As you may be aware, on February 26th the Nominating Subcommittee of the Penn State Board of Trustees met to review the alumni trustee nominees to decide if they were suitable to be placed on the ballot. I was the only nominee rejected, by a vote of 8-1 (read the full story here). At the time of the vote, the Board was under a court-ordered Injunction (dated October 11, 2024, read it here), which clearly and unequivocally enjoins the Board from “removing Plaintiff from the Board of Trustees by vote.”
They went ahead and did it anyway.
Yesterday we filed two pleadings in Centre County Court. I suggest you read them all the way through. I think you will find them very interesting:
The Emergency Motion asks the Court to instruct the Board to put me back on the ballot, citing sound arguments that the amended bylaws, that gave authority to the Nominating Subcommittee, are not legal under Pennsylvania law.
The Complaint lays out our case: Penn State is a public institution that receives taxpayer money, so they have to follow Pennsylvania law. There are several key areas where the amended bylaws do not follow the law, most egregiously by treating some trustees differently than others, known as ‘disparate treatment’. It is illegal in Pennsylvania.
Abridged from the complaint:
- “For instance, Defendants have repeatedly chosen to ignore serious misconduct by other trustees, including threats against other trustees – clear violations of the Trustee Code of Conduct – while simultaneously wielding the same Trustee Code of Conduct to punish Plaintiff for his free expression concerning policy disputes, or more troubling, his pursuit of critical information (which he is lawfully entitled to) concerning the assets and liabilities of the University.”
- “Section 2.03(c) is draconian gag order that amounts to a complete extinguishment of Plaintiffs fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution*: “That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the liberty of the press ought not to be restrained.”
- “Board leadership does not get to determine, narrow, or deny a trustee’s information requests or otherwise determine what is ‘reasonably related’. That is a legal standard that is decided by the Courts, not the Defendants. Permitting the Defendants to make this determination would amount to the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.”
As you can see, these filings are robust and took a great deal of work. I am grateful to our legal team of attorneys Terry Mutchler and Justin Boehret of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP for their hard work putting it together. As a reminder, Penn State hired the fourth largest law firm in the United States, Jones Day, as defense counsel immediately after the Nominating Subcommittee vote to remove me from the ballot and have an almost unlimited bucket of taxpayer money to pay them with.
Your support has been critical, and I have been touched by everyone who has reached out to me. If we are successful and the judge rules that I must be listed on the ballot, voting begins April 21st. I would be honored to have your vote and continue representing the alumni on the Penn State Board of Trustees.
*This law was enacted in 1776, thirteen years before it was included in the United States Constitution, and has been included and strengthened in all subsequent revisions.
