In conjunction with the release of Parts I and II of my 'Swept Under the PSU Rug Series', I ask all Penn State stakeholders--faculty, staff, administrators, students past, present, & future, greater State College and Middle Pennsylvania communities--to please sign the petition in support of the recommendations put forth in Part II of the Swept Under the PSU Rug proposal.

​

SUBJ.: ​In Memoriam of Elie Wiesel

================================================================================
​We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
-Elie Wiesel
Crowdrise for Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity

A couple of months ago, I was in DC and stopped at a dessert standby of mine (DBGB). It was a weekday afternoon around 3pm; thus, nearly completely empty aside from the staff meal and wine training in the rear just off the kitchen. I took a seat in the middle of the bar and asked for the dessert menu. A man with sun-soaked skin in a polo--seemingly out-of-place in the white linen brasserie--made some unobtrusive 'small talk' in his thick Southern accent.

When I told him that I was from Penn State, his eyes lit up and he told the bartender that whatever I wanted was on him, assuring me that he (20+ years my senior) was not hitting on me. He moved down into the seat next to me and insisted again that he was not hitting on me but that he really loved Penn State (I believed him, noting that I've bartended enough to have a decent 'read' on people). His polo, it turns out was sporting Alabama colors, and so I had to ask why he had so much enthusiasm for a school that wasn't even in his conference.

On September 30th, 2016, the College of Engineering’s ENGAGE climate survey results were presented in back-to-back town halls by Dr. Sue Rankin of Rankin & Associates, the consulting group that performed the survey.  The town hall, full report, and executive summary are still available at: https://www.engr.psu.edu/engage/

The 9-minute (loosely-)transcripted contiguous YouTube audio excerpt below includes the Rankin's broad-sweeping generalization at the end of the talk that highlights systemic issues in the College of Engineering and is followed by Q&A with the audience. An interjection from Josh Troxell, who served as the College of Engineering safety officer at the time, noted some of the figures presented were "above safety thresholds". The College of Engineering Dean Amr at the time, who commissioned the climate survey, indicated that he sought for the survey to serve as a benchmark for recurring surveys, tentatively slated every 3 years, to hopefully demonstrate progress. 

Rankin also pointed out data that was a likely symptom of the poor climate in the college, stating "You're losing faculty. You're losing them. They come but they don't stay". I could hazard some guesses as to why... but won't here now. ​​

Outside of the excerpt, I personally found Rankin to be an incredibly compelling, engaging speaker. Very much a no-nonsense, straight-shooter. It's been a while but if memory serves, she explained her backstory, which included quite amazingly being fired from Penn State twice but hired three times. Her firing was part of the subject of the Training Rules documentary, (I haven't watched it FYI) which looked at LGBTQ discrimination by former Penn State women's basketball coach Rene Portland.  The Orlando mass shootings of LGBTQ-friendly club Pride had occurred just a few months prior to the town hall and Rankin spoke on how heart-breaking it was for someone that had devoted their life and career to paving a better, safer future for the next generation of LGBTQ individuals. Suffice to say, she exuded gravitas--that was a refreshing change to academia. ​

Rankin cited her frustration frankly with academia, saying "I'm sick in higher ed... collect the data, make a nice little task force, they create some nice actions that go into a plan. Where does the plan go?... on a shelf. That's not gonna happen in this case. I've been promised, right?" She turned to Dean Amr, who shortly thereafter took a new position at the University of Houston. Unfortunately, the scope of her study was limited to the College of Engineering where the Dean would represent only an 'n of 1'. Otherwise, I might be able to ask what her data says about the retention of university deans. 

Based on Elnashai's promise, 2019 would be the next benchmarking year. Looks like, however, that Elnashai's torch won't be carried on by new Dean Justin Schwartz---not that Elnashai's quiet, nearly indiscernible ramblings projected confidence in the promise of his follow-through. 

At the September 27th, 2017 town hall for Penn State University faculty & staff, Executive VIce President and Provost Nick Jones said "the days of [using air quotes gesture] "cost-of-living increases" (see video below), those days are pretty much behind us". In lieu of cost-of-living raises, a general salary increase pool is to be divvied out in a merit-based fashion. 

Jones goes onto explain that the general salary increase pool was based on 2% in 2017, explaining that receiving a raise above or below that 2% average would be meritocratic. Just over a month later, Nick Jones and other Penn State executives receive 'modest' merit-based raises with approval from the Committee on Compensation. In Jones' case, he received a $12,000 raise to a total salary of $542,532---representing a 2.26% increase. In the zero sum game of a 'general salary increase pool', that $1,389.36 was collectively not awarded to Penn State employees who performed worse than Nick Jones.

So, let's consider Nick Jones' merit. ​

In 2017, Penn State had record-breaking research expenditures of $863M, of which $534M were federal research dollars. In tandem, Penn State also increased the magnitude of its "reduction to cap" from 6.6% to 8.1%. If you're thinking, I have no idea what "reduction to cap" means, you would not be alone. "Reduction to cap" refers to the percentage of research overhead (otherwise known as facilities and administration [F&A Rate]) that exceeds the 26% cap that is set by federal grant guidelines (CFR200). The significance of "reduction to cap" is that it's the portion of research administration that is NOT subsidized by federal research dollars. In conversation with Richard Killian from the Office of the University Comptroller on April 24th, 2017, Richard Killian volunteered that the "reduction to cap" is, therefore, functionally subsidized by out-of-state undergraduate tuition.​

So let's talk about what that means in actual dollars and cents.

$534M is the amount of federal funds awarded to Penn State. Not all of these funds would incur the cost of research administration. Things like equipment and participant costs (e.g.  compensation / rewards provided to participants in food testing, medical studies) don't incur the cost of research administration. Additionally, subcontracts to other entities only incur research overhead fees on the first $25K of a subcontract. I have no way to discern what portion of that $534M were not subject to research administration, however, so to be conservative, let's just cut the amount by 25% and say $400M. If $400M of federal funds had research overhead applied when in the 2017 Fiscal Year (when 'reduction to cap' was 8.1%), that would mean that out-of-state undergraduate tuition would have had to subsidize $20,467,467 of research administration costs. 

For ease, I have also made this spreadsheet available so that anyone can input 1) current F&A, 2) current reduction to cap, and 3) total federal funds [under the same premise as above e.g. no equipment, subcontracts] to return the amount of undergraduate tuition 'subsidy' required. 

Granted, Penn State is not the only university that must find a way to pay for research administrative costs on federal grants when they exceed the 26% cap, however, there are big ten universities that keep their research administrative costs at 26% like Northwestern, Michigan State, and Ohio State. This cost competitiveness in research administration to me seems like relevant criteria to the Executive Vice President of Penn State in consideration for a merit-based raise, particularly in a year when the Board of Trustees also authorized a 2.74% tuition hike---even if it was for the in-state undergraduates.  

Hey, maybe, it's just me. Maybe others love the sound of his Australian accent as he sells the idea of a meritocracy in order to advance his own salary faster... but ummm, I'm thinking not the kind of university leadership I had in mind. 

Note that all of these research accounting #shenanigans are explained in the video below. This video is also included in a playlist of videos that also explains cost-share and research incentive funds, I feel, much better than Penn State's brochure. ​

In conjunction with the release of Parts I & II of my Swept Under the PSU Rug series, I implore all stakeholders in Penn State University---faculty, staff, alumni past, present, & future, and the greater State College community---to please sign my petition to accept all of the recommendations put forth in Part II of the Series.