June 8, 1994 UPBC MEETING MINUTES
The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m. in the Smith Hall Lounge, Greensburg
Campus.
UPBC members present were: Thomas Anderson, Toni Carbo Bearman, Jacob
Birnberg, George Chambers, Ronald Gardner, James Holland, Randy Juhl, Peter
Koehler, Franklin McCarthy, Dennis McNair, Sharon Nelson-Le Gall, Mark
Nordenberg, Jack Ochs, Ben Tuchi, Philip Wion, and Judith Zimmerman. Also
present were: Michael Gaber, Rhonda Gross, Oval Jaynes, Jeffrey Liebmann,
Jeffrey Masnick, Robert Pack, and Lawrence Weber.
UPBC members not present were: Nitin Badjatia, Thomas Detre, Darlene
Harris, Carol Kenderes, Michael Kurela, Richard Nelson, Jeffrey Romoff, and
Julius Youngner.
Approval of Minutes
The UPBC approved the May 20 minutes. Nordenberg discussed the
significance of holding a UPBC meeting at the Greensburg campus. He made
reference to the emphasis that the Planning and Budgeting System places on the
special concerns of the regional campuses.
Update of Strategic Issues Subcommittee
Ochs provided a chronology of Subcommittee activities, grouping issues
for possible examination into four categories -- financial, organizational,
instructional delivery, and new initiatives. In examining institutional data
and financial ratios of peer institutions, the Subcommittee noted three
important concerns.
-- Universities are becoming more dependent on federal research funding, which
is highly variable and relatively inflexible, and less dependent on state
appropriations. The sustainability of federal research funds is questionable,
forcing institutions to determine their level of commitment to tenure-stream
faculty and facilities for research.
-- Personnel growth at the University has continued in recent years, in spite
of economic conditions. The Subcommittee has requested information detailing
the location of this growth and how the growth may be related to outputs.
-- Auxiliary revenues at many institutions have grown more slowly than tuition
and fee revenues. As important components of the educational enterprise,
discussions should occur about the pricing of auxiliary services and the
magnitude of targeted surpluses or deficits they should be assigned.
Koehler stressed the importance of the growth in personnel and the need
to examine the basic relationships between personnel and operating expenditure
budgets. He called for peer comparisons and examinations relevant to
institutional mission and goals. Bearman agreed that increased data,
examination of current personnel practices, and analysis of the potential
impact of information technology on staff functions would be helpful. Masnick
and Gross cited recent benchmarking efforts to assess process efficiency and
the need to develop improved program review processes.
McCarthy emphasized the importance of making the budget process rational
and eliminating reallocations outside of normal channels. Zimmerman
questioned whether any redistribution of budgets would be viewed as fair.
Ochs responded that resentment arises from units not having the necessary
discretion to use allocated resources. He cited the need to improve
relationships between academic and administrative units and the need to make
service units more accountable through having to earn their revenues.
Birnberg recommended more autonomy for units with additional responsibility.
He questioned existing disincentives to budget reductions and the need for
units to budget all expenditure items, such as space.
Members discussed the need to revisit the long-term budget projections
produced in December 1993. Ochs and Bearman recommended reproducing the
report taking into account changes occurring in the FY 1994 and FY 1995
budgets. Gross suggested examining scenarios based on various budget
assumptions. Wion agreed that several key strategic variables, such as
tuition and enrollment, will be discussed in the next several months. Pack
cited the potential impact of the three UPBC task force reports (indirect
cost, fringe benefits, and summer session) and the need to make similar
fundamental changes to the University's operations in FY 1995.
McCarthy expressed concern over the growing proportion of transfer
expenditures, which represent operating funds used for capital purposes.
Gross suggested that the data need to be carefully examined. Anderson cited
many capital projects that will increase the drain on operating funds without
returning equivalent revenues. He cautioned that the University is committing
to projects without necessary long-range criteria and sufficient funding. In
summarizing the discussion, Nordenberg suggested that the UPBC may want to
express its general concern regarding the need to exercise caution in
proceeding with new administrative hires and capital expenditures given
uncertainties regarding the University's future financial situation. Nelson-
Le Gall added that the UPBC should receive regular feedback from the
Chancellor, especially when subsequent actions deviate from its
recommendations. Birnberg moved that the Provost should draft an appropriate
statement expressing the sentiments of UPBC members regarding institutional
accountability. McCarthy seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
Status of Long-Range Planning
Nordenberg reported that the academic plans from units in the Provost's
area are under review by the Provost's Office staff who are writing responses.
Provost's area strategic issues and planning principles are under discussion
and documents are being drafted that incorporate input from the Provost's area
PBC, the Provost's Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Programs, and the
University Council on Graduate Study. Masnick reported that the plans of the
health sciences schools are being circulated among schools and that a final
Senior Vice Chancellor area plan will be written by the end of July. Gross
reported that administrative area plans have been submitted and that drafts
for Business and Finance and for the Chancellor's areas would be prepared by
early August.
Ochs asked whether the Senior Vice Chancellor plans would have
associated long-range budgets that would reconcile planning goals with
University finances. Juhl suggested that more time would be necessary to
develop budgets. Gross agreed that budget development should occur after
submission of long-range plans. Pack cited the need to develop a sense of
competitive priorities, distinguishing between budget augmentations and
reallocations. He discussed the need to analyze current unit budgets and
bring them into line with long-range planning aspirations. Birnberg and
Koehler expressed concern that the University cannot excel in every field and
that guidance is needed to deal with trends, such as those related to student
demographics. Ochs moved that the UPBC request that prior to submitting long-
range plans to the Board of Trustees in October, Senior Vice Chancellors
submit associated budget projections indicating areas of expansion and
contraction and including broad capital needs. Birnberg seconded. The motion
was approved unanimously.
Proposed Field House Renovation Project
Jaynes discussed the impact of Title IX gender equity requirements
relative to the Fitzgerald Field House, a facility built before the
proliferation of womens' sports in recent decades. He stated that the
University is one of many institutions facing legal action by the Department
of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which mandates filing an assurance
program within the next year. The University must be in total compliance with
the regulations by September 1997. Jaynes explained that a current
requirement of such an assurance program is the need to provide equivalent
facilities for male and female athletic teams, including locker rooms and
offices. Projected renovation costs total $775,000, including $620,000 for
construction, $63,000 for furnishings, $30,000 for architectural and
engineering fees, and $62,000 for contingencies. Included in the proposed
renovations are several that would increase the space provided to womens'
sports and upgrade areas with serious facilities problems, including the
following:
-- renovate the existing mens' basketball locker room (ground floor);
-- create a new womens' basketball locker room (first floor);
-- renovate the mens' and womens' basketball locker rooms (mezzanine);
-- refurbish wrestling offices (mezzanine);
-- refurbish existing womens' basketball offices for use by womens' volleyball
(second floor);
-- refurbish existing swim team offices (second floor);
-- renovate existing racquetball court for use by gymnastics and other varsity
team offices (second floor);
-- refinish main basketball court; and
-- improve the weight room.
Nelson-Le Gall asked whether the consideration was given to reducing
mens' rather than increasing womens' facilities. Jaynes responded that the
renovations to the ground floor locker rooms would reduce mens' lockers by
40%. Nelson-Le Gall requested differentiation between proposed renovations
that were needed to meet OCR requirements and those that were merely desirable
changes. Birnberg agreed, asking whether refinishing the basketball court was
related to the gender equity issue. Jaynes replied that while certain
renovations were not specifically linked to OCR requirements, the entire
project was integrally linked and that certain areas had not been upgraded for
many years. Nordenberg suggested that the proposal be rewritten, identifying
those items directly related to Title IX compliance.
Birnberg asked what was the highest capital priority of the Athletics
Department. Jaynes replied that the University must improve the football
program in order to generate increased revenues, thus making the renovations
to Pitt Stadium critical. He added that the threat of lawsuits and loss of
federal funding leaves the University no choice but to address gender equity
issues. Jaynes explained that the OCR requirements are still under discussion
and that assurance criteria may also include proportionality, that is, that
the proportion of female athletes must equal that of the general student
population. As 28% of the current University athletes are female compared to
50% of the student body, compliance with this criteria could create a large
problem.
Jaynes explained that the proposed renovations would be funded by debt
service and private giving. The debt service would be funded from a surcharge
on basketball tickets totalling $90,000 per year. Ochs asked how fund raising
efforts are coordinated with the Office of Institutional Advancement. Jaynes
responded that joint efforts relative to annual giving, endowment, and capital
funding exist. He stressed that fund raising for athletics detracts nothing
from and possibly enhances the total University capacity for voluntary
support.
Anderson expressed concern about the need for a total picture of the
needs and capital commitments to athletics capital projects. He emphasized
that projects related to intramurals, Title IX, the convocation center, Pitt
Stadium, Trees Hall, and basketball renovations affect the ability of the
Athletics Department to offset its existing operating deficits. Ochs asked
whether increases in ticket prices might not be used to reduce the operating
deficit in athletics and fund capital projects solely through gifts. Jaynes
replied that gift giving at the University for athletics is below average
among its peers. Juhl asked whether the Department has considered "pay to
play" policies or practice plan arrangements for its coaches. Jaynes replied
that the University lacks an adequate student recreation program funded from
student fees and that the coaches' contracts include the University receiving
a proportion of their outside earnings.
FY 1995 Capital Projects
Gross distributed summaries of capital project proposals submitted by
units for FY 1995 and the priority ranking of recommended projects submitted
by senior officers. Included among the recommended projects are: $20,638,400
for unfunded projects exceeding $50,000; $74,331,000 million for funded
projects exceeding $50,000; $500,000 for projects totalling less than $50,000;
and $10,406,000 for preservation projects. Gross requested action on the
recommendations prior to the June 30 Board of Trustees meeting.
Wion noted that the $8,000,000 Magellan Telescope Project, included
among the funded projects, was listed among the capital projects of the
Chancellor's Office rather than in FAS under the Provost. Koehler stated that
a report produced by the PBC of the Department of Physics and Astronomy
endorsed the proposal as a scientific project and indicated that the
Department would change its faculty hiring priorities accordingly should the
project be approved. However, the report clearly indicated that finances
associated with the project were far beyond the Department's ability. He
added that the project was also beyond the funding ability of FAS and would
require special funding from the Chancellor's Office. Koehler indicated that
FAS has many basic problems requiring higher funding priority.
Wion suggested that a rationale for this project would be welcomed by
the UPBC given the magnitude of the funding involved. Holland added that it
is common when funding large pieces of equipment to submit grants for peer
review. Koehler replied that the project, which has been proposed by the
Carnegie Foundation, has not received the same level of peer review that a
federally-funded proposal typically receives. He added, however, that this
manner of funding large-scale projects like telescopes is becoming more
common.
Koehler recognized Nordenberg's tremendous contribution to the work of
the UPBC, praising his efforts to provide a greater sense of purpose and
organization, as well as a clearer voice in University communications.
Koehler moved that the UPBC applaud Nordenberg and express its gratitude for
everything he has done in the past year. Nelson-Le Gall seconded. The motion
was approved unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.