Penn State trustees’ private talks on campus closures are ‘exact type’ of discussions that should happen in public, expert says

Transparency advocates are questioning the Penn State Board of Trustees’ use of private meetings to discuss potential campus closures — including one who said the practice could run afoul of Pennsylvania’s open meetings law.

On Tuesday, Spotlight PA reported on internal university records about the campus closure proposal provided to trustees for review. Following publication of the story, Penn State shared the closure recommendation on its website. This document and others Spotlight PA has obtained have raised additional concerns about the university’s legal justification for excluding the public from discussions about the future of Penn State.

“It sounds to me like they’re discussing the issue behind closed doors because it is uncomfortable and controversial,” said Melissa Melewsky, media counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, of which Spotlight PA is a member. “But those aren’t reasons for executive sessions.”

Neither Penn State’s Office of Strategic Communication nor board leadership responded to a request for comment for this story. (The university generally does not comment on issues related to pending litigation. Spotlight PA is part of an ongoing lawsuit against the university’s board over alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s open meetings law.)

Trustees are scheduled to meet Thursday morning in private to discuss President Neeli Bendapudi’s proposal, which involves closing the DuBois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre, and York locations. Trustees also met behind closed doors last week to discuss the plan.

Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act allows governing boards like Penn State's to gather privately in executive session to discuss certain topics. These include pending or current litigation, academic standings, employment terms, real estate negotiations, or topics that “violate a lawful privilege” or disclose legally protected confidential information.

But the law requires that the governing board provide specific justification for the executive session, Melewsky said.

On Friday, during the trustees’ public meeting, board Chair David Kleppinger said the group met in executive session, and cited nearly every allowable exemption in the law. The board’s “discussion involved potential impacts on personnel and mitigation of those impacts,” as well as “consultation with legal counsel on legal implications” and “strategy as to how to address collective bargaining issues implicated by potential campus closures,” Kleppinger said.

Melewsky said she found the board chair’s disclosure to be lacking.

“This is the public’s only chance to understand why they’ve been excluded and to challenge that exclusion if they believe it’s improper,” she said. “So regurgitating the statute is not sufficient. A one-word or generic justification is not sufficient. There needs to be enough information for the public to determine if the executive session was appropriate under the law.”

For example, the law allows executive sessions for boards to discuss specific lawsuits or threatened legal action, Melewsky said. “The fact that some action might result in a lawsuit does not rise to the level of an executive session. Everything an agency does could result in a lawsuit.”

Likewise, governing bodies can discuss the employment of specific people or groups of workers in executive sessions, Melewsky said. But the exception, which Kleppinger cited, also says that employees being discussed can request that the board’s discussion be public.

Neither Penn State nor board leadership responded to a question about whether potentially affected employees were notified of the meeting or requested that the discussion be public.

The previously private recommendation document, which informs the trustees’ executive session discussions, contains public data on Penn State enrollment trends, financial figures, and population estimates in areas near a campus. For each campus under consideration, the administration offered a multi-paragraph reason for closing or investing in the location.

Other records obtained by Spotlight PA, whichPenn State did not make public, include answers to trustee questions, such as “What is the plan for university-owned properties at the seven campuses recommended for closure, including whether any properties will be sold, leased, or repurposed, and what financial and legal considerations are involved?”

The newsroom summarized the contents of the records to Melewsky, who said the information might be embarrassing for Penn State but does not appear to fit an allowable executive session exemption.

“That’s the exact type of discussion that should be happening amongst the board at a public meeting,” Melewsky said.

Legal experts previously told Spotlight PA that the trustees’ original plan to hold a virtual-only public meeting and vote on the proposed closure plan could run afoul of the Sunshine Act.

The board’s decision to discuss campus closures in private undermines the university’s credibility at a time when trust in higher education is already declining, said Amy Kristin Sanders. The lawyer and Penn State professor told Spotlight PA that people are more likely to accept a difficult decision when they feel heard.

“This is a controversial topic,” Sanders said. “Without a doubt, they are expecting intense scrutiny. There are going to be people who have very high levels of emotion. And I think that’s difficult to address and to answer to. But that’s the job. That’s the responsibility that a governing entity has to the public. It’s not always sunshine and roses.”

Spotlight PA, in partnership with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, sued the trustees in December 2023 for alleged violations of the Sunshine Act. The suit — which was amended to include additional allegations following the board’s February and May 2024 meetings — argues the trustees illegally conducted public business in private. The case is ongoing in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas.