>>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 ]