Faculty Assembly

Minutes

University of Pittsburgh
Faculty Assembly Meeting
Minutes of November 26, 2002

1. Vice President Bircher called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM.
2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of November 5, 2002 were approved as written.
3. Vice President Bircher asked for new items of business for the meeting. There were none.

4. Remarks of the President, James Cassing.
In the absence of President Cassing, Vice President Bircher reported.
· The Senate officers met with the Chairman of the Board, Dr. William Dietrich, on November 7. It was a useful meeting for two reasons: 1) it underscored the desire of the Chairman and the President of the Senate to keep lines of communication open; and 2) it gave the officers relatively clear insight into the optimistic and enthusiastic position of the Board with respect to the state of the University.
· The Senate Bylaws amendments that were passed at the November 5 Faculty Assembly meeting were also passed at the November 11 Senate Council meeting. These amendments, and those passed earlier in the year, will be voted on by the entire Senate membership early next term.
· Professor Cassing has received correspondence from the faculty leadership of other institutions regarding the need to strengthen faculty input on intercollegiate athletics. Big Ten faculty leaders met on November 22, at which the issue of athletics reform was discussed. The Big Ten schools have an advantage in contemplating joint action because their schools fund an academically based consortium that sponsors periodic meetings of faculty governance leaders. The Big Ten faculty leadership is working with the AAUP and the Association of Governing Boards to seek effective means to bring about reform on the national level. The eventual objective is a broadly based venue for faculty discussion of and advocacy for long-term athletics reform. If this can be done within the Big Ten, the goal is to extend this process to the Big East and other Bowl Championship Series conference schools. The University of Pittsburgh Senate will be involved; President Cassing will provide an update at a later time.
· The Chancellor has responded to the resolution regarding domestic partner benefits passed by the Faculty Assembly in September. Professor Bircher read a portion of the Chancellor’s letter. It said: “Consultations of the type recommended by the Special Committee actually had been initiated by me well before the Committee released its report. Those consultations have been regular and are continuing. Given the nature of the discussions, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their content, except to say that they have been constructive.”

5. Reports by and Announcements of Special and Standing Committees of the Senate
Educational Policies Committee
Professor Evelyn O. Talbott, Chair of the Educational Policies Committee, reported on the Committee’s survey of part-time faculty. The committee survey was conducted last spring and the Provost has already responded to its recommendations.

The letter from the Provost, dated October 17, was distributed to Faculty Assembly members and is available from the Provost’s website and the committee’s website. Professor Talbott said the committee met last week and would like to get back to the part-time faculty members who participated in the survey. One issue that concerned part-time faculty was access to libraries before the term starts to prepare for class. The Provost explained that regular IDs are linked to the payroll system. However, the director of ULS is willing to issue temporary library cards to part-time faculty in the month prior to their being on the payroll. All that will be required is a letter from the appropriate dean or department chair. A second recommendation was that part-time faculty be on the mailing list for programs distributed by CIDDE. Regular part-time faculty were on the list but not temporary part-time faculty. Vice Provost Blair added that more part-time faculty are now considered “temporary.” The mailing list is being revised to include temporary faculty as well. Other recommendations were on the school or department level and had to do with grading policies, evaluation of teaching, and the creation of committees to improve communication among full-time and part-time faculty. The Provost’s letter indicated that he is sharing these recommendations with deans and regional campus presidents. Professor Talbott said the committee was pleased with the results of the survey and plans to repeat it in three to five years.
Questions and Answers
Professor Hershey said that the agenda for the December 2 Senate Council meeting does not have this report; he recommended that she report to Senate Council as well. Professor Talbott agreed to do so.

Ad Hoc Planning and Budgeting System Evaluation Committee
Professor James Holland, Chair, said that he was giving a status report on the findings of the Committee. His report should only be considered a preliminary report as he has not received feedback from all members. The final report will be a consensus document. Professor Holland discussed some of the results of the survey and the preliminary recommendations. The Planning and Budgeting System was established in 1992 with the objective of increasing openness, sharing of information and participation of administrators, faculty, staff and students in the decision making process. Another objective was to improve the ability of all to make sound decisions. The first evaluation was in 1996 and this is the second. In this evaluation, the committee surveyed all current members of Planning and Budgeting Committees (PBCs) and the University Planning and Budget Committee (UPBC) (710 persons in total) with an instrument similar to that used in 1996. The committee also sent a short questionnaire to all faculty Senate members along with the runoff ballot for vice president of the Senate. The committee conducted interviews with chairpersons and members of selected PBCs and held a discussion with the Expanded Executive Committee of the Senate.

The PBS members were given 24 statements and had to respond on a five point scale ranging from 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree. Professor Holland felt that the response was slightly more positive than in the 1996 survey, but 15 of the 24 responses fell into the neutral (2.5 to 3.5) range. The responses to five statements indicated various constituencies have the access and ability to participate. There was moderate disagreement that the PBS duplicates other government bodies. There was agreement that the PBS process should continue to evolve. Members of the UPBC tended to respond more favorably to the PBS than members of PBCs in department and responsibility centers. It appeared that members of the Health Sciences were particularly negative about the PBS but, because only 13 responded, it is not clear whether their views are representative. PBC and UPBC members were asked for open-ended comments. Eighteen indicated lack of openness but six found no impediments to information sharing. Twenty-one complained of the ineffectiveness of the PBCs. Nineteen commented on insufficient communication regarding the PBS and fourteen made positive suggestions for improvement.

For the full faculty survey, the committee divided the results between those who had ever served on a PBC and those who had not. Respondents were given a number of statements and asked to respond on a four-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. To the statement “As a result of the Planning and Budgeting System, I am informed about planning and budgeting in the Provost or Senior Vice Chancellor of the Heath Sciences Areas”, 75% percent of those who had served on a PBC disagreed and 90% of those who had never served disagreed. Responses were nearly the same for planning and budgeting University wide. To the statement “The University’s Planning and Budgeting System gives me the opportunity to contribute to the planning and budgeting process,” 78% of those who served disagreed along with 81% who had not served. On the other hand, 86% of those who had served and 83% of those who had not served agreed with the statement “Open access to relevant information is necessary for participatory planning and budgeting decisions.” Professor Holland said the results indicated the PBS is not working well as a participatory process. Sixty-seven faculty members added open-ended comments, of which only three were clear positive comments. Many commented on the lack of openness in information sharing, ineffectiveness of the system, lack of meetings, and even lack of a PBC. One faculty member commented: “. . .the UPBC is not really central to any comprehensive planning and budgeting that goes on at the University . . . there is no longer a functioning long-range planning and budgeting sub-committee.”

Professor Holland also discussed results of interviews with the Expanded Executive Committee and the Faculty Ex-Officio Members of the UPBC. Three of the committees and the Senate president are represented on the UPBC as ex-officio members. Chairpersons who were not on UPBC had little comment. Instead there was a discussion of the UPBC, which was generally positive. At this meeting, it was also suggested that the Benefits and Welfare Committee be represented on UPBC in light of the importance of the costs of medical insurance. One criticism is that UPBC meets much less often than before. Professor Holland presented a slide that showed the number of meetings of UPBC has declined over time. The Expanded Executive Committee also raised the issue of the lack of a long-range planning subcommittee. The minutes of UPBC published in the University Times are not very informative.

Eight interviews were conducted with chairpersons of PBCs, four from schools, one from a department, one from a regional campus, and two from administrative units.

The committee also had informal discussions with other PBC members. Of the eight units interviewed, four had useful committees, two had marginally useful committees, and two had no functioning PBCs. The lack of PBCs was in administrative areas. Professor Holland indicated that people in academic units have a strong interest in planning and budgeting because they are stakeholders. The administrative units probably do not need PBCs, but the PBS document does not distinguish between academic and administrative units. What the administrative units need instead is outside evaluation since their stakeholders are external to their units.

Professor Holland also mentioned that some schools have an alternative to a PBC, citing the School of Pharmacy as an example. The School of Pharmacy originally had a PBC, but when it began making big changes, the PBC fell by the wayside because of the need for wider participation of faculty. Professor Holland thought that this may be happening in other schools as well and the PBS document does not allow this kind of flexibility.

Professor Holland then distributed the committee’s preliminary “Conclusions and Recommendations,” which are attached to this report. The seven recommendations deal with the following: sharing of information; reporting of UPBC and PBC activities; allowing another committee member other than the chair to represent the committee at UPBC meetings; dropping PBCs for business and administrative units; having deans discuss planning and budget activities with the Provost or Vice Chancellor annually; requiring that the evaluation of deans and chairs include items on the culture of collegiality and openness in planning and budgeting; and having an elected PBC member serve as chair, rather than the head of the unit.

Questions and comments
· Professor Hershey observed that the system has been in place for a number of years and the first and second evaluation results are similar. He argued that it is bureaucratic and it does not appear that it can be salvaged. Perhaps each part of the University should do planning and budgeting its own way. He also argued that there is a difference between schools with only hard money versus those with soft money. With hard money there is little room to make decisions. Still another question was should not the deans have faculty review their planning documents before they go to the Provost. Vice Provost Blair said the annual plan from the unit should reflect PBC input and should be seen widely.
· Professor Cain asked whether the PBS is worth saving. Professor Holland replied that it is essential to beef it up. He is deeply disappointed that it is not working and it needs to be fixed.
· Professor Wion said the disagreement is on awareness. There is no question that the system is valuable.
· Professor Holland said many faculty responded that they lacked knowledge and blamed themselves. Many faculty do not have the time to be involved.
· Professor Wion said the recommendation regarding deans discussing alternatives to a PBC with the Provost was not clear. How would an alternative happen? He also mentioned that after the first evaluations there were recommendations and some changes in the PBS document. He suggested to Professor Holland that once the final
report is released, some of the recommendations might be implemented by changing the PBC document. Professor Holland agreed. He mentioned, for example, that the PBS document calls for an annual public meeting of the UPBS and that has never happened. It might be better to have the Provost report to Senate Council instead.
· Professor Hershey again asked about the difference between schools with and without soft money. Professor Holland replied that planning is broader than just planning for dollars and thus was relevant for both types of units. One reason PBCs have disappeared is this narrow approach to planning.
· Professor Baker commented that part of the problem is that PBC reports are not public. The only documents you can see are for the University. You do not see the planning and budgeting documents of units unless you are on PBC. Professor Wion replied that FAS has made its plans a public document and the PBS documents should be public. Faculty should ask their dean for the report. He also said if a school has a complaint about PBS, the Senate Budget Policies Committee can investigate. If the administrators are not doing the right thing, faculty should complain.
· Professor Bircher asked Professor Holland if the report should go to the next Senate Council meeting. Professor Holland said he had not heard from all committee members and therefore this is only a preliminary report to Faculty Assembly. It is not yet ready for Senate Council.
· Professor Bircher thanked Professor Holland for undertaking the enormous work involved in chairing the Ad Hoc Planning and Budgeting System Evaluation Committee. He agreed that the system is salvageable but faculty must make their concerns known. The report is an excellent springboard for making these changes.

6. New Business
There was no new business.

7. Announcements
Professor Bircher announced that Professor Cassing is about to sign off on the Patent Rights and Commercialization of Inventions Policies. If anyone has concerns he or she should contact Professor Cassing immediately.
The next Senate Council meeting will be Monday, December 2. The next Faculty Assembly meeting will be Tuesday, January 28.

8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Josephine E. Olson, Secretary