University Times

Chancellor Mark Nordenberg offered a qualified apology last week for failing to consult with — or even inform — the University Planning and Budgeting Committee (UPBC) before the University bought the new video replay board at Pitt Stadium.

University Senate leaders and faculty who serve on UPBC haven't questioned the business advantages of the $1,055,000 replay board, which is expected to pay for itself and generate hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars over the next several years.

But those same people complained that the administration did not tell them about the project before proposing it to the trustees.

At the Sept. 15 Senate Council meeting, Nordenberg reaffirmed his commitment to the University Planning and Budgeting System, which calls for the administration to consult with UPBC before pursuing major capital projects — or, if immediate action is required, to notify committee members before such projects become public knowledge.

Nordenberg himself was one of the principal authors of the 1993 document outlining the planning and budgeting system.

The chancellor told Senate Council: "We do regret the fact that this [replay board project] was one that, either because of extenuating circumstances or lack of sufficient thought, wasn't brought up as quickly as it could have been" to UPBC.

UPBC advises the senior administration on Pitt capital and operating budgets and on long-range planning. Provost James Maher chairs the group, which includes faculty, staff and administrators.

According to Nordenberg, the opportunity to buy the replay board came up with little warning, and was too good an offer to refuse.

On July 28, Pitt trustees approved the purchase and installation of the replay board for $1,055,000. The athletics department expects to recoup nearly all of that cost this year from advertising income and revenue due the University under an agreement that allows credit cards to be issued bearing the Pitt logo.

To cover construction, installation and operating costs this year, trustees granted Pitt's administration permission to borrow $352,000 in University plant funds. The athletics department will repay the loan within two years, according to the plan trustees approved.

By the 1998-99 fiscal year, the administration projects, the replay board will generate a profit of $170,375. Profits are projected to exceed $400,000 annually by the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

"The opportunity to acquire this piece of equipment at a dramatically reduced price from a manufacturer [L.E.D. Technology] interested in penetrating the American market arose with little warning," Nordenberg said. "We had two alternatives. One was to simply let someone else install the board in conjunction with relinquishing our right to control and sell the sponsorship opportunities. That, of course, would not have involved any investment of University money and would have required no one's approval.

"The second alternative, purchasing the board and retaining the right to sell sponsorships, appeared to be the more fiscally prudent alternative." Pitt Assistant Chancellor Jerome Cochran offered a similar explanation of the purchase at a recent meeting of UPBC.

The committee's meetings are closed to the public, but reportedly some UPBC members praised the replay board purchase as a business coup that will help Pitt's deficit-plagued athletics department meet its costs and perhaps turn a profit in future years.

But at the Sept. 12 public meeting of the Senate's budget policies committee, the chairperson of Pitt's geology and planetary science department questioned why athletics should be allowed to keep profits generated by the replay board.

Thomas Anderson said, "If the athletics department generates excess revenues, that money should go into a general fund, and they [athletics] ought to get in line just like everybody else at the University" for a fair share of the central pot.

After budget policies committee chairperson Richard Pratt pointed out that the University administration has instructed athletics to produce more revenue, Anderson replied that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences has received similar instructions. "But FAS can't keep excess revenue it produces and restrict the use of that revenue to its own purposes," Anderson said. "Why should the athletics department?" Budget policies committee members voted to condemn the administration's failure to follow the University Planning and Budgeting System in acquiring the replay board. Pratt said he will ask his committee's process review subcommittee to draft a letter to Chancellor Nordenberg, protesting the action.

Failing to follow agreed-upon procedures "can create ill-will for projects like this one that appear to be good ideas," Pratt said.

"The replay board itself sounds like a winner," Anderson said, "but that doesn't excuse it from going through proper procedures."

— Bruce Steele