Penn State trustees won't put Barry Fenchak on ballot for reelection to board. What to know
An outspoken member of the Penn State board of trustees was deemed unqualified and ineligible to be on the ballot for reelection Wednesday during a meeting of a newly created nominating subcommittee.
The Penn State board of trustees' nominating subcommittee voted 8-1 that Barry Fenchak, an alumni-elected trustee, is unqualified and ineligible to have his name on the ballot in the upcoming alumni trustee election. He's been on the board since 2022, with a tumultuous past year that has included suing the university and board for withholding financial information from him, and surviving the board's attempt to remove him.
The subcommittee, chaired by Daniel Onorato, reviewed 19 candidates who received the required 50 signatures and submitted the appropriate paperwork to be on the ballot. Subcommittee members had objections to three candidates overall but only had a 2/3 majority vote to deem Fenchak ineligible.
Daniel Delligatti, vice chair of the subcommittee, said he had concerns about Fenchak because his record of service includes eight letters advising him he failed to abide by board standards of conduct. He specifically mentioned one letter, which detailed Fenchak's 'inappropriate behavior' toward a university employee last summer that violated the board's past expectations of memberships and current code of conduct.
After the board's July meeting, Fenchak loosely repeated a quote from the PG-rated movie 'A League of Their Own' in which Tom Hanks' character told a baseball umpire he looked like a 'penis with a little hat on' to a female staff member. The board previously tried to permanently remove Fenchak from the board in the fall because of the incident.
'Two other employees witnessed the interaction and corroborated the account. All three employees indicated that comments made them feel uncomfortable and that they did not end the conversation with candidate Fenchak in light of the position as a trustee. Based on this incident, candidate Fenchak's materials do not reflect alignment with Penn State's mission and values, and for that reason, I move that candidate unqualified and not included in the ballot,' Delligatti said. Trustee Randy Black seconded the motion.
Jay Paterno was the only other subcommittee member to speak. He said based on the process that was outlined, this is outside the scope of their review to disqualify candidates. The criteria used to evaluate candidates includes the candidate's alignment with Penn State's mission and values, the contribution of needed skills the candidate would bring, past professional and personal leadership experience, demonstrated engagement and contributions to the university, which for incumbents includes a review of their record of service with the board, and a background check.
The meeting was held via Zoom and Fenchak had his hand raised to speak, but Onorato said non-subcommittee members were unable to participate in the deliberations.
Trustees Delligatti, Black, Robert Beard, Robert Fenza, Chris Hoffman, Ali Krieger, Nicholas Rowland and Mary Lee Schneider voted in favor of deeming Fenchak unqualified and to not put his name on the ballot. Paterno voted against the motion.
When the board tried to remove Fenchak in the fall, the issue went to court as part of a lawsuit Fenchak filed against the board. The judge blocked the board from removing him as trustee.
Fenchak told the Centre Daily Times he needed to consult with his legal counsel about the board's decision because to him, it appears that the vote violates the judge's injunction by not allowing him on the ballot.
'I am not surprised this happened, because of the well-documented pattern of retaliatory actions that the Board of Trustees has imposed upon me since I became a trustee,' Fenchak said in a text message.
This is the first election cycle under bylaws that were updated in the summer, a controversial decision that gave the trustees a bigger say in who can appear on the ballot in the alumni trustee election. They created a nominating subcommittee and gave them the ability to review alumni trustee candidates and determine whether candidates are qualified to be on the ballot.
The nominating subcommittee consists of representatives from all the different categories of trustees. The 'rubric' that the subcommittee will use to determine if candidates are qualified can change each election based on the board's needs. It is part of the subcommittee's operating guidelines, which are approved by the committee on governance and long-range planning and full board.
Twenty-two candidates received 50 nominations from electors. One person withdrew their nomination and two were ineligible. Of the 19 remaining candidates, Fenchak was the only candidate deemed unqualified.
Motions to deem two other candidates as unqualified due to lack of experience were brought forward but did not receive a 2/3 majority vote, and therefore will be on the ballot.
Another change under the new bylaws was to reduce the number of nominations needed from 250 to 50 as an effort to increase participation in the election.
'One of our key goals as a board has been to increase participation in the alumni trustee election process. We are encouraged by both the number of candidates and the level of alumni engagement in the nomination process this year, as I noted, 22 candidates initially met the requirement to submit nominations from 50 electors, compared to last year, when only five candidates met the previous threshold of 250 nominations,' Onorato said.
There was also an increase in the total number of nomination ballots cast, he said.
There are nine alumni-elected trustees in all and they serve staggered three-year terms with three seats becoming open each year. The election will begin on April 21. Alumni will have until 9 a.m. May 8 to cast their vote. For more information on the alumni trustee election, visit trustees.psu.edu/election.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Will Penn State trustees remove Barry Fenchak from board? Special meeting scheduled
The Penn State board of trustees scheduled a special meeting for Monday to vote on removing one of its most outspoken board members. The board will meet virtually at 3 p.m. Monday, June 16 to consider a proposal recommending removing trustee Barry Fenchak from the board. A vote in favor of doing so would make Fenchak permanently ineligible to serve on the board again. Fenchak is an alumni-elected trustee whose three-year term expires June 30. He submitted materials and garnered enough signatures to appear on the trustee election ballot to run for a second term, but the board ruled he was unqualified and ineligible to appear on the ballot. He ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign. The board previously tried to permanently remove Fenchak from the board in the fall because of an incident that occurred after the board's July 2024 meeting. Fenchak loosely repeated a quote from the PG-rated movie 'A League of Their Own' in which Tom Hanks' character told a baseball umpire he looked like a 'penis with a little hat on' to a female staff member. A board subcommittee found it to be a code of conduct violation and unanimously recommended his removal. When the board tried to remove him, the issue went to court as part of a lawsuit Fenchak filed against the board. The judge blocked the board from removing him as trustee a day before the vote was scheduled, finding Fenchak had provided 'uncontradicted evidence of a broad pattern of retaliatory behavior' by the board. But the judge, Brian Marshall, lifted that preliminary injunction in May — paving way for his removal — after finding the basis for it had since become moot. He granted the injunction in the fall after Fenchak showed the board was trying to remove him in retaliation for his repeated requests for information, namely the university's approximately $4.57 billion endowment and a reportedly $1 billion athletic department contract with a ticketing and fan engagement agency. But in the seven months since, Fenchak was given 510 pages of information related to the endowment and a complete, unredacted copy of the contract with Elevate. He can no longer claim he is subject to removal from the board because of those specific requests, Marshall wrote in his ruling. Reporter Bret Pallotto contributed to this report.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Penn State Wins NIL Defamation Suit Filed by Ex-Basketball Captain
A Pennsylvania federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Penn State men's basketball captain Kanye Clary against the school and head coach Mike Rhoades because Clary failed to offer necessary specifics in his accusations. Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that Clary did not 'identify the audience of the allegedly defamatory statements' and failed to include dates for some statements. Other statements weren't identified as false or were 'too vague' to support a viable claim, Brann wrote. Advertisement More from Clary, a 5-foot-11 guard and former four-star recruit out of Massanutten Military Academy (Woodstock, VA), played two seasons at Penn State from 2022 to 2024. He transferred to Mississippi State for the 2024-25 season and will play at Oklahoma State in 2025-26. Clary sued last December. He contends that Rhoades mistreated him in several ways. As Clary tells it, Rhoades 'dismissed' his concerns about 'lax discipline' and too much 'leniency' for teammates arriving late, showing disrespect and violating other team rules. As Rhoades objected to some teammates 'receiving preferential treatment,' he says he became the target of retribution. The allegedly strained relationship between Clary and Rhoades played a role in Clary's NIL dealings or lack there-of. He says that in January 2024, his family reached out to Rhoades to question why Clary, who was the Nittany Lions' leading scorer in 2023-24, had no NIL deals. The family also suggested that Penn State and an affiliated collective, Happy Valley United, were illegally using his NIL in social media and marketing materials. That discussion, Clary contends, led to Rhoades sending him an NIL contract that would have been between the player and Happy Valley. Advertisement Clary refused to sign since he believed the deal would have underpaid him. He insists the 'retaliation' against him only 'escalated' thereafter. To make matters worse for Clary, he sustained a concussion during a game in January 2024. He says the concussion gave Rhodes additional 'ways' to punish him. He says Rhoades 'spread a false narrative' that Clary 'improperly missed classes' when (Claims claims) he was excluded due to recovery from his concussion. Clary also asserts that Rhoades suggested he was failing his classes when he was only missing one assignment because of concussion symptoms and that he wanted to transfer for NIL related reasons. Rhoades, the player adds, also said Clary improperly used the word 'bro' when 'the entire team and coaching staff used that term.' Further, Clary refers to teammates overhearing coaches badmouth him 'behind his back' and believes the alleged badmouthing was 'at the behest of Coach Rhodes.' Clary's father, Anthony Clary, also claims that another coach relayed to him that Rhoades was slandering his son. Those alleged comments made it harder for Clary to transfer and the experience caused him to suffer from 'anger, resentment and depression.' The defendants deny the allegations, but Brann wrote the more relevant legal issue is that Clary's complaint fails to adequately plead defamation. Under Pennsylvania law, Clary must allege specifics about the supposedly defamatory words, including the speaker, the date, to whom the statement was made and an assertion the statement was, in fact, false. Generalized assertions that someone else is saying reputationally harmful statements is not enough. Advertisement To that end, Brann reasoned that Clary's assertions fail for one reason or another. For instance, Rhoades' allegedly claiming Clary was failing his courses lacks details as to whom those comments were directed and when they were made. Also, claims regarding use of the word 'bro' are not described in the complaint as untrue. Brann provided Clary an opportunity to file an amended complaint by June 24. Whether Clary can offer the necessary specifics remains to be seen. Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.