Faculty Assembly

Minutes

University of Pittsburgh
Faculty Assembly Meeting
February 25, 2003

1. President Cassing called the meeting to order at 3:08 PM.
2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of January 28, 2003 were approved as corrected.
3. President Cassing asked for new items of business for the meeting.
There were none.
4. Remarks of the President, James Cassing.
· The Faculty Medical and Family Leave Policy has been revised. The Senate Benefits and Welfare Committee voted to support the revisions recommended by the Provost’s Office. If anyone wants a copy, call the Senate Office.
· The Senate Committee for Elections continues to meet. Ballots will be complete within the next couple of weeks and should be in the mail the first week of April.
· There was some discussion at last month’s Faculty Assembly meeting about the Conflict of Interest Policy. The Conflict of Interest Committee does include two faculty members who are appointed by the Executive Committee of the Senate. Currently the Senate members are Jim Cassing and Ellen Cohn of the School of Health and Rehabilitation Science.
· The resolution from the Anti-discriminatory Policies Committee that was passed by the Faculty Assembly at its last meeting was transmitted to the Administration. President Cassing said he expected to receive feedback later.
· President Cassing asked Immediate Past President Nathan Hershey to discuss a draft for an expedited grievance procedure. Prof. Hershey said that there had been a number of complaints that the current grievance procedure is too slow, apparently because of the difficulty of scheduling the faculty panel meetings. It also takes a long time for panel reports to be prepared. The Senate asked the administration to prepare an alternative, expedited procedure and one was drawn up by the General Counsel, Alan Garfinkel. The Provost submitted the draft to President Cassing during the fall term, but reminded him that this was at the request of the Senate, not the administration. Prof. Hershey said the main difference from the current procedure is who runs the panel. The expedited procedure uses a hearing officer in place of a panel of faculty members. Professor Hershey raised the following concerns about the proposed expedited procedure. In Procedure IV B 1b., why should the Provost have the power to reject a faculty member’s election of the alternative procedure? There is no limit on the Provost’s choice of a hearing officer, yet the faculty member is bound once the election of the alternative is permitted. It is not clear from where the hearing officer would be selected; should there be any qualifications to limit the absolute freedom of choice by the Provost? Professor Hershey suggested two possible alternatives to the idea of no rejection of the alternative, four possible alternatives to no limit on choice of hearing officer, and one alternative to the idea that the faculty member is locked into the expedited procedure. Regarding the idea of no rejection, one alternative would be no rejection of the election by the Provost and the other would be that the Provost should provide a reason for the rejection in writing. This requires a standard to be applied for an acceptable reason for rejection. Four possible alternatives for the hearing examiner selection process are: a) the Provost selects a faculty panel of three; b) the panel chooses one of its members to serve as hearing officer; c) the Provost selects three possible hearing officers and then the faculty member selects one to serve as a hearing officer; d) the President of the Senate selects a faculty panel of three from membership of the Faculty Assembly and the Provost chooses one to serve as hearing officer. As an alternative to being locked into the alternative procedure, the faculty member might have the option to switch back to the regular procedure within a short time, such as 14 days after the hearing officer is named.

Questions and Answers
Professor Baker asked how a panel is chosen for the current procedure and Professor Hershey and Vice Provost Blair said it was through a pool approach.
Professor Belle asked about the reactions of the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee and Professor Hershey said it had not responded.
Professor Baker said the idea of appointing an ad hoc committee to review the proposal came up at the TAF meeting in December but they did not have a document to review at that time.
Vice Provost Blair said that this proposal is a proposed expedited procedure for both grievances and appeals.
Professor Wion said the TAF Committee designed the current approach and it should be the group to review this expedited proposal.
Professor Munro said the denial of tenure can be at the level of the Provost or dean or faculty; procedures may depend on who denies the faculty member tenure. Professors Cassing and Hershey said there is a procedure for when the Provost makes the decision.
Professor Pinsky said the issue was discussed twice in the TAFC; members thought the problem was that the current policy was not being followed in a timely manner. They wanted more timely application of the current policy, not a fast-track policy.
Professor Hershey said an expedited procedure does not stop TAF from making recommendations on the regular procedure. Regarding the proposed expedited procedure, one possibility is a special committee and another is sending it back to TAF; however, a response is required. He noted that the proposal was received in October and it is now February.
Professor Wion said the Senate operates with standing committees and the issue belongs to Tenure and Academic Freedom. He recommended referring the proposal to TAF along with Professor Hershey’s comments.
Professor Cassing said he would charge the TAFC with reviewing the documents and reporting back expeditiously. Professor Jacobson requested that copies of the document be sent to TAF members.
Professor Costantino recommended that Faculty Assembly accept Professor Hershey’s Issues 3b (Provost explain any rejection in writing), 4b (Provost selects three possible hearing offers and faculty member chooses one) and 5 (faculty member can switch back to the regular process within 14 days after the hearing examiner is chosen). Professor Cassing responded that some people did not have the context of the full document. Professor Ansell said the document was made available in the Senate Office.
Professor Cassing ended the discussion by remanding the issue back to the TAFC for expeditious review.

· The spring plenary session will be held on Wednesday, March 19, at 2 PM in the Assembly Room of the William Pitt Union. The topic is: University Health Benefits: How Will Pitt Meet the Challenge? The keynote speaker is Sherman Folland, a health economist at Oakland University. Panelists will be Professor Nick Bircher, Nathan Hershey, and Gordon MacLeod. The Chancellor will offer welcoming remarks.

5. Reports by and Announcements of Special and Standing Committees of the Senate
Senate Budget Policies Committee, Professor Philip Wion, Chair
Professor Wion presented recommendations for Amending the Planning and Budgeting System based on the report of the PBS Evaluation Committee. Professor Wion said a subcommittee of SBPC was formed to develop proposed changes. That subcommittee included administrative liaisons—Vice Provost Pack, Mr. Ramicone and Mr. Henderson. Professor Wion distributed a report that included SBPC’s recommendations and their justification. A copy of the document was e-mailed to Faculty Assembly members and is available in the Senate Office. Professor Cassing asked about the appropriate procedure and Professor Wion replied that SBPC is asking for the Faculty Assembly to endorse its recommendations and send them to the Senate Council. Professor Wion reviewed some of the main points of his committee’s recommended amendments. He noted that in addition to providing specific language for changes proposed by the Evaluation Committee, they were recommending a number of other changes in the document, based on the experience with the system over the last ten years. The recommendations responding to the Evaluation Committee include the following: I.1.) Improvements in the sharing of information and reporting of panning and budgeting activities; I.2.) business and administrative units would no longer be required to have PBCs and in academic units, alternatives to PBCs would be permitted subject to the approval of the appropriate Senior Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the President of the Senate; I.3.) the three Senate Committees with membership on the SBPC can be represented by their chairs or by an elected member of these committees; I.4.) deans and regional campus presidents should discuss their planning and budgeting activities with the Provost or the Senior Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences. The following additional changes are recommended: II.1) references to a two-year budget cycle are dropped, since it has never been implemented and the reference to five-year plans is softened; II.2.) changes in the calendar are made to make processes more flexible or closer to actual process; II.3.) a number of mandates are shifted to options; II.4.) some requirements are eliminated as they were unrealistic or impractical—these include publication of budgets before they are approved by the Board of Trustees and UPBC authorization of faculty and staff recruitment and positions; II.5.) clarification of the role of the UPBC including clarifying that it is The Chancellor’s PBC, making explicit the UPBC’s role in developing budget parameters, and dropping the requirement that the UPBC receive and prioritize detailed plans and budgets for lower level units; and II.6.) dropping the requirement that requests for budget augmentations must be approved by the UPBC.

Questions and Answers
Professor Friedman asked about the effect of I.2. Would PBCs be abolished in many schools? Professor Wion explained that some non-academic units do not have PBC’s and the SBPC agrees that they are not required. The other issue is for academic units. In some cases the faculty might operate as the committee of the whole rather than having a PBC. SBPC is recommending that any change require the approval of the Senior Vice Chancellor and the Senate President. He also reminded Faculty Assembly that SBPC’s role includes hearing complaints from schools regarding representation of faculty in the budgeting process. In the past SBPC has investigated charges and recommended changes.
Regarding section 3.4.2 of the PBS document, Professor Hershey asked whether there should be a role for the UPBC with regard to response to a budget cut from the State in the middle of the year. Professor Wion said he would hope that the administration would come to UPBC and explain what it is going to do, but it has not done so and the document does not require this.

The SPBC recommendations were approved unanimously with no abstentions.

6. Unfinished Business and/or New Business
Resolution on Salary Increase, Professor John Baker
Professor Cassing reminded the Faculty Assembly that an amended resolution proposed by Professor Baker had been tabled at the last Faculty Assembly meeting. Secretary of the Senate, Professor Olson was asked to read the amended resolution from the last Faculty Assembly meeting. The resolution is:

Faculty Assembly recommends that University of Pittsburgh’s Board of Trustees give greater heed in the future to the Chancellor’s concern, as reported in the media, about the very large compensation increases and bonuses to himself and other top University officers in a time of severe campus budgetary problems which necessitated a 14% increase in tuition for students and a mere 3.5% raise in the faculty and staff compensation pool.

Professor Baker said that he was not dissatisfied with the Chancellor’s performance but there was a discrepancy between what the Board said and the facts. He brought statistics to defend his point. One piece of information was a list of salaries of the 131 Presidents of State Universities in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Although Chancellor Nordenberg’s salary was for the 2001 academic year, and most of the others were for 2002 or 2003, it still ranked 23rd of the 131. If the 2002 salary were used it would be seventh of 131. Some Trustees said his salary was measurably below his peers, but the evidence does not support their statement. The Trustees said the comparison group were presidents of unnamed universities within 500 miles of the University of Pittsburgh, but only one school within 500 miles has a higher salary for its president. Professor Baker noted that other senior administrators are well compensated with respect to other public universities. He said that there was a double standard between the treatment of senior administrators and the faculty. Professor Baker also presented an article from the University Times, dated May 11, 2000, where the administration was quoted as stating that the goal for faculty salaries should be changed from the AAU average to the average for public AAU schools. He commented that faculty salaries have dropped compared to average state AAU salaries and are far down the list. He thought that the Trustees must be making their salary comparisons with private universities. Even with private universities included, the chancellor’s new salary puts him in the top twenty percent.

Questions and Answers
Professor Meisel asked whether there was any discussion at the last Faculty Assembly meeting about passing a resolution that would tie executive compensation to faculty compensation. Professor Baker said that there was not, but there was a reference to average salary increases in his resolution.
Professor Hershey said that he had promoted a toned-down resolution. He noted that the numbers were revealing and that Trustees had probably relied on information from the administration. The resolution is a way of letting Trustees know that there was not a fair presentation of salary information. Their statements were factually incorrect.
Professor Munro said that he did not like the resolution. The Trustees think there is an image problem, but faculty salaries are the real problem.
Professor Wion said that the Trustees hired professional consultants to do the benchmarking. We do not know the benchmark institutions except that they are within 500 miles of Pittsburgh. Average faculty salaries have been benchmarked against AAU salaries and the administration is now pushing for comparison only with State AAU members. He noted that the AAU salaries are only averages and some Pitt faculty got big raises last year. He thought the appropriate comparison is the raises of highly meritorious people. He supports the resolution because it talks about the failure of the Board to consider the impact on others in the institution. The Board took too narrow a vision in its decision.
Professor Ansell said he did not see much in the resolution about misinformation.
Professor Pinsky said he did not want to delay things but he did not like the resolution. It should not focus on the salary increases per se, but on the misinformation. He suggested the resolution be modified to reject the statement of the Board of Trustees on peer review because of misinformation and because peer review should have applied to all faculty.
Professor Jacobson said he was uncomfortable with the data provided by Professor Baker because it does not reflect total compensation. Total compensation is more important than salary. The big problem is the drop in faculty salary. He also commented that the newspaper presentation was chaotic and Trustees were trying to create a fog. He asked that Faculty Assembly send a message that faculty salaries need attention.
Professor Friedman mentioned an article in the Chronicle about universities that have fund-raising campaigns to raise more than one billion dollars. Perhaps that was the peer group the Trustees used.
Professor Cassing said he was uncomfortable with the resolution. It was clear that there was a huge public relations mistake and there is a sense in the University that the Board does not understand the University; however, he thinks the University is moving forward and the resolution has a negative tone.
Professor Bircher said there are three issues that could be addressed: 1) the public relations debacle; 2) misinformation from the Board; and 3) disparity in salaries. The resolution addresses only the first issue.
Professor Hershey said he thought the resolution should be withdrawn if it appears that it would not pass. With all the discomfort, there is still no agreement on language that would be satisfactory.
Professor Pinsky said he would rather not address public relations. He would rather address faculty salaries and suggested a revision of the resolution to address the disparity of faculty salaries and then an email vote. Professor Wion replied that every year compensation recommendations are made by the SBPC and the UPBC. Salary data from Academe will be out in six weeks. He thought that our salary averages might have improved since the average of 3.5 percent increases last year was better than what many schools got.
Professor Close raised a point of order—should not the resolution have been the first item on the agenda since it was tabled at the previous meeting? It was agreed that an error had been made in not putting it first on the agenda.

The resolution was approved with a vote of 16 in favor, two against, and two abstentions.

7. Announcements
President Cassing announced that the next Senate Council meeting will be March 10, the Plenary Session will be Wednesday, March 19 at 2 PM and the next Faculty Assembly meeting will be April 1.

8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Josephine E. Olson, Secretary