Minutes of June 3, 1996 Meeting
The meeting convened at 2:09 p.m. in room 817 Cathedral of
UPBC members present were: Thomas Anderson, Jacob Birnberg, Toni
Carbo, Richard Colwell, Ronald Gardner, Brian Hart, Randy Juhl, Peter
Koehler, James Maher, Glenn Nelson, Arthur Ramicone, Michael Stuckart,
Bruce Williams, Philip Wion, and Judith Zimmerman. Also present were:
Jeffrey Liebmann, William Madden Jeffrey Masnick, Robert Pack, and Richard
UPBC members not present were: John Brice, James Cassing, Jerome
Cochran, Thomas Detre, Franklin McCarthy, Keith McDuffie, Linda Messineo,
Jeffrey Romoff, and Julius Youngner.
Approval of Minutes and Report of the Chair
The minutes of the May 2, 1996 UPBC meeting were approved.
Presentation of the Final Report of the Ad Hoc PBS Review Committee
Pratt reviewed the contents of the Final Report of the Ad Hoc
Planning and Budgeting System (PBS) Review Committee. The recommendations
are grouped into three categories.
1) The Planning and Budgeting System is clearly making a difference
in the way the University conducts planning and budgeting and should be
encouraged to continue, to evolve, and to expand effective participatory
involvement to more areas throughout all organizational levels.
2) The Planning and Budgeting System document (with some
modifications suggested within the report) should continue to serve as the
guideline for University planning and budgeting for the next several
years. Even though it does not entirely correspond to current practice in
all areas, systematic redrafting is premature. By the year 2000, the need
for reformulated guidelines should be considered, reflecting future
experiences as the System further evolves.
3) PBS does not need to duplicate, and is generally supportive of
other entities of the system of shared governance at the University-wide
level. The relationship between components of PBS and bodies such as the
University Senate and the Council of Deans should be allowed to continue
4) In spite of some concerns that general guidelines regarding
Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC) structure may not be applicable to
all responsibility centers and departments, it appears that the existing
guidelines do in fact allow sufficient flexibility to encompass the
different governance and management styles of the various units. Units
should examine their own structures of shared governance and avoid, when
possible, unnecessary duplication. The Senate Budget Policies Committee
should continue its process review function, including the annual
verification of PBC adherence to PBS guidelines.
5) At least every three years, each PBC should formally review,
modify if necessary, and affirm the process of member selection to ensure
appropriate and effective representation of all relevant constituencies,
and likewise the method of selecting the PBC's chair. In addition,
responsibility center PBC's should also examine, and alter if necessary,
what array of departmental PBC's to require within the responsibility
6) An important criterion in the selection and evaluation of
University leaders should be their demonstrated ability to support, work
comfortably with, and make effective use of systems of shared governance,
such as PBS.
7) PBC's should serve as a focus for discussions of key strategic
issues and their broad budgetary implications and consequences. PBC's can
promote a sense of shared direction and goals among members of the
University community and, at the same time, provide advice and information
leading to better decisions. Senior Vice Chancellors, responsibility
center heads, and department chairs should involve their PBC's early in
planning and budgeting activities to increase the effectiveness of their
8) PBS promotes shared responsibility for planning and budgeting
among administrators, faculty, staff, and students, specifically through
PBC's. Senior Vice Chancellors, responsibility center heads, and
department chairs should expand their utilization of PBC's to improve the
quality of their leadership and decision making as well as to achieve the
constructive resolution of differences of opinion on management issues.
9) Awareness of PBS activities increases confidence in the process,
promotes its effectiveness, and enhances unit accountability. UPBC minutes
should continue to be published through the University Times and PITTINFO.
Minutes of the Senior Vice Chancellor PBC meetings should also be made
available through these vehicles.
10) Responsibility center and department level PBC's should develop
and implement strategies for distributing information on their activities
within their areas in locally appropriate methods (for example, in
publications such as the FAS Gazette).
11) Expectations that PBS places on units to plan and budget
effectively require significantly better information than has been
available. Efforts to produce information that is useful to units in
supporting decision making are essential to the success of PBS and
represent a good investment of University resources. Data provided to
responsibility center and department PBC's should be adapted to better
meet their unique needs, including budget figures by functional purpose.
12) All units of the University need to be responsive to requests for
assistance from the UPBC. The University should devote the needed support
to the efforts of the UPBC, its subcommittees, and task forces in order to
improve the management data supporting institutional planning and
budgeting. Such support may also be needed at the Senior Vice Chancellor
and responsibility center level.
Planning and Budgeting Activities in the Provost's Area
Maher continued his presentation on the context of planning and
budgeting affecting the Provost's Area, as well as the entire University.
He discussed the major criteria used and related questions that must be
answered to make academic planning decisions, including:
Centrality -- Must the University have a given program? How large
should the program be?
Cost -- Can program costs be reduced without reducing quality?
Would a well-defined investment in the program generate a significant
advance for the University?
Quality of Scholarship -- Who is the competition for the program?
How well does the program perform relative to its peers and to
Quality of Students -- Are admissions standards for the program
appropriate? What efforts would improve the progress of students through
the program? Are advising and placement efforts suitable for graduates
from the program?
Maher explained that each unit is presented these questions and expected
to present plans and budgets that address the answers. In general, units
are expected to identify their highest priorities, which are then
reviewed, approved, and supported by resource reallocations when
necessary. Such a decentralized system is intended to mobilize faculty
expertise and creativity to employ their resources more effectively to
achieve their goals. Only in the case of broad interdisciplinary programs
will the Provost intervene to ensure maintenance or improvement of an
institutional-level high priority program.
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.