Faculty Assembly

Minutes

University of Pittsburgh
Faculty Assembly Meeting
April 1, 2003

1. President Cassing called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM.
2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of February 25, 2003 were approved as written.
3. President Cassing asked for new items of business for the meeting.
Professor Jacobson said he had a motion and another item for discussion.
4. Remarks of the President, James Cassing.
· Ballots to elect Senate officers and members of Faculty Assembly have been mailed to all members of the University Senate. Everyone should receive a ballot by the end of the week. The deadline for returning the ballots is April 21. Ballots to elect members of Standing Committees will be mailed to Faculty Assembly members later this week.
· Professor Wion presented the Recommendations for Amending the Planning and Budgeting System Document to members of Senate Council at the March 10 meeting. Members of the Senate Council endorsed the recommendations. Once the Chancellor gives final approval, the revised document will be posted on the University’s website.
· The Resolution on Salary Increase approved by the Faculty Assembly last month was sent to the Chairman of the Board, Dr. Dietrich, on March 12.
· The speakers at the March 19 Plenary Session presented a broad and interesting range of views about health care benefits. The panelists, Professors Bircher, Hershey and MacLeod, had a lively discussion and there was a good audience. Professor Cassing noted that plenary sessions are a way of raising issues at the university.
· Professor Cassing mentioned that there is now a listserv for Senate presidents at the various AAU universities. This will allow Senate presidents and other officers to communicate with each other. It could be very useful.
· The expedited faculty grievance proposal was discussed by members of the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee (TAFC) at their March 11 meeting. President Cassing asked Professor Pinsky to report on it. Professor Pinsky said that TAFC did not support the idea of having an expedited process with a provost-appointed person running it, because it counters the idea of a “grievance committee.” The real problem is the delay in the grievance process. The committee has three recommendations: 1) that the Provost support the three-month limit; 2) that the Provost send committee members letters reminding them of the deadline; and 3) that the Provost remind schools of the process to be followed.

Questions and Answers
Professor Hershey asked what TAFC planned to do. Professor Pinsky said that after Faculty Assembly discussion, TAFC will go to the Provost to discuss these recommendations. Before, the Provost’s Office has had too much of a “hands off” view. There is no active case right now, which makes dealing with the issue simpler. After some more discussion, it was agreed that Professor Pinsky would bring a letter from TAFC to the next Faculty Assembly meeting for its review. Professor Brush asked that the letter be sent with the agenda. Professor Pinsky responded that he would email a copy to Ms. Czak who would then forward it on to members of Faculty Assembly.

5. Reports by and Announcements of Special and Standing Committees of the Senate
Community Relations Committee, Professor Tracy Soska, Chair
· Professor Soska said the committee wanted to give a follow-up report since the Plenary Session in spring 2001 on “The University in Civic Engagement: Service in the University Mission.” Four priorities came from the Senate Plenary Report: A) Improve campus dialog on and coordination of community service; B) Enhance discussion/inquiry linking service in teaching and research; C) Recognize and reward service scholarship and civic engagement; and D) Enhance service learning opportunities for students.
· Professor Soska asked Dr. John Wilds to report on the Community Outreach Service Database and Web Survey. Dr. Wilds said the Provost has asked the deans to ask their faculty to post their research and community service on an online database survey developed by the University Center for Social and Urban Research. Faculty and Administration will be able to access this database to see what kind of community service is going on. It can be used to inform the state legislature on research and service going on at Pitt, as well as helping the community access resources and expertise at Pitt. Professor Soska added that it is web-based and easy to update. He mentioned the development of a Nonprofit Technical Assistance Network developing across disciplines at the university and that the database might also capture this community service area.
· Professor Soska reported that CIDDE is strongly supporting service learning, and they have sponsored a number of workshops on the topic. Teaching Times also had an issue on service learning. Some Provost Innovations in Teaching awards went to service learning projects. CIDDE’s Board of Advisors is very interested in service learning.
· Pitt has a grant from HUD for a Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) now in its third and final year. The University is trying to institutionalize this initiative as a “center for civic engagement”, and Pitt’s efforts to institutionalize its COPC was featured in a recent HUD publication.
· The committee wants to explore the idea of an employee-assisted housing program for Oak Hill, Central and South Oakland, and Hazelwood. A new survey will be coming out shortly to survey Pitt and UPMC employees about interest in living where they work. Developing the homeowner versus the renter base in these neighborhoods is an important neighborhood revitalization strategy. Soska noted that the Oakland community groups are very supportive of the announced new on-campus student housing in hopes of lowering the student rental density in Oakland.
· The committee is looking into the idea of a Community Portal on Pitt’s website. This would allow the university to have more communications with the community and make the campus community more a part of the surrounding neighborhood. Issues such as local shopping and business needs, as well as community activities can be exchanged through this web-link.
· Students live in Oakland neighborhoods, including the new Oak Hill community, but they do not act as part of the community. The committee wants to get students more involved in their communities. One possibility is extending President Bush’s proposal to focus Work Study programs on community service internships through community organizations. Faculty will be needed to mentor students in community service and internships. Absentee landlord issues are still a problem in Oakland. Students did a study on Pier Street and absentee landlords. Residents and students working with the Oakland Community Council took absentee landlords to court to force them to maintain their property and won. The committee hopes to plan another Oakland cleanup furniture in the fall when students return, as was done in 2001; last fall was a real disaster with furniture and trash throughout Oakland.
· The committee would like to have another plenary session in 2004 to celebrate service and build the dialogue in the area of “outreach scholarship” – integrating service with teaching and research through interdisciplinary scholarship and applied research. Making Pitt a place that recognizes and rewards this “scholarship” as we develop our university reputation in this growing field would be a plenary goal.
· Professor Maureen Porter (School of Education) and Eric Hartman (Outreach Coordinator) along with Michael Sandy (Center Director) presented a slide show on the Amizade Global Service Learning Center. The presentation underscored the four key recommendations of the aforementioned Senate Plenary report and demonstrated how the Global Service Center in exemplifying service learning that integrates service with teaching and research, as well as in promoting multi-cultural experiences and global learning opportunities for students in ways that enhance learning and leadership. As the presenters noted, Pitt has become one of the leading Research I Universities in terms of programming and scholarship in service learning from a global perspective. Professor Porter and Mr. Hartman stressed the resources of the Global Service-Learning Center to help faculty develop and modify courses for service learning in the international arena. They were concerned that student interest is outstripping faculty involvement in this effort, and faculty involvement was strongly encouraged. They also presented a long list of service learning classes across many academic disciplines that are being conducted in nearly a dozen countries in 2003.
Questions and Answers
Professor Root said that he was delighted to hear about the Center and asked if it had connections to the Study Abroad and Global Studies Programs. Professor Porter said that many students are in the Global Studies Certificate Program due to service learning offered by the Center, and Mr. Sandy said they have links to UCIS, CAS, and Student Affairs and the Study Abroad Program.
Professor Cassing thanked Professor Soska and the others for their report.

Anti-discriminatory Policies Committee, Professor Richard Tobias, Chair
Professor Tobias said he would like to introduce another motion to ask the university to provide health care benefits to same sex couples, but he wanted to get some sense from the Faculty Assembly that it supported the idea of a new motion. He noted that Temple and Penn State have now found some ways of offering health benefits to same sex couples, but there is still discrimination. He asked the University to take the lead on this issue. It is unconscionable that getting health benefits depends on ones sexual orientation.

Questions and Answers
Professor Meisel asked what the view of the new governor is. Professor Tobias said that the university administration always says the problem is the legislature. He said they have contacted other state-related universities about what we could do, without much response. There is anecdotal evidence that we are losing faculty because of our policy, but one cannot prove it. He noted that it is primarily a women’s issue, since a partner may be taking care of children.
Professor Friedman asked Professor Tobias to review the history of resolutions on the issue. Professor Tobias said he thought there had been resolutions since 1998 and one resolution was even passed by the Senate Council. The original issue came up in 1996 when the Law School wanted to keep a faculty member. Professor Hershey said that even if the university were to start giving health benefits to same sex couples, the law suit against it might not be dropped.
Professor Balaban suggested that the Faculty Assembly try to develop concrete measure to get to the legislature.
Professor Pinsky suggested trying to get all the state universities together collectively on the issue.
Professor Frieze said that another resolution from Faculty Assembly could complement these other efforts.
Professor Wion suggested a joint effort of the Anti-discriminatory Policies Committee and the Commonwealth Relations to develop a dialog with the legislature.
Professor Root suggested that it is sometimes better to create something and let the legislature react. Often an issue loses political heat. He hoped that Faculty Assembly could do something creative rather than relying on the administration to react.
Professor Hershey said the Penn State solution does not go to the heart of the suit, which is that the university should provide benefits. It is not the faculty but the university’s government relations staff that should be lobbying the legislature, but it is not a high priority for them. He noted that the advantage of the resolution is that it shows there is continued faculty interest, but the prospect for action is practically nil. He asked whether there is a state gay and lesbian organization that might have some advice on how to proceed.
Professor Meisel, responding to an earlier comment of Professor Pinsky, said it should be the state universities, not their faculties, that work together. Professor Tobias mentioned that these schools are unionized and same-sex benefits are not a union issue. Professor Wion countered that it was the part-time faculty union that brought the issue to Temple.
Professor Balaban argued that every time we pass a meaningless resolution, it makes us look silly. Professor Meisel replied that we need to remind the university that we have not forgotten.
Professor Jacobson asked what was the response to the Faculty Assembly’s earlier motion asking that part of the University’s brief in its same-sex benefits case be withdrawn. Professor Tobias answered that it will not be withdrawn.
Professor Brush said such a motion is not just a “feel good resolution.” It would make those struggling for this benefit feel they have support.
Professor Meisel said one should not support the motion to feel good, but because it is the right thing to do.

Professor Tobias then read the motion:

The Senate Committee on Anti-Discriminatory Policies moves that the Faculty Assembly again urge the administration to grant health benefits to domestic partners.

Questions and Answers (Continued)
Professor Hershey asked if this would include heterosexual partnerships and noted that this would be more expensive. Professor Wion said the Staff Advisory Council is interested in including heterosexual partners. They believe it is the right thing to do, even if it is more expensive. Professor Tobias said that the University of Pennsylvania offers these benefits and it has found the additional cost to be statistically insignificant. He added that if a

heterosexual couple claims health benefits, they will be considered “married” under Pennsylvania law.

The motion was approved with no negative votes and one abstention.

6. New Business
Professor Jacobson introduced the following motion, which was seconded by Professor Hershey:

Faculty Assembly requests that the Senate Plant Utilization and Planning Committee work with appropriate University administrators to ensure that each building that contains research and/or instructional laboratories has assigned to it a uniquely dedicated Building Engineer to protect the safety and health of faculty, staff and students and the integrity of the research enterprise. Assembly asks that Plant Utilization and Planning and/or an appropriate member of Administration report to Assembly and/or Senate Council on this subject at the May meeting(s).

Professor Jacobson explained that previously each building had a permanent building engineer assigned to it. Now there is a pool of four engineers covering 28 buildings, some of them as far away as Penn Hills. He argued that buildings with labs are different as they have gas lines, purified water, special electrical lines, constant temperature requirements, hazardous materials, and the like. Temperature changes could affect research. The equipment is not standardized and a permanent engineer gets familiar with it. A pool will limit knowledge of the equipment and reduce preventive maintenance. He explained that he was bringing this issue to Faculty Assembly because other avenues have not been successful.

Questions and Answers
Professor Hershey asked what other routes had been taken to address this problem. Professor Jacobson said that their facilities manager had taken it to the FAS dean. It is a safety issue and a resolution cannot be delayed.
Professor Friedman asked why the change had been made. She noted that the library has a dedicated engineer who is good at fixing problems. She wondered if a pool could provide that kind of service. Professor Kuller observed that there is a problem of animal welfare in a number of buildings.
Professor Bircher spoke in favor of the resolution. He is familiar with the difference between dedicated workers versus a tag-team approach. People need to know the facility and what to do.

The resolution was passed unanimously.

The second issue Professor Jacobson brought up was the poor quality of campus mail. A number of people agreed that the campus mail is of such poor quality that most departments have work-study or other employees to hand carry important mail. Professor Jacobson said it would be useful to have a method of transmitting documents via email. Professor Cassing promised to look into the issue.

7. Announcements
Professor Soska announced that the annual Rubash Distinguished Lecture and Panel Discussion cosponsored by the Schools of Social Work and Law would be held on Wednesday, April 2, at noon. It is titled “The Substance Abuser: Client or Criminal?”
President Cassing announced that the next Senate Council meeting will be Monday,
April 7. The Chancellor will be away but the Provost will be at the meeting.

8. Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Josephine E. Olson, Secretary