Faculty Assembly

Minutes

University of Pittsburgh
Faculty Assembly Meeting
June 3, 2003

1. President Cassing called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM
2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of May 6 were approved after Dr. Michael Pinsky made the following clarifications (in bold) to page 5:
Pinsky stated that Dr. Arthur Levine announced to the School of Medicine that all new hires to the UPP as MDs who function entirely or almost entirely as clinicians may not be given full-time University of Pittsburgh faculty positions. In private conversation, Levine said this may occur with some reappointments as well… This new criteria for reappointments will take effect July 2004 for faculty appointed before February 20, 2003.
Hershey asked how this would affect people’s fringe benefits. Pinsky said that he believed it may have an impact because Dean Levine is readdressing the issue of fringe benefits now for UPP. But at the present time the difference is that they get less in terms of retirement. It is a small amount but it is less of a retirement…

3. President Cassing announced that the order of business would be inverted and the next item on the agenda would be the Special Report by Mayor Murphy.
Mayor Murphy talked about the tough financial times the region is facing. He
described some of the transformations Pittsburgh has gone through. He also described
some of the remarkable new developments, how the universities impact the City, and
the national attention received because of some of these developments.
He then turned to the tax structure of the City, saying the tax structure is based on a City that doesn’t exit any more. Today we have 335,000 people living in the City versus 600,000 fifty years ago. Another 270,000 people come into the City every day to work, go to the hospitals, universities, etc. Forty-five percent of the for-profit businesses are exempt from paying the local business taxes – and some of them are large multi-national businesses. The exemptions are given by the State legislature. Many of these same large companies do not own property so they pay no property taxes as well. Currently the City collects $121 million a year in property taxes. $70 million is not collected because of property owned by non-profits. This $70 million comes out of the pockets of City residents. City residents pay $49,540,000 in wage and occupation taxes while non-residents, who make up two-thirds of those working in the City, pay just $2,080,000 in occupation tax. We have a tax structure where a narrow base of individuals or corporations pay to support a broad base of people who contribute nothing or very little. The City faces bankruptcy by the end of the year if not successful in cutting expenses and raising new revenue. Everyone needs to be part of the solution. Starting in the mid-eighties some institutions were making payments in lieu of taxes; this has not occurred since 1997. There is no city in America that has a $10 occupation tax; many cities collect payments in lieu of taxes from non-profits.
Discussion:
R. Colwell, Vice President of the Staff Association Council, said that the Mayor is giving the impression that the University of Pittsburgh does not pay any taxes. Mr. Colwell read from a list the ways the University contributes almost $10 million to the City.
The Mayor noted that for many of the taxes cited, the University does not pay taxes directly but rather acts as an agent for the City to collect the taxes.
Mr. Colwell noted that Pitt pays $6 million for campus police; the Mayor stated that the City also supports our police and also offers EMS and fire protection.
Dr. Pinsky asked if we could go after for-profit institutions to get them to pay and asked if some City and County services could be merged. The Mayor said he is working on getting funds from both the for-profit and non-profits. He also said that there are opportunities for some merging of services and we would probably hear of them over the next couple of weeks. Over the years there has been some merging such as the elimination of the City Health Department; now there is only a County Health Department. The same is true for social services, which is mostly handled by the County.
Prof. Belle asked if the Mayor’s plan called for yet another tax on Pitt employees. The Mayor answered that the tax would be on the gross payroll of the University, not on the individual.
Prof. Bircher asked if UPMC offered to differentially tax its for-profit entities and offered that it certainly should be one of the avenues to be explored.
Prof. Wion said it is much preferable to get the revenues up to where they ought to be rather than whittle away at public services. He stated the University faced many of the same problems.
Prof. Favorini asked about the Business Privilege Tax. The Mayor said it is based on the gross volume of business done by non-profits in the City of Pittsburgh (not volume of business done on a national or international level) and there is no way to measure that volume.
The Mayor was asked about the Schenley Plaza Parking Lot. He said the City is working cooperatively with the University to create a park-like setting to serve as an entrance to the University and Schenley Park. Mr. G. Reynolds Clark, Vice Chancellor for Community and Governmental Relations, added that new plans would allow for approximately 112 new parking spaces on the streets around the Plaza.
Mr. Clark also commented that the University is working with the Mayor’s Office to try to find a solution to the City’s financial problems. However, there are a couple of very strong caveats that the University is standing on: The University’s tax-exempt status is sacred; the payroll tax is seen as an invasion of that status. The University does make contributions both in-kind and in hard cash to the City. The dialogue will continue but it is felt that if a City payroll tax is placed on the University, then potentially down the road a similar tax could be imposed by some other entity. The University’s budget is based upon our tax-exempt status. The Mayor responded that he is looking at all options. He hopes that something can be done within the existing tax structure – like raising the Occupation Tax and lifting some of the exemptions on for-profits.

President Cassing resumed the regular meeting.
4. Introduction of Items of Unfinished Business and New Business
·New Business: Dr. Pinsky said he would make a clarification on the comments made in the TAFC report at the May Senate Council Meeting, at which he was not present.
·Unfinished Business: Tabled motion presented by Prof. Nathan Hershey
Members of Faculty Assembly received a memo from Prof. Hershey prior to today’s meeting regarding a Motion Concerning Expedited Review. Prof Hershey read the motion, which was seconded and tabled at last month’s meeting.
Motion: The Faculty Assembly is pleased that the Provost, in response to a request, submitted a plan for expedited review as an optional alternative to the current review process. The President should appoint a committee to enter into negotiations respecting the plan for expedited review submitted by the Provost to secure some changes in the plan.
Prof. Hershey said that what prompted a request for an expedited review were complaints posed about the delays in both the investigative phase conducted by TAFC and the actual functioning of the formal grievance and appeals processes.
The expedited review procedure lacks certain features that would make it attractive for those faculty who seek a formal review to be completed in a relatively short time period. There is no reason to deny faculty the opportunity to choose the optional expedited review procedure even if TAFC believe it would be a poor choice.
Voting for this motion does not conflict in any way with the motion passed on May 6 to seek the Provost’s help in avoiding lengthy delays and for TAFC to perform a monitoring function.
Discussion:
Dr. Pinsky, Chair of TAFC, said he has never received complaints about delays in the year he has been on the Committee. Investigations were started immediately on any grievance complaints received. TAFC is not against the concept of an expedited review, but was very much against the proposal that the Provost put forward. TAFC is in favor of continuing the dialogue with the Provost’s Office.
Prof. Balaban said that it does take time to get all of the appropriate individuals together and that there would be an advantage to having one person involved. He favors an expedited review and feels it could bring about a quicker resolution in some cases.
Prof. Jacobson said what is needed is an expedited procedure and an ombudsman who is widely respected by both faculty and administration. An ombudsman could deal with these things in a knowledgeable and rapid way.
The motion was taken to a vote and passed unanimously.

5. Remarks of the President, Prof. James H. Cassing
President Cassing announced that this is the last Faculty Assembly Meeting of the term and thanked everyone who served. He encouraged chairpersons of standing committees to prepare year-end reports and send them to the Senate Office.
The current and newly-elected Senate Officers will meet this Thursday to talk about unfinished business and upcoming issues for the next year.
At the May 12 Senate Council meeting, members endorsed the Senate Budget Policies Committee’s resolution concerning salary maximums for staff. Senate Council members also voted to accept the proposed Senate Bylaws changes presented by Frank Beatrous and endorsed by this body last month.
The recommendations from the Benefits and Welfare Committee requesting the administration to establish an advisory committee to promote recreational services and personal fitness on campus for faculty and staff were presented to the Chancellor at the May 12 lunch preceding the Senate Council Meeting.
The recipient of the Chancellor’s Affirmative Action Award will be announced at Monday’s Senate Council Meeting.
The Chancellor will host a reception for members of Senate Council and Faculty Assembly in his office on Monday immediately following the Senate Council Meeting.

6. Reports by and Announcements of Special and Standing Committees of the Senate
None to report

7. New Business
Dr. Pinsky congratulated Jim on his good work as Senate President.
Dr. Pinsky stated that he believed a clarification of the motion passed last month by Faculty Assembly as proposed by TAFC was misunderstood by the Provost. In the TAFC motion TAFC only wished to support the existing grievance plan and to not support a single person review committee as proposed by the Provost at Nathan Hershey’s request. TAFC also felt, and said that we favored having this three-member panel review documents in an expedited formal review process as already mandated by the Provost. We were not proposing any change to existing policy. To support this issue of rapid review, we further proposed to monitor the time from starting the formal investigation of the complaint by the three-member panel until a report is filed so as to see if it could be completed within three months. However, the committee understood that some issues may be very complex making this rapid a review unfair. It was felt that three months was a good yardstick to most cases. TAFC is now addressing the role of the TAFC with regard to Academic Freedom at the University of Pittsburgh.

8. Announcements
·Prof. Soska, Chair of the Community Relations Committee, announced that June is Homeowners’ Month. The Housing and Urban Development Department will be on campus with their information bus, the Homeowners’ Express, on Friday from 10:00 until 1:00. Soska asked that this information be passed on to anyone interested in home ownership.
·Vice Provost Robert Pack asked to make a few comments about the Mayor’s report. He pointed out that the Mayor’s chart showed that 30% of the properties in the City are tax exempt; however, the largest single tax exempt property is owned by the City of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh School District. This includes government as well as institutions. Government and City school districts are not allowed to be taxed so they would be exempt from the proposed payroll preparation tax. Dr. Pack pointed out that Pitt has not expanded significantly and has not taken any property off the tax rolls. The perception that Pitt is not pulling its weight in the City is one easy to resent. The University makes meaningful contributions. The future of the City exists in attracting jobs and industries and doing the kinds of things that the University is trying to do. We are looking to be a partner with the City in these areas.
·President Cassing announced that the next meeting would be run by President Bircher and that the July and August meetings have been cancelled.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 PM.

Respectfully submitted by Fran Czak
Director of the University Senate
for Josephine E. Olson, Secretary