Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

June 14, 2001

Senate committee members work as part of shared governance here

Last spring, when the controversy over extending health benefits to Pitt employees' same-sex partners was at its ugliest, a University Senate committee proposed a way out.

Why not convene a panel of faculty, staff, students, administrators and trustees to study the issue and make recommendations to the senior administration? suggested the Senate's anti-discriminatory policies committee.

Chancellor Mark Nordenberg welcomed the idea but said "a free and open discussion" was impossible as long as Pitt was defending itself against a lawsuit seeking to force extension of the benefits. When plaintiffs last month agreed to suspend their litigation, the chancellor appointed the panel. See May 31 University Times.

Nordenberg may have taken the same action without the Senate committee's proposal. During the 1980s, he served on a similar task force that recommended divesting Pitt of assets in South Africa.

But the fact that the same-sex benefits panel was proposed by a Senate committee, with Faculty Assembly's endorsement, probably made it that much more acceptable to the University community and the general public.

If so, it wasn't the first time that a Senate committee's efforts have produced concrete results. The Senate's 15 standing committees work — mainly, behind the scenes — on issues ranging from library acquisitions to resolving tenure and academic freedom disputes. Among the more active committees have been benefits and welfare, budget policies and computer usage.

Philip Wion, an associate professor of English, knows that some of his fellow faculty members scoff at the Senate, at the futility of "shared governance" in an institution where — as one University Times letter-writer recently put it — "the administration has all the power and the faculty has all the collegiality."

Wion himself tried to transform the system. From the late-1970s to the mid-1990s, he was a leader of the United Faculty group that attempted, but failed in three elections, to convince Pitt faculty to unionize.

"Many faculty members agreed that collective bargaining would have been a preferable system — but not enough," Wion said, with a laugh. "In the absence of [a faculty union], the Senate represents the faculty in University decision-making."

With his union-related interest in Pitt governance and budget-making, Wion was drawn to the Senate's budget policies committee. Last week, he was re-elected as the group's chairperson.

"Some administrators, in the past, have not seemed to be particularly receptive to faculty input," Wion observed. "I think the current administration, on the whole, does listen and seriously consider what Senate committees have to say, especially if the committees are responsible and careful in the way they consider issues."

Listening and considering don't always translate into acceptance of Senate committee proposals. Last fall, for example, Wion's committee recommended that Pitt spend more of the income from its $1 billion-plus endowment to support academic programs. The administration decided the idea was not prudent in the long run — but only after Pitt business and finance staff and consultants "spent untold hours" analyzing the proposal, according to Arthur G. Ramicone, Pitt vice chancellor for Budget and Controller.

Some faculty protested the decision, but Wion urged his colleagues not to leap to the conclusion that the administration had made a bad decision or ignored his committee's advice.

"Opinions can differ," Wion told Faculty Assembly. "It's a complex issue."

Last month, the Assembly itself rejected a proposal from Wion's committee. The proposal was to base Pitt employees' cost-of-living salary raises on "meritorious" rather than "satisfactory" job performance. See May 3 and 17 University Times.

The idea was aimed at closing the gap between faculty and administrative interpretations of Pitt's salary policy, but a majority of Assembly members said the change would encourage below-inflation raises for non-star faculty doing good work.

"Politics is the art of the possible," Wion observed. "That's as true for academic politics as for any other kind."

Among local employers, Pitt offers one of the more generous employee benefits packages. But the package would not be what it is without the Senate's benefits and welfare committee, the committee's co-chairperson said.

Herbert Chesler, an associate professor of economics, proudly recited his committee's contributions over the last 20 years. They have included the following, among others:

* At the committee's insistence, Pitt in the early 1980s began matching employees' contributions to their retirement plans at the same rates, regardless of employees' ages. "Up to then, the match was higher the older you became," Chesler said. "Not only was that system age-discriminatory, but it made no financial sense for the University or the employee."

* Until the committee pushed for a change in the early 1980s, Pitt paid only salary, not fringe benefits, to faculty for teaching during a third term.

* Pitt has offered several early retirement plans to professors, opening hundreds of jobs for junior faculty. "The University has benefited enormously from each of those programs," Chesler said, "and our committee initiated every one of them" (although the committee wasn't consulted in drawing up specifics of the latest plan, he complained).

* Pitt's optional dental and vision plans were introduced after years of lobbying by the benefits and welfare committee.

Chesler said his committee's current goals include expanding Pitt's employee wellness program, ensuring that recreation facilities at the Petersen Events Center will be open to faculty and staff "at very generous hours," and offering employees a new, optional benefit: group long-term care insurance.

"This would be an insurance policy that would help you finance living expenses, typically in old age, when you are institutionalized or at home and unable to function without assistance," Chesler said. "You would buy into the plan, to obtain this coverage.

"Our committee has no timetable for when we hope this [long-term care insurance] benefit will be introduced. It's something we've raised over the years, only to have it put off the agenda by the administration. But we have reason to believe that the current Human Resources staff sees merit in it."

Chesler, in turn, sees merit in the Human Resources office. "Currently, relations between our committee and Human Resources are very good," he said. "The staff there seem to have respect for our role and contributions."

That's in contrast to the situation under Pitt's last head of Human Resources, according to Chesler. "She seemed to have the view that our committee had nothing to contribute, and if we attempted to contribute anything it was characterized as being self-serving," he said.

Pitt was plagued by computing network disruptions and system failures last fall. Among the University personnel who helped to assess and fix the problems were members of the Senate's computer usage committee.

Members of the Senate group served on subcommittees of the Council on Academic Computing studying computing security, bandwidth, and how system disruptions affected the work of the University.

"That's a lot of what we do, serving on other committees related to academic computing," said Susan Sereika, an associate professor in the nursing school who co-chairs the Senate computer usage committee.

Senate computer usage committee members spent "many, many hours" in helping to draft Pitt's long-range information technology plan, Sereika said, but she doesn't begrudge the time.

"I'm a biostatistician, and I've worked with computers my whole professional life. Proper computing support is critical for what I do. As a faculty member, you think: This is my opportunity to make an impact in an area that affects faculty, staff and students."

As a non-tenure track professor, Sereika also knows that the University's rewards system doesn't give much weight to Senate service.

"Clearly, teaching and research contribute more toward promotions and salary raises," she said. "Comments have been made to me that maybe I should not be focusing so much on my service activities, and that the service I do should be more professionally oriented rather than University service.

"So, I've tried to be selective. I focus on information technology and computer-related services in my contributions to the Senate and to my school."

But why participate in the Senate at all, given its minimal professional rewards? Sereika sounded taken aback by the question.

"How else can you effect a change if you don't get involved?" she replied. "Should you just sit back and let things happen?"

— Bruce Steele


Leave a Reply