Sen. Baker, Rep. Pugh respond to uncertainty surrounding Penn State-WB, others
May 13—WILKES-BARRE — Sen. Lisa Baker and Rep. Brenda Pugh on Tuesday said they are calling for transparency, accountability and a commitment to the communities the Commonwealth Campuses serve.
In light of reports that Penn State University is considering the closure of several of its campuses, including Penn State Wilkes-Barre, Sen. Baker, R-Lehman Township, and Rep. Pugh, R-Dallas Township, are continuing to monitor the situation.
"This is an unfortunate juncture for our communities and for the future of higher education in the region," said Sen. Baker and Rep. Pugh. "Penn State has disserved us by using a process that was secretive, arbitrary, and lacking in analysis of community viewpoints and needs."
While Penn State has said no final decision has been made, the two legislators said the Pennsylvania Department of Education has confirmed that the university has not formally initiated the required process to close any campus.
The legislators said under state law, such a closure must be submitted for review and approved by the Secretary of Education following detailed evaluation. That process has not yet begun.
In the meantime, the legislators said they are introducing a bill requiring public hearings prior to shuttering any state-related universities.
They are also exploring the creation of a special initiative — like the State Facility Closure Transition Program — to ensure adequate community support in directly impacted and contiguous areas.
"Our Commonwealth Campuses play an essential role in expanding educational opportunity in rural and under-served areas," said Rep. Pugh and Sen. Baker. "The Wilkes-Barre campus is a cornerstone for our region — economically, academically and civically. Before any decision is made, there must be a full, transparent process, guided not only by regulations but by a genuine commitment to the students and communities who depend on these campuses."
Both Sen. Baker and Rep. Pugh emphasized that they would continue to monitor the situation closely and press for meaningful dialogue and public input as developments unfold.
Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
SWAT Raid Fallout: McKinney Ordered To Compensate Homeowner
A ruling years in the making affirms property rights in a case previously reported by The Dallas Express. A federal judge has ordered the City of McKinney to pay nearly $60,000 in damages to a woman whose home was destroyed during a 2020 SWAT standoff—despite her having no connection to the fugitive inside. Vicki Baker, a cancer patient and retired grandmother, was preparing to relocate to Montana when police descended on her property. The SWAT team was pursuing her former handyman, who had barricaded himself inside her McKinney home. 'I told them, 'Please don't destroy my house,'' Baker recalled to NBC 5. They did anyway. What followed was a five-year legal battle in which the city refused to pay for the $60,000-plus in property damage, forcing Baker to dip into her retirement savings just to make the home livable again. With the help of the Institute for Justice, Baker took the city to court, arguing that government agents who destroy private property—regardless of motive—should be held financially accountable. 'We're trying to establish that even if the government is acting for a legitimate reason, they must compensate property owners for what they destroy,' said attorney Jeffrey Redfern. The city previously offered a partial settlement, but Baker refused, pushing for full compensation and a broader legal precedent. Last week, a federal judge agreed and ordered McKinney to pay $59,656.69. City officials told NBC 5 they are 'evaluating options for appealing the ruling.' Baker, now retired and living on Social Security, says she fought not just for herself but for others who might one day find themselves in her position. 'It was disastrous for me, but what if it were a single mom with no savings? Someone has to stand up,' she said. The ruling could signal a growing trend of courts reining in unchecked government immunity when innocent citizens bear the cost of public safety operations.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests
If you're a member of the Bay State's political and chattering class, and you needed a reminder that Massachusetts is officially in the thick of a gubernatorial campaign season, then you didn't have to look much further than your email inbox on Monday. There, you would have found dueling press releases from Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, the two former Baker administration officials dueling for the GOP nomination for the Corner Office in 2026. The target, inevitably, was Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who'd signed onto a statement with her fellow Democratic governors criticizing the Trump administration's decision to federalize National Guard forces in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles. The statement, issued through the Democratic Governors Association, took the Republican White House to task for its unusual decision to sidestep Golden State Gov. Gavin Newsom when it called in the National Guard — which 700 U.S. Marines have since supplemented. The White House's end-run was 'an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their National Guard, and activating them within their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous,' the DGA's statement asserted. Kennealy, who served as Baker's housing and economic development czar, was first out of the gate at little after 4 p.m., arguing that, by opposing the federal response, the Democratic incumbent was 'legitimizing criminal behavior under the guise of protest.' Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under Baker, followed up around 6:30 p.m. He got in a similar shot, condemning Healey for appearing to side with 'rioting protesters waving foreign flags' who were 'violently attacking American law enforcement officers.' Shortsleeve also slammed Healey for her management of the state's hugely expensive migrant crisis and, by implication, her criticism of the aggressive tactics of federal immigration agents as they've rounded up undocumented people across the state. 'If cooperation between the federal and state governments is what she wants, you wouldn't know it by her refusal to work in an orderly way to ensure criminal illegal immigrants in our state were delivered to federal law enforcement for deportation instead of released onto our streets,' Shortsleeve said. Kennealy, who didn't explicitly mention the migrant crisis, but who has been publicly critical, observed that 'when the federal government offers help to restore order and protect citizens, we take it — because doing the right thing for our people should always come before scoring partisan points.' Read More: Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek Taken together, the broadsides from the two Republican hopefuls were a reminder that the migrant crisis, which has subsided in its intensity, remains a potent line of attack, and that the Democratic incumbent remains vulnerable on the issue. More than half of respondents (52%) to a UMass Amherst/WCVB-TV poll in February, for instance, said they disapproved of the Arlington Democrat's management of the shelter crisis. Their mood was reflective of national trends. A broader UMass poll in April found Americans to be of 'two minds' on the issue, supporting a path to citizenship, even as they supported the White House's moves against migrants with criminal records. A CBS News poll completed before Saturday's unrest in Los Angeles, however, provided a reminder that public patience for the White House's tactics extends only so far. That's because support for enforcement against non-criminals drops off precipitously, the poll found. While 55% of respondents approved of Trump's deportation goals, only 44% approved of his approach to the deportation effort. Healey, in public appearances, repeatedly has drawn that line. She's stressed that she supports taking criminals off the streets, even as she's decried the apparent shroud of secrecy that's enveloped the apprehension of such noncriminal migrants as Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk and Milford High School student-athlete Marcelo Gomes da Silva. Read More: Gov. Healey demands answers after ICE arrests Mass. high school student 'This is part of the problem that we're seeing with ICE across the country. And certainly here in Massachusetts, people are being picked up. We have no information about their circumstances,' Healey said after an unrelated news conference at the State House last month. 'There have been real questions raised about due process and whether or not ICE and immigration officials are ... complying with due process here and in other states. And we need answers.' It's not clear, however, if the Massachusetts voters were grasping the subtlety of that policy fine line. An internal poll by Kennealy's campaign pointed to a similar vulnerability for Healey on immigration issues, The Boston Herald reported last month. And 49% of respondents to a University of New Hampshire poll last week said they approved of her job performance, compared to 45% who said they disapproved. With the poll's 3.3% margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat. Even still, Healey's loyalists pounced on the UNH canvass, dismissing it as an outlier, as they pointed to other public polling that showed her more broadly popular overall. 'Governor Healey is going to earn reelection because she understands Massachusetts people need someone who's going to fight to lower costs for them, going to fight to increase housing opportunities for them, going to fight back against Donald Trump,' state Democratic Party Chairperson Steve Kerrigan said during an interview on WBZ-TV's 'Keller @ Large' program that aired last weekend. 'And frankly, neither Mike Kennealy nor Brian Shortsleeve are willing to do any of that.' The lingering question is what happens if Massachusetts, which already has been targeted by the White House, finds itself facing a Los Angeles-style protest that results in Trump doing a gubernatorial end-run by federalizing the state National Guard or, at its extreme end, dispatching U.S. troops to Boston or some other city. If elected, would Kennealy or Shortsleeve acquiesce in the face of such an action? Or would they protest a usurpation of their executive authority? At that point, the question moves from political to practical. Healey staked out her territory with that DGA statement. The responses from Shortsleeve and Kennealy would speak volumes about how they intend to lead during what presumably would be the final two years of Trump's term. That's something that Massachusetts voters would have to decide for themselves. Which makes their answers bear watching. Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Math is hard. Midterm math is harder. The lessons Mass. needs to learn for 2026 | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Penn State trustees agree to legal training, improved transparency in settlement with Spotlight PA
This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for Talk of the Town, a weekly newsletter of local stories that dig deep, events, and more from north-central PA, at Penn State University's Board of Trustees will complete a training on the state's open meetings law and disclose more information about its closed-door gatherings as part of a settlement with Spotlight PA. The agreement, signed last week, ends a case the newsroom, in partnership with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, brought against the board in December 2023 for alleged violations of the Sunshine Act, the state law mandating transparency from governing bodies. 'The settlement ensures that one of Pennsylvania's most influential institutions will conduct its business with the transparency that taxpayers, students, faculty, and staff deserve,' said Christopher Baxter, CEO and president of Spotlight PA. 'The university's most recent decision to close seven campuses — and the effect it will have on communities across the state — underscores the need for these important reforms.' Neither Penn State nor board leadership responded to a request for comment for this story. Spotlight PA has documented the board's decadelong use of private meetings and practices that may have run afoul of the state's transparency law, including that university leadership met privately with trustees to discuss Penn State's multimillion-dollar budget deficit and to consider naming the football field after former coach Joe Paterno. Internal board communications, previously obtained by the newsroom, revealed that board leadership directed trustees to ask questions during a private session rather than at a public meeting, a request a media law attorney described as a 'gigantic red flag.' Penn State has already altered some of its practices to increase transparency. In October, a committee of top university officials held its first public meeting since 2011. Under the new settlement agreement, every meeting of the executive committee must be publicized on the board's website, and the board must continue to publish the group's meeting agendas. Additionally, according to the settlement, the board will hold a Sunshine Act training for trustees and publicly report which members completed the session. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records is scheduled to provide the training on Sept. 11, according to the agency's calendar. Incoming trustees will be offered the training starting in 2026. Liz Wagenseller, executive director of the Office of Open Records, said in a statement that the state's open meetings law 'plays a vital role in ensuring the public can see how tax dollars are spent and how government entities operate. The Office of Open Records values every invitation to assist agencies and others subject to the law in better understanding their obligations regarding public meetings. We look forward to working with the Penn State Board of Trustees to help uphold the transparency and accountability the Act is designed to promote.' For years, the Penn State board has met behind closed doors with university officials in 'conference,' a practice allowed under the law for 'any training program or seminar, or any session arranged by State or Federal agencies for local agencies, organized and conducted for the sole purpose of providing information to agency members on matters directly related to their official responsibilities.' The public had limited insight into these gatherings. Under the agreement, the board will disclose the person providing the training and the topic. Similarly, when the trustees hold an executive session, the board will publicly say the reason why and cite the legal exemption that allows for the private meeting. The terms of the settlement will last for five years. Read the full agreement here. 'This is such an important win for transparency in the Commonwealth,' said Paula Knudsen Burke, the Pennsylvania attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who represented Spotlight PA in the case. 'The university and its board of trustees are ultimately accountable to the people of Pennsylvania, and their business is the public's business. This agreement, which explicitly includes Sunshine Act compliance training, sets a clear expectation that they can no longer hide behind closed doors and executive sessions.' The settlement ends more than 18 months of legal arguments in local court. In October 2023, Spotlight PA and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent the board a letter requesting the trustees 'immediately cease holding improper executive sessions and conferences, advertise and record meeting minutes for all public meetings, and halt the practice of deliberating in secret.' The university's vice president and general counsel, Tabitha Oman, responded that she was 'confident that the Board has taken its official actions and conducted its deliberations in compliance' with the law. During the board's November 2023 meetings in University Park, Spotlight PA witnessed what it believed were potential violations of the open meetings law, prompting the lawsuit in Centre County Court of Common Pleas. After the board's February and May 2024 meetings, the lawsuit was amended to include additional allegations. Throughout the legal process, Penn State argued its trustees followed the law. 'Penn State is a more transparent institution than it was a year and a half ago thanks to Spotlight PA and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,' said Sarah Rafacz, managing editor of Spotlight PA's State College bureau. 'With this agreement in place, we will see more public disclosures about the business of the trustees than ever before. Our push for transparency will also continue through our tenacious accountability reporting on the university.' In September, Commonwealth Court will tentatively hear arguments in an ongoing case between Penn State and the state Department of Education against Spotlight PA to decide whether university documents the Office of Open Records previously deemed public should be turned over to the newsroom. and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
