Opinion: So much for more openness from Penn State, trustees
July 27, 2012 Sunshine Act | Penn State
OPINION
State College - Centre Daily Times
Despite proclaiming to embrace a new spirit of openness and transparency, Penn State’s board of trustees reacted to the news of NCAA sanctions by calling a hasty and unannounced closed-door meeting.
Wednesday evening, the trustees gathered at The Penn Stater Conference Center to debate and discuss President Rodney Erickson’s handling of the NCAA consent decree, which left the university facing several severe penalties but not the so-called “death penalty” for football.
The meeting was not advertised and was not open to the public.
In fact, barriers were set up at the ends of hallways to keep reporters from seeing the closed door to the room where the board members were meeting.
Not only did the board activity run contrary to transparency, it pushed the limits of the Sunshine Act — which requires agencies supported by public dollars and representing public interests to hold their meetings in the open.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said that, in her opinion, the meeting should have been open — even though the trustees did not vote on any actions or policies.
“We have a law that requires openness,” Melewsky said. “The sunshine law requires that deliberation and votes need to be public. But the fact that no vote was taken doesn’t matter.”
Melewsky added: “They clearly met. They clearly discussed agency issues. That raises sunshine law issues.”
These are certainly unprecedented times for Penn State and its governing board.
We don’t take issue with board members wishing to meet with Erickson and hear more about the decision to accept the NCAA sanctions, which include a four-year postseason ban, a loss of scholarships, the vacating of wins from 1998 to 2011 and a $60 million fine.
And we understand the frustration of those who said they wish they had heard more about the NCAA penalties before Monday morning’s announcement.
But the Sunshine Act exists for a purpose: to keep public organizations honest — especially in troubling times.
“The board needs to tell why they thought the session didn’t need to be public, or advertised,” Melewsky said.
In fact, most board members denied that such a meeting was even taking place.
In the end, the board took no action — that would have been a clear law violation — and ultimately supported Erickson’s handling of the penalties.
“This is an organization that gets a significant portion of its funds from public dollars and whose actions affect many lives,” Melewsky said.
Whether or not Wednesday night’s clandestine gathering was in violation of the Sunshine Act, it certainly ran contrary to Penn State’s pledge to be more open.
We look forward to the day when a promise to be transparent is actually fulfilled.
State College - Centre Daily Times
Despite proclaiming to embrace a new spirit of openness and transparency, Penn State’s board of trustees reacted to the news of NCAA sanctions by calling a hasty and unannounced closed-door meeting.
Wednesday evening, the trustees gathered at The Penn Stater Conference Center to debate and discuss President Rodney Erickson’s handling of the NCAA consent decree, which left the university facing several severe penalties but not the so-called “death penalty” for football.
The meeting was not advertised and was not open to the public.
In fact, barriers were set up at the ends of hallways to keep reporters from seeing the closed door to the room where the board members were meeting.
Not only did the board activity run contrary to transparency, it pushed the limits of the Sunshine Act — which requires agencies supported by public dollars and representing public interests to hold their meetings in the open.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said that, in her opinion, the meeting should have been open — even though the trustees did not vote on any actions or policies.
“We have a law that requires openness,” Melewsky said. “The sunshine law requires that deliberation and votes need to be public. But the fact that no vote was taken doesn’t matter.”
Melewsky added: “They clearly met. They clearly discussed agency issues. That raises sunshine law issues.”
These are certainly unprecedented times for Penn State and its governing board.
We don’t take issue with board members wishing to meet with Erickson and hear more about the decision to accept the NCAA sanctions, which include a four-year postseason ban, a loss of scholarships, the vacating of wins from 1998 to 2011 and a $60 million fine.
And we understand the frustration of those who said they wish they had heard more about the NCAA penalties before Monday morning’s announcement.
But the Sunshine Act exists for a purpose: to keep public organizations honest — especially in troubling times.
“The board needs to tell why they thought the session didn’t need to be public, or advertised,” Melewsky said.
In fact, most board members denied that such a meeting was even taking place.
In the end, the board took no action — that would have been a clear law violation — and ultimately supported Erickson’s handling of the penalties.
“This is an organization that gets a significant portion of its funds from public dollars and whose actions affect many lives,” Melewsky said.
Whether or not Wednesday night’s clandestine gathering was in violation of the Sunshine Act, it certainly ran contrary to Penn State’s pledge to be more open.
We look forward to the day when a promise to be transparent is actually fulfilled.
