When Penn State University’s trustees gather for official meetings, they tend to spend only a sliver of their time discussing their views or asking questions before a vote, if they speak at all.
A Spotlight PA analysis of public full board meetings since 2019 found that, on average, Penn State’s board spends 7.6% of their meetings deliberating university business. The data also show that nearly two-thirds of the trustees’ discussions focused on either athletics or internal board operations.
Other items considered by the board — such as the university’s $9.9 billion budget, strategic plan, and building projects — often passed with no or limited discussion.
A board that repeatedly votes yes without asking substantive questions “is not a well-functioning board,” and is not living up to its obligations, said Framroze Virjee, president of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Board members should support a decision when it is passed, he said, but a robust dialogue should occur before the vote.
“You shouldn’t simply accept whatever the administrative leadership brings as a potential action item — whether it’s the budget audit or a new building project or a merger or whatever it is. You look and do your homework, read, explore, investigate, and ask questions,” Virjee said. “Be curious, I would even say, with some level of skepticism because that’s healthy, healthy skepticism.”
For this analysis, Spotlight PA reviewed recordings and meeting minutes of Penn State’s 36-member board between 2019 and 2024 to track the total amount of discussion related to a vote.
The newsroom shared its findings and methodology with Penn State’s Office of Strategic Communications and requested an interview with board leadership. The university did not respond.
Athletics and operations
In May, Alvin de Levie, then an alumni-elected trustee, was the first to speak at the full board’s special meeting to approve an up to $700 million renovation plan for Beaver Stadium. Seconds into his comments, though, an argument started with the board chair over whether trustees had enough time to consider the measure.
“This session is not meant to be point, counterpoint debating,” said Matthew Schuyler, the board chair at the time.
De Levie later said: “I don’t know yet how I’m voting because I want to deliberate. And quite frankly, we’re not being given the opportunity to do so.”
The special meeting, which featured around 40 minutes of discussion before the vote, was an outlier compared to the trustees’ other gatherings.
Spotlight PA’s analysis found that between 2019 and 2024, the full Penn State board met for nearly 49 hours and spent around 3 hours and 43 minutes, or 7.6%, of that time deliberating
university business before a vote. The discussion in most meetings totals only a few minutes, if there is any at all.
But the May meeting was emblematic of another trend for the board. In recent years, Penn State trustees’ public deliberations have been heavily weighted toward two topics: changes to the board’s bylaws — including how trustees attain or retain a seat — and athletics-related proposals, including the stadium renovation, alcohol sales at athletics events, and renovations to a football building.
These two subjects accounted for nearly 143 minutes, or 64%, of the board’s public deliberations since January 2019, Spotlight PA’s analysis showed.
Public deliberation on other topics was more muted. Across the three years leading up to 2022 — when Penn State revealed a more than $150 million budget deficit over the previous fiscal year and implemented a partial hiring freeze — trustees discussed the university’s budget for approximately 12 minutes, 11 of which were in July 2021. (The university’s budget was approved each year.)
Among its Big Ten peers, Penn State’s governing body is not necessarily an outlier. Journalists who report on other universities told Spotlight PA that discussions of key issues, or at least substantive disagreements among board members, rarely happen in public.
Board leadership should encourage public discussion, especially if such dialogue is not occurring, said Virjee, whose association guides university boards. Leaders should let proponents of a proposal discuss their views and explore weak points. Boards should also explore alternatives and discuss why those proposals are not as strong or well-suited for the university, he said.
“It is part of good governance to actually promote the examination of the work being done,” Virjee said. A true leader, he continued, is “not afraid to have their work examined and doesn’t take offense … if the initial proposal is changed.”
Questions of transparency
For years, people within the Penn State community have criticized the board over a perceived lack of transparency and open dialogue.
In 2013, amid the fallout from the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, a committee from Penn State University Faculty Senate noted the university’s governing board rarely held “vigorous public debates on complicated or controversial issues.”
A year later, during a failed campaign for an alumni-elected board seat, Schuyler said trustees needed to be “vastly more transparent” with students, employees, and the public.
“We do this through open meetings and a true dialogue with the entire university community,” Schuyler told the Centre Daily Times at the time.
But with Schuyler as chair, board leadership requested that trustees ask questions during a private session so the public meeting in May 2023 could move more quickly, according to internal communications. When a trustee spoke about university spending during the public meeting, Schuyler responded: “Thank you for coming to life at our public sessions and not mentioning these things at our previous three sessions discussing these matters.”
In recent years, the university’s board has regularly held private discussions that media law experts suggest could be running afoul of Pennsylvania’s open meetings law, which requires governing bodies like Penn State’s to conduct certain business in public.
Earlier this year, Spotlight PA revealed the board held private meetings to discuss whether to name the football field at Beaver Stadium after former coach Joe Paterno.
Anthony Lubrano, an alumni-elected trustee behind the naming effort, proposed and then rescinded the naming idea at the board’s February meeting. A month later, board leadership scolded Lubrano for creating a “public spectacle” and sharing “confidential information.” Instead, Schuyler and David Kleppinger, then the board’s vice chair, suggested Lubrano should have kept the matter out of public view.
Lubrano faces board removal over his proposal and his public statements in the weeks that followed, according to court records. The trustee argued the board’s action was retaliatory. A court order over who should pay legal fees has so far blocked board action on Lubrano’s removal.
Spotlight PA, in partnership with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, sued the trustees in December for alleged violations of the Sunshine Act. The suit — which was amended to include additional alleged violations following the board’s February and May meetings — argues the trustees illegally conducted public business in private.
In its legal response to the allegations, the university said the lawsuit includes “unsupported, vague allegations and bald conclusions of law.” The university maintains that it follows the law. The case is ongoing in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas.
Penn State’s board leadership has suggested it will change its operations to allow greater dialogue. In October, a committee of top university officials held its first public meeting in 13 years. The change, Schuyler said during the gathering, was to improve the board’s efficiency and increase discussion among trustees during meetings.
A week later, at the board’s 96-minute November meeting, trustees deliberated for just more than two minutes.
