Showing posts with label Right-To-Know. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right-To-Know. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2011

I'm back.

It's that time of year when Penn State releases its annual Right-To-Know Report. True to Graham's commitment to transparency the report was released at the end of business on the  Friday before the Memorial Day weekend in a image PDF which can't be searched. As has become a tradition here at Left of Centre, I've transformed the report to a searchable PDF and uploaded it to Scribd (2010, 2009). Behold:
Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2011

Here's the compensation data for Trustees, Officers and Key Employees.



Here are the salaries of the officers



Here are the top 25 salaries,




New this year is this tidbit:2158 individuals had reportable compensation of $100,000 or more.

Look for more postings soon here at Left of Centre.  I have a post in the works on Graham cheating  on the University's  reporting requirements to the Commonwealth and another one on a suspicious ranking which came out about a month ago.

Saturday, September 04, 2010

I'm Voting for Sestak....

...anyway...no surprise there, I'm sure. But here is one more reason to do so, via Adam at StateCollege.com.
Joe Sestak believes Penn State and the other state-related universities in Pennsylvania ought to be more transparent about their spending, the U.S. senatorial nominee said Thursday.

"Everybody should be transparent," Sestak, a Democrat, said during a campaign stop at the Centre County Grange Encampment and Fair. "That would discipline a lot of things. ... I think it incentivizes better behavior because it's open."

[...]

But "my take on it is, we just need to know more," Sestak said. He said public calls for government accountability -- in general -- are among the most repeated refrains he hears on the campaign trail.

If elected, Sestak said, he will work on the university-transparency issue. He said it fits into his larger emphasis on encouraging federal-government accountability. That drive for transparency, he said, asks the question: "If you are taking federal money, how transparent are you?"
Of course, the details matter and I look forward to hearing exactly what Joe has in mind.


Friday, June 11, 2010

Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010:Revised

Old Main posted its revised Right-To-Know Report this morning. The two family members whose compensation had been left of of the original report are Sandra Spanier, Professor of English and Graham's wife, Michele Kirsch, Director of Operations for the Schreyer Honors Colleges and wife of Senior VP of Development Rod Kirsch.

Sandra Spanier's salary  the 2008 tax  year was $126,813 which placed her in the middle of the pack of full professors in the College of Liberal Arts.

Michele Kirsch's salary for the 2008 tax year was $83,171. The Stairs Report does not have the average salary of administrators in the Honors College because there are only three and the in categories with three or less employees no data is given. However,  in the other academic support units the average salaries in the Executive/Administrative/Managerial category range from a low of $79,245 in Outreach to a high of $96,708 in the Libraries. In that context, Kirsch's salary does not appear out of line.

While there's no story here, the question of whether Old Main made a reasonable effort to ascertain if any family member of trustees  should have been reported is still open, but  I doubt that we'll ever get answers to that. So this is likely the end of line on this story for this year.

Also see StateCollege.com and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for more on this story.
[Updated: 6/11/10 9:30 pm]

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Revised Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010: Background Information Part II

I thought that while we are waiting for today's document dump , as I said below, I'd provide some context and background information  to help people analyze whatever Old Main decides to give us. (Part I is here.)

As of Wednesday, we know that Old Main will acknowledge in its revised RTK report that there are two family members of influential people at the Penn State who either received payment from the University in  a business transaction or who are employed by and received compensation from the  University in fiscal year 2007-2008. Is this list of two individuals exhaustive? This question is almost certainly unanswerable with information in the public domain, but here's some context for those who may want to ask questions of those who know the answer.

The number of family members of influential people with business income or compensation listed by Pitt and Temple are six and one, respectively.  These numbers are in line with Old Main's claim of only two family members. No red flags here.

Did Old Main make an honest effort to determine all family members of influential individuals with business income or compensation? The IRS only require an annual survey to determine if such relationships exist. From the instructions for Schedule L, page 4.
The organization is not required to provide information about a business transaction with an interested person if it is unable to secure the information regarding interested person status after making a reasonable effort to obtain it. An example of a reasonable effort for Part IV is for the organization to distribute a questionnaire annually to each current or former officer, director,trustee, and key employee listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, that includes the name, title, date, and signature of each person reporting information and contains the pertinent instructions and definitions for Schedule L, Part IV. The organization is not required to distribute such a questionnaire to organizations or individuals with which it does business, but who are not current or former officers, directors, trustees, or key employees of the organization, in order to have made a reasonable effort or this purpose.
It would be worth asking about the reasonable efforts Old Main made in  its attempt to fill-out Schedule L, Part IV.

If the answer is that they used a questionnaire as described above, then the follow-up should be may we see a blank copy of it.

If the answer is  that as part of their conflict-of-interest policy the Board of Trustees must report the business transactions of family members, then you should be aware that the Bylaws  of the Board of Trustees has a narrower definition of family member than does the IRS and the reporting thresholds for business relations are different and no provision is made for reporting relatives employed by the University.  You can find the IRS guidelines in the instructions for schedule L and the appendix of the  instructions for the Form 990. The Bylaws are here. The relevant part is Article 6. So if this is their answer, it is an admission of their failure to make the reasonable effort demanded by the IRS.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Revised Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010: Background Information Part I

I thought that while we are waiting for Friday's document dump I'd provide some context and background information to help people analyze whatever Old Main decides to give us.

As of yesterday, we know that Penn State will acknowledge in its revised RTK report that there are two family members of influential people at the Penn State who either received payment from the University for a business transaction or who are employed by and received compensation from the  University in fiscal year 2007-2008.Graham's wife Sandra, an English prof, as I've already reported, will certainly be one of these individuals. Whatever amount she is payed, the question will arise, is it too much or too little? Here's your context for answering that question.

According to the 2009 Stairs Reports,  during the 2007-2008 fiscal year  there were 155 full professors in the College of Liberal Arts and the average salary of the full professors was $124,316. Unfortunately, the Stairs reports don't give anymore information on the salary distribution. Hence, it will difficult based on this to determine if Sandra's salary is extremely small or large unless it is way out of line. Fortunately for us, each year the University Faculty Senate issues a report on faculty salaries which does contain some additional information on  salary distributions.  Here's data for the full professors in the College of Liberal Arts for the Fall of 2008.(PDF page 16)
  • Number=158
  • First Quartile=101,373
  • Median=121,860
  • Third Quartile=150,120
  • Average years in rank=9.8
There's about a $50k spread in the middle of the distribution. If Sandra's  salary is substantial more than $50k above  the third quartile or below the first quartile  that would be a pretty good indication of an extreme salary and a reason to start looking for answers from Old Main.

There is a complication because these numbers are  college-wide.  The distribution  within the English department will be different. But this should only matter if her salary is on the boarder between extreme or not.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Old Main to Come Clean: Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010 Will Be Revised.

Via the invaluable Adam Smeltz at StateCollege.com
Penn State on Friday will file an amended and expanded version of its annual Right-to-Know report, spokesman Geoff Rushton said Tuesday.
Rushton said the amended report, to be filed in Harrisburg, will disclose the salaries of two university workers who are family members of key leaders at the institution. The report also will be posted on the Penn State website, he said.
...more once the report is available.
[Update: 06/08/10, 10:50pm. Bill Schackner at the Post-Gazette also has the story.]

Technorati Tags: ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Who Decided to Give Graham More Time?

In my rush to snark the other day, I failed to note some interesting tidbits in Adam Smeltz's  StateCollege.com story on Graham's lifetime presidential appointment. Here's one: Who exactly is charged with deciding  Graham's future?
[Penn State Bullshit Artist Lisa] Powers said a small committee of trustees considers presidential contract extensions in consultation with other board members. The committee includes the board chairman or chairwoman, the vice chair, the immediate past chair and the chair of the board's Committee on Finance and Physical Plant.
Who holds these position at this time?
These are the people to blame.

With the exception of Garban who is an alumni trustee, all of these people are business and industry trustees and Garban, as Senior Vice President of Finance and Operations/Treasurer Emeritus of The Pennsylvania State University, is an Old Main insider. There is no one representing the interests of the working people of the Commonwealth who it is the University is supposed to serve ....and it shows.

And why might Graham sellout the interests of the working class? Well, here's an interesting fact. John P. Surma is CEO/Chairman of Board/President/Director US Steel and Graham is a Director of US Steel. ...and drumroll please...In 2009, the compensation for a  director of US Steel was $171,000.00 and the previous year it was $270,980.00. That didn't show up on this years RTK report. You see it is so much more lucrative to serve the interests of the fat cats than it is to serve the interests of working people. And by show'in Graham a little lov'in, Surma might get a little lov'in back from Graham.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Update:Fraud: Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010

As I originally reported last Friday, Penn State failed  this year to report the compensation of family members of trustees, officers and key employees in its Commonwealth mandated Right-To-Know Report . And I argued that Old Main's rationale for doing so didn't pass the smell test. The failure was clearly done in bad faith.

Today Adam Smeltz at StateCollege.com reports that Old Main is still studying the matter.
Penn State's legal counsel is reviewing whether the university needs to report more specific information in its annual Right-to-Know report, spokesman Geoff Rushton confirmed Wednesday.
This is a no-brainier. The language in the instructions for IRS Schedule L, a component of the Right-to-Know Report,  is very plain. Old Main's excuse is in direct contradiction with it. Why the delay in correcting this thing?

My guess is that Old Main's plan, now that they've been  caught cheating, is to drag their feet  and hope that it goes away.

Keep the fire to their feet Adam.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010: Salary and Compensation Data

Before I do any more analysis of the Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010, here are the parts that everyone is interested in. The data, which is for fiscal year 2008-2009, comes from pdf pages 38, 40 and 63 of the report.

Enjoy.


Saturday, May 29, 2010

Fraud: Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010

Bill Schackner at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an update this morning to his report yesterday on the Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010.And Penn State Bullshit Artist Geoff Rushton lawyers-up,
Penn State's tax filing did not identify officers or trustees of the university who have relatives employed by Penn State. Pitt provided that information in its tax filing, citing revised IRS rules this year.
Geoff Rushton, a Penn State spokesman, said Friday that school trustees and a consultant who worked with Penn State on its right-to-know filing authorized alternative language. Later Friday, he said an attorney for the university would be taking a second look at the requirement to be sure.
The language used in Penn State's filing was:
"The University knows of no significant transactions between it and any person described in the question other than transactions in the normal course of its activities. All such transactions are conducted at arm's length for good and sufficient consideration and the University believes that the terms and conditions of any such transactions have been fair and reasonable."
Let's take a closer look at this issue through the wool that Geoff is trying to pull over our eyes.

There is a long check list on the Form 990 for tax year 2008, which forms the bulk of the Right-To-Know Report, for determining what schedules an organization must fill out. Question 28 concerns financial arrangements between the organization and, colloquially speaking, influential people in the organization.
28 During the tax year, did any person who is a current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee:

a Have a direct business relationship with the organization (other than as an officer, director, trustee, or
employee), or an indirect business relationship through ownership of more than 35% in another entity
(individually or collectively with other person(s) listed in Part VII, Section A)? If "Yes, " complete Schedule L,
Part IV .
b Have a family member who had a direct or indirect business relationship with the organization? If "Yes,"
complete Schedule L, Part IV .

c Serve as an officer, director, trustee, key employee, partner, or member of an entity (or a shareholder of a
professional corporation) doing business with the organization? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part IV. .
Penn State answered yes to Question 28 b (p. 6; All pages are pdf pages in the RTK Report.) . Hence there is no doubt that  such individuals exist, yet they didn't complete Schedule L, Part IV (p. 47), because, "The University knows of no significant transactions between it and any person described in the question other than transactions in the normal course of its activities." This rationale does not pass the smell test  The instructions for for Schedule L is as clear as day on this issue.
Report in Part IV business transactions for which payments were made during the organization’s tax year between the organization and an interested person, if such payments exceeded the reporting thresholds described below, and regardless of when the transaction was entered into by the parties. The “ordinary course of business” exception to reporting business relationships on Form 990, Part V, line 2, does not apply for purposes of Schedule L.
Here are the reporting thresholds from the instructions.
In general, an organization must report business transactions in Part IV with respect to an interested person if: (1) all payments during the tax year between the organization and the interested person exceeded $100,000; (2) all payments during the tax year from a single transaction between such parties exceeded the greater of $10,000 or 1% of the filing organization’s total revenues; (3) compensation payments during the tax year by the organization to a family member of certain persons exceeded $10,000; or (4) in the case of a joint venture with an interested person, the organization has invested $10,000 or more in the joint venture, whether or not during the tax year.
It is easy enough to see that there are is at least two individuals one person who meet  meets the third threshold. Old Main lists Graham as an officer and Joe Paterno as a key employee (p. 40) Now  and Graham's wife Sandra is an English prof at the University and Joe's son Jay is an assistant football coach.  Both Sandra falls within the definition of family member from the glossary of terms in the instruction for Form 990,
Unless specified otherwise, the family of an individual includes only his or her spouse, ancestors, brothers and sisters (whether whole or half blood), children (whether natural or adopted), grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and spouses of brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren(;)
and it is hard to imagine that either of them earning  she earns less than $10k a year. It's a sure bet that at a minimum these people Graham's wife should have been listed on Schedule L, Part IV. 

With thirty-two trustees, five officers-actually six but Graham's both an officer and a trustee-five key employees and the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows how many family members, there's a very good chance that the list on Schedule L, Part IV if filled out correctly would be very long.

Why did Old Main neglect to complete Schedule L, Part IV.  Graham just doesn't s like any transparency and my guess is that he and his Old Main brain trust  hoped that no one would notice. In fact, they did their best to keep the report out of public view by posting  it with no fanfare on an obscure place in on their Web site and   in a scanned pdf which would likely be bypassed by search engines.  Further,  unlike Pitt, which did complete this schedule, Penn State doesn't have to file their Form 990 with the IRS so there really isn't much of a consequence for them fraudulently filling it out should they be caught , beyond whatever small potatoes sanctions the Commonwealth's Right-To-Know law imposes.  So they figured that cheating was worth the gamble. 

[Corrected:5/30/10 9:52 pm]
Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, May 28, 2010

It looks Like I'm Not the Only One to Notice That....

....this year's Right-To-Know report is deficient. From today, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
The tax filing provided by Penn State did not identify employees who are related to officers, trustees or other leaders of the university. Geoff Rushton, a Penn State spokesman, said Friday afternoon he was attempting to ascertain why the information was not included.
Let's see what sort of explanation Penn State Bullshit Artist Geoff Rushton comes up with.

Technorati Tags: ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010 Now Searchable

[UPDATE:The Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2011 is here.]
I finished converting the scanned pdf of the Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2010 to a searchable one and I've uploaded it to Scribd.  You can use the search box at the lower right of the embedded viewer below the jump to search the document.


However, it you go to the Scribd Web site you find that the  default viewing preference is HTML5 which does not yet have a search capability. If you want to search the document at the Web site go to your account settings and under General, scroll down to Reading and  remove the check from in front of "Display documents in HTML mode (recommended)".

Here it is.

Penn State's 2010 Right-To-Know Report is Deficient

I'm still working on converting  the scanned pdf to a searchable one. Hence a full analysis is a ways off, but as I was going over the filing last night I noticed at least one  deficiency in the report.

On page 4, Old Main answered yes to Question 28 b: During the tax year, did any person who is a current or former officer director, trustee or key employee have a family member who had  a direct or indirect business relationship  with the organization? By answering yes, the University is required to fill out schedule L which details the relationship. They didn't.  For example, the salary of Sandra Spanier, Graham's wife, must be reported on Schedule L. It wasn't. I'm not clear on the concept of key employee, but JoPa would seem to fit the bill. If that's true, then JayPa's salary must be  reported on Schedule L. But nothing was reported on Schedule L...Nada...

I'm sure I'll have more to say once my conversion project is complete.,

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Penn State's 2010 Right-To-Know Report is Available

Old Main posted this year's Right-To-Know report sometime today. Unlike last year, I didn't have any trouble finding it this year, since they put exactly where they put last year's report. However, they still posted a scanned pdf which I'll convert to  a searchable pdf and post at scribd when I get sometime. The Form 990 changed this year and it is much more detailed than last year; it looks like there might be more interesting tidbits this year than last. ...more once I've had a chance to study it.

Technorati Tags: ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Devastating, Catastrophic, Nauseating

The effect of the proposed budget cuts on Penn State have been described as devastating and catastrophic. Today the Penn State Propaganda Portal finally responds to those cuts and I find the response nauseating.

As I noted in an earlier post, Governor Rendell does not consider Penn State, or the other state-related universities, to be fully public schools. Where might he get such an idea? Perhaps this is where he got it.
But we are very concerned about Right to Know legislation that would force the University to make information public that could undermine the operations of the university. There are dozens of examples of information that if made public could interfere with and undermine the quality of Penn State or erode privacy

Penn State and three other universities-University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and Lincoln University--have been singled out for such intrusion. No other state-aided universities or private universities that receive appropriated funds are included in the legislation as drafted. These other universities receive tens of millions of dollars in state appropriation every year.

This proposal goes far beyond making Penn State accountable for how it spends public funds. Should such legislation pass, we would be treated as if we were part of state government, as if we were a state agency. We are not. We are a university that operates in a highly competitive environment. We are put at a competitive disadvantage when certain information must be revealed that is proprietary, or where such revelation would put us at a disadvantage.

That would be Graham arguing against being held accountable. In second paragraph, he argues that receiving funds from the Commonwealth does not distinguish Penn State as a public university, because many other unambiguously private schools also receive state funds. In the third paragraph he comes right out and says it: Penn State is not a state agency. Bottom line... Graham thinks Penn State is like Penn rather than like Lock Haven or the other state-owned universities. So he wants to be treated like Penn not Lock Haven. Fair enough.

Here is Old Main's response to the Rendell agreement with Graham's argument that Penn State is private.
In removing the state-related universities from eligibility for stabilization funds, Rendell has declared that they are not public universities, contrary to their missions and history of state support. Penn State is Pennsylvania's sole land-grant institution and carries out multiple missions in service to the state and its citizens. Its character as a public institution has been supported by 154 years of history, legislative action and legal documents. The law providing the federal stimulus funds notes that the intent of the money is to shield students at colleges and universities supported by state tax dollars from unusually large tuition hikes due to fiscal pressures the economy is placing on state budgets.
Whoa...come again. Penn State is public? Let's get this straight. When Old Main wants to dodge accountability, Penn State is private. When Old Main wants some government money, Penn State is public. What a bunch of crap.

If Old Main wants the stimulus money, it should be willing to accept it with some heavy accountability strings attached.

This rank hypocrisy isn't the only nauseating thing about Old Main's response. Consider this paragraph.
"While news of these proposed cuts is troubling, the discussion at this time is between the governor and the state Legislature, which must come to some agreement on a number of budget issues," said Penn State President Graham Spanier. "We realize the state is facing some serious fiscal challenges, but to cut funding for institutions like Penn State is really a step in the wrong direction."
Now read this one.
In a letter to the U.S. Department of Education, Spanier asks officials there to look closely at Pennsylvania's stimulus funding application and to examine its exclusion of Penn State from the funding formula.
To paraphrase, look we understand things are tough in Harrisburg and we'll let you work things out between yourselves...and by the way, we telling Daddy....

Nauseating.



Technorati Tags: , , , ,



Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Penn State Compensation and Salary Data: Performance Bonuses

For several of the individuals in Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2009 both salary and compensation data is reported. Hence one can get an idea of their performance bonuses.

All of the officers of the University received current compensation only in the form of salary with the exception of Harold Paz, CEO of Hershey Medical Center. Hence none of the officers, with the exception of Paz, were paid any bonuses in the 2007-2008 fiscal year. In fact, the only ones that received current compensation other than salary were coaches or doctors.

Don't feel sorry for Graham. While he only received a salary, he is listed as having received $206,035 in contributions to benefits and deferred compensation plans. This is the largest amount, by far, that anyone got. Most individual received amounts in the $30K range . Hence, it's a fair bet that Graham's performance bonuses came in the form of deferred compensation. It would be very interesting to know what benchmarks Graham had to meet to get any bonus. That would give us some idea of the true priorities of the Board of Trustees.

Paz received $755,996 in current compensation of which $630,000 was in salary. He received and additional $126,808 in benefits and deferred compensation. Hence it appears that his bonuses in total approached Graham's numbers.

All of the five highest compensated individuals received some compensation in addition to salary. JoePa's total compensation was $1,037,322 on a base salary of $527,748. His benefits and deferred compensation weren't anything unusual. So doesn't look like Joe took his bonus money in deferred compensation. I'd say that's a wise move for an 82 year old. By the way, I wonder how big a bonus he got for keeping his team mostly out of trouble this year.

Head Men's Basketball Coach Ed Dechellis had total compensation of $632,283 on a base salary of less than $382,464. We don't know his actual base salary, but he didn't make the list of top 25 salaries, so we can be sure that his base salary is less than the smallest salary in the list. He doesn't appear to have taken any deferred compensation. Next year's report will give us some idea of how much a winning season is worth for Dechellis.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,



Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Penn State Compensation and Salary Data: Gender

One thing that jumped out at me as I was putting together the tables in my last post is that only two women appear in any of the list.

Eva Pell, Vice president for Research, is the only female officer of the University and her salary of $256,400, which is her total compensation, is smaller than the smallest salary, $382,464, on the list of top 25 salaries.

The only other woman is Kathleen Eggli, Chair of the Department of Radiology, who makes the list of top 25 salaries at number 10 with a salary of $478,522.

Is this evidence of a gender bias at Penn State? That's a tough question to answer and this data is insufficient to answer it. Many factors go into determining how much someone is paid and they must be accounted for before any conclusion can be made. However, the near total absence of women does demand that a closer look be taken.

In fact, one woman at at Hershey is demanding just such a look be taken.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,



Powered by ScribeFire.

Penn State Right-To-Know Report 2009: Salary and Compensation Data

[Update: 06/02/10 7:20 pm. The 2010 data is here.]
OK, I've avoided a discussion of the salary and compensation data in the Penn State Right-To-Know Report. The only part of the report which truly contains significant new information and the part in which everyone else has been interested. Well, I'm ready to put my own two cents worth in, but in separate posts. This post contains only the data itself for fiscal year 2007-2008.

Name
TitleCompensation/
Salary
Contributions to Employee Benefits &
Deferred Compensation Plan
Expense Accounts & Other Allowances
Joe Paterno
Head Football Coach
$1,037,322/
$527/748
$28,108
$34,338
Robert Harbaugh
Chair Dept. of Neurosurgery
$789,492/
$672,386
$36,129
$0
Alan Brechbill
Exec. Dir. MSHMC
$668,448/
$514.964
$31,339
$80,263
Ed Dechellis
Head Basketball Coach
$642,366/
<$382,464
$28,341
$5,495
Peter DillonChair Dept. of Surgery
$632,283/
$527,284
$30,931$0

Table 1. Compensation and Salary of the Five Highest Paid Non-officers (pp. 29, 32 RTK Report)

Name
TitleCompensation/
Salary
Contributions to Employee Benefits &
Deferred Compensation Plan
Expense Accounts & Other Allowances
Graham Spanier
President
$590,004/
$590,004
$206,035
$32,640
Rodney Erickson
Exec. VP & Provost
$400,008/
$400,008
$33,731
$7,381
Rod Kirsch
Sr VP Development$320,004/
$320,004
$32,752
$6,783
Harold Paz
CEO HMC
$755,996/
$630,000
$126,808
$125,149
Eva Pell
Sr VP Research
$256,400/
$256,400
$40,381$10,409
Gary Schultz
Sr. VP Finance
$400,008/
$400,008
$31,931$11,195

Table 2. Compensation and Salary of Officers (pp. 28, 31 RTK Report)

NameTitleSalary
Robert HarbaughChair Department of Neurosurgery$672,386
John MyersStaff Physician Pediatric Surgery$578,928
Joe Paterno
Head Football Coach
$527,748
Peter DillonChair Dept. of Surgery$527,284
Jonas Sheehan
Staff Physician Neurosurgery
$525,012
Carlo de LunaStaff Physician Neurosurgery
$525,012
Kevin BlackChair Orthopaedics/
Rehabilitation
$520,478
Alan BrechbillExecutive Director
MSHMC
$514,964
John ReidStaff Physician
Orthopaedics
$510,015
Kathleen EggliChair Department of Radiology$478,522
Mario GonzalezStaff Physician Electrophysiology$460,030
Akash AgarwalStaff Physician Neurosurgery$458,361
David GoodspeedStaff Physician Orthopaedics$458,038
Thomas TerndrupChair Emergency Medicine$457,493
Berend MetsChair Department of Anesthesiology$446,177
David QuillenChair Department of Ophthamology
$438,335
Thomas LoughranDirector of Penn State Cancer Institute$430,743
John RepkeChair Obstetrics/
Gynecology
$425,917
Kevin CockroftStaff Physician Neurosurgery
$420,010
Henry WagnerStaff Physician Radiation Oncology$412,012
Walter KoltunStaff Physician Colorectal Surgery$410,025
Ross DecterStaff Physican Urology$400,020
Walter PaeStaff Physician Surgery$400,020
Robert AberChair Department of Medicine$393,447
Lawrence SinowayDirector Penn State Heart & Vascular Institute$382,464

Table 3. Top 25 Salaries to non-officers (p. 32 RTK Report)

Technorati Tags: , ,



Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Reporting on the Right-To-Know Report

As I promised the other day, here's my look at the Penn State 2009 Right-To-Know Report. It's largely a disappointment.

Most of the information in the report, other than the salary data which received all of the press coverage two weeks ago and a couple of other bits which I'll discuss below, is available elsewhere. The advantage of the report is that it brings it together in single, easy to find, place. For example, the balance sheet information can be found in Penn State's Audited Financial Statement, as can the information on tax-exempt debt,$1,022,862,000.  Other information is available, but one must pull it together from two or more sources. Lobbying expenses, $830,085 falls into this category. The University reports this information to both the state and federal governments which in turn publishes the information. Those state and federal reports are in fact more informative.   The information on related tax-exempt entities is also available elsewhere. I know about them from digging around in GuideStar which publishes the Form 990's of such entities. However, not everyone thinks digging around in GuideStar is a great way to kill an evening. 

Information on educational grants, $119,465,776, might be pieced together from the Common Data Sets for all locations, but I'm not sure since the Common Data sets contain information for undergrads only.

There is information which I haven't seen elsewhere. Amongst these are  a complete listing of  taxable subsidiaries along with their total income and end of year assets; the total amount of money loaned to students by the University,$62,785,00; the amount of those loans which is doubtful, $19,171,000; the amount of money pledged to the University, $209,235,000 and the amount of those pledges which are doubtful, $63,536,000.

If you find any gems in the report that I've missed, let me know in comments or by email.

A final note. Next year's report should be a treasure trove of information. The current report covers fiscal year 2007-2008 which corresponds to tax year 2007. The IRS has updated its Form 990 for tax year 2008 and...lets just say the updated form will certainly give Graham nightmares.  

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Jumping Through Hoops To Find and Use Penn State's Right-To-Know Report

A couple of years ago the Pennsylvania General Assembly set out to overhaul the Commonwealth's antiquated Right-To-Know law. Freshman Democrat Tim Mahoney of Uniontown and veteran Republican Dominic Pileggi of Chester County introduced bills in the House and Senate, respectively. Both bills extended the coverage of the law to state-related universities, such as Penn State, which were not covered by the old law.

Graham threw a hissy fit. And Sen Jake Corman (R-Penn State) stepped up to the plate for him, by amending Pileggi's bill to exempt state-related schools from the full force of the law. Consequently, Penn State and the other state-related schools do not, under the law which passed, have to respond to requests for public records. The law only requires that
No later than May 30 of each year, a State-related institution shall file with the Governor's Office, the General
Asssembly, the Auditor General and the State Library the information set forth in section 1503.

And the information that must be reported?
The report required under section 1502 shall include the following:
  1. Except as provided in paragraph (4), all information required by Form 990 or an equivalent form, of the UnitedStates Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, entitled the Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, regardless of whether the State-related institution isrequired to file the form by the Federal Government.
  2. The salaries of all officers and directors of the State-related institution.
  3. The highest 25 salaries paid to employees of the institution that are not included under paragraph (2)
  4. The report shall not include information relating to individual donors.
And one more thing, the schools have to make the report available to the public.
A State-related institution shall maintain, for at least seven years, a copy of the report in the institution's library and shall provide free access to the report on the institution's Internet website.
The Harrisburg Patriot-News and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported the salary data last Friday, but I wanted to take a look at Penn State's entire report. Big surprise there, huh? I figured the leak to the papers was intended to satisfy people's curiosity, thereby diminishing their desire to see the report.

I discovered that Penn State hasn't made it easy to find their report. A quick look at the Penn State homepage revealed nothing. So I searched the psu.edu Web site on the string "Right To Know". The first link in the search results, which appeared to be the one I was looking for, took me here.
Penn State University fully agrees with the need for strict fiscal accountability to the citizens of Pennsylvania, the General Assembly, and the Administration. To this end, we supported the Higher Education Fiscal Information Disclosure Act in 1994 that was championed by Sen. James Rhoades and Rep. Jess Stairs, Chairs of the House and Senate (more)
This is just Graham trying to undo the damage of his hissy fit. But I thought that if I click on "more" , I'd find the report. Click I did and here's what I got.
The Rhoades-Stairs disclosure approach was designed specifically for Pennsylvania's major research universities, and continues to be the most appropriate higher education accountability mechanism. Under this act, state-related universities must report:
  • The academic and administrative budgets for current and prior years including revenue and expenditures;
  • The number of employees by academic rank and number of administrators, and staff;
  • The median and mean salaries of administrators, faculty and staff;
  • The non-salary compensation of administrators, faculty and staff;
  • A statement of the institution's retirement policies;
  • A policy statement on reduction of tuition for employee's family members;
  • Service contracts including legal, instructional, management accounting, architecture, public relations and maintenance;
  • A list of goods and services in excess of $1,000; and
  • A list, by unit, of expenses of travel.

The reports are due within 180 days of the close of each fiscal year. In addition, Penn State posts its reports on a specially designed Public Accountability Web site: http://www.psu.edu/ur/accountability.html . At this site you will find direct links to the University's operating budget, Fact Book, Common Data Set, crime statistics and other data sources for all 24 Penn State locations.

Well, that wasn't what I was looking for, but I was sure that that last link would take me to the report. No such luck. Here's what I was faced with.
As Pennsylvania's land-grant university, Penn State continually seeks to make information about its activities and services readily accessible to the citizens of the Commonwealth. Please visit the linked site below to find links to areas of major importance to Pennsylvanians and others who desire to know more about the scope, mission, and operations of the University. http://www.budget.psu.edu/PublicAccount/default.asp
I wasn't discouraged. I wasn't ready to give up. I clicked the link. But once again there was no Right-To-Know Report.

By the way, the Stairs Report, which Graham touted as having so much good stuff in it, is at the last link, but it is a watered down version which doesn't contain all of the information which Graham listed. So much for a commitment to accountability.

Variants on the original search string got me no closer. I needed a different strategy. I figured that I might find the report in LIAS since the law required it to be posted in the Library. And I was right. The LIAS listing for the report has a link to the report. It resides on the Controller's Web site.

So I wondered if Temple and Pitt made it this hard to find their Right-To-Know reports. First I went over to Temple's Web site. Over to the left on their homepage is a link to Public Information, which I clicked and found myself face-to-face with their Right-To-Know Report. At Pitt's Web site, I tried a bunch of stuff. Finally a search on "Right To Know Law" turned up this article in the University Times:The Faculty and Staff Newspaper which contained much of the information in required by the law, but I still haven't found the report itself.

Oh, and Penn State's Right-To-Know report is in a scanned file pdf which means that it can't be searched. (I transformed the file to a searchable pdf which I've uploaded to scribd.)

I'll write something up about the actual content of Penn State's report latter, but for now let's just say that Old Main has made it a little tough to track down and use their report.

Graham sure does love himself some accountability.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.