In Mooney v. Temple University Board of Trustees, 448 Pa. 424, 292 A.2d 395 (1972) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Temple Act relied upon by Valentine in determining whether Temple University was subject to the provisions of the former statute commonly referred to as the Right to Know Law as a "state agency". In concluding that Temple University was not a "state agency", the Supreme Court noted the following regarding the provisions of the Temple Act: We conclude, as did the Commonwealth Court, that this latter declaration in Section 3 of the Temple Act reveals an express legislative intent to preserve Temple's status as a non-profit corporation chartered for educational purposes. The receipt by Temple of increased state financial aid no more transforms Temple into a state "agency" than the receipt of federal funds can make Temple an agency of the federal government. A review of the Temple Act further supports our conclusion. Appellants rely on various provisions of the Temple Act to bolster their contentions. They emphasize that the act altered the board of trustees by providing for appointment of four trustees respectively by the Governor, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House. Nevertheless, these twelve Commonwealth trustees remain only a one-third minority of the board's total number of thirty-six trustees. The majority of non-public trustees clearly retains the powers to manage and control the University. The act in its legislative findings describing Temple's status prior to passage of the act specifically declares that 'Temple University owns and maintains land, buildings, and other facilities which are used, together with land and buildings owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for higher education, which land, buildings, and other facilities are under the entire control and management of the board of trustees .... The Legislature then expressly directs that 'the entire management, control and conduct of the instructional, administrative, and financial affairs of the university is hereby vested in the board of trustees.' Additionally, the act provides that 'the board may exercise all powers and franchises of the university and make bylaws for their own government, as well as for the university. The act also directs that 'in accordance with legislative appropriations made as provided by law, the Commonwealth may, by agreement with the board of trustees, acquire lands, erect and equip buildings, and provide facilities for the use of the university. Had the Legislature intended to transform Temple into a 'state agency', it would be hardly necessary to require that the Legislature reach an agreement with the board of trustees before it can expand or alter Temple's facilities. This requirement further supports the conclusion that Temple is not a state "agency" for present purposes. Appellants also rely on fiscal controls, provided by the Temple Act to facilitate Commonwealth inspection of the University's expenditures of Commonwealth funds, to support their contention that Temple is now a state "agency". The Temple Act has clearly authorized increased financial assistance to Temple from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is obligated to provide sufficient funds to enable Temple to maintain the legislatively determined tuition and fee schedules. Temple is permitted to participate in Commonwealth programs for capital development and to support these programs the board of trustees is empowered to issue tax free bonds. It is, of course, a fundamental practice of government that its grants of public funds to an appropriate institution are generally accompanied by some regulatory mechanism in order to insure that the public funds are being properly expended. Mooney, 448 Pa. at 430-432, 292 A.2d at 399-400.