the board of trustees approved final plans
for the upgrade to the West Campus Chilled Water Plant,
which were designed by Trefz Engineering Incorporated.
This project for was the initial phase of a multi-year program
to increase the capacity of the West Plant
to supply growing campus cooling loads.
Since centralized cooling is much more efficient
than cooling buildings individually, existing
and new buildings are being added
to the central system each year.
In order to accommodate the increased load planned
for the next few years, the university intends
to add a 3,000 ton chiller inside the plant.
And a two cell cooling tower to the roof in the next phase.
The remainder of the roof will be available
for future installations.
This work will not impact the exterior appearance
to the building.
Trefz Engineering has successfully designed work
on our North, West and Chemistry Chilled Water Plants.
In addition, they developed a chilled water banister plan
for the University Park Campus.
Therefore, the subcommittee
and architect engineering selection recommends the
appointment of Trefz Engineering Incorporated of Horsham,
Pennsylvania as designer for the West Campus Chilled Water Plant
at University Park.
I'll now move on the recreation hall air conditioning
architect appointment.
I think most of you know that rec hall is located
between Atherton Street and Burros Road
on the University Park Campus.
There is no air conditioning in the main gymnasium and rec hall
and therefore, summertime events are very uncomfortable.
Further, during the most humid days of the summer,
the wood gym floor buckles, which damages the floor.
Accordingly, we decided to air condition the main gymnasium.
AltieriSeborWieber Engineers have extensive experience
retrofitting older historic buildings with air conditioning.
And they are familiar with Penn State,
since we have been working closely with them
on the renovations of Rec -- of Old Main.
Therefore, the subcommittee
and architect engineering selection recommends the
appointment of AltieriSeborWieber Engineers
of Norwalk, Connecticut as designer
of the Recreation Hall project.
I'll next move on to discussion of Penn State Brandywine.
The main building at Penn State Brandywine is located
as indicated on the map.
The main building was built in 1970 and is
in need of renovation.
The west section of the building was renovated in 2010.
Now, the university intends
to renovate the east side of the building.
This phase is the project includes upgrades
to the building's infrastructure, program changes,
approved energy efficiency and accessibility enhancements.
SMP Architects successfully designed the first phase
of the renovations and are familiar
with the building systems.
This is an example of the first phase
of the interior renovations designed by SMP.
The subcommittee and architect engineering selection recommends
the appointment of SMP Architects of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania as the architect for the main building renovation
at Penn State Brandywine.
That concludes my comments.
Linda.
>> Linda Strumpf: Questions on any of these?
Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Linda Strumpf: Oh yeah.
>> I understand that these resolutions are --
yeah, proposals are for architects,
but I'm wondering what kind of directions are we giving
to the architects in terms
of energy saving design that's going
to help us save bottom line --
save energy and help our bottom line.
>> Ford Stryker: Right, well, there's a policy all
of our buildings are designed to be lead certified, which is --
has an energy component and within the lead certifications,
we've, in our standards, identified the parts
of the lead program we feel are most important.
And one of the most important aspects
of that is energy conservation and indoor air quality.
So those are the two areas we ask the architect and designers
and engineers to focus on to make sure the buildings are
as energy efficient as possible.
>> One other question.
In the schematic that was projected for South Freer,
when I looked at North Freer, it looked like it had a green roof.
The one that they had already renovated.
Is that...
>> Ford Stryker: No, it doesn't no.
>> No, they just painted it green.
Okay. [Laughter]
>> Ford Stryker: There's probably some moss on it
or something, but no, it's not a green...
>> So there are no plans
for green roofs in these renovations.
>> Ford Stryker: The thing about green roofs is you really have
to design the building structure
so that it can support a green roof.
And usually in a renovation, the structure is not adequate
to support a green roof.
So if it is, we certainly will consider that and, you know,
the economics of doing it.
>> Thank you.
>> Linda Strumpf: Ed, what's your question?
>> Ed: Can you approximate the cost of the last two items
that the air conditioning in Red Hall and the Brandywine?
>> Ford Stryker: So the air conditioning in Red Hall is
about $5.2 million, I believe.
The Brandywine project -- let me see here -- is some $8 million.
>> Thank you.
>> Ford Stryker: Yes, sir.
>> I just wanted to make sure we, in the meeting of the whole,
or just the committee meeting as we speak?
>> Ford Stryker: Committee.
>> Committee.
I'm not on the committee.
I'll ask my question at the right time.
>> Linda Strumpf: Okay.
Thank you Ford.
Will the Committee on Finance
and Physical Plant recommend adoption
of resolutions concerning items four through seven.
Can I have a motion?
>> So moved.
>> Linda Strumpf: Second.
Okay, all in favor.
Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Thank you.
Motion carries.
Now, we're getting into exciting stuff.
The agenda item eight is a proposal for final plans
and authorizations to award contract for construction
of the Pegula Ice Arena at University Park.
And again, call on Ford Stryker.
>> Ford Stryker: Okay, thanks again, Linda.
I'm very pleased to present to the board
for approval the final plans
for the Pegula Ice Arena at University Park.
In a recent study, it was determined
that Pennsylvania is one of the fastest growing states
in the country for interest in hockey,
fueled by the recent successes
of the National Hockey League's Pittsburgh Penguins,
Philadelphia Flyers and minor league franchises in Hershey,
Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Redding and Erie.
Thanks to the very generous financial support of Terry
and Kim Pegula, as well as other donors,
we are able to build an ice arena.
The new facility will be home to Penn State's NCAA Division I men
and women's hockey programs.
The arena will also be an invaluable year-round
recreational and educational asset for members
of the entire university community,
as well as for children,
youth and families throughout central Pennsylvania.
The new Pegula Ice Arena will be located near the corner
of University Drive and Curtin Road in close proximity
to the Bryce Jordan Center and the intramural building.
Shields building, Haloopa [assumed spelling] Hall
and the existing tennis building are adjacent to the site.
The east parking deck, Eisenhower Parking Deck
and the large commuter lots are
within easy walking distances of the arena.
The existing lacrosse field has been relocated
across University Drive,
adjacent to the indoor multi-sport building
in conformance with long-range plans for the area.
The ice arena will displace 206 existing parking spaces.
This is the site plan for the ice arena.
There are three primary entrances into the building.
The most prominent entrance into the arena leads
to the concourse level and is close to parking.
This second entrance into the arena will serve students
on campus, as well as patrons who park in the parking deck.
The entrance into the community ice rink will be adjacent
to a pick up and drop off area
to serve daily training and tournaments.
New walkways and landscape improvements will connect all
of the building entrances to the existing pedestrian network.
The building service area loading docks
and new parking lot, with 58 spaces will be accessed
from University Drive.
The next slide will show sections that cut
through the arena on an east/west access
and a north/south access.
These cross sections illustrate the overall organization
of the building.
It will include two sheets of ice.
And the main ice rink will hold 6,000 spectators
and the community ice rink will hold 300.
The arena includes three levels.
The event level, the main concourse level and the balcony
or club and suite level.
By taking advantage of the existing topography, the scale
and height of the building will be appropriate
for university campus.
In addition, this will allow both the concourse level
and the community ice rink
to be accessed directly from existing grade.
The entrance top the event level leads to the community ice rink.
It's support facilities include the 300 spectator seats,
eight lockers, a concession area, a skate rental area,
advanced ticket sales room and two multi-purpose rooms.
Facilities that support the main sheet of ice include,
locker suites for the hockey teams, including team amenities,
such as training and weight rooms
and a visiting team locker room.
Spaces included for the Big 10 Network production facilities.
The coaches administrative
and management office will also be located on this level.
The remaining spaces are circulation, elevators, stairs,
storage for the two Zambonis rest rooms
and mechanical spaces.
Two entrances lead to the main concourse level
and I'll show some renderings
of these entrances in a few minutes.
The general admission, student
and premium seats will be easily accessed
from the main concourse.
Support facilities on this level include the [inaudible] room,
a cyber cafe, a press and media area, ticketing and concessions.
The remaining spaces accommodate elevators, stairs, storage,
restroom and mechanical spaces.
This prominent staircase in the main lobby leads
to the balcony level, which includes club seats
and a club lounge that are supported by a full kitchen,
16 suites are also included.
Remaining spaces will include the elevators, stairs, storage,
rest rooms and mechanical spaces.
So this is a birds eye view illustration of the interior
or the organization of the building.
Here is a community rink to the left,
and here is the main arena.
The seats will be as steep as possible
and the bowl is fully enclosed to increase crowd noise
and intensify the home ice advantage on game day.
[Laughter] That's what they say.
[Laughter] It really works.
It'll be loud, that's all I know.
[Laughter] The architectural firm of Crawford Architects
and Bohlin Cywinski Jackson have prepared renderings
from these three vantage points.
The brick building has been designed to fit
into the campus context and to be a recognizable
and memorable symbol of Penn State's skating
and ice hockey programs.
This view from the corner of University Drive
and Curtin Road highlights the building's signature,
roof design and most prominent front facade.
The main entrance to the concourse, seating bowl,
suites and clubs is here.
In the two story main lobby,
this bold interior wall creates a portal to the main concourse
into the seating bowl beyond.
This staircase leads to the suites
and club seats in the balcony level.
The patterns in the white drazzle [assumed spelling] floor
are reminiscent of skate marks on ice.
As patrons proceed further into the arena,
they get dramatic views of the entire seating bowl, ice rink,
main concourse and balcony level.
This is the northwest entrance as seen
when approaching from campus.
As fans enter this lobby, they have the unique opportunity
to be able to see both sheets of ice.
The full arena is directly in front of the entrance.
And as you proceed this way,
visitors can also see the community below
through this glass wall.
This view, approaching from the south and University Drive,
again, shows the signature front elevation, as well as,
the entrance to the community ice rink.
This is a rendering of the lobby for the community ice rink,
which is expected to be
in operation 20 hours a day, seven days a week.
On game nights, activities inside can be seen
from the outside.
You can see here the main lobby,
the [inaudible] Nittany room and the club lounge.
The total project budget is $89 million
and the completion will be in September of 2013,
which is in time for practice to begin
for the 2013-14 hockey season.
The building will be lead certified.
We recommend approval of the final plans and authorization
to award contracts for the Pegula Ice Arena
at University Park.
>> Linda Strumpf: Questions?
David.
>> David: Just a question for --
you have 6,000 seats and you have something called
student seats.
Could you explain, I mean, is that a different pricing
or are they free or what --
does that mean that students can't sit in the other seats
or adults, or parents can't sit in the student -- what's that...
>> Ford Stryker: Student seats are on one end of the rink.
It's on the so-called shoot twice end and they're all
in one big area right behind the goal.
They'll have the separate price range,
which hasn't been set yet, but it'll be at a lower costs
than the other seats and you know, the idea would be,
that would be -- excuse me -- packed full of students
and then, of course, students can sit
in the general admission seats, but they would have to pay more.
>> David: And anybody could sit
in the student seats and pay less.
Is that what you're saying?
Or do you have to be a student?
>> Ford Stryker: Well, I think the idea is
to sell the student seats to the students.
It's to focus on making sure the students can sit there.
>> David: And how many student seats...
>> Ford Stryker: Approximately a thousand.
>> David: This is all funded by the philanthropy?
>> Ford Stryker: It's all funded by the gift or there's more --
the Pegulas have contributed, as well as some other donors...
>> David: I understand that.
>> Ford Stryker: ...contributing.
It's all donation funded.
>> Linda Strumpf: So can I have a motion
to approve agenda item eight?
>> So moved.
>> Linda Strumpf: Second?
>> Second.
>> Linda Strumpf: All in favor?
Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Okay, thank you.
Agenda item nine is proposal for final plans and authorization
to award contract for renovations to Moore
and Cedar Buildings at University Park.
Ford.
[ Silence ]
>> Ford Stryker: Okay, thank you.
The Moore and Cedar Buildings are located between Park Avenue
and Curtin Road, adjacent to Allen Road and to this building.
The Moore Building is home
of Penn State's highly ranked psychology department.
And the department of educational,
psychology counseling and special education is located
in the Cedar Building.
The Moore Building was in need of renovation
and it's the psychology department was spread
out across campus with neither sufficient nor adequate space.
As a result, it was decided to renovate and add an additional
to Moore Building in order to address psychology space needs.
The work can best be accomplished
through a two-phase project,
which would first build the addition
and then renovate the existing building after the occupants
from the existing building were moved into the addition.
The Cedar Building, which was built in 1971, is also in need
of renewal to address worn out and inadequate mechanical
and electrical systems, improve energy efficiency
and improve accessibility.
Since Cedar is physically connected to Moore,
renovating both together will minimize disruption,
maintain a consistent appearance and reduce costs.
During the first phase of the Moore project, this portion
of the existing building was renovated and integrated
into the new addition.
The remaining building will now be renovated
in phase two, together with Cedar.
New sidewalks and landscaping will lead to an enhanced
and more welcoming entrances on both the north
and south sides of the building.
Interior finish renovations are comprised of new paint,
carpet and ceiling tiles throughout the six floors
of Moore Building and three floors of Cedar Building.
Minor adjustments to the rest room layouts will provide
improved ADA accessibility
and some minor office reconfigurations will make the
layout more functional for the buildings' occupants.
The architectural firm
of KlingStubbins has prepared renderings
of the Moore-Cedar renovations from these vantage points.
This view from the north shows the Moore addition to the right
and the Cedar Building to the left.
Building entrances are here.
A new mechanical penthouse
on the connector is illustrated here.
This view shows the south side of Moore Buildings.
The building materials will be the existing brick,
new brick on the penthouses, new aluminum windows
and metal panels to match the Moore addition.
This is a view of the enhanced south entrance with Cedar
to the right and Moore on the left.
And again, here's the mechanical penthouse
as viewed from this side.
The total Moore Building project budget is $21.9 million
and completion will be in the summer of 2013.
The total Cedar renovation project budget is $9.5 million
and will be completed the end of this year.
Both projects will be lead certified.
We recommend approval of the final plans and authorization
to award contracts for Moore
and Cedar Building renovations at University Park.
>> Linda Strumpf: Questions?
>> Yes, Linda, could you remind me the sources of finance
for the construction you propose?
>> Ford Stryker: Yes, so Moore Building there's
about $18.9 million of state capital funds in that
and then the balance of the funding,
which is around $3 million is a combination of money
from borrowing and philanthropy.
The Cedar Building is funded with $7.1 million
of state capital funds and the balance
of the funding there comes from various operating budgets.
>> And that state funding has been committed?
>> Ford Stryker: Yes.
It's been authorized by the legislature
and released by the state.
>> Thank you.
[ Silence ]
>> Linda Strumpf: May I have a motion
to approve agenda item nine?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: So moved, second?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Linda Strumpf: All in favor?
Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Motion carries.
Moving on with the agenda, item 10 is a proposed purchase
of property at 1001 Old York Road, at Penn State Abington.
I'd like to call on Dan Sieminski to present this item.
>> Dan Sieminski: Thank you Linda.
Good afternoon.
The university has the opportunity to acquire property
from the Harbison [assumed spelling] York Road Limited
Partnership, located at 1001 Old York Road in Montgomery County.
This aerial of the Abington area shows University property
bounded in yellow.
The Harbison property is located along Old York Road,
across from Canterbury Road in Abington Township.
It is amount one mile from the north campus parking lot.
The acquisition provides the University
of Penn State Abington with much needed parking, as well as
and facilities for campus use.
The 2.76 acre property, which includes a one story,
20,000 square foot commercial building
and parking improvements has been offered
to the university for $2,985,000.
The acquisition is contingent upon the property
in acceptable condition, as determined
by campus representatives and the office of physical plant.
We recommend approval of the purchase of the property
at 1001 Old York Road, Abington Township, in Montgomery County.
Thank you.
>> Linda Strumpf: Thank you Mr. Sieminski.
>> Have we had this property appraised?
>> Dan Sieminski: Yes, it was...
>> And what's the appraisal price?
>> Dan Sieminski: It was appraised in July this past year
and it's appraised at $3.3 million.
>> And we would continue to -- we'd keep the building on it?
Is that correct?
>> Dan Sieminski: Yes.
Yes, the building is usable and certainly we would use the space
in the garage area for campus equipment.
>> Thank you.
>> What's the purpose of the purchase?
What's the property going to be used for?
>> Dan Sieminski: The purchase will be used for parking.
At Penn State Abington, the campus is fully developed.
The only way to add parking is vertically,
which is very difficult.
As a result, there are 1,600 parking spaces available right
now at the campus.
Four hundred of those spaces are off-campus
and we shuttle students to and from campus
to those parking areas.
This, about 200 more spaces, will be added to that inventory.
>> So how much is that a parking space?
>> Dan Sieminski: It is cheaper than starting from scratch.
>> How much?
>> $15,000.
>> Dan Sieminski: Including the building.
>> It seems like it's pretty far away from the campus.
>> Dan Sieminski: We currently shuttle from a mile --
1.5 miles from the campus and to give you an idea
of the distance, it's roughly from the Nittany line
into the Bryce Jordan Center.
And we do shuttle the students.
And do you have a demand greater than the 400
which you currently shuttle from?
>> Dan Sieminski: Yes.
Yes.
>> What's your demand?
>> Dan Sieminski: I'm sorry.
>> What is the amount of your demand?
>> Dan Sieminski: The demand is 400 more parking spaces.
>> In addition to the 400 you have offsite?
>> Dan Sieminski: Yes.
>> And this is going to accommodate 200?
>> Dan Sieminski: Two hundred.
So we still have a problem, but this goes a long
to resolve that problem.
>> How long has this been a problem?
>> Dan Sieminski: We recognized it pretty clearly
in the 2007 master plan that we did for Penn State Abington.
The campus is located in a neighborhood surrounded
by high valued properties
and having more parking on-campus going vertical is much
more expensive than surface parking.
As well, we do not want to bring in more vehicle or traffic
onto campus and into the neighborhood.
>> What is the enrollment at Abington?
>> Dan Sieminski: Abington's enrollment is 3,400.
It is the fourth largest non-University Park
undergraduate campus.
It's a relatively large enrollment.
>> And most of them are day students?
>> Yes, it's a commuter campus.
>> Is that -- can you build student housing
on that property?
>> Dan Sieminski: No.
>> It's not zoned?
>> Dan Sieminski: The property is fully developed.
We have no more impervious searches...
>> No, I was just talking about the property.
You're talking about purchasing.
>> Dan Sieminski: Long-term, that might be a possibility,
but for now, it's for parking.
>> And there's no additional improvements necessary
for the 200 parking spaces?
>> Dan Sieminski: No.
Very possibly restriping the lot.
>> Linda Strumpf: May I have a motion to approve item 10?
So moved. Second?
All right.
All in favor?
Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Opposed?
Okay, the motion carries.
For agenda item 11, I'd like to ask Gail Hurley to come forward
to present the proposed changes in room and board charges
for the 2012 semester.
Gail.
[ Silence ]
>> Gail Hurley: Thank you and good afternoon, everyone.
I am pleased to be here today
to present the latest [inaudible] proposal
for housing, food services and residence life.
And to share some updates with you about our program.
Housing for services and residence life,
our auxiliary programs and as such,
are entirely self-sustaining enterprises of the university.
We receive no financial support from tuition or state funds.
The rates we will be discussing today provide revenue
to support operating expenses, including, building,
loans and interest, as well as, major maintenance
and facility renewal initiatives.
I will begin by sharing some comparison data relative
to our current pricing.
This first slide was included in your trustee packet.
And is one we have used for a number of years
to show our position relative to our Big 10 counterparts
and other select institutions: Rutgers; Temple; and,
University of Pittsburgh.
In the field of 15 institutions, we are sixth from the bottom.
The same approximate position we have held
since joining the Big 10.
Several months ago, we were asked how our room
and board prices compared
with select others in the Commonwealth.
We thought it would be interesting for you to see
that comparison as well.
Given what we know today, the rates we are proposing
for the coming year are not likely
to change our position in either grouping.
This slide represents our 2012-2013 budget request.
Overall, our expenses are anticipated to increase
by almost $5.3 million, bringing the total budget
to $184.3 million, an increase of 2.95%.
I would to turn your attention to several others in the chart.
First is food costs.
We have based the estimated increase of 4.5%
and the best information we have available for market forecasts.
We factor in some flexibility, not knowing what might happen
with weather conditions or fuel prices,
both of which can significantly impact the cost of food.
Estimating these expenses months ahead of time
when the months ahead of when the rates will be applied makes
this a very challenging process.
Second, the payroll and related budget line includes a very
modest increase for salary increases.
This line item also reflects increases
in employee benefits based on estimates
of the employer's share of pension
and healthcare insurance.
The dollars needed to cover expenses in food costs
and payroll-related items make up 75% of the additional expense
in the overall budget.
Third, is University overhead, which is calculated on a rate
that includes provisions for central services
and administrative support, such as accounting,
purchasing services, police services, information technology
and Bursar [assumed spelling] billing and collections.
The assessed rate is applied against our gross revenue
from the previous year and is increasing
from 3.5 to 3.75% in 2013.
Even at 3.75%, the actual costs incurred
by the University are higher, therefore,
this percentage will likely increase each year
until we are fully costed.
The $851,000 increase
in the chart reflects this percentage change as well
as the fact that our gross revenue
from last year was higher than the year before.
Finally, you will recall from the information in your packet
that the property category is comprised of two components,
debt service and deferred maintenance.
The decrease in this category is due to the latter.
As you know from previous presentations,
our goal is to provide for an annual commitment of $30 million
for deferred maintenance and building renewal,
which is the industry standard for the amount and condition
of our facility inventory.
This budget allows for $26 million for this purpose,
a decrease of $1.2 million.
Although our needs in this area have not diminished,
we certainly understand the press to keep our rates as low
as possible for our students' and their families.
The deferred maintenance area of our budget is the portion
that is most flexible and where we can make a modest
decrease short-term.
The detail and supporting data for this chart can be found
in the report that was included with your trustee packet.
This slide highlights our benchmark double-room
and meal plan fee rate.
It will increase by $125.00 or 2.86% per semester to $4,495.
This is the second lowest percentage increase
in the last 20 years.
I've also been asked to present the recommended rates
for the apartments at the Hershey Medical Center
for 2012-13 and they are currently
on the screen for your review.
These proposed rates cover all anticipated cost increases
and are competitive with housing rates in the local community.
Returning to our rate request,
I would like to offer a few examples and updates relating
to cost controls, budget priorities and future planning.
In an earlier presentation, I told you that one priority
for our deferred maintenance funds was
to replace our aging elevators.
Although safe, their parts are becoming difficult to find
and they were not as efficient as they could be.
We have been able to replace 26 elevators so far,
at the cost of $5.2 million.
There are 37 left to do at an estimated cost of $8.4 million.
Providing adequate electrical service
to meet the increased needs of our students
and replacing outdated electrical systems are
of critical importance to our operation.
Over the last three years, we have spent $3.5 million
in upgrading or replacing electrical switch gear
and operating systems and need allocate an additional $7.6
million to complete to this effort.
New initiatives are also funded from our reserve --
although we have wireless access in our public spaces,
we do not have coverage in our individual bedrooms.
This is a frequent student request,
so we are running a pilot this year
to examine two possible solutions and their costs.
Similarly, we have had surveillance cameras
strategically placed in the residence halls at the campuses
for a number of years.
They have proven helpful in several situations
and add another layer of security for our residents.
We are currently preparing a proposal for the installation
of cameras in public spaces in the residence halls
and commons buildings at University Park.
This multi-year project is estimated to cost
over $1.5 million and will begin sometime this spring.
In other news, the renovation of the Simmons Dining Commons
to bed space was completed at a cost
of $3.1 million for 74 beds.
As with Magellan Conversion,
students have expressed tremendous satisfaction
with the results.
In August, we also completed the Pollock dining remodel
for $11.1 million.
Of that amount approximately $2.6 million was needed
to install sprinklers on both floors,
upgrade electrical system and replace the roof.
$700,000 was used for new windows on the second floor,
which not only improved the aesthetics,
but more importantly provides for greater energy efficiency.
Since Pollock's remodel,
our counts have increased dramatically, although some
of this represents new business and the closing
of Simmons Dining, we know the majority of it is a change
in our diner's behavior.
Customers are frequenting our dining space
in east halls less often.
This is an area that has not yet been refurbished,
but is in our plan for 2015 assuming revenue is stable
and other priorities do not emerge.
Now, I'd like to spend a few minutes talking with you
about some food cost, control initiatives
that are yielding positive results.
Typically, we deliver warehouse and bakery products
from University Park to the campuses
and the trucks come back empty.
With this new initiative,
if we look at what needed products are manufactured
or warehoused in the same general area
of our campus deliveries and then make arrangements
for that product to be brought back
to University Park on the return trip.
The major advantage of back hauling is that our cost
of goods is reduced because we do not need
to pay the manufacturer
or another carrier for shipping costs.
Currently, we are backhauling from ten manufacturers.
On this slide, you can see some examples
of the savings backhauling has accrued for us so far.
Our Foods Purchasing Unit has also increased the number
of purchases we make directly from a manufacturer,
rather than through a distributor.
On this slide, you can see some examples
of direct manufacturer relationships
and the monies we have saved by pursuing these opportunities.
We have also made strides in consolidating foods purchasing
across a number of units.
This has resulted in savings for us as well
as the units we are supporting,
which include The Nittany Lion Inn, The Penn Stater, the BJC
and both daycare centers.
To give you some idea of the savings in our initial analysis,
we were able to show predicted reductions of 26% on average
for the child care centers and 10% for the BJC.
In addition, the Foods Purchasing Staff monitored food
cost trends and are working more closely
with our warehouse personnel to buy and store products
which are likely to escalate dramatically in price
over the course of the year.
On this slide, you can see the tremendous increase in cost
for peanuts from March to September.
We use approximately 20,000 pounds
of peanut butter in any given year.
Knowing that the cost of peanut butter would rise significantly
we made plans to purchase more and store it so as
to avoid the increase and still have it available
for our diners.
This averted a 38% increase in cost.
Last year, I mentioned our product testing program,
where we use product specifications and taste testing
to review various food items to see if we can maintain quality
and taste but reduce cost.
On this slide you see some examples of products
where we switched suppliers through a bid process
and were able to save money without sacrificing quality.
Annual savings are in the $315 dollar range.
This coming Spring and through the summer,
we will be remodeling the dining commons in Altoona.
We had originally planned to do this last year,
but it on hold due to the budgetary situation.
The cost for the project is expected
to be approximately $6 million in renovation
and new construction,
not including food service equipment and furniture.
The project will be funded from our facility renewal reserve
and not from borrowed dollars.
At a future meeting, we hope to obtain your approval
to renovate South Halls.
This area was constructed in 1957 and is home
to over 1,000 residents.
These halls are in dire need of updating, particularly
when it comes to bathrooms, windows,
heating, cooling and plumbing.
Students and staff are very much looking forward to this project.
Before I close, I would like to share a short video with you
that showcases our warehouse operation
and the dedicated staff who make it all work.
[ Silence ]
>> Gail Hurley: Sound would be good.
>> Gail Hurley: Maybe not.
Okay, well, I will conclude by saying, if you heard Bob
and Clay in the video they would be saying to you that one
of the primary purposes of the warehouse operation is
to be sure that we are saving --
we are being good students of our room and board dollars
and I would say that that is everyone's mission
in Housing Food Services and Residences Life
to be responsible stewards of those dollars.
W -- e strive to provide reasonably priced high quality
housing and dining options
that enhance a student's overall experience.
I trust that the information that I have shared
with you today gives you some additional insight
into our operation and the care we take
in supporting our students.
That concludes my presentation
and I am really sorry about the video.
Thank you for your attention and ongoing support.
>> Chairman Garban: Questions.
You want Gail...
>> Yeah, first of all Gail, thank you very much
on behalf of the Board.
We noticed that the requested increase went
down from our November meeting when we deferred this,
so we're happy about that and all the savings and attention
to costs for our students.
We are very appreciative of that.
And questions, yes.
>> Well, that was going to be my question,
but I think it would be good for the group
to hear the amount that was saved.
I think we went from almost 5% down to about 2.9%
and I think those are some significant dollars.
Could you tell us how you achieved that
and what those dollars were?
>> Gail Hurley: Sure, I appreciate that opportunity.
We, in November, our plan was to come forward
with a 4.81% increase.
Most of that additional money in terms
of the increase you see today in those expenses --
the biggest difference is we were looking not only
at maintaining our level of deferred maintenance,
but increasing the pool of money there.
It would have been a little over $28 million.
So when Dr. Erickson came back after the Board meeting
in November, he asked to meet with me
and some members of my staff.
Really wanted to get that rate lower
and we spent a considerable amount of time working with him,
helping him understand what the expenses were
and after much deliberation we came to this 2.86% increase
and most of that -- well, all of that money will be taken
out of our deferred maintenance and we what it will do
for us is it won't stop any projects,
but it will delay some projects.
So we might paint 2,000 rooms in any given summer,
we will paint 1,500 rooms --
instead of buying 2,000 mattresses,
we'll buy 1,500 mattresses.
We won't replace all the heat pumps in the apartments,
we'll do a third of them.
So that's where the money will come from and we will work
with our staff and with our student leaders
in determining those priorities.
Did that answer your question?
>> Yes, you didn't give me an exact dollar amount,
but that's fine, we don't need to get into it any deeper.
I just think that I plan on supporting the motion,
but I think we need to, as we move forward Dr. Erickson be
as careful as we can, as we talk
about increasing the cost of education.
I know this is not education, this is housing
and I know we are competitive,
but in today's economic times I think we need to continue
to be good stewards of our funds and so I commend you
on the cutting net increase in half, which was great.
-- I do plan on supporting the motion, but I continue
to be concerned about the costs of delivery of higher education.
>> Gail Hurley: There was an over $2 million change.
>> Thank you.
>> Chairman Garban: And I will continue to keep pushing on them
as we go forward the question on cost savings.
>> Gail Hurley: Yeah, I'm sorry.
>> Gail, excuse me, the difference you said 2.8%
for this year was the lowest and I forget the...
>> Gail Hurley: Percentage increase in 20 years.
>> This is the lowest increase in 20 years.
In the life span of a student on the University,
what is the percentage increase of room and board
that a student would experience from the time that they came
in the first year to the time that they end
up departing Penn State?
Would it be like -- you could add cumulatively and guess
as to the fees and the room and board fees might have gone up,
20%, 25% in four years?
>> Gail Hurley: Well, I can't answer
to that off the top of my head.
Now, my budget person is here.
Rich Pierce [assumed spelling] can you answer that off
of the top of your head by chance?
>> Rich Pierce: Yes.
[ Inaudible ]
>> Gail Hurley: Is that what you were asking?
You wanted to know the percentages or were you looking
at the dollar amount that they?
>> The difference between the first year and the final year
and the growth in that area of the four years.
So and again, I share my colleague's concerns
about the rising costs across the board.
One other question, a slide was passed up there
and I think it said that the room, the rental,
I might have missed it, but it was a 6.8% increase
on I believe it was the room and board portion of it,
did I read that correctly on one of the slides across the top?
>> Gail Hurley: 6.8% increase, let me think
about which slide you might have been looking at.
>> Was it just for the cost of the housing?
I am not sure.
>> Gail Hurley: I do not know,
was it the Hershey rate 6.8% Rich?
>> Rich: No.
>> Gail Hurley: Do you know --
can you think of what he is referring to?
>>Rich Pierce: [Inaudible]
>> Gail Hurley: I'm not --
I'm sorry, I have a lot of percentages here.
I'm not sure which one you might have been referring to,
I apologize.
>> There was a six point something increase
in salaries Gail, I don't know if that's what he saw.
>> Gail Hurley: Oh, in salary and payroll-related,
it wasn't a 6.8% increase in salaries but in
that budget category which includes salaries
and fringes it's about a 6.8% increase.
>> All right.
Okay.
>> Gail Hurley: I do not know
if that was what you were referring to or not, but...
>> Thank you.
>> Gail that was a very thorough report thank you.
I have two questions.
-- One is that you talked about a lot
of efficiencies especially the impact of food costs,
but food costs were still up 4.5%, so in addition
to obviously the inflationary impact there must have been a
volume impact on that as well.
That it really does reflect increase business,
increase volume rather than just inflation.
-- So I do not know if you know that break down.
You can answer that instead.
And secondly, there is some opportunities I think you talked
about a renovation to a cafe that may be in Altoona
that we've named in honor of two former possibly students,
both of which have been very generous
in their philanthropy to the university.
When we identify a renovation opportunity
where there are possibly private philanthropy opportunities,
do you ever work with Rod Kirsch [assumed spelling]
to see before we consider putting that in the budget
that would we possibly want to ask them for a gift to support
that expense since it's in their name
and they would certainly want
that to be upgraded if at all possible?
>> Gail Hurley: In answer
to your first question John Mondocks [assumed spelling]
who is the Director of Foods Purchasing, I don't know,
John do you know off the top of your head
about volumes versus...
>>John Mondocks: [Inaudible]
>> Gail Hurley: We can figure that out
and get back to you on that.
It's just not something that we have readily available.
>> It's just that your efficiencies are pretty
significant based off the slides
and food costs shouldn't be going up that much
so there's got to be -- --
I mean just as if it is an inflationary one we should be
looking at lower than 4.5%.
So I'm sure that what's there is some nice volume increases
with additional students because we've increased the quality
of our food service program,
so I'm sure we're getting a lot more business and that's
where most of that is which we can't [inaudible] get
that increase.
>> Gail Hurley: You're right we have increased the quality.
We've also increased the number of venues
and so many more people are taking advantage
of those opportunities as well, including our faculty
and staff and visitors.
In terms of your second question,
as an auxiliary budget we typically don't go out and look
for gift dollars in that regard.
Often times when development identifies those opportunities
as they did with the Port Sky Cafe, they come talk with us,
but because we are an auxiliary and have the opportunity
and are responsible for generating our own revenue
and other parts of the university don't have
that ability in the same kind of way, typically,
gift dollars haven't been designated in our direction,
but I am sure that Rod will work with us
if we identify some folks or he does.
>> Chairman Garban: I would just add Jim
that philanthropic dollars for renovations are pretty few
and far between, but I'd be happy
to take money for any of these.
>> I was wondering because the Sheet [assumed spelling] Center
is obviously a new building there
and we did get some generous gifts to support that
and I thought they named something for Port Sky
in that particular building, which would be a new venue.
So I was thinking that maybe we even already had received some
dollars to support that but possibly we're talking
about another location.
>> [Inaudible]
>> Thanks and these questions about doing everything we can
to keep costs under control, certainly, we deflect all
of our desire to keep the price of education as low as possible,
but I think the other side of the coin is those of us
in business know there are mandated cost increases.
Things we have no control over, such as health insurance
and others that just keep forcing up some of these costs.
-- And the other side is, is when you look at our comparison
with other colleges, universities were much lower
on the scale than most
and so we've done a great job in the past.
So our base is really frugal to begin with and so we started
from a frugal place and still did a great job
in keeping the increase modest.
So I think that's the other side of the story
that should be told here.
Thank you.
>> Gail Hurley: I appreciate that.
I would also say that our students have some needs
and desires too that they would like to see us pursue.
Such as the wireless and we need to keep that in the mix
because we do require at University Park,
our first year students to live with us,
but our upper class students obviously have a choice
and our whole budget program is based on having every space full
for as much of the year as we can.
-- That also helps us keep our rates low
and we've been very successful with that as you can see
from the occupancy chart that was in your Trustee packet.
Thank you.
>> Linda Strumpf: Thank you Gail.
The resolution in your agenda proposes room and board rates
as reflected in schedules one through four.
May I have a motion to approve these proposed rates
for the 2012 Fall semester?
>> So moved.
>> Linda Strumpf: Second.
All in favor.
Aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Linda Strumpf: Motion is approved.
Due to time constraints we are going
to defer towards construction projects, so those of you
who are really interested can go and see Ford
and see his slides anytime you'd like.
[Laughter]
>> Linda Strumpf: Sorry, Ford.
We are running late.
There being no other items to come before the Committee
on Finance and Physical Plant we are adjourned, Mr. Chairman.
And the committee recommends the adoption
of the 12 items projected on the screens.
Thank you.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you and again, I now remind you
that the full Board is in session.
Take a moment or so to look at the items
on the screen before us.
I think there are 14 of them.
Could I have a motion for approval?
Moved. Second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Any discussion, Governor?
>> Governor: I am concerned
that I don't have the information necessary to vote
on this either in the affirmative or the negative
at this point in time.
You are combining a number of different items,
some of which I would say yes to,
some of which I would probably say no to.
And some of it has to do with the fact that this is some
of it is the first I've heard this information.
I would remind everybody we are in very difficult economic times
and the first thing that I was making a note to myself is,
is it possible and I don't know,
that some of this could be deferred to another time.
Now, I am going to use the Old York Road one
as a prime example very quickly.
You've been doing four or five years with somebody
with excess parking and you want to go out and spend --
and we want to go out and spend $2 million plus dollars
and maybe that is the right thing
to do if we have the money.
But I'm telling you I know what I'm looking at the state level
with a very difficult budget.
And I don't want to give you the impression that you can count
on a lot of money coming from the state by voting
for something that I would suggest you might want to defer.
So I had been planning --
I thought these were going to be individual votes.
Since they are not going to be individual votes,
I am going to abstain because I'm worried
about the taxpayer money, which one is coming
from your state appropriation, if any, and which one is --
and I have been talking to those who are appointed by me.
I'm going to tell them now, you know where I am on this.
I cannot vote one way or the other right now,
because I don't have enough information.
Thank you.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you, Governor and we could surely try
to get you more information in the future as we work
with these items and you're right,
some of them have state appropriation.
Some of them are State capital funds,
some of them are philanthropy,
some of them are self-supporting enterprises.
It's a mix as we go through them what we hope and some did today,
we'll ask the source of funds, but obviously,
we've not satisfied you and I would urge
that we work harder to do so.
Keith.
>> Keith: I would move to separate the questions.
>> Chairman Garban: And vote on them individually?
>> Keith: Correct.
>> Chairman Garban: We can do that.
We can absolutely do that.
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Okay.
>> Also Steve, 13, the Executive Committee
that was going to be deferred also.
>> Chairman Garban: We're not there yet.
We aren't there yet.
Linda, do you want to go through those one-by-one,
or bring them up one-by-one?
I don't think I have them here in front of me.
I am sorry.
>> Steve, I think you need a vote first on my motion.
Can we have some discussion on this?
>> Chairman Garban: Sure.
>> I will tell you and I think that would be an excellent idea,
and I'm just doing this for the purpose of saving time
to be able to do that, but again for me I would abstain
from voting because I do not have the information necessary
coming into this to make an informed opinion and so
if you are doing it for my benefit Keith,
you all do what you need to do, I'm going to say I'm concerned
about taxpayer dollars, as you well know.
We have gone through the exercise one time.
I'm in the process of the exercise right now.
I have a February 7th budget address to give,
in a very difficult budget.
So I am not going to put up a Yay [assumed spelling]
or Nay vote on these individual ones
without having much more information and to see
and I don't understand here how money flowed back and forth
in different categories if they can't flow back and forth
in different categories.
I know you're using the R-Cat [assumed spelling] money
in regard to the one facility.
That's already committed money.
Terry Pegula gave his money
for the hockey arena, that's a great one.
That's philanthropy, but I need to know the other one,
so if it has any bearing on this motion now,
it's not going to help me in this.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you again, Governor.
Would you rescind your motion Keith or no?
>> Keith: I'll rescind it.
>> Chairman Garban: Second will they rescind it?
>> Yes.
>> Chairman Garban: Second.
All right, then we'll proceed to vote on the items --
the 14 of them they're in front of you.
I've had the motion, second, went to discussion.
All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Oppose?
>> [In unison] No.
>> Chairman Garban: Can we have a show of hands?
Just so...
One, two...
>> No.
>> Chairman Garban: On all of them,
we are voting on all of them.
The no vote.
The no vote is what I wanted.
I think the ayes have won it, I thought it would be easier
to count the no votes.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
so clearly the ayes have it.
And, the Governor, you will be abstaining.
>> Governor: Can you count up the abstains?
Abstain.
>> Chairman Garban: Yeah, I had that in there too, okay.
Thank you and we'll take note of that as we move forward to try
and address your concerns better
and we appreciate the budget problems
that you bring before us and the position you're in.
Thank you.
We'll now move to legal matters.
Counsel Baldwin, is there a report on legal matters?
>> Counsel Baldwin: Yes, I do have a report Chair Garban.
First, I'd like to say that I feel very much like the man
who said the report of my demise has been greatly exaggerated.
The report of my departure's been greatly exaggerated.
As most people know, after 18 years in the judiciary I retired
from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2008
and became a partner with Duane Morris.
I had planned to retire from that firm
until I received an offer I could not refuse
from my alma mater, the opportunity
to begin an in-house General Counsel's office.
If anyone thinks that this job is a peaceful, stressful path
to retirement, let me disavow you of that.
I have had the honor of serving this great university
as President of its Alumni Association,
a member of the Board of Trustees,
and its Chair for three years.
And I want to thank the Board and the Administration
for the privilege of serving as its first in-house counsel.
Working with the faculty, staff and occasionally,
with the students has been a wonderful experience
and I appreciate the thank yous
and kind words they have been sharing.
These trying times will result in a better Penn State
by building even greater institutional character.
In two years, not only has the office been implemented,
but also staffed by experienced attorneys, paralegals,
and assistants and it has become fully operational.
We are planning to add two additional attorneys
in the near future.
Our staff is supported by attorneys from all
over the state specializing in 15 different areas.
From the beginning, I stated in many
of the media here published,
that I would establish the office and then transition
to a less structured life.
I have stayed longer than I originally planned
and my husband retired from his executive position the end
of September.
An active search has been initiated with a very dedicated
and competent search committee.
Damon Sims and I are co-chairing the search committee.
I am sure that a top notch university
like Penn State will attract top notch candidates
and that has already started to happen.
John Thornburgh of Witt/Kieffer is assisting with the search.
The plan is for the new general counsel to be identified
by the end of the academic year and to be in place
by the beginning of a new fiscal year.
Thank you Chair Garban for allowing me that indulgence,
and now, for the rest of the legal report.
Two cases have been initiated as a result of recent events.
The first case is captioned John Doe versus The Second Mile,
Gerald Sandusky and the Pennsylvania State University.
The complaint was filed November 30th,
was served on the University on December 21st.
The second case is captioned C. Miller versus The Second Mile,
Gerald Sandusky, and the Pennsylvania State University.
The writ of summons was filed on December 22nd
and served on January 3rd.
A complaint has not yet been filed.
We have also received several notices for preservation holds
which are already in place.
Thank you.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you Cynthia.
I know you've been imposed upon to come into that job
and I just wanted you to know that we appreciate
that very much and we look forward
to honoring you someday in the future here.
The January meeting of this board is also our annual
meeting, so we have a few housekeeping items
that we do have to get done.
First, the board needs to authorize the president
of the university to confer degrees at the end
of the 2012 spring semester,
summer session, and fall session.
May I have a motion for approval?
>> So moved.
>> Chairman Garban: Moved, second?
>> [Inaudible]
>> Chairman Garban: Any discussion?
All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
Motion carries.
Item eight, will the board of trustees approve Thursday,
May 3rd, 2012 as the date for the delegate election
of agriculture trustees and for counting the ballots
in the alumni election and approve Friday, May 4,
2012 as the date for the election of business
and industry trustees.
May I have a motion for approval?
>> So moved.
>> Chairman Garban: Moved.
Second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Any discussion?
All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
The motion carries.
The proposed meeting dates
for the year 2013 are shown in the agenda.
May I have a motion to approve the proposed meeting dates
as presented?
>> So moved.
>> Chairman Garban: Moved, second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Second, any discussion?
All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
The motion carries.
Now, this is a special award and a special item
that the distinguished alumni award screening committee met
yesterday and recommends the following seven individuals be
considered by the board of trustees
for the 2012 distinguished alumni award.
We have to do this by written ballot
but I'll read the names here as they're passing out the ballots.
Norman Borton [assumed spelling].
Harold Cheetum [assumed spelling].
Peter Cocchilo [assumed spelling].
Earl Harba [assumed spelling].
Joan Dawson McCunnan [assumed spelling].
Robert Metzger and Thomas Ridge.
The written ballots you have before you, you select them,
and distributed to you, select the persons
and they'll receive their distinguished alumni award
in June of this year.
I'll wait for the ballots to be collected and returned.
Did I get one?
[ Background noise ]
>> Chairman Garban: I would mention while they're doing
that, that once elected, we will be in telephone contact
with the individuals and within the next couple of days,
and for those of you who may know them personally and want
to congratulate them, I'd ask your indulgence
until like Monday so that they can receive their
official notification.
We appreciate your cooperation on that but, okay.
I'm pleased to announce that the following have been selected
distinguished alumni awards, Norm Borton.
Harold Cheetum.
Peter Cocchilo.
Earl Harbough.
Joan Dawson McCunnan.
Robert Metzger and Thomas Ridge.
Very good.
That's always a special weekend with those alumni.
It's now time for the election of officers
and before conducting the election for the officer
of the board, I'd like to make a few comments.
I have just completed, as you know, my two years as chairman
of the board and I will not run for a third term.
Many of you know I spent my career at the university
and to cap it off as chairman was a realization beyond my
wildest dreams.
Some of you know I am a son of a coalminer and I was educated
by a football scholarship.
Graduation from college was a huge accomplishment in my family
and my debt to Penn State
for all it has given me will never end.
These have been difficult days at Penn State,
a lot has been written and I'm sure more will be.
During these days, I have some regrets, but one I don't have is
that this board has been together,
never forgetting their responsibilities,
and acted decisively and unanimously.
I'm proud to be a member of this board.
There was never any doubt
that this board will make the right decision,
keeping in mind the long-term interests of the students,
faculty, all employees and the university itself.
I want to take this time to also say how much I truly appreciate
John Surma [assumed spelling] who has served as vice chair
and took over leadership during this difficult time.
John, I don't need to say, is an extremely busy CEO,
I needn't say this either, he's bright, decisive, compassionate,
and was the right person to lead us through this.
I will always feel indebted to him, as should this university.
Thank you.
John, do you want to say a few words?
>> John Surma: I do.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'll just do it from my seat,
thank you for your gracious comments, Steve.
As the trustees are aware, I've concluded
that my business commitments,
which is quite extensive these days,
are such that I couldn't also continue
to fulfill a board leadership role at the level of intensity
that we've been experiencing recently and are likely
to have then in the future.
It became clear that at some point, I was going to need
to make a choice and I thought it was better, and more fair
to the board to make that choice now,
so I also will not be seeking re-election
to a board leadership role.
I look forward to remaining a trustee and working
with whoever the new leadership is
in whatever capacity they may so desire.
Thank you very much.
>> Trustee Riley: Thank you John Surma for leading us
through this terrible, terrible time.
Thank you.
>> John Surma: Thank you Trustee Riley.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you, anything else?
We'll now proceed with the election of officers.
Yes, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry Stephanie.
>> John Surma: I would like to --
we should all give Steve a round of applause for his...
[ Applause ]
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Please let's move on.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We'll now proceed with the election of officers.
Let me remind you that the bylaws require the use
of a written ballot.
At this time, I'd like to call for nominations
for the president of the board.
Joel.
>> Joel Myers: I'm extremely pleased to place the nomination
for the board chair, Karen Peetz.
Karen will usher in a new era for the board at the time
of challenge and self-examination as we emerge
from this crisis and focus on the future for the best results
for the university community, its students, faculty,
alumni, staff and supporters.
Karen is committed to lead the change in the board structure
and a transition to greater transparency and reform
into a new era of governance that I know all
of us believe is an important objective.
Karen comes to the board with vast experience and achievement
in the business community and has emerged quickly
as a leader during her few years of service on this board.
Raised in Springfield, Pennsylvania,
she attended Penn State in the 1970's,
she was a student athlete on our field hockey and lacrosse teams,
was involved in the concert and chapel choirs
and has been a member of Kappa, Alpha, Theta sorority.
She met her husband David, a landscape architect,
while she was here as a student at Penn State,
her son attended Penn State as did her father
and her husband's parents and siblings.
Karen has also served the university in fundraising
and was recognized as an alumni fellow in 2008
and a distinguished alumni in 2010.
She's a Penn Stater through and through and accomplished
in a way that will serve us well.
Karen is one of the most powerful women
in American business serving as vice chair of BNY Mellon Bank,
responsible for 50% of the bottom line
of that major company, managing 17,000 people in 76 locations,
40 of which are outside the United States.
As I mentioned, she's committed to improving governance,
change and reform, to be known for her outreach to students
and faculty, and she will focus on restoring our reputation
and will build on the historic wall
and the many strengths of Penn State.
She's looking forward to closely working with Keith Masser
as the vice chair and has already spoken to many trustees
about stepping up to additional leadership roles.
Please join me in voting for Karen Peetz as the next Chair
of the Pennsylvania State University.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you Joel.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Second, Anne?
>> Anne Riley: Thank you I enthusiastically second the
nomination of Karen Peetz for chairman
of the board of trustees.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you Anne.
Are there additional nominations for the position
of president of the board?
If not, I would entertain a motion to close the nominations.
>> So moved.
>> Chairman Garban: Second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Any discussion.
All those in favor say, indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
The motion carries.
Thank you.
Now, at this time, I'd like to call for nominations
for vice president of the board, Keith?
>> Chairman Garban It is indeed a privilege for me
to place the name of Keith E. Masser in nomination to serve
as vice president of the board of trustees
of the Penn State University.
Keith is a first generation graduate of Penn State,
getting his B.S. in Ag Engineering
in 1973, with distinction.
He also understands the mission and importance
of the land grant institution Penn State.
He has told me he will always be indebted to this institution
for giving him that educational opportunity.
He and his wife, Helen, have been married for over 40 years,
and their children, David and Julie, and Helen,
all work in the family business, as well are alumni
of Penn State University.
Keith truly comes from a Penn State family.
Keith leads three different businesses,
all tied by one common thread, potatoes.
He is a Schuylkill farmer, farming over 4,600 acres
but he also operates a fresh processing plant
for fresh market tomatoes that he markets
across the eastern half of the United States.
That operation is in Michigan,
and he also operates a potato processing plant
in Schuylkill County and indeed the 800 horsepower engine
that drives that facility, driven by methane gas coming
from a neighboring landfill.
Indeed, Keith knows how to pinch pennies.
[laughing]
>> There is no question about that.
He is an entrepreneur, he has had a number of challenges
in his life and perhaps, one of the greatest that he
and his family faced is when his brother was lost in an accident,
and Keith, working in his profession at Proctor & Gamble,
returned home literally to save the family farm,
and from that point grew that farming operation
to the vast operation that it is today.
He has been a leader in his industry
and has vast board experience
and also leading national organizations.
One of those you might guess would be the National
Potato Counsel.
Keith has been recognized as a master farmer here
in Pennsylvania and across the northeast
by the Pennsylvania State University
and Pennsylvania farmer magazines.
I believe that it's important to recognize that Keith,
throughout his life, has been dedicated to excellence
and also dedicated when he came here four years ago as a trustee
to continue to provide affordable education
to the residents of Pennsylvania advocating excellence
in education, research, outreach, and athletics
and committed to Penn State maintaining its world class
status moving into the future.
Keith has known challenge.
He is a person of high integrity
and energy who's work ethic is without limit.
We will be very well served if indeed,
Keith is elected vice president of the board of trustees
of this university and provides the support
that Karen Peetz will need in her role
as president of this board.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you very much Keith.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you.
Are there additional nominations for the position
of vice president of the board?
>> Move to nominate to close.
>> Chairman Garban: Motion that nominations be closed.
Second.
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Second.
All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
Motion carries, thank you.
At this time, I'd like to call on Dr. Erickson, who,
in accordance with the bylaws, is the Ex Officio Secretary
of the Board and nominates the remaining officers.
>> Dr. Erickson: In accordance with the bylaws,
I am Ex Officio Secretary of the Board,
I'd like to place the following names and nominations
for the remaining officers for the board of trustees.
Paula Ammerman as associate secretary
and Carmella Mulroy-Degenhart, Kim Belcher and Wendy Peck
as assistant secretaries.
I would also like to nominate David Gray as treasurer
to be effective on his arrival on February 6th,
2012 and Deborah Meder and Susan Wiedemer
as assistant treasurers.
That concludes the nominations.
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you Dr. Erickson.
If there are no additional nominations,
I'll entertain a motion to close them.
>> Moved.
>> Chairman Garban: Second?
>> Second.
>> Chairman Garban: Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Chairman Garban: Opposed?
Nominations are closed.
The ballots will now be passed out at this time.
Rob Pangborn [assumed spelling] and Tom Pool [assumed spelling],
will you serve as tellers please.
[ Background noise ]
>> Chairman Garban: Thank you, Tom.
Thank you.
The following persons have been elected as officers
of the board of trustees.
President Karen Peetz.
Vice President Keith Masser.
Associate Secretary Paula Ammerman.
Assistant Secretaries Carmella Degenhart,
Kim Belcher, then Wendy Peck.
Treasurer David Gray, effective February 6th.
Assistant treasurers Deborah Meder and Sue Wiedemer.
Congratulations to each one of you.
[ Applause ]
>> Chairman Garban: As I said earlier,
one of my greatest joys has been to serve my alma mater
and I do look forward to continuing on the board
and working with all of you.
As my last official act as chair of this board,
it gives me great pleasure to call forward the 26th Chair
of Penn State's Board of Trustees Karen Peetz,
and Keith would you join her up here, join her as well.
Thank you both.
>> Karen Peetz: Thank you.
Well, it is a great honor and privilege to be here
as the President of the Board of Trustees
for the Pennsylvania State University.
It's also particularly now, a great responsibility.
We are an institution of higher learning
and we have all learned a lot in the past two months.
During our many board meetings, many of which are on the phone
until late at night, we as board members,
and in the last few days have agreed
that we will focus on three new themes.
As Joel indicated, the first is change, the second is reform,
and the third is transparency.
I look forward to working with all the other board members,
President Erickson, the students, faculty,
and the alumni to ensure that Penn State remains one
of the best public universities in the world.
I'm extremely confident that we can continue on the path
that we've been on and that working together we will
absolutely have that as the outcome.
I also again want to thank both Steve Garban, as well as,
John Surma for their terrific service
and I think the board can give another round
of applause for that purpose.
[ Applause ]
>> Karen Peetz: Thank you.
So, now I kind of take over in the responsibility immediately.
So generally at this meeting, we have an agenda item that deals
with the election of members of the executive committee.
We've deferred this item, though, to the March meeting
and will bring forward a slate which is reflective
of the elections today.
So now we'll move on to the appointment of the members
of the Hershey Medical Center, and included
in your agenda is a resolution that is providing
for the appointment of David Gray as a member of the board
of directors of the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.
Now, may I have a motion for approval for that?
>> So moved.
>> Karen Peetz: Second?
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> Karen Peetz: Any discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Karen Peetz: Anybody opposed?
Okay, the motion is carried.
We also included in your agenda a resolution providing
for the election of David Gray and Rob Pangborn as directors
of the corporation for Penn State.
May I have a motion for approval?
>> So moved.
>> Karen Peetz: Second?
>> Second.
>> Karen Peetz: Any discussion.
All those in favor, please say aye.
>> [In unison] Aye.
>> Karen Peetz: Okay, opposed?
The motion carried.
Thank you all for your time and attention today and on behalf
of the vice chair, Keith Masser, congratulations Keith,
and myself, we want to thank you for your support
and if there are any other matters to come before the body,
if anybody would like to raise any issues, okay, hearing none,
I declare this meeting adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]