Down River – Feb. 27, 2014
State System Schools in Doubt?
This one didn’t get a lot of attention but you should be aware there were some ominous pronouncements at a recent hearing before the state House Appropriations Committee.
Speakers included Frank Brogan, chancellor for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (the 14 state-owned schools including Lock Haven University).
Brogan said he was convinced unless the revenue picture changes for “a number of our state universities, their existence is in doubt.”
He later went on to name names. Brogan identified Edinboro, Clarion and Mansfield among those described as teetering on the edge. They are, he said, struggling with declining enrollment, stagnant state appropriations and students’ ability to pay rising tuition costs.
The state chancellor said all the state schools are taking a hard look at how they operate; schools that had an enrollment of 5,000 but are now at 3,500 students can’t operate the same as in the past, Brogan calling the pattern unsustainable.
His comments make you appreciate how difficult it is to operate a state school these days and how difficult the job LHU president Michael Fiorintino faces as he deals with the same problems facing all the state universities.
Enrollment decline has not been as severe locally as at many of the other state-owned schools but media accounts have relayed some of the hard program decisions LHU has had to make.
The state schools are not alone in their plight. A story this week said St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia is looking at an $8.7 million shortfall for its next school year.
St. Joe’s is taking a different approach to try and balance its books, looking to admit more students (a freshmen class of 1,500 next fall, compared to 1,275 this past fall).
If only taking in more students at LHU and the other state-owned schools would solve the problem for the state system.
Lt. Gov JayPa?
Ousted Penn State quarterback coach Jay Paterno caught a lot of Democratic honchos off guard last week when the son of late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno announced he would seek the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in May.
There had been recent speculation the younger Paterno, a fairly active Democrat in recent years, would make a run at the 5th U.S. House seat occupied by Republican Glenn Thompson of Howard Township.
But if you think about it, if Paterno does harbor long-term political aspirations, given his substantial name recognition he likely would have a better chance for a relatively nondescript statewide office than running as a Democrat in the heavily Republican 5th congressional district.
Word is his late candidacy announcement surprised some mid-state Democratic powerbrokers/elected officials who already had aligned themselves with other primary candidates for the same office.
There are a couple factors probably in play in the Paterno candidacy. Beyond the name recognition, there could be a backlash against him because of the often mediocre play of PSU quarterbacks while the younger Paterno was their position coach; and what might be the view of Penn State followers/voters towards Jay Paterno in the wake of the divisive Sandusky scandal.
Let the voters decide.
Bee-Ess to You Sir:
This column last week went into some detail on the flap at the most recent monthly Wayne Township supervisors’ meeting.
There was a little set-to between Express reporter Jim Runkle and township solicitor Paul Welch.
Something about a dispute about mud on somebody’s road and Welch determined it was not a topic for public discussion, even though two township supervisors, the township zoning officer and police were all players in the matter.
Runkle in his coverage wrote that “the reporter” noted the various township-related participants relative to the muddy roads issue.
And then, the paper said, “Welch chided the reporter for his mild oath of incredulity while again saying the matter was a private one.”
The Down River research staff jumped right on that one, searching until it learned what the “mild oath of incredulity” was Runkle had uttered.
(Squeamish alert here) Are you ready for this? Witnesses said Runkle called the Welch rendering “ That’s bullshit.” Seriously.
Does the Runkle call of “b-s” fit the definition of a mild oath of incredulity? And is it a fair characterization of the Welch view on the dirty road caper?
Our research staff took its findings to The Record wordsmith for a determination; he wrote:
“Yes, it sounds as if ‘the reporter,’ Runkle, described his own speech as ‘a mild oath of incredulity.’ Seems fair enough to me. ‘Bullshit’ is exactly that. Though the common euphemism “bee-ess” is even milder.
“Based on the description in your column, I’d say Runkle was probably right to press Welch. If all those town officials were involved, why shouldn’t it be town business?
“If, on the other hand, some of the participants viewed it as a dispute among people who just happened to be officials, a lawyerly ruling that avoids opening up a small-town, personality-driven can of worms has merit, too.
“It doesn’t sound as if Runkle has uncovered any kind of serious Mud-Gate, but I’d still say he gets points for raising the possibility that a solicitor’s argument could be summed up with one of the most useful terms in the English language.”
