The Connection between Pennsylvania Corruption
and PASSHE Gentrification
Recent blog posts
have focused on illegal and legal corruption in Pennsylvania as the source of the
institutional corruption at the PASSHE system of fourteen universities. However, the overall heading for our last ten
blog posts has been “PASSHE Gentrification,” which is defined as the
displacement of less-affluent students by more-affluent students, in PASSHE
classrooms.
The PASSHE
universities include Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg,
Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg,
Slippery Rock and West Chester.
The source of PASSHE’s institutional corruption is found not in the 14
universities but rather in PASSHE’s
fifteen governance bodies—especially the Board of Governors and to a
lesser extent in the fourteen Councils of Trustees—which operate principally to
advance political rather than educational goals.
The connection
between Pennsylvania corruption and PASSHE gentrification requires the
establishment of two separate links: 1) the link between State legal corruption
and PASSHE institutional corruption; and 2) the link between PASSHE
institutional corruption and PASSHE gentrification. We start with Link 2.
The Link between PASSHE Institutional
Corruption and PASSHE Gentrification
This link is easy to
establish based on the definition of “institutional corruption” which involves,
as shown earlier, the presence of “a systemic and strategic influence that
undermines the institution’s effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose
or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose.”
PASSHE’s Act 188 statutory
purpose¹ is “To provide high quality education at the lowest possible cost to
the students.” But compelling evidence, based
on official PASSHE documents, shows that the PASSHE Board of Governors has utterly
failed to deliver that statutory purpose to PASSHE students since 2002.²
That failure by the
PASSHE Board of Governors establishes: a) that PASSHE meets or exceeds the
definition of “institutional corruption;” and b) that the Board of Governors is
the source of the influence that is diverting PASSHE from its purpose or
weakening its ability to achieve its purpose.
With its January 2014
“Strategic Plan 2020: Rising to the
Challenge,” the PASSHE Board of Governors has brazenly stated—contrary to
law—that PASSHE is no longer about the Students, but about the System.³
Having replaced
PASSHE’s student-centered purpose with its own narcissistic, system-centered
purpose, the Board of Governors caused all sorts of abuses to follow—of
which PASSHE gentrification is just one.
By ignoring the term
“at the lowest possible cost to the students,” the Board of Governors opened
wide the door to PASSHE gentrification!
Why? Because if ‘lowest possible cost
to the students’ is no longer a PASSHE goal, then PASSHE’s policies will automatically
encourage enrollment from the more-affluent students (who can afford it), and
discourage enrollment from less-affluent students (who can’t afford it).
The Link Between Pennsylvania Legal Corruption
and PASSHE Institutional Corruption
Recall the following
definition⁴ from the Harvard report: “We define legal corruption as the
political gains in the form of campaign contributions or endorsements by a
government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private
individuals or groups, be it by explicit or implicit understanding.”
Recall also that,
when it comes to legal corruption,” Pennsylvania is one of the seven Most
Corrupt States in America, suggesting at least some “government officials” in
Pennsylvania are happy to “provide specific benefits to private individuals” in
exchange for “campaign contributions or endorsements.”
Question: But how does that translate into
institutional corruption at PASSHE?
Answer: Metaphorically speaking, politics is
the umbilical cord between State corruption and PASSHE institutional corruption. That is, the same elected officials engaging
in legal corruption at the State level are also appointing and influencing
governance board members at all State agencies, including PASSHE.
While getting an initial
appointment to a PASSHE governance board seat might be the quid pro quo for a
first campaign donation, board members need to remain politically subservient
to those same elected officials if they wish to be reappointed when their terms
inevitably expire. And the evidence
shows that many political appointees remain at PASSHE for many, many, many years,
suggesting that these board members are politically wedded to the elected
officials who appointed and continue to reappoint them.
The political
subservience that keeps PASSHE BOG leaders in their seats ensures that “what’s
best for elected officials” will also be what’s best for the Board of
Governors—and let the students be damned.
How else to explain
the Board of Governors’ focus on lowest possible tuition (i.e., sticker price)
instead of on the lowest possible cost to the students, (i.e., bottom line), a
focus that guarantees gentrification?
Governors of both
parties since 2002 have enforced PASSHE’s “low tuition for all policy,” thanks
to the political subservience of PASSHE BOG leaders who owe their reappointments
to those same governors.
Governors from both
parties endorse and enforce PASSHE’s low tuition-for-all policy for the best of
all possible reasons; they benefit from it.
As shown in Privatization Without a Plan,² governors
of both parties benefit politically from low PASSHE tuition rates, and their
political appointees are eager to deliver below-market rates despite the negative
consequences on PASSHE students—of which gentrification is just one of many.
Follow the Money
Question: How do most PASSHE governance board
members get their seats on the Board of Governors or on one of the fourteen
Councils of Trustees?
Answer:
By giving political donations (money) to elected officials who control
access to those seats.
Question:
What do the individuals seeking those seats want in return for their political
donations?
Answer:
It can vary, but based on my 20 years working inside PASSHE, perks
and/or money top the list.
Question: But how can political supporters who give
money to elected officials get their money back or perhaps even better, get a
more lucrative “return on their investment?”
Answer:
The same flawed and dictionary-defying definition of “conflict of
interest” found in the Pennsylvania Ethics Act allowing “legal corruption” by
elected officials is also available to enable the political appointees of those
elected officials to engage in some legal corruption as well.
If it exists, it is possible
Anonymous
Clear evidence for legal
corruption by two high-ranking members of the PASSHE Board of Governors appeared
in a June 30, 2012 article⁵ in The
Tribune Review with the following headline:
“Pa. university board members grab $14M in contracts.” Mr. Pichini was then and remains today the
Chair of the PASSHE Board of Governors, and Mr. Pennoni was then a Vice-Chair
of the PASSHE Board of Governors.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment