Friday, April 24, 2009

Friday Katz Blogging*

They dedicated the Lewis Katz Building, the new home of Dickinson School of Law on the University Park campus, this afternoon. This was the culmination of drawn out dirty fight by Graham that began when he maneuvered to   renege  on the original merger agreement with the  Dickinson  School of Law, which required  DSL to remain in Carlisle in perpetuity.  The fight placed on public display Graham's arrogant and underhanded nature.

The details of this episode, which predate this blog,  are too complex to summarize here. If you are unfamiliar with it a good place to learn more is the online archives of the Carlisle Sentinel. On the other hand, if you are familiar with the details of the fight, try to contain your  laughter as you read what Graham had to say today on the occasion of the building's dedication.

"I am proud to be part of this noble endeavor," Spanier said

* My apologies to Kevin Drum for the bad pun.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

OK Centre County, Are You Embarrassed Yet?

The Wall Street Journal's Venture Capital Dispatch  blog isn't too impressed by GT.
Yesterday the House of Representatives’ small business committee held a hearing in which a venture investor and entrepreneurs discussed the need for reauthorization of the program, which is set to expire in July. You can view videos of the testimony here (the second panel referred to here starts with video 18), or read about it in VentureWire. One aside: Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) asks Josh Green, a general partner at MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures, whether there are other ways to structure venture capital investments to not include ownership? Watch Green as he’s able to keep a straight face while politely answering why that’s not possible:



Technorati Tags: ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

That's a Terrible Hack You Have There....

...You know what's good for it?



Why yes, Tea!

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

More Information, Please

Last week the Collegian reported that the money from the new facilities fee has not been spent. I asked how money from the fees was being used while a use for it was being devised. Today, in an editorial on the various fees that students must pay, the Collegian appears to answer my question.
The $200 students will pay next year will basically be going into a "black hole" -- no one knows exactly what the money will be spent on, and until the board figures it out, the money will just sit untouched in a bank account.
It is not clear where the Collegian learned that the fees are not being touched. Did someone in the administration tell them this or did they surmise this on their own? I think we should have a more definitive answer.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Peak From a Leak is Stressful

The Turner Radio Network claims to have a leaked copy of the Treasury's Stress Test of US banks. If the report is accurate we are in for a world of hurt.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Graham: Putting the Weasel in Nittany Weasel

The Collegian reported on Wednesday about how the University is using the revenue from the controversial new facilities fee....it isn't.

Vice President of Student Affairs Damon Sims, who is also a ... member[of the facilities Fee Advisory Board], wrote in an e-mail that no revenues from the University Park Facilities Fee "have been expended this year."

[...]

According to Sims' e-mail, the committee met twice this year to hear "various presentations about possible projects that could benefit from the fee."

It's not even being used for maintenance of existing facilities.

There a couple of things to think about here. First, if you are a graduating senior you have given  Old Main $100 toward future building projects which you will not be here to use. I think Old Main should refund the fee to anyone who graduates this year. Yeah, like that's going to happen.  Second, how is the money collected this year being handled? Has it been invested with the interest being retained within the facilities fee fund? Is Old Main using the money for other purposes, like plugging holes in the budget,  with the intent of repaying the facilities fee fund in the future? If that's the case will it repay the fund with interest?

Oh not to worry, having no idea of  what to build with the fee, the Board of Trustees has already decided to  doubling the fee next year.  

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Old Main: Lying or Breaking the Law?

The Collegian reported this week that Old Main now claims that it didn't lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act last year, although its fourth quarter 2008 federal lobbying disclosure form clearly states that it did.  Which is true?  Well, it is against the law to file an incorrect form.
Whoever knowingly fails: (1) to correct a defective filing within 60 days after notice of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House; or (2) to comply with any other provision of the Act, may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $200,000. Whoever knowingly and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this Act shall be imprisoned for not more than five years or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.
Hence the option are that Old Main is lying now or it broke the law when it filed its lobbying report. My money, as you know from my previous post, is that Old Main is lying now. If they aren't they better revise the form tout de suite.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Context Comes a Few Weeks Late

The Collegian finally got around to reporting the Old Main's lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act today. The reporter, Ryan Pfister, does a pretty good job explaining what the University did.

...[A]ccording to a lobbying report filed by Penn State that covers activities from October to December of 2008, Penn State lobbied against the EFCA in the U.S. House of Representatives. The university "urged members to oppose this measure as it would change the current union election system by leaving workers unprotected from outside influences," according to the report.

The report lists four Penn State employees who "acted as a lobbyist in this issue area": Sheilah Borne, Zachery Moore, Richard DiEugenio and Margaret Sheely.


There's no ambiguity there. Old Main opposed the bill last year. Pfister gets a comment from  university Bullshitter, Geoff Rushton, who said
...the university is not taking an official position on the EFCA and said no money had been spent on lobbying about the issue. He said a lobbyist, whom he would not identify, did make an "inquiry" about a congressman's position on the EFCA, but did not attempt to influence the congressman's position.

"There was no urging on Penn State's part to take a position either way on the bill," he said.


I wonder how much you have to pay someone like Rushton to lie like that in the face of facts? Geoff don't you feel dirty? Or does the money make it all better for you?

The take away its that Old Main got caught union busting  red handed and now they are lying about it. Great example you're setting there Graham.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

The Hundred Million Dollar Plus Question

I've put together a little slide show for you based on Penn State's Audited Financial Statements covering fiscal years ending June 30 of 2000 through 2008. This show tells the story of how Penn State uses its revenues from tuition, fees, and state appropriations.



A story you hear all of the time from Graham is that the Commonwealth doesn't support Penn State the way it once did, but, to the extent that this is true, it is only part of the story. This part of the story, the revenue side, is captured in slide number two.

In 2000, the Commonwealth appropriated 57 cents for every dollar of fees and tuition (Henceforth I'll use the shorthand tuition .) that Penn State collected. The amount of dollars of appropriations per dollar of tuition has decreased every year since. Last year it stood at 29 cents of appropriations for every dollar of tuition. While over those nine years appropriations have gone up, they have have done so at a much slower rate than tuition.

The other side of the story is the spending side. It's difficult to trace from the audited financial statements exactly how Penn State uses all of its money, but the audit does list four categories of direct expenditure on students: instruction, academic support, student aid, and student services.

The story of direct expenditure on students is told in slides three and four. In 2000, Penn State spent $1.03 on instruction for every dollar of tuition it collected. By 2002, this had dropped below a dollar for the first time and steadily declined until 2007, when it stood at $0.78 spent on instruction for each dollar of tuition collected. It bounced up to $0.79 last year. Student aid has never been a penny or more per dollar of tuition and it was dropped as a category in the 2007 audit. Academic support, which started out at $0.37 spent per dollar of tuition collected in 2000, has dropped every year but one until it reached $0.25 spent on academic support per tuition dollar collected last fiscal year. Student services has declined slowly over the nine years form $0.15 spent per dollar of tuition collected to $0.12 spent per dollar of tuition collected.

The revenue and spending sides of the story lead to the final part of the story, surpluses.

The total direct expenditures on students has gone from $1.55 per dollar of tuition collected in 2000 to $1.16 in 2008. The way to look at this is that in 2000 the University spent all of its tuition revenue plus 55 cents of appropriations revenue for every dollar of tuition revenue it spent directly on students. That left $0.02 of appropriations for every tuition dollar to be spent on things other than students. By 2007, the University was spending all of its tuition revenue plus $0.15 of appropriations for every dollar of tuition it spent on direct student expenditure. This left $0.16 of state revenues per dollar of tuition to spend on things other than students. That surplus is a factor of 8 greater than what it was in 2000.

The complete story of the surpluses is told in slides four, five and six.

To fully appreciate the magnitude of these surpluses one must look at the actual dollar amounts. In 2000, Penn State had a bit more than $11 million left over from tuition and appropriations after all direct expenditures on students were made. In 2002, it was more that $26 million. It nearly doubled the following year to a bit more than $52 million. In 2007, it was over $169 million. It dropped to a tad more than $149 million last year.

The bottom line is that Penn State currently takes in much more in tuition, fees and appropriations, than it spends on education, academic support, and student services. Hence, while they may not know it, when students lobby the Commonwealth for more appropriations or to be included in Rendell's Tuition Relief Act, they aren't asking for more money for their education, because the University already has more than enough money for that, they are asking for more money for things not directly connected to their education.

But what are those things? That's the $100 million plus question.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,



Friday, April 03, 2009

The Collegian is Slipping


That's the headline on a letter to the Collegian from a Brian Cox which contains the following paragraphs
You have heard a lot of outright lies and misconception about the proposed new law (EFCA). It will not rob the employees of the right to vote for representation.

Even the Wall Street Journal finally spoke the truth about this. It will change dramatically who can and cannot ask for that right.

Currently employees and the employer can ask for and receive a secret ballot election. The EFCA will remove the right for an employer to demand that a secret ballot election be held. That is what big and small business is screaming about.
The whole point of the letter is that EFCA won't eliminate secret ballots. How did the headline writer miss that?

Technorati Tags: ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

GT Joins The GOP Crazy Caucus

Rep. Michele Bachman (R-MN) is bat shit crazy. Her latest bit of insanity involves her  misrepresenting   a proposal  made by the Chinese to change  the world's reserve currency out of US dollars as a proposal for a single global currency. She has now introduced a constitutional amendment to head off  this problem which exists only in her own mind...whoops, which exists only the minds of her  and the 31 GOP co-sponsors of the amendment in the GOP Crazy Caucus. Oh, and GT is in the GOP Crazy Caucus.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.